Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.22.07 PC minutes APPROVED CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California October 22, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Cauchi called the October 22, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Chair Deal Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Osterling moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following corrections: ƒ Page 3, third paragraph, delete "if it at the level of the master bedroom, it . . . " and replace with: "access might still be from the side of the master bedroom, but the deck . . ." Motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Chair Deal absent, Commissioners Auran and Brownrigg abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Auran noted that he had listened to the audio recording of the October 9, 2007 meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; noted that she was surprised that the plaintiff for the PHS/SPCA case is not present, given the potential presence of the red-legged frog and San Francisco Garter Snake in the wetland on the property at 1510 Rollins Road. She further commented that she felt the City should collect a fee for properties where the new number of bathrooms exceeds the existing number of bathrooms on a property, and use these funds for capital improvements to the City’s infrastructure. All Commissioners present indicated that they had visited the locations of all projects on the agenda. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1510 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR PARKING AND FENCING WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT (STEVE LEWIS, LEWIS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND WILLIAM SPENCER COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Senior Planner Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 2 Commission comments: ƒ Make language in mitigation measures and conditions of approval related to the wetland more directive. ƒ Asked for clarification regarding the agency with authority over modifications to the wetland. ƒ Asked for clarification from the applicant regarding the need for additional paving in the area west of the wetland. ƒ What is the purpose of the 8’ high fence. ƒ Can modifications be made to curbing being built adjacent to walking bridge on southeast side of property to ensure that it is still accessible. ƒ Clarify the City’s zoning restrictions related to parking in the drainage easement. ƒ Clarify restrictions regarding the maximum amount of office space on the property; the existing condition appears to exceed the maximum permitted under recently adopted RR zoning, but may be non-conforming. ƒ What is the purpose of the additional parking. ƒ Use permeable asphalt for new surfacing of parking areas. ƒ Include a monitoring schedule for the wetland area during construction, and ensure that individuals monitoring the area are qualified experts. ƒ The applicant should embrace and enhance the wetland area, rather than just implementing protection measures. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 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. Vice-Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 2b was pulled from the Consent Calendar and moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda. 2a. 1104 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones dissenting, Chair Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2b. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR UPPER AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MIKE KERWIN AND AMY PENTICOFF, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN MANISCALCO, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN (continued from October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 3 Reference staff report dated October 22, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Mike Kerwin, 3105 Margarita Drive, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. Public comments: Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Drive, Burlingame; Joyce and Frank Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes Drive, Burlingame; Brian Murphy, 3101 Margarita Drive, Burlingame; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; commented on the project. Comments included: the flat roof design was intended for uphill neighbor’s view preservation; the rear dining room wall should be setback further to be under the shorter legs of the old solar panels, or the plate height of the entire structure should not exceed 8’; questioned the appropriateness of the Variance for the deck; the design is incompatible with the neighborhood; the story poles do not reflect the latest iteration of the design and it is difficult to determine the true view impact; what material is to be used on the roof; the obstruction of the view is very evident at night; objected to planting more trees on the property; and questioned the finishing materials on the new home. John Maniscalco, 1501 Waller Street, San Francisco, architect for the applicant; provided a description of the exterior finishing materials and noted that the design has been revised multiple times in response to neighbor concerns. Additional Commission comments: ƒ The solar panels are in roughly the same location as before; the State of California prohibits regulation of the location of solar panels. ƒ Story poles do not reflect current project design regarding the location of the roofline on the rear of the dining room. Commissioner Auran moved to continue the item until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, with direction to the applicant to relocate the story poles to reflect the current project design; and further directing that the item be placed on the Consent Calendar when it returns to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Commission discussion of motion: Commissioner Terrones stated that the project design had been modified specifically per the direction of the Planning Commission, and that he feels the project could be approved and not continued. Commissioner Osterling indicated that he would not support a continuance; the applicant has exceeded the direction provided by the Planning Commission; the current design is appropriate. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-2-1 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Osterling dissenting, Chair Deal absent). Commissioner Brownrigg noted that the setback Variance is supportable given the hardship of the layout of the property and the need to preserve views from the uphill property. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 4 This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 3. 323 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR GARAGE HEIGHT AND WINDOWS MORE THAN 10'-0" ABOVE GRADE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NED WHITE, MCCOPPIN STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CRISTOS AND ELISABETH GOODROW, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi recused himself since he resides within 500-feet of the subject property. Reference staff report dated October 22, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Secretary Terrones opened the public hearing. Cristos Goodrow, 323 Dwight Road, Burlingame; represented the applicant: ƒ The Variances were eliminated in revised design. ƒ The existing foundation will no longer be used. ƒ More detail regarding finishing has been provided. ƒ The garage roofline has not been changed. Commission comments: ƒ It was noted that there have been no changes to reduce mass of roofline. Public comments: Sandra Lang, 321 Dwight Road, Burlingame; indicated that her primary concern is with respect to 29.5’ height of roof. Believes it is too high; creates excessive bulk, especially with respect to her home next door. The design will block sunlight to her home. Gary Hagmueller, 309 Dwight Road, Burlingame; John Parkin, 333 Dwight Road, Burlingame; Nick Solinger, 331 Dwight Road, Burlingame; supported the project. It will blend well into the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Commissioner Vistica expressed concern regarding mass and bulk of home; the roofline can be changed to reduce mass and bulk; pitch of the roof may be too steep; typical roof ridge is 30’ long, this one is nearly 50’ long; home is almost 20% larger than typical home designs seen in the design review process. ƒ Architect took home next door into account in home design; roof pitches away from neighbor. ƒ Roofline is designed away from street and reduces bulk. ƒ Benefit of roof form is that it is a unifying element, due to articulation of the building walls. ƒ The design may accommodate solar panels on the roof. Commissioner Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 15, 2007, sheets A0.0 through A3.1 and L1.0; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 5 permit; and that all windows shall be simulated true divided lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 29, 2007 memo, and the Fire Marshal's, City Engineer's and NPDES Coordinator's July 2, 2007 memos shall be met; 3) 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; 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) 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; 8) 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; 9) 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; 10) 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; 11) 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 12) 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. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 6 Commission discussion of motion: Commissioner Brownrigg noted that he too is concerned that the building may appear large from street; however, because of unusual lot shapes in the area, a lot of homes do not have the usual side setbacks. As time passes we will begin to see larger face prints in area. Over time the design will blend in. He indicated that he would support the motion. Secretary Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting, Chair Deal absent, Commissioner Cauchi recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. Vice-Chair Cauchi returned to the dais. 4. 1136 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR AS- BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SARAH & BENJAMIN CHEYETTE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TIM HALEY, TSH INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 22, 2007, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Sarah Cheyette, 1136 Oxford Road, Burlingame; represented the applicant: ƒ Wants to keep the house the way it is. ƒ Second contractor made the decisions regarding changes. ƒ Didn’t discuss changes with contractor; she came home and the changes were made. Commission comments: ƒ Commissioner Cauchi noted that he met with the applicant’s husband at the property. ƒ Asked who made the decision to stucco over the wood trim. ƒ What was the architect’s relationship with the applicant versus the contractor. ƒ Noted that the applicant has made some effort to improve the front elevation. Public comments: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ƒ The Commission must decide whether the applicant has made enough positive changes to the design to overcome the mediocre construction. ƒ The applicant has made some effort to re-install character defining elements. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Commission discussion of motion: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 7 ƒ Problematic to approve the project in light of the changes made. ƒ The Commission has required other applicants to make changes back to original design; it has even referred back to a design reviewer in other instances. ƒ Approval may set a precedent. ƒ The applicant has made some effort to improve design from what has been built; issues with other applicants have been due to multiple changes that indicated more of a serious disregard between applicant and City. ƒ Make revisions to have front elevation to somewhat comply with approval. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 3-3-1 (Commissioners Auran, Cauchi and Vistica dissenting, Chair Deal absent). Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 5, 2007 right side elevation and first level floor plan; date stamped March 13, 2007, front elevation; date stamped January 29, 2007, left side elevation; date stamped January 11, 2006, site plan, landscape plan, existing floor plans, second level floor plan, roof plan, rear elevation and topographic survey; with simulated true divided light windows, and with the relocation of the stairs between the garage and the house into the house and out of the required parking area, that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the finishing of the front elevation shall be modified to be consistent with the amended plans date stamped March 13, 2007 approved by the Planning Commission on March 26, 2007, including providing the traditional wood stucco mold trim on the windows, wood trim around the front porch and restoring the wood beam over garage door; 3) that the eave over the bathroom and front door be extended proportionally to the extension of the wall so that the eave projection remains the same as originally approved; that if possible, the bathroom window at the front when relocated in the new wall, shall be lowered as much as possible; the two vents, as shown in Scheme A, shall be made of wood; 4) that the variance for parking space width shall only apply to this residential building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 5) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 18, 2005 memo and the Fire Marshal's, the City Engineer's, the Recycling Specialist's, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 21, 2005, memos, shall be met; 6) 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; 7) 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 8) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 8 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. 9) 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; 10) 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; 11) 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; 12) 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; 13) 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; and 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Commission discussion of motion: Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would be comfortable with directing specific changes to be made as part of an approval. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Chair Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:41 p.m. 5. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND T. PETER LAM, AIA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN (continued from October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting) Reference staff report dated October 22, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, 848 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 9 Public comments: Paul Grech, 1315 Skyview Drive, Burlingame; lives across from applicant’s property. Expressed concern regarding Monterey Pine trees and protection during the construction process. Requested a condition of approval to protect the trees. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 12, 2007, sheets A1.1 through A1.3, A2.1 through A2.2, and A3.1 through A3.3, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that a tree protection plan shall be prepared, to be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, to ensure the preservation of all trees on the property during the construction process, the tree protection measures shall be installed before a building permit is issued; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal’s, and NPDES Coordinator’s May 14, 2007 memos, and the City Engineer's May 17, 2007 memo shall be met; 4) 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; 5) 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6) 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; 7) 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; 8) 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 FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 9) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 10 documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 10) 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 11) 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 Vistica. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Chair Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:47 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1800 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, AND DEREK LOUIE, PROPERTY OWNER) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal Vice-Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, Burlingame; represented the applicant: ƒ Existing style of house is difficult to add to. ƒ Owner wanted to center the entry door on the house. ƒ The owner wanted to open up the floor plan. ƒ Main living space exits to side-yard which terraces down to back yard. ƒ This plan makes the back yard space more usable. Commission comments: ƒ The side-yard fence should be pulled forward to new line on chimney. ƒ Consider the possibility for a steeper roof pitch to unify roof design and make it look less than a mass added to a one-story house; less like a layer cake. ƒ Consider an alternate species for the 24” Photinia; 15-gallon specimens of another species would be acceptable. ƒ Suggested adding landscaping along the side of the residence. ƒ Complimented the design. ƒ Take into account landscaping along rear of the property; the adjacent to hospital site will be landscaped along the rear property line of the subject site. ƒ Stone veneer should be wrapped around front of house. ƒ Window pattern on the house is somewhat different from garage windows; make the pattern consistent. ƒ Choose a non-deciduous tree to shield power pole at the rear of the property. 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 regular Consent Calendar when complete. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 11 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Chair Deal absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:02 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS None. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications: ƒ None. Review of City Council regular meeting of October 9, 2007: ƒ Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council adopted amendments to the Condominium Regulations related to the ECN and TW Zones; amendments to ECN and TW standards for consistency; and also adopted an amendment to the Parking Regulations related to the parking standard for animal shelters. He also indicated that the new Building Code was introduced and that when adopted, will become effective January 1, 2008; noting that projects that have valid land-use entitlements by no later than December 31, 2007 will be permitted to use the prior Building Code, if desired. FYI - 1560 Columbus Avenue - requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ƒ The Commission accepted the changes outlined in the staff memorandum dated October 14, 2007. Other comments from the Commission: ƒ Commissioner Cauchi asked if the City was able to restrict the use of signs that are carried by people to advertise businesses (e.g. “going out of business sale” at Black Sea Gallery). City Attorney Anderson noted that the City cannot restrict such signage. ƒ Commissioner Brownrigg asked about the status of the proposed assisted living project at 755 California Drive. Community Development Director Meeker indicated that the project will likely be brought back for Design Review Study in the near future, prior to proceeding with the environmental evaluation. ƒ The Commission concurred that in the future, conditions of approval for projects should include a condition prohibiting the use of Styrofoam trim on residences. ƒ Staff was requested to determine if El Paso Construction, the current contractor for the project at 1136 Oxford Drive (appeared earlier on the agenda) was licensed. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 22, 2007 12 Richard Terrones, Secretary