The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1316 Castillo Avenue - Staff Report/ �� C.d . P.C. 1/14/91 Item # v� MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNER SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING HEDGE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 1316 CASTILLO AVE., ZONED R-1 Applicant Joyce Earnhardt and Jon Lueders, are requesting a fence exception �'or an existing hedge which exceeds the 7'-0" maximum allowed at 1316 Castillo Ave., zoned R-1. An existing 17' to 20' tall evergreen hedge, approximately 50' in length along the side property line, exceeds by 10' to 13', the 7'-0" maximum allowed by the code (C.S. 25.78.025). The evergreen shrubs in the front setback are 5'-0" in height in conformance with code requirements. This item is a code enforcement issue initiated by the City Attorney. His communications with the applicant are attached for your reference (letters of November 2, 1990; September 7, 1990; and August 9, 1990). Staff Review City staff have reviewed this request. The Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal had no comments. The City Engineer notes that the site plan (dated 11/8/90) does not clearly identify the property line which is 12' from the face of the curb. The 15' front setback is 27'(12' + 15'=27') from the face of the curb. The shrubs shown between the curb and the sidewalk are in the public right-of-way and have been trimmed to the required 5'-0" height (C.S. 25.78.020) Applicant's Letter On the application for a fence exception (11/9/90), the applicant states that the existing hedge provides privacy, beauty, and protection from noise, sun, and storm damage. 5ince the living area of both the existing house and the neighbors house are elevated above the street, the hedge is required to be 17' -20' tall in order to provide shade and privacy for the higher than normal windows. The slope of the lot requires the hedge to be taller at the rear of the lot than at the front to be level with the eaves. The neighbors property is on the north side so their sun is not blocked, and normal air circulation is west to east and will not be impeded. The hedge provides beauty and privacy for the neighbor as well as a noise barrier. The 7'-0" height limit is not sufficient to provide privacy and protection for the residence with the higher than normal windows. In addition these Italian Cypress are over 20 years old and have great sentimental value to the owner as well as monetary value by beautifying the residence. 2 Studv Ouestions The Planning commission reviewed this request at the December 10, 1990 (Planning Commission Minutes, December 10, 1990). The Commissioners asked the applicant to describe what was unique about this property, other than privacy, to support the fence exception. The applicant sent a letter with photographs date stamped January 4, 1991 describing their exceptional circumstances. The applicant indicates that the hedge is required to provide shade and protec- tion from weathering along that side of the house; to buffer noise from the adjacent driveway; to protect a view of the master bedroom; provide an area of solace and surcease that is conducive to work; to avoid any further monetary loss; and most importantly to provide privacy and sanctuary for the use of her house. The commission also asked that the information on the property line shown on the site plan be clarified. The revised site plan (dated 12/28/90) shows the correct property line 12' from the face of the curb, and the front setback at 27' from the face of the curb. Findincrs for a Fence Exception In order to grant a fence exception the applicant must show and the Planning Commission must find the following exist (CS 25.78.040): 1. 2. 3. 4. that there are exceptional circumstances; that there is no public hazard; that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; and that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should include findings made for the exception requested. Reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the existing hedge is placed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1990 and December 28, 1990; and 2. that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Jane Gomery cc:Joyce Earnhardt; property owner Planner Jon Lueders CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Vice Chairman Kelly on Monday, December 10, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Commissioner Graham Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal C. Jacobs requested the meeting be opened in memory of Everett Kindig who served on the Planning Commission for many years. MINUTES - The minutes of the November 26, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A GATE - 2720 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Requests: check status of the shrubbery with the Parks Department; will existing shrubbery be taller than the gate; will there be a fence on either side of the gate, how tall will the fence be; elaborate on justification for the exception, i.e., have there been specific instances involving prowlers. Item set for public hearing January 14, 1991. �. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING HEDGE - 1316 CASTILLO AVENUE, : ZONED R-1 Requests: other than privacy, what is unique about this property to support the fence exception request; in CE�s memo clarify exactly where property line is behind face of curb. Item set for public hearing January 14, 1991. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ADD THREE NEW SIGNS - 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 SUB AREA D Requests: comparison with signage for other dealerships on California Drive; does this site have a master signage program; new signs are January 5, lyyl The City o.f Burlir�ga�ue Plannin� Co�u�i5sion City Hall - 501 �'rimrose Road t3urlingar:ie, CA �� , � �� ¢ �, ��1 � r � p "'� �� Re.: Hed�e vdriance for Ttalian Cypress at 1516 Castillo Avenue Dear �iembers of the City of Burlinname Plan�iin� �or�r�is�ion, The purpose of this letter is to state trie im�ortance of reta�nin� the pre�erit Yiei�ht of theItalian C,ypre�s on the soutn side of the �roperty at 1316 Castillo Avenue in Burlin�arne, a�d to addre�s the question, "In addition to �rivacy, what other reason is there for tne trees`?" To begin evith the living area at this single family residence (as may be seen in photo�ra�hs �l �.nd #2) is ar�ove the �ara�e making th� present hei�ht of the tree� ��ecessary for. shade dnd �rotection from the harsh elerr,ents. The trees �rovi3e the protection needed to �revent much weathering. This is cle�.rly evident in compar.ing the front of the hou�e with the side. '1'he front, which is not protected q;� tree � has deteriorated consldera�ly, a� manifest.e,�by the chippin5 of�aint, �.ar�a�e to the wood-fra�ed wlndows, and tne dry rot which exists. �lnotrer reason, in addition to shdde and protection, to retain t::�e present heiPub of tne trees is to help buffer the rioiae from a much trafficed area. tVtuch construction has been �oing on since the summer of lyy0 and the tall trees aff'ord a quiet that would not exist without them. Because the �i.riveway on the south side is greatly u�ed by family arid �uests, the tree� do buffer the noise from tneir e��ines. Also, while the con:�truction has been 5oin.g ori, the trees prevent my viewin� the dumpster in the front of their home. Also, they prevent a view of stari� cement �irivev�ay and venicles, as well as a return view on their part into my home. In discussing the view from one home to another, it sho�.�ld pe mentioned thdt without the trees at trieir present height the kitchen window. at 1316 would lend a direct vie�� into Ghe dinin� room of 1312 Castillo (or the residence on the south side). Also, at another an�le but from the same window, there is a direct view into their T.V. room. There is still another room at 1316 w.hich affords a direct vieva i�to their master bedrooni if it were not for the Italian �ypress at tneir dornottforcehany neetoroesine�veo�ition�to �r�wr�neer�linds�or t�e watched . � Pa�e 2 Again in addition to sha�e, protection, and the encumoerance of drawing the blind�, seein� these trees afford �ue the soldce and surcease from a full, demanding and sometimes extremely exhausting day where dttention must r�e �iven to one hundred and sixty �ersons on a daily basis. This does not addre�s the worx which needs to be broa�,ht Yiome after an on-si�nt worK day is over. xt tYiis ti�ie it i5 of the ut�ost importance to worK and be in an area t��at is co:�ducive to worx and that is aesthetically pleasin�. The Italidn Cy�ress a.re truly ma�nificent and tr�ey envelo� the v�orx area in i.�y home . They ac3d beauty to my environment. There are two areas which h�ve not been discussed. Une of these areas deals with the uone�Lary loss, wiiich to d�te h�� been considerable, �ecause of a related issue which causefl'��he cut down of iour of the5e trees. Because this is a�ainful issue as well as a related i.ssue, it is beUt i�ut to rest. The other area which has not �een discussed is the drea of �rivacy. At the December 10, 1y90 meeting the qu�stion wr�s asxed, "In addition to privacy, what other reason isthere for the trees?" For me privacy would certainly Yiave been more than enou�h of a reason to snaintain the hei�ht of the trees, and I would certalnly have ma�e that my raa�or issue should there have been a choice. I value very few thin6s in life hi�her than privacy, anci it i:� for that reason I could have centered th�s ei�tire letter around that ��oir�t-- privacy and the sanctuary of one's own home. Thanx you for your timeand consideration. 1Vot to ma�e lioht of an important situation with me, uut rather to end on a li�ht note, I sincerely hope "good guys" win ball �ames at times. Do �onsider me a"J�od �uy". Yours truly, , . ; � ..� ..-"✓;' yi-;��. N!r s . . A . Earxihardt � y —� _ ��. r �r (,Ct�C �J G� (�'`�2�Z/ v %�� ..�,` �^��1 �%'" / 7o+.c7�i2�i; ✓��ill�.%�i �� y� � ai G�/(.�-� �'i9 lLii�f��-it'� �+ � � /'d1n ��7 ��.l�«i�%� 1 � � �� G ��. / J � '� L �i.i�U/�,�i� 11�I1 � � .�i ,� : �-� � �.�� - � / 3' Z- � `�'�'�` "` �" ` s��`�•4.� � ?,c,�� 'J`�- 'y�I , --�y.-�.� ,.��.r�- �� :"'+"'�.�C�. c�-'�'�' ��`'"�f `-Q-'— , iL�-� ��--e.� �"`"�~�'�"� �,i�,.�: ��° ��-.-�,�.��,,.� t;,.�.,..�,� �,.i �. �-�,,� �..��''�,'-`� �`��,.�2-0 . a == ,�;�' �� ✓� ,- � - � ,��=� . {�. r�: � �.� �:= , Y.��. . .. .. : �,., ��: .'�{iY�.:� -:ft^.va, . _� �� .:y�+�''- ` �..�� ', ` : �, �'�' �°''►�`"a �� 1 "�► � � �•�� f�� 1��4 � � � � ►� r � , f- � t�_� ^� -�� '� r-- --- - -- -- _ — .� ��+- - _- - - � ' � � s�- k;y'; vs� �� _ -.� � � 0 I ' ��p � � �� i�'�% % �� -� �� ,.;�. ;�+'�. ��„�_;; �, � _. .�,,_, , �/,�►- d�� '�-'� �ti: �. ��J' ° �_il3aGl� ; ,I�' I��i I5, � � �K � z � t� zW v �x O� �� '�7�, L'S �a � > � � i � < � :o � _„ �� m � 7� �p Tz _,�,, ' � tD T:� 0 ..� 1 t�.._.__PI�L�.�___ . � �R R � ir� � � � � � � m G � � J J � � � � � � � C � O O 0 � 0 � ' � � � � -o � � � ,m , � � i � I Z � �� 00�0 O�� r �_ So, _ j --- -_ .I ; -=-�'-� �.. � �1�1�UR�^'�� Ney) �t3Rv(3S sl!�, �, L_vAT�a�v � �!s ��; a .y: a F :.,� "`'.� . _ R�VJsST=7 � � 7, r `L` � ��'..? � � �, � ' � �' `l � �' s � -� � � pr�vN � '� � � � _ � � �4 '9 '��' ;;. �^�t� .3 " 20 T G m � N � _ _ � � '� � „ ? � F+_ C _ - .'.. •,n _ . - _ � �-�i� � r.�,? � . . 7e- `taa.6:';_ � ry, �"�' , , ` - � . � _ e._....___t_..—..._ - ....�._._,.. _rv-.,.�.�,�,__r-._.,,.-_.,..:.,,,......a.�...: -- -- -- _.-_----..��_-. -- Q _.,,4 ,� , ��C7}'L.: E�iRN!-ilaRliT / 3I C9 G1�STILLO, rCJURLI�JCsA/�"1� � S��m�_ =�O_ -- ��N�� G�GC= fY/'1�4.7 �i bNT%��T 4 0/U LC�4D�2� =3 3�'�'3 l7�� -- � 20 -� 1 �� ..� STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. Project Address: 1316 Castillo Ave. II. Proiect Description and Permits Requested: FENCE EXCEPTION for hedge which exceeds the 7'-0" maximum allowed at 1316 Castillo Ave., zoned R-l. An existing 17' to 20' tall evergreen hedge, approximately 50' in length along the side property line, exceeds by 10' to 13', the 7'-0" maximum allowed by the code (5ec. 25.78.025). The evergreen shrubs in the front setback are 5'-0" in height in conformance with code requirements. This item is a code enforcement issue initiated by the City Attorney. His communications with the applicant are attached for your reference (letters of November 2, 1990; September 7, 1990; and August 9, 1990). III. Property Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): Lot No: 20 Block No: Subdivision: Easton Addition Lot Size: 6000 SF Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: Low 027-191-160 61 Density Residential-.8 d.u./Ac. IV. Existing Site Conditions and Adjacent Land Uses: All adjacent land uses are single family residential; all are zoned R-1 and all have a low density residential General Plan Designation. V. CEOA Status• Categorically exempt per CEQA Code Section 15303 Class #(e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including fences. VI. Proiect Data: Existing Hedge: Approximately 50'-0" of hedge along the right (south) property line adjacent to the house, which is 17' to 20' in height. Required Existinq Front Setback: not affected not affected Side Yard Setback: " " Rear Yard Setback: " " Lot Coverage: " " On-Site Parking Spaces: " Fence Height: 7'-0" m 17' - 20' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION . gURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 Type of Application: Special Permit Variance l�Other F�IVL= = kC.=/� f�nN Project Address 13��0 CAST�LCb� Q��2LIti�A�=. ��4.R�rb Assessor�s Parcel Number(s) ��7- j�j/�- ��'pCS r� � f� � N �4i � il� APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER ^-� NOV ' � 1990 Name: V OyG� �IARNj�}i}f2p i Name: SAr,.�� r ° r dUriUNGA�, /� ... �� nF�. Address : 13�(a l,.(-�STu-t-O Address : City/State/Zip ��,/(ZL(N6�q�= �.�1.��'Ii�OCity/State/Zip Telephone:(Work) Telephone (Work) (Home) (Home) ARCHITECT/DESIGNER � Please indicate with an Name : �1 prV �-.V :, D= f15 � asterisk (*) who is the Address: Z��(� �F}NYa�V R�. contact per.son for this proiect. �UiQ,LrNf�AM_= C•�. q�r6 Telephone ( daytime ) : 34f-� �- � �.30 PROJECT DESCRIPTION � t f�=. L r�?' /C'=,tit=. l�l��MT ^�CG�AT�o+v C�o2 H� O Ca= t�F' 1�A[. ��}� G Yr�a2= .�5� AFFTDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. � ' J / ^/�i��./r%.e4� � �` %� Appli an �s Signature Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. ,�- 7 / r` I o Proper ner's Signature Date ---�----------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------- Date Filed: 1 I-��U Fee �'� L S�� Receipt # ��C.� � Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: ' Date application accepted as complete: P.C. study meeting (date) a o� P.C. public hearing (date) /-/SL _.�j/ P.C. Action <d U -(� � o Appeal to Council? Yes No Council meeting date Council Action ll 9�9v GiTy �F ��llR�..►�6�R1=; �--- �.�T" 1 5 1-t=R;, 3Y l2. :�� S T; tJ '�-I �T i?f � �► y f}LLCx� r� F._rv�= =k�-pT�oN Fc�rZ 131G G�,-S�r+z�o �T, To �LLOw ��v =��,s ��-ra��T I��. D G= ?'O � LLO�.�J (J j.Z I VA� G y� f�?/�✓"7'.Y� �} ^�'J �'Rc�T�GTIc�n� ,�2n�, ��s�� 5��, ��o s; 02�. S1 �c. ��_ z-.y� � f�GT� n�G f'02 C9uvcJ=2 �v y �- E�-2� �+� ,2 0� r � cirr ' ��, o�, euRUNcnME �� 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. L, I(//NG IgR-'.t3 !3F %3UTN Sut3T=GT NUM� �q�vp Na/vN40l2 HO/�� C�f3 ST14Ni"1 ALL Y �94ov.r f92H o_ � R�£ Qvi R r�� !-�_ OG? To �3= /7�— 20� N�G'`� 7-o Pf2od�o= SNHO.� A^�� fae?IvAcY JrvR N�GN�r2, 'r-NA,� NC�Q''''�AL win�aowS. S�op� o�' L�T R_Qv�2=5 hl�=OG� q'T` R=Al2 O� L'aT J/�G/��2 '7+l�q�v �2c�tiT 7Z� jj� L�.v=L w� TH � A�= 5 0I= J-��=. 2. Explain why the application request will not create a public hazard and will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. H�QG;. � 5 P�=Yv^�U 5:T4AGK Ati� F.j=i �-+��ti f+tvus,s so pc�a c. �L r s Nv'T' ��"; c±=�, 3. Explain why the granting of the application will not materially damage neighboring properties. f-J:�CG� IS C�N +V=tGNC3o�2�5 JVaQT�-1 L3d�^-'DRRY So $vN � 5 �voT �3L�G��t�. lVa2�q� K1i2 G+2GvC.A77oN 1 5 ��'ST 7'0 ��4s : S o A 1 R �' c. a�..1 � S nx�T � rn �.r o� O. H; DG r, p2ov� D= 5,t3 � A�i Y ANO �'R � ��4cY FoR iv�, r GNC3o/� �5 ��LL l95 .1�f91 SZ, �l4%Zi I �IQw 4. Discuss why the regulations cause unnecessary hardship for the property owner. %'�?�I G NT 1� I tr� � i CjC;' 7� p� 5!(,.N` Q �'Uf2 L C9w� Q ILf�S�S IS iuoT Sc�F�'�c��N'T' Fo2 AR+v�1GY Ati� la2c�i'�cT�o..� O F' S v�3 3i G Z- l-�o rn � �v i �r N 1-� t G!-� z f� tiv I� 0 c w S. Rr�(�L I C►�N! N�iS T=N�=� Thl =5= Z.'T'�L� ��N �Yh'RcSS Uv=l1 2.� Y�25, �Tf-�=y H�LO GR_�► S�n>T�m�nJTxaL (/�LJ� Tv 1-�_� �1n�0 GR=a'r moN:TARy vAtt.c /N T��s FJ� C�+� �!3_A�T1�iGf}T�vn� o� '1�3 HC>i»._. � 0 � �r � � � � � r� � S=rCiacK �� 1 T� P LzB� -�.. _.._� �_ I I �c--- 1 2, O` --� � I i � i , � i ; � oi-.-•--I---- I O� � o� a � o � o , ; o � �, � o � oo�o.o - �--H=��= � ; � �C'� S�� -� � �iJ�URw11 4iRvpS � z � < � � :o � � .�� A5 �� z _ �, � , j � � m f� G ; ; Y � �J � �?'�:1'.� �XG_. pTl�� 5��= E L.=_vA-r�o�v f ..t� + �^ t � R=V�s ST=� ' � � rt' �'�t� 5t' 4i. + � y r r' .( �� '" � � (-� = C�%� �7 � r '�sT � I `.T'� r� i�}.:�5 �� y� -� t � I � tX�=nr�pN 't,_�:y, . , r�; %t, ''s 20 Tv N��H� Y r V Z5 !'. 4�•� � L�. '� . t.. +� ,.0 }� 7 i . � '� . . - � �^ t. Li V �. :"t � � � �y � � � 7, ' �� `t - ;+;�� :. ' • ' . - 3 - .�� ; v' � � _ . _ Q .� ,/ ��}'Gc EARNI-�/aRUT I�JIGr GASTr��.o, UURL�NGAI�"1=��-------�.r ..�G�.La._.__1�_. a�� . : NG = � K C= t�T � a N � G b n,T/a � T n�a .��.�r�.�....._.,'.�.�f'�.1.'6..�.��.�? .��.� C�.�.e V-x.� .a,� ��x�.C�xr.�ax�1�C.e SAN MATEO COUNTY . JEROME F. COLEMAN CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CITYATTORNEY BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 . t" � � i» , Np�2� � � �99 �TyOf O 'l�N� �GDEPAIv November 28, 1990 Joyce Earnhardt 1316 Castillo Burlingame, California 94010 Subject: Removal of Italian Cypress Dear Ms.Earnhardt: TEL:(415) 342-6931 FAX:(415) 342-8386 By now I assume that Jon Lueders will have talked to you and relayed our conversation of yesterday afternoon. As he and I discussed, I was unaware that you had removed all but four of the cypress in the planter strip. Apparently you assumed that I had knowledge of that when we talked on Monday. In any event, I have observed your property as of the afternoon of November 28 and discussed it with the Park Director. I entered and exited your neighbor's driveway several times, and in my opinion with only four trees there is sufficient sight clearance to the north along Castillo. While these are not ideal street trees from the standpoint of the Park Department, they are willing to let them remain on the condition that you keep them trimmed to the current circumference; the space between them must of course be kept as it is now to maintain the sight clearance. Jon and I also discussed the disposal of the trimmings you have. Our suggestion is that you use the City's garden pick-up in your area on the second and forth Fridays; any bundled trimmings left at the curb will be picked up�at that time. I hope this is a satisfactory conclusion to this phase of this matter. I assume we will see you at the Planning Commission for the consideration of the hedge variance. s truly, � , � JEROME . City torney cc: Jon Lueders, George Owens �j `__ C'_' , , _/ � " 6 t. � r`� +1 �y'� ,:Y. . r .,t.. � ��-'---'" �`.... � r V.�j�.e C�� .a�.� �a��.C�.��e SAN MATEO COUNTY JEROME F. COLEMAN CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL:(415) 342-8931 CITY ATTORNEY BURLINGAM E, CALI FORNIA 94010 . FAX: (415) 342-8386 November 2, 1990 Joyce Earnhardt 1316 Castillo Burlingame, California�94010 Subject: Juniper bushes Dear Ms.Earnhardt: Since you have not returned by telephone call I drove by your property to see if anything had been done. I see that you have removed sever•al of the junipers in the parking strip so that there is now some space between them. However, I notice that the bush immediately inside the sidewalk has not been removed, so that exit from your neighbor's driveway is still dangerous. Additionally, we have not received an application for a hedge exception for the bushes along the side of your house. It has been a number of weeks since your friend picked up the forms, and you-should-have had plenty of time to return them by now._. - - " ' � � This le er is therefore to ask two t ings. First, that you remove the juniper immediately i side your sidewalk. Second that buy November 20 you eit r cut the side hedges to six or remove them. Shou�u fail to act by that date I w 1 h�e-_�Q_ choice bu�-tc� initiate appropriate legal action. �_ � urs truly, �l� l` EROME . COLEMAN - - City A torney , cc: Planning r 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 14, 1991 SIGN EXCEPTION - HYATT REGENCY HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 ;� Stu item continued to the meeting of January 28, 1990. -�`� ..�'£ f �. ITEMS F A TION ��' 4. FENCE �XCEPTION TO BUILD A GATE WHICH EXCEEDS �fiE MAXIMUM HEIGHT Reference staff'�eport, 1/14/91, with attachme;r�s. CP Monroe reviewed details of the requt�est, staff review, applica�'s letter, study meeting questions, require�findings. Four con��tions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. ,,- Chm. Graham opened the ''p�ibli� and property owner, was '`•<pr prowlers . He advised the `��g opener and an intercom syst� August, 1990 when his wife wa report; gate will be custar lettering will be in gold�� public hearing was closed��. : hearin�". William Garibaldi, applicant asent ,:�nd expressed his concern about ate �fill be locked, have an electronic a�,��' they have had only one prowler ( in 3,,'�Yome alone ), they did not make a police � mad�, black with gold color on top, There �were no audience comments and the C. Jacobs found no problem with this requ��t, there are 5'-6' hedges in the neighborhood, the slope of the di��veway is an exceptional circumstance, ther�will be no public hazard ��d neighboring properties will not be materially damaged. C. Jacobs movr.�ed for approval of the fence exceptio�°'with the following conditions:e�(1) that the project shall be buik�t as shown on the plans submitte,d to the Planning Department d date stamped November 8, 1990; (2) ��at the applicant shall appl for an encroachment permit with the City Engineer within 30 days of P anning Commission action; (3) that the propert•y owner shall maintair�' the existing hedge on either side of the gate at a maximum height�of 5'-0" from the adjacent grade; and (4) that the proj�ect shall meet,�ill Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the Cit�e'of Burlingame. � tion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-1 on roll call v�e, . Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING HEDGE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 1316 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 i Reference staff report, 1/14/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. CP noted letter in support dated 1/14/91 from Pat Grabinsky, 1325 Castillo Avenue. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 14, 199.1 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Jon Lueders, representing the applicant and property owner, Joyce Earnhardt, discussed the applica'tion: houses in this area are elevated with rooms built over the garages, the top of a 7' hedge is below the windowsill of their's and an adjacent house, they are.requesting the same protection as one would have on flat land, in this case a 7' hedge will not provide this privacy; regarding concern of the neighbor at 1312 Castillo, applicant is willing to trim the sides of the hedge to meet the neighbor's needs; this hedqe is beautiful, if reduce to 7' it would lose its natural shape. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Lueders noted that when there is a slope there is a tendency to put a garage at the bottom of the slope and build living area above, on flat land garage and living area are generally at grade and a 7' hedge would cover windows in that case. Many houses on this block have large trees which provide some screening. Mike Owens, son of the property owner at 1312 Castillo Avenue, told Commission they enjoy the higher hedge but in certain places it is too tall, it should be reduced to the top of the windows and the hedge which overhangs their property should be trimmed. He was also concerned about damage to adjacent walkways and driveway from tree roots. Mr. Lueders presented a petition in support signed by 43 neighbors who received the notice of this hearing. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion a Commissioner commented on Chapter 25.78 Fences and Hedges; he had a problem with the wording of the ordinance and noted the code restricts height of fences but does not specifically restrict height of hedges; based on present interpretation, if this 17' hedge were approved he saw nothing in the code to prevent someone putting up a fence of that height; also the code could be interpreted that a hedge should not be restricted in height; he felt there are benefits from a living fence/hedge and did not think it should be restricted to 7' , but was concerned about a hedge being replaced by a fence at the same height. Comment continued: some applicants have only asked for 1' over the maximum height allowed, this hedge is 17' to 20' high along a 50' length, if Commission grants this request it will set a precedent for such hedges all over town. CA said he would bring suggested amendments to the fence/hedge code to the next Planning Commission meeting, past policy has been if a hedge is lost it cannot be replaced by a fence, Commission can change policy but it will need to be reviewed by Council. Commissioner comment: would vote against a motion for approval of this hedge, such an action could conceivably be interpreted as license to come back and build something else. CA and CP stated if approved this could only be replaced by another hedge. .. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 14, 1991 C. Deal found if the hedge were trimmed to the top of the second story windows and the overhang onto the neighbor's property removed he could see no problem, there are exceptional circumstances in that applicant's living area is on the second floor, without the hedge there is no privacy. C. Deal moved for approval of the fence exception with the two conditions in the staff report, that the hedge be trimmed to the top of the second story window frame and the portion overhanging the adjacent neighbor's property be removed. C. Ellis seconded the motion with the statement there are similar situations all over town, problem is basically excessive height, hedges do intrude on neighbors' driveways, he could support the motion with the added conditions and would be glad to see changes in the wording of the fence/hedge ordinance, it is not consistent. An additional condition was suggested and accepted by the maker of the motion and the seconder, that the height of the hedge as conditioned be maintained by the property owner. Comment on the motion: would certainly like to have a hedge next to my house for privacy but does Commission want 20' hedges all up and down the block, cannot support the motion; it is one thing to allow privacy with a 7' or 8' hedge but this request is for 17' to 20'. A further condition was suggested and accepted, that there be a 30 day time frame for completion of the trimming. Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Mink and Graham voting no, C. Galligan abstaining with the statement he was not opposed to the application but opposed to interpretation of the ordinance. C. Mink moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Graham. Motion failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Galligan and Kelly voting no. C. Deal moved to reconsider his original motion, seconded by C. Ellis, all aye voice vote. C. Deal moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions :( 1) that the existing hedge is placed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1990 and December 28, 1990; (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; (3) that the height of the hedge shall be reduced to the top of the second story window frame; (4) that the overhang of the hedge onto the adjacent property at 1312 Castillo Avenue shall be removed; (5) that the reduction in height and removal of overhang shall be maintained by the property owner and this reduction shall take place within 30 days; and ( 6) that the hedge shall not be replaced with a fence. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Mink and Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.