Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.08.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 27, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and TsePresent5 - Comaroto, and GaulAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: >Item 8d, 1615 Ralston Avenue, page 7, second bullet under Commission Questions /Comments, insert "to" after "Was there consideration on the west elevation". A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the meeting minutes with corrections previously submitted and as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA >Item 8c - 434 Bloomfield Road has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing notices will be sent once the application has been scheduled on a future 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. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Best Construction, applicant; Cornelia Haber, designer; Sumagny LLC, propert owner) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1104 Clovelly Ln - Staff Report.pdf 1104 Clovelly Ln - Attachment.pdf 1104 Clovelly Lane - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent visited with the neighbors at 1105 Killarney Lane regarding the project. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Cornelia Haber, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Planting plan in front yard is sparse where existing trees are being removed. Could you revisit landscape plan to add some bushes to add height and scale at front of house? (Haber: Yes, that wouldn't be an issue.) >Have you had any communication with the neighbor to the right about how you could address his concern regarding the balcony doors on second floor facing their yard? (Haber: Just saw the letter this afternoon, so have not had a chance to talk to the neighbor. In the previous design, there were windows facing that side. The balcony is less than four feet wide, so main purpose of balcony and doors is to provide a sense of spaciousness to the bedroom. Could look at addressing the neighbor's concern by adding landscape screening.) >Not sure how landscaping could help from sight line on second floor. Neighbor may be reacting to relocating the deck and doors previously proposed at the rear of house to the side of house. (Haber: If you look at relative position of the two houses, the balcony faces the neighbor's rear yard, not their house . Adding a tree in the side yard may help to mitigate their concerns.) >Encourage you to speak with your neighbor about a solution that would alleviate his concerns. Public Comments: James Fitzpatrick, next door neighbor: Previous proposal had the balcony and doors along the rear of the house and windows along the side of the house, which was not a problem. Concerned that balcony and doors will look directly into their family room. Have 10 foot tall existing landscaping along that side of the house, but don't feel it's tall enough to screen view from second floor balcony that close to the property line. Would prefer the previous design with the balcony at the rear of the house. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Like revised design, more traditional design fits the context of neighborhood. Massing is handled well. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Concern is that the landscaping is sparse, particularly within the front yard. >Would like to see a resolution reached with the neighbor, consider using a single door at balcony with sidelites instead of 8 foot wide sliding doors, and perhaps frosted glass. >Don't think there will be a lot of activity on the balcony, because the door needs to provide passage to the balcony. >Think the applicant could massage the issue of the window and doors and still be able to access the deck. >Look closely at second floor decks, have been somewhat permissive of smaller decks off bedroom spaces because they won't lead to a lot of public activity. >Design review process worked well for this application. >Encourage applicant to work with neighbor to address privacy concerns; adding one or two trees could also solve the problem. 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, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review to address the following items: - submit a revised landscape plan showing additional landscaping throughout the site, especially within the front yard; and - encourage the applicant to work with neighbor to address privacy concerns regarding the second floor door and deck along the right side of the house; solutions to consider include changing the 8 foot wide sliding glass doors in the master bedroom to a single door with sidelites and/or adding one or two landscape trees to screen the second floor deck. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - b.717 Neuchatel Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Front Setback Variance, and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (2). (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Lamar Zhao and Jennifer Guan, property owners) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 717 Neuchatel Ave - Staff Report.pdf 717 Neuchatel Ave - Attachments.pdf 717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf 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. Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Jeanne Davis, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Good project to start with, changes have improved it. >Can make the findings for Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for attached garage because the lot size is substandard. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - c.434 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Parshadi and Kaushal Shah, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi (THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) Item 8c - 434 Bloomfield Road has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing notices will be sent once the application has been scheduled on a future agenda. d.824 Cowan Road, zoned IB - Application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to increase the size of an existing incidental food establishment. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303, Class 1 of the CEQA Guidelines (Una Kinsella, applicant and architect; Mark Worrall, property owner) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 824 Cowan Rd - Staff Report.pdf 824 Cowan Rd - Attachments.pdf 824 Cowan Rd - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf 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. Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Mark Ward, represented the applicant. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >Regarding restriping the parking area, do you see any issues with continuing to use the existing roll -up door at the rear of the building? (Ward: The warehouse area and roll -up door is used for unloading between 2 a.m. and 11 a.m., so it shouldn't have an impact on the use of the parking space.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > This is a fine application, use is nice asset to community, offers a great service. >How applicant wants to rearrange the parking spaces is critical for their operation, as long as it works for them. >Accept logic that it's an existing nonconforming use, but with the rearrangement of the interior spaces two additional parking spaces are being provided. >Application is supportable, has nonconforming parking situation similar to other existing businesses in area, but not making it worse since two required additional parking spaces are being provided. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the applicaiton. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - e.Consideration of amendments to Chapter 25.70 (Off-Street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend motel and hotel parking requirements. Staff Report.pdf Draft June 25, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (excerpt).pdf Proposed Amendments.pdf Resolution.pdf Attachments.pdf Attachments: There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Would the parking demand study be required before the CUP application is submitted? (Kolokihakaufisi: The demand study would be provided together with the CUP application to justify the proposed reduction. The study would need to be submitted prior to granting the CUP.) Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Clear from data that many of the hotel parking lots are underutilized. If the businesses have a better idea of how to use the space, they will know better what will make them more successful. It may allow them to offer other amenities to hotel guests. >The CUP application will provide insight to the Planning Commission on what the hotel proposes to do with the space. >Proposal is consistent with the previous study session discussion. >Hotels are unique in parking demand. Can allow for special considerations for reduced number of parking spaces because hotels are accommodating visitors, whereas residential uses are accommodating permanent residents who might otherwise look for parking on neighborhood streets if they can't find parking on site. Hotel guests will expect to park at the hotel, not in surrounding neighborhoods, so it behooves hotel operators and managers to provide adequate parking for their anticipated guests. It's in their best interest to determine the right number of parking spaces required for their facilities. >The Planning Commission will be able to vet the process through the Conditional Use permitting. >There is a self-governing control among hotel operators that they will not want to compromise their facilities to the extent that their visitors will not be able to have a place to park. Will continue to want to meet the needs of their clientele. They will bring forward proposals that work for them, but not to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2721 Martinez Drive, 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 (Xie Guan, Xie Associates, Inc ., applicant and architect; Lin Yun Ping, property owner) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2721 Martinez Dr - Staff Report.pdf 2721 Martinez Dr - Attachments.pdf 2721 Martinez Dr - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf 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. Questions of staff: >The staff report notes that the floor area would increase to 3,998 square feet where 4,305 square feet is the maximum allowed and that the project is 7 square feet below the maximum allowed floor area. Is this an error? (Hurin: Yes, the staff report will be corrected to show the correct number). Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Bill Guan, project architect, represented the applicant. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >New doors are shown at the entry to the house and accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Is this the intended design? (Guan: Yes, they are correctly shown.) >Have combination of casement and sliding windows. Why were sliding windows selected for the new windows? (Guan: Existing house has a variety of window types, chose sliding windows because it fits in with existing house). >Houses of that era in area were specified with sliding windows. However, if you look around the neighborhood, houses that have been improved over recent years have upgraded to casement or other types of windows. Can you consider using casement windows instead? Casement windows make the window panes in the same plane, are more attractive and shadow lines affects are improved. (Guan: Yes, can consider changing to casement, but feel that a fixed or sliding window would work just as well as a casement). >Sliding windows are dated, have no scale or charm. Could probably achieve the same size, square footage of window opening if you went with smaller window units in a series, would give the house more scale and charm. >Submit samples of proposed stone veneer for the next meeting. Concerned that the wrong stone choice would take the house out of character. >Have you had a chance to review the plans with the adjacent neighbors? Concerned that the second floor deck, which is fairly large and located off the dining space and the adjacent living space, has the potential of looming over the downhill neighbor to the side. Encourage you to share the project with the neighbor and reduce the size of the deck. (Guan: No, don't think addition will have a negative impact on neighbors since it is more like a single story addition. Will look at increasing the side setback and reducing the size of the deck.) >What will the balustrade be made of on the second floor deck? (Guan: Precast concrete is proposed, stone could also be an option.) >The door to the ADU is very shear in that wall, looks like a basement door, there is no cover over the door. Have you considered adding a canopy over that door? Give it some thought, would help to break up that wall and provide cover from the weather. Makes sense to think about the procession to that door because it has a high level function. (Guan: Yes, that is a good idea; can recess entry or add a cover.) Public Comments: Jennifer Slaboda, 2704 Martinez Drive: Live downhill from the project, concerned that although the plans show that the roof ridge is not getting higher, the proposed extension towards the rear yard may still impact views. Concerned about impacts on views; would like to see story poles installed to have a clear understanding of what is being proposed. Bruce Thompson, 1600 Granada Drive: Opposed to ADU. Zoning Code states that all ADUs are exempt from CEQA pursuant to sections 15301 and 15303. It appears that section 15301 pertains to this project because it is an existing facility; states that a project is exempt if a key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. Would argue that the addition of the ADU is not negligible and does expand the existing use from single family to multiple family and this exemption is inapplicable because the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place is significant. The City is setting a precedent, more study is needed, perhaps environmental review is required. Think when the City approved the ordinance in 2011, times were different even though it wasn't that long ago. With homes in many neighborhoods in the 2 to 4 million dollar category, we are inviting second units to offset the purchase cost. Encourage Planning Commission to deny the project. Brendan O'Brien, neighbor: Represent parents who live at 1590 Granada Drive. Opposed to ADU . Understand that purpose of ordinance is to expand affordable housing to the community, however the area is zoned R-1 for single family homes, not for multiple units. Lot sizes in Mills Estates are significantly greater than other applicable districts in Burlingame and the flexibility to add these units for future use Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes would effectively rezone the area from single family to multifamily. Would seek legal damages for any loss of property value. Concerned that the infrastructure of the streets can't support additional units . Intent of design review process is to preserve the original and unique patterns of the district, don't belive the original and unique patterns of the district allow more than a single family house. Don't believe there was proper notice given to the neighbors to understand the impact of a multi -unit project on property values. Would like to see story poles installed to review potential impacts on views. Leo Redmond, 2711 Martinez Drive: Opposed to ADU. Think it would effectively rezone the area; that part of Burlingame has been single family homes. Have invested a great deal in improving our home and property; concerned with how ADU would affect property values. Also concerned about the proposed deck and potential loss of views. Encourage Planning Commission to deny project. Commissioner Sargent requested that staff address the limits to the Commission's purview regarding ADUs. (Hurin: Applications being reviewed by the Planning Commission for this project only include Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. Per State law, the State required that cities allow ADUs as a permitted use. The Commission is not being asked to approve the ADU, as it is a permitted use if it complies with all zoning requirements.) (Schaffner: Approval of an ADU is a ministerial act, one of the reasons why it is exempt from CEQA.) Kevin O'Brien, 2812 Rivera Drive: Parents live two doors down. Would like to state opposition to the project as it relates to the ADU, it is not a negligible impact in so far as requiring an environmental impact review. Tom Wallen, 1601 Granada Drive: Opposed to ADU, don't believe it fits in with the neighborhood, would open door for vast expansion of permit requests to increase square footage on properties to bring in separate units within buildings. Christine Fanelli, 2739 Martinez Drive: Agree with previous speakers. Would like to get a better understanding of how long will project take to complete and how disruptive it will be to the neighborhood . Concern is that this street is a thoroughfare to Burlingame Intermediate and Franklin schools, traffic is already pretty bad and dangerous at times. Want to understand the construction activities and timing of construction. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Request that before this project comes back for action, the staff report include language from State law explaining that every community within the State is required to allow for ADUs in R -1 districts, and that it doesn't constitute rezoning. >House presents itself more than a single story, concerned with size of second floor roof deck that overlooks the neighboring property, is larger than typically allowed, usually limited to 100 square feet or so . Somewhat more permissive when deck is off more private spaces, like a master bedroom as opposed to this one which is off a dining room. Therefore, by extension off the adjacent living room it leads to potential indoor/outdoor, partying and noisy activities that overlooks the neighbor. >Concerned with aesthetics of addition, seems out of character with the arched opening and the columns that appear to be more craftsman like. Concerned with what the appearance of the stone will be like with the new entry portico. >Design of entry doors are out of character with style of house, appear to be more craftsman. >Directed that story poles be installed because of the sloping site and context of the neighborhood. >Project would benefit by going through the design review consultant process, in terms of character of the windows, details, and helping decide what architectural style and character it wants to be. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Design appears confused, rear of house clashes with front of house. >What was sent to the neighbors with regards to noticing? Neighbors may not be aware of the limitations of an ADU, thought it would help to communicate to the neighbors that it is a one bedroom ADU. (Hurin: Standard noticing requirements include a small blue postcard notice which describes the proposed addition and applications being requested, time of meeting, and invitation to review plans at the Planning Division; although not required an A -board sign was also posted in front yard which contains the proposed front elevation.) >Encourage neighbors to review the plans at the Planning Division. >Are plans available online if the applicant agrees to have them posted? (Hurin: Yes, building elevations are included on the agenda and may be reviewed online once the agenda is posted on the City's website.) Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the project to a design review consultant and that story poles be installed to show the extent of the addition. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - b.2108 Clarice Lane, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -story duplex dwelling (Jaime Rapadas, AR Design Group applicant and architect; Janice and Richard Samuelson, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2108 Clarice Ln - Staff Report.pdf 2108 Clarice Ln - Attachments.pdf 2108 Clarice Ln - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Jaime Rapadas represented the applicant, with property owner Janice Samuelson. Commission Questions/Comments: >Can the uncovered parking spaces shown in the courtyard space be in tandem with the covered parking in the garage? (Kolokihakaufisi: Yes, this is allowed.) > New vinyl casement windows are proposed to match the existing window material, which is a type of window we typically do not approve or encourage, the muntins are in between the glass. Was there any desire or intent to change the character, even if it's just on the addition area and not match the existing windows and get something with more substance? (Rapadas: We are matching the existing windows and using the same grid system.) >Concerned with matching windows with the existing windows that contain grids between -the-glass. Encourage doing something more substantive on the addition area. >Houses on Quesada Way sit higher than houses on Marco Polo Way, based on your location not certain if the proposed addition may block views from your neighbor on Quesada Way. Have you shared the plans with your neighbor? (Samuelson: Have not, thought that if the neighbor was concerned they would have submitted a letter or come to the meeting.). Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Encourage you to present the plans to your neighbor since the proposed addition is up against their rear property line and is the side that faces the bay. >What is the type of siding proposed for the vertical siding on the second story? (Rapadas: It will be Hardie board, have used it on other projects when there is an elongated design, helps to reduce the bulk.) >Would be helpful to see sample of proposed siding. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Torn about the project, likes that owners are investing in the neighborhood. The massing has charm to it and fits with concept of a duplex, but it lacks the additional charm in terms of detailing. > Existing building has a certain quality and calmness to it because it is relatively simple and has some nice brick highlights which appear to be in good condition. However, the proposed materials on the addition seem foreign. Vertical pattern of Hardie planks does not harmonize well with the brick. Don't think there is a logic that says put brick on the second story, because then you're taking brick which is normally at the base of a building and putting it in a weird location on the facade. > The corbel details, supporting second floor in the courtyard area, invoke a little bit of the existing charm. But the left side elevation goes blank, looks like it's just a layer added on top. It would help if it had some additional charm and depth. Concern is that using the same windows, which appear flat, you don't get any depth or shadows because the muntins are between the glazing that you normally get with simulated true divided lite windows. So if windows along the back facade also have muntins in between glazing, that facade will also appear flat. >Programmatically, the project works well. However, project is missing charm and character that it needs to be successful. > Vertical siding is shown throughout on the perspective above the belt course, but the elevations show the siding seeming to bracket the ends, but disappear in the middle. > Really like the right side elevation, left side elevation is completely cold because it so flat. > Don't think muntins between -the-glass have ever been approved, if fact in recent project suggested that the grids be removed entirely because it looks cheap. Right side elevation does a nice job at not being a wedding cake, the left side elevation not so much, is cold, flat and unfriendly. Need to work through the details more, it's almost there with the right detailing. >Question is whether or not to refer this project to a design review consultant, right on the cusp, not sure which direction to take. > Like the exposed brick, see it on many houses in the area and would like to see all the brick elements remain. >Second floor needs more work, but not sure it's lacking to the point that it needs to be referred to a design review consultant as long the applicant is open to changing the materials and design elements on the second floor. >Left elevation is up against a grove of trees and is the least visible of the facades, appreciate that there are not a lot of windows overlooking that neighbor on Quesada Way. >Prefer simulated true divided lite windows, not comfortable approving muntins in between glazing. >Wants applicant to clarify if Hardie siding will be what is shown on the perspective or on the elevations. Have never seen Hardie board applied vertically, concerned that it will look like T -111 siding and whether it fits the level of quality in material we typically see in a project like this. Request that applicant bring in a sample. >Recently approved projects in the neighborhood, like the house across the street, have the level of detailing desired and are consistent with the design guidelines. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: > Encourage applicant to break up second story facade along left side, perhaps bump out some of the bathrooms to add articulation along that facade; might also give some logic to how wood siding could stop and terminate or continue around top course. Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS None. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS At their meeting on August 20, 2018, the City Council approved the Amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2, Development Standards. a.1357 Columbus Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1357 Columbus Ave - Memorandum.pdfAttachments: Accepted. b.Zoning Ordinance Update Subcommittee Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee MemorandumAttachments: Commissioners Kelly, Loftis and Terrones volunteered for the Zoning Ordinance Committee. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on August 27, 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 September 7, 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 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018