The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About810 Alpine Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Item No. Conditional Use Permit, Side Setback and Parking Yariances Action Calendar Address: 810 Alpine Avenue Meeting Date: 2/12/O1 Request: Conditional use permit for construction of a first floor addition closer than 4'-0" (distance measured between roof eaves) to an existing detached garage, and side setback and parking variances to alter an existing nonconforming detached garage (C.S. 25.60.010, e, 25.28.072, c, & 25.70.010, 2). Applicant/Designer: Ray Brayer, BC&D APN: 029-026-190 Property Owner: Mike and Noelle Engemann Lot Area: 6000 SF Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low density residential Adjacent Development: Single family residential � CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. January 8, 2001 Regular Action Meeting: On January 8, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this project on their regular action calendar and continued this item to allow the applicant to respond to the Commission's concerns or to eliminate the need for a conditional use permit (January 8, 2001, P.C. Minutes). The Commission noted that the proposed addition does not make good use of the exterior space and suggested that the addition be reconfigured or the existing detached garage narrowed to provide adequate separation between the house and garage. The Commission also suggested reconfiguring the addition so that a separate play area and access to the rear yard is provided. Placing a gate across the driveway would make the driveway become a useable part of the backyard. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped January 12, 2001, to address the Commission's concerns with the project. The applicant reduced the width of the existing detached garage by 2'-5" (from 19'-1" to 16'-8"), which increased the eave-to-eave separation from 0'-6" to 2'-1". The distance between the house and garage wall increased by 2'-6" (from 2'-11" to 5'-5"). The overall size of the garage has been reduced from 382 SF (19'-1" x 20') to 334 SF (16'-8" x 20'). On the variance form, the applicant notes that the area removed from the garage is not visible from the street and that the eave on the garage can be removed on the side to conform to the required eave separation. The existing detached garage is nonconforming since it is located forward of the rear 40% of the lot. An existing nonconforming structure may be altered only if the entire structure is made to conform to all parking and physical dimensional standards. The existing detached garage does not meet the 4'-0" side setback requirement (1'-0" existing) and the 20'-0" parking space length requirement (19'-4" existing). Because alterations are proposed to the nonconforming detached garage, side setback and parking variances are required. No changes were made to the proposed first floor addition. Summary (January 12, 2001 plans): The existing two-bedroom, single-story house contains 1,677 SF of floor area (0.28 FAR). The existing laundry and nook area (106 SF) and uncovered deck (172 SF) at the rear of the house, and a portion of the existing detached garage (49 SF, 2'-5" x 20') will be demolished and replaced with a larger first floor addition and deck. The applicant is proposing a 389 SF first floor addition and to add a 224 SF uncovered deck at the rear of the house. The proposed addition would add two bedrooms and increase the floor area of the remodeled house to 2,068 SF (0.34 FAR) Conditional Use Permit, Side Setback and Parking Yariances 810 Alpine Avenue where 3,402 SF (0.57 FAR) is the m�imum allowed. With the proposed addition, the number of bedrooms would increase from two to four (entertainment room qualifies as a potential bedroom). The existing detached garage and driveway meet the requirement for a four-bedroom house (one covered and one uncovered parking spaces), with the exception of the nonconforming covered parking space length. Because the existing nonconfornung detached garage will be altered by reducing its width, side setback and parking variances are required. The proposed addition requires the following: 1. Conditional use permit for construction of a first floor addition closer than 4'-0" to an existing � accessory structure (2'-11" eave-to-eave separation proposed, where 4'-0" is the minimum required); 2. Side setback variance caused by an alteration to an existing nonconforming detached garage which is located forward of the rear 40% of the lot (4'-0" required where 1'-0" is existing); and 3. Parking variance for covered parking space length caused by an alteration to an existing nonconforming detached garage which is located forward of the rear 40% of the lot (20'-0" required where 19'-4" is existing). Staff Comments: See attached. CURRENT PREVIOUS PROPOSAL PROPOSAL (2/12/O1) (1/8/Ol) EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D Separation betwee�: 2'-11 "' 0'-6" 0'-6" 4'-0" structures': (eave-to-eave) (eave-to-eave) (eave-to-eave) (eave-to-eave) Setbacks c e e t: no c ange - - - (Garage)1: 1'-0"2 1'-0" 1'-0" 4'-0" Rear (Ist flr): no change 28'-3" to deck 42'-0" to deck 15'-0" 36.2% 36.9% 29.5% 40% Lot Coverage: 2162 SF 2211 SF 1771 SF 2400 SF • • • 0.57 FAR FAR: 2068 SF 2117 SF 1677 SF 3402 SF covere covere (10' x 19'-4")3 (10' x 19'-4") 1 covered Parking': 1 uncovered no change 1 uncovered 1 uncovered Height: No change 17'-0" 21'-3" 30'/2 '/z stories 1 Conditional use permit required for construction of a first floor addition closer than 4'-0" to an existing accessory structure (0'-6" eave-to-eave separation proposed); 2 Side setback variance caused by an alteration to an existing nonconforming detached garage which is located forward of the rear 40% of the lot (4'-0" required where 1'-0" is existing); and 2 Conditional Use Permit, Side Setback and Parking Variances 810 Alpine Avenue 3 Parking variance for covered parking space length caused by an alteration to an existing nonconfornung detached garage which is located forward of the rear 40% of the lot (20'-0" required where 19'-4" is existing). This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure located closer than 4'-0" to another structure, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) 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; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deerris necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant side setback and parking variances 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 preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for the requested conditional use permit and variances, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 12, 2001, sheets A1-A8; 3 Conditional Use Permit, Side Setback and Parking Variances 810 Alpine Avenue 2. that if the existing nonconforming detached garage is destroyed to the extent of 50% or more of its value by any means, the conditional use pertnit for building separation and the side setback and parking variances shall become void and a new garage shall be built in compliance with the zoning code requirements in effect at that time; 3. that the requirements of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's November 6, 2000 memos and the Fire Marshal's November 7, 2000 memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben G. Hurin Planner c: Ray Brayer, BC&D, applicant Ci �� nf Fi►urlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 � pointed out that the desi review guidelines are a part of the code as�well, and the applicant need� to explain why this pro sal fits them. There were no further comm�rits from the floor and the p 1ic hearing was close . � Commissioner iscussion: City Attorney and City Planne �commend that we continue�lus matter until we can get ore information from the City Arborist o e trees; comfortable with th�esign, if the issue is just th ree can continue, if the issues are greate en we would need a differen�otion; the issue is greate han the tree, the building design is not mpatible with a number of desjgn guideline components: ma and bulk, design has no relief on eith side-straight up; front of the bui ing is boxy, windows and a of plain stucco, is a bit of a monster• ite design is not compatible with e trees; if come back �th the trees saved and a notch in the house do it, still have to live with the use. Modifying the design to save the trees would affect the design ' item continued would get back t e same design, wish to�elarify the tree issue and give direction to the esigner. CA noted that item cou be denied without pre' dice and sent ,back to design review stu when the applicant has responde and the tree issue has b n clarified. C. Bojues moved a denial without prejudice direc ' g that the tree issue be�larified, direction given on the design ad essed, and then returned to desi review study. The moti was seconded by C. Vistica. Comm on the motion: design needs to� accommodate the tree, so�ootprint needs to be changed; con ed that the denial without prejudice will allow the applic se the tree permit to remove t� t e, suggest a continuance to get tfie information needed fr e city arborist then decide the actiqn on the project, would like to knov� from the arbori�t wh ed� to be done to save the trees; the tre report notes that one tree is in dec�ine but it could be 100 vears�iefore it dies. � C. Bojues suggeste hat the motion be amended tQ' continue this item to the next mee�g for information on the tree and cl fication for the scope of the ee removal permit and the reasons f� r the decision by the city arborist; a d suggest that the tree remov permit be suspended until the arbo ' f Could review it and repo rt bac k� he commission. T he seco n r d C. Vis tica agree d to t he amen dmen o t he mo tion. Chairnjan/Luzuriaga called for a voic vote on the amended motion to co 'nue action on this itym until the next �neeting , January 22, 2001, a receipt of a report from the city a orist. The motion p�sed on a 6- 0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This action is not appealable. his item ended at 10:07 p.m. f� 7. 810 ALPINE ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION CLOSER THAN 4'-0" TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RAY BRAYER, BC&D, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MIKE AND NOELLE ENGEMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, 920 Morrell, represented the project noting that he would be happy to answer questions. Commissioner asked why the applicant was requesting a 6 inch separation between the main structure and the garage. Applicant noted there had been a recent addition to the family and they need to add a bedroom and play area for the children, the area they are proposing to add extends the lines of the existing building. Commissioners noted that proposed addition does not make good use of the exterior space in his experience, having 2'-11" between house and garage 11 City�of B��rlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 does not work, only way out of the rear yard is through garage or house; the house could be streatched out and adequate separation provided or the garage narrowed, the garage is wider than it technically needs to be now so there is room. Applicant noted that it is a cost issue of having to pay for the replacement of the garage. Complimented applicant on the quality of the drawings. Suggested alternatives to arrangment by placing master bedroom within open space and play area separately with access to yard would make outdoor space "L" shaped and more useable. Applicant noted that he would like to discuss these ideas with his client. Commissioner noted that when place a gate across a driveway , the driveway behind the gate becomes a part of the useable backyard. There were no further comments from the floor on the project and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 22, 2001, to allow the applicant to respond to the comments made by the commission or to eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:37 p.m. 8. 33 ARUNDEL ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A ONT PORCH ADDITION (JOHN SUDANO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASS TES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, O�Q8.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments �Two conditions were suggested for consideration. ommission had no questions of staff. C. Deal noted that he would abst �' from this item because of a usiness relationship with the applicant. C. Vistica noted that he lived withi3�.�the noticing area so he too w uld abstain from the item. Chairman Luzuria�a noted for the record and applicant that an action would e three votes of the four members seated. Applicant noted that he wouldii�e to go forward anyway. Cha' an Luzuriaga opened t1�e public hearing. John Sudano, prd}�erty owner, spoke noting ho se was built � hout a porch and the ne 4 foot landing will make the exit�safe, 4 homes on the block h ve a covered p rch and they do not mee tback either; the porch will cau3e the house to blend in with the surrounding� ouses; this is a narrow lot, nly 38 feet wide and the house�is only 24 feet wide and there is a protected��ee at the center of the lot; the hause is 1000 SF with one bat�aroom; feel that the covered parch will be an�asset to the quality of the house aiid,will add benefit to the li�ng space. There were no further comments �i�om the floor and the public hearin�vas closed. �� C. Bojues noted that this�was only a 2 foot exception for a fro�t porch, other houses o%the street have the same exception and th�commission has approved similar A.�xceptions in similar circuni�tances, so would move to approve the fr�nt setback variance for the new f�ont porch by resolution with the follo 'ng conditions: 1) that th��project shall be built as shown �n the plans submitted to the Planning Departm t and date stamped De�ber 14, 2000, Site Plan, Flo�r Plans and Elevations and that the front porch all be kept open and ver be enclosed or converted�`�o living area that the variance shall not continue s�-i�uld the house be dem�ished; and 2) that the project`shall meet all the requirements of the California Bu�t�ing and Uniform Fire�odes, 1998 Edition, as amended ,by the City of Burlingame. The motion was second�d by C. Dreiling who�ioted that he liked the porch but want to make sure that the variance being granted �for an open porch�and should not continue if ther house were ever demolished and would like to add a condition to that effect; the maker of the motion agreed to the addition. 12 i41` CIT O� �R`- �� CITY OF BURLINGAME �: a`,_, i APPLICATION TO 1'H� PLAI�INING CONIlVIISSION \b' .o� Type of Application: Special Permit Variance x Other � L i�i �c/� Project Address: � �l.-% /� L7 - __ Assessor's Parcel Number(s): OZ`l —� 2-� — l� C� APPLICANT Name: �/� % ��/� i� 7�,��,�% Address: � � � L-C�2 'T�� !�� City/State/Zip: �� L ; �i�1 ��I� �J � Phone (w) : �-� � �c� (n�: ��- —C� / �� f�: ��- s; — i�'�s" � PROPERTY OWNER Name: _ / "�/Kt ��,�Ll..t �?��'�'!fl/VN Address:��(� �L�i/V�' /��v City/State/Zip: �L1I� [_ �� 1�/ � Phone (w): (h):_ �'`�.� — �� '� fax: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: �C� �� Address: �� /-�i2�TC�i�/ �-�/� City/State��ip:�,��2 L c�/� ��1% Phone (w): �C� .� ' �rI�T'� �n�: �-�-�-- C� I z3 f�:_ .��- � /�� l-5 FROJECT DESCRIPTION: � � r s i- � l � o r Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. Add�'-I��, AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the bes f my knowledge and belief. � /��C��I Ap ' ant's Si ature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant application to the Planning Commissio ; ' � /%�a/ ad Property Owner's Si Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------- to submit this DateFiled: ��'3D •00 F�: �3�o.op +$io� RECEIVED Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: ��B��I OCT 3 0 2000 �'( �Z'�� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. trF, c iT r o.n BURIINGAME � �'^,. *"iC A�NitiC The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain tivhy the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pciblic health, safety, general welfare, or conveniercce. The proposed addition will have no impact on the neighboring properties. The front elevation does not change at all. This is NOT a second story addition and hence will not impact either view or a neighbor's privacy. There is no danger to public safety by allowing this variance because the building code has specific measures that make it safe to construct a residence within a few feet of a garage. � Hoiv tivill the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance tivith the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning O�clinance? The proposed use is the same as the current use which is in conformance with the general plan and zoning for a R-1 si}gle family residence district. 3. Hofv will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk artd character of the existing arcd potential uses on adjoining prope►ties in the general vicinity? The prosed addition will likely go unnoticed by the neighborhood. THe front elevation is not affected at all. THe front most portions of the side elevations remain as is as well. THe new portion will match the existing finishes of the original structure. THe completed home will still be considerably smaller than the meximum allowable size permitted. THe use of the addition will benefit the neighborhood by providing the three (3) Engeman children (Kristy age 12, Elise age 13 and Kieran age 18 months) a safe, secure place to play rather than always playing in front of the home. SLightly emlarging this hbme from a two (2) to a three (3) bedroom will not make it larger than its neighboring residences. RECEIVED IV�U ' fi 2�0� cup; fnn/11 /98 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1. Explain why tlte proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvenaents in the vicinity or to public healtlz, safeiy, general welfare, 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 publics's health, safety or general welfarel �ublic health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and thing 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 diseases). 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 of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefitl �onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public 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 handicapped? 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with tlze Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would "fit" accordingly. 3. How will tlze proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and clzaracter of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properiies in tlie gefaeral vicinity ? How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change to the 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. cup. frm/11/98 �0� �� .OQV�9�� B'U�D��o� /��.��oP'U��U�e� 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 answe�s 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 extrao�dinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. The existin� two (2) car detached garage is approx. three (3') feet away from the exis��ng home. The standard required�.:distance from a detached garage to a residence is four (4') feet. A three (3') separa�ion between a garage and a residence is common in this rie.ighborhood. We propose to remove 2'6" from the esisting garage to make the distance from the garage wall to the.addition and existing home 5'6". This adjusted side of the garage is not visible from the street. If necesa�y, the eave on the garage can be eliminated t.o conform b. ExpPain whytt�iedvarance equestisiiecessary fo�r �ie� preservafiaf�}`�'�i��inent of a substantia/ property right �ind what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. Without this variance, the Engemann's would not be able to move ahead with this small (383 sq. ft.) addition. To comply, they would need to demolish their exisitng garage and build a single car garage �his::ex�eeds their present financial ability and would reduce their covered parking, forcing a car onto the street. . c. Exp/aln why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrlmenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. The proposed addition will have no impact on the neighboring properties. Tiie front elevation does not change at all. This is NOT a second story addition and hence will not impact either view or a neighbor's privacy. There is no danger to public safety by 8�fiowing this variance because the building code has specific measures that make it safe to construct a residence within a few feet of a garage. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the exlsting and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the general vfcinityT The proposed addition will likely go unnoticed by the neighborhood. The front elevation is;not affected at all. The front most portions of the side elevations remain as is as well. The new portion will match the existing finishes of the original structure. The completed home will still be considerably smaller than the maximum allowable size permitted. The use of the addition will benefit the neighborhood by � providing the three (3) Engemann children (Kristy, age 12, Elise, age 13 and Kie�ran, age 18 months) a safe, secure place to play rather than always playing in front of the home. Slightly enlarging this home ��2v� �from a two (2) to a three (3) bedroom will not make it larger than its neighboring residences. RECEIVED JAN 2 6 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ROUTING FORM DATE: October 31, 2000 TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for an accessory structure located closer than 4' to another structure at 810 Alpine Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-026-190. SCHEDULED PLANI�IING COMMI5SION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 6, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben �� 6�� ' Date of Comments d f,�-C�'..� '�r0" �l' � �te.�. �-�- !� o�o a�°` � � �^' ��' . .�-�.q �c � �'' �-. h�, �t ��- � ✓ � s� , 0 ROUTING FORM DATE: October 31, 2000 TO: CITY ENGINEER �( CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for an accessory structure located closer than 4' to another structure at S10 Alpine Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-026-190. SCHEDULED PLAI�INING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 6, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben � �/�� Date of Comments ry \ ' �, 9 � ^ y �r t�' �"" �'' �� ._ No o,� S��, � � a�0�, �� " � � � �� a�� . � � 5� � � , ��.e,,�/� � c% � � �, 6� .{�, �,� c � % �Dr � C� �� - �.a r�� pCi�e � �� s�s�►�� _ ROUTING FORM DATE: October 31, 2000 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL X FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB.TECT: Request for conditional use permit for an accessory structure located closer than 4' to another structure at 810 Alpine Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-026-190. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 6, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben � l Date of Comments . � 1� wo�,� �� G�,��Ill�l.�,� `�OoINL C�� -�c.-.�' � R _ � � �s ��- � � ��.�,C �� o � � (� � �� . ,�.t�F' c�T� aa, CITY OF BURLINGAME � BURLJN('.AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD . .��' -� BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 ; 1 i. i 810 ALPINE ROAD . ' �,,•. t � Application for conditional use permit for �',' construction of a first floor addition closer �. than 4' -0" to an existing detached garage, PUBLIC HEARING � and side setback and parking variances to N�l-�CE : alter an existing nonconforming detached garage at 810 Alpine Road, zoned R-1. (APN: 029-026-190) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission • announces the following public hearing on � Mondav, February 12, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the , City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 ' • Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. . . ': •,, Mailed February 2, 2001 (Please refer to other side) � � �� . , , � ::� � , :'i �, CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applica�.i�n-and�plans�=for this�pioject may be reviewed prior to the meeting at=ttie'.h�lannii�g�'Department at:�SQl Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cali ornia�'�' ` ��, `� �� "�' „ , �. E€� �` `� ��*� . If you challenge the subject applicati9n(s) in court; you may�be limited to raising only �hose �ssues�' o,Y u or someone else rai'sed at�th�ublic hearing, described i� tl�e�otice �r.�in-�wr�tt�n,correspondence delivered to the c�ty at or prior t ttLe��yibli�` �a��g y� � �, `- � �, � ��° � �: , C ,4, c. Tt �' €� �' '^� f ,s � �a w s�rt�+�:• �< _ � � _ .� --� �� Property ow,�ers who recei e'this �o�ice are responsib�le for i orming their � tenants aboi�t thiS; oii e��ar dditional informatiorj� ple�e call (650) 558-7250. Thank �vou. ��, `�x ��k� �� `�� ..�, (� �' Margaret M� City Planner � i� �.�s s; �`�. � _ : { `, .� i �� } -. � s v.- ,��,��'��t� ��'#r.,� r� ��} ;`�� ' � : �/ F 3,}�^ � � �� / � i fi � t �, �, ��,, � �� -`A' �� ..�.�E.�Bir�u IVo�-icE (Please refer to other side) i ��.r .� ��"'."�'" i. _ ► ,•� . I ' RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARHING VARIANCES RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application �as been made for a conditional use permit, side setback and parkin� variances for construction of a first floor addition closer than 4'-0" to an existin� accessory structure and to alter an existin� nonconformin� detached arage at 810 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1 Mike and Noelle En emann property owners APN• 029-026-190; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 12, 2001, 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: :�. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said conditional use permit, side setback and parking variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit, side setback and parking 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, Joe Bojues, Acting 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 12th day of February , 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit, side setback and parking variances. 810 Alpine Avenue effective February 20, 2001 :; , 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Deparanent and date stamped January 12, 2001, sheets A1-A8; 2. that if the existing nonconforming detached garage is destroyed to the extent of 50 % or more of its value by any means, the conditional use permit for building separation and the side setback and parking variances shall become void and a new garage shall be built in compliance with the zoning code requirements in effect at that time; 3. that the requirements of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's November 6, `'2000 memos and the Fire Marshal's November 7, 2000 memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. : � � } w �� . �. '� ��, � �K �� .� � ;a�. � . M�+ I- ; �:. �, �': `�.. , . � _ �. � y _: y' _. .. .. _p' `.. �� '�` ,�' � � �%� . - . ,� , � �/" F ,- ,, ► . :� .,��''� -`� , .�'� °� � _ � � �' �J�r -�'�►r� � � � C .:� ,,. �r - � ,�: R ', ��{ ��: `� � .., 7 �` v� .i ~ � � -q�. �y ��Iw', �� r �L -� a 'F' f � ' y . - I O '�� . � �� '-�� ,�_� '� ' �"� !� v '�' �'�' �` ��` -��, �,�` r � �. �O . � /� - ,y�E' % } ». .2 V r � v�. .. , .� � � F`?''� / ' � �� fr •'`b {/� .s � : „ r . `� � .', a. '.� `ti _ � i , �' A- y , � ' V , � .; � � � � - �, /_ � W�� '� �' � : �� 4 , „' a � � �� ,r �`� �` �� : �� , � . �g ' � � i� � �` 9� � � , _ . �i" � A �. � . , q�� /j� � �`' � ��' � °' 4� ''� �: � � �. r� ,#�� 1 �,, . ,.. t'hp��,�: � s � � ' ` �` - v � � �� * a x � ��.; ,r l��, �, _ '� C � � �ZY ,� ��' '9� ;�: � � � .. � � O� � �,`C� 20 -�,�, : 't,� A . �.o � s y � '� ♦9 ,� ° /�,�i so 4T� V�� 8ay � ,� , s .. '�R �F �,� � ��.�.�. N � � �-;-_ � �' � , . ' �' C� s � PA �� * �� °a � � � C � Q" � �� Rq,� � �,.� �, QQ` .� ;:� ; oq� .� � � �� C � � � �� .�' � � �� .�, q � , . . ! W �� `�- �" � . ,. ' ; � , Fo p y � �.� � � �T ,rt� ' - '� �� $ � � � ` `` � � '� � �lV� f � �� : .. . i O �..�' �� .�`&': `#.x �+ . . � > � , f , � . �. R� ti . .LL C.R 1/ : , � ,�� F � �s�`� , �� ,�� ,��;.;. � w�` ��'� t� _ � � ._ ° � � � �� , � t �� ,z � � � �,�- , �' � �, � �� . � � � „ ` �� '��, �� _ k � 3f;-� �-� _ / �� $ s '� - �` A ri O � tl} . � ;, ` � ti f� � ,. . ♦ � ,u �; . � , � �Io ALP��1E Ro� D �