Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout746 Linden Avenue - Staff Report-. BURLINGAME S TA F F R E P O RT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 17, 2017 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director —(650) 558-7255 Subject: City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of Applications for Design Review and a Special Permit for Construction of a New, Two-Story Single-Family Residence with an Attached Garage at 746 Linden Avenue RECOMMENDATION The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following actions: ■ Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the application; ■ Grant the appeal and approve the application; or • Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. BACKGROUND Prior City Council Action: The City Council previously conducted a public hearing on this matter at its meeting of March 20, 2017 (minutes attached), granted the appeal and approved the applicants/applicants application. Unfortunately, the next day, staff Iearned that, though the public hearing was posted as part of the posting of the Agenda, a public notice of the appeal hearing was not mailed to all owners of property lying within 300-feet of the project site, as is the normal procedure. In light of this oversight, on March 24th a Notice of City Council Action (attached) was mailed to those individuals that would have normally been noticed for the March 20th public hearing. Individuals receiving the notice were provided ten calendar days (until April 3�d) to challenge the Council's action. Prior to April 3�d, the neighbor to the left of the project site (Susanne McLaughlan, 748 Linden Avenue) requested that the matter be brought back before the City Council at a proper�y noticed public hearing. Notice of the April 17th public hearing was mailed to all owners of property lying within 300-feet of 746 Linden Avenue on Friday, April 7th. The following sections of this report provide background regarding the prior Planning Commission deliberations. Additionally, staff has attached a draft resolution to this report that conforms to the City Council's action at the March 20th public hearing in the event that Council reaffirms its action of that date. 1 ' Appeal - 746 Linden Avenue April 17, 2017 Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 2,796 square feet where 2,865 square feet is the maximum allowed (including the covered porch exemption). As designed, the proposed project falls 69 square feet below the maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) permitted on the property. The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. To comply with this requirement, one covered parking space is provided in the attached garage; a second uncovered parking space is provided on the driveway. Since the applicant's proposal includes construction of an attached garage (as opposed to a detached garage within the rear-yard area), approval of a Special Permit is requested. The applicant requests approval of the following applications: ■ Design Review for a new single family dwelling with attached garage; and ■ A Special Permit for an attached Garage. A copy of the February 13, 2017 Planning Commission staff report (and attachments) is attached, and provides a detailed analysis of the proposal. Planning Commission Action: At its meeting of February 13, 2017, the Planning Commission effectively denied the applicant's requests via a split vote of 3-3-1, with Commissioner Terrones absent (see attached minutes of the meeting). Commissioners' concerns related primarily to the proposal for an attached garage where it was perceived that the normal neighborhood pattern for properties containing single-family dwellings was to have a detached garage. Concern was also expressed regarding the height of the structure and the amount of lot width that the structure would occupy. Appeal of Planning Commission's Action: Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action, the property owners, Brandy and Peter Yarema, submitted a timely appeal of the Commission's action. They followed up their appeal with a letter that explains their reasons for filing the appeal; the letter is attached to this report for the City Council's review and consideration. Exhibits: ■ Draft Resolution ■ March 24, 2017 Notice of City Council Action on Appeal ■ March 20, 2017 CC Minutes ■ Letter from Applicant/Appellants Explaining Reasons for Appeal ■ February 13, 2017 PC Minutes ■ February 13, 2017 PC Staff Report ■ February 13, 2017 PC Staff Report Attachments ■ Project Plans 2 � March 20, 2017 City Council Minutes Excerpt - 746 Linden Avenue 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 746 LINDEN AVENUE Mayor Ortiz asked Council to share any ex-parte contacts they had on the above titled matter. Councilmember Colson stated that she talked with some of the appellants' associates and friends. Councilmember Beach stated that she visited the home on two separate occasions and listened to the two Planning Commission hearings on the topic. Councilmember Keighran, Councilmember Colson, Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Mayor Ortiz all stated that they did site visits. CDD Meeker presented the staff report stating that Council is considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the appellants' application for design review and special permit request for an attached garage. CDD Meeker stated ihat Brandy and Peter Yarema ("appellants") propose to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new two-story single-family dwelling with an attached garage. The property in question is zoned R-2 and contains 5500 square feet of lot area. The proposed house will contain four bedrooms with a total floor area of 2,796 square feet, where 2,865 square feet is the maximum permitted. As well, the appellants' design includes a covered parking space in the attached garage, and an uncovered parking space in the driveway. CDD Meeker stated a special permit is needed because the appellants' application includes construction of an attached garage. CDD Meeker stated that the Planning Commission considered this item at their February 13, 2017 meeting and effectively denied the appellants' request via a split vote of 3-3-1, as Commissioner Terrones was absent. CDD Meeker explained that the Commissioners' concerns related primarily to the proposal for an attached garage. He stated that Commissioners perceived that the normal neighborhood pattern for properties 2 Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017 Approved Minutes i containing single-family dwellings was to have a detached garage. Concern was also expressed regarding the height of the structure. CDD Meeker added that by the time of the February 13, 2017 hearing, the appellants had lowered the height of the roof to comply with the law. CDD Meeker explained that as a result of the Planning Commission's denial, the appellants, submitted a timely appeal and later sent a letter to the Council explaining their reasons for fling an appeal. Mayor Ortiz asked the appellants to speak on the project. Ms. Yarema began by distributing a letter to the Council with the signatures of 20 of their neighbors who were in favor of the appellants' proposed project. She explained that she didn't believe that the proposed project was fairly compared with the homes in their neighborhood. She explained that that their lot is an abnormal size and shape. Therefore, if the City required them to have a detached garage, they would be left with a long driveway on a very narrow lot with a tight home and awkward layout. Additionally, she stated that the detached garage requirement would result in them losing a bedroom and bathroom from their design. Ms. Yarema discussed the idea that currently there is no consistency in their neighborhood. She explained that there are 8 attached garages on their block and a variety of housing styles including duplexes, tri-plexes, bungalows and two-story homes. She ended by stating that the design would allow them to stay in Burlingame. Mayor Ortiz asked if the appellants counted the amount of detached garages on their street. Mr. Yarema stated that there were 8 with attached garages. Mayor Ortiz asked if the appellants knew how many homes were on the street. Mr. Yarema replied in the negative. Councilmember Keighran asked how many of the attached garages were at the front of their lots in the appellants' neighborhood. Ms. Yarema stated that on Linden Ave there are two and on Park Ave there are two. Mayor Ortiz asked if the lots for the duplexes and triplexes were larger than the appellants. Mr. Yarema replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked if the frontage on the appellants' property was 50 feet. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. He added that if you measured perpendicularly to the side property line the measurement is just over 46 feet. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the side setbacks were each four feet on this house. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. 3 Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017 Approved Minutes Councilmember Beach asked what the distance was between the proposed house and 748 Linden Ave. CDD Meeker stated that the proposed house has a four foot setback from the property line and that the neighbor's house has a 22 foot setback from the property line. Councilmember Beach asked if there was a larger distance between the neighbors on the left than the neighbors on the right. Ms. Yarema replied in the affirmative and stated that with the proposed redesign they would have more distance with the neighbors on the right. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the height of the proposed design and roof pitch with Natalie Hyland, the designer of the project. Specifically, he asked if she was required to return to the original pitched roof of 8 and 12, could she keep the proposed house within the 30 foot height limitation. Ms. Hyland replied that she believed this was possible. Councilmember Keighran asked if the plate heights were 10 feet on the first floor and 9 feet on the second floor. Ms. Hyland replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission brought down ihe plate heights. CDD Meeker replied in the negative and explained that it was the pitch of the roof that was reduced. Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission had asked for the plate heights to be decreased. City Attorney Kane stated that the Planning Commission does often ask for lower plate heights but in this case the project does fall within the overall height limit. Councilmember Keighran asked what the usual plate heights are for Burlingame homes. CDD Meeker stated that it is usually 9 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second floor. Councilmember Colson discussed that the appellants' neighbor to the left, had expressed a concern about the proposed attached garage diminishing their daylight. She explained that from reviewing the landscape plan for the proposed house there was a poured concrete walkway on the left side of the house. She asked for the width of the walkway. Ms. Hyland stated that it was four feet. Councilmember Colson suggested installing a screening hedge along the walkway to soften up the view. Mayor Ortiz asked why the plate height was 10 feet on the first floor. Ms. Hyland responded that the appellants wanted to do a box-beam ceiling. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems the Planning Commission wrestled with two separate issues when hearing the appellants' case. One was the attached garage and the other was the height of the building. He stated as a former Planning Commissioner he doesn't like to be in a position to rule against their decision. However, he noted that in this particular situation the Planning Commission was deadlocked. He stated that with respect to the garage, the appellants make a compelling argument for attaching the garage. He reminded the Planning Commission that the City doesn't ban attached garages rather it tries to discourage attached garages. He explained that the reason the City discourages attached garages is that they don't want 4 Burlin�ame City Council March 20, 20U Approved Minutes the first thing pedestrians see to be a garage door and also they want to create daylight between houses. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wished the Planning Commission had spent more time reviewing the design of the attached garage versus whether the appellants should have one. Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that the problem with the appellants dropping the pitch of their roof is that the appellants are creating a larger roo£ He asked the appellants to go back to the 8 and 12 pitch but stay within the 30 foot height limitation. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the proposed design would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Councilmember Keighran stated that when she did her site visit she looked at the other homes on the block. She stated that in her opinion most of the garages are detached and if they are attached, they are in the back of the lot. She explained that she was on the Planning Cammission when they came up with the design review guidelines and the decision to discourage attached garages. She stated that it was to make neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly. She explained that she believed if the garage was going to be attached it should be setback further. Councilmember Keighran stated that the 10 and 9 foot plate heights are not normal in Burlingame. She stated that if the appellants wanted to have ] 0 foot plate heights on the first floor she wanted to see the plate heights shrunk on the second floor so that it was within the City average. Councilmember Beach stated that the street that the appellants' house is on has great variation. She discussed the design guidelines and stated that she put a lot of stock in the Planning Commission process. She explained that the appellants' property was unique with a lot of strange angles and was smaller than other lots. She discussed giving deference to how architects design on abnormal lots, of this nature, to make the design work within the community. Councilmember Beach stated that the proposed design makes sense to her and that the side setbacks give the neighbors room. As well, she stated that she believes the proposed house will benefit the neighborhood. Councilmember Beach stated that her only complaint is that the attached garages don't allow for as much neighbor interaction. Councilmember Colson stated that she supported the garage in the front of the lot because of the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. She stated that she would like great attention paid to the quality of the garage door and would like the left side of the lot to include some landscaping to soften the neighbors' view. Mayor Ortiz stated that the width of the lot is a compelling reason to let this project go through. He stated he is comfortable with the location but agreed with the Vice Mayor on the pitch of the roof. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated Councilmember Keighran's concerns about front facing garages. He stated he wished that the Planning Commission had spent more time reviewing the actual design of the attached garage versus whether an attached garage should be allowed. 5 Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve the appellants' plan with the provision that the height of the house be under 30 feet with the roof having an 8 and 12 pitch; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Councilmember Keighran voted against). Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017 Approved Minutes