HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.01.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, January 23, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin,
Assistant Planner Fazia Ali, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft January 9, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft January 9, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Lowenthal noted that he was not present at the January 9, 2023 meeting, but has reviewed
the meeting video and read the meeting minutes.
Vice-Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the meeting minutes. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1116 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and Special Permit for a second story
balcony. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Page 1City of Burlingame
January 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1).(Audrey Tse, Insite Design
Inc, applicant and architect; Deepti and Sanjiv Sinha, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff
Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1116 Rosedale Ave - Staff Report
1116 Rosedale Ave - Attachments
1116 Rosedale Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because
she is the architect for the project. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Lauren Lee, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>Elaine Fuchs, 1117 Hamilton Lane: I just got the notice of the addition late last week. I wrote a public
comment but would like to read it now. My house is directly behind the subject property at 1116 Rosedale
Avenue. Though I understand the need for a second story addition for a growing family, it isn ’t clear why
the balcony is necessary as well. My concerns are lack of privacy in my family room and bedroom, as well
as lack of natural light coming in to the large window in my family room. Balconies are not common in
Burlingame Village. My neighbors from 1113 Hamilton Lane are also worried about the same concerns .
Trees to provide privacy were mentioned as a possible help for maintaining privacy, as well as solid
barriers on the balcony. Would these trees be provided across the entire back of their fence or just
partially? Again, I would like to have a reassurance as these conditions would be put in place before
moving ahead with the plans. Please provide me with a rationale for the balcony when it would impinge on
privacy rights. Also, could you explain the additional square footage of the extra unit in the back? Is it for
rental or private residence? Thank you for the explanations.
> Public comments sent via email by Amogh and Manjiri, 1113 Hamilton Lane: We are the resident
owners of 1113 Hamilton Lane. The applicants, Deepti and Sanjiv, reached out to us after our public
comment regarding the privacy concerns. They mentioned privacy being top of mind for them as well and
explained their plan to plant trees in the area where the shed currently exists. Well-placed privacy trees will
adequately address our concerns regarding the balcony. They also mentioned their plan to have the
balcony railings to be wooden ones partially blocking the large window. They have explained that the
window glass is not planned to be glossy to cause glare based on a current installation they have. These
plans look reasonable to us. We thank the applicants and the commission for addressing our concerns.
>(Lee: I don’t understand the statement about the additional structure. There is a structure that is being
removed. There is no rental structure at the back. I would like to get the owners’ opinions regarding
putting trees along the fence line. Right now, the two trees that are being proposed are along the right rear
side of the lot. We can certainly consider putting privacy trees along the rear fence line of the lot.)
>(Sinha: We do currently have some trees along that back fence. I don ’t think we were planning on
getting rid of them altogether. We are planning on having some trees back there. I know that Elaine also
has a couple of trees along her side too. To explain the purpose of the balcony, it is to help with providing
a little bit of fresh air for people who are in the office. It is attached to the office space, which is mostly
for sitting, not necessarily standing and looking at our neighbors. But it would also provide a space for us
to watch for our children in the backyard from the second floor.) (Fuchs: We worked well when we had the
fence redone. There was no problem. I’d be happy for you to have additional space. I think you are very
respectful of the process. If you make sure that there are additional privacy trees at the back.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Page 2City of Burlingame
January 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I appreciate the changes that were made and the consideration of the neighbors for this project. The
project looks good and is ready to move forward. It is a little large in this neighborhood but yet there are a
few other homes in the area that are second story additions as well. It is just a matter of time until some
of these neighborhoods grow a little bit bigger. This is a very nice solution in this particular location and I
support it.
>I would agree. I appreciate that the ridge height of the roof was lowered by 2.5 feet; that is substantial
and it helps. My comments from the previous meeting mentioned that over time there will be many more
second story additions. It is nice that this is not, hopefully, going to overpower the neighborhood.
>I agree with what has been said. I very much appreciate neighbors working together. It is refreshing.
Vice-Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 -
Recused:Tse1 -
b.523 Francisco Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301(e)(1). (Abhishek Sharma, applicant and property owner; Jesse Geurse, Geurse
Conceptual Designs, Inc., designer) (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
523 Francisco Dr - Staff Report
523 Francisco Dr - Attachments
523 Francisco Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, represented the applicant and the application.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Thank you for making the changes. It looks good and addresses the issues simply. It is a good
looking project.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. This is a nice project and I can see moving this forward to
approval.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
Page 3City of Burlingame
January 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c.2888 Adeline Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit
dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(EAG Studio, applicant and architect; Susan and Jing Zhang, property owners) (58
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
2888 Adeline Dr - Staff Report
2888 Adeline Dr - Attachments
2888 Adeline Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Vin Leger, represented the applicant and the application.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Appreciate the renderings, they were really helpful to understand what is going on at the back of the
house. It confirmed in my mind that there are no issues with any views being impacted.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. It really did help clarify the intent of the addition. This isn ’t a
complicated rear addition, but the renderings and sections helped quite a bit in explain what is going on
back there. It will make it easier for everybody to approve and ensure that the right thing gets done. I
don’t have any issues with hillside view blockage; I don ’t believe that this will be something that is seen. I
am prepared to approve this project.
>I really appreciate the renderings, they have helped enormously. I want to reiterate that the fiberglass
windows be clarified as staff has noted.
>As a discussion on the windows, it is really a window or two at the back. It is like the design to me, I
am not concerned about it because the existing windows don ’t meet our desired criteria at the moment. I
don’t think we need to have them put in expensive windows and it will not match anyway.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. This is in the back and really up to the applicant on how they
want to match and deal with the window system as a whole. I would hope that they are choosing a newer
and better solutions that will be better than the old vinyl windows. I think it is more of their issue than it is
ours.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.2735 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Special Permit for first and second story plate heights, and Minor
Modification for covered parking space dimension for a first and second story addition to
Page 4City of Burlingame
January 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, designer and applicant;
Jeffrey and Stephanie Thompson, property owners) (74 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle
Markiewicz
2735 Burlingview Dr - Staff Report
2735 Burlingview Dr - Attachments
2735 Burlingview Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Suggests installing story poles to make sure that no other neighbors are impacted by the proposed
addition.
>Seeing the house in context with the other houses around it, I feel that it fits in really well. It seems
significantly below the house on the Hillsborough side. I didn ’t see any windows looking over their house
from the neighbor on the right. The view is really out the front and not across them. I don ’t see any view
impacts from the neighbors, given that we are not having any outcry this evening. I can appreciate the
height request, they are more for lots that are flat and when there are lower houses next to each other and
trying to be respectful. In this case, being that it is a hillside house and a very modern design, I ’m not
sure I see any reason to not approve the request for the height variance as well. I am good with this
project and could see it moving forward.
>Driving around the neighborhood, I am not quite sure if there will be any view impacts for the neighbor
to the right rear of the property. As we ’ve seen from the past, the first hearing of a meeting is usually quiet
but as soon as the neighbors see the story poles, suddenly everyone notices the impact of the project on
their property. I would agree that story poles will help us play it safe and not get any complaints when it is
too late and a lot of money has been spent along the road.
>I agree with and understand the ground floor explanation for the plate height as an existing condition,
but I am not there on the second floor because it is a vaulted, shed roof with a clerestory. It already has a
lot of volume so I don’t understand the need for an extra foot. So it is a matter if the story poles can
suggest if there are any problems and they can lower the roof by a foot.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. It is a nice project. Putting up the story poles is a good due
diligence. I appreciate the fact that they have included a story pole plan and are obviously prepared to do
that. I see no harm in doing that. I also see that once the story poles go up, there will probably be more
interests from the neighbors.
Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing.
>(Raduenz: We have reached out to the neighbors and there were no comments. We have included the
story pole plan because we wanted to be proactive. If it is a condition of approval to put up the story poles
we can do it, but it needs to be a fast process of approving it if we need to do the story poles. We did the
outreach and we did not receive any feedbacks from anyone, neither good nor bad. It’s a lot of work to put
up story poles and it is costly, so we want a little bit of reassurance that once there is no outcry that we
Page 5City of Burlingame
January 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
can move forward quickly.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I am tending to agree with most of my fellow commissioners that it is a wise and safer route to get the
story poles installed. People go out of town and might say they have not heard anything about this project .
I don’t know what it means with the conditions of approval.
>We are not approving this project tonight, but it is prudent that we will require story poles in a situation
like this for a lot of the reasons pointed out. It is not going to be a condition of approval, but it is a part of
the process more than anything at this point.
>(Hurin: This is a Design Review Study so it is not up for action. We would not allow installation of story
poles as a condition of approval. The applicant will need to install the story poles, get them certified, and
submit the certification back to us at least 10 days before the next Planning Commission hearing so that
we can notice it properly. Then we will have an action meeting to review the story poles and receive any
comments from the public.)
>Anecdotally, this is a Hillside Overlay District. We have a certain obligation as Planning
Commissioners to look into these objectively and story poles may solve that. They are also asking for two
Special Permits for plate heights. So the tradeoff of having the story poles seems like a win-win situation.
Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place on the item on the Regular
Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed and story poles have been installed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.740 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
740 Paloma Ave - Memorandum
740 Paloma Ave - Attachments
740 Paloma Ave - Plans
Attachments:
>Accepted.
b.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R-1 - Review of changes requested by the Planning
Commission for a previously approved Design Review Amendment project.
1327 Benito Ave - Memorandum
1327 Benito Ave - Attachments
1327 Benito Ave - Plans
Attachments:
>Accepted.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Page 6City of Burlingame
January 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
No Future Agenda Items were suggested.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative
format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the
meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, January 23, 2023
at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it,
and your ability to comment.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda
or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information
via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256.
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on January 23, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed
or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 2, 2023, 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 $745.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 7City of Burlingame