Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.08.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 24, 2015 Notice: 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair DeMartini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and GaulPresent6 - BandrapalliAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.July 27, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve as July 27, 2015 meetings with the following corrections: >Page 2, Item 7a (305 Primrose Road); note that Commission Terrones was recused from voting. >Page 2, Item 8a; noted that Commissioner Sargent had also met with the applicant, and had reviewed the proceedings of the prior discussion The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - b.August 10, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the minutes of August 10, 2015. The motion the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul5 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - Abstain:DeMartini1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted that Agenda Items 8c (1533 Meadow Lane), 8d (949 Laguna Avenue) and 9d (988 Howard Avenue) will not be considered this evening, but will be scheduled for the September 14, 2015 Regular Meeting due to a noticing error. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA None. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.Community Center Conceptual Plan Update Community Development Director Meeker explained that the Commission's role in reviewing the Community Center Conceptual Plan is solely to provide design input. The Commission should avoid discussing the project financing, programming and interior layout as they are outside the purview of the Commission. The City Council has authorized the work to proceed on this project as a capital project . As it is a City facility, ultimate authority over the final design, financing and programming rests with the City Council. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad introduced the discussion of Community Center Conceptual Plan. Commission questions: >May the Commission also comment on site planning and landscaping? (Meeker: yes.) Dawn Merkus, Group 4 Architects provided an overview of the project. Commission questions/comments: >Does the parking lot adjacent and under the community center provide enough parking? This needs to be considered in both options presented. (Merkus: the traffic analysis concluded that the surface lot and one of the other lots are needed, but not both in addition to the surface lot. Residents have indicated a preference for parking away form the residential area.) >How many bicycle spaces will be provided? (Merkus; there will be bike parking on the parking lot side and on the park side. A similar development in Palo Alto provides 98 spaces.) >Will areas of the building be secured during events? (Merkus: will be divided to accommodate security and to promote a succession of movement to get to an event on the property, as well as allowing for multiple events.) >Will coffee/tea be offered on the site; could be a nice feature for those waiting for children dropped off at the property for an event? (Merkus: there is the opportunity for vending machines or a coffee cart within the lobby area, but this is a few years out.) >Is it the intention to keep the WWII memorial? (Glomstad: hasn't been discussed yet.) >Likes the indoor/outdoor platform. What are the thoughts about transitioning from inside to outside for a "day in the park" type of experience? (Merkus: yes, could be accommodated.) Public Comments: None. Commission discussion: >The modern interpretation of the Mission style is interesting. >Concerned that the arches are being played up too much. >Important to maintain a human scale. >Encouraged looking at some of William Weeks' designs for inspiration. >The trellis element adds great scale to the building. >Encouraged trying to bring color into building through the use of modern materials. >Likes that the design focuses inward to the park. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The quality of exterior materials will be critical. Would like to see traditional materials used. >Appreciates the "residential" Mission approach to the design. >Interesting to see Contemporary elements incorporated into the design. >Prefers the option to provide parking under the building. Is there the potential for an additional partial level of parking below the building. >Placing parking below the tennis courts, with the courts one -half story above street level would break the visual connection to the activities on the courts. >Feels placing the tennis courts above the parking is unattractive. >Feels that the second floor area of the building design still looks institutional and monosyllabic. >Would like to see the pavilions developed more. >Developing a more asymmetric design approach may give the project a more authentic feel. >Considere how the "vignettes" relate to one another. >Feels that the elevator location is a bit quirky. For events that use the kitchen, the location of the elevator is not necessarily convenient to that location. >The design should draw people into the interior of the building where the activities are occurring. No action was required on this item. All comments will be provided to the project designer and the Citizens Advisory Committee for the project. b.FYI Applications and Protocol Community Development Director Meeker directed the Commission to the the memorandum prepared by Planning Manager Gardiner that provides a revised outline for the Commission's FYI process, including modifications suggested by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Changes may be made at this time. The final procedures will be included in an update to the Commission's Policies and Procedures Manual. Commission comments/questions: >Is landscaping included in the potential topics of an FYI? (Meeker/Hurin: yes, if it was specifically discussed previously by the Commission relative to a particular project.) >Believed the applicant should be required to sign an affidavit acknowledging that they have been briefed regarding the FYI process? (Meeker: this will be added to the process.) Public comments: None. Commission discussion: >Believes the outline looks good. >Would be helpful to have the applicant sign an acknowledgement. The comments from the Commission will be incorporated into a revised draft of the FYI process outline. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1140 Cambridge Road, zoned R- 1- Application for Design Review for a second story addition (Perry Wu and Sandra Sullivan, applicant and property owner; Robert Wehmeyer, designer) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Calendar subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Bandrapalli1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.616 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Davina Chall, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the project. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle represented the applicant. Commissioner questons/comments: >Is there a small cricket against the garage near the left -hand corner near the bedroom on the second floor? (Bittle: yes, but may be smaller than shown.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Likes the changes that have been made, particularly the treatment of the front porch. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to approve the application with conditions contained in the staff report. Discussion of motion: >Appreciates the change to the garage to bring down its scale. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - b.1906 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permits for an attached garage, a basement, and declining height envelope (59 noticed) (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Easton Estates LLC, property owner) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the project. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Typically do not see an egress from the lower level from the exercise room. Have typically denied this approach. (Deal: This type of room always feels like a dead -end space without an access to the rear-yard. Feels it is much better than having an enclosed space.) >Typically haven't had this type of egress due to the potential for conversion to an illegal secondary unit. Have received an exception for the basement area. (Deal: Homes with a detached garage can also receive an FAR increase due to the presence of the detached garage. Believes the access is important to the owner in this case.) >When denied without prejudice previously, there seemed to be a consensus that the design didn't fit with the neighborhood. Doesn't see significant material changes that have been made to the design - the design looks the same. Understands that the design review consultant likes the design, but the consultant doesn't get a vote on the project. How does the design meet the Commission's concerns . (Deal: The vote on the project was actually 3-2; two members were absent. Feels that the project wasn't given a fair hearing because of the two absences from the Commission on that evening - thought the result would have been different had all members been present. Made the changes that the design reviewer requested and that the other two members who supported the design had requested. The design reviewer felt that the home was Prairie style and not Contemporary.) >Specifically, how do the changes made to the project actually address the action taken by the Commission? (Deal: Reduced the height of the second floor, but didn't reduce it to 8-feet since it is a flat roof design. Added more permeable pavers. Added an Evergreen tree. The trees along the left hand side cannot be saved since the neighboring property has been excavated to a point where they can't be saved.) >Where has the increase in permeable pavers been done? (Deal: Are installing unit pavers that are permeable.) This was shown on the plan before. >Requested clarification of the tree that has been added. There was a Coast Live Oak in the front of the property on the prior plan. (Deal: Noted the new Evergreen tree notation.) The Coast Live Oak is now absent on the current plan that was present on the prior plan, there was an Evergreen tree shown on the prior plan - it is not a new addition. (Deal: The Coast Live Oak was removed to accommodate the drainage on the site. There is a discrepancy in the plan.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Likes a lot of what has been changed. There has been some effort to make the changes that were requested. Keeps coming back to the aspect of neighborhood fit. The Council agreed that the design doesn't fit with the neighborhood character. Struggling with the divergence of opinion between his position and that of the design reviewer. >Thought the project was approvable before. Feels that the neighborhood is fairly eclectic . Notwithstanding the landscape plan, feels the project is a bit more approvable. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The City Council for their own reasons asked the project to be referred to a design review consultant for input regarding potential revisions. The consultant is asked to opine whether the project is approvable, or if more modifications are necessary. Must consider the consultants recommendations in the context of the project, but they don't have a vote on the project. The Commission doesn't always agree with the exact details of consultant recommendations. >Clearly the majority of the Planning Commission didn't feel that the design fit into the neighborhood . The Council affirmed this position, but referred the project to a design review consultant. The consultant knew what the votes of both bodies were, but felt the design was fine and should have been approved . This doesn't necessarily guarantee an approval. It is a risk for the applicant that the project may still not be approved. In the past a motion to deny without prejudice has resulted in significant design changes . These changes aren't enough to warrant a change in position. >Perhaps there wasn't enough direction provided to the design review consultant. >The Council did provide direction to make changes that make the design more compatible with the neighborhood. The design review consultant didn't help a lot in this instance. >Believes the design fits with the neighborhood. Appreciates the diversity of building types and designs in Burlingame. Is decidedly not a Modern design, but Prairie style. >This is not a neighborhood with a well-defined style. >Believes the design is well done, but believes that it is a bit tall for a Prairie style. Is wrestling more with the special permit for stair off of the exercise room. Changes the whole dynamic of the site - could encourage people to use the side-yard as an access to this aspect. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to approve application, including the application for the stairway from the basement to the rear yard, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chair DeMartini called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve and it failed by the following vote: Aye: Loftis, Sargent, Terrones Nay: Gaul, DeMartini, Gum Absent: Bandrapalli Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to approve the application, with the exception of the request for a special permit for a stairway from the basement to the rear yard, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chair DeMartini called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve and it carried by the following vote: Aye: Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul Nay: DeMartini, Gum Absent: Bandrapalli Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to deny the application for a special permit for the stairway from the basement to the rear yard, with the additional condition that an FYI shall be required for the revisions to the rear elevation to accommodate the removal of the stairway from the basement. Chair DeMartini called for a roll call vote on the motion and it carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Nay:DeMartini, and Gum2 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - c.1533 Meadow Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for declining height envelope for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Sharon R. O'Byrne, property owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin This item will be rescheduled for the September 14, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda due to a noticing error. d.949 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for building height and declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling (the existing detached garage will be retained) (Kerry J. Perez Tr, applicant and property owner; J Deal Associates, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin This item will be rescheduled for the September 14, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda due to a noticing error. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1500 Los Altos Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two -story single family dwelling and a Special Permit for an attached garage (Hamed Balazadeh, BOD Design, designer; Shahram Zomorrodi, Zomorrodi Corp., applicant and owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the project. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Hamed Balazadeh and Shahram Zomorrodi represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Did Public Works require the driveway to remain at the same location? (Balazadeh: yes, they denied the request to place it on the other street face.) >Need to provide notes regarding the actual materials that will be used on the trim elements; materials, sizes, etc. >Will the windows be aluminum-clad? (Balazadeh: will be Andersen Series 400 vinyl-clad.) >Consider providing an access that improves the ability to access the trash area. (Zomorrodi: currently has no access from the kitchen to the rear yard. Will look at this.) >Any thought to where a vegetable garden may be placed? (Zomorrodi: haven't determined this yet.) >If Hardy Board siding is being used, what type of corner detail will be provided? (Balazadeh: will provide the detail.) >Likes the design, did they ever look at providing a detached garage in an effort to save the Monterey Cypress tree? (Balazadeh: was originally designed in that manner with the garage on the other side of the property. Zomorrodi: went through many revisions for the project. Reviewed with an outside consultant who thought it would be best to keep the mass of the house away from the neighbor. Will work with the arborist to see if there is any way to retain the tree if possible.) >How far would the house need to be moved from the tree to guarantee that it can be saved? (Balazadeh: is a question for the arborist to determine. The owner plans to have the arborist study this . Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Zomorrodi: believes that the home will be four to five feet from the tree trunk, but not certain how far from the roots.) >The tree could begin to damage the house at some point if retained. >Provide a sample of the Hardy siding that will be used on the exterior. It is a cement board that is almost impossible to replace without a great deal of effort. Also provide an explanation of how the corners will be joined. Public Comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Feels that it may be worth reconfiguring the house a bit to save the tree in the front. >Agrees that some effort should be made to save the tree. >The lot is large, so there should be some means of designing to retain the tree. Expects the design to be altered to address this. >Questions whether Hardy Board will provide the rich texture and feel desired for the exterior - need to provide a sample. >Do we ask the applicant to save a tree that may not live in the long term? Doesn't need to have the applicant go to extraordinary measures to save the tree. >Need to have an Arborist Report that addresses the current design's impact upon the Cypress tree. >Wouldn't spend a lot of time to redesign the home if the tree is not in that great of shape (rated as "fair"). >At what point is it acceptable to remove a tree that is not a safety issue. >Uncomfortable that the City Arborist has already granted the tree removal permit. >Is well under the maximum height; the hillside construction permit is approvable. >Concern about impacts upon view from neighbor's property; should story poles be constructed. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the application on the regular action calendar when ready, with direction to the applicant to obtain an arborist report that identifies that measures that would need to be taken to preserve the Monterey Cypress tree and the erection of story poles. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - b.1345 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc.; applicant and designer; Grace Sun, property owner) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the project. Questions of staff: >Noted a discrepancy between the lot area referenced in the staff report and on the plans. (Hurin: will make the correction.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes James Chu represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >What is wrong with the current house? (Chu: doesn't know.) >Is this a spec house? (Chu: yes.) >Is there anything that can be done to provide screening along the right side? (Chu: will look into this.) >Will the French doors be mismatched with the clad wood windows? (Chu: no, they will match.) >May wish to explore whether or not the clad nano door is desired as opposed to a less expensive aluminum design. >Requested clarification of the size and quantity of ground cover on the landscape plan. >Provide details of corbels and outriggers on gable ends. Public Comments: Glen Saito, neighbor to the left: Opposed to the switching of the driveway. Feels that the current driveway pattern for the houses in the block should be preserved on the left. His house has a four foot setback. Was not aware that the driveway would be flipped until he received the public hearing notice . Willing to work with the owner of the property. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Has a concern about demolishing the existing house and replacing it with a house that would more likely be found commonly in Easton Addition. >There needs to be a much larger hurdle for movement of driveways. >Have not received any additional information or clarification on why the existing house must be removed. The proposed design will change the pattern of the existing neighborhood. >Flipping the driveway is only necessitated by the proposed design. Is not necessarily desirable. >It would certainly be possible to place the garage on the left side. Requested more analysis. >Has a problem demolishing an existing home for a new spec house. Would like it to be evaluated as a remodel. The new home and relocated driveway will disrupt the neighborhood pattern. >Likes the design, but also likes the existing house. Can't support flipping the driveway. >This design may not be as compatible with the existing neighborhood as the existing structure. >Noted that the Commission regularly approves two -story homes in neighborhoods predominated by single-story homes. Has a problem with restricting the ability for the property owner to redevelop the property. >Have no idea what the condition of the interior of the property is. Recently approved the demolition of another home around the corner under much the same circumstances. Doesn't matter who will live in the home ultimately. Doesn't feel that the Commission can prohibit demolition. >Agrees that the design is approvable, but the design must be something that is compatible with the neighborhood and represents an improvement over the existing conditions. Whatever is approved on this site must be as good or better than the existing home. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the application on the regular action calendar when ready, with further direction to the applicant to consider a design that is more compatible with the neighborhood and similar in character to the existing house. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - c.628 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a basement and attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage (Toby Long, Toby Long Design, applicant and designer; Charlotte Payton and Greg Smelzer, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Gum spoke to neighbors on right and left and directly across the street. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the project. Questions of staff: >Have factory-built homes been built in the City previously? (Meeker: As long as they comply with all applicable building codes they are permitted.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Greg Smelzer, Charlotte Payton and Toby Long represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Have they looked at providing a detached garage? (Long: that type of design would have compromised too much of the rear-yard.) >Was a lower plate height considered for the second floor? (Long: have only considered the nine-foot plate height.) >Is there an attempt to match the finishes of the home next door? (Long: the materials on the home next door are materials that are a preference of the designer; attempting to complement, not emulate.) >Why remove both street trees and replace with one? (Long: are open to looking at this matter.) >Haven't seen simulated turf in the front -yard before; what is the thought process? (Long: are biased to doing this for the aesthetic. But are open to discussion.) >Provide a sample of the Andersen 100 Series window that is proposed. >What is the purpose of the shed? (Long: storage.) >Provide a sample of the synthetic turf, but would prefer drought tolerant landscaping. >For the screens, provide some deviation in the screen design so that it doesn't completely match the neighboring house. >Is the landscaping intended to be Modern and a bit rigid in its design; there are no other ornamental provided? (Long: are open to more of a conversation regarding the landscaping.) Make the landscaping a bit more lush to soften the appearance. Most concerned with the large tree species. Public Comments: Mary Ann Notz, 619 Trenton Way: Feels that the design of the new home and the neighboring home are too similar in appearance and provide the appearance of a very large home. This is very out of character with the other homes on the street. Has lived in Burlingame since 1969 and is not aware of any homes with basements among her acquaintances. Frank Henley, home to the right: Unfortunate that the design is so similar to his home. Doesn't want to get off on the wrong foot with the neighbor, but it is so similar. Hopes that the design can be altered in some manner to differentiate the two homes. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Is a handsome design. The massing and scale are well done. Understands the challenges of designing for a 5,000 square foot lot. The landscaping needs some work. >Wants to support the design like that proposed. Is concerned with placing two homes of such similar design next to one another. Not sure how the neighborhood context is affected. Needs to be Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes revised to not be so identical. >The two homes read as so similar given that the other homes in the neighborhood are similar in scale and design. >Should attempt to make the designs more dissimilar. >Doesn't have a problem with the attached garage given the existing pattern in the neighborhood and the desire to have a more useable rear-yard. >Hard to say that this design doesn't fit in the neighborhood when the neighboring design was approved under the same design review criteria by a prior Planning Commission. >A key component will be the landscaping, but still not sold on artificial turf. Consider drought-resistant landscaping. >Appreciates the effort to minimize the overall height. Supports the contemporary design with the attached garage. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the application on the regular action calendar when ready. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - d.988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Design Review for an application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for a new 3-story commercial building (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property owner; Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber This item will be rescheduled for the September 14, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda due to a noticing error. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair DeMartini noted the upcoming General Plan CAC meeting on August 26th. Commissioner Terrones noted an upcoming meeting of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee on August 31st. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.FYI: 1460 Cabrillo Avenue - Review of landscape plan for recently approved Design Review project. Accepted. b.FYI: 1123 Lincoln Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. c.FYI: 1024 Balboa Avenue - Review of left elevation change to a previously approved Design Review project (as required by Planning Commission condition of approval). Accepted. d.FYI: 1364 Vancouver Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 9/21/2015 August 24, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Accepted. e.FYI: 1547 Vancouver Avenue - Review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Staff was directed to schedule a public hearing to consider the amendment. There is a concern about inconsistency of the plans with what has been constructed in the field. f.FYI: 1504 Drake Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:41 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 August 24, 2015. 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 3, 2015, 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 $533, 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 9/21/2015