HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.08.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 10, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent6 -
DeMartiniAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.July 27, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes were not yet available for review.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
None.
6. STUDY ITEMS
None.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.2515 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope for first and second story addition (James Chu, Chu Design
Associates, Inc., applicant and designer; Alvin Yang, property owner) (67 noticed)
Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by a member of the public.
All Commissioners had visited the project site.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Have the drainage concerns been addressed by the Engineering conditions of approval? (Kane: The
Commission may clarify the Engineering requirement that all drainage shall be per City requirements
that drainage be to the street and not the rear property line. It is a City requirement but the Engineering
comment was stated in the form of a question; the Commission can clarify the requirement in the
motion.)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Can cover as an added condition that notes on previous plans noting 4" trench drain draining to the
alley be stricken from the new plans.
James Chu represented the applicant:
>Agrees with City Attorney requirements to comply with Engineering /Public Works requirements to
drain to the street.
Questions for the applicant: None.
Public comments:
Jerry Baker, 2510 Hale Drive, spoke on this item:
>Also represents owner of 2504 Hale Drive.
>Wants the drainage problem corrected. Pipe is coming out between the two properties. As long as
that is taken care of, is fine with the project.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Other than drainage issue no reason to pull from Consent Calendar. Applicant will address drainage
issue.
>Grounds for Special Permit include rear -sloping lot, and addition will be extending existing condition
that is already within the Declining Height for sake of the architecture.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve
with application with the following additional conditions:
>that the plans indicating an existing 4-inch trench drain that outlets to the rear alley shall be
modified prior to application for Building Permit to comply with Engineering/Public Works
requirements that require removing the trench drain and having all drainage flow to the street via
sump pump, or other approved mechanism, in accordance with Engineering/Public Works
requirements.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which
includes a first floor addition and a new second floor (Dreiling Terrones Architecture,
Inc., applicant and architect; Alvin and Jacqueline Chan, property owner) (31 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item as he has a business relationship with the applicant.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent met with three neighbors: the
neighbor immediately adjacent uphill, and the two across the street.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Wayne Lin, Dreilling Terrones Architects, represented the applicant:
>Story poles have been installed.
>Owners have met with neighbors since story poles were installed.
>Have articulated massing and details so there are variations in rooflines with parapets, awnings,
overhangs and materials.
>Stepped back front and right corners of facade.
>No view issues are affected by the mass of the house.
>No special considerations for either the height or setbacks. Height is near the maximum only
because of the upsloping lot.
>Side setbacks are greater than required on both sides: 11' on the left side; 10'-2" on the first floor
and 11'-9" on the second floor of the right side.
>Has minimized view windows on the west elevation. Front is screened by two large mature protected
size trees.
>Rendering shows different planes in the facade.
>Existing 2-car garage counts towards floor area, and the two -story volume counts twice towards
FAR.
>Rear elevation windows revised, roof overhang extended. Additional windows on west elevation but
will not be view windows.
Alvin Chan spoke as the property owner:
>Met with neighbors Sunday evening.
>Would like to make changes to plan as compromise to address neighbor concerns.
>Proposes planting purple hopseed bushes for privacy between adjacent neighbor.
>Proposes adding a third tree at front corner at corner of garage - Japanese maple.
>Suggests adding an additional parking space on the curb to the right of the driveway.
Questions to applicant:
>Have addressed the concerns of neighbors? (Chan: Can't speak for them. Have made suggested
changes as a result of the meeting.)
>Story poles show the house will impinge on the to Sequoia tree. (Lin: Arborist report mentions
preserving tree so it will remain in good health .)(Chan: 5-10 lower limbs will be removed according to the
report.)
>How to ensure the health of tree? (Chan: Arborist report is very specific with protection measures
including fencing around the tree, and arborist involvement during construction.)
Public comments:
Terry McAloon, 2759 Burlingview Drive, spoke on this item:
>Design guidelines are there to preserve good qualities of existing neighborhoods.
>Guidelines say a neighborhood can be interpreted by its common characteristics, its general pattern
exemplified by the original homes.
>Guidelines say new houses coming into neighborhood should support existing homes, emulate the
design and respect the homes.
>Characteristics of neighborhood are single -story 2,000 square foot homes. Does not see how a
two-story 4,300 sq ft home fits.
>Homes on Atwater are similar to what is proposed, but that is a different neighborhood. Not sure why
need to accept something from a different neighborhood.
>Does not believe design complies with Neighborhood Design Guidelines.
Gary Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive, spoke on this item:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Submitted letter. Concerns mitigated by landscaping but still stand behind letter.
>Concern with mass and height of house. Will be taller than houses on each side so will be out of
character with the neighborhood.
>Impacts neighbor on pleasure and use of their home, loss of privacy.
>Amenable to improvements and neighborhood upgraded, but wants to see if owners could meet
their requirements for their home without as much impact on the neighbors.
Merrill Feldman spoke on this item:
>Lives behind the property.
>Concerns stated by others
>Nature of neighborhood would be changed by a house of this height and size.
>Issues taken into account in terms of front and side views, but not considered from behind. Story
poles show impact to view from the rear.
Applicant response:
>Height point of departure (finished floor level of first floor) is 6'-9" based on hill topography.
>House is set back beyond the required 7 feet. First floor is 10'-2", second floor 11'-9" to distance
from the neighbor's side.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Difficult, as Burlingame is changing. Applicants want larger houses as property values increase.
>Applicant has worked hard to take concerns of neighbors into account. Difference between this
design and earlier is significant.
>Massing is handled well, and held back significantly from the setbacks.
>Does not impact distant views as specified in the Hillside Construction Permit ordinance.
>Will be a larger house than the neighborhood at large.
>Well screened by existing mature trees. Additional tree will help further.
>Story poles seemed to show house would fit well. Flat roof allows height of the house to be brought
down.
>All neighborhoods are changing, so need to focus on quality of design. This is a high-quality design.
>Has done a good job of mitigating neighbor concerns. However apparent massing seems large as it
is viewed from the west, sitting out on the promontory. Other large houses fit in better when they sit back
into the hill, not on top of a promontory.
>2751 Summit example also sits on a promontory and is two stories. It overshadows the houses
around it.
>Existing house mitigates the massing by pushing second story back into left corner.
>Would like mass decreased. All houses around are single -story houses. This house is setting the
standard.
>Concern with trimming the limbs on the tree.
>Story poles show house will not be as massive as might be anticipated. House is increasing overall
height only 5.3 feet at the highest point of the ridge compared to existing house.
>Building is sculpted nicely. Facade steps away on upper floors.
>Does not need to reproduce architecture from the 1950s.
>Tree is large and will be able to endure trimming. It has already been trimmed previously.
>Project can be supported with the proposed landscaping additions coming back as an FYI. Parking
space may require an encroachment permit so should be pursued but not a requirement.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
application subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following additional condition:
>Applicant to return with an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit indicating landscaping
proposed by the applicant, including the screening trees on the right side of the property and the
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Japanese maple at the front left of the property. Proposed parking space should be pursued with
Public Works but is not a requirement.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Sargent, and Gaul3 -
Nay:Gum, and Bandrapalli2 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
b.807 Acacia Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance,
and Variance for driveway width for a two -story addition at the rear of an existing
single family dwelling (Daniel Dunigan, DTA- Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc .,
applicant and architect; Lily Gray and Josh Weiner, property owners) (67 noticed)
Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item as he has a business relationship with the applicant .
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Bandrapalli met the applicant .
Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbors across the street.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Standard lot width? (Barber: Current zoning requires 50-foot street frontage, and 5,000 sq ft. lot size .
This lot is substandard in width and size.)
Daniel Dunigan, Dreilling Terrones Architecture, represented the applicant.
>Pickets added to the front porch. Only change to the front of the house.
>Full-width driveway width to provide access to garage. Decreased planting to add more room for
parking.
>Jogging exterior would create challenges to floorplan and casework, and would have to pull
overhangs back so as to not increase lot coverage.
>City regulations address lots greater than 50 feet but do not say anything about lots less than 50
feet.
Questions for the applicant: None.
Public comments: None.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Conditions with width and angle of house support variance.
>Would prefer the exterior jog rather than the walls each have a flat face.
>House should work with existing conditions. Makes Burlingame different.
>Commission has approved variances to extend existing conditions on a regular basis.
>Only 3 inches on one side of the house. Inconsequential, merely happenstance on a very narrow lot.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application subject to the conditions in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, and Bandrapalli4 -
Nay:Gaul1 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
c.1024 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Rear Setback
Variance for a two-story addition at the rear of an existing single family dwelling (Julie
Carlson, applicant and designer; Stacy Rusley, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Bandrapalli met the applicant while visiting
the property.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Stacy Rusley represented the applicant.
Questions for the applicant:
>Could another window be added to the second story back left side to break up the massing?
Possibly windows adding light into the closets and breaking up the flat face of the wall. (Rusley: Yes,
could do that.)
Public comments: None.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Applicant has addressed issues. Variance is supportable because creek runs through lot, house is
already built far to the back, the only place to add is to the rear.
>Add small windows to the closets on the rear second floor on the left side, come back as an FYI .
Could also rearrange floorplan so closets are not on that wall.
>Addition to house is not visible from surroundings.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application subject to the conditions in the staff report, with the following additional condition:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall revise the proposed drawings
to include two windows on the second floor, left elevation and bring the plans forward for review
by the Planning Commission.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
d.1437 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and a Special Permit
for height for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling
(Adam Bittle, Architcure Allure, applicant and architect; Richard and Hiba Graham,
property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the project site.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Adam Bittle represented the applicant, and Richard Graham attended as property owner:
>Addressed commission concerns one by one.
Questions/comments for the applicant:
>Neighbor to rear has expressed interest in trees in the back. Does not see planting along back
property line. (Graham: Had a mole issue in the back, destroyed oleander. Has a replacement tree
ordered and will have it installed.)
>Gable seems overscaled. Was anything else considered? (Bittle: Existing gable determined where
rest of project would go. Thought it felt balanced, but could reduce it and bring it up. Rear elevation
should be considered too - tried to be consistent.)
>Previously showed gable vent on top gable on front, now replaced with trim. Vent helped with the
scale of the gables. (Bittle: Does not need vent. Most of gable is vaulted ceilings. Owner prefers not to
have a vent.)
>Will there be trim at the bottom of the shingles on the porch, where the lintel crosses over to the
columns? (Bittle: Yes it should be on there. Minimal, probably a 1" or 1-1/2" board.)
>What size brackets at bottom of bays? (Bittle: In range of 4" x 6".)
>Have the revised plans been shared with the neighbors? (Bittle: No, not the revised plans since
there were not any changes to the massing.)
Public comments: None.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Special permit is a minor increase and just a narrow portion of the ridgeline. Justified by height
starting at a higher point from the curb line.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application subject to the conditions in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1011 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review to increase the plate
height of the existing house and for a first floor addition with a plate height greater
than 9-feet (Brian Wong, applicant and designer; Baoling Feng, property owner) (52
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor across the
street.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Staff report makes reference to second story addition. (Barber: It's a typo.)
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Brian Wong, Studio W Design, represented the applicant.
>Keeping facade close to original. The changes are the porch, plate height and roof.
Questions for the applicant:
>Landscape plan indicates a lot of the existing landscaping would be removed and replaced with
concrete, including the right -hand side. (Wong: Concrete would go up to the edge of the house, edge of
porch next to the gate. The rest of the right side would be planting.) If there is going to be landscaping
on the right hand side needs to be shown on plans - will have impact on house next door to the right.
>Indicates a tree would be removed. Is it a protected-size tree? (Wong: It is not.)
>Appears there will be grass extending edge to edge, fence to fence. (Wong: Yes.) It is a large
expanse of grass with no ornamentals, difficult in a drought situation. Could have planting beds around
borders rather than turf to edge of fences.
>Left side indicates shrubs planted over turf. Plan should indicate types of shrubs, and what will
remain.
>Will there be a fence on the right side extending out to the sidewalk as shown in rendering? (Wong:
No, it will stop at the edge of the house.) Should indicate fence on the landscape plan, including which
existing fences and gates will remain.
>Was there consideration of a covered porch? (Wong: House is in shade from that angle most of the
time. Covered porch would make the house dark inside.) Should have more cover over front door to get
underneath. There is enough square footage to have some cover, can add more articulation to the front
elevation.
>What type of windows? Match existing, or all new? (Wong: Will match looks and style.) Should be
simulated true-divided lite window - add note to the plans.
>Indicates 36" black steel guard rail to match, but believes new code requires 42".
>Concrete or clay roof tile? (Wong: Will be red, either concrete or clay. May choose concrete if have
solar panels in the back. Still determining.)
>Size of window trims is not specified. Shown wide on front, narrower on sides. (Wong: All trim will be
the same.)
>Size of fascias on side elevations? (Wong: 8 inches.)
>What size will the skylights be? They look narrow. (Wong: They will be narrow skylights, fit in
between joists.)
>What size will downspouts be? (Wong: 6 inches.) 6 inches is really big, sticks out; 3-4" could take
most of the drainage.
>What would transparent roof material be over the carport? (Wong: Corrugated plastic.) Corrugated
plastics and fiberglass can look bad relatively quickly.
>Shared plans with neighbors? (Wong: Talked to most. Was not able to talk to some.)
>All interior walls being removed but exterior walls remaining. Will siding be retained? Likes existing
siding. (Wong: Was going to use sand stucco.)
>Would consider retaining the existing wood siding? (Wong: Prefers stucco. Likes the clean look .
Less busy with tile roof.)
>Should show porch on the floorplan.
>Why 10-foot plate height? (Wong: Floorplan is tight so higher ceiling alleviates tunnel effect.)
>Why full bath at study when there are full baths for Bedrooms #2 and #3, plus a powder room?
(Wong: Owners want each room have a full bath.) Could flip Bedroom #3 if bathroom is towards the
back to eliminate need to have powder room and create more space for laundry room.
Public comments: None.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Plans are missing a lot of detail. Design review consultant could look at details discussed here, and
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
plate height for how it fits into the neighborhood.
>Landscape plan needs attention. Design Review consultant can help with that.
>Commission might spend several meetings fleshing out details if it did not get referred to the
consultant.
>Proportions of house is off. Concern if someone wants to build a second story in the future on top of
10-foot plate heights.
>Could consider vaulted ceilings instead of high plate height. 8- or 9-foot plate heights with vaulted
ceilings can feel very tall.
>This is the smallest house on the entire block. There is lots of space for the roofline to grow.
Vice-Chair Loftis re-opened the public hearing.
Brian Wong requested to speak on this item:
>10-feet is ideal height, but would decision change if plate height was reduced to 9 feet?
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Discussion and motion are based on what has been submitted. (Barber: Threshold is plate heights
greater than 9 feet.)
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to refer the
application to a Design Review Consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
b.1533 Meadow Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for declining height envelope for a second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Sharon R. O'Byrne, property
owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Bandrapalli was recused from this item as she lives within 500 feet of the subject
property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor across the
street
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Jerry Deal represented the applicant, and Sharon O'Byrne represented the owner:
>Addition over the main part of the house, which is typical of a split-level.
>Front stair less steep than existing.
>Exception to Declining Height Envelope very small: 6 inches in back, 1 foot in front. Makes a big
difference on the inside of the house.
>Has spoken with neighbors behind and left hand side. Did not have objections to previous plan .
Neighbor to right is in attendance to speak.
Questions for the applicant:
>Is the house not sitting parallel to the property line? (Deal: No.)
>Posts on balcony over front porch looks heavy compared to proportions of lower porch. Could it be
lightened up? (Deal: Could narrow posts to 8 inches or so.)
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Wrought iron could lighten the appearance and be consistent with stairway railings. Sides of balcony
could also be opened up rather than solid. (Deal: Wood railing matches railing on porch below.)
>Concern about long cricket where garage roof coming down to wall of upstairs addition. Lots of
water will drain to corner, flashing will need to be well thought out. (Deal: Goal will be to prevent water
from second floor from getting to that area. Only other option would be to increase the ridge height and
having a dormer on the other side.)
Public comments:
Paul Sahlin, 1537 Meadow Lane, spoke on this item:
>Against the project.
>Lives in single-story house, and existing house is already taller. Expects to lose at least 2-1/2 to 3
hours of morning sunlight every day.
>Has landscape and social deck along that side that will be impacted negatively by new roofline.
>Four windows looking down into property, though they are closet and bathroom windows. Currently
there is no glazing facing.
>Back of house has pair of french doors and two windows looking into back yard.
Mark Zagorski, 1536 Westmoor Road, spoke on this item:
>Concerns with privacy.
>Energy and stormwater flow concerns.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Second story addition steps back 3 feet back from edge of house so will not have much privacy or
shading impact.
>New house will have greater energy efficiency than an older house.
>Second floor balcony on front needs to be revised as discussed.
>Look at the privacy at rear and meet with the neighbor, consider some screening to address privacy
concerns.
>Consider screening trees or bushes on right side as well.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul5 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
Recused:Bandrapalli1 -
c.949 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for building height and declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family
dwelling (the existing detached garage will be retained) (Kerry J. Perez Tr, applicant
and property owner; J Deal Associates, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Elevation shows 42.48' ridge but Special Permit only allows up to 36 feet. (Gardiner: 42.48' is the
elevation, not the height relative to the top of curb.)
Jerry Deal represented the applicant, and Kerry Perez represented the property owner.
>Elevations at top of curb set by surveyor at 8.23 feet. 42.48' is the elevation, not the building height.
>Building is raised per FEMA requirements. Sits at low point in street.
Commission questions:
>Why not another solution that would not encroach into the Declining Height Envelope? (Deal: It is
done for the architectural character, and to provide enough room on the driveway side for planting.)
>Why no window grids? Important for the Craftsman architectural style. (Deal: Owner is willing to
have them.)
>Is deck required to be raised to be same level as house? (Deal: Would eliminate deck if it had to be
raised up. Will check with the Building Official.)
>Have you shared the plans with your neighbors? (Perez: Has spoken to several but not all.)
>Landscape plan back right corner behind garage shows gravel bed. Will that be planting? (Deal:
Designed for service access.)
>Do the roofilnes of the neighboring houses extend into the Declining Height Envelope? (Deal: No.
Existing houses were not subject to FEMA rules. Requirements apply to new construction.)
Public comments: None.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Well-crafted design, traditional.
>House itself is a bit over 28-feet tall. Is only higher because of FEMA regulations. Flat roof would
help bring down height but would not fit into neighborhood.
>Muntins in windows would help. Could be arranged to keep clear of view - arrange along tops of
sashes.
>This house will set a precedent. Any new house in this area will be subject to same FEMA
requirements to be raised up.
>House will tower over the neighborhood.
>Neighborhood is R-2. There are apartments nearby.
>9-foot plate height on first floor, 8-foot on second. Not requesting exceptionally high floor plates .
Traditional design has pitched roofs.
>11'-2" setback allows for a more gracious driveway and room for landscaping.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the
item on the Regular Action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
d.1140 Cambridge Road, zoned R- 1- Application for Design Review for a second story
addition (Perry Wu and Sandra Sullivan, applicant and property owner; Robert
Wehmeyer, designer) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor on right side of
the subject property. Commissioner Terrones visited but could not access the rear yard.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Robert Wehmeyer represented the applicant.
>Dutch colonial house.
>All bedrooms to be upstairs, homework area downstairs.
>Kept with the rooflines and existing details. Same window and fascia trim sizes.
>Flat roof of addition works best with existing roofline.
>Existing fireplace does not function, will be removed.
Questions for the applicant:
>Would like access to back yard. (Wehmeyer: Can arrange access.)
>Why curb on top of mansard roof instead of roof rolling over? (Wehmeyer: To make it simple. Can
roll it over if needed, but this detail provides some options for mitigating the roof drainage.) Detail works
here OK because of where it is located.
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Wehmeyer: Does not know.)
Public comments: None.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Good candidate for Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
10. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.FYI: 1048 Balboa Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to accept the FYI
with the following condition:
> The windows shall be Anderson 400 and shall include permanent interior and exterior muntin
bars and spacers.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:DeMartini1 -
b.FYI: 1504 La Mesa Drive - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015
August 10, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned 9:51 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 August 10, 2015. 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 20, 2015, 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015