Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.03.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, March 22, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Associate Planner Michelle Markiewicz, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft February 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - b.Draft February 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he was not present at the February 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Recused:Sargent1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.224 Channing Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Robert Medan AIA, applicant and architect; Matt and Kia Germino, property owners (138 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 224 Channing Rd - Staff Report 224 Channing Rd - Attachments 224 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item due to a financial interest within 500 feet of this project. Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Recused:Sargent1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.509 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Brian Ament and Sara Ponzio, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 509 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 509 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 509 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item due to a financial interest within 500 feet of this project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Brian Ament and Sara Ponzio, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions/comments. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a nice project. I made a motion to put it on the Consent Calendar when it first came before us in 2016, then voted to approve it in August that same year. It fits into the neighborhood nicely still and the context hasn't changed much in visiting the site. In fact, along with some of the other two -story and some split-level houses in the area, it would look original. The project should move forward. >I agree with my fellow Commissioner. It's a nice project and it should just move forward. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Joseph Hassoun, property owner) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1327 Benito Ave - Staff Report 1327 Benito Ave - Attachments 1327 Benito Ave - Received After 1327 Benito Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was not present at the March 8, 2021 meeting, but did visit the site and watched the video of the discussion. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the changes that the applicant made. I could see why they would need a Special Permit for building height. The property does slope up from the lot. This is an approvable project. >Agreed. I can make find the findings for the Special Permit for height as well. >The Special Permit for height is something we typically approve on an upward sloping lot like this. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - c.220 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for Conditional Use Permit for an office use on the ground floor of an existing commercial building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (220 California Drive, LLC, property owner and applicant; Standard Architecture, architect) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 220 California Dr - Staff Report 220 California Dr - Attachments 220 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >I understand the fact that the Conditional Use Permit goes with the land, but can it have a time limit? (Hurin: It can have a time limit, however we tend to stay away from that because it's very difficult to enforce. You could add a condition of approval requiring that it come back for review by the Planning Commission, that's one option you can consider doing in this case.) (Spansail: This is something we discourage because we're being as objective as possible. There could be a legal challenge to it later. So from a legal standpoint, my advice would be to treat as if the conditional use is something that is consistent with the neighborhood, you would approve, and you would be comfortable running with the land.) >So then we are changing the zoning forever? (Spansail: Essentially, if you wanted to allow the conditional use. If you didn't want to allow the conditional use, you can reject the permit. But it's dangerous. The conditional use can create a right in the land and that's generally where this is coming from. The government coming back later and saying they can't have it anymore could be considered to be a taking. It's something that gets messy. From a legal standpoint, my preference is that we don't get into those situations that can lead to those ambiguities. But it is, as Planning Manager Hurin said, a possibility and it's not something we can guarantee that can't be challenged later. So the safest strategy is to approve the Conditional Use Permit believing it will run with the land and become part of that parcel, or to object to it outright.) If it changes with the land, then would they need to come back and get a Conditional Use Permit to change it back to retail? (Spansail: No. If they wanted to move it back to retail, they would stop using the use and then it would automatically go back to whatever it's properly zoned for. The conditional use will be in effect until that use is not used for six months or a year and at that point, it reverts back. If the person who takes the land and does the same thing as the person who has the permit, and they do it within six months and the time doesn't lapse, this person can step into the shoes of this Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes applicant and continue that use until someone doesn't use it for a year.) >I want to make sure I'm clear on this. Right now it's permitted for automobile sales and service and retail sales of automobile parts, and not for general retail which requires Conditional Use Permit, is that correct? (Hurin: That’s correct.) What we're talking about then is in addition to all the automobile sales and service and retail sales of automobile parts, we're allowing office. We're not losing the ability to do that. If someone were to come in and want to do retail other than automobile related, they would also have to get a Conditional Use Permit? (Hurin: That’s correct.) >Knowing that the Conditional Use Permit would run with the land and someone coming in would run an office use similar to this conditional use, is a subsequent user, or even this user, constrained by the details of this particular application? Just for example in terms of the number of employees they have identified for now and the five -year horizon? (Spansail: I would have to defer a little bit to the Planning Manager because it's going to be what's approved in a Conditional Use Permit. Whoever steps into their shoes will step through the limitations in the permit. I don't know exactly what's in there, but it would be tied into the use of that permit. If there's a part of the permit not encapsulated by the permit, then that's not the case. They won't look back and say this applicant had an interesting side story that we wanted to allow the permit for. You can't put that interesting requirement onto the new person that's going to be whatever is in the record in the applicant and in the findings. But they are constrained by the paperwork that's approved here.) (Hurin: In the past, we have included specific conditions of approval pertaining to the hours of operation or number of employees. So if you wanted to make that clear, you should consider adding those conditions of approval.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Jonathan Emami, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >As I mentioned at the study meeting, I'm interested in seeing this application or some application on this property work. It's a difficult location for retail other than possibly, retail related to auto sales because of the changing face of retail. This location is off the Avenue and doesn't have the draw and attraction of other anchors that Burlingame Avenue has. Allowing for this office use would be appropriate. I would like to see a condition added that the Conditional Use Permit would also be required to follow the details of the commercial application including the hours of operation and the current and anticipated employees as identified in that application form. >I was a little worried at first, but everybody did a good job to explain things. All in all, I agree with my fellow commissioner. I would like to see a business here work. I agree that auto row has changed and we have to consider how it changes with it. Should the retail and auto use become more viable with a better business opportunity, then the person will change it back. So, as long as this works and the use is consistent, then I can support that. I'd like to see the project go forward. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to approve the application with the following conditions: >that the office use may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week, with a maximum of five (5) employees on site at any one time. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - d.251 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for exterior facade changes to an existing commercial building and Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mausser White Properties LLC, property owner; Trileaf Corporation, designer and applicant) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 251 California Dr - Staff Report 251 California Dr - Attachments 251 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Michael Mzwiefel represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >We received a revised set of plans. Were there any revisions that were actually made to the drawings or is it just a new date? (Mzwiefel: The two comments from the last meeting included requesting a sample of the mesh, which we provided. There was also a question regarding the existing tile that's on the building facade. Our preference would be to remove that tile and put the lighting in per the response in our letter, so we didn't make any changes to the plans.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >We had the exchange at the last meeting regarding Jennifer Pfaff's comments provided in her letter. I asked the question about the existing light fixtures and removal of the tiles. I thought we understood you were going to move the light fixtures down between the new windows, is that not the case? Did you change your mind? Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Tse reopened the public hearing. >(Mzwiefel: I don't remember having any specific conversation about the need to move the lighting. I know there was an inquiry about it. We felt by replacing the tile with the lighting, it would keep the down-lighting centered on those columns in between the glass and we would have a cleaner, simpler facade. If we add the lights, there would be the tile and other accents, so we thought it would get a little complicated from the exterior. If the Planning Commission feels strongly about retaining those tiles, we can do so.) I would like to retain them because of the question brought up on Jennifer Pfaff's email. It seemed pretty straight forward that moving them down a couple of feet between the glass still accentuated the columns. Plus the scallop isn't going to be strictly contained to that column itself; it is going to be spread out to the adjacent glass. (Mzwiefel: We’re more than happy to do that.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I support the idea of lowering the lights as it will be down to a more human scale and would get the lighting down to where it belongs. It's a great move if it happens. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 8, 2021, sheets A1.0 through A4.0; with the exception that the decorative tile squares on the California Drive building façade shall be retained and that any exterior light fixtures shall be placed on the columns below the decorative tile squares. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1110 Bernal Avenue and 1112 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for two, new single family dwellings with detached garages, Conditional Use Permit for re-emerging lots, and Lot Combination and Tentative Parcel Map. (Tim Raduenz, Designer, Form + One Design; 1110 Bernal, LLC, property owner) (117 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1110 and 1112 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1110 and 1112 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1110 and 1112 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Clarification in regards to the Redwood tree in the back left corner of the lot that is going to be removed on what will become the 1110 Bernal Avenue address lot. It seems like that Redwood tree has nothing to do with this project. However the staff report states "until staff and Planning Commission can evaluate the removal of the Redwood tree, it cannot be determined if landscape replacement trees are required or proposed." What purview do we have over the removal of that Redwood tree if it's not in the Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes footprint of the new garage or house? (Hurin: It's an existing Redwood tree that's at the back of the lot on the right side which is 1110 Bernal Avenue. They have submitted for a Tree Removal Permit, but a certified arborist report hasn't been submitted yet. Once we receive the report, the City Arborist will then review the findings or recommendations in the report and make a determination as to whether or not that tree can be removed. If it can be removed, then there may be additional landscape trees that would be required to be planted. It's not necessarily under the purview of the Planning Commission. Only in that if there are new landscape trees required, it can be a part of the new landscape plan you'll be reviewing.) So, the City Arborist isn't waiting for us to opine on the project to determine if the tree can be removed, but whether new landscape is required if he grants approval of the report? (Hurin: That’s correct. Before this comes back to you for action, we want to make sure the arborist report is received and the City Arborist reviewed that report. If any additional landscape trees are required, they'll be factored into the landscape plan.) >The proposed house at 1110 Bernal Avenue has what seems to me five bedrooms, however the staff report says it has four bedrooms, can you also clarify that? (Hurin: I think it's the other way around. 1110 Bernal Avenue has four bedrooms and 1112 Bernal Avenue has five bedrooms.) That's what it says in the staff report, but I counted five bedrooms at 1110 Bernal Avenue. (Hurin: I can take a look at the floor plans to confirm the number of bedrooms.) Thank you. Just a minor clarification, but it affects the garage. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant with the property owner Patrick Gilson. Commission Questions/Comments: >(Gilson: An arborist report was submitted to the City on March 18th. It details the health and safety of the tree.) >What's the thinking behind breaking the driveway pattern of the street? I didn't noticed it at the time, but 1112 Bernal Avenue would be the only driveway on the block that is on the left side of the house facing the house. What's the thinking there? (Gilson: The thinking on my end was to give space between 1116 Bernal Avenue and this development. There's space for planting mature trees, but given the fact they have been there for that long, I felt like they deserved that. To have these two homes play with each other as far as the landscape design and just to separate what's existing and what's being proposed.) (Raduenz: We created the Dutch Colonial style to have these kind of little secret gardens and I think that works well . That would be why we did the north side driveway.) >(Raduenz: Both homes have five bedrooms.) Thank you. I definitely counted five bedrooms. >In bathroom #4 at 1110 Bernal Avenue, you have the wall of the bathroom intersecting the middle window facing the street. It looks like you're trying to tie the wall into the mullion. (Raduenz: It’s a big mullion. Correct.) Is that the plan, as opposed to modifying the floor plan? I ’m afraid you couldn't see it from the street. (Raduenz: I can take a look at it.) > Looking at the height of the window proposed for bathroom #1 against the vanity, it looks like you don't have any space to put a mirror above the vanity. I don't know if you wanted to take a look at that again. (Raduenz: I will.) >For 1112 Bernal Avenue, there's a clipped window at the master bathroom on the side elevation. If you can look at that more closely, it ’s on sheet A.3.1. It's something I'm sure you can adjust, raise the sill or something. It's looking like it's intersecting with the roof. (Raduenz: We could, instead of doing a 4’-6” window, we can do a 4’ window and give us more breathing room.) Yes, maybe match the window to the right of the chimney. >On the rear elevation, the windows up above look heavy over the windows below on the left side of the rear elevation. I'm not sure if that's the master bedroom on the second floor? (Raduenz: That’s the master bedroom, correct.) It seems to have some heaviness there. I don't know if you can balance out the window shapes or sizes. The upper floor looks taller than the lower floor. This is more a comment than a question, but I wanted to note that for consideration. (Raduenz: We'll look into it. It does have a vaulted ceiling, so we're trying to create open space up there, but we can look into what we can do to lighten the design a little bit. I kind of understand what you're saying.) Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >In looking at the materials for 1112 Bernal Avenue, my understanding that the Windsor One siding has both a smooth side and textured side. Is the horizontal siding going to be smooth or textured? (Raduenz: We are thinking it's going to be textured.) Does that require a corner board or can it can be mitered? (Raduenz: We're designing it to be mitered and we are going to hopefully stay with that. We can confirm that before the next meeting. In my past projects, I don't like doing corner boards. That's what we're trying to do, we’re doing a mitered corner.) Please verify if mitering is possible with that particular material or not before this project comes back. (Raduenz: It's mitered.) Public Comments: >Comment sent via e-mail and chat from Gail Mosse: Could a tree screen be maintained between the new house on the right and the immediate house to the right on the corner of Bernal Avenue and Carmelita Avenue? We heard a tree screen was included to the north side of the left house as a courtesy to the neighbors, and they have resided there for 60 years, but it seems that courtesy should be extended to the northern neighbors too even though they just moved in. Arguably, it ’s more justified because the houses are closer together. (Raduenz: If you can send me the e -mail, I'll correspond with the neighbor, but we will definitely have some tree screening there. We will respond to the neighbor and make sure that they are happy.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >On 1112 Bernal Avenue, it feels like the front elevation is pretty flat given the materials; it seems monochromatic as far as the upper and lower floors are concerned. There is not a lot of definition to it. I saw a few modern farmhouses, there were a few with some material pop outs and changes, not just all white. There were also a couple that were all white and they looked flat too. But there's an opportunity to pop out that upper window with a little material change going to something that actually is darker and giving it some contrast. The 1110 Bernal Avenue has so much more character to it. This one is coming off as modern flat. I would like to see a little more to go with that. Looking at the rear elevation, I agree with the canopy and the big windows. It really looks like it's bottom heavy and out of proportion. >I generally like the buildings a lot. My fellow Commissioner is right, there ’s an opportunity on 1112 Bernal Avenue. The one thing I'm uneasy about is the breaking of the spatial pattern of the neighborhood . Stylistically, we have a lot more flexibility with changes in style in the neighborhood than we do spatial characteristics and that's why we have such discussions about attached garages versus detached garages. The driveway pattern is one of the things that's specifically called out in the guidelines, so I had real angst about that. The buildings are nice though. >Programmatically, taking this whole property and splitting it into two is a good effort. It will help with the scale on the street, particularly at this end. I do have some concerns about the massing at the 1110 Bernal Avenue property which was described by the designer as Dutch colonial architecture, but I'm not seeing a Dutch Colonial style. The house is 44-1/2’ wide and it has a big flat roof on top. When I hear Dutch Colonial architecture, I think of the gambrel roof, a true gambrel form. When we come to the side of this house, it's a two -story box that had some dormers added to the front. Otherwise, those second story walls are tilted a little bit to angle like a gambrel roof, but they are really trims added on and span between two structured gambrels across the top as you see on the other elevations. So I'm having some concerns, particularly when you look at the fact that you have a 9-1/2’ plate height and 9’-2” plate height on the second floor. It's a wider lot, but you're taking that mass and take two stories straight up and adorn them with gambrel trims and slanted facades. I'm reminded of some of the projects that have come before us that are a newer Craftsman style house, large sweeping roof with second floor tucked under dormers, but the dormers are stretched out all the way to the front elevation and the side elevations. We then end up with a Craftsman roof that is just composed of overhangs and trims along the side of what is a two -story structure. I'm a little uneasy about the massing of the structure at 1110 Bernal Avenue. I'm not sure if I can make that particular finding in terms of the design review for mass and bulk. >In regards to 1112 Bernal Avenue, it is massed nicely. It has good scale and the roof finishes itself off Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes nicely. I do agree with my fellow Commissioner that it lacks adornment. Particularly, if you look at that second floor peak, it has a big forehead above that second floor roof with very little articulation. So maybe it's trying to be a modern interpretation of a farmhouse, but it's slammed up against what is a heavily detailed trying to be Dutch Colonial architecture. Not that the two have to marry or even relate, but to have this amount of stripped down detail next to that one that has a lot of detail to hide a two -story box, I'm uneasy about where we're at with these two projects. >I would echo my fellow Commissioners' opinions on this. I have been sitting back hearing what everyone else thought. On the 1110 Bernal Avenue project, I never thought that putting a big flat roof in the middle of a house is a good way to solve the issues of massing and what we're trying to do on the second floor is break it up a little bit. It appears very flat and boxy as my fellow Commissioner said. I'm uneasy about that. The other house can use a little bit more detail and pay more attention to that detail. I would like to see some of the missing parts added to the plans that are noted in the staff report about the average top of curb being incorrect and the declining height envelope for both sides, as well as the arborist report in the next round. >I agree with my fellow Commissioner. I would like the applicant to look at the driveway pattern again before it comes back. With the way the existing driveways are situated, there's a lot of space to the right of 1116 Bernal Avenue that could be used to space there. It's hard to tell during my site visit and it looks like there may be an existing screening on 1116 Bernal Avenue that would help with the separation there . If the driveway was flipped to the other side, then the house at 1110 Bernal Avenue could be shifted over a little bit to the left and allow for more screening to the house on the corner of Carmelita Avenue. Because that's a corner house, there ’s very little setback between 1110 Bernal Avenue and that house, so some additional attention could be placed there with screening. I know the applicant said they're going to work with that neighbor which is great. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - b.1144 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, and Conditional Use Permits and Special Permit for a new detached garage and for use in an existing accessory structure. (Richard Terrones, DTA Inc, applicant and architect; Mark and Catharine Intrieri, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1144 Balboa Ave - Staff Report 1144 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1144 Balboa Ave - Received After 1144 Balboa Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Vice-Chair Terrones was recused from this item because he is the architect for the project. Chair Tse was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Alicia Ader and Jon Go, DTA, Inc. represented the applicant with property owners Mark and Katharine Intrieri. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I really like the project. The house has good balance and has great street presence. It looks like it belongs in Burlingame and has been around for a long time. I would really like to see this project move forward. >I would just echo what my fellow Commissioner said. I would like to thank the design team for making this so easy to understand. The rendering is terrific; the very detailed shadowed elevations make it crisp and easy to read. It gives me a high level of confidence that we have a really nice design here. >I really like the design on this house. It fits beautifully in Burlingame. It's charming and has great curb appeal. Thank you for all your hard work. It's very lovely. >I like the project as well. It's a good candidate for the Consent Calendar. >I wanted to comment on the Special Permits and the Conditional Use Permits. For the Special Permit for declining height envelope, when we see traditional style architecture like this one, we generally allow a classic design to be approved in the way if it were originally designed. The request for Special Permits and Conditional Use Permits is for an existing accessory structure. It sounds like it has been used in a way that hasn't been a nuisance to the neighbors and it's fairly small, so I can make the findings for that as well. Particularly, you could demolish it when we build an ADU and then we wouldn't have to consider it at all and it can be seven times bigger. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Recused:Terrones, and Tse2 - c.232 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Richard Sargent, applicant; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc .; Glory and Benton Williams, property owners) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 232 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 232 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 232 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons. Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item due to a financial interest in the project. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owners Benton and Glory Williams. Commission Questions/Comments: >I understand that with the ADU and the detached garage you take up a lot of the yard, but you end up with a lot of paving in the rear of the lot. Have you thought about separating some of the paving with some landscaping? You have this small area of lawn back there where the majority of it is paved. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that? (Chu: We can definitely look into it. Like every other project, we can perhaps install vine pockets along the fence and also create a "Hollywood" driveway.) A large amount of the lot gets taken up with paving when we put the garages in the rear, but we prefer the garages there because it breaks up the massing. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the stone patio against the driveway and the ADU. >In regards to one of the letters from the neighbor, they talked about how there's so many Spanish style homes in the neighborhood. I didn't really think about it much until I went down there and looked in the neighborhood. That block primarily contains Spanish style homes. Is there a reason to go away from the Spanish style? (Chu: Well, that's not entirely true. The house at 212 Bloomfield Road, which the Commission approved a year ago, is not a Spanish style home. The house on the corner of Burlingame Avenue and Bloomfield Road is a large, modern farmhouse design.) I'm talking more about this specific block. It seems to me that there's a real Spanish flare on this end of that block. (Chu: With every client we discuss the program, wish lists, the applicant ’s needs, and the style they want. With the amount of money they spend on the property and to build the house, I think they're entitled for a style they like and also somewhat fits in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, it's not Spanish style in this case.) (Williams: We really love the proposed design. We thought deeply about what would be right for our growing family. We toured a house on this same street further down. We really loved that there's a lot of examples of the American Foursquare style. We thought it would fit in the neighborhood. For us, it's a nice, efficient use of space and it's maximizing the space. We really need every square inch in the house, so the layout and efficiency worked for us. A Spanish layout would be harder to accommodate the day -to-day life that we were prioritizing. But I understand it's a little deviation from what's concentrated there. We also looked at Bloomfield Road itself on our street and there are several examples on our end that are Spanish style, the other half of Bloomfield Road on both sides were primarily not Spanish style. So, we didn't feel like this deviated. I understand there's another opinion on that. We appreciate that there's been historically a lot of Spanish style.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There's a lot to like about this house but something about it bothers me, it feels massive. Rather than feeling like a classic American Foursquare, it feels like a classic American rectangle, like a balloon that's been blown up to the shape that it fills. It is overwhelming the site, maybe part of that is the ADU garage filling the back of the site and having so much paving. Maybe I'm wrong about this, it's a little bit hard to tell. I like a lot of the house, but it just feels like it goes on and on. The front looks okay. The porch feels like it's a little bit stuck on, even though it's carved out underneath the mass of the house. I Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes believe it's like the one down the street. Maybe this is just the nature of the Foursquare design, it doesn't feel like it's being articulated very much. It feels like it's a balloon completely filled up, which is indicated by being within ten square feet of the FAR. It feels big. >I actually like the project quite a bit. For me, there's quite a bit of articulation. The trims and the change in materials on the long side facing the Burlingame Avenue houses has broken up that elevation which could really be a lot bigger and a lot flatter. Overall, I like it. I can sympathize with the neighbors with some of the comments. At the same time, there's already a large two -story wall that goes along the side property there and this house is going to be largely in the same place. It's just going to extend a little further back. Yes, they're using all of their lot and all of the FAR, but it fits within and it works, so I can support this one. >We have wrestled with the issue of the style in the neighborhood with this project on Bloomfield Road and others we have had on Clarendon Road. I can definitely sympathize with the letter we got from the neighbor in regards to the Spanish enclave. But as we have said before, we don't have historic districts defined. We can request, suggest and cajole, but we have to look at the project on its merits. So in regards to this architecture, it is fairly traditional. It speaks of residential construction, the plate heights, nine feet and eight feet are not overly tall or excessive. The height is well below the allowed maximum. The Special Permit for declining height envelope is what we often have allowed for iconic architecture like this, so I can support the Special Permit for the declining height. In regards to the massing, I had a similar reaction initially as did my fellow Commissioner, that it was a long stretched out house and kind of big . But then l realized it's a 7,800 square foot lot. It's 150 feet deep and it eased my concern somewhat. It's a nice project. The massing itself is nice, not just in absolute terms, but in terms of the context of the neighborhood, with the plate heights and the overall heights being proposed. It will fit in as a traditional residential home that could have been there from generations ago. It's a nice project that could move forward. >I agree with what my fellow Commissioner said and am in support of the project. I want to reiterate my fellow Commissioner's concern about the lack of landscaping and the dominance of hardscape in the backyard, and even along the sides of the property. So I would encourage the applicant to take a look at that again. Chair Tse reopened the public hearing. >Frank and Carroll Donnelly, 621 Burlingame Avenue: I want to thank you all for your service. We both have been long-time residents of Burlingame. Frank worked for the City for 34 years and I did nine years of service on the Park and Recreation Commission. Our biggest issue is concerns about privacy and sunlight. For 24 years we've had an open view in our yard through June in the former resident ’s yard. If the plan of the house has to go through, why not reverse the plan and put the driveway down our side? Because you've got three houses with small lots, it would remove the house a little bit from our yards and not be so imposing, especially the corner house on Bloomfield Road and Burlingame Avenue. If it needs to stay this way, then I would hope that you would enforce the Special Permit on the roof so that it doesn ’t shoot up with a straight wall. I want to thank the other neighbor promoting the Spanish style houses because I love the Spanish style houses. Thank you for listening. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Recused:Sargent, and Comaroto2 - d.2752 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permits for an attached garage and declining height Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage. (Michael Kuperman, applicant and property owner; Stepan Berlov, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2752 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2752 Summit Dr - Attachments 2752 Summit Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had a conversation with the owner discussing the view and the hillside area construction permit. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Can you clarify how the declining height envelope applies on the sides as you go down the slope? (Hurin: On these downward sloping lots, we have to figure out the point of departure where the declining height enveloper starts at grade. That’s determined by the average of the front and rear property corners . So what happens on these downward sloping lots is that the declining height envelope gets pushed down because the average slope for the point of departure is going to be a lot lower than the finished floor of the house. You'll see that often on these downward sloping lots. On upward sloping lots, the reverse occurs and it's way up high. Usually those houses have no problem complying with a declining height envelope .) It's hard to say how many exceptions or how often this happens because we haven't seen this happen much. It seems like the declining height envelope probably doesn't apply well in this situation. (Hurin: For these types situations, you can make the hardship findings and set aside the design of the project. In terms of the mass and bulk, on the sloping lots, you can certainly make findings that there's a hardship on the property given the extreme slope on the lot.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Stepan Berlov, represented the applicant with property owner Michael Kuperman. Commission Questions/Comments: >I get it that you're on a sloping lot, but on your site plan it appears that a large majority of your front yard is paved. I can see that you have your trench drains, but in a heavy downpour and a few leaves, those can get clogged up. You may have drainage problems. But more than that, it has to do with the overall appearance from the street. Have you thought about adding some more landscaping in the front? (Berlov: The project consists of a new house on an existing lot. This lot is a little bit challenging. There is an existing driveway that leads down to the ground floor. Our intention is to disturb the existing areas as little as possible. We are trying to bring up the main entrance up to the street level, so it would be easily accessible for people to see and to communicate. Currently, you have to walk down the steep stairs, which at night is quite dangerous and with kids they're concerned that something may happen. It's also not very useable for walking traffic. We do plan to add more landscaping in the front right where the main entrance is. There will be a large tree and some grass planted. You can see it on the bottom side. We will add landscaping along the side of the house where it is sloping down on both sides. There will be a large amount of planters and landscaped trees in the areas between the driveway and the stairs leading down to the lower level as well.) It looks like there is going to be a lot of paving in the front, but I'll let the other Commissioners make their comments. >The elevation drawings are a little difficult to read because everything is shaded and in color. Looking at the renderings on the cover sheet and trying to translate that to the exterior elevations, it looks like some stone material is applied around the entry but in vertical strips. Both on the upper entry off the main courtyard and the lower entry off the garage courtyard, there are stones flanking at both entries. On the renderings, the stone is on the whole facade on that lower portion. Is it correct that what we're seeing along Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes grid line E is the stone facade just on the front? Does it not turn on the elevation where those French doors are up on that second floor? (Berlov: On the second floor, the stone turns around the corner and it dies at the corner where the patio is, it goes along the side of that line where the French doors are. There is stone down below it at the lower level which also turns the corner and goes down along the side of the steps.) Going back up to the second floor where you described the French doors, does the stone continue from grid line E as what we are seeing on grid line D? Or is it just on the front facade? (Berlov: It's just on the front facade.) Is it a veneer of stone? (Berlov: That's correct, but we do have a stone veneer that goes where the garage entrance is and up to the main floor.) >There isn't much stone to the left of the bay element that is on that second floor between grid lines K and G, but on the rendering that bay is pushed towards the back a little bit with more stone to the left of it. (Berlov: I’m sorry. The rendering on the cover page has a little bit more stone. It wasn't updated, but we are just going to have a similar element like the lower entry door for more consistency with the project.) >Did you review the proposed plans with your uphill neighbors? I can see there are distant views of the bay from that neighborhood, but I couldn't tell if your proposed structure could possibly block any views from any neighbors. (Kuperman: I didn't have a chance, I don't see him too often. But I can tell you that there are trees that block the windows on his property and his windows are facing northeast where my house is just north. So he doesn't look towards my house. His house is pivoted towards a different direction.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I'm struggling with this a little bit. It feel non -residential in different places. The rear elevation feels very much like a motel and at least one side elevation feels like a school building. There is site lighting everywhere and there is building lighting on all facades. That probably is one of the reasons it feels vaguely non-residential. It's lacking in charm. Part of that may be the way it's rendered. It's a little hard to tell whether it might feel different if it were rendered differently. I like modern architecture, but this is verging on charm-less architecture. It feels like it needs to go to a design review consultant. I'll hear what other Commissioners have to say about it. >The renderings on the front show a potentially nice design there; a larger rendering would be helpful . There's a lot of surface area that you're trying to cover. The elevations /sections are helpful from seeing how it goes down the hill, but graphically very difficult to see where materials are coming and going to see the charm on it. I would highly recommend that the elevations attempt to really describe the materials instead of the heights. I'm highly distracted by all the white boxes with heights and all the lines for sections and such. It makes it hard to see what is going on underneath. There's a graphicness to this that could help quite a bit in being able to show us better what is here. To me, it doesn't look unapprovable. I like the modern feel of it, but it's difficult to see the character without really clearing up the elevations a bit more. >I agree with my fellow Commissioner. I would also agree that the modernist architecture isn't the issue, but to me, it doesn't look residential. Even with the nicer renderings that are on the cover sheet, it looks like the entrance to a doctor's office. In terms of how the materials are applied, the materials aren't being used to define the parts and pieces of the modernist boxes. They're used as veneers to dress things up and give an appearance of something better than a stucco box at entries and other areas. The way the stone is applied in the renderings, the stone starts to define extents of planes and portions of the boxes that are being broken down. Then when we get to the actual elevations that we're being asked to approve, the stone is applied as pillars on either side of entries and faces on wainscot, on other portions of the wall around the garage door, and not really defining the elements of the architecture. This is a good candidate for design review consulting. >We do often consider Special Permits for declining height envelope as approvable in context like Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes these when it's a downward sloping lot. However, when you look at the left side elevation, it's not making any effort really to address the declining height envelope. It's a flat box that has some steps down in the back a little bit, but nothing to the side. It's a flat box with some horizontal trims on it which isn't defining the modernist architecture. It's just breaking down the floor lines. So, in visiting the site, other properties in the area kind of nestle into their site a little bit more and drop below the street level and are unobtrusive. This one with a flat roof jumps up both front to back and side to side and presents a large mass. It should go to the design review consultant and before this comes back, story poles should be erected so we and the neighbors can get a better look at what the final massing is going to look like. >I agree with my fellow Commissioners about erecting story poles and that this should go to a design review consultant. >The first thought I had about this project was the hillside area construction permit and whether we can make the findings for that. It definitely needs story poles. I’m a little surprised that we haven't heard anything from neighbors yet because normally in hillside areas like this, if there's a hint of obstructed view, neighbors are very clear about their concerns and we haven't heard that in this case. But it's conceivable to me that with the program that's being proposed, we won't be able to make the findings for a hillside area construction permit. Once the story poles go up, the whole program might need to be revised or reconsidered even if it does go to the design review consultant. >I agree with my fellow Commissioners. We’ve seen in past situations with projects in the hillside area construction permit zone, where seemingly there isn't concern for distant views or nearby views, but once those story poles go up, it becomes apparent to neighbors in the area where they can see where their view may be blocked. So I agree we should request story poles be erected for this project. I too feel we should visit a design review consultant on this project. >Should we put story poles up first? Can you do that before they go to a design review consultant? Or do you have to base it on what is going to be the project, so can you not do that? What comes first? >I was going to make the exact same point that my fellow Commissioner was making, except I was going to suggest that you be very sure that this is what you wanted to build before you spend the time and money putting up story poles. I would say get your design in place before you put up story poles. >If we're going to send this to a design review consultant, I wouldn't feel comfortable asking them to go to the expense of putting up the story poles until they have a design that they're prepared to bring back before us. The story poles should reflect whatever that design would be. >Hurin: It's somewhat difficult to decide which comes first. But as the Commissioners have pointed out, it may make more sense to go through the design review consulting process first. Once the mass and bulk and details are established, then you can put up the story poles. They can also install temporary story poles that aren't necessarily certified, to give the neighbors an idea of how tall the proposed structure is compared to what is there now. >I just wanted to follow up on the landscape question. There is a lot of opportunity for this, whether it's brought back to us, for more landscaping while meeting the needs of the applicant in terms of access . You can have a very generous entrance and walkway and still have an opportunity for a lot more green than shown now. >There's a lot of information on here that we don't need at this point in our process to evaluate the design. Everyone will be better served if the focus were on representing the character of the building instead of the technical side of the building, the size of the windows, the window and the door types and all that stuff. It will be easier to make a decision looking at that kind of information than what's going on here. >This is a great candidate for more three -dimensional study. There's a lot going on here. If we had better axons looking down the hill, it would make our job easier. It's not making this difficult for the applicant and not allow them to have a design that they appreciate, but it is about making it easier for us to give said guidance to be able to move the project forward. The more they can make that for us graphically, the easier this will move forward. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant and directed that story poles be installed prior to returning to the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes e.1115 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for facade changes to an existing commercial building. (Lijun He, applicant; Ren Huang, Ren Plus Architects, architect; Olive Grove Capital, LP, property owner) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1115 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1115 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1115 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Rena Huang, Ren Plus Architects, represented the applicant with property owner Lijun He. Commission Questions/Comments: >I like the bifold window. I see a frame around that opening, but not around the arched opening above . It's as though the glass looks like it's just running into the stucco. What brought my attention to it is, it looks like the top of the bifold window is framed by something that is stucco. It looks like a four-and-a-half inch piece of stucco across the head of the window and no frame in the radius opening in the archway. Is that the case? Can you walk us through that? (Huang: So, the idea is to use a frame for the bifold window and another frame for the arched window on top. If you look at the divider between the arch and bifold window, inside there is a tube steel in that area. That defines it.) Public Comments: >Riyad Salma: I represent the owner of the property. I wanted to voice the support that I have expressed in the letter that I believe most of you should have received. We worked back and forth quite a lot with the applicant over a number of months as they massaged this design. I think they really did a fantastic job. It's traditional, contemporary and elegant without being overstated and I think it will be a welcoming addition to the block. We're happy to see the design they came up with and we're looking forward to them opening on the street. Thank you for your consideration. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >As the owner of the building said, I like the understated character of the project. I like the arches . However, there are some architectonics that I'm concerned with. One has to do with the horizontal element between the bifold window and the arched window above. The stucco on the vertical sides of the bifold doesn't bother me too much. However, the four -and-a-half inch piece of stucco is purporting to be something that doesn't make a lot of sense. Stucco is a cementitious material and it has weight. It appears that there's a figural image in the background which is the stucco itself. That cross piece between the arch and the bifold window is rendered in this architectonics as a cementitious material that is 4-1/2” wide. It would feel better if that were part of the frame. If there was a frame that filled the entire Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes opening, the bifold and the archway, and that was a muntin or cross piece in the window frame. It's not paying attention to what stuff means in architecture. Other than that, I like its understated nature. But I really find that questionable. >I would agree. The header piece, if covered in stucco, is going to crack on either end immediately. It needs to set back and you should think about the full arch top to bottom, much like the door is rendered . You don't have a cross piece in the door, so they would go together nicely. It's an opportunity for a little bit of a material to show up like the frame of the bifold, but also show up in the window, because otherwise it can look flat. There are a lot of nice things to say about this project and I would love to see it go forward. >From my experience in installing bifold doors, they hang typically from the header. I would encourage the applicant to check with the engineer and the manufacturer to make sure that whatever that header is above the door, it doesn't need to be thicker because if it's only 4-1/2”, it's going to be a piece of 4x4 if it's wood and the door is going to make that sag. Just a point to be aware of because that may change the whole design. >I like the project. I agree with the detail issues that my fellow Commissioners have brought up. I like the sort of lemon yellow that's been identified for the bifold door and the frame. The soft yellow color sitting there will be really pretty in that facade. It would really hang together nicely if it were all one uniform piece. Even that cross piece can be the same yellow color with a cap piece over it. They've identified a three-and-a-half by two-and-a-half steel tube as the header that my fellow Commissioner was talking about. It tells me that they are trying to get the stucco attached to that, you're just trying to glue stucco on like it is clay. By the time you get screens or something you're attaching to, it really wants to be a part of that frame and part of that window system. With all that said, it's a nice project and a good location for it . It will be nice to see something come back to that location. It's a nice little storefront the way it humbly sits into what we have now. The project should move forward. >It's a great little project for that part of the street, so I could support the project. Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - f.333 California Drive, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the facade of an existing commercial building and Conditional Use Permit for a new food establishment. (Lara Dutto, LLC DBA, Lara Architecture, architect and applicant; Ann Sabatini, property owner) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 333 California Dr - Staff Report 333 California Dr - Attachments 333 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Lara Dutto, Lara Architecture, and Bob Trahan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The greenhouse opens to private dining. Is the private dining area the small room with the bifold doors directly adjacent to the greenhouse? (Dutto: Yes, exactly.) That one room is the private dining. It's not more extensive than that? (Dutto: No, that’s the private dining. That’s where the chef will come out and introduce his menu for the night and do some production design. They have so many nice plans for that; the idea is that they filter in and out of the chef's greenhouse.) >What are the rooms in the bar /lounge area? There are three rooms that may be for private dining, what are those rooms? (Dutto: Those are also private dining. They are private in a sense that they are enclosed and acoustically private. They can be reserved separately, but they're open to general lounge.) (Trahan: We refer to those as sunrooms in our architectural language. The idea is, within the lounge, it's nice to have a little more intimate space within the larger space. As Lara mentioned, they will be for reservation but it’s not exactly private dining. Dining is an interesting term, but I envision people renting out the space for parties. It's interesting because you can combine the rooms into one giant rentable space or take the two rooms.) Is it a similar space or rented for private parties? (Trahan: Exactly.) >Is the dashed line area, as shown on plan, an interior service counter to the bakery? It's not a walk -up window on the street? (Dutto: You have to walk in. That’s a service counter, correct.) Would the bakery be part of the restaurant operation or what do you see in terms of its operations? (Trahan: This restaurant is 100% plant based. The main goal of the bakery and how it will start operationally is to service the restaurant, a commissary kitchen style. We hope to get our act together all at once and open every aspect of it. It would be a quick service; you come in and you can buy sourdough breads, croissants, donuts and other quick service baked goods. We'll also have coffee available, that's basically it. It won't be super-intense. The donuts and croissants will be vegan; it is truly unique because you have to drive to San Jose to get a vegan donut.) >Could you tell us about this cistern and rain water catchments system? Have you gotten some engineering on that? How far are you along with that? (Dutto: We had the landscape architect give us an estimate of the gallons we will need to irrigate this courtyard. We’re comparing whether or not we're going to use the water catchments system for irrigation or potentially for all gray water in the urinal toilets. We're doing a lot of study about this. We have done a roof plan and calculated how much water we're going to save, collect from there and store in the underground tank near the greenhouse. There will be a unique educational display, where you can see how that water is coming from the tank being filtered and being reused. So it will be totally engineered. We have a design builder, a lead certification manager onboard and the plumbers are all working on this. It has been pretty cool to see how far Bob's willing to go to obtain LEED certification on this project. It's really not required for us because this is going to be a commercial interior LEED certification. But we're really trying to achieve some innovation points here, so it's going to be an attraction to understand how green this has been built.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >As a frequent customer of Steelhead, I was sorry to see it closed. As a fan of the restaurant, we need to have another eatery place. After looking at the pictures and visiting the site, I thought this place is in fact bedraggled as the applicant claims. In revisiting the design and what is being proposed I really like it, it's very fresh. It will bring some good life, particularly along Lorton Avenue. The parking lot has always been awkward. I have always cringed whenever I found a vacant space in that lot and even hesitated as to whether or not I wanted to get in there. Creating some better energy there and a better sense of place will be nice. The bakery frontage along California Avenue will be welcomed within the community. There’s some great energy being brought with this project and a real fresh new look to the building. I appreciate the applicant's commitment and the effort that they're putting into this. I hope the project can move forward, it would be great. Page 19City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I will echo everything that my fellow Commissioner said. I was a frequent patron of Steelhead and I miss it. I went there a lot with families, that was a real family restaurant. It's fantastic what you're proposing to do with the parking lot. It was a bad parking lot, but it will make a good courtyard in opening up that wall to the bar/lounge area, it will be terrific. I'm excited about the project. Nice job. >I love the project. The one thing that caught my attention are the two planters from the courtyard on the Lorton Avenue side, it looks like you're doing a vine over that area. If you can consider something a little bit smaller or leave it open because I feel that people won't be able to walk in and that needs to be livened up a little bit. I'm not sure what you can do there, but it's such a beautiful space and it feels like it's confining you when you walk in. I'm sure you'll have heat lamps out there in the courtyard for patrons . You’ve done a great job and I look forward to being down there and having a party soon. (Dutto: In response, that arbor is not sitting right with any of us on the team. So it will definitely have a different vibe when it comes back to you. It may be eliminated and there may be some plantings there or it might be refined with signage.) >I will also echo all that my fellow Commissioners have stated. The materials and the color palette is gorgeous. I look forward to seeing this being built. There’s so much character and charm to this project. I appreciate you utilizing and maintaining the architecture of the space, shape and massing and adding to it. Thank you for choosing to invest in Burlingame. Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS >Commissioner Loftis volunteered to serve on the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee, replacing Commissioner Sargent. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that at the March 15, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed and approved the 120-unit residential condominium development at 1868-1870 Ogden Drive. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on March 22, 2021. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on April 1, 2021, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 20City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021