Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 086-1998RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME CA 94010 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSESSOR -COUNTY CLERK -RECORDER WARREN SLOCUM Recorded at Request of CITY OF BURLINGAME 98-139352 08/311/98 0856 Recording V JSNUFTON Fee: SPACE ABOVE LINE FOR COUNTY RECORDER M ;5: Uj RESOLUTION 86-98 s VU RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AT 112 CENTRAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME APN 028-294-150 RESOLUTION NO. 86-98 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DENYING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND PARKING SPACE DIMENSION AT112 CENTRAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA WITH CONDITIONS ZONE R-1 PROPERTY OWNERS: CHRIS AND MARY DENTEN APN 028-294-150 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council on July 20, 1998, for public hearing on an appeal by Lisa Murphy from a Planning Commission decision approving the application with conditions and was regularly noticed in accordance with State and City law; and WHEREAS, the Council visited the property involved, and the Council has received and as considered all written documentation and oral testimony submitted from all interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly considered this application, made findings,' 11 and acted in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code in its decision; and 0 WHEREAS, the City Council has received additional information and testimony; and V4 WHEREAS, the current home is of a specific design and layout that dictates how any improvements to the property, particularly additional parking spaces, can be made; and WHEREAS, the applicants submitted conceptual plans showing how additional parking spaces might be provided on the property; and WHEREAS, expansion or addition of parking spaces on the property would occupy all or most of the back yard of the property and increase the paved and covered area of the property; WHEREAS, such an expansion of concrete would destroy the greenspace and usability of the back yard of the property and cause a significant, deleterious impact on the value of the property and neighboring properties; and WHEREAS, such an expanse of concrete would also increase noise and adversely affect neighbors and be inconsistent with neighborhood patterns; and 1 WHEREAS, expansion of the garage itself would not make the additional parking accessible because of the location of the existing house along the driveway; and WHEREAS, it therefore appears that the 2 possible alternatives to provide additional parking are not feasible; and WHEREAS, the conditions imposed on the project, including landscaping that will benefit neighboring properties, that are attached hereto as Exhibit A and that have been amended by the Council will minimize the impact of the project on surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, the applicants have represented that they intend to use the remodeled garage to regularly park two vehicles; and WHEREAS, the design reviewer in commenting on this project found that "[fjrom an aesthetic point of view, the retention of the existing garage ... is not in conflict with existing neighborhood patterns. This assumes that 2 cars can actually park in the garage as stated, and that the second car is not left in the driveway;" and WHEREAS, the garage should be made fully available for the parking of vehicles only; and �r WHEREAS, the existing garage is only 2' 6" short of the required length and can W accommodate many models of vehicles; and U11 WHEREAS, it would be economically wasteful to require the removal of the existing portion of the house that extends into the declining height envelope; and .mm 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission correctly found that the proposed addition was not higher than the adjacent second -story house and the windows have been placed in such a way as to give due consideration to neighbors' privacy; and WHEREAS, given all of the site constraints and factors, the proposed design will allow the property owners to enjoy the same benefits already enjoyed by other properties in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the findings of the Planning Commission with regard to the declining height and parking variances are proper and appropriate; and WHEREAS, the design proposed by applicants is consistent with the patterns in the neighborhood, the addition is consistent with the design of the existing home, the project is compatible with adjacent properties, and the findings of the design reviewer are appropriate; and REVISED 2 WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the requirements of the Zoning Code, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. The appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission on this application is denied subject to the conditions attached as Exhibit A hereto. 2. The categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines, Article 9, Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures, class 3) is approved. 3. The request for variances to allow an existing wall with a new second floor window to be within the declining height envelope, to allow one covered parking space instead of two covered parking spaces, and to allow a covered parking space dimension of 176" in depth instead of 20 feet, and the application for design review of second story construction are approved subject to the conditions attached as Exhibit A hereto. There shall be no storage of files, household appliances, and other household items so that 2 small cars can be parked in the garage, and no utilities in the garage �, except electricity for lighting and garage opener. z�= 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be recorded in the official records of the County UA of San Mateo. 0 Li This decision is a final administrative decision of the City of Burlingame. Anyone wishing to =: challenge this decision in a court of competent jurisdiction must do so within 90 days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 unless a shorter time is provided by State or Federal law. Nothing contained in this decision should be construed as establishing a precedent of any kind, and each such application for any variance or design review shall be reviewed on a specific site basis pursuant to the Municipal Code. The approval granted by this permit must be used within one year of the approval by the Council or it may be subject to lapsing as provided .v.Qy.uA I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the REVISED 3rd day of Au _gust , 1998, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: GALLIGAN, KNIGHT ABSENT: COLTNCILMEM13ER: NONE . City Clerk I hereby certify this to be a full, true and correct copy of the document it purports to be, the original of which is on file in my office. Dated: REVISED 4 of Burlingame EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCES and DESIGN REVIEW OF SECOND STORY CONSTRUCTION FOR 112 CENTRAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA The project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 20, 1998, sheets A-1 through A-4, and date stamped May 26, 1998, sheet A-5. 2. The conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 4, 1998, memo with the May 26, 1998 addendum, and the City Engineer's May 4, 1998, memo with the May 26, 1998, addendum shall be met 3. A landscape plan with additional screen of non -deciduous 24 -inch box trees shall be planted along the rear property line in such a manner as to screen the view from the second story of 112 Central in the adjacent property on Newlands, and this plan shall be submitted with the building permit application. The effectiveness of the chosen vegetation to become established and screen the view shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector along with appropriate irrigation plans before issuance of a building permit and that the installation shall be inspected and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before the building permit can be finaled. 4. No gate shall be placed in or across the required driveway area. 5. The project shall meet all requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 6. The garage shall be used solely for storage of motor vehicles and not for any other type of storage or use. No water or other utilities shall be installed in the garage except for electricity necessary for lighting and operation of an automatic garage door opener. Any storage, use, or utilities not in conformance with this condition shall be removed. A:\ccntralapp.pin.wpd REVISED A-1 0 �s RESOLUTION NO. 86-98 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DENYING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND PARKING SPACE DIMENSION AT112 CENTRAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA WITH CONDITIONS ZONE R-1 PROPERTY OWNERS: CHRIS AND MARY DENTEN APN 028-294-150 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council on July 20, 1998, for public hearing on an appeal by Lisa Murphy from a Planning Commission decision approving the application with conditions and was regularly noticed in accordance with State and City law; and WHEREAS, the Council visited the property involved, and the Council has received and considered all written documentation and oral testimony submitted from all interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly considered this application, made findings, and acted in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code in its decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received additional information and testimony; and WHEREAS, the current home is of a specific design and layout that dictates how any improvements to the property, particularly additional parking spaces, can be made; and WHEREAS, the applicants submitted conceptual plans showing how additional parking spaces might be provided on the property; and WHEREAS, expansion or addition of parking spaces on the property would occupy all or most of the back yard of the property and increase the paved and covered area of the property; WHEREAS, such an expansion of concrete would destroy the greenspace and usability of the back yard of the property and cause a significant, deleterious impact on the value of the property and neighboring properties; and WHEREAS, such an expanse of concrete would also increase noise and adversely affect neighbors and be inconsistent with neighborhood patterns; and WHEREAS, expansion of the garage itself would not make the additional parking accessible because of the location of the existing house along the driveway; and WHEREAS, it therefore appears that the 2 possible alternatives to provide additional parking are not feasible; and WHEREAS, the conditions imposed on the project, including landscaping that will benefit neighboring properties, that are attached hereto as Exhibit A and that have been amended by the Council will minimize the impact of the project on surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, the applicants have represented that they intend to use the remodeled garage to regularly park two vehicles; and WHEREAS, the design reviewer in commenting on this project found that " [fjrom an aesthetic point of view, the retention of the existing garage ... is not in conflict with existing neighborhood patterns. This assumes that 2 cars can actually park in the garage as stated, and that the second car is not left in the driveway;" and WHEREAS, the garage should be made fully available for the parking of vehicles only; and WHEREAS, the existing garage is only 2' 6" short of the required length and can accommodate many models of vehicles; and WHEREAS, it would be economically wasteful to require the removal ofthe existing portion of the house that extends into the declining height envelope; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission correctly found that the proposed addition was not higher than the adjacent second -story house and the windows have been placed in such a way as to give due consideration to neighbors' privacy; and WHEREAS, given all of the site constraints and factors, the proposed design will allow the property owners to enjoy the same benefits already enjoyed by other properties in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the findings of the Planning Commission with regard to the declining height and parking variances are proper and appropriate; and WHEREAS, the design proposed by applicants is consistent with the patterns in the neighborhood, the addition is consistent with the design of the existing home, the project is compatible with adjacent properties, and the findings of the design reviewer are appropriate; and REVISED 2 WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the requirements of the Zoning Code, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. The appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission on this application is denied subject to the conditions attached as Exhibit A hereto. 2. The categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines, Article 9, Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures, class 3) is approved. 3. The request for variances to allow an existing wall with a new second floor window to be within the declining height envelope, to allow one covered parking space instead of two covered parking spaces, and to allow a covered parking space dimension of 176" in depth instead of 20 feet, and the application for design review of second story construction are approved subject to the conditions attached as Exhibit A hereto. There shall be no storage of files, household appliances, and other household items so that 2 small cars can be parked in the garage, and no utilities in the garage except electricity for lighting and garage opener. 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. This decision is a final administrative decision of the City of Burlingame. Anyone wishing to challenge this decision in a court of competent jurisdiction must do so within 90 days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 unless a shorter time is provided by State or Federal law. Nothing contained inthis decision should be construed as establishing a precedent of any kind, and each such application for any variance or design review shall be reviewed on a specific site basis pursuant to the Municipal Code. The approval granted by this permit must be used within one year of the approval by the Council or it may be subject to lapsing as provided it i�iayui I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the REVISED 3rd day of August , 1998, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: GALLIGAN. KNIGHT ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: NONE REVISED 4 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCES and DESIGN REVIEW OF SECOND STORY CONSTRUCTION FOR 112 CENTRAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA The project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 20, 1998, sheets A-1 through A-4, and date stamped May 26, 1998, sheet A-5. 2. The conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 4, 1998, memo with the May 26, 1998 addendum, and the City Engineer's May 4, 1998, memo with the May 26, 1998, addendum shall be met 3. A landscape plan with additional screen of non -deciduous 24 -inch box trees shall be planted along the rear property line in such a manner as to screen the view from the second story of 112 Central in the adjacent property on Newlands, and this plan shall be submitted with the building permit application. The effectiveness of the chosen vegetation to become established and screen the view shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector along with appropriate irrigation plans before issuance of a building permit and that the installation shall be inspected and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before the building permit can be finaled. 4. No gate shall be placed in or across the required driveway area. 5. The project shall meet all requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The garage shall be used solely for storage of motor vehicles and not for any other type of storage or use. No water or other utilities shall be installed in the garage except for electricity necessary for lighting and operation of an automatic garage door opener. Any storage, use, or utilities not in conformance with this condition shall be removed. AAcmtralapp.pin.wpd REVISED A-1