HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.08.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 14, 1989
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman H. Graham on Monday,
August 14, 1989 at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham, Harrison,
Jacobs, Kelly
Absent: S. Graham
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney
MINUTES - The minutes of the June 26, 1989 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda was approved as submitted.
ITEM FOR STUDY
1. MASTER SIGN PERMIT, 100 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Requests: delineate primary and secondary street frontage for
purpose of signage; distinguish between the signs permitted in
the original master signage program, those added without a permit
and those presently being requested; will any of the signs be
illuminated; is Sign B located within the CalTrans right-of-way;
how many directory signs are being requested.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. VARIANCE FOR SIDE/SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION AT 700 PLYMOUTH
WAY, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 8/14/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of request, planning staff comment and
applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Comment/discussion: was
the clearance between the pool and the proposed addition all
right; yes. When did side setback regulation for corner lots
come into being; either 1920's or 1941.
Chairman H. Graham opened the public hearing. Bill McMonigle,
the property owner and applicant, discussed the objective of the
project to increase the size of the master bedroom, add a vanity,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
August 14, 1989
and to make the house more useable and pleasing to the neighbors.
The addition must be set back at least 5' from the pool, if one
sets back 2' more on the other side, there is not much room left
for living area. Moreover the 2' area on the street side would
become unuseabe. House was built with 5' setback in 1930, codes
must have changed since then. Chm. Graham closed the public
hearing.
C. Jacobs stated that she did not see a problem, that the area
being added in the side setback was away from the corner, the
area was otherwise unuseable space, the location of the garage
and pool limited alternatives for adding on to this house and
this one-story addition alternative is preferable to adding a
second story. She moved to grant the variance with the
conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July
12, 1989; and (2) that all the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of
Burlingame shall be met in the final design and construction of
the project.
The motion was seconded by C. Ellis. The motion was approved on
a 6-0 roll call vote (C. S. Graham absent). Appeal procedures
were advised.
3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A
SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 2800 MARIPOSA DRIVE. ZONED R-1
Reference staff report 8/14/89, with attachments including August
7, 1989 and August 4, 1989 letters from Harold and Ruth Cooper,
2809 Los Piedras Drive; August 6, 1989 letter from Mr. Bill
Sianis, 2800 Mariposa, with a copy of the surveyor's report
attached; August 7, 1989 letter from Mr. and Mrs. Earle Erickson,
2805 Las Piedras Drive, submitted after the packet was prepared.
Commission discussed Mr. Cooper's request for a continuance to
September since he was going to be out of town on the 14th. It
was the concensus of the Commission to proceed with the public
hearing since Mr. Cooper, like Mr. Sianis, would have the right
to appeal any decision made by the Planning Commission.
CP Monroe then reviewed details of request including the fact
that the item had been denied without prejudice by Council based
on a revision reducing the roof height 2' which had not been
reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposal submitted for
planning review is yet another revision to the roof height,
reducing the roof height 313" from the original second -story
addition submitted to the Planning Commision. The second revised
height would keep the second story modified mansard roof 111
below the neighbor to the rear's (2309 Las Piedras) kitchen
window and would rise 11211 above the bottom of this same
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
August 14, 1989
neighbor's floor to ceiling living room windows. Staff comments,
history, the applicant's letter and required findings were
briefly reviewed.
Chm. H. Graham opened the public hearing. Steven Luzaich,
attorney representing Mr. Sianis, reviewed council's action ,
which was to let the Planning Commission see the revised plans,
have the applicant work out the problems with the neighbor and
suggest build out on the first floor instead of up. He noted
based on surveyor's map the proposed roof would be 112" above the
floor line of Mr. Cooper's house and the total height of the roof
would be 22" or 1110" above the plate line instead of the peaked
roof previously proposed. He noted that the addition was
increasing living area of the house from 1,280 square feet to
2,750 square feet if one excludes the garage. Unfortunately, Mr.
Cooper would not talk with Mr. Sianis. Since the objective is to
preserve distant views, it should be noted that the 'roof of the
house across the street (Mariposa) from Mr. Sianis is higher than
about half his presently proposed roof. The chimney to be added
will be located in front of a clump of trees which block Mr.
Cooper's long distance view. The present roof design protects
Mr. Cooper's view of trees, the lagoon and the bayfront.
Mr. York, the applicant's architect, 1840 Black Mountain Road,
Hillsborough, spoke about alternatives examined for the addition.
He looked at a hipped roof originally which came to a point, so
able to see round most of it, then a regular mansard and a lower
mansard 22" above plate line; he feels that the impact on views
will not be substantial. He also looked at extending the house
back on the property in a "U" shape. An interior patio would be
necessary to provide required air and light. With a 16' wide
patio, the wings would be 14' wide (if no variance were
required); 4' of this space would be lost to hallway so the rooms
would be very narrow (10' maximum). In addition the view from
the existing living and dining rooms would be of wall instead of
garden. He noted the base picture on which the roof was drawn
was taken as he stood inside Mr. Cooper's living room. He noted
when one sits in the living room, Cooper's have a hedge on their
property which is in the line of sight. Finally, the architect
noted that extending the house to the rear would remove all the
flat yard space on the site, leaving no place for Mr. Sianis's
five-year-old son to play; the yard serves to absorb drainage
from the hill sides during a storm. Extending the house would
ruin this drainage field and there would be a large, additional
expense to provide drainage. It was noted that they did not know
what more could be done to respond to the ordinance; they had
modified the design to preserve the views significantly. In
response to a question, they noted they understood the neighbor
to be opposed to a second story, not any increase to the
structure.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
August 14, 1989
Cornelius Lyons, 2804 Mariposa, next door neighbor to 2800,
commented that the current plan was a good one; the house would
not look like a box. He has two culverts in his back yard to
keep it from flooding. Mr. Sianis would have to do major work to
control flooding if he built into the rear yard. In response to
a question, he noted the second story on his house was built in
the 19601s.
Mr. Bill Sianis, 2800 Mariposa, spoke adding to the testimony of
his attorney and architect that he tried to work with Mr. Cooper
but got the impression that he didn't want him to build at all.
He felt that the amount of impact on the view by the new proposed
roof line was insignificant whether one sat or stood in Mr.
Cooper's house; he passed a picture showing that the couch in Mr.
Cooper's house was higher above the living room sill than his new
roof line. In response to a question, he clarified that Mr.
Cooper opposed his building up on the property. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Harrison stated on the basis that the roof had been
redesigned twice and as a result there was no sizeable
obstruction to long distance views, he would move approval of the
Hillside Area Construction Permit with conditions. Motion was
seconded by C. Kelly.
Commission comment on the motion: Planning Commission suggest
lower 2' and lowered it even more; has given every consideration
he could; not all commissioners agreed with the 21lower advice;
Council suggested adding at ground level; Council looked at a
different option; did not feel all options were looked into,
especially if houses on Los Piedras Court were limited to one
story; main reason Council sent back was to review new roof
height, only suggested could be built on one level; dealing with
existing distant view, proposal does not block considerable view,
it blocks less than before; need to vote "no" if block any
distant view, the way the ordinance reads, not favor ordinance,
but the way to vote; ordinance implies "substantial", this is not
substantial.
Commission called the question on the motion to approve and voted
3-3 (Cmrs. Giomi, Jacobs and H. Graham dissenting). A tied vote
of the Commission is a denial of the motion. Appeal procedures
were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
PLANNER REPORTS
Page 5
August 14, 1989
- Acknowledged two permit reviews: 214 California Drive and 1151
Vancouver Ave.
- Review of City Council regular meeting, August 7, 1989
;� •
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley S. Graham
Secretary