HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 04.25.11 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, April 25, 2011 — 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Yie called the April 25, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and
City Attorney, Gus Guinan
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the April 11,
2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
■ Page 7, first bullet at the top of the page; add `or as an alternative could double the 4Xs instead"
■ Page 7, last bullet at the bottom of the page; replace "complimentary" with "complementary"
■ Page 11, Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log; replace "accepted" with "no complaints".
Motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Lindstrom abstained).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
No one spoke from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no study items.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
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.
Vice -Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
Consent Calendar. There were no requests.
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
1a. 2305 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND MAJOR RENOVATION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; JAY T. JANTON AND GAYLE A. MILLER-JANTON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF
CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
1b. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE AND 1561 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PARCELS AT 1557 DRAKE AVENUE (026-033-250) AND 1561 DRAKE
AVENUE (025-224-130) AND (JAY GARCIA, APPLICANT; BAY LAND CONSULTING LAND
SURVEYORS/CIVIL ENGINEERS, ENGINEER; JAY AND JANET GARCIA TRUST, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG
Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Vice -Chair Yie called for
a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 7:05 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding
Item 2 (1447 Laguna Avenue), since he owns property within 500-feet of the property. He left the City
Council Chambers.
2. 1447 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO A PLAYROOM
AND CONSTRUCT A NEW DETACHED CARPORT (SUZANNE SENGELMANN, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER: JENNIFER MILLIKEN. DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 25, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Questions of staff:
None
Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Milliken, 1800 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Berkeley; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Has the location of the skylights been closely studied; can the conditional use request be
eliminated? (Milliken — she has minimized the impact of the skylight on the southern portion of the
roof by moving it one -foot; it could be removed if necessary to receive approval of the Commission.
She felt it would be nice to have both northern and southern light exposure within the building to
reduce the need for artificial lighting. She noted that blinds may also be installed in the skylight.)
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
■ Doesn't want to dismiss concerns expressed regarding the potential to convert the structure to living
space; however, if the carport were attached to the garage, there would only be one building on the
property.
■ If there were no skylights closer than 10-feet to the property line, a conditional use permit would not
be required.
■ The applicant is being forthright, and is willing to restrict the use of the structure as "non -living
space".
■ The applicant is finding a simple path to creating additional square footage and minimizing impacts
upon the quaint home by not adding to that structure.
■ The applicant could have indicated that the square footage would only be used for storage, and not
for recreation purposes; this would have simplified the discussion.
■ Noted that the Commission has consistently denied the addition of toilets within secondary
structures; are also placing a recreational space close to a neighboring property; this has also been
denied in the past. In instances were pluming has been allowed in secondary structures, the
diameter of the waste pipe has been limited.
■ Indicated that the Commission has approved the installation of pool cabanas with plumbing that
have included a limitation on the size of the waste line.
■ There is a distinct possibility that the secondary structure will be used as a bedroom at some point
in the future.
■ Concerned about potential noise impacts upon the neighbor.
■ Asked if the applicant considered attaching the carport to the garage? (Milliken — felt that to do so
would have looked "cramped' and would allow less light to enter the garage. The applicant also
wished to retain an area to play basketball.)
■ Clarified that the "blacked -out" areas at the locations of the bathroom and closet are drafting errors.
■ Indicated that the sun -tube closest to the outside wall is being eliminated.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Expressed concern about creating a precedent by approving the request.
Once a toilet is installed, the space can be used as living space; asked how far it is to the bathroom
within the home?
Noted that the toilet could be removed from the plan.
Commissioner Auran moved to deny the request without prejudice.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of the Motion:
Will not support the motion for denial, will at some point need to address the ability to create second
dwelling units as required by State law; this seems like a reasonable time to address the matter.
Noted that approval of a second unit is not part of the request, the Commission has no means of
considering such a request currently.
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
■ Noted that there is a gas fireplace shown within the floor plan for the structure; will support the
motion.
■ Accepts the veracity of the applicant in presenting the case to the Commission; it is somewhat of a
low-key recreational space that is proposed. The motion appears to deny the request based upon a
concern that the space will be used as a second dwelling unit.
■ Asked for clarification regarding limitations on plumbing in secondary structures? (Meeker— noted
that waste line size has been restricted in the past.)
■ Asked if the waste line, if limited in size, could be enlarged in the future if the space ever qualified
for conversion to a second dwelling unit? (Commissioner — yes, this type of change could be
made.)
■ Would have no problem supporting the applicant's proposal without a bathroom and with a different
heating system.
■ Must consider the request in light of current regulations.
Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion failed 3-3-0-1 (Commissioners
Vistica, Yie and Terrones dissenting, Commissioner Gaul recused).
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped April 18, 2011, sheets AO through A3, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the
accessory structures shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that a toilet shall not be installed within the structure and the plumbing waste line shall be limited to
a diameter of 2-inches; the placement of the skylights shall be revised to eliminate the need for a
conditional use permit; and if future additions to the property are proposed, compliance with lot
coverage restrictions shall be required;
3. that the detached carport shall always be accessible for parking of operative vehicles and shall not
be used for resident storage;
4. that the two rectangular skylights shall be of a flat design and shall either be tinted or contain black
out blinds;
5. that if the playroom accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the
Variance and Conditional Use Permits, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here,
will become void;
6. that the playroom accessory structure shall not include a kitchen, bathtub, or interior shower, shall
not be used for sleeping purposes, and shall not be used for living purposes as a second dwelling
unit;
7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 17, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's March
24, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 17, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's March 22, 2011
memo and the NPDES Coordinator's March 21, 2011 memo shall be met;
8. that any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued
and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District;
121
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
Supports elimination of the request for a conditional use permit for the skylights.
Supports elimination of the potential for future requests for a variance from lot coverage restrictions
if additions are ever proposed.
Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-2-0-1
(Commissioners Cauchi and Auran dissenting, Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioner Auran indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Item 3 (161
Highland Avenue/Parking Lot G) since he formerly had a business involvement with the applicant (the City).
He left the City Council Chambers.
3. 161 HIGHLAND AVENUE AND PORTION OF CITY PARKING LOT G, LOCATED ON PRIMROSE ROAD
BETWEEN HOWARD AND BAYSWATER AVENUES — (CITY OF BURLINGAME AND SAINT
CATHERINE OF SIENA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN
BROOKS, WILLIAM MEEKER, AND VICTOR VOONG
a. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR
PROPOSED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND SAINT
CATHERINE OF SIENA CHURCH TO INCLUDE RECONFIGURATION OF CITY PARKING LOT N
TO INCLUDE THE 161 HIGHLAND PROPERTY, AND
b. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND RECONFIGURATION OF CITY PARKING LOT G
Reference staff report dated April 25, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report. City Attorney Guinan and City Manager James Nantell assisted in answering
questions during the discussion.
Questions of staff:
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
■ Other than the additional parking stalls, what does the City gain with this transaction? (Guinan —
about $363,000 in value; there would be no cash exchanged, the value of the property would
receive is greater.)
■ Who owns the property that the church would exchange? (Meeker — St. Catherine's would
purchase the property on Highland Avenue from a private property owner and would then exchange
it for the City -owned property.)
■ Requested clarification of some of the findings in the initial study. (Meeker — explained that the
document addresses only the exchange of property and does not address any potential future
construction. Noted that some of the findings likely relate to potential flooding due to storm water
deficiencies and a mature tree that situated within the parking lot.)
■ Clarified that this is a like -for -like exchange; there will be no increase in traffic or parking impacts;
any impacts from a future construction project will be evaluated at that time? (Meeker — yes.)
■ Who did the original property appraisal? (Nantell — Hulberg & Associates was retained by City first,
then by church. City sought an independent peer review, by Smith & Associates, of this appraisal —
confirmed that it was a reasonable appraisal.)
■ Questioned choosing an East Bay appraiser for a property on the Peninsula? (Nantell — noted that
Hulberg & Associates is located in San Mateo; were referred to the second appraiser.)
■ The impetus for the property exchange is St. Catherine's desire to expand? (Nantell — yes, are
trying to expand their parish hall; an earlier proposal would have impacted an historically significant
structure on the property. The church has raised a lot of money for the project. Felt this transaction
would be doable if there was an exchange for the property at 161 Highland Avenue.)
■ Feel that the City's interests are met with the deal? (Nantell — yes, has been reviewed and
confirmed by the City Council in closed session. Guinan — noted that the City was previously
interested in acquiring the Highland Avenue property in the past, but couldn't get it at the right price;
there is a value over and above that relates to future implementation of the Burlingame Downtown
Specific Plan.)
■ Clarified that this is simply a recommendation to the City Council? (Meeker — correct.)
■ Would be helpful to know the usage rate of the parking lots involved. (Meeker/Nantell — Lot G is
used at 73%; Lot F is used at 79%; and Lot N is used at 81 %; noted the number of spaces available
in each instance. Appeared that there are typically around 25 spaces available at a given time in
Lot G.)
■ Would the property exchanged with the church continue to be used as a parking lot until
developed? Could help allay public concern. (Nantell — would request that it continue to be
available for public, metered parking until development moves forward.)
Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Public comments:
Dale Buettgenback, 1443 Howard Avenue; Linda Humber; 119 Primrose Road; Mary Watt, 139 Primrose
Road; Archer Summers, 1443 Howard Avenue; Herb Perez, 1333 Howard Avenue; Michael Giatinis, 1333
Howard Avenue; and Merna Richardson, 1443 Howard avenue; spoke
Didn't receive a notice; only saw the article in the Daily Journal.
The parking lot is used for a lot more than indicated; parking will be taken away from customers for
Burlingame Avenue businesses.
The Methodist church uses the lot frequently, in addition to businesses downtown; there is very little
parking available downtown; people will drive elsewhere to shop.
W
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
■ Adamantly opposed to the proposal.
■ Street parking is at a premium on Primrose Road.
■ The lot is frequently more than 50% filled; completely filled when events are occurring at the
churches or Downtown.
■ The Highland Avenue area is not used as frequently as this area.
■ Highland Avenue is not a gateway to Burlingame.
■ There will be more use of parking on Primrose with Safeway.
■ The request is not in the interest of the majority of people in the area, is only the interest of St.
Catherine's.
■ Reducing convenient parking is contrary to the desire to bring more people to Howard Avenue.
■ Is not in the interest of those in the area; at least wait until the impact of the Safeway project is
known.
■ Observed that Lot G is nearly full at times.
■ CALL Primrose did not receive the notice; only read about it in the newspaper.
The property at 161 Highland Avenue is quite distant; there will be a negative impact upon parking
in the area.
■ On any given day, donors and staff are turned away from CALL Primrose due to the lack of parking.
■ The United Methodist Church pre-school, Peninsula Girls Choir and the two gyms in the area all
use the parking lot.
■ The lot is quite busy; busier than it has been in past years.
■ There is not nearly as much traffic in the area of the 161 Highland Avenue property.
■ Need to provide ample opportunity to allow all interested parties to review and comment on the
matter; consider the negative impact of the reduction in parking in the existing parking lot upon
other users in the area; and the limited ability for the Highland Avenue property to address the
situation.
■ Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
■ Referenced a plaque at the corner of Primrose and Burlingame Avenue; the Methodist church was
founded in the area the same year that the City was founded.
■ No one has consulted with the Methodist church about the property exchange or the future
development.
■ Have lots of parents picking up children using the parking lot.
■ Could the Methodist church be included in the discussions with St. Catherine's? How can their
needs best be met?
■ Requested that the matter be tabled.
■ (Commissioner - asked how many parking spaces exist on the United Methodist Church site?
(Summers — 13 spaces are present on the site; 220 attendees on Easter Sunday.)
■ This is not simply a transfer of land for land; there are specific proposals for uses of each piece of
land involved.
■ Doesn't believe that the land on Highland Avenue is more valuable than the Primrose Road
property.
■ Howard Avenue will become a corridor that leads to Burlingame Avenue.
■ Requested a variance from parking standards for his commercial recreation use (Gold Medal
Fitness); the use is continuing to expand; the conditional use permit was conditioned upon the
existence of parking in the area.
■ Believes that Safeway will create more people using lots other than the Safeway lot using the
businesses at the corner of Howard Avenue and Primrose Road.
■ Will potentially create a traffic flow problem within the parking lots.
■ Hopes that he doesn't need to approach the Commission to provide an alternative drop-off location
for his business.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
■ St. Catherine's selected that space knowing its limitations.
■ Doesn't believe that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; losing parking in an area
where it is needed.
■ Didn't receive a notice; no one has received a notice.
■ Talk about what is really proposed; St. Catherine's is proposing a gymnasium and expansion that
will impact the area.
■ (Commissioner - what was the parking variance granted for Gold Medal Fitness?) Perez — about 13
spaces. The lot is usually at 75% usually busiest at 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.; more interested in the peak
usages of the parking lot. The parking lot was designated as employee parking for businesses
Downtown.
■ By selling off part of the parking lot will be choking off the potential for the development of the
property in the future.
■ Asked if St. Catherine's could build its gymnasium on the Highland Avenue property?
■ Peninsula Girls Choir and the United Methodist Church pre-school heavily use the parking in the
area; parents must park and go into the facility to retrieve their children; they have no choice for
parking.
■ Other groups also use the facilities at the Methodist church and rely upon the parking.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
■ Can't see how the appraisal is accurate given that the Highland Avenue property is valued higher
than the Primrose Road property.
• Concerned about the conditional use permits and parking variances that have been granted
assuming the presence of Parking Lot G; the change will severely restrict the area and affect others
that rely upon the parking lot. (Meeker — explained that all conditional use permit and variance
requests consider each cases individual circumstances; the availability of public parking should not
be a factor; the Commission always has the opportunity to deny such requests if parking is
inadequate.)
■ Convinced by everything stated by the speakers.
■ Are only looking at consistency with the general plan for the property exchange? (Meeker —
confirmed that this is the case.)
■ If St. Catherine's owns the property, then they do not need to keep it as public parking.
(Meeker/Guinan — confirmed that the City Manager has indicated that discussions with St.
Catherine's have included the desire for public parking to remain available until development of the
property proceeds.)
■ Concerned about the impact of the reduction in the size of the parking lot could have upon
businesses in the area that rely upon the parking lot. Concerned that parking impacts could occur
that would impact past actions of the Planning Commission (variance approvals). (Meeker/Guinan -
explained that past approvals for variances for other businesses are not the subject of the
discussion before the Commission, is not any part of the Commission's consideration. The
Commission is simply being asked to consider the proposed transaction's consistency with the
General Plan.)
■ Clarified that it doesn't make any difference if the Planning Commission recommends in the positive
or negative regarding the proposed transaction; the Commission is only considering General Plan
consistency; the City Council will make whatever decision it sees as appropriate.
■ Finds it interesting that the Commission could condition approvals almost in perpetuity that would
require the property to be used as parking until the City grants a permit.
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
■ Sympathetic to the additional value provided to the City for the Highland Avenue property, and of St.
Catherine's needs; however, concerned about the effect upon past decisions made by the
Commission that relied upon parking within Parking Lot G. If parking becomes a problem in the
area; the Commission's past actions will be questioned and it could reflect poorly upon the
Commission.
■ Accepts that the appraisals have been vetted sufficiently.
■ Need to leave the decision to the City Council on whether the transaction is of benefit to the City
Council; but only note that a decision has been made regarding General Plan consistency, not
support for the actual proposal to exchange properties. (Nantell — can also indicate that the
concerns expressed about the transaction be expressed to the Council.)
■ Feels that the benefit derived accrues more to St. Catherine's; the additional value of the property
on Highland Avenue is not "real".
■ There are ways to mitigate the problems that have been expressed; the lot is impacted because it is
used as long-term parking. Would be interested in learning how many vehicles park long-term;
could be changed to short term parking to improve accessibility to other users. Is tending to
support the property exchange.
■ Thinks it is a positive that the parking lot would be maintained until development occurs.
■ The City doesn't necessarily need to take care of the parking problems for the Methodist church.
■ Want to be certain that the Commission is not endorsing the exchange, but only confirming General
Plan compliance and the Negative Declaration.
■ Wants to be certain that every piece of information expressed tonight is provided to the City
Council; the City Council will need to decide what is best in this situation.
■ Agrees with the notion that it is the exchange of a piece of land for a piece of land, but location is
everything; the properties are in different locations.
■ The City is not responsible for providing parking for the Methodist church or any of the other
organizations in the area, but there could be some discussions that could occur between the
organizations and St. Catherine's to provide parking for the others.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to adopt "A Resolution Recommending to the City Council Approval of
Negative Declaration and Finding of General Plan Consistency'; with direction to staff to inform the City
Council of the Commission's and public's serious concerns regarding the proposed transaction, as
discussed during the public hearing.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the resolution. The motion passed 6-0-0-1
(Commissioner Auran recused). The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 8:40 p.m.
Commissioner Auran returned to the dais.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
4. 2723 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK AND SANDY
E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
MOORE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; HEIDI RICHARDSON, RICHARDSON
ARCHITECTS. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 25, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period.
John Onken, 219 Shoreline Highway, Mill Valley; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ The massing is handled nicely.
■ Could a pervious surface be used in the area of the asphalt sports court?
■ Noted the presence of a vegetable planter; encouraged more of them.
■ Encouraged the applicant to consult with an arborist to ensure that the tree to which the zip -line is
attached will not be damaged and can support the installation.
■ Clarify on the plans that gutters and fascias will match existing.
■ Noted that there is a great deal of potential for an eco-friendly, drought -tolerant landscape theme;
encouraged such an approach to be considered.
■ Add a note that the windows will include divided lights, or will include simulated true divided lights to
match existing.
■ Beautiful job; encouraged placement on the Consent Calendar.
■ Clarified that the shingles will be painted.
■ Asked if the window manufacturer is known? (Onken — not known yet.)
Public comments:
Irina Rayzberg, 2801 Easton Drive, Hillsborough; spoke:
■ Expressed concern about her privacy; will be viewing a 3-story addition; will lose privacy in her rear -
yard.
■ Would like the loft windows moved to protect her privacy. (Commissioner— noted that the windows
are set back and are 6-feet above the floor; will be difficult for anyone to see out of them.)
■ The addition will create light and glare at night; encouraged the replacement of the windows with
skylights, or placement of the windows on the Easton Drive side of the addition. (Commissioner —
Not appropriate to impose such a condition upon the applicant; the project has been designed in a
manner that will minimize privacy impacts. The commission doesn't enforce privacy. The loft space
is small and quite far from the affected property. The Commission considers the continuity of the
design. Noted that the applicant will likely install window coverings.)
■ Expressed concern about the size of the trees along the property line; requested 24-inch box trees
rather than 15-inch box trees. (Commissioner — noted that the 15-inch box trees will grow more
rapidly than 24-inch box trees. The adjacent property owner always has the right to enhance
landscaping upon that property.)
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
■ Landscaping is an important component of the project.
■ Clarified that the applicant is not precluded from making changes to address the neighbor's
concerns, but the Commission is not mandating any changes.
■ Great project; appreciated that the design works with the existing structure's architecture.
■ Noted that if the loft windows were to become an issue with the neighbor, that obscured glass could
be installed. Encouraged working with the neighbor.
Vice -Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:04 p.m.
5. 1787 ESCALANTE WAY, 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 (KING LAU AND ELIZABETH SIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAIME
ARGUELLES. DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 25, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
Asked if design review would still be required if only a first story addition were proposed?
(Strohmeier—would still require design review since the proposed plate height does not match the
existing plate height of the structure.
Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period.
Jaime Arguelles, 449 Abbot Avenue, Daly City and Elizabeth Sin, 1787 Escalante Way; represented the
applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Has the neighbor to the right reviewed the plans? (Strohmeier — neighbor to the right did not
contact staff, the neighbor to the left reviewed the plans and expressed no objections.)
■ Why is the addition taller than the existing house? (Arguelles — wanted higher ceilings on the first
floor.)
■ Has a problem with the massing; is poorly handled. Is a stucco box that sticks up higher than the
rest of the mass; doesn't comply with the design guidelines.
■ Appears as a massive wall.
■ There is a nearby house that had an addition that worked with the mass; there are opportunities for
a first -floor addition that could meet the intent without requiring Commission review.
■ Can't consider approval because of the massing.
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
■ The owners' wishes could be satisfied with an addition that can enhance the house; encouraged to
do something different with the mass; the addition doesn't need to be stuck on one side of the
house. (Sin — chose to have addition away from Trousdale Drive to avoid noise from the street and
provide more light into the house.
■ Needs to expand the vision of what is happening on the house; could add vegetation to mitigate
Trousdale Drive impacts. (Sin — already has 20 trees that will grow and obscure light.)
■ This is an opportunity to make the house more attractive; eliminates the benefits of the deck. (Sin —
have no views from the deck.)
■ Asked if the applicant and designer have reviewed the City's design guidelines; would see that the
design is not compliant. (Sin — asked how 1775 Escalante Drive was able to do their addition?)
■ Is concerned about how the additional height is handled within the design guidelines.
■ Doesn't see much information regarding landscaping; it can be used to mitigate mass and bulk and
serve as an energy -saving design feature,
■ Consider permeable surfaces; reduces storm runoff and recharges groundwater; wants to see an
eco-friendly landscape plan.
■ Believes the design is at the wrong end of the house; is not handled correctly.
■ Blue-sky and trees will be blocked by the addition. (Sin — indicated that the neighbors at 1793
Escalante Drive do not object to the project.)
■ The applicant and the designer had the opportunity to fully educate themselves regarding the
requirements of the City before approaching the Planning Commission with a design.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice -Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed
on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 9:28 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Noted that the Election of Officers will appear on the next Planning Commission agenda.
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes April 25,
2011
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 18, 2011:
Nothing to report.
FYI: 3 Belvedere Court — review of roofing material for a previously approved Design Review
Project:
Accepted.
FYI: 1208 Bernal Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design
Review project:
Accepted.
FYI: 1410 Howard Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Commercial Design
Review project:
Requested that the matter be scheduled for a public hearing.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Vice -Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Lindstrom, Secretary
13