Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.09.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, September 10, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the September 10, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Approval of the August 27, 2012 Planning Commission minutes was held over until the September 24, 2012 meeting as the minutes were not completed in time for distribution as part of the packet. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ What is the status of the public art project at the hospital? ■ Doesn't believe that the City approved hospital parking along El Camino Real as part of the project approval? • Construction parking was allowed there during construction, but has now become permanent parking — it impacts the safety of bicycle riders in the area. Has taken the matter to the TSP Commission. ■ Doesn't believe that parking was approved on El Camino Real. ■ Whatever happened to the FAR study that was requested by the City Council at a joint meeting a couple of years ago? Will a report be generated at some point in the future? Suggested discussing basements as well. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 145 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LAURENCE P. AND LINDA DUGONI/GREGORY & GINA GAMBRIOLI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 27, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated September 10, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Why isn't the laundry being placed upstairs? A better location would be off the hallway upstairs. ■ The laundry room space on the first floor could better be used as a public space. ■ Could be unsightly at the front of the house and could defeat the purpose of having a nice porch. (Raduenz — there will be an option for this spec house to place the laundry upstairs. The ground floor room is intended more to be a mud room. Is centrally located to the stairs.) ■ Because the home is speculative, there is no real passion/connection to the design — there could be a lot of activity from people entering the home at the front — may have some utility as a mud room. (Raduenz — noted that there is a park next door to the property.) ■ The contractor does quality work — is comfortable with the floor plan. ■ Feels there could be a request from a buyer to install a laundry on the second floor. ■ Noted that the one fireplace in the rear doesn't have a chimney — there should be more definition because there is a fireplace present. Come up with a more creative means of articulating this feature. ■ Would like to see the roof pitch on the garage matched to the residence. The garage is an important element of the project design — encouraged different approaches to garage design. ■ Are seeing more secondary fireplaces that are not well designed and that look like a lump on the side of a house with a vent in it. ■ Could place the fireplace within the room to eliminate the bump -out. Would reduce the floor area slightly, but presents other opportunities for interior cabinetry flanking the fireplace. (Raduenz — likes the option, but want to keep options open. Will explore.) PA CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 20, 2012, sheet G1.0 and date stamped July 3, 2012, sheets T1.0, GN, GP, SP, AB, Boundary and Topographic Survey, A2.0 through A4.0, L1-0 and 1-2-0; 2. that if the secondary fireplace feature on the rear can be eliminated by placing the fireplace within the interior of the structure, then this exterior change can be approved by staff; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division's June 8, 2012 memo, the Engineering Division's June 14, 2012 memo, the Fire Division's June 5, 2012 memo, the Park Division's June 4, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Division's June 4, 2012 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; I] CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 Commissioner Sargent noted that he would need to recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (1440 Cabrillo Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 2. 1440 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 27, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated September 10, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, Burlingame; represented the applicant. All requests made by the Commission have been added to the plans. If the garage roof pitch were to be redesigned to match the home, a conditional use permit would be required. His client was adamantly opposed to building a false chimney at the rear of the house where the fireplace is located. Commission comments: ■ Continue to receive the same design solution for gas -fired fireplaces; would like to see other design solutions. ■ Would like to see alternate design solutions for garage roof pitches to better match the residence architecture even if a conditional use permit is required. ■ Noted that the second story appears to be in one plane; the roof over the main window reads as a bump -out; what is the purpose of the roof element? (Grange — is a trick to better define the window and make it appear symmetrical. The depth of the overhang is extended.) ■ Glad the chimney material was changed to brick. ■ With respect to the proposed columns on the front; were alternatives to the shingle finish explored? (Grange — this is a traditional feature of New England style homes.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Disappointed that the City Attorney is not present. ■ Feels the property owner acted prematurely to remove the tree from the property. ■ The right to appeal is not nullified by the lack of notice. ■ When was the tree removal permit issued; when was notice sent? ■ Feels that the neighbors' objection letter to the tree removal permit is a de -facto appeal letter to the tree removal. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 ■ Is important to know the date when the permit was issued. ■ Reminded the Commission of the prior project for which a deposit was required to ensure the viability of a Redwood grove on the property following development. ■ Why isn't the Commission looking into how and why the tree was removed? ■ Even though the tree was within the footprint of the building, the design approaches the maximum FAR and could accommodate a reduction to allow the tree to remain. ■ Can a stipulation be placed on the property to provide some punitive remedy for the premature tree removal? (Commissioners — the tree removal was warranted by the endangerment to the existing structure. Noted that the Commission did express outrage over the premature removal of the tree; but that the Parks and Recreation Department was relying upon the public notice process for design review. The permit was not conditioned upon approval of the design review process. Have encouraged refinements to the tree removal process to ensure that appeal procedures are preserved. The City Arborist has recommended additional, more substantial landscaping to compensate for the premature removal of the tree.) ■ Requested that when the staff packets are assembled, include a paragraph up front that speaks to the landscaping to be incorporated into the project. Make reference to permits for tree removal that are only effective upon approval of the project. (Commissioners — the tree removal permit was issued in July. The homeowner would have the right to remove the tree absent the project if it was impacting the existing residence. There should be some notice and right of appeal provided. The neighbor complaining about the tree removal lives two doors down from the project.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 29, 2012, sheets Al. 1 through A4.1, 1-1.0, 1-2.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 10, 2012 memo, the Chief Building Official's June 28, 2012 memo, the Parks Supervisor's June 28, 2012 memo and July 27, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 25, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 26, 2012 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ri"Trom Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 3. 824 COWAN ROAD, ZONED IB — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND ADD SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO AN EXISTING INCIDENTAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (MARC WORRALL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 10, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Marc Worrall, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Looks like the construction is moving along nicely — the business will be a nice addition. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner A uran moved to recommend approval of the application to the City Council with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 12, 2011, sheet Al; E3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 2. that the incidental food establishment may not be open for business except during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week and that any change to the hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 3. that the Conditional Use Permit to expand the hours of operation of an incidental food establishment shall apply only to the incidental food establishment and shall become void if it replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 21, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 2, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's April 25, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's April 26, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 21, 2011 memo shall be met; 5. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m. 4. 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED SL — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS, PARCEL 1 & PARCEL 2 (KEITH NOFIELD, KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC., APPLICANT; 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report dated September 10, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 Steve Topor, Rancho Cucamonga; represented the applicant. Commission comments: No changes are to be made to the existing site development. (Meeker — noted that the various variances are conditioned upon easement documents and other items to ensure that the site continues to function as it currently functions.) Would have liked to reviewed the cross access easement; wants to be sure that parking and access are both reciprocal. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend approval of the project to the City Council with the following amended conditions: that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 4, 2012 memo and Fire Marshal's June 25 and April 2, 2012 memos shall be met; 2. that developmental approvals are not part of this action; 3. that a cross access easement between Parcels 1 and 2, which shall include language regarding reciprocity for parking, access and circulation, shall be recorded on the title of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office and a copy of the recorded documents shall be sent to the City Engineer; 4. that the Tentative & Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office and a copy of the recorded document shall be sent to the City Engineer; 5. that provisions of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 22.20.020(b)(1) through (5) are recorded in form approved by the city attorney on the title of each of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel; 6. that if either of the structures on Parcels 1 or 2 is demolished, or the envelope changed at a later date, the variance(s) shall become void. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m. 5. 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE (JOHN MICHAEL, FITNESS PROPERTIES LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOEL CANTOR, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER AND VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report dated September 10, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Appears that this project goes along with the next action item — there has been a lot of work completed, possibly without permits. (Strohmeier — a lot of the work on the 1730 Rollins Road property has been done. An encroachment permit was issued for the driveway entrances on Rollins Road. No other permits have been issued for other work — permits should be required to ensure compliance with ADA and storm drainage requirements. Noted that the City Arborist requested that an irrigation plan be submitted with the permit plans.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Joel Cantor, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Owner indicated that the property was in poor repair and needed to proceed with work sooner rather than later. He was concerned that waiting too late to start could cause work to be done during the rainy season. (Commissioners — City frowns on conducting work without permits.) Commission comments: Feels the plan looks good; nothing to object to. Glad to see landscaping being added to the property. (Meeker — noted that the applicant could be required to remove some of the work that has been completed in order to address code compliance issues. Could impose additional permitting fees, etc. Strohmeier— the project has been reviewed by all various departments as part of the permit review process.) Parking behind 1730 Rollins Road — which property does it go with? (Cantor — a variance was granted for the property previously. Attempted previously to have the parking used for club parking, but it is on a separate parcel. Strohmeier — noted that the parking in the drainage easement is for use of both properties. Access is provided across both properties.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the conditions of the City Engineer's September4, 2012 memo shall be met; and that conditions from the Parks Supervisor's February 21, 2012 memo shall be met; 2. that developmental approvals are not part of this action; 3. that the proposed landscaping shall be installed and maintained as shown on the Landscape Plan, date stamped August 9, 2012, and that all proposed street trees along Rollins Road shall be irrigated by a bubbler irrigation system; 4. that all parking stalls and curb cuts shall be installed as shown on the Site Plan, date stamped August 9, 2012, and that a minimum of 42 parking stalls shall be maintained on 1730 Rollins Road; 5. that if the structure on 1730 Rollins Road is ever demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Landscape Variance shall become void; and 6. that the lot line adjustment shall be recorded with the property at the San Mateo County Recorder do Office and a copy of the recorded documents shall be sent to the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. 6. 1744 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE (TIM AND KELLY MANNING, APPLICANTS; WINGES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; FITNESS PROPERTIES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 10, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: If a problem arises with the conditional use permit and variances, then the Commission may revisit? (Strohmeier — yes.) Doesn't recall having the agglomeration of accesses to parking in all of the areas —the cross access situation didn't exist previously? (Strohmeier — agglomeration did not exist with previous approval, Commission had imposed conditions of approval for drop off and parking.) The cross access and parking easement should be included as a condition of approval. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Kelly Manning, Burlingame; represented the applicant. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 ■ The change of ownership of the properties opened the possibility to improve traffic flow. Commission comments: ■ How will parking for each use be controlled? (Manning — there will be a lot of parking on the property with the new configuration. Patrons at Sky High usually come in groups in one vehicle.) ■ Expressed concern that patrons at Prime Time will use the parking at 1744 Rollins Road. ■ When is most activity to occur? (Manning — mostly after school for Sky High; after 6 p.m. on weekdays and mid -day on week -ends for Prime Time. Birthday parties start at 11 a.m. on weekends, but mostly in the afternoon.) ■ Is the applicant still seeking a drop-off location on Rollins Road? (Manning — could look in to this, but the flow of traffic on site allows for better drop-off.) ■ There will be no egress at the rear? (Manning — correct.) ■ Will parking spaces be marked? (Manning — no, since all properties are owned by the same parties.) ■ If there is overlap in the timing of the businesses, then a lot of the spaces near Sky High will be taken by Prime Time users. May be a need for a drop-off location for Sky High patrons. ■ If the turnover is frequent enough, then there should be enough parking where desired. If the peaks do not correspond for each business, then it may not be problematic. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Given the single owner involved, then it is in their interest to make the parking and circulation work. ■ Be cognizant that the matter could come back to the Commission if it becomes problematic in the future. ■ The common property owner will want both businesses to be successful. ■ The businesses are a wonderful asset to the community. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the indoor trampoline facility shall be limited to 23,433 SF of commercial recreation space within the existing 30,596 SF commercial building at 1744 Rollins Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped July 27, 2012, sheets TS-1, Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Survey, Site Plan, Landscape Plan and A2.1 through A4.1; 2. that the reciprocal easements for the two parcels shall include language regarding reciprocity for parking, access and circulation; 3. that the applicant shall seek approval of a drop-off zone on Rollins Road from the City's Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, and if approved, shall implement the drop-off zone as a condition of this permit. Failure to receive approval of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission shall not invalidate the approvals granted herein by the Planning Commission; 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 4. that the proposed landscaping shall be installed and maintained as shown on the Landscape Plan, date stamped July 27, 2012, and that all proposed street trees along Rollins Road shall be irrigated by a bubbler irrigation system; 5. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variances shall apply only to an indoor trampoline facility and shall become void if the indoor trampoline facility ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 6. that all activities associated with the indoor trampoline facility shall occur indoor only; no portion of the exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the indoor trampoline facility; 7. that the indoor trampoline facility shall only be open seven days a week from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., with a maximum of two full-time employees and eleven part-time employees and a maximum of 150 people on -site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers; 8. that any changes to the floor area, use, or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 9. that the conditions of the Traffic Engineer's March 4, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's March 15, 2012 and December 22, 2009 memos, Chief Building Official's February 24, 2012, April 15, 2010, March 4, 2010 and December 23, 2009 memos, the Parks Supervisor's June 12, 2012, February 27, 2012, March 19, 2010 and January 4, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's February 27, 2012, March 4, 2010 and December 23, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 28, 2012 and December 22, 2009 memos shall be met; 10. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:24 p.m. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 307 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED BAC -APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (ASIAN BOX) AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (ASIAN BOX HOLDINGS, APPLICANT; TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, DESIGNER; JAMES P. MODISETTE TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 10, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Tim Raduenz, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Noted that a different architect will be designing the interior layout. Kept a lot of the original "Art Deco" building features. The tile element will continue to define the entry to the second floor office space. Commission comments: ■ Has consideration been given to mimicking the upper floor horizontal mullions present on the upper windows? Also likes the existing glass block below the windows on one side; could it be provided on both sides and backlit? Could also bring the two sides together. (Raduenz — the new windows will be operable/sliding in design. The aluminum frame will be encased to look like a wood -framed window to eliminate the aluminum storefront feel. Open to keeping the glass block, but will need to research to see if it exists on both sides. Not certain if there is existing glass block on the other side.) ■ Would like to see some of the details of the wood elements being added to the windows. ■ Intrigued by the idea of the horizontal mullions — not convinced that this element couldn't be included with a sliding window. These are defining elements. Without this design element, the first floor looks like a storefront that was added to the building. ■ Appreciates that the Art Deco elements are being retained. ■ Concerned about the alley that is not for use of this building; where will the trash cans be placed? (Raduenz — will need to review the survey when available to see where access is provided to the alley.) ■ How will the trash cans be moved to the street for collection? (Raduenz — the building is not very deep, the egress has been designed into the floor plan. There is the option of having the trash in the basement and brought up the street level.) ■ May the alley behind the building belong to this property? (Raduenz — Yes. Could reach an agreement to allow the trash to be brought out the side of the building.) The ownership of the buildings should get together to reach agreement regarding alley access. Public comments: 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 Frank Klein; Palo Alto (representing Asian Box); spoke: ■ Have several situations where there are shared trash areas between properties. ■ Are a very green restaurant — have nearly a 90% landfill diversion rate. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ None. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of September 4, 2012: ■ None. FYI: 1401 Burlingame Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Commercial Design review Project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 2600 Summit Drive — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — August, 2012: ■ Accepted. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 17