HomeMy WebLinkAbout1245 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report� CITY
�r ; / 1
- �'�:•
DATE
�
FROM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Deve/opment Department
MEMORANDUM
February 4, 2019
Planning Commission
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
Director's Report
Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF CLARIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1245 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved
first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at
1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on January 14,
2019 (see attached January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes).
The application was approved with the following condition of approval, which needs to be
addressed prior to issuance of a building permit.
Condition of Approval No. 2: that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of the window located in the second
floor dormer along the left side of the house, with direction to raise the sill height and
reduce the size of the window; could consider a casement window at this location.
The applicant submitted an explanation letter and revised plans, date stamped January 22,
2019, showing a smaller window with a raised sill height in the second floor dormer (Bedroom
#3) (see building elevation and section on sheet A.5). The size of the window decreased from
3'-6" wide x 5'-0" tall to 3'-0" wide x 4'-0" tall. The sill height was raised by 1'-0", from 1'-6" to
2'-6" above finished floor. In order to comply with egress requirements, the type of window was
changed from double-hung to casement.
Other than the clarifications shown on the revised plans, there are no other changes proposed
to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item
may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to
the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
Attachments:
Letter submitted by applicant, dated January 22, 2019
January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Revised Plans, date stamped January 22, 2019
:�=-
rl�fll+":� u�11
`! PI CY
l ���allllll j ��/
'! ' � I'?��ii �� = ' . .
1��I;4�K�-,�. Home Design �:. Engineering
January 22, 2019
City of Burlingame
Planning Commission
501 Primrose Rd
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: FYI for new residence at
1245 Cabrillo Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Planning Commissioner:
, ����
�� h ��.
.. ...., . .. 4..-a ...:r
� tr �, �r,:�
�,
' ;�`_ �1f_ls=;°_sP.?r;:,,,�C
. -�. r. � 1. r
Per your design review comment, we have reduced the window size/type at bedroom #3 from
3'-6" x 5'-0" double hung to 3'-0" x 4'-0" casement.
Sincerely,
%?c2�sed (�
James Chu
Chu Design
55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Phone: (650�345-9286 Fax: (650)345-9287
� CITY
'`� �''r� l � �1
�� �
ti�p �o
RpORNTED
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, January 14, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers
f. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for
changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric and Jennifer Lai, applicants and property owners; Chu
Design Associates Inc., designer) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communicafions fo report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no quesfrons of staff.
Acting Chair Comaroto opened fhe public hearing.
James Chu, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> There were no questions for the applicant.
Public Commenfs:
Frank and Robin Knifsend, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue: Thanked designer and owners for changes made to the
project, fhey are improvements to the plan. This house, with a ta/l foundation and sloping lot, has a lot of
mass from our perspective. Noted a number of items that we hope would be considered as additional
changes before design is approved. Have brought down ihe plate height by 10 to 11 inches, but
concerned about almost three foot extension at rear of house. Doesn't seem like a lot, but iYs the last
open area withoui a structure along property line. A/so concerned with gable dormer along left side of
house, seems a lot bigger, there isn't much of a roof below the dormer to help minimize the wall of gable .
In addition, window is much bigger, which is fhe reason for the large well. Would like to see window size
reduced from 5'-6" to 4'-D" tall, allowing for more roof in front of wall to reduce its mass. Some windows on
first floor are still five feet tall, seems to sca/e well on plans, but one doesn't realize how big this house is .
At point of gable, finished floor of house is five feet off ground and house is almost 30 feet tall. Still fee/
there cou/d be a few more changes that would improve the design, without significantly changing the
overall design. Would hope that before final approval of the project, the surveyor would also shoot the
plate heights in addition to the roof peak, because we still don't have trust in the design, nor in the
communication between the designer and contractor. Would have liked to see more articulation along left
side of house.
Chu: Based on feedback provided on the original design, shifted second floor dormer to not align wifh fhe
neighbor's window. Working with landscape architect to revise landscape plan. There is a change that the
existing birch tree, located at rear of house, may need to be removed,� iYs not a very attractive tree and is
tilting to one side. Will replace wifh a better tree. Also thought about providing addifional privacy
Clty of8ur/fngame paye � Printed on 2/5/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019
screening along left side of house, particularly in front of the kitchen and bedroom # 1 windows. Trying to
work very hard fo satisfy neighbors' concerns.
Melissa Macko, neighbor.� Understand that creek is not a part of the Planning Commission's purview.
However, as a neighbor that is located down creek from this site, concerned that there is no plan to
address creek stabilization along this property. Creek flooded two years ago. There is nothing but dirt
behind this lot. If we have another storm like we did two years ago, it will be a disaster. Would encourage
someone to look at the situation and stabilization of the creek, needs to be someone more than a
landscape architect, like an engineer to address stabilization of creek. Wanted this to be noted because
it is a concern of the neighbors.
Sally Brown, neighbor: Live in house across creek from project site. Very concerned about the creek and
second commenfs from previous speaker. Planting will not be sufficient to stabilize creek. Our house
and house .to right is only area with natural creek bank and not culverted. Creek has been eroding
naturally for last couple of years. Fee/ that bank along subject property will end up in creek if stabilized
only by vegefation. Is a really Big concern for us.
Chu: Concur with concerns expressed by neighbors. Landscape architect is working with Building Division
to protect creek. Solution recommended by the Building Division is to plant specific groundcover to
stabilize creek, a/so have erosion conirol in place.
> What is sill height in gable along left hand side in Bedroom #3? /s fhere a reason why sill height is
pushed down so low in this bedroom? (Chu: Approximate/y 14-16 inches because window needs to meet
egress requirements.)
> What is the minimum size required for an egress windows? (Chu: C/ear opening has to be a certain
size.)
> Have never seen a bedroom window with a 6'-8" header that has a sill that low. (Chu: Reason for size
is because window is double-hung. Could meet egress requiremenfs with smaller casement window.)
> May have a problem with window as proposed, will not be able to open window all the way if sill height
really is 18 inches, is a safefy issue. (Chu: Understand thaf this requirement on/y applies to windows
facing the streef.)
> Would you consider changing the window to a casement window and still keep the same grid profile?
(Chu: Yes, can consider it.)
> Required sill height for an egress window is higher fhan 18 inches, so the sill height could come up.
> �ndow looks like it fits the house, but it is a very large window. Should consider making this window
smaller.
Philip Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue: Concerned about the way the contractor has treated protection of the
creek bank. There has been significant erosion in the lasf month to fhe point where there is no soil under
the existing fence. Contractor has done bizarre things on site, took live power line across creek, wrapped
it around our oak tree and tied it to our metal fence. Would like to see inspectors visit the site more
regularly.
Steve Macko, 1257 Cabrillo Avenue: Have built adjacent fo and over the creek on their house, aware of
requirements regarding building in and around the creek and the care you have to take in doing so, have
not seen that care on this project. Creek comes down the hill and make a 90-degree turn at the rear of
this property. With the force of water flowing through there during a big sform, no amount of groundcover
will deter further deterioration of that creek wall. It will require a built structure to the property. Surprised
that as owners, fhey are not more concerned about the safety of the deiached garage being built at the
rear of the property as the creek bank gives way over time. When the soil erodes under the foundation,
fhe garage will end up in the creek and cause problems for a lot of homeowners up the creek. More
investigation needs to be done regarding impact to creek and measures that have nof been take to
ensure that this is going to be a safe build.
City of Burdngame Page 2 Prinied on 2/5/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 14, 2079
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Can staff provide a status regarding what work staff is doing with the applicant about protecting the
creek? (Hurin: Wll forward comments and concerns to fhe Department of Public Works, Engineering
Division, who is working with the applicanf regarding creek stabilization. Additiona/ work may be required
after the Engineering Division visits the site and determines what appropriate action is required .
Appreciafe comments and concerns expressed by neighbors.)
> Very sympathetic to the neighbors, iYs a big change compared to what was there before.
> Applicant has not executed this project well, but have done a lot of work to bring a project that fits into
the neighborhood and meets the design guidelines. The revised project is /ess impactful to the neighbors
than the originally approved project.
> Project has come a long way. There were a number of specia/ considerations asked for initially, but
since then have eliminated those by lowering the heighf and removing encroachments into fhe side
setback.
> Project design complies with the design guidelines.
> Project is working with fhe exisfing foundafion, that is quife tall but typical of the house of fhis era .
Have mitigated that by lowering the plate height and overall height of building.
> Have done the massing and articulation we see in project fypically approved for design review. Can
support project.
> Changes made along the left side are significant, especially pulling house back to comply with four
foot sefback requirement.
> Changes made to windows on upper floor to reduce apparent size of wall are significant, now see more
sloped roof and less wall.
> Concerned about size of window in Bedroom #3, should revisit sill heighf and window size.
> Is a well designed project.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application with the following condition:
> that prior to issuance of a building permit,
Commission review of the window located in the
house, with direction to raise the sill height and
casement window at this location.
the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning
second floor dormer along the left side of the
reduce the size of the window; could consider a
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5- Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse
Absent: 2- Kelly, and Gaul
City of Burlingame • Page 3 Printed on Z/5/2019