HomeMy WebLinkAbout1369 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report��b, CITY o� STAFF REPORT
BI�JRLINC3AME
o°
a
wtce .wwa 6.
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
�y:ti7 �F
FEBRARY 25, 2002
CITY PLANNER
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 3.4.02
SUBNIITTED � �2 � �
BY
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW,
SIDE SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIItST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION AT 1369 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Any action should include the reasons (findings)
for the action. Affirmative action should be by resolution. The action alternatives are attached at the end of
the staff report along with the criteria for design review and required findings for a variance.
Conditions of Approval from the Planning Commission
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 5, 2001, sheets A1.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building elevations,
and sheet L-1 and A1.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped January 30,
2002;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5, 2001
shall be met;
3. that any incre�sr to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the
first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,
replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be
subject to design review;
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on February 11, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-1-2 (C.
Brownrigg dissenting, Cers, Keele and Osterling absent) to approve the design and two variances for an
addition to the house at 1369 Bernal Avenue. In their action the commissioner's in support noted:
o The code allows a certain floor area on each lot, to exercise that right and to add a second story on this
lot requires a variance because the single story house is already at 35'-2" (a special permit) and one
cannot add a second story in 10 inches;
o The slope on the lot (20 foot rise from street) justifies a variance as an existing hardship;
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRO [�AL OF DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACg AND HEIGHT
VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITIONAT 1369 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-l. March 4, 2002
o The addition is well-designed, has a minimum plate height ( 8'-6" first floor, 7'-6" second floor), the
second story has a significant setback from the street so will have little impact on the neighborhood,
story poles indicate that the second story (setback 58 feet from the front property line) will be barely
visible from the street;
o The addition is minimal and not massive;
o While the property to the south will be impacted, the commission cannot insure privacy on 50'x100'
lots;
o The side setback variance is justified because the renovation of the porch, an existing architectural
feature, will enhance the design of the house.
In opposition to the motion it was noted:
o Will affect view from inside house next door and make house darker inside; Loss of privacy in rear
yard of neighboring properties; and
o Previous application for height variance denied.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Gary and Mary Claire Diebel, are requesting �esign review, side setback variance (3'
proposed, 4' required) and a height variance ( 41'-9" requested, 30' maximum allowed, 36' maximum with a
special permit) in order to make a first and second story addition at the rear of the existing house at 1369
Bernal Avenue, Zoned R-1.
The existing house is 1,983 SF (.33 FAR) on a 6000 SF lot (3,420 SF, .57 maximum FAR allowed). The
proposed addition would increase the house to 2,942 SF (.48 FAR). The site rises from street level. Story
poles have been installed which indicate the roof height of the proposed second story addition. The front
porch, where the side setback variance is required, is existing. Over the years the porch had been enclosed
with bronze aluminum, sliding windows. The applicant is proposing to remove these and restore the porch to
its original open plan so that it supports the original design of the house. Because the restoration of the porch
requires removing parts of it and reconstruction, a side setback variance is required.
This lot slopes up steeply from the street with a change in elevation of about 20 feet from the front property
line to the rear property line. Because the change in slope is less than 25%, the height of the house is
measured from the average elevation of the curb in front of the house. Measured from the curb at the front,
the top of the addition will be 41'-6". A variance is required for height over 36'. Between 30' and 36', the
applicant would be required to apply for a special permit. The special permit for height was established to
accommodate architectural design features. A variance should address physical conditions on the site which
may affect design, but also are, in some way, beyond mitigation with design and can be attributed to the
property itself.
The proposed project includes requests for:
o Design review for a first and second story addition;
o Variance for height (41'-6" proposed, where 36'-0" is the maximum allowed with a special permit, and
30' is the maximum allowed);
o Side setback variance (3' proposed on the right side where 4' is required).
History
In 1993 a previous owner of the property at 1369 Bernal Avenue, made application to demolish the e�sting
house on this lot and replace it with a new house (2,104SF first floor) which met setback requirements as well
as lot coverage (35% requested, 40% maximum allowed); FAR review was not required at the time. The
height of the proposed replacement house was 39'-6", as measured from average top of curb at the front of
�
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROI�AL OF DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACg AND HEIGHT
VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITIONAT 1369 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. March 4, 2002
the lot. At their May 10, 1993 meeting the Planning Commission voted to deny the application. Subsequently
at their June 7, 1993 meeting the City Council voted 5-0 to deny the project without prejudice because it was a
new house and could be designed to fit the lot. (CC Minutes June 7, 1993 attached) In the action the Council
gave direction that: the height could be reduced by reducing the angle (pitch) of the roof and adding dormer
windows, the house could be moved back on the lot to reduce the impact on the neighbor, the foot print could
be increased to compensate for reducing the height. The applicant did not revise the application.
Stafi Comments
Planning Staff would note that each application stands on its own. The reason findings are important is to
insure that the hardships are identified as they relate to the specific project and the objectives of the code.
Having noted that, one of the trade offs considered by the Planning Commission in this action was that the
applicant was 1) retaining and remodeling the existing house and restoring a major architectural feature which
is consistent with the design guidelines (the front porch) and 2)the applicant was constrained by the fact that
they were not demolishing the entire house as was the case in the previous application for this site. Staff
would also note that in 1993 the city did not have design review criteria or FAR (mass/size) limitations on
development.
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Alternatives, Requirements for Findings for a Variance, Design Review Criteria
Patrick and Debra Cunningham letter to the City Clerk, February 19, 2002, requesting appeal
Monroe letter to Gary and Mary-Claire Dieble, February 21, 2002, setting appeal
Planning Commission Minutes, February 11, 2002, action meeting
Planning Commission Minutes, January 14, 2002, design review
City Council Minutes, June 7, 1993
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 11, 2002, with attachments
Resolution
Public Notice, mailed February 22, 2002
1369 Bernal Avenue
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. City council may vote in favor of an applicant=s request. If the action is a variance, use permit,
hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance,
the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given
properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council
members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an af�irmative motion.
2. City Council may deny an applicant=s request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the
record.
3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application
made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning
Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the
proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or
additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to
be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should
be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before
the City Council or the Planning Commission.
REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance Nol 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20,
1998 are as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
��
�
February 19, 2002
Claic, Gity Cauicil
City of Burlingame
501 Prirr�o�e Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Clelic, City af Buriingame
501 Prirra-o�e F.oad
Eurlingarne, CA S�tOlt]
Re: 1369 Bemal Avenue
��G_.!..`�i�i �.� ��f�:'L.7
HONORABLE MAYOR � CITY COIINCIL
An a�eal hearing for
1369 Bernal should be set
for the March 4, 2002 Council
Meeting.
Respectfully requested,
Ann Musso, City CLerk
We heeby appeal the Planning Canrcuasion' a decisian dated Febtva�y 11� 2002,
Permittin{� ioriing variances for 1369 Bgnal Avenue, Burlingame, Califomia
Fnclased herewitr, is aur ciiedt in the �tnaurit of $250.00.
Please contad us ehould you need further ir►faYnatim
R�sp�fullq Y ,
Pedrick,,tq,d D�Giuinin��n
enuE
, 9�4()10
(650)
f'�'� " �.
�,���
,. F���
� c'" oF � j 1��Z
qtiN e�� o p�9M
T F
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - FEES RECEIPT (ACCT. 101-36600) (#84)
SubjectAddress: i��� r����� �Date: �"aD 02-
Received for:
Application to Planning Commission for:
Variance
Conditional UselSpecial Permit
Condominium Permit .
FencelSign Exception
Use Determination/Ambiguity Hearing
Antenna Exception
� H�' lside Area Construction PermidMinor Modification
—l.lAPpeal Fee .
Tide 25 - Zoning Code (+ $3.00 postage)
Title 22 - Signs �
General Plan (+ $5.00 postage)
Specific Area Plan (+ $3.00 postage)
Zoning Map -
Sign Permit Fees .
Photocopies
Postage �
Total:
jees;fim (revised 9/30/98)
, ,. ,�
.`� YV 5 S. r- 4� J � Y1 Y'� '
y _ i " � r r'x � '; sr SF E` L�, ��, t �, R,r t s r
�VALUEp� .. �t : y�Sf a� S�'�, s i K�
f � cus7'oa�asmtc�� �;, vt hji� �� �'' ,�►+��
� ` ia�s .]L ���1✓
— ) ��i �' `�; i.� 7 r'^. �.. 4 ,t .�T S Y r' r1 �. a
� � t� �`J "sr � o � �l' � Z,n sy ti �� � R 1:
I "i Yl -F'f l� �l if
i c s� �j i . �r f .
� _ .�,� .: �. , �., 4� �. ���F 1
//�]� �+. 1 .s 1t IJ i.� �j .�.-
� � PAY TQ THE O,RDER OF �+✓ � a � r.,. '"'�-.% �� J L�,�(,t'.� :
, _ !�!�
' g �� `�,,�^.�c..�=,y�d��c.CJI _`' }����
' � : � �+ �. . bl� �.6 3 v .
PATRICK'J CUPI(!IIT16�/tM " �'' '�` =Y� �' i : '' i
s/4j5y 343-0322 = ,; � ` i`�` ix c�< �,
. A._� 1' ." �' S� � 1 4.�
�36�5 $ER�SIAL QVE: `� ` +�z:; .�a �
BUfl� Lp, E A 9401 S z �r 3;t
TAEMc3 id � � t
�r����� t
y i,
+�: 1 2�2��L0 i t9.�i:�1B'40 Qa4 3 5 2 l�
.:� ; x<
-. C�ri.- � ia, i . . . . . , . .. � .e , . .
$
$
$
$
$
$ 25.00
$ 210.00
$ 250.00
$ 10.00
$ 2.00
$ 25.00
$ 10.00
$ 1.50
$
$
$
$ �•J°
� �
0
Yy } i
�� + � cT'cS a� - � . �-;
"+y y� # ._
'1'S �4 �-t.J� � r, G �
v� i, v l;ir �7j e� A, z.; .
��r��� �' �
..ii�� l.Y < {� � gl�,l Y. '
°v �k ;J "Ti,.S.�ir"�8.
y ; ��'�d SL'� ,
���'� ya ?<�.,�� k�
a cs �;:'
o.� "L`�'"�'F�'Y'�' t �� .
��r T'f'��`s�s a,i. fK .
RS; v�x �'—i�k- c c T� .
w�. 7 ��� }z �, � A,
?r'lr i i�'�S,�t�Y yyr'.
� S�J sv i=i� !� . . -0� �.
� rtx T4 b�J t �x :
%� t �`�'� �,� � :.
-�v v@� u'v�;�yr �v a � �: _
f.� kY�'�1'�'Y � �.
. � 5� � 1 %J } t�
3 �
4� i �s `
v� _�,x y -�,��, 1� :
�i r"q b57'� t . q-.;
;� i+5i ��. y n r S t� .
j•�tn x r
J, � l;. . . . � ,
�� CITY �
� �
BURLINGAME
� oa
o y
��NwTCo JUNC�•
The City of Burlingame
CITY HAI.I. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250
PLANNING DEPARTNIENT BURT..INGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790
February 21, 2002
Gary and Mary-Claire Diebel
1369 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94070
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Diebel,
At the City Council meeting of February 20, 2002, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your
project for a design review and variance for height. This application was to allow a first and second
story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. . A public hearing will be held on March 4, 2002 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA.
We look forward to seeing you there to present .your project. Please call me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely yours,
G-.. � o '"' `
�Marga�� Monroe , �
City Planner
MM/s
APPLHRCC.acc
c: property owner
City Clerk
Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
February I1, 2002
story into the first; the applicant needs the remaining cantilever on the second floor to break up thc mass of
the house; would like to amend the conditions to include the addition regarding removal of the trellis, to
move the widow on the left side of the door on the front fa�ade to increase the symmetry on that fa�ade,
and to require that the gate across the drive way be made electric so that it can be ope�aed and closed from
inside a car and inside the house; she also noted that changing out the original window on the front of the
house so that they matched the new windows would improve the entire appearance of the project; she then
moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 28, 2002,
sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the change that the trellis over
the driveway shall bc removed, the two support members at the front of the trellis which support the gate
may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7 feet
on or within 2 feet of property line; 2) that the inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east
(front) elevation shall be shifted to the left, away from the door and closer to the outside window, so that the
left side of the elevations is more symmetrical with the right side of that floor's elevation; 3) that any gate
or closure extending across the driveway between the front property line and the face of the garage shall have
an electronic opener designed to be operable from inside a car and from inside the house; 4) that any
changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or
changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design
review,• 5) that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July 16,
200� memos shall be met; and 6) that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building
anfl Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Auran seconded the motion.
Comment on the motiony does the maker of the motion want to include a condition that original first story
windows be replaced; �He maker of the motion noted that replacement of these windows is a suggestion only
and not a condition of approval. If the applicant decides to replace first story windows during the course of
the project, she c�n return to the Commission for a design review amendment.
Chairman V.�ica called for voice vote"on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
passed on 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This
item cor luded at 7:54 p.m.
,� 6. 1369 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SEC(�ND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL,
DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERIi�iE KEYLON
Reference staff report 02.11.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. It was noted that a letter opposing the project
was before the Commission as a desk item. Commission asked: there was a project proposed at this location
approximately two years ago, what height was proposed then? CP Monroe responded that information for
past proposals is not included in the current staff report because if the projects are not built, they are
considered terminated.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, representing the owner, and Gary Diebel,
applicant, owner, and architect for the project, were present to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the
applicant has complied with the requests of the Commission by submitting a landscape plan, erecting story
poles, and submitting the front elevation outlines of the neighbaring houses. He feels the severe slope on the
lot justifies the height variance.
5
City of 6urlingarrae Plannrng Cominis.sion Minules
Febrtrary Il, 2002
Patrick and Debbie Cunningham, 1365 Bernal Avenue; Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue; and
Michael Carpenter, 1360 Bernal Avenue, spoke. They oppose the height variance for the proposed
project; the addition will compromise the privacy, sunlight and air circulation on their property; the
subject property cannot support a second story; the applicant does not have a right to a second story; the
applicant did not approach any of the neighbors with his plans for an addition to get their input; applicant
is an architect and he bought the house with the knowledge that a second story could not be added without
requiring a variance; could support any first floor addition the applicant wanted to build. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: the applicant is allowed a certain floor area on this lot and to add a second story to
the house, a variance is required; the existing house is already at 35'-2" (would require a special permit
today) and a second story cannot be added in 10 inches; the slope of the lot is justification for the variance;
the addition is well-designed and has the minimum plate height, 7'-6"; the second story setback from the
street is signiticant and the addition has very little impact on the neighborhood; the story poles illustrate that
the second floor will barely be visible from the street; the addition is minimal and not massive; the property
to the south will be impacted, but the Planning Commission cannot insure privacy on 50' x 120' lots; the side
setback variance is justiiied because the porch is an existing architectural feature and the design of the house
will be enhanced by opening the porch up.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 5,
2001, sheets A1.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and sheet L-1 and A1.3,
landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped January 30, 2002; 2) that the conditions of
the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5, 2001 shall be met; 3) that any
increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second
floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a
window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changin� the roof hcight or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and
4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Bojues seconded the motion.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 voice vote
(C. F3rownrigg dissenting, Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:33 p.m.
a
IX. DESIGN REVIF.W STUDY ITEMS
7. 1436 DRAKE AVENLT. ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT�R A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
UARAGE (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DANIEL STRAMBI, PROPERTY
OWNERL63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report 02.11.02, with attachinents. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. C�mmission asked: can the FAR calculations be double-checked since the project is right at the
maximum allowable FAR.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, designer, was present to answer questions about
the project. Nasser Momtaheni, 1437 Drake and Lou Brooks, 1432 Drake, spoke. The neighbors
0
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2002
Chairman istica called a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice 6-1 (. Keighran ' ' g Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. is item concluded at 10:50 p.m.
12. 1369 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
". AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL,
DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter was submitted after preparation of
the staff report by Laurie and Jim Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, dated January 10, 2002, which expresses
concerns they have with the proposed project. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attorney representing the applicant, 216 Park
Road, and Gary Diebel, architect and property owner, were present. Mr. Hudak noted that t��� is the
architect's personal residence, slope on the lot 20' from front to back is an exceptional circumstance for the
height variance, would like to open up the existing porch at the front of the house, proposed floor area ratio
is under the maximum allowed by 500 SF, adequate on-site parking is provided, detached garage will remain
at the rear of the lot, this lot is raised substantially above top of curb level, side setback variance is justified,
existing house was built in the 1920's with a 3'-0" side setback, there was an existing front porch but it was
enclosed, the applicant is now restoring the porch to it's original design which is located in the side setback,
restored porch will reduce the existing living area, proposed addition at the rear of the house complies with
the required side setback, neighbors not in opposition to the side setback variance; in regard to the proposed
height, the Commission recently reviewed a similar project at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, this project had a
similar problem with measurement of height, first floor is approximately 20' above average top of curb, lot
rises approximately 30', if house was measured from ambient ground level it would comply with height
regulations, as measured from average top of curb as the code requires, proposed house exceeds the
maximum height limit by more than 10'; there are two other 2-story houses in this neighborhood at 1360 and
1361 Bernal Avenue and therefore the proposed 2-story house will not be out of place, can't see second floor
addition from street level, will not block views from the uphill side; would like to address two letters of
opposition received from neighbors to the left and right of the subject property, on the right side :� f the 4
windows are stairway windows, fourth window is in a laundry room which is between the washer and dryer,
there is a planter box proposed under the laundry window, plants in the box will help screen the view into
the neighbor's yard.
Further comment: Mr. Hudak addressed concern about reducing the light and air into neighbor's properties,
second story is set back 10' and will not be disruptive, the existing large tree at the rear of the property
probably creates more shade than the proposed addition would; architect has designed the second floor so
that it cannot be any less intrusive into the neighbor's yards, the existing tree at the rear yard of 1365 Bernal
Avenue will screen their yard, new second floor is set back and will create a physical separation.
Commissioner noted that he did not receive a copy of a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham, staff
noted that it will be in the staff report for the action hearing; like the porch on the front elevation, can
something be done above the arched windows, need to decrease the mass in that area, south elevation is nice,
east elevation is a flat plane and needs more articulation, applicant noted that there are vines growing on that
side of the house, vines grow over the iirst story parapet; north elevation is barren, would suggest adding
additional mature landscaping at the front of the house to screen the bare wall, a tree that has the crown mass
above the window would be ideal; concerned with the first floor addition at the rear of the house reducing
14
City qf Burlrngame Planning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2002
the size of the rear yard, applicant notes that there two patio areas at the rear, building is set back 15' from
the rear property line, rear yard is shaded by the large pine tree; concerned about height and in general the
mass of the addition, suggest placing story poles to help visualize the addition from the street, and relative to
the neighbors, think the house will be tall, but would like to see the story poles before making any
conclusions, applicant noted that if ineasured from adjacent grade, the house would measure 26'-3" in
height.
Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue, Patrick and Debbie Cunningham, 1365 Bernal Avenue, and Jim
Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, spoke concerned with the proposed height, there was a similar application
before the City Council at this site in 1993, variance was required to exceed 36' in height, at that time City
Couricil indicated that it could approve the project if the height were lowered to 35'-9", current proposal is
increasing the height from 35'-2' to 41' adding 6' to the existing height, this is not a flat lot, will affect
sunlight on the low side of Bernal Avenue, second story addition includes a 689 SF inaster bedroom, feel
that this area can be adjusted, his house is lower than the foundation of the subject property; objection is to
height, this site is higher than theirs, existing mature landscaping provides privacy, house was built in the
1920's, landscape has m�+�ired and created privacy in their yard, will loose privacy with this addition, will
block sunlight in the afternoon, backyard is now damp, additional shade from addition would increase the
problem of keeping the rear yard dry, will loose some view of the sky and will see only second story, sees
no justification for variance, does not oppose the first floor addition, invite the Commission to 1365 Bernal
to view impact from house; property is similar to subject property, entire yard is landscaped, will loose
privacy and sunlight, applicant referred to four windows on my side but one window is actually 3 windows,
house is only 1600 SF, use of the rear yard as living area, concerned with compatibility with a neighborhood
of small houses with people who enjoy using their rear yards, there is a large Monterey Pine tree in the rear
yard, sun comes in from right side of the lot, addition will block sunlight into the rear yard.
Mr. Hudak noted that the property owner is sensitive to privacy, in the design he pulled the second floor
back as far as he could, the only way to address the neighbor's concern is to eliminate the second floor;
Commission asked what the proposed plate heights are, applicant noted that the first floor plate height is 8'-
5" and the second floor is 7'-6". There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussio: :�'�isis a nice design, with a second story addition set back from the street the steep
slope on the lot is an exceptional circumstance for the height variance, 7'-6" plate height on the second floor
is below normal, cannot deny the property owner the right to have a second story, this site is not in the
hillside area so there is no review for view blockage, if windows are eliminated will have a flat stucco wall;
still concerned with bulk, story poles would be helpful, property owner knew that height would be a problem
when he purchased the house , concerned that the house will dominate the street, would like to see average
heights of adjacent buildings.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following
information has been provided:
• Provide landscape plan; suggest adding additional mature landscaping at the front of the house to
screen the bare wall, something that has the crown mass above the window would be ideal;
Provide story poles to help visualize the addition, suggest using orange netting when installing story
poles so mass is more obvious, should be installed no later than the Friday prior to the Planning
Commission action meeting;
15
C;'ity of Burlingume Planning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2002
• Provide building heights and finished floor elevations of the adjacent houses (two houses to the left
and right of the subject house);
This motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comment on motion: this is a well-handled design given the site, view is blocked by what is there now, due
to the small lot sizes in Burlingame the Commission cannot guarantee privacy nor does zoning address
privacy, feel that the impact will be minimal.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendaz when
the requested information has been provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:40 p.m
X. PLANNER
- Review of City Counc� regular meeting of January 7, 2002.
CP Monroe review briefl�� the planning items covered at the Council meeting.
- Review of Special Planni g Commission Study Meeting on Housing Element of
December 19, 2001, and ity Council Review.
There were no comment on this item.
- Discussion of Amendmen to Zoning Regulations to C-1 Subarea A, Tenant Size, Definitions and
Timing on Permit Expiratio
Commission and CP Monroe dis sed draft of proposed zoning changes. After some discussion the
commission suggested that this item rought back to the commission at study for additional
review. CP Monroe said she would try to is item with the comments noted on the next
commission agenda.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Bojues, Secretary
Mn�v�s 1.14
LG
� �
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
June 7, 1993
CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was
held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The
meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Bud Harrison.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Peter Campanile, Broadway merchant.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL PRESENT: HARRISON, KNIGHT, LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO
COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE
PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATIONS TO STUDENTS TRAVELING TO AUSTRALIA
Mayor Harrison asked teachers Barbara Delbon and Kris Cannon to
introduce students and tell about their upcoming month-long trip
to visit eight cities in Australia. The mayor presented eight
proclamations to them to present to each city's officials.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 3, 1993 were amended on
the £ifth page by Councilwoman Knight to show that council
approved funding the 101 freeway sign improvement from the 2
percent TOT (hotel tax) funds, Councilwoman O'Mahony moved
approval with the change. Seconded by Councilwoman Knight,
carried unanimously. The minutes of the Study Meeting of May 5,
1993 were approved unanimously on motion of Councilman Pagliaro,
second by Councilwoman Knight,.
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A NEW HOUSE AT
1369 BERNAL AVENUE
City Planner reviewed her memo of May 24, 1993 which recommended
council hold a public hearing and take action. Pat O'Connor is
requesting a height variance in order to demolish the existing
one story house with detached garage and build a new two story
house with attached parking. The existing house is 1,761 SF (.29
FAR), the proposed new house wi11 be 3,870.5 SF (.645 FAR). The
two story house will be built over a partially below-grade
garage. The lot slopes upward from front to back about six feet
with most of the rise at front of lot including a three foot
retaining wall at the front property line. The change in slope
is less than the 25 percent which would enti�le them to measure
lieight from the 15 foot front setback line. On May 10, the
Planning Commission voted to deny the request for a height
variance of 39 feet 6 inches for a new two story single family
residence. The applicant appealed to council. Two letters were
received today in favor of the project. She responded to Coun-
cilwoman Knight's questions regarding FAR, about why this project
did not go to a Planning Commission study and her desire to see
more information on existing structures on the property. Coun-
cilman Pagliaro asked about declining height measurements.
Council.woman O'Mahony noted this application was received April 6
and was not subject to the new FAR rules.
Mayor Harrison opened the public hearing. The applicant said he
had lived in the city for 15 years and has five children, needs
larger home; he introduced his architect Jerry Deal. Deal ex-
plained a variance is a method to allow building on lots that
have exceptional circumstances which preclude development within
established standards; he felt this lot had exceptional circum-
stances; because of the upward slope of this lot it is difficult
to build a home under 35 feet in height when measured from the
curb. He said the existing house and the house to the north
would need variances to be built today. His client is willing to
reduce his roof to the same height as the two story h�use next
door. Councilman Pagliaro asked about footprint of building;
Deal said it was 34.1 percent where 40 percent is allowed; Deal
illustrated how the roof line could be reduced in height; he
showed overheads of plans and slides of houses in the area with
slopes and nonconforming height; he responded to objections in a
letter from a neighbor to the Planning Commission; noted proposed
FAR is less than could be built under new law; he thought pro-
posed height was about the same as neighbor house. Councilwoman
Knight asked if there was room in attic to expand house; Deal
said attic area might be used for storage but is not walk-in
height.
Richard Hoskinson, 1915 Broadway, said he was in favor of this
project; commended the architect and owner; liked to see this
type of change for improvement.
Speaking in opposition was Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal, across
the street from project; he said the lots across the street from
project are not downward sloping lots as the architect claimed;
he felt there was no justification to exceed code; project adds
mass and bulk and needs a variance to build. He requested
council denial.
Michael Bates, 1373 Bernal, next door to site; said the building
is sited forward of the lot and it will obstruct his view of the
neighborhood; was concerned about the large retaining wall' needed
to build below grade garage, and hoped there was a fence around
it; this is a terrific neighborhood with a nice mix of houses,
this proposal is too big; he hoped council would deny. Mayor
Harrison closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pagliaro considered a variance should be for something
exceptional about a property; as this project is proposed he
could find nothing exceptional; he suggested they reduce the
height by changing angle of roof and adding dormer windows; they
could move the house back on lot to reduce effect on neighbor;
�ould increase the footprint to compensate for reducing height;
he suggested denial without prejudice. Council members agreed.
Councilman Pagliaro moved to deny without prejudice. Seconded by
Councilman Lembi, carried unanimously by roll call vote.
City ttorney reviewed his memo of May 19, 1993 which r ommended
counci hold a public hearing and take action. The o ers of
Dicey Ri ey's Irish Pub (formerly the Polo Club) pla�i �o offer
tradition Irish music and modern karaoke sing-�:l'`ong. Police
report the rior owner has not had any problem�.�� The karaoke
equipment wa installed and used by previous,.6wner. Planning
department exp ssed concern about parking;,�and noise, but since
there have been o problems with a simila� use, he recommended
approval for a 90 ay period, then pla�ment on the annual review
liGt fnr amncamant armitc
Mayor Harrison opened t
and the hearing was clo
Councilman Lembi moved a
music and karaoke singin
carried unanimously by,�'
public.;hearing. There were no comments
r�
� J�
1 of an amusement permit for Irish
�onded by Councilwoman O'Mahony,
ll�vote.
rl1DL1l, t1L1HIC11VU Hl"Ilh7i'iCI�LVl Y�ICl�lll L' iC I..HJH 1VVJ1ItH K1JI�VKHIV-l� H1�
327 LORTON AVENUE
J .
City Attorney,��viewed his memo of May , 1993 which recommended
council hold � public hearing and take ac 'on. The operators of
Casa Nostra.'request an amusement permit for and music designed
for an older audience, stand-up comics and li ited karaoke. They
propose,:hours from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 Wednesda through Saturday.
Planning note possible parking and traffic impac -, particularly
with the billiard club which was recently granted a,.parking
variance and approved for across the street from thi's location;
they also note previous complaints about noise from a previous
2