Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.02.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 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, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft January 11, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 11, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she was not present at the January 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.Draft January 25, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 25, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Vice-Chair Terrones was recused from this item because he was not present at the January 25, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Terrones1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8c - 1151 Rosedale Avenue was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.220 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for Conditional Use Permit for an office use on the ground floor of an existing commercial building. (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: >Could we get the applicant to revise the Conditional Use Permit application to address the actual use itself? Right now, the application reads “Facade and interior improvements are being made. No improvements made detrimental to the property .” It speaks to the construction that's proposed, but not the actual use as asked in the application. (Hurin: We can ask the applicant to provide further clarification on that.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Silvia Kuhle, Standard Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >(Kuhle: We will change our application language that was just requested.) >Is there a tenant that's been identified for this space yet? (Kuhle: I believe that the landlord would like to use the space for their own company.) What type of business is that? (Kuhle: It's a commercial and multi-family residential development company for affordable housing.) >There's a statement in the application that there won't be any customers and that there will be three staff members, but the build -out looks to be more extensive than that. I don't have an issue with office use per se, but I'm trying to understand what the nature of the use would be, whether or not there would be any impacts for this use that might be detrimental to other properties. (Kuhle: My understanding is that there are going to be two principals working and two or three project managers from housing projects that might be joining them if they're not at the construction site. It's a business which is pretty extensive, busy and involved. There was a need to have better offices to function out of that space. It’s not meant to have a lot of extra staff or visitors. It's basically there to have the space to work on.) So, if you could work with the owners and clarify in the Conditional Use Permit application a little bit more the details regarding the intended use. There's likely a good argument to be made for why this wouldn't be detrimental based on other uses in the vicinity. That would be helpful and allow us to push this forward to potential approval next time. (Kuhle: Should we provide the number of offices or desks to be used as a description? Is that what you're looking for?) I want to find a path towards making this work. If they can clarify and tell us what a real maximum is going to be. (Kuhle: My understanding is that there would only be the two owners plus three project managers.) If you could just clarify that and bring this back the next time for action, it will be Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes helpful. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I see the desire of the property owner that he would want to do this. However, I'm having trouble with it because it's a retail area and the building next door that's being constructed at 250 California Drive was required to have retail on the ground floor in an attempt to get more retail on California Drive and make it more pedestrian friendly. Office space is not doing well right now nor is retail space, so you could make an argument that way. I'm wondering if the Conditional Use Permit would go solely with the tenant or is this something that is going with the building in perpetuity and we'll always have an office space there when retail comes back? I'm on the fence with this. >I get where my fellow commissioner is coming from. That's the reason I asked for clarification on what the type of use it would be. It's going to be a very difficult place for retail to operate especially with the changing face of retail that we're seeing. It doesn't have any other anchors like other retail on Burlingame Avenue. So, rather than having a dead storefront that's hard for a retail operator to make work, I'd like to see something there. If the building owner is the one that's going to occupy it, as opposed to them finding an office tenant, we have a better chance of this working. That's why I'm hoping that they can be forthcoming and give us the details of what their operation would be and get that into the Conditional Use Permit; I have a better chance of supporting it that way. >I would agree. If we could tie this to them as a tenant or user for that duration and then when they decide that they're no longer going to use it and lease it to somebody else, then they can reapply for that use again or it could revert back to retail as it's appropriately zoned. I could support that as a single use, but not a forever change. >(Hurin: My understanding is that variances and conditional use permits run with the land, but we can certainly look into that. When this comes back for action, we can provide you with further clarification. >I agree with my fellow commissioners, I would love to hear what staff has to say. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, 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:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1037 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review 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 15301(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Elaine Lee, applicant and architect; Beth and Keith Taylor, property owners) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1037 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1037 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1037 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was not present for the Design Review Study Meeting, but was able to watch the video and read the minutes from that meeting. 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. Elaine Lee represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >You mentioned a new street tree towards the right -hand side, is that shown on the landscape plan? (Lee: Not yet.) Is that pending City Arborist review and coordination as to what and where? (Lee: Yes.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the project the last time it was here. The minor changes improved the look of the facade and gave it a little bit more character. I can appreciate the need to remove the street tree. As I remember being out there, that would have negatively impacted their ability to do a driveway without killing the tree so I'm fine with that. I can support the project and it will be a good looking project. >I agree, absolutely. I liked the project a lot at the last meeting. There's something refreshing about the asymmetry, it doesn't feel like a cookie-cutter house like some houses that we see these days. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. This is a great project. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.120 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review 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. (Natalie Hyland, Hyland Design Group, applicant and designer; Gary J. Bechthold Trust and Virginia J. Bechthold Trust, property owners) (146 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 120 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 120 Dwight Rd - Attachments 120 Dwight Rd - 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. Natalie Hyland, Hyland Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The roof plan calls for a metal roof, but you said that you ’ve changed the roofing material and the other drawing shows that it has been changed to composition shingle. Please clarify. (Hyland: Yes. I'm sorry, it's all composition shingle now.) >Do you intend to have exterior lighting at the front facade? I don't see any. I see some at the garage and at the back of the house, but there is no indication that there are light fixtures mounted at the front of the house. (Hyland: We have not done the lighting yet, it might be a drafting error. I'm not sure if that's a requirement from the Planning Division.) I wanted to make sure that the exterior lighting meets the lighting regulations, which prohibit the direct light leaving the property. We have a lot of bright lights around town . That stuff sort of just happens and I want to see what you were thinking on the front and whether they were down lights or something similar. If you can make sure that we get the light fixtures to meet regulations, that would be great. (Hyland: Okay. I don't think there's a lot of space for sconces so I'm sure we'll end up doing canned lights in the ceiling at the covered porch.) >This might be a drafting error. You have set the garage one foot in from the property line, but on your front elevation at the right side of the garage, is still reflected as being up against the property line . (Hyland: Thank you. We'll fix that.) >Is it correct that what we're looking at on the right side elevation in the recessed doorway is the wall paneling and not the door? (Hyland: Correct.) I want to thank you for the rendering. It helps to convey your design details more clearly. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the softened house as you described it, the renderings help to convey that softness. I really like all the changes and I appreciate your response to our comments. It's a real nice house. >I agree wholeheartedly with my fellow commissioner. These are nice changes. I like the idea of having the corner boards removed and going with the nicer siding, it's going to soften that up quite a bit as well. I also appreciate the rendering, it does speak well to your project. It really helps us more so than the elevations. I commend you for getting that done and making it work. I can fully support this project. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.1151 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R -1 - This item has been continued to a future Planning Commission meeting (date not determined). Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Warren Huey, designer; Sapphire Huey, property owner) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Item 8c - 1151 Rosedale Avenue was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. d.715-717 and 719-721 Linden Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Condominium Permit, Variances and Tentative Condominium Map for the new duplex buildings currently being constructed on each lot. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. (1448 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; TRG Architects, architect ) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 715-717 and 719-721 Linden Ave - Staff Report 715-717 and 719-721 Linden Ave - Attachments 715-717 Linden Ave - Plans 719-721 Linden Ave - Plans Public Works Memo - 715-717 Linden Ave Public Works Memo - 719-721 Linden Ave 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. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant with property owner James Evans. Commission Questions/Comments: >Looking at the 717 Linden Avenue site plan where you added the stepping stones to connect between the arbor and the side, is the final connection meant to force one to go directly to the patio in front of the unit? (Grange: That doesn’t have to be the case. Ideally, people going into the back unit on the Carolan Avenue side would come in there and it would serve as the entrance. I don ’t think a lot of people are going to come in through the Linden Avenue side to go to that back unit. These are two different houses with two different street frontages. If we wanted to make that gate more inviting to the front unit, you are right, we can change that around.) (Evans: Or theoretically, we can have the pathway stones go in two Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes directions.) (Grange: Or move the gate further over.) (Evans: That is fine, we are okay with that.) Thank you, I believe the occupants of 717 Linden Avenue will appreciate that not everybody will have to go through their front porch to access the other units. (Grange: Yes, we can change that.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > I can make the findings for the variances for the project. There are enough unique conditions as the designer clearly outlined. The dual frontages on Linden Avenue and Carolan Avenue make a big difference because these are two -story duplex units that will act and operate just like any other ordinary duplex in the neighborhood. These are not multi -story condominium units. That being the case, the open space areas will serve exactly as a yard area for those duplex units because their ground floor opens directly to those yard areas. Regarding the guest parking issue, the gate opening out to Carolan Avenue will address potential issues. Guests for the 717 & 721 Linden Avenue units will know that they can park and use the gate off Carolan Avenue to get to the unit and this will take the pressure off of Linden Avenue . I very much appreciate the added gate to make that an entrance and therefore truly make this operate with two frontages that is specifically unique with extraordinary conditions for this property. I can make the findings for the variances and support the application for a condominium permit. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. This is a nice project. They have made some great changes and I can make the findings per the staff report. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - e.1868-1870 Ogden Drive, zoned NBMU - Review and recommendation to the City Council on an application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for tandem parking, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 120-unit, 6-story condominium building, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) including Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; Green Banker LLC, property owner) (360 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1868-1870 Ogden Dr - Staff Report 1868-1870 Ogden Dr - Attachment 1 1868-1870 Ogden Dr - Attachment 2 1868-1870 Ogden Dr - Attachment 3 1868-1870 Ogden 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. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Franco Zaragoza, Levy Design Partners, represented the applicant. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Commission Questions/Comments: > There were no questions or comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Overall, the project is approvable and should move forward, I like what we are seeing. It’s going to be a good project for Burlingame. >I still have a concern about the City ’s Water Management Plan which is based on some assumptions and not based on plans that should be done every five years. I am okay with what they are assuming at this point, but we should really see that Water Management Plan completed and brought forward, especially with the amount of housing that we are putting in at the moment. >I agree with my fellow commissioner that it is a good project. I can make the findings as identified in the staff report, particularly the Statement of Overriding Consideration, with the greater community benefit that we are getting in this housing project as opposed to the existing office building currently on site. >In regards to the potential historic significance of the structure, as mentioned before, I still believe the significance does not necessarily lie in the bricks and mortar of the building. I agree with the report from ICF identifying that there is no further revision or study that needs to be taken. Based on the questions and comments made on the EIR, the project should move forward. I appreciate the revisions made particularly to the parking area. It is a really important issue, whether it is stackers or tandem parking, to make sure there is clear and easy access for every unit with at least one identifiable parking space. It is important for these projects to work as we move forward with the creative parking solutions that we have seen. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I would also like to reiterate the appreciation for the changes to the parking to accommodate all the units, in addition to the fact that more parking spaces were provided than required. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to recommend approval of the application to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1417 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to be retained). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; 1417 Cortez LLC, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1417 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1417 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1417 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused for non -statutory reasons. Senior Planner Keylon 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: >I know we are not supposed to comment on the ADU, but I have concerns about the ceiling height at the second floor over the garage. The height from floor to the top of the ridge is 7’-5” and your section shows it as 6’-9” to the highest point at the peak. If I am not mistaken, the code states that 7 feet is the lowest ceiling height you can have for a residential use. (Chu: It is an existing condition.) It is an ADU, so it may be something you want to look at. >On the landscape plan, it seems that there is a lot of paving in the backyard. I understand that you need to drive in and there is an ADU that you need to provide some pathway for, but it just seems like the entire rear yard is paved. You may be able to add some landscaping over on the side and potentially a little bit in front of the ADU. (Chu: Maybe we could add some landscaping on the side along the driveway .) Yes, something so that it won’t seem barren and hard. (Chu: Ok, I agree.) >Is it correct that your driveway is 10 feet wide? (Chu: Correct.) You might be able to introduce a planting strip along the driveway just to soften that edge. I agree that there is a way to look at all the hardscape to add a tree and planting areas to help in that issue. (Chu: Definitely. Thank you.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There are two things that I am uneasy about, one is the standing seam metal roof. It is not a good material for fitting in with the neighborhoods in Burlingame, especially when it becomes very prominent, which is evident on the left and right side elevations. That is a very significant amount of metal roof exposed. I don’t like it and it is the wrong material in almost every neighborhood in the City. Even if I can support that, I cannot support the big stair window four feet from the property line. It has become prevalent in Burlingame and it is a big mistake in my view. It means someone will be going up and down the stairs while looking directly down at the backyard and windows of the neighbor. These are the two concerns I have of the design as it stands. >I have the same comments as my fellow commissioners regarding the landscape, there is a lot of hardscape back there and I'd like to see a little bit softer side to that. Otherwise, I can support the project. >I agree with my fellow commissioner about the metal roofs. One of the issues that was brought up before is the fact that this is a 7:12 roof pitch. There will be a lot of metal siding exposed. It is not like Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes this is a low sloping roof that will disappear, it will have prominence. Particularly, in the Easton Addition area, it is quite an aberration relative to the neighborhood context. I do have some difficulty with that material. Otherwise, the house is well crafted, nicely massed and I don’t see any other issues. >I want to circle back into the roof slope. It is bothersome, specifically on the right side elevation where it is very prominent and the 7:12 slope is a little bit too much. Vice-Chair Terrones 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 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.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. (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. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Michael Mzwiefel and Jesse Jones, Basecamp Fitness, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >In the application for relocating the business, there is a statement that you anticipate a maximum of 55 occupants at any one time including employees, customers, owners, etc. How does that compare with the existing operation? Is that the maximum you are at now or are you expanding a little bit? (Jones: Our existing Conditional Use Permit notes 45 or 48 occupants. This is a slight capacity increase as most of our classes have a high utilization.) >The new space is 4,586 square feet. How many square feet are you operating in now including the second floor? (Jones: I think it's around 3,800 square feet.) So this would be an increase in area that you will be using. >Some time ago, we talked about parking because some of the businesses in the area were having issues with the early morning parking. I assume that the parking plan you implemented, with having members park across the street at the Caltrain station has been working? Would that policy carry over to this space? (Jones: We had worked with that tenant due to the construction project next door. The street parking was significantly impacted during the construction. Since then, the parking capacity has increased back to pre-construction conditions. So, for us to put out sandwich board signs and not ask our members to not park directly in front of our business won't be our policy, because the parking capacity has gone Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes back to pre-construction conditions.) >I wanted to follow up on the question about the exterior lighting. Are the wall sconces down fixture only? (Mzwiefel: Down fixture only to control the light and they don't have light pollution.) Have you done a lighting study, do you know what the scallop looks like on the wall? What are you trying to achieve and would you consider relocating those fixtures slightly to address the comment by Jennifer Pfaff about the existing tiles on the wall? (Mzwiefel: With the light fixture, we want to bring those down in between the glass. We have them on the outside so they're not shining on the glass. Currently, what we're proposing is to get them positioned so they'll accentuate the column between the glass openings.) It seems like a pretty easy fix. >On the existing elevation, your drawing shows metal transom windows but those are in fact wood, are they not? (Mzwiefel: Right now, there are a combination of things that are boarded up there. There is some wood frame and potentially some metal frame as well. The current condition is in disrepair.) When visiting the site today, they looked like all wood. The ones I was looking at didn't look that bad, but you're intending to go all metal on the whole building. I see the look you're going after, so those would be removed? (Mzwiefel: Yes. This is something that's a little more commercially sound and we get the new energy glass in there as well.) >Can you provide a sample of the perforated metal panels painted blue? I'm not sure what that's going to look like. (Mzwiefel: Yes, we can get you a sample of that. It's that expanded metal piece that has the perforation, and it's meant to fill that space and give a little bit of interest.) Is the halo lighting surrounding it like an alley strip light around the perimeter? (Mzwiefel: Yes, just to create a little bit of back lighting behind the panel to create interest, and you'll see that lighting through the perforation.) I was concerned because it doesn't seem that deep. If you can give us a detail and sample, that would be great. (Mzwiefel: Yes, we can face those LED strips down so they're not facing out, that's the intent. So they would surround the perimeter and face one another, and create a soft glow and the panel hides that.) Public Comments: >Jennifer Pfaff, email submitted to publiccomment@burlingame .org - Dear Planning Commissioners: I noticed 251 is going to be reviewed again, and remembered its first review from 2018…long before the most recent review, in May 2019. A storefront redesign was submitted in 2018. At the time, it was noted that the design omitted the original checkered pattern tiles above the storefront. As far as I can recall, at that meeting, the Planning Commissioners suggested the tiles would be nice to retain, as they were intact, and an example simple storefront embellishment of long ago. The design did not come back for review until May 2019, this time by Randy Grange. When Randy Grange ended up redesigning the next iteration he made sure to incorporate the original tiles into the storefront, which you will note in the 2019 plans. I mention this only because I appears that this submission, which I find very attractive, unfortunately calls for removal of the original checkered tiles, which I think that would be a shame. I realize there have the canned lights in mind, but wonder if they could be repositioned a few inches, while leaving the tiles in place. Thank you for your consideration. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >With the interest that has been discussed, this would be a good project and reinvigorate that facade and that face, so I'm much in support of it. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, 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:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021 February 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that at the February 16, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council adopted the Ordinance to regulate commercial cannabis activity and a Resolution limiting the number of fixed location non-storefront cannabis retail delivery business operator permits that may be issued to four permits . Interim City Attorney Spansail noted that City Council also adopted the Development Agreement for the Post Office Project at 220 Park Road. a.1906 Easton Drive - FYI for review of revisions to mechanical equipment for a previously approved Design Review project. 1906 Easton Dr - Memo 1906 Easton Dr - Attachments 1906 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Commissioner noted the following: >Need to discuss the height interpretation. >Would like to see a summary of what required landscaping, based on the original approval, has been installed. >Mechanical units are very visible – need to discuss. >Stick-on window muntins that have been installed on front windows are peeling off. b.1457 Bernal Avenue - FYI for proposed exterior changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1457 Bernal Ave - Memo 1457 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Commissioner noted: >Was under the impression from the last meeting that the right side elevation was going to be built as per the originally approved plans. Was surprised to see this project return with an FYI request for additional changes. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on February 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 March 4, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021