HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.10.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 13, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.September 14, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the meeting
minutes with the following amendment:
>Page 9, Item 1 - Reference to foam applies to the trim, not the garage door.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
b.September 28, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the meeting
minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 -
Abstain:Gaul1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
None.
6. STUDY ITEMS
No Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
No Consent Items.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1345 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story
single family dwelling with a detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates,
Inc.; applicant and designer; Grace Sun, property owner) (44 noticed) Staff Contact:
Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum noted that he had spoken with the
neighbor to left and the neighbor behind the subject property.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Ferdinand Devera, Chu Design & Associates, represented the applicant:
>Driveway and garage has been reversed to conform to neighborhood pattern.
>Garage pushed back. Will use pier and grade beam foundation to protect tree.
Commission questions/comments:
>Appreciates the nod to the original architecture.
>The original design had two fireplaces and two chimneys. Why no chimney on the second fireplace
now? As an architectural feature it would help the design. (Devera: Will look into it.)
>Were other options for the finishes considered besides the siding and stucco? Seems incongruous .
(Devera: Did not look at other options.)
>Stone around arched entry seems out of place with the wood siding.
>Shared revised plans with neighbors? (Devera: Yes.)
Public comments:
Glen Saito, neighbor to the left, spoke on this item:
>Supports the revised design.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Appreciates moving the driveway and adding wood siding.
>Tree mitigation is good. Trees to be removed are poor to fair.
>Massing is OK. Changes don't quite measure up. Designer should take input from owner and
commission and make design make sense. Does not seem like an integrated design.
>Wood and tudor trim are plastered on. Stone around portal entry does not make sense on a wood
wall.
>Pieces of the house are incongruous. Has not been worked out.
>Tie elements together with something like wainscoting, etc.
>Would be good to add chimney for second fireplace - it would help break up the massing further.
>Seems forced.
>Existing house is important for the block and the neighborhood. Seems like a disservice to the
neighborhood to take down the existing house and replace it with this one. Has not replaced what is
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
important to the block.
>Does not need to go to a design review consultant, it is close enough and can be worked out.
>Front porch would improve design, particularly with wood elements.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the
Action Item to a date undetermined. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli5 -
Nay:DeMartini, and Gaul2 -
b.1530 La Mesa Drive, zoned R- 1- Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a
single story addition (InSite Design- Audrey Tse, applicant and designer; Alex and Kim
Kilgo, property owners) (40 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to one of the neighbors below
the property, Commissioner Loftis spoke to a neighbor, Commissioner Bandrapalli met the applicant,
and Commissioner DeMartini met the neighbor at 1533 La Mesa Drive.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Was the story pole on the roof certified? (Barber: No, story poles were not required. The applicant
installed the pole on their own to indicate the increase of 8 inches in the roof ridge height. It is an
approximation.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Audrey Tse represented the applicant, with property owners Alexander and Kimberly Kilgo.
>Cognizant of maintaining a minimal impact on the views of their neighbors.
>Could have proposed a second story but has not. A relatively modest addition.
>Most of roof is maintained at same height. A 30-inch stretch of roof ridgeline would be 8 inches
above the existing roof line.
Commission questions/comments:
>Will all of the ridge increase 8 inches? (Tse: No, the majority of the ridge will stay at the existing
height. Only a 30-inch portion to the left will rise 8 inches.)
>Consideration of landscaping to create privacy for the neighbor below? (A. Kilgo: Needs to work on
the rear landscaping at a later phase.)
>Was there consideration to have story poles? (A. Kilgo: Spoke to the neighbors across the street at
1533 La Mesa. Neighbor's view is more of the street, and has indicated support for the project.)
Public comments:
Susan Jong, 1537 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item:
>Lives across the street on the left side.
>Concern with protected tree, and view. Tree has grown high, blocks view.
>Dish on roof will make it higher and block view.
Jeffrey Hung, 1529 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item:
>View blockage depends on location. Had been concerned with ridgeline on top but it was lowered.
>Construction on left side is not an impact from his house. May be different from other properties.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Barbara and Ray Forest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
>In favor of the project, with conditions.
>Are property owners on north side of 1530 La Mesa Drive.
>Steep slope with 3'-6" retaining wall supporting north side of 1530 La Mesa Drive. Concern addition
will stress retaining wall.
>Requests a soils and structural report to assess existing retaining wall, and pier and grade beam
foundation so addition does not impose additional load on the wall. It would also help the oak tree.
>Wall is over 50 years old and is already stressed with cracks.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Tree will be protected.
>Geotech and foundation design conditions are not within the purview of the Planning Commission .
They are within the purviews of the Building and Engineering Divisions.
>There do not seem to be view issues from habitable areas. Did not see why it should be called up for
review based on purview of Planning Commission.
>Would have been helpful to have story poles. However criteria for view is from habitable space, not
from a deck, driveway or bathroom..
>1533 La Mesa Drive appears to be the only house with a potential issue. View is a function of the
tree being pruned.
>Concern with neighbor below with privacy, could be mitigated with landscaping.
>Hillside Ordinance specifies views from habitable areas. Does not appear to be the case with this
application.
>Arborist recommends an inspection at time of excavation. Is included in Condition of Approval #6.
>Should consider request from the Forests with the retaining wall.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve Action
Item with the conditions in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
c.1008 Park Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use and Special Permits
to legalize an existing accessory structure which includes converting a workshop
(behind the garage) to an office with a half bathroom; there is no expansion to the
existing accessory structure proposed (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design,
Inc, applicant and designer; Iavor and Iglika Boyanov Trust, property owners) (46
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum met with the applicant, and
Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant and received a tour of the accessory structure.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Plans show single story addition. (Barber: Planning Commission is only reviewing the Conditional
Use Permit for the accessory structure. The single story addition is part of the project but is not subject
to Planning Commission review.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse represented the applicant, with property owners Iavor and Iglika Boyanov:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Space was originally constructed by prior owner as a workshop.
>Owner intends to use the accessory structure as a home office.
>Single story addition to the rear requires accessory building to be approved.
Commission questions/comments:
>No plumbing exists in the building currently? (Geurse: Correct.)
>Will clients be coming to the office? (Geurse: No.)
>Any comments from neighbors? (Boyanov: No.)( Geurse: Sent the letter so they would be aware of
the project.)
>Not adding bedrooms, just expanding bedrooms? (Geurse: Correct. More room for the boys sharing
a room.)
>Letter has signatures from which adjacent neighbors? (Geurse: Right, left and rear.)
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Not viewable from street.
>Matches existing house in style and massing.
>Windows to rear are not detrimental, glazing is not an impact to the neighbors.
>Existing structure is improved with the project.
>No concerns with the windows at the back. They look straight at the fence and are not an issue.
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item with the conditions contained in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
d.1500 Los Altos Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a new, two -story single family dwelling and a Special Permit
for an attached garage (Hamed Balazadeh, BOD Design, designer; Shahram
Zomorrodi, Zomorrodi Corp., applicant and owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Sargent, Terrones and Gum met with the
neighbor to left at 1502 Los Altos Drive.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Date of arborist report in staff report needs to be corrected.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Shahram Zomorr represented the applicant, with designer Hamed Balazadeh:
Commission questions/comments:
>Letter to neighbor references house was completely redesigned. What does that refer to? (Zomorr:
Original design was 400 square feet larger.)
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Planning to live in the house? (Zomorr: Originally planned to, but duration of review has been costly .
Not sure now.)
>Was there a chance to meet with the neighbors at 1505 Los Altos Drive across the street? (Zomorr:
Sent a letter to all neighbors across the street and to each side, three times. Has not been able to talk to
the neighbors directly across at 1505 Los Altos.)
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Appreciates effort put into project.
>Still believes there are some distant views, but unclear whether they constitute protected views.
>Massing is handled nicely, pushed away from adjacent neighbor.
>Handsome house, nice addition to neighborhood.
>Case has been made to remove the tree.
>Concern that has not heard back from neighbor across the street. Believes the view from 1505 Los
Altos has been blocked. However there has been no communication with the owners.
>If cannot meet with the neighbors and they have not objected, it should not prevent the project from
being approved.
>Tree contributes to blockage of view. Once it is removed the view will be opened up, including from
1505 Los Altos.
>Met with neighbor at 1502 Los Altos who expressed concern with view from kitchen. Appears view
blocked would be of street trees, not distant views.
>The story poles were up for weeks so neighbors would have been aware of the project.
>Garage blends with surrounding houses. Majority of neighbors have attached garages.
>Project would have minimal if any impact on distant views.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve
Action Item with the conditions in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Nay:DeMartini1 -
e.281 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit Amendment
for a Specialty Shop Food Establishment (Noemi K. Avram, Gumbinger Avram
Architects, Inc., applicant and architect; 1207 1211 Burlingame Ave LLC, property
owner) (41 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Based on further review by the Planning Division, it was determined that an application for Conditional
Use Permit Amendment is not required. Therefore, this item was pulled from the agenda.
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1447 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage (Mauricio Melchor and Alan Ohashi,
Ohashi Design Studio, applicant and architect; Max Ramos, property owner) (35
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
Commissioner DeMartini was recused because he has an ownership interest in a property located within
500 feet. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbor
across and on the right side. Commissioner Bandrapalli spoke with with the neighbor on the right side.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Phillip Liang and Mauricio Melchor from Ohashi Design Studio represented the applicant, with property
owners Max and Cheryl Ramos:
>Owners will live in the house, like contemporary design. Another on the same street has a similar
style.
>Originally looked at an attached garage design, but thought detached garage with flat roof would
have minimal impact.
>Will retain walnut tree in the back.
>Wider driveway than typical.
>Windows positioned high so not peer directly onto neighbors.
Commission questions/comments:
>How will the driveway gate work? (M. Ramos: Automated, with Fire Department key switch. The
gate is to provide privacy.)
>Why are there two different roofs? 4:12 pitch on upper roof, but not in harmony with lower flat roofs .
(Liang: Pitched roof is attempt to blend better with neighborhood.)
>Will aluminum windows be bronze anodized? (Liang: Yes.)
>Would siding be painted or stained? (Liang: Has not gotten that far. Issue with maintenance - paint
lasts longer.) Renderings should indicate material and color.
>FEMA maps will be updated next year. Encourage raise finished floor a few inches higher as a
safeguard. (Ramos: Is ½ foot above flood level.)
>Vents for flood drainage need to be located lower.
>How is this house compatible with the architectural styles of other houses in the neighborhood?
(Liang: Styles are not repeating on the street. With trees in front and garage in back do not see so much
of house. Has observed neighborhood average setback, also keeping same sidewalk curb cut as
existing.)
>Has more glazing than surrounding. Is intention to see in and out? (Ramos: Wants openness and
light, but also putting in a 24-inch tree. Also floor to ceiling shades.)
>What is material next to door? (Liang: Oversight. It should be stucco.)
>What is between the pavers in the driveway slabs. (Liang: Intent is something green, not gravel. Did
not want continuous hardscape driveway.)
>How tall will plantings at rear be? Are they intended to provide screening? (Ramos: Current
neighbors have extensive planting. Some will be planted at 12- to 15-feet, will grow to 15- to 20-feet;
others will be low plantings.)
>Has tree removal permit for yucca been granted? (Ramos: Yes.)
>Plantings in front will be 1- to 1 ½ feet high? (Ramos: Yes.)
>Suggest reconsider stucco wall in front.
>Consider other patterns for windows? Scale of the windows are very big for this neighborhood .
(Liang: The views from the house are nice. House is close to the corner, can see across adjacent back
yard. From second floor stair can look out window.) If windows stay the same size mullions would
provide scale.
>Pitched roof was added to fit into neighborhood, rather than flat? (Ramos: Concerned it would stand
out too much if it was flat. Wanted to align with the rest of the rooflines.) Makes it look too schizophrenic,
not sure it is needed. (Ramos: Mechanical equipment will be in roof, as well as solar panels.) Solar
panels would work on a flat roof and not be seen from the street.
>The plate heights make the house look taller. Would suggest 9 feet on first floor, 8 feet on second
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
floor to help blend in with neighbors.
>Pitch of roof is neither here nor there. Should be either flat or not flat. Nice design, well -proportioned,
could be very nice with a pitched roof, would break down scale of windows and fit into neighborhood.
>Have the plans been shared with neighbors? (Ramos: Has spoken with all five adjacent neighbors.)
Public comments:
Arshir Meon, resident to the right spoke on this item:
>Beautiful design.
>Concern with height, shading and exposure of the windows.
Vice Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Handsome house, needs some additional work.
>Skilled architect. Does not need to be sent to design review consultant.
>Needs to decide where it is going.
>Well-designed modern house but concern with neighborhood compatibility in terms of architectural
style. Does not think 1423 Paloma is a good precedent for this neighborhood. Pitched roof would help.
>There was modern architecture at time neighborhood was originally built. But needs to have good
scale, detailing, mass, bulk and character to be part of neighborhood.
>Preference is for pitched roof to fit into neighborhood.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the
item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
b.1244 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Chris Day, Day by Day
Designs, applicant and designer; Sun Park and Robert Bakin, property owners) (92
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli met the applicant, and
Commissioner Terrones had a conversation with the project designer but it was not in regards to the
project.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Chris Day represented the applicant, with property owner Robert Bakin.
Commission questions/comments:
>No trees removed? (Day: Correct)
>Are the Milgard Montecito windows the same as in the existing house? (Day: Yes. The owners like
the existing windows, and wanted to match.) Another grid might add to the design. Would prefer to not
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
have the grids on the in-between large panels on the large windows.
>Addition blends in well with the existing house and is well executed.
>Pleased to see the house is not being torn down and the integrity of the existing house is being
retained.
>Is there a reason why there is not the attic lattice venting on the smaller gable on front? (Day: No
reason, could do it.)
>What is thinking with leaving the front of the house untouched and putting the addition at the back?
(Day: Keeping mass away from front and not creating a huge structure in the front. With the floorplan the
owner's needs and wants more easily accommodated with addition to back. Wanted to keep the charm
and traditional look of the existing house but increase square footage.)
>Would the blank closet wall and the upper stair landing be visible from the street? (Day: May not
have an angle of view where it could be seen, particularly from the right. Also there is a row of trees
between the neighboring house. May be able to see to the back from the left side. Can't see it head -on.)
Concern the blank closet wall will be visible from the street, would suggest adding a window.
Public comments:
Linda Field spoke on this item:
>Hard for a lay person to understand from the two -dimensional drawings where the square footage
would be added.
>Pleased the front porch will be retained.
>Addition is over the new area to the back of the house.
>Supports project.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Well proportioned and maintains the charm of the streetfront.
>Unusual house, looks like a larger house built behind a smaller house. With trees in front it is harder
to see the back.
>Concerned there is 18 feet on the front without a window. Front elevation is confusing.
>Laundry room door appears like it could be confused with the front door.
>Appreciates the addition to the back. Renderings would help to better understand. Does not expect
the gables will be seen from front since they are so far back.
>Details are matched with existing house; materials are tied together.
>Front elevation needs a little help: add gable attic vents, add a small window in the closet, seeing a
rendering at an angle looking down driveway.
>Reminiscent of an airplane bungalow.
>Appreciates that trees are not being removed.
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed and a rendering has been
submitted. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
c.1301 Skyview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
attached garage for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and
enlarging the existing attached garage (Candice Williams, applicant and property
owner; Gregorin Engineering & Design, designer) (20 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of staff:
>Is the Design Review only for the garage? (Gardiner: Design Review applies to construction of a
garage attached to a single -family dwelling, as well as an addition having a plate height greater than
nine (9) feet above finished floor.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Frank Pecavar represented the applicant, with property owner Candice Williams.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is the intent to add an additional parking bay to park a car, or for storage? (Pecavar: Wants the
additional parking space.)
>Is intent to park two cars in the garage or three? (Pecavar: Three.)
>Is there a plan for site drainage? There is a retaining wall, and some downspouts noted on the plan .
Rainwater will flow towards the retaining wall and might drain to neighboring property. (Pecavar:
Currently working on the issue. Wall was built in 2002 and drainage was put in that is connected to the
downspouts. Trying to figure out where they are going - seems to be going down towards the wall and
out towards the rear of the property.)
>Why was the eucalyptus tree cut down? (Pecavar: Large size, mess, nuisance, danger.)
>Why not match existing windows? (Pecavar: In scope of addition only one window is remaining .
Wants to match rest of neighborhood so it would be inconspicuous. Neighboring houses either have
original aluminum frame windows, or newer white vinyl. Chose Milgard Style Line because it is a bit
thinner in the frame than a standard wide -frame vinyl window. Is still being discussed with owner .)
Surrounding houses may not be best to match to, could instead set a leading example.
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Garage addition looks odd given the unequal size of the garage doors. Looks like two attached
garages. Stepping back does not make it look like it fits the building.
>Design guidelines seek to minimize impact of attached garages on the street. Usually attached
garages are just single -car, but this looks like a three -car garage. There are no three -car garages in the
neighborhood.
>No neighbor behind, below, or to the left so although it does not fit into the neighborhood in terms of
scope and scale, it is tucked away at back of cul -de-sac and not seen. Mass and scale blend in with the
house.
>Can't imagine this would get approved anywhere else, but could be acceptable here. Typically
Planning Commission does not encourage attached garages, and particularly three-car garages.
>Difficult to park cars at the end of cul -de-sac. If someone wants to accommodate additional parking
and it is not visible it can be supported.
>This is a neighborhood of houses with attached garages.
>Tucked into corner, does not have an impact on the neighborhood.
>This is a unique situation. If this were approved, should not be considered an encouragement for
other three-car garages.
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 -
Nay:Loftis, and Sargent2 -
d.717 and 721 Linden Avenue, Zoned R -2 - Environmental Scoping for Lot Split,
Variance for lot frontage, Parking Variance for shared driveway and Design Review for
construction of a new, two -story duplex on each proposed new lot (1448 Laguna LLC,
applicant and property owner; James Welch, Romano Welch Studio Architecture,
architect) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum met with the property owners across
the street from the subject property, and Commissioner Bandrapalli met the tenant.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
James Welch represented the applicant, with designer Veronica Welch, surveyor Charles Cavanaugh,
and property owners James and Pei Ling Evans:
>Neighborhood is 60-70% multiunits.
>Prairie modern architecture.
>Highly refined massing.
>Garage courtyard inward focus; no garage doors visible from Linden Avenue.
>No balconies overlooking neighbors.
>Vertical breaks to provide relief.
>Single-width driveway to minimize impact from Linden Avenue.
>100% native landscaping.
>Primary facade volume has the proportion of a golden rectangle.
>Horizontal siding breaks down massing to a pedestrian scale.
>Entry canopies similar to porches of homes on Linden Avenue.
>Rear unit entry doors partially visible from Linden Avenue.
Commission questions/comments:
>Variance application notes that it is required to conform to the neighborhood. "Conform" implies it is
a requirement being imposed on the property. (Cavanaugh: Unrecorded subdivision. Lots are all on a
skew, all originally 100 feet in perpendicular width but skew creates a 106-foot frontage. Only one lot
would remain that has not been divided.)
>What is exceptional circumstance? (Cavanaugh: Neighborhood pattern, unusual that subdivision
was not designed like regular subdivision. Carolan Avenue was brought in and cut off the back of the
lots. It is not a normal situation.)
>Is there no solution to have a duplex or any other multifamily solution without splitting the lot? (V.
Welch: Correct. Wants to provide something that will fit in with the neighborhood, not have parking
garages facing the street. Wants human scale, so breaking big parcel into two lots allows for a more
linear design.)
>What is the pattern of the neighborhood? Predominantly one or two stories? (V. Welch: It is in
transition. Believes there is a need for high density, creating more options for people.)
>Is there parking currently on the site that is used for the owners? (J. Evans: There is parking being
used by the tenant, and a broken-down truck.)
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (J. Evans: Yes, spoke to 711 Linden who support
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the project. 709 Linden did not seem too concerned, and 722 Linden.)
>Has thought been given to retaining trees? Particularly the canary palm and the large evergreen
pine at the rear. The trees are iconic in the neighborhood. Has there been thought to work the design
around them? (J. Evans: Arborist report noted that the pine has a split trunk in jeopardy of falling .)(J.
Welch: Intent is to create a low impact driveway from Linden Ave results in driveway straight down the
middle of the lot split. Could evaluate alternatives to the single driveway width .)(J. Evans: The tree is not
in the greatest of health, per the arborist report. Could verify with a second opinion. Have tried to work
around it.)
>How does the project fit into neighborhood? (J. Welch: Current mix of housing on Linden Avenue is
multifamily, so fits quite well. Prairie modern style has a warm residential feel compared to a more stark
brutalist modern. Fits with density of rest of Linden Avenue. Garage courtyard can be a community play
space for families to gather. It is dense, and cities are getting denser.)
Public comments:
Dan Donnelly, owner of 722 Linden Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Tenants who were spoken to have since moved out. Did not relay information to the property owner.
>Submitted letter to the commission.
>Only one other two-story house fronting Linden Street. Has a similar house right behind it.
>Very little parking on the street because of the high school.
>Proposed project is two 2-story buildings.
Tim Solari, owner of 720 Linden Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Has not reviewed plans.
>Large footprint covering the entire lot.
>Traffic nuisance with shared driveway. Parking is an issue on the street.
>Frontage of street is single family homes, with units behind. Not multifamily.
Giulia Solari, 720 Linden (on behalf of neighbor at 711 Linden Avenue), spoke on this item:
>Charm and ambiance of existing neighborhood.
>Mature trees and wildlife.
>Project would destroy wildlife habitat.
>Project would block views of mature landscaping and natural light on north side of property.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
Environmental Review Scoping:
>Should evaluate if it is possible to have a driveway entrance from Carolan so there does not need to
be a variance for the driveway.
>Traffic is a concern as Linden Avenue is narrow. Parking is difficult because of the high school .
Where will construction trucks park?
Design Review:
>Difficult to make variance finding. Variance needs to be justified by something extraordinary about
the lot that makes it different from other lots in the area. Justification seem to act like it is by right.
>Does not seem to match the pattern of the neighborhood. Rest of the neighborhood is not 2-story
duplexes like these.
>Can't tell what the style it is. Does not have details of prairie style.
>Project looks like an apartment building. This neighborhood looks like single family homes. Would
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
not know they are duplexes.
>Looks like an office development.
>Shared driveway and sides of the project look like an apartment building.
>Does not fit into this street.
>Design is plain, no gingerbread, looks cheap.
>Looks like a "complex." Linden Avenue looks like single family homes.
>Could support variance if it was for two separate duplexes on two separate lots and did not look like
a complex. Would not need a variance for shared driveway, would just need it for lot width. Would
probably need to reduce the size of units and may not be able to have four bedrooms.
>Access from Carolan would be another way to split the lot.
>Needs to step back more and have more of the feeling of the street.
>Lacks front porches. Houses on street have front porches.
>Is positive that it creates more parking.
>All of the lots are more narrow than this one, so the split would make it more consistent.
>Other lots have smaller frontages, but requirement now is 55-feet.
>Pattern of the neighborhood suggests a split of the lot. The double -size lot is an unusual
circumstance.
>Should have two completely different duplexes that fit architectural character of neighborhood.
>Variances applications are sometimes rewritten because the reasons given initially were not
received well.
>There is another lot the same dimension as this one, and could expect a request to split that one
too.
>Could withdraw the design review application and consider the lot split separately. However existing
house straddles the two lots.
At this time, no action is required regarding this item.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner DeMartini reported from the General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC). The
committee met last week to discuss the real estate market in Burlingame, and how various uses
contribute to the General Fund. Next meeting will be a community workshop on Saturday, October 24th
from 10 am to 2 pm. at the Burlingame Recreation Center. A brief presentation will be made each hour .
It will be an open house so people may come whenever they would like. There is a website for the
project at www.envisionburlingame.org, and questions can be directed to the Planning Manager.
Commissioner Terrones reported that the next meeting of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee
is being scheduled.
Commissioner Loftis reported that there has not been a Community Center CAC meeting since the
project concepts were presented to the Planning Commission.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Request to commissioners to note the addresses of adjacent properties of concern when conducting site
visits. Staff is making adjustments to the format of the aerials that will be included in staff reports to take
advantage of the City's new web -based GIS platform. Aerials will return to staff reports in the next
meeting packet.
a.1025 Cabrillo Avenue- Reveiw of as -bulit changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
Accepted.
b.1523 Willow Avenue- Reveiw of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015
October 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 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 October 13, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2015, 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 $533, 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 14City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015