Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.07.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman H. Graham on Monday, July 10, 1989 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H.Graham, S.Graham, Harrison, Jacobs, Kelly Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the June 26, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #8 was withdrawn; Item #9 continued to the meeting of July 24, 1989. Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE Requests: was there a previous fence exception; was the site surveyed; excerpt from assessor's map book showing this lot; how long has the deck been in place; will fence be solid or open as shown in the pictures; is there any change in height of grade on either side of the fence. Item set for public hearing July 24, 1989. 2. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES - 1104 EDGEHILL DRIVE Requests: comment from architect on why he cannot keep within allowable height; CE comment on the turnaround space in the back; why isn't one of the carports enclosed to be a garage; how is plate line height measured. Item set for public hearing July 24, 1989. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSROOM USE - 1550 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: number of parking spaces designated for this use; further explanation of the business as to wholesale versus retail, will any sales take place during the classes; applicant's response to items #7 and #8 on the commercial application form, where do/will employees and customers/visitors park; why is this a special permit Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 10, 1989 application, not a variance. Item set for public hearing July 24, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. FENCE EXCEPTION TO REPLACE A 7' FENCE WITH A 7' FENCE AT 481 BLOO1FIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Reference letter from the applicant (June 30, 1989, received after preparation of staff report) addressing exceptional circumstances. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Arijs Rakstins, applicant, was present. His comments: they are not proposing a fence in the front yard, existing fence is about 20 years old, well weathered, they would like to replace it in kind; he felt there were exceptional circumstances in that there were differences in first floor elevations between his property and that of his neighbors, they look into living areas of the neighbors, house with a 6' fence and would like to replace the 7' fence with a 7' fence for privacy. Applicant advised very little of the 71 fence can be seen from the sidewalk, fence is on property line, neighbor agreed to share the costs. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: fence will be an improvement but have a problem with the fence exception, the neighbors' house is quite a distance from the fence, it could be screened with landscaping, there do not appear to be any main windows which would be affected; have no problem with allowing the exception, fence cannot be seen from the front, there is a difference in elevation of the houses and patio; have a problem with the request, a replacement is not an exceptional circumstance, many houses in the city are at different levels. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the fence exception, seconded by C. Giomi. Comment on the motion: will not support the motion, there is not an appreciable difference in the ground elevation between these two properties but there is a deck on the house next door which runs up to the fence line and which is about 1' higher, a lot of the rooms in that house look out on the deck, there is not much room on the side of the house to put in landscaping; there is about a 51 walkway between applicants, house and the fence structure, think there is room for landscaping; bushes are more attractive than a higher fence; it would be unfortunate if applicants have to wait until the fence is in a dilapidated state to replace it, if the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 10, 1989 fence fell over we would give them a new 7, fence, why make them wait; regarding landscaping, this is putting the responsibility on the neighbor, it is not his fence, can find exceptional circumstances in the difference in house elevations; the way the ordinance is written and intended there are no reasons to support an exception. Motion to deny failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, S.Graham, Harrison and Kelly voting no. C. Harrison moved for approval of the fence exception with the following condition: (1) that the fence as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 1, 1989 and if the project when built includes the 20' portion of the fence in the front setback the maximum height of this portion of the fence shall not exceed 51. He found there were exceptional circumstances as discussed previously, there is no public hazard, neighboring properties will not be materially damaged and the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Jacobs and H.Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1531 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff review, letter from applicant's architect, review requested by neighbors at 1532 and 1540 Los Montes Drive, findings for a hillside area construction permit. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: difference in elevation between Alturas and Los Montes, distance between the properties rear to rear; staff advised they do encourage applicants to put up markers indicating location of proposed second stories. C. Kelly stated he is a neighbor and would abstain. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Vahi and Silva Tekesian, applicants, were present. Mrs. Tekesian's comments: they tried to design the addition to meet all ordinances and not affect any neighbors, the change in grade is so great she did not think the addition would impact very much, they considered view and took pictures from Mr. Zuk's property at 1536 Los Montes, she noted existing trees block the neighbor's view, four trees at the rear of her yard are trimmed down for the neighbor, he trimmed them himself last year. Robert Zuk, 1536 Los Montes, spoke in favor: his property is located directly behind the project site, probably most directly Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 10, 1989 impacted by the remodel, presently from his house he can see only the roof of applicants' house, with the addition he would clearly see their walls and there would be a slight additional blockage of the view, it is directly centered in the major view from his home, he could not simply oppose this project, maintenance of his view has been achieved by trimming applicants' trees, it would not make any difference to him whether he lost his view from the trees or a manmade structure, he and applicants came up with a compromise, they have agreed to let him remove the center two of the pine trees, he would then have an angle of view from his house and they could remodel as they want to; he did not think this would have an impact on the side view or other neighbors' views, there is other vegetation. There were no further audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Linda Franco, 1532 Los Montes: from their rear yard this is the only area where they can see down into Burlingame, they will lose their view of the Burlingame area on the way to the airport, the trees have leaves at this time of year but during a good portion of the year they have an open view from inside their house to the lower part of Burlingame, a second story would be a permanent obstruction to that view. A Commissioner commented she had visited Mrs. Franco's adjacent neighbor, looked from his deck and property into her yard and from that angle it appeared, with the change in grade, that nothing would be blocked, if the two pine trees were cut it would improve her view. Mrs. Franco stated during the winter months they have a much clearer view down into Burlingame, they would like to maintain their existing long distance view and are not willing to trade trees for looking at someone's second story building. A Commissioner commented if the second story were added it would not obstruct any more of the Francos, view than those trees. Mrs. Franco said they can see behind the trees now to the roof of the neighbor's house so would see walls, views would be obstructed from their living room, dining room and part of the master bedroom. A Commissioner thought the Francos' neighbor would see a lot more of the addition than the Francos and noted Commission cannot consider protection of views from their yard. Another Commissioner spoke of seeing the view from the Francos house, she could see the roof of applicants' house through the trees, with the addition they will see more house and roof, view is not completely blocked, they will just be seeing 12' more of structure. Mrs. Franco said they can now see over the roofs, it is a nice dimensional view down toward the airport, that's what will be blocked by the addition. Jose Franco, 1532 Los Montes Drive, clarified the view lost would be from his living room, dining room, kitchen and master bedroom; the house is at the highest point of the lot and is sited so that there is a hole through which they can see Burlingame and the airport; if the addition goes up their view would be reduced by 16' Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 10, 1989 to 18, and their view of Burlingame would be blocked, trees do not block the roof now, there are other ways to develop property, not necessarily up, he did not want to be looking at the chimney; he stated his house is in the historical register, he can never go up because of the declining height envelope ordinance and he did not think it is proper to compromise with the neighbor about cutting trees, that is difficult to control. Responding to a question Mr. Franco stated they see about 90% of one side of the roof, don't see beyond the peak of the roof; when he bought his property the declining height envelope ordinance was not in effect, standing in his living room he could not see the antenna which would be approximately at the level of the proposed addition. A Commissioner mentioned applicants indicated they had tried to contact the Francos and asked if the Francos had tried to communicate to the applicants their concerns about the impact of the addition; Mr. Franco advised they had not. Robert Moore, 1535 Alturas Drive: he lives next door to the applicants and was concerned about design of the second floor, windows will look into his backyard which will eliminate his privacy, and since their houses are very close and applicants' floor level is about 41 higher than his floor he was fearful the height of the addition would hurt the value of his property; he felt this second story would be out of character with the other houses on the block. Commission noted its review is for impact on existing long distance views of nearby properties; Mr. Moore stated the addition would not obstruct his views. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. At the request of a Commissioner, CP read review criteria from the ordinance regulating construction above the first floor in certain hillside areas. Commissioner comments: from 1532 Los Montes (Franco residence) could see no conditions to support denial of this particular project, view of the addition would not obstruct their long distance views; visited both sites this afternoon, there are several large trees, roof of the applicants, house can be seen, with the addition more of something will be visible, change in elevation between Los Montes and Alturas is quite high, about 301, distance is also important and is about 2501, one could see the addition but there would not be a substantial blockage of view. Sat in the living room on Los Montes, there will be some blockage of view of the canyon which is below this house but because of the difference in elevation it will not have the same effect as Mr. Zuk's addition would have had on homes across Los Montes, a small amount of green will be obstructed, there is a lot of green out there; think the ordinance was enacted so that views would not be "taken", to encourage cooperation, the purpose was not to eliminate second story additions. For the reasons stated C. Harrison moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit by resolution with the following Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 10, 1989 conditions: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 16, 1989; and (2) that any construction on this site shall require a building permit and exiting from the new second floor shall be addressed. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Kelly abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:25 P.M.; reconvene 8:45 P.M. 6. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO STORY HOUSE AT 2990 DOLORES WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, environmental assessment, applicants letter, letters of comment requesting the project be reviewed, findings for a hillside area construction permit. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: square footage of the proposed new house, staff commented the focus this evening is on the negative declaration and hillside area construction permit only, the Chair noted discussion should address obstruction of distant views from habitable areas. CP showed the proposed plans to members of the audience. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Ignatius Tsang, architect representing the property owner, Si Ching Chan, addressed Commission. He stated the existing house is two stories with single story garage, the owner has outgrown this house, existing design has shed roof across the lot, if second story were over the garage more views would be blocked, he took photographs and studied the contour, the proposed structure is dug into the ground with a steep slope at the back, this will help create a more spacious living room, he set the building down as far as possible in order to minimize the additional height, roof peak is in the middle so there is more space in the center of the building, it creates a higher roof but he redesigned to a peak roof to minimize impact on height and views, giving back views on the sides that are now blocked by the existing ridge line. On the front on one side the design is single story to relate to the neighboring one story houses, on the other side existing trees screen the building from the neighbors, and by digging down into the hill the building will be lower. He understood the view issue, studied views and tried to minimize impact of the building. The plans reflect changes made from the original redesign. Commission/applicant discussion: they met with the neighbors to the rear at 2999 Frontera regarding the redesign, they did not come to an agreement; tried to make an appointment with the owner of 2989 Dolores, across the street, their view will not be taken away by Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 10, 1989 the proposed project. Consideration was given to putting up a marker to indicate location of the new second story, the neighbors, son who is a contractor did help explain to neighbors what effect the structure would have; peak roof is much better than the existing horizontal roof line; there is a chimney which extends beyond the existing roof height, it would be about the height of the proposed new roof. One point in the center of the new house is 5' to 61 higher than the existing ridge line, height of the new house would be 301, 13, higher than the rear property line. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Julio Ayala, 2999 Frontera Way who presented photographs of the view from inside his house: front of his house will face the back of 2990 Dolores, 351-40, wide is all glass, they will see a big wall from every room, the new house will be closer than the existing house, will see only windows and roof because of the height of the house, 30, height will block all of his view, the house is too large for the lot, not many that size in the area, peak roof is O.K. but what about the rest of the structure, the walls. Jonathan Horowitz, 2989 Dolores Way: bought his house new 25 years ago, view is an important factor in this area and the proposed new structure will affect his view, it is an incompatible structure, size and style do not fit into the neighborhood, what about the CC&R's, this change affects more than a 100' radius, how will this density, square footage, number of bedrooms and baths affect the environment, was sewer line designed for five bathrooms, concern about number of people occupying the site, are there any guarantees about number of people and only one kitchen, it would be easy to convert the structure to a triplex; with the half acre lots in Hillsborough this would be considered a large house but on a 9,771 square foot lot it borders on the obscene, would suggest the chimney will have to be higher. The Chair commented in order to address some of these concerns would require an architectural review board which this city does not have, Mr. Horowitz thought if something like this could comply with all code requirements the code needs to be addressed by planners and other qualified members of the community. CP advised the CC&R's placed on these lots at the time of development expired in 1981 or 1982, this fact came to the city's attention about two years ago and this ordinance was proposed to replace the view review provisions in the CC&Rls. CP discussed environmental review requirements and how they applied to this project. Irwin Berch, 3057 Mariposa Drive: he lives directly across the street on the other side of Mariposa, his house faces the house in question, obstruction of view will be increased from his front yard, side yard, back yard and the hillside area he uses at the rear, there will be obstruction from his entryway. This is an Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 10, 1989 extremely busy Corner, a house 2-1/2 times larger would generate more traffic; difficult to find on an environmental basis that a house this much larger will not affect the sewer line, think the average person could conclude the proposed structure is designed and capable of being used for other than R-1 purposes; he had been advised it meets R-1 requirements and has only one kitchen but he expressed concern the structure lends itself to commercial application and use. The Chair cautioned the audience Commission is considering only the negative declaration and obstruction of views. Charles Heinbockel, 2980 Dolores Way: he concurred with the statements of Mr. Horowitz and expressed concern regarding the chimney since he lives east of the house, staff confirmed the chimney would have to meet all code requirements. Adrian McNamara, 2941 Dolores Way: he noted the concern raised in the neighborhood by this proposal, he lives about four or five houses down the street, all houses on that side have the same cut and fill, he would hate to see this the start of a set of barracks and asked if it would be possible to continue the item until they could correct the city regulations. Commission noted once an application is in the process it cannot be delayed for a new regulation. Architect Tsang spoke in rebuttal: the purpose of tonight's meeting is views, the property owner, his client, asked him to design the house for his family's use, they like the city, schools, neighborhood; they have four children and a housekeeper and need more room for household members; they have no intention of building a new home and then selling it. Architect thought the house fulfills the desires of his client, he could understand the concerns of the neighbors regarding views, the footprint of the house is no bigger than most homes in the area, the structure was designed to comply with zoning code requirements and guidelines and to minimize the impact on views, he felt the proposal would be an enhancement of the neighborhood. Commission/architect discussion: Mr. Tsang advised he is the applicant, representing the property owner; the owners live in the existing house now and intend to stay there; proposal has a 10' ceiling on the ground floor, 7.5' on the second at plate line. A Commissioner commented on the one story houses in that area, most have 8' ceilings and some have cathedral ceilings but one story won't change views, a two story building with that high a ceiling can affect view. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham commented that this is a beautiful design, unfortunately a house this large and tall is not appropriate, views Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 10, 1989 will be blocked from living areas of the house at 2999 Frontera Way, there will be a substantial shrinkage of view; she could not support this type of construction given these circumstances, the Ayalas already look on top of the house, the new construction will be even closer, they will see a vast expanse of roof instead of views they now enjoy. Based on C. S.Graham's comments, C. Harrison moved to deny the hillside area construction permit. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: will support the motion, it is a good design but think architect can do a better job and address some of the concerns, from inside the house at 2999 Frontera at the rear of the project site the ridge line of the existing house can be clearly seen, granted the new house will have a peak roof, ran some measurements which showed, even with the peak roof, there will be about 225 SF additional blockage of their view, it will appear even larger because it is closer to their house; although architect has reduced size of the roof, by bringing it some 20' closer to the Ayalas' property think they will see only a big wall, will support denial because of that; will vote for denial, project does meet all code requirements, two are well within requirements, all others at the maximum allowed, think there are alternatives for enlarging this house which will not impact the neighbors' views. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE OFFICE AREA IN A WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT 1510 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of development and applications on the site, staff review, applicant's letters. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: access to the easement, main entrance to the site, required landscaping. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Jim White, president of Coen Company, representing Temple Voorheis, applicant and property owner, addressed Commission: they have implemented flexible working hours, traffic is dispersed; they expect the new employees will follow a similar pattern; Coen Company moved to Burlingame in 1964, their business has grown about 5% per year and they have a need for additional office space; with relocation of their manufacturing to Woodland they had no need for the second building and it was sold; regarding drainage, the creek was an issue at the time of the 1985 parcel division, CE wanted the creek lined, they did put in concrete sandbags, a 100 year high tide occurred with no flooding, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 10, 1989 the drainage area easement is currently being rented to Timberline Tree Service who park big trucks there, it isn't flooded now and hasn't flooded; Coen would be happy to review this again as required by the CE and will make improvements along David Road; there is a study to be made of Mills Creek drainage, they will be glad to join in any assessment for improvements. Young Chang of Coen Company addressed a Commission question regarding landscaping required in 1985 which has not been installed; plans were made in 1987, this is part of their long term planning; they have been on the site since 1964, have presentable landscaping along Rollins Road, the undeveloped area is so far away from the main building that they hoped landscaping would not be required there, however it was required, they missed all deadlines; in November, 1987 they came up with a landscaping plan which included landscaping and parking, it was never submitted to the city. There was Commission concern expressed that they would do the same thing with landscaping requirements for this permit. Applicant confirmed his statement that the drainage easement has not flooded and did not flood at the time of the 100 year high tide. Staff pointed out the suggested conditions require the bank of the creek on site be raised to a height determined by the CE to reduce flooding across the site and the drainage area be raised to a height considered appropriate by the CE. Applicant said he was aware of the DPW's memo stating a traffic allocation was not required. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff comment/discussion: zoning requires 10% of a site in the M-1 district be landscaped; site is now 49% office area, applicant is requesting 59% office, have a concern in that a use permit is required for converting more than 20% of a warehouse building to office, think 59% will cause traffic problems, also concerned about landscaping and how requirements will be met; this is an area in transition, with 20% office space allowed for warehouse buildings, the city has been most lenient with this applicant at 49%, concern about starting a trend for other warehouse buildings; this company has been here since 1964, they came to grow in Burlingame, would hate to force them to move in order to get 10% more office space, the circumstances would be different with a new young company; for four years the city has been trying to get landscaping installed. For the reasons stated in discussion C. Jacobs moved for denial of the special permit. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham, S.Graham and Kelly dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 10, 1989 8. PARKING VARIANCE - 1105 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A Item withdrawn at the request of the property owner. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL OPERATION - 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Item continued to the meeting of July 24, 1989. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS - Minor Modification - 1140 Cortez Avenue (acknowledged) Hillside Area Construction Permit - 3034 Hillside Drive (called up for review) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shelley S. Graham Secretary