The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1600 Westmoor Road - Staff ReportTO DATE "f( / �, ---__ � CITV ��. O� BURLINGAME AGENDA �� STAFF REPORT � GMtt �•" � 9�20-93 �...o..... DATE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL � SUBMITTED ��nc,,� � 1 1„ � SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 BY V�iC� J1 1} CITY PLANNER APPROVED FROM: gy APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON A REQUEST FOR REAR S�a�E�T:SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES AT 1600 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 RECOMMENDATION• City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings for both variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. (Action alternatives and criteria for variance findings are included at the end of the staff report.) The following conditions were considered by the Planning Commission: l. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 23, 1993, Sheets 1 and 2; and 2. that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Planninq Commission Action At their meeting on August 9, 1993 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-2 (Cers Ellis and Kelly dissenting) to deny the variance requests for rear setback and lot coverage at 1600 Westmoor Road. In their action the Commissioners noted the addition would fill up the lot too much, 40$ is allowed, 43� would be too big; lot is not too small although a corner lot is difficult; with the lot coverage variance some future owner could add a second story with the first floor at 43� lot coverage; how is this project different from many others commission has denied, there are no findings; cannot find exceptional circumstances except that the building is existing. On the other side commissioners noted that this is a corner lot, the house is not too big; there is a lanai at the rear which will be removed; the house to the rear is about 20' behind; lot is long and narrow. BACKGROUND: Martin Lieberman, property owner and applicant, is requesting a rear setback and lot coverage variance in order to add a one story 10' x 16' office area to the master bedroom at 1600 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1. The house presently has three bedrooms, this addition would increase the number to four. � E The new addition would have a 10'-0" rear setback where 15' is required (CS 25.28.072). The lot presently has 2084.5 SF of structure (single story) with a 39.8� lot coverage. The room addition would increase lot coverage by 160 SF (2244.5 SF) to 43�. The maximum lot coverage allowed under the code is 40� (2099.6 SF) (CS 25.28.071). Al1 other zoning requirements have been met on the site. This project was submitted prior to the implementation of floor area ratio. The FAR on the proposed project is .43, the code would allow .54 on the site. EXHIBITS• - Action Alternatives and Variance Findings - Monroe letter to Martin Lieberman, September 9, 1993 setting appeal hearing - Martin Lieberman letter to City Clerk, August 30, 1993 requesting appeal - Planning Commission Minutes, August 9, 1993 - Planning Commission Staff Report, August 9, 1993 with attachments - Petitions in support from 8 residents, August 5, 1993 - Notice of Appeal Hearing, mailed September 10, 1993 - Council Resolution - Project Plans MM/ cc: Martin Lieberman, applicant and property owner J ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant�s request. If the action is a variance, use 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. P � I � ♦_.. \ � f: (`��e (�t#g �# �uxlin�ttmE CITv HALL - SOi PRiMROSE ROAD .e� (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUF7LINGAME. CF+UFORNIA 940i0-3997 rnx (4i5) 342-B386 September 9, 1993 Mr. Martin H. Lieberman 1600 Westmoor Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Lieberman: At the City Council meeting of September 8, 1993 the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 1600 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on Monday, September 20, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: City Clerk � ��,�� t� ' . �� c� August 30,1993 CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Ms.Malfatti; :�'::.:mE��i�� UG 3 ?.199:� ��ry oF euRuv�,F,�� ACANNIN(; DE?T � .. _� _'�� t: L ;�� ,:; ; � ; ' - �; C'•; jY •-:; �_ C�v;-;:�� -i RE: APN 025-232-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. At a meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission on August 9, 1993 the above referenced variance application was denied by a vote of � to 2. This letter is submitted as aii appeal to the Burlingame Cit,v Council to review and hopefully overturn the negative decision. One Planning Commissioner came out to the site prior to the meeting and apparently saw no problem with the variance. At the meeting he so stated his approval as did one other Commissioner. The other four Commissioners in attendance seemed to have given a`rubber stamp' negative vote - two without any comments at all. I realize there is an ordinance limiting houses on corner lots to 40% of the lot area.This should be used as a �uideline and each application for a variance be treated on an individual basis - not rubber stamped! My corner lot has a five-foot easement on the Westmoor Rd. side as well as the Rosedale Ave. side- a total of approximatelv 800 sq.ft. of land that is not legall,y mine, is umiseable in the Commission`s calctilation of mp lots' total area, but 800 sq.ft. of land that for the last 27 years I have diligentiv maintained and landscaped! I feel that this area should be taken into consideration when calculating total lot area. Without this area m,v existing house occupies 39.8% of the deeded lot. The planned addition, 10 ft. x 16 ft.,single story with materials of construction matching the existing structure will in no way affect the privacy, block sunlight, or obstruct views of adjoining properties. Letters to that affect were submitted to the Commission. I urge the Citv Council to make an objective review of the application and the Commission's decision and hope the results will be more favorable. R.espectfullv,/`7 �/ j�� v%i ��'��---- '`�fartin H. Lieberman � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 2 August 9, 1993 � 3. REAR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A ONE STORY ADDITION AT 1600 WESTMOOR ROAD ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/9/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. She noted change in lot coverage figures from those shown in the staff report and eight letters in support received after preparation of the staff report. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed lot area is 5,249± SF. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Martin Lieberman, applicant and property owner, was present. He commented there is a 5' easement on the Westmoor Road side and on the Rosedale Avenue side, this takes about 800.SF off his lot; if that were allowed as part of �the lot the lot coverage variance would not be necessary. He is looking forward to having this 10' x 16' addition for a small office area; construction will conform to the existing structure. Responding to Commission questions applicant said he will not be using the area for a home occupation, it would be a small office/den/library space for his own use; he is retired, the house has three bedrooms two of which are being used by his adult children, a daughter who is there about four months of the year and a son who just received his MBA from Stanford and needs to repay his loans. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: have no problem with the lot coverage variance, the house is not too large, it is a corner lot; regarding the rear setback variance, there is a lanai in the rear which will be removed, the house on the property at the rear is 20±� behind; the addition will not be overbearing or impact the neighborhood. Another Commissioner stated his concerns, the addition will fill up the lot too much, 40� lot coverage is a good review line, 43� would be too big. C. Kelly found this project is not too large, it will fit into the neighborhood, the lot coveraqe variance is much less than that originally stated in the staff report, this long narrow corner lot is difficult. C. Kelly moved to grant the rear setback and lot coverage variances by resolution with the conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: this is an example of the difficult decisions Commission must make, what is reasonable/unreasonable; lot is not too small, a corner lot is difficult, should the 40� maximum lot coverage be waived; applicant's request is reasonable but have difficulty approving more than 40� lot coverage in this particular circumstance, if the variance were granted some future owner could add a second story on 43$ lot coverage; how is this project different from many others Commission has denied, do not think there are findings to support Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 9, 1993 approval. With FAR could only add 317 SF as a second story without a variance; actually talking about a 635 SF difference, cannot find exceptional circumstances other than the build;ng is preexisting; agree there is no justification for approval. Motion to approve failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Jacobs, Mink and Deal voting no, C. Graham absent. C. Jacobs moved to deny the variance request for the reasons stated in discussion, seconded by C. Mink. Motion was approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Kelly voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. �\ SIGN EXCEPTION TO CHANGE COPY ON NONCONFORMING POLE SIGN AT 109� �.` ROLLINS ROAD. ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 8/9/93, with attachments. CP Mon�oe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Dea� opened the public hearing. Applicant/property owner were not present.'� There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found all of the circumstances relating to the original sign exception relate to this sign, the sign has been there for many years, it is in an area which has other large signs for the express purpose of being seen from the local traffic area. C. Mink moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on ttie plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 2, 1993 and August 4, 1993, and that only the face of the sign shall be changed; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Suil'ding and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded C. Graham absent. 5. SPECIAL P . Kelly and approved unanimously on voice vote, il procedures were advised. FOR RETAIL SALES AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DIMENSION � ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 8/9/93, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. 'Linda Knight, applicant, was present: She noted statement signed hy eight business neighbors supporting their application, there are 15,sites in the area that do retail sales and car repair, Knight Rides is just a small business trying to grow in Burlingame. She thought there might be space for 9' x 20' parking stalls, perhaps she measured incorrectly, for other CITY OF B URLINGAME VARIANCES Rear Setback and Lot Coverage Variances Address: 1600 Westmoor Road Meetinq Date: 8/9/93 Request: Rear setback variance (C.S. 25.28.072) and lot coverage variance (C.S. 25.28.071) for a l0' X 16' single story office addition to an existing three bedroom, two bath single story house. Applicant: Martin H. Lieberman APN: 025-232-110 Property Owner: Martin H. Lieberman Lot Dimensions and Area: 5,249 ± SF General Plan: Low Density, Single Family Residential Zoninq: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. Summary: The applicant is requesting a rear setback variance for a one story 10' X 16' addition on a corner lot. The addition would have a 10'-0" rear setback where 15'-0" is required. The addition would increase the existing conforming 39.8� (2084.5 SF) lot coverage to 43% (2244.5 SF) lot coverage where 40� (2099.6 SF) lot coverage is the maximum allowed. The proposed use of the addition would be an office area attached to the master bedroom. This addition would increase the existing three bedroom house to four bedrooms. This does not affect the parking on-site as there is an existing two car garage and a driveway. PROPOSED EXISTING Front setback: not affected Side Setbacks: Rear Setback: * not affected 10'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coveraqe: ** 43� Height and D.H.E.: not affected 39.8� 40$ *, **: Rear setback variance for 5'-0" and lot coverage variance to increase the existing non-conforming lot coverage from 46� to 49�. Meets all other zoning code requirements. This project does not qualify as "new construction". For information only: Allowable FAR =.54 (2,879.6 SF) Proposed FAR = .43 (2,244.5 SF) Staff comments: The Chief Building Official, City Engineer and Fire Marshal had no comments. Findinqs for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): ALLOWED/REQ'D 15'-0" vAru�css 1600 WSSTXOOR RD. (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 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. Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. 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 submit- ted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 23, 1993, Sheets 1 and 2; and 2. that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Leah Dreger Zoning Technician cc: Martin Lieberman, applicant and property owner 2 CITY OO F BUFiLINGAME APPLICATIOO N TOO THE PLANNING COO MMISSIOO N' Tyne of Ac�olication: _Special Permit X Variance _Other Project Address �� 'C� ��5%/►�%��U� �t� Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 025' 232- �1C7 ►�� Q�d ,o- ' -' � �� T i � . �`f` I�i . /� , APPL/CANT PROPERTY OWNER � :�� <= G� � � . �� ,,�; -Tr �� Name: �':1�',c-'T<�n/ ft� Li�:�v�/'/L:%�-iN� �� Address: �'�� ' Gr�ESTi�/oo,c' k'4� City/State2ip: �'��L��G.�}/�� CA %`•�L''L' Telephone:{�n+e� � �,"-:-'9s 0 ARCH/TECT/DES/GNER Name: ;'J�� r�a� 1 Address: City/State/Zip: Telephone (daytime): Name: Address: City/State/Zip: _ Telephone:(work) (home) _5,4� ��' Please indicate with an asterisk f"l who the contact aerson is for this Droiect. PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON: rE> � � % �� ' �l � S��`G �� ''�Y� %Je/'�','i7��. �;' T�' ,��/�,�' ��L CXi.sTi�cJG Si�vGTv;e� : /��.- ��TE/'i��: � i'' /-'iFl %��v � Xi�i /�/� . /v., Pc:,�•,v?�3%.c,�C,-, L�'G c%��;�/� � ��. AFF/DA V/T/S/GNA TURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ��,�,�, :�� - , ; ,�a3 �- ��C��C1/ h - 1�' pplicant's ign ture Date I know about the proposed application,,a�d,l�ereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. �' ' ,/ ' ' � � / ` f. � ��i � � � "� r� / , . � '-� .� ,� �roperty Ow r's Signature Date ---OFFICE USE ONLY Date Filed: '� �' � � � Fee � �f G� �� Receipt # L Letterls) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: � P.C. study meetin (date) P.C. public hearing (date) - i" �� P.C. Action �� ' % �_ � ' ,zisz Appeal to Council es No projepp.frm Council meeting date ��z �' - 93 Council Action_ ' t Pi"�0 V�`-iJ �1 !'� �°v .r1/� i 7"i e ti'S � CITY OS � BURLJNGAME e-, CITY C�)F EU�LINGH�:�1E va�ia��cE ,�PP��c,�T�c•�r��s ��,�� g -- �� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will assist th� Rlanning 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. 0 c. ,� Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary ci�cumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. %!f /5 �'S ,4 L�N c� �NG� �I,�a��.�'�� o ��E� LUT r.c,�//� h�AX/��G�yI ��,�Ae�� oN S�o�s �� -,��,�T .� E,�E,�,� y,�,�� E O,vG y�iZe �3 r�A i 4 o�v� s�,e y,g�o >�ory c.��v /' � /j'�A D� , Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property loss oi unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the application. �-�C j� �' ��. r- i: ,,nO,vi i��>A:' �'�(//C � ,�� C'�L/ �C'�,' /-1 .5%n4L � U.L'.�'/L� A2Ef�/�E�1l��.i.B,G'.4,� Y. �g� ,� /Z�G�N n y 2E T/.e�D G:v.z C�/,v��,� .Z' wov�� ,e� ��Av� A s/J�A Lc. O�'�ic'� Ta �v2sv� in 7' .�'2aL'�ssio�/ o �v .9 � i m rT�ra C � �v -S v L Ti NG .8.9- .� �s . 7ZfE A-�''o� �7o,v w� � c_ ,.9-L 5 c� 1�i� O �//U� .4 L 6%-2 EX�/T- /�(/ C�45� �� E'�I'iG�2��•c./G jo � A-09 A��oti/O s 7z�2 y/�-Doi r�o� GUOUL/.� C,eERT� R�i.vA.�-�'�9�- ,�C'DSt�iP .�'v� i-v�r/iD it/✓j ,C3� C-'E'n�,�ATi�� ='i/7> �G�i/1Ch�:'T sT��c�iZi2��. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or con venience. �C �ry,� � L .S �,Z>G L E _s' i�.e Y H D.G' � i'zE.�, G�/� �,�trc� �T G r? s i ��f� p o�,c�5� �3 �dCi� .�'vn/�, i�� T a� o!� s mc�c� T v 1c�S Gi2d �.q� y A,o ✓A��,vT 2�s�D E.v c� .��,��i r�o�c.� c�� U N D T ,B� !i S� D �� /'�45- �S i�f�4 T GUDUGI> C,�C�4 T� �- /�Ul�3�lG �vv�S�l`�C� How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT ?�� C/5 i7NG C��1/J�" T!/� G-� iT7`� .ss'/� C- L � s TY',�'�> �� F�� 77t� 5�� ,,� �;�i f'.�o F�� G'G'� rTv�.� �.��? �7�� ,�f�r�Rr�Ls �� o�vs,'7��TiqU /�� 77z�c 3�2� wi�L- �h�/�� {� �Di,r7drJ �U//�/ Sv�P20v.�vOi�t/� .s'�v�T112�S. 12192 ver.frm a. Desciibe the exceptiona/ oi extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e tn your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. ' Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the altematives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cuttinp through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existinfl structuresl How is this property different from others in the neighborhoodl b. Explain why the variance request is necessary foi the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property iight and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. - Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception7 (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exceptionl Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the propertyl c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocafion wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity o� to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfare7 Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbagel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underpround storage tanks, storape of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Pub/ic safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removaq. �eneral welfare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect pubtic convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped7 d. How wi// the proposed projectbe compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighborinp structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no chanpe to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this usel 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 vicinityl Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,zres�.,.�.,,� ROUTING FORM � DATE: TO: CITY ENGINEER �_ CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MAItSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN REQUEST FOR / ( /IC7C� �I�� QO� �pt, AT �-�C�/Y cJ QJ � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION �i�i3-MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: � (�� ZcR, THANKS, �� /(a�C�(,l/S �%� ��Z3 ��3 !1 � Jane/Sheri/Leah UV D 1�c,[ld'!`+ Date of Comments �/�z3�� - C�� c--�-�.�-� � �� (/ ROUTING FORM � DATE: TO: _�_ CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: REQUEBT FOR _ � l/)C�C� �� pr' �� AT �.�C��Y c1.Q] 0 �J SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION �6i3-MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY• ��-J � Z t� THANKS , � Q� �,''� iQ-��(JJ� � � � / Z �/�� I Jane/Sheri/Leah z� �� ✓L� ' C ` O ��'�,,._ � �yu,c�uCsLu^� / d � r �%�i'9�Date of Comments � � �� 0 ROUTING FORM � DATE: - TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL � FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: REQIIEST FOR � (/�C�C� �%�� Qd�/' �p�� AT _�.�C,��V c1 QJ e �J SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ��}-MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING N MONDAY: 0 C�` �'�,1� ,' 7iCa THANKS,��I �ll� (Gu-�/i �� 7 Zc�� if � / Jane/Sheri/Leah �/, /,, / I� � �'F JJ N, rj �9 ��, = �� /�s ��- � �° �-(9-9 3 Date of comments ��,� �� /z�/� N� e� �� CAL�FoR,,JI A W � Q J �� - � L Z � m l�v2o �,f��tMooR. ��. �1 � � til � � �AS'r'MooR. �en . �1 J 0 �1l m � ` � � m � � rr r...� ; i�� j„ ��D° �. ��aq l�05 o � � � /vl,�Ar�ow /5�0 QDA � LA�i� �Ei Q 6At� R I CqN1i�1 � � �� _ � - R-Z - �A� - = � � � � � � � I � i�1L1BEMR�2t.E �' . . - � -_ ,�,,,. . - -, �-,,.,. ,.,�..� _. ,-. � CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on Mondav, the 9th day of Auqust 1993 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. 1600 WESTMOOR ROAD APN: 025-232-110 APPLICATION FOR A REAR SETBACR VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AT 1600 WESTMOOR ROAD, 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. Please note, when possible, and when multiple family development is involved, this notice shall be posted in a public place on the project site and on neiqhborinq buildinqs with tenants. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER July 30 1993 s RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCES RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for rear setback and lot coverage variances for a one story addition at_ 1600 Westmoor Road (APN 025-232-1101; (property owner: Martin H. & A. M. Lieberman, 1600 Westmoor Road Burlinaame CA 94010 1; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 9, 1993 , 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 a categorical exemption, Sec. 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations ..., is hereby approved. 2. Said variances are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variances 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 9th day of August , 1993 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY b�?� C, P.C. 8-9-93 Item ��3 August 5,1993 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94U10 RE: 9PN 025-232-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. Hon. Commissioners; Regarding the above referenced variance application, as a home owner in close proximity to 1600 Westmoor Rd., I have no objections to the proposed addition. It will in no way affect my privacy,obstruct existing views, or block any sunlight from my property. If built according to the pre- liminary plans (Sheets 1� 2) the addition will be in con- formance with existing structures in the neighborhood. I stron�l� urge approval of the application. Very Trul,y Yours, � Homeowner �� 0 q l9-> �,�, i�,� 12� - Address �b D te August 5,1993 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 RE: APN 025-232-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. Hon. Commissioners; Regarding the above referenced variance application, as a home owner in close proximity to 1600 Westmoor Rd., I have iio objections to the proposed addition. It will in rio wa,y- affect my privacy,obstruct existing views, or block any sunlight from my property. If built according to the pre- liminary plans (Sheets 1� 2) the addition will be in con- formance with existing structures in the nei�hborhood. I strongly urge approval of the application. y Tru�,y Yours, � ` Ho eowner � �� s ��t��Pi �,� Address � at �ugust 5,1993 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 RE: APN 025-'L32-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. Hon. Commissioners; Re�arding the above referenced variance application, as a home owner in close proximity to 160U Westmoor Rd., I have no objections to the proposed addition. It will in no way affect m,y privacy,ohstruct existing views, or block any sunlight from my property. If built according to the pre- liminary plans (Sheets 1& 2) the addition will be in con- formance with existing structures in the neighborhood. I strongly urge approval of the application. Very Trulv Fours, �- r v� .f�lZ�- Homeowner � C� i � �� l2� Address � -S -�� Date August 5,1993 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 9�010 RE: APN 025-232-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. Hon. Commissioners; Regarding the above referenced variance application, as a home owner in close prorimity to 1600 Westmoor Rd., I have no objections to the proposed addition. It will in no way affect my privacy,obstruct existing views, or block anv sunlight from my property. If built according to the pre- liminarp plans (Sheets 1& 2) the addition will be in con- formance with existing structures in the neighborhood. I strongly urge approval of the application. Very Truly Yours, �� : � �_� �, . � i � .s Homeowner %�G� �/,i��c�2°z-Gt� Address � �� s�� Date August 5,1993 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 RE: APN 025-232-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. Hon. Commissioners; Regarding the above referenced variance application, as a home owner in clvse proximity to 1600 Westmoor Rd., I have no objections to the proposed addition. It will in no way affect my privacy,obstrtict existing views, or block any sunlight from my property. If built according to the pre- liminary plans (Sheets 1& 2) the additian will be in con- formance with existing structures in the neighborhood. 1 strongly urge approval of the application. V"ery Truly Yours, �w � � � �� Homeowner a� l� � 'f�, �� ! �G� Address - .�"- `'i 3 D�,te August 5,1993 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 RE: APN 025-232-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. Hon. Commissioners; Regarding the ahove referenced variance application, as a home owner in close proximity to 1600 Westmoor Rd., I have no objections to the proposed addition. It will in no way affect my privacy,obstruct existing views, or block any sunlight from my property. If built according to the pre- liminary plans (Sheets 1& 2) the addition will be in con- formance with existing structures in the neighborhood. I strongly urge approval of the application. Very Tr Y urs, Homeowner .s l ��T� � Address ��=q3 Date August 5,1993 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 9�010 RE: APN 025-232-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. Hon. Commissioners; Regarding the above referenced variance application, as a home owner in close proximitp to 1600 Westmoor Rd., I have no objections to the proposed addition. It will in no wa,y affect my privacy,obstruct existing views, or block anv sunlight from my property. If built according to the pre- liminary plans (Sheets 1&. 2) the addition will be in con- formance with existing structures in the neighborhood. I strongly urge approval of the application. Very Truly Yours, /�!� � '� C� �� Homeowner Gz�� !/ � //� � -��_ Address �= s 99�— Date 0 August 5,1993 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 RE: APN 025-232-110 Setback and Lot Coverage Variance: 1600 Westmoor Rd. Hon. Commissioners; Regarding the above referenced variance application, as a home owner in close proximity to 1600 Westmoor Rd., I have no objections to the proposed addition. It will in no way affect mY privacy,obstruct existing views, or block any sunlight from my property. If built according to the pre- liminary plans ISheets 1&`L � the addition will be in con- formance with existing structures in the neighborhood. I strongl,y urge approval of the application. Very Trulv Yours, 7 � 2� omeowner l%� �c5e- c�� Address Da e CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME CITY COUNCIL announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 20th day of September, 1993 , 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 City Clerk's Office or Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1600 WESTMOOR ROAD APN 025-232-110 APPLICATION FOR REAR SETBACIC AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES AT 1600 WESTMOOR ROAD, 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. Please note, when possible, and when multiple family development is involved, this notice shall be posted in a public place on the project site and on neiqhborinq buildinqs with tenants. JUDITH A. MALFATTI CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 10, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCES RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for rear setback and lot coverage variances for a one story addition at 1600 Westmoor Road IAPN 025-232-110L, (Propertv owner• Martin H& A M Lieberman 1600 Westmoor Road Burlinaame, CA 94010 ); and WHEREAS, the Planninq Commission held a public hearing on said application on Auaust 9, 1993 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was_ appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on September 20, 1993 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 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations ..., is hereby approved. 2. Said variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variances 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. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of _ September , 1993 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCII,MEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: CITY CLERK � - CITY OF B URLINGAME VARIANCES Rear Setback and Loi Coverage Variances � Ite�.� il3 Address: 1600 Westmoor Road Meetinq Date: 8/9/93 Request: Rear setback variance (C.S. 25.28.072) and lot coverage variance (C.S. 25.28.071) for a 10' X 16' single story office addition to an existing three bedroom, twc� kaath single story house. Applicant: Martin H. Lieberman APN: 025-232-110 Property Owner: Martin H. Lieberman Lot Dimens�ons and Area: 5,249 ± SF General Plan: Low Density, Single Family Residential Zoninq: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class'1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. _ Summary: The applicant is requesting a rear setback variance for a one story 10' X 16' addition on a corner lot. The addition would have a 10'-0" rear setback where 15'-0" is required. The addition would increase the existing non-conforming .46� (�422.5-�� lot coverage to 49$ (2�58�°.�5-�P) lot coverage where 40� (2099.6 SF) lot coverage is the maximum allowed. The proposed use of the addition would be an office area attached to the master bedroom. This addition would increase the existing three bedroom house to four bedrooms. This does not affect the parking on-site as there is an existing two car garaqe and a driveway. Front Setback: Side Setbacks: Rear Setback: * Lot Coveraqe: ** PROPOSED not affected not affected 10'-0" . ,. 49$ EICISTING 20'-0" 46$ , . , < � ALLOWED/REO'D 15'-0" 40� Heiqht and D.H.E.: not affected *, **: Rear setback variance for 5'-0" and lot coverage variance to increase the existing non-conforming lot coverage from 46$ to 49�. Meets all other zoninq code requirements. This project does not qualify as "new construction". For information only: Allowable FAR =.54 (2,879.6 SF) Proposed FAR = .49 (2,562.5 SF) Staff comments: The Chief Building Official, City Engineer and Fire Marshal had no comments. Fittdinqs for a variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): 1 - r'�xruvcss 1600 ASSTIYOOR RD . (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 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, gener�l 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. Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. 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 submit- ted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 23, 1993, Sheets 1 and 2; and 2. that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Leah Dreger Zoning Technician cc: Martin Lieberman, applicant and property owner 2