Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.23.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 23, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the January 23, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, and Terrones Absent: Commissioners: Osterling and Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. Chair Auran congratulated Richard Terrones on his recent appointment to the Planning Commission and welcomed him to the Commission. III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 9, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Terrones abstaining, Cers. Osterling and Vistica absent) voice vote. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1655 SEBASTIAN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOFTOP PANEL ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT CABINETS ON THE GROUND FLOOR AT THE EXISTING PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM (TASHA SKINNER, APPLICANT; AND PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that the color photos provided which simulated the visibility of the proposed antenna from different off site locations were very helpful; story poles should be installed. Commissioners wanted the following information to be included for the next review: • concerned about lot coverage with the equipment enclosure and the impacts of the equipment on the adjacent sites, including the generator; • how is access gained to the support equipment; • the cell provider should provide a copy of their "build plan" for the next year or two in the City of Burlingame; • concerned about the exposed conduit up the side of the wall, how will it affect the view? The new CUM wall should match the existing equipment enclosure e.g. should be the same color, coursing, texture, grouting, etc. • would like to know where the cables will be placed; • will the vegetation on the site have to be trimmed for either the installation or to secure line of sight? If it does need to be trimmed which vegetation, how much, and what will the maintenance program be? City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 2 This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 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. 2A. 1021 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FARSHID SAMSAMI, APPLICANT; SAMUEL KWONG, ARCHITECT; KWANG PAK, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 12, 2005 MEETING) 2B. 1136 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GREG HURLEY, CONTI-HURLEY ASSOC., APPLICANT; TIM HALEY, TSH INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT; AND SARAH & BENJAMIN CHEYETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Chair Auran asked if anyone on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. He then asked if anyone in the audience would like to call anything off the calendar. Staff noted that the applicant for item 2c, 1764 Marco Polo Way would like to revise the attendance numbers for the two children's programs. Commission directed that item 2c. should be moved to the action calendar. Commissioners noted for 1136 Oxford Road, did not want to remove, but thought that the applicant could either retain the existing shutters on the second floor or remove them. C. Torrenes noted that he would abstain from voting on item 2a 1029 Cortez Avenue because he was not seated on the Commission at the time of public hearing. C. Cauchi moved approval of the consent calendar items 2a 1021 Cortez Avenue and 2b 1136 Oxford Road, based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and item 2a 1021 Cortez Avenue passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Terrones abstaining, Cers. Vistica and Osterling absent). The motion to approve for Item 2b 1136 Oxford Road passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Vistica and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2C. 1764 MARCO POLO WAY, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A CHILD DAY CARE AND PRESCHOOL FACILITY (WINGES City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 3 ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, COMMUNITY GATEPATH, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran recused himself from this item because he owns property within 500 feet of the project site. He passed the gavel to Vice Chair Brownrigg and left the dias and chambers. Reference staff report January 23, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that several conditions defining the scope of the operation were added at Commission's direction to insure that the parameters of this special use were clearly defined because of the size of the parking variance required. CP also noted that the applicant wished to make some corrections to the program numbers. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges, architect, and Katherine Costello, representing Community Gatepath presented the project. They discussed the need to revise conditions 3, 4, and 5 which defined the capacities of the two programs provided on site and the total number of children and employees on site at one time. They noted that they did not think that these corrections would affect the parking numbers because the children are dropped off. Staff and commissioners were having difficulty tracking the revisions suggested to the numbers. CA suggested a brief continuance so that he could copy the suggested changes to the conditions for the commissioner and staff; he noted that the Commission could do the next item and come back to this one. This item was continued at 7:25 p.m. Chair Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 3. 2620 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KEVIN WEINMANN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND LORNA BECCARIA, PROPERTY OWNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report January 23, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Kevin Weinmann, architect, represented the project. He noted that they had responded to the Commission's concerns and noted that he would answer any questions on the changes. Commissioners noted he did a nice job separating the decks on the rear; noted that the symbols in the CAD program for roofing material detracted from the visual quality of the plans, also noted that gutters and window trim still were not noted on the plans. Additional comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Ave. Rode by on bicycle, nice remodel of an existing building, would like to see more like this one; when the windows go in will they be simulated true divided lites, as shown do not match the existing. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: good point about the windows, conditions should include simulated true divided lites for all new windows; support the design but agree about problems with the drawings, important that the Commission should not be required to interpret information, particularly on the elevations. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 4 C. Deal moved approval of the project by resolution with the addition of the following conditions that traditional stucco mold be placed around all windows (new and existing), that gutters and down spouts be added to all facades, and that all new windows be simulated true divided lites in a pane pattern to match the existing windows, and with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 22, 2005, sheets A1 through A6, that traditional stucco mold be placed around all windows, that gutters and down spouts be added to all facades, and that all new windows be simulated true divided lites in a pane pattern to match the existing windows, 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 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; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) 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; 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 conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 25, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, NPDES Coordinator's, and Recycling Specialist's August 29, 2005, memos shall be met; 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 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 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with three additional conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 2C. 1764 MARCO POLO WAY, ZONED TW -Continued from above – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A CHILD DAY CARE AND PRESCHOOL FACILITY (WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, COMMUNITY GATEPATH, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran recused himself from this item because he owns property within 500 feet of the project site. He passed the gavel to Vice Chair Brownrigg and left the dias and chambers. Vice Chair Brownrigg reopened the public hearing. Cathy Costello, 1764 Marco Polo Way, represented the project along with Jerry Winges, architect, and Cheryl Young, Community Gatepath. Commission noted City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 5 that they recognized the value Community Gatepath brought to the Burlingame community; however, the numbers appear to have changed dramatically; applicant noted that the total number of children served does not mean that they will all be on site at one time; Commission noted that the change in numbers is not consistent with the traffic/parking study, and it should be revised; applicant noted that some of the children come by bus and that is one reason why the numbers in the traffic/parking study do not track, also the various program’s start times are phased over time to address on-site impacts; Commission noted that this is a request for a very big parking variance, these numbers have changed a lot, Commission needs a clear statement of how this facility will work, would like the next traffic and parking study to include full day trip generation numbers for traffic and parking; concerned that these numbers presented tonight may not be those used by the traffic engineer in his study. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: Suggest that Cers. Osterling and Vistica listen to the tapes of this discussion before the item returns. Vice Chair Brownrigg directed that this item be continued until the program numbers have been solidified and the traffic/parking study has been redone then the item should be returned to the action calendar. This action is not appealable. The item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 4. 1309 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHRIS & PEGGY PEDERSEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal recused himself from this item because of a business relationship with the owner. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Reference staff report January 23, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Chris Pedersen, 1309 Mills Avenue, represented the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg 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 December 22, 2004, sheets 1-3 and 5 and revised plans date stamped November 30, 2005, sheets 4, 6 and 7; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; 3) 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; 4) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 6 Building plans; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Officials December 23, 2004 memo, the City Engineers December 27, 2004 and December 2, 2005 memos, the Recycling Specialists December 29, 2004 memo and the Fire Marshals and NPDES Coordinators January 3, 2005 memos shall be met; 8) 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; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal recused, C. Vistica and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 2731 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NELSON SZETO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ANGELO ARCILLA, PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the average front setback was verified by staff. Staff responded no. Commission stated that they felt that the measurements to the front setback are incorrect because they appear to be taken from the face of curb but the front setback for the house is taken from the property line. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Nelson Szeto, 1263 Hillcrest Blvd, Millbrae, architect, stated that he hired a civil engineer to measure the front setback on the subject property, but that the rest of the front setback measurements he did by hand from the face of the curb. Commission noted that the average front setback used in the staff report is different than the average front setback shown on the plans. Staff commented that the applicant’s data was used in combination with the data from a previously submitted, adjacent project. Commission commented: • Not easy to prove a hardship on the property for a front setback variance; • A variance may not be required because of the discrepancy in comparing measurements taken from the top of the curb for the average and from the property line for the subject property; the measurements need to be recalculated; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 7 • Did architect review Design Guidelines; includes a lot of detailing that doesn’t work; • Need to label materials to be used, skylights (tinted?) and window types; are windows casement, double hung, balustrades, traditional stucco mold window trim, shutters and door, etc.?; • What type of style is this design; color will be important for the look of the house; design should reflect elements in the neighborhood; • Reduce mass by redistributing it, need to extend first floor and take area off the second floor; to reduce mass, try to eliminate the variances, a lot of property to the rear; • Show the balustrade as the way it is, looks like Spanish type railing; provide a cut-sheet of the balustrade; • To help reduce the scale of the front element, on garage do a couple of single doors at the front with something in-between them; • Indicate what the window trim is; have not approved Styrofoam moldings because increase usual mass; • Want to see simulated or true divided light windows; • Show gutters and downspouts on plans, part of design elements; • Rear elevation has a large blank wall on the second floor, should be addressed in design; • What are the three rectangular blocks over the dining room window?; • Greenhouse window is not appropriate to this style of house, can this be done some other way; • Windows on elevations should match the floor plans, egress windows should be noted; • Because of the mass and bulk of the design, the front porch area has to set itself forward to make a presence and creates a variance; there’s ways to bring down the mass to create a more human scale and eliminate the variance; entry should be reduced; • Want to see an 8’-1” plate height on the second floor to help reduce the mass; • House will require story poles; good to put up poles sooner rather than later; • Would like to see a landscape plan when the project returns, vegetation could have a big impact on the sense of mass and bulk. Public hearing continued: Gail Friedman, 2735 Summit Drive, Greg Cosko, 6 Hillview Ct., and Eugene Chinn, 2751 Summit Drive. Want more time to review what applicant has in mind; project looks massive and will affect privacy on adjacent lot; plans for a side window will look directly into neighbor’s rear yard; reducing the height of the house will help; concerned with how this project will move forward and concerned with maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood; neighbors behind like effort taken to keep bulk towards the street while retaining same footing; neighbor pushed house to limit of code which required massive retaining walls, don’t want to repeat, would be problem if moved further back on lot; worried about slippage; height and mass could be obstructing views; feels Commission comments are well placed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: project is probably going to block a view; problem deciding which route to go with placement of story poles; project before Commission is not approvable, should not put up story poles for a project that is not going to be approved; do not see a hardship for the variances; plans need major revision; there is some consideration given in code for houses that are set up high on a hill; hillside area is set up for protecting distant views of landmarks, not views of trees; does not want to make applicant put up story poles for a project that is not approvable. C. Cauchi made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 8 Comment on motion: the architect needs to talk to neighbors and stand in neighbors houses prior to doing a major redesign; because of the slope, there is a hardship on the property; before the project comes back, story poles will need to be in place; it’s not the burden of the design review consultant to redesign the project; applicant should talk to the neighbors, revise the project and then go through design review; can applicant terminate the project themselves? Yes; should do a substantial redesign prior to the meeting with the consultant; the design reviewer should listen to the tapes to hear Commission issues. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction given to revise the project substantially after talking to the neighbors and before submitting it to the design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Vistica and C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 6. 1141 ROSEDALE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ANDREW AND FLORENCE HASKELL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; VINCENT C. WONG, ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Andrew and Florence Haskell, property owners, Vincent Wong, architect, second child on the way, need an addition, love neighborhood; didn’t want to push out into rear yard in order to preserve needed yard space; living room will be expanded into front porch area; tried to preserve the original feel of the house and took neighbors into consideration; adjacent neighbor appreciated that window placement protects her privacy; back yard is the most important feature that they would like to preserve; used design elements from neighborhood; have no problem complying with comments on plans from different departments. Commission commented: • Appreciate that plans were drawn by hand; • Feels failed in attempt to preserve the existing character of the house, which is dependent on the presence of a porch; nice wide porch replaced with odd looking dormer; • Need to call out more details to address massing; • Not happy with the massing on the second floor; • Vinyl on the windows should be replaced with simulated true divided lites which will add character; • How will 1st floor ceiling be raised from 8’-1” to 9’? Needs to run idea by the structural engineer; could be a seismic issue; • Apron on windows, looks out of proportion; • Traditional stucco mold is in keeping with the neighborhood; may incorporate elements from too many styles; • No problem with the square footage or a second story addition, but it needs to fit in with the neighborhood; • Horizontal lines on the south elevation, would be careful with the reveals; • Second floor addition is broad across the front elevation, could mass be broken up or floor set in another way?; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 9 • Bay window does not seem to fit design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: these are hard houses to add on to; believes in preserving back yards; needs more definition on the second floor; have a preference for front porches, however Rosedale is a fairly busy street and there is less of a need for a front porch, would be in support of a bay window in this circumstance; massing is an issue and would hope that the architect could come up with a different approach; a design reviewer could help; it would be sad to take away this front porch that is consistent with the neighborhood and supports the character of the area; fireplace in the rear is coming down so can add a small 4’-5’ space at the back in order to retain the front porch element; front porch should be embraced, could enlarge the covered porch here like other ranch houses in the neighborhood; C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on motion: design reviewer needs to listen to the tapes; front porch needs to be retained; the second floor should be redesigned to fit better with the first floor and reduce mass; elements can be designed in to fit in better with the neighborhood; many people that go through the design review process appreciate the outcome of their project; all windows should come back as simulated true divided light windows. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Vistica and C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 7. 16 DAVIS COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND ANDREW JUROW AND BARBIE BARRETT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Rd, architect, code enforcement was with former owners; family has 6 children, all of driving age, and 11 cars and wants to get as many vehicles off the street as possible. Commission commented: Is it the intention to have a single door? Yes, the door will never be seen driving up the street; a steel beam will be put across the header to support the oversized door. There is no human scale on the garage, it is big; can be broken down to two or three doors; ok with size but want to see a change to the exterior; the building could look more like a car barn, massing needs to be broken up; could go with a double door and a single door to break front up, and try to visually mirror what is existing in the front of the house; could install a single roll up door that looks like it’s three separate doors; a dormer would be good for the massing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, wants to congratulate people in Burlingame who are trying to get their cars off the street. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 10 C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the discussed revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran 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 5-0-2 (C. Vistica and C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of January 17, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 17, 2006. She noted the appointment of Richard Terrones, the new Planning Commissioner who took his seat at this meeting. - FYI – Review of Window Guide for Design Review Handout. Commission complimented staff on presenting such a clear description and endorsed the idea of giving this to applicants at the counter early in the design review process. They felt having the window sample at the counter was also a good idea. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary