Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.10.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, October 22, 1990 at 7:3.2 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - Minutes of the September 24, 1990 meeting were approved. Minutes of the October 9, 1990 meeting were approved with the following corrections: add Jane Gomery, Planner to the list of staff present; page 3, Item 3, add "C. Deal voting no" on the motion; page 4, Item 4, correct heading to read "REVOCATION . . . . DATED AUGUST 20, 1990 . . ."; page 7, Item 8, delete "by resolution" from the motion; page 8, Item 9, conclusion of second paragraph to read landscaping trimmed by working with Cal Trans"; page 10, Item 10,' condition #5 to read "that employees in the office portion of the building shall be on site during normal office hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. five days a week and warehouse employees normally shall be on site from 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. seven days a week". AGENDA Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL -PROJECT AT 1044 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Requests: why a condominium instead of a duplex on this R-2 lot. Item set for public hearing November 13, 1990 (Tuesday). 2. TENTATIVE MAP - 1044 LAGUNA AVENUE Set for public hearing November 13, 1990 (Tuesday). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 22, 1990 3. PARKING VARIANCE TO EXPAND THE EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1351 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B Requests: clarify the calculation that only four seats would be added. Item set for public hearing November 13, 1990 (Tuesday). ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2800 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/22/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, letters from neighbors calling the hillside area construction permit up for review and subsequent letters addressing their concerns, required findings, study meeting questions, comparison with the proposal submitted in 1989. Communications received after preparation of the staff report were noted: two letters in support from Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Delis, 4 Las Piedras Coutt and Mr. and Mrs. James E. Vandarakis, 3 Las Piedras Court as well as a petition in opposition signed by approximately 400 residents of Burlingame. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission and staff commented on the roof line and the petition in opposition. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Bill Sianis, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: this proposal is similar to the 1989 proposal, the proposed addition is 1,225 SF, not 1,329 SF as indicated in the staff report, it would not be a 7% increase in area, the roof line would be 2-1/2, below the line of sight of the house behind., He discussed his attempt to obtain a hillside area construction permit, Council and Commission suggestion that he modify his original plans, he has made many revisions to the plans and has abided by the hillside ordinance requirements; his architect has designed the addition to harmonize with the existing house, it will not seriously affect the bay views of Mr. Cooper at 2809 Las Piedras Drive; view from 2805 Las Piedras Drive does not extend beyond the 6' fence. Mr. Sianis commented it would seem the property owner with a view has all the rights while someone who wishes to improve his property. and provide more room for his family has his rights taken away; anyone can object to a proposal whether the objection is justified or not; view ordinance is not clearly defined, it is a subjective determination, what percentage of obstruction, how is long distance defined; once built the new structure may become part of the view, not a block to the view, it is the change to the view that is so difficult to 'accept. Mr. Sianis circulated a photograph to support his contention the obstruction of view would be minimal and photographs (taken in Millbrae) illustrating what he would call Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 22, 1990 obstruction of existing long distance views. Reiterating that he has met all zoning requirements, he asked Commission to approve his request for a hillside area construction permit and noted there is need for an ordinance to protect views but it should be fair and just, one with specific guidelines. He confirmed his photograph was taken standing up in the family room at 2809 Las Piedras Drive. A Commissioner noted it would not be the same view if one were sitting in a chair. The following members of the audience spoke in support. Cornelius Lyons, 2804 Mariposa Drive: he lives directly west of the project site, has attended all meetings and reviewed all of applicant's plans, Mr. Sianis has done everything he can to accommodate all the neighbors, permit should be granted on the basis that it does not substantially reduce distant views. Margot Smith, _2805 Mariposa Drive: lives directly across the street, has seen the plans and thinks the proposal will be a good addition to the neighborhood, there is only one two story structure in the area, this will add variety. Jane Cheng, 2801 Mariposa Drive: this will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood, from the photographs only a small percentage of view will be lost. Jim Vandarakis, 3 Las Piedras Court: this will be a good addition to the community, will improve the neighborhood. Stanley Yorke, applicant's architect: the issue is the degree of obstruction of view; he illustrated the view from the family room of the house at 2809 Las Piedras Drive, there is an existing obstruction in front of applicant's lot consisting of a large tree, at the far right there is another tree, with the new addition the increase in new height from the existing roof is 6.21; in the photograph it shows that the Mike Harvey (Bekins building) and the Presbyterian Church spire can be seen over the ridge line, distance to those buildings is approximately one mile, loss of one mile out of this long distance view is minor; height is lower 2.17' from the previous proposal, square footage is 2-3% less, not 7% more. There were no further 'comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Harold Cooper, 2809 Las Piedras Drive: it was suggested last year that this is basically something between neighbors, think the new proposal should be rejected, bulk and mass are about the same as the previous submittal, it will be the same view which was obstructed last year; does structure conform to the regulations of the City of Burlingame, if it does violate existing ordinances it should be denied; last year Council suggested applicant built at grade and ask for variances to build outward, applicant chose not to take the Council's advice, this is the same project obstructing the same view, violating the same ordinance; looking out from his house over the mocked up frame he would lose view of all the area of Burlingame, could see adjacent cities but not Burlingame; applicant has stated he was uncooperative but applicant did come to his home, the photo he circulated was not taken from the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 22, 1990 interior of the Coopers' home, it was taken from a ladder outside the home, Coopers loaned him the ladder. Mr. Cooper circulated a photograph taken from inside his home which shows the view he would lose sitting down in a chair, everything below the red line; he stated he also took photos from outside, the angle is not the same; he will lose most of his view of Burlingame and much of San Mateo, with a mansard roof he will lose even more; applicant has tried but the addition still obstructs his view, he is improving the property at the expense of the neighbors. Architect Yorke stated he had taken the photographs used by Mr. Sianis before last year's hearing, the window sash is visible; he was standing on the floor of Mr. Cooper's family room when he took the photo. Earle Erickson, 2805 Las Piedras Drive: he stated that to his knowledge applicant had never been in his house; under normal conditions this addition would obstruct view from his family room, kitchen and bedroom, however at present the 11' hedge blocks the view, a hedge can be trimmed or removed, this second story addition would be permanent and would obstruct his original view; over the last few years 10 new homes have been built directly across the street from 2800 Mariposa and in each case the Planning Commission controlled the height of the homes, view in Mills Estate has been a prime consideration over the years; applicant has simulated the addition on his roof, Mr. Erickson visited the Coopers' home and observed their view will be obstructed significantly; it is a large addition and if approved will send a message to other residents that it is possible to have a second story addition approved despite the rules; applicant has shown no respect for the neighbors by the 11' hedge (Mr. Erickson circulated a photograph of the hedge); in closing he commented the hillside ordinance is on trial tonight. Cathy Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive: she helped in obtaining the 400 signatures on the petition in support of retaining the view ordinance, those speaking in favor this evening are all located downhill so they would not be affected, there will be obstruction to uphill residents, Mr. Cooper's view of Burlingame will be lost; regarding the 11' hedge obstructing Mr. Erickson's view, something should be done about that also, it exceeds code limits, the hillside ordinance is the pnly protection hillside residents have, protect our property values, views and aesthetic values. William Burnes, 2817 Las Piedras Drive: he lives four houses uphill from 2800 Mariposa, his view will not be affected but impact on the neighborhood will be significant, this addition would be contrary to the ordinance which is to protect views, it would set a precedent, others would add second stories, neighborhood would become totally different. Carol Cox, Arguello Drive: she is a victim of a second story addition, they bought their house for the view, a second story was constructed next door and they lost this view; the Mills Estate Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 22, 1990 CC&R's have expired, there is reason for the hillside ordinance, to protect views. Pierre Derouineau, 421 California Drive: view has tremendous impact on property value, applicant will be building a dam between trees and taking neighbors' views away. There were no further comments in opposition. Mr. Sianis spoke in rebuttal: the pictures he presented this evening were taken from inside Mr. Cooper's house, not. from outside on a ladder, Mr. Cooper will lose a minimal amount of iew, he is not the legal owner of the view. Mr. Sianis stated he and his architect have complied with every requirement of the city, he has property rights, too; is anyone willing to turn over his property rights to his neighbor? This is an issue between neighbors, should be able to get together and resolve the matter, have been more than willing to compromise, Mr. Cooper did not want to look at the plans or sit down and discuss them, how could he compromise this way? Applicant said he had been at Mr. Erickson's house when he first purchased his own home in 1971, since that time he has had the hedge pruned many times and submitted the landscape company's invoice, the issue this evening is not the hedge, the issue is the hillside view ordinance; he noted there are two 2 -story buildings on Las Piedras Court. Regarding concerns that everyone will want a second story if this is approved, each case will be individually evaluated on its own merits. Mr. Sianis concluded with the statement he also has rights and asked that Commission be fair and just to all parties. A Commissioner asked if applicant had considered building out since he has only 30% lot coverage or adding two levels at the rear. Mr. Sianis replied he had looked at other alternatives but this seemed the best solution. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: did drive by the site, the hedge is a disaster, when applicant bought the property in 1971 there were restrictions and the CC&R's would not have allowed this addition, the hillside ordinance is more permissive, this is a fair hearing and am sure Commission will judge this application on its own merits. Commission has heard several hillside ordinance applications, some were granted, some denied, each is taken on its own merits. Regarding the photographs, Mr. Cooper's photo more accurately represents what can be seen from the chair in his living room but it shows only the area of blockage, Mr. Sianis' photograph shows it is just a portion of the view, not that major a blockage, the two photos together give an appropriate view. CA clarified that the CC&R's on all Mills Estate subdivisions have expired, they did prohibit second stories, it might have been a factor in the City Council's action on the hillside ordinance. Further Commission comment: do not think this matter will end at the Planning Commission level, we are dealing with perhaps a political �_ situation and some legal ramifications, there is a mechanism to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 22, 1990 purchase easement rights to protect view; Council did not outright prohibit second story additions with the hillside ordinance, they have treated it on a case by case basis. The real question is what is the impact, it is not just a question of hardship for the owner but what is the impact of this structure going to be on the neighborhood; from the evidence there is one property which will be affected, Commission needs to examine the extent of that impact, there will be an impact by any construction above the first floor, question to be addressed is will impact on this particular neighbor cause the whole project to be denied, both photographs were shaded to favor the neighbors, there is an impact on the view if one is sitting in the Cooper house, not so much while standing up; this is an issue between neighbors but in this case not amenable to compromise. With the statement Commission must measure what the significant impact is on all of the neighbors, in this case it has been mitigated by the applicant to the greatest degree possible, C. Galligan moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 27, 1990 except that the cantilever of the new second floor at the front of the house shall overhang a maximum of 4" as shown on the plans date stamped October 16, 1990; (2) that the finish material used on both the flat and sloping portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; and (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed elevation 137.22' and that the framing shall be surveyed to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final framing inspection is called for and the roofing material is attached. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: hillside area construction permits have been a problem for the Commission and Council since the ordinance was enacted, do not believe the loss of view in this case is as great as some might think; there have been a lot of pictures submitted but think. Commissioners should rely on what they see, have listened to the testimony this evening, problem with the neighbor is unfortunate, regarding significant impacts on long distance views there is an impact, each Commissioner must define significant himself, have defined it and do not think there is an overly significant impact, will support the motion; whether Exhibit A is a stand-up or sit-down photo it still represents approximately the same level of view blockage by the new addition as it does over the most northerly side, affected view is from one chair in that room, there is another chair which gets view to the north which will not be affected, people sitting on the couch would not be looking at the view at all, • percentage of view affected is smaller than I would consider significant. Have lived in the Mills Estate for many years, we were happy to have ti the terracing, visited the site and sat in the chair in Mr. Cooper's Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 22,, 1990 family room, view is standing and sitting and not only water and sky, it includes trees in the foreground, how can one pick and choose between portions of a view, Mr. Cooper could have four to six additions around him and lose everything, will make decision on the basis of view affected. Referring to Las Piedras Court, if those 10 homes were allowed second stories they would block view significantly, this project is not significant, it will only block a portion of view, it will not set a precedent, those on Las Piedras Court were reviewed onptheir own merits, this house at 2800 Mariposa is being reviewed on its own merits; a more definitive view ordinance will only create more loopholes, the ordinance as written is somewhat vague, allows decision makers some discretion. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Mink voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:05 P.M.; reconvene 9:20 P.M. 5. VARIANCES TO FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL AND A SECOND FLOOR ALTERATION AT 719 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/22/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted changes made on the plans received October 16, 1990 which eliminated the front yard setback variance and reduced lot coverage to 41.3%. There were two letters in support received after preparation of the staff report from: Michael and Marilyn Short (October 18, 1990), 804 Burlingame Avenue; and B. F. "Jim" Seggern (October 12, 1990), 808 Burlingame Avenue. Responding to a question CP advised demolition and some work inside independent of anything that needs a variance is allowed prior to action on the variance. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Jim Sullivan, co-owner with Bogdan Klopocki, applicant, was present. His comments: they are asking only for a lot coverage variance, have eliminated the front setback variance; they will square the room on the first floor for better use of the furniture and fixtures, previously there was not enough room and configuration of the house itself would not allow for use of modern appliances; they will remodel to be consistent with other remodels which have occurred in the neighborhood; family room is necessary for today's lifestyle, they will eliminate an illegal kitchen on the second..floor; their goal is to turn a dump into something someone can be proud of. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 22, 1990 The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property, the way it was designed originally was a waste of space and it was inefficient, it could not accommodate all the amenities used today. It will not be detrimental to other properties in the area, there was a major fire on the property, now the carport will be torn down, a driveway removed, the only entrance will be on Burlingame Avenue, the property will become a legitimate single family home. Roof lines will remain consistent, there is a two car garage, they are trying to make the structure conform, it has been nonconforming for 48 year4. He presented a petition in support signed by 22 families with 28 signatures. Applicants have no objection to eliminating the driveway and will tear down the carport, landscape in front and at the rear, will keep the stucco and wood siding. Responding to a question applicant found there are exceptional circumstances in this dwelling which is not functional and not usable the way it is presently designed. The following members of the audience spoke in support: Jane Calavano, 715 Burlingame Avenue and Niels Ploug, 218 Arundel Road. They expressed their pleasure in the plans for upgrading this house, it has been a disgrace to the neighborhood for many years. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented there is a 40% lot coverage maximum in Burlingame, its intent is to keep a house up to that point, in this case they are decreasing the amount of lot coverage square footage, that is commendable; since it is a reduction in amount of square footage it is a valid increase, it is only .3% over what would be needed to allow a minor modification. With these statements and with the neighborhood support C. Deal found this is a good use of a variance for lot coverage and moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 28, 1990, and front setback and lot coverage as amended on the plans date stamped October 16, 1990; (2) that the unused driveway will be removed from the sidewalk to the curb and gutter (City Engineer's memo dated October 1, 1990) and from the sidewalk to the carport; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment: pleased to see this house returned to single family status. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. VARIANCES TO SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE FOR A DINING ROOM ADDITION AT 1830 CASTENADA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/22/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 22, 1990 hearing. Responding to questions CP advised the lot is 6,500 SF, under the change to the minor modification regulations walls are allowed to extend along a side setback but the minor modification does not apply in this case because the applicant is also requesting a variance. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The following spoke in support. Allen Lin, 1724 Escalante Way: in favor of this request, the house does not have a formal dining room, only a small area for eating purposes; addition will improve the house and property values in the neighborhood, it is on the first floor and will not obstruct anyone's view, it will be only 67 SF. Joanne Liu, daughter of the applicant: they have lived in this house for four years, additional family members are coming home to live and they need more dining room space. There were no further .audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this is one of the smaller lots in Mills Estate, it was over lot coverage when built, it will be a small dining room addition, will not impact any neighbors, site is on the brow of a hill, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the side yard setback and lot coverage variances with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 16, 1990; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: will vote for the motion but have a minor problem, very few cities allow 40% lot coverage, this is a minor addition but wish it were designed more into the home, if possible would ask the addition be designed to incorporate the roof line into the house; side setback requirements on these lots have changed, they were originally 51; cannot support the motion, in reviewing the plans cannot justify a finding of exceptional circumstances, understand the need for a larger dining room, they are already over lot coverage, think there is room in the existing house to reconfigure space for dining/family room purposes. Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Graham and Mink voting no.. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS - Minor Modification - 1720 Broadway: no comment. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 22, 1990 - CP Monroe reviewed City Counci 1 actions at its October 15, 1990 regular meeting and October 17, 1990 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary G