The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1785 Hunt Drive - Staff Report� . ' ' ' � CITY Q IJ ��/ � j �/ �� / � AGENDA BURLINGAME �TEM u ��;� STAFF REPORT MTG. 1_�i_(lO DATE 1 � � �.. TO: ��,Tnv�bi�$�r� �q�3��}?� �ilg G��'� r''nr--o. T�T�,• SUBMITTED 1/1�,,�,•�,/� � BY _�_��j' D A T E: T r �n�� T� q-� � - APPROVED F R OM : ��'�'� ��A��T�PT� B Y SUBJECT: �rELiL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR A PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1785 HUNT DRIVE ZONED R-1 RECOMMENDATION• City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Action alternatives and required findings for a variance are attached at the end of the staff report. Resolutions formalizing this evening's action will be prepared for your adoption at the Council meeting of February 5, 1990. Plannina Commission Action At their meeting on December 11, 1989 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-1 (Commissioner Graham dissenting) to deny the application for a hillside area construction permit at 1785 H�nt Drive. In a separate action the Commission voted 6-0 to grant the variance to parking dimension requirements (18�-6" deep driveway space where 20' is required). The Commissioners found that the placement of the house square on the lot while the str�et and sidewalk are at an angle causes the variation in the driveway length from 18.5' to 19.5'. In order to gain the additional space in the driveway the entire structure would have to be relocated. On this basis they granted the variance for parking dimension. For the hillside area construction permit the Commissioners found that while these homes were built into the hill and of Eichler design with a generally interior orientation, the neighboring house at 1775 Hunt had been opened up in its original design with the placement of windows along the side property line adjacent to 1785 to take advantage of the distant view. The second story addition at 1785 Hunt would eliminate this view from the family room and kitchen of the house at 1775 Hunt. It was also noted that there could be an addition with a lower roof line or at a different location on the house at 1785 and this should be considered. To eliminate the issue of the parking variance which the Commission felt physical circumstances justified and with the sense that there may be an addition which could be made without a hillside area construction permit, the Commission granted the parking variance. Conditions considered by the Planning Commission included: i � 2 1. that the project shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1989; 2. that the maximum height of the finished second floor shall be 22'-4" above the front door sill and the new enclosed garage shall be an interior dimension of 25' wide by 20' deep; and 3. that the project shall be built according to all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. BACKGROUND• Jimmy Huang, property owner and applicant, is requesting a variance to parking dimensions for one uncovered parking space (18.5' requested, 20' required) so that he can make a 972 SF second story two bedroom addition to his house at 1785 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1 (Code Sec. 25.70.030). Because the house is located in the hillside area a hillside area construction permit is also required for the second story addition (Code Sec. 25.61.030). The number of bedrooms in the house will increase from four to six, increasing the floor area by 34� (existing house with one car garage 2,836 SF, remodeled house with two car garage 3,808 SF). The proposed second story addition will be 'placed over about the rear two-thirds of the existing one story Eichler designed structure. The lots in the area on the odd numbered side of Hunt Drive step up the hill from Trousdale, so each is higher in elevation than the next. In addition the lots slope up from the Hunt frontage toward the rear. In the case of 1785 the rear of the lot is 24�-8" to 26'-6" higher than the front of the lot. The existing house at 1785 Hunt sits on a 65' x 90' level pad graded out of the lot. The new roof line, with second story addition, will be 22�-4" tall. Thus it will be well below the elevation of the rear prope�ty line. Heavy vegetation at the rear of the 1785 lot screens the house below from the house above to the rear. The residential structures at 1775 and 1785 Hunt are presently separated by about 18' to 21�. The present roof of 1785 is below the top of the 4� property line fence in place on the side property line at 1775 Hunt. A person standing in this side yard can lo�ik out over the flat roof of 1785 or down onto it. The proposed second story addition will rise about 10' or so above this side property line fence. There is only one window on the side of the second story addition facing 1775. It is a small, frosted bathroom window. Hillside Area Construction Permit The zoning ordinance requires a hillside area construction permit for all second story development in the designated hillside area. The review of the project shall be based on "obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties." Emphasis should be given to obstruction of views from habitable areas within a dwelling 3 unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Any action should be based on the direction given in the ordinance. The ordinance does not include any provision for design review or issues of privacy across properties. EXHIBITS: - Action Alternatives, Variance Findings and Hillside Area Construction Permit Finding - City Council Minutes, January 3, 1990, setting public hearing - Monroe letter to Jimmy Huang, January 4, 1990, setting public hearing - Jimmy Huang letter to City Clerk, received December 26, 1989, requesting appeal - Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 1989 - Planning Commission Staff Report, December 11, 1989 with attachments - Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed January 5, 1990 - Project Plans MM/s cc : Jimmy Huang Wilson J. Ng 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 or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property 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 affirmative 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 a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. VARIANCE FINDINGS (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. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FINDING Criteria for hillside area construction permits shall be based on the finding that the proposed second story addition does not substantially obstruct the existing distant views from nearby properties. Emphasis in this review shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. City Council Minutes - January 3, 1990 NEW BUSINESS Schedule Hearings: Vice Mayor_$�rton scheduled hearings on January 17 for 1550 Gilbreth, 1785 Hunt, and 741-761 Rollins. Reschedule January Study Meeting: City Manager said the Mayor has asked that the Saturday January 13 Goal Session be changed to the following week due to his recovery. Councilman Pagliaro said he would be unable to attend until late February in that case; Vice Mayor asked that Councilman Pagliaro give comments regarding goals to the City Manager. The meeting was rescheduled to Saturday, January 20, 1990. Donation from Peninsula Tennis Club: Vice Mayor Barton acknowledged a$1,000 donation from the Tennis Club for use on city tennis courts. She asked that a letter of thanks be sent. City Manager noted that the Washington Park Tennis Courts will be rebuilt and the funds could be used on that project. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety and Parking, December 14; Beautification, December 7; Library Board, December 19; and Planning, December 11, 1989. b. c. d. Department Reports: Building Inspector's Report, November 1989; Police Report, November 1989; City Treasurer's Report, November 31, 1989. Letter from Board of Supervisors regarding need for new jail site. Letter from resident regarding intersection at E1 Camino Real, Peninsula Avenue and Park Road. In response to council comment, Director of Public Works said this intersection is controlled by the,state and that staff has made a similar suggestion regarding improving the intersection to State. Council asked staff to send this information to resident. e. f. 9• h. Letter from Supervisor Eshoo asking donation to support Women'S Hall of Fame. Letter from Contra Costa County asking support in designating San Francisco Bay as a"wetland of significance." Letter from resident regarding noise from leaf blowers. Letter from Bob Brattesani asking for a teen dance club. Councilman Pagliaro reviewed the efforts made a couple years ago by himself and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations regarding a teen dance club and that this group received no cooperation from the high schools and the idea did not succeed. i J Letter from League of California Cities commending Senator Kopp's efforts on behalf of cities. Letter from Senator Kopp noting January 29 is last day to submit requests for new legislation. FROM THE FLOOR Teen Dance Club: Three students, one of which was the letter writer above, discussed with council their needs and one suggested city use the old Encore Theater for a teen club. Staff informed them that this building was being used as a church at the present time. Vice Mayor Barton and Councilman Pagliaro suggested the students go back to their schools and see if they can develop some interest, they agreed that the students need something and that the city would work with them if there was a real interest and some cooperation. � CITY - ,�,�' 0.t� BURLINGAME o° q 9 �� oRATiD JVN[6, V�� V 4'��j�` �� /"'V ��YA Y�WA { Y� v) 1... CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� GALIFORNIA 94010 January 4, 1990 Mr . Jimmy Huang 1785 Hunt Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Huang: � t w�u�m..i-�- �.-'1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT (415) 342-8625 At the City Council meeti�ng of January 3, 1990 the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 1785 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 17, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there. any questions regarding the appeal. Please call me if you have Sincerely yours, ��T��f�� U"" Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Wilson Ng (designer) City Clerk RECEfVED DEC 2 6 �$9 �'iri�� L� �� ■ ♦ 1M W � �1 � � � \1 �E:C 2 6 198g �:J� �/'�'J�� t� �-�� ?'L j ,ITY OF BURLINGAN I �U " �u � ? Z �� .,� n•.•nii��r, nFn' / �z� C�T � ��V ��6 �✓7�C'' � / �- - / ,�- / � � � , � ' �< � � � I L ��1� ,�� "' `'� i`nS �' /C � .� � �-�� l �� -� l �-� � � � ---U C l �t ' Gl�� ,. / � ��> c:�/c� �� -�-'/�'' � `�: � L � -� � � . / � � . , - G�/7 j" Gl j C%� � G�? �,�i1 �:��1-C.,✓!�!I /!� :, �:U ��J /?�%/ S S� I � �7 �� i.� �� U��' � ��1 Lv�� l� i.t C% �-/i , S�- <� �: c �.� �-� %J �� = �� , �� ., i l �"l /� i� �-�l (��i`�"/1/�'r � --------------------------------------------------------------- Honorable Mayor and Council: Public Hearing should be scheduled for the next regular meeting, Wednesday, January 17, 1990. City Clerk Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 11, 1989 Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public ��`a�,�ng. CP advised on-site parking will meet code requirements. °�„x, ',�-..., Chm. Elli's..�opened the public hearing. Tom McCarvil�,.e;' designer representing'�'�he applicant, Michael Economou, was;�-p°resent. His comments: the mass, of the project will be in th�e��ear of building, appearance from the`�s�treet will be the same�xisting garage will be replaced with a garage in the rear 30�•�`�of the lot and parking requirements are met on tlie, site. The�ti-r were no audience comments and the public hearing was c�"o�ed. �,,,,,r�9°"�p� C. Jacobs stated she had no prc�bl�� with this proposal, there exceptional circumstances, ;�,l�e easeme at the side will allow addition without impactiru��space of th eighbor, it will not disruptive to the nei��or. C. Jacobs mo for approval of variance applicatio,� with the following condi�.�ons: (1) that project shall be �uilt according to the plans�'"s��bmitted to Planning Depar ent and date stamped November 13,~'`��„989; and that the pr ect shall be built to meet all Uniform B�lding Uniform re Code requirements as amended by the �'��ity Burlina e. �,_ are the be the the the 2 and of Mo on was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 6-0 roll call te. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1785 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 12/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP discussed code regulations for the required uncovered space. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Wilson Ng, designer and nephew of the applicant, Jimmy Huang, discussed the proposed project: the reason for the new addition is to provide space for additional family members and children back from school; applicants have lived in this house nine years and want to stay in Burlingame; it would be difficult to expand at grade so they are proposing a second story addition. He presented photographs to illustrate his contention the addition will not greatly impact the neighbors, it will not block sunlight; because of vegetation the addition will not be seen from the house directly in back on Escalante and there will be no obstruction of the bay view; the house at 1795 Hunt will not see the addition because of the change in grade; the house at 1775 Hunt will see some of the addition, about 3'-4�, sunlight will not be affected because of the orientation of the houses; rooftops would be the same height for 1765 and 1785 Hunt because of the elevation of the lots; they propose a gable roof for the addition Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 11, 1989 so it will blend into the neighborhood, there is a bathroom window on the side, this will have frosted glass. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Ng advised he had not been inside the house of the neighbors at 1775 Hunt but the property owners had, they had talked to some of the neighbors; applicants have lived there for nine years, it is the house on the corner which has been on the market. Staff explained the requirement for variance approval, Commission must find there are exceptional circumstances applicable to this property that do not apply generally to property in the same district. Commission asked applicant to address this finding. Mr. Ng responded it would be difficult to move the garage back because of the existing structure�s floor plan, this would require removal of the family room. Commissioner comment: the house is placed square but the street and sidewalk are at an angle, therefore length of driveway varies. Mr. Ng stated the closest to the property line is 18.5', some is at 19'-5", there is 20' to the sidewalk but not to the property line. Regarding putting the addition on the same level as the existing structure, he stated depth of the backyard is 86', about 10'-15' of that is level, they did not want to build into the hill nor lose back yard; the way the house is placed on the lot the garage could not be extended another 1.5', they would have to move the whole front end of the building, heavy beams would be a problem and this would weaken the stability of the entire structure. Commission comment: visited the property at 1775 Hunt, if pitched roof were removed and a flat roof retained it would reduce the impact, the only windows at 1775 which have views are on that side and these views will be blocked. Mr. Ng replied the neighbors at 1775 won�t be able to see the roof because of the angle, a flat roof is possible but will not look as good nor blend with the neighborhood; plate line of the addition would be less than 10�, ceiling joists 2� x 8', if constructed with a flat roof it would be about 10' above the existing roof. A Commissioner noted that most of the discussion had referred to views of the bay, there is view of the hillside also; Mr. Ng said this had been mentioned to the neighbor. Another Commissioner noted the addition would be 13'-6" above the existing flat roof. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. James Gray, 1775 Hunt Drive: he has been a resident of Burlingame for 19 years, the addition will destroy his view from the north side of his house, it will reduce privacy in their back yard, the plans he has seen would change the ambience of the whole block from an Eichler to something else. , Cuno Buechi, 1765 Hunt Drive: the block is composed of Eichler homes, not a mixture of designs, this addition as proposed would Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 11, 1989 take away the privacy and view of his neighbor at 1775 Hunt and reduce his privacy, it would change the character of the entire block; he felt it would be a crime to change a famous architect's design and asked that this unique block remain as it is. John Rosenberg, 1770 Hunt: he lives diagonally across the street, he is a realtor and stated 1785 Hunt has been on the market in the past four to five years; the residents of 1775 Hunt will definitely have blockage of view because of the height of the building, there will be some wall obstruction, this is the only two story house on that block and will negatively impact the aesthetics of the area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: replying to a question, staff discussed area of the city which falls under the hillside area construction ordinance, roughly Mills Estates and the area on the other side of the canyon roughly above Alvarado. With the statement he still has not heard a finding to support approval of the parking variance, in looking at the property and the neighbor�s property he thought there would be an obstruction of view, C. Kelly moved for denial of the variance and the hillside area construction permit. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi. Discussion on the motion: this particular application does not affect the straight out view, losing view to the side is no different than what happens in numerous areas in the city, it is not fair to impose these restrictions on this property just because of its location, will not support the motion; this site is in a hillside area, therefore Commission has an obligation to find it as such, these homes were built to take advantage of the slopes of the land, this house was not typical Eichler design since the main living areas at 1775 Hunt were designed to look out over 1785 Hunt, Commission is not an architectural review board, whether this would change the character of the neighborhood is not a factor, rather Commission is considering the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas of nearby properties, think 1775 Hunt will be affected enough to warrant denial. Further comment on the motion: the house at 1775 is an unusual Eichler design with windows along the property line separating this property from 1785 in order to take advantage of the view of the hills and even out toward the Bay Bridge, these windows were not added later, the house was designed that way, therefore addition of a structure on top of 1785 would greatly impact the view of the owners of 1775; think there could be an addition with a lower roof which would not be as obstructive, protecting the Eichler appearance of the block and neighbor's view of trees and open space. It was suggested Commission might deny this application Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 11, 1989 without prejudice. Another Commissioner preferred to leave the motion as it is. Continued comment: at first thought I might support approval, a site inspection indicated that from 1775 there is a view of trees or at least something, the windows on the side of this house are unusual for an Eichler, given these windows and previous comments during Commission discussion it appears there will be blockage of view, support the motion to deny the hillside area construction permit. A Commissioner commented on the parking variance, there are at least 100 houses in the Ray Park area where variances have been allowed when the house as constructed does not allow modification to meet code which has changed since the house was built; would vote for approval of the variance and request separate motions. Maker of the motion, C. Kelly and the seconder, C. Giomi agreed to separate motions. Motion to deny the hillside area construction permit was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham voting no. Motion to approve the parking variance was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote with the following conditions: (1) that the project parking shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1989; and (2) that the project shall be built according to all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Additional comment: wanted to give applicant and his designer an opportunity to design an addition without being concerned about the parking. It was suggested applicant spend time with the neighbors, take photos of the roof line from inside their house and actually show the neighbor by constructing poles where the potential obstruction would occur. Appeal procedures were advised. �'4>,. VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMITS IN ORDER TO USE AN ACCES,S.ORY ��`; STRUCTURE FOR DWELLING PURPOSES AT 919 CAPUCHINO �..�FNUE, i �� Continue January 8, 1990 at applicant�,!,,s''request. 5. SPECIAL��ERMIT FOR A PER�NI�L SERVICE RETAIL HEALTH SPA AT Reference staff repox=�h� 12/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details ��f� the�°"�,�equest, staff review, Planning staff comment, appl�e'ant�s lette�., study meeting questions. Seven conditions yv�re suggested for�nsideration at the public hearing. Comm�ys��on/staff noted restrictions ' osed on some retail service bus�inesses in the M-1 district, concer bout peak hour traffic in that area, the city's policy and attempt to maintain industrial P.C. 12/11/89 Item #3 MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1785 HUNT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Jimmy Huang, property owner and applicant, is requesting a variance for parking dimension (18.5' provided, 20' required) for one uncovered parking space and a hillside area construction permit for a 972 SF second story addition to add two bedrooms to the present four bedroom house at 1785 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1. Presently two covered parking spaces are provided, one in a garage and one in a carport. The requirement for a five bedroom or larger house is two covered and one uncovered space. As a part of the proposed remodel the applicant will rebuild the front of the house creating two covered parking spaces in a 25' wide and 20' deep (interior dimensions) garage. The driveway from curb to face of the existing and new garage is 18'-6" deep. The expanded garage will not change the existing backup of 18'-6". The uncovered parking space requirement is 20' in depth. The proposed 972 SF second story addition will be placed on the front (east) and side (south) of the house. This thirty feet (30') of the south side wall will be extended 13�-4" in height above the existing roof. This extension begins 20' behind the front corner of the house on the south side. The house drops to one story for about 12' behind the second story addition. The adjacent side wall of the neighbor's house is about 58' long; therefore the second floor addition will extend about 51$ of the length of the side of the neighbor�s house and about 10' will be visible above the neighbor to the south�s property line fence. It should also be noted that there is a change in grade between 1785 Hunt Drive and the house to the south (1775 Hunt Drive). The lot at 1785 Hunt is lower, stepping down the hill, so that a person walking in the side yard of the house to the south can look over the approximately 4� high fence and see the tar and gravel roof of 1785 Hunt a couple of feet below. Clearly a second story addition 30' wide and about 10' above the fence along the south side of 1785 Hunt will be visible from the house to the south. The two houses are about 18' to 21' apart; thus after the addition the second story will be about 18' at the nearest point from the north facing windows of the neighbor's house. There is only one window proposed on the south side of the proposed second story addition. -2- The lot at 1785 Hunt also rises steeply to the rear. The change from front to rear along the south side of the property line is 24�-8"; on the north side of the property line the change is 26'-6". The house at 1785 Hunt sits on a 65' x 90' level area graded out of the hill surrounded by retaining walls. The existing house is 12' tall from the entry door sill; the house with the second story will be 22�-4" tall (the second story addition adding 13' -4" to the height). Since the rise to the rear of the lot is 24�-8" to 26'-6" the new 22�-4" house will be entirely below the elevation of the property line of the house to the rear. Heavy vegetation now at the rear of the lot at 1785 Hunt obscures view of the houses above from below. Staff Review City staff reviewed this request and had no comments. The City Engineer did note that 1785 Hunt had an unusually wide curb cut for a driveway but since it was existing and no change to this area was proposed, it could continue. Planning staff would note that because this application required a variance, it came directly to the Planning Commission for consideration. The neighbors within 100' were not noticed of the second story addition as is the case when the only permit request is for a hillside area construction permit. Rather all property owners within 300' of the project were notified of both the variance and hillside area construction permit requests. That notice was mailed 10 days before the public hearing. Applicant's Letter In his letter of November 6, 1989 Mr. Huang notes that he does not believe his second story addition will affect the rights of his neighbors. First the addition is set back on the rear of his home. People on the street won�t even be able to see it. Second the neighbor to the rear will not be affected because the neighbor�s house is atop the hill and his view of the bay will be unobstructed. He feels the proposed addition will be good design and will contribute to the value of the community. In his request for the parking dimension variance he notes that he is lacking 1-1/2 feet for the required uncovered parking space for a five bedroom house. (Note: The city considers the first floor study a sixth bedroom.) He comments the addition will benefit his family and substantially increase the property value of his home. He notes the uncovered space has always been 18.5' deep and has always been used effectively for parking; no change is proposed. Thus he does not see an inconvenience to its use for parking in the future. The parking dimension variance will not affect the structure; it is an existing condition. Therefore he does not see -3- the variance having any impact on the aesthetics, mass or bulk of the development on the property. Findinas In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Sec. 25.54.020 a-d). (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 far 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. In granting a hillside area construction permit the Planning Commission must determine whether the second story addition will cause obstruction of existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. PlanninQ Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. In finding reasons for any action the facts included in the report should be incorporated by reference and the reasons for any action clearly stated. The following conditions should be considered at the public hearing: 1. 2. that the project shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1989; that the maximum height of the finished second floor shall be 22'-4" above the front door sill and the new enclosed garage shall be an interior dimension of 25� wide by 20' deep; and -4- 3. that the project shall be built according to all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. f�� --- Ma ga et Monroe City Planner MM/s cc : Jimmy Huang Wilson J. Ng STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. Project Address: 1785 Hunt Drive II. Proiect Description and Permits Requested: The applicant is requesting a Parking Variance for an uncovered parking space which will not meet the minimum size: 18'-6" provided; 20'-0" required (CS 25.70.030). A Hillside Construction permit for a 972 SF second floor addition (CS 25.61.030) at 1785 Hunt Drive. The addition will increase the number of bedrooms from four (4) to six (6) and be 34� larger. III. Property Identification: Assessor�s Parcel Number(s): 025-331-030 Lot No: 3 Block No: 43 Subdivision: Mills Estate #23 Lot Size: 10,747 SF General Plan Designation: dwelling units per acre. Zoning: R-1 Low Density Residential; 1-8 IV. Existina Site Conditions and Adjacent Land Uses: Existing four (4) bedroom, two (2) bath single family (R-1) residence with R-1 residential uses on adjacent lots. This use conforms to the General Plan. V. CEOA Status- Categorically Exempt per CEQA Code Sec. 15301 Existing Facilities class 1(e) (1) additions to existing structures less than 50$ of the floor area. VI. Proiect Data: Proposed New Construction: 972 SF Existing Area: 2836 SF 2336 SF Resid./500 SF att. Garage Proposed Percent Increase in Area: 34� 3808 SF Front Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setba�k: Declining Height: Lot Coverage: Building Height: On-Site Parking Spaces: Proposed 27'-p" 9'-0" 80'-0" NA 30� 22�-4" * 2 covered Required 15'-0" ��_p�� 15'-0" NA 40� 30'-0" 2 covered 1 uncovered d c�rr o �� euRUNcan+e �`� CITY OF BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Application: Special Permit �Variance Other Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Address 1785 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, Ca., Assessor's Parcel Number(s) APPLICANT Name : Jimmy Huan� Address : 1785 Hunt Drive � City/State/Zip Brlingame, CA � Telephone:(Work) ( Home ) � qa -6 �� Architect/Desicrner: � Name : wi i son J N� Address : 8255 Skyline Blvd, Oakland, CA 94611 (Home) Telephone ( daytime ) : 415-339-1878 Please indicate with an asterisk (*) who contact person is for project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Second floor addition; Seeking parkin� variance for . . -. . . •• • - -• � •. .. - AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is zrue and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. / Applicant�s Signature Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to su - t's application. � - t.� .� / /�� ; � P operty ner�s Signature Date xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOFFICE USE ONLYxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx C Ga �F�=- � - �-� Date Filed: Fee �,S — Receipt # ��' `�-� Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing (date) / 2-��_ � 9 P.C. Action /-1P/'2�vc-0 PKG'. ' 2, � ` - S//.l - / /'- � ��M17� Appeal to Council? es No Council meeting date /_ ��- � Council Action �4�'P/Zo✓CD �'�YG'. +��2��^��'�/ /-/ ��, ti S� ,�' �%c!� l'o iv S T iz. Pc= /�c'�h i� ,t� � n/� ED y/,' Ti-/ U u T /%'� cl U,0 f C��,= Oz5 - 331- 030 PROPERTY OWNER. Name: �Address: ICity/State/Zip Telephone (Work) �, cirr i� °�. RUNcnME �� CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. I arn ',�uildiny a szcon� flooi ac�c�ition to my r�sid�ncz, After the acldition is a�ailt my homa ,aill consist of Live �edrooms; As a result I must novT 7iav� a tti•ro car covared yaraye and ona uncovered l�arkin� s�ac2, as a result, my �ro;:�l�r� is t�at th2 on uncover2d �ar'�in� s�ac� can only ;�e sztback 182 feet, rather than the re�uired 20 feet, I am rec;u`stiny a variance on the 12 ioot I am lackiny. b. Explain why the application request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. I'he additi�onF:� my home �aould sunstantially increase the property valu� of my home, But more im�ortantly it would provide a home that could be more beneficiallu enjoyed by my family. c. Explain why 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, safatY, c�c:�Era�. weifare ox convenience. Since the uncovered �ar;�iny space as always been 182 fzet, it is im�ossible to knoca how the lack of an additional iZ ieet will cause undue harm to my family or �ublic. I can only state that in the �ast my uncovered parkiny s�ace of 182 feet has not caused detriment or inconvenience. d. Discuss how the proposed 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. The variance re��uested is not for any ty�e of structural chan�e, it is an existiny condition that will not affect th2 asethetics, mass, bulk and character at the pro�erty. City of Burlin�ame Nov 6,1989 Planning commission: City Hall- 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: Hillside �ermit for 1785 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, Ca., a single family dwelling To the planning commission: I write to assure the commission, that the seconc� floor addition I have planned for my home at 1785 Hunt Dr., Burlingame Ca., ;,Till bled naturally into the reigYworhood. As designed, I am confident that my acldition will not unduly im��inge on th2 rights of my neighk�ors. However, I c�o realize that the commission would most certainly be concerned with my second floor addition causing the possible obstruction of the reighborhood's panoramic view, let me assur� the commission, that as designed, because the addition is setback atop the rear of my home. Pedistrians would not even be able to view it, my only concern would be the possibl2 imposition on the neighbor behind my residence, However, to allay your fears and mine; because my back neighbor's home is set atop a hill, his view of the bay would not be affected. Thus, my addition, will assuredly fit the asethetic nature of the neighborhood as well as contributinc� to the value of the community. Sincerely yours, ,� . , �lc= '� /:f � /� c ., _. �; Jimmy Huang j ��,, _� ��,� enclosures: drawing % 7' ' � LL-1 12 ( REY.B/71) �... � . _ j._ � f , �: �:�._. � +� '�l` , _ — _ -_- � � 1 ��'� I, , �'�' ' __ =_ ,� . w�.� '�� I��!�!��II ..,,�i�qp� I'l85 Nu+J1 D��vE I �=*ao� ra�wnr N71)Mf �_ � � . .,.,. r.... � �'�� / �f \�1� � �' f , � i . �� (,E� FIOU� SEGo�1D STOeY ADG�ItIDr� V�LL �E P�ELow o�. AT G¢AVE I,EVEL OF Ex�f�rJl� �I DUSFf� pct ¢EAtL. . � i � ¢ �� i - ' � r i \ �I L L� �' �' � g ,� sI� � '�g � �� ; � Z� � � z I ; � o � � „ _ � , 0 z� , 0 � . � rn ; --� � � n � . � �o• oboc� IIKOIIM�i1pM o�� ,� i �;��5 �' - �y.' y�" �' . � � � ' � w .3f,�. � j.• '� � d� � �'��,�t� .E�,�' , ,'�� . tr��,<.: �¢7� ��.., .. � _ � � � . . . � . k� �, '�' 2e . '� Y ` `" °' 4 � � ` ,��s " �' �° a+ �,, ! `; ` '� � •� l,t ' �°,� � �� , �� .. � � �� ` ` `'� t�� - � � � � , ,: � � . � � _, �` ; ' �� `r � e� '� � ., �' ��. '� A. ..-r",� � . �J : � . , � � �� , �� ir � �� w �� \ . l ; y,� +n. '. k ;'�I�°��• � � ` * � � �t` •`�� +�,' � .. � ,� t s �� - - �►`"� ,� `� � „ . � � = `� �, ' � ' � . . �yJn b � ;F �� y• ' � �.� �. ,��k�y � � i��L.(�� !^',ievhr +1� '�� tF "�� M'' �•�rur.'^ 5 �� 1.��. . .� . . 2 �'� \ �` � 'M Ck�t. �;...� t �.. h+R � .#' � "� <_ � `��G�� / KY_5Ui. ��sT �� '^� �, _ � ' .. . .. '�°^�Y� ',��•' W��.V�L%% ��_'% �,� �5 a:`.. •.�+ } r '�'.. � ^� " . � �� r �. p � t?N f `�g..,, f� 'w. w� � ' :�,��, � �N `- � � °: f � . �� , < ',1 . �� .. . . . n �� . � � . .. v�: � ' , . � , � - � 1� � " • • f ' - f � i � � �. V �� Y � " � r.� ;. �J /j ` �'. , � . u, � }�� 1� �:. , � � ` � �=,-. , , .�. „ . >� '.Y � . , �� ,' ' . : 1� .. . �� . _ a �.xc t,q�,'w ' �7' Y '� � � '-d � � �!� • . y # + �; . .. . . � �� , � ir: � - a �, , � . . . ''. " � .. � . � . . �.. � s..�,.. ' �n . 6 � 6 _ � ' �' ' . .e;..�.... . '" ' ��w � �. � A "'� ' � �� ",.;. . , , u,�rb ... .. yy�,. . _, . , _ �q . _� "-`. . . ' . y. ' . , q..,: ��' i�P $ .`e'� ,,�, �� !"'• � ----�-__ � � � . . . , • - � ";� � ._ _ . � �., ::. ,,�, , „ �� . �y � ..... ' . . n , . - -, ��s� '��# * � � ' .� '� .. � � � � + b (.. .! �'�rtt . ... _ __._ ..." ,� � �.�r�; � .1:1r ... � � � ' . . .�� ' ,,.:. =� v '.» : � �, , �- � ., , . � ' . <tr-� . ¢� a�� .-,{d[�..,sv x � ., , . . . � . . . � :, .. . .•�.,,," a� .. .,� e� � ... k a ' `,� J * � � _ _ r� ' �y4 � �.�� , �� ' t y�'�. �'�, ' �. �k � LB � �'� � �' - � � �� ``� _ � �� ; .. . �:_ � 7,, � `� -� ,�� u;, 1�* �� 1 J � r'.a�„`�`"�.+' � ,t,�'� ;� . . �$;� � '` �," '..�'� # - �,'F�'�� °�"� ., ' � � ., d's�-�°` "� . . . - � ' � � s � � � �� . . � r: � _ � °�,� �„ F. �s1F,, ft� .. ;r.5 �'� �: , �.� . .� i � � ' � ' \l' ' �� -- � ' �/� �� _ �, �7 � � � � �� "� � �� .. ��.. . ' � � V 1 _ a _t� " �� V 7 . . •� ' ' � .. . ' - +� �� '� • � . . � �, �. �� .�, � , r�,�� , . --_.. ��. '1�,��, � ., _ r 'Y; . � � r --��.... ry � � �a � . lrf� � �;.,# � � ,�` . .., . .� . _ : �� /,. � '$u, .ibk ,y ' . 'k �� ! `�. " Rj1 � � i�I' ' �ta d 4 r �.��_` ... _ /% � ~ Q(i � ( � � 5'kg� � ,�, �� - \ ,s+ �� r� 1((� � � Q �� .,,,�� u � >` � � �I� � i�q `�Q, � �� ;', .: �; � :. , U ,� � �� Y;� � , _� � � � �� ` � �' `'R y �y� ! � 4 , . , ' � � . � " � q? k � �� • � � ,s i � � _ �� a ��s � - � � . . � .. ' � � xY � �. ": �+�'�. �t � ,�� t �� t� '_ � '� 1n.. _.��k4,7S� t �y . � __"y,. l ) 4 � 2 � �' Y, ` 1 - `"'i' _ �,� . � �, .. _.,t .ti"� , \\ t \�3' �r't\ � �Z�� ,,,_ .'"� '�• 1 /77� a� ;�. ' ., , �,�i 'i , ,� � � "�- �� • .<� s3. �� ,,�"5i 4 `7.��NA+.+1.^.,".t�'1 .. , �`"� ' I +• f :� ,t . � '�� ` � , a�' „, � — ,�.: _:.: "� •1 � ��.� -p� ,� J 4'f ¢ � � • a� , � � , r i � . �� ' �` � ` d� `��y � , ' �``' m� : x .,,� � ' _ �.i� ~�y� y�,;w ^', ;,: i�.�y,,�, m , � ^ � �� . , . _ �$�':� . � _� .. a� '� r ' — . . w � �� ,� �� 'r� � � . . � . rwni. , _. � �—"""' i , , "�,>� �' , .,. , p ... :.. . � ... _ _ � � ti ��, F ..�^. � � � �� 1 iy� 4t. �1. � � � � � � ��` 't `; ��►�i � �Y� .,f ; � � � � � , � : � _� 1 � �� -�.e� � ,�,�,�y�� 1 v� � ��,'� � � � . Jf4: � � � .� -ti�' � ffi � ^•°^'e'�r �:, _� ,.S:,ri r �'i 2 v''�:� - . ' '�. �/ � %'�. . � � ��~��* ,.�. , ..'.� ^�ia`:, � � �;�; . �� '� ��} . ,...., � ` .., , a�e:� `� �tr w, ` " � d i�' � � � � :� ��' ' . �� .ir__ `� " `. � .,w,� � ,`�'„i� ""'_ . e r, . . �,. _ �� ,._� � ., s °'�: � ,�„ � �:. ` i �,� , . .a � � � M — �y�,,,� `,:� �� - "� � �� ,e,�� '� �'— , � , �; ' � �� ,� ,�;.; � , � � � � . � e ��r�� . _ � � . � �.r . : . ��,=�. _� �� . n,� . �: Y�I' .� 1 � � �. � . . . r �.�1. +. a - " � � , � "�p� . 1 . + _ . . , }v v ' ' u �` �;� � �� "t`r ''�� '4"�'�� 'r. +. �� .� �� , c' k`i _ ,, a + . � . { q,��. ,. � ,� �'. � "'��.,� ��- � �- '� � :� � � �. �yJl�; ' '� ` , _ .,, .. .. �� , �,. �► .�.: � . � . . `z � . �,6 • , . � � � . (V CITY ��. O� BURLINGAME .i Hco._ � . � 90 4 �RATED JVNE6, V �� N�� A' /Y��MW Y��.� • YN 1... CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 NOTICE OF HEARING Parkincr Variance and Hillside Construction Permit NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, the llth day of December 1989, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the application for a variance to parkincr reaulations (18'-6" provided, 20'-0" required) and for a hillside construction Aermit at 1785 Hunt Drive. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER December 1, 1989 , ' ��, c �nr o.c. BURLJNGAME .f �, o� � �. : �ewTw .wMc r �ktP C�tf� �f �uritzt��xr�tP SAN MATEO COUNTY � CITY IiALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 . TEL-(415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING PARKING VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NOTICE IS NEREBY GIVEN that Wednesday, the 17th day of January, 1990 __, at the hour of 7:30 P.MI., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame wi71 conduct a public hearing on the appeal of an application for a variance to parking regulations (18'-6" provided, 20'-0" required) and for a hillside area construction permit at 1785 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. � For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER JANUARY 5, 1990