Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.02.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, February 11, 1991 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: Commissioners Deal, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink None Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 28, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: page 3, Item #2, last paragraph should read "motion to deny without prejudice was approved . . . . ." A ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SIGN EXCEPTION, 1873-1881 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Item set for public hearing February 25, 1991. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1542 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/11/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. It was noted neighbors at 1534 Los Altos Drive and 1539 Los Altos Drive had indicated their approval of the proposal. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commissioners Mink and Deal advised they would abstain from discussion and from voting on this application. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Carol Landess, wife of the applicant, Larry Landess, was present and discussed their need for more space, they were recently married and she has three children, they have tried to design the addition to blend with the style of the existing house and have considered its possible effect on neighbors' Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 11, 1991 views; she would prefer the addition to have a 3 and 12 pitch shingle roof to match the rest of the house, they do not want gravel. They have talked to the neighbor above about this and he said some of his view would be lost so they presented an alternate with 2 and 12 pitched roof; shrubs to the east belong to the neighbor below who said he would trim this shrubbery. The following members of the audience spoke. Dwayne Harrold, 1546 Los Altos Drive: he lives on the north side below the applicant's property and was in favor of the addition, it would not block sun, he would support a design with a 3 and 12 pitch shingle roof, applicant's house is very small and they do need more space, the addition will further enhance the neighborhood, it is a country setting, and will not be detrimental to the environment. Hilton Wiswell, 1538 Los Altos Drive: he supported applicant's need for more living space, from plans he saw today the highest point would be top of the peak of the present house, he will be losing some view, would prefer the roof line for the addition be brought back 2' to 31. Alan Olin, architect, JD & Associates circulated photographs taken by the applicants and commented: residents of 1538 Los Altos would have to be next to their kitchen sink to see the addition out of their kitchen window, photo #2 i,s the view the neighbor would have from that kitchen. Mr. Olin favored a 3 and 12 pitch in keeping with the design of the original house and in keeping with the roofing manufacturer's recommendations for shingle roofs, photo #2 shows that the view gained by a 2 and 12 pitch would be blocked by a tree; fence is not on the property line, neighbor's fence encroaches on applicant's property. Mr. Olin noted that with the addition there would be only 26.7% lot coverage, applicants cannot build above the existing home for several reasons, if they built the addition on the other side of their house to the rear it would be a one story addition but would block more distant views than the proposed addition. Applicants and architect have tried to work with the neighbors to meet everyone's needs. Mr. Olin continued: regarding the variance for the 4' setback, they tried to locate the addition so it would block as little as possible of the distant views of the neighbors, there is need to connect the two living areas on the same level. Responding to Commission questions, he advised Photo #2 of view from the neighbor's kitchen window was taken from a ladder on the outside of the building at eye level; the unfinished basement room cannot be used for living area; a one story addition in the patio area would not require a hillside area construction permit but would block more distant views. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: there is no doubt the project can be seen from the neighbor's kitchen window, it does not block existing long distance views, lowered roof line is better than the initial proposal, could support the 2 and 12 pitch roof line. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 11, 1991 C. Kelly moved for approval of this application by resolution with the four conditions in the staff report. He found there were exceptional circumstances for the side setback variance, continuing the line of the existing house is preferable, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, it will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the area, and will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing uses in the vicinity. In support of the hillside construction permit C. Kelly found the property owner has made an effort to meet the needs of neighbors and match the surrounding area by using a 2 and 12 pitch roof. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: moving the addition back 2' to 3' would eliminate impact on view, there is a very large recreation room and a large unfinished space downstairs, changes could be made to the design to reduce the size and make everyone happy, the addition will not be seen from the street, only the people next door will be affected. Staff explained the unfinished area does not meet code definition for habitable area and discussed stairways shown on the plans. Further comment: there will be some blockage of distant views but a one story addition on the other side of the property would have a more severe impact on views; the variance is consistent with the design of other properties in the area; this plan is a better protection for the neighbor than the alternative plan. Seconder of the motion suggested a fifth condition stating that the unfinished space on the lower floor of the new addition shall not be used as living area which was accepted by the maker of the motion. Speaking to what is unique about the property to support the variance request, it was found being able to continue the line of the existing house would be unique; looking at the bulk of other buildings it would seem more in character to maintain the same roof line rather than jog it; it will not affect the view of the other neighbor; if a property owner can do something to mitigate what he otherwise has a right to do it is appropriate to consider a variance for the mitigation. Conditions of approval for the hillside area construction permit and side setback variance follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 31, 1991 Sheets 1, 4 and 5, and December 13, 1990 Sheets 2 and 3 with a 2 and 12 slope on the roof of the addition; (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; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed elevation 129.0' 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; (4) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 11, 1991 that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (5) that the unfinished space on the lower floor of the new addition shall not be converted to finished living area. Motion was approved on a 4-1-2 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, Cers Deal and Mink abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2412 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/11/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, petition in support signed by two neighbors, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: CP confirmed there is a small area of construction, not habitable (a window seat and chimney), which is within the declining height envelope; a small corner on the east side of the dwelling is within the 7' setback, this is a chimney and is allowed; a permit of this nature is granted -for one year, an extension of one year may be granted by the Planning Commission. It was noted there is a "for sale" sign on the property. C. Deal advised he would abstain from discussion and from voting on this project. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Russ Hampton and his wife, Marcel, were present. Mrs. Hampton advised they currently live at 1551 Los Montes Drive and are in the process of purchasing this house at 2412 Valdivia Way contingent upon getting the hillside area construction permit approved. They are well aware of the hillside view ordinance, view from their Los Montes home is beautiful; they have met with the neighbors and showed their plans to those who would be most affected, two signed a letter indicating no objection to the proposal, the other neighbor was not at home. They need the addition for their growing family; the existing neighborhood is a mix of single story and split level homes, the lots slope and their site is in the gently sloping part of the neighborhood; ridge poles showed that their plans would not block any distant views, there are trees which are higher than the poles; she advised the plans will be redone for the building permit and they will have a lot survey. Alan Olin, JD & Associates, advised the addition would give the property 26.3% lot coverage, far less than the 40% allowed, and would preserve the majority of the existing landscaping; they will remove a nonconforming structure which will enhance the property, removing the existing garage and relocating it will be an advantage to the property owners as well as to the neighborhood; addition will not block any distant views because of its location at the edge of the designated hillside area; the second floor will be set back to avoid continuous vertical planes, they have attempted to design a home Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 11, 1991 compatible with the neighborhood. Responding to a Commissioner comment that this is a large house, Mr. Olin noted plans include a garage and covered porch, living space is 4,000 SF, second floor has been set back to minimize bulk, majority of the existing house which was built in the 40's or 50's will be demolished, a few of the walls will be kept, adding a second story changes the foundation requirements and structure itself, foundation will need to be investigated further. Bing Supanich, 27 Hayward Court, spoke in favor. He had reviewed the plans and found the proposal no larger than his house, it does not exceed allowed lot coverage, he would like to see it built. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs advised she made a site inspection and noted the neighbors at 2416 Valdivia had no objections, there are a number of trees, house will be moved back on the lot, there is space around the house, they can accommodate more parking, addition will not block views, setting back the second story addition will reduce bulk, there are no residences to the rear. C. Jacobs 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 December 27, 1990 Sheets 1 through 5; (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 137.83' 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. Galligan and approved 6-0-1 on roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. PARKING VARIANCE FOR ADDITION OF A 475 SF EATING ESTABLISHMENT TO A RETAIL BUSINESS AT 1205 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUB AREA B Reference staff report, 2/11/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, required findings. An anonymous letter in opposition was noted. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP discussed stairs accessing the structure. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Herb Strange, applicant, was present. His comments: they want to save this old house, it will be an asset to the community, they have been working for two years to establish a tea room in the city, when they purchased the property they did not think a parking variance would be needed. The five Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 11, 1991 doors accessing the house were there when they purchased the property; the front stair does not as yet have handicapped rails; there is a 4' access in the back between the house and the parking stalls. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal found this tea room and retail business will add to the diversity of the area and the old house should be saved, he had no problem with a one space parking variance, businesses in the city should be encouraged; the conditions of approval will protect the neighborhood. C. Deal moved for approval of the parking variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the eating establishment on this premise shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 24, 1991, that the eating establishment shall not exceed 475 SF including kitchen and seating area although the 320 SF seating area with eight tables may move within the retail area, and the second floor shall only be used for storage related to the business on the first floor and for storage of personal records of the property owner; (2) that there shall be no more than two employees on site working in the eating establishment portion of the business; (3) that the hours of the eating establishment service shall be 11:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Tuesday through Saturday; (4) that all requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame and as determined by the Chief Building Inspector shall be met; (5) that any expansion of the seating area, kitchen, food preparation area and service area, change in the number of employees in the eating establishment or upgrading of the kitchen area shall require an amendment to this permit; and (6) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (February, 1992) and every two years thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. Mink with the statement this is a delightful project, the parking variance is reasonable in light of saving this as -built beautiful old house. Motion was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - February 1, 1991 memo from the City Planner re: 347 Primrose Road. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 11, 1991 CITY PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions and discussion at its February 4, 1991 regular meeting and February 6, 1991 study meeting. REVIEW OF FENCE AND HEDGE ORDINANCE Staff and Commission discussed CA's draft ordinance for amendment of the fence and hedge regulations and procedures. Some comments: could accept an 8' high hedge except for sight lines for cars in residential districts; much of the shrubbery in the city exceeds 8', people have cut down views by their own shrubbery; if trees reach a point where they form a wall they are considered a hedge; would suggest a separate section for hedges; limit hedges to 8' behind the front setback, 5' in front setback, 3' within 15' of the corner of the property on corner lots in all zones. One Commissioner circulated photographs he had taken in various parts of the city and comments continued: there is not an area of the city which does not have a violation as the code is presently interpreted for hedges; trees can become a hedge and many trees are 18' to 25' high; hedges can mitigate bare walls; as long as a hedge is trimmed and maintained it can benefit the neighborhood; a majority of properties in the city have reasonably maintained their hedges; regarding findings for an exception, the present ordinance findings are acceptable for fences, hedges should have a different treatment; suggest taking hedge out of the ordinance; eliminate a finding of exceptional circumstances for a hedge exception; add significant views or loss of light and view to finding #3; need a public hazard test for hedges. There appeared to be consensus to separate the fence and hedge sections within the code section, remove the finding of exceptional circumstances for hedges thus emphasizing public safety criteria; allow an 8' hedge in all zones; ensure all hedges in the front setback are at a safe height. Staff will return with another draft in the near future. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary