HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 Valdivia Ct - Staff ReportItem #7
CITY OF B URLINGAME
Hillside Area Construction Permit and Side Setback Variances
Address: 17 Valdivia Court
Meeting Date: 9/13/99
Requests: Hillside area construction permit (C.S. 25.61.020) and side setback variances
(C.S. 25.28.072 c,l) for a first floor addition at 17 Valdivia Court, zoned R-1.
Applicant: Robert and Jennifer Morse APN: 025-182-160
Property Owner: same as applicant
Lot Area: 15,332 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), Single-family residences not in conjunction with
the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences
may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
History: There is a 2,725 SF (.17 FAR) single story house on this lot. In January, 1999, the
Planning Commission approved a hillside area construction permit and design review for a first
and second floor addition at this site (January 25, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes). The
applicants decided not to build the second floor addition and are now proposing only a revised first
floor addition. Table 1 below provides a chart which compares the previous January, 1999,
approval and the cunent August, 1999, proposal.
Current Proposal Previous Proposal Existing Maximum
8/23/99 1/25/99 Allowed
# of Stories: 1 2 1 2'/z
Floor Area Ratio: .19 FAR .27 FAR .18 FAR .42 FAR
2,954 SF 4,081 SF 2,725 SF 6,40b SF
Lot Coverage: 22.3 % 26.5 % 19. 8% 40%
3,420 SF 4,056 SF 3,032 SF 6,133 SF
Decking > 30 ": 390 SF 791 SF 288 SF n/a
(2.5 % of lot) (5 % of lot) (1. 8% of lot)
# of Bedrooms: 3 5 3 n/a
Buildirtg Height: 20'-3" 28'-6" 19'-2" 30'-0"
Design Review: no yes no n/a
Hillside Area Co�utrucrion Permit and Side Setback Variunces 17 Valdivia Court
Requests for this project: The applicants, Robert and Jennifer Morse, are requesting a hillside
area construction permit and two side setback variances for a first floor addition at the side and
rear of an existing single story house. The proposed addition will not increase the number of
bedrooms in the house (three existing bedrooms). The applicant is requesting the following:
1. Hillside area construction permit for a first floor addition (C.S. 25.61.030);
2. Side setback variance to extend 5'-6" an existing first floor wall with a 4'-7" side setback along
the east side property line, where 7'-0" is the minimum required (C. S. 25.28.072 c, l); and
3. Side setback variance to replace an existing uncovered stair and landing with a 0'-11" side
setback along the east side property line, where 7'-0" is the minimum required (C.S. 25.28.072
c,l).
Summary:
The applicants are proposing a first floor addition to an existing single story house at 17 Valdivia
Court, zoned R-1. The project includes demolishing approximately 819 SF of the rear of the
existing single family dwelling, 466 SF of a covered walkway/porch area, and a 78 SF breezeway
connecting the garage to the house. The applicants are proposing to replace/relocate the existing
kitchen and dining room and add a family room, laundry room and bathroom on the iirst floor
(763 SF), bringing the total floor area of the house to 2,954 SF (.19 FAR) (FAR calculation
includes the detached garage and exempts 100 SF of covered porches and chimneys, CS
25.08.265), where the ma�cimum allowed is 6,406 SF (.42 FAR). Lot coverage would increase
from 19.8 %(3,032 SF) to 22.3 %(3,420 SF) with the addition of decking and stairs over 30"
above grade and exempting a 71 SF trellis (C.S. 25.28.065, a), where 40% (6,133 SF) is the
ma�cimum allowed. The proposed uncovered deck and stair/landing area which measures more
than 30" above grade totals 427 SF and is calculated in lot coverage.
A side setback variance is required to extend an existing wall with a 4'-7" side setback along the
east side property line, where 7'-0" is the minimum required. The existing wall along the east side
property line would be extended another 5'-6" at the rear of the house. Another side setback
variance is also required on the east side of the house to replace an existing stair and landing with
a 0'-11" setback, where 7'-0" is the minimum required. The new stair and landing will be
relocated approximately 8'-0" further toward the front of the lot from its current location. The
length of the portion of the stair 0'-11" from property line is 10'-0".
The present structure is single story and 19'-2" tall, as measured from average top of curb. The
proposed height to ridge of the addition is 20'-3" as measured from average top of curb. The lot
slopes downward from front to the rear corner of the lot approximately 18'-3" (8%). There is a
creek located at the rear corner of the property.
The existing three bedroom, two bathroom house is 2,725 SF (.18 FAR) (including an existing
covered patio, porch, attached garage and breezeway). The first floor addition would increase the
floor area of the dwelling by 763 SF to 2,954 SF (with exemptions) to .19 FAR (.42 FAR
allowed).
2
Hillside Area Construction Permit mut Side Setback Variaiices 17 Valdivia Court
The applicants are proposing to remove the existing breezeway which connects the garage to the
house making the garage detached. The existing garage has a 4'-8" side setback along the
westerly property line. The lot is pie shaped. With the removal of the breezeway, the detached
garage would be free standing with a nonconforming 4'-8" side setback. The applicants are also
proposing to change the existing flat garage roof to a 5/12 pitch hip roof to match the proposed
addition. The roof work proposed will not affect the footprint of the structure and is considered
maintenance work. Since there is no expansion proposed to the footprint of the garage itself a
variance is not required for the nonconforming side setback. There is no increase in the number
of bedrooms with the proposed project. The existing garage has 20'-0"W X 22'-6"D clear interior
dimensions. A 9' x 33' uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code
requirements have been met.
'C�'r� 1
EXISTING
����� ♦ 9 1 : 9 � 1
*Side Setback (L):
Side Setback (R):
Rear Setback (lst):
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
Building Height:
# of Bedrooms:
Parking:
4'-7"
0'-11" to stair/landing
47' -0"
35'-0" to deck
22.3 %
3,420 SF
.19
2,954 SF
20'-3"
no change
no change
3' to chimney
4'-8" to garage
49'-0"
19.8%
3,032 SF
.18
2,725 SF
19'-2"
3
2 covered
(20'-0" x 22'-6")
1 uncovered
(9' x 33')
7'-0"
7'-0"
7'-0"
15'-0"
40 %
6,133 SF
.42
6,406 SF
30' -0"
n/a
no increase in # of
bedrooms
*H.A.C.P.: Requires Hillside Area Construction Permit
Accessory Structures: Double car detached garage
Fences/Hedges: no change
Trees: no trees to be removed
*Hillside area construction permit and side setback variances required for this project.
Meets all other zoning code requirements.
Staff Comments:
The City Engineer notes in his August 2, 1999, memo that all roof drainage shall be directed to
the front street. The Building Official and Fire Marshal reviewed the project and had no
comments.
Study Meeting:
At their meeting on August 23, 1999, the Planning Commission asked the applicant to clarify the
rainwater collection at the left rear corner of the house (P.C. Minutes August 23, 1999). In a
3
Hillside Area Constructioii Permit muf Side Setback Variances 17 Valdivia Court
telephone conversation with the applicant, he noted that rainwater runs over the landscaping and
into an existing concrete ditch, which then directs the rainwater into an existing natural flowing
creek. The applicant notes that most of the rainwater in the rear yard runs over the landscaping
and down into the creek. The Commission moved to place this item on the September 13, 1999
consent calendar.
Fmdings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Based on the summary in the staff report and
the record ofthe Planning Commission, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements
of the city's hillside area construction permit guidelines based on the following findings:
1. that the addition shall not have a substantial impact on views from the street because the majority
of the proposed addition is at the rear and center of the lot behind the existing house and
garage, and therefore will not be visible from the street; and
2. that the placement of the proposed first floor addition shall not have a substantial impact on the
views from the adjacent properties because the first floor addition would only raise the roof
ridge an additional3' to accommodate the new addition, therefore having no substantial impact
on the view lines of the canyon to the west from adjacent properties; and because neighbors
within 300' ofthe property were notified ofthe proposed addition and did not indicate to the city
that their long distance views would be affected.
Required Findings for Side Setback Variances:
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) that the original house and stair/landing were built with 4'-7" and 0'-11" side setbacks,
respectively, which do not meet current code requirements, and the proposed addition and
stair/landing replacement and relocation (8'-0" towards the front of the lot) represent a relocation
but no change to the existing encroachments (2'-5" and 6'-1" into the required side setback) and
the removal of the breezeway connecting the house and the garage eliminates a variance caused
by extending the main structure to the non-conforming side setback on the other side of the
lot;
(b) that granting a variance for the side setback is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
the existing house because the stair/landing will provide an emergency egress from the laundry
room;
(c) that because the first floor addition is at the rear of the property and the stair/landing is located
behind an existing chimney and neither will be visible from the street, the granting of the
application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
4
Hillside Area Construcrion Permit and Side Serback Variances
17 Valdivia Court
(d) that the proposed addition is at the rear of the house and is consistent with the existing
architectural style of the house by matching the existing roof pitch and material and siding
material, and therefore is compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the
neighborhood.
Planning Commiccion Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by
resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the
following condition should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped July 28, 1999, Sheets 1-5 and G-1 with a maximum roof ridge height of 20'-3"
as measured from average top of curb (elevation 100.56');
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 2, 1999 memo shall be met; and
3. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c. Robert and Jennifer Morse, applicants and property owners
�
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
August 23, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
Chairman Coffey lled the August 23, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:Ob„Rp.m.
� �.
ROLL CALL
Present:
sent:
Sta resent:
`
MINUT�
ti.
Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Vistica and Coffey
Commissioner Luzuriaga
City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; 'City Engineer, Frank
Erbacher; Pla`nner, Ruben Hurin
The minutes of the August 4, 1999 special meeting and August 9, 1999 regular meeting of the
Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The minutes of the July 12 and 26, 1999
meetings were corrected to show staff present.
APPROVAL OF�:AGENDA k�, �'Y '
The order of the agenda was approved. It was noted for the record that Iter�,#11, is a revision to Title 25, the
Zoning Code of the City of Burlingame. ,
��
FROM THE FLOOR � .
TI%re were no public commen�.s.
STU�Y ITEMS
�APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR
A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 17 VALDNIA COURT, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT S. & JEI�INIFER K. MORSE,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERSI
CP Monroe briefly reviewed the staff report and asked the Commissioners for questions: there is a note on the site
plan which indicates that the rain water leader from the roof terminates through the creek at the direction of the
Public Works Department, does this water flow through a channel or just over the landscaping. There were no
further questions and this item was set for public hearing on the consent calendar at the September 13,1999,
meeting.
Cih� ajB�vlingame Planniirg Conrmission Afin�rtes
lnnuary 25. 1999
APPLICATION OR PARKING VARIA CE AND SPECIAL P�RMITS TO EXCEED HE
DESIGN G DELINES FOR BA FRONT DEVELOP ENT TO OPERA p
RESTAURA T IN AN EXISTING AT AT 410 AIRPOR BOULEVARD, ZON D C-4.
(CHUCK ONG, APPLICANT AND STATE OF ALIFORNIA (STATE LANDS
COMIvII ION), PROPERTY n FR�
CP onroe reviewed the proj ct briefly and the Co issioners asked: will t�te applicant be
app ing for an entertainmen permit, if so what kind; ow will the parking lot e lit and at what
i ensity; all the landscapi g provided affects the ount of area available for parking, how
arge would the parkin variance be if there w e less landscaping and ow big if all the
landscape requirement were met; does decom osed granite on the w�kway meet disable
accessible requireme s; explain the lighting o the site, at the entrance,/at the driveway, in e
parking lot, on th pathway along the cha el. There were no fu her questions fro the
commission and he item was set for pu lic hearing on Februar 8, 1999, provid' g the
responses are s mitted to the Planning epartment in a timely nner.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR
APPLICATION POR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW
FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 17 VALDIVIA COURT, ZONED R-1.
(ROBERT S. & JENNIFER K. MORSE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION
AT 1405 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
JACQUELINE FOSTER, PROPERTY OWNER) - CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 8 1999 -
IN�ORMATION NOT RECEIVED
Commission asked that 1400 Alvarado Avenue be removed from the consent calendar and placed
on the regular calendar.
A�PLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1400
,'ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-L (TORIN KNORR, AIA, APPLICANT AND DAVID
�� TVi R, RFrT�r e A r,in n r� n w,� nnr.r,�.,.,,., ,-.._.. _.__ _.
and
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND
AN EXIST�NG OFFICE BUILDING WHERE OFFICE EXCEEDS 50 % OF THE GROSS
FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING AT 1400 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1. (SINCLAIR
ASSOCIATES, INC. , APPLICANT AND CAL-TEX PROPERTIES PROPERTY OWNER)
C. Coffey moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report,
. commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by C.
-2-
City of Btvlingmne P/mining Conv�ii�sion Minutes Jmwnry 25, 1999
Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C.Bojues
absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
Chairman De left the chambers Commissioner
APPLICA ON FOR DESIG REVIEW FOR
ALVA� O AVENUE, ZO ED R-1. (TORI
M. & REGINA A. MCAD�M, PROPERTY �
became Chair.
SECOND STORY A DITION AT 1400
JORR, AIA, APPL ANT AND DAVID
fer nce staff report, 1.?��5.99, with attac�ents. City Planner and ommission discussed he
� st, reviewed criteriy�and Planning Dep rtment comments. Fou conditions were sugg sted
� consideration. Co issioners asked out the plans, the eleva ions are not consisten with
� floor plans, shoul staff or the desi reviewer have caught is, don't think it is p ssible
act. There were further questio from the commission.
' Chairman Deal op ned the public h�aring. Torin Knorr, ar �hitect, spoke asking here the
discrepancies wer on the plans; co issioner noted that th left elevation shows t e addition
within in 5 feet o the south end of he building and the elev ions show this to be ab ut 15 feet;
there are other discrepancies inc uding the way the roofs� are drawn, the depth f the eaves
around the ho�iise are not cons�stent with the elevations� how is the room ov r the garage
accessed; architect agreed but oted that it seemed to be/just a problem with th elevation and
he would li e to bring revis d plans back to the nex� meeting. Commissio er pointed out
conditions tate built accordi�g to the plans, in this case/cannot approve since d not know what
plans sho ; is the fire pla�'e legal, will the chimney� be extended, will be a factor in design;
unsure � at the second flpor windows will serve s adequate emergency egress, should be
checke�; show eave over�iang on roof plan in trad' ional format; provide i formation on plate
hei�h �S and document s do not need to use scale to determine; revise st irs so that clear can
mee building code sin revision to this element an change stairwell and indow location; feel
hei ht, bulk and ma s are within reasonable arameters, the difficul aspects are how the
a ition aligns with the other elevations of t e house and especially he south elevation off
illside. Applica asked if could be set fo next meeting, staff di not know depended on
;'agenda and timing f submittal of revised pla s which will need to go rough interdepartmenta�
i staff plan check gain. There were no fur er comments from the oor and the public heari�'g
� was closed. /
C. Key move,� to continue this item to �Ehe next meeting if the �naterials were submitte,� and
could be rev`�ewed in time. The motio� was seconded by C. Ly�zuriaga. �
On the m ion: commissioner noted at this item was subm' ted before the new cod changes
became e fective, will they still be r viewed under the old c de standards, with a c tinuance,
yes.
Cha' an Deal called for a voice ote on the motion to co tinue. The motion pas ed on a 6-0-1
(C. ojues absent) vote. This it m is not appealable sinc the commission took action on the
-3-
� tr� cir !
�,R�„Q,,,,,� ° CITY OF BURLINGAME -
� �, ` :, ,;. APPLICATION TO � PLANNING COMIVIISSION - -
Type, of Application:_Special Permit_Variance Other_ {�/�S/,D� Cf,YtlSF, R��/� --.
Project Address: � 7 11fi�01(/lf� G ji
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): � Z 5-/R L-1 d o
APPLICANT
Name: �P� �r��A/�/�DZ_ /�%L�E
Address: ! � �}� D/UT A- �-
c�ryisc�c�z�P: �XJ�t�,c16.4� c,¢ j�jo�o
Phone (w): �i���o — �D 3 io �
�n): �o �' 7-- 35� Z
fax:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: ��'��f
Address:
c�ryisr�c�z�P:
Phone (w): --
m>:
_ . ARCHITECT/DFSIGNER
Name:.� � �� SCY' J�T--�S �
Address: 1Z 2� P.�L � �"l /4 �• /� t!�
City/State/Zip:��iZU/�G� /� � ��G�l�'
Phone (w): ��3 `��0) �
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this applicatiori.
rn�:
f�: 37�' -�� g
�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:��(z 1'Tln�t/' �TD �GiLS T �i �ZO�tAD f��� —
��� � �a �� _ �'�.��
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information�given
herein is true and conect toj best of my lrnowledge and belief. '
�,� ��-�!�-�' �% � ! 2�29�9� -
Applicant's Signature Da
I.l�ow about the proposed agplication and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commissiori.
�� �� �
Property Owner's Signature Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------�-��---� � �,.
� � �,�� ,�.uva.�,•, �, 3lo.op
Date Filed: Fee: S E P 1 4 1998 �.._
Planning Commission: Study Date: g 23 �� Action Date: . �'�TY Q'` �U���IV�:s,���,��
�v r D�P7.
� CITY Q
4r
i3URlJNGAME
�o _
CITY OF EUFLING�ME
l/�1�1�1NCE AFFLIC�TIONS
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your
p�operty which do not app/y to other propeities in this area.
S E E �T'T'�G�—k E (�
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary foi the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary haidship
might result from the denia/ of the app/ication.
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ o� injurious
to property or improvements in rhe vicinity or to public hea/th, safety, geneia/ we/fare, or
con venience.
�
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 general vicinityT
12/92 ver.frtn
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to you�
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the siie which make other the altarnatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and are a�so not common to other properties in the areal For example, is there a creek cuttinp
through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existinp structuresl How is this property different from others in the neighborhoodl
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might iesu/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 exceptionl
(i.e., having as much on-site parkinp 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 property7
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be debimenta/ oi injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
con venience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties7 If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting,
paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the
structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfarel
Public healih includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater
systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground
storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseasesl.
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 Will alarm
systems or sprinklers be installedl Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General we/fare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and developmentl Is there a social benefitl
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parking for this site or adjacent sitesl7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as
the elderly or handicapped?
d. How wil/ 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
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodl If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match
existinp architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl If use will affect
the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no
change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientatio� etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood7 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 use7 If you don't feel the character of
the neighborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare
your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity,
and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. �sres�...m„
�'��RIANCE :�PPLICATI(�N FOR HOLtSE.
SIDE SE"TBACIt �'�4RIANCE
a This is an e.�isting house in an e�isting location since it ��°as built c��ith a new
acldition to the rear of �'-6".
b Without the variance it would necessitate that there be a setback of 7'-0" for tlus
very small addition of 5'-6" to the rear of t11e house wMch makes placing an
addition here more difficult and mc�re expensive.
c This is an e�istin� d«-elling �vith onlv a small addition and therefor� ��ould nat
be detrimental or injnrious to propertv or impravements in the t�icinit�� as the
difference ��ould not be noticed
d The existing structure is only on� story, the addition is oniv ane stQiy and
has been desi�ed to be compatible with the house it is bein� added to.
RECEIVED
JUL 2 8 1999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
�'r�RIANCE APPLIC?�TION FOR HOCTS�
SIDE SETBaCK V:�RIAIvCE FOR ST:�IRS
a This is an existing house in an existing lacation since it was Uuilt s�ith an eiisting set
of stau�s into the side setback. Due to a new l:itchen being located �t agproximatel�
the same location as these stairs we tivould like to move these stau-s for�.ard
approYimately 7'-6" so the door would be in the laundry area as �ppose� to the
kitchen (it is no« in the laundry room, wluch is being relocated). Due to the
e�isting ��ade wluch slopes to�vard the creek ( it is appro�unately 4'-6") no access
is possible Fvithout a variance.
b ��'ithout the vvariance it ti��ould necessitate th�t we keep the e�isting stairs as
they ai-e anci have the door in the kitchen, t�'ithout anv stairs there �vould be no
access to this side ��ard.
c Tlus is a ne��- stair case very close to the e�isting staircase (to be retno��ed} «°hich
has not been cletrimental or injurious to ��ropert�� or improvernents in the past.
d The proposed stairs are very� small in nature and is compatible with this t��pe of
house on a slope.
RECEIVED
JUL 2 8 1999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 28, 1999
TO: �CITY ENGINEER
_CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
_FIRE MARSAAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB.TEC'r: Request for side setback variance and hillside area construction permit
for a first floor addition at 17 Valdivia Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-
182-160.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 2, 1999
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
r'/%"
/ �
�
c��,.a�r
�
,�
��C i=, ''' �
.
� � y� � � I
� / vY�-�" •��y���S�� � .
�
Date of Comments
�. �
��
� � �� �� °� � 4 � � ;"� � �,
�' � '� �` � �y,� � "� z _ 'g�. � , � °
.k 't �,.ti � �� '_ /�/ •-}' '
*�� � F'' s � � ,}'o %c �
' �, t � � y�, � � ,�=a = ��
� <� � �� �� ;'°` a� ,.� -``
�.: _ � -
_� .�6
i : _ ,� r �` � .� . s � 4 ., _ � ` �
� � �
- � �-a T:. � ` � � f£1 f�' �.i.. ' ��/� �"' ? � �� ,:�,� -9
` - ' - ��.`�-_- i'Li,iT. �� � . �..:"�� ' �'�`� . �
', � _./� �. � y�4 . � �. �� � �-:. ;� .
� � � ` ,� ` � .�-� .�,� �'.;� ��. r �� ,
� � �' � �` �-- � ,�'� �
� � : � ,� � � _ � � ' ., - � - � ' . �� �
� • ' � � � � �, ; � � � - -6�
�� � � � � �, r � _ � -v � � �-�- �
� �p x3' � -, g 3. QJ � � �, ' � � _ .4 : �" �.
- � '��."� ' � _ .. `�''{"$� �' .V � � _.; � � �}3�� � � �a,ie� � �5 � �'�
�} j�
��. �S� � _ _ - _ _ .i
� � C
�• � ii � _ " d� � �� �� _Y � �,� }- �y' . :( � ..: �
�' .Y_ � � `� ' `� � . n `� -' � _�,} t� �`°�,-� �, #r�^� ,
� �-� ry � � � � �- � � `��
��-, � �,� �s� � ` rS( ��• � � '�T�;; 3 ���'- � .�' :;
- �� L� �
� �f�`+�:_���• §
� �AY�aRp _ � `�s � � y� . ��i �� � � _� �� �_
_ ._ � � _. ��O =�' � _ ; � ri -� .;. - "
_�
- �=` � �- eA ` � � �� � � ` � 'z
' � Z5 ti1 � � � ,: ,� � � .�� �
� _' ,�' - � � ,��.:� � �- � -� �`,� _..g - "
�� � � �� -�� �'� �, , '�' � � ,� �,� A � � - �
� � � ��� � x � s" �
� y� � a x a �- �
�� � �� a,� �� � '� ,� .z, ,� ,,,�:_ € .,-
: <r �� - X . : � � l �
{� � � . � - ^a, ::- ��_'`�r �_� r =�- � _ ;�'�} � � - �
�x ��
� � ` � F- � .�� - . _ . ' ��
r O �y'
} -s- _ � : - � �i° , � � _ .
� + ;�" ` � z� : � ��� i��� �Pv ��
�� 7
T -: �`y.�� i � � :' �� �` �� �� �"`- .' i - . - - � _.� ���
x � . � � � � £ � :��� �
y F
��. \ � ' � i � � ' - y� ��
L `
�'-� � p'T� �� �
._ 2 •i _ 3t '? -- -- ♦
i � _�� _ ��� �tP '�� ",�r,��
� r
� � � � - - - � - j�; '�'� � %-.�'- - -s-,� �-�� � �,
�.� "3� _.� � y�, � _� � / �• � � . � iT r -
�� {a, _ � `�-s / - �� T�.r -
�'�. ,:f��-. - � '.� , � - r�s - --` :� � -. ��� � '�' -�."��v,
�
s� � -r ��+ �-"� -:. , ? j „i- "`t, �� �,-�� rs"�.
�` _ � � t _ � F _ . . �- . , L, - ��� .. � �� } � A � � _
� ` �� � "-�a�- q
�� �� � � � � a < � �� r e� - ``��:: ..�� .:
'�' - _ - - � � '
^� �-� � � � �s.` _, '�' � . �� �� `'��. � � .� x � '�:^.F�`.se _ � £ �s. 3 .�'�.
- a * � - -��...-r•�., � �.-�; - �" '� �� -V . '`4 - �' '�"� ��",�� �#,-
_ - - � �� �� -� � . . �� , z - r ��'��. �s - ,` 6`--
:. �- � � 3 . � , . - �� 'a". 5` X� -v.
� ,. ' ' - _ 2 s�. _ _�. . - � i-'�'--�t,� +?..,« . �'� � � � � _
� �' 4 �T' � u �
_: _ �3L�,-:' .� _�- _` _ � �„; _ X�"_�a�7�: �'- y3 �� ".
�.-��.- � `- � 4, 'vx. � rsA . �- � 7''�� �,� ,�"�,�.- � ���. ��� � :
. ..� ��. , ' e ��-1 °�" � � � � �-� � _
- ' °�-��.: �� .. '� �� ��1+ ��-�'1lc Sr�.�P�i '�_'+�
� : ` �ET _
' # , �. � �
��, � �� � � �
�F� .�`�:��. _ � x -- _ `
�i G � }' S { S r � � `� -
� .� , � �' �'ER oF� _ M�Rc� 3�. �
,.� ,� 'v. aF` �_ - � �_ .
� xr �.�, _ �. �3'�' � .� � �= _ 4��: �'; .
��: ' -. = `� : _ "�
� �� � � ��� � � ��� � �
.E ?e> -� -a���
. . '-.�=� �, 'z��'s.� �_ � .
�«�
.. �' .; �. . . g _ . .
� � �
�. .. .'T ...`
..,'. . ._ . � ... .
'..� �' -. . f e3�5.-.--: .==:.. ' _. ;� �- . -
� �-; - .��,;; � .
� `�� .
Y �
�, = -
-� � z���_
- s � �� a
,. , �-�� �--..� � `�_ � _ �'
� (,�fi . - � �
� - �� � �,f #
� � ; �" � , � �� - r,
� � �� 3 - _ _ �
.. �
< ; ;_ . , _
Y Q .. . �'__ ; _ - < � __ s.�. _ _? _.
0
� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL (650) 696-7250
17 VHLL1IVli-1 CUUhIi
t=iF rd :���5— i bc-1 c �i�
H�G����t��r� for hiilside ���r� constr �_iction pUBLIC HEARING
per,mit ar�d �ide setback var iar�ces for- a fir st NOTICE
floor� a.ddition at 1? Valdivia Cc��_tr�t, zoned
R-1.
The City ot Ei�_�riingame t='lanning �ammission
ar�no�_mces the foilowir�g p�.�blic hearing vn
Monday, SepteWber ls, 1999 at 7:�+�d P.M. in the
i,y a o�_mci am �er-s located e.t ��1
F°r imr,ose Raad, P�_it�lingame, Califr,r•nia.
Mailed fiepterber 3, 1999
(Please refer to other side)
,� -_ ,r�:- �
'�-�x:`S'�' �.e`�YK
CI � OF B URLINGAME
"'� ;;�,,.� z� '�� r . �.z.
A copy of the applicauon and plans for this projec[ may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at th� P.�::nr.i� b Departm�nt at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Califo��:ia.
If you challenge the subiect anptication(s) in rourt, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone'e2se raised at the public hearing,
described in' the notice or in written conespondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive ti�is notice are responsible for infomung theit
tenants about t!tis noticz. For additional infornlation, please call (650)
' 696-7250. Thank vou.
' Margaret Monroe ''
City Planner
��:5 .
�;.�_.,,
�._-
.. i _
PUBLIC HEARIIVG 'NOTICE
(Please refer to other sidej
�� �.:�x -;
��:.,..::
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK 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 hillside
area construction �ernut and side setback variances for a first floor addition at 17 Valdivia Court�zoned R-1,
APN: 025-182-160• Robert and Jennifer Mors� propertv owners;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
September 13_ 1999, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials
and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per
Article 19. Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), Single-
family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up
to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption is hereby approved.
2. Said hillside area construction permit and side setback variances are approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such hillside area construction pernvt and side
setback 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.
�• .
I, Stanlev V stica , 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 13th day of September. 1999 , by the following vote:
AYES: COIvIlVIISSIONERS:
NOES: COMNIISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, hillside area construction pernvt and side setback
vanances
17 VALDIVIA COURT
effective September 20, 1999
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped July 28, 1999, Sheets 1-5 and G-1 with a ma�cimum roof ridge height of
20'-3" as measured from average top of curb (elevation 100.56');
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 2, 1999 memo shall be met; and
3. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
�
Y''
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Hillside Area Construction Permit and Side Setback Variances
Address: 17 Valdivia Court
I �]] 1
Meeting Date: 8/23/99
Requests: Hillside area construction permit (C.S. 25.61.020) and side setback variances
(C.S. 25.28.072 c,l) for a first floor addition at 17 Valdivia Court, zoned R-1.
Applicant: Robert and Jennifer Morse APN: 025-182-160
Property Owner: same as applicant
Lot Area: 15,332 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), Single-family residences not in conjunction with
the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences
may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
History: There is a 2,725 SF (.17 FAR) single story house on this lot. In January, 1999, the
Planning Commission approved a hillside area construction permit and design review for a first
and second floor addition at this site (January 25, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes). The
applicants decided not to build the second floor addition and are now proposing a revised iirst
floor addition only. Table 1 below provides a chart which compares the previous January, 1999,
approval and the current August, 1999, proposal.
Current Proposal Previous Proposal Existing Maximum
S/23/99 1/25/99 Allowed
# of Stories: 1 2 1 2'/z
Floo�� Area Ratio: .19 FAR .27 FAR .18 FAR .42 FAR
2,954 SF 4,081 SF 2,725 SF 6,406 SF
Lot Coverage: 22. 3% 26. 5% 19. 8% 40 %
3,420 SF 4,056 SF 3,032 SF 6,133 SF
Decking > 30 ": 390 SF 791 SF 288 SF n/a
(2. 5% of lot) (5 % of lot) (1. 8% of lot)
# of Bedrooms: 3 5 3 n/a
Building Height: 20'-3" 28'-6" 19'-2" 30'-0"
Design Review: no yes no n/a
�
Hillside Area Construction Perniit mul Side Sethack Varimices 17 Valdivia Coun
Requests for this project: The applicants, Robert and Jennifer Morse, are requesting a hillside
area construction permit and two side setback variances for a iirst floor addition at the side and
rear of an existing single story house. The proposed addition will not increase the number of
bedrooms in the house (three existing bedrooms). The applicant is requesting the following:
1. Hillside area construction permit for a iirst floor addition (C.S. 25.61.030);
2. Side setback variance to extend an e�cisting first floor wall with a 4'-7" side setback along the east
side property line, where 7'-0" is the minimum required (C.S. 25.28.072 c, l); and
3. Side setback variance to replace an existing uncovered stair and landing with a 0'-11" side
setback along the east side property line, where 7'-0" is the minimum required (C.S. 25.28.072
c, l).
Summary:
The applicants are proposing a first floor addition to an existing single story house at 17 Valdivia
Court, zoned R-1. The project includes demolishing approximately 819 SF of the rear of the
existing single family dwelling, 466 SF of a covered walkway/porch area, and a 78 SF breezeway
connecting the garage to the house. The applicants are proposing to replace/relocate the existing
kitchen and dining room and add a family room, laundry room and bathroom on the first floor
(763 SF), bringing the total floor area of the house to 2,954 SF (.19 FAR) (FAR calculation
includes the detached garage and exempts 100 SF of covered porches and chimneys, CS
25.08.265), where the maximum allowed is 6,406 SF (.42 FAR). Lot coverage would increase
from 19.8% (3,032 SF) to 22.3% (3,420 SF) with the addition of decking and stairs over 30"
above grade and exempting a 71 SF trellis (C.S. 25.28.065, a), where 40% (6,133 SF) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed uncovered deck and stair/landing area which measures more
than 30" above grade totals 427 SF and is calculated in lot coverage.
A side setback variance is required to extend an existing wall with a 4'-7" side setback along the
east side property line, where 7'-0" is the minimum required. The existing wall along the east side
property line would be extended another 5'-6" at the rear of the house. Another side setback
variance is also required on the east side of the house to replace an existing stair and landing with
a 0'-11" setback, where 7'-0" is the minimum required. The new stair and landing will be
relocated approximately 8'-0" further toward the front of the lot from its current location.
The present structure is single story and 19'-2" tall, as measured from average top of curb. The
proposed height to ridge of the addition is 20'-3" as measured from average top of curb. The lot
slopes downward from front to the rear corner of the lot approximately 18'-3" (8%). There is a
creek located at the rear corner of the property.
The existing three bedroom, two bathroom house is 2,725 SF (.18 FAR) (including an existing
covered patio, porch, attached garage and breezeway). The first floor addition would increase the
tloor area of the dwelling by 763 SF to 2,954 SF (with exemptions) to .19 FAR (.42 FAR
allowed).
�
Hillside Area Construction Permit mu1 Side SetUack Variances 17 Valclivia Coun
The applicants are proposing to remove the existing breezeway which connects the garage to the
house. The existing garage has a 4'-8" side setback along the westerly property line. The lot is
pie shaped. With the removal of the breezeway, the detached garage would be free standing with
a nonconforming 4'-8" side setback. The applicants are also proposing to change the existing flat
garage roof to a 5/12 pitch hip roof to matcl� the proposed addition. The roof work proposed will
not affect the footprint of the structure and is considered maintenance work. Since there is no
expansion proposed to the footprint of the garage itself a variance is not required for the
nonconforming side setback. There is no increase in the number of bedrooms with the proposed
project. The existing garage has a 20'-0"W X 22'-6"D clear interior dimensions. A 9' x 33'
uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
'• •'� 1
*Side Setback (L):
Side Setback (R):
Rear Setback (lst):
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
Building Height:
# of Bedrooms:
Parking:
4'-7„
0'-11" to stair/landing
47' -0"
35'-0" to deck
22.3 %
3,420 SF
.19
2,954 SF
20'-3"
no change
no change
�H.A.C.P.:
Accessory Structures:
Fences/Hedges:
Trees:
EXISTING
3' to chimney
4'-8" to garage
49' -0"
19.8%
3,032 SF
.18
2,725 SF
19'-2"
3
2 covered
(20'-0" x 22'-6")
1 uncovered
(9' x 33')
ALLO W ED/REQ' D
7'-0„
7' -0"
7'-0"
15'-0"
40 %
6,133 SF
.42
6,406 SF
30'-0"
n/a
no increase in # of
bedrooms
Requires Hillside Area Construction Permit
Double car detached garage
no change
no trees to be removed
�Hillside area construction permit and side setback variances required for this project.
Meets all other zoning code requirements.
Staff Comments:
The City Engineer notes in his August 2, 1999, memo that all roof drainage shall be directed to
the front street. The Building Ofiicial and Fire Marshal reviewed the project and had no
comments.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c. Robert and Jennifer Morse, applicants and property owners
�