The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2829 Tiburon Way - Staff ReportItem #7 CITY OFBURLINGAME HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE Address: 2829 Tiburon Way Meeting Date: 3/10/97 Requests: Hillside Area Construction Permit and Lot Coverage Variance (CS 25.28.071) for a 250 SF patio cover at 2829 Tiburon Way, zoned R-1. Applicant: Eberhard Woerz Property Owner: Kristina Woerz Dooman Lot Area: 9,290 SF APN: 025-033-090 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The applicant, Eberhard Woerz, is requesting a hillside area construction permit and lot coverage variance for a 10'-0" x 25'-0" patio cover (250 SF) at 2829 Tiburon Way, zoned R-1. The lot coverage variance is required for 43.2% lot coverage where 40% is the maximum allowed (CS 25.28.071). The existing house is nonconforming in lot coverage (40.5%). The patio cover will be attached to the rear of the house and is located approximately 30'-0" from the side property line (along Sebastian Drive) and 42'-0" from the rear property line. The overall height of the patio cover is 9'-0" from grade. The existing house has a total floor area of 6,004.5 SF (including garage) and is located on a 9,290 SF lot. History: In July 1967, the Planning Commission approved a rear setback variance for 8'-0" where 15'-0" is required for an indoor heated swimming pool (July 24, 1967 P.C. Minutes). The variance was granted on the finding that on average more than 15' was provided in the rear setback. The addition was noted to comply with the maximum lot coverage at the time. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D Front Setback: not affected Side Setback (L): not affected (R): 3 0'-0" 14'-0" 7'-0" Rear Setback: 43'-0" 8'-0" 15'-0" Lot Coverage: *43.2% 40.5% 20'-0" Building Height: not affected Parking: not affected * Lot coverage variance required. Hillside Area Construction Permit and Lot Coverage Variance 2829 Tiburon Way H.A.C.P.: Declining Height: Floor Area Ratio: Accessory Structures: Fences/Hedges: Trees: *Requires Hillside Area Construction Permit n/a 6,254.5 SF proposed 6,004.5 SF existing none no change no trees to be removed Meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: The Building Official, City Engineer and Fire Marshal had no comments. Planning staff notes that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement of the lot size because the shape of the lot is unusual. This may explain why the existing house is now found to be nonconforming in lot coverage. When the property owners applied for a rear setback variance for an addition in 1967, the City Planner noted that lot coverage was not an issue and that the property had ample rear yard and side setbacks (July 24, 1967 P.C. Minutes). In order to get an accurate calculation of the lot size for this project, Planning staff asked the Engineering Dept. to use coordinate geometry (using given bearings and distances). By this method, the most accurate available to us, the lot size was determined to be 9,290 SF. This is the number we used to establish the 40.5 % lot coverage. Study Meeting: At their meeting on February 24, 1997 the Commission asked several questions (P.C. Minutes February 24, 1997). The applicant noted in a phone conversation that the area where the patio cover is to be installed is now a concrete patio. They will cover the existing concrete. A typed response to the variance findings has been attached to the handwritten responses (variance application). Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a hillside area construction permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; 2 Hillside Area Construction Permit and Lot Coverage Variance 2829 Tiburon Way (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improve- ments in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following condition should be considered: 1. that the 10'-0" x 25'-0" patio cover (250 SF), as built over the existing concrete patio area, shall conform to the size and location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 21, 1997; and 2. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Eberhard Woerz, applicant 3 Burlingame Planning Conunussion Minutes 11 APPLICATION FOR A CREEK ENC ZONED R-1, (JD & ASSOCIATES, February 24, 1997 PERMIT AT 1249 CABRILLO AVENUE, ,NT AND JOHN & GALE DISERENS, Requests: is there record of debris being cau ht under the deck on this site; who is responsible for maintaining N creek flow once this deck is in place. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 2829 TIBURON WAY, ZONED R-1, (EBERHARD WOERZ, APPLICANT AND KRISTINA WOERZ DOOMAN PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: would the applicant type his response to the variance findings, cannot read; plans do not indicate present surface under proposed patio cover, please indicate. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. 1 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AN PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITI ON TO A CHURCH AT 1500 EASTON DRI�IYE, ZONED R-1 AND R-3, (BOB DAVID N. APPLICANT AND ARTHTTR D. GTMRRT. 'i;,,RnPF.RTY ()WNFRI Requests: hav there been any complaints from the neighbors duri special events or church services; the app 'cants responses to the variance findings need to b clarified, item b is not adequately addres d, item c indicates parking being added when actually loosing spaces, clarify item d where chur noted as a residential use, explain; will this classroom addition cause the Sunday school use t be expanded, i.e., increase the number of children in Sunday school or the number of families t t are members of the church; provide new parking layout; how is the single family house o d by the church on Balboa used. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A TAKE-OA PERMIT FOR FOOD SERVICE �&' 100 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, (THE ROAST BARON LLC, APPNTS AND Requests: will the restaurant have de ivery service and/or a delivery vehicle; custoriler and employee numbers seem low given tha there are 20 seats, could applicant take a second look at the number; does the number of em oyees include the owner; is this business a part of a chain/franchise or is it a start up; if the pr posed business is a part of a franchise please provide pictures of other sites, a printed menu; ho will the food be served, cafeteria style, at tables by waiters, etc. in what kind of containers; pro ' a layout of the floor plan of the restaurant showing kitchen, service area, seating area with tables, etc.; how will the business be viable with so few customers. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. -3- • CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ___ 0mmissioner Braun again raised the q ariances in h�si. t� rather than size o height variance could be granted. JULY 24, 1967 ion whether the ,t'aw permitted location. He qu tioned whether Mr. Jahn Gp_te6 p mounds Roads Sin 4a.teo, associated ith Inter -Continental Trading Go F rat.ion, stated $hat fa company called on experts to creas e a;t a.esthet- ;ally acceptable sign -o serve their pure ses, that a need � does exis` to identify the prex, ses since Adrian ad is difficult to reach are , �a.t the prwsex t tim � visitors are ales• d to the General � ec€ r i.c sign, to mark °vhe general loc lone In r ly tz� Con-missioner IyLerce's inquiry red ding the nature of 'the bras' es.s, K1_se Gate advi d that as d.istribu rs of Olympia Type iters in hirteen westeni stye es they maintain a eztensi.ve warehouse."faei.?i.ty a Adrian Read. f There was considerave discussion /3-d inn public sgdvertB. "ng advantages to be dri ��d/of he display.' 4 . cowm .ssioner¢r and Ki.nd? g ahat the sign di4ered Tittle from ether slre height. °ariere approved ix� the industrial area on a pleod for adequ2ti.fication,, Commission 'Pierce stated that ehousing ope-;at .bn would not-norrms. ly neeg to i- y-nti sv its location t potential custe. a,Id that it woul : appear th i top, llc nts were co erned more with ad crtlsing than i.der ifie lltat$on; hat. hi,s ci`yv unii RF;ighhoring cities, has expended coiAider- able e fort to control the rrber and type of Sign displays and *Vt In hi opi�i.oi, circumstanc _ dial not justify e variance.. Th¢ a were no comments f oF- the audience fa ring Or /Pre.X0rSr_'1M9sthe a pli.cati.ono I The hearing was decla ed concluded.. r`+ Gn a motion introd� ed by Commissioner indigo sucondmi.ssioner Minis wnd cz Tried the fo.11owing rol tali the rege€�we{s approved in accoA -ance with the drawhgs on file: � /SEOT COMMT SIONE}��s Brauner¢/'Cistulliy Kindlg�' Mink, Norberg CO�ii.l STONERS: PiTce ' CC INISSi'ONERu: Edwar� � { J Fri The rAts ware informed t e variance woul�,''b� effective `�"u�day, Aug.196 7a if not appeal dAs b oI objactions r sad by c%mEiir�a :ay Baaduner $:h&+ .the coje`�maakp:°°�.�v1 .:�ior-q?� fog thhe4 g[��,r�ya-"nd:�ang ofg,�sy�icg�4 heightva.ria:rce�'.bF� theCom>S(, it �R��s Sill¢6.�i:-ed 1-Nh t �.�`l 'arj w%�6%�i{'�L ;loni L beStut. Chairman U'-istulli cannoi., cod a p jic hea_ jng on the a�peic:�¢� i�?3 `'os variance filed by Mr� and Mrs. E.P. tyoerz, 1712 Tole -do 1;vellue a appa taro ng to un€ np o@gad property at the sou"Ch64ast-erly corner of T 3.buxvan -3- 13URLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 1967 sy and S`bastian Drive (Lot 9. Block asp Mills Estate No. 11), to ermit a triangular intrusion of from 0 feet to 7 feet into rear set- back area ohe-re IS feet is required. An elevation of a proposed residence,, prepared by Robert E. Ohorato and Assoc:t tes, was filed. A letter dated June 28b 1967 from Mrs. Woerz advised of a physical disorder frTjm which she suffers and that her physician has recommended a. program of. daily swimming in a heated pool as a. form of therapy. The letter stated that the variance is requested in order to enclose a heated swimming pool under ane Wing of at new home to be constructed on the Tiburon Way property since local Breather is not conducive to outdoor .swimming throughout the -Fear. A letter dated June 20, 1967 was read fron artifing St -ern, M.D. South San Franc i s:cop. Mr. Robert Onorpto, representing the applicants, discussed the drawings and the extent th€ lt. the structure will protrude into the rear yard The City Planner, ins. reply to Commission inquiry, reported that lot .overage is: not i.nvolvedy..,•,,, this is a corrner property with ample rear yard 9nd side setbacks. �,amments word f.nvited from the audience, Mr. William Minucciani,, Jr., 1126 Ea.stuccr Road, owner of unimproved property adi9cent at the rear to the subject property, questioned whether. thit. slope at the b&6( of his lot will be disturbed. Mr. Minuccianx examinod 6:he drawings and indicated no objection fallowing Mr. Onorate 6 discussion of construction details. There were -no fur -der co-mmelits frow the audience. The hearing was declared ccnclud€ e. COmmi.ssionet Norberg commented that the plan indicates more than €.des,=.aatc open area &ro tund the building end that the average of the rear yard meets cede. rtauirements A rK otly an wag thereafter i.ntraduced by Commissioner Norberg to approve the vas iance in accordance with the elevationcan file. Me pion seconded by and 2 ca'r rind unanivu:o 'ssly 0r. r II ce"++_,4 K� The Chair the variarvte `yiSs6 lld be effect.? tiny Tuesday- Au.gusc 86 if not appea.I'a'd TENTATIVE--. ),Rl�i 11Z2 1 L aMb`.•`�'�, a'e � t t c, 7, C n RE COMMEN c`$ .'v � �. � . s +�•� �'S2� u€�.`. § i:? �.'� �' �!� � 4 4;� �'�,': �? i`'4 ' °sP' �. � K� n'"G we %"' E` Q''.-:a ia�..�.'4'l 9.:i.t �,•+ ram; _r )t: d �-ii(� �.�oPo—rt—v, f"5`I? 2„ t 4� j"� ;. "' j''. i'@ <.. x3 @1. t . _'= rw•Sg n`Ll .. "{. ,:� .i o �i o :i o �' �' F �: > _��= �"y �'.' aCi.. SC' ' u�.:: s3 `' yr. �L L.a'-. — 4 CITY O� euRUNGAME MY OIL BIJWUNGAM 5 VA ANC E APPUCQMNS The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. �-y 1 b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? eti- �� ,/' 2-� fK� ) 12/92 var.frm a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on -site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. 12/92 vr.rrm Variance Application a. This structure is intended to reduce the sunrays which are now falling into the family room, deteriorating the carpet and furniture. To avoid this we need to draw curtains most of the day. b. In order to retain the view, this very open and light system of rafters is intended to function as a sun break only. The structure will not be visible from the street or the homes neighboring this property, which is higher on the hillside than the adjoining lots. It will be hardly noticeable for anyone looking at this backyard structure from the street or next door houses. As this is situated at a corner lot, only one neighbor's house has visual exposure from his roof. d. It will not be interfering with anything in the neighborhood (see above). Note: The applicant's handwritten responses were typed by the Planning staff with his consent. 0 (J W M m cn w do ul&Awn C a • ,u v± '. w_\ l\ y^ s,jja' +�►