Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 02.23.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 23, 2009 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the February 23, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:01 p.m.), Cauchi, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan. III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 1; "Approval of Agenda",- change "Balboa" to "Cabrillo" Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Yie requested that Item 1 b (1365 Columbus Avenue) be pulled for discussion. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 1a. 438 CUMBERLAND DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND BILL MYERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:04 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1 b. 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT EXIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRIS AND SANDRA KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated February 23, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Clarified that the right side setback is 18' 8". Clarified typographical error in staff report regarding the 1' reduction in height. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Clarified that the driveway will be pavers and not concrete. ■ Concerned about building to the maximum FAR, reminded the applicant that there is no "wiggle room" remaining. ■ Noted that the garage roof has a large flat area; could something interesting be done with the front elevation of the garage to break-up the elevation; it is seen from the street; it could be read as a mansard roof. ■ Noted that to give visual impression of carriage doors, could insert a vertical groove down the middle of the door to look like two doors and add two sets of handles. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 Further Commission comments: In favor of the project, but concerned about building to the maximum FAR; though the property is a lot and one-half and the project fits the size of the lot. The Housing Element encourages diversity, a variety of housing forms. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 11, 2009, sheets Al. 1, A2.1 through A2.3,A3.1 through A3.3, A4.1, and L1.0; 2. that a building permit may not be issued until the lot combination is approved by the City Council; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 7, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's November 26, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 10, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's December 3, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 10, 2008 memo shall be met; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes runoff; February 23, 2009 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Initially intended to pull the item for discussion of the plate height, wished for greater reduction, but satisfied with changes made by the applicant. The height and the FAR go hand -in -hand with the size of the lot. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 2. 1452 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BASEMENT, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND GINKGO BURLINGAME LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 23, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 Will consideration of the shower with a sauna set a precedent for future requests of the same nature (Meeker — explained rationale for suggesting it may be an appropriate feature with this application). Asked if the Building Division has reviewed the basement plans (Meeker — yes). Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Right side landscape plan; feels like the walkway is too heavy; could pavers be set in the lawn (Grange — yes, this can be done). ■ What is the material used for the spark arrester (Grange — copper). ■ Does the sewer line run to the rear of the property (Grange — yes); would be concerned about the potential for back-up from the below -grade shower (Grange — the sewer line is deeper than the shower). ■ Is there a concern about moisture in the basement near the sauna (Grange — there is adequate ventilation with windows in the basement and other ventilation). If there is a lot of fan ventilation, there could be noise to disturb the neighbors (Grange — shouldn't be any different from having it on the main living level). ■ Could ventilate the sauna area remotely to the roof. Public comments: Mary Martocci, 1448 Drake Avenue, spoke: Concerned about any change in height. Asked if adding the basement changes the right -side elevation (Grange — no). There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: The design does not fit with the neighborhood. The application is approvable; conforms much more to the traditional style. There is a variety of styles present on the street. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 30, 2009, sheets A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2 and L-1; 2. that the shower stall in the basement shall only be allowed in conjunction with a sauna in the basement and shall be built to the size, configuration and location as shown on the Basement Plan, sheet A2.0; that any changes to the size, configuration or location of the shower stall shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission review; that if the sauna is not built as part of the project a shower stall shall not be allowed in the basement. The waste line from the shower shall not exceed 2" in diameter, or the minimum required for a shower, whichever is less; 3. that if the sauna is ever removed or eliminated in the future, the shower stall shall also be removed 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 or eliminated along with the sauna; 4. that the landscaping on the right side of the structure shall be revised to include more pervious materials and less hardscape; 5. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 9, 2009 and September 26, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's October 16, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 9, 2009 and September 29, 2008 memos, and NPDES Coordinator's September 29, 2008 memos shall be met; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes 0 February 23, 2009 corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Commissioner Auran indicated that he would not support the application; another style is possible that would be more compatible with the neighborhood; should discourage the prominent garage and canting the house on the lot. ■ The shower with the sauna could be problematic. ■ Have seen a number of basement showers that have been reviewed in the past that are associated with recreation rooms; the presence of the sauna makes it more of an exercise room; it is appropriate in this instance; not concerned about moisture and drainage. ■ Restrict the size of the waste line to prevent the connection of a toilet. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-2-1 (Commissioners Cauchi and Auran dissenting, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m. DRAFT UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN — REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated February 23, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Clarified that comments from West Bay Housing regarding the housing needs of the developmentally disabled can be addressed in the document prior to sending the item to the City Council; asked if changes to address this matter should be brought back to the Planning Commission (Brooks — can be provided as an FYI to the Commission). 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 Public comments: None. Additional Commission comments: ■ Consider allowing smaller units to be designated as affordable units. ■ Frustrated that were not able to produce more housing units in the last cycle. ■ With current economic conditions, rental housing will become more important; there doesn't appear to be a discussion of rental units as a class of property; shouldn't this be addressed; what can the City do to promote this? ■ Rental stock becomes more popular when there are added amenities that provide dignity to the units; need to address the qualitative issues. ■ Should include a policy regarding in-law units; if we want to encourage additional units. ■ Add Burlingame to the table of development fees (Table IV-3) on Page 40. ■ Policy H (A-4) — implementation programs — require a conditional use permit for converting residential to non-residential; shouldn't there be other policies to encourage maintaining existing housing stock (Moloney — there are other policies in other sections that limit residential conversions. Also can be done through providing smaller inclusionary units). ■ Are there other guidelines other than Title 24 to address energy efficiency (Brooks — referenced implementing changes to green building programs to require more mandatory measures). ■ With respect to inclusionary policies; modify requirements to allow smaller units to be designated as affordable units. ■ Consider allowing second units (Meeker — the City is required to comply with State law regarding second units). ■ Provide an information item to the Commission showing how its comments have been addressed in the draft that moves forward to the City Council. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend to the City Council, submission of the draft Housing Element to the State Office of Housing and Community Development for review and certification, with the following changes: ■ Address comments from West Bay Housing regarding the housing needs of the developmentally disabled. ■ Provide incentives to encourage production of rental housing, encourage inclusion of amenities. ■ Include a policy which allows for second units on larger R-1 zoned lots ■ Add Burlingame statistics to Table 4-3, which provides a comparison of development fees. ■ Look at ways to strengthen the policies for maintaining existing rental housing stock. ■ Clarify that the "No net loss" policy applies to properties which have the appropriate zoning for the number of units now existing on the site. ■ Modify the inclusionary zoning requirements to include a provision to allow smaller units to be designated as affordable units. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that the draft Housing Element be submitted to the State Office of Housing and Community Development, with the modifications requested by the Planning Commission. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 4. 1008 —1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated February 23, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Propose a 20' setback along the southern property line; should be landscaping, but perhaps exclude parking within the area against the property line; it would be good to have a substantial landscape area (20'-25') with no driveways and no parking. If we ever want to see housing on this property; the more restrictions placed on the site, the more difficult it will be to promote housing; too much detail may unduly restrict and prevent housing development. Clarified that property includes only four (4) legal lots; future subdivision would require Commission review. Public comments: Brian McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; spoke: Be fair to the owners of the R-1 properties to the south; could have a discussion of the concerns now or in the future with a development proposal. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Concerned that none of the property owners within the proposed overlay zone have commented (Brooks — noted a conversation with one adjacent property owner that appreciated the greater flexibility for residential use). The restriction from 35' to 30' will likely only apply to the southernmost property (Brooks — only affects the one property on the south). 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 ■ There should be a landscaped buffer with no driveways and parking along the southern 20' of the area. ■ Sensitivity to the property owners on Toyon Drive should be noted in the General Plan language; (Meeker — noted the potential to allow non -landscaping within the area subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Brooks — perhaps indicate a minimum depth for landscaping). ■ Provide revised language before going to City Council. ■ Ensure that revised language is clear as to intent for buffer area. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the matter until March 9, 2009, with direction to revise the proposal based upon the Commission's comments. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Asked that when the item is brought back, staff clarify the landscape requirement for R-4 zoned properties. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1241 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (JEFF .HAYWOOD, PEETS COFFEE AND TEA, APPLICANT; TYBABB PARTNERS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND THE CHARLES DOERR GROUP, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 23, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Clarified that Sakae restaurant must be closed to permit Peet's to open. Asked for an explanation why there is a limitation to one restaurant on this site (Meeker/Brooks — explained that the restrictions on properties containing restaurants were set when Sub -Area A was created). Jeff Haywood, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville; and Terry Horn, 405 Primrose Road; represented the applicant. Indicated that Peet's is trying to minimize changes to the building fagade. Commission comments: Asked about the difference in the size of the seating area between the Sakae restaurant space and the proposed Peet's (Haywood — roughly an increase of 100 square feet). What will be done with trash receptacles (Haywood — trash area will be at rear of property within the purview of the property owner; at the same location as the area used by Sakae). 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 ■ Asked if people will arrive at the corner entry and leave out the side door (Haywood — that is the design intent). ■ People may want to enter from the side given the location of the parking lot; perhaps provide a treatment above the side door to make it more inviting, consider repeating the treatment from the main entry. ■ Consider a window on the Park Road fagade. ■ Outdoor seating is good idea; has nice exposure to the sun; will be popular ■ Install enough electrical outlets for computer users within the tenant space. ■ Asked if there is room for an additional tree along Park Road (Haywood — there are a lot of other items along the sidewalk in the area; may be difficult to achieve; want to keep the corner clear to provide view of signage). ■ Will the existing soffit under the awning be attractive and maintainable (Haywood — appears to be workable; intend to restore it as original feature). ■ How will trash in the outdoor seating area be monitored (Haywood — signage, outdoor receptacles, staff training. Brooks — Public Works may require a receptacle in the outdoor seating area). ■ Asked if Sakae is being forced to leave (Horn — Have moved to a location on California Drive. Noted that the applicant would like consideration for the trash enclosure to be constructed of a material other than cinder block to provide more flexibility as needs change). Provided direction to staff to work with applicant to ensure greater flexibility in the design for the trash enclosure. ■ If the side door becomes more elegant, or another tree is added along Park Road, concerns about the Park Road elevation are alleviated. Public comments: Michael Kaindl, Sanchez Avenue; and Carolyn Herlihy, 1424 Cortez Avenue; spoke: Asked if the conditional use permit for the former Peet's location on Burlingame Avenue would become void once the business moves to the new location (Meeker— no, the conditional use permit runs with the property). Will be a good move; the back door is a good idea given the location of the parking. Should have something for trash outside of the business for the convenience of the customer. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: Provided direction to staff to work with applicant to ensure greater flexibility in the design for the trash enclosure. If the side door becomes more elegant, or another tree is added, concerns about the Park Road elevation are alleviated. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 17, 2008: None. FYI: 1425 Benito Avenue — changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Pulled for discussion. (Note: following conclusion of the meeting, Commissioner Yie withdrew her request to schedule this matter for a public hearing, based upon further review of the materials provided by staff and the applicant. The FYI is considered to be "accepted" due to this action.) Other matters: It was noted that the application for renovations to the Arco fuel station/car wash on Broadway at Rollins Road has been withdrawn by the applicant. It was stated that perhaps the City could provide better guidance regarding the design of a gateway element at that location to assist future parties interested in developing the property. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 12