HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.12.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 8, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Chair Bandrapalli called the December 8, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
7:02 p.m.
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.November 10, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Approved with the following amendments:
>Page 12 - Item 9c,where it notes that Commissioner DeMartini made a motion to refer the
application to a design review consultant, then it should say was seconded by "Chair Bandrapalli".
>Commissioner Yie asked to add the adjournment time of the meeting at the end of the minutes as it
is not included. She also asked if it was possible to get the minutes in a more timely manner. Planning
Manager Gardiner noted that staff will be catching up and will be instituting a new system for completing
the minutes and hopes to deliver them in a more timely manner.
>Page 6 - Item e, last bullet where it discusses the hipped roof, should say "wall into roof" not "roof
into roof"; on that same bullet last sentence should start with "House is".
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
None.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2015 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
December 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
1209 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Kristin
Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor,
property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner DeMartini was recused because he has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of
the subject property.
All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Loftis reported he had spoken with the owner, and
Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbors across the street. There were no other ex parte
communications.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. Commissioner Gum asked if the chimney proximity to
the upstairs window on the left elevation is something that should be of concern; does it need to be
extended. Commissioner Sargent also had that concern, but noted that the fireplace was being
converted to a gas fireplace. Senior Planner Barber confirmed that the fireplace was being converted
and would vent on the side, not at the top, but would confirm the requirements with the Building Division.
Kristin Bergman represented the applicant:
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Did you share the proposed plan with neighbors on either side?
>The tree at 1205 Mills appears to hang over onto the subject property and may require
trimming as project moves along. Does neighbor at 1205 know what will happen to tree? Suggest
giving neighbors notice that work on tree may be needed .(Bergman: Spoke with neighbors on both sides
and on the opposite side of the street; no neighbors have expressed concern.)
>Massing handled well; second floor is integrated in with existing structure.
>Suggest making second story window on front elevation taller. If proportion were same as the bay
window at top with 6 grids, would look better if there is room. (Bergman: Will increase height of second
floor window on front elevation, but not sure if there is room.)
>Stairwell on right side elevation is too small, can you make bigger? Window seat? Seems
like a small appendage on the side of the house, if it is broadened it might not feel that way .
Might also make it deeper. (Bergman: Will consider increasing width of the stair bump out but do not
want to go over 2,000 square feet so it does not need to be sprinklered. Not intending to have a window
seat in bumpout; but if it is much wider will fall in line with front of house. Don't want to make much
deeper because didn't want the eave to protrude wider than eave above.)
>What is separating the first floor from the second? Is there a setback? (Bergman: Eave from existing
first floor will provide break between the first and second floor levels.)
>On right elevation there are two floor to ceiling windows with a blank space in between, consider
adding larger window in the middle and eliminating two smaller windows .(Bergman: With regard to floor
to ceiling windows on first floor left elevation, would like to keep the blank space in between to allow
area to hang a large painting.)
>Scale and detail handled nicely. Key will be in the details. Fascias proportion is appropriate for this
style of house. Scale of windows and mutins very important; make sure that you stick with that.
>Project is handled well but the stair elevation looks odd. Consider increasing the size of the windows
and losing the bumpouts. Would get more light through the windows if wider.
>Proportions of the porch are almost square and gable is almost as wide, stair bumpout
would fit in better with these elements. Stair is the one element that is tall and narrow - would hang
together better if it is wider.
>On sheet A2.0, elevation B- looks like you are supposed to see the bay through the porch; is it
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
December 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
missing?
Public comments: None.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to refer to consent
calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.Commission Communications
Recreation center held a web meeting, looked at timeline for review and further design. Commissioner
Loftis will forward the PowerPoint to staff to distribute to the entire Planning Commission.
Commissioner DeMartini reported back on the Bike/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC):
Two projects were discussed at the last meeting: 1) crosswalks at Floribunda at Alma and Ansel; 2) bike
path along Highway Road near Westmoor where the bridge is not wide enough for two bikes. Didn't think
they would have enough points to get a grant for these projects so Engineering is looking at funds to see
if the City can proceed with the projects.
Also discussed crossing guard on El Camino Real at Rosedale and Ray Drive, looking to get an update .
Safe Routes to School looks at pedestrian and bicycle routes that children take coming to school and
ways to improve those routes. School district did audits, discussed funding, bike cages at all schools to
encourage kids to ride bikes to school.
School district doing site improvement projects including new bike enclosures. Heard if there was better
enclosure parents would be more inclined to let kids ride bikes to school. Audit is very telling,
informative. Would like profile of parochial schools too, St. Catherine and Our Lady of Angels.
BPAC has a few business plans in front of City Manager:
>Bike festival and family bike ride on Broadway in summer. Initial feedback from Engineering is that
May may not be the best time to have a bike ride to the Bay Trail due to conflicts with work occurring at
the Broadway interchange.
>Bike Share program is being proposed with the hotels.
>Working with merchants that have parking lots or private property where they could accommodate
bike racks.
>There is a meeting tomorrow night, Tuesday December 9, on Carolan Avenue Complete Streets .
There is a lot of work going on along Carolan Avenue between Broadway and Oak Grove.
b.City Council Regular Meeting - December 1, 2014
c.FYI: 860 Paloma Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
Accepted.
d.FYI: 1025 Cabrillo Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
December 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:31 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 December 8, 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 18, 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 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015