The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2752 Summit Dr - Staff Report� CITY OF BURLINGAME SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTR UCTION PERMIT Addition to Structure Requiring a Side Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2752 Summit Drive Meeting Date: 10/26/92 �� Requests: Side setback variance and hillside area construction permit to extend an existing kitchen by 42 SF. The side setback variance is required to extend the existing 5' -0" setback where 7' - 0" is required (CS 25.28.072-2(a). A hillside area construction permit is required per CS 25.61.010. The kitchen would be built on an area which now serves as a deck; a sliding glass door is proposed for access from the kitchen to the deck. Property Owners: Barry W. and Eleanor G. Brown Applicant: Barry W. Brown Assessor's Parcel Number: 027-221-210 Lot Area: 9,560 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoninq: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Categorically exempt per CEQA code section 15301, Class 1(a) - additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50� of the existing area before the addition or 2500 SF, whichever is less. Summary: Existing five bedroom house. Applicant is proposing to remodel and add 42 SF ( 6 2' x 6 Z' ) to the kitchen located at the second story level. The addition would extend onto an existing deck area. Proposed New Construction: 6'-6" x 6'-6" addition, 42.25 SF Existing Area: 2900 SF living area + 457 SF garage Net Increase: 42.25 SF; 1.5$ Front Setback: Side Setback: Rear Setback: Lot Coverage: Parkinq: PROPOSED no change (left) no change (right) * 5'-0" no change 29.5� no change Buildinq Heiqht: ±12'-0" Declininq Heiqht Envelope: Hillside Area Construction Permit: Accessory Structures: Fences/Hedges: Trees: * E%ISTING ±33'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" ±55'-0" 29.5$ 2 covered + uncovered ±12'-0" MAXIMUM/ REOUIRED 15' or Avg. 7'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0" 40$ max. 3, two must be covered 30'/2� stories Proposed addition meets requirements Required per CS 25.61. none No changes shown. No trees to be removed. f �'' � �• * Side setback variance and hillside area construction permit required for the second floor addition. CITY OF B URLINGAME Side Setback and Hillside Area Construction Permit Paqe Two Staff Comments• The City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal had no comments. Planning staff brought this item directly to action. Reauired 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 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. Review Criteria for Hillside Area Construction Permit Review by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. Planninq 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 conditions should be considered: 1. that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 24, 1992, sheets A-1 and A-2; 2. that the finish material placed on the roof shall be nonreflective as determined by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; 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. Sheri Saisi Zoning Technician cc: Barry W. and Eleanor Brown, property owners e _ ' � �� - ^ . CITY OF BURLINGAME � � SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Please answer the following questions as they apply to 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. �� y�1, ,� �`m � o� ursrh-v c�ie�rt ��i � r�9v� r� s�°o�� P q rob�c e Gv � s S- ', ��L t�a�S �1 at� i»c�ilS�Cl �?� �i-�D S� Dl af4� i7� .rV I�l �j �e �Dy�"� �%� !U � a E PX�S�' n g �D �rp �Y`'� !!h � • �• /' 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 denia of the ppli ation. - ,�y .�,� ,s �r-�,�r�y .s r� ��- ,,�,,� ��-�.. �'.� �� ; ��, . 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. 1'^i�iS �1 A�a� f�o�? Gv�l/ �Di� �yl�roo�c� �» !i+�,� t�D� � I/ h�S a�5" �P G� ul EY�V : C✓' D 7� Ptv'�S � �1 L��'7/^) M�N �ot� Y�V 7��er a,��e r�o s��.� ��o�lc ��o��i ,. gen�rnl cv P��° a�✓' Ce�t v' av� l eN1G`e r'r» s•4�ra1 }`su-x1 s, 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. �_/ �� f `CITY ,�i' r �.P� eunu:acaME �..e — % �/� CITY OF BURI,INGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT �,PPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for a Special Permit, the Planning Commission is required to make findings as defined by 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. 1. 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, general welfare, or convenience TAl,s C073,5 �YtJ�GT! 4� cr�'Y1S/S�S O,� S�rIAY/%k� O' ��` s '� P�c� s��:�y s~f,nrc7�ur E d��d n.� ��x 7' `o-rt s�f �y . �� e �!'� �i �r � �a�J>: /, � • ��1e�� A`s�rr.r��rn° • e• �,�, � �l/ �� nish �/ � r»� c� . �'he s � �z-t �b�s- � o Z'� �/o �c o�h y✓'e e�s, ��s v�s.�/,e ��v�y o-x� � et9��orA�drS n�s� c k�a� o�c ess ��reo�S. %7S �Yt' � rp no Li ra ��.� �� 9 '�?� we �r c�n �� eaac� c� s��v-e,7�� 2. Discuss how the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinajce. T� e il c�� 1`�'e� Gv.o lf l�t' f G �f �� 7i� P v� rs s� l�t g' � c�� c'9� C1Y� P�,'/ S�i`I 9 sr��e �'-.�r ��/'L+'S�ojB�C� ��sSEa� -v6e � S� s �>n eYJ�4�r� +'�/ l�'i7�c�i ey1 �t ✓I��1 , 3. 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. r, � %/�C� � i'� S�`� � �U �� (n� i�� a�A� �Ye? �7 v�rE �R'[' C. � 6y �� ex�s�r',9 s�r�►i�v�� 1_ �yv.� �l,s �► '� e /r� � »�? �eYe% � �'I E Y!�'.S��t9vYe G✓�71i � -j► E'�i�nD J/i e � a� �Asr a�-h � .lv-llc ��+r ��/ �.F� �i� �4s' • q� �,,�� r► r�'he �ii✓Iiz�s o� `�he �9c�s�tir9 t� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 26, 1992 cb�inections shall be allowed in the garage or office area) shall be met;�.(3) that the required exit for the loft space shall be the existi�g stairs with the proper separation from the garage area and with a new exit door (uncovered) to the outside, as approved•-by the Chief Building Inspector; and (4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C:'Graham. Comment on the motions it appears this structure was originally built with this type of use in mind, have always,<b�en concerned about the 14' height limit but this is a classic example of where something more than 14' high will fit in and have no adverse impact, with very little maneuvering it could be made legal by being connected to the house and this is the most compelling reason to grant the special permit, it would be simple to resolve this situation with a breezeway but that would not be better for the neighborhood; have been increasingly concerned about traffic on the city's��treets, applicant will not be driving to an office�everx day and will h�lp reduce traffic. / Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C:,,Kelly absent. Appeal procedures �eYe advised. J�� 4. SPFC`IAL PERMIT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIA�TCE - 850 WALNUT -� --- — It�m continued to the meeting of November 9, 1992 at the request of the ,�pplicant. 5. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR KITCHEN REMODEL AT 2752 SUMMIT DRIVE ZONED R-1 � Reference staff report, 10/26/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings for the variance, review criteria for the hillside area construction permit. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Barry Brown, applicant and property owner, was present. He commented that this is a very minor addition with no impact on any of the neighbors, he suggested an abbreviated procedure be set up for other projects such as this to save time and money. Staff advised when there is a variance needed in addition to a hillside area construction permit a full review is required. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on the information in the staff report and received at the hearing this evening, C. Galligan found this is a minor matter, it will not have a significant impact on the neighbors, when originally built a 5' side setback was allowed, addition will be built on an area which now serves as a deck, it is a reasonable request given the size of the existinq kitchen. C. Galligan moved for approval of the side setback � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 26, 1992 variance and hillside area construction permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 24, 1992, Sheets A-1 and A-2; (2) that the finish material placed on the roof shall be nonreflective as determined by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; and (3) that tfie project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. �. FENCE � 1157 . Ref�rence summarized condit,ions EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT IN THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK CORNER AMBRIDGE ROAD, ZONED R-1 � staff report, 10/26/92, with attachments. C��fMonroe the request, staff comments, required findings. Three were suggested fo� consideration at the public-hearing. Respondi,ng to questions, staff advised a fence exception is not considered a variance, if this request is granted applicant is given permission. to trim the oleanders in the parking strip, should an accident o�cur when the oleanders are above 3� this property owner would be 1%able, not the city, they will have the obligation to maintain the`bushes at 3'. Chm. Mink operied the public hearing, eharles and Sharon Rider, applicants and property owners, were present. Mr. Rider stated the stop sign and liglit are well beyond the fence, the oleanders at this time are about 6' high; the Riders want to use the 40� x 70� yard for their children, cannot build on it because of required setback from Highway Road; trash has accumulated by the oleanders, they will cut the bushes and plant ground cover; neighbors like the fence; apartment dwellers across the street park on Highway Road. Betty Daggett, 1149 Cambridge Road, spoke in support: she has lived two houses away from this property for 30 years, - if she lived there she would want a 6' fence, E1 Camino is a very br�sy street, it is an attractive fence. There were no other audience`�comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham commented she uses this intersection many times a week and in the 14 years she has` lived in the area has only seen one car a year driving along Highway Road; there are always cars parked there, it is more difficult to see over the cars than 4� high bushes. She found this would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and make the yard safe for this family. C. Graham moved'`�for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (lJ,that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to th�:Planning Department and date stamped September 24, 1992, Plot Plan, Fence Elevation and Section; (Z) that the City Engineer's September 28, 1992 memo (oleander in parking strip and bush near handicap ramp on Cambridge Road to be