Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.08.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, August 22, 2011 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the August 22, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones. Cauchi, Gaul and Yie Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2011 and August 8, 2011 regular meetings of the Planning Commission, as submitted. July 11, 2011 Minutes - motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioners Cauchi and Lindstrom abstained). August 8, 2011 Minutes - motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioners Cauchi and Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. 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. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 1 a (620 Airport Boulevard) was removed from the Consent Calendar by Commissioner Yie. There were no other remaining consent calendar items. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1a. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA — APPLICATION TO RENEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AS AN INTERIM USE (PAUL SALISBURY, APPLICANT; DEMATTEI WONG ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; AND BOCA LAKE OFFICE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-one (21) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ Asked who is responsible for tracking the expiration dates of conditional use permits like this? (Meeker — noted that staff typically provides notice to the applicant that the term of the permit is approaching expiration, though the ultimate responsibility lies with the applicant to apply for an extension prior to the expiration date of the permit.) ■ Are there any fees that the City would need to collect? (Meeker — noted that fees are usually collected for airport parking facilities — fees for this property would have continued to have been collected even though the expiration date of the permit has passed.) ■ Are approvals for all airport parking lots limited to five years? (Meeker — yes, this is a restriction placed by the zoning ordinance upon such uses to ensure that they are "temporary" in nature.) ■ Want to encourage development of the property, not the long-term use of the property as airport parking. ■ Noted that the plans for the property date back to 2004-05 and that the use has not changed since then. There is nothing encouraging the property owner to do anything else with the property — the airport parking use may be extended by the City every five years. ■ Asked if the term of the extension could be based upon the 2009 expiration date; essentially a term of three additional years from today? (Meeker — yes, this could be done.) ■ The City needs to provide the property owner the opportunity to earn money on the property until the economy improves. The property owner may eventually build a hotel on the property when conditions improve and he can afford to do so. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Paul Salisbury, 1555 Bayshore Highway; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Clarified that the primary interest in removing the item from the consent calendar was to determine who is ultimately responsible for bringing the matter before the Planning Commission in advance of the expiration date. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the permit extension being from today's date, with the following conditions: that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 22, 2004, sheet Sk.1 a and date stamped September 2, 2003, sheet Sk.2a and date stamped August 17, 2011, sheets AO. 1, Al. 1, L3 and L4; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 30, 2003, memo and the City Arborist's June 17, 2004, memo shall be met, which includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia spaced four feet apart, with proper irrigation, in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard; 3. that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters twice each year as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 — April 1) and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance; 4. that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with a maximum of 350 parking spaces, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site nor shall the use of any number of parking spaces be contracted to a single user or corporation without amendment of this use permit; 5. that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for any on -site flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problems; 6. that the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a building or grading permit for this project; 7. that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved landscape design; 8. that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on i6ine 29 20no September 1, 2016 (5 years); 9. that the parking lot lighting shall be energy efficient to the extent feasible to provide adequate light for customer safety; 10. that the applicant shall work with the City to establish an agreement regarding how the parking tax is collected if the parking spaces are used in association with a park and fly hotel room or other promotion program in association with the adjacent hotel or any office, hotel or other use; 11. that prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City's NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator; the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; 12. that if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find; accidental discovery of 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find; 13. that if human remains are encountered during project construction, the San Mateo County Coroner's Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's "most likely descendant" who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present; 14. that a site -specific, design -level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued; 15. that the project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-term water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine service schedule, specific maintenance activities, and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, the project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment, proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles; 16. that during operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris that may accumulate on the project site; 17. that order to maintain the existing on -site well for potential use for any future long-term development on the project site, the well head elevation shall be modified if needed in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and a new well vault shall be installed in accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and prevent potential damage to the well casing; 18. that the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise -sensitive times of the day and week (Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; none on Sunday and holidays); 121 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 19. that the applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine -driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non -impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet; 20. that applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use; and 21. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Noted that the larger discussion that needs to occur is the types of uses that should be permitted to the east of Highway 101 in order to encourage development. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. 2. 1629 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUB -STANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (BRIAN PRICE, DESIGNER; DAN PRICE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Need to change this type of parking variance to a conditional use permit or special permit. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Brian Price, 925 Church Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Did the applicant consider extending the porch across the front? (Price — attempted to maintain everything "as -is" on the ground level as much as possible.) Noted that this is a prime opportunity to extend the porch and make it a more useable area. (Price — the applicant may have chosen not to do so in order to preserve Japanese maple trees in the front -yard area.) Noted that the entire front -yard is nicely landscaped; is torn on the desire to expand the porch. Still concerned regarding detailing — there is still a high brow area above the second level — there is an opportunity to install larger windows in the area above the play room; need to reconsider this element of the design — there is a lot of stucco present in this area. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 ■ If approved, a builder may decide to place barge rafters at the gable ends that would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood — need to articulate the fascia so that the eave is more appropriately scaled on the drawings. ■ Noted that the applicant is proposing very little construction on the ground floor — expanding the porch would add to the construction cost; the existing landscaping enhances the area. ■ Agrees with comments regarding the windows on the second floor — consider installing larger windows and/or grouping them together. (Price —the applicant wants to preserve the opportunity to construct a new demising wall in the interior in the future — alterations to the window placement may restrict this possibility. Have kept the windows smaller because of the amount of window area on the rear.) ■ Noted that the existing windows have snap -in grids; the addition includes simulated, true divided - light windows (wood window, aluminum -clad) — perhaps consider replacing the windows on the front of the house to match those installed in the addition. ■ The porch looks incomplete — consider a means of enhancing this area. ■ Appreciated the changes that have been made. ■ Will the attic vent be wood? (Price — yes.) ■ Noted that a lot of energy is being put into the design at the rear — a bit more effort needs to be put into the design of the front elevation. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the project, with direction to the applicant as noted in the discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 3. 25 INGOLD ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FLIGHT SIMULATOR TRAINING (CORY COVINGTON, VIRGIN AMERICAN, APPLICANT; DES ARCHTECTS + ENGINEERS, DESIGNER; SUSAN LAMBERTSON TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Cory Covington, 555 Airport Boulevard and Elke MacGregor, 399 Bradford Street, Redwood City; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Asked if the location for the mechanical equipment was the only location that would work? (Covington — yes, considered all options.) ■ Will pilots from other airlines be trained at the location? (Covington — only for Virgin America pilots currently; but perhaps in the future.) ■ Is the only portion of the roof to be raised in the area above the simulator? (MacGregor— described the limited area that will be raised to accommodate the equipment. There will be little visual impact.) ■ The variance is supportable, given the odd configuration of the property — the mechanical equipment is actually to be installed in an area that might better be described as a side -yard. ■ Will there be any screening installed around the equipment? (MacGregor/Covington — two parking stalls will be moved; there is existing landscaping in the vicinity. No additional screening is proposed.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the office and training facility shall be limited to approximately 22,150 SF of the existing office/warehouse building at 25 Ingold Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 9, sheets G0.01 through A3.01; 2. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to a flight simulator training facility and shall become void if the space is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3. that the office and training facility be open Monday to Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of eight full-time employees and 20 part-time employees; and that one person will be on - site 24 hours per day, seven days a week for security and maintenance purposes; 4. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 29 persons, including all employees, pilots and instructors; 5. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees, pilots or instructors, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 6. that the applicant shall utilize a 12 person van for the purpose of transporting students and instructors between headquarters and this training facility; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 11, 2011 and July 8, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's July 11, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's July 11, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 July 6, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's July 5, 2011 memo shall be met; 8. 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; 9. 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 10. 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 4. 235 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FULL -SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (PIZZA MY HEART) (MICHAEL GEORGE, APPLICANT, APPLICANT; JEFFERY FINSAND, ARCHITECT; PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Is the prohibition on delivery a standard condition? (Strohmeier—yes, it is a standard condition for food establishments.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Michael George, 16222 Shannon Road, Los Gatos; represented the applicant. Commission comments: How many pizza delivery vehicles will be present? (George — during the week, one driver; on week- ends perhaps three drivers.) Encouraged the drivers to use the Safeway parking lot for loading. Asked if parking for the delivery vehicles was accounted for in the parking? (Meeker — noted that excess parking exists on the site. The majority of the tenant spaces in the project have been spoken for.) Public comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 April 28, 2011, sheets T-1 through A-9; 2. that this business location to be occupied by a full -service food establishment, with 850 SF of seating area, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment, and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 3. that the 850 SF area of on -site seating of the full -service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 6. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 7. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 8. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 9. that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 17, 2011 and August 6, 2010 memos, the Chief Building Official's April 21, 2011, March 15, 2011 and July 23, 2010 memos, the Parks Supervisor's March 15, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 16, 2011 and July 26, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 26, 2010 memo shall be met; and 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2010 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1480 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW CANOPY AND CONVENIENCE STORE AT A GAS STATION (ROGER ABUYAGHI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KATHLEEN WARMAN, WARMAN ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 22, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Noted that the parking variance is no longer required — the spaces at the pumps may be counted towards the parking requirement, resulting in 11 spaces being provided where 7 spaces are required. Questions of staff: What are the hours for the sale of alcohol at the existing service station and for the convenience store? (Strohmeier — will need to ask the applicant.) Asked if the alcohol sales were restricted with adoption of the finding of public convenience and necessity? (Meeker — hours restrictions for alcohol sales are the purview of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.) Chair Yie opened the public comment period. John Campanile (no address provided) and Roger Abuyaghi, 1480 Broadway; represented the applicant. Hours are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Are not wishing to change the hours for beer and wine sales. Commission comments: ■ Include a diagram showing how vehicles will enter and exit the property. Will exit to El Camino be right -turn only? (Campanile — not certain that turning from El Camino Real would be legal; will be determined by CalTrans.) ■ What is the setback of the existing canopy? (Campanile — not 20-feet, but not certain of the actual measurement. The new canopy will be a bit less intrusive since it will be angled on the site.) ■ Is there more detail that can be provided relative to the corner element (the monument sign)? More landscaping? (Campanile — will have the same stone as on the bottom of the building. Can provide more detail.) ■ Asked if notice was provided to tenants in the area? (Meeker/Strohmeier — notices were sent to property owners within 300-feet of the property, not tenants. Notices will be sent again prior to the action hearing.) ■ The design of the building is completely unacceptable — no problem with the use. The building could be turned and made longer, brought up to Broadway. The building needs to be respectful of the other buildings present on Broadway. Bringing the typical 7-11 architecture to the site is not what the Commission is looking for — needs to be respectful of the character of the area. Could design a nice commercial building — the design must adhere to the City's design guidelines. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 ■ There is support for the variances given the nature of the use. ■ No problem with the hours of operation and alcohol sales. ■ One of the biggest concerns is circulation into and out of the property. People will also access the site from El Camino Real. ■ Noted that the proposed convenience store is actually a more intense use than currently exists. Need to provide a more convincing argument in support of the conditional use permit. ■ The building does not add positively to the streetscape. ■ Doesn't support a "cookie -cutter" design approach for the building. ■ Have other options been explored for siting? (Campanile — this was the best design for the best flow for the site. The feedback provided this evening will inform further modifications to the design. Want to make it easier to use the site.) ■ Need to look at traffic flow from every direction. ■ Referenced the design of the new Walgreen's store on Burlingame Avenue — is a good example of how a new building was designed to fit into the area. Public comments: Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway; David Hinckle, 1399 Broadway; and Denise Groebner, 1126 Laguna Avenue; spoke: ■ Expressed views of the Broadway Business Improvement District — have concerns regarding the proposed use. ■ Concerned that additional crime and litter problems may be brought to the area by the use. ■ The use does not bring anything new to Broadway — asked that the use not be approved. ■ None of the merchants in the area received notification of the requests — notice was not passed along to the tenants — need to know what is happening on Broadway. ■ Asked for a traffic report and an environmental impact report. ■ Requested improvements to the sidewalks and limits upon the driveways — not a full driveway on all sides of the property. ■ Objects to the potential increases in traffic — is challenging to get into and out of the site. Was not anticipating the expansion of the use when the project last appeared before the Commission. ■ There is a 7-11 at the Highway 101 entry less than a half -mile away — don't need another one. ■ Don't need another alcohol outlet. ■ Doesn't feel the use will add anything to the neighborhood. Additional applicant comments: Mike Abuyaghi and Roger Abuyaghi, 1480 Broadway; spoke Having difficulty keeping the revenue flowing so that the business can remain in operation. Want to do something good for the area —are also area residents. (Commissioner— is an awkward site for vehicle maneuvers.) Don't want to add to traffic congestion to the area — will work with the design to find a way to make it work. (Commissioners — could be more appropriate to limit access to the site. There may be a possibility for bringing the store out to the corner— may be willing to consider a setback variance to allow this approach — it would also better define the ingress and egress to the site.) Additional Commission comments: II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 The site could be developed as a completely different use, for example retail with office space above. Should consider what the other possible uses may be appropriate for the site - not a great site for a service station. (Abuyaghi — were hoping to look at other uses further down the road.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Asked if noticing could be provided to the tenants in the area? (Meeker — could work with the Broadway Business Improvement District representative to provide noticing when the item appears on the agenda in the future.) Could also ask the Chamber of Commerce to assist. Doesn't see the need for another 24-hour operation at that location. Concerned about lighting and its potential impacts upon the neighboring residential uses Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Design Review Study agenda for further study when project revisions have been submitted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Design Review Study calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 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 August 15, 2011: Denied conditional use permit amendment and request for a finding of public convenience and necessity to allow a Type-20 ABC license at 1147 Rollins Road. Discussed a potential ban on the use of gas -powered leaf blowers — referred the matter to a City Council subcommittee for further discussions with the Bay Area Gardeners Association and the Citizen's Environmental Council. FYI: 1416 Cabrillo Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 22, 2011 Miscellaneous: City Attorney Guinan noted the October 5, 2011 study session at 6 p.m. in the Lane Room regarding wireless telecommunications. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 13