Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.12.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 12, 2007 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the February 12, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Lisa Whitman; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 22, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were reviewed. Commissioner clarified for the Sisters of Mercy project on page 8, in condition 11 where ‘agency’ is referred to it means an individual in the employ of the Sisters of Mercy or Mercy High School hired to oversee the event, not the leasee. Commissioners agreed to the clarification. Commissioner Osterling moved approval of the minutes. C. Terrones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent) on a voice vote. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe introduced Lisa Whitman to the Commission. Lisa is the newest member of the Planning Staff and is covering her first Planning Commission meeting tonight. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, commented on the FYI items on tonight’s agenda; there are 7 FYI's on the agenda, good to see builders taking the design requirements seriously, one even resulted from an architectural framing inspection; two requests are not minor: 1450 Bernal, which is a new spec house, not asking a minor change to façade, had a similar request on a house at 2112 Easton last year and Commission made them install the trim, new houses are larger than old and need all the trim. 2209 Hillside, also a spec house, the house is very plain and changes are being requested to reduce the cost, trim is important to a simple house, the inclusion of copper gutters adds elegance, upset that the existing house on the lot was demolished without a permit, before at 110 Clarendon owner asked to change the garage door to save money and Commission said no. Asked about whether the story poles were installed at 1501 Los Montes. Commissioners noted that they had been installed. C. Osterling noted that after the Commission’s action, he received a letter from the Sisters of Mercy at home this week which notified him of the contact numbers on their site for neighbors to use, and encouraging people to call if there is a problem. There were no further comments from the floor. This item concluded at 7:05 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 2 VI. STUDY ITEMS Chair Brownrigg noted that there were no Study Items this evening. He then asked the Commissioners if they had visited all the sites of projects on the calendar tonight. All Commissioners indicated that they had visited all the sites. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on 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. 1a. 1592 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE ON-SITE PARKING (JAMES MCFALL, MCFALL ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREG AND LYNNE MCVEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN 1b. 1538 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND REAR SETBACK FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NANCY BLACHMAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 1c. 1501 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TIFFANY AND GUS KINIRIS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests to remove an item from the audience or staff. C. Auran noted that there was a letter regarding item lc at their desk but he had spoken to these particular property owners today and wanted to share his information. Chair Brownrigg noted that, since he was required to recuse himself from item 1a, he would divide the consent calendar into two actions. The first action would be on items 1b, 1538 Burlingame Avenue and 1c, 1501 Los Montes Drive. C. Osterling noted that the story poles were installed at 1501 Los Montes and none of the neighbors had commented that their views were affected, he then moved to approve items 1b, 1538 Burlingame Avenue, and 1c, 1501 Los Montes, on the consent calendar based on the facts in each staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Chair Brownrigg then recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the property at 1592 Columbus Avenue, passed the gavel to Vice Chair Deal, stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 3 TEM Vice Chair Deal asked if any Commissioner had a comment. C. Auran noted that he was at the site today and spoke to the neighbors who had written the letter asking to review plans. They discussed the driveway, window placement, hours of construction, and told him that because of their better understanding and review of the plans, and with the assurance that the project would be built to the plans submitted and to be approved, they would withdraw their objection. Vice Chair Deal called for a motion. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining; Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. Chair Brownrigg returned to the dais and took his seat. Vice Chair Deal returned the gavel to Chair Brownrigg. VIII. REGULAR ACTION I 2. 1221 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (BRET AND SUZANNE BOTTARINI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. ZT Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, and Brett Bottarini, property owner, presented the project and responded to questions from Commissioners, stating that: they did not know that 9'-0" was a maximum plate height; property owner wants heavy crown above windows and doors with space to ceiling; neighboring house has 9' plate heights upstairs and 10' plate heights downstairs; intended design of porch was to be plain, country/dollhouse style and not craftsman; porch was modeled after a similar design on Ralston. Comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Not unreasonable to bring plate height down; house is overbearingly large; extensive hardscape with nothing to soften the size of the house; a street tree should be required to help mitigate the size of the house, especially when adjacent to another maximum- sized house. Commissioner comments during the public hearing: the plate heights are still too high; head heights are also too high; style of columns on porch is not appropriate or aesthetically pleasing, lacks character; columns look oddly home-made; a more craftsman-style porch would enhance the design while the porch on the current plans does not; vertical columns on the porch could break the line and give it a more substantial feel; as proposed, the porch has a dollhouse feel with pickets; and the design of columns and guardrail on the porch could use more work to make it look more substantial. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 4 Commission commented: Disagreement regarding whether plate heights need to be lowered; something needs to be done with porch; the reason for establishing design review was that there was growing community concern regarding the size of houses; design review allows property owners to maximize size of house but they have to show how they're going to design it to reduce massing, plate heights are a key factor; a desire for crown molding inside is not a good enough reason to increase plate heights; concern that house will be massive once built; Commissioners should hold to 8'-1" (second floor) and 9'-0" (first floor) plate height standards; the proposed house is too layered, from the guardrail to the porch to the plate heights; the plate heights are fine since there is precedent for them in the neighborhood; house looks nice the way it is; the porch does not fit the house; if the design is OK not every guideline needs to be followed; and lowering the plate heights in the house by 6" won't make a significant difference. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions, including changing the first floor plate height to 9'-0", the second floor plate height to 8'-1", and improving the porch by eliminating the pickets and proposing a more craftsman architectural style, have been addressed, the plans checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed by the Commission and contained in the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 3-2-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Osterling dissenting; Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 3. 2536 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (ROBERT AND DIERDRE SHAW, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAVID ULDRICK, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. ZT Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff when the Beautification Commission's "Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes" were adopted. CA Anderson stated they were adopted in February of 2006. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, architect, 307 South B Street, San Mateo, and Dierdre Shaw, property owner, stated: objections to the basis for the project being brought before the Planning Commission since the Hillside Area Construction Permit (HACP) code states that review by the Commission "shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views" and the neighbor's reasons for calling this project up for review were not related to construction; that Planning Commission review of this project shows the system is broken; this process has created an unfair financial burden on the applicant; applicant is disappointed in city and neighbors that a project for a two foot addition to a kitchen can be brought before the Planning Commission on these grounds; the HACP process needs to be more fair to both applicants and neighbors; the neighbor who called this project before the Planning Commission cut down several eucalyptus trees in their backyard which impacted applicant's privacy. Comments from the floor: Grace Ngai, 2669 Martinez Drive. Acknowledged disappointment of neighbor because she experienced same frustration when seeking approval for a proposed addition to her house several years ago; two of the eleven conditions of approval for her project dealt with tree maintenance issues; she cut down the trees because, as part of the HACP process, she was required to trim them and it was discovered they were unhealthy; she had asked applicant to trim her trees and the applicant refused. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 5 Commissioner comments during the public hearing: requested CA Anderson brief Commissioners on whether they are required to accept an appeal; CA Anderson stated that anyone may appeal and there is no requirement for a person to state grounds for appeal; the HACP process is the only opportunity neighbors have to have the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and look at proposed application; based on the HACP criteria the only item before the Commission tonight is the blockage of distant views created by construction of addition. Repeating issues from the past does not help address the applicant's project; significant differences between 2669 Martinez and 2536 Valdivia projects, particularly that 2669 Martinez tree requirements were imposed to compensate neighbors for views lost because of the size of the new construction proposed; "Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes" were developed specifically for this type of issue between neighbor; guidelines outline a process that is clearly laid out, allows for dialogue between neighbors, and allows for mediation if an agreement cannot be reached; and the tree issue is not a Planning Commission issue. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the hillside area construction permit application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 2, 2007, sheets A0 through A4; 2) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, or building envelope shall require an amendment to this hillside area construction permit; 3) that during demolition of or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site, 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; 4) that demolition for 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; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the hillside area construction permit. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4. 1251 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (LILY LI, APPLICANT; CLEMENT YEN, TOYO COMPANY, DESIGNER; K.J. NICKMEY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ken Toy, applicant, and Clement Yen, designer, stated: all the changes that Commission requested at their last meeting have been made; the unlabeled room next to the restroom is used for storage and is also a fire exit for the salon next door; venting of the garbage room will be up to roof not through the wall. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 6 Commission comments during the public hearing: expressed appreciation for removing the graffiti; like how the garbage issue was solved; if planter boxes are not professionally maintained project can be brought back before the Commission; need to clarify with Fire Department that storage can be in neighboring salon's fire exit. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, adding a condition that the applicant must vet the use of the salon's fire exit for storage with the Fire Department before issuance of a building permit, with the following conditions: 1) that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 530 SF of on-site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 2) that the applicant shall confirm with the Fire Department that the area adjacent to the restrooms shown on the approved plans can be used for storage and does not interfere with the neighboring tenant's use of that space for fire egress purposes; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s January 29, 2007 and October 5, 2006 memos, the Chief Building Official's January 26, 2007, December 19, 2006 and October 6, 2006, memos, the Recycling Specialist’s October 16, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 29, 2007, December 20, 2006 and October 2, 2006 memos and the NPDES Coordinator’s January 29, 2007 and October 3, 2006 memos shall be met; 4) that proposed garbage room shall have a tile floor, washable walls 6’ high, an exhaust fan to the roof and the floor drain in the garbage room shall be connected to a new grease trap before being discharged to the City’s sewer line; 5) that demolition or 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; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 8) that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 9) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 10) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 11) that this full service food establishment may be open seven days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of 2 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 12) that no banner shall be used per Title 22 Sign Code Section 22.48.080 and the applicant shall obtain Planning and Building permits for all signage; 13) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 14) that the project shall provide adequate filtering and venting to avoid dissemination of odors on neighboring properties; 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 16) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 24, 2007, floor plan and garbage room details, December 18, 2006, site plan and ceiling plan, and that the 530 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; and that all planters shall be regularly City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 7 maintained by a professional garden service contracted for by the business operator. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-2 (C. Deal recused; Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. C. Deal returned to chambers and took his seat on the dias. 5. 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR FOX PLAZA MALL (SIGN AND SIGN AGAIN, APPLICANT; TOLU FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked is it correct that with the new sign code that the Subcommittee is working on the height limitation on signage will be changed so this variance would not be required? CP commented yes. How else would the new code differ? The amount of sign area allowed per tenant would be about the same, however, the number of signs would increase and window label type signs would be allowed in addition to wall sign allocation. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jason Tolu, property owner, and Rob Jacklin, Sign and Sign Again, presented the project, showed examples of ‘push through’ and brushed aluminum signs, type of signs used by ‘gold plated’ clients like Coach, important to note that there is a front and back to Fox Mall, want to have signage for 6 main tenants, total 69 SF, all signs will be removed except the ‘Gala’ sign on the Burlingame street frontage, this sign will visually match the proposed signage; the two wooden Fox Plaza Mall signs will be removed. Commissioners asked: from the plans its looks like the fonts on the proposed signs on Burlingame Avenue are different sizes? why do you need such large signs on the sides at the rear? why are you not including the names of all the tenants? like the wooden signs, why not keep them? Will all signs be identical? The applicants responded: the size of the signs on the inside are different size but all the signs on the front are intended to be the size shown on the plans and have uniform type; the city granted a previous permission for the size of sign on the sides and rear, tenants enjoy that and did not want to change, sides at rear are very large and need signs which fill the area; height proposed on the rear side is to get visibility from the nearby parking lots; names on the rear side are limited to those tenants who have representation there now; wooden signs are hard to light and would like a more modern look for the Fox Plaza Mall, if the signs can be removed in one piece will offer them to the Historical Society; some of the logos on push through signs will need to be translucent or they will not read with back lighting. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: Agree with the sign program; can’t agree with the variance request it’s a deal for the tenants who have the biggest signs, in the Safeway discussion want to make Fox Plaza Lane pedestrian oriented this works against that end, could do a better program with less size. C. Osterling moved to approve the master sign program and sign variances based on the fact that this would be a pleasant addition to the Burlingame Avenue frontage, disagree about the signage on the rear of the building, the lighting of these signs will be subtle, agreeable after a project is built on the Safeway site; these are needed for the situation today, by resolution with findings in the record for the variances and with the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 8 following conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 30, 2007, elevations and details 11" x 17", and date stamped October 30, 2006, site plan 11" x 17"; including two illuminated 7’-8” x 9’ “push through” style wall signs (one at the front elevation and one at the rear elevation), an illuminated 2’ x 8’ channel letter sign at the front elevation, five non-illuminated channel letter signs at the front elevation and four non-illuminated signs at the right and left side elevations and there shall be no window or other signage on the site; 2) that any increase in the number, type, or area of the signs on the sites, shall require an amendment to the master sign program; 3) that any increase in the number or area of the signs on the primary frontage, which exceed the sign code requirements in effect at the time of application, shall require an amendment to this sign variance; 4) that the sign shall be permanently attached to the stucco wall of the building at 1419 Burlingame Avenue, Fox Plaza Mall, by a means approved by the Building Department; 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: when considered the variances noted that this building is different than others in the area, most just have a front on the street, this one has front, rear and sides; sign at the rear will begin 12’- 8” off the ground, 7’-8” taller, its maximum height is about 20 feet the alley is only 10’ to 12’ wide, so this sign will only be visible to people in the parking lot, those driving by will not be able to see it since it will be above the roof of the car; note that the application is within the total gross square footage allowed, why do we care how it is proportioned on the site? This application requires 6 variances; yes, but 3 go away if you remove the 12 foot height limitation; under the current code can reduce the size of the sign and still have it over 12 feet and the variance will go away, they want the biggest sign possible to the detriment of the business district; if the signs are bigger on the sides and rear, they are smaller on the front; one way to look at it is if we don’t want big signs on the front, we allowed them on the rear; this program will not serve the tenants well; proposed program is below the total allowed square footage, if owner wants to reallocate among tenants to serve him and them better he is allowed to do so, the existing parking lot toward El Camino is some distance away need to read the sign from there without problem; half the variances for this project will not be required with the new sign code; need to vote no on this application because feel that this signage program is not in keeping with the style of the building. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the master signage program including variances for exceeding the maximum square footage above 12 feet for the rear, right and left elevations of the building. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 ( Cers. Auran, Brownrigg dissenting, Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 6. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED SL – APPLICATION FOR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE CHANGE IN OPERATION OF A CAR RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; VANGUARD R/E HOLDINGS, LLC) (11 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, applicant, 216 Park Road, noted: the existing business has been operating well within permit requirements with approximately 25% of the cars onsite that they are permitted for; almost relocated to South San Francisco but those plans fell through and now they're in the process of looking for a new site in the Burlingame area; requested removal of a condition of approval regarding expanding and redesigning a narrow section of the Bay Trail because the lot conditions and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 9 existing building configurations cannot accommodate any widening of the trail; customers are now able to walk in and rent a car; the also serve the nearby hotels from this site. Commissioner noted walk-in customers can rent a car from the site. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the permit extension for two years and amending condition 11 to remove any trail expansion requirements, by resolution and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 3, 2003, sheets A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, A2.1, and A22.1, site plan, partial site plan, second floor-administration, and building C floor plan, kiosk floor plan and reflected ceiling plan; 2) that the car rental, maintenance and storage facility may be open for business from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., seven days a week , and that there shall be no more an 50 employees and 25 customers on-site at any one time; 3) that there shall be a maximum of 600 cars stored on the site at any one time, this number shall include cars that are on-site for maintenance and there shall be a maximum of 2 car carriers on-site to deliver vehicles at any one time; 4) that no trucks delivering or picking up cars at this site shall arrive or depart between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, and all such deliveries shall be made on-site with no impact on the public street or right-of-way; 5) that the required number of handicap stalls for employees and/or customers shall be provided and designated at 778 Burl way Road as per the California Building Code, 2001 edition, and all employees shall be required to park in the 78 space employee parking lot in the southwestern portion of the site, employee parking shall be designated and employee cars shall have sticker identifying them as belonging to employees on-site; 6) that all employee parking shall be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the south end of the site; 7) that the car rental operation at this site shall pay to the City of Burlingame $36,500 per year; the annual payment shall be payable in advance no later than April 30 of each year during which this permit is in effect. When one percent (1%) of the total gross rental for any vehicles for lease or rental originating from this site, whether those agreements are signed in Burlingame or adjacent jurisdictions exceeds $36,500 during any calendar year, the applicant shall then pay one percent of the total gross rentals to the City of Burlingame on a quarterly basis for the duration of the permit; this amount shall be due and payable no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar-year quarter. For purposes of this condition, agreements for rental from San Francisco International Airport car rental facility shall not be included in calculating the 1% payment to the City. In addition to making the payments required by this condition (either annual/flat amount or quarterly), the car rental operation shall file quarterly statements with the City of Burlingame Finance Department documenting the number of vehicle rental agreements signed at the site per month during the quarter on such forms as may be required by the City, and shall include a breakdown of the monthly vehicle rentals from the 778 Burlway Road site. In addition, the City of Burlingame shall accrue any sales tax revenue from rental contracts written in the City of Burlingame. Whether paying a fixed fee or 1% of the gross rental rates, the car rental operation on this site shall keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all records as may be necessary to determine the rentals from which the one percent (1%) payment calculation may be derived. Such records shall be available for delivery to the City for review with fifteen (15) days after request therefore; 8) that no cars shall be loaded, unloaded or stored on any public street, in any public right-of-way, or in any public access area; 9) that any change to the rental of cars, number of employees, amount of auto storage, addition of services or secondary business to the site, or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; 10) that the fire lane from the east end of the site to Burlway Road shall be provided and maintained, unobstructed, on a permanent basis as required by the Fire and Public Works Department of the City of Burlingame; 11) that the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the public access trail and improvements adjacent to the subject property for the life of the project and shall be liable for any damage caused to the pubic for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard, including that the applicant shall remove volunteer vegetation at the narrowest point of the trail and call for an inspection by the Planning Department within 10 days (January 21, 2005) and fill the area of vegetation removal and all City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 10 pot holes in the Bay Trail and call for an inspection by the Planning Department within 90 days (April 10, 2005); 12) that the property owner shall install and maintain on a regular basis as prescribed by the city’s NPDES inspector, petroleum filter pillows in all parking lot catch basins throughout the site, that all water used for washing cars on site shall be recycled by a method approved by the City Engineer, and that failure to install these systems within 90 days of approval of this use permit amendment or failure to maintain the effectiveness of these systems on an on-going basis shall cause this conditional use permit to be review by the Planning Commission; 13) that this approval shall expire in two years and all said uses on the site shall cease unless the applicant applies for a permit extension by February 22, 2009, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; and 14) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Code, 2001 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the permit extension for two years to February 22, 2009. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 7. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A 25-UNIT, 7-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (PAUL BOGATSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DAN IONESCU ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, ARCHITECT) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT; AND b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP – PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-one (51) conditions including the mitigations for the Mitigated Negative Declaration were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dan Ionescu, architect, and Paul Bogatsky, property owner, represented the project. They reviewed the changes made to the project since the study meeting. Commissioners asked about: a problem with the roof plan and the slope on the dormers. Concerned that this project will be lifeless at the street level with no lobby, recreation room or living area on the ground level which is counter to the City policy for this area. Said earlier that the exterior surface would be precaste material, is that now the plan? Will foam molding be used, not see note on plans? The detail of the front elevation is key, so it is important to know the size of the materials uses like metal railings, cement or brick decking etc. the plans do not show the detail/size of these elements, why? Would like to see less stucco, are the windows metal cased wood, need windows to be deeper set to increase the shadow line on plain façade (need to know dimension); how big are the knee braces, what is the area with hatch lines under the windows, need to know how it will look, articulation, what the shadow lines will be. For example what are the decorations on either side of the front door, should be identified and their size noted, this is like a single family house, need to know what is being proposed so can determine if it is appropriate. Building looks plain, need to see how trees will soften, see a lot of tan stucco and not much roof, not exciting. Should do additional work on the entry, now mostly trim and detail, need structural change; are the rear two parking ramps covered? this deck area could be used as outdoor area by the residents of the building, can this be done? How much of the common open space was lost with the reconfiguration of the driveways and parking City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 11 spaces and aisles? Change of the materials on the front elevation and lowering the roof would help the entry. Architect responses to questions: yes, missed the beginning of the dormer and it can be corrected without raising the height of the overall roof; exterior surface will be stucco not pre-caste material; there will be foam molding with 3 coats of stucco finish on top which is fire rated; building will be Type II fire rated, the concrete edge of the decks will have stucco look; the decorations on either side of the front door are lights; intend to develop design as it is represented here with minor adjustments for building permit submittal, this is a type II building so will have brackets of wood or ceramic; can add notes about detail, not change design; the rear two parking ramps are not covered because to do so would require a variance; yes the ramps could be covered and the area put to some use for the future residents with a variance, would be a problem with access from this area to the common open space because of the location of the 12 foot wide driveway and the size of the podium requiring two exit stairs, but possible; about 1,000 SF of common open space was removed to widen the driveways and fix parking dimensions. Continued public hearing comments: CA noted that because the applicant applied under the previous zoning, design review is not required as a part of the zoning in this case, but is required as a part of the consistency with the general plan, so if the project is approved, the commission would not see it again; normally applicants submit a material board so that the Commission is more aware of how what they see will look when completed, this proposal’s approach could be a problem for the Building plan check to know whether what is submitted was the size and materials approved. Applicant noted that there was no requirement for a materials board, adding details just adds time to the architects work and is not an advantage at the schematic plan stage. Commissioner noted that in the minutes of the last meeting on this item Commission asked the applicant to add notes on the size of trim, illustrations, etc., was not done. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: On whole pretty good but agree that more detail is needed on the plans, see more detail on single family houses than provided here, for example, how big are the knee braces proposed, the canopy over then entry should be reconsidered it is presently 31 feet in the air over the entry, project is approvable except for the absence of details; agree want more detail so that the commission knows what it is approving; project is close but not there – a materials board would help, would like to consider a variance for covering the rear ramps to create useable open space and a better living environment for the residents and neighbors, the enclosure would not affect the neighbors and would even enhance their properties, could cover wall with planters and climbing vines; preferred the original entry with the stairs to the first floor because it increased the sense of activity from this property along Trousdale, know that this requires a variance but it brings the building to the street and announces the true front door. Could support both of those variances, the unique condition on this site is the sewer easement which causes this major building to be moved over on the site and moved out of the ground, early on had concern about landscaping on the podium, putting living areas at grade causes a parking problem, need to bring people up to the living space, need some life on the street, variance findings could also include that the parking cannot go any deeper, could remove the extra 5 parking spaces and add a lobby and/or recreation space at the ground level. Chair Brownrigg made a motion to continue this project to the action calendar when the applicant has revised the plans based on the guidance of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: for the entrance like the idea of the variances for replacement of the stairs also the enclosed driveway at the rear, would provide a nice useable space at the rear, not supportive of the removal of the extra five parking spaces, feel that there is a real need for more detailing on the design and identification of the building materials including a materials board. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 12 . Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, project proposal and tentative map, and to bring the application back to the Commission on the action calendar when the architect has made the changes to the plans, staff has plan checked them, and there is space on the Commission agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Because the action was continued the Commission’s action is not subject to appeal. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 815 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEVEN RANDEL, CALIFORNIA HOME PLANS, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PAT DELCHIARO, PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Steven Randel, architect, presented the project and explained how efforts were made to: reduce mass; break up roof pitch with dormers and gables; select simple asphalt roof shingles for economy; design a simple cottage style house; and carefully select divided lite vinyl windows after researching wood options as advised by planner. The architect responded to questions from Commissioners, stating that: garage door and all windows throughout house will be replaced; did not want the elevations to get too busy with multiple materials; worked to avoid a heavy eave because it would not be compatible with other houses in the neighborhood. Other public comment: David Wilkins, 811 Laurel; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Way. Rear elevation seems heavy and overbearing, especially with the bay window; more landscaping would help screen the left and right elevations. A good design but seems large and heavy overall; do not use vinyl windows with interior grid mold inside because they don't last; maintenance on wood windows is less than that for vinyl windows; and the advice Commissioner's provide will yield a better house at the end of the process. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment period was closed. In their discussion the Commissioner's noted the following:  The stone veneer is nice, but there is a lot of stucco surface. Generally, more materials need to be added to the design. For example, consider a vertical wood siding (like the existing house has), a water table trim, or continuing the stone veneer around to the side of the house. These details would soften the front and rear. (Whether stone veneer is extended or not, the plans should show more clearly where it ends).  Exposed rafter detail could also add texture to the elevation, as opposed to boxed eaves.  A front porch has been nicely added, but there is a confluence of roofs there. Hold front porch roof back and extend wall down on that side.  Wood windows have a richness, depth, and feel that vinyl does not have. Vinyl windows do not weather well.  Overall, these types of houses are difficult to put additions on but this particular proposal appears long and boxy, and has a "warehouse look". Nothing says "great house". Would like to see more articulation and massing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 13  A good example of what can be done for this project can be found at a house on the corner of Laurel and Morell that has recently had a second floor addition constructed. 816 Park is also a good example, particularly of vertical wood finish.  Oval window on front elevation is nice, but round vents on front elevation overdo it. Rectangular wood vents would look better than round vinyl vents. Leave the vents because they add nice detail, just revise the design.  A handrail is required on the front porch because of the four risers. Try to get it down to three by working with the adjacent grade so that a handrail is not required.  Show a header.  Add a base or trim to the posts on the porch.  Consider shutters on the front elevation of the house; would help the design immensely.  Increasing the eave overhang could enhance the design.  Show the gutters on the plans.  The rear elevation is too massive, and is made bulkier by the stucco, short eaves, and round bents.  There is opportunity to incorporate more style into the proposed design.  The mass of the house warrants a landscape plan; include vertical elements and automatic irrigation.  Not every window of the house needs to be divided lite; double-hung windows could work well with this style and could simplify the elevations.  A spark arrestor on the chimney would enhance the design by adding detail.  For the garage door, look at craftsman-style doors that are made to look like carriage doors. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer the item to a design review consultant and bring the project back on the action calendar when the design review process is complete and plans have been revised and plan checked as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-2 (C. Osterling dissented; Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 9. 1477 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SEAN AND ERICA CAFFERKEY/BART AND CAROL GAUL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JACK MCCARTHY, JACK MCCARTHY DESIGNER, INC., DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack McCarthy, designer, responded to questions from the Commissioners: a metal rail was proposed for the front porch for simplicity and to work well with the curve of the porch; willing to add a base trim on the right and left sides to provide a break in the wood siding; will consider adding a pitch to the flat roof area; the applicant understands the impact their design choices will have on the cost but feel the investment is worth it. Other public comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Way. Will C&G Construction be working on both 1473 Cortez and 1477 Cortez at the same time? Can they share a dumpster and debris removal? Can the dumpster be located some place other than on Adeline Drive? The designer responded that they could locate the dumpster on Cortez, but he could not confirm construction and demolition of the two projects would City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 14 occur at the same time and therefore could not guarantee debris removal could be coordinated. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment period was closed. Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioner's noted the following:  Like the round elements. Design pays attention to both frontages and has lots of merit.  Add water table trim to break up flow of building into ground, or a base trim on right and left sides to break up the face of the wood siding. Landscaping would also cover it.  Removing the railing on the porch would provide openness, but could be left on for safety purposes.  Concerned about gable and bay at front. Out of character with simplicity of front.  Mixed feelings about inverted finial. Some Commissioners felt it was a positive element to the design while others felt it was not.  Diminutive gable at top of left elevation doesn't fit.  Flat roof in rear will look like a mistake when built, but pitching it might make the roof come too close to the trim.  Confirm owner has budgeted for the cost of construction. Some elements expensive, but also very important to the design. Would not want to see this project come back to the Commission with FYIs because of cost concerns during construction. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed by the Commission and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20p.m. 10. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A BASEMENT (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOE AND JULIA MCVEIGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, and Joe McVeigh, property owner submitted a revised rendering of the project; noted applicant will work with neighbor at 333 Occidental to retain the fence and existing hedge; showed sample of the roof material that will not be bright orange tile; and displayed streetscape that showed the proposed house in relation to the neighboring houses. The architect and applicant responded to Commissioner's questions that: the planter boxes on the left elevation, balcony, and arched element at the front of the building will all be precaste; there is so much hardscape because they wanted a functional garage with an on-site turn-around area at the rear so that they could exit the driveway in a forward direction; a large second-story patio of is not necessary but was included in the design to create the outdoor patio area with fireplace on the ground floor; would be willing to eliminate balustrade and provide partial tile roof. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 15 Other Public Comment: Robert Beaudreau, 333 Occidental Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. The plans look nice and have interest in keeping the hedge and wooden fence along the right side of project area; not in favor of the second story deck that would decrease privacy on neighboring property. It is a well- designed house that, although mansion-sized, would fit nicely into the streetscape; and suggested the trees by the pool be removed because they would be messy. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioners noted the following items:  On paper, the proposed project seems like a lot for the neighborhood. After visiting the site, it does not appear to be too much for the setting. It is an eclectic neighborhood with a lot of dramatic houses. This project would add to fabric of the neighborhood. House fits well with neighborhood and the lot can handle its size. Other big houses in the neighborhood save the proposed design.  Add more landscaping and decrease the amount of impervious material. The backyard is a sea of pavers that should be broken up with more lawn area and a tree between the driveway and patio.  Find a substitute for the proposed Italian cypress. They will push into the space and their form is not consistent with the area.  The house is too massive and belongs on a property twice the size. The lot cannot carry a house of this size and design. It is immensely bigger than any of the projects that led to the implementation of the design review process.  Concerned about neighbor's privacy because of the size of the second-story balcony in the rear. Is that balcony area needed?  The terrace area beneath the second story balcony will be cold and damp, a problem exacerbated by the hardscape, and the balcony would add bulk. The dampness in the area below could be addressed by radiant floor heating.  The pool equipment needs to be enclosed and very well insulated so that the neighbors are not affected by noise.  Concerned about the giant fountain monoliths around the pool and the visual impact they will have on neighbors. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions, including reducing the size of the second story balcony and adding plants at the groundline of the house along the driveway, have been addressed, the plans checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed by the Commission and contained in the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-2 (C. Deal dissenting; Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 11. 1110 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG AND DIANE HAUPT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 16 Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road stated: uniquely shaped lot with the curved front lot line set 7'-6" back from sidewalk; although a variance is required for encroachment into the front setback the modest additions to the front of the house will have minimal impact on the streetscape; when developing the proposed plans, experimented with unique elements on the broad left elevation to enhance the design but those were not effective. The architect responded to Commissioner's questions that: all windows will be replaced throughout and there will be a new garage door; experimented with the left elevation and found that more detail made it look squat; challenging to break up the left elevation and in the end tried to keep it simple; and will carry the front porch beam back around the wall onto the right elevation, as suggested. Other public comments: Martha McCormick, 1530 Meadow Lane. She can see six homes outside her rear window and if they all do additions like this she'll feel boxed in; has concerns regarding the long-term impact on the neighborhood should more neighbors put additions on their homes; does not want to make this project difficult for neighbors. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioners noted the following:  Nice job on design; front elevation is scaled nicely and project proposes good use of materials. Porch is a positive element and the request for variance is well substantiated.  Please edit plans to clarify 2" x 6" rafters are proposed, not 2" x 16".  Will all windows be replaced throughout? Will there be a new garage door?  The left elevation is large and broad with no clear style. Add detail to bring down the scale of the face of the left elevation.  Add a diamond window to break up space on blank right elevation, to kitchen wall face.  There is a tricky transition on the right portion of the roof over the porch. On the right elevation on the porch beam to side, there's really nothing there.  A balustrade, not just a handrail, is needed on the porch since it's greater than 30" high.  Landscaping in rear of lot may help address neighbor's concerns by providing some of shielding the addition.  Both side elevations are quite prominent because of the lot proportions and location. Greenery on both sides would help. Add landscaping, including large-scale trees and shrubs, to both sides of the house to address side elevations. Those vertical elements would help screen the side elevations. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions, including enhancing the landscaping with large-scale trees and shrubs on the left and right sides of the house, have been addressed, plan checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed by the Commission and included in the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05p.m. X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS - Requirements for Plan Submittals for Current Planning Projects. CP Monroe discussed with the commission what items that they felt they needed on plans, suggesting that a full discussion of this be referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Among the items City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 17 noted were that isometric drawings should not be included in the approved plans, the amount of detail matters and the size of the detail items is important, that streetscapes are valuable and there should be some guidelines about them, there was some discussion about the validity of the images presented by some approaches; like to see a landscape plan, expectation for landscape plan needs to be better defined. - League of California Cities, Planning Department Meeting, March 21-23, 2007. Two commissioners, Deal and Vistica, have expressed an interest in attending this year’s League of California Cities Planning Department meeting. CP Monroe reported on the budget allocation and asked if any one else was interested in attending. Commission determined that Commissioners Deal and Vistica would represent them this year. The meeting is to be held March 21-23, staff will assist in registration. - FYI: Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project – location and process for reviewing public art. CP Monroe noted that the city has adopted a public art process and it falls to the Commission who oversees the project to select the public art. In the case of the Hospital, the Planning Commission provides the oversight. Project manager has asked the City to provide guidance regarding the process for selecting the art required in vicinity of the parking garage. Cers. Brownrigg and Deal volunteered to be on a subcommittee to work with the hospital Project Manager. The process would begin with this subcommittee but the selection would include the full Commission and probably the City Council as well. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of February 5, 2007. CP Monroe noted that the City Council adopted the amendment to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the El Camino North Zoning District regulations, and the amendment to the zoning map for the El Camino North Zoning district as recommended by the Planning Commission. She noted that there would be two appeal hearings at the Council’s next meeting: 3 Rio Court and 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, Sisters of Mercy. The building permit extension regulations recommended to Council by the Commission will also be introduced. - FYI Requests CP Monroe noted that there were seven FYI items on tonight’s agenda; and asked if any should be set over for a public hearing and action. Commissioners noted that three of the requests appeared to be diminished as a result of the requested changes and set them over for action hearings: 1136 Oxford Avenue, 2209 Hillside Drive, and 701 Vernon which was asking to remove the shutters which was the only detail on the structure. Commissioners also noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee might discuss the delegation of some of these decisions to the staff in the field at the time of final inspection, rather than FYI’s on minor changes. The CA noted that the three projects which were carried over to action hearings could always build the projects as they were originally approved, and avoid the additional processing step. It was noted that some of the requests reviewed in the past represented big changes to the appearance of the structure and need to be reviewed. - FYI: 1136 Oxford Road – changes to a previously approved design review project. Requested to be set for action hearing. - FYI: 1141 Bernal Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project. Acknowledged change. - FYI: 1145 Cortez Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project. Acknowledged change. - FYI: 1456 Bernal Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project. Acknowledged change. - FYI: 2209 Hillside Drive – changes to a previously approved design review project. Requested to be set for action hearing City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007 18 - FYI: 701 Vernon Way – changes to a previously approved design review project. Requested to be set for action hearing - FYI: Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project – location and process for reviewing public art. This item was moved to Commissioners Reports. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Acting Secretary V:\MINUTES\Minutes\unapproved 02.12.07.doc