Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2814 Tiburon Way - Staff ReportBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 14, 1980 SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 290 SF STORAGE SHELTER ADJACENT TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 2814 TIBURON WAY, BY VITO CIPOLLA CP Yost reviewed this application to construct a 10'-6" x 26'-6" storage shelter in the rear yard. Zoning Code regulations were noted and issues raised by the application discussed. Reference staff report dated 6/19/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 6/13/80; aerial photograph of the site; June 9, 1980 letter from Vito Cipolla; June 18, 1980 letter from Henry L. Glasser, attorney, on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Maurice Brown, 2818 Tiburon Way; site plan and construction plans date stamped June 13, 1980; and revised plans date stamped July 9, 1980 (reducing the size of the shelter to 240 SF). Staff believed the shelter was well designed, properly sited and would not adversely affect the neighbors; approval was recommended with. the condition that the structure be identical to the amended plans. Commission discussion included: side yard and rear yard measurements; accessory building code requirements; the existing retaining wall; drainage, the possibility of converting this structure to an illegal use; a suggestion that a recorded resolution be required to protect the City in any future use of the shelter. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. Secretary Harvey read a petition in favor signed by 18 neighbors on Tiburon Way and Rivera Drive. The Chair requested comments from those opposed. Henry L. Glasser, attorney representing Dr. and Mrs. Maurice Brown, 2818 Tiburon Way addressed Commission. He expressed concern about the size of the shelter and the potential use of such a large shed, perhaps as a workshop. Terry Roberts, 2829 Rivera Drive also spoke in opposition. He advised his property was directly behind 2814 Tiburon Way, and expressed concern about the visual effect, drainage and materials used for the structure. At this time a Mr. Peterson requested permission to speak for Mr. Cipolla. It was determined he had been in the construction business for 33 years and was an estimator with some engineering training. He discussed the drawings; visual effect of the shelter; water drainage; and noted that the shelter would be used primarily for storage. He added that the applicant would be willing to provide landscaping to mitigate any visual problem. Discussion continued: size of the structure; materials to blend with the character of the neighborhood; landscaping; building and encroachment permits; lot coverage; the code requirement for a 4' separation between the house and the proposed shelter; possibility of a future mother-in-law apartment; visual effect on the neighbors; details of this structure which was started a year ago and stopped by the Building Department. The absence of electrical outlets on the plans was noted. Chm. Sine then closed the public hearing. A minority of Commission supported this application subject to a resolution which would protect the City in future. C. Taylor moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Harvey and Sine dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 180 SF FAMILY ROOM ADDITION TO BE CONSTRUCTED 11' FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 1101 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1, FOR LARRY COPELLO CP Yost reviewed this application to construct a family room/kitchen addition at the back of the existing house, and noted the variances required. Reference staff report dated 7/10/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 7/4/80; aerial photograph and copy of Sanborn Map of the site; site drawings indicating the existing structure, proposed addition, existing nonconformities and proposed rear yard variance; June 12 and 23, 1980 letters from Mr. and Mrs. Larry Copello; June 13, 1980 letter from Home Construction Co.; and 7/2/80 memo from the Chief Building Inspector. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1980 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Sine on Monday, July 14, 1980 at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Harvey, Jacobs, Mink, Sine, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner John R. Yost; Director of Public Works Ralph E. Kirkup; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - Upon motion of C. Jacobs, second C. Cistulli, the minutes of the June 23, 1980 meeting were approved and adopted. AGENDA - Upon motion of C. Jacobs, second C. Cistulli, order of the agenda approved. DPW Kirkup introduced Frank Erbacher, newly appointed City Engineer who will be Public Works Department liaison with the Planning Commission. APPLICATIONS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING CARPORT, CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT, TO REMAIN WITHIN 12" OF A SIDE PROPERTY LINE; PROPERTY AT 1527 EASTMOOR ROAD, BY VINCENT FLORES CP Yost reviewed this request to allow an existing 8' x 16' carport to remain as built; Zoning and Building Code violations were noted. Reference staff report dated 6/18/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 6/12/80; aerial photograph of the site; site plan and cross section received May 20, 1980; photographs of the site; letters from Vincent Flores received June 9 and June 12, 1980; June 16, 1980 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; and June 16, 1980 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector. Staff believed the legal requirements for variance approval had not been met and recommended denial. Vincent Flores, the applicant, was present; he discussed his reasons for constructing the carport, the matter of Fire Department access, and advised he would correct any Building Code violations. He felt a requirement to remove the carport was unwarranted. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion included: the fact that a building permit had not been applied for when the carport was constructed; a feeling no evidence had been presented to address the four legal requirements for a variance; concern about the building code violations. C. Taylor moved that this variance application be denied. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved 6-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. P.C. 6/23/80 Item No. 2 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 290 SF STORAGE SHELTER IN THE REAR YARD AT 2814 TIBURON WAY A Zoning Ordinance amendment recently adopted by Council establishes Code Chapter 25.60 "Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts". Item 14 of Sec. 25.60.010 advises that any "greenhouse, lathhouse, lanai, patio shelter or similar structure exceeding 50 SF of gross floor area" shall be a conditional use requiring a special permit from the Planning Commission. The present application by Vito Cipolla is to construct a 290 SF storage shelter in the rear yard of his home at 2814 Tiburon Way. The attached Project Assessment and Mr. Cipolla's June 9, 1980 letter provide additional information; the site plan and construction plans date stamped June 13, 1980 show the proposed location and details of the shelter. In reviewing this application, Commission should note that Code Sec. 25.28.020 defines an accessory structure for garden storage as a permitted use in the R-1 District, and Code Sec. 25.66.060 allows a "permitted one-story accessory building located within the rear 30% of the lot to be built to the rear or side lot lines" (disregarding the normal sideyard and rearyard requirements). As designed, the proposed storage shelter meets all .code requirements, except that Commission approval is required for the 290 SF size. There are two issues raised by the present application: 1. Is the additional size of this patio shelter likely to obstruct a neighbor's view, or otherwise adversely affect his "quiet enjoyment of his property"? 2. Will the additional floor area and proposed design allow the structure to be used in some fashion that is inconsistent with the character of the R-1 District? With regard to the first issue, the site plan filed with this application, and the attached air photo, both fail to clearly show the considerable difference in site elevations between 2814 Tiburon Way and adjacent properties. For example, 2818 Tiburon Way (which is adjacent to the proposed location of the storage shelter) is 8' or more above the established grade of Mr. Cipolla's backyard. Given this difference, and the substantial retaining wall which separates the two properties, the roof of the shelter will be below the top of this neighbor's sideyard fence; no view obstruction will occur. The homes on Rivera Drive which share a common back property line with 2814 Tiburon Way are also at different elevations; they are 70' or more away from the shelter at its closest point. The proposed site location appears well chosen. On the second issue, the plans filed with this application show that two of the shelter's sides will be open - without doors, windows or other coverings. No electrical or plumbing connections are proposed. Any unauthorized future use of the structure (such as accessory sleeping quarters) would require substantial changes. The shelter, as designed, appears to be consistent with Mr. Cipolla's June 9 letter of intent (a "storage" use which is expressly authorized). -2- A letter of objection to this storage shelter has been received from Mr. Henry Glasser, attorney for Dr. and Mrs. Brown, who live at 2818 Tiburon Way (the house immediately uphill from the shelter; ref. the air photo). Several technical concerns are raised by Mr. Glasser's letter; Commission should be aware that the City's Building Department will perform a final inspection at the completion of the project, and the required 4' separation between house and shelter will be observed. As noted in this letter, Mr. Cipolla began construction of a patio shelter a year ago; work was stopped by the Building Department after a neighbor's complaint. A site inspection by the Commission prior to Monday's public hearing is strongly recommended. The original (unauthorized) framing currently in place gives a very clear outline of the size and mass of the proposed shelter. Several of the earlier construction details (such as the structure's connection to the house) will be corrected by the new plans. After reviewing the proposed plans, and visiting the site, staff believes that the storage shelter is well designed and properly sited; it will provide needed protection to the tools and furniture in use on the adjacent patio and garden. No significant adverse effects to the neighbors' properties are likely. For these reasons, staff recommends that the permit be approved, with the condition that the structure be identical to the plans filed with this application and date stamped June 13, 1980. jig. fi JRY/s John R. Yo 6/19/80 City Pla r cc: Mr. Vito Cipolla Dr. and Mrs. Maurice Brown Henry L. Glasser, Esq. 1- _ , y .. - J UN 111980 June 9, 1980 CITY OF. BURUNGAME PLANNING DEPT. City of Burlingame To the Planning Commission: This special permit is requested because the area covered by the storage shed will cover about 196 square feet. It will be constructed at the rear of the house. The shed will be made of wood frame with redwood exterior with one -hour sheetrock-interior and a metal roof. All garden and patio equipment will be stored in the shed. Presently, these items are stored in the two car garage which now holds only one car - my second car, the truck, must be left out. The only house that might see the shed is on my west side, and would only be seen from rear of their property line. Their view will not be affected as the shed will be two feet below 'their fence. Vito Cipol a 2814 Tiburon Way Burlingame JAMES R BANCROFT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JAMES H. Mc ALISTER LUTHER J. AVERY ALAN D. BONAPART HENRY L. GLASSER NORMAN A. ZILBER EDMOND G. THIEDE ROBERT L. DUNN JAMES WISNER SANDRA J. SHAPIRO GEORGE R. DIRKES BOYD A. BLACKBURN, JR. MICHELE D. ROBERTSON JANET F. STANSBY ROBERT C. SCHUBERT JOHN R. BANCROFT DENNIS O. LEUER DAVID M. LEVY LAW OFFICES OF BANCROFT, AVERY a McALISTER TELEPHONE 501 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 900 AREA CODE 415 SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111 788.8855 CABLE ADDRESS-BAM June 18, 1980 R F. C E I V 1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Application for Special Permit by Vito Cipolla, 2814 Ti'burori Way Dear Commissioner: JUN 19 1980 OUR FILE NUMBER CRY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, 4340.01 I represent Dr. and Mrs. Maurice Brown who live at 2818 Tiburon Way, next door to the applicant. As you know, Mr. Cipolla has requested a special permit to construct a large storage shed in his backyard. In his letter of June 9, 1980, Mr. Cipolla states that the shed will be 196 square feet. The plans he submitted to the Planning Department call for a 290 square foot structure. Mr. Cipolla states he needs the shelter for storage of garden and patio equipment because of lack of space in his garage. Dr. and Mrs. Brown are quite concerned that whatever structure is built in Mr. Cipolla's backyard will not be used for storage purposes. Mr. Cipolla is a very industrious person. He is continually doing construction work around his home, oftentime far into the night. Much of the time the Browns and other neighbors are disturbed by the noise. The Browns are concerned that the facility proposed by Mr. Cipolla will be used for commercial purposes rather than for residential purposes. The area on which Mr. Cipolla proposes to construct the storage shed has been used in the past by Mr. Cipolla for construction activities. Dr, and Mrs. Brown are concerned that once a structure is completed in the rear of Mr. Cipolla's home, he will be using the facility for a workshop and that he will continue to work late hours and continue to make noise. City of Burlingame Planning Commission ,Tune 18, 1980 Page Two It is our understanding that any accessory structure must be built at least 4 feet from an existing dwelling. Mr. Cipolla's plans indicate that there is a clearance of 15 1/2 feet from the rear of his house to his back property line, allowing for a 10 1/2 foot wide shed with a 4 foot separation from his house. I have personally measured the area for the proposed shed while I was standing on the Brown's property. I am quite certain that there is just about 12 feet between Mr. Cipolla's house and his back property line. If the required 4 foot setback is observed, the maximum width of the facility will be about 8 feet. We believe it would be a mistake to approve a 1-0 1/2 foot structure if the maximum available space for the width of the structure is 8 feet. We believe that Mr. Cipolla, who is quite accomplished in construction, knows full well that there is not 14 1/2 feet between his house and the property line and we believe he fully intends to build a facility which will violate the 4 foot setback requirement. It is our further understanding that an accessory structure cannot be attached to the residence in any manner and that the 4 foot distance between the accessory structure and the house must have exposed sky. We believe it is Mr. Cipolla's intention to completely fill in the area from his home to his back property line. As you can see from photographs we submitted to the Planning Department, Mr. Cipolla has already framed in the east wall of the facility with support structures for his roof which will run all the way from the back fence to the rear of his house. Mr. Cipolla actually commenced construction of this facility about one year ago. At that time, he built the entire floor and foundations and had all of the walls constructed. Dr. Brown was quite concerned and asked Mr. Cipolla if he had a building permit for his addition. He said that he did and continued right on building. Dr. Brown checked with the City and found out that City of Burlingame Planning Commission June 18, 1980 Page Three Mr. Cipolla did not have a permit. The City stopped Mr. Cipolla and ordered him to take down what he had built. Mr. Cipolla did not dismantle the entire structure and apparently now feels sufficient time has passed for him to attempt to create the same structure again. Under the circumstances, we believe that it is most important that Mr. Cipolla make a clear, complete and honest showing why he needs a storage facility far in excess of storage facilities required by almost all of the residents in the neighborhood and almost six times the size of the 50 foot facility allowed by the code. A 50 foot facility can more than adequately store patio and garden equipment sufficient for a residence on the size of Mr. Cipolla's lot. The Browns strongly feel that allowing an oversized storage facility in Mr. Cipolla's case would lead to abuse of use of the structure. Your consideration to the facts regarding this matter and your denial of the Application for Special Permit are most respectfully requested. Very truly yours, Henry L. Gla s HLG:ms / cc: Planning Department (_Attention: John Yost)✓ Dr. and Mrs. Maurice Brown