Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.10.15CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Tuesday October 15, 2002 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the October 15, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, and Vistica Absent: Commissioner: Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES Chair Keighran asked if there were any changes to the unapproved minutes. of the September 23, 2002 meeting: Commissioner noted changes to Item 4, 1537 Drake Avenue: page 6 Vice Chair Bojués called for the voice not Chair Keighran. Minutes were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1562 CYPRESS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STORAGE SHED WITH A NEW DETACHED PATIO SHELTER/LANAI (LILLIAN VASEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SERGIO GALDAMEZ, DESIGNER) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Will the patio shelter still used for storage; • How does this structure differ from a carport, it appears to be right off driveway; and • Could applicant make arrangements for Planning Commissioners to visit site. There were no further comments and this item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 2 2. 1655 SEBASTIAN DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING SYNAGOGUE AND TEMPORARY PERMIT FOR MODULAR BUILDINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION (MITCH REITMAN, PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ALEX SEEFELDT, HERMAN & COLIVER ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Staff report states that this project will have no impact on the parking, however the access route to the temporary buildings appears to encroach onto existing parking area, please clarify; and • Provide an estimate in terms of dates for how long the temporary buildings will be needed. There were no further comments and Chair Keighran set this item for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. 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. Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 3A. 121 CRESCENT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A LOWER FLOOR, FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOE AND LISA LARRATT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ANA BALAREZO, INGLESE ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON 3B. 1751 ESCALANTE WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARCH DESIGN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIMI W. SIEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 3 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1320 CORTEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted that condition number 2 requires an arborist’s report showing how the spruce tree at the front of the lot would be protected during demolition and construction. The applicant submitted an arborist’s report today dated October 2, 2002. Condition number 2 should be revised to reference this report. Commission asked if we could require a specific frequency of inspections by an arborist during construction. CP Monroe noted that this could be added to the conditions. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. James Chu, project designer, and Con Brosnan, property owner, were present. They noted that they made the changes requested at design review, except instead of lowering the plate height from 9 feet to 8 feet, they lowered it from 9 feet to 8’-6” and lowered the top of the roof 6”. Commission asked what is fire free slate? Mr. Chu noted that it is fake slate made of concrete. Commission asked if the chopped ridge creates a problem with leaks and asked the applicant to provide Commission with address of properties where this type of roof has been constructed, since this roof style is becoming more common. Applicant explained that it is not a problem if roof drains are installed along with ¼” per foot slope. Commission asked landscape architect to give analysis of tree resistance during construction. Michael Callan, landscape architect, stated that the arborist’s report calls for fencing 8 feet around the trunk, and he felt that this was sufficient tree protection. Commissioner noted drafting error on site plan, adjacent house is shown on the subject property, please correct for building permit submittal. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, as amended by the City Planner, with the frequency of arborist inspections required in condition number 2 to be determined by the City Arborist :1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 1, 2002, sheets A.1 – A.6 and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the arborist=s report, dated October 2, 2002, showing how the spruce tree at the front of the lot shall be protected and maintained during demolition and construction shall be submitted by the applicant at time of building permit submittal; the arborist's report shall be approved by the City Arborist before a building permit is issued and the applicant shall be required to have a licensed arborist inspect the site for compliance wit the plans after demolition of the existing house, at the beginning of the construction of the new house, and prior to the final inspection; following each inspection the licensed arborist shall submit a written report to the City Arborist; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would incl ude 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; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 4 has been built according to the approved Planning and 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 the conditions of the City Engineer=s, Fire Marshal=s, and Recycling Specialist's August 26, 2002, memos shall be met; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 9) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 10) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 12) 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; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on motion: good job on design; addressed issues expressed at Study; one of the better project on this street. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. 5. 543 CORBITT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES/STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DANIEL & LAURA BERTERRETCHE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O'ROURKE Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the Commission. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dan Berterretche, property owner was present to answer any questions. Explained that his family was planning on living in the front portion of the house during construction, but to add tile roof would require upgrades to the structure at the front of the house to support the tile roof. Can not live in the house during construction and could not afford to relocated during construction, that is why they are changing roof material from tile to cedar shake. Architect looked at style of house when roof material changed, and eliminated curved windows to go with style change. Also looked at option of putting on different types of tile, lighter weight, roof framing is such that structural upgrades to the house still would be required including tearing up walls to add posts, which would require relocation. Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Roof plays a major part in the design of a house, tile roof fits style of house better than cedar shakes; • Changing roof material changes Mediterranean style of the building, how much thought was put into revising architectural style to address roof change; • Prefer original design over revised design, it integrated well into the existing house style; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 5 • New bay window should pick-up the detailing of the bay windows at the front; and • Transom at the rear should be rounded to soften the appearance. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: really like project as originally approved, but understand applicant’s position; disagree with other commissioners, good design, change in exterior materials doesn’t change much, support project; need to be practical, applicant explored all options to make tile roof work, shake roof will work aesthetically. C. Vistica moved to continue this item to action calendar when the following changes have been revised and submitted: • Revise transom window at rear to round; • Add detailing to the bay window to match the existing bay window; and • Evaluate the integration of the shake roof with the overall design of the house. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to action when the requested revisions have been submitted to the Planning Department. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. 1336 CARLOS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ERIC JOHNSON, APPLICANT; DAVE SIEGERT, DESIGNER; RALPH JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the table shows no change to the height, where the staff report calls out a t 33’-3” height. Planner Barber confirmed height requested is 33’-3”, table is not correct. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Eric and Christy Johnson, property owner, was present to answer questions. He has lived at this property for several years. Living room ceiling is over 12 feet in height which penalizes them 205 SF toward floor area. If he constructs ceiling in living room would get additional 205 SF, but would like to keep house in original state. Garage is currently attached but setback quite a ways from front property line and appears detached. If he detaches the garage he gets 400 SF more floor area. All the houses in the area have more floor area than what he will be building. Existing house is only 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom, family needs more living space. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the project: • Concerned with floor area, many houses with attached garages and high ceiling follow the regulations; • FAR variance is excessive, see no hardship on the property; • Character of the house is changing by adding two times the floor area, massive addition at the rear of a historical home, scale back plans; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 6 • There are large rooms proposed in this house that can be reduced to bring down overall floor area; and • Plans are greatly improved, matches existing house, but 496 SF variance is too lar ge, need to reduce. Commission discussion: disagrees with fellow Commissioner, project is greatly improved, especially north elevation, rolled edges on new roof is an improvement; agree with design review recommendation, garage is setback far enough, detaching it will take away original design and character and affect historical value of house, will also occupy the limited green space at rear; if project denied new application may come forward for demolition of this structure; dramatic improvement over previous, preserves historical quality of this home. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application for the reasons stated in the discussion, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed on a 2-4-1 (Cers. Auran, Bojués, Vistica, Keighran dissenting, C. Osterling absent) roll call. Further Commission discussion: can maintain design without being so big; many houses have similar limitations but adhere to floor area limits; historical quality of existing house is not a hardship, no special circumstances; looks like addition to historic home; no hardship to justify such a large floor area ratio variance; adding a ceiling in the living room is ridiculous; do not want to dictate where applicant takes off floor area, that is up to the applicant; can reduce plate heights on addition to reduce bulk of this house; setting precedent for other houses . C. Auran moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Visitica. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keele dissenting, C. Ostering absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 7. 2115 HALE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RICHARD HARBER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC, DESIGNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Richard Harber, property owner, explained that sinking the house is a problem because it can not be built as designed, this was not discovered until the project was submitted to the Building Department. Commission asked why applicant is changing slate roofing material. Applicant stated that he never wanted slate roof, was a misunderstanding with the architect. There are only 2 slate roofed houses in a 4 block area of this house, most homes have composition shingles. Commission asked why wasn’t the house designed with the finished floor 2 feet above grade if this is a flat lot, why are there tall plate heights. Applicant stated that he requested 8’-4” plate heights, but there was an error by the architect in his design. Applicant noted that he has come forward with these changes in good faith and is not City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 7 requesting any variances or exceptions on his property. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chair Keighran moved to approve the application for the reasons stated, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 1, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6 and L-1 (proposed plans), which show revisions from the previously approved plans with the finished floor at 76'-7", the first floor plate height reduced from 9'-0" to 8'-5", and composition shingle roofing; 2) 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), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Chief Building Official’s memos dated July 1, 2002 and the Recycling Specialist’s memo dated June 27, 2002 shall be met; 4) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 5) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 6) 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; 7) 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; 8) 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; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Discussion on the motion: there are ways to building underground with a sunken finished floor, but in this case applicant has raised the building but has come back with lowered plate heights and same overall height as approved; materials to be used are similar to those used on applicant’s house on Columbus, quality materials that look nice, design is still in tact with changes; appreciate applicant coming to Commission before starting construction, but it is unsettling that original project could not be built, the change creates additional mass on a small lot, not able to put landscaping on the sides, there are ways to cut mass off of the project. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-1-1 (C. Vistica dissenting, C. Brownrigg abstaining, C. Osterling absent) roll call. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:51 p.m. 8. 750 WALNUT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (ASI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FITALI RUSLI AND JAJE DU, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O'ROURKE Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of Staff by the Commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 8 Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Thomas Woo, ASI Consulting Engineers, was available to answer any questions. He thanked the Planning Commission for allowing project to come back. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that this is an older project which has had a lot of work done to it since it was originally reviewed, although it is a large house, it is on a very large lot and has complied with the intent of the design guidelines and 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 September 25, 2002, sheets A1 - A6 and L-1, including that all windows shall be divided light wood windows with wood trim 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 basement, 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 the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s August 20, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer; 6) 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional sh all 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; 8) 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; 9) that the owner is responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures detailed in the Arborist's Report date stamped June 13, 2002; 10) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance 9; and that no exterior light fixture shall produce a cone of light that extends beyond the property boundaries; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on motion: applicant addressed a lot of the Commission’s concerns; project has improved; this is a large house but it is on a large lot that accommodate the size. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:57 p.m. 9. 1405 EL CAMINO REAL – ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN (ROMAN KNOP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL CALLAN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked can the parking variance be reviewed; staff noted that it could because with an amendment the entire permit City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 9 is reopened. On a project on Cabrillo, the city required a special inspector to insure that planning approvals were incorporated, can we do the same here for landscaping? Staff noted that the Commission could require the applicant to have a licensed landscape architect review the site for plan compliance regularly and submit written reports to the city. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Michael Callan, landscaper, Frank Gonzales, 951 Old County Road, Belmont, architect, and Roman Knop, property owner, represented the project. They noted that they were agreeable to alternating the tree species and creating a 3 foot deep by 4 foot wide trench filled with top soil for planting after reducing the grade in the side yard 3.5 feet. Commissioners asked about the effect at the front and rear of the lot caused by reducing the grade in the side yard, applicant noted they would use retaining walls. Noted neighbor wished to keep 3.5 feet so that the smaller trees installed would be higher relative to their building. Applicant noted as proposed the retaining wall and garage wall create a planter box and would not allow a lot of root growth which might impact retaining wall. How much time will it take to add three feet to these trees; about one half to two years. Applicant noted that adding a trench filled with top soil after grading made sense. Can the trees at the rear away from the corner of the building be retained. Applicant noted that once these trees are reduced in height, so that they can be kept, they will not be much of a screen. Can trees bigger than 36 inch box be planted? Applicant noted that the area is narrow, for trees to establish the hole should be two times the size of the root ball, if put in 48 inch box there would be no room for soil or fertilizer, such trees would adapt to their new environment less readily than a smaller tree according to Sunset Magazine. What impact would lowering the grade have on the front and rear yard? The architect noted the greatest impact would be on the side yard but the front and rear would have to be adjusted for the lower grade on the side. Could the building be dropped one foot ,would reduce the visual mass from the street when side yard is graded? Yes, but it would increase the slope on the driveway which is presently 13%. Staff noted that driveway slope could increase to 15% without review, after that Public Works is involved, and at 20& + the request must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Gary Hunt, 1411 El Camino Real property owner; Jack Saphra, also property owner at 1411 El Camino Real. Opposed to changing the grade, would like existing trees to be retained and side yard planted with Silver Dollar Eucalyptus, to replace the vegetative screen as soon as possible; proposed species would take 15 to 20 years to reach the height of the trees removed; the utilities should be moved to the other side of the building ; damage done to the retaining wall from tree removal should be repaired along with the fence, want dust controlled during construction. Showed picture of sundeck on third floor, only one third of the vegetative screen for this area remains, need to keep; if not reduce grade in side yard the trees will have a 5 foot start on their height; of all trees mentioned the Silver Dollar Eucalyptus is the fastest growing. Would like to have back same vegetative screen that was there before, do not want alternating species. Loss of trees will affect the rents which can be charged, Silver Dollar at existing grade adding 5 feet to 10 foot height at planting will screen first and second floor apartments. Roman Knop, property owner, 1405 El Camino. We would like screen for their future residents as well; neighbor complained before about root damage to their driveway, can be addressed by lowering grade; the property line fence was unsound before any work was done on the site; cannot move building one foot over because parking will not work; applicant has provided no trees for screening on their site, want all screen to be provided on his site; if keep existing grade, will need to replace retaining wall which will cause them to have to cut the roots of the remaining trees on this side of the property; no problem with selection of trees, even Silver Dollar Eucalyptus; want to continue construction or not build at all. Commissioner asked if there was enough room for Silver Dollar Eucalyptus; landscaper responded sufficient light, rooting may be a problem to the driveway next door. Would grading affect rear area? Architect responded he is opposed to keeping the trees at the rear given their condition, not opposed to Silver Dollar Eucalyptus being planted City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 10 there, if keep existing trees would need to keep retaining wall. Commission asked about the survival of the trees at the rear of the building. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved by resolution to approve the revised plan with a 3.5 foot reduction in grade along the north property line, replacing the same number of trees as existed in the side yard with Silver Dollar Eucalyptus, and with the conditions in the staff report except condition 7 which should be deleted. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: condition seven addressing the retaining wall should be deleted because this is a matter between private property owners; concerned about the Silver Dollar Eucalyptus, want applicant to work with the City Arborist, do not want trees planted that will die, but do want something that will grow as fast as possible. CA Anderson pointed out that once the neighbors agree on a species and the trees are planted, the city has no responsibility. Can the City Arborist inspect the site during construction. CA noted can require the applicant to engage a licensed landscape architect to provide regular inspections based on a schedule determined by the City Arborist and submit written reports. Why inspect, he is going to remove all the existing and replant the screen. It needs to be installed correctly, so inspection during construction is important. CA noted that the applicant’s arborist could certify that the installation was done according to the specifications. CA noted that no grading plan for the site was submitted to the Planning Commission, a grading permit should be required and be approved by the Building Department before a Building Permit is issued. C. Brownrigg, maker of the motion and C. Auran second of the motion agreed to amending the motion with four conditions: that the applicant be required to hire a arborist to inspect the grading, soil preparation and installation of the trees based on a schedule approved by the City Arborist and to provide written reports to the City Arborist following each inspection,; that at the conclusion of the project, before final inspection is scheduled, the applicant’s arborist shall certify that the vegetative screen, with irrigation, along the north property line was installed as shown on the plans; that before issuance of a Building Permit the applicant shall prepare a grading plan and have it approved by the Building Department and City Arborist; and that the tree replacement along the side property line shall be Silver Dollar Eucalyptus replaced one for one for trees removed and that the City Arborist shall review and determine if a permit should be issued based on their condition for the removal of the trees at the rear of the site and the approved landscape plan should be implemented for the rear of the site. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the amended motion to approve the project with the following amended conditions:1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 21, 2000, sheets A-1 and A-2, and Tentative Parcel Map sheet 1 of 1 (date stamped December 1, 2000); 2) that the applicant be required to hire a arborist to inspect the grading, soil preparation and installation of the trees based on a schedule approved by the City Arborist and shall provide written reports to the City Arborist following each inspection,; 3) that, at the conclusion of the project, before final inspection is scheduled, the applicant’s arborist shall certify that the vegetative screen with irrigation along the north property line was installed as shown on the plans; 4) that before issuance of a Building Permit the applicant shall prepare a grading plan and have it approved by the Building Department and City Arborist; 5) that the tree replacement along the side property line shall be Silver Dollar Eucalyptus replaced one for one for trees removed and that the City Arborist shall review and determine if a permit should be issued for the removal of the trees at the rear of the site and that the approved landscape plan shall be implemented for the rear of the site;6) that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be installed as shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L-1), date stamped September 27, 2002, and shall include a one for one City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 11 replacement of 36-inch box size trees of the Silver Dollar Eucalyptus variety; prior to installing these trees, the applicant shall consult with the City Arborist and shall submit a revised Landscape Plan to the Building Department for review and approval by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit;7) that all trees on-site shall be planted in a trench three feet deep by four feet wide filled with topsoil as approved by the City Arborist and an irrigation system approved by the City Arborist shall be installed; the system shall be inspected by the City Arborist prior to scheduling the final inspection of the project;8) that any new trees which do not survive shall be removed and replanted with the same container size; prior to installing a new replacement tree the species shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist; 9) that the maintenance of the irrigation system and trees shall be the responsibility of the condominium owners at 1405 El Camino Real and that this maintenance requirement shall be included in the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions for each condominium unit; 10) that the only underground utilities allowed within the right side setback shall be a six-inch drain line and a four-inch fire sprinkler supply main and that these utilities shall be installed so that at least four feet is maintained for tree growth and to protect the integrity of the topsoil trench provided for the trees in the graded side and rear yard areas;11) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), the developer shall immediately implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals;12) that construction access routes are limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 13) that clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be performed only during dry weather (April 15 through November 14) that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designed areas which runoff is contained and treated; 15) that all clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas are protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching;16) that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wastewater or sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater;17) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established;18) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 19) that the conditions of the City Arborist's October 1, 2002 memo, the City Engineer’s October 7, 2002, October 14, 2000 and December 5, 2000 memos, the Fire Marshal’s September 30, 2002 and June 26, 2000 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's October 1, 2002 memo shall be met; 20) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 21) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 135.07 (35'-0" maximum building height) as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.07'), and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 22) that one (1) guest parking stall (10' x 20') shall be designated and clearly marked at the rear of the site and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 23) that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 12 the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 24) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 25) that the minimum garage door width for each unit shall be 16'-0", that the parking garages shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 26) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 27) that if a gate system is installed across the driveway, there shall be an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to provide guest access to their site by pushing a button inside their units; 28) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; and 29) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the 4 additional conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. 10. 380 LANG ROAD – ZONED O-M- APPLICATION FOR MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN VARIANCES FOR SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT ON THE SECONDARY FRONTAGE (DANIELA PANEBIANCO, APPLICANT; ELIZABETH HAMMACK, OWNER) (22 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if this was a master sign permit could the applicant ask for more signage in the future. CP noted under the current sign code they could request 2 additional signs not to exceed the remaining square footage for the site, but this would require an amendment to the master sign permit and a public hearing. There were no other questions from the commission. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Tony Dennie, business owner, and Daniela Panebianco, California Electrical Service employee, represented the application. Noted that they had some trouble understanding the height restrictions in the current sign code, says a building can be 20 feet tall but a floor for signage reduction is 12 feet. CA noted that if the applicant wished a determination on that item he would need to apply for it and continue this action to another meeting because that request was not noticed for tonight’s meeting. Applicant noted he would like to proceed. Pointed out building at 370 Lang has two signs and the same street orientation problems as his building; in the case of 370 Lang primary frontage was defined as the long side on Lang Road, they have a large sign over 12 feet above grade; other properties in the area have higher signs; they would request the same as others in the area have. They would like to have the frontage determination changed to the longer wall, and a variance could be eliminated. Commissioners asked: the property at 370 Lang has long side on Lang Road, the building has long side on easement; how long is the proposed sign? About 45 feet, have reduced sign by 9 SF took off phone number City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 13 and city names where located, only have web site address left. This is a really big sign, not for finding business location but a billboard. The Hyman sign is the same length as this, but the letters are 22 inches tall while your logo is 77” and your letters larger than 20 inches. Currently you are parking a semi-truck trailer with a your logo in the front yard, is that legitimate. Applicant noted the city has approved a 10 space parking lot at the location where the semi is parked (have not yet installed paving); plan to park the semi sideways so that could have some signage, right now there is none for the building. What is the size of the truck? It is almost the same size as the sign we are asking for. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: see difficulty in determining primary frontage, others have much reduced signage, think 70 SF of signage would work well, would like to see this substantially reduced; would bend some on frontage issue if it would increase flexibility and signage could be done within the code requirements. C. Bojués moved to continue the item to give the applicant an opportunity to explore what signage program he could propose with a change in the primary frontage and having no variance requests. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Not comfortable with redesignation of the primary frontage, nice to front on US 101 but don’t see the extraordinary circumstances called for in the variance findings, think should deny this request. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion failed on a 2-4-1 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, Vistica dissenting, C. Osterling absent). Further discussion: sign code should hold true for this site, the applicant is trying to make a billboard of the side of the building, the code does not allow a billboard as it was intended, such an exception is an obvious advantage to the applicant. The logo is crisp and clear, it could be read at the 45 SF the code allows, do not see the hardship. Sign is much too large, it is a billboard, even the surrounding signs are smaller, would like to see comply with the master signage requirements. C. Brownrigg moved to deny this application without prejudice to give the applicant an opportunity to revise his request and return. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 11. 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD/350 BEACH ROAD – ZONED C-4 – (GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (20 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO CREATE A SEPARATE 18,000 SF PARCEL AT 350 BEACH ROAD b. APPLICATION FOR REZONING FROM C-4 TO O-M FOR THE 18,000 SF PARCEL AT 350 BEACH ROAD Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and city staff comments. She noted that the Commission’s action on the lot line adjustment is final and appealable to the City Council; the action on the rezoning is a recommendation to Council. There were no questions from Commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 14 Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dan Levin, represented Glenborough Partners, the property owner and applicant; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington. Applicant was asked where the day care facility would be located if the site was used for something else. The applicant noted that the lot line adjustment had nothing to do with whether a day care center would be built, this is a housekeeping matter left over from the review of the 301 Airport site; no specific use for the site at 350 Beach Road is proposed at this time. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved on the facts in the staff report that the commission recommend to the City Council the rezoning of the site at 350 Beach Road from C-4 to O-M because it was required as a part of the future use of 301 Airport Blvd. The rezoning is also consistent with the General Plan. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to rezone the lot at 350 Beach Road from C-4 to O-M. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. This action is a recommendation to the City Council and is not appealable. C. Vistica moved approval of the lot line adjustment to create as a separate legal lot and parcel the property fronting on Beach Road addressed 350 Beach Road. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the lot line adjustment to create a separate parcel at 350 Beach Road. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 1637 CORONADO WAY – ZONED – R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JENNIFER AND DOUG ULRICH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RICHARD COOK & LOUIS BOBROWSKY, ARCHITECTS) (79 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Doug Ulrich, property owner, and Richard Cook, architect, were available to answer any questions. Commission asked architect to explain vocabulary of the design and how it is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Architect noted that they tried to tie together addition with existing house by using same finish materials and tieing bay window elements toget her. Introduced arched windows and pediment roof to add interest and break up the mass. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Looks like 2 different houses with different elements, existing house has nice elements that can be carried through to second level, second story doesn’t go with the house; • Concern with tall vertical element at the rear, very boxy; • Small amount of square footage added, but looks large; • Appreciate that addition is pushed back, not over garage; • Need to dimension interior and exterior elevations; • 9 foot plate heights, with 2 feet in between floors is unusual and not necessary, adds to height, need to reduce; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 15 • Existing house has hip roofs, but all new roof areas are gable end, changes appearance and style. C. Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. Comment on motion: project needs some work; project looks large, but not a lot of square footage added; there are nice features on existing house that can be incorporated into second story addition. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:51 p.m. 13. 900 MORRELL AVENUE – ZONED – R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN, DESIGN STUDIO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KENNETH AND ANDREANNA VIERRA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Kenneth and Andreanna Vierra, property owners, were present to answer questions. They explained that their designer was ill and could attended. Commission asked if it was intentional to have divided light windows on all elevations except the northeast elevation. Owners explained that it was intentional because this side only has bathroom windows and existing first floor bedroom windows do not have grids now. View of this side also is blocked by a tree on the neighbor’s property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments: • Front has a nice personality, can shutters be carried through to other elevations; • Space between garage and house is going to be a problem, need to look at ways to eliminate conditional use permit, or add gate, landscaping and/or door; • Need landscape plan, would like to see screening of this addition with landscaping; and • Pull back bedroom #3 at the front to help impact on neighbor and increase second floor front setback. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: nice job; mass is held back from the street, additional second floor setback will also help; plate height not excessive at 8 feet; overall impact is minimal. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:07 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 16 14. 1381 HILLSIDE CIRCLE – ZONED – R-1 – APPLICATION FOR 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) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Andrew Young, project architect, was present to answer questions. Explained that this is minor project, owners wanted to expand the kitchen and master bedroom, but keep the project in character with the existing house. A lot of the floor area in this house is inhabitable basement area and covered deck area. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chair Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: architect has done a fine job with this project; this is a small addition that blends well with the existing house. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. 15. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE- STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 2002 MEETING) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Bob Bridger, Apple Computer retail sales, stated that they are eager to be part of the Burlingame community. Tim Kobe, Apple Computer, store designer, stated that since the last meeting they have had a historical study done on this property by Thomas Hardy, who is here tonight to answer any questions. This study concluded that because of all of the previous alternation made to this building, interior and exterior, it would not be considered historical. There was no historical value found on the interior of the structure. Revised Apple proposal focuses on exterior material, using dark charcoal color brick, with two bands of soldier coursing, follows around the building from the top of the windows at the front and one at the parapet line. Brick proposed will not fade, an extra pallet of bricks will be stored for future repairs or in-fill. This particular size brick was picked based upon the average size brick found on Burlingame Avenue buildings. The grout to be used in between the bricks is 10-15% lighter than the brick, providing texture. The height of the structure has been lowered 4’-10” from the previous design. The mechanical equipment has been relocated to the west side of the roof to screen it from view from the street. The linear glass area display window along Park Avenue has increased to 45 feet long to increase visual interest for pedestrians. Needed to keep existing floor plan to allow for storage of materials and to retain the graphics panels and product displays that would be located against the wall, opening up the Park Avenue wall to the interior would not allow for those displays. The metal awning at the rear of the building City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 17 has been removed, because it projected into the fire lane and was too high for protection if it met fire requirements. Applicant tried to find balance between respecting the existing structural environment and being unique, tried to keep it simple and elegant; sometimes that does result in departing from the norm. Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, had a question regarding the historical survey. If the existing façade were striped away, and the old architectural features were still in tact, would it change the conclusion of the historical survey? Thomas Hardy responded that because of the method of fastening of the existing facade the old architectural details are beyond repair, and he would not change the conclusion of his historical analysis. Mr. Cohen requested that the applicant please salvage any historical and architectural finds during demolition send them over to the historical society. Asked if Apple sign would limit future use of the site because it is partially inset in the brick? Applicant explained that there will be extra bricks kept on-site for infill and repair. Would window along Park Avenue temp vandals? Applicant noted that there would be a security system in place and that the glass used for this window would be very thick glass that is difficult to break. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: design is a departure from what is normally seen on Burlingame Avenue; concerned with Park Avenue façade, long monochromatic expanse, can this be broken up; design is a very strong statement, minimalist approach, introducing other types of materials might help; but bricks are nice, gray gives warm feel, each brick has some color. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the environmental review has been completed and Planning Commissions concerns have been adequately addressed and reviewed by Staff. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on motion: design fits Burlingame Avenue, support quality of design and materials; concerned with Park Avenue side of building but notice that the existing windows alon g Park are not pedestrian friendly, this façade will also be softened by installation of 4 trees and new sidewalk; the lowering of the height of this structure definitely helps; window along Park Avenue is at a pedestrian scale; would like to get feedback from the community on this project; simple, eloquent design, intriguing addition to Burlingame Avenue, could have lasting effect. The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns that should be addressed in the environmental document: • What procedures will be taken for safety of pedestrians during construction; • What traffic controls will be used; • Where will delivery and construction vehicles be parked; • Where will debris boxes be located; and • What routes will delivery trucks be taking to and from the site during construction. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the environmental document has been completed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:20 a.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002 18 X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of October 7, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of October 7, 2002. She noted that Safeway and the Citizens for a Better Burlingame had scheduled a meeting and that a member of the Planning Commission would be present to observe, but not participate in the meeting. She passed out the amended Rules of Procedure for the Planning Commission which were approved by the City Council on October 7, 2002, as recommended by the Commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 12.30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Joseph Bojués, Acting Secretary UNAPPROVEDMINUTES10.15