Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.10.26REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 26, 1998 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the October 26, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Coffey, Keighran, Luzuriaga;'Vistica- and Deal Absent: Commissioner Key Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; MINUTES The minutes of the October 14, regular meeting of the Planning , Commission were approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION,FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED ONE -CAI . GARAGE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 1424 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (CAROLYN MULLIKEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: how w6uld the new code requirements effective October 23 affect this project; how many parking spaces ijbes'thi$ project require; why not provide 18 feet clear inside -so -that later, as an existing garages -this- would qualify for two cars if a subsequent addition were to be made to the douse; present ' location for the garage would make it hard to add on to -the house later,' does. the `applicant want to' address this now; is the proposed project within the rear, 4.0%' of the lot; if `trlac�e wider at'present - location could a second car --maneuver into an 18 foot wide garage. ';Thgre.,were nb.'fi riher• 9; questions and the item was set for public hearing at the meeting of Nove ' . er 1998. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR AN ALTERATION AND ADDITION TO A 3-STORY BUILDING AT 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (ROBERT BRADSBY, MCCLUSKEY ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SAKS TRUST 1997- A, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the commissioners asked: can the Garden Center arrange to take deliveries before 10 a.m.; if Saks is able to lease the church parking for employees would like to see a long term lease and have it in place before final approval; how do the renters of the apartment buildings get in and out, describe on -site circulation; if the easement area is blocked how will the renters get in and out; could we have a customer count from similar Saks stores, the busiest and least busy and median activity level by season, possibly can take from business plan for this site; would like more detail on the assisted parking concept, what criteria would the city use if they employed this alternative; what number of deliveries is Saks anticipating in the parking lot behind the store; when semi -trucks are unloading at their dock can cars get by to exit the lot; what delivery times does Saks have, can they coordinate around the Garden Center; will early morning deliveries affect apartment tenants; report on other parking surveys city has that might reflect "high shopping season" effects; traffic/parking study included parking lots within 600 feet, did this include the new parking lot on the corner of Burlingame and El Camino; because of difficult parking situation is it possible to re -look at the addition on the ground floor, if rearranged could use that area for parking; reconstructing the parking lot wipes out the Garden Center's access, do not want to see reduction of two parking spaces in lot B1 to provide access, prefer going to compact in the city lot; what will happen to the Garden Centers debris box; how do the cars parked between the two apartment buildings get there; think assisted parking could work for peak times of the day and peak shopping season; provide information on the total SF of the retail use on Burlingame Avenue, what percentage of the total is new retail requested by the Saks project; Additional questions: can the existing mezzanine be retained instead of extending the building to the rear so on -site parking area can be kept; parking is important but issue is trips generated, negative declaration claims that previous project generated more trips, this less so have a lesser impact, but the building was never used for the previously approved use and Burlingame Avenue is different today, explain; address the increased congestion at key intersections caused by the traffic for this project; provide parking and trip generation standard data used, is there another standard than specialty retail to use, what about "general department store", are the trip generation and parking demands greater; site plan is not complete, Sheet A 1.01, does not show both properties, also want detail on delivery truck dock, will FedEx and UPS block access to Lot B1; Malouf's building should be included and labeled, need more than the parking layout need to see fence location, landscaping, and pedestrian access delivery docks should also be included on site plan; aerial should be included in packet; has the city considered adding a two or three story parking deck; what is the customer volume at Pottery Barn and Banana Republic and parking generated; does the extension to the rear of the building remove existing parking; what is the difference between assisted and valet parking; will parkers be charged for assisted parking, parking in Saks lot or in City lot; the addition of seven parking spaces with assisted parking does not seem worth the effort and inconvenience; if have assisted parking and walk -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 through the store how do they know that they are Saks customers; the initial study indicates that there is insufficient parking and the negative declaration concludes that it can be considered less than significant, explain findings for conclusion; what rights does the Garden Center's current encroachment permit provide, can the city take away the encroachment permit; how will the limitation to early morning delivery hours be enforced. The Commissioners questions continued: what is the church parking lot used for now, how intensely is it being used daily; how many employees does Saks anticipate would park in the church lot and on what days; how will the arrangement work, length of the lease; has the applicant considered the alternative of putting some money in a city parking fund so the Donnelly Avenue structure can be expanded, it has a foundation to carry another deck; want adjoining properties addresses shown on parking layout plans, site survey and site sections; can downsize operation 2 % so that there is no increase in square footage; the design exhibits two different styles of architecture front and rear, is there any reason why the rear cannot be treated the same as the front and better reflect the character of Burlingame Avenue; how is the required parking affected if the first floor addition is not added; there is an error in the first parking table, shows parking capacity of Donnelly lot at 156 but shows 173 cars parked there; include minutes and conditions from the Planning Commission for the 1992 and 1994 actions; revise city trip generation table because the figures do not seem consistent with activity applicant found at the Santa Barbara store, differences appear to be significant, were these larger numbers considered in the negative declaration analysis. Because of the number of responses needed the chair did not set the item for a specific date, staff indicated that they would notice the action meeting as required by law and would try for action at the November 23, 1998, meeting if possible. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A COMMISSIONER, APPLICANT OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2616 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (RON SHIMAMOTO, APPLICANT AND KIM C. & MARIE M. ROBBINS, PROPERTY OWNERS) APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICES FOR A CANDY STORE AT 270 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (CALIFORNIA CANDY COMPANY, APPLICANT AND SANDRA YORK VINCELETTE, PROPERTY OWNER) and -3- 2vsb3T City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (MORTGAGE BROKER) AT 1008 CAROLAN AVENUE #C, ZONED C-2. (WILLIAM MOTT, APPLICANT AND MICHAEL R. & KRYSTYNA M. HARVEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar including the facts in the staff report and the findings for each project in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Key absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2723 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JEFFREY D. & LORI C. ADAMS, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 10.26.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions for staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect, and Jeff Adams property owner, represented the project. He noted that they were going to put up a cardboard mock of the potential overhang of the new dormer but it rained and they could not do it, he submitted some pictures of the portion of the house and eaves affected; the triangular area affected by the overhang would not be visible from the street because the dormer overhang would be F-4" and the eave overhang is 2'-10"; asked what could see from in front of blue house, hardly see the bathroom window; asked for information on eave overhangs it was not submitted and would have helped because plans seem to have a scale problem and eaves are not the same on the plans as in the actual building; owners measured 2'-10" by leaning out the window. Neighbors next to side where dormer added are most affected and they are comfortable with proposal; applicant bought the house for its character and wish to maintain it also. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners commented: house is gorgeous, the addition is needed functionally; do not preservation, this is a small amount don't need gross changes. the upstairs floor plan does not work well and want design review to turn into historical to debate, design review is to protect against C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the design review, by resolution, for the reasons stated with the conditions in the staff report, except condition 5 requiring the reduction in the size of the master bathroom, as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 28, 1998, Sheets A-1 - A-4; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer (September 14, 1998) memo shall be met; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), or changing the roof height -4- 2vsb3T City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the applicant shall match the scale, proportion and style of existing windows, trim and shingles; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: do understand the reviewers comments and intent to preserve the strict interpretation of the architecture, but people have the right to improve the houses as need it; was not persuaded until saw the 2'-10" overhang of the gable which is more than the dormer overhang, also the addition is at the top and not readily visible. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review without staff suggested condition number 5. The motion was approved 6-0-1 (C. Key absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1157 CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES D. & SHARON M. RIDER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project. The Commissioners asked staff to describe from the aerial the location of the rear lot line; will the redwood fence at the rear of the property be retained, applicant needs to address, size of the addition is unclear plans show 571 SF the, staff report says 583 SF, will be what scales from the plans as approved believe that is 583 SF. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no further question. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Charles Rider, the property owner, spoke submitting pictures of the cars parked in the driveway; need space family is growing; differences in the square footage added could be explained by the fact that the new area to be added can be confused with existing area to be remodeled on the plans; original design extended addition to 5 feet from property line, noted that the required setback was 7 feet on the side so revised plans and reduced room size; neighbor who owns triangle of land a rear has no objection to proposed project; neighbors across street have added close to their fence and they have no objections. Commissioner asked how far from the existing rear fence would the new addition be, the fence would still be 10 feet from the addition, the fence extends from the garage, it may not look like 10 feet but it is; asked about the roof line on the garage, applicant said that structure is non- conforming so did not want to change roof height and loose nonconformity, commissioner pointed out that plans before commission tonight show the plate line of the garage raised which is different from the photo submitted and will raise the roof ridge to that of the existing house; commissioner also noted that the new windows and trim shown on the plans are different from that shown in the photo, the existing have stucco mold, new show 1 inch plus wood trim also current windows have shutters; new should match the existing including shutters, okay; troubled by the roof, not want a single gable because will be very tall, commissioner noted not sure a single ridge would be so tall. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 C. Coffey moved approval of the project with conditions 1 to 3 with findings that this is a difficult lot to work with and applicant has been responsive to these difficulties and done a fine job of staying with the minimum mass and bulk with the addition. The amended conditions of approval are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 20, 1998 Sheets 1-3; 2) that the requirements of the City Engineer's September 14, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that all the window trim and the eaves on the new addition shall be the same as on the existing structure; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Luzuriaga seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: should consider adding a condition that all window trim and eves would match existing, maker of motion and second agreed to add the proposed condition. One reason struggling with this application is that what we saw on the plans was not exactly what we saw in the field. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the amended motion to approve the project. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Vistica dissenting, C. Key absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR EXISTING FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR FRONT SETBACKS AND FOR GARAGE DIMENSIONS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1800 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-l. Reference staff report, 10.26.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if the parking variance requested was for depth of the spaces only, yes; is the wall masonry block or stucco on wood, the property owner should clarify. There were no other questions. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect, Bijan Amini, property owner spoke representing the application. At last meeting discussed each issue, appeared that applicant had the votes for the variances and the direction was to talk to the design reviewer to see how to landscape the wail; property owner felt that he had the proper permit to build it; spoke to Mr. Gumbinger before he became ill, agreed that could not put holes in the wall for ivy because the stucco would not hold up, suggested a trumpet vine which would grow over the wall; applicant decided to remove the closet in the garage because it was not a big item but the angle of the addition at the side setback and the stucco walls are big issues and did not want to change. Commission asked: how long will it take for trumpet vine to grow, 8 feet in one year on a lattice, landscape architect said about two years to cover the wall; is trumpet vine evergreen, yes; how is the wall built, 4 x 4 posts spread 8 feet, there has been no engineering on the structure and the architect did not design it. Property owner noted that the stucco wall was built with an encroachment permit from the city, originally built of wood and passers-by and one rel City of BurUngame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 neighbor said it looked bad because it did not match anything in the neighborhood, went to city to see if could change to stucco wall, staff at counter okayed, now wall looks like the rest of the house, put in fence to make the back yard bigger and planted grass in the rear yard, will put in larger plants to cover the wall more quickly. Commissioner noted that there are many redwood fences in the city and they look nice, why did this one not look good, because it was a back yard fence up against the street; how was fence built, took off redwood boards and put up plywood on posts, tar paper and stucco; who said it did not look good, why did you not ask them to write a letter to support wall, people commented while walking their dogs and neighbor next door to the right on Ray Drive; did neighbors across street comment, no; commissioners and applicant reviewed the history of the order of the changes to the wall. CE Erbacher noted that there are two kinds of encroachment permits, in this case a special encroachment permit which requires approval from the City Council was called for, and is required to get a construction permit, in the past inspections on such permits were done by the Building Department, but more recently Public Works has been doing these inspections; Public Works concerns in reviewing construction after Council approval is on impediments to public facilities and sight lines including cars backing from driveways; in this case the applicant did not have a construction permit for the stucco wall alternative; applicant noted that he had an encroachment permit, problem did not know what actions were necessary for change. There has been some delay in resolving this because the property owner was out of the country during construction. There were no further comments from the floor or public and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: feel strongly that the wall should be angled back to the house at 90 degrees as shown on the plans, not at the 45 degrees existing; the stucco wall is massive, it has a southwestern appearance which is not consistent with the house; wall should be moved in a minimum of 3 feet and its mass reduced by making it open at the top, landscaping should be placed in front of it to mitigate the view from the street; what criteria are used to approve an encroachment permit, discretion of the City Council; if property is sold the fence will have to be redwood to comply with the encroachment permit recorded with the property, to retain the wall the owner will have to go back to the City Council; don't have much problem with the variances, generally agree with the design reviewer, the angle at the comer of the house is not consistent with the design of the rest of the house, the wall is very intrusive and highly visible on the corner of Ray Drive, should be moved back from the sidewalk; regardless of what the Planning Commission does this will have to go back to City Council, CA noted yes the variance is the province of the Planning Commission, the commission can recommend on the fence. This was a mix-up, Council granted an encroachment permit for a redwood fence, not a stucco wall, favor the three variances would like to see the wall changed back to a redwood fence. C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the design review with three variances by resolution and with the findings stated in the staff report deleting conditions 3 through 5 and adding a condition that the stucco fence shall be replaced with a redwood fence with horizontal elements to match the other fencing on the property as shown on the plans approved for the encroachment permit and stained or treated to retain the natural wood color, with conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October -7- City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26. 1998 7, sheets A 1 through A6, site plan, floor plan and elevations; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 29, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the stucco wall shall be converted back to a redwood fence, as stated in the encroachment permit, with horizontal elements to match other neighbors fencing and the replacement fence shall be stained or treated to retain wood color, it shall not be painted; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Comment on the motion: why return to the redwood fence, because the encroachment permit was granted for a redwood fence; honest mistake by the applicant, wanted to make fence nicer, thought he'd received property authorization; not see wall as an improvement; clipping the corner of the house people will not notice, parking variance okay, stucco wall is terrible, if want barrier take stucco off and put up redwood, commission can't revoke encroachment permit, wall is extremely massive; looked at wall, if built with 4 x 4's on 8 foot centers, a good wind storm will blow it down, stucco is heavy and it is not adequately supported; wall is overbearing the sidewalk, massive vines make it worse, to point can't use the narrow sidewalk. There were no further comments from the commission. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote. The commissioners voted 4-2-1 (Cers. Boju6s, Vistica dissenting, C. Key absent) to approve the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. Applicant asked if they can go to the City Council and amend the encroachment permit. CA Anderson responded that the Planning Commission condition requiring removal of the stucco wall meant that the applicant had 3 choices 1) appeal the decision of the Commission to allow the stucco wall to remain; 2) follow the Commission decision and replace the stucco wall with the Council -approved redwood fence; or 3) drop the plans for the addition and seek separate council approval of the stucco fence. (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND BIJAN & PARI AMINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (63 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1998) APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, AREA AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-4. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND FRIEDKEN BECKER, NORTHPARK PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) - REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 23, 1998 - INCOMPLETE INFORMATION APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS AND FOR HEIGHT OF A GROUND SIGN AT 212 EAST LANE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA D. (ALI KAZEMI, SIGNS OF ALL KINDS, APPLICANT AND ALICE L. AHO & JUDITH A. SCHENKOFSKY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 14, 1998) - REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 23, 1998 - INCOMPLETE INFORMATION In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WHERE OFFICE EXCEEDS 50% OF THE GROSS :FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING AT 1400 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1. (SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND CAL-TEX PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 10.26.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no commission comments. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Diane Whittaker, Sinclair Associates addressed the commission and expressed appreciation for the study questions. There are two items she would like called out, noting that the project complies with all zoning codes except one and that is the proposed office use exceeds 50%. History of the location site, noting previous appearance before the Planning Commission and a granting of 50% office use. When the site was subdivided there was then no room for a warehouse therefore a greater office use existed. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted that the M-1 zoning committee looked at exactly this type property in their review of the district regulations - the 50% codification was meant as a review line to address just this type of project and be sure all code requirements were met. He then moved approval of this 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 August 31, 1998 sheets 1-3; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 3, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the one car covered space (1V-5" x 24'-9") at the rear of the building shall be used for employee parking on the site and not used for any other storage, warehouse or office purpose; a change of use of this enclosed parking space shall reopen this use permit for review; 4) that the temporary trailer at the rear of the site shall be removed before final inspection and that a temporary trailer permit application should indicate the date of removal of the temporary trailer and shall be applied for and granted before a building permit :is issued for any tenant improvements; 5) that the employee picnic area shall be removed and the paving and/or ground surface repaired as a part of the proposed tenant improvement; and 6) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Key absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 1730, 1742 & 1860 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1. (ROBERT LYON ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARTHUR MICHAEL TR., PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 10.26.98, with attachments. City Engineer Erbacher and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no commission continents. la City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Art Michaels, Jr. was present to answer any questions. There were no comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey made a motion recommending approval to City Council with the following conditions: 1) that no structures or required parking shall be built in the 140' wide drainage right-of-way; 2) that any development on any of the lots, including minor grading and drainage improvements, shall require environmental review. this review shall include California Environmental Quality Act, Fish and Game, and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Disruption of native species may require environmental mitigation procedures or may be prohibited; T) that the access easement for Parcel "D" is through the parking lot which serves 1730 Rollins Road (Prime Time Athletic Club). Any future use of Parcel "D" shall be reviewed for its impact on the safety, access, use, and number of stalls available to members of the Prime Time Athletic club. (Note: Any parking on Parcel "D" is not part of the required parking for Prime time Athletic club.); 4) that no site development is approved by approval of this map; 5) that a covenant on the final map create all the necessary easements shown on the tentative map; 6) that a Special Encroachment permit be obtained from the Burlingame City Council for any development within the 140' drainage right-of-way; 7) that flooding must be allowed in the 140' easement and any proposed uses or regrading must accommodate this flooding; 8) that conditions 5 and 7 shall be shown as developmental conditions on this parcel map; 9) that "no parking" be posted in front of the three sanitary sewer manholes presently adjacent to the northern boundary of proposed Parcel B and C for City maintenance crews; and 10) that the drainage easement which crosses the 20 foot strip north of the existing City Pump Station be kept free and clear of vehicles or storage for City maintenance crews. The motion was seconded by C. Boujes. On the Motion: CE commented that such comgination of an abandoned railroad spur to adjacent property adds value to the city. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend this TPM to City Council. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Key absent) voice vote. REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 1999. Reference staff report, 10.26.98, with attachments. City Planner noted the October 13, 1999 meeting falls on a Wednesday. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Boujes moved approval of the 1998-1999 Planning Commission Calendar. C. Coffey seconded. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the motion. The motion to approve the two calendars was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Key absent) voice vote. -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes PLANNER REPORTS Oaober 26, 1998 - CP Monroe reviewed the actions taken by the Council at their October 19, meeting. Staff was given a list of items for review, possibly at the Joint PC/CC meeting in April, 1999. a) Look at encroachment permit process as it pertains to Planning Committee actions. b) Staff drawn drawings. c) Commercial Design Review. - CA Anderson commented that the Rules of Procedure still need to be revisited. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. MINUTES10.26 -11- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary