HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.10.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 14, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.September 22, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
minutes of September 23, 2014:
>Page 4; last bullet; revise second half of first sentence to read: "verify that is standard
practice to consider the incremental increase from actual users.
>Page 5; eleventh bullet; revise "sheer" to be "shear".
>Page 5; fifteenth bullet; insert "and intermediate school" between "school" and "traffic".
>Page 6; Planning Commission comments questions; first bullet, line two; replace
"conditions" with "hotels".
>Page 8; adjournment; deleted second "meeting adjourned".
Chair Bandrapalli voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from
participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 9a (1548 Meadow Lane) and Commissioner
Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8b (1224
Capuchino Avenue).
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.Consideration of Residential Density Bonus Ordinance - Staff Contact: Kevin
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>Are the incentives required by State law? (Gardiner - incentives are required. A menu as is
proposed is not always the case. Staff has used the existing incentives from the current municipal code
since they have been analyzed previously. The State also requires the City to provide a discretionary
option.)
>With respect to the stepping back of upper floor setbacks, is it correct that the option proposed is to
add the item as an additional incentive? (Gardiner - correct. The applicant could still request the waiver
through the discretionary approach.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing
Public comments:
Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; spoke:
>Reviewed the comments contained in her October 12, 2014 letter expressing concerns regarding
spacing/setbacks between structures.
>A reduction in the space between structures would impact the ability to provide adequate
landscaping as well as impact light to adjacent structures.
>Is aware of certain designs compliant with code provisions that have resulted in ungainly designs;
this section should be refined.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>Perhaps the spacing between buildings should be revisited during the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance update; withdraw the incentive regarding upper floor setbacks.
>Could an applicant request a variance from the standards? (Gardiner - yes, if conditions warranted
consideration.)
>Seems that the initial intent of the interior finishing being the same was to ensure the dignity of the
tenants; feels this should remain.
>With respect to parking reductions near transit; seems like the radius for application could be
expanded to one-half mile. (Gardiner - mentioned the Priority Development Area since it is a defined
boundary already. Better to address the larger issue of transit -oriented development through the
General Plan process.)
>Car-sharing should be compared with the ownership costs for a car. There could still be a valid
argument for this type of incentive. (Kane - the problem comes with conditioning the parking of the
building based upon a continuing agreement with an independent company that may or may not exist in
the future. Becomes an issue because no one has control over the third party. Easier from an
enforcement standpoint to maintain enforcement only over the housing provider.)
>With respect to the R 4 District, does the 46-foot height need to remain an option? Would rather find
another way to help a developer save money.
>Concerned with the vagueness of the section requiring dispersal of the units within the development .
Is there some way to be more specific? (Gardiner - will work on the wording to make it more explicit .
Meeker - would have the ability to review locations as part of the design review.)
>Have any projects been completed under the Downtown Specific Plan's reduced parking standards
for residential? (Meeker - nothing yet, though one is under construction. Gardiner - there is a project on
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Bayswater that is completed that uses a slightly higher standard than in the remainder of the area.)
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to recommend to the
City Council, approval of the proposed Density Bonus regulations, with the following
amendments:
>Do not include proposal to allow waiver of upper-story stepbacks
>Without third-party carshare option.
>Revert back to original language regarding finishing of affordable units to ensure that they
placed and finished in the same manner as all other units
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
b.1205 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in
a detached garage; project includes enlarging an existing detached garage (Lori
Potter, applicant and property owner; McGriff Architects, architect) (55 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the
property owners. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Lori Potter presented the request on behalf of the applicant.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>Was the loft kept under the maximum height to maintain an appropriate aesthetics? (Potter - yes.)
>The sliding doors on the side of the garage make it look like the space could be used for other
purposes.
>Believes the sliding doors are excessive.
>The rear yard is not that large.
Public comments:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Further Commission comments/questions:
>Doesn't have a problem with the request for the bathroom in the garage.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the
application with the conditions listed in the staff report . Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice
vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c.1361 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Special Permit for a reduction in
the number of on -site parking spaces for a project consisting of adding on the first
floor, converting the existing attached garage to habitable area and building a new
detached garage (John Kloster and Laura Ayala, applicants and property owners;
TRG Architects, architect) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange presented the project on the part of the applicant.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>Have the project plans been shared with the neighbor? (Grange - believes the property owner has
done so.)
>Can a vehicle do a multi-point turn to leave the garage? (Grange - no, must back out completely.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
applicant subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote,
and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
d.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) (86 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
(Commissioner Terrones recused himself from participation in the following discussion as he has a
quasi-business relationship. He left the City Council Chambers.)
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Carl Groch and Ron Drabkin represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Thanked the application for reviewing the overall height and the window design. Are window grids
proposed? (Groch - no.) If grids are proposed in the future, choose the simulated true divided -light
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
option. (Groch - there are two windows aside the new front door; these will have an actual grid system.)
>The submission notes that the window cladding is Fiberglas; it is actually a vinyl finish on the window
that is specified on the plans. This type of window has been approved by the Commission before.
>With respect to the plate height; was a reduction to eight feet plate height considered? (Groch - the
ceiling height in the remainder of the house is nine feet. The master bedroom is a good sized room; felt
that a reduction to eight feet would feel quite a bit lower. The added trees have really taken care of the
scale problem.) Feels that given the setting next to the apartment building is a mitigating factor.
>Appreciates the improvements that have been made.
>Requested clarification regarding the porch; it is to accommodate a plant? (Groch - there is an Olive
tree at the location that is quite healthy.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve with amended
conditions:
>If the windows are changed to include grids, then this should be called out on the plans.
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
e.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, Geurse Conceptual Designs, designer and appliant; Scott
and Brooke Hill, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse and Scott Hill presented the project on behalf of the applicant.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>Will the basement be completely water proofed, or will a sump pump be installed? (Geurse - the
basement will be completely water proofed. The soils report shows no evidence of groundwater. Hill -
the soils report was from last year; there has never been any evidence of water in the basement .
Doesn't know if a sump pump will be required.)
>Very handsome design.
>Concerned about the height. The Commission hasn't recently allowed special permits for additional
height. Seems that there needs to be a pretty involved discussion with respect to the building height .
Though the homeowner is accustomed to greater ceiling heights, this is not necessarily enough to
warrant the increased height. (Geurse - the finished floor of the existing residence is at a certain height .
The first floor for the new residence will be one foot lower. Noted that the building height is measured
from the average top of curb, not the actual grade. Have looked at dropping ceiling heights, but would
still require a special permit for the height.)
>Could dig the basement further into the ground or could terrace the rear yard considering the
significance of the modifications being made to the site. Hard to support the special permit without
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
seeing everything done to attempt to design the project to comply with the maximum height.
>Confirmed that the Commission had discussed the need to clearly demonstrate the need to increase
ceiling heights and hence overall building height. There are a lot of single -story homes in the
neighborhood. The increased plate heights will cause the structure to be out of scale with the rest of the
neighborhood. (Hill - cited the slope of the lot as a contributing factor to the lot that creates a special
circumstance that warrants the special permit. Thought about sinking the home even further below
grade, but would then have an underground garage and greater potential for water infiltration into the
basement. There are a number of homes in the area on similar lots that have main floors level with the
rear yard.)
>Clarified that at the design review study meeting that the first floor ceiling height was and still
remains nine-feet, six-inches.
>The references to the existing height are not relevant since this is new construction.
>If the house is moved forward, wouldn't that lower the home? (Hill - would not solve the situation.)
>The applicant is correct that special permits have been approved for similar sloped lots. Where this
has been done, the applicant has done everything possible to reduce the height as much as possible.
>There are means of interior design that could be used to minimize the height impact on the
neighborhood while still providing greater ceiling heights inside the structure.
>Feels that reducing the first floor to nine -feet and the second floor to eight -feet would go along way
towards addressing the concerns.
>Doesn't see much movement towards reducing the overall height.
>Is the family room counting twice because of 12-foot ceiling heights? (Geurse - it is actually less
than that height.)
Public comments:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the matter
with direction to the applicant as provided in the discussion regarding the building height. Chair
Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
f.1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling and new detached garage (John Stewart, applicant and architect; Chris and
Meaghan Schaefer, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
John Stewart represented the applicant.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>Has the location of the garage been resolved with the neighbor? (Stewart - has been resolved,
there will be no fence installed.)
Public Comments:
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tom Harold, neighbor on the right:
>Curious about what is being reviewed. In the exhibit shows plans that are dated August 6, 2014.
The drawings show plans from June 24th. Not consistent.
>Still has a problem with the location of the garage to the property line. Not having a fence in the
immediate term is not a problem, but could be a problem in the future if he chooses to have a dog in the
future. Feels the garage could be moved a bit more. (Commissioner - sometimes encourage property
owners to have a fence terminate at the garage so that the neighbor's property is fully enclosed. Are
effectively giving the neighbor an additional several inches of property. Suggested that that detail could
be resolved as a condition of approval.)
>Wants to be certain that the construction results in a situation acceptable to the parties.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
g.325 Chapin Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design
Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage (Nick Rogers, applicant
and property owner; Chris Spaulding, architect) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>How will the City ensure that the circular driveway is not used for parking? (Meeker - through
receipt of code enforcement complaints.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Chris Spaulding and Nick Rogers presented the project on behalf of the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>The Commission discussed the application of the Secretary of Interior Standards for renovation of
historic structures and its applicability to the project.
Public comments:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a.1548 Meadow Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to a single -family dwelling (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, designer and
applicant; Barrett and Aimee Foster, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
(Chair Bandrapalli was recused from participating in the discussion regarding this item as she resides
within 500-feet of the project site. She left the City Council Chambers.)
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the
property owner. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>None.
Vice-Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal and Aimee Foster represented the applicant.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>Believes the massing of the design is handled well.
>Noted that the drawing for the bay window is drawn incorrectly. (Deal - will have this item
corrected.)
>With respect to the planter box, how are the plants secured? (Deal - there is a recess in the boxes
that will secure the plants.)
>Could windows be provided above the splash line in the two second -floor bathrooms /showers? Also
asked for the garage window to be installed even if only with obscured glass. (Deal - okay.)
>Clarify whether or not the garage door is going to be changed.
>Likes the planter shelves all around, but feels the brackets on the projecting mass on the second
floor seems out of character. (Deal - thought it looked better than just having stucco area project without
apparent support.) Perhaps the projection brackets should be more substantial.
>Will the front, master bathroom windows be obscured? (Foster - likely with a privacy glaze.)
Vice-Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the
item on the Consent Calendar when the project plans are ready for review. The motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Recused:Bandrapalli1 -
b.14 Stanley Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Variance for Lot
Coverage for a first floor addition that qualifies as substantial construction (Samuel
Sinnott, architect and applicant; Christy and Jesse Lindeman, property owners) (82
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission questions/comments:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Samuel Sinnott and Christy Lindeman represented the applicant.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>Questioned the adequacy of the findings made in the application for the variance. Feels that
additional coverage would normally not be allowed for smaller lots. Also doesn't feel that there is an
adequate response to the question regarding infringement on the property right. (Sinnott - the lot is
below the standard lot size in Burlingame. Spoke to the desire to keep the design single -story. There is
less than a one-percent deviation from the code standard.)
>Feels that keeping the design single-story reduces the neighborhood impact.
>Agrees that the variance findings require strengthening. Likes the design and massing, but the
design is taking away the porch amenity. The amenity to the neighborhood is lost; they are typically
encouraged. The large foyer is not a lot of useable space. In addition, the great room could be reduced
a bit to bring the project into the code standard. Trying to determine if the house is truly constrained, but
there appear to be areas where the design could be made more efficient and comply. (Sinnott - agrees
that the front porch is very homey. Are trying to achieve the indoor -outdoor room feel for the enclosed
porch. To break the hip roof, the gable roof needed to project out a bit more. The dining room
cantilevers out but doesn't count towards lot coverage. Feels they are being treated uniquely because
the exception would normally be approved at staff level.)
>Is conflicted because staff would be allowed to approve up to 41% for the lot coverage.
>The house is really modest and falls far below the maximum floor area.
Public comments:
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Further Commission comments/questions:
>Feels that the finding responses that are included in the variance application are consistently
rejected by the Commission. There may be other ways to word the response to the findings that may be
more supportable.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place this item on
the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call
vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
c.770 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two -story single family
dwelling and attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jonathan and
Tamara Miller, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange, and Jonathan and Tamara Miller represented the applicant.
Additional Commission questions/comments:
>Handsome design. Likes that it is designed with an eyed towards sustainability.
>Asked how the dominant characteristics of the home are consistent with the neighborhood?
(Grange - the massing could be used with a more traditional design. Across the street are a number of
Craftsman homes that are similar in massing.)
>What is the dominant structural characteristic of the home? (Grange - it is a mix of one and two
story elements.)
>How does this home blend in with other homes in the block; doesn't see any other contemporary
homes in the block. It doesn't seem to fit into the consistency with the neighborhood.
>Feels it is a very interesting design, believes that the massing does a good job of blending in and
fitting the character of Burlingame neighborhoods. Could the amount of glazing on the front and the rear
of the house be reviewed? The front windows are particularly large when compared to the rest of the
neighborhood. It is not hyper-modern.
>Is real limestone proposed? It is a very "mansion-like" material. (Grange - yes.)
>What is the rhyme or reason for the use of materials? Suspects this will work itself out as the design
moves forward.
>The two large (tall) windows on the front create somewhat of a pylon element.
>Not crazy about the design. The design replaces a porch with a garage. Feels the proportion at the
rear could be a bit more acceptable.
>Could the front design be similar to the rear with the garage pushed back to the rear of hte home to
de-emphasize it.
>Agrees with the architect on the massing; the architectural details could be changed to another style .
The plate heights cause incompatibility with the neighborhood.
>Not certain that massing is sufficient to make a design compatible with the neighborhood. (Grange -
thinks the massing is a big part of compatibility. Over time the mix of houses in a given block will
change.)
>Windows are oversized with minimal trim.
>The colored rendering is better proportioned. How tall is the garage door? (Grange - eight feet.)
>The character of the neighborhood breaks down into three groups: original with garage in the back,
new, and those built before the design guidelines.
>Feels the predominant feature is the garage door. Is there any way to soften the appearance of the
garage door? (Grange - looked at having two single -car doors, but draws the eye even more. Simple
seemed to be the best approach.)
>Feels like the existing house fits in perfectly.
>Were there any thoughts of expanding the current house to make it fit? (Grange - also likes the
existing house. Would take a considerable amount of money to renovate it. Would not be able to
achieve the clients' goals. T. Miller - the house is in a considerable state of disrepair. Would be
prohibitive.)
>Could do two single -car garages to mitigate the appearance of the garage? (Grange - considered it
but didn't appear to work.)
>Is the front door wood or glass? (Grange - will be wood, as shown on the plan.)
>On the rear elevation, it appears that the wood siding on the rear is not the same dimension as
shown on the plan. (Grange - would be 1" x 4".)
>Not a huge fan of two-car attached garages. The last architect that designed in the neighborhood
did a staggered garage arrangement.)
>Would help to include the landscape plan on the elevation to show how it may appear when built.
>What is the plan for removal of groundwater from the basement. (Grange - the basement will be
designed to not require drainage.)
>Would be more helpful on the rendering to see the garage door head-on.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>The new design is interesting, needs some tweaking to fit in.
>Not necessarily opposed to introducing a more contemporary approach into a neighborhood .
Although all designs need to conform to massing and scale in the neighborhood. However, there are
some issues of scale and amenity with the proposed design.
>Agrees with the argument for the attached garage. Perhaps bring the plate height of the garage
down to reduce the overall scale of the garage. Feels that a two door arrangement shouldn't be ruled
out.
>Feels they could still achieve a contemporary style while maintaining the scale with the
neighborhood. Revisit the scale of the windows.
>There are ways to use the same design details and have more of a porch on the front of the
property; this would also assist with the scale of the structure and compatibility with the neighborhood.
>Not certain that the plate heights are necessarily the problem.
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (T. Miller - with some.)
Public comments:
Peter Mirosnkoff, 717 Walnut:
>Has lived in neighborhood for 36 years. New homes have maintained the character of the
neighborhood.
>Had hoped that someone would retain the existing home or at least proposed a design that is
consistent with the neighborhood.
Ellen Mazzoni, 885 Walnut:
>Sold the property to the applicants.
>Need to be cognizant of the changes that are occurring within the community, and the people that
are moving into the neighborhood.
>Has sold contemporary homes in Burlingame in various neighborhoods. Challenging to understand
what the aesthetics of change area are.
>New property owners have different needs. The problem with the detached garage concept is that
everyone parks on the street.)
>There is a variety of architectural styles in the block.
>Sees it as a modern interpretation of Craftsman.
Unidentified speaker:
>Lives in a post-earthquake structure.
>Likes modern architecture, but this design doesn't fit with the neighborhood.
>The people moving into Burlingame do not only want modern styles; they are drawn by the variety of
housing styles.
>Most homes in the area don't have attached garages.
>There is no charm in the design.
Robert, 766 Walnut:
>Lives next door to the property.
>Pleased that the property will be demolished.
>The street is congested.
>Will be helpful to take a couple of cars off of the street.
>The majority of homes on this side of the street have attached garages.
>None of the homes look like the house next door.
>Feels that the design is a much better option than what exists on the property currently.
Unidentified speaker:
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Doesn't care about the garage door; is concerned that the design doesn't fit into the neighborhood.
>A house like this shouldn't be allowed in Burlingame.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Further Commission comments/questions:
>The debate regarding modern forms of architecture will continue.
>Believes that the issue is a matter of scale.
>If the scale issues are addressed and built, it would eventually fade into the background.
>Doesn't see the logic that the existing house can only be replaced with a Craftsman -style. Is a
matter of scale and details.
>Is reflective of the demand for architectural styles in the community that are not clearly addressed by
the Design Guidelines.
>The profile of applicants coming forward now is different from before; not speculators, but people
who are building to address their personal tastes and desires.
>Would be helpful to lower the garage door and roof. Believes that the plate heights also need to be
addressed to bring down the scale.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to bring the matter
back on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for
a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
d.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an
attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage
(Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners )
(42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Would the retaining wall between the properties need to be addressed? (Meeker - would be
addressed as part of the plan check prior to issuance of a building permit.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Farnaz Khadiv, and Jiries and Suhair Hanhan represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Feels that the fascia caps are very heavy looking. They seem to make the building seem disjointed
and broken into many pieces. Detracts from the design.
>Would help to see the new design overlain on the existing design to get a sense for the relationship
between the massing.
>Feels the curved roof is very strange; doesn't go well with the design.
>Feels that some relief is warranted from the declining height envelope on side -sloping lots. That in
conjunction with the Hillside Area Permit and the need for story poles will determine what is acceptable.
>Seems that the siding materials are disjointed. How will the Cedar siding be finished? (Khadiv - will
likely be stained.)
>Perhaps the vertical siding is not the best choice for the lower level.
>The fascias seem out of scale with the modern style that is being sought.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Feels that some of the finishing details detract from the modern character; perhaps clean up the
design to eliminate some of the disjointed character.
>Look at corner window designs that help the modern details come to the forefront.
>The curved roof element doesn't appear to be necessary. Could be an issue relative to the story
poles.
>Not too much of an issue with the massing because it doesn't deviate too far from the current
massing.
>Feels the stucco band could be eliminated.
>Clean up the disparate elements to clean up the facade.
>On the front elevation, show how the existing house complies with the declining height envelope .
(Khadiv - the area for compliance with the declining height envelope is completely outside even the
current building design.)
>Did the designer try to get closer to compliance with the declining height envelope? (Khadiv - Yes.
Brought walls in on both the first and second floors. Included a balcony to move further in.)
>Did he visit the neighbor's house across the street to determine what the view impact may be?
(Khadiv - doesn't appear to be significantly impacting the view of the neighbors.)
>Would appreciate seeing a color rendering of the project.
>Work with staff to clarify the requests for the declining height envelope.
Public comments:
Greg Goldman, 1523 Alturas Drive:
>Has no problem with the look of the house.
>Was hoping that the roofline of the house would not increase; appears to be increasing by seven
feet.
>The view will be directly at the house from the rear of his property.
>Also concerned about drainage.
>Not opposed to the square footage.
Winnie Tan, speaking for the right side neighbor at 1344 Los Montes:
>Provided sets of drawings for each of the Commissioners to show the impact upon the property
adjacent.
>Concern of windows being blocked by addition.
>Requested story poles to see if any views would be blocked. (Commissioner - requested contact
information for the neighbor.)
Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes:
>Biggest concern is the potential for a blocked view. Can see the lights of the bayfront area from their
home; can also see the planes taking off.
Greg Lim:
>Welcomed them to the neighborhood.
>Only concerned about the retaining wall and the drainage.
>Looks forward to seeing the new home.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project
to a design reviewer and to require the installation of story poles for the project. Chair
Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no Director Reports.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:06 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 14, 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 October 24, 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 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015