Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.12.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, December 10, 2012 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the December 10, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Davis, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the November 26, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 2; seventh bullet, add "to the Planning Division" between "amendment" and "with" ■ Page 2; eighth bullet, add "s" to "response" and replace second "response" with "comments" ■ Page 3; third bullet, add "There was also a change in the floor height." ■ Page 15; Item 5; Questions of staff,- first bullet, add "existing" between "no" and "building". Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent 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 1. 2109 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES EXISTING ON SITE (FROM A TWO -CAR GARAGE TO A ONE -CAR GARAGE) FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL (WILLIAM PASHELINSKY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SEAN AND ELAINE BRENNAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated December 10, 2012. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 Commission comments: ■ Clarified that the only matter to be discussed is the special permit for parking reduction, not the design of the project. The special permit addresses only mass and bulk. ■ Can support the application since it reduces the face -print of the garage. • Are also removing concrete and improving landscaping. ■ It appears that vinyl windows are being installed; would like to see samples. (Meeker — cannot request samples as this is not a design review application.) ■ Why the angle into the lot; is the curb -cut being changed? It was noted that this is explained in the letter from the designer. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when the comments have been addressed. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. 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. Commissioner Sargent noted that he listened to the recording regarding the discussion of Agenda Item 4a and feels that he can vote on the matter. Chair Gaul asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 1444 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (PIZZERIA DELFINA) AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CRAIG & ANNE STOLL, DELFINA RESTAURANT GROUP, APPLICANT; DOUGLAS BURNHAM, ENVELOPE A+ D, ARCHITECT; DOROTHY WURLITZER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2b. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2013 — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7: 09 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1217 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (SCOTT AND ANA GIESE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LI-SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 10, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. He also noted that all Commissioners had visited the site. Li-Sheng Fu, Fremont; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Believes the changes that have been made have improved the project. ■ The front steps at then entry are a bit awkward — may wish to extend the steps beyond the opening to permit the wood casing to stop at the top of the steps and will allow the steps to be a bit wider. ■ In the gable ends, would prefer wood rather than stucco. ■ Likes the entry and the brick elements; have done a great job on the house. ■ Fits with the neighborhood. ■ Appreciated the applicant listening to the comments of the Commission. Public comments: None. Additional Commission comments: Are they limited to the manufacturer since it is called out on the windows? (Stroh meier—at the time of inspection, staff confirms that the style, placement and materials match the approved plans; the manufacturer cannot be specified by the City.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 29, 2012, sheets A-1 through L-1 and Survey Diagram; 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 September 24, 2012 memo, the Chief Building Official's November 2 and August 31, 2012 memos, the Parks Supervisor's November 14, November 6 and September 13, 2012 memos, the Fire Marshal's September 13, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's August 31, 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; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 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; 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 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; 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 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; 14. 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 15. 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. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion: Commissioner Sargent noted that he had listened to the recording from the prior discussion. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 4 (2843 Adeline Drive) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 4. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR AS - BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, 3'/2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (ALEX MORTAZAVI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 10, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Since the deck condition was imposed directly by the City Council, does the Commission have jurisdiction over a change to that condition? (Guinan — if a change to that condition is made, then the matter would be referred to the City Council as a recommendation. If the Commission does not agree to the change, then the Commission retains full approval authority.) Vice -Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, Burlingame; represented the applicant. ■ Described the history of the project. ■ Reminded the Commission that most properties in the area are outside of the City's jurisdiction and are subject to the County of San Mateo's more relaxed standards. ■ There is only a single neighbor that has been opposed to the project and raising objections in the past. ■ The neighbor has agreed to the changes as of late today. ■ Noted all of the upgraded, high -end materials used in the construction. ■ The reduction in the size of the deck was a point of discussion because it is over a living space. In order to prevent leakage, the deck is constructed with a patented, pre -fabricated system. If built according to the conditions, would have resulted in an area of half deck, half tar and gravel; the deck and drainage installation requires it to be installed at the edge of the building — any other installation that would have complied with the condition of approval would result in a waterproofing nightmare. ■ The neighbor is interested in privacy at the edge of the property — have worked out an agreement with the neighbors regarding additional landscaping. ■ Noted other encroachments from the neighbor's property into the development site. ■ All other changes are very minor. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 Commission comments: ■ Thanked the applicant for the explanation of the reasons for the changes. ■ Noted that in a meeting with the neighbor it appears that he is satisfied with the solutions. ■ Is supportive of the application. ■ Noted that he met with the applicant at the property today; the home is beautiful. ■ The design is done very tastefully. ■ Not certain the deck is a simple privacy issue; would be looking into the same area regardless of the size. There will be planter boxes placed in the area to preserve privacy. Glass is obscured to retain privacy. ■ Would have liked the changes presented to the Commission in advance of the changes being made, but feels the changes are approvable. ■ Noted that the deck is visible, but only because the landscaping has not yet matured. ■ Is a bit difficult to react to the request for the deck change, since the Commission did not impose it. ■ Feels that the deck issue must be taken on its own merit, absent a written agreement in front of the Commission. ■ Is concerned about the neighbors' objections, because the neighbor doesn't live within the City boundaries. ■ Appreciative that the applicant has worked with the neighbors. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the application with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 28, 2012, building elevation drawings, date stamped January 27, 2009, sheets A02 through A09, and date stamped December 2, 2008, sheets A00 through A01 c, Al 0 through Al and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; 2. that tree protection measures shall be implemented for the Oak tree across the street from the property (near 2838 Adeline Drive) during project construction; to the satisfaction of the CityArborist; 3. that the planting plan for the trees to be located along the left side of the structure shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to issuance of a Building Permit; 4. 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); 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 measures as defined in the arborist report by Peninsula Tree Care Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department on June 30, 2008; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 2, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's July 22, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 7, 2008 memo, the CityArborist's July 30, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 7, 2008 memo shall be met; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 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 15. 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; 16. 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; 17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: Doesn't believe that the non -Burlingame neighbor should weigh-in on the issue. Vice- Chair A uran called fora voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Gaul recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:59 p.m. Chair Gaul returned to the dais. 5. 2301 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE FROM STORAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (TIM RADUENZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PHILOMENA TERRY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report dated December 10, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ Everything that the original property owner built was done legally with permits. ■ The construction has been on the property for forty years. ■ Noted that a City Council member at the time had issues with Bud Terry. ■ Clarified the application contents. ■ There is a problem in the City records; it does not document the fight between Ery Amstrup and Bud Terry. ■ Requested clarification of what is being discussed as part of the applicant's request. (Meeker — provided a description of the matter.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Burlingame; represented the applicant. ■ Clarified how the matter was brought to the Commission. ■ When Bud Terry passed; his widow needed assistance, so their daughter and two grandsons moved into the house. ■ It is known that the process should have been followed; the applicant was acting from his concern regarding his mother. ■ Seeking approval for the conversion of the storage space into an accessory living structure. ■ Accessory living space is different from a secondary dwelling unit; explained the difference. ■ The purpose of an accessory living space is to expand living space so the family can live together. 0 Seek approval of the conversion as requested. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 ■ Not a big space; not expanding the existing garage in any way. ■ The objection from the neighbor is the potential for an invasion of privacy due to the proximity of the structure to the neighbor's property. ■ Can attempt to mitigate these impacts through window removal and installation of additional landscaping; though this will leave a relatively large, blank wall on the side facing the neighbor. Suggested allowing opaque windows to be installed and have also proposed a green -screen. ■ Noted that a tree -house had been erected behind the garage, and found a diary from the late Bud Terry regarding the history of the tree -house; it was built with his grandsons as an introduction to construction, to show pride in construction and to demonstrate that when you begin a project, you follow through. ■ Noted a journal entry that indicated that a City inspector visited the property to investigate construction without a permit. According to the diary, the City inspector at the time found that a permit wasn't required. However, as a condition of approval, the family is willing to remove the tree - house. ■ Have a legal second -floor for certain uses; accessory living space is allowed with the conditional use permit. ■ There are conditions suggested that can address the neighbors' concerns and meet the definitions in the Municipal Code. ■ Approval will allow the extended family to remain together. Commission comments: Is it the applicant's intention to remove the playhouse if the project is not approved? (Hudak — is likely being removed anyway, but it may be able to be permitted.) Are their views into the neighbor's property from the play house? (Hudak — likely, but not certain.) Public comments: Meredith Thacker, Burlingame; Roy Ludwell, Burlingame; John Quilici, Burlingame; spoke: ■ Have been involved in discussions regarding this project since September; are not in favor of the project (referenced letters submitted previously). ■ Are shocked at the number of projects that have occurred without permits over the course of the past 40-years. ■ Were assured when they bought their home that the second -floor space was rarely used (the selling agent was the applicant). ■ The space could still be rented out to non -family members pursuant to the Municipal Code. ■ Both City and State codes prohibit restricting rentals. ■ This change will lower their property value due to its close proximity to their property. ■ The daughter made a decision to sell a four -bedroom home to move into this property. ■ The applicant has good ideas for reducing the negative impacts upon their property, but this doesn't change the opposition to the use of the space. ■ Should only be allowed to use it for storage. ■ Would the Commissioners want it next to their homes? (Commissioner — indicated that the space was always used as Bud Terry's office from the outset.) There was never any use of it during the 2 '/2 years they have owned their property. ■ Disagrees with the comments from the Commissioner that everything Bud Terry did was legal; he appeared before the Commission previously after illegal work was done. ■ The play structure was built without a permit; believes it is more of an observation deck — he witnessed the City inspector visiting the property to investigate the construction of the play structure. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 ■ Bud Terry always worked near the front door of the house; never saw evidence that he worked in the second -floor of the accessory structure. ■ Have visited the property several times over the last few days; agrees with Thacker's concerns regarding privacy. ■ There is a narrow passage -way between the Terry building and the Thacker property; anyone wishing to access the second -story must traverse this narrow area. ■ The second -story of the Thacker property is only seven feet from the structure. Additional comments from applicant: ■ The Thackers noted that they were advised of the presence of the space that could be used periodically. ■ Must be aware that over time things could change — it is not fixed for all time. ■ May not be converted into rental space. ■ Clear that the neighbors watch activity in the area; likely that if the space were used illegally in the future, then someone would call Code Enforcement. ■ When individuals enter the building, most go around the pool to get into the property; this minimizes impacts upon the neighbors. ■ Have addressed privacy issues as best as they can. ■ Requested approval. More Commission comments: ■ Noted that the plans show that the access to the structure is from the left side; is this correct? (Hudak — as a practical matter, people usually enter from the right.) ■ If the side -yard is turned more into a landscaped area, then there would be no way to use that as the route to the space. (Hudak — confirmed that screening is proposed on that side as well.) ■ Noted that the proposed elevation shows a gate on the left side; this could be made a wall. ■ On the as -built drawings, are they accurate regarding the structural members and the manner of construction? (Hudak — confirmed with project architect.) ■ Concerned that the construction may not pass today's standards. ■ There don't appear to be any sheer walls. ■ Difficult to conceive of people living in the space, since it appears that the structure may not comply with today's codes. (Meeker — noted that the Building Division will ensure that, if approved, the construction will comply with applicable codes.) ■ Leave it up to the building department to determine if the windows should be removed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission discussion: ■ Has a number of problems with the project; every step of the project has been problematic with construction occurring after the fact. ■ The home is quite large. ■ Had a discussion during the study session regarding what constitutes a kitchen; however, there are a lot of people that can live in conditions without a permanent cooking facility. ■ Considers this an invasion of the neighbor's privacy. ■ It wouldn't take much to turn the hobby and storage area into a kitchen and have the space become a secondary dwelling unit, even though extended family members would be living in the space. ■ Referenced lack of compliance with current standards. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 ■ There is an option to remove all windows along the left side, remove access along the left side and add planting in the area to fully screen the structure from the neighbor. ■ Clarified that the Commission is focused on the changes in use. ■ Disagrees that an entire new application is necessary to impose changes that enhance privacy. ■ Impacts are: privacy (handle with screening, etc.) and noise (access and people in the space). ■ The privacy portion can be mitigated through conditions. ■ The issue becomes more of a noise matter. ■ Can approve the application with conditions related to the privacy issues. ■ The neighbor knew the property could be used for another purpose — the noise issue is key. ■ Agrees that privacy and noise are the concerns; is not comfortable making the necessary findings in support of the conditional use permit with those outstanding concerns. ■ The building was built according to approved plans. ■ Viewed the accessory structure from the neighbor's property; it is really close — if he lived in the neighbor's home, then he would feel the presence of the people in the space above the garage. ■ Noted that the setbacks could be modified in a manner (e.g. landscaping, etc.) that prohibits passage through the area, while minimizing impacts upon the neighbor. ■ The impact upon the neighbors is exacerbated by the lesser setback from the neighbors. ■ Doesn't feel that the full impacts of the structure can be mitigated. ■ Wants to approve the requests. Everything that the property owners have done is legal. Commissioner Auran 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 and date stamped November 29, 2012; 2. that the 'tree house' accessory structure at the rear, left corner of the lot shall be demolished; the property owner shall be responsible for all necessary permits from the City of Burlingame, Department of Fish and Game, and the Army Corps of Engineers for any of the work that is conducted in the creek and sewer easements; 3. that the accessory living quarters above the detached garage shall only include two bedrooms, a bathroom, a living room and a hobby room; any changes to the use of these rooms shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit; 4. that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen with a permanent cooking fixture, as this would change the use of the accessory structure to a second dwelling unit, and the accessory structure shall never be used for living purposes as a second dwelling unit; 5. that if the accessory structure is demolished, the envelope changed at a later date, or should the use in the structure change, the conditional use permit may require an amendment or may become void; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 4, 2012, and September 27, 2012, memos, the NPDES Coordinator's September 9, 2012, memo, the City Engineer's September 24, 2012, memo, and the Fire Marshal's, August 31, 2012, memo shall be met; 7. that demolition or 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; II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 8. 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 9. 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: The neighbor can install landscaping to mitigate the impacts. Suggested removal of the windows, removal of gate, installation of green screen, removal of play house, and access to the space should be from the right side of the property. Not certain that the green screen is the best solution — suggested removing this element, and requiring dense vegetation in place of the green -screen. Chair Gaul called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 2-5-0-0 (Commissioners Yie, Sargent, Gaul, Davis and Terrones opposed). Commissioner Terrones moved to deny the applicant's request without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Chair Gaul called for a roll -call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion carried 5-2-0-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Auran opposed). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:54 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 6 (2608 Hillside Drive) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 6. 2608 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRET BOTTARINI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 10, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, Burlingame and Brett Bottarini, Burlingame; represented the applicant. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 Commission comments: ■ Questioned the material used on the attic vents — wants to see wood. (Bottarini — wanted to keep the character of the neighborhood — will be painted wood.) ■ Questioned window trim details. (Bottarini — will be stucco mold with heavy wood trim.) ■ Is there a way to bring down the plate -height of the second floor; it feels a bit too tall, out of proportion. (Bottarini — Tried to match the pitch of the garage.) ■ Why is the garage remaining? (Bottarini — has been modified in the past and is in good shape.) ■ Asked for the garage door to be shown on the plans. ■ Asked for an improved roof on the garage. (Bottarini — are reluctant to touch the garage now, but want to keep the improvements separate from the new home construction.) ■ The nine -foot plate height for the first and second floors is too high. ■ On the side elevations, the carve -outs look like attempts to maximize floor area and are not the best scale and detailing. Takes a bit more effort to make the massing work. ■ Sides and front need a bit more work. ■ Consider French doors leading to the guest room. (Bottarini — tried to design an area where chairs could be placed on the front porch, but doors would limit placement. Prefers leaving the porch as a sitting area.) ■ With respect to the fireplace on the side; consider making it look more a part of the house by lifting it up to the belly -band. (Bottarini — are trying to minimize impacts upon the windows on the elevation.) ■ Feels the front elevation is done well, but the sides are a bit flat. ■ The side elevations are more visible because the lot is sloped. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. 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- 1 (Commissioner Sargent recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p. M. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 10, 2012 XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ City Council regular meeting December 3, 2012 — no actions to report. FYI: 1821 Ashton Avenue - review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Landscaping changes were accepted; however, if the stone changes continue to be proposed, that matter should come back as an amendment to the design review approval. FYI: 1344 Paloma Avenue — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — November, 2012: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 14