Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.11.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, November 13, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and TerronesPresent5 - Loftis, and TseAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the minutes with amendments submitted to staff earlier. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - a.Draft October 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft October 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 22, 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 a.100 Highland Avenue, zoned CAR - Application for Conditional Use Permit for an automoble rental business. (Kent Putnam, applicant; 101 California Drive LLC, property owner; Proto Inc., architect) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 100 Highland Ave - Staff Report 100 Highland Ave - Attachments 100 Highland Ave - Plans - 11.13.18 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. >Due to nature of code enforcement complaint, can we consider adding a condition of approval prohibiting rental cars from parking on the street and that they be contained on site? As indicated in their application they are providing the required parking on site for both the employees and rental cars, and additional rental car storage off site on the remote lot. (Gardiner: Yes, since it would be related to the business it would be acceptable to add such a condition.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Kent Putnam represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >In visiting the site, saw new dealership vehicles parked in the area designated for rental car parking; assume those vehicles would be replaced with the rental vehicles, correct? (Putnam: Yes, Hertz will have their rental cars on the property. Would be interested in also having two to three short -term spaces on the street.) Public Comments: Pamela Simonton, 1107 Bayswater Avenue: Concerned with traffic patterns and increase in traffic, cars parked or stopped in street, and large trucks unloading cars. Every morning, Highland Avenue is blocked on both ends with traffic. Bayswater Avenue has become a speedway since commercial activities have expanded to Howard Avenue, traffic appears to be 50% - 100% higher and faster. Hear cars screeching and slamming on brakes all day at corner of Highland and Bayswater Avenues. Question to Applicant: >These are rental cars for Hertz, not new cars to be parked at site. Parking for 20 additional rental vehicles will be on the remote lot in San Mateo. Is it safe to assume that additional rental cars when needed will be driven from the San Mateo overflow lot by employees? (Putnam: Yes, that is correct. No transport trucks will be used to deliver rental cars to the facility on Highland Avenue.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >It’s an operation that had been operating, but didn ’t have a use permit, and vacated in the interim. Is an operation that is necessary and could help with congestion by allowing a rental agency within walking distance from the service center. Is an appropriate, symbiotic use with the service center. >In support of application, convenient for being able to get rental car when your car is being serviced. >In support of adding a condition about not allowing rental vehicle to be parked on the street. >Condition should also state that the rental vehicles be required to be parked on site or in the designated remote parking lot in San Mateo. Want to make sure rental vehicles are not parked in nearby public parking lots. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2656 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review (major renovation) and Hillside Area Construction Permit for additions to the lower floor and main floor of an existing single family dwelling and to rebuild the existing main floor. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Gary Diebel, AIA, applicant and architect; Burak and Ofelia Guner, property owners) (107 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2656 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2656 Summit Dr - Attachments 2656 Summit Dr - Plans - 11.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent indicated he had met with the applicant and spoke to the neighbor at 2667 Summit Drive. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak represented the applicant, with architect Gary Diebel and property owner Burak Guner. Commission Questions/Comments: >There is a cross easement to allow driveway access to the house itself? (Diebel: Yes, also an easment to the side for utilities.) >Can the location of A/C condensing unit be changed? It looks like it would be across the property line as shown, near the neighbor's house. (Diebel: Can look at other locations.) >Seems like the whole first floor has been demolished down to the deck. Even the walls shown as remaining on the revised demolition plan appear to have been demolished. >Will the skylights be flat or domed? Prefers to specify type of skylights so there is not a dome of light. (Diebel: Specified as flat, Keyone #4 on the proposed roof plan.) >What is the material of the railings in the front? (Diebel: Cedar wood to match.) >Is there an intended color for the roof? (Diebel: Showing a medium gray roof.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Straightforward project. Improvement to what was there. >Approvable as is, with the details as suggested. Would be helpful to specify a definitive roof color as an FYI. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following condition: >The color of the metal roof shall be reported back to the Planning Commission as an FYI. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - b.1846 and 1860 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for supplemental parking for a non -retail service use in the drainage easement. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Abeyta, applicant and architect; 1846 Rollins LLC and Rollins Partners LLC, property owners) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Plans - 11.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul reported that he had spoken with the property owner. Commissioner Terrones spoke with a Vice President Project Manager of SummerHill, which has an interest in a neighboring property. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Danielle Douthett, Facebook, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Would there be willingness in the future to discuss creating public access to and through the property, provided it does not inhibit operations of the business? (Douthett: Can have conversations in the future.) >Exhibits show some buses approaching from the south, but aren't they all only accessing from and to Millbrae Avenue? (Douthett: Yes. Only from Millbrae Ave. The exhibit is only to demonstrate turning radii.) Public Comments: Mark Hudak: Represents the property owner. This is a good use, particularly for the 1860 property since it is so highly constrained. There might be a time in the future to provide pedestrian access and accommodation, would be willing to converse in the future. If not the proposed use, could have a permitted use such as a warehouse, plumbing supply, or a dispatch corp yard that had previously been approved - Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the amount of trips during peak hours would be far more than this use. When major campuses come into the community, need to figure out how to integrate them and be responsible. This is part of a responsible transportation plan. Only a small part of the northern portion of Rollins Road will be effected by the use, very little impact on the community. Not aware of any opposition to the proposal. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >OK with the use. Not concerned with how the buses are moved around within the site. Only concern would be cuing on Rollins Road. (Kane: A CUP can be re-evaluated or revoked if there is a substantial deviation from the conditions.) >It is a large drainage easement with an existing parking use, and that tenant is going away. Cannot have a building in the easement. This tenant works for this site and use. >Not much else can be done with the property. Does not seem like this use would be an issue. >There is very little traffic on Rollins Road in the early morning hours. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - c.Interim Zoning Standards for the proposed North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) and Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone (RRMU). Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report Attachments Attachments: There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >In the North Rollins Road area, there is a provision to allow up to 1.5 FAR for warehousing. Would that also apply to a personal storage use? (Gardiner: Yes. Warehouses and storage are considered less impactful than other commercial uses so a higher floor area could be allowed with a CUP.) >Has the tiered approach to the standards been tried elsewhere? (Gardiner: Yes, examples have been referenced in Mountain View, Santa Clara, and South San Francisco, for example. The intent is to have objective standards for providing community benefits. The approach has been tested in the other jurisdictions and there are built examples of projects that have utilized the approach.) >Is there data to support that proximity to transit will allow the higher densities to have less traffic impact than in other locations? (Gardiner: The EIR for the General Plan ran traffic models with the densities being proposed. The models would account for location in terms of proximity to transit. The EIR concluded that there would not be a significant environmental impact.) >In the most recent City Council meeting there was direction to revise the maximum density in the North Burlingame Mixed Use zone to 140 units per acre, but that's not shown in this draft. Will that be edited subsequently? (Gardiner: Yes, and that can be acknowledged by the Planning Commission in its recommendation.) >What transition requirements would there be for adjacency to lower -scale neighborhoods, such as Dufferin Avenue? (Gardiner: Table 25.40-2 Section D provides regulations for additional setback distances and height for taller buildings adjacent to lower -scale residential neighborhoods. The higher the building, the wider the required setback.) Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee comments: >The subcommittee has met twice to review the materials. The interim standards have been derived from tried-and-true examples, and based on the needs to align the implementation with the General Plan there is comfort having these move forward. >These are interim standards, and they can be further refined and revised as things move forward in the future. >It will be helpful for property owners and potential applicants to have something knowable in order to move things forward in the change areas. These areas are anticipated to have the greatest amount of change per the General Plan. >The goal is to enliven the areas and have them be more pedestrian -friendly. Seems like a solid framework for the future. >If an applicant wants more intense development, the tiered approach provides give and take with the provision of community benefits. It will create move investment in the community from applicants and developers. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is OK with the revision to a maximum 140 units per acre in the North Burlingame Mixed Use zone, per direction from the City Council. >What would the difference between 120 and 140 units per acre look like? (Gardiner: Between those densities the difference is likely to be imperceptible. It may simply be an adjustment in the unit mix to have additional smaller units. The density is comparable to the Lot F /Village at Burlingame project, which is five stories with very compact units. If the units are larger, the buildings could be in the range of six or seven stories. The densities are at the higher range, but the buildings would not be high rises. The heights in the North Burlingame zone vary by location.) Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend approval of the interim zoning regulations for the North Rollins Road and North Burlingame Mixed Use districts, with the provision that the maximum density in the North Burlingame Mixed Use district be 140 dwelling units per acre in the maximum Tier 3. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1648 Barroilhet Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to be retained). (TRG Architects, Randy Grange, applicant and designer; Debbie and William Clifford, property owners) (105 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Staff Report 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Attachments 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Plans - 11.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will the standing seam metal roof be gray as shown in the rendering? (Grange: Yes.) The color should be noted when the application comes back for action. >Will there only be stucco mold around the openings, and no casing? (Grange: Stucco to the windows.) >Will the rear awning fascia be painted wood or metal? (Grange: Wood.) >Is the existing fencing going to remain all the way around? (Grange: Can replace the fencing as needed. Will coordinate with the neighbors.) >The existing garage is being retained, but the look of the front of the garage will be changing? (Grange: Yes, because it has the old clipped roof. Can't match the pitch of the roof since it would be too tall for a detached structure, so can't be the same as the house. Could remove the clipped gable to finish off the garage, so it matches the new roof of the house.) >Would like the dimensions of the trims called out, such as the fascia. The proportions are nice, so that will make it easier for the builder to match the plans. >Bathroom window in the front looks incomplete, like it was broken and covered with a piece of plywood. Perhaps opaque or leaded glass to allow for privacy. (Grange: Can look at it. Can consider sandblasted glass.) >Consider more trim around some of the windows? (Grange: Old tudors from the 20s and 30s did not have a lot of trim around the windows. Often the windows were just recessed.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Massing is so similar to the existing house. Reminiscent of the existing house, looks like a one -story with attic spaces. >Likes the detailing and simplicity. Clean interpretation of the tudor style with boxed bays. The trim on the boxed bays gives them some substance. >Agrees with the concerns with the front window. >Would like to see something done to the front of the garage to tie it in to the rest of the house. >Concerned with some of the finishes, such as the sizes of the trim pieces. Will want to check with the resubmittal. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the application on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - b.1020 Toyon Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Genesis King Hwa LLC, applicant and property owner; Christian Ruffat, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1020 Toyon Dr - Staff Report & Attachments 1020 Toyon Dr - Plans - 11.13.18 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. Questions of staff: >Does this property back up to the SummerHill site? (Gardiner: Yes.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Christian Rufatt represented the applicant, with the property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >What color will the metal roof be? Just include it in the next pass. >Would like the sizes of the fascia and trim to be indicated on the plans. >What is "TTW"? Will that be wood siding? ("To the weather." It is a stained natural wood siding utilizing T moldings at the corners to minimize any trim work. It will butt into a metal corner channel.) >What are the sizes of the columns in the front? (Rufatt: 12 inches. The veneer will make them slightly thicker, to 14-16 inches.) >The existing oak tree is proposed to be removed. It looks like it is on the property line. Has that been coordinated with the neighbors? (Owner: Yes, neighbors have seen the plans with the tree shown removed . The property owners had previously applied to have the tree removed, since roots are causing damage to the property. Will also be building a new fence .)(Rufatt: Also, would not have the required width for the driveway, so would have to have a notch.) Should check with Parks Department for the removal. Public Comments: Neighbor to the right, 1016 Toyon Drive: Spoke with original owner of 1020 Toyon Drive. The tree is located on the 1020 Toyon property. It was planted 30 years ago, and side of trunk is 9 feet from the corner of the house. The driveway has cracks, and is concerned that the roots will break the foundation . Removal permit was originally denied because the roots have not yet damaged the foundation, but when that happens it will be costly to repair. Commission Questions/Comments (continued): >Is the side door on the garage a glazed door? (Rufatt: Yes.) Should be indicated on the plans. >Is the window specified Anderson 400? (Rufatt: Yes.) The commission cannot specify manufacturers, but this is one of the vinyl windows that have been approved in the past, for its look, detailing, etc . Otherwise the commission does not typically approve vinyl windows. (Rufatt: The owners can commit to that window, as they have used it before on other projects.) >Will the skylight be flat or domed? (Rufatt: Flat glass.) Should be noted. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >10' plate on first floor, 8 1/2' on second. Can it be lower? The porch has spindly columns, tall forehead, makes first floor look really tall. Would help with the proportions if it was lower, such as 9' or 9 1/2'. >The fascias are much wider than others in the neighborhood. With the metal roofing, it almost gives it a commercial look. >Could the number of materials in the front be simplified? Or bring a board. (Rufatt: There are three materials. Can bring a board.) >Rear balcony is fine on this house, with new townhouses being built behind. >What is intended for the garage door? (Rufatt: Aluminum frame frosted glass door. Had also considered wood. The ownership would be open to either.) Would prefer wood. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nice application, other than the plate height on the first floor. Elevations are well organized, roof forms are simple. >Sad to see the oak tree go, but it will continue to be a problem. >Columns look skinny. >Materials seem jumbled. The stone on the columns suggest they would be supporting a big beam, and doesn't understand the stone in the center. There is rough stone, but then smooth stucco. It is trying to be both modern and traditional in its materials, but is not holding together. >Bringing the plate height down will help. Forehead looks too high. >If the garage door is aluminum frame, would think the windows should also be aluminum -clad. Could be a darker anodized finish. Then the garage and window materials would match, which would help bring it all together. >Nice design but does not fit in the neighborhood. Other houses are quaint and small. The neighborhood can support a two -story house, but it's too tall. Given the scale of the surrounding houses, the plate heights should be no higher than 9' and 8'. >Architectural style does not fit in with the neighborhood. >Porch needs work, feels uninviting. Has an industrial appearance. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - c.1547 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage. (Studio 797, Jared Kuykendall, architect; Flora Lee and Jonathan Wan, applicant and property owners) ( 73 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1547 Los Altos Dr - Staff Report 1547 Los Altos Dr - Attachments 1547 Los Altos Dr - Plans - 11.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair Gaul reported that he spoke to the property owner at the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jared Kuykendall represented the applicant, with property owner Flora Lee. Commission Questions/Comments: >Existing side rake overhangs have an angled ship prow look to them. Why not the same thing in the addition? (Kuykendall: Thought that detail worked better when the two planes are coming together. Did not make as much sense with the shed roof on the addition.) >What material will the garage door be? (Kuykendall: Wood or composite, painted to match the trim .) Should indicate on the plans. Either wood or composite would be fine, but should not be aluminum or metal. >Would the existing windows be considered to be replaced? Would improve the look of the house overall. (Kuykendall: Has been discussed, but it has been a budgetary constraint, and the owners have wanted to focus on the addition.) Not a critical item. However could have white -clad windows on the addition and retain the existing to be replaced in the future. >Given that this is a Hillside Area Construction Permit and views need to be considered, have the plans been reviewed with the neighbors? (Lee: Yes, has spoken to neighbors, including uphill neighbor .) Neighboring house uphill only has a small window facing, so does not seem like there would be view impacts. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Good-looking addition. >There are 24 attached garages on the block compared to three detached. Existing house only has a carport now. >The addition harmonizes and complements the existing house well. >The addition provides a more traditional and natural porch. The house becomes more front -facing and fits into the neighborhood better. >Clarify windows and garage door materials in the resubmittal. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the application on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - d.251 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the exterior facade of a commercial storefront. (Marco Fung, applicant and architect; Ken White, property owner) (85 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 251 California Dr - Staff Report 251 California Dr - Attachments 251 California Dr - Plans - 11.13.18 Attachments: Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair Gaul reported that he had spoken with the property owner at the site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Marco Fung represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Could the transom windows be retained, to maintain the pattern seen elsewhere on the black? (Fung: Wants to maximize the view from the street into the building. Most of the wood between the transom and storefront windows is rotten, so proposed to eliminate it.) >Will the front and rear portions be rented out together? (Fung: Still looking for tenant for the entire space.) >Have you reviewed the letter from the member of the historical society? (Fung: Has reviewed the letter but not yet talked to the owners. There is a historic painting on the side wall at the garage door.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Stripped-down nature of the renovation of the facade is not acceptable. >There is an existing scale and rhythm, and the design guidelines ask to consider those in review of a project. Pedestrian scale, a transom area, and transom windows above that are lost. The tile adornment is removed. >Building is currently charming. Basecamp next door was able to do a renovation and retain the facade . It is a good block. >It is a prominent building, seen as approaching Burlingame Avenue. >Does not necessarily need to retain the existing transoms and transom framing, but the existing scale and proportions need to be preserved or replicated. But if rebuilt needs to have a replication of the scale and rhythm seen on the other facades. Still needs to have a transom beam or transom awning, to establish the 8-foot scale to the windows and openings below. Having only a mullion where the transom should be is not sufficient. >Property owners are trying to create a need for a tenant. If the building is old, it will be bypassed. If a property owner wants to attract a tenant, needs to create a new space that is ready to be leased. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Loftis, and Tse2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council reviewed the General Plan in its last meeting, and will start the public hearing for adoption on November 19th. The City Council will be considering residential impact fees in a special meeting on November 15th. a.209 Channing Road - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 209 Channing Road- FYIAttachments: Accepted. b.715-717 and 719-721 Linden Avenue - FYI for change to a previously approved Design Review project. 715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Memo & AttachmentsAttachments: Understanding is that the proposed window has divided lites. Wants to make sure that is incorporated in the approval documents. (Lewit: The building permit plans can be revised to reflect that.) c.920 Bayswater Avenue - FYI for changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development. 920 Bayswater Ave - FYI memo 920 Bayswater Ave - FYI attachments 920 Bayswater Ave - FYI plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion of the vinyl windows. d.619-625 California Drive - FYI for changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved 26-unit live/work development with retail commercial space on the ground floor. 619-625 California Dr - Memo & Attachments 619-625 California Dr - Revised Visual Simulations Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 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 November 13, 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 November 26, 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, which includes noticing costs. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 November 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018