The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About219 Bloomfield Road - Approval Letteri� ' � (`��e f�i#� o� ��xrl�xt$axxrte CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD re� (ai5)696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALtFORNIA 940i0-3997 rnx (415) 342-8386 7uly 22, 1997 Lenore Montgomery 1090 Cazolan Avenue, #301 Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Montgomery, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the 7uly 14, 1997 Planning Commission approval of your special permits became effective 7uly 21, 1997. This application was to allow you to improve an existing rear accessory structure (560 SF) to be used as a recreation purposes with a sink and toilet and have one window within 10'-0" of the property line located at 219 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. The 7uly 14, 1997 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1, that the project sha11 be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 27, 1997, sheet 1(plot and roof plan), sheet 2(floor plan), and sheet 3(exterior elevations); 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Senior Engineer's June 2, 1997 memos sha11 be met; 3. that the 560 SF accessory structure shall be used as a multi-purpose room with a sink and toilet and the accessory structure sha11 not be expanded without another special permit; any change in use or facilities other than as a multi-purpose room shall require application to the Planning Commission for a special permit; 4. that there shall never be a kitchen area or cooking unit in the accessory structure; 5. that the accessory structure with full bath shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit; and 6. that the existing antennas on the accessory structure shall be removed; A pnrnpd °" recyUee od7er +i J . 7. that the fiberglass canopy on the accessory structure and the fiberglass between the main structure and the accessory structure shall be removed; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire codes, 1995 etlition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. Sincerely yours, Mazgaret Monroe City Planner MM: kj 219BLOOM.cca c: Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (Lot 5, Block 27, Lyon & Hoag Subdivision Town of Burlingame RSM B/20, City of Burlingame; APN 029-252-110) ROUTING FORM DATE: - i � TO: CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTQ.R CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY:_ T�pJ a, ��G�"� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben �'-��/Date of Comments f. J1%D D�OEv1/K�S c"'dc �'1er.ti f i`tcc� p,� �� ul a �� '` . /U �'' �1 lA%c'i K b'�1 J,5 /' 6 C � O 7 � ^- �iDt/✓ �/� r�S/ 5 �/✓� Co � 5 �+^✓li�l� � 3� �oo� ��a��g�e mus�- 6� �o��c�� 0 z.�zy �(/`o +� P�` zcC',�� y� �^o/oco'"�7Es ��- �. .S�cYI, yh�s �vs�- 6� e i+�li�i�v,� ��iree p�� p�''�••-- � �` a c �.,�- � rv�o�.'�Y 1�•��s, � S� �S �s h ea � s P z� ��Ud`�e �as /�ae_ �s�-v�f v�.f �y� .L� sp2ce 1.5 �°i1G�"«t't>�ic!// Th� bt!/��'Y /'iUf� �-�" G v r r�� "v� �"�' �' S�ati�PaNe�s� �� 7. I��c �-Lig-� /� o irr4i� C�a�ri�-- c�rsfs vi1�� ,S/z 6, � G,t� 1 SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: 4 ROUTING FORM DATE: � . TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben (p � Date of Cornments �. O t`��- t.1 � iJ ��12. � Rl o'-j- c��-�- i " l�-�� w��l -3 l o.t= Q 2��/ l�l � � . �, l.�i� L,(_ � W l l l--i'( IJ S�'T(3�1c� � U�n. � N � M. c1 H�t� `� t`� (Zb�P�r��/ Ll ►�-�z f�, v�� `� � � r�. � r� �� n.� n� b1J � l-�V,� c.o �ST�,U C_(� o f�I Sc:HEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: a��G� THANKS, . - . . ROUTING FORM DATE: � TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR _ �aV'k�' SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: . STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: T(.t/1�Q� 02, L c'(�'% THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben �/ 2/ + 1 Date of Comments �� %,Ua�C� , v�.�� r-- -� ` � -r�,.e_ I��' ��. �� 0 H 1 p(,. Burfingame Planning Can�nission Minuus July l4, 1997 Chairman Key opened the public hearing. 7ames McFall, 1530 Escobita, designer/architect, stated that Mills Creek bisects the pazcel at an angle malcing a portion of the site unbuildable, clarified that two of the variances are for existing conditions, and -a small declining height envelope variance. C. Deal stated that there are three components to the request, the side setback for left side is existing, code changed later, no need to change; parking dimensions are 19' x 18'-8", short in length only, and the e�cisting garage is lower than rest of structure, hazd to extend toward building, not desirable to expand towazd street. The declining height envelopeyvariance is created by the new development, agre� property is long and has creek, but is proposing 3693.�SF house, front facade looks as big as maximum size allowed. C. Deal then moved approval of the Hillside Area Construction Permit, parldng and side setback variances for an existing condition noting the exist.uig structure is 1'-4" short in length and the garage would not be that easy to enlarge and to impose cc�ile compliance would cause a hardship and there is no view blockage. The action proceeded with the de '��1 of the declining height envelope variance request noting that the request is created by new development ' d there is no existing condition that would merit granting of a variance. The approval of this mo ' n is subject to the information in the staff report, with plans as required to be revised by the applicant, ' resolution, and subject to the final approval of the� City Planner, with the following amended conditio s: 1) that the project shall be revised to meet the zoning requirements for declining height envelope and� plans shall be subject to the approval of the Cit� Planner; and 2) that the project shall meet all the r irements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingam�: ; ;� . ,� CA clarifi� the necessary changes could be approved at staff level, with the City Planner to approve the change in ; e plans meeting the declining height envelop�. � " �,< Commiss�on discussion: it was noted that the existing conditions were condoned at the time the structure was built; regarding the declining height envelope variance, clear from presentation that thought went into project, can be built without variance, but would be better with feature proposed; the intent of the declining height envelope is to create space between buildings, no opposition from neighbor, clearly took neighbor into consideration, there is merit with design.; ' Applicant has worked with neighbors and site; in reviewing the neighborhood, it does not feel that a one foot intrusion merits turning down application. The house is 3693 SF, request is a variance not a special permit, the applicant can adhere to declining height envelope requirements. It is a large house, decli�ing height envelope is not an existing condition, not comfortable making decision based on whether, orpnot, the neighbors liked it. ` � ,� The motion was seconded by C.�`ellford and passed on a roll call 4-2-1 (Cmsrs. Coffey and Galligan dissenting and C. Mink absent), approving the hillside area construction permit, parking and side setback vari '�nces and denying the declining height envelope variance. The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeai rights and procedure. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERNIITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WITH A BATH AND TOILET, WHICH WII.,L BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES AND FOR WINDOWS WHICH WILL BE WITHIN 10'-0" OF A PROPERTY LINE AT 219 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1, ENORE MONTGOMERY APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. -4- ' Burlingane Planning Cwivnisslan Minutus 1uly 14, I997 ' Chairman Key opened the public hearing. C. Deal noted that a 4' separation between accessory structures is required to be ground to sky, need to add that to special permit request. Lenore Montgomery, 1090 Cazolan, applicant, was present and clarified she has owned property for 9 years, and the accessory structure was used as storage, would like to use it as it was used before, a hobby room, recreation room, not asking to enlazge it, but to bring it to cunent standards. C. Galligan asked for clarification on one of the uses, what is meant by work on small engines? Applicant stated reference is to hobby engines, not automobile engines. C. Deal asked if applicant intends to reside in house. The applicant stated that it is rented, and she intends to include accessory structure in lease to tenants. C. Deal asked why the shower needs to be there. Applicant responded it will be a hobby room, and it will be practical to have it there when doing woodworking, electronics work. C. Key noted problems with showers, other things happen, notes there is a gas heater, will it be safe if hobbies involve combustible materials? Applicant intends to replace with new gas heater, will meet cunent standards. C. Key noted that original shower in structure happened without permits. C. Coffey askerl how large is existing house? Applicant responded it is 1870 SF, 3-bedroom, 2- bath. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that the project is the same as it has existed in excess of 35 years, applicant came forward and wants to continue use and make it legal and safe, it is a remodel of an existing non-conforming use. He then moved approval of the project based on the testimony given, including the conditions in the staff report, and the addition of two conditions: 1) that the existing antennas on the accessory structure shall be removed; and 2) that the fiberglass canopy on the accessory structure and the fiberglass between the main structure and the accessory structure shall be removed. The amended conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped 7une 27, 1997, sheet 1(plot and roof plan), sheet 2(floor plan), and sheet 3(exterior elevations); 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Senior Engineer's June 2, 1997 memos shall be met; 3) that the 560 SF accessory structure shall be used as a multi-purpose room with a bathroom (shower, sink and toilet) and the accessory structure shall not be expanded without another special permit; any changes in use or facilities other than as a multi-purpose room shall require application to the Planning Commission for a special permit; 4) that there shall never be a kitchen are or cooking unit in the accessory structure; 5) that the accessory structure with full bath shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit; 6) that the existing antennas on the accessory structure shall be removed; 7) that the fiberglass canopy on the accessory structure and the fiberglass between the main structure and the accessory structure shall be removed; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Commission Discussion: C. Wellford stated has problem with full bath, this is not a primary residence, existing bath was not constructed with permits, no real solid reason given for granting the full bath. C. Deal fhen made a motion to amend the conditions, adding special permit to have two structures less than 4' from each other and to delete the approval of the shower. The motion to amend was seconded by C. Wellford and passed on a 4-2-1 (C. Coffey and Galligan dissenting and C. Mink absent). The Chairman then called for a roll call vote on the amended motion, by resolution, with amended conditions as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 27, 1997, sheet 1(plot and roof plan), sheet 2(floor plan), and sheet 3(exterior elevations); 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Senior Engineer's June 2, 1997 memos shall be met; 3) that the 560 SF accessory structure shall be used as a multi- -5- Bruiingame Planning Cammissian Minuter luly 14, 1997 purpose room with a sink and toilet, and the accessory structure shall not be expanded without another special permit; any changes in use or facilities other than as a multi-purpose room shall require application to the Planning Commission for a special permit; 4) that there shall never be a kitchen are or cooldng unit in the accessory structure; 5) that the accessory structure shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit; 6) that the existing antennas on the accessory structure shall be removed; 7) that the fiberglass canopy on the accessory structure and the fiberglass between the main structure and the accessory structure shall be removed; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C. Galligan dissenting and C. Mink absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR PARKING AATD SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AT 1506 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND PATRICK AND AMY MCCLELLAND. PROPERTY OWNERS. Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Depa�tment comments, and study meeting questions. .� Five conditions were recommended for consideratio�: A letter from James Sochim, 2020 Adeline Drive was read into the record. ;r Chair�an Key opened the public hearing. Andy Raymundo, Sinclair Associates, 15 N. Ellsworth Avenue, Sar��l�Iateo, the applicant, described the project, went over questions raised at study meeting. Reasons stated �r variance request, want to keep house compact, step massing away from street and rear property line, the reason for the variance is the nearness of neighboring house, wants tb provide contiguous open space in rear yards. Patrick and Amy McClelland, 1506 Vancouver, property owners, stated they want an enclosed back yazd for security and safety of daughter, 50% of houses on street have one-car gazages. C. Wellford asked if McClelland's had talked to neighbor about what can be done along that side between the houses; Mr. Raymundo stated this would be addressed in the landscape plans and noterl that the garage will be single story and is low compared to neighbor's floor level. C. Key asked where will garage be in relationship to neighbor's ldtchen:window. Applicant stated the garage is about 2�;��o�ward from the neighbor's window. 7im and Sue So�hin, 2020 Adeline, spoke against the propo� The proposed garage is moved so far forward, it will block off kitchen window, and natural �ight� which comes in during early evening hours. The Sochin�rpresented pictures to the Commission. C. Coffey stated that the Sochin's side setback is 2'- 10", and d'�wners knew house was close to property line when home was purchased. The applicant responded by stating that the Sochin's had consulted a., real estate expert who stated home would be devalued, but the neighbors would have more privacy in l�ack yard, one of the neighbor's windows is already blocked by a redwood tree. The applicant stated t�at the neighbor's kitchen shutters are closed most of the time. There was no further comment and the la�arin� was closed. C. Galligan stated it is a di ult decision, rules set in place by City Council, has reevaluated information given on projects approv over last couple of years, there was an impossibility in the other cases to comply with the code, and were not unreasonable given the location. Other requests were dimension variances, not number of spaces. Architect showed three possible ways to provide required parking. Understands concern regazding light and air, but exists everywhere in town. Lot is standard to large by Burlingame standards, the issue is should an exception be granted, can't see exceptional circumstances, and can't make findings. C. Galligan then made a motion for denial. C. Deal seconded the motion, � ITEM #S � . City of Burlingame Special Permits for an Accessory Structure Address: 219 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: 7/ 14/97 Request: Special permits to improve an existing rear accessory structure (560 SF) to be used for recreation purposes and which contains a bath and toilet. A special permit is also requested for one new window within 10'-0" of the property line located at 219 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 (CS 25.60.010(I), G), & (m))• Applicant: Lenore Montgomery APN: 029-252-110 Architect/Designer: 7ohn Bunows Lot Area: 7,500 SF (50' x 150') General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1- the operation repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing including but not limited to (a) interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. Summary: The applicant is requesting three special permits for the remodel of an existing rear yard accessory structure (560 SF) with a bath and toilet which will be used as a recreation room and which has a window within 10'-0" of the property line located at 219 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. The existing accessory structure (once used as a detached garage) measures 20'-0" wide and 28'-0" long (exterior dimensions), 560 SF. The existing lot coverage is non-conforming, 40.8% (3,063 SF) and is not proposed to change. The existing detached accessory structure contains a full bath (shower, toilet and sink) and the interior is heated. The existing structure also contains windows within 3'-0" of the property line. The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing structure and bring the structure into compliance with the California Building Code by updating the existing electrical and plumbing service and by removing a11 of the existing windows on the north side elevation (which are not permitted because they are within 3'-0" of the property line). The existing bathroom azea will be remodeled and will contain a stall shower, toilet and sink. The applicant has stated that she will use the structure as a "multi-purpose" room (office, study, hobby room, family room, or workshop). The applicant indicated that she dces not intend to use the room for a home occupation, but rather as a home office for personal business. There will be a total of three new windows installed in the accessory structure, two windows on the south elevation, and one new window on the front elevation. The new window installed on the front elevation requires a special permit because it is within 10'-0" of the property line. A new skylight is also proposed on this application and is located more than 10'-0" from the property lines. All parking requirements have been met on the site. The existing accessory structure once served as a detached garage (covered pazking) for the residence (in addition to the attached covered pazking). The detached garage and attached garage were both built with the original residence. The existing attached garage measures 20'-6"W x 28'-0" and by City Code definition (CS 25.70.030(ld)) it provides two off street parking spaces. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway which measures a Special Pernuts for an Accessory Structure 219 Bloom, field Road � minimum of 9'-0" x 20'-0". Discontinuing the parking use in the detached garage will not impact present or future parking requirements for the site. The accessory structure is located within the rear 30% of the lot and sits 0'-1" from the rear property line and 1'-2" from the right side property line. A one story accessory structure within 30% of the length of the lot line is exempt from rear and side yard setback requirements. The roof of the structure has a pitched roof on two sides and the plate height is 8'-1" (8'-0" allowed with a 6" foundation). The height of the existing structure is 12'-2" measured from the adjacent natural grade (14'-0" allowed). The accessory structure is located 4'-8" from the main residence (4'-0" minimum separation required). History: The residence at 219 Bloomfield was constructed with one attached (20'-6" x 28'-0") and one detached garage (20'-0" x 28'-0") which was documented by the County Assessor in 1956. The applicant is proposing to upgrade and use the existing detached gazage as a"multi-purpose" room. The 1956 assessment records indicate that the detached garage had a concrete floor, stucco exterior, wood shingle roof and an overhead garage door. City records do not indicate when the overhead garage door was converted to a wall or if there was a bathroom or windows along the side property line when the structure was originally constructed. After the Commission study meeting, the applicant revised her proposal eliminating the bath tub in the bathroom and taking out windows within 10'-0" of the property line. 219 Bloomfield Road Zoning Summary Proposed Existing Allowed Lot Coverage: 40. 8% 40. 8% 40 % 3,063 SF 3,063 SF 3000 SF Height: (above grade) Plate line: Setbacks: Side (right) Rear Parking: attached Parking: detached Parking: uncovered 12'-2" : 1'-2" 0'-1" 2 covered 20'-6" W z 28'-0" L No Parking Proposed 1 uncovered 9'-0" W x 20'-0" L 12'-2" 8'-1" 1'-2" 0'-1" 2 covered 20'-6" W x 28'-0" L 2 covered 20'-6" W x 28'-0" L 1 uncovered 9'-0" W x 20'-0" L 14'-0" $'-0"(with 6" foundation� Exception to side and rear lot lines: A detached garage or other one story accessory building located within the rear 30 30 of the length of the lot line. 2 covered 18'-0"W x 20'-0"L 2 covered (total # req on site) 18'-0"W x 20'-0"L 1 uncovered 9'-0"W x 20'-0"L All structures are e�st�ng and no expans�on o the ex�st�ng bwldings �s proposed. pec�al permits are reqwred or one window within 10'-0" of the property line and for the use of an accessory structure with a bath and toilet for recreation purposes. All other zoning requirements have been met. � Burlingame P(anntng Commission Minutes APPLICATION FOR A SETBACK AND DECLI] R-1, (JAMFS McFALL, June 23, 1997 AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PARKING, SIDE �T ENVELOPE VARIANCES AT 2205 RAY DRIVE, ZONED T AND JIM AND LORETTA ST�ENSON, PROPERTY Requests: diffi ty finding exceptional circumstances bas n the property (land), applicant talks about a num r of things in his response but does not ad ss the land itself, please elaborate; can the interior o e garage be enlarged to meet code requ' ents for parking, explain; what would be the hards ' on the project if the declining height env ope variance were not granted, could the building be ex anded some place else, etc. Item was set for public hearing on 7uly 14, 1997. �APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WITH A BATH _ AND TOILET, WHICH WILL BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES AND FOR WINDOWS AND A SKYLIGHT WHICH WILL BE WITHIN 10'-0" OF A PROPERTY LINE AT 219 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1, (LENORE MONTGOMERY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERI. Requests: Is the fiberglass covering to be removed, the one that extends between the accessory structure and the rear of the house; there are a number of antennas on the properly which do not appear as if they are being used, does the applicant intend to remove them or will they be used in the future; house next door on the left is identical to this house without the extension (garage) on the rear; why does the applicant want to retain the exiting windows within 10' of property line and add the skylight within 10' of property line; why is a bath needed in the structure at the rear of the property; is the fiberglass patio cover going to be removed. Item was set for public hearing on July 14, 1997. APPLICA N FOR PARKING VARIANCES AT 920 LA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, � CHARD A MAUREEN HARBER APPLICANTS PROPERTY OWNERS . Requests: elaborate ex ptional circumstances, they should apply to he property; in 1954 the parking requirement was one spa e per unit, staff should explain change and hy new requirements applied here; what does the old a cessors report show was originally on this ' e; ask applicant to provide copies of the multiple lis ' at the time of purchase, 1995, and a copy o the contract of purchase; also a copy of both the selle 's and agent's disclosure documents. Item was t for public hearing on 7uly 14, 1997, providing tha the documents requested have been made availa e. APPLICATION FOR AN ED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMI OR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM �iT 1408 EL O REAL, ZONED R-3, (RON GROVE, APP CANT AND Requests: concerned abou e overall height the structure given the interior height of the garage shown at 7.5', will there be r m for pipes etc. tween ceiling and floor; add dimensions to show overall height of structure and ele tions at top of c ; the site plan is incomplete, add all required dimensions; the parcel map shows tlie 4 unit townhouse ncroaching into the easement, explain; why is the applicant making the proposed changes from the pre 'ous approval; aze there any other shared -2-