Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.11.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the November 12, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keighran, Keele and Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Two revisions were made to the minutes of the October 27, 2003, regular meeting. 1029 Balboa, Page 7, paragraph 3 should be revised to read: "Concerned with project, wanted to see a substantial change, design is nice but looks like top of house is in tree canopy; encroachment into the declining height envelope closes in other house; visually this is a 27 foot wide lot, project covers 50% of the buildable lot, project will bring down values of neighbor’s properties, can address concerns with smaller house; based on design review criteria the trees and creek are part of the neighborhood, the left side of the house is not compatible with the neighborhood, project will have an impact on the trees, creek and neighborhood, under criteria no. 4, the infringement of the declining height envelope on 1033 Balboa is inconsistent with the criteria, doesn’t matter if the owner knew about the project when bought the house, structure should be compatible, no findings for special permit for declining height envelope; roof too close to the canopy of the trees, doesn’t relate well with adjacent development; changes are an improvement but only to the front, building crowds the site; project not consistent with design review guidelines, project is 10% less than maximum FAR allowed, but that reduction is found on typical lots in Burlingame, not creek lots, need more of a reduction on a creek lot since buildable areas is less; need to look at alternative for encroachment into declining height envelope. Need to make sure there is enforcement of the tree protection measures and add a condition that the waterline not be trenched, did note debris around tree during construction of 1033 Balboa, need to avoid cutting roots, with three year maintenance add language about additional pruning, need to maintain 2 foot clearance so that during storm branches don’t rub against the roof." The second change was to 1420 Sanchez Avenue, page 9, paragraph 4, revised to read “The motion failed on a 3-4 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran Keele, Osterling and Bojués dissenting) roll call vote.” C. Auran moved to approve the minutes as revised; C. Brownrigg seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-3 (Cers. Keighran, Keele, Osterling absent). The minutes for the October 28, 2003, Special Study Session of Planning Commission were approved as mailed on a motion by C. Auran, seconded by C. Vistica. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Keighran, Keele, Osterling absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 2 V. FROM THE FLOOR Michael Celiceo, 755 Paloma, spoke noting that his property is adjacent to the garage of a project recently approved by the Commission at 1401 Paloma. He did not receive a notice of the public hearing on this item and wanted to know why not. It became apparent that he had purchased his property recently and the public notices had apparently been sent before the County posted the change in ownership. Commission noted that he was welcome to see the approved plans in the Planning Department any time during business hours. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FITNESS STUDIO (BARBARA A. YERBY, APPLICANT; JD & ASSOCIATES, JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER; K & B INVESTMENTS, C/O TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report to place a fitness studio on these properties. She noted that a parcel map merging the two properties would be required. Commissioners asked: • The applicant should identify available parking in the immediate area during the hours the business would be open, including spaces on the east side of California, the west side of California and nearby on the residential street; • Where is the closest crosswalk on California, will this use require the addition of a crosswalk, how will employees and customers be guided to use the nearest crosswalk rather than ‘jaywalking’ across California; • How could the business owner enforce a requirement that employees park off-site, what management program would he suggest. There were no further questions from the commission and this item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 2. 1409 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MORTGAGE BROKER (BOB STAMATATOS, APPLICANT; KEVIN CULLINANE, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report to allow a mortgage broker in an office area above the first floor. Commissioners asked: • Applicant should identify other available parking in the area during hours of operation of this business; • Because of parking impact should consider adding a condition which would limit the number of people in the tenant space at one time which could be reviewed upon complaint; • Applicant should address how they could establish a program and enforce employees parking off site; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 3 • Provide a larger diagram of the tenant’s office space and note uses within it, seems very large for the number of people proposed, how will the area actually be used so that it would not accommodate 10 or 12 employees. Commissioners noted that this request was a substantial reduction in the number of employees working at this suite. They noted that this item could be brought back on the consent calendar for action when all the information requested has been provided and reviewed by Planning Staff. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 3. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FENCES, TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR ARBORS IN THE FRONT YARD AND A CLEAN UP OF SIGNAGE AND PARKING REGULATIONS. PROJECT PLANNER: MEG MONROE CP Monroe reviewed the staff report noting the proposed changes to the fence regulations for arbors, the clean up for signs and the clarification to the parking regulations. Planning Commissioners noted the following: • Should arbors on properties in the hillside area be required to get Hillside Area Construction Permits? In discussion it was noted that as proposed these arbors are small, open structures, probably do not have the same visual impact as a larger, roofed trellis structure. Also it might be confusing to require a permit review in some areas of the city and not in others. • How will the ordinance address protecting sight lines at corners? The sight line requirements for public safety in the Municipal Code over ride the zoning requirements, so this will not be an issue. Applicants may apply for a variance, but must meet the public safety standard first. • Three feet seems very shallow as a maximum depth for an arbor, should be changed to 4 feet, the maximum footprint should be increased correspondingly to 32 SF. • If language is clarified for all parking to be required on the site where the structure/use is, can the commission require applicant’s to provide off site parking? Yes, the commission would need to grant a variance with the off-site location where the parking is to be provided linked by deed restriction to the property where the use requiring the parking is to be located. There were no further questions and the amendment to the zoning code was set for public hearing. Given noticing requirements this item was set for the December 8, 2003, agenda for action. This item concluded at 7:35 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. Chair Bojués noted that there are two items on the consent colander, and asked if anyone on the Commission or in the audience wanted to remove either. There were no requests, however C. Vistica noted that he did not want to remove any, but would like to vote on each separately. 4a. 1504 ARC WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DIODATI PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (104 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 4 4b. 1381 HILLSIDE CIRCLE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELLEN HARTOG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KURT AND JULIA DEGROSZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Brownrigg moved for approval of 1504 Arc Way based on the staff report with the conditions in the staff report by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 3-1-3 voice vote (C. Vistica dissenting. Cers. Keighran, Keele, Osterling absent). C. Auran moved for approval of a one year permit extension for the project approved at 1381 Hillside Circle, based on the staff report with the conditions in the staff report by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 voice vote (Cers. Keighran, Keele, Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5. 1209 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 203 & 204, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A PILATES STUDIO (MARK LUBARSKY, PILATES FAMILY, APPLICANT; CHARLES ANDREW TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (79 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report November 14, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments noting that there were several changes to the project not reflected in the staff report. The most important is that Suite 201 which is 1,200 SF is used for storage for businesses on the site. This changes the parking variance request for this application to 4 spaces just for the Pilates Center. As written the staff report also included a parking variance for the use of suite 201 for office. Since it has been clarified that Suite 201 is used for storage as was required in the original parking variance granted to this site, the parking variance request is limited to the difference in number of parking spaces required for the intensification caused by the applicants' use from office to commercial recreation. Seven revised conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff it appears that there will be no more than 11 people in both these suites at one time and that the peak demand for this uses is noon and evening, can this be adjusted? Staff noted that the Commission may wish to address the applicant on the adjustment of class and service times, the city usually requires a 15 minute break between classes in parking impacted areas to be sure that one group has left before the next arrives. The conditions reflect this requirement. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. He noted that there was a simple quorum of the commission seated tonight and asked the applicant if he wished to proceed. The applicant noted that he did. Mark Lubarsky, applicant; and Gina LaRoca, 1209 Howard, adjacent business operator, spoke. Applicant noted that he had observed the on site parking lot and noted that the lot was empty in the early morning and late at night, the same is true of the on street parking and the parking in the public lot. They would be willing to skip the class proposed at 1:30 p.m. It was intended for local business people who they thought were likely to walk in. They have participated in offering Pilates at another location in this area and found the mid-day time to be slow because the customers are all at work. Have a business in an adjacent tenant space, hours are about City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 5 the same as the applicant’s. Third tenant is a school open Monday through Thursday. Think there is plenty of parking particularly in the evening. Not a parking problem for her clients since most of them are local and walk-in for service. Commissioners asked applicant: How can you limit the afternoon (1:30 p.m.) class to local people; will promote it to local business people in the area, offering class is based on the number of people so allow outsider to make up the numbers, most of business is by appointment and so know ahead and can adjust. On what experience is your mid-day observation based; worked with other studios in the area, its an option but if parking is a problem can skip. What findings can you make for granting an additional parking variance on this site: chose this place on the basis of the fact that there is on-site parking available, no place in the neighborhood with better parking because the parking is on site, time when this business needs par king there are not many other businesses in the area open and needing parking. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the city has received no complaints about parking from the driving school next door to this site; the property owner should be required to continue to provide pedestrian access to the adjacent public parking lot; two additional conditions should be considered (1) that to support the Pilates use the property owners should reserve only 4 on-site parking spaces for his business rather than 5 spaces; and (2) the landlord should reserve three on site parking spaces for the Pilates use by signing them reserved for the Pilates use from 7 – 10 a.m. and 5 – 8 p.m., during the day they would be available for other customers of the businesses on this site. CA noted that since the property owner is not present, and cannot agree to these proposed conditions, the landlord should be given an opportunity to agree before Commission acts. This item could be placed on the consent calendar for action. Project is OK but would like to eliminate the 1:30 p.m. class and any future afternoon classes because of the parking impacts. Commission discussion continued: there is no on site parking for the two story buildings at 1201 Howard and 1245 Howard, this building provides parking when the others don’t, the parking demand from this business will be spread over the day, have found it easy to park and get coffee from the shop nearby at various times during the day. Some aspects of the hardship to justify the parking variance have been pointed out, the owner will benefit from the variance so he should give up something. CA noted that this use is defined as a commercial recreation use, so any such use may go into this site on the basis of this parking variance without additional review so long as they comply with the conditions of approval; that right runs with the land. Can this be conditioned that should the use change the parking variance for that use is voided; yes. Chair Bojués moved to place this item on the consent calendar after the property owner has reviewed the proposed revised conditions of approval and responded in writing to the planning department. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Keighran, Keele, Osterling absent) voice vote. The action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 6 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1348 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TRG ARCHITECTS, RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOE AND CAROL BYRNE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Auran noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project site so would recuse himself from this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. CA Anderson noted that with only three Commissioners seated there is not a quorum. Therefore, the Planning Commission may continue this item or call a recess and offer suggestions and comments to the applicant regarding the proposed project. Chair Bojués recessed the Commission at 8:07 p.m. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked how much area would be allowed if the lower floor qualified as a basement; staff noted that the code allows up to 600 SF for a basement and 100 SF for utility space, a total of 700 SF. The Commission also asked how much area is allowed if a property contains a detached garage; staff noted that an additional 400 SF is allowed for a detached garage. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, noted that from the street view this modest house does not appear to exceed the maximum allowable FAR, the hardship on this property is created by the dynamics of the site, not the basement; basement floods several times a year because the street slopes in both directions downward to this site, catch basin in front of the house does not have adequate capacity to handle the stormwater, water then spills over the sidewalk onto their property and into and through the basement; situation is worse if catch basin on either side of the street is filled with leaves, property owners are constantly clearing the catch basin of leaves, City street crews have been called out to the site several times and are well aware of the situation; can’t use the space below the first floor since it floods frequently, applicant noted that the owners could spend a lot of time and money to improve the area below the first floor but it would not fix the flooding problem; the addition is very modest, not a lot of mass and bulk created, there are hardships on the property, lot is only 45 feet wide because there is a five foot wide storm drain easement along the left side of the property, other lots in the neighborhood are 50 feet wide, smaller lot also reduces the allowable FAR on the lot, 5 foot unbuildable easement creates a great setback between houses; applicant pointed out the if only 200 SF in the garage (one-car garage), the existing first floor and proposed second floor addition were counted towards FAR, the house would not exceed the maximum allowable FAR. Joe Byrne, property owner, reaffirmed that there is a serious problem with flooding on the site, lower floor cannot be used as a living space, when it floods he just opens the doors and lets the water flow through the lower floor and into the rear yard, City is aware of the flooding problem, no way to stop the flooding even if the catch basin is cleared out; would like to add bedrooms for their children, intent was to add onto the house but not to appear as an addition, architect has done an excellent job to achieve that. There were no further other comments from the floor. Commission comment: see hardships on this property, this is a narrow lot, subtle addition with very little increase in height will have a minimal impact regarding mass and bulk, this is an excellent solution to the problem; Commission pointed out that even with the flooding problem, the lower floor is being used as a garage and utility space and adds to the mass and bulk and counts in FAR, FAR is a serious issue with the Commission, but this architect has done a good job to incorporate a second floor into the existing house City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 7 without making it look big, second floor addition is very difficult to see when the roof is only raised 18 inches, the footprint is not being changed and the roofline is being increased by a minimal amount; Commission needs to look at ways to find flexibility in FAR for houses with basements, the situation on this property is unique. Commission requested that staff add a condition making this variance applicable only to the approved building envelope, the variance goes away if the building is demolished, altered or expanded. The Commission directed this project to return as a regular action item at the next available meeting after all the information has been provided and reviewed by Planning staff. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. Chair Bojués reconvened the Commission, opening the regular meeting at 8:26 p.m. 7. 147 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROCQUE YBALLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SANDRA JIMENEZ, DESIGNER) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff to clarify the property lines easements adjacent to the property and asked if the fence was recently relocated; staff noted that the property line is note with a “PL” on the site plan, there is a 10 foot wide park stripway easement beyond the rear property line and beyond that a 10 foot wide roadway easement along Skyline Boulevard; there is also a 15 foot wide public access path along the left side property line which also serves as a shared driveway access for the properties at 147 and 143 Loma Vista Drive. In regards to the fence, staff noted that the applicant was issued an encroachment permit to relocate the fence 15 feet beyond the rear property line. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Sandra Jimenez, designer, noted that originally she was unaware of how the house was placed on the property and the location of the public easements, had the property surveyed to confirm location of the easements and realized the house was built within six inches of the rear property line, the existing floor plan makes it difficult to add bedrooms to the house, only place that makes sense is over the attached garage, the addition is at the rear of the house and very little will be visible from Loma Vista Drive, existing vegetation and trees will screen the addition from Skyline Boulevard. Commission asked the applicant to confirm the location of the fence; applicant noted that the fence has been relocated 15’-6” way from the rear property line in the easement area. Commission asked for clarification of the proposed setbacks; the existing garage is located four feet from the rear property line, the garage would be widened by 3’-6” and would create a six inch rear setback, required rear setback is 15 feet; what is the existing left side setback; the closest point is seven feet to the existing porch; Commission asked if the tree noted on the site plan was mislabeled as a Pine tree, designer noted that it is actually a Sycamore tree and will correct the plan; Commission pointed out that the addition would only be screened by the Sycamore tree from Skyline Boulevard but will not provide much screening during the winter, asked if the applicant would be open to adding a window on the east elevation to eliminate the blank wall; yes. Commission noted that if a window cannot be added because of the proximity to the property line, then the wall should be better articulated. Commission also asked the applicant to consider adding a brick façade on the second floor to match the first floor; pointed out a problem with the numbers in the staff report, indicates that lot coverage is being increased by 320 SF but addition is only to widen the garage on the first floor, staff noted that there is a discrepancy in the site plan, floor plan shows that the first floor will be expanded along rear in addition to the garage addition, designer will revise site plan to accurately show all additions proposed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 8 Continued comment: Commission asked the designer if other places to add covered parking were considered; designer noted that if a driveway and garage were located off Loma Vista Drive, they would have to be located adjacent to the front bedrooms, the windows in the bedrooms would have to be eliminated and this is not allowed by code, another option would be to create a tandem garage but drawback is that both spaces are not always used for parking, also considered creating access to a garage from Skyline Boulevard, but there are two easements there and it would take up a large portion of the rear yard. Rocque Yballa, property owner, noted that the proposed garage addition would be at the same plane as the neighbors’ existing garage, this is an improvement to the property compared to when it was purchased, want to maintain the street appeal and charm of the existing house, would like to provide a two-car garage, existing garage has two single-wide doors 5’-6” and 7’-10” in width, cannot fit a car through one of the doors, currently have a building permit for a first floor addition, addition was scaled back when property line and easement issue came up, the addition is on hold pending Planning Commission action; approximately 300 SF was added at the rear of the house in 1954, that addition has a stucco exterior, would like to match new addition with existing addition in stucco, new chimney will have a brick veneer to match the existing brick chimney; want to keep the Sycamore tree, spoke with Steve Porter, City Arborist, regarding the placement of the addition and how it would affect the tree; City Arborist noted that as long as four feet is maintained between the root system and the foundation, the tree would not be affected; concerning the openings at property line the wall will be a one-hour wall because it will be within six inches of a property line, discussed the opening at property line and alternate means of protection with Fred Cullum, Chief Building Official, Building Department suggested a solution given that there is a park strip easement with no building adjacent to the property line, but will need to be confirmed prior to applying for a building permit. Alex Tilson, 143 Loma Vista Drive; Georgina Catania, 149 Loma Vista Drive; and Vincent Cauchi, 131 Loma Vista Drive, expressed the following concerns with the proposed project: share the driveway with the applicant, house is getting larger on a street with modest size houses, most houses on this street contain three bedrooms, six bedroom house now proposed, several trees have already been removed, second story addition would required one-third of the tree to be trimmed, originally was told that second story addition would increase the roof height by only two feet, now eight feet taller, addition will block view of sky from his house, size of house belongs in a Hillsborough neighborhood, gate was removed at path, would like to see story poles installed; have been living here since built house 49 years ago, hope proposed addition will not have a pitch like the neighbors’ house facing her property, do not want to have sun blocked, had lots of trees now will only see continuation of house, view from kitchen window will be blocked, concerned with view loss from kitchen and dining room, this is the largest lot on Loma Vista Drive, difficult to park on cul- de-sac now, adding more bedrooms will make the parking problem worse. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the proposal: • Have staff provide a clear description of the public easements surrounding the property; • On the site plan clearly show all public easements surrounding the property and show outline of adjacent houses and note all areas to be added; site plan needs to show the shared driveway access easement between 143 and 147 Loma Vista Drive; show location of relocated fence on the site plan; • Should consider adding a window on the east elevation to eliminate the blank wall; if a window cannot be added because of the proximity to the property line, then the wall should be better articulated; • Should consider adding a brick façade on the second floor to match the first floor; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 9 • Look at adding evergreen trees to screen the second story addition from Skyline Boulevard, applicant needs to verify with the City Arborist what the requirements would be for planting trees in a public easement or in the Skyline right-of-way; • Install story poles to accurately show the proposed second story addition, provide survey to verify location of story poles; • Would like to visit the adjacent houses to see the impact of the addition once the story poles have been installed, provide contact for adjacent neighbors; • Need to accurately show existing and proposed landscaping on site and tree canopies, landscape information needs to be more thorough and detailed; • Applicant needs to consult with the City Arborist when creating the landscape plan and determining which trees can be planted in the pubic easement; • Request staff to verify if any tree removal permits were issued previously and provide more information on the trees which have been removed; • Concerned with doors and windows located six inches away from the property line, all openings at property line need to be reviewed by the Chief Building Official and resolved prior to returning to the Commission for review and floor plans and building elevations property reflect requirements; if the City needs the easement, how would that affect exiting from the house if doors and windows are located on property line; • There are several inconsistencies on the plans, designer needs to make sure that the site plan, floor plan and building elevations are consistent and accurately show the existing house and the proposed additions, including soft and hard landscaping. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar after all the questions have been answered, the plans revised and staff has reviewed them. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised and reviewed as directed and the issues have been researched and addressed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cmsrs. Keele, Keighran and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. Chair Boujues noted that the neighbors would be noticed before the action hearing. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of November 3, 2003. CP Monroe noted that the meeting of November 3, 2003, was cancelled. The next City Council meeting will be November 17, 2003, when the newly elected members will be seated and the officers will be rotated. - 1419 Columbus Avenue, FYI - changes to an approved design review The Commissioners reviewed the request and felt that it was de minimus and would have no effect on the design as approved. A public hearing was not required. - 1544 Bernal Avenue, FYI - changes to an approved design review The Commissioners reviewed the request and felt that it was de minimus and would have no effect on the design as approved. A public hearing was not required. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 10 - Processing Minor Project Modifications During Construction Commissioners reviewed the report prepared by staff and directed that the recommendations made by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee be incorporated in to a written policy to direct staff on review of changes in projects during construction. They did note that changes to doors should be included in the areas subject to staff review. Finally, they noted that if any change proposed to a project was an issue for either the Commission or the neighbors at the time the project was approved, it should be returned to the Commission for subsequent review. - Advanced Planning and Major Projects Timelines CP Monroe reviewed the time lines for advanced planning and major projects for the next 6 months. She noted that there were three projects which would require the Commission’s attention in January. She asked if the commission had any preference for whether these should be placed on the regular agendas or separate meetings be held. The commissioners present felt the that the DEIR for the Mills-Peninsula Hospital replacement should probably be held at a special meeting but that the action on the Bayfornt Plan could be placed on a shortened agenda at a regular meeting. They asked staff if it would be possible to have the study meeting on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan the week of December 15, 2003, to lighten the load in January. The commissioners present asked staff to notify the remaining commissioners to see if they would be available that week. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary UNAPPROVEDMINUTES11.12.03