Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.09.27MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 27, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chair Coffey called the September 27, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES _,PROVAL OF AGENDA FROM THE FLOOR STUDY ITEMS Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey None City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney:, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Planner, Maureen Brooks September 13, 1999 regular meeting minutes were approved as mailed. The order of the agenda was then approved. There were no public comments. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR REPLACEMENT OF A DETACHED ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 2208 HALE DRIVE. ZONED R-1. (CARLOS & ROSEMARY RIVAS. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the Commissioners asked: clarify the FAR measurement, one number is used in the text, another in the table; how much square footage would the 1985 regulations have allowed to be built on this site; would the applicant clarify the findings for the increases in FAR and lot coverage, what is the hardship; how does the applicant explain the height exception, why is there a deck inside the garage covered with plywood; the site plan needs to be corrected it does not show an existing deck in the rear yard; what is the hardship for increasing the size of the garage; indicated in response that two years ago there was a survey of the site, would they submit the survey with the application; address why not replacing the garage: with one the same size; what did the garage before the present one look like, was it the same or different in appearance and dimension including plate height; why is the 12 foot plate height needed; do not see any exceptional circumstances, what are the reasons for the bulk of the structure. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on October 13, 1999. 1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REORIENTATION OF TWO LOTS CREATED BY 'DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO NEW TWO- ORY HOUSES ON THE RECONFIGURED LOTS, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR THE NEW HOUSE ON LOT A AND HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR THE NEW HOUSE ON LOT B AT 1351 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DENISE LAUGENSEN, PROPERTY OWNER) A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND HEIGHT VARIANCE B. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR RECONFIGURATION OF TWO PARCELS CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant that had exceeded $200 within the past year so would abstain from any action on this project. The remaining commissioners asked: what is the height of the existing house and the height of the house at 2609 Hillside; what is the height of the house adjacent on Montero; did they consider reducing the height of the house on Lot B by grading a foot off the top of the lot; unfortunate to have to remove this house, would applicant explain why they also need to remove the two redwood trees, could the design be altered to retain the two trees; is there a way to eliminate the height variance for Lot B, a special permit might be justifiable; cannot see the hardship for the height variance; would like to see the streetscape drawing prepared for the design reviewer; will the property owner live in either one of these new houses; if the construction is new why is a variance needed; do not think it is reasonable to compare the design of these two new houses to the existing house since it is gone; the applicant should address the design reviewers comments and include the responses in the staff report. There were no further questions and item was set for public hearing at the meeting of October 13, 1999, providing the information is submitted to ..ie Planning Department in time for the packet. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER/SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN WITHIN AN EXISTING CHURCH CLASSROOM AREA AT THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST AT 1449 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (SVETLANA GRINBERG AND LUARA TSARIA WHALEY, APPLICANTS AND FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and C. Deal noted that he had donated his services to assist the applicant so he would abstain from any action on the project. Commissioners noted: that the applicant might consider changing the hours of operation to 8:00.a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Saturday, no operation on Sunday, to insure flexibility. for the future and so that they would not have to return to amend the permit if they needed to adjust their hours. It was suggested that this item be placed on the consent calendar. The item was set for public hearing on the consent calendar at the meeting of October 13, 1999. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 4-STORY, 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING AT 508 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (ROGER WONG, SJ SUNG & ASSOCIATES. APPLICANT AND SJ SUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP �;P Monroe briefly presented the staff report noting study would also include the tentative map; CE Erbacher noted that it appeared that the support structure for the building would affect the access to the parking, 20 foot clear should 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 be provided for the guest parking space, the access should be checked. The! commissioners then asked: the rglconies raise an issue about privacy, the applicant should address how each of the neighbors would be affected each of the balconies; in this case the private open space is vertically detached from the living units and difficult to access, so will not be used as much, does this meet the intent of the condominium regulations; what type of windows will be used i.e., what material is the frame, the building looks sterile; what is the height of the other multiple family structures in that block; concerned about privacy, this project backs on to R-1 district, one balcony is oriented so that it looks directly down into that yard; can the height be reduced; building design incorporates a lot of good ideas at the front but they are not carried to the sides and rear, consider articulating the facade; could be setback more to mitigate the height of the building; why was this approach used to put three units on the site, classical design at bottom and sterile at top, how does this fit with the residential character of Burlingame; where else can the private open space be placed; do not see any storage space, where is it and where can it be added; common open space is left over landscaped area at rear, is it useable; should consider installing street trees that will grow taller so that they are more in scale with the size of the street; how will tie guest parking be signed so that people know it is there; provide justification for maximizing the height and lot coverage on this new building. There were no other questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing on October 13, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in a timely manner. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR LANDSCAPING AND FOR VEHICLE MANEUVERING IN THE PARKING AREA FOR A NEW 3-UNIT, 3-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1009 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (FRANK PANACCI. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented briefly the staff report and C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship in excess of '?00 with the applicant and would abstain from this item. The remaining commissioners then asked: not as -oncerned about the maneuver issue because of the substandard lot, but feel that the adjacent building to the left conforms to the code and has a nice urban feel, did applicant consider this approach; appearance of the stair and facade of the building need to be changed to better mimic the facades of the buildings next door; the gas meters need to be covered; there should be a note on the plans about the type of windows to be used; the facade and structure need to be made architecturally more interesting; this lot is in a urban setting for Burlingame (in terms of density) could reflect that in the site organization, have a problem with balcony next to tall brick wall, need to articulate the sense of entry; no guest parking or delivery parking is provided; maximum lot coverage and minimum setbacks, a new design should be done to code, explain why designed this way since this is an existing site; landscaping is important and needs to be properly addressed. This item was set for public hearing on October 13, 1999, if all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING FROM GENERAL OFFICE TO HEALTH SERVICE USE AT 1820 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED C-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JERRY WARREN AND SUSAN FULLEMANN PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: should add signage to direct people to the on -site driveway access pattern, had difficulty on site visit; need to think about how to relocate the new elevator inside if it is required for ADA accessibility, loss of four parking spaces is too many; indicate in application 7 employees and 8 patients on site at one time but show 9 examining rooms, 3 doctors offices and a big waiting room, how did they arrive at the number on site at one time; need findings for the parking variance, extenuating conditions •e supposed to be related to the property, here the problem is intensifying the use of the property conditional use permit items A, B and C need to be reviewed; what type of medical facility is proposed; what is the actual business use of the first floor; parking is the issue here, it is at a premium, need to look at reconfiguring layout including 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 relocating the elevator and storage area, and add spaces to the parking layout; concern that the number of people -T1 site may be underestimated because of the way medical offices operate. There were no more questions from the mmissioners and the item was set for public hearing on October 13, 1999, if all the information is provided on time. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY ADDITION AT 1412 DRAKE AVENUE. ZONED R-1. MARK AND JODI CAMPION, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) and APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 782 SF ADDITION TO THE LOBBY OF AN EXISTING 90-ROOM HOTEL AT 1640 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (RICK BIZAR. APPLICANT AND VAGABOND INNS. PROPERTY OWNER) 'lair Coffey introduced the consent calendar and asked if anyone in the audience would like to call any item off the calendar. There were no requests from the audience. He then asked if any commissioner would like to call an item off. C. Vistica asked that 1640 Bayshore Highway be removed so that the commission could look at the effect the additional compliance with the landscaping would have on the project. Chair Coffey removed 1640 Bayshore Highway from the consent calendar and called for a motion on the remaining item. C. Boju6s moved approval of the remaining consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff report, and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. Regular Calendar APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 782 SF ADDITION TO THE LOBBY OF AN EXISTING 90-ROOM HOTEL AT 1640 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (RICK BIZAR. APPLICANT AND VAGABOND INNS. PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 9.27.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested f'or consideration. There were no questions from the commission. '_lair Coffey opened the public hearing. Richard Bizar, 2361 Rosecrans Avenue #375, El Segundo, representing the Vagabond Inns, stated the changes were meant to comply with ADA, and are changing lobby areas to accommodate guests; have added landscaping where possible. Commission recognized applicant's effort to get more 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 landscaping, but only resulted in two narrow landscape strips, would suggest that they not go to the effort to do that, not worth it; asked about the existing satelite dish. The applicant noted it would be removed. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved approval of the project amended to refer to the original plans date stamped September 8, 1999 without the change in the number of compact stalls and addition of the landscape strips, by resolution, with the amended conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution, with the following amended conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 8, 1999, Sheet A1.0 and Sheets T-1 through ID-9; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 16, 1999 memo and the City Engineer's August 16, 1999 memo shall be met; 3) that upon restriping and reconfiguring the parking lot, the applicant shall label on the asphalt the compact parking spaces as "compact"; and 4) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (NIMESH AMIN APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) reference staff report, 9.27.99 with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed Ateria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked CE Ehrbacher to comment on the concerns of the neighbors with water flow, can concerns be addressed. CE Ehrbacher noted that it is difficult to determine whether flooding problems are caused by construction or from seepage, it is not within the expertise of the City to determine if this construction will affect water flow, if feel substantial evidence will be a problem, can ask applicant to investigate. Rajen Patel, applicant, noted that he would like to comment after the public hewing and would be glad to answer questions. Commissioners had a question for the architect, wondered about the unfinished storage area in the basement, there are windows proposed, what is the head height and why is that inuch storage needed. David Blair, 15 Valley Street, San Francisco,' noted that the storage area had been originally designed as a get-together room, design reviewer raised concerns with windows on the front, once windows were removed did not meet egress requirement, decided to make it a storage area; it has an 8' ceiling clearance, would reduce height if required. Commission questions: noted proposal is to fully excavate under the footprint of the house, with retaining wall and full ceiling height, will be a room, why is it not habitable. The applicant noted that the building department required that it be used as storage because it does not meet egress requirements. Commissioners had questions about the compatibility of one set of drawings and another, not sure which way the roof is supposed to be, shown two different ways. The architect notes that a minor correction is needed to roof, now clear which is correct, on Sheet 2, second floor plan, from lower right hand corner there is a hip and valley shown, valley gets eliminated and side elevation is correct, front elevation needs one line removed, plans should be corrected. Turther questions: concern when look at house, has appearance of second floor addition on existing house but is new house, second floor is not integrated; second floor has lots of blank walls, more friendly to have windows, lack of windows gives unfriendly look to street. The architect notes that in programming of second floor, client W City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 wanted closet in that location in front, need to sleep north/south orientation for religious reasons, would be willing to put a false window in closet to give good appearance from the street. Commissioners had concern that it looks :e second story is dropped on to the first story, how did the process go to get there, looks like it wants to be a one- story house, not comfortable with how the two stories interact. The architect notes that given limited floor area on second floor and orientation of stairs, design was what would fit, feel comfortable with idea of one story house was meant to blend with neighborhood with second story pushed back. Further commission questions: has any consideration been given to expand the second story and take away from the basement. The architect noted that the basement is not counted in floor area ratio, the two issues are exclusive. Commissioners asked if any thought was given to increasing second floor and reducing first floor. Mr. Patel notes that it would require an overall redesign, now fit in with City's guidelines. The architect noted that not sure what could be put upstairs functionally besides two bedrooms. Commissioners noted that it looks like 5 master suites proposed, applicant noted that there would be five bedrooms each with its own bath, what is anticipated use. Mr. Patel notes that it will be a family house, father and mother, two brothers and wives, and 2 children, parents and children work together, stay together. Commissioners asked do we need storage in basement, people in future may think it can be a bedroom, it is an expensive storage' area. Mr. Patel noted that he did not want to change plans, will ask father about proposed change, he is head of household, will make decision. Commissioners noted it will be extended family living, how many adults will live there. Applicant noted six adults, two children. CA Anderson noted that this is irrelevant information, there is no restriction in the number of adults residing in a single family home as long as there is only one cooking facility, and no restriction on the number of cars. _heresa Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive, Mike Shea, 1812 Davis Drive, Kathryn Smith, 1811 Davis Drive, and Rich McGough, 1712 Davis Drive spoke in opposition to the project. Noted very large concern with project, will be largest house in area, 3' above grade, will be overpowering to neighbors; all houses on Davis Drive get water underneath houses, will be required to pump, no place for water to go, street is flooded every year; concern with resale, floor plan awful, not 3 bedrooms on one floor; concern about parking with a house of that size; bulky, large, concern with size of structure compared with size of lot; unfair to allow basement which is not counted in floor area, if this is a loophole, it should be closed; there are 5 smaller houses around property, will be overpowering. Further comments in opposition: overall concern with aesthetics and the neighborhood, took a long time to find a house in Ray Park with established floor plan, proposed building is completely incongruent with area, next to all one-story, this is essentially 3-story, not consistent with neighborhood and block; concerned with code exemption for basement in looking at floor area ratio; not consistent with neighborhood, 4100 SF too large for 50' x 105' lot; other houses on block elevated height of one step above grade, this one proposed at 3', reduction of natural light, airport noise will ricochet to neighbors, need engineering survey of drainage to prevent diversion to neighbor's properties, basement will act as dam, full basement not consistent with neighborhood; concern with massiveness of structure, layout could be used as multi -family, in future might be used that way, unfinished area could be converted to kitchen. Applicant response: Mr. Patel noted that 1708 Davis is single story, 1700 Davis, is two story, grade is higher than this property, new house will not be higher than these houses; regarding the water issue, have geotechnical and civil engineers on project, will have a recommendation from them before building permit, will be extra cautious when -)ok into problem, engineers will be best people to answer these questions; regarding the 5 bedrooms, there are other 5 bedroom houses in neighborhood, probably only one with all master suites but is allowed by code; with respect to privacy, declining height envelope requirement was meant to address this issue, project meets code; do 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 not intend to sell, building within City laws, city limits floor area ratio, not possible to add unless go down, that what we are doing, try to stay within the requirements. Mike Shea, 1812 Davis Drive, noted he does not object to floor plan or living situation, area designed for one-story homes, to his view does not see how 4200 SF house makes sense given lot size, neighborhood and intent of community. Chair Coffey closed the public hearing. Commission comments: couple of focused concerns, at study tried to reel back to general compatibility with neighborhood, still don't see how this is compatible; other houses are close to the ground, this one is 3' up, other houses have 8' plate height, this one has 9, need to be closer to the ground; on. facade, eave line for living room is 4' above eave line for garage, other houses have consistent eaves; lack of windows on facades; in this neighborhood, living space is commonly placed over garage, may be appropriate; like to see first floor 3' elevation eliminated, reduce first floor plate height to 8'-1", basement is an innovative way to add space without increasing mass, would like to see water issue addressed; concern with storage area, could it be eliminated; could add character to main house, add windows and shutters, did some at front, the other elevations have no character, south wall has no articulation, looks massive, like to see features of front on sides and rear. Further commission comments: believe applicant is within rights as far as envelope, but design could be improved, remove storage space in basement, drop front of house closer to grade, then have second story over garage, step up mass of rest of house over standard height basement and 8' plate line for rest of house, will respect neighborhood ter; hydrology study important in this case, applicant notes in letter will do any type windows commission thinks best, would like to see wood windows with wood stucco stop or wood stucco molding; another alternative would be to consider larger basement and one-story house, looks like this house wants to be one story. Commissioner Luzuriaga made a motion to continue this item and send it back: to the design reviewer with the guidelines given by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bojues. Discussion on the motion: agree should go back to reviewer, people should understand that just because it meets zoning, doesn't have to be approved; it appears that the lot is too small for the applicant's needs; basement allows them to go to 5 bedrooms, dramatically increasing the intensity of the property will allow family with lots of kids and lots of cars, design of house seems like one story with addition, need to look at neighborhood, lower plate height, reduce basement area, integrate second floor; do we want to spell out direction to design reviewer, for instance look at height of example houses, relationship of plate heights, eaves; reviewer should look at houses with same topography as this one and be directed to reduce bulk. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote. The motion to continue with direction and to return to the design reviewer passed on a 7-0 voice vote. CA Anderson noted that a continuance is not appealable to City Council, since the application is still open, the applicant can return to the next meeting and request the commission act on this project as it stands. Since the application is still open, the applicant could redesign and come back with a single story house and be exempt from any changes to the design review regulations that might have been approved by the City in between. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION ^ERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1505 LOS ALTOS _ .dVE, ZONED R-1. (RICK PEDLEY, PEDLEY AND JOY ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ROGER PETERS JR., PROPERTY OWNER Reference staff report, 9.27.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks presented the staff report and she and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Richard Pedley, Pedley & Joy architects, 751 Laurel Street, Suite 221, San Carlos, noted he took advice from study session, removed bay windows from the second story, left the existing first floor bay window, brought in a horizontal element and extended the roof .line across to reduce the bulk. In response to the letter from the neighbor notes that neighbor has patio that faces north to remodeled house, uphill view over 6' fence; floor line is 5 1/2' at highest spot adjacent to trellis patio; narrow view corridor and large redwood tree in way, view is of a few trees in corner of lot; the patio faces north so there can be no loss of sunlight; when sun comes to the west, the redwood tree obscures it; regarding the privacy issue, there are 3 new windows proposed in the single story addition, would offer to reduce the size of the windows to 2' high instead of 3' and 4' high and raise the sill height so people inside house can't look into neighbor's back yard. Commission questions: the existing windows are not drawn accurately, they have a sill, what will new windows be like. Applicant notes that they will be putting in all new wood windows with sills. Commissioners asked if it would be possible to have the addition step down a couple of feet, could the height of the one-story area be reduced. e applicant notes that the purpose of the family room was to have one large room, would break up this large room �. it were stepped down. Commissioners noted that the elevations don't say what type of windows and noted concern about change in size and meeting emergency egress requirements. The applicant notes that the majority of windows will be casement, the only fixed windows will be adjacent to the doors, and emergency egress requirements are met by other windows than those he suggested changing. Roger Peters Jr., 1505 Los Altos Drive, property owner, notes that the home is unattractive now, needs work, addition will make the house compatible with the neighborhood, he has no intention of selling the home, will live there a long time, spoke to neighbors, most were in favor, encouraging, some of the houses on the block look similar to what is proposed. Commissioners noted made a site visit today and visited at neighbors, concerned with addition and view off the dining room, patio and kitchen, asked if some of addition can be stepped down. The property owner noted that he is open to suggestions, needs a large family, have already lost some size and he :has met all previous requests for changes, needs the space. The architect notes that at the existing two-story, grade is at -5' , would only go down 6" more. Greg Hurley, 1510 Los Altos Drive, Reider Klaumann, 3226 Hillside Drive spoke against the project. Mr. Hurley had questions about the requested applications, staff clarified that the parking variance is for the length of the garage, it is 3" shorter than the 20' required by code; the hillside area construction permit allows for neighborhood review of effects on long distant views, and design review offers opportunity to review compatibility of the architecture with neighborhood. Mr. Hurley noted that if a second story is added now, then when he applies for ,ond story next year, applicant could object to his project because view he gets now would be blocked by his new addition, noted that brick facade is being removed, extension is flush to bay window and will bring roof across front. Commissioners asked if he is opposed to the project. Mr. Hurley noted that in the past a neighbor went to 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 2 stories, then objected to loss of view when another neighbor across the street proposed second story, he has `ention of going up in the future and doesn't want to be in that predicament, wants to go on record, agree to this ._ applicant won't object to his. Commissioners noted that cannot make that promise, issue is that other neighbors could object to his future addition, Commission and neighbors have not seen plans for project. Reider Klaumann, 3226 Hillside Drive, wants to correct the architect, does have a view, has provided pictures to show, this construction starts at 5 '/2' above grade at first level plus another story, why do game room and guest room have to be at same level, could be moved further to the other side of the: lot, that neighbor doesn't have a view; his living room faces this addition, drastic view reduction, loss of light, not a good looking structure, monster wall, hope commission will consider his loss of view; reduction in home price, notes he has a basement in his house, no water leaks, addition doesn't have to be on same level. Applicant response: Architect notes that from hearing comments, thought about dropping addition a couple of feet, would not have impact on view, don't see the benefit; there are very healthy shnibs along side which will provide a green buffer here; seems that the hillside construction ordinance is meant to stop downhill side from obstructing views from uphill side; here neighbor's house is set back 20' with patio trellis area,, just a small area with an outside table is affected; looked at putting addition at other side, but that is the only flat portion of the back yard which is a plus, if moved addition all of the back yard would be to downhill slope, proposed one story element at back to cut down impact from the street. Commissioner comment: noted that back yard is an important place, the new game; room has only small connection to back yard through one door and no windows, wonder why structure volume couldn't be more to the center of lot; asked if existing plate line is 8' and it jumps to 9' in the new portion. Architect responded that yes the plate ime changes in addition, and notes that the needs of the owner dictated the location of the addition. Cecilie Klaumann, 3226 Hillside Drive, notes that there is a view now, all will see! will be a 17' tall wall, will take away sunlight and view. The architect notes that because of the orientation of the lot, will not take away sunlight, is cast in shadow now anyway. There were no further comments from the floor and Chairman Coffey closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: with Hillside Area Construction Permit, view blockage is what we are looking at, lot of discussion as to what is a view, view is directional, subjective, do have ordinance that grants power to person experiencing view blockage, this project will block long distance views from the window in living areas; by changing orientation would make neighbors happy, not against addition, but could move addition away; need to respect neighbors, a lot could be done, maintain 8' plate heights, lower addition, add space above garage. Commission discussion continued: front elevation has been greatly improved; second story addition is fine, concern is with blocking view, relative term, view from neighbor's house is substantial to them; blocking that view is a reason to not support project, there are solutions, part of first floor could be moved closer to the garage, encourage applicant to look at the first story addition at the back; sense a willingness by applicant to work it out, possibility is to consider moving guest room location, could drop existing floor of family room, and reduce height by 2 - 3' , lower plate heights to match existing, would not hurt scheme. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to deny without prejudice based on concerns stated by the commissioners, with xtion to bring the application back to the commission with revisions based on Commission direction. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dreiling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Discussion on motion: Commissioners asked what is the difference between a denial without prejudice and a ,ntinuance. CA Anderson noted that denial without prejudice is an action on the project and offers the applicant opportunity to appeal the Planning Commission's decision; if project redesigned and brought back the new hearing will be renoticed for neighborhood input. Continuance keeps the application open, don't know when it will return for action, will not necessarily be subject to new regulations that go in effect in the interim; applicant cannot appeal to City Council. Commissioners noted that have impression that applicant wants to work with neighbors, project could go directly back to action if concerns met. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 20, 1999. - City Attorney reiterated that, under Federal Law, family structure is not a subject to be considered by the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. MINUTES9.27 to