HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.11.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, November 24, 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 Gum Present 7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. October 27, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
- Page 11; 9th bullet; revise ", not having" to "and providing".
- Page 1; Public Comments, Non-Agenda; second bullet; revise "plans will be built to..." to "this project will
be built to the plans date stamped xx".
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to approve the minutes of
October 27, 2014 as amended. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed
unanimously.
Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 6 -
Abstain: Loftis 1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he would recuse himself from
participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8d (1547 Vancouver Avenue); Commissioner Terrones
indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8a (2748 Burlingview
Drive); Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion on Agenda Items 8b
(1025 Cabrillo Avenue) and 8d (1547 Vancouver Avenue).
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a. 3155 Frontera Way, zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new
wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building
(Ashley Woods, applicant; V-One Design Group Inc., designer; Skyline Terrace, property
owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
3155 Frontera Way Staff Report
3155 Frontera Way Attachments
Attachments:
Page 1 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant and got a tour of
the property. There were no other ex parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
- Will this be a ten year lease? (Hurin - applicant can clarify the length of the lease.)
- Was staff involved in the notification of the neighbors of the public hearing or the informational meeting?
(Hurin - not for the informational meeting, but the City coordinated noticing for the public hearing before the
Planning Commission.)
Ashley Woods, for Verizon Wireless, represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
- Was the applicant involved with notification for the informational meeting? (Woods - yes, she was in
contact with the property owner; created an e-mail notification and posted notices on all doors and in the
elevators.) Concerned that the notice for the informational meeting makes no reference that a wireless
antennas structure is being proposed. In the future, there should be more specifics regarding what is actually
being installed. (Woods - made note of this comment.)
- Is the lease for ten years? (Woods - the is lease is for 25 years.)
- What will happen to the equipment at the end of the lease? (Woods - at that time Verizon would review
the installation and replace with new equipment.)
- The location is good and the antennas are blended well with the environment; doesn't seem to obstruct
views.
- With respect to the landscaping around the equipment on the ground, noted that when touring the
property that there is no landscaping present. Is the landscaping proposed? (Woods - are not planning to
install any additional landscaping other than that which is already present along Interstate 280.) Should
seriously consider adding landscaping as indicated on the plans in the final design; it is encouraged when
wireless facilities are proposed in residential districts.
- Noted that there are a good number of trees on the property; assumes there is no need to remove the
trees in order to get a better signal. (Woods - there will be no trees removed or pruned.)
- Feels that the notice for the informational meeting is confusing and reads more like an advertisement;
does not really read like a public notice.
- Feels that it is good that notification was provided, but in the public outreach section of the zoning
ordinance, also encourages that property owners in the area be noticed; encouraged extending the noticing
area outside of the apartment complex in the future.
- Would like to know if there are any other options outside of the residential apartment building that could
work. Could the equipment be co-located with equipment installed by another provider in the area?
- The radio frequency (RF) study notes that the worst case scenario exposure to residents is 35% where
100% would be the maximum acceptable level; want know where that is exactly and is that reading based on
the resident being inside the apartment building all of the time. The study is not clear whether it addresses
impacts to residents inside or outside the building. Is a resident sitting outside on their balcony for two hours
a day exposed to hazardous conditions?
- Be clearer regarding the noise emitted from the generator.
- What was the concern of the person who attended the outreach meeting? (Woods - wanted more
information about the installation.)
- How many residents are there? (Woods - in this building there are approximately 180 residents.)
- Assumes that the study found that exposure is limited to the rooftop level. Did the study include
exposure below the roofline? (Woods - anywhere at the ground, one is around 4% below the maximum
exposure rate. The emissions to the residents of the building are around 1 to 2% of the maximum exposure
limit.) The hazardous area then is at the roof level? (Woods - the plans show where the hazardous areas are
on the roof level.)
- How is someone getting on the roof made aware of the presence of hazardous conditions. (Woods -
Page 2 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
signage is placed on the door to the rooftop, within the rooftop area and on the equipment enclosure.)
Concerned that someone may not pay attention to the signs. (Woods - residents do not have access to the
roof for safety reasons. Only the property managers and maintenance personnel are permitted on the roof.)
Perhaps a perimeter fence could be placed around the area of hazardous exposure.
- Is the generator automated? (Woods - yes, Verizon can set so that it runs during the day to blend in with
ambient sound.) The residents need to be aware of the presence of the generator; could create a
disturbance when activated periodically.
- Is there typically another meeting before moving forward? (Woods - can do so if it is something that the
Commission wishes to occur.) Encouraged conducting another informational meeting to provide more
information to the residents. Encouraged providing the residents with some of the materials provided to the
Commission.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
No action was required of the Commission. The item will appear on the regular action calendar when
complete.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. 1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance for automobile sales within an existing commercial building (Enrique Pelaez Jr.,
applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, designer; John T. Michael, RWR Properties Inc.,
property owner) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1327 Marsten Rd Staff Report
1327 Marsten Rd Attachments
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent
Calendar. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 -
8. REGULAR ACTION 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) (37 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
2748 Burlingview Staff Report
2748 Burlingview Drive Attachments
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones recused since he has a business relationship with the property owner across the
street.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Questions of staff:
- In calculating the average front setback, were both corner properties eliminated? Seems to unfairly
burden development on the corner lots. (Hurin: Yes, only the interior lots within the cul-de-sac were
included.)
Page 3 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse represented the applicant:
- Provided diagram showing difficulty with complying with the average front setback given how it is
calculated on the cul-de-sac.
- Client could have proposed a second story addition, but instead chose to add on the ground level to
avoid view blockage issues.
Commission questions/comments:
- Still has difficulty with the justification for the variance stated in the application; it doesn't address any
unique conditions of the property.
- The existing deck will deteriorate over time; the addition is not increasing the impact.
- Not certain that the findings proposed are adequate. (Meeker - the Commission can expand upon the
justification provided by the applicant.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission questions/comments:
- Lot is unusual because it is a corner lot on a cul-de-sac; front setback is being compared with lots within
the cul-de-sac that are configured differently and much deeper which makes it easier to provide a front
setback.
- Proposed addition is within a space that is already developed and has some mass. The additional living
space does not create a greater impact than exists currently.
- Differs with the prior opinion because he feels that the expansion creates a greater impact upon the entry
to the cul-de-sac.
- It is pure happenstance that the existing condition exists; support the variance.
- Supports the variance. If the addition was at the front corner, could accept the dissenting view a bit
more.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, 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, and Sargent 5 -
Nay: Gum 1 -
Recused: Terrones 1 -
b. 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
1025 Cabrillo Staff Report
1025 Cabrillo Avenue attachments
Attachments:
Commissioner Yie recused herself from the discussion since she resides within 500-feet of the property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis noted that he had listened to the recording
of the design review study discussion. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the neighbor at
1015 Cabrillo Avenue. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Page 4 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of staff:
- None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
James Chu and Michael Callan represented the applicant:
- Met with neighbor, will change stairway window to permanent obscure glazing to address his concerns.
Commission comments/questions:
- Noted that there appears to be a drafting error on the left elevation; there appears to be an extra vertical
line on the left side of the stairwell on that elevation. (Chu - confirmed the error.)
- Feels the changes significantly improve the design; house will fit on the site well.
- Was initially concerned with the half-bath in the garage, but it complies. (Chu - there is a possibility in the
future that there could be a pool in the rear yard.)
- You were going to discuss using the Laurus nobilis tree species and how they impact Oak trees with the
City Arborist. Are you still comfortable using these trees along the left side property line? (Callan - since there
are not a lot of Oak trees in the area, didn't see it as a hazard.) Would still recommend discussing this with
the City Arborist.
- Noted that the neighbor didn't want half of the trees hanging over his property; was there any thought to
a different type of tree to address this concern? (Callan - the only way this could be achieved would be to
espallier a tree or to use Pittosporum, which is not preferred by the City Arborist. Even with these
approaches, there is still a need for pruning and maintenance, except with the Pittosporum.)
- Appreciates the changes, but was expecting perhaps more changes consistent with another house
mentioned in the neighborhood. (Chu - didn't consider a different style. It is difficult to take elements from
another house and add them to an existing design.)
- Have accommodated the neighbors' concerns.
- Proposed house is large, but will not feel as large with the presence of the existing large, mature trees on
the property.
- Like the changes to the roofline to bring it down to the first floor level at the front.
- Confirmed that the two lower windows on the stairwell window will be obscured.
- Will expect the landscaping issues of the neighbor along the left side property line to be addressed.
- Will there be changes to the landscaping to address the neighbor to the right of the property? (Callan -
changes to tree species along the creekside have already been implemented on the revised plans and were
discussed with the neighbors.)
- How will the windows be obscured? (Chu - will be permanently obscured glass.)
- Has the air conditioning compressor been moved to satisfy the neighbors concern regarding noise?
(Chu - not proposing installing an air conditioning compressor at this time, but if installed in the future it would
be placed away from the neighbors residence.)
Public comments:
Dan Griffin, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue:
- Thanked all for the changes and for the Commissioner meeting with him.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve the application
with the following amended conditions:
- that the revised landscape plans shall be brought back for review by the Planning Commission as
an FYI item.
Page 5 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
- that the two lower stairwall windows on the left elevation shall have permanent obscured glazing
that is integral to the glazing (window film is not acceptable).
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 6 -
Recused: Yie 1 -
c. 1435 Benito Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built
changes to a previously approved new, two-story single family dwelling and detached
garage (Jack McCarthy Designer, Inc., applicant and designer; Kieran Woods, property
owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1435 Benito Avenue Staff Report
1435 Benito Avenue Attachments
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the
builder. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
- What is the threshold for bringing an FYI application to the Commission for review? (Hurin - in this case a
Commissioner requested that it have a full review due to the number of changes.)
- Don't really have a process in place to address as-built changes; it's difficult to do anything once the
changes have been made.
- Are not obligated to approve as-built changes, can require applicant to make the change to match to
originally approved project.
- Feels that applicants should be required to have the changes made in advance of actually installing
them. (Hurin - staff has discussed means of ensuring that the changes are approved prior to installation.)
- Do require architectural certification prior to the final framing inspection to ensure that the general
building envelope and window configurations match the approved plans.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jack McCarthy represented the applicant:
- Explained the rationale for the changes that had been made as a result of involving another designer in
the project.
Commission comments/questions:
- Feels the entry does look cleaner with the concrete pathway and landing.
- Feels that the stone band that was removed on the cantilever on the right side looks a bit off. (McCarthy
- can't add stone to the second floor at this point because it wouldn't be safe. If something was added it
would be the only such element, not sure what could be added.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
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:
Page 6 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 -
d. 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 in an existing accessory structure (Julie Carlson, JCarlson
Design, applicant, designer and property owner) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1547 Vancouver Ave Staff Report
1547 Vancouver Ave Attachments
Attachments:
Commissioner Loftis recused himself from the discussion as he resides within 500 feet of the property.
Commissioner Yie was also recused.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
- None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Julie Carlson represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
- Feels that the redesigned roof could be executed well, but asked if thought has been given to how the flat
roof portion will be built and drained? (Carlson - will have a curb with scuppers.) Needs to be designed to
have the top of the mansard appear as a ridge.
- Could consider placing a small dormer (vent or window) over he arched window bay on the front
elevation. Not a project killer.
- Requested clarification regarding the window that is to be removed; is it in the accessory structure?
(Carlson - yes, it is on the left side of the accessory building.)
- Was there any thought to maintaining consistency of window design on the front elevation? (Carlson -
likes the lightness of the proposed windows.)
- What was the reason for not having a window on the left side in the family room? (Carlson - will be the
TV wall, or could be a location for a fireplace. Also, the neighbor looks into that location as well.)
- What is the reason for having a full bath in the recreation room? (Carlson - it is an existing condition, the
shower is no longer being proposed. Could disclose that it can never be used as a residence.)
- Be mindful of the times that children are going to and from school during construction.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, 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, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 5 -
Recused: Yie, and Loftis 2 -
e. 1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Page 7 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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
1548 Los Montes Dr Staff Report
1548 Los Montes Dr Attachments
1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 recd after
1548 Los Montes Dr - 10.14.14 recd after 1
1548 Los Montes Dr - 10.14.14 - recd after2
1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 3.pdf
1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 2.pdf
1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 4.pdf
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Loftis, DeMartini, Terrones and Sargent
reported that they had met with the neighbors at 1551 Los Montes Drive and the son of the next door
neighbor. There were no other ex parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
- Clarified that the requested story poles are intended to illustrate the tallest portion of the structure.
Would the deck area be included in the story poles? (Hurin - story poles for the deck would have been
required if the project only included a deck addition. Could request additional story poles if it is felt that that is
an important consideration for the request.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Badhia Khadiv and Jiries Hanhan represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
- Clarified that there was no work done to the story poles after the certification. (Khadiv - yes.)
- Has the applicant spent any time in the house at 1551 Los Montes Drive to observe the view impacts?
(Khadiv - have only observed from outside of their property. Can do so if believes it would help.) Feels that
the view from the neighbor across the street will be completely blocked. Believes that the issue with the
neighbor across the street is pretty clear.
- Feels the design changes are vast improvements. Could have a garage door with more horizontal
elements, as well as at the entry-way, to unify the design more.
- The view blockage from across the street is the biggest issue. What can be done to preserve the
existing views of the Bay? (Khadiv - feels that the flat roof design is the best solution for the site. Using a
pitched roof would increase the height of the house when compared to the existing ridge.)
- Could lower the plate heights on both floors and pick up two feet at that point. The Hillside Construction
Permit requires an analysis of distant views from neighboring properties; the overall structure height must be
a consideration.
- Could the building also be slid down the lot a bit and sculpted to reduce view impacts? Will need to
explore these other options. (Khadiv - if the driveway is lowered by two feet to the existing garage level, this
would reduce the height. Can also consider reducing plate heights.) Would be an easier discussion with the
neighbors if the roof height could be reduced to the existing level of the structure.
- Noted that the extension of the house rearward on the lot will also impact the view from across the street.
(Khadiv - any addition at the rear will affect the view.)
- Certain rooms don't all have to be on the same floor. Encouraged the architect to try real hard to
Page 8 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
modify the design to reduce the impact; could move rooms around to reduce the massing or create a split
level design. Also could step in the edges.
- Make the garage door design more modern, perhaps match the cedar siding with windows.
- What is the fascia material above the entry? (Khadiv - wood.)
- May wish to revisit the wood siding on the right elevation where the siding terminates at grade.
- Seems odd to place wood siding on the chimney; perhaps consider a stucco base.
Public comments:
Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes Drive:
- The Commission has already stated their concerns regarding the impacts to distant views.
- Even though the roofline has been lowered, there is still a large portion of the distant view that is blocked.
- A revised design with a second round of story poles could assist in resolving the view concerns.
King Lip, representing parents who reside at 1544 Los Montes Drive:
- Welcomed Hanhan family to the neighborhood.
- Referenced the view impacts shown in photographs provided at the hearing.
- First concern is with obstruction of views, also concerned with impacts upon privacy from windows and
balcony.
- Feels that the story poles inadequately represent the height of the structure.
- The story pole certification confirmed the building height, but makes no reference to how the structure
expands to the sides.
- Requests that the applicant consider all alternatives to minimize impacts from the project.
Winnie Tam, representing the owners of 1544 Los Montes Drive:
- Reviewed the exhibits that she prepared for her clients at 1544 Los Montes Drive that illustrate the view
impacts.
- Concerned that story poles were not installed to show the balcony; balcony could affect their views and
privacy.
- Concerned that the story poles were not installed correctly at the time they were certified.
Greg Goldman, 1543 Alturas Drive:
- Lives behind and directly below the project site.
- People residing on properties below the site will also have privacy impacts.
- Presented photos showing the massing of the proposed project above the property.
- The level of the second story is also a concern.
- The combination of the home's height and the extension into the hillside are issues to be resolved.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
- Pretty clear that the application requires more work to address the view impacts.
- Should be brought down so that the proposed ridge does not extend past the existing ridgeline.
- The views from the lower properties need to be addressed as well.
- The focus on views is upon distant views; this should be primarily views of the Bay, not of the nearby
hills.
- Views of concern are from primary living areas as well.
- The City can't prohibit building on the site; therefore, the privacy issues and views from non-living areas
are less clear. It will be helpful for the designer and the owner to work with the neighbors to address the
issues and come to an agreement.
Page 9 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
- Must also consider the massing on the site taking into consideration the slope of the site and follow the
topography. The plate heights can also be varied.
- Encouraged the designer to work closely with the neighbors.
- Story poles will need to be revised to reflect the proposed design and will need to include the balcony.
- Concerned about the certification of the existing story poles; concerned that changes were made after
the certification. Also not certain that the story poles adequately represent the location of the walls. Take the
time to ensure that the story pole installation is done correctly the next time.
- The view ordinance does not address privacy issues. Feels that once the view issues are addressed on
this project, then some of the privacy issues may also be addressed.
- Encouraged the applicant to revisit the landscape plan in an effort to reduce privacy impacts; provide a
more detailed landscape plan.
- Would be wise to map the windows on adjacent buildings and their relationship to the proposed project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to continue this matter to a date uncertain with direction,
seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 -
f. 2838 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use and Special Permits for a
new detached patio shelter (Michael Gaul, applicant, designer and property owner) (28
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
2838 Adeline Dr Staff Report
2838 Adeline Drive Attachments
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones
reported that they had individually met with the applicant. There were no other ex-parte communications to
report.
Community Development Director Meeker presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
- None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mike Gaul represented the applicant:
- Explained how the proposed accessory structure fits in with the existing development on the property;
provided justifications for the requested permits.
Commission comments/questions:
- None.
Public comments:
- None.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
Page 10 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
- The applicant’s justification for the Conditional Use and Special Permits is compelling.
- Lot is more than four times larger than the standard size lot in the city.
- The scale of the structure is appropriate to the size of the lot.
- Property owner may need to consider trees in the future to screen view from neighboring property, in
addition to the bamboo.
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 Gum 7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a. 1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review
and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design, applicant and designer;
1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1516 Howard Avenue Staff Report
1516 Howard Ave Attachments
1516 Howard Ave Historic Resource Study
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum reported that he spoke with Debbie Way at
1521 Howard Avenue and the Gallagher Family at 1517 Howard Avenue. Chair Bandrapalli reported that she
met with the renters of the house. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
- None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
- Concerned about the placement of the driveway and the impact upon a significant street tree. Could the
driveway be flipped? Also, could a different front-yard tree be proposed than the species for the street tree?
(Robertson - the landscape architect felt that the tree is overgrowing its location and affecting the sidewalk
that will need to be replaced. Two replacement will be installed, can increase to 24-inch box size.)
- On the East Elevation, there are three windows on the first floor that are stepping down, can you line
these up so the sill heights are the same? (Roberston - yes.)
- Questioned the height of the chimney, why does it need to be so high? (Robertson - it is a wood-burning
fireplace and needs to comply with building code requirements.)
- Asked if a more substantial front porch was considered? (Robertson - house is located close to El
Camino Real and for concerns with traffic and safety, the owner didn't want that type of feature.) House could
benefit from a more substantial element of this sort.
- Feels the architecture fits in quite well with the neighborhood. However, wonders if the massing
Page 11 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
could be broken down a bit more, especially on the West Elevation.
- Speak to the client about adding a more substantial porch feature, would soften the house.
- Suggested sharing the plans with the neighbors.
Public comments:
Cathy Schmidt, 1512 Howard Avenue:
- Feels the style fits in with the neighborhood.
- Question regarding the declining height envelope and how it is calculated.
- Concerned with the proposed massing. The extension into the rear yard will completely block rear yard
with shading.
- There is a creek along the rear yard, not a ditch. The drainage element should influence the size of the
house.
- Would like a chance to speak with the designer and owner.
Amy Papazian, 1520 Howard Avenue:
- A big change is the addition of a driveway along her property.
- Seems like a massive project, especially as it extends toward the rear.
- Her house is a mirror image of the existing home.
- Likes the design; believes it will fit with the neighborhood.
- Concerned that there would be a driveway on both sides of her house, increase in vehicle traffic and
noise down the driveway.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
- There appears to be an error on the development table the staff report with regards to the FAR. (Hurin -
will review and correct.)
- The lot coverage and FAR are less than permitted, but feels like a massive house.
- Feels that there are revisions that need to be made.
- Encouraged revisiting the driveway width to assist in providing landscaping along the neighboring
property to provide privacy; perhaps a Pittosporum hedge can be used since it is fast growing.
- Look closely at adding a porch. Is likely a spec house, so someone buying the house would understand
being so close to El Camino Real, is signing up for urban living.
- Revisit side elevations to break up the massing.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to place this item on the Regular
Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
- Commissioner DeMartini reported on recent actions of the Bicycle Subcommittee, including the
discussions regarding improvements proposed by Caltrans at the intersection of El Camino Real and
Floribunda Avenue and applications for several different grants.
- Commissioner Loftis indicated that he missed the first meeting of the Community Center Subcommittee.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a. Commission Communications
Page 12 City of Burlingame
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
- Chair Bandrapalli encouraged Commissioners to arrange meetings with staff in advance of regular
meetings.
- Chair Bandrapalli encouraged the Commission to consider reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the
beginning of meetings. The majority of Commissioners declined doing so.
b. City Council Regular Meeting - November 17, 2014
Nothing to report.
c. FYI: 1428 Vancouver Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
1428 Vancouver Avenue Memorandum
1428 Vancouver Ave Attachments
Attachments:
Accepted.
d. FYI: 1529 Howard Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
1529 Howard Ave Memorandum Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:08 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 November 24, 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 December 4, 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 13 City of Burlingame