HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.09.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
6:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 8, 2014
STUDY SESSION
a.Staff Report Findings and Recommendations
b.Residential Sustainability Subcommittee Study Items
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Minutes of August 25, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve as
amended the Minutes of August 25, 2014 with the following changes:
>All items: Vote tallies are missing the names of the motioner and seconder;
>Page 3, Item 8b, note that Commissioners Terrones, Yie and DeMartini visited the
neighboring property at 3036 Hillside Drive;
>Page 6, Item 8e, note that Commissioner DeMartini met with the property owner;
>Page 7, Item 8e, Commissioner comments/questions, last bullet misspelling of "poured";
>Page 7, Item 8e, applicant comments, misspelling of "concerns";
>Page 8, Item 9a, misspelling of "applicant";
>Page 8, Item 11b, misspelling of "Downtown"
The motion carried with the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.Draft Residential Density Bonus Ordinance
Planning Manager Gardiner noted that Agenda Item 6a (Residential Density Bonus Ordinance) has been
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
September 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
pulled from this agenda to allow additional staff research. The matter will be scheduled on the
September 22, 2014 agenda.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.2747 Burlingview Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for a
previously approved single -story house (Richard Terrones, architect and applicant;
Burlingview LLC, property owner) (31 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent noted he had spoken to the
applicant to ask for examples of the proposed artificial turf.
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Is the turf permeable? (Furlong - Yes, it drains faster than natural turf.)
>How does it drain? (Furlong - Level the ground, compact soil, level of base rock to catch water,
enters the storm system.)
Public comments: There were no public comments.
Commission discussion:
>Had issues with the previous sample's crumb rubber base. It would not be a good infill material for
homes because of its smell.
>Turf is one of the more authentic samples seen.
>Likes the wood siding at the rear.
>Changes to the windows and siding are immaterial.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application with the findings and conditions in the staff report (the Commission's action is
appealable). The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
b.2829 Rivera Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a
new attached trellis and patio cover along the right side of the house (Terry and
Doneen Roberts, applicants and property owners; J Deal Associates, designer) (53
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones and
Yie reported they had visited the property and been given a tour by the property owner. Commissioner
DeMartini also reported that he had exchanged phone calls with the owner of 2818 Tiburon Way and
met with the property manager of that property. Commissioner Bandrapalli visited 2818 Tiburon Way
and was given a tour of the backyard. Commissioner Terrones visited 2818 Tiburon Way but did not
access the property.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
September 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of staff:
>Hillside Area Construction Permit only, not Design Review? (Hurin - Yes)
>If someone contests a Hillside Permit request do they need a reason? (Hurin - Written submittal
followed with written summary or come to meeting.)
>Did staff attempt to make contact with neighbors? (Hurin - Met and went through project, was told
they would submit a letter with their concerns. Phoned at least three times to follow up.)
>What are the neighbors' concerns? (Hurin - Some concerns are mentioned in their letter: stability of
hill, landscape changes. No landscape changes are proposed.)
Terry Roberts represented the applicant:
>40 feet from base of hillside
>No sign of hillside failing. Adequate drainage, French drains, concrete swales, all done with permits
and engineered. Reviewed by soils engineered.
Commission comments/questions:
>Does the adjacent neighbor supports the cabana? (Roberts - Yes. They are uphill. 10’-3” cover
proposed. Also, the new structure will be below the height of the existing house.)
Public comments: There were no public comments.
Commission discussion:
>Purview is views only.
>No evidence of views blocked.
>Closest uphill neighbor supports the project.
>No view issues from the 2818 Tiburon Way property.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to approve the
application with the findings and conditions in the staff report (the Commission's action is
appealable). The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
c.215 Arundel Road, zoned R-1 – Application for Conditional Use Permit for a home
office and bathroom in an existing accessory structure. (Luis Barbosa, applicant and
designer; Wenbao Wang, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum noted that he had met with the property
owner. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had not been at the previous meeting but had watched the
video.
Luis Barbosa represented the property owner:
>Took over project, building was done without permit. Trying to legalize the space.
Commission questions/comments:
>A bedroom was set up in the office area previously. How to determine compliance? Barbosa: Last
time went to the property there was no furniture. Owner says all furniture will be removed, area will
become an office.)
Commission discussion:
>CUP for office provided that the garage be available for garage. Will remove cabinetry, remove
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
September 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
furniture.
>Code enforcement was not from a complaint, it was a discovery.
>Will not be disruptive to neighborhood.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the
application with the findings and conditions in the staff report (the Commission's action is
appealable). The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye,
applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (65 noticed) Staff
Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Commissioner Sargent noted that when this application was first reviewed by the Planning Commission
he owned property within 500 feet, however he has since sold the property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum noted he had spoken with the
neighbors to each side, and Commissioner Bandrapalli had spoken with the applicant.
Questions of staff:
>If the secondary dwelling unit does not match, are we not allowed to talk about it? (Gardiner - State
law requires secondary dwelling units to be reviewed administratively and not be subject to discretionary
review. However communities may have performance standards, which the Burlingame code has. In the
administrative review staff will review the application using the criteria, including the criterion that the
architectural styles need to match. The applicant has been advised of this requirement.)
Mike Ma represented applicant:
>Previously the application had been designed in a contemporary style, by another architect.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Gable end on left looks flat. Will the edge of the roof tile be wrapped around? (Ma - Yes.)
>On the front elevation would it be possible to center the porch window? (Ma - Yes, could shift it
over.)
>Could the front center window at the stair be modified to be more interesting? Round, wrought iron,
or bars - something special. (Ma: Yes. Open to suggestions.)
>Neighbors to the right are concerned with shrubbery that would be between the driveway and their
property. Would it be possible to retain the existing shrubbery? Would help to screen the driveway. (Ma -
Agrees but not sure if it ’s on their property or not. Would need to be trimmed so it does not block the
driveway but could overhang a bit.)
>Staff report had letter from design review consultant. Handful of comments related to windows, plate
heights and garage. (Ma - Property owner just got back before submittal, has not had a chance to
discuss.)
>Maple tree may grow too large to be next to driveway.
>Special Permit application for attached garage notes that it is common in the area. However looking
at Hillside Drive, 10 of the 11 examples shown on the map provided in the application were corner lots
with attached garages. The only midblock example is a 1-car garage, there are no 2-car front garages
on midblock lots. (Ma - Could mitigate with narrower driveway and curb cut, especially at street down to
12 or 15 feet. Past sidewalk can widen to 18 feet to access garage. Also can have landscaping with low -
to medium- shrubs, using landscaping to mitigate visual and provide screening.)
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
September 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Important to address some of the issues from the design review consultant letter. Close to being
approvable, but important aspect consultant raises is pitch of roof 6:12 on upper floor vs 4:12 on lower –
why steeper on second floor? 6:12 looks more like a tract home. (Ma - Could make upper slope 4:12, will
also help massing.) Addressing roof height will help with overall massing.
>Rake fascia detail important to have tile detail. Same detail as on existing front porch.
>Inconsistency with window headers. Should have special window over the stairs.
>3-part arched windows on the ground floor in front look inconsistent. Revisit, could reference shape
from garage and upper window, or square off with a header.
>Porch columns needs more detail. Perhaps knee -brace corbels or ornament to add some special
detail. Otherwise too plain.
>Commission has strong preference away from vinyl windows. Should be solid wood window with or
without cladding, and muntins need to be simulated true divided lite or divided lite.
>Recommendation to lower plate height is a good one. Does not think the front garage fits the
neighborhood.
>Where is trellis over the garage referenced in the design review consultant letter? (Ma - Deleted by
request of owner.) Trellis should be reconsidered. The attached garage makes the house look suburban,
tract-like so mitigation would be helpful.
Public comments: There were no public comments.
Commission discussion:
>Should come back on action to review details that need to be addressed. Does not need to go back
to design review consultant.
>Maps such as the garage exhibit submitted in the application are not helpful because they do not
speak to the neighborhood as defined in the design guidelines.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place this item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. The motion was approved by the following
vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
b.1908 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
dwelling and special permits for an attached garage, height, basement ceiling height
and exiting (Jesse Geurse, Gerse Conceptual Designs, designer and applicant; Scott
and Brooke Hill, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Loftis, Gum and Sargent had spoken with
the owner in front of property. Commissioner DeMartini spoke to the applicant about obtaining a
geotechnical report. Commissioner Bandrapalli also spoke with the applicant.
Jesse Geurse and Scott Hill represented applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Basement geotechnical test did not hit water. Concern with homes pumping out a lot of water to the
storm drain. Currently in a drought - what happens when rain comes and need to pump water? (Geurse -
Soils report shows a method of draining the underside of the basement floor. Will need to have a
drainage and grading plan for building permit.)
>Concern is ground water is being pumped out to the storm sewer. (Hill - Given slope of lot and how
much of the basement will be underground, was not expecting to have groundwater. Existing utility
basement has not had water, is at least 6 feet deep below the floor.) Geotech report looks like there is a
significant plan to deal with the water.
>Graywater/rainwater collection – would like to consider retention on site. Officials are looking at
loosening requirements to allow on-site retention. Preferable to feed ground water or landscaping.
>Condition of existing house? It looks nice from the front. (Hill - Has lived here 10 years. Looks nice
out front but inside has had additions. Built 1918, original foundation would not support a second story .
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
September 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Lot is long, small back yard and big front yard. Wants to move house forward to have bigger back yard.)
>Handsome design but still very tall. Plate heights 10’-6” and 8’-6” but also asking for Special Permit
for height. Revisit to step up the site.
>Windows are very tall. Rear elevation transoms are at 11 feet, very tall.
>Why basement 9 feet? (Geurse - 6’-6” is ordinance, wants to run pipes, ductwork. Ceiling would be 8
feet if furred down.) If 9’ and 8’, would need fewer steps to get to front door. (Geurse - Grade elevation at
the rear is the datum point.) Handsome but looks massive.
>Could have a step up from the Sitting Room and Foyer into the Dining Room. The whole front
portion of the house could be brought down, even if it is just 6 inches.
>Was there consideration of having the garage at the rear of house? (Geurse - Wants backyard
space. Grade slopes from rear to front, makes more sense to tuck garage in below. 400 sq ft in the back
yard would take too much space plus turning radius, backup.)
>From pedestrian experience garage is most prominent feature. Would it be possible to have the
entry lower, then have stairs rising up inside? (Geurse - Can look at plate heights, but it would look
strange to have the porch lower. Can split garage doors to lessen impact of the garage. Wood door to
match rest of woodwork on house.)
>Arbor provides nice pedestrian scale, perhaps add benches. (Geurse - Arbor took up too much floor
area, has been sized so it fits under the exception.)
>Other houses on street have garages pushed forward too. Foliage, distance of garage from street,
arbor and stone work will mitigate so garage will not be so prominent.
>Shared plans with neighbors? (Hill - Yes, most.)
Public comments: There were no public comments.
Discussion:
>In this neighborhood a front-facing garage is more supportable than other neighborhoods.
>With Eucalyptus on Easton it can be hard to park on the street, so makes sense for it to be easier to
park on the lot.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place this item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. The motion was approved by the following
vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
c.1224 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Davina and Ron Drabkin,
applicants and property owners; Carl Groch, architect) (85 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he has a quasi -business relationship with
the applicant through his work with the school district.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Carl Groch and Davina Drabkin represented the applicant:
>Outgrew house, wanted four bedrooms. Have placed mass in least objectionable manner possible .
Upper floor is held approximately 40 feet from street.
>Neighbors were consulted through design process.
>2:12 slope of the existing house retained, but with composition shingle.
>Changes from plans: For patio in back would like paving stones. In front porch instead of columns
would like benches.
>Porch area extended out, partially covered.
>Side wall along driveway faces apartments and is similar height, but with banding incorporating
upper floor windows to break scale.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
September 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Using same types of windows as current, same stucco.
Commission questions/comments:
>A lot of new windows. Would consider a wood window instead of vinyl? (Groch - Wood window
would not match. Client is happy with the windows. Within about 300 feet there are five buildings with
new vinyl windows.)
>100-foot floor area exemption for front porches - could front porch be extended? (Groch - Extended
as far as possible. Also there is an olive tree would want to leave in place.) Could extend across the
width to the left. (Groch - Will have two benches .)(Drabkin: There is a lot of pedestrian traffic in front,
likes to sit on porch steps currently.)
>Any thoughts to screening or shrubbery between house and apartments? (Two existing windows
with no changes. Already accustomed to proximity to apartments. Upper windows have sill height of 5
feet for privacy.)
>Concern with neighbors being able to look in? (Groch - At or a bit above apartment window levels .
Will consider obscured glass.)
>Landscape screening with adjacent house on north side? (Groch - Not discussed.)
>Side south elevation seems tall. Consider adding windows? (Groch - Tried lots of alternatives.)
>Works well on site, massing is clever.
>Not a big fan of the low slope roof. 2:12 is testing technical limits of composition shingle.
>Consider panels and batten for side elevation? (Groch: Could drop the break line, then have a panel
and the window.)
>Typically do not approve vinyl windows (Groch - High quality Milgard Tuscany windows. Have good
profiles. Unless touch don’t know what the material is .)(Drabkin: Replaced windows a few years ago .
Had issues with condensation in rear bedroom, mold. Moisture barrier. A number of structures on the
block have vinyl windows.)
>Will the new windows be nail-fin windows? (Groch - Yes. Wood trim is identical, trim is the same on
the new and existing. Did not call out nail fin on plans.)
>South elevation – lower plate height to reduce height? (Groch - Is 9’-6”. Could lower it.) Would help it
fit with other single family homes in the neighborhood. 8 feet is typical for the neighborhood.
>Window sample has “cowlick” edge – round edges, lack of crispness to the detail, no profile.
Public comments: There were no public comments.
Commission discussion:
>The Commission has been consistent with the window issue. The subject was decided a long time
ago.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place this item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner Yie left the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
a.Appointment of a member of the Planning Commission to the Community Advisory
Committee for the community center
Commissioner Loftis volunteered to serve on the Community Advisory Committee for the community
center.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
September 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a.Commission Communications
There were no Commission Communications.
b.City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:56 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 September 8, 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 September 18, 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