HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.08.11Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, August 11, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 28, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga.
July 28, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting DRAFT MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period .
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak "
card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust
the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There are no Study Items for review.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a
commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
There are no Consent Calendar Items for review.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025
August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1545 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new single family
dwelling (George Novitskiy, applicant and designer; Chris Sadlak and Mee Kwong,
property owners) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (continued from the June 23,
2014 Planning Commission Meeting)
a.
1545 Los Montes Dr - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
2532 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for a Hillside Area Construction Permit for
a change in the roof line on the first floor of the existing house (Randy Grange, TRG
Architects, architect and applicant; Roy and Cecilia Parker, property owners) ) (32
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
b.
2532 Hayward Dr - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdf
2532 Hayward Dr - 08.11.14 recd after 1.pdf
Attachments:
1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects, designer; Mr. &
Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier
c.
1048 Balboa Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
113 Crescent Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Special Permits for construction of a
new basement within an existing single family dwelling (Flury Bryant Design Group,
applicant and designer; Thomas and Tammy Kiely, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
d.
113 Crescent Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
1469 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Conditional Use Permits for construction
of a new detached garage with an attic storage space above the garage (Dreiling
Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; Ranjan Prasad and Monisha
Deshpande, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
e.
1469 Bernal Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdf
1469 Bernal Ave - 08.11.14 recd after.pdf
Attachments:
141 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Conditional Use Permits and Special
Permit for construction of a new covered patio attached to an existing accessory structure
(Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; Keith and Beth Taylor Tr,
property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
f.
141 Pepper Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
1480 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area – Application for Conditional
Use Permits for expansion of an existing gasoline service station and convenience store
(Shatara Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; 1480 Broadway Property LLC,
property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier
g.
1480 Broadway - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025
August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
308 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Jerry Deal, JD Associates, designer
and applicant; Pascal Parrot and Lusine Yeghiazaryan, property owners) (64 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
a.
308 Bayswater Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new,
two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones
Architecture Inc, applicant and architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner) (33 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
b.
12 Vista Ln - Staff Report
12 Vista Ln - Attachments
12 Vista Ln - Received After 1
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Commission Communicationsa.
City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014b.
FYI: 1301 Drake Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review Project.
c.
1301 Drake Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
FYI: 1435 Benito Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review Project.
d.
1435 Benito Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
FYI: 1412 Drake Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review Project.
e.
1412 Drake Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments:
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 August 11, 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 August 21, 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.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025
August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 28, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the July 28, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01
p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Kathleen
Kane.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones noted that he was absent from the July 14, 2014 meeting.
Changes/corrections to the meeting minutes:
•Page 2, Item 2; clarify that Commissioner DeMartini reviewed the video and minutes of the prior
discussion.
•Page 10, Item 7, first bullet on the page; the architect's comment is a non sequitur with the prior
commissioner comment.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the minutes
of the July 14, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission with the noted changes. The
motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
No one spoke from the floor.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items for discussion.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1119 Eastmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (James Chu, Chu Design
Associates, applicant and designer; Dan Nejasmich, property owner) (60 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1119 Eastmoor.reso.docAttachments:
Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from the Consent Item (1119
Eastmoor Road) as she resides within 500 feet of the project site.
Commissioner Terrones indicated that he had reviewed the video of the Consent Item.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners' comments and the
findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution.
The motion was approved by voice vote, 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli recused).
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1011 Morrell Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Bill Egan, architect and applicant;
James Cormack property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1011 Morrell reso.docAttachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Bill Egan represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
•Garage door material? (Egan: Wood)
•Belly band across the front should turn slightly around onto East elevation.
•New gabled entry porch appears it is jammed in against side wall. Will need to cricket against the
slope into the side wall.
•South rear elevation has two support posts on drawing, three on elevation. Post on right looks like it
may line up with French door.
Public comments:
•None.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
•Rear porch columns to be adjusted;
•Garage door to be wood;
•Belly band returns onto East elevation;
•These revisions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance
of a Building Permit.
The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
b.1240 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two
story house and detached garage (Mark Bucciarelli, designer and applicant; Lonestar
Holdings LLC property owner) (91 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1240 Capuchino reso.docAttachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Mark Bucciarelli represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
•Consideration of screening along the left side to replace the trees? (Bucciarelli: With the house at
the setback and width of driveway, planting would be difficult.)
•Simulated true divided lites acceptable – don’t need to be divided lites as specified.
•Right side elevation false window on gable – could eliminate the two side windows, then make the
two windows in the middle larger.
•Window bay on rear elevation could be broken down with additional trims – fewer big pieces of
wood.
•Obscure glass on bathroom windows off front porch not inviting.
•Design review consultant letter (#5) commented that landscaping is very rigid, could be revisited.
•Dutch gables on front and back, regular gables on sides. Could benefit from having Dutch gable on
side too.
•Muntin patterns inconsistent. FRONT: On large picture window, could have 6-over-1. Also change
single 2-over-1 window to 3-over-1. REAR: Window next to doors on the first floor should be 3-over-1.
RIGHT SIDE: 3-over-1 instead of 4-over-2 on the large window. LEFT SIDE: 3-over-1 and eliminate
vertical bars – have two 3-over-1s mulled together.
•Consider an additional corbel on the front towards the left.
Public comments:
•None.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
•Revisions to window muntin patterns so they are consistent across all elevations;
•Revise landscape plan per Design Review consultant comment;
•Revise bathroom window next to front door;
•Eliminate false second window and opposite side window on second story side elevation;
•These revisions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance
of a Building Permit.
The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
c.1504 La Mesa Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling (Shawn and Victoria McNamara, applicants and property owners; Audrey
Tse, Insite Design, designer) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1504 La Mesa.reso.doc
1510 La Mesa Ln - 07.28.14 recd after.pdf
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Audry Tse represented the application as designer, with property owners Shawn and Victoria
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
McNamara.
Commission comments:
•Replacing oak trees in the front? (McNamara: May replace with fruit trees, replace overgrowth with
landscaping.)
•Could consider leaving garage, workout room and laundry at 8-foot plate height, then rest could be
taller. (Tse: Wants taller height in garage for storage)
Public comments:
•None
Commission discussion:
•Concerned about plate heights – human scale. Massing is nice but height seems too tall .
Surrounding houses are smaller and lower. 9’ on first floor, 8’ on second has been discussed as a
standard but not all in agreement. On contemporary designs there aren ’t any elements to soften the
higher plate height.
•House is situated down from roadway, won’t look as imposing as appears in elevation.
•Don’t have a hard and fast rule with plate heights.
•Stain color is up to applicant.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
application, by resolution. The motion was approved 6-1-0-0 (Commissioner Sargent dissenting).
d.1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects,
designer; Mr. & Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica
Strohmeier
Commissioners Sargent and Loftis noted that they were not present at the Design Review Study
meeting for this item but had watched the video. All Commissioners had visited the property. There
were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with
attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments .
Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Wilson and Dorothy Cheng represented the applicant, with architect Anthony Ho.
Commission questions/comments:
•Arched windows on front left side are all at the same height. On the existing house the center
window is taller and more prominent. Would benefit by reducing the heights on the flanking windows.
•The shapes of the different arches varies. Should be more consistent.
•Master Bedroom on Carmelita side, suggest have transom windows in center of wall rather than
offset large window and have large windows on back. Could have a pair of taller windows on back.
•There are a lot of blank walls. Could add side windows to upstairs bedrooms.
•Are right side elevation first floor egress windows casement windows? (Cheng: Yes, 8-lite
casements)
•Which windows original? (Cheng: Only original is back French door, all others are newer vinyl)
•Concerned about height – entry element seems very tall, and 9-foot plate height on second floor
looks tall. Prefer tower as shown on rendering, and 8-foot second floor plate height.
Public comments:
•None.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission discussion:
•Existing windows are fairly new, though grids don ’t have same depth as a wood window. Have
rejected this type of window on another house.
•Continue to date certain with direction to reduce plate height, match arches, revise Master Bedroom
windows, add side windows to bedrooms 1 and 2, call out aluminum clad wood -windows for new
windows, and lower entry element.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapali, to continue the application to
the August 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, by resolution. The motion was approved by
voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
e.1419 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for a new detached garage (Karen Curtiss,
architect and applicant; Elisa Lee and Jeff Reed property owners) (57 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
1419 Paloma reso.docAttachments:
Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item becuase he has a financial interest in a property
within 500 feet.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had not attended the
Design Review Study meeting but had watched the video. Commissioner Loftis noted that he had
spoken with neighbors at 1410 and 1411 Paloma Avenue. Commissioner Yie noted that she had not
attended the Design Review Study meeting but had read the meeting minutes and had met with the
applicant and designer. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner
Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Karen Curtis represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
•How will the site be graded for runoff? (Curtis: Runoff will go back towards garage.)
•How will window sandblasting work? (Curtis: Clear on top, 20% on lower for windows facing
neighbor; all clear on windows facing courtyard.)
•Concern about courtyard house pattern being repeated on other lots. Possible noise impact to
neighbors. (Curtis: Backyard is for more active use area, courtyard is more for daytime use. Fire pit is in
back yard.)
•Is at maximum floor area but because of tall ceilings counted towards floor area, has allowed more
of the site is carved out.
•Does the wood siding extend all around? (Curtis: Hardy siding all around with wood trim.)
Public comments:
•None.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application, by resolution. The motion was approved by voice vote, 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner
DeMartini recused).
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1510 La Mesa Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Variance for building
height and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
single family dwelling (Audrey Tse, Insite Design, designer and applicant; Isako
Hoshino and Matthew Machlis, property owners) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartin noted that he had had an email
exchange with the neighbor at 3036 Hillside Drive, and had talked to the designer and applicant .
Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Questions of staff:
•What constitutes views? (Hurin: Existing distant views as seen from habitable areas within a
dwelling unit. The Code does not define what a distant view is however.)
Audrey Tse represented the applicant, with property owner Isako Hoshino:
•Existing house is constrained on all sides from expanding.
•Private road runs through middle of property.
•Rear yard is used functionally, house is up against rear setback.
•Public utility easement to left side.
•Front setback has steep upward slope.
•Also constrained on right side.
•Considered basement addition but not as pleasing as living space.
•Small addition to top of house containing children’s bedrooms and a family room.
•Needs height variance due to slope of site.
Commission questions/comments:
•Thought of expanding to the right side? (Tse: Would not be enough space to add the types of rooms
desired.)
•Use space in garage level? (Tse: Intent was to minimize disruption to one side of the house. Would
have to change entire floor plan on main floor. Maybe a rumpus room, but not two bedrooms.)
•Height from grade is 33 feet. Has a flat roof been considered? (Tse: Slope of the current roof is 4:12.
Dropped roof on addition to 3:12 to reduce height by about 19 inches. Flat roof does not seem in line
with Burlingame design principles with inconsistent roof forms; wanted to maintain style of the house .
Addition is intended to be modest, not block views from habitable areas.)
•Existing windows vinyl, and new windows will match? (Tse: Yes. Most windows in neighborhood are
vinyl as well.)
•House has T1-11 siding, so difficult to ask for high-end windows.
•Odd to have stucco on top, wood in middle, stucco on bottom.
•Left side elevation illustrates issue: 8-foot plate height on each floor, and 4:12 and 3:12 slopes work
together well enough. A flat roof would look odd.
•How was the site section of the adjacent house determined? (Hoshino: Based on eye sightlines as
seen from the back steps. Deck height determined by building plans.)
•Story poles to determine if there will be any views blocked.
Public comments:
Stephen Chen, 3036 Hillside Drive, spoke on this item:
•View not an issue from upper level of 3036 Hillside, but would be an issue from the lower level .
Might block view of canyon.
•Concern over soil erosion – has built additional retaining walls and reinforced foundation.
•Removed trees were dead, were not going to be maintaining soil. New trees have been planted,
more to be planted.
•Subject property has had drainage problems.
•Daylight obstruction from yard, not habitable area.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Most concerned about erosion and view obstruction. Should be addressed with engineer report and
story poles.
Isako Hoshino:
•Property has had substantial engineered retaining wall installed.
Commission discussion:
•With story poles will see whether there is impact to any distant views to other homes.
•Appears views from 3036 Hillside are canyon views.
•Geotechnical will be reviewed at the Building Permit stage, but not by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to bring the item
back as a Regular Action item when requested materials have been submitted. Applicant shall
install story poles prior to the Action meeting. The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
b.1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review Scoping,
Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling (John Stewart, applicant and
architect; Chris and Meaghan Schaefer, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erica Strohmeier
1530 Burlingame Ave - 07.28.14 recd after.pdfAttachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis noted he had spoken with the neighbor
at 1524 Burlingame Avenue. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Planning
Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
John Stewart represented the applicant.
•House is a great example of a Craftsman, except for the rear addition.
•Objective is to recreate what the rear of the house would have looked like before the addition.
•Will replace all windows with wood clad simulated true divided lites.
•Prefers to have new addition match the existing house.
Commission questions/comments:
•On right elevation on Sheet A-8 existing windows may not be shown correctly.
•Additions do not always necessarily need to be separate and different in style and character. Could
be successful if trying to match existing.
•Should call out material on the stair handrails.
Public comments:
Tom Herald, 1524 Burlingame Avenue, spoke on this item:
•Soil in back yards is hard clay. Water sits – concerned about drainage
•Water needs to exhaust out to street.
•Concerned with detached garage being close to the property line. Not enough room for
maintenance. Redwood tree drops debris, will need to be cleaned out. Would like garage moved in
slightly towards the property (1 foot) to provide service path.
•Side gable is closer and taller than existing, may diminish the light into next door.
Commission discussion:
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Well done architecturally.
•Drainage will be reviewed by engineering.
•18” setback for garage would provide enough clearance for maintenance – 7 additional inches.
•Alternative may be for side wall of the garage to serve as fence to neighboring yard. Requires
neighbor coordination.
•Would be helpful to see how addition lines up with neighboring house.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, bring the item
back as a Regular Action item when requested materials have been submitted. The motion was
approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Planning Manager Gardiner noted that calendar requests are being sent to the commissioners to
arrange a pre -meeting study session on either August 11, August 25, or September 8, 2014. The study
session is to review meeting protocol, and consider whether staff reports should have findings and /or
recommendations.
a.Commission Communications
None.
b.City Council Regular Meeting - July 21, 2014 (cancelled)
c.FYI: 1534 Los Altos Drive, Zoned R-1 – Review of proposed changes to a previously
approved Design Review Project.
Accepted.
d.FYI : 1505 Sherman Avenue, Zoned R-1 - Review of Conditional Use Permit
approved 1 year ago for a preschool operated by a church in an existing church
building.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 10:29 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 July 28, 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 August 7, 2014, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2014
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
and Special Permits
Address: 12 Vista Lane Meeting Date: March 9, 2015
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for
attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling
with an attached two-car garage.
Applicant and Designer: Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. APN: 027-093-320
Property Owner: Jiangnang Zhang Lot Area: 10,537 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
History: At its meeting of February 16, 2010, the City Council approved an application for Tentative
and Final Parcel Map for a lot split, Negative Declaration and Variance for lot frontage for creation of
two lots with 55-foot wide street frontage where 60 feet of street frontage is required at 12 Vista Lane,
located within a single family residential (R-1) zone (see attached Resolution No. 14-2010).
At its meeting on January 24, 2011, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two story
single family dwelling with an attached garage on a vacant parcel at 8 Vista Lane (adjacent to 12 Vista
Lane). The building permit for construction of the house was finaled on July 27, 2012.
The proposed project was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a
design review study item on August 11, 2014. However, based on concerns expressed by a
neighboring property owner regarding grading and retaining walls installed at the rear of the site
without a building permit, the item was pulled from the agenda until the applicant could address these
issues.
The properties at 8 and 12 Vista Lane have been owned by the same property owner for several
years. It appears that during construction of the project at 8 Vista Lane (adjacent parcel), soil from 8
Vista Lane was deposited on the vacant parcel at 12 Vista Lane, which raised the grade on the parcel
by approximately 1 to 10 feet towards the rear of the property. The original grade is shown on the
survey prepared by MacLeod and Associates and the current grade is shown on the survey prepared
by Dylan Gonsalves. These surveys are located at the end of the plan set. At the same time, two
retaining walls along the rear of 8 Vista Lane were extended across the rear of 12 Vista Lane. There
were no permits issued for either the grading or for the two retaining walls. In reviewing the proposed
project, the Planning Commission should not consider the raised grade or the retaining walls across
the rear of the property as existing conditions. Since August 2014, the project has been revised to
reflect the lower original grade.
The Community Development Department determined that while this application is being processed,
the applicant does not need to return the site to its original condition by removing the soil and retaining
walls. However depending on the outcome of this application, the applicant will be required to either
return the site to its original condition or obtain the necessary permits for any grading or retaining walls
to remain.
This space intentionally left blank.
Item No. 10e
Design Review Study
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane
2
Summary: The following description is based on the original grade of the site, as shown on the
Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map, prepared by MacLeod and Associates, dated July 6, 2007.
The existing vacant lot at 12 Vista Lane measures 10,537 SF in area. The lot is located within the City
of Burlingame boundaries but is surrounded by properties located in San Mateo County
(unincorporated land). Based on an average of the property corners, the lot slopes downward
approximately 24 feet from front to rear (13% slope). At the front of the property, the lot has a cross-
slope of approximately seven feet.
The applicant is proposing to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached two-car
garage. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 4,373 SF (0.41 FAR)
where 4,472 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 99 SF below the
maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 2% of the maximum allowed FAR.
The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed attached
garage and house along the left side property line; 151 SF (4’-3” x 37’-0”) along the left side of the
structure extends beyond the declining height envelope.
The proposed attached two-car garage will contain two, single-wide doors and will be set back 25'-0"
from the front property line. The attached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the
proposed five-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway.
The office room on the lower floor qualifies as a bedroom since it is enclosed, measures 70 SF and
contains a window. Three parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a five-
bedroom house. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the
following:
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S.
25.57.010 (a) (1));
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached
garage (C.S. 25.61.020);
Special Permit for attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)); and
Special Permit for declining height envelope (left side of structure extends beyond the
envelope by 151 SF (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)).
An arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated April 30, 2014, was submitted
with the initial application. The report evaluates the condition of the existing trees on the property and
provides tree protection guidelines. There are three trees on the site, all of which are Coast Live
Oaks. Two of the trees, which are not protected size, are proposed to be removed. The tree to
remain (identified as Tree #1 in the report), is a four-stem Coast Live Oak located in the middle of the
property. The report notes that “the 4 stems of this tree lean away from the center at their main
attachment” and that “there is a moderate amount of interior deadwood in the canopy and excess end
weight on the lateral limbs.” The report recommends routine maintenance, which should include root
crown excavation, deadwood removal, and end weight reduction. With this application, the applicant
is proposing to remove two of the stems located closer to the proposed house. The report notes that
“the removal of the 2 southeast-leaning stems and the pruning of the stem to the southwest should
increase circulation to the remaining canopy and potentially increase its vigor.” The report concludes
that the remaining portion of the tree should survive with minimal stress.
Subsequently, the adjacent property owner at 16 Vista Lane, Mr. Arthur J. Thomas, expressed a
concern regarding impacts from the proposed construction to Tree #1, and hired Walter Levison, a
certified arborist, to prepare an arborist report (see attached arborist report, dated September 18,
2014). Mr. Levison concludes that “the subject tree is a native coast live oak in good overall condition
which will be severely impacted by proposed site work at 12 Vista Lane, if the site plan is built out as
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane
3
proposed on the sheet reviewed by WLCA.” In addition, he notes that “construction as currently
proposed will likely cause premature decline of the tree, and a decline in health and structure over
time”.
The City’s Park Supervisor/City Arborist reviewed both arborist reports. In his Tree Evaluation, dated
September 30, 2014 (see attached), the City Arborist discusses the findings in both reports and notes
that both reports are reasonable. In the Tree Evaluation, the City Arborist notes that he “would also
consider a third arborist report to evaluate this tree with respect to the Mayne and Levison reports,
and with regards to future landscape and foundation installation.”
Based on that direction, the applicant submitted a third arborist report, prepared by Kielty Arborist
Services, dated January 29, 2015 (see attached). The Kielty report concludes that “the tree will
survive the trimming and the construction but will be slightly misshapen. The new building will shade
the trunk helping to prevent sun scald on the exposed trunks. The tree should be inspected by an
arborist regularly and maintained as needed. Powdery mildew and decay at the base are always a
concern when heavier than normal trimming is carried out on a coast live oak.” The City Arborist
reviewed and accepted Kielty’s arborist report and had no further comments.
12 Vista Lane
Lot Area: 10,537 SF Plans Date Stamped: February 13, 2015
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 22’-6” to solar shade 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 39’-6” to balcony 20'-0"
(attached garage): 25’-0” 1 25’-0” (for side by side)
Side (right):
(left):
6’-0”
6’-0”
6'-0"
6’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
71’-0” to wing wall
15’-6” to balcony pool wall
77’-6” to balcony
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 3887 SF
36.8%
4,215 SF
40%
FAR: 4373 SF
0.41 FAR
4472 SF
0.42 FAR 2
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered
(20'-0” x 20’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9'-0” x 20’-0”)
2 covered
(20'-0” x 20’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9'-0” x 20’-0”)
Height: 9’-4” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Structure extends 151 SF beyond
DHE along left side 3 CS 25.26.075
1 Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)).
2 (0.32 x 10,537 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,472 SF (0.42 FAR) 3 Special Permit for declining height envelope (left side of structure extends beyond the envelope by
151 SF (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)).
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane
4
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Engineering, Parks, Fire and
Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted
by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction
Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing
distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from
habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060).
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
1. The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or
addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and
neighborhood;
2. the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new
structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
3. the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city;
and
4. removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary
and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal
that is proposed is appropriate.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc., applicant
Jiangnang Zhang, property owner
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane
5
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Forms
Resolution No. 14-2010 approving the Lot Split at 12 Vista Lane
Letter from architect to neighbors at 16 Vista Lane, dated August 5, 2014
Copy of easement document and attachments for vegetation and structure height limitations for
owners of 16 Vista Lane on 12 Vista Lane property
Arborist Report prepared Kielty Arborist Services, dated January 29, 2015
Tree Evaluation prepared by Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist, dated September 30, 2014
Arborist Report prepared by Walter Levision, dated September 18, 2014, included with letter
submitted by Arthur J. Thomas, dated September 22, 2014
Arborist Report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated April 30, 2014
Letter and Attachments from Tatiana Chekasina, dated August 8, 2014
Email from Arthur J. and Eileen A. Thomas, dated August 8, 2014
Email from Michelle and Eduardo Menendez, dated August 8, 2014
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 27, 2015
Aerial Photo
PROJECT LOCATION
12 Vista Lane
Item No. 10e
Design Review Study