HomeMy WebLinkAbout2810 Tiburon Way - Approval LetterAPPROVAL
LETTER
�oRATHD J V N E 6//
hr Titu? IIf a ltZt pm,04
5AN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAM E, CALIFOR NIA 94010 TEL: (415) 342-8931
January 21, 1982
Dr. Donald T. Odone
2810 Tiburon Way
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Dear Dr. Odone:
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to
advise the January 11, 1982 Planning Commission approval of your variance
application became effective January 19, 1982.
This application was to allow an addition to the home at 2810 Tiburon Way which
would exceed the maximum 40% lot coverage permitted by code. The January 11,
1982 minutes of the Planning Commission state the variance was granted by
unanimous roll call vote.
All site improvements and construction work will require separate application
to the Building Department.
MM/s
cc: Chief Building Inspector
Irene F. Standish
2810 Tiburon Way, Burlingame
1
Assessor's Office, Redwood City
(Lot 7, Block 32, MillsEstate No. 11;
APN 025-031-060)
Sincerely,
1W(r� fyloilQ
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
i
_ a
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
January 11, 1982
City; Mrs. Louise Knight merely wanted to confirm that drainage was
an issue in this application. Discussion by Commissioners e"3-d:
why original plans could not be followed; reason % slope is used
as a review line.
LC.Graham moved to a 25% maximum slope on this site. Seconded by
Mink, � approved by unanimous roll -call vote, C. Harvey absent.
eafprocedures were advised.
2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO A HOME AT 2810 TIBURON WAY WHICH
WILL EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 40% LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED BY CODE SEC. 25.66.010.
ACP Monroe reviewed this revised application to allow 42.8% lot coverage
for a home at 2810 Tiburon Way. Reference staff report dated January 5;
Project Application and CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 1/4/82; January
4 memo from the City Engineer; December 30 memo from the Chief Fire
Inspector; December 30 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; December
28 letter from Dr. and Mrs. Donald Odone; aerial photograph of the site;
and plans for the addition date -stamped December 28, 1981. CP Monroe
clarified Commission questions regarding specific code requirements for
determination of lot coverage, multiple -unit dwellings in the R-1 district
and minimum lot size.
Dr. Donald Odone was present. There were no public comments in favor of
the application. John Armanino, representing Vito Cipolla at 2814
Tiburon Way, expressed his client's concerns regarding view obstruction
and debris from a proposed fireplace in the addition. Chm. Jacobs
clarified that a gas jet would be installed in the proposed fireplace.
Commission discussion included: the variation in grade between 2810 and
2814 Tiburon Way and the common fence between properties; maximum roof
height of the addition will be below existing roof height; clarification
of the exceptional circumstances for this application; a second story
addition would be less accessible from the interior and would create an
even greater view obstruction; elimination of the rear -yard decks would
permit this addition without a variance but the decking is necessary to
create useable area because of steep slope in the rear yard area.
C. Graham moved to approve the request based on the findings that there
are exceptional circumstances due to the fact that it would be unreason-
able to require removal of the rear yard decks since the slope of the
lot prevents access to the rear yard area by any other means, that the
addition is reasonable for the further enjoyment of the applicant's
property, that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the adjacent properties nor would it adversely affect the zoning plan of
the City. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved by unanimous roll -call
vote, C. Harvey absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF OFFICE SPACE AT 800 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD
CP Monroe reviewed this revised application to allow the expansion of
office space at 800 Airport Boulevard, Four Seas Center, by 11,814 SF.
Reference staff report dated January 5, 1982; Revised Project Assessment
and CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 12/29/81; memo from the City
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 11, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, January 11, 1982 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Jacobs and
Leahy
Absent: Commissioner Harvey (excused)
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman,
City Attorney; Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works
MINUTES - The minutes of the December 14, 1981 meeting were unanimously
approved and adopted.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with additions and changes as
follows:
Under CITY PLANNER REPORT:
- Item #10 - Draft EIR and Permit Processing For 1800 El
Camino Real 44-Unit Apartment
- Item #11 - Review of Recent Council Actions
- Item #12 - Field Trip to Review 1981 Planning Projects
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY AT 1825 LOYOLLA DRIVE WHICH EXCEEDS
THE MAXIMUM 20% SLOPE PERMITTED BY CODE SEC. 25.70.020-C3
DPW Kirkup reviewed this application to permit a driveway constructed for
this new dwelling which maintains a 22%-25% slope rather than the maximum
permitted 20%. Reference staff report dated January 6, 1982; Project
Assessment and CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 12/23/81; December 24
memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; December 23 memo from the Chief
Building Inspector; letter date -stamped December 23 from the applicant;
aerial photograph of the siteldriveway profiles for applicant's site,
1821 Loyolla, and 1829 Loyolla; and plans date -stamped January 5, 1982.
DPW discussed code requirements and how slope was determined. Approval
was recommended for a 22%-23% grade slope. CA Coleman explained that
this is not a variance, but requires Planning Commission recommendation.
Mark McHone, applicant and property owner, was present. There were no
public comments for or against the project; however, questions were
raised by two neighbors: Mr. Luther Smith of 1818 Loyolla Drive asked
why the driveway at 1829 Loyolla was not removed -since it was not in use
and asked what the greatest slope was that was considered safe by the