Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.09.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission; City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, September 25, 1989 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Graham, Harrison, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Giomi Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Allison Knapp Wollam, Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the September 11, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: page 15, item #9, third paragraph to read, "Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and approved on voice vote, Cer Jacobs dissenting." AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. CP Monroe introduced Allison Knapp Wollam, new Planner in the Planning Department who was welcomed by Chm. Ellis. ITEM FOR STUDY 1. VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS - 609 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: description of the existing house, number of rooms and description of rooms; how long has second unit been there, is the disposition of the second unit an enforcement matter; explain remodeling of the second unit; what effect does straightening out and extending the wall have on the property. Item set for public hearing October 10, 1989. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 25, 1989 ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION AT 1532 ALTURAS DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/25/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, findings necessary to grant a variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter in opposition dated September 25, 1989 from Jean Gorostiague, 1536 Alturas Drive was noted including his statement he understood his neighbor's need for the variance and would not object if the shed in the back yard were removed. C. Kelly stated he would abstain due to the proximity of his residence to the project site. Staff advised applicant was given the supplemental form for variance applications stating the necessary findings. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Joseph Marston, applicant, was present. He was surprised to hear of the neighbor's letter. He distributed photographs illustrating his contention there would be a very minimal impact on sunlight to his neighbor's yard and typewritten sheets addressing findings for a variance. Using these he discussed the project and findings. The home is a two bedroom house with corner slot on the right side, that is where the room will be added, it will be 16' wide; windows will be converted to a doorway and wall lines of the existing structure will be continued; adjacent properties do not have the same lot shape and have larger homes. Photograph 2 shows location of the proposed room, shadow does not go over the fence, extension of the wall line will not throw any additional shadow on the neighbor. Referring to the floor plan shown with the photographs applicant noted their need for more space due to an addition to the family. Photos show that the addition will not be detrimental to the neighbor, affect his view or light, there will be no effect on the neighbor's front lawn or on his patio area. Photos also show the large structure at 1536 Alturas; a portion of the existing shed will be taken down, there will not be an impact on the neighbor's rear view or rear deck area; there is a utility easement which is unused except for trash cans. Responding to a Commissioner question, applicant said he has lived in this house since 1971, putting the computer room in the master bedroom area eliminates the need to expand the family room which he had considered doing originally. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 25, 1989 C. Harrison found the photographs and applicant's presentation address reasons for the exception, it is important to continue the lines of the home, there are exceptional circumstances as listed by the applicant; it is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the applicant; it will not be detrimental to the neighbors; it is compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of properties in the general vicinity; removal of the shed is not necessary. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance application with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 23, 1989; and (2) that all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code shall be met and when the building permit is finaled there shall be a minimum of 4' clearance between the shed and the new addition to the house or any portion of the residential structure. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs with the statement this is the logical place to put the bedroom and it is applicant's right to have the shed. In discussion on the motion CP explained that with the present code definition for bedroom the family room comes under that definition. Commission comment: extending the structure might block light and a feeling of open space in that area; chairs in neighbor's yard look away from this property, think it makes sense to continue the wall line; two feet won't make a big difference in light, neighbors should get together about the shed. Responding to a Commissioner request, C. Harrison stated findings for exceptional circumstances: design of the house and where it is located, continuity of appearance given the layout of the house, there is no other good location for the addition. Further comment: utilities and drainage have nothing to do with the way this house was built; the proposal will allow the side of the house to be a straight line, the way homes are built in that area they do not have a lot of options for addition. Vote on the motion was as follows: ayes - Cers Harrison, Jacobs and Ellis; noes - Graham and Mink; abstain - Kelly; absent - Giomi. The City Attorney determined that the abstention would be counted as a part of the majority since four votes are required for action on an item. The application was approved. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. VARIANCE FOR PARKING TO ADD A FAMILY ROOM, BEDROOM AND BATH AT 1436 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/25/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP discussed the garage, it Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 25, 1989 appears new, has a new facade, there are two doors on the front but no partitions inside, there is room for one car plus storage space. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Maxwell Steinhardt, applicant, was present. He stated the garage is easily capable of holding a substantial vehicle, they park their stationwagon in it, they do not want to disrupt their backyard or the neighbor's backyard, the driveway is 86' long, there is lots of room for another vehicle and for visitors. C. Mink cited exceptional circumstances to support the variance request (from a site visit and reading applicant's statements), the intent of the code is currently being met with a well constructed/well maintained garage (which happens to be 2' short of the required length) which has ample room to garage a single car and some storage. He commented further it does not appear logical to ask applicant to incur extra expense to make a change to this minor exception. Applicant agreed this was the thrust of his position. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: financial reasons are not acceptable findings, this exception to the code is minor, intent of the code is met by the existing garage. C. Graham moved for approval of the variance with the findings as stated by C. Mink and the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 14, 1989; and (2) that all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes shall be met prior to finaling the building permit. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison (with the omission of any findings relating to financial considerations). Comment on the motion: will support, basically because of the extra space on the side of the garage for storage, most garages don't have this. CP confirmed condition #1 referring to the plans submitted would ensure that no partition walls could be added in the garage. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. VARIANCES TO PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE AND TO PROVIDE TANDEM PARKING AT 808 MAPLE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/25/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission questions: is the chimney an extension Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 25, 1989 of the chimney that is there; is it possible to make this addition within the declining height envelope and keep the symmetry. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Walter T. Posey, applicant and property owner, said he has owned this house since 1985, is getting married next week and will have an 11 year old child by marriage. A Commissioner stated she had no problem with the parking variance but did have a problem with the declining height envelope, what special circumstances apply to this property that do not apply to other properties in the area. Applicant said 2' was needed for head clearance on the stairs, architect did not discuss the declining height envelope variance with him. The 2' x 24' portion of the addition which would extend outside the declining height envelope was discussed as well as several Commissioners' feeling the addition could be accomplished without the declining height variance. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement she would like to allow the tandem parking because of where the garage is located, tandem parking is allowed with a variance, the whole house would have to be reconstructed to meet code, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance for tandem parking by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the garage portion of the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 15, 1989; (2) that the project shall be built to meet all Building Code and Fire Code requirements; and (3) that a minimum of 40' x 11' of the garage shall be kept clear of appliances or stored items and maintained for parking. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. C. Jacobs then moved for denial of the declining height variance. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. Commissioners discussed the possibility of denying without prejudice: the project could be redesigned to reduce visible bulk from the street, might not be able to get all inside the envelope but Commission could consider a redesign which would not quite meet the envelope but would be a lot closer; do not like giving that kind of direction; should give applicant the opportunity to redesign; don't see a problem with denial without prejudice, if a redesign comes back Commission can still deny it. C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny without prejudice, seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:30 P.M., reconvene 8:37 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 25, 1989 5. VARIANCES FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2525 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/25/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's supplemental application form and letter, letters in support submitted with the application, letter in support from Mary Jean and Tim Regan, 1351 Montero. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed that with removal of the two sheds lot coverage would be less than 38%. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Ben Nielsen, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: he had submitted plans to all his neighbors and they found the proposed plan the best, it seems to be architecturally better for the neighborhood and gives applicant the square footage he would like for his home; the office is counted as a fifth bedroom which requires more parking, it is not 50% open because of his children, he would like to be able to close the office and keep noise out; existing garage and driveway will accommodate four mid-sized cars; he has a business in Burlingame, hopes to stay here, these improvements are not for speculation. In response to a question, applicant said the two upstairs bedrooms are 10' x 111, the master bedroom is 12' x 16' with sitting room. A Commissioner said she had a basic problem with the lot coverage with a five bedroom house, why not provide a garage to code; applicant advised he had just repaired the garage and was not aware there would be a parking problem; the shed is in disrepair and they want to remove it, at present there is a water problem in the basement, once the remodeling is complete they can use the basement for storage and won't need the shed. A Commissioner expressed concern about the impact of cars, children grow up to cars, she would like to see a two car garage. Applicant said their long range plans included redoing the garage for two cars, architecturally matching the main home; they have reduced their intrusion into the declining height envelope with this plan, the extra 1-1/2' seems to balance the structure; the next door neighbor, a contractor, selected this alternative. John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposal, he and his wife had no objection and thought it would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have no concern with the declining height envelope variance but do have a concern with the parking variance; this will be a five bedroom house, if the shed in the back is Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 25, 1989 removed there is room to meet code parking, parking on Montero is a problem. C. Graham found there were special circumstances in the slope of the lot, it is on a corner so has more open space around the house, the design of the house meets the intent of the ordinance with a hip roof. C. Graham moved for approval of the declining height envelope variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the construction shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 1, 1989, except that the garage shall be required to conform to minimum code standards for two covered spaces; ( 2 ) that the 145.6 SF shed at the rear of the property shall be removed before final inspection and certificate of occupancy of the remodel of the main structure is issued; (3) that the shed on the side property line, the covered porch extending to side property line and the stairs in the side yard leading to the covered porch shall be removed before final inspection; (4) that the basement area of the house shall never be used for living abea; and (5) that the project shall conform to all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Commissioners commented it was difficult to find special circumstances to support a parking variance but applicant has put two cars in the garage, it generally meets the intent of the code; there is room to move the garage, have a problem with this size house when there is an opportunity to meet code requirements. C. Mink moved for denial of the parking variance, seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: in the long run because of the 38% lot coverage this is good planning, applicant might not be there forever and cars might not be the same size they are today forever, would like to meet code for parking. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR Fire Marshal Bill Reilly introduced two new fire fighters who were attending the meeting this evening as a part of their orientation. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its September 18, 1989 regular meeting and September 20, 1989 study meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 25, 1989 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 P.M. in memory of former City Attorney Burress Karmel. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary