Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.03.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 14, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent6 - LoftisAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.January 25, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Loftis1 - b.February 22, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Loftis1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA No public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS No Study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR No Consent items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a Special Permit to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces for an interior remodel (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; Lisa and Gregory Ott, property owners) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor across the street at 1251 Jackling Drive. Commissioner Bandrapalli met the contractor working on the project. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant with property owner Gregory Ott. Commission questions/comments: >How many people live in the house currently? (Raduenz: Five. There is ample parking.) >Is there any intention or plan to reduce the existing driveway to add landscaping? (Raduenz: Could where the existing bay window is. It is an aggregate -based concrete; the future plan is to have paving stones.) Suggest leaving the driveway as is. >Is the applicant confident that the tree closest to the front corner would not need to be modified to enter the garage? There are low -hanging branches that may overhang the driveway. (Raduenz: Will get an arborist to selectively prune the tree. Wants to keep the tree to shield the house from the corner .) (Ott: No plans to remove the tree, it provides privacy. The side entrance to the workshop that exists now is not currently blocked by tree. There is not much overhang, and the plan is to keep the tree as full as it is today.) >Pleased to see a second story is not being added. Public comments: Garrett Frakes, 1236 Vancouver Avenue, spoke on this item: >Supports the project. Lives directly across the street. >Both of these lots have unusually long frontages. >123 feet of empty parking spaces next to 1250 Jackling Drive, and 140 feet in front of 1236 Vancouver Avenue. >Believes there is ample parking next to both properties. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Concern with reducing parking in concept, that this is setting an example. >Would be good to maintain the existing driveway rather than change to landscaping. If it stays as a driveway it will encourage cars to be parked off street. >In specific context there is ample room for the cars to park on the existing driveway, side by side. It is a unique situation. >The footprint of the house is not being added to. >The landscape tree should be looked at closely and an arborist should be retained for the new driveway for any roots that might get cut as part of the work. >What is the reasoning for requiring a Special Permit for reducing parking if the code requirements are still being met? (Gardiner: Depending on the circumstances, losing a parking space could be detrimental in some instances. The Special Permit process allows the Planning Commission to look at the case very specifically and decide if there are circumstances where reducing the parking would not be detrimental.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item with the following additional condition: >An arborist shall be retained to assess the tree next to the new driveway, with direction to evaluate any roots that may get cut as part of the work. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Loftis1 - b.1906 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a Design Review Amendment to a previously approved application for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage (50 noticed) (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Easton Estates LLC, property owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant, with property owner Kinson Wong, Easton Estates LLC. Commission questions/comments: >Why was the window in Bedroom #2 eliminated? (Wong: Wanted to hang a television on the wall.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Modest changes. >Centering the house on the property improves it in relation to its neighbors. >The small encroachment into the Declining Height Envelope is adjacent to a house that is situated above it. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Loftis1 - c.2532 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1- Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single-story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Roy Parker, property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Gum, DeMartini and Sargent spoke to the applicant and to the neighbor to the left at 2538 Hayward Drive. Commissioners Gaul, Terrones and Bandrapalli spoke to the neighbor at 2538 Hayward Drive. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >None. Public comments: Neighbor, 2538 Hayward Drive, spoke on this item: >When purchased house view was pre-existing. Sees it as being an important part of the home. >View is observed from central parts of the house. >View is enjoyed from multiple vantage points, coming up and down the stairs. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Applicant's arguments are compelling. The Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance is vague, doesn't think it can be read as precluding modest development on a property. >Proposal has been scaled back significantly, is a modest proposal that minimally meets his requirements for enjoying the use of his home. >Was hoping to find a solution in the architecture, but applicant has said a flat roof would not be effective. >This is not the primary view. The neighbor has a beautiful primary view to the East. >Needs to be able to presume a standard ceiling height and that the construction would be in harmony with the rest of the house. A flat roof would need to be built out properly with drainage and a parapet or covering, which would intrude on the area that is otherwise a hip roof. >Not a substantive enough view blockage. Views being considered are from clearstory windows which function as transom windows above french doors on a floor below. >Commission has had this discussion a few times lately. Will be evaluating this issue in the future . There is not a clear direction, so there are disagreements in the interpretation. Does not see anything in the code to allow interpretation of situations differently. Strict approach to views blocked from habitable areas. >Commission does not have clear direction, hoped applicant would work with neighbor to reach a solution. >Applicant's house is already visible from the neighbor's house, and this is a modest addition to that . The primary view is further to the left, and the applicant has done a good job of bringing the project down in scope. >Photos also show a deck heater blocking the view. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Nay:DeMartini, and Bandrapalli2 - Absent:Loftis1 - d.119 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved second story addition to an existing single family Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dwelling (Brian and Jennifer Buhl, applicants and property owners; Ruff + Associates, architect;) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Martin Breuer, Ruff + Associates, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Appreciates front porch being made more substantive. >Will mud room still function as a mud room, or as an office? (Breuer: Mud room/office. Not fully decided.) No intention to have another door coming out to the porch? (Breuer: No.) >Front door looks like a back door or patio door. Not the typical centered door with side lites. Is there a particular look being sought with door and large side lite? (Breuer: Get a big glass area to bring in light . Currently is relatively dark.) Not a deal-breaker but looks odd. >Shared revised plans with neighbors? (Breuer: Yes. Client is close friends with the neighbors.) >Why remove the horizontal siding? It had added visual interest to the exterior. (Breuer: With new balcony and windows looked overwhelming with the horizontal siding. It added one element too much.) >The siding gave a modern look which supported using the metal windows. On most applications the commission typically requires wood windows or aluminum -clad wood windows. Why is the metal window a better choice here? (Breuer: Cost. Looks of aluminum and aluminum -clad windows look similar, at least from the exterior.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Feels like it needs to go back to design review. The original design was better. >Concerned with the widow next to the front door - looks like the back of a house. >Design looks like it is cheapened since the original. >Drawings are not doing the design justice. Front porch does not show as a recessed front area . Rendering would help. >Main concern is with the front of the house, and from that criteria seems supportable. >Porch adds a lot to it. >Aluminum windows were more supportable with the original design since it was a more modern design. >Project needs some additional work. It was borderline before. Entry and privacy screen before was better, and interplay of materials gave it a modern look. Now looks like a second story stacked on top of a ranch house. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the Action Item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Loftis1 - e.1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved design review application for a first and second Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects, designer; Mr. & Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Senior Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Wilson Cheng represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Fireplace does not need a chimney but needs a vent. Wants to see where the vent will terminate, whether on the wall or the roof. There will need to be a termination cap and it will be prominent. Location needs to be determined and it needs to be shown on the drawings. >If it is on the side of the house the plaster detail as shown will not work. It will come straight out between the windows. >Why are the aluminum-clad wood windows being replaced with fibrex -clad wood windows. (Cheng: More durable. It is not an issue of cost, it is durability.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Not comfortable approving a guess. Needs to have a detailed drawing showing how the fireplace will be vented. >Have the fibrex-clad windows already been approved? (Hurin: Yes, they were approved in a previous FYI.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Loftis1 - f.1419 Burlingame Avenue, Suite S, zoned BAC (Burlingame Avenue Commercial) - Application for a Condtional Use Permit for a Health Service on the second floor in the BAC zone (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Melody Wong represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: None. Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >Appreciates that the applicant has been there for some time and is successful enough to expand within the building. >Does not see any instance where it would be detrimental. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Loftis1 - g.988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Rear Setback Variance for a new 3-story commercial building (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property owner; Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Bandrapalli, Gum, Terrones, DeMartini, and Sargent met with the applicant. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Were parts of the application approved previously? (Gardiner: The votes taken previously were to provide guidance on what aspects of the application were supported, given a lack of consensus on the overall application. Those items that were supported previously have not changed substantially in this application.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Dimitrios Sogas represented the applicant, with architect Toby Levy. Commission questions/comments: >Plans show cement panel siding, not composite wood. (Levy: Package was submitted two weeks ago, and materials have been revised since from further outreach. Needs to be corrected on the plans.) >Changing the type of tree was good. >Has there been consideration of what kind of signage for the retail space on the corner? (Levy: Assumed individually lettered signs.) Would encourage signage that is inviting and neighborly such as a blade sign or letters standing on the awning, so it is clear it is not just retail space for the office building. >How does the parapet step down on the Myrtle side? (Levy: Moved the roof deck back - previously it was at the edge. With it moved back 12 feet and the eave dropped, it brings the eye down.) >Encourages a local rather than chain store for the retail space. Public comments: Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue, spoke on this item: >Difference between a citizen who has a sincere desire to listen to the commission and make changes, compared to others who tell the commission what they want to do and not listen to recommendations. >This applicant has taken to heart what was said, and presented thoughtful changes. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Impressed with reducing the apparent height; the step -back on Myrtle helps to provide a sense of a smaller building. >Wood texture helps blend with neighborhood. >Bigger trees have been included as requested. >Done a good job making a good -looking building. Appreciates stepping down to appear less massive. >Likes revisions - it is a substantial design, and handsome. It is not a huge building but it is important, and it was worth going through the effort. >Applicant has done everything that was asked, and it is a better project because of it. >Color is critical to the project, and changed the project dramatically. >Variance supportable by the exceptional site bounded on three sides by street frontage, with the desired frontage serving as the front. >Appreciates that the parking variance request was eliminated. >Conditional Use Permit supportable in that it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is located in a way that is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli Absent: 1 - Loftis Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application with the following condition: >Changes in materials shown in the public hearing presentation shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Loftis1 - h.225 California Drive, zoned HMU - Design Review for an application for Environmental Review and Commercial Design Review for a new 4-story commercial building (DLC 225 California, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (168 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner The applicant requested a continuance to the March 28, 2016 meeting, and the item was not heard. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1580 Barroilhet Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Environmental Scoping and Design Review for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Audrey Tse, inSite, applicant and designer; Parviz Kamangar Tr, property owner) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gaul met with the property owner on the site . Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioners Sargent, DeMartini and Terrones met with the property owner and received a tour of the back yard. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is there a declining height envelope encroachment? (Hurin: The stairway extends beyond the declining height envelope along the right side, but there is a window enclosure exemption that can be applied as long as the wall is no wider than 10 feet and as long as 25% of the wall is window area.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Audrey Tse, inSite, represented the applicant with property owner Parviz Kamangar. Commission questions/comments: >Is the intention to reuse the existing foundation and portion of the wall to the rear? Is that viable given engineering considerations? If that portion of the foundation had to come out would the Planning Commission need to look at this again as a side setback encroachment? (Hurin: If the wall were to come out, the applicant would need to request a variance to rebuild the wall, or revise the plan to comply .) (Tse: Location of the wall has been there for more than 90 years.) >Consideration of a front porch? (Tse: A small front porch was created in moving the entry from side to front. Screen panel at front of house is a step up to a stoop. Balcony is also meant to carry out that element of the design.) Porches in the neighborhood are larger and more open - was consideration given to a larger porch that is not screened? (Tse: No. Wanted to incorporate a modern take on the large window that currently exists in the Living Room. Did not look at enlarging the porch - wanted to keep to a modest home, keeping existing foundation as much as possible, retain interior space and not increase the footprint of the house to its maximum.) >Larger porch encouraged. There is an FAR exemption of up to 100 sq ft for front porches. >What are the dimensions of the front roof deck? (Tse: 5' x 22'). How will it be used? (Tse: Morning coffee, read paper, nice daylight in the morning. Option other than using the back yard, and is accessed off the master suite. It has a partially enclosed rail to lend privacy.) >Could the second floor plate height be reduced to 8 feet? (Tse: Was originally going to have a taller ceiling. Wants to increase light and airy feel. Is 5 feet below the maximum height .)(Kamangar: Wanted to cut down windows to the minimum to respect neighbors' privacy. If 9 feet ceilings would have more leeway for cutting down the windows on both sides. Big windows only on front and back, very few on sides.) >Landscape plan shows all landscaping in front of house to be removed. Rendering shows landscaping. What is the intention? (Tse: The landscape Plan is intended to show the trees that will remain. Had not yet designed all the landscaping on the plan but the intention is to look like the rendering.) >Survey shows the neighbors' house extending across the property line. (Tse: Survey shows footprints, not location of eaves extending beyond the structure, over each other. The foundation walls are within each property.) >Rendering shows 33 exterior lights in the combined overhang /soffitl andscaping. Is there concern there will be too much illumination? (Tse: Landscaping lighting is intended to be ambient.) Public comments: Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue, spoke on this item: >Concern with windows being in proximity to bedroom. Side windows should be frosted or minimized in a way where both properties have privacy. >Exterior lighting would not be an issue as long as it is not bright and shining. >Should be able to build what they want if it complies with the codes. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner questions to applicant: >Is the cedar siding just on the front facade? Any consideration to further application to give it more substance and not just be an appliqu é? (Tse: Would be open to it.)(Kamangar: There is more of the same wood on the front porch. Can also turn it around the wall on the second floor.) >Consideration to the neighbor's window? (Kamangar: That particular window is on the staircase . Can frost it.) Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Concern with fitting into the neighborhood. There is variety but nothing quite like this. >Front porch does not seem to be consistent with other homes in the area. >Right side comes right up to neighbor's house. Would like to consider anything to push the right side back. >Neighbor to the right is as close to the property line as this house is. >Neighbor's air conditioning unit is where the two houses come together. Closeness is exacerbated by the existing condition. >From front view there are no neighbors immediately adjacent. Neighborhood is disjointed. >Should increase the size of the porch. >Frosted glass is good. >Unique location to evaluate contemporary design. Project is good in scale among neighbors, just needs to revisit details. Application of materials, also revisit porch. Could add uncovered porch space - makes it more welcoming and open to the neighborhood. >If foundation has to be rebuilt should bring it to the proper attention. >Concerns with second story plate height. If lowered could fit in better. Not compelled with the justification that it was brought down from a higher number. >Would not want to encourage eliminating too many windows given blank walls. There is no guarantee of privacy on these small lots, and homeowners also have a reasonable expectation to have sunlight in their house. >Landscaping seems to be minimizing landscaping to accentuate the design of the new home, but pulls away from it fitting into the neighborhood. There are examples of similar types of homes with Burlingame-type landscaping, and they fit in well. >Seems to fit into this particular location. Porch would help. >Concern with lighting, should be comparable to the neighborhood. >Concern with second story deck but could be OK since it is from the Master Bedroom and is not particularly large. >Landscaping and lighting is important for the success of the project. Lighting should not create a spectacle, and landscaping should soften the building as shown in the rendering. This item will return on the Regular Action Calendar when the environmental review is completed. b.1217 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage (Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Ben Shapiro, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item as he lives within 500 feet of the property. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to neighbors at 1215, 1221, 1216, and 1220 Cabrillo Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: >Some of the letters submitted by neighbors were anonymous. Is that allowed? (Hurin: It is not common but they are required to be taken in.) Secretary Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant, with property owner Ben Shapiro. Commission questions/comments: >Seen letters from neighbors? (Geurse: Yes. Concerns appear to be addressed to the front facade . There are many houses on the block with larger gables on the front facade. Trying to take a contemporary-style house and add traditional elements.) >Side elevation works well with massing, scale and detail, but collision of some elements, particularly the brick element on the front and the bay above. What is the intent? (Geurse: The floorplan dictated how the exterior was formed. The brick is intended to give the facade a different texture, introduce another material - became a strong element on the elevation.) >Sides and back look like a traditional home. Was there intent to be more contemporary on the front? (Geurse: Location of the staircase on the front with intention to create more light cascading through into the space.) >Left side elevation works well - has some solid elements. No anchoring component on the front, it has "thinness." The mullions, sills and posts seem thin. >Second floor appears taller than first floor. >Too many materials, not cohesive. Front stair stares in the face. Likes idea of two front porches, however too many pieces don't fit together. Knee brace does not fit, brick does not work with smokestack-type chimney pipes. Design lacks cohesion. >Does not need to be typical craftsman but has a ways to go. >Stair element on the front facade emphasizes the two -story nature of the house. Two-story houses fit into the neighborhood but usually designs try to minimize the second story, not accentuate it. The dormers accentuate the second story and make it more prominent. >Should revisit the 9-foot plate height. >Left side is nicely done, but front looks like an apartment complex with two front porches. Not consistent with the rest of the block. Knee brace does not look like it fits. >Looks very tall in appearance. Public comments: None. Secretary Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Massing and scale fits nicely with the neighborhood - it is the detailing that needs work. >Window on stairwell is high; if it were lower on the landing level with transoms, would make it a more vertical piece broken up with windows. >Second floor feels very massive compared to the first because of the gable and single knee brace. >Brick could be revisited, particularly as it is applied. Perhaps a wainscot, or more brick along the base to tie it together and give more meaning for what the brick is for. Makes sense on the fireplace element but then it reappears on the front stoop. >How the second story fits with first story could be evaluated further. >Details and design elements should be looked at, seems disjointed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the Discussion Item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 - Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 4/14/2016 March 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Terrones reported that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee met and discussed several items. Staff will be preparing items to be considered by the full commission. Commissioner DeMartini reported that April 20th will be the next meeting for the community center. Commissioner DeMartini reported that the most recent General Plan Update CAC meeting was on February 24th, and that Rollins Road and El Camino Real North were discussed. The next meeting will be March 23rd. Commissioner DeMartini reported that members of the former Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) met with Burlingame Point applicants to review the Bay Trail element of that application. Separately, a new charter for BPAC has been released and will be reviewed by the City Council. The positions for the planning commissioner and senior planner on the BPAC have both been removed from the charter, so there will no longer be any planning representation on the BPAC. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner reported that a 6:00 p.m. study session is being planned for the Planning Commission to discuss view criteria for the Hillside Area Construction Ordinance. Staff will poll the commissioners to determine a date where all or most of the commission would be available for the session. a.1516 Los Montes Dr - Reveiw of clarifications to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. b.1533 Meadow Ln - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:49 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 March 14, 2016. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 24, 2016, 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 4/14/2016