HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.07.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 9, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve
the meeting minutes with corrections previously submitted. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
a.Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.Draft May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
c.Draft June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
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 Items.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.829 Maple Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review (Major Renovation) for
first and second story additions to an existing house, Special Permits and Conditional
Use Permits for an accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e)(2) of
the CEQA Guidelines. (Gary Diebel, AIA - Diebel and Company Architects, applicant and
architect; Aidani Santos, property owner) (95 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
829 Maple Ave - Staff Report
829 Maple Ave - Attachments
829 Maple Ave - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Has a concern with second floor dormer. How much was the wall pulled in on the driveway side?
(Diebel: 6 inches. Can't go any further because of the egress window.)
>What is the dimension in the bedroom from the closet wall to the driveway wall? (Diebel: 14 1/2 feet.)
That is a gracious dimension; there is also an elongated wall where the tub is located, which could be
pulled in.
>Doesn't capture the feel of the craftsman style with modest dormers from the attic.
>Sheet A1.2 garage key notes has some errors in the materials. (Diebel: Can review. Maybe the
software did not update.)
>Appears the driveway wall was brought in but the dimension still shows 28'-3" on both sets of plans .
Should clarify.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>If the wall is only moving in 6 inches, why bother moving it at all? Will be costly and ineffectual.
>Would look better to bring it back further, but needs to have area for the egress window.
>Could see the wall moved back 2-3 feet and still have the bedroom and bathroom work.
>Tries to reference the historic feel but with the large floor area it looks like a two -story house. Can't
approve it unless it is pushed back further so it achieves the second floor dormer appearance.
>Front elevation has a lot of different depths that look nice and complex, but side is a sheer wall and
lacks the depth.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Should look at the second floor plate height. Could benefit with an 8-foot height, would help it get
more towards the look being discussed.
>Should also look at the dormers on the garage. Looks elongated. Could have a simple one -vent
dormer.
>The side wall does not need to be one length. Could be broken up with a recess. Would help with
stepping it back.
Chair Gaul reopened to allow the applicant to indicate when revisions would be ready. The applicant
indicated that revisions would be ready for the August 13th meeting.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the
item to the August 13th Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
b.301 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition and Special Permits for a basement with a ceiling height of over 6'6", a
direct exit and a bathroom greater than 25 SF. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Catherine Nilmeyer, applicant and architect; Dale and
Elaine Chang, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
301 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report
301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1
301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 2
301 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Loftis was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto had ex parte communication with
the applicant.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Cathy Nilmeyer represented the applicant, with property owners Dale and Elaine Chang
Commission Questions/Comments:
>None.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the project, particularly after visiting the neighborhood. There's an eclectic mix of styles in the
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
neighborhood.
>Feels traditional but not formulaic.
>Sees the logic with the special permits. If there is anywhere that exterior access to basements is
going to be allowed, this is an ideal location, situated along the street side and not in between two houses .
Works here as a corner lot.
>The terracing and stair provides some outdoor space; it's not just a window well into a basement.
>Has a traditional form, but a nice balance between traditional elements and some more modern
elements. Seems like a good transitional design, is a fresher look and will look good in the neighborhood.
>Handsome house but it seems so close to the Bloomfield side. Second floor looks like a big
forehead, might look too big from the street side. Not sure this is the right house for this corner.
>Great job on the exterior of the house, fits well with the neighborhood. The size of the lot is a
challenge.
>Beautifully designed, creative in use of space. Basement allows lot coverage to be kept to a
minimum.
>Likes the articulation. Notes a bit of a forehead, but not enough to not support the project.
>Applicant did a nice job of working with their neighbors. Good practice for everyone to keep in mind,
especially with corner lots.
>Good mix of materials. The metal roof complements the house, works well in this application.
>Concern with potential colors of metal roofs in general. Unlike other exterior materials such as walls
and windows which may change over time, roof colors will be long lasting particularly for standing -seam
metal roofs. Neighborhood subcommittee should look at issue of metal roof colors for houses.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Nay:Gaul1 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
c.2720 Trousdale Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a
first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Gautam Dusija, applicant and property owner; Enrique
Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs, designer) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
2720 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report
2720 Trousdale Dr - Attachments
2720 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Gaul spoke with the homeowner .
Commissioner Gaul also accessed the rear of the property where the addition is proposed.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Gautam Dusija represented the applicant, with Enrique Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs.
Commission Questions/Comments:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Is both the new and previous design still being considered? (Dusija: Open to either floorplan.)
>Would you consider a combination with the previous plan but with a flat roof? (Dusija: Had considered
this but didn't feel it was designed well - it felt like a forced addition. Wants it to feel more natural, aligned
with the rest of the existing house rather than a boxy addition.)
>Would lose a lot of back yard with the more recent addition, compared to the 5 feet in the original .
(Dusija: Would prefer to have the longer addition to avoid having a flat roof.)
>Would you prefer the design being considered here, or something else? (Dusija: Either. The neighbor
prefers the current design.)
>Current plan is 14 feet longer than the original proposed design? (Dusija: Yes.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Visited the adjacent property. Does not see a view issue with the current proposed design based on
the story poles; the ridge will align approximately with the height of the fence. Can be approved in terms of
the findings for the Hillside Area Construction Permit.
>Liked the original design better.
>Circumstances are unfortunate. The plan is contorted, and has been forced into an odd configuration .
However is approvable from the perspective of the hillside ordinance.
>The earlier design appeared to fall within the realm of view obstruction in terms of the hillside
ordinance. Although the current floor plan may have issues, it is approvable in terms of the hillside
ordinance.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
d.1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt
from the California Environemntal Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (e) (1). (Jack Backos Architects, applicant and designer; Miki and
Spencer Behr, property owners) (63 noticed) staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal
1206 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report
1206 Lincoln Ave - Attachments
1206 Lincoln Ave - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused as she owns a property located within 500 feet.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jack Backus represented the applicant, with property owner Spencer Behr.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Was working with the design review consultant productive? (Backus: Yes.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the changes, and can be approved with the conditions and findings in the staff report.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
e.834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (John Nguyen, Dulon Inc ., applicant and designer; Diane
Mcglown, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
834 Crossway Rd - Staff Report
834 Crossway Rd - Attachments
834 Crossway Dr - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
John Nguyen, Dulon Inc., represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Why the metal roof? (Nguyen: Wanted to add a more modern feel to the overall design of the house,
something a little bit more contemporary.) To make a traditional home more contemporary? (Nguyen: A
blend.)
>Is the plan to have mitered corners on the siding? (Nguyen: Mitered corners. Does not want corner
trims.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Metal roofs seems akin to the consensus to not allow vinyl windows. Does not believe metal roofs fit
in Burlingame. This one feels gratuitous.
>The steeper the roof, the more prominent the metal roof becomes.
>The commission has been open to approving metal roofs in the past. Does not seem out of place in
this project.
>Project has come a long way, and is approvable provided there is a condition that the corners of the
siding be mitered.
>Metal roofs are reviewed on a case by case basis.
>Seems too tall for the neighborhood.
>Can't deny a metal roof if there aren't rules to that effect.
>Would like to receive an FYI to show a color consistent with the reference images provided. Neutral,
gray tone comparable to an asphalt composition shingle.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted showing
notes on the plans that the proposed siding will have mitered corners and that the proposed
metal roof color will be a neutral gray tone;
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse4 -
Nay:Loftis, Kelly, and Gaul3 -
f.1117 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
changes to the front facade of an existing commercial storefront. This project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Ron Stanford, applicant; Jeffrey J. Burris, architect;
Olive Group Capital, LP, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1117 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1117 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1117 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Ron Stanford represented the applicant, with business owner Doug Wong.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>How will the glass between the slats be cleaned? (Stanford: Anticipates using a hose to spray out
debris. For the lower window it could be in a frame so it could also be removed for cleaning.)
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>How will the material look with sun exposure? (Stanford: Ipe fades to a gray unless it's kept oiled .
Could commit to keeping the visible piece of the awning and lower portion treated. For example Rubio
Monocoat as a durable oil finish.)
>Will the tall hopper window be limited to a range of operation? (Stanford: Typically they only open
about 6 inches.)
>Inconsistency in proposed elevations. In one the wood slats in the eaves are longer than the other
side, but in the other elevation they overhang equally. Believes the intention is to have the eaves overhang
equally on both sides of the steel member of the awning. (Stanford: Wanted to address the issue of it
being close to the adjacent awning, but get it balanced over the opening. Is probably slightly longer on the
right side since there is nothing abutting it on that side.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Changes are really good.
>Design is laid-back and quite refined.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
g.310 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a full service
food establishment in an existing commercial building. This project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Jason Cooper, Wine Revelry, LLC, applicant;
Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates, architect; Green Banker LLC, property owner) (34
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
310 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
310 Lorton Ave - Attachments
310 Lorton Ave - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto had communications with one of
the owner's friends.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Are the hours of operation similar to other restaurants in the area? (Hurin: The closing times are
probably similar to other restaurants. 10 pm or 11 pm is typical, but some may be open later.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Michael Nilmeyer, Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates, represented the applicant, with applicant Jason Cooper.
Commission Questions/Comments:
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>What is the story behind the name? (Cooper: "Velvet" is a texture often used to describe wines. Easy
to drink, and does not need hearty food to enjoy the wine. "48" is the year his mother was born; she
passed away and left money that will be used to start the venture.)
>Will it be available for private events? (Cooper: Yes. Would still need to limit capacity to 49 people.)
>Has the garbage circulation been worked out? (Nilmeyer: It is an odd site. The property is comprised
of four separate buildings. Echo keeps their trash bins in the hallway.)
>Does the trash setup in the corridor currently seem manageable to the tenants? (Nilmeyer: Seems to
be.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Good application. Not changing the building, not asking for a lot.
>Unique use.
>Sees the logic in the limitation to 49 people. Would be hard to accommodate more than 49 given the
furniture and display cases.
>Can support the application.
>Can see a desire for this in Downtown Burlingame.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
h.Amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to
incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards
DSP Amendments - Staff Report
DSP Amendments - Attachments
Attachments:
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
Jennifer Pfaff: When the Downtown Specific Plan was put together, had not realized buildings would be
maxed out because of land values. When dealing with the setbacks when projects come forth, a 10 or
15-foot setback is not very much when there is a 55-foot or 60-foot building. State requirements will take
away from local control, so suggests should make standards generous or keep what was previously in
place. Concern there will be no air, too squished. Needs to maintain control where it can be maintained.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The edits are straightforward. Understands the transposing, and the multiple generations of the tables
and standards.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>When the tables and setbacks are reviewed in the future, agrees with the point that if conditional use
or special permits are available to reach a higher height, developers will take advantage of the opportunity .
Should look at the setbacks again when updating the zoning together with the General Plan.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend
approval of the amendments to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.28 Bloomfield Rd, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached
garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; 28 Bloomfield
LLC, property owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
28 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report
28 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments
28 Bloomfiled Rd - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
Commissioners Sargent and Comaroto were recused as both have financial interests in the property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>None.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the design, fits in well with the neighborhood.
>Appreciates that the design reaches back to the era of the original.
>Retaining the palm trees in the front is a nice touch.
>The slight encroachment into the declining height envelope is justified given the style of the
four-square house.
>Feels like the old house is being lifted up. The dormer and front porch columns are reminiscent of the
existing.
>Large lot, and the house will not overwhelm the site. Will have a nice back yard, and the Hollywood
driveway is a nice touch.
>Nice application.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Recused:Sargent, and Comaroto2 -
b.2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit to enlarge an exiting second -story deck at a single-family residence.
(Panko Architects, Stan Panko, applicant and designer; Tom O' Brien, property owner )
(43 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal
2516 Valdivia Way - Staff Report
2516 Valdivia Way - Attachments
2516 Valdivia Way - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul met with the property owner and was
able to access the back yard. Commissioner Terrones met with the property owner and had a brief
conversation about the application, was able to access the back yard, and also visited with the neighbors
at 2720 Valdivia Way.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Stan Panko, Panko Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Owner has been considering a cable rail system. Neighbors seemed encouraged by that, and did not
see a view intrusion if it were a cable rail. (Panko: The current design is based on the existing, but a
cable rail can work as well.)
Public Comments:
Neighbor, 2512 Valdivia Way: Intends to extend out in the future, wants to make sure extension will not be
blocking neighbor's view. (Gaul: Recommends to talk with Planning staff.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Visited the applicant's property and the uphill neighbor. Neighbors appreciative that they were able to
review the plans, and grateful that the application had put up a simulation indicating the extent of the
addition. Does not see an issue with the view ordinance.
>Does not need story poles since it is a deck railing; in this instance the simulation is adequate,
assuming it is accurate.
>Should have clarification of the design of railings when it comes back.
>Should get verification from the architect on the accuracy of the simulation.
Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing:
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Has the simulation been verified for accuracy? (Panko: Has not verified the simulation. The extension
would go out 4 feet towards the rear, which is the about the width of the existing stairs.)
>When item comes back, should verify that it is an accurate representation. There should also be
representation of the height, given that currently it is a 36-inch rail at the most but it will need to be
increased to at least 42 inches. Should have something string between to indicate location of railing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to have the item
return on the Regular Action Calendar with direction that the applicant and architect work
together on an accurate simulation of the deck rail, and that the design of the railing is
confirmed. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
The Planning Commission will hold a special meeting on July 11th to review the Draft General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The meeting will provide an introduction to the contents of the EIR, an
overview of the plan, and description of how comments will be collected.
Ruben Hurin has been appointed Planning Manager. Senior and Associate Planners will be added to the
rotation for the Planning Commission meetings.
a.521 Burlingame Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
521 Burlingame Ave - Memorandum
521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 07.09.18
Attachments:
Pulled for further review. Concern with the removal of the two windows, and the resulting view of the
elevation.
b.841 Rollins Road - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission for
a previously approved Design Review project.
841 Rollins Rd - MemorandumAttachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 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 July 9, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 19, 2018, 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 $551.00, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018
July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 8/14/2018