HomeMy WebLinkAbout1470 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Reporti.
P.C. 7/24/89
Item #1
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION TO REPLACE AN EXISTING 8' FENCE AT
1470 VANCOWER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
William Hammett, property owner, is requesting a fence exception in
order to replace an existing 8' fence with a new 7�-2" to 8' fence
along 68' of the side property line behind the front setback at
1470 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The maximum fence height allowed
in the code along side property line behind the front setback is 6'
(Code Sec. 25.78.030). The fence changes height from 7'-2" at the
rear of the front setback to a maximum of 8' adjacent to the house
and deck on the side property line because of a change in the slope
of the ground from the front to rear of the lot. The fence drops
to 7�, 46.5' from the rear property line because there are no
structures on either side of the fence in this area. The first
floor of the adjacent house is about 3' above the existing grade.
The garage at 1470 next to the fence is built on slab, the house is
about l� above grade. A portion of the fence has already been
built. Work was stopped while the property owners requested a
fence exception.
Staff Review
City staff reviewed this request. The Chief Building Inspector,
Fire Marshal and City Engineer had no comments since the metal
awning and shed which extended from the house to side property line
have been removed.
ADplicant's Letters
Mrs. Sara Hammett submitted two letters (June 29, 1989 with
pictorial description attached and July 3, 1989) and a fence
exception application supplement addressing issues pertaining to
the 8' fence height exception. In these letters she notes that the
metal awning and shed of concern to city staff have been removed.
Regarding the findings for a fence exception she comments that the
side property line from front to rear is not straight, therefore
the 8' fence cannot be seen from the street anc� the new fence will
look much better for them and their neighbors than the old one.
There will be no public health hazard because only they and the
immediate neighbor will be affected. Now the neighbor�s deck is 4'
off the ground, resulting in a loss of privacy at 1470 Vancouver.
The neighbor has agreed to the fence height, so will not be
materially damaged. The unnecessary hardship is the loss of
privacy resulting from lowering the fence because of the existing
floor height and 4� deck of the neighbors; a 6' fence would provide
only a 2' separation.
�.
In a subsequent letter the Hammetts point out that their property
has an unusual "L" shape with a 36' street frontage which extends
61� back from the front property line where the lot widens to 50'.
The neighbor's house is set back 3.5' from the 61' portion of the
side property line. Today more distance would be required. The
first floor of the neighbor�s house is 35' above grade while the
first floor of their house is only 1' above grade. The neighbor
has a deck which is 3.5' above grade along the same property line
making the effective height for the neighbor of a 6' fence, 2.5'
and of an 8' fence 4.5�.
Because the house next door sits so much higher than the one at
1470 and because the design of the fence (open lattice at the top
2'), the fence will not affect the neighbor's air and light access.
The hardships, they note, are the unusual shape of the lots,
placement of the houses and differences in elevations of the first
floors.
The neighbor at 1464 Vancouver also submitted a letter (July 3,
1989) in support of the requested fence exception. She notes she
does not object to the 8' fence. The proposed fence is the same
height as the fence that was there for years. The 8' fence around
the new deck will be open lattice at the top and will not affect
her light and air. Finally, her house is several feet higher than
the neighbor's, her deck has an open railing, the fence will
provide desirable privacy for both properties.
Findinas for a Fence Exception
To grant a fence exception the Planning Commission must find that
the following conditions exist on the site (Code Sec. 25.78.050
1-4):
1. that there are exceptional circumstances;
2. that there is no public hazard;
3. that neighboring properties will not be materially
damaged; and
4. that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the
petitioner.
Study Questions
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at study on July
10, 1989 (Planning Commission Minutes, July 10, 1989).
Commission asked several questions. The city has no record of a
fence exception for the previous fence. The applicant does not
know if one was ever requested since it was built prior to their
ownership of the property (Sara Hammett letter July 13, 1989).
3
The site was surveyed at the time of the division. A copy of
the map from the assessor�s parcel book shows the present lot
line configuration. The neighbor�s deck has been in place at
least 25 years according to Mrs. Hammett's letter. The deck at
1470 Vancouver was built in April, 1989. The proposed fence
will be 6' of solid boards with 2' of open lattice work on the
top. There is no change in grade from one side of the fence to
the other. But there is a change in grade from the front of the
lot to the rear.
Plannina Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
Affirmative action should include findings. The reasons for any
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the fence as installed shall conform to the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
June 29, 1989 and shall consist of solid boards no more
than 6' from grade next to the fence with 2' of lattice
on the top and shall not exceed a maximum height at any
point of 8�; and
2. that the height of the fence shall vary from 7�-2" with
no more than 21.5' of the fence at the maximum height of
8�.
J�,�����---� ��
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: William & Sara Hammett
Mike Gaul
STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
I.
II.
Proiect Address: 1470 VANCOWER AVENUE
Proiect Description and Permits Reauested:
FENCE EXCEPTION to replace an existing 8' fence with a
new 7�-2" to 8' fence (6' maximum height allowed) along
68' of the rear portion of the side property line (Code
Sec. 25.78.030).
III. Property Identification:
Assessor�s Parcel Number(s): 026-044-200
Lot No: 38 Block No: 45
Subdivision: Easton Addition Burlingame North
Lot Size: 5,455 SF Zoning: R-1
General Plan Designation: Low density residential up to 8
dwelling units per acre, consistent with R-1 zoning
IV. Existinar Site Conditions and Adiacent Land Uses:
Single family residence in area of single family
residences. Property has a 13.5' wide by 52' deep area
which has been split off to the neighbor so street
frontage is 36.5' for 1470 Vancouver instead of 50'.
V. CEQA Status•
Categorically exempt, Code Sec. 15301 Class 1(d)
Existing facilities, restoration or rehabilitation of
deteriorated or damaged structures
VI. Proiect Data:
Proposed New Construction:
Existing Area: n/a
68' of side property line fence
Proposed Percent Increase in Area: none
Proposed
Front Setback:
Side Setback (corner lots)
Side Yard Setback:
Rear Yard Setback:
Lot Coverage:
Building Height:
On-Site Parking Spaces:
Required
------ no change ---------
`, cirr
�� °+
evRurvc�E i
�b� °:)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Type of Application:
Special Permit Variance Other � ���Q(�-f-�p✓�
Pro'ect Address --P�—
� i � �D ��/A�t.i C:o J � �_
Assessor � s Parcel Number( s) OZCD '��{� - Zop
Name : � � � � (��v (� �
Address : I 1� ( (�-� L��� �J
PROPERTY OWNER
APPLICANT
Name : 1/�I l Ll.l Ar� �t�-t h-i �T j-
Address : (�{7O �/Act.l C.lJv`/�(�
City/State �iC.(,ll�lr�c�`'t'� �-�► City/State ,�l��tilta4d--�� �
Zip: ��p ID Zip: ��1�
Telephone : ( Work ) � ��-{.c,.� • i(o3,� Telephone ( Work )
( Home ) ( Home ) �r.���,
Architect/Desianer:
Name : ja+t`-l� �S 4f��l�l«�
Address:
Telephone (daytime):
Please indicate with an asterisk (*) who contact person is for project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION __ ��P�.AC.�, �t�C.� L.N lT�-F �f�l(r� Gt- � F-(�, .�.4�(�(-�� �j��
11�1 L(Z �sj� �C-(.Dc( IJ � t..l (7 FEt�I C,C.� Ntit b� 1 '�U �; =�0 "
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S):
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and rr�ct to t e st of my knowledge and belief.
� �' �' Y'`�
Applicant�s 'gn ture Date
I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the
above applicant to submit this application.
�rQiir�. L ��Ur��.c�— � ' • 9
Property Owner's Signature Date
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOFFICE USE ONLYxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
�- �
Date Filed: �/ �yFee Receipt # � �
Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete:
Date application accepted as complete:
P.C. study meeting (date) O P.C. public hearing (date) % acf � g
P.C. Action
Appeal to Council? Yes No
Council meeting date Council Action
:
_ .— l,A �� I Gti � t NC L 7 'p " 'f� �IcKE —�f!�C 7D r�Ertc , �� ����
— ---- - —_ _ ---._ ._ t'o" � b!p'. � � D
-- -- . _ .. . __ cJ� ' + ` r. ".._...__..__......_��,Z 1 � 6 � I
�:�� itNCE (,'
k'`
I
CI�TtIC� �ENC�
a
er F�NtE 3�4'r�i�.N
`ZS,` .,
��������4 ��r��C ..
,,, „
- - �.. . , R\ . �
. �_ Y_'
� �
' �
� � . , �
i ; � � i ;
� - -- 1._.�
Soy�D gtZOHI � TD�� 2' �Ait►cE
��o
� � Y �' � � �
JUN � 91969
o�T���l���"'�
' �- �{ ��
J
��, cirr a
i. •►
euRUNcn►.�E
�b....
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
FENCE EXCEPTION
In order to approve an application for a fence exception, the
Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section
25.78.050). Please answer the following questions as they apply
to your property and application request to show how the findings
can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need
additional space or if you wish to provide additional information
for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your
application. Please write neatly in ink or type.
l. Describe the exceptional circumstances or conditions
applicable to your property which do not apply to other
properties in the area.
Tki� 'P��F�i`( I�I�i� (`� N� SCf�tla��'T t�D LortS�ca•:��si�� C,�r-�^WT
U�- �!J F�r'► Z4-t� S-(��. 'T[-�� �Xt57��.11� ��-�t�._. � v�i�-kE.Z� tJ�'��
�S f'',"o�. �� 15 uNPc�-orso.s� �n1 �P�F-t�.��. V�l� wo��.� �,��E.-ro
���-At,E V,IITL( Lti F�ti1C'E_ o F 71-4-t— `�-t� L1�lc��-tT �p (�NTt�.lv�To
�Fk� �-�(Z r i+�4-� '
�' P�Zo r�'%� c� i N-� 5AM �.�-4 �c c�-4i.
2. Explain why the application request will not create a
public hazard and will not be detrimental to public health,
safety and general welfare.
"i+-�� or��-'f Pt��� �=E-E�Z� w i�,� z�:r T� ov�t��z �� z�
N£-c�k'aoi2 . 7�N� N�cb��R. +-F�s p��s �`-j� � aFi- ��- (�w�a
s�-�D ��tc-�t,�( �.00 f�5 oJic� f �.1To 7f+� �cZcJ a j I'-E70 �� �-� -
3. Explain why the granting of the application will not
materially damage neighboring properties.
I E+��— (5 �0 JcS t�� ��T�( t- t�a►-'i �7�-�-�. ��i��-f G� M�S7 �� 7�cS
f�,s�►c,� - T� P�T s�r-� �i� t-� T� s�rc��T � ��T�� � 5
D�-� ��t �sort� $s' i 5 � ��7Y q� '�.►a b N• i� r( �c(�-I�r�o 2
�F�- i� (-I�S ca�ls�� -%v `1� � t,�k-�
4. Discuss why the regulations cause unnecessary hardship for
the property owner.
'�+-1� i� W t=e�1 c,�.__ 1.�.��. R�tS r� � t3 � �� -T 4�- i�� (a-l��oRc ac�
b� �in PiZcJ�� r5 J�E.-tuv�w�f rf�r.) - E�,sZ�. i�
�-T2d t� � ���-tT v-� � J�A � � c.�J � n. �� T�k � 5 p�o a�.r�t-'1 .
RECEIYED
JUL �3 - 1989
CITY UF EiURUNGAMF
PIANNING OEPT
Mr. and Mrs William F. Hammett
1470 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame, California 94010
July 3, 1989
'.��'. ��x�+iU�it(:A7iUN REC�iV£D
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
�'��TER PREpARATI�f�
�
94040 ('3F' ��^,.�"' r„,�=_�`�^^
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
The following information is submitted in response to the Ciry of Burlingame's
Supplemental Application for a fence exception for the property at 1470 Vancouver
Avenue.
Describe the exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to your properry
which do not apply to other properties in the area.
a) Our property at 1470 Vancouver Avenue is an unusual L- shape.
The neighbor's property at 1464 Vancouver Avenue has an extra 13 feet of land
on the street front, whereas our property is lacking 13 feet of land. As can be
seen on the site plan for our property, the property line jogs at a point 61 feet
back from the front sidewalk to give our property the full 50 feet in width. Part
of the neighbor's house exists in front of this jog and screens our deck and
fence area from the street.
b) The neighbor's house is unusually close to ours. 1464 Vancouver
Avenue has approximately 63 feet of land at the street, yet has only 3 1/2 feet
between the house and the property line adjoining our house.
c) The first floor level in the neighbor's house is a full 3 1/2 feet
above grade whereas our deck is only 1 foot above grade. Outside
her house is a deck which is also 3 1/2 feet above grade, located adjacent to our
property line. The effective height of a 6-foot fence in this location then is only
2 1/2 feet in relation to the neighbor's house. The effective height of the
proposed 8-foot fence would still be only 4 1/2 feet in relation to the neighbor's
house.
2. Explain why the applicativn request will not create a public hazard and will not be
detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare.
The application for a fence exception does not affect the general
public because the proposed exception begins at a point 25 1/2 feet back from
the front sidewalk, and the majority of the proposed fence is hidden from street
view by the neighbor's house (see la).
3. Explain why the granting of the application will not materially damage neighboring
properties.
The proposed fence will not damage properties neighboring 1470 and 1464
Vancouver Avenue because it will be barely visible from the street (see #2).
Because the house at 1464 Vancouver Avenue sits so much higher than our
house (see lc), the proposed fence dces not interfere with light and air at this
property. This concern is also alleviated by the fence design which calls for
solid fencing up to 6 feet only with open latticework the 2 feet above. T'he only
location at which the fence is close (4 feet) to 1470 Vancouver Avenue is at a
point where there are no windows, as this area borders the garage.
4. Discuss why the regulations cause unnecessary hardship for the properry owner.
The regulation for a standard 6 foot fence between properties presents an
unnecessary hardship for the occupants of both 1470 and 1464 Vancouver
Avenue by denying privacy to both parties. This is caused by exceptional
circumstances relating to the two properties as described herein, namely, the
unusual shape of the properties, the unusual proximity of the
houses, and the pronounced difference in elevation between the
two houses.
If you have any further questions we will be happy to answer them and invite you to visit
our property to inspect the site. In view of the above information, we hope that the
Commission will concur with our reasonable request for this minor fence exception.
Sincerely,
�,�- � �,,�-
William F. Hammett
�� �. ��►,►��t
Sara L. Hammett
� �` � ��"°►�^
J UN 2 81989
��%I.ANNINQ p �PTME
Photographa in Support of Application for Vuiance in Fence Height
William F_ and Sara L. Hammeti
1470 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame
6/29/89
�
�
1
�
� ������
f�- ',
.
.
PHOTO # 1
View from front of property showing transition between picket fence in
front yard and lattice fence along side of property. The lattice fence at its
frontmost edge is 7'2" above grade. This fence is the same height as the
previous fence which was in place for roughly 35 years. The lattioe fence
begins at a point even with the front of the neighbor's house. This
photograph illustrates the style of the desired fenoe, with 2 feet of open
lattice above the solid lower portion of the fence.
Hammett Residence
1470 Vancouver Avenue
6/29/89
. _ __�
f"� ,r�:. ��i
_ . � ' ,� ! �
/
Ham mett Residence
1470 Vancauver Avenue
6/29/89
PHOTO #2
View showing how the
fence bisects the properties at
1470 and 1464 Vancauver
Avenue. The return of the
fence will begin at the side
deck, just visible in the
distance. Note that no other
part of this fence will be
visible from the street
because the neighbor's house
blocks it from view.
The height of the fence
where the return begins is 7'
8" above grade. We wish to
continue the fence height
level from this point around
the side of the deck. Because
of the change in grade, the
fence height would increase to
a mazimum of 8' above grade.
Note also that we have placed
our deck as low as possible
(12" above grade, to allow for
joists underneath) in order to
keep fenoe heights as low as
possible while still allowing
for privacy.
�--
,�
I�I
.�
r
I
PHOTO #3
View showing how fence provides screening between neighbor's
bedroom windows and utility area of our property.
Hammett Residence
1470 Vancouver Avenue
6/29/89
;,�.�„r� f: ,
. _,f T�
�
1
� - i- . . . �,
i�. i . ��.
R�' I I I I
j _ � � � �
� � �
ie��''������
�r
r � �►�
, �
�.�,��r
,� ,� ,.��.
�'� `�'' ����
•' �
,. f_�
„�t�= � , .
��
�_
��
__.�--�
PHOTO �4
View from 1470 Vanoouver Avenue looking southeast towards
neighboring property. The red ribbons are placed at heights of 6, 7, and 8
feet above grade. The weathered lattice in the background is on the
neighbor's deck, the base of which is 3'6" above grade. The top of the
neighbor's lattice fence is 8' above grade. The new lattioe in the background
has been temporarily placed to enclose the neighbor's dog while the fence is
down.
Hammett Residence
1470 Vancouver Avenue
6/29/89
��i
pHoro #5
The view looking further to the right in relation to Photo #4 shows the
proaimity and height of the neighbor's windows overlooking our deck. The
railing and the new lattice mounted above the railing have been temporarily
placed for safety. The new lattice in the right in this photo demonstrates
what the relationship would be between the neighbor's windows and the
desired 8' fence.
As is obvious in Photos #4 and �5, a 6- or even 7-foot fence (lower and
middle red ribbons) around our deck would not provide adequate privacy
for us or our neighbor.
Hammett Residence
1470 Vanoouver Avenue
6/29/89
Summary: Reasons supporting 8-foot Pence height
l. The proposed fence is seven feet above our deck level. Eztra height
necessary due to proximity and height of neighbor's windows and deck
aad unusual shape of property requiring such proximity.
2. Higher fen�e around deck benefits neighbor, who has three windows
which face our deck area, by providing privacy.
3. Odd shape of these two lots ludes the �rea fram the street sa the impact
on the neighborhooG af a higher fence is minimal.
4. Fence design: open Latticework top 2 feet does not completely block
view between the two houses, but does provide privacy screening.
���zcc. C- , � lG��-v�r�-u �
Hammett Residence
1470 Yancouver Avenue
6/29/8'9