HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.05.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 14, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gaul called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and TerronesPresent6 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Consent Calendar items. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 -
a.1556 Alturas Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a one -year permit extension for an
approved permit for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and
second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling. This project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Mark Wilson, applicant; Jeff Baleix, architect; Ken
Woo, property owner) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1556 Alturas Dr - Staff Report
1556 Alturas Dr - Attachments
1556 Alturas Dr - plans - 05.14.18
Attachments:
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.705 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., Jesse Geurse,
applicant and designer; Peter and Hillary Blum, property owners) (145 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Keylon
705 Vernon Way - Staff Report
705 Vernon Way -Attachments
705 Vernon Way - plans - 05.14.18
Attachments:
c.13 Victoria Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review (major renovation) for a first
and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with detached garage. This
project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)(2). (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual
Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Patrick O'Connell, property owner) (205 noticed)
Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
13 Victoria Rd - Staff Report.pdf
13 Victoria Rd - Attachments.pdf
13 Victoria Rd - Plans - 05.14.18.pdf
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1316 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition and a new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, Xie Associates, applicant and architect;
Carolyn Bao, property owner) (134 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1316 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1316 Laguna Ave - Attachments
1316 Laguna Ave - plans - 05.14.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused from the discussion as she owns property within 500-feet of the
subject property. She left the Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Unidentified property owner represented the applicant.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions/comments.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The revisions are for the better. There is enough room for a small car to fit into the parking space.
>On the right side elevation, there will need to be some trim to finish off the area near the gutter at the
roof line. Is approvable as submitted.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application.
Discussion of Motion:
>The project meets the zoning requirements; the only request is for design review. Meets the
design guidelines.
>The neighborhood is beginning to have more two-story homes. This design was done well.
Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
b.373 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation
and a first-floor addition to an existing single -family dwelling with an attached garage .
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environemntal Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (1). (Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc .,
Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Gary Haslam, property owner) (120 noticed) Staff
Contact: Sonal Aggarwal
373 Lexington Way- Staff Report- 5.14.18.pdf
373 Lexington Way- Attachment- 5.14.18.pdf
373 Lexington- Plans- 5.14.18.pdf
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. Commissioner Kelly noted that he wasn't present at the
design review study meeting, but reviewed the recording.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no Commissioner questions/comments.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Wants to look at all projects with side courtyards on a case-by-case basis.
>The front setback is gracious, the lot is smaller in area, therefore the rear -yard is smaller than is
typical.
>The applicant is attempting to create as much open space as possible by providing the courtyard, but
changes have been made to make it a passive use area.
>Appreciates the efforts to improve the home while keeping it a one-story structure.
>Likes that the courtyard has been redesigned to become a focal point, not an active area .
Approvable.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application.
Discussion of Motion:
>Noted that the spa could also be a gathering spot, but will not likely be a disturbance to
neighbors.
Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 -
c.2720 Trousdale Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a
first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Gautam Dusija, applicant and property owner; Enrique
Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs, designer) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
2720 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report
2720 Trousdale Dr - Attachments
2720 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 05.14.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had visited the
uphill neighbor and viewed the story poles.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Gautam Dusija represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Asked if the designer was present. (Dusija: is caught in traffic.) Would like to know if a detailed
section through the proposed construction has been done to determine the true height of the ridgeline; it is
a matter of inches.
>Have any different floor plans been considered? There are other configurations that would provide
another ridge location. (Dusija: main consideration was to match the addition to the existing house.)
>Were options considered that didn't extend out the garage wall? (Dusija: the plans considered would
have extended more into the back yard, impacting more of the neighbor's view.)
>Has a flat roof been considered; would reduce impacts? (Dusija: a flat roof would not match the rest of
the house. Would be higher toward the neighbor.)
>Need a drawing to show the true impacts. Can see several solutions that could reduce impacts upon
the neighbor. "Match" could mean several things. (Dusija: the design is the best available option.)
Public Comments:
Attorney for Jackie Lim, uphill neighbor: asked the client to provide examples of view impacts from interior
living space. From the dining room, it is a matter of inches when determining what is an impact. Feels a
10' 5" height would be acceptable.
Jackie Lim, uphill neighbor: have lived in the home for 25-years. Provided a summary of the discussion
with the applicant. Applicant needs to look at other alternative designs.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Appreciates the applicant's efforts. There is a minimal amount of view blockage from the neighbor's
home. The hillside area view impact descriptions do not guarantee that there are no view impacts .
However, there are still potential solutions that need to be explored. The designer needs to be present to
discuss the project. Need more information such as sections, roof plans, etc. There are other solutions
available. A match to the existing house isn't of critical importance.
>The project application is only for a hillside area construction permit, not design review. The
Commission cannot review this from a design review standpoint, limited to considering consistency with
the hillside area restrictions.
>The applicant's desire for a pitched roof is reasonable, but there are other options for the floor plan
that could meet the interests of both parties while reducing the ridge height. There may still be some view
impact from the adjacent property.
>Consider shifting the addition away from the neighbor; this would effectively lower the ridge height as
viewed from the neighbor's property. Need to see design analyses in drawing form of the options.
>Consider providing 3-D renditions.
>It appears that the finished floor heights of the properties (subject and uphill neighbor) are eight -feet
different. Feels that the view impact is minimal. A section should be provided through both houses to
show the finished floor elevations and to provide a good basis for comparison. Feels the neighbor would
be less pleased with a flat roof. Feels the project could stand as it is now presented.
>The ridge height will be roughly one-foot above the existing fence.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item.
Discussion of Motion:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Encouraged the applicant to look at other options as indicated. Also suggested that the
neighbor consider options other than a flat roof.
Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 -
d.825 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2- Application for Design Review including a first and
second story addition to convert a single family dwelling to a duplex. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (JoAnn Gann, applicant and
designer; Greg Scopazzi, property owner) (121 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
825 Edgehill Dr - Staff Report
825 Edgehill Dr - Attachments
825 Edgehill Dr - plans - 05.14.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Greg Scopazzi represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is there any way to provide symmetry by the entry on the side rather than providing only one post at
that location? (Scopazzi: can look at this as an FYI.)
>Where does the 10" post appear on the front elevation? (Scopazzi: in line with the outside wall.) It is
shown in plan, but doesn't understand how this detail comes together; can come back as an FYI.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Thinks the belly-band did a lot to break up the facades. Looks better with garage doors instead of a
carport. Appreciates the addition of the ornamental wood elements.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application with an additional condition requiring that the final resolution of the post be brought
back as an FYI. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 -
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
e.615 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application to renew a Conditional Use Permit for
long term airport parking as an interim use. This project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15301. (Airport Parking LLC, applicant and property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
615 Airport Blvd - Staff Report
615 Airport Blvd - Attachments
615 Airport Blvd - Plans - 05.14.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent had a brief email exchange with the
applicant.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Mark Hudak represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Where does the State Lands Commission appear on the roster of owners? (Hudak: believes the roster
only includes the individual property owners of the parcels, and does not include State Lands. The roster is
a comprehensive list. Some owners don't live in the area, or even in the country, hence the challenge in
getting all owners on-board.)
>What is the potential of having the one remaining individual sign -off on development of the property?
(Hudak: is primarily a matter of logistics.)
>Had a conversation with the State Lands Commission; when does the lease expire? (Hudak: expires in
2038. It is a delicate negotiation; need to figure out what State Lands wants, then provide it.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Would like to see the plan of action and have full details in two years. Ensure that all owners have
signed-off on the agreement to develop. Would prefer a comprehensive list of milestones that can always
be revised in the future if needed.
>Noted that condition 2a requires an update from the property owners on the second and fourth years .
(Meeker: perhaps provide written evidence be submitted that the final owner provides consent to
development with the oral report to the Commission at year two as part of condition 2b.)
>Understands the need to have the long -term agreements to allow the operations to function. Would
prefer to have the matter come back for reconsideration of an extension at two years (i.e. have the
conditional use permit expire in two years).
>Could the term of the conditional use permit be modified? (Meeker: yes, it is the prerogative of the
Commission.)
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Developers need a longer period of time to design the project, seek funding and entitlements.
>Is comfortable with the conditions of approval as proposed.
>If the Commission sees no progress in the future, the Commission will be unlikely to consider future
extensions.
>Is comfortable with the proposal. The applicant's discussion of the market conditions is compelling .
Five years doesn't seem unreasonably long.
>Could the Commission ask for proof of the additional owner's consent in six -months? (Meeker: since
the City doesn't have control over the timing, two -years is not unreasonable. Noted that the State Lands
Commission and Bay Conservation and Development Commission are both involved in entitling
development on the property; a five-year time for this process is certainly not unreasonable.)
>Would be helpful to see a graphic showing the individual owners of each parcel. The five -year
timeframe provides a reasonable certainty with potential developer partners.
>Could the City help coordinate with the State Lands Commission? (Meeker: the City has no influence
over the agency's process. Kane: the City is in discussions with the agency on other issues, so could
perhaps communicate the City's interests.)
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application with
an amendment to condition 2b requiring evidence of the remaining owner's consent to
developing the property by the end of year two.
Discussion of Motion:
>Feels that five-years is too long.
>Some concerns expressed at the study discussion regarding this item, were misplaced as
they were more related to another proposal.
Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 -
Nay:Kelly1 -
f.Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to
update existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently
adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2.
ADU Staff Report - FINAL 5.10.18
ADU ord change REDLINES.reso
REDLINED- ADU code changes 2018- FINAL
CLEAN VERSION- ADU code changes 2018- FINAL
ADU 2018 ord change -newspaper notice
Attachments:
>Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Thought the purpose of the regulations was to permit family to have older parents live on the same
property as their children. (Meeker: can't restrict occupancy of the secondary unit to family members.)
>What limitations will remain regarding parking in the front setback? (Keylon: currently can't park in the
front setback unless it is done in a driveway leading to a garage. However, State law prohibits restrictions
on the location of parking for ADUs, therefore one could park in the front setback if the parking is for an
ADU. For units within one-half mile of transit, or conversion of existing structures on a property, parking is
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
not required.)
>How is parking for an ADU counted? (Keylon: parking for the ADU, when required, is counted
separately from the parking for the residence.)
>Understands that the City must come into compliance with State law. There are steps that the
community can take to promote the development of additional housing stock. The City is restricted from
requiring affordable housing in any new development due to Measure T. Permitting ADUs within R -1
districts is a relatively low -impact means of providing additional housing as long as they are provided
consistent with local and State regulations.
>Feels that the special permit for ceiling height should be eliminated.
>Somewhat uncomfortable with eliminating the special permit for a direct ingress /egress from a
basement. Should be reviewed to ensure that they are not an impact upon the neighbors.
>In favor of removing the restriction on the size of bathrooms in basements.
>Supports the restriction that would permit the removal of a parking space to accommodate
construction of an ADU.
>Torn regarding the restriction for owner occupancy of one unit. The issue should be vetted through the
Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee.
>Supports removing the requirement for approval of a conditional use permit for windows within ten feet
of a property line in an accessory structure.
>Is the floor area of an ADU taken off of the total allowed for the primary residence? (Keylon: counts
toward FAR and lot coverage.)
>Suggested looking at other cities' approaches to FAR and lot coverage for ADUs.
>May ADUs be located greater than one -half mile from transit? (Keylon: yes, but must provide parking
for the unit.)
>Has construction of ADUs above a garage ever been considered? (Meeker: second-story occupiable
space is not permitted above a garage as it may adversely impact the neighboring property.)
>Has no issue with removing the owner -occupancy restriction; the City doesn't require the property
owner to reside in a single-family residence without an ADU.
>Would like to retain the ability to review having windows within ten feet of a property line in accessory
structures.
>Is there some way to encourage parking for ADUs not to be within the front setback. (Keylon: can't
require, but may make suggestions to applicants when meeting with them. Meeker: but cannot require it .
The issue may come to a head as it relates to stormwater requirements.)
>Concerned that it would be very possible to convert a single -family dwelling into a duplex if an exterior
basement ingress/egress is allowed without Commission review.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Community Development Director Meeker noted that the Commission is being asked to make
recommendations regarding those items (State mandates) that it supports without change.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend
approval of all State-mandated changes to the ADU regulations; recommend that the restrictions
regarding openings within ten-feet of a property line and owner occupancy of one of the units on
a property be referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for further review;
remove the restriction on basement ceiling heights; retain the requirement for Commission
consideration of external ingress/egress from a basement; remove the restriction on the size of a
basement bathroom; and remove the requirement for a special permit for removal of a parking
space on-site when associated with construction of an ADU. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote,
and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 -
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling (James Neubert, applicant and
architect; Michael Stein, property owner) (32 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1125 Jackling Dr - Staff Report
1125 Jackling Dr - attachments
1125 Jackling Dr - plans - 05.14.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he had a brief
conversation with one of the property owners when viewing the property, but did not discuss the project
details.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
James Neubert represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Asked if the architect designed the original home? (Neubert: no.)
>Are the existing trims on the home foam with stucco covering? (Neubert: doesn't know, but is
proposing this for the trim on the addition. Will match existing features.)
>Could the dormers contain hip roofs like the rest of the house? (Neubert: could go either way if a
condition.) The gable ends occur nowhere else on the house; suggested using the hip roof design .
(Neubert: accepted the suggestion.)
>Noted that the staff report shows cabinets in the garage being demolished, not shown on the plans .
(Neubert: will ensure that these are demolished and shown on the plans.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Terrific project; likes the suggestion of the hip-roofs on the dormers.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 -
b.709 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jesse Guerse,
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
designer; Luai Kaileh, applicant; Ibrahim and Maha Kaileh, property owners) (135
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
709 Plymouth Way - Staff Report
709 Plymouth Way - Attachments
709 Plymouth Way - plans - 05.14.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse and Lu Kaileh represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Have the neighbors reviewed the proposal? (Kaileh: yes.)
>How large is the front porch, the upper deck area? (Geurse: the rooms arent too large and are trying to
create some additional space for the rooms. Approximately 55 square feet.)
>Noted that three new trees are to be planted in the courtyard area; the trees provide good privacy. Is
this area to be paved? (Kaileh: is currently paved with brick; haven't given much thought. Geurse: keeping
the current finish.) Anything that can be done to mitigate noise and privacy impacts will be appreciated.
>The chimney on the right should show on the outside of the second story. (Geurse: acknowledged this
plan error.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the project; very pretty house. Concerned most about the decks and the courtyard. Have been
concerned previously about noise and privacy issues. Would like to see some form of mitigation of these
decks.
>The Commission has informally set a 100 square foot limit for decks previously; these decks are off
of bedrooms and fall below this limit. This lot is somewhat smaller than the standard lot. The courtyard is
existing and is almost the only open space provided on the lot. The limited yard space supports the decks
as shown, but don't increase the sizes.
>Is primarily concerned about the deck above the courtyard. Wouldn't hurt the design to shrink it down
a bit.
>Agrees with comments regarding the consistency of the proposed decks with what has been approved
in the past. Concern has been with creating larger public spaces on the second floor that can create noise
and privacy impacts. Both decks proposed are off of small bedrooms and are consistent with what has
been approved in the past.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Discussion of Motion:
>Supports limits on the second floor decks.
Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 -
Nay:Comaroto1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no Director's Reports.
a.815 Maple Avenue - FYI for review of revision requested by the Planning Commission for
a previously approved Design Review project.
815 Maple Ave - Memo.pdfAttachments:
Accepted.
b.1402 Grove Avenue - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission
for a previously approved Design Review project.
1402 Grove Avenue- FYI Memo and Attachments.pdfAttachments:
Accepted.
c.2683 Summit Drive - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
2683 Summit Drive- FYI Memo and Attachments.pdfAttachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 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 May 14, 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 May 24, 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 $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 6/13/2018
May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018