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