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