The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About850 Walnut Ave - Staff Report� << , '� � � CITY �1. O� AGENDA BURLINGAME iTEM k �., �,�� STAFF REPORT MTG. �Z_�_�� .��o D A T E To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BYgMITTED /r � �(�^,�� _ DATE: DECEMBER l, 1992 �� " C.P/ J FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVED BY APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION S�a�E�T:OF A NONCONFORMING PRIMARY UNIT AND A DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AT 850 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 RECOMMENDATION• City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. The Council may hear both items in a single public hearing and take action together or separately as you wish. (Action alternatives and basis for findings for special permit and variance are attached at the end of the staff report.) Conditions to be considered at the public hearing: 1. that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 10, 1992 Sheets 1, 2 and 3; 2. that the primary dwelling unit on this single family residential lot at 850 Walnut Avenue is determined to be the dwelling unit at the forwardmost portion of the lot which is also the newer of the two dwelling units; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on November 9, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 3-3-i (Commissioners Galligan, Jacobs and Mink dissenting and Commissioner Kelly abstaining) causing a motion to approve the special permit to expand a primary unit and variance for declining height envelope to fail to be approved. A tie vote of the Commission is a denial; approval requires a majority (4) of the Commission. The applicant is requesting a special permit to expand the primary unit on a single family lot where a nonconforming use, two units, exists (Code Sec. 25.50.025). The units were built in 1958 and 1918. The 157.5 SF second story addition also requires a declining height envelope variance because it extends 17.5 SF beyond the envelope so that it can be supported by the existing first floor wall. In their review the Commissioners noted the extension of the second floor would enclose about 2 one-half of the existing deck, raising the height of this area and appearing overbearing to Mr. Butler; small addition but will create more of a visual burden at rear; massive building with little architectural variety, with pool and second unit property is at its maximum potential, it is not necessary to go into the declining height envelope as well; a slight setback might provide a break and make the wall look better; concerned about big buildings. Other Commissioners noted that the declining height envelope encroachment is 17.5 SF, if put in a dormer the square footage would be allowed and the neighbor would have to deal with a window overlooking his yard rather than a blank wall; because of the absence of a window there is less invasion of privacy; there is already an enclosed deck at this location, if there had been no deck this addition would have had a greater impact on the neighbor; an extra 7' without a window will make little difference to the neighbor; this is an unusual property which does not exhibit the same characteristics as many neighboring properties, it is very deep and backs onto apartment buildings fronting on El Camino. Mr. and Mrs. Dungca, applicants and property owners, are requesting a special permit and variance in order to add 157.5 SF to the master bedroom and bath on the second floor of the house at the front of the lot at 850 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1. The special permit is needed because the use of the property is nonconforminq with the single family zoning; there are two dwelling units on the site, one at the rear circa 1918 and one at the front circa 1958. Both received building permits from the city. Today a use permit is required in order to add to a primary residential unit on an R-1 zoned site with two units on it (Code Sec. 25.50.025). In addition the 157.5 SF addition at the rear of the second floor extends 17.5 SF (2'-6" wide 7' long) into the declining height envelope resulting in a variance (Code Sec. 25.28.075). The addition at the rear will occupy about half (7� of the 16� of depth) of the existing deck over the garage roof, extending the rear wall of the second floor 7'. The deck presently has a 4' opaque railing around it. Mrs. Dungca submitted a letter (date stamped November 30, 1992) requesting that the City Council act separately on the special permit and the variance so that they can proceeci with some addition even if not with the declining height envelope exception. She notes over the past 21 years they have spent many dollars trying to improve the appearance of their house. Some of this work was necessitated by the placement of trees on Mr. Butler's property too close to the Dungca's property line, their side yard and side foundation wall. The result was repair work and replacement of stucco with cedar shingles. The trees removed have been replaced with three along the common boundary.' Already these trees extend 6' above the Dungca's roof. The deck and wall will soon be obscured. The cost of altering the second floor addition to add another support beam just to add onto the bathroom is cost prohibitive. The 3 present bathroom is too small for comfortable use. The extension of the glass wall on the deck, presently removed in anticipation of further construction, raises the deck enclosure to within 2-1/2' of the roof eave. Mrs. Dungca attached pictures of the existing vegetation along the wall where the addition is to be made. Also attached are copies of the pictures Mr. Butler, 1519 Forest View Avenue, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting. The Dungca's house is the stucco structure in these pictures. The pictures were taken before the shingles were placed on the Dunqca's house. EXHIBITS• - Action Alternatives, Findings for Variance and Special Permit - City Council Minutes, November 16, 1992, setting hearing - Barbara Dungca letter to Margaret Monroe, November 11, 1992, requesting appeal - Planning Commission Minutes, November 9, 1992 - Barbara Dungca letter to Margaret Monroe, November 21, 1992, with pictures attached - Photos by Mr. Butler, adjacent resident - Planning Commission Staff Report, November 9, 1992, with attachments - Notice of appeal hearinq mailed November 25, 1992 - Council Resolution - Project Plans MM/s cc: Barbara and Lincoln Dungca (property owners) ACTION ALTERNATIVES l. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to .the City Council is not the same as that heard by the 'Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. VARIANCE FINDINGS (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; (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; (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. SPECIAL PERMIT FINDINGS (1) the proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; (2) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (3) the planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. [:a RESOLUTION 98-92 - ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF STREET RESURFAC- ING - CP 9121 Public Works memo of November 3 recommended council accept this project as completed by Bortolotto & Company in the amount of $346,404. The project was awarded in the amount of $281,676 but a few more streets were added to the dig-out repair list. L7 [y � e RESOLUTION 99-92 - AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH SAMTRANS FOR BUS SHELTER ON EL CAMINO AT TROUSDALE DRIVE Public Works memo of November 6 recommended council approve a license aqreement with Samtrans for construction of a bus shelter on city property. No city costs are involved. RESOLUTION 100-92 - AUTHORIZING JOINT APPLICATION - MUNICI- PAL STORM WATER NPDES PERMIT Public Works memo of November 12 recommended council approve a resolution to verify that Burlingame is taking part in a joint permit application being filed on behalf of all local jurisdictions in San Mateo County for discharging storm water. The RWQCB considers storm water runoff to be a significant source of pollutants to the Bay; it requires each jurisdiction to acquire a permit for discharging storm water. Burlingame's proportional share of costs is $10,345. RESOLUTION 101-92 - ESTABLISHING FEE FOR ADDRESS NUMBER CHANGES Public Works memo of November 10 recommended council approve a new policy establishing a$200 fee for address changes where no construction necessitates a change; where construc- tion does require a change in address numbers, there would continue to be no charge. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 23561 - 23993, duly audited, in the amount of $1,914,476.31 and Payroll Checks 51047 - 51791 for the month of October 1992 in the amount of $1,167,706.26. Councilwoman O'Mahony moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilman Lembi, carried unanimously. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Airport: Councilman Pagliaro reviewed a letter received from Airport Commissioner Murphy. He hoped C/CAG would put any vote over to the next meeting. Millbrae is talking about possible litigation. Councilwoman 0'Mahony had learned that the airport is addressing backblast and will employ people to measure back- blast and also to look at air quality, it�s a good sign. Legislative Breakfast: Councilwoman Knight asked which council members would attend this event on Saturday. OLD BUSINESS Debris on Bikepath: Councilman Pagliaro received another letter from a bike rider who sent pictures of garbage and debris on the mud flats; he knew of a high school class willing to clean. Staff noted this is BCDC jurisdiction and they and the businesses will be notified; staff will review city policy about cleanup of debris on bay front. NEW BUSINESS City Council Minutes - � Schedule Appeal Hearing: Mayor Harrison set an appeal hearing December 7 for 850 Walnut Avenue. November 16, 1992 ��I' ��`�° �`� W�a-.�� `_ , -=>` � p n /`�' � g I .-'� � C!T� e3; _ -?..E>>?�,:;;;.��Q� ��f=."��:. . .�, �:�__.- .. 850 Walnut Avneue Burlingame. CA 94010 November 11. 1992 Ms. Margaret Monroe City Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame. CA 94010 RE: 850 Walnut Avenue, Burlingame. California Dear Ms. Monroe: May we please request a review by the City Council of the recent Planning Commission's tied vote. Many thanks for your kind assistance. Yours very truly. �0."'2`"_ Barbara B. Dungca � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 3. SIGN EXaCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA AND NUMBER OF avFuttF \�nu�n �_� Page 2 November 9, 1992 S AT 900 PENINSULA Requests: if this business were on Auto $�w what signage would be allowed; uses of the properties across the,�street on Anita Road. Item set for public hearing November 23, 199?� :" 4. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN EX��PTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AT Requests: how will the`pole sig look; are there any other signs this tall in this block; mark the ound indicating location of the pole sign. Item set for public�,he ring November 23, 1992. 5. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR L TERM AIRPORT PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT Fi'1 S ATRP[1RT RnTT7.FR7�T? '7r�uFn n_d Requests: why can't does he want the sec with opening in the assessment, first reauired . . . �� It� ITEMS FOR ACTION ipg�licant p�ovide 10$ interior landscaping, why �ei, entrance nly, gate; will main entrance align :dian strip; rrection on page 2 of the project agraph, line 3". . landscaped where 80� is set for public earing November 23, 1992. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A PRIMARY UNIT AND A DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON A NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AT 850 WALNUT AVENUE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/9/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and discussed study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP confirmed the deck is not counted in lot coverage. C. Kelly advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Barbara Dungca, applicant, was present. She said they have lived in this house for 21 years and now have two full grown children living with them; they would like to expand the master bedroom to make it more livable, this is the conclusion of an interior remodel of the house. Ross Butler, 1519 Forest View Avenue, spoke in opposition: he lives on the north side of this property and distributed a page of photographs to illustrate the impact on his property, he spoke of his cordial relations with the applicants, he disliked opposing this project; the imposing two story 2,800 SF house was build by the previous owners, Mr. Butler felt any extension/addition of the second floor will add to his feeling of being enclosed. Responding to Commission question, he explained he had signed a petition in support at a time when he did not fully understand what the applicants were requesting, he now is aware there will be a 7' extension of the wall with a 2-1/2� roof overhang �__..�i CALL TO ORDER NOVEMBER 9, 1992 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, November 9, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES - CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, ;��raham, Jacobs, �elly, Mink ' f �i Atto. Fire /` Monroe, City Planner;•' Jerry Coleman, City ; Frank Erbacher, Citx`Engineer; Bill Reilly, shal The mini�tes of the October 26, 1992 meeting were unanimous�y approved. AGENDA - Order of agenda approved. � There were no comments from the`fl.bor. ITEMS FOR STUDY FROM THE FLOOR 1. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR SIZE OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT � Requests: why is the garag,e so tall; di\mensions from grade to top of plate and from top of pla�e to top of riclge; clarify encroachment of Fire Department garage on;this property and l' setback requested by the City Engineer; was the encroachment accidental or voluntary; why• is there an overhang on one side and not on the other; on which side of the garage is the window located; would applicant need to get a variance if he were to expand the existinq garage. Item set for public hearinq November 23,; 1992. 2. LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT Item set for public hearing November 23, 1992. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 9, 1992 and he is opposed to the project. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion/comment: applicant has indicated to staff that over a period of time they have completed a series of remodels on the house with building permits, most of the windows have been replaced; eave would be extended at the rear along the side; there appears to be four panels of Plexiglas set in the railing of the deck and the addition would come out to the second panel, site plan shows area is about 1/4 to 1/3 the depth of the deck, floor plan looks more like 1/2 the area of the existing deck, staff advised it would be 1/4 to 1/3 of the roof area of the garage. The existing structure looks overbearing to Mr. Butler, there are other problems, the addition is small but will create more of a visual burden at the rear; regarding regulations for declining height envelope, this proposal encroaches only 17.5 SF ; if it were a dormer window it would be allowed and the impact would be greater because of the additional window, this is a good trade-off because there is no window so less invasion of privacy compared to dormer entitlement; think applicants should be allowed to make this minor change. Agree, this house has had the enclosed deck for quite some time; if the deck hadn't been there, there would be a bigger impact on the neighbor; an extra 8' with no new windows will not make that much difference, 17.5 SF is a very minor variance for declining height envelope. C. Graham found this is an unusual property, it does not exhibit the same characteristics as many of the neighboring properties, given the small variance request this addition is appropriate. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit and declining height envelope variance by resolution with the conditions suggested in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: from a site visit am concerned about the size of this structure, it is a mass of building with little architectural distinction, after looking at the rest of the property, the pool and substantial structure in the rear, this site will reach its maximum potential, am not convinced of the necessity in this application to go into the declining height envelope, the structures combined slightly exceed maximum allowed lot coverage, this is a large lot of over 7,000 SF, 40� lot coverage is still substantial structure, am concerned about massiveness because of aesthetics, a slight setback might provide a break to make the wall look better; agree, this is not a small house, 2,800 SF, it may be a small addition but there are two units on this property, it is not fair to the neighborhood; this is a good example of Planning Commission and City Council concerns about large buildings in residential areas of the city, can sympathize with the applicant but cannot support the request, it is too much. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 9, 1992 Motion for approval failed on a 3-3-1 roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Jacobs and Mink dissenting, C. Kelly abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR CHANGE OF COPY FOR RESTAURANT SIGN AT Referenc� staff report, 11/9/92,�� with attachments. CP Monroe summarize ;,the request and discussed study meeting questions, required findings. �.Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearinc� including an addition to Condition #3 added by the City Planner. CP advised this is basically a replacement of the existing signage. A Conrmissioner stated his concern about use of power and suqgested a change to the condition addressing maximum hours of illumination to st�te "from one-half hour before sunset" rather than "from 5:00 P.M." �'�. � Chm. Mink opened the public;hearing. Richard Millard, Bell Electrical Signs, was present. He commented setting a time clock at sunset might be difficult, checking the hours every day; applicants have proposed white and blue colors for �he signs and possibly red. A Commissioner noted he was on the Commiss'ion when the original signage was approved in 1973, the wall sign �was approved at 380 SF, it grew through the years as tenants changed and added words to the sign until it reached the existing 627 SF, he inquired if the sign had to be this large. Mr. Millard commented the;'600 SF they�.,are requesting is smaller than the existing, they are keeping part of`�the existing sign, applicant would like 600 SF. The Commissioner felt 600 SF was too big. Responding to a question, Mr. Millard did not kriow size of the letters on the Doubletree Hotel signage. There were,no audience comments and the public hearing was'closed. ; With findings tliat this is a decrease in, square footage from the existing wall sign, signage this large does seem to be a trend in the area, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the sign exception with the conditions in the staff report as amended by the`.City Planner. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Commission again discussed hours of illumination. Maker of the motion wished to retain the hours as stated in Condition #4, s�conder agreed. Conditions follow: (1) that the wall sign and the double faced pole sign shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 8, 1992 and as described in the sign permit;application date stamped October 8, 1992; (2) that the two signs shall'be maintained in working order and to safety standards by the business that ins�alled them or by the property owner; (3) that the property owner is obligated, if the restaurant use ever ceases on the fifth floor of this building, to remove all of these signs, or the remaining restaurant signs on site, within 60 days; and if an office or other highrise building is built between this sign and the freeway the wall sign shall be removed within two months of the completion of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 9, 1992 Motion for approval failed on a 3-3-1 roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Jacobs and Mink dissenting, C. Kelly abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR CHANGE OF COPY FOR RESTAURANT SIGN AT Reft�rence staff report, 11/9/92, with attachments. CP�onroe sumn�rized the request and discussed study meeting questions, equired findi gs. Six conditions were suggested for considerat'�n at the publi hearing including an addition to Condition �3 adde�y the City Planne . CP advised this is basically a replacement o�the existing signage.� A Commissioner stated his concern about use of power and suggeste a change to the condition addressing maximum hours of illumina ion to state "from one-half hour before sunset" rather than "from 5:OO;P.M." _ Chm. Mink op�ned the public hearing. Richard N�i�llard, Bell Electrical Signs, was pr sent. He commented setting a t,xine clock at sunset might be difficult,�checking the hours every day;`applicants have proposed white and blue�colors for the signs and pQssibly red. A Commissioner noted he was on�'�the Commission when the}priginal signage was approved in 1973, the wal�l sign was approved a� 380 SF, it grew through the years as tenants o�anged and added wo�r�s to the sign until it reached the existing 627 SF�;. he inquired if t.�ie sign had to be this large. Mr. Millard commented tY�Q 600 SF they�a're requesting is smaller than the existing, they are ke�ping part ofi�the existing sign, applicant would like 600 SF. The Commi;ssioner felt 600 SF was too big. Responding to a question, Mr. Millard did �tot know size of the letters on the Doubletree Hotel signag�. T�iere were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed:�., „�' With findings that this �s`;, a decrease in existing wall sign, signage t�is large does area, C. Jacobs moved�for ap�roval of the conditions in the staf• report �a�s amended by was seconded by C. G�igan. '� square footage from the seem to be a trend in the sign exception with the the City Planner. Motion Commission again d�=�cussed hours o illumination. Maker of the motion wished to retain t'he hours as state�in Condition #4, seconder agreed. Conditions follow: (1) that the walb, sign and the double faced pole sign shall be i�(stalled as shown on the� plans submitted to the Planning Department an�i date stamped October 8;�1992 and as described in the sign permit a'�plication date stamped Octbber 8, 1992; (2) that the two signs shal]�'�be maintained in working ord�r and to safety standards by the busin�ass that installed them or by the�property owner; (3) that the property owner is obligated, if the restaur�nt use ever ceases on the fifth f1�oor of this buildinq, to remove allh,of these signs, or the remair�ing restaurant signs on site, within 60 da•ys; and if an office or other'highrise building is built between this sign.and the freeway the wa�l sign shall be removed within two months of the...completion of the A 8�0 Wal r�ut (lver�ue L'url ir-�qa��e, i=A '�4C�lir � � N� �,�ember :' 1 , 1'�'=+� Ms. hlarqar�i; Monr� ��_ Cii�v f-'1<<nr�er Cit_y _f Bt_trlir�q��me 5��1 F'Yi.fnrc�=.e F;c�ad Bur-1 inga�-n�=, i=�� '�4i�i�i F.'E: �5ii Walnut Avenue, Burl inqame, Cal i fc�rr�ia Dear M5. h1G1-�Y r�r ; RECEIVED NOV � d 1992 CITY OF BURLINGAME RIWNING DEPT. ThanF: y��u fc�r scl-�edulinq a review by the C:ity C:��uncil. ThE pr _�c�dure f� �r qett inq c�ur permit i-�as �=zr{;ainly taE::�n us int� � areas w� w��uld r�ever have erpe�_ted t�_� er�cc�unter. The f��ll��wincl are a few �_�f my {;h��uqhts whi�_h I h�_�pe will help in gettiny this res� �1 vEd; Fir�.t, t;he Special F'ermit was r�c�t dis�_��=_.=ed nc�r did there seem t�� be <ar-�y ��pp��siL-��n t�� ir� during the F'��.bli�= Hearinq. We w��uld liE::c t�_� =.ee t:t-�at apprc�ved s�� we can have that finished at lea=t, The Declining Heiqht Er�vel��p� Variance seEmed tr_� cause a prob.l�m we ��er-e r-�c�t aware ��f. Mr. Rutler, a neighbc�r- t�� the r+!�rth, had be�n in a��r-c-emcnt �,�ith �_��ir pr��p��sed plan, hut appar-ently �_hanged his mind. He spc�E:e ��f the hist��r�y af the building c�f the house wni,_n tc�c�E: place 1�_�ng bef��re we pur�_hased it. He had pi�_tures, tc��, t;�it since we didn't qet t�� see then�, we d��n't k:n�,�w what they were. Th-�ca P'lanninq Gc�inr�isi��ncrs =eemed t�_� als�� have a pr��b1��7-� re�_�-�qni�inq them. Since we purchased tl-�e h�_��ise �_�ver '�1 years agc�, we hav�= vpcnt ni�i�_h time and rr�any d�_�lla��s in trying t�_� i«�pro•�E� the ��veral.l. appearan�_e c�f c��rr h��rne. Until M•�, E�utler had t�_ r-c_r�c�ve i,ti�� r- iginal trees, we f-�ad rn=ver seen the side _�f c�u•r hc�u=_.e _.i.nce it ar-�d �_�ur deck: werE� tc�tal l_y enqul fEd by his tree=_.. At i�h:�t t ii�ie, it was fvund tFiat his t� ee �� {;s had e�:tended unr�er� our f-�c��.i=.,e ar�d cra�_ E::ed the �.�ai l ar�d ce�T�ent wal E�:. As the wc�rE:: q� �t un�e� i•.�;;y i.�_ =��rrEct this pr-_�blen�, �n�_rr� da�i7aqe was f��und whi�_t-� nF�ce=_�=�itated rerrn_�•:��1 c�f all the :_tucca. �=edar at-�inqlEs were put up t�_� minimi:_� 1;1-�i=_. type ��f d<jmaqe in tt-�e future, since Mr. B�ttler replar�ted the three trEaes alonG o�tr =�_�mrnc�n b��undry. TI-�e,_i:z tr�e_. Ii�ive gr��.dn in ttiese cc�i_�ple _�f y��ar�� until �h�y e�.;tend apprc�;;imatFl._y 6' =�ver our r-��o#, ar�d a=. the =��ntin�ie t�_� Y ' mature, tl-�ey nr-e or-��=e ag�ain fiillinq up LhH 4' �alE::�r.��ty r�r- si�e set La�_k:. Cl��r decE:: �nd ��all will �_�nce aqain t�e t�_�tally =��vered c�n the h! _ r I_ t_i - - We _c�n=_.:.i�i-e=red �„�ir�d�_�w=_., =_.et ba�_ k:=_:., an1 •✓ar i.� ��i.=_. ��th�r desi.qn=; t�ut� �- � i'= =_ i-= '�� tl 1 ti. ct �5 f=� c? i n g t h c= 1 e a� t : t r� ��. � �i n t _�f ct ij i:j 1't 1 r� �i �; �_i ct �= r i� iT F3 1 1°_, fl thE� sFi._�.C:i� �::e I'let�� 1C Eznl�irQe �_��lY t,edrr�.�m ��r�cJ b��{;t-�. Since 1t i�: nG�=e=.'��t'r ;v t� � �ut i�-i ��Upp� �'r t L�i��m, th�-� �._� �s{; tG d� � jUst 'the LM'tr-i �nd not t.he L-�edr �_�om mal:es it p'r ��hibitiv�•. Siri�_e I had i=�_�7. _�ri i_an�_c=r ._ _=<.�.r=_ ag� � a;-�d must spcnd i� �r�g h�_�urs ir� tt-�e batl-rr r�� m : 1 0 i'L hl�i'_ bLefi =�f ni=ij�rr iiii��=rr i;�.nCL tr enl�.r A5 {�li� � r -,,� tr,t�c � ;,� �R,�. dra�.lir�qs �h�_��,�, tF�ere i� rn=� ro,_�m in �_��ir bathr�_�or� t�� turr� aro�u7d arrd t_� �it or� i.t-�r� t��ilet req�_iires t�..�„ ��_�r �{;�� be cl��s�d t�� all��,� any 1 eq spac e, h1r . B�it 1 er sp�_�k:e c�f feel i r�g enc 1 osed - he shc��il d try sitting in ��ir bathr�_��m f��r tw�� r��ur= ev�ry niqht. 4Jhen the F'lanninq i:r�mrnissir�n visited c�un c��use, the ��ne thinq they �_��uld n��t see is the fr��sted qla=s sectic�n ��f ��ur decE;. The ��riqir�al hc�use had these as a part of the permanent wall. We had to rem��ve ti-�ern due t�� damaqe fr��m the trees and have n��t repla�=ed them pendinq this permit. They form the tc�p af the permanent wall wt-ii�=h brinqs this wall tr 2-1/� feet r_�f the r��c�f. The lenqth ��f the additic�n is 7 feet, fc�r a tatal af 17.5 SF var ian�_e. When we la� �k at the canstruct ion gc�inq rn al l ar�,�ind us, it seems li};e au�s is a very small amc�unt campar�ed t�� every��ne else. We certainly appreciate anythinq yr��i �an dc� tc� assist us in qe{;t inq the t ie v� �te apprc�ved in c�ur favar . Yc�urs very tr�ily, ' ar ara B. Dunqca F'. S. F'i�_tures are er�cl��sed which shaw the area ir� question. K ".��N . ? j v � ` ~ '�`�, s� i�� !' x �t.'-. a -,�� . �y-.� • t. � , � .N . ��, '� r-� r � �� F ,�• . �!� ._� � �°. ;�' �i r � • � ':�'_" .T�. s"-'i ' . , _ � �i� - ` :7"' S �s " �- � ' �t- . Y `�'}a`r - . . �' i .� �` �� `!'b • R -:. . � � �� 1.� � � ` � • �F„i��' .,f�r.}p;, ►� d_ � .'(�• �� •' . _ �: �' . 'i 'S.` ` �« .yr. `k � ' � �: ' Y �j` S . A�S i� i4M�. . �... . .f �� . � !j ¢ „�+ � . . f+� . . , , . ' _ � _' — _':�. �'",�`��p :` � �' e�„ � �r '•'= , . r s i` �.`-.A'"�`r��s '� - ~ V - i3.+. �A .�,. .-.�' . � � �. . � , . 'Jy -i r- i 'f` �i r " a. � � � . - • . .. �� ?' "�r' :� _ . }- .r`S' �.� a ra . ' ~�'`. .� F ,� �a. ' . � * :� :,, ,.. � W&;- ;,c. -.w. ��:�i . ��= � - _�,.' �[ : � iT't , . ` _ . J . �. ^ , .$ ,y ' � ' __— '_ —_-. �- _ . _ _ _ _ E� -- =.'��, y . -� r � u � � -' . ,. . =- � �'. � . . ' . . -. =� il��t . � -��` .�-,.�.V �, ,�, . . i.. � �. � .i -_ �� . x �� - �� ji yI . . . -t.;��} .. .. .y " . � � {1 .,� . '.+? '.'t' '_� '1 +�t, . s �^� t � � ,� .rt �� _ t.e �. � � tit�� `s. . , ` .:�y � - ti ;� A j�y �1..Q�ty�., ;=,a` — ,� " - �'ri'c..:.e . �• yc *�.�{'` � �i1 0" i4 -� ',�1. � - a, e;�•,, �jj�",.� .. �r;+ - i;. r,J t' ti•, •, - � ::�IL+i�. �,. � � +� , � � )- � ��,.� • . � <. . : •4 _ '�4r s f� ��is- «°: � t � 1�- � i �t . �,s� ..�.., . `�� L . ;�� sy � � y� .: � ., a44\ \. •K s�ia��' i r�r � .r �-t.t Aa . _ i.. �54�. � �W ' ��' ' , ' ! .. A . - � . � f..�� - �. K v, .� , a� .,.. : . " �1 . . `a; �L .. .r .4�a''��1: �' r 1 �• �� 1�''"-"'� �. �';>. � � . ?', �� i�� ' � �• 1 - � - - . -. _.�,:�,a� � _ _ . t� i . .�r �� . J . , �. . y � �.' -.'Z. . - �"`*-r- — " c - _ ��','� � _--��'' .. - �►'rr-�.,�,,,,.. ji;j f:'` i: �rr' �� / r,, .,, � - v'� s'� y •,. . �'► lt�l� �' a � r; �; J� �C � N ,�� . +�a„„ w� ' � � � b{.r� , }�`'° � s- . � + �' . �, �C f+�� •�� `_'i � � x� . �'-�: .ef: - . � `�?l .� � -'- +� � i � `L. � v . �� .. � � Y `Y �••.�'+i _ :� 'E"s.* -�` � � �i' 3: '' �6 �i.�� T .\� '� . �:��+''�`��: �'`i �� l �� - .a: �, � s* •;+�� • s r E. ::: �� - - - I ��, . 9�.LY i_� �-. _ - � � y �J, T � ^ �� € �16 l3 . 3 {g _ ,..� -� �'� . � �� u � _ � '�� TY y� . � � � [ � ' � � ' �� .�A� �� "Y `:. �.: . +n , 2�.�0��`` ` ' ,� . . L�1�L��.•. . • �'� �- ��r�arA�_Y�`_ _ : .. t �..zrr.�s� �� . � ;' �- rr—�, s�w. _ � i� p'� � k � � .�K � �•' .� �� s '-_� .�; _ r� .�.+ -�' ,. � , � - �:� �;� ' . • •� y', . . ' - -.: �:;�:-y-. : ;��' -�:i� �Iir `. �• ''_ �o3�K'•:�,`t .e� ,�. � �, � , , • . . i� y - �.' .+ , ' -'� rr ' st, 's` f} .: . _ d + S �� ' � �� r ' � �, • , -.. '" .� _"' ► j.:,,� 1 :�� 's' �' � . � , i ` � ,. . � t r� �" �� ,t � 3 r _ � �: - � . Y��ijF-., -� ��y _ �., y - � . ' ... .�i^. � . - t `_ t . � � �l� � 4 _r�5•�,'� �� (�� .. �' �4:�.. � ,."� �*''' .: , » 'y� f,� ' =V.r "� 4 s t��1 '�,.�4 � S� ' . •'s . . ' ,,�`. "1'�� _ 1 1 �;- "' � ' . �' •� . . . -. � —/ ,;d,-_�" i -c f . =.vr., :. , ..x � ;r`r _• ',- . - , : s': _ ; • . ..- � c,. - �q..� , . . 1 . �' _t�.i. •\, ' a � _; .� `c �S .. .� $� � Lbl . . -� - > .__ ' -.� � �8' ii�i .�I _ . . a . � S � , �"� � �+ p��: -- . � . . " . S i i. ' " . . F_ - . � , . . - _� �' _ F�-n - . ` ,.-- — � �•. I. ' �� :' � 9 _ �� . .a ' 1-::' - 3 � �,f" � �� .�+.. T'...' 4�a�. �y' �.�....F.� r .. � ' �. � , � � ' t ;s:-� ' . , t� ��1�.�'�.��.�� i.,p,,,. .; �� i: �:a - �i . R s �. i� . i.l� r- _,,,7t a� •� - .'<. " "e ''+�i �,'s' �i ' �: �' .� >1+ wv.sa f t :j r � • �,' a',�, y .•-�. -.i- rf� �q!.1. , • S -. �t• .,1. V �� `. •, •1. � . — .t � � � - - ,� ` ./•-�'7- � .: t�_ � 1 ..,' � 1.' • . :. F -- t _, !t_-• .l r. r• �. i• . . . . .� - >a...�1/.�i �',� ��Y.�� 9v '♦ �� a� �kvZ` ` .j► ��. R. � i - �.� . ,� .� � �- `.�.-� ; - . • � ; i:o�,r � ^r�_ � •_ ��' t*��. _ _ �.��-�`��-.. ��` _ i +s ��.: � - . -= � .. . � '' � :`�s� 4 x � .. ,�i 'A � z,.'. {�" ..� x ��i } �_ 1 y �,y�-' �� - My�j�e��p�, .. �,at, . � �q �'+�^ . . - � +f,., �,' `�A:Rr � _ ��5 'j'a' a:y, � ( �'�� t�,.. � � ' � w _ i. y� +; 1 � �i�,�� ' .•,�,� .� :� _ .+L . 3 � y�'�, #�',i�- r ,.�` . . . €�.. , ��,�•tr- ��. :-.-. s_. S ' � �'vf, � � �� r�j� . ^,� � � �. � � `�i' .a� ;r �v� i' � w 4: . - 'j• � 1 1��! �y '��y 1 .'i' - • .Yh - . ��. �� •,'' . _ � ,a �..�s � . _� . �_r ' - s .:��f �� ` _. ' . . . °'p� � ; ' '� '. . ?�-:i��,� �� ' k�• � � r. l7.� � , . a �� y d!"• � � K . �_: � - � �r _.,�'�e�; . :.,; . s's. - y. rr .., �„ �;"sv�;' �� i�� •k j�{ �r�. . ... lT..;:� ' `;,�•..��f.t.� .a..- - ; }'S'�.'�n,--"- �' � e�'�- �'� A _ J ►t. .: " '�i;. `• �•�=� ' :.; � c:t." •. ':-' _ 's �'.: "w' - j .•.�+ .. r h F � ±[��+ jy�' x � .'-f:. � � s:; �e.�- ,. ..'��,r !'i► _ 1-Y, � - R� - '� . 7� • ( v�,J/t�w,�� Yi :4 : �� ; � �� ' rF 'i X`' �,` �€ ,, .tr t �'t��" " , , �.. � , � �1, �� - �� -�N 1 i`1 ,r- ' �, 'Y - �� . - �� 7 ,' �� " � � ' � � �j` `� � � ' `i.. ' I '-- _ � � �jA�� e �„��l'��t�j �� l . S ` ti 4` - " ,Y �'l �� iJik � � 1 ♦ ` � . T"{�� 3, q' ! - �j �� . - �i �� -,T� �'�•RtA y-• . ( .,' . � {�� ' ��•ti . �.. � � � � : S ...'� - ; .,�r � �E � . � � , : . �*��{} f�Ma Ji`�t ��r�� e • � 'M F - . �.�F , i' � ��'1c . _P� � � ..[ .f'�./... , � 4�!' / . ' X �. , � ^'� . '��+��'� C . j.n _4�-_r 7 r � • �N. � � _�.�yd Y � •..T ♦ y �� 1 ,� � _ ; . �;+'r �tT��Y . i ..t 1 T = � �� J .C- t �� •�4 ~ . �; . . . b ��.r 1,�'t'.'~ i� tl ' ��f� L R.. �,f L jr �•1 �.� ' �: .�� - � ! 1� ti ��` r. ..i � VT lLr�.}/�...�",' �. • . - - . ' " . � `� �7 � �� '�' . . r. - r : �� [ y � .. . �� x�, 2 :.� �., ti -'' `'_ s' �� . �'�T ;f � ` • � . � .4, � a \'� • F -r`�•�i � � Z-Z �fl ••i"' �y�'Y��y�� i ��. � ��`i �9Y.s� . '��.�- . � :_}._ .. '�'�a�I .Y� � ��4'. � - '=,��.�rA�.•,�: . _ .•;� ' _ _ -,�. y . .,�/ . • -% t +F f r# .'-T � . �L! ' r ��. � ��i �.1 . -. � - •. _• . . . "Yi � _. . . , � � � S �' i " � �� - �~ . ' • � + '. s � y �DDITiLI�� i�H�.-TUGBAFHS OF SULJi:�l rR�.��FiTY �r_�;�,�,�' ,� . r - -�:a: ` /l�,�s��--�.� _ ._ � - � ��. r __ ; ;. � ` � � \, i � � I �� U �� (-"�'yi� /V i�ll./,�i/J/_1r\4 J" � i` ��_� ��__ / �71y� � ��uS � �12 �T�- �� _ - ,.`-! �� / C� —•S� �'. �=��.'t_ '� l �= �. � j:�4a!'►l�i — �,� _��''�1 . ��w-r�+-•�----- .�.., 0 0 CITY OF B URLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF NON- CONFORMING PRIMARY UNIT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE Address: 850 WALNUT AVENUE Meetinq Date: 11/9/92 Request: Special Permit to expand a primary unit where there are two units on a lot zoned R-1 (Ordinance 1471) and declining height envelope variance (C.S. 25.28.075) for 17.5 SF. The primary unit is at the front of the lot and was built circa 1958. The secondary unit at the back of the lot and was built circa 1918. The secondary unit is occupied and does have a working kitchen. Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Dungca Assessor's Parcel: 028-132-220 Lot Area: 7,100 +/- SF Zoninq: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Exempt; Sec. 15301 Class 1(e) - Existing Facilities, additions to existing structures. Summary: The project is to extend the master bedroom out onto an existing porch and add on to the master bathroom for a total of 157.5 SF. The existing house has a four foot side setback which is met by the existing second floor. The proposed addition extends the existing second floor exterior wall 7'-0", 4'-0" from property line. This new second floor construction encroaches 17.5 SF into the declining height envelope; an area 7'-0" long by 2'-6" wide. This project is subject to review under the Ordinance 1471 allowing expansion of non-conforming residences (to primary structures only) in the R-1 zone. Buildinq Heiqht: Chanqe in Footprint: Chanqe in Total 8F: Front Setback: PROPOSED 22.6' NONE 2,964.5 SF PROPOSED 15'-0" Side Setback: (north) 4'-0" (south) 13'-0" Rear Setback: 57' to lst struct. E%ISTING 22.6' 1,670 SF 2,807 SF EXISTING 15'-0" 4'-0" 13'-0" same DIFFERENCE 0 0 157.5 SF REOUIRED 15' or Avg. 4'-0" 4'-0" 15'-0" Lot Coverage:(primary) 23� 23g 40� max. (secondary) 18$ 18$ (=41�)Total Parkinq: N/A N/A N/A CITY OF B URLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE Paqe Two Staff Comments: Staff had no comments. Study Meetinq Questions: At the October 13, 1992 Planning Commission study meeting the following questions were asked by the Planning Commissioners. Clarify the declining height envelope line shown on Sheet A-2? The lines shown on Sheet A-2 depicting the declining height envelope were drawn based on incorrect information. This structure does not meet declining height envelope. See excerpt from plans with the line for declining height envelope drawn by staff based on information provided by applicant. Is it possible to redesign to meet declining heiqht envelope? The applicant writes in her letter date stamped October 22, 1992, that many possibilities for design were explored and abandoned. Moving the exterior wall two feet south would cause a 2'-0" gap between the existing wall of the deck and the new wall for the addition creating an area that would fill up with leaves and be a haven for roof rats. How would it affect the 7'-6" ceiling height? The applicant writes that it is not possible to join the existing wall to the roof at an angle that would create a usable interior wall. The purpose of extending the wall with usable interior wall space was to be able to put a bed and a dresser along one wall. Without that extension this would not be possible. Since more than 50� of the ceiling in the room is at least 7.5', reducing the height in this area would have no affect on habitability. However, to meet declining height envelope requirements, some portions of this ceiling area would be between 5' and 6' in height and the roof line would appear awkward because the pitches would not match. Is separate action on expansion of the non-conforming primary structure necessary? Yes. Separate action is required for the expansion of the non-conforming primary unit. This application has been re-noticed for the Nov. 9, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting. This notice notifies residents of both the special permit and variance requirements.The applicant has now filled out a special permit form for the addition to the primary residence. Does the 23$ lot coverage figure include all buildings on the property? No, the 23� lot coverage is only the footprint of the primary structure. The additional secondary structure brings the total lot coverage to 41�. The additional space encroaching into the declining height envelope does not create new footprint area. Facing the building on the left is some underdeveloped space, what is this area and how can this space be used, can it be divided and a structure built? This underdeveloped area is the backyards of the properties facing Forest View Avenue. It cannot be divided for the purposes of any new construction because the lots would not meet current city minimum requirements for lot sizes. Required Findinqs for 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 preserva- tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the qranting 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; (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: Conditions: 1. that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 10, 1992 Sheets 1, 2, and 3; 2. that the primary dwelling unit on this single family residential lot at 850 Walnut Avenue is determined to be the dwelling unit at the forward most portion of the lot which is also the newer of the two dwelling units; 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Leah Dreger Zoning Technician cc: Barbara and Lincoln Dungca, property owners Nov. R, �q92 �.� f�-�' �wv�p �'�-lcLl r�,- .�v�,� o,�,h�,� �__ _- p�o�nv� - 8'� W�.N VT" . �tl�c°: r�°Gr.��1�s;- tzb� -v��Nt�w _ :_:_---:_ - --- -- ___ — � I�Ifr y - '-au _ �- ��.It�t1SC� i�E IC�K'i _ _ _ � ►� Ah �," ar�' ` .�. EhIV� 1CvPE V��-t�N�C.� ::, ----- --'�= ��,t�o�.�._ �,'�'r,� - �x�i� -: �> _ : ..�_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ �_ _ . _ _ - �t'�Pl.t�� t o%1. _ �_ ...�-�_: _ . �� _ '��'�i� -�r«Y� _ 3A _� :: ., ,.. __.. _ , .. , -��F�. t� �u:lfv� �.lr . ��: . - ` - t�� o(L oov.�a� �RoX, _ � � , . — - _—_ - � - : _'_ ` 1 - , '>- ♦ . _1_ i i- ¢l�' F;�� - �._. _ � Z = �` � "�-'- �.t � a . . -. . � , ' � �ZD - - . ____ .__ -- - - --- . ,� . -- _ — -==-1- �` ,�'�a I � "� , �_ � � � ; ; � - � ~� - --- ' t-�--- — . � ._:, .�: -- - �' � __ - - - , 1 . -, --� �2-ro = -w� - ' - _ � ` � a�� . �� _. r . J � 41 • ( ) � . . .. . - . --f`.� . { ' " . . <x 4y i , .. . , . � _ � _ ,. _ , { � � 't . � `� = G�� . �i �z,�r�.�7 _ _ ; . _ _ . ; . ■�e�■w■■ ��: . � _: � �- ,. - � : .- i �� i .` � i i � I I •� �2r- J �-Ifd'�4 = N - \-f~}r N � \6� _ � � � � !� � � � � �ti � � ~ i � :�; � . � .:r � � F� � �: ,� gTA�i� �+G�w� UN� ____�-��-��:---,_ S � itt 1S P�►�� GoRREbt'd�1 OiS ;' , Tb Z�F�a fh�-,rc ��EV�T�oN �t` S}1rEt'C �' � I : . � - �. � _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION gURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 Type of Application: _Special Permit _Variance _Other ��(�� Project Address 850 Walnut Avenue, Burl ingame, CA 94010 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) o2s-132-220 �: `�� ' �� 1992 • r-3URLINGAME APPLICANP PROPERTY OWNER PLANnING D�PT. Name: *Barbara and Lincoln Dungca Name: Barbara and Lincoln Dungca Address: 850 Walnut Avenue Address: 850 Walnut Avenue City/State/Zip Burlingame, CA 94010 City/State/Zip Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone :( Work )* 692-5358 Telephone ( Work ) 692-5358 (Home) 347-9659 (Home) 347-9659 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Phillip Keener dba Timber Showcase Please indicate with an asterisk (*) who is the Address: 561 Nonth Avenue contact person for this Menlo Park, CA 94025 pro�ect. Telephone (daytime): PROJECT DESCRIPTION purpose of enlarging the master bedroom and bath. IiFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: 368-8216 To enclose part of a second story existing deck for the I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true d correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. / � �0 9L icant's Signa e Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. ��->"�'� / �` r � 9 �- roperty Owner's ignature Date -------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY -------- --------------------- Date Filed: Fee Receipt # Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: P.C. study meeting (date),��,--r3_ ;�.C. public hearing (date) j'j, �— �'Z P.C. Action ,�) ; _ '�; i�-�� Appeal to Council? �Ye� No — � "'_ , � , � - %=%�: ''- _� ='' Council meeting date ��_�C�� Council Action � �'� �+-'��% >� � ti� « i�, �., t��'�V; �, /� , •. CITY OF BURLINGAME ., SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Fk�� Q�1 � VARIANCE APPLICATIONS ., ; ; ! s ;' 1992 In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.5(��s=;;1r;LIi�IGAME a-d). Please answer the following questions as they apply �Nn�;�G UEPT. your property and application request to show how the findings can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or . conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. Our house, as originally built, has a partially enclosed deck off the master bedroom. The original and current wall is five (5) high and is an intricate part of the house. The wall is four (4) feet from the property line. b. Explain why the application 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. To place another wall two (2) feet inside an already existing wall would create problems both inside and out. Trees border our neighbors property line and the debris would be impossible to keep clean in such a narrow, unusable opening. It would become a haven for roof rats and other pests. To have a two (2) foot jag in our bedroom interior wall would make the whole wall unusable defeating the purpose of the expansion. The weight would also be off line with the main wall. c. Explain why 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. The extension we wish to make is to the back of our house and not visible from the front nor from the sides. The north side of our house is covered by our neighbor's trees (new growth replacing three redwoods). The roof line would complement the existing line. Shade created would only be to the remaining deck and garage roof. d. Discuss how the proposed 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. The adjoing property along E1 Camin Real consists of 3 and 4 story buildings so a second story enclosure of an already existing deck would not even be noticed. t ��Tr ,�,A O,a suRUNc�an+E �•s.,o — CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSI�,'�^�,�:�� E�r.� � �� "� _ J . . L�` SPECIAL PERMIT �iPPLICATIONS '��-�. � :' 1992 In order to approve an application for a Special Permil�Jilt��;;;j;�LI�GAME Planning Commission is required to make findings as defifit�t"��;��+�; the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Please answer the following questions as they apply to your property to show how the findings can be made for your application request. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. l. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, qeneral welfare, or convenience. �a 3 Since the expansion we are requesting the variance for is on our second story, the public would not have access to it so this is moot. This is to the rear of our house. Discuss how the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The expansion will be enclosing part of an existing deck which is off the master bedroom, and an addition which will be over a portion of our garage. The design will blend into the existing house and will keep the same over all appearance of the original. Discuss how the proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing neighborhood and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Per Code Section 25.52.020 (3), the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of Title 25 (Zoning) in the operation of the use. From the street, this will not be visable when looking at our house. The neighbor's trees cover this area so that it is not visible from the neighbor along side the addition. The eastern neighbors are apartment complexes which look into our bedroom as they are higher than we are. The second house is a buffer between the apartments and our house. The addition should not even be noticable. .�` . - _ � . � :�. 850 Walnut Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Commissioners: October 21, 1992 �=i� . 2 .. 1992 CITY OF �URLINGAME P1��IN:INCa pE�T. Thank you for allowing me to present our petition signed by our neighbors and adjacent property owners which was submitted in support of our application. In response to questions raised at the hearing on October 13, 1992, I offer the following: We have now received and completed the Special Permit Application. The area which is subject of this variance request is a 2'h' x 7' area between an existing wall and roof line. The expansion we wish to make to our house consists of enclosing a seven foot portion of an existing deck. P�rt of this area is already covered by the existing roof overhang. The possibility of changing the design was explored from a number of viewpoints and found not possible. If we were to move the new wall 2 feet south, we would create a terrible problem of having a two foot gap between two walls which would fill up with leaves and be a have►%for roof rats. It is not possible to join the wall to the roof at an angle that would create a usable interior wall. When the house was built, there was only one solid stre�h of wall. We have never been able to have both a bed and a dresser in the bedroom. By making this wall seven feet longer, we will be able to accom- mod �e both pieces of furniture for the first time in the 21+ years we have lived in our house. To lose this would defeat the reason for expansion. We have been told we can expand as far south as we want, which allows for the expansion of the bathroom, but if we can't make the whole area more livable, then the cost isn't worivE, it to just put a couple of feetonto the bathroom. We would just be creating an expensive eyesore. The plan we have submitted blends the expansion into the original house without looking like a bump-out. I have been advised that the "23%" represents both dwellings. The neigh bor's yard which was noted to the left of our house is their back yard. The lot can not be subdivided. I hope this answers all your questions and concerns. Because these points were raised, it seems necessary for us to be at the next hearing although a number of neighbors offered to be at the October 26th hearing for us. They, too�, hope we can get this resolved favorably. Many thanks for your attention, Yous very truly, �A�.IL--�. Barbara B.Dungca � TO � BUF'L_ I N�=iAME f-'LAIVha I Nt� C::C:)MM 7: ;�:f CIN CJLi=1._IhJIN�� {iI�IC�HT E:NVEI.._(7PE� V�F:IAhli�f= �`� . � /��r 3�'9 �-,. �� , � �, 8�[_� WALI�Il1T AUEhJIJF. �il.Jf'L.Tr.I�_iAh1f= Wt, the foll�awinU ncighb��r �.ini.i aii.ja�_ent �r�:�pr_r t_y ��wn�ar-s, h�:•,��=� r�vie�.��d th�a �-,rc��;�_�s�d plans f�_��• tt-�t•.- �le�-k: En��l��=_��rF� and a��cli.Lic:�r-� to 8��a Wcylnt_it (�veriue. We ��ff�i- �,ur- �au��p�_�rt fc�r tii�_ <:appr��va1 �:-�f Mr. and Mr=a. I_in�_c�ln Dur-�qc�i's pl.ans . hJ�1MC -, � '� �� , \ � �' � �2�` / � �C�� <</ �G—Js L E�DD�'ES � /� � ;� ,/.� � ��%� �� _ ' �i�c� , �� -�t _ 'l ��1�,�-J�G /`' '�/ �� /( I „� ` � � � � y� ��' }� �A.� q L. J u T �-) t� t= � �'(�o .� � � s,5 -rU(.Z2ST �'�� l�oo � O S� ki Ia 1..15 KT IY ✓ V 8 SS �' 4�" � �s5 - . �� : " / `�-- /� l j: � �� . ,�' / l - ��/ �� 8 `� (' � �-( q � � �,. � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 E F. COLEMAN I Y ATTORNEY F BURLINGAME 21MROSE ROAO �1M11E. CALIF. 840I0 ORDINANCE No. 1471 ORDINANCE CONCERIJING EXPANSION OF I�TON-CONFORMING . RESIDENCES IN R-1 ZONE The CITY�COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1.� Section 25.50.025 is hereby added to the Burlingame Municipal Code to read as follows: � "25.50.025 Expansion of non-conforiaing uses - R-1 zone This section shall.only be applicable to R-1 zoned parcels which contain two detached non-coniorming residential units. Only- the primary residence, as deterr.tined. by the City Planner, may be increased in footprint or in any exterior dimension if the secon�ary detached unit is to be retained as a residential unit. A ccnd�tional use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.16 shall be rec�uired for any such increase to a primary unit. Only maintenance and repairs as defined by the Uniform Building Code may be n�ade tc any secondary dwelling unit. The floor area or footprint of such a secoridary unit shall not be expaaded. � Factors for determining T_hz primary residence �hall include, but not.be linited �o, relative age, size and conformity with zoning requirements of the two r2sidences. The property owner may request that the .Pla.nning Com,missi�n review any such determination by the City Planner." Section 2. Thi: required by law. � � A _ �_ . + RI �_ _ / � J J �• �---�. �•,�tr�' W �L _.. � CAM►�o ��4.. . . . ' �� a . . �l � �Z��L. � - - - � 839 g27 �' ,So� �3, _ R_3 . ----� �. ' .. —_--- . � � '�'�' � >. �� I �- ;� �j p 8`i b 842 8 � � , • ,,._ . �� l � -�, . , , t� ��. t�_� �, w � � . Q' �� a�NuT' 855 $`�9 �� L�_.-,'. _ .�: � 3 W > � � �� E1�V��•.. �.,. � �� ,,, � �'�� • •• �o�'�p AR'i� � • '' C� ..• � ��N N s$� .�.;�:�� • �, - � � � � � �� lLL a41 i � CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING CO1�II�iISSION announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 9th day of November. 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 850 WALNIIT AVENUE APN 028-132-220 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO E%PAND A PRIMARY DWELLING WHERE THERE ARE TWO DWELLZNGS ON THE BITE AND A VARIANCE TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENOELOPE AT 850 WALNIIT AVENLTE, ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER _ OCTOBER 30, 1992 r , . � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 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 a special permit to expand a primary dwelling where there are two dwellings on the site and a variance to declining height envelope at 850 Walnut Avenue (APN 028-132-2201; (property owner: Barbara B. & Lincoln L. E. Dunaca, 850 Walnut Avenue. Burlingame, CA 94010 l; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 9, 1992 , 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: l. 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 a categorical exemption Sec. 15301 Class 1(e) Existing facilities, additions to existing structures, is hereby approved. 2. Said special permit and declining height envelope variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such approval 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. ��.� � �i t� ��z� z, Commission of the Cit foregoing resolution was the Planning Commission 1992 , by the following AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: , Secretary of the Planning y of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of held on the 9th day of November , vote: SECRETARY r ' � CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF APPEAL $EARING The CITY OF BITRLINGAME CITY COONCIL announces the following public hearing on Mondav, the 7th dav of December 1992 � at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 850 WALNUT AVENtJE APN 028-132-220 APPLICATION FOR A BPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A PRIMARY DWELLING WHERE THER$ ARE TWO DAELLINGS ON THE SITE AND A VARIANCE TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT 850 WALNUT AVENIIE, ZONED R-1 If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER NOVEMBER 25 1992 r � �- RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. SPECIAL PERMIT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a special permit to expand a primary dwelling where there are two dwellings on the site and a variance to declining height envelope at 850 Walnut Avenue (APN 028-132-2201, ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearinq on said application on November 9 , 1992 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was abpealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on December 7 , 1992 , 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 hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, 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 a Categorical Exemption Sec. 15301 Class 1(e) Existing facilities, additions to existing structures, is hereby approved. 2. Said special permit and variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such approval 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. i_�i�'�7 I, JUDITH A. do hereby certify that regular meeting of the December , 1992 , AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, the foregoing resolution was introduced at a City Council held on the 7th day of and adopted thereafter by the following vote: CITY CLERK