Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2810 Tiburon Way - Approval LetterAPPROVAL LETTER r0 Vk 4 CITY u M BI,JRLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME Planning Department September 24, 1998 CORRECTED COPY-10.30.98 John L. Stewart, AIA Stewart Associates 1351 Laurel Street San Carlos, CA 94070 Dear Mr. Stewart, City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 Tel. (650) 696-7200 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the September 14, 1998 Planning Commission approval of your hillside area construction permit, side setback and lot coverage variances became effective September 23, 1998. This application was to allow a first floor addition and crawl space remodel at 2810 Tiburon Way, zoned R-1. The September 14, 1998 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be amended from what is shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 14, 1998, Sheets Al, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 with a maximum roof ridge height of 2l'-5" as measured from average top of curb [elevation (- 7'-3")], to include that the roof pitch on the new addition be reduced to 3:12 and the gable end replaced with a hip roof; 2. that the 4 % of lot coverage created by the deck shall never be enclosed in anyway or added to the house and the deck area shall never be enclosed; 3. that any changes to the footprint, building height, window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit; and t 4. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. September 24, 1998 2810 Tiburon Way page -2- All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. Si4cerely yours, 4arglaret �Looe City' Planner RH\s 2810TIBU.cca c: Mitra Morshed-Bergloff, property owner 945 Corriente Point Drive Redwood City, CA 94065 Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOT 7 BLOCK 32 MILLS ESTATE NO 11 RSM 46/35 36 CITY OF BURLINGAME; APN: 025-031-060) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the three variances. The motion was passed on a 4-2-1 (C. Keighran and Vistica dissenting, C. Boju6s absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE AT 2810 TIBURON WAY, ZONED R-1. (JOHN L. STEWART, AIA, APPLICANT AND MITRA MORSHED-BERGLOFF, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the commissioners on the staff report. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Marvin Bergloff, 945 Harenti Point Drive, they divided the permit, already have a permit for the downstairs conversion and interior work; they have six children, two of them have special needs and need a room where toys can be left out; the lower area was an illegally converted laundry room with outside access only, another reason to do the conversion was to correct the illegal work; he needed to install a new laundry; could remove the rear deck and reduce lot coverage to 40.8 percent, this was the same as a plan previously approved years ago but never built, this plan included an extension at the end of the house for a bedroom; thought about increasing the ceiling height in the master bedroom to 10 feet but owner next door felt was too high and reduced to 8 feet, this would extend the ridge from the garage over the bedroom, at the same height. Architect noted that addition would not block views, only one side, the left, increases to 10 feet, several houses as you go up the street have already made this same addition. Commissioner asked, now live in Redwood Shores do you intend to move to Tiburon Way, yes like schools in Burlingame better; what special needs are involved, two mentally handicapped children; children range in age from baby to 15 years. Bud Harrison, 376 Lexington Way, representing the property owner at 2810 Tiburon, commented when hillside area construction permit was adopted in many cases there was no view blockage, but in this case the story poles tell the story, the view from his bedroom is obstructed and to a lesser degree the view from the living room, see past the tree at the end of the street to the side of the new roof; last June asked applicant to change the end of the roof to a hip, had no further conversation with applicant until this application was made, roof not changed, so appealed. Not opposed to the application, applicant needs space, want to object to the height of the rear roof, can lower 18 inches to 20 inches without affecting the inside dimensions of the room. Commissioner noted roof pitch on plans is 4:12, if went 3:12 would reduce the height 11- 12 inches, is that OK, yes; instead of gable end could also use hip which would slant back and not interfere with view. Va City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 Applicant responded: have discussed pitch of roof with architect, since house now 4:12 to change part to 3:12 would not match, the transition would look odd and would save only 10 inches in height; when dropped from 10 to 8 foot ceiling went to gable so that he could take advantage of the view on that side of his house, if he goes to hip he will loose view; also hip costs more to build than gable. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: paid attention to letter from Mr. Berkoff, the new room is designed to take advantage of the view, story poles demonstrate that view from house above will be lost, about half of view, problem is that if approve request will give applicant view that is being taken away from neighbor; have a problem with a 44 % lot coverage; goal is to protect long distant view, view is blocked does not matter that view is of eucalyptus trees that screen water tank, trees are a view; a good neighbor is willing to work with neighbors, could add on other side of house, lot coverage is too much can be reduced but would not like to see the front porch changed. C. Coffey noted that he agreed that there is an easy remedy to the view blockage issue, would not like to see the rear deck go, the contributes to the house and does not affect the neighborhood; would move to approve the hillside area construction permit with the added condition that the roof pitch of the new addition be changed to 3:12 and the gable end replaced with a hip roof be approved by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as amended. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the proposed revisions to the structure only the hillside area construction permit. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent) vote. C. Coffey moved for approval of the side setback variance and lot coverage variance for 44.2% based on the commissioners comments and facts in the staff report and record and that it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. C. Luzuriaga seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: must vote no, feel lot coverage variance should be reduced to 40%, reduce the mass of the bedroom and keep the deck if they wish; if approve 44 % lot coverage does it go with the property and increase the potential for house size increase in the future, yes; can address lot coverage just for deck with condition. C. Luzuriaga requested an amendment to the motion adding a condition that the portion of the lot coverage caused by the deck, 4%, be limited now and in the future to deck and that the house shall never be enlarged or the deck covered or enclosed to use this area. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment and the revised conditions for the project: 1) that the project shall be amended from what is shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 14, 1998, Sheets A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 with a maximum roof ridge height of 21'-5" as measured from average top of curb [elevation (-7'-3")], to include that the roof pitch on the new additin be reduced to 3:12 and the gable end replaced with a hip roof; -10- City of Burlingame Planning Conunission Minutes September 14, 1998 2) that the 4 % of lot coverage created by the deck shall never be enclosed in anyway or added to the house and the deck area shall never be enclosed; 3) that any changes to the footprint, building height, window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit; and 4) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the side setback and lot coverage variances with conditions amended. The vote was 5-1-1 (C. Key dissenting, C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE-STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1424 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA K. SHAHMIRZA PROPERTY OWNERS). and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE-STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1424 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA K. SHAHMIRZA PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirteen conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked does it meet city requirements to have two of the required eight parking spaces uncovered, yes; storm water is being carried to El Camino, does El Camino flood in this area, no but water has to drain someplace to the east off El Camino, there is a drain at Hillside to Mills, in a heavy rain storm with lots of infiltration will still get some flooding east of El Camino in area where this water will go, city is undertaking a city wide storm drain study which will give us a better understanding of specific places which flood in the future, the applicant already has permission from CalTrans to drain to El Camino; will Interceptor project on California Avenue help, will reduce infiltration which will help but not solve the problem. CA Anderson noted that, since the applicant did not submit them for review before, a condition should be added that the city attorney shall review the CC and R's before a building permit shall be issued. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing on the condominium permit and the tentative map. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Suite 408, representing the project commented that they had considered the commission's comments at study and looked at the design again. They have made the following changes: the studied the front elevation considering the suggestion that the guest parking be placed at the front and concluded to keep it at the rear because the design change to mask the large cantilever would inhibit the access to the parking spaces; if parking -11-