HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.07.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 28, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the July 28, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01
p.m.
Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, Gum, and DeMartiniPresent7 -
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Kathleen
Kane.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones noted that he was absent from the July 14, 2014 meeting.
Changes/corrections to the meeting minutes:
•Page 2, Item 2; clarify that Commissioner DeMartini reviewed the video and minutes of the prior
discussion.
•Page 10, Item 7, first bullet on the page; the architect's comment is a non sequitur with the prior
commissioner comment.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the minutes
of the July 14, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission with the noted changes. The
motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 6-0-0-1 (Terrones abstaining).
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
No one spoke from the floor.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items for discussion.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1119 Eastmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (James Chu, Chu Design
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Associates, applicant and designer; Dan Nejasmich, property owner) (60 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier
Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from the Consent Item (1119
Eastmoor Road) as she resides within 500 feet of the project site.
Commissioner Terrones indicated that he had reviewed the video of the Consent Item.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners' comments and the
findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution.
The motion was approved by voice vote, 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli recused).
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1011 Morrell Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Bill Egan, architect and applicant;
James Cormack property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Bill Egan represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
•Garage door material? (Egan: Wood)
•Belly band across the front should turn slightly around onto East elevation.
•New gabled entry porch appears it is jammed in against side wall. Will need to cricket against the
slope into the side wall.
•South rear elevation has two support posts on floor plan, three on elevation. Post on right looks like
it may line up with French door.
Public comments:
•None.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
1.that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped July 7, 2014, sheets A1.0 through A6.0 with the following modifications:
a. Rear porch columns to be adjusted so the numbers and positions of columns are consistent
in plans and elevations;
b.Garage door to be wood;
c.Belly band across the front should shall turn slightly around onto East elevation.
The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
b.1240 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two
story house and detached garage (Mark Bucciarelli, designer and applicant; Lonestar
Holdings LLC property owner) (91 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Mark Bucciarelli represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
•Consideration of screening along the left side to replace the trees? (Bucciarelli: With the house at
the setback and width of driveway, planting would be difficult.)
•Simulated true divided lites acceptable – don’t need to be true divided lites as specified.
•Right side elevation false window on gable – could eliminate the two side windows, then make the
two windows in the middle larger.
•Window bay on rear elevation could be broken down with additional trims – fewer big pieces of
wood.
•Obscure glass on bathroom windows off front porch not inviting.
•Design review consultant letter (#5) commented that landscaping is very rigid, could be revisited.
•Dutch gables on front and back, regular gables on sides. Could benefit from having Dutch gable on
side too.
•Muntin patterns inconsistent. FRONT: On large picture window, could have 6-over-1. Also change
single 2-over-1 window to 3-over-1. REAR: Window next to doors on the first floor should be 3-over-1.
RIGHT SIDE: 3-over-1 instead of 4-over-2 on the large window. LEFT SIDE: 3-over-1 and eliminate
vertical bars – have two 3-over-1s mulled together.
•Consider an additional corbel on the front towards the left.
Public comments:
•None.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
1.that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped July 17, 2013, sheets A0.0 through A3.1,and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map
with the following modifications, details of which shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval as an FYI, prior to building permit issuance:
a.window muntin patterns shall be revised so they are consistent across all elevations;
b.the Landscape Plan shall be revised to reflect the comments in the Design Review
consultant letter;
c.the bathroom window next to front door shall be clear glass with an interior window
treatment;
d.the false second window and opposite side window on second story side elevation shall be
eliminated;
The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
c.1504 La Mesa Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling (Shawn and Victoria McNamara, applicants and property owners; Audrey
Tse, Insite Design, designer) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Audrey Tse represented the application as designer, with property owners Shawn and Victoria
McNamara.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission comments:
•Replacing oak trees in the front? (McNamara: May replace with fruit trees, replace overgrowth with
landscaping.)
•Could consider leaving garage, workout room and laundry at 8-foot plate height, then rest could be
taller. (Tse: Wants taller height in garage for storage)
Public comments:
•None
Commission discussion:
•Concerned about plate heights – human scale. Massing is nice but height seems too tall .
Surrounding houses are smaller and lower. 9’ on first floor, 8’ on second has been discussed as a
standard but not all in agreement. On contemporary designs there aren ’t any elements to soften the
higher plate height.
•House is situated down from roadway, won’t look as imposing as appears in elevation.
•Don’t have a hard and fast rule with plate heights.
•Stain color is up to applicant.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
application, by resolution. The motion was approved 6-1-0-0 (Commissioner Sargent dissenting).
d.1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects,
designer; Mr. & Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica
Strohmeier
Commissioners Sargent and Loftis noted that they were not present at the Design Review Study
meeting for this item but had watched the video. All Commissioners had visited the property. There
were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with
attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments .
Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Wilson and Dorothy Cheng represented the applicant, with architect Anthony Ho.
Commission questions/comments:
•Arched windows on front left side are all at the same height. On the existing house the center
window is taller and more prominent. Would benefit by reducing the heights on the flanking windows.
•The shapes of the different arches varies. Should be more consistent.
•Master Bedroom on Carmelita side, suggest have transom windows in center of wall rather than
offset large window and have large windows on back. Could have a pair of taller windows on back.
•There are a lot of blank walls. Could add side windows to upstairs bedrooms.
•Are right side elevation first floor egress windows casement windows? (Cheng: Yes, 8-lite
casements)
•Which windows original? (Cheng: Only original is back French door, all others are newer vinyl)
•Concerned about height – entry element seems very tall, and 9-foot plate height on second floor
looks tall. Prefer tower as shown on rendering, and 8-foot second floor plate height.
Public comments:
•None.
Commission discussion:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Existing windows are fairly new, but proposed windows will not match them.
•Grids don’t have same depth as a wood window. Have rejected this type of window on another
house.
•Continue to date certain with direction to reduce plate height, match arches, revise Master Bedroom
windows, add side windows to bedrooms 1 and 2, call out aluminum clad wood -windows for new
windows, and lower entry element.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapali, to continue the application to
the August 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, by resolution. The motion was approved by
voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
e.1419 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for a new detached garage (Karen Curtiss,
architect and applicant; Elisa Lee and Jeff Reed property owners) (57 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item becuase he has a financial interest in a property
within 500 feet.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had not attended the
Design Review Study meeting but had watched the video. Commissioner Loftis noted that he had
spoken with neighbors at 1410 and 1411 Paloma Avenue. Commissioner Yie noted that she had not
attended the Design Review Study meeting but had read the meeting minutes and had met with the
applicant and designer. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner
Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Karen Curtis represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
•How will the site be graded for runoff? (Curtis: Runoff will go back towards garage.)
•How will window sandblasting work? (Curtis: Clear on top, 20% on lower for windows facing
neighbor; all clear on windows facing courtyard.)
•Concern about courtyard house pattern being repeated on other lots. Possible noise impact to
neighbors. (Curtis: Backyard is for more active use area, courtyard is more for daytime use. Fire pit is in
back yard.)
•Is at maximum floor area but because of tall ceilings counted towards floor area, has allowed more
of the site is carved out.
•Does the wood siding extend all around? (Curtis: Hardy siding all around with wood trim.)
Public comments:
•None.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application, by resolution. The motion was approved by voice vote, 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner
DeMartini recused).
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1510 La Mesa Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Variance for building
height and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling (Audrey Tse, Insite Design, designer and applicant; Isako
Hoshino and Matthew Machlis, property owners) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had had an email
exchange with the neighbor at 3036 Hillside Drive, and had talked to the designer and applicant .
Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Questions of staff:
•What constitutes views? (Hurin: Long distant views, although the Code does not specifically define
what a long distant view is. However in 2006 City Council adopted a resolution that set forward a
procedure for addressing disputes in the view areas with regard to trees and trimming trees. In that
resolution it defined a Bay view as a distant vista or panoramic view of the San Francisco Bay. The
resolution also stated it is not the objective of the guidelines to facilitate or encourage access to any
other views such as of hills and landmarks. The view ordinance specifies views as seen from habitable
spaces.)
Audrey Tse represented the applicant, with property owner Isako Hoshino:
•Existing house is constrained on all sides from expanding.
•Private road runs through middle of property.
•Rear yard is used functionally, house is up against rear setback.
•Public utility easement to left side.
•Front setback has steep upward slope.
•Also constrained on right side.
•Considered basement addition but not as pleasing as living space.
•Small addition to top of house containing children’s bedrooms and a family room.
•Needs height variance due to slope of site.
Commission questions/comments:
•Thought of expanding to the right side? (Tse: Would not be enough space to add the types of rooms
desired.)
•Use space in garage level? (Tse: Intent was to minimize disruption to one side of the house. Would
have to change entire floor plan on main floor. Maybe a rumpus room, but not two bedrooms.)
•Height from grade is 33 feet. Has a flat roof been considered? (Tse: Slope of the current roof is 4:12.
Dropped roof on addition to 3:12 to reduce height by about 19 inches. Flat roof does not seem in line
with Burlingame design principles with inconsistent roof forms; wanted to maintain style of the house .
Addition is intended to be modest, not block views from habitable areas.)
•Existing windows vinyl, and new windows will match? (Tse: Yes. Most windows in neighborhood are
vinyl as well.)
•House has T1-11 siding, so difficult to ask for high-end windows.
•Odd to have stucco on top, wood in middle, stucco on bottom.
•Left side elevation illustrates issue: 8-foot plate height on each floor, and 4:12 and 3:12 slopes work
together well enough. A flat roof would look odd.
•How was the site section of the adjacent house determined? (Hoshino: Based on eye sightlines as
seen from the back steps. Deck height determined by building plans.)
•Story poles to determine if there will be any views blocked.
Public comments:
Stephen Chin, 3036 Hillside Drive, spoke on this item:
•View not an issue from upper level of 3036 Hillside, but would be an issue from the lower level .
Might block view of canyon.
•Concern over soil erosion – has built additional retaining walls and reinforced foundation.
•Removed trees were dead, were not going to be maintaining soil. New trees have been planted,
more to be planted.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Subject property has had drainage problems.
•Daylight obstruction from yard, not habitable area.
•Most concerned about erosion and view obstruction. Should be addressed with engineer report and
story poles.
Isako Hoshino:
•Property has had substantial engineered retaining wall installed.
Commission discussion:
•With story poles will see whether there is impact to any distant views to other homes.
•Appears views from 3036 Hillside are canyon views.
•Geotechnical will be reviewed at the Building Permit stage, but not by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to bring the item
back as a Regular Action item when requested materials have been submitted. Applicant shall
install story poles prior to the Action meeting. The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
b.1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review Scoping,
Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling (John Stewart, applicant and
architect; Chris and Meaghan Schaefer, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erica Strohmeier
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis noted he had spoken with the neighbor
at 1524 Burlingame Avenue. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Planning
Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
John Stewart represented the applicant.
•House is a great example of a Craftsman, except for the rear addition.
•Objective is to recreate what the rear of the house would have looked like before the addition.
•Will replace all windows with wood clad simulated true divided lites.
•Prefers to have new addition match the existing house.
Commission questions/comments:
•On right elevation on Sheet A-8 existing windows may not be shown correctly.
•Additions do not always necessarily need to be separate and different in style and character. Could
be successful if trying to match existing.
•Should call out material on the stair handrails.
Public comments:
Tom Herald, 1524 Burlingame Avenue, spoke on this item:
•Soil in back yards is hard clay. Water sits – concerned about drainage
•Water needs to exhaust out to street.
•Concerned with detached garage being close to the property line. Not enough room for
maintenance. Redwood tree drops debris, will need to be cleaned out. Would like garage moved in
slightly towards the property (1 foot) to provide service path.
•Side gable is closer and taller than existing, may diminish the light into next door.
Commission discussion:
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Well done architecturally.
•Drainage will be reviewed by engineering.
•18” setback for garage would provide enough clearance for maintenance – 7 additional inches.
•Alternative may be for side wall of the garage to serve as fence to neighboring yard. Requires
neighbor coordination.
•Would be helpful to see how addition lines up with neighboring house.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, bring the item
back as a Regular Action item when requested materials have been submitted. The motion was
approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Planning Manager Gardiner noted that calendar requests are being sent to the commissioners to
arrange a pre -meeting study session on either August 11, August 25, or September 8, 2014. The study
session is to review meeting protocol, and consider whether staff reports should have findings and /or
recommendations.
a.Commission Communications
None.
b.City Council Regular Meeting - July 21, 2014 (cancelled)
c.FYI: 1534 Los Altos Drive, Zoned R-1 – Review of proposed changes to a previously
approved Design Review Project.
Accepted.
d.FYI : 1505 Sherman Avenue, Zoned R-1 - Review of Conditional Use Permit
approved 1 year ago for a preschool operated by a church in an existing church
building.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 10:29 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on July 28, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 7, 2014, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015