HomeMy WebLinkAbout1011 Toyon Drive - Staff ReportItem #5
Address: 1011 Toyon Drive
Meeting Date: January 11, 1999
Request: Side setback variance for 3'-0" where 5'-0" is required to expand a kitchen, add a
bathroom and remodel an e�sting three-bedroom, 1-bath residence on a parcel with a width of
51', zoned R-1.
Applicant: Demitrius Dintcho
Property Owner: Demitrius Dintcho
Date Submitted: November 12, 1998
Lot Area: 5100 SF
General Plan: Medium Density, Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single-family residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to
e�sting structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the
floor area of the structures before the addition.
Requests for this Project: The applicant is requesting a side setback variance for a 290 SF first
floor, one-story addition to an existing residence with a 3'-0" side yard setback where 5'-0"setback
is required (CS 25.28.072.3.a). The addition would replace a non-conforming trellis in the side
yard in order to add a master bathroom and enlarge and remodel the kitchen, making the house a
three-bedroom, two-bath residence. The residence has one covered parking space and one
uncovered parking space which satisfies the off-street parking requirements pursuant to Section
25.60.030. The proposal is in conformance with all other zoning regulations, as demonstrated in
the following zoning summary table:
PROPOSED
FRONT SETBACK
SIDESETBACK(R)
SIDE SETBACK(L)
REAR SETBACK
SITE COVERAGE
FAR
PARKING
20'-0"
3'-0"*
7'-8"
30'-0"
1928 SF = 37.8%
1928 SF = 37.8%
1 covered + 1
uncovered
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SIDE SETBACK YARIANCE
EXISTING
20-0"
3'-0"
13'-0"
30'-0"
1594 SF=31.3%
1594 SF = 31.3%
1 covered + 1
uncovered
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15'-0"
5'-0"
7'-6"
15'-0"
2040 SF = 40%
2532 SF = 49.6%
1 covered + 1
uncovered
* Variance required for 3'-0" side yard setback where 5'-0" required.
Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official, City Engineer and Fire Marshal reviewed the plans
on November 16, 1998, and had no comments on the proposed project.
Study Meeting: At their meeting on December 14, 1998, the Planning Commission discussed the
need for the applicant to provide spot elevations on the plans to measure the declining height
envelope and to complete the application submittal requirements. It was decided that the
applicant did not need to provide the spot elevations because this is a one-story addition on a
virtually flat lot; spot elevations would not provide any additional information to support the
findings for this project.
Required Findings for a Side Yard Setback Variance: In order to grant a variance for a 3'-0"
side yard setback where 5'-0" are required, the Planning Commission must find that the following
conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
a) that the subject house is located on a corner lot and has a width of 51'-6" which requires a
minimum side yard setback of 5'-0" on the interior side yard and a minimum side setback
of 7'-6" along the side that faces the street (Toyon Drive). The increased side yard
setback along Toyon Drive forces the house closer to the inside side property line, where
the house was originally constructed with a 3'-0" side yard setback. The applicant
requests a variance to construct the 290 SF addition with a 3'-0" side yard setback to
match the existing �footprint of the residence;
b) that granting the variance for constructing the addition to match the e�sting 3'-0" side
setback is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the existing house, because it
does not require the applicant to convert and relocate the attached garage, would remove
an existing non-conforming trellis which extends from the house to the side property line,
and represents no change in the e�sting pattern of setbacks between neighboring
properties; �
c) the granting of the variance will allow a 290 SF addition to the e�sting one-story house to
enable the remodel and expansion of the kitchen and the addition of a master bathroom to
create a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house. Although new windows will be added to
the side where the addition is proposed, only the proposed bathroom windows would align
with an existing window in the neighbor's residence at 932 Azalea Avenue. The new
bathroom windows would not impact privacy between the neighbors because they would
be placed 5'-6" above the finished floor and one would be constructed with glass block to
provide both light and privacy. The other new windows proposed in the kitchen would
not impact the neighboring house at 932 Azalea Avenue. An existing, mature grapefruit
tree in the neighbor's yard would provide additional screening of the proposed addition.
The 14'-0" tall addition would not impact sunlight or create shadows in the neighbors yard
because the project is located on the north side of the neighbor's property, where is cannot
block sunlight;
d) that because of the design, configuration and placement of the addition to the existing
house on the corner lot, the project will have little additional impact on the adjacent
property; and
e) that the proposed addition is consistent with the existing architectural style of the house
with a matching 10'-0" plate height, matching exterior materials and windows and the
placement of the addition is the interior side yard which will appear less massive and
therefore, be more compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
�rmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped November 12, 1998, sheets 1-3; and
2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Janice Jagelski
Planner
Demitrius Dintcho, owner/applicant
City of Bur[ingnme Planning Commrssion Min�rtes
December 14, 1998
could this item be placed on the consent calendar. The item was set for public hearing on January
11, 1999, to be placed on the consent calendar.
APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A IRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION SUBJEC TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1405 DRAK VENUE, ZONED R-1.
(MARK J. TOPETCHE , APPLICANT AND TONY & CIRINA I OLITO, PROPERTY
CP Monroe briefly presented the aff report on the project and the commissi ers asked: could
staff calculate the square footage of e front porch, bay windows, covered arch ay to the garage
and indicate what percentage these are f lot coverage; the applicant indicates that e basement
ceiling height is 7 feet, which is less than equired for habitable area, how is this are 'ncluded in
determining the total square footage of the s cture; why did staff count only three bed oms it
appears that the area called office space and th area where the kitchen is being removed b h
qualify under the zoning definition for bedroom; s the applicant considered making the gara e
bigger to accommodate two cars because this is a 3 0 SF plus house with one covered parking
space; area called a basement is not really a basement zoning code definition, all the space is
developed and being used, we need a site plan which sho elevations so that we can calculate the
declining 'ght envelope, the present plans show a 16 foot op on the site on one plan and
another indic s the lot is flat, need to establish a point of dep ture elevation for declining height;
should add the c'mneys to all elevations, would like to see a roo lan; bulky addition with the
family room ceiling eight and big windows, is out of scale and prop rtion to the house, especially
with the amount of sq re footage being added, could not follow the re ons for the variance, want
to keep the architecture a scale of the house, what does this mean; also note addition is "none
existent" from the street wh does this mean, they do have neighbors; in finding "d" they refer to
"insure", what does that mean. There were no further questions from the commissioners and the
public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, if all the information needed is submitted to the
planning staff in time.
APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1011
TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (DEMETRIUS DINTCHO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: looked
for spot elevations on the plans to see if the drawings coordinate, should be provided; setting the
elevations would not help me make decision even if site slopes slightly because it is a one story
addition do not need to calculate declining height envelope; it is expensive to prepare spot
elevations, unnecessary expense for a one story building; would like to see, it is a required part of
an application. Chair asked CA how commission could determine what to direct applicant to do.
CA Anderson advised that the chair could ask for a consensus of the commission and let that
determine what to ask the applicant to provide. Consensus was that the Commissioners could
make their decision without additional spot elevations because this was a one story addition on a lot
that appeared to be virtually flat at field inspection and not subject to declining height. Could this
item be placed on the consent calendar. The public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, with the
item to be placed on the consent calendar.
-2-
D E M E T R I U_ S . �
1011 Toyon Drive
Burlingame,California 94010
tel/fax (415) 344-2039
variance request
a. Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to my particular property which
do not apply to other properties in this area:
In my particular property conditions which make the other alternatives impracticable are the present
structural configuration of my dwelling. Specifically the floor plan/ livable space area is configured in a"L"
shape. This makes the addition of extra livable space, without coming closer than five feet, impractical, as
other than building straight up, (i.e. building a second story), there are no other choices for adding livable
space, i.e., additional kitchen space, bedroom, and closet area.
b. The variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, and
unnecessary hardship would result from the denial of my application:
This variance is necessary because currently the kitchen space which we have is extremely small and lacks
counter and storage space. In its present state the kitchen area is very difficult to use on a functional level
because of how cramped the space is. In addition, the extra living space for the bedroom would also allow
us the space for closet and storage room. Presently, without adding this additional structural space closer
than 5ft. to the bordering neighboring property line, there is not any other way to create this necessary
space. One rudimentary method would be to add a second story, but this would be a very haphazard
solution. Additionally, this would be considerably more intrusive by interfering with the neighbors vie�v
and natural light sources than simply coming closer than 5ft. to the bordering property line.
c. The proposed use at this proposed location would not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements to the vicinity or to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
The proposed use would not be detrimental to the above mentioned areas due to how this use would not
be intrusive by nature. This use would not be intrusive due to how it simply involves bringing the housing
structure closer than 5ft. to 3ft. from the bordering property line. Already this condition exists with the
master bedroom which is presently 3ft. from the property border line. This use only involves a difference of
2ft. which is nominal given the present architectural configuration of the subject building. This proposed
uses effect or interference with the neighbors ambient sunlight and their view consequently would be
nominal.
d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics and character of the existing uses on the
adjoining properties.
The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics and character of the existing uses of the
adjoining properties because this project will simply involve an addition consistent with the architectural
style of neighboring properties. This expansion will not involve adding any new rooms but rather simply
adding livable space to e�sting rooms in the form of more kitchen and bedroom space. Also, in terms of
aesthetic impact on neighboring homes, this project will involve a nominal expansion of 400 sq. ft. which
once completed will not be visible from the street. This project will also be done so as to be consistent with
the existing architectural theme of the subject property. Additionally, this project will actually improve the
subject property relative to the neighboring properties due to how it will give it a more "balanced" look
consistent with neighboring homes.
City of Burlingame Planning Con:mission Minules
Decem6er 14, 1998
could this item be placed on the consent calendar. The item was set for public hearing on January
11, 1999, to be placed on the consent calendar.
APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A IRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION SUBJEC TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1405 DRAK VENUE, ZONED R-1.
(MARK J. TOPETCHE , APPLICANT AND TONY & CIRINA I OLITO, PROPERTY
�«,�r,-.r,,.
CP Monroe briefly presented the aff report on the project and the commissi ers asked: could
staff calculate the square footage o e front porch, bay windows, covered arch ay to the garage
and indicate what percentage these are f lot coverage; the applicant indicates that e basement
ceiling height is 7 feet, which is less than equired for habitable area, how is this are 'ncluded in
determining the total square footage of the s cture; why did staff count only three bed oms it
appears that the area called office space and th area where the kitchen is being removed b h
qualify under the zoning definition for bedroom; s the applicant considered making the gara�e
bigger to accommodate two cars because this is a 3 0 SF plus house with one covered parking
space; area called a basement is not really a basement zoning code definition, all the space is
developed and being used, we need a site plan which sho elevations so that we can calculate the
declining 'ght envelope, the present plans show a 16 foot op on the site on one plan and
another indic s the lot is flat, need to establish a point of dep ture elevation for declining height;
should add the c'mneys to all elevations, would like to see a roo lan; bulky addition with the
family room ceiling eight and big windows, is out of scale and prop tion to the house, especially
with the amount of sq re footage being added, could not follow the re ons for the variance, want
to keep the architecture a scale of the house, what does this mean; also note addition is "none
existent" from the street wh does this mean, they do have neighbors; in finding "d" they refer to
"insure", what does that mean. There were no further questions from the commissioners and the
public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, if all the information needed is submitted to the
planning staff in time.
APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1011
.�TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (DEMETRIUS DINTCHO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNERI
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: looked
for spot elevations on the plans to see if the drawings coordinate, should be provided; setting the
elevations would not help me make decision even if site slopes slightly because it is a one story
addition do not need to calculate declining height envelope; it is expensive to prepare spot
elevations, unnecessary expense for a one story building; would like to see, it is a required part of
an application. Chair asked CA how commission could determine what to direct applicant to do.
CA Anderson advised that the chair could ask for a consensus of the commission and let that
determine what to ask the applicant to provide. Consensus was that the Commissioners could
make their decision without additional spot elevations because this was a one story addition on a lot
that appeared to be virtually flat at field inspection and not subject to declining height. Could this
item be placed on the consent calendar. The public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, with the
item to be placed on the consent calendar.
-2-
City of Bur[ingnme Plnnning Commission Minures Jnnuary 11, 1999
garage be placed without affecting the 6" tree shown on the plans; how does the code address
the fact that effectively these are two structures garage and workshop, encompassed in the
structure when calculating the 30' length requirement; like dormers as an architectural feature,
but concerned about the fact that in this case the dormers take up almost all of the roof area, can
their scale be reduced to better suite the structure; what kind of tree is the 6" tree behind the
garage; the directions on the elevations seem to be incorrect, they should be fixed; the garage
is 15' , tall how tall is the house; it is hard to park on this street, the house could be expanded
in the future, why is a two car garage not being considered now; does the pitch of the roof on
the garage match the pitch on the house. There were no further questions about the project and
it was set for hearing on January 25, 1999, if all the information is into the Planning Department
in time.
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND
AN EXISTING OFFICE BIIILDING WHERE OFFICE EXCEEDS 50% OF THE GROSS
FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING AT 1400 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1. (SINCLAIR
ASSOCIATES, INC. , APPLICANT AND CAL-TEX PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe presented an over view of the project and the commissioner's asked: where will
the dumpster be placed; has the temporary trailer been removed. The commission directed that
this item be placed on the consent calendar on January 25, 1999, since it had been reviewed
recently.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT EXCEEDING 30'-0" FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1145 DRAKE
AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND VICTOR & MARINA
AENLLE, PROPERTY OWNERS)
APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT
1011 TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (DEMETRIUS DINTCHO, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER)
and
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 2104
EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (LARRY MORSELLO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER)
Item #6, 2108 Easton was removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular
calendar.
C. Bojues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report,
commissioners and applicants comments and the findings in the staff reports. The motion was
seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0.
Appeal procedures were advised.
-2-