HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.10.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 27, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
This was
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent6 -
LoftisAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.October 14, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
>Page 3, motion included removing the setback reduction.
>Page 3, should indicate the property owners presented the application.
>Page 3, Commissioner DeMartini met with owners and received a tour of the property.
>Page 4, Commissioner Terrones recused because of quasi -business relationship with property
owner
>Page 5, last bullet, should indicate porch on the right side.
>Page 5, window cladding is fiberglass.
>Page 5, approve with amended conditions.
>Page 6, Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote.
>Page 8, Commissioner DeMartini met with the owners of the property.
>Page 9, last bullet, extra “bathroom” is listed.
>Page 10, should read “infringement on the property right.”
>Page 11, character of the neighborhood breaks down into three groups… original homes with
garage in the rear, new homes that meet the design guidelines, and homes built before the design
guidelines.
>Page 12, Ellen M., should read challenging to understand what the aesthetics of change are.
>Page 14, need to listen to recording.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
meeting minutes with the revisions as stated. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Pat Giorni spoke on this item:
>Conditions of Approval are legal document registered with the registrar in the County.
>First condition is that “this project will be built to the plans date stamped...”
>If there are changes need to be submitted to Commission.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Suggest when approved by resolution add language that this it is a legal and binding document and
contract is the plans. Any violation is a violation of the contract.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.2748 Burlingview Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Front Setback Variance and
Hillside Area Construction Permit for first floor additions to an existing single -family
dwelling (Jesse Geurse, designer and applicant; Henry Hsia, property owner) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he has a business relationship with the
property owners (an prior applicants) at 2747 and 2753 Burlingview Drive.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>When plans come back would like them to show where average front setback line would be.
>Responses in Variance application Items A and B don ’t justify variance. Item A – Stated that
because it is a corner lot the front of the house is the side setback, but that is the case for every corner
lot so is not exceptional or extraordinary. Item B – Hardship just talks about making a bedroom larger,
and if it could not be extended the house value would decline, but does not adequately address the point
of the variance.
>Average setback is already 28.4 feet and existing property is already encroaching. Another 129
square feet will further encroach.
>Will create more of a blank wall to the entry of Hillview Court, and is set up above street level .
Anything to mitigate the blankness would be beneficial.
As a study item, there is no action on this item. The application will return on the Regular Action
Calendar when revised as directed.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1548 Meadow Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single -family dwelling (J. Deal, J. Deal Associates,
designer and appilcant; Barrett and Aimee Foster, property owners) (63 noticed)
StaffContact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Bandrapalli was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject
property.
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Bandrapalli1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1521 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for a
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
new single family dwelling with an attached garage (James Chu, Chu Design
Associates, Inc., designer; Eric Mainini, applicant and property owner) (49 noticed)
Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
All commissioners visited the site. Commissioner Sargent met with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue,
met with the applicant, and exchanged email with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue. Commissioner
Terrones had a conversation with residents at 1523 Cabrillo Avenue. Commissioner Yie met with the
property owner, and with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue. Commissioner DeMartini met with the
neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Questions from staff:
>If privacy film is used to obscure the glass, are they required to maintain that? If later on, if the film
were removed, would the neighbor be able to file a code enforcement complaint? (Kane: If it is part of
the entitlements of the project that there be obscuration of the glass, if they decide to do that through film
rather than integral in the glass, they are responsible for maintaining that condition. If they fail to do so, it
would be subject to a code compliance complaint.)
>Do we typically allow the film rather than the glazing itself to be obscured? (Gardiner: This has not
come up as an issue before. The plans indicate obscured /stained glass but the exact means as such
was not included specifically.)
>Over the past eight years, cannot recall ever specifying what the specific obscuring methodology
would be.
Eric Mainini represented the property owner:
>Complaint on privacy on four of the windows on the west-facing side.
>On framing detail in the plans, called out for a three-panel window, but elevation did not reflect that.
>With house built, can now stand in the rooms and see the privacy or lack of privacy in a real world
situation. Major tree between this house and adjacent neighbor which blocks out the view of the entire
back yard.
>Three-panel window follows with the design of the downstairs window too. Does not deviate too
much from the look.
>All of the light for this house comes from the west. It is important, makes it a better house.
>The two windows to be obscured are the Master Bedroom closet window (fine whether or not it is
obscured) and the bathroom window.
>Film is a 3M material that makes it so one cannot see through at all. Zero visibility but allows some
light in.
>Suggesting to eliminate obscuring on the bedroom window and stairwell window. Stairwell is a
transitional space.
>Large Oak tree in front, another in back, and another on the side. There is a lot of natural shading,
so looking for natural light.
>Also proposing changing front window from circular to square – more light, not a privacy issue .
Though the elevation looks like it is on level ground, there is a creek to the right and the house is down a
100-foot driveway so cannot be seen from street. Square window will allow more light, is about 1/3 the
price of the round window, and did not think it martially affected the look and feel of the house.
>Closest measurement to 1532 Drake Avenue is 52 feet. It is a large area. Does not border house, is
separated by an easement.
James Chu represented the designer:
>When project originally came in for review and there was concern with privacy, now that the house is
built there is not a privacy issue, even without the landscaping being installed yet.
>Requesting amendment to change the two-panel window to three-panel, without obscuring.
Commission questions:
>How does film do in wet environment, since one of these windows will be a bathroom window?
(Mainini: Vendor says it is used in this capacity all the time and will not be an issue.)
>In the review and approval meetings, there was discussion of the three -panel windows and they
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
became two-panel and obscured. (Mainini: Has included planting that will block the view, but has not
been installed yet. Obscuring of the glass was agreed at the very beginning because of the privacy
issue, but now this is a real house and when one walks through it and sees it can see there is not a
privacy issue. House was built off framing plans, and elevation and framing plans had a discrepancy .)
(Chu: When the window was changed from three panels to two, it was changed on the elevation but not
on the plan.)(Gardiner: Elevation and plan approved by the Planning Commission both showed a
two-panel window.)
>When did privacy issue go away? (Chu: There is an existing tree in neighbor ’s yard, not including
our own trees.) Accepted privacy issue when approved, but once the house was built the privacy issue
went away. (Chu: Can go back to two panels, but are requesting not to have the film. Feels there is not a
privacy issue.)
>Have you been in the back yard of the resident who has an issue with this? (Chu: Yes. Has also
been all through the new house, and cannot see the neighbor’s yard from the new house.)
>Is there a sample of the film? (Mainini: Asked vendor today but sample was not available. It looks
like a frosting of the glass, totally obscured. Zero visibility, only light comes through.)
>Talked to neighbor who has privacy issues? (Mainini: Yes. Also asked if neighbor wanted extra tall
plants.)
Bill Meyers, 1519 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Two windows or three does not seem like a big deal as long as it is frosted.
>Wants to make sure there won’t be changes that will affect his property.
>Is located between the easement and Cortez, directly adjacent to the structure.
Frank Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Submitted letters from neighbors
>When project was initially presented raised concerns about permanent privacy glass in four windows
facing yard.
>Request was considered reasonable enough that it was written into the plans, pleased with
outcome.
>Property owner blatantly disregarded plans, now gets an opportunity to rewrite the plans. Would be
rewarded for violating plans.
>What asking for and was approved was reasonable and fair.
David Green, 2020 Adeline Drive, spoke on this item:
>FYIs allow applicants to request material changes when something comes up, but this doesn ’t
satisfy that condition.
>Privacy issue has not gone away because trees are still needed. If the privacy issue had gone away
they would not need the trees.
>Saving cost should not be a qualification for a change.
>Project was negotiated, compromises were made, plans were filed and approved, but house was
built the way the owner wanted it the first time.
>House should be built as it was approved.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Certification before the framing inspection was invalid. Architect’s assistant did not look at the size of
window.
>This project is illegal because of a perjurious certification. Should go back to original plans.
>Is there mathematical proof that the square window in the front would provide more light than the
round window?
>More natural light brings more heat.
>Approval was August 2013, applicant came back in May 2014 for amendment for tree issue. Has
been 5 months since framing was illegally certified.
Anahita, 1240 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Important to make contractors and their architect accountable. Once plans approved need to stick to
what the city required.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Planning Commission plays an important role in keeping contractors and architects accountable.
Diedre Shaw, 2536 Valdivia Way, spoke on this item:
>Planning Commissioners are the stewards of the town – it is their job.
>Appears to be easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
>Does not know the details of this project, but is speaking to say that the City needs to uphold its
laws.
Linda Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Over past 10 years has seen six new homes, four major remodels and two landscape renovations
all on the dead-end of the street. Have never complained about previous construction.
>Project has not installed the correct type and style of windows that had been agreed on and
approved.
>Neighbors had previously met with Mr. Mainini, talked about obscured stained windows, and a
specific landscape plan.
>During summer Mr. Mainini suggested installing a fence on his property that would exceed
regulations. Was in agreement would be OK.
>Mr. Mainini also suggested building a planter and privacy hedge in the easement.
>Had agreed to stained or obscured windows. Talked to Marvin salesperson who said Mr. Mainini had
considered but did not like the look of the frosted glass. Said he would install film instead.
>Concern film would not provide privacy, could be removed with solvent right after sign -off. Previous
discussions specified permanent stained or obscured glass.
>If a film is used, request that it be in writing that it is two -way privacy and permanent, never to be
removed by the occupant.
>Work crew is disregarding construction hours.
Commission discussion/comments:
>What did Conditions of Approval say regarding the obscured windows? (Gardiner: There was not
anything specific in the Conditions of Approval, just notes on the plans stating “shaded/obscured glazing
shown typ.” and four windows are shown on the elevation shaded to indicate those would be obscured
or stained glazing.)
>Looking at drawings, does not see any reason to remove the shading. Does not see any reason to
go from three window panes to two.
>There has already been a visit from the City Arborist during construction for cutting into the roots of
a 36-inch oak tree. Should have a tree protection plan for the 48-inch oak tree in the front. Does not
seem to care about the rules.
>Unilaterally deciding there is no privacy issue and acting on that is presumptuous.
>On the elevation the two -panel window looks better than the three -panel. Consider obscuring at the
bottom of window but leaving top clear to allow view of sky and tree into room. Same with stairwell
window.
>There is distance between the houses, but the screening tree is a deciduous so when leaves fall
there will be privacy impacts.
>Change to front window is minimal given the oak, how the house steps back, and that it can ’t be
seen from the street.
>Agrees contractors should be required to build what is on the plans, and if not should expect
consequences. However can also be hard to imagine what happens in the field versus the drawings .
There is a process for that.
>Windows are quite some distance from the rear property line. However lots are small, so
disadvantage is having less privacy than if lots were larger. But window treatment applicant agreed to
was reasonable.
>Presumption on part of public is that by reviewing application and giving the application its due,
presumption is that the Commission is already in support of application. However just by listening to the
application neither indicates support or lack of support for an application.
>There is no ordinance to protect privacy, but it is addressed individually with each application.
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion to deny the request. There was no second.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission discussion:
>Did not appear to be objections to the change in the front window from round to square.
>Would window film be an FYI to review later? (Gardiner: Could be a condition for the Commission to
impose.)
>Had assumed glass would be glue chip or frosted. Has not seen film, does not know if it would be
acceptable.
>Cannot add requirements after the fact. The approval did not specify how the glass would be
obscured, and film a common practice – can’t tell the difference. Film was not mentioned in the approval,
but also was not disallowed.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Commission question to applicant:
>Willing to install obscured window instead of filmed windows? (Mainini: The intended purpose of the
film was to obscure the glass. It produces the same end effect, can’t tell the difference.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Item
with the following amended conditions:
1.Accept change in Front Elevation window from round to square.
2.Require the original approved windows on Left Elevation to be installed as approved shown
on the plans approved by the Planning Commission date stamped August 14, 2013.
3.If film is used to obscure the windows it shall be brought back as an FYI, it shall provide
two-way privacy, be permanent and maintained into perpetuity, and the condition remains
irrespective to ownership.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.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
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli reported she spoke with the
neighbors. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>None
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mike Ma (designer) and Hari Inouye (property owner) spoke as applicant:
>Plans revised to respond to Commission’s comments in last meeting.
>Is further proposing to add a side window in Bedroom #4. It would be a high window, spanning from 5
feet up to 7 feet, above eye level.
>If there was a detached garage instead of the attached garage, would result in driving in and out
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
past neighbor’s bedroom windows. Neighbors prefer garage as proposed.
>Counted 19 two-door attached garages on Hillside Drive, from El Camino Real to the Fire Station at
the top/City Limit line, excluding corner parcels. >Perhaps 7 additional if counting the corner houses.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>None
Public comments:
> None
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion/questions:
> Window addition seems like a modest change but it has not been noticed. Could it be submitted as an
FYI? (Gardiner: FYIs are not noticed. The only way to properly notice the neighbor would be to continue
the item or have it come back as a Design Review Amendment.)
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
>Neighbors have seen the plans and are in support of the project, but they have not seen the
proposed additional window. (Inouye: Would prefer to drop the proposed window than have the
application delayed further.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
>Neighborhood does not have any mid -block attached two-car garages. It would dramatically change
the look of the neighborhood and does not improve it.
>Design guidelines have a definition of what a neighborhood is for determining what type of garage
the project could have. In this neighborhood within a 1 or 2 block radius there are no front -facing two-car
garages mid-block. Can’t make finding that it would fit in the neighborhood; is not in keeping with the
other houses in the neighborhood.
>Hillside is not so much a neighborhood as it is a boulevard. It can handle more variety than some of
the interior blocks.
>Benefit of attached garage is convenience, and a lot of people with detached garages do not park
their cars in the garage. The garages as designed are split and nicely designed.
>Difficult to back out of a long driveway given traffic on Hillside Drive. Makes it difficult for residents.
>Neighborhood and street are varied in style, character and massing. May not have a number of
attached two-car garages, but the details of this design such as separated doors make it a good
application. Massing works nicely.
Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Yie, made a motion to approve as submitted, not
including the window proposed at the meeting.
Aye: 3 - Bandrapalli, Yie, and Terrones
Nay: 3 - DeMartini, Sargent, and Gum
Absent: 1 - Loftis
Motion fails (a motion that fails to carry a majority fails)
Further commission discussion:
> Discussion previously focused on the roof pitch, columns, and details. If the dealbreaker was going
to be the attached garage, in fairness to the applicant the Planning Commission should have made it
more clear from the very beginning.
> Attached garage was an issue in previous discussions.
> When the project was approved previously with the attached two -car garage, had referred to a map
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
prepared by the applicant, but the data was incorrect.
> Not clear to all commissioners that the attached garage was not supportable.
Commissioner Yie, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, made a motion to continue. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.1908 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application 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 applicant; Scott and Brooke Hill,
proerty 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:
>What is the rule for ceiling height in counting floor area? (Hurin: 12 feet or higher is counted twice.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Commission questions/comments:
Jesse Geurse and Scott & Brooke Hill represented the applicants:
>Reduced height by 1 foot, so majority of ridge is at or just above the 30 foot height limit.
>Sloping lot and top of curb are the issue.
>Did research and found ten examples of similar homes that received approval for heights over 30
feet – five within the last two years.
Commission questions/comments:
>Changes help it fit neighborhood better.
>What will be in top of family room? (Geurse: Ceiling height will be 11’-11 1/2” or less. There will be
storage accessed from Bedroom 4 above.)
>Changes are subtle but noticeable. Proportions of windows and other elements are better.
>Encroachment is modest, only the middle part of the roof.
>Basement height and entrance will not adversely impact the neighborhood, neither will direct exit
from basement.
>Sloping lot presents circumstances for height.
There are several other existing houses in the area with attached garages, also there is a long
driveway so it is far back from the street, the slope minimizes the impact of garage, and the covered
landing and porch mitigate the effect.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
d.1426 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC – Application for Variance for Required
Business Access for a new retail space in an existing commercial building (Dale
Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer; Green Banker LLC, property
owner) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the
applicant originally. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant:
>Easement has been arranged to provide for use of exit.
>In subdividing space did preliminary concepts with hallway down the middle (like Fox Mall) but no
takers. Has not been able to find tenant until now.
Commission questions/comments:
>Why is easement not executed? (Meyer: The Wurlitzer property (the easement grantor) is run by a
trust, with several signers. If approved tonight should be signed tomorrow.)
Ron Karp spoke on this item:
>In favor of applicant.
>In opinion applicant does not need a variance.
Commission comments/discussion:
>Is variance required? (Gardiner: Easement is required for fire access regardless. Spaces at rear of
the building have effectively been severed from the front and do not connect out to the street.)
>Size of the building is an exceptional situation since it would be more difficult for each business to
have access to the public street.
>Some of the hardship was created by the property owner, however the building itself has challenges.
>The space is in an area where there are a number of other business entrances operating in a similar
fashion.
>The variance is conditional on the easement being operational.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1813 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Minerva Abad, MDA Design,
applicant and designer; Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners) (53 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
The applicant was not in attendance. The item was continued to the November 10, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting.
b.1547 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits
for a recreation room and toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure (Julie
Carlson, JCarlson Architectural Design, applicant, designer and property owner) (56
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Yie was recused for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent reported he spoke with the
neighbors at 1543 and 1540 Vancouver Avenue. There were no other ex -parte communications to
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
report.
Questions of staff:
>Does the garage compliance include setback from the fence line? (Hurin: If located in the rear 40%
of the lot detached structures are exempt from side setback requirements. A new detached structure
would require a Special Permit, but because this is existing and not changing the building envelope a
Special Permit is not required.)
Julie Carlson represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Concerned with roof form. Acts as second -floor mansard roof. Did you consider extending front roof
form up vertically? Could then have second floor rooms come off as dormers and other pieces. (Carlson:
Likes houses that are lower, but could consider. Roof has different pitches. If pitched from the side
extension could get a peak.) Not as bad on front elevation, but on other sides looks like a truncated roof.
>Extending roof may require Special Permit, but may be supported because working with existing
conditions, Tudor style often has steeply -pitched roofs, often are very tall. Truncated mansard is not
typical of the neighborhood.
>Garage is an improvement – taking an existing non -permitted in-law unit and creating a functional
garage.
Carlson: Would it be OK to change front bedroom window from three casements to two?
(Commissioners: Should be OK. This kind of change is not unusual.)
>What will accessory structure be used for? (Carlson: Will be used as a bonus room. Bought house
with full bath, but discovered it was not permitted.)
>Seems like some of the character is being taken away in front.
>Concerned about having recreation room and shower on the property line. Is neighbor at 1543
Vancouver Avenue familiar with proposal? (Carlson: Does not know, can talk to her.)
>Special Permit for toilet and sink are acceptable, but shower would seem to encourage a use that
goes beyond being a recreation room. Would be hard to justify.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Yie1 -
c.1025 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a bathroom in a detached
accessory structure (James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, designer and
applicant; 1025 Cabrillo Burlingame LLC, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
Commissioner Yie was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the
owner of 1015 Cabrillo Avenue. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Questions of staff: None.
James Chu (designer) and Michael Callan (landscape architect) represented the applicant:
>Client has talked to neighbors. Majority seem to like project, except for neighbor to left.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Mitigate privacy concerns with tree planting.
Commission questions/comments:
>Has a consistent ring of second -floor plate all around. Massing looks like a two -story ring around the
top, with just a few gestures and elements that are one -story. On sides it stretches out and looks very
long.
>Front elevation could have roof brought down, let dormer to right pop out. Would bring down overall
height and help with massing.
>Tudor revival style with brick is handsome, nicely detailed.
>It’s a large lot, should look at if there is a way to shift the house over to allow more planting area
along the driveway. Focus is towards the lush side of the creek but the left side is barren. (Chu:
Driveway is 12 feet wide but code only requires 9’-6”, so there is plenty of room to add planting .)(Callan:
Has talked to neighbors on both left and rear to have evergreen screening with Grecian laurels. 10 feet
wide by 20-25 feet hight.)(Chu: There is only one bedroom window facing neighbor to left.)
>How is the bathroom in the garage intended to be used? (Chu: Had thought about creating a
swimming pool site in the back, so would be for the future owner to use if they had a pool.)
>Concern garage could be converted into an illegal use in the future. Other uses would require a
Conditional Use Permit or Special Permit with Planning Commission action. (Chu: Won’t happen since
the house is required to have a 2-car garage. Not the intention to have unauthorized uses.)
>House looks like a house from Hillsborough dropped into a small street in Burlingame. It is very
massive, there are not a lot of houses that massive on Cabrillo, doesn’t fit in. \
>Design guidelines talk about not stacking floors and providing relief. Left elevation looks like it is
doing what the design guidelines ask not to do. (Chu: There is a 60” redwood tree that helps with
screening. Could also plant some trees along driveway.)
>Oak trees have been pruned wrong. At this point OK to take out, but should have been pruned
properly previously.
>Which laurel trees harbor sudden oak disease? Is Grecian laurel OK? (Callan: Laurels can harbor
sudden oak, but there are not oak trees on the property anymore. Could work with the arborist if there is
another tree that would be preferable.)
>Although the house is not currently occupied, needs to be maintained. Redwood is overgrown.
>A large lot can support a large house if massed properly. The house across the street is a good
example where massing is handled really well – does not look like a really large house.
>Concerned about the height and the size of the windows and doors on the side. Consider obscured
windows on the south side.
Sally Downing, 1801 Carmelita Avenue spoke on this item:
>Concern with massing. House is a north /south orientation. Once foliage comes out there will be
privacy issues. Will just have one maple on the north side and a lot of north-facing windows.
>Special corner of Burlingame, does not make sense to put that large of a house there. The lot is
bigger, but has encroachment of creek.
>Dormer windows on the side would help.
>Bathroom in garage is a concern. Would not welcome conversion in the future.
>Shed in back and debris is falling into the creek.
>Wants landscaping that will limit water use and provide some privacy.
Dan Griffin, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue spoke on this item:
>Had submitted email with concerns.
>Concern with noise and privacy, with cars driving up the driveway.
>Very large and intrusive house.
Chu: There is a lot of vegetation along the creek, can work with neighbor to minimize privacy intrusion .
Neighbor also has a swimming pool on her lot. This house will not be seen from Carmelita since there is
a house in between.
Commission discussion/comments:
>Is the 400 sq ft exemption for the detached garage factored in the total floor area? (Hurin: There can
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
be a credit of 400 square feet for the garage.)
>Massing needs to be addressed. House could fit into the neighborhood with changes.
>Concerns with toilet in the accessory structure.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to bring the item back
on the Regular Action Calendar when revised as directed. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Yie1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.Commission Communications
b.City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014
>1600 Trousdale Drive was reviewed and the zoning amendment introduced. The application and
zoning amendment will return on November 3rd with additional design refinements.
>The Broadway Community Meeting on October 18th had more than 80 people in attendance. The
survey will be open for one more week. Over 1100 survey responses have been received to date. A
report to be made to the City Council in an upcoming meeting.
c.FYI: 1529 Bernal Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on October 27, 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 November 6, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015