Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 Davis Court - Staff ReportP.C. 9/25/78 Item No. 2 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: VARIANCE TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO THE HOUSE AT 8 DAVIS COURT The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application August 28, 1978; minutes of that hearing are attached for review. Two neighbors spoke in opposition: Mrs. Edna Hoyt, 2232 Davis Drive and Mr. Kenneth Opie, 2228 Davis Drive; "both felt concern over intrusion on their privacy, obstruction of view and possible depreciation in the value of their property. In addition, Mrs. Hoyt would lose some afternoon sun". At the conclusion of the hearing, Mrs. Boyle was advised of the Commission's policy to require plans that will not be detrimental to the neighbors; the item was then tabled to allow Mr. and Mrs. Boyle time to obtain a new design of the proposed second floor addition. New plans were filed with the City September 6, 1978. Commission should note the following points: 1. The new plan proposes a one bedroom/one bath addition at the second floor level, rather than the original two bedrooms/one bath. Second floor area has been reduced from 575 SF to 510 SF. 2.. The new bedroom has been relocated from the extreme back of the house to the front, immediately over the garage. Compare the East Elevation on Sheet 7 (the August 28th design) with the East Elevation on Sheet 4 (the new proposal). 3. At its new location, this bedroom will average 24' behind the front property line, 65' from the rear property line (which adjoins Mr. Opie's property at 2228 Davis Drive), but only 3' fron the easterly side property (which adjoins Mrs. Hoyt's property at 2232 Davis Drive). A site inspection of Mrs. Hoyt's back yard confirmed that the new location of the Boyle's addition would be less obtrusive than the first design. Views from the picture windows of both the living room and dining room of Mrs. Hoyt's home would be preserved; however, afternoon sun in her back garden would be substantially reduced during the winter months. 4. The proposed location of the second floor addition fully meets all zoning ordinance requirements, with the sole exception of the 16' width of the existing garage. The front elevation (Sheet 3 "south") would now closely match other homes in Ray Park which have been remodeled. 5. The new plans have been corrected to show the existing family room that was added to this house by a previous owner. Lot coverage is 33%, which is well within the code maximum of 40%. Commission should review the new plans and determine if they have substantially met the criticisms voiced at the August 28th public hearing. Staff believes the present plans are better than the first design and recommends that this amended application be approved if Commission first finds that the four legal requirements specified by Code Chap. 25.54 are met. Recommended conditions for approval are: 1. Second floor addition to be generally consistent with plans and elevations filed with the City September 6, 1978. 2. No windows to be installed in the east wall of the addition, adjacent to the side property line. J 4 JOHN R. YO JRY/s ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER cc: Mr. & Mrs. D. Boyle 8 Davis Court, Burlingame Att. bcc: Mrs. Hoyt (with agenda) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 28, 1978 2. VARIANCE TO ADD A THIRD AND FOURTH BEDROOMS TO A HOUSE AT 8 DAVIS COURT Assistant City Planner Yost referenced his detailed staff report for this application, noting the site plan which indicates both the present 16'-0" wide garage and driveway on which two cars can be parked. He pointed out two problems: (1) the plans do not show the family room which was added to this house approximately 15 years ago (without benefit of building permit); and (2) the living room of the adjacent neighbors and their small garden would be overshadowed by the second floor addition at its proposed location toward the back of the house. However, he noted the proposed two story design fully meets code with the sole exception of the width of the existing garage. Mr. Boyle, the applicant, advised his first idea had been to build above the garage, towards the front of the house, but this plan was discarded as it was felt it would be too close to the neighbor's property. Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing; there were no audience comments in favor. Those speaking in opposition were: Mrs. Edna Hoyt, 2232 Davis Drive and Mr. Kenneth Opie, 2228 Davis Drive; both felt concern over intrusion on their privacy, obstruction of view and possible depreciation in the value of their property. In addition, Mrs. Hoyt would lose some afternoon sun. The public hearing was then closed. During Commission discussion several points were noted: building over the garage may lower the height of the addition and its impact on the neighbors; the difficulty produced by the Hoyts' corner lot was noted; existing lot coverage including the family room is 33 percent. Commissioner Kindig expressed concern about the neighbors looking at a blank wall from their living room. Commissioner Sine recommended the applicant be asked to redesign. Commissioner Mink commented on the difficulty of adding to homes in Ray Park and Commission's policy to require a plan that will not be detrimental to the neighbors. He asked for redesign by an architect. Commissioner Taylor agreed. Commissioner Sine moved this item be tabled; motion passed by all aye voice vote. Assistant City Planner Yost advised any new proposal would be renoticed to adjacent property owners. 3. VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 2500 HAYWARD DRIVE TO WITHIN 10'-6" OF THE REAP, PROPERTY LINE Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this proposal to add a second covered parking space adjacent to a carport which was built in 1965. He referred to details in the staff report and the site plan circulated to Commission. In staff's opinion, this request appears reasonable under variance requirements of code. If the applicant were denied, however, he advised that Mr. Shadrick's conversion of the original garage to a family room should be discussed, as it was done without a Building Permit and has reduced the available on -site parking to less than required by code. He noted the original driveway to the former garage is still in use for off-street parking. Commissioner Kindig did not object to adding another opened the public hearing; there were no comments in Hayward Drive, voiced her concern about wall to wall appearance from the street. She questioned whether garage aesthetically. She was advised it would be a was then closed. parking space. Chairman Jacobs favor. Mrs. M. Carpente,r, 2521 houses, roof lines and carport was better than a garage. The public hearing CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, August 28, 1978 at 7:36 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jacobs, Kindig, Mink, Sine, Taylor; quorum present. Absent: Commissioners Cistulli, Francard (excused). Staff Present: John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney; A. M. Rebarchik, Assistant City Engineer (arrived later in the meeting). MINUTES The minutes of the August 14, 1978 meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA The order of the agenda was unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO A HOUSE AT 2329 RAY DRIVE Assistant City Planner Yost referred to his staff report, affidavit by the applicant and site plan submitted for this application to add a third bedroom and additional bath at the second floor level. Present garage is 12'-3" wide, less than code requirement of 20'; site plan shows a large lot with additional parking available on the present driveway; the addition would be over the center of the house, approxi- mately 20' away from each side property line. Staff recommended approval of this relatively modest addition which presents a low profile to the neighbors, if it was first determined that requirements of Code Chap. 25.54 are met. Discussion determined the existing garage is approximately 20' behind the front property line and there is room to park a second car in the driveway. Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing; there were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. The Chairman had some concern with the different tiers of roof lines. Commissioner Mink questioned if it would be difficult and expensive to remodel the existing garage. Assistant City Planner Yost described why it would be impractical to remodel this garage. Commissioners Kindig and Taylor found the proposed design unattractive but agreed the application met the requirements necessary for approval of a variance. Commissioner Taylor moved for approval of this variance; second Commissioner Sine and approved unanimously, 5-0, Commissioners Cistulli and Francard absent. P.C. 8/28/78 Item No. 2 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: VARIANCE TO ADD A THIRD AND FOURTH BEDROOMS TO A HOUSE AT 8 DAVIS COURT The present home at 8 Davis Court has two bedrooms, two baths and attached garage with an inside width of 16'. The house is a single story and Mr. and Mrs. Boyle propose to add two bedrooms and bath upstairs at the back of the home so that the size of their rear yard is not reduced. In their affidavit Mr. and Mrs. Boyle state that the arrival of a new baby in their family has caused them to ask for the additional bedroom space. They feel that they could not afford to sell this home and purchase a larger home in Burlingame. The site plan of this property shows that the driveway averages about 24' from face of garage door to front property line, and a further 5' to edge of curb; it's wide enough for two cars to be parked side by side. It would be impractical to widen this garage toward the side property line, as there is only a 3' wide side yard. To widen the garage in the other direction would require that the front entry hall, front door and front porch be relocated. A site inspection of this property was made 8/24/78 and two problems with this application were identified: 1. A family room has been added to the house without a Building Permit at some time within the past 20 years. The drawings filed with this application fail to show this room, which is located at the inside corner of the "L", adjacent to the living room/dining room. Sheet 3 of the plans shows a single line around what staff assumed was a patio; this outline closely corresponds to the location of this new room. 2. The elevations of the proposed second floor addition show no windows on either of the side walls facing the neighbors. By going up to the second floor level the two new bedrooms would have views over the Burlingame Intermediate School sports fields which adjoin the rear property line. However, the adjacent house at 2232 Davis Drive is on a corner lot, and its "backyard" is at the side of the house. The living room and dining room of the neighbor's home face onto a small lawn and flower garden, which would be strongly overshadowed by the Boyle's proposed addition. The neighbor, Mrs. Edna Hoyt, wouldn't lose the privacy that she presently enjoys in this garden, but she would lose some of the afternoon sun. Reviewing the proposed plans, and awkward elevations, it may be reasonable to question whether other alternatives to this particular addition should be explored further by the Boyles and their contractor. Commission may find, however, that no changes are needed; with the sole exception of the 16' width of the existing garage, the proposed plans for the second floor addition fully meet all zoning ordinance requirements. Lot coverage, including the new family room, is just under 33%; setbacks, side and rear yards, and building height are all to code standards or better. Page 2 - Item No. 2 - Staff Report - P.C. 8/28/78 Perhaps the best approach to this application at the public hearing would be a careful review of each of the four legal requirements for a variance: 1. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss? 2. Is this variance necessary for the preservation of a property right of Mr. and Mrs. Boyle? 3. Would the granting of this variance be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or their quiet enjoyment of such property or improvements? 4. Would the granting of such variance adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city? If these requirements are not satisfied, then the application must be denied. If, however, the Commission finds that one of these points is merely not proven, then the Boyles may be best advised to continue their application to allow time for an amended plan and applicant's declaration to be filed. 14 R..Ar-- JRY/s John R. Yost Assistant City Planner cc: Mr. and Mrs. D. Boyle 8 Davis Court, Burlingame APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT FOR VARIANCE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCE A. Has applicant read Chapter 25.54 of the City Ordinance Code? Yes x No B. Describe the exceptional.circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not generally apply to other properties in your area, and the extent to which you may deserve special consideration to which your neighbors are net entitled. Since.the garage in our original home does not meet with the current code requirements - 20'x 20 . We hereby request a variamce in order to build bedroom and one bathroom over existing structure. C. Describe why the variance is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property. The arrival of a new baby daughter in our family now rquires the additional space. D. What hardships would result if your request were denied? After striving hard to buy a home in Burlingamee. The arrival of a new baby girl would necessitate us to move because our immediate home does not meet the needs of our present family and with the visible economic conditions today - purchasing a larger home in this area would create a hardship on all of us. IS APPLICANT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? Yes x No IF NO, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: A. Owner's name B. Owner's address C. Attach signed statement from property owner declaring knowledge of and agreement to this variance application. WRurrr*iwE Date filed VAR 1ANCE rbb Study meeting .AT[D JVN[� Public hearing 42 Application to the Planning Commission a. JAction City Council of the City of Burlingame �,, , 7 - U • FEU V 1..l 1973 1. APPLICANT / �` /('�°��' ' ql/aV 78 A. Name Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Boyle B. Address 8 Davis Court, Burlingame, California, 94010 City Zip Telephone 697-4886 2. PROPERTY A. Address 8 Davis Court B. Legal Lot 10 Block it Description: Subdivision Ray Park C. Assessor's parcel number (APN) 025-191-020 Zone R-1 D. Existing land use and improvements Two bedrooms & two baths 3. VARIANCE REQUESTED Variance from Code Sec. 25.70.030 to add two bedrooms 4. SITE PLAN Attach site plan, drawn to scale, showing all existing and proposed major improvements, located by dimension from property lines and adjacent structures. Sidewalks and curbs (if any) on public right-of-way should also be shown. Include building elevations, if relevant. 5. ITEMS SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION: X Authorization by property owner. Title report showing proof of ownership (except for R-1 & R-2 property) Affidavit for Variance. x Site plans, elevations and exhibits. X Fee: ($40 for application on R-1 or R-2 property) ($75 for other zoning districts) Receipt No. Received by I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature ii�YLj ,��,�&- Date LL< cq �`7► �9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 25, 1978 Staff was requested to study and recommend to Commission code amendments to cover requirements for detached garages and other accessory buildings. 2. VARIANCE TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO A HOUSE AT 8 DAVIS COURT BY MR. AND MRS. D. BOYLE Assistant City Planner Yost referred to the public hearing on this item held 8/28/78; there had been some opposition by neighbors and the item had been tabled to allow time for a redesign. New plans show only one bedroom upstairs, relocated to the front of the house, immediately over the garage; these plans also now show the existing family room which was added by a previous owner. All zoning code requirements are met by this application, with the exception of the 16' width of the existing garage. Staff recommended approval with the two conditions suggested in the staff report. Mr. Yost advised this application had been renoticed to surrounding property owners. Chairman Jacobs reopened the public hearing. Robert H. Markuse, 16 Davis Court, spoke in favor of this application. Mrs. Edna Hoyt, 2232 Davis Drive, spoke in opposition, stating she would lose much of the sun in her back garden and felt her property would deteriorate in value. There were no further public comments and the hearing was closed. Several Commissioners felt the new plans were a substantial improvement and appeared to meet the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Taylor found that the Boyles had demonstrated both exceptional circumstances and their need for this variance; that the application is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Burlingame and that granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the neighbors. He then moved for approval of the variance with two conditions: (1) that the second floor addition be generally consistent with plans and elevations filed with the City September 6, 1978; (2) that no windows be installed in the east wall of the addition, adjacent to the side property line. Second Commissioner Cistulli and approved unanimously on roll call vote (7-0). Chairman Jacobs advised the applicants that the variance would become effective October 3, 1978, unless appealed. 3. VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE BEHIND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 1241 BERNAL AVE14UE BY PETER AND JILL GLEYSTEEN Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the history of this property and explained that it presently has no off-street parking of any type; he noted the City has received numerous complaints regarding excessive on -street parking in this area. The new owners wish to build a full size, two car garage. Staff recommended approval. The public hearing was opened. Henry Wilkinson, 1239 Bernal Avenue, spoke in favor of the application, noting the on -street parking and traffic problems in this area. There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Secretary Kindig read correspondence in favor of the application from the following: Henry and Ranette Bettman, 1249 Bernal Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. Ed Williams, 1238 Bernal Avenue; Stanley and Marie Wilson, 1252 Bernal Avenue. Commissioner Kindig found exceptional circumstances in the natural features of this lot; that the proposed garage is in conformance with the one next door; and that it will not be detrimental to the General Plan of the City nor to the neighbors. He then moved for approval of this variance with the condition that the garage be located and built as shown on the plans and elevations filed with the City September 7, 1978. Second Commissioner Cistulli and approved unanimously (7-0) on roll call vote. Chairman Jacobs noted the application would become effective October 3, 1978, unless appealed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNIfJG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Francard, Jacobs, Kindig, Mink, Sine, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner; Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney MINUTES Chairman Jacobs requested the following additions to the September 11, 1978 minutes: Item #1, page 2, the Chairman advised the applicant of appeal procedures; Item #3, page 2, applicant was advised of appeal procedures and that the map would go to City Council for final approval. The September 11, 1978 minutes were then unanimously approved as corrected. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Kindig moved for approval of the agenda. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO A HOUSE AT 736 NEUCHATEL AVENUE BY MALCOLM OHL Commissioners Sine and Taylor, who were absent when the public hearing was opened on 9/11/78, confirmed they had read the minutes of that meeting and had been advised by the City Attorney they were entitled to take part in the balance of the discussion and vote on this item. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this item and advised that Mr. Ohl's plans had been changed to conform to the recommendations made by the Commission 9/11/78. Staff now recommended approval with two conditions as listed in the staff report. The applicant had nothing to add. During Commission discussion, concerns were expressed about the possibility of a future "mother-in-law" apartment in the garage, the row of windows on the ground floor of the garage, the question of whether the applicant had proven hardship, and the width, length and appearance of the driveway. Mr. Ohl confirmed he would do everything possible to make the property attractive. Commissioner Mink moved for approval of this variance, with those findings of fact stated at the September 11, 1978 meeting, and with the following conditions: (1) that the house addition be generally consistent with the plans and elevations filed with the City August 28, 1978 and amended September 13, 1978; (2) that the existing garage be remodeled to conform to the plans and elevations as amended September 13, 1978. Seconded by Commissioner Kindig and approved 4-2, Coninissioners Cistulli and Francard dissenting, Commissioner Sine abstaining. Chairman Jacobs advised of the appeal procedures and the effective date of this approval.