The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1036 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report� City of Burlingame Floor Area Ratio Variance Address: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue Request: Floor area ratio variance for a new detached two-car garage. Item #7 Action Item Meeting Date: 5/24/04 Applicant & Property Owner: John F. Britton APN: 026-166-170 Architect: Ronald A. Perner Lot Area: 12,000 SF (100' x 120') General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(e), Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. History: The existing house at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue is located on a parcel which formerly consisted of three lots (two single-wide lots and one double-wide lot). On March 10, 2003, the Planning Commission approved an application for a mitigated negative declaration and design review for a new house to be built on the double-wide lot, leaving a 12,000 SF lot and the existing house at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue. The existing house merges two 6,000 SF lots (house built across a submerged property line) (100' wide x 120' deep). Summary: The applicant is requesting a floor area ratio variance for construction of a new detached two-car garage at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The lot is located at the corner of Cabrillo and Carmelita Avenues with 100' frontage along Cabrillo Avenue and 120' frontage along Carmelita Avenue. The existing two and one-half story house is nonconforming in floor area exceeding the maximum allowable floor area ratio by 2595 SF (7685 SF, 0.64 FAR existing where 5090 SF, 0.42 FAR is the maximum allowed). For covered parking the existing house has an attached carport (269 SF) and a single-car attached garage (470 SF). As part of the project, the existing attached carport, which extends across the rear property line into the 10' wide public utility easement, will be removed. The existing attached one-car garage will be converted to a storage room. The proposed new two-car garage will meet the on-site covered parking requirement for the six bedroom house. The applicant is proposing to build the new detached two-car garage (462 SF, 21'-0" wide x 22'-0" deep) at the rear, left corner of the property. The proposed detached garage complies with all of the accessory structure guidelines (CS 25.60.010). The exterior materials for the detached garage will match the materials on the existing house (Hardie plank lap siding and tile roo fl. Pictures of the existing house and location of the proposed garage are included in the staff report. Access to the detached garage will be through an existing curb cut on Carmelita Avenue. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. No changes are proposed to the existing house. With the removal of the existing 269 SF attached carport and the addition of the new 462 SF detached garage, the floor area ratio will be increased by a net of 193 SF, from 7685 SF (0.64 FAR) to 7878 SF (0.65 FAR), where 5090 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed on this corner lot. The applicant is requesting the following: • Floor area ratio variance for a new detached two-car garage (7685 SF, 0.64 FAR existing, 7878 SF, 0.65 FAR proposed, where 5090 SF, 0.42 FAR is the maximum allowed on this corner lot) (CS 25.28.070). Floor Area Ratio Variance Table 1-1036 Cabrillo Avenue 1036 Cabrillo Avenue Existing Proposed Allowed/Req'd Lot Coverage: 3913 SF 4106 SF 4800 SF 32.6% 34.2% 40% FAR: 7685 SF' 7878 SFZ 5090 SF3 0.64 FAR 0.65 FAR 0.42 FAR # of bedrooms: 6 6 --- ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered (1 attached carport) (20' x 20') (20' x 20') (1 attached garage) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Accessory Structure: . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Height: n/a 14'-9" 15'-0" _....................... ....... .... Plate Height: n/a 9'-0" 9'-0" _ ............ . . . ........_................ _...__..... _.. .............._..__._...._...._....__........... _....._ _ . . ............................................................................... . Window Location: n/a 10' to rear P.L. not within 10' P.L. _ ........................................................................... ..................... .. . .. . ... ......... .... ....................... .... ............................ Structure Size: n/a 462 SF 600 SF Structure Length: n/a 22'-0" 28'-0" Existing nonconforming floor area ratio (7685 SF, 0.64 FAR existing where 5090 SF, 0.42 FAR is the maximum allowed). Floor area ratio variance required (7878 SF, 0.65 FAR proposed where 5090 SF, 0.42 FAR is the maximum allowed). (0.32 x 12,000 SF) + 900 SF + 350 SF = 5,090 SF (0.42 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached. 2 Floor Area Ratio Variance 1036 Cabrillo Avenue May 10, 2004 Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on May 10, 2004, the Commission asked several questions about the project (May 10, 2004, Planning Commission Minutes). Below are the Commission's questions and responses provided by the applicant. l) Provide reason why former garage can't be used. Converting the existing garage to storage won't make the variance go away, may not be viable, but should explore. The applicant submitted a letter and revised variance form, dated May 14, 2004, to address the Planning Commission's concerns raised at the study meeting. The applicant notes that the existing house was built in 1904 and that it may have been originally used as a hunting lodge. The applicant feels that because of the size, configuration and opening of the existing attached garage it may have been used for accepting deliveries and storage of personal items rather than vehicle parking. The existing ceiling height in the garage is only 6'-6" and is not large enough to accommodate a modern day vehicle. The applicant notes that the existing attached one-car garage was added to the house in the 1930's (San Mateo County assessor's appraisal report indicates a permit was issued in 1938 to add a garage under the house). The appraisal report also indicates that at one time a detached two-car garage existing on Lot 13 (double-wide lot formerly part of the subject lot), but that it was damaged by fire. That applicant notes that he has made a great effort to preserve and restore the existing house. Any attempt to expand or modify the existing garage will not work and will negatively affect the architectural integrity of the structure. The intent is to match the proposed detached garage with the existing architecture of the house and to provide code compliant parking for the six- bedroom house. 2) Can you divide garage door into two and add a column in between? The applicant considered the option of having two single-wide doors, but given the narrow garage width (21') access to the western door may be difficult. To help reduce the visual scale of the structure, the applicant is proposing to install one 16-foot double-wide door containing a pattern to make it appear as two single-wide doors (see revised sheet A.2, date stamped May 17, 2004). Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a floor area ratio 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; 3 Floor Area Ratio Variance 1036 Cabrillo Avenue 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; c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and 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 by resolution and include findings made for the floor area ratio variance, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 29, 2004, sheets A.1, E.1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and date stamped May 17, 2004, sheet A.2, with the garage door pattern as shown on the North Elevation, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the floor area ratio variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Recycling Specialist's April 12, 2004, memos shall be met; 4. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Ronald A. Perner, architect � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes VI. FROM THE FLOOR VII. STUDY ITEMS There were no public comments. May 10, 2004 1. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE TO BUII,D A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JOHN F. BRITTON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RONALD A. PERNER, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIl�1 CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. 2. Commissioners asked: • Provide reason why former garage can't be used; • Converting the existing garage to storage won't make the variance go away, may not be viable, but should explore; and • Can you divide garage door into two and add a column in between This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 415 EL C,�,�,�INO REAL, ZONE � 1/R-3 — APPLICA ION FOR CONDITION USE PERMIT AMET��1 ENT TO ADD A CO�TMBARIUM TO AN Ef�TING CHURCH (ST. P��'S EPISCOPAL Are there other re irements for a burial site, blic health, city, etc.; and • Why is there t additional parking requir . This item was se or the consent calendar wh all the information has been sub � Planning De ment. This item conclude at 7:25 p.m. CP Monroe presented summary of the staff re rt. Commissioners sked: • Is it ommon use to have a c umbarium in a church, do er churches have these; • W' 1 more units be added a later date, is this just the st phase; • ill this use generate a t of visitors; • What will the visitin ours be; � and reviewed by the VIII. ACTI(li'�T ITEMS C sent Calendar - Items on th consent calendar are considered to be r tine. They are acted on si ltaneously unless �eparate discussion and/or action 's requested by the applicant, a member the public or a commission r prior to the time the commission votes on the motio to adopt. 3A. 1249 BERNAL A SIDE AND RE APPLICANT DT A ATATL'D . A Ti �1VUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICAT,YON FOR LOT CI . SETBACK VARIANCES F��A FIRST FLOOR PROPERTY OWNER; MARK OBERTSON, DESIGr �CAGE VARIANCE �ITION (LIND RYE, (57 NOTICED ROJECT 2 I%,/� %� . (� %�/ • • /� (X �(%• � �L(i• REAL ESTtI TE BROKERA GE 1811 EL CAMINO REAL, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 697-1151 FAX (650) 697-1259 RECEIVED May 14, 2004 MAY 1 7 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Ruben Hurin Ms. Margaret Monroe Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Hurin and Ms. Monroe, We ask that you approve our request for a variance to the floor area ratio requirement as we have explored all other alternatives and this solution appears to be the only viable one. The house, in which we live was built in or around 1904. From information we have received from others, it may not have been built as a residence. Many people have mentioned that it was originally built as a Lodge or a Resort. This makes sense because the original outline of the floor plan, which was revealed in the hardwood, lends itself to that of a Lodging facility. The original structure had no garage. What you see on the plan identifed as a garage was cut into the lower floor of the building, most likely in the 1930's. Due to the size and configuration of the opening, it was probably intended more for accepting deliveries and storage of personal items than vehicle parking. The carport, which is attached to the rear of the structures, seems to be 30 to 40 years old and encroaches over the rear of the property line into the easement. Any covered parking that was intended for this property must have been a detached structure, but there is no evidence that any such structure existed. We have gone to great lengths to preserve and restore this building. Any attempt to expand or modify the existing garage will not work and will negatively affect the architectural integrity of the structure. We realized the existing home exceeds the current floor plan area ratio, but it was built a century before any such ordinances existed. It was also built at a time when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation. We have done everything possible to bring this home into the 21 S` century, and truly, the last piece of the puzzle is to create a compliant structure for the current mode of transportation. Page 2 ]036 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Architecturally, our intent is to replicate the main structure in the creation of this garage. In order to maintain the appropriate clearance between the garage and the house, we will be building a narrow two-car garage, which, if divided into two doors, may make access to the western door very difficult. We ask that you carefully consider this request and grant this variance as it is truly the only option we have to comply with Burlingame's requirement for off-street covered parking. incer y, �i F. Britton City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 �� ,:�.�_:�::�� . �. RECEIVED M AY 1 7 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 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 can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or �vrite neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this fonn for assistance with these questions. a. Desa�ibe tlte eYceptio�ial or e�traordinary circ��mstances or conditions applicab[e to your property wl:ich do not apply to other properties in this area. This property was developed as a liunfing lodge in the early 1900's. The existing garage was a modification that happened in the early years. The existing garage is not large enough to accommodate a modern day automobile. The headroom is 6'6" under the structure. The garage space is inadequate to meet today's standards. This house requires a 2 car garage plus one uncovered parking space. Even if the garage did �eet requirements in size, there would still be a shortage of a second covered space. !�� E.rplaiit why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship Ililaht result form the denial of the application. Th��e��st3ng garage is too smal1 for one automobile and the exis�ting carport is in code voilation, because it extends over the lot line and is attached to the house, which puts the total house in violation without a rear setback and encroaches over the rear lot line. This home needs and requires a two car garage and an additional parking space for a total of three cars to be parked on site. c. Explain why the proposed use at tlie proposed location wil[ not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvejnents in the vicinity or.to public health, safety, general wel fare or conveniencee The proposal is for providing reasonalble required parking that will take the automobile off the street, which helps public safety and is consistant with the City of Burlingame policy and planning regulations for off street parking. The existing building was built for another use in the early 1900's, leaving the interior spaces in disportionate sizes that do not match the uses. Some of the functional spaces are undersized, yet the total structure is over the present code area allowed. If the house were designed today, the spaces r^lould be better utilized, which would reduce the size of the home. d. How 3vi11 the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, ntass, bulk and charucter of the �tisting and potential uses o�i adjoining properties in the general This is a dou' it ? ��1� lot serving a large residence. The garage is designed to be 6'-0" from the house to qualify as a detached structure. The width is limited to a minimum dimension of 21' wide. The garage door is also limited in size. To give the effect of two separate doors the garage door is patterned to look like two doors. The two door effect will help in reducing the visual scale of the structure. F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame.or� VAR.FRh9 Project Comments Date: 04/08/2004 To: � City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Subject: Staff Review Planning Staff Request for floor area ratio variance for a new, two-car detached garage at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-166-170 04/12/2004 � 4+-►�z�___._y� ___� a. __l��#�5��.__t�!�`�2r._��___.�,�c�� .��—_ Q��Y- _ ._ � `��_�.u� _�P -�r� �W�__j2��_...._��..:�__.A-�?��_s-�_.�n�=�c�_�__ __'1� _��n ._«� .....:--j1�----��-- ��a 4�---G� s�� ---'�-. --_�1±� 14�__1_n/'t�±t�_'[��+ �,�r,�/bYc9P%s ��__i.-�-''-ti+.�'�2'1�- � Y'1.�'�—,�1�'r:�+� �;�! .._ ��`!(----►?1?t�:�tS-- '�'�c-____�'�___��1� 'C'�th2�__'��r_t.r�-_.'mmia:t�-_.��l��f_ �� e�; . --____ ---____ _-- . _ _ __ ___ _ Reviewed by: �� Date: �1�,�"�„7 / - _ r.= .,,� o��.:� � _ .... _. Project Comments Date: 04/08/2004 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal �,Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for floor area ratio variance for a new, two-car detached garage at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-166-170 Staff Review: 04/12/2004 G�U-ll� �I.�� by: Date: .� � City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org a`, CITY p� IBURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1�,9� ' �e �M�.m+w��. Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance �� Special Permit Other Parcel Number: 0 2 6-1 6 6-1 7 0 Project address: 1 036 Cabrillo Avenue APPLICANT Name: John F. Britton Address:l811 El Camino Real Clty/State/Z1p: Burligname, CA 94010 Phone(w): (650) 697-1151 (h): (fl; (650) 697-1259 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Ronald A. Perner, Architect Address: 1 849 Bayshore Hwy. , Suite 1 1 0 PROPERTY OWNER Name: John & Linda Britton Address: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue Clty/State/Zip: Burlin�ame, CA 94010 Phone(w): (650) 697-1151 (h): �fl: (650) 697-1259 City/State/Zip�url ingame, CA 9 4 0 � o- � 2 0 6 Please indicate with an asterisk * Phone (w): 6 5 0 6 9 2 � 6 0 o the contact person for this project. ch�: R �. C � i'A� �: �;� �fl:650 692 7112 �lf� -82�� CITY OF E3URL�NGAN1� PLA�!r�iivc� r EPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complying 2 car garage with an additional parking space. Variance for exceeding the allowa£�le floor are ratio. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I given herein is true and corxect t,� . / Applicant's signature: ' I know about the application to the Property owner's certify u penalty of perjury that the information _ owled�e and belief. Date: �� i��i , by authorize�e above applicant to submit this � Date: f "� ��/ Date submitted: � g � � PCAPP.FRM � 4 �oo� a r et` +(��t,� o d�t�C., � c� c� (ti' Y' 0. . O � V Gt v � a c� �� -�,r a, r�,v r-�ut� - cn. � City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.or� �4, CITY � � '� C BURLWCiAME V A 'F"�,�.,�•'`. � � ,- - t . T �F BURLINGAMI �NCE APFLICATIC I1PR - 8 2004 CITY OF F3URLINGAME. PLANi�If��:G �3EP�. 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 can 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 app ly to other properties in this area. This property was deveIoped in the early 1900's and the existing garage was built to fit a model T. No longer usable. The existing carport was built encroaching over the lot line and must be removed. The new garage is being built as a replacement for the above. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable properry loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. At present this residence is without a garage. The carport must be demolished because of the encroachment over the property line and a car of today will not fit into the existing garage. This home t�eeds and requires a two car garage and an additional parking space for a total of 3 cars to be parked on this property. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimehtal or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. We are providing reasonable required parking that will take the automobile off the street, which helps public safety and is consistant with the City of Burlingame policy and goals for off street parking. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the e�isting and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general viciniry? ' This is a double lot serving a large residence. The materials on the garage match in character to the house. The roof tile, drop siding, s�ngle hung windows, and general character are consistent with the house and neighboring structures. The low plate line with a pitched roof also contribute to the general consistency of the neighborhood. VAR.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(6S0) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.orQ 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 condirions exist on the site which make other alternarives 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 properly, 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 form 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 detrimehtal 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 shuctures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlighbshade, 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, situarions which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fue protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the struchue create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potenrially 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 adjoiniHg properties in the general vicinity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aestherics, state why. If changes to the struchue are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed shucture compare to neighboring struchues in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new shuchue is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other shvctures 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 traf�ic 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 potenrial uses in the vicinity. VAR.FRM !�' �, �-. � . •[` .•� �5� �� yn.��+5'' r �� R�� t�" ''. +�F nX,xP ; +� r � � �,4"ry � :� �' �, � �� '�� : � t: �4y � ' o_ •� �' � .,� , � �. — r,. f�.. . / ,� _ -:,� .: � - - --:sr";;�,, .• .�:'•''. � ....,, N�. ., '. • ' � ;,. �"� .:� `�� ;�..� '�• 4 ♦� : �♦� +.. �- � �l—�-�� ', fi �i �� ,f i� s�— a. �l:t � ��'� � r _ y -'r '� " ,� / �;1�\1��.+•. \ 1l � � - � � �' ,l ,.� ,'�, - l ,j f ,� d� - , r ►�,.,; q .!� �,, , � }N��. • iRs-i '- f�, �' ,', ' ,1 �/)flir � �� ' /" ' + � . I J)nm .� �l�,u+Y � : - �'�y� # .��s �4� � a� — • � , �.t ...,� : V `t �+ >4� „�i � -V . r'. . � � +�{. � � ��`� �� \ 1', .� ' � � ,. � ,•� . ". � '� '� `� , �' • iii, � � t • f �+'� i � � ` �' ` �� y " / ., � �� j�' i� ?,�;'� _ - .'�'"��'�"�:�►. 1� . � ' t � ` _fil� � �j 1 •, � .! � �.� , ' .: , '- � � �. e , �S �L_� ' . - , .� a� � �� x y , ,� y � �� "�''` - ' � v: �'� �'1 ` '• „�,;�'',K,� � ., � . — .�— � 'S X � � � :� � ,� 45'.� `p � �� J` � � .. .. '��f �I . i .� , .. � ., � `L' �,�4� - ,r �' _ �y _ Q � � . : •� w M, +t �� :;�n �,. '. �F�,_ � ' � �!�`fi,�,.�,�'` , . ��'"''�'�.� 'j!'�i�"M -;o y�,� �� t' *�- � � -�j,� � !� � s;�� ;�` �;�� p�, i '_\t�a9ji _.. A� ' ,� r .\. �' .�i f� � ��`,� Ur��,. � ,_ �. , _ ��^ i �"-. /../".�il.'_ �''� . _ ,. r ..s, as„�j;it�. e - �' , r., ,,� - �� , _ �� 1 . ...:: ___ ��,'..y �� \ ` , 'a � ��,:, , `c . 4�-- r i; y � � .. _ � . . , ..:.r. - . _ .' _ "' a,� , > x�� i /�\ �'.� r^, A! �ti� � �''� '1 � . �'��, 1+', � � �I�� ; . ' � ��I'i � >,a� I I ' �. ) � � � � � `', � I 'r' , � - � , >�:. `� �� ` ,: y _ ,.,�,� .� a � _ .. ,. �� " f'`� . � _� .� �..�.� ......�'""" �� . RECEIVED APR — 8 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I!il� ' �� I ��.�• ;i�� {�� i �� # � r� ---�,� � I , r, � - � ; � �� -- ,� F , � � �� '� � � - I, �� ,�� , � , � � ( — — 'D `F•} � � -; � i _ - � -�-�, � • � � , --: � � . '��=� �` �� .� , �f� ` � ✓ ; ; � ;, , � _ -- � � � -- _ _ — -- — — — � �a — — „ — , �;; = �a ��. �. ��-��.� — , `".�.sy�� k?; - -- --- � — _ � ---_- --_—= -- --_ __ � ,i, = - -� ' . ___ �� ----: _ ,_� ;:�a : _ .�C1�`''ss_,� � ��: ,,�.; �,��. � , �r-a�.sx:�i ,:�ar�ic.,�.;_� � - - - e .., �-'Y-'%:rr+ra� � ��° ��IVED l:. - 8 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ��(�. CITY �� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINC�AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �b,.,,,,,, TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE Application for a floor area ratio variance to build a new detached two-car garage at: 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE, zoned R-1. {APN: 026-166-170). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, May 24, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. Mailed: May 14, 2004 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the a; to the meeting Burlingame, Cal If you chal ge raising onl os described i t at or prior t Property o ers tenants ab t thi 558-7250. ank Margaret 1Vti City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE _. CITY OF B URLINGAME ��'� � ay be reviewed prior �lai ' g� D pa ent 1 Primrose Road, E be limited to blic hearing, d to the city ming their call (650) (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for floor area ratio variance for a new detached two-car gara�at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, John F. Britton, propertv owner, APN: 026-166-170; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 24, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(e), Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences, is hereby approved. 2. Said floor area ratio variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such floor area ratio variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24t'' day of May, 2004 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and floor area ratio variance. 1036 Cabrillo Avenue Effective June 3, 2004 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped Apri129, 2004, sheets A.1, E.1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and date stamped May 17, 2004, sheet A.2, with the garage door pattern as shown on the North Elevation, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the floor area ratio variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Recycling Specialist's April 12, 2004, memos shall be met; 4. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. a A City of Burlingame Floor Area Ratio Variance Item #1 Study Item Address: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 5/10/04 Request: Floor area ratio variance for a new detached two-car garage. Applicant & Property Owner: John F. Britton APN: 026-166-170 Architect: Ronald A. Perner Lot Area: 12,000 SF (100' x 120') General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 History: The existing house at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue is located on a parcel which formerly consisted of three lots (two single-wide lots and one double-wide lot). On March 10, 2003, the Planning Commission approved an application for a mitigated negative declaration and design review for a new house to be built on the double-wide lot, leaving a 12,000 SF lot and the existing house at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue. The existing house merges two 6,000 SF lots (house built across a submerged property line) (100' wide x 120' deep). Summary: The applicant is requesting a floor area ratio variance for construction of a new detached two-car garage at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The lot is located at the corner of Cabrillo and Carmelita Avenues with 100' frontage along Cabrillo Avenue and 120' frontage along Carmelita Avenue. The existing two and one-half story house is nonconforming in floor area exceeding the maximum allowable floor area ratio by 2595 SF (7685 SF, 0.64 FAR existing where 5090 SF, 0.42 FAR is the maximum allowed). For covered parking the existing house has an attached carport (269 SF) and a single-car attached garage (470 SF). As part of the project, the existing attached carport, which extends across the rear property line into the 10' wide public utility easement, will be removed. The existing attached one-car garage will be converted to a storage room. The proposed new two-car garage will meet the on-site covered parking requirement for the six bedroom house. The applicant is proposing to build the new detached two-car garage (462 SF, 21'-0" wide x 22'-0" deep) at the rear, left corner of the property. The proposed detached garage complies with all of the accessory structure guidelines (CS 25.60.010). The exterior materials for the detached garage will match the materials on the existing house (Hardie plank lap siding and tile roo fl. Pictures of the existing house and location of the proposed garage are included in the staff report. Access to the detached garage will be through an existing curb cut on Carmelita Avenue. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. No changes are proposed to the existing house. With the removal of the existing 269 SF attached carport and the addition of the new 462 SF detached garage, the floor area ratio will be increased by a net of 193 SF, from 7685 SF (0.64 FAR) to 7878 SF (0.65 FAR), where 5090 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed on this corner lot. The applicant is requesting the following: • Floor area ratio variance for a new detached two-car garage (7685 SF, 0.64 FAR existing, 7878 SF, 0.65 FAR proposed, where 5090 SF, 0.42 FAR is the maximum allowed on this corner lot) (CS 25.28.070). � Floor Area Ratio Variance 1036 Cabrillo Avenue Table 1-1036 Cabrillo Avenue Existing Proposed Allowed/Req'd Lot Coverage: 3913 SF 4106 SF 4800 SF 32.6% 34.2% 40% .. : ................. . FAR: 7685 SFl 7878 SFZ 5090 SF3 0.64 FAR 0.65 FAR 0.42 FAR # of bedrooms: 6 6 --- _........ _ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:............. ...... .. ........... . . Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered (1 attached carport) (20' x 20') (20' x 20') (1 attached garage) 1 uncovered ; 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Accessory Structure: Height: n/a 14'-9" 15'-0" ; , .. . . .. ... .. _ ...................................................................................................... .. Plate Height: n/a 9'-0" 9'-0" _.. ...................... ....... .... ...... .......... .... ..................................................... ..., .. .................................... . .. ....................:........................... ..... _..............._............ Window Location: n/a 10' to rear P.L. ; not within 10' P.L. . .......................... . .........................................................................:...... ... ..................................................................................... Structure Size: n/a 462 SF 600 SF Structure Length: n/a 22'-0" 28'-0" ' Existing nonconforming floor area ratio (7685 SF, 0.64 FAR existing where 5090 SF, 0.42 FAR is the maximum allowed). 2 Floor area ratio variance required (7878 SF, 0.65 FAR proposed where 5090 SF, 0.42 FAR is the maximum allowed). 3 (0.32 x 12,000 SF) + 900 SF + 350 SF = 5,090 SF (0.42 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Ronald A. Perner, architect 2