HomeMy WebLinkAbout233 Bloomfield Road - Staff ReportITEM #4
City of Burlingame
Side Setback and Parking Variances
Address: 233 Bloomfield Road
Meeting Date: 10/27/97
Request: Side setback and parldng variances for an addition and remodel to an existing residence
which qualifies as new construction located at 233 Bloomiield Road, zoned R-1 (CS
25.70.030(a)(la), 25.70.020(2) & 25.28.072(3a)).
Applicant: James Chu, Chu Design & Engineering, Inc. APN:029-252-070
Property owners: John and Deborah Pivirotto
Lot Area: 50' x 150', 7,500 SF
General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single family residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) 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.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a side setback variance for the existing first floor and two
parking variances in order expand the first and second floor of the existing residence located at
233 Bloomiield Road, zoned R-1. This application qualifies as new construction because the
proposed addition (1,121 SF, 62.5%) exceeds 50% of the existing gross floor area (1,794 SF).
The total iinished gross floor area is proposed to be 2,915 SF. New construction projects must
meet all setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, height, declining height, and parking
requirements. The following variances are required:
1. A side setback variance for an existing 3' 6" left side setback on the first floor
(4'-0" required);
2. A parking variance for 1 covered parking space (2 covered parking spaces
required); and
3. A parking variance for the length of the parking space (13'-6"W x 18'-6"L
existing, 10'-0" x 20'-0"L required for 1 space).
The existing 1,794 SF residence is two stories and has a kitchen, dining room, living room,
playroom (eligible for use as a bedroom) and attached garage on the lower level, and two
bedrooms and a bathroom on the second level. The expanded residence is proposed to be 2,915
SF, a floor area ratio of 38.9 %(3,900 SF, 52 % FAR max allowed). The remodeled and
expanded lower level (from 1239 SF to 1652 SF) will contain a kitchen/breakfast nook, dining
room, living room, family room, playroom (eligible for use as a bedroom) and attached garage.
The remodeled and expanded upper floor (from 555 SF to 1,263 SF) is proposed to have four
bedrooms and two bathrooms (the proposed loft on the second floor is eligible for use as a
bedroom because it is not open to another room more than 50%). The total lot coverage for the
site is proposed to be 2,042 SF, 27.2% (3,000 SF, 40% max allowed). Included in the lot
coverage calculation is a new 345 SF rear deck and hot tub. The hot tub and deck are located a
minimum of 10'-0" from the side property line. Tfie equipment for the hot tub is contained within
the hot tub unit.
Side Setback and Parking Variances 233 Bloomfield Road
The exisdng two story residence measures 21'-6" and will increase in height to 26'-0" with the
new addition (30'-0" max height allowed) as measured from the average top of curb (0.1'). The
proposed first floor front setback is 25'-0" (21'-6" required). The proposed second floor front
setback is 24'-0" (21'-6" required). The rear setback is proposed to be 64'-0" on the first floor
(measured to the hot tub) and 78'-0" on the second floor (15'-0" required first floor, 20'-0"
required second floor). The existing first floor left side setback is 3'-6" (4'-0" required) and the
existing right side setback is 4'-0" (4'-0" required). There is an e�sting wall with an opening into
the side yard which is attached to the front of the residence adjacent to the garage which extends
into the right side setback. The decorative wall is not considered to be a structure, and therefore
was not included in the measurement of the setback.
The second floor complies with the declining height envelope requirements. The declining height
envelope for the left side of the residence departs from a point 14'-0" above the original existing
grade at the side property line because the finished floor of the left side of the residence is greater
than 3'-0" above the average finished grade (C.S. 25.28.075(6)). Because it is built at grade, the
declining height envelope for the right side of the residence departs from a height of 12'-0" as
required.
There is an existing attached garage located on the first level of the residence which measures
13'-6"W x 18'-6"L (two 10'-0"W x 20'-0"L spaces required for new construction). Please note
that the width of the garage is measured from the left side of the garage to an existing sink in the
garage which is proposed to remain. The width of the garage is 15'-0" measured wall to wall if
the sink is included in the total width. One uncovered parking space (9'-0"W x 20'-0"L) is
required for new construction, which has been provided in the driveway.
Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official (memo 9/15/97), Fire Marshal (memo 9/11/97)
and Senior Engineer (memo 9/15/9� reviewed this project and had no comments. Planning staff
would note that revisions on the second floor include a 708 SF expansion as well as the redesign
of a portion of the existing second floor roof at the front of the residence.
2
Side Setback and Parldng Variances 233 Bloomfield Road
233 BLOOMFIELD ROAD - ZONING RE UIItEMENTS
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
Front Setback: Ist fl 25'-0" 25'-0" 21'-6" (a�e)
2nd fl 24'-0" 24'-0" 21'-6" (ave)
Side (left): lst fl 3'-6" (�1) 3'-6" 4'-0"
Side (right): Ist fl 4'-0 4'-0" 4'-0"
Rear lst fl 64'-0" (to hot tub) 90'-0" 15'-0"
2nd fl 78'-0" 95'-0" 20'-0"/ave
Lot Coverage 2,042 SF 1,239.5 SF 3,000 SF
27.2� 16.5� 40�
New Construction YES - The proposecl addition (1,121 SF, 62.5%) exceecls 50°10 of the existing gross
floor area (1,794 S�
FAR First Fl 1,652 SF First Fl 1,239 3,900 SF Ma�c
(incl.garage) (incl garage) 52%
Seconcl Fl 1,263 SF Second Fl - 555
TOTAL 2,915 SF TOTAL 1,794 SF
38.9 % 23.9 %
Parking - Covered 1 coverecl off-street (*2) 1 coverecl off-street 2 coverecl off-street
13'-6"W x 18'-6"L ("3) 13'-6"W x 18'-6"L 10'-0"W x 20'-0"L
each space
Parking - Uncovered 1 uncoverecl off-street 1 uncoverecl off-street 1 uncoverecl off-street
parking space 9'-0"W x parking space 9'-0"W x parking space 9'-0"W x
20'-0"L locatecl in the 20'-0"L locatecl in the 20'-0"L
driveway driveway
Height (ineasured from 26'-0" 21'-6" 30'-0"
the average top of curb-
0.1 'I
Declining Helght The residence complies with the declining height envelope regulations.
Envelope Point of departure (Left side) 1.25' � 14'-0"
(Right side) 0.9' � 12'-0"
*1. A side setback variance for an existing 3'6" left side setback on the first floor (4'-0"
required);
*2. A parlcing variance for 1 covered parking space (2 covered parking spaces required); and
*3. A parking variance for the length of the parking space (13'-6"W x 18'-6"L existing,
10'-0" x 20'-0"L required for 1 space).
All other zoning requirements have been met.
3
Side Setback and Parldng Variances 233 Bloomfield Road
Study Questions: This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their study
meeting on October 14, 1997. The Planning Commission had questions regarding the proposed
application. The architect for the project coniirmed that the existing roof over the front portion
of the residence is proposed to be altered. The existing flat roof/shed roof combination over
bedroom #1 (existing second floor) will be replaced with a new pitched roof as shown on the
plans.
The Commission noted that the proposed loft on the second floor was called out as eligible for use
as a bedroom in the staff report. Staff made this determination because the openings to the areas
adjacent to the loft (bedroom #2, adjacent hallway and stairs to bedroom #3) are open less than
50% of the length of the wall. The Commission commented that they would like to review this
determination at the action meeting.
The existing garage measures 13'-6"W x 18'-6"L (10'-0"W x 20'-0" required for one space)
measured from the left side wall to an existing sink in the garage which is proposed to remain.
If the sink is removed, the width of the garage is 15'-0". The reference to the 16'-6" length in
the previous staff report refers to the length of the garage measured from the garage door to the
existing sink, however, the parking space itself (10'-0" x 18'-6") is clear of the sink.
The architect commented that by moving the parking to the other side of the lot, either attached
or detached, would destroy the entire foyer, living room, and part of the kitchen and dining room.
He stated that this means that over 60% of the entire living space would be destroyed. The
architect stated that his main goal is to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible. He
also noted that the protrusion of the dining room is existing. Planning staff would note that if a
detached garage were to be provided in the rear, a conforming driveway (9'-6"W ) would be
required because this project qualifies as new construction. The architect stated that the
dimension from the left side property line to the existing fireplace is 8'-0", and the dimension
from the left side property line to the house structure (existing living room) is 10'-0".
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
C!
Side Setback and Parlring Variances 233 Bloomfield Road
(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. Afiirmative action should be made by
resolution and should include findings made for the requested side setback and parking variances.
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 date stamped September 26, 1997, Sheet
Al (site & roof plan, existing main floor plan, existing upper floor plan), A-2 (new main
floor plan & new upper floor plan, and A3 (front elevation, rear elevation, right elevation,
left elevation) with a distance of 3'-6" measured from the left side property line to the iirst
floor of the residence, and a one car garage which measures 13' -6" x 18' -6"L; and
2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Kristin Johnson
Planner
c: James Chu, applicant
Deborah & John Pivirotto, property owners
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M. /
CALL TO ORDER
Octo6er 14, 1997
A regular meeting of the Planning Co ' ion, City of Burlingame was called to or r by Chairman
Key on Tuesday, October 14, 1997 :OS p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galliga , uzuriaga, Mink and Key
Commissioner Wellford
Present:
MINUTES -
City Plan.ner, Ma ret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry
Engineer, Fra rbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall
The ' utes were approved as mailed. /
; City
AGENDA - CP Monroe noted that one action item (# , 601 Burlingame Avenue) had been.
continued to the meeting of October , 1997, and two action items (#7, 1633�
Marco Polo and #11, 1112 B mgame Avenue had been continued to t'
meeting from the meeting eptember 22, 1997. Further, CP noted It # 11,
1800 Bayshore High y and Item #10, 1333 Bayshore Highw ad been
reversed from t eptember 22, 1997 study agenda. Co ' sion agreed to
reverse the earing 1800 Bayshore Highway first as #1 en 1333 Bayshor
Highw , as they were heard at study. The orde of the agenda was en
ap ved.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the
STUDY ITEMS
�APPLICATION FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AT 233 BLOOMFIELD
ROAD, ZONED R-1, (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND JOHN D. AND DEBORAH M.
PIVIROTTO, PROPERTY OWNERS).
Requests: The angle of the gable is not shown consistently on the plans, is this an error; why did staff
call the loft area on the second floor a bedroom, can the Commission determine that this is not a
bedroom; in one place in the staff report the garage is noted to be 18.5 feet, deep, in another 16.5 feet
deep, which is right; does the sink in the garage affect the depth of the garage; has applicant
considered moving the parking to the other side of the lot, either attached or detached, and eliminating
the protrusion of the dining room into the side setback; what is the distance from the side property line
to the chimney and to the face of the proposed living room wall; what is the distance from the side
property line on the left side to the structure itself. The item was set for public hearing at the meeting
of October 27, 1997.
-3-
/Ar` CIT O�
�BURLINQAMi CITY OF BURI�INGAME
��e �� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
���
Type of Application: Special Permit `� Variance Other
Project Address:_ 2�J� ��DI—I � �� L b I�.��p
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 02� " 2 52 ' �� C;�
c7ohr D. # �ebora4, M. P�vu-cstto (M,�tro�x.aN.>
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER i
Name: �l ��' I � � �i N l� Name: � �. �i -� I\� . ..� �� � � � � I I �
Address: � V��� �G✓ �i�=- �� � ��Address: 2�JJ �i.G�� � ��� ieb
�
City/State/Zip:�IJ �� 1���, � ��� City/State/Zip: � �L� ��"�� , �� �
Phone (w): ��"� � � �UC9 Phone (w): �� � � �Q
(h): (h): �� � I� �
fa�c: � �}"� � I 2 �� fax: �� • ����
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER�
Name: GI-� l.� b�s161� s� �-N,�� • � j�G
Address:
City/State/Zip: �'r��''��i �.� �� �
Phone (w):
�h�; ,
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
����:_��%��
� �!' T 0 1y9%
�IiY Or EU�LINGA,✓lE
PLANNING �EPT.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATiTRE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and corr es my knowledge an belief.
q' ��I
A icant's Signature ate
I lalow about the proposed application an� hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commi n. .'
:�
��
.�� �
%��
s Signature Dat�e �
-FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Filed: Fee:
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
� CITY
A� O�
BURIJNGAME
ty 4
CITY C�) EUF�LIf�JG�ME
VAFI/,,NCE ,�,F'PLIC�TI��)NS
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will assist 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
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
�L��,.��� V LL�
NON CONFORMING PARKING GARAGE
S E P 1 0 1997
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
b. Exp/ain 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 resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENT
DUE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS, THE EXISTING BUILDING
WOULD NEED TO BE DEMOLISHED.
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
convenience.
ALL NEW ADDITIONS WILL SATISFY CURRENT SEfBACK AND OTHER
ZONING REQUIREMENT (EQ. DAYLIGHT PLANE)
�
How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS WILL MATCH THE DCISTING FINISH
(SEE ELEVATION)
12/92 var.frm
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to yQur
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area7 For example, is there a creek cuttinp
throuflh the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existin� structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhood7
b. Exp/ain 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 resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception7
(i.e., havin� as much on-site parking or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses
allowed without the exception7 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 detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties7 If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphting,
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 �eneral welfare7
Public hea/th includes such things as sanitation (garbagel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater
systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underpround
storage tanks, 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 installed? 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 removall.
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meanin� community pood. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit7
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parking for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as
the elderly or handicapped7
d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
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
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 neighborin� structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no
change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of
character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use.
Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the characte� of
the neiflhborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity7 Compare
your project with existing uses. State why you teel 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. ,zroz�...m�
�� ��' � — p�,x,� ,o�,���
� �� i� ,_,, �; � ::�
` � c R PREPARATlQ1V
oF SZAFF RE�C�fi
Jolin & Deboreh Pivirotto
233 Blaamiield Rd.
Burlingame, CA 9401 a
Oc#ober 5, 1997
Kristin Johnson
Plamier
City of Burlingame
501 primros� Ruad
Surlingawe, C�i �4010-3�97
RE: 233 Bloamfield Rd.
Burling�.ne, C� 94U 10
ICristin,
Z�auk yau for spending time the ofher day in a v�ry infoimative telepbone conversation
regarding the upcoming Planning Committes meetuig.
While I understand fihat each of the Pl�anning Committee volunte�rrs will be visiting the
outside of my home in the next few weeks, I would like to cordially invite each one of them
t� make an�ngean�nts io visit the inside af my h�me t� get a more fihornugh unclerstanding
of our housing neecls.
I work locally in Burlingame so I could most likely make myself ava.ilable on short notice.
I am, however sometimes out on sales calL�; it would be best to call a few days in advance
either at my home or at my office to make arrangements.
Thank you veay mur,h for your co�nsideration; it is very much appreciatec3.
,. _...--
`.. �
.; .
D. Pivirotto
Homeowner
Home- (650) 548-1181
War�c- (650) 348-1880
RF��I�/E�
QCT - 6 1997
�,�TY OF BllRLI�1GA�,�E
P�.dAdti�iNdil�is DEPT
CHIJ UE�IGPJ �'� ENGR. TEL:415-�:�5-9287 Clct 17 �7 1C7:56 1�1�.���1 F.U2
�CIiU D��aIGN R. ENGINEERINC3, INC.
Rufldln� Dexigii 8 Eugineering
Ta: Kristiri Johnson
Planner
City af Burlingame
Re: 233 �loomfield Road
D�te: Octob�r 17, 1997 '
De�r KriStin,
The follow are respdnses to the questions by the CotllmiSsion:
By moving the parking to tha ather side of the lot, �Ither attached or detached, would
destroy the entire foyer, living room, and part at the kitchen and dining room. This
means having tc� destroy over 60°Ia of the existing Ilving space. Qur main gaal is to
prgserv� as much of the existing stru�tur9 a�s possible, and the protrusion of the diriing
room into the side setback Is existing.
The dlst�nce fram the side property lina to the chimney is 8'-0" and to the faca of the
(�) living roQm room wall is � 0'-d". F'feasa note that the living room is existing.
Please cont�ct me at (650) 345-9286 if you have any qu�stions it you have �ny
questions regarding any of our responses.
Thank you.
Sin�:e.r���• �
�
Ferdin�nd DeVera
���.w � ��
�� �. �� �; ��.
0 C T 17 1997
,.�r�v �� �,Uru�czaU�
!'LANNIiVG QEPT.
] W:�ters Purk 1)r. Suik�t/ i 15 Sau Matc�c� C;A 9�4(i-{
(G,t)j 345 �)"1KG l�.vc:(65(1) 3ti5')2B7
ROUTING FORM
DATE: G� �
TO: CITY ENGINEER
�CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIltECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR � [(�
�ec.�rd S`�a�r� ad��.� o'
AT _ �.� � � �Oo 1M,'�-� � � C'� `�
.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMNaSSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: _�J�'PT ; L5 ,� Q�j �
THANKS,
Maureen/Kristin/Ruben
/�/ U �G�„ `� ✓"Lc' L�,
/�/�I`� �Y ` -.
�� ate of Comments
��
ROUTING FORM
DATE: . O Gj �
TO: � CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR �� [(�
�-ec� �`�r� a.d��.� -fz d
AT _ �.� �J � �ao w�.`I-i .Q ,� � `�
SCHEDULED PLANNING CONIlvIISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REV]EW By MEETING ON MONDAY: _�J�'PT'. I5 , I Q� %
THANKS,
Maureen/Kristin/Ruben
�D
;
�i � . �,
.
` � � r� Date of Comments
����
�-rrr•
ROitTING FORM
DATE: E Gi f'�
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
� FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR � (�
�e�.�rn� �`-1�-�'cn czd�� ; -f-zo'
AT 3 �J � �ao w�,-F-i � ,� � `�
,
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW By 11�ETING ON MONDAY: _�J��: L5 , I Q� %
THANKS,
Maureen/Kristin/Ruben
������
;-
�:" � 1 Date of Comments
�r�
• CITY OF BURLINGAME
f�Ji�l pLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �
�BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (415) 696-7250
233 BLOOMFIELD ROAD APN:029-252-070
Applicstion far sictie setback and parkyng variances
far an addition aad remodel to an existing
residence at 233 Bloomfeld Road, zoned R-1.
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces tha following public hearing on
�y. Oatobar Z7.1997 at 7:00 P.M. in the City
Hall Council Chambers located at SOl Ptimrose
Road, Burlingame, Califomis.
Maited octobar 17, t997
(Please refer to ot/zer side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF B URLINGAME
r: t. r . .
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s)'in court, you'may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence; delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible far'informing their
tenants about this notice. For additional information,, please call (415)
696-7250. Thank you.
� }
Margaret Monroe ���� 5
City Planner � � � ��
� ,''
PUBLIC "HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
�.
• ��r�' K ��� ��, ` r'• fi . � � F '+
+ , '...� .X � . � �..
r F, ��- �5
�
.�'� �.-, "'� �,
,�. �� �. '��° � e - �' �� ���
� a: - � �,"� #, � � -� *T .'�"`� �s�,�� .
�,,'.� � .a. - �f� �,,�
'' ,.. �
P:
,� �
,� , e - , ,.. .
" . •': � � .�� �
� ��s a
•: :
,�" '�� ��
�� � "� � .�� '�������;c, � =� g ��`�
�'�'� � y�,`, '>� 'x� �, �,�M f� E�r-', _.d
�= 'F��� �
,
_� � � � a y i
. . r�` y� �.'� � �' : �'• "`
� . .. .
.
. ,, _ . � :. "'
�.
�
��„ ; � ' �s
�� : rt� �: �w � �p:: �` , ` A� :"
�,.� �'� ..g- �� �. � r{� � z;:;� �+fe #'
� ;�.; ',���►
,1� g�' �,� �. �S � � .
y,�' �� `Jly �4X�i # � . q: r�'.. . t�. ^'�
'A� �(� �'... ' .�� .
�'£ tx �. '! ��i� yla::• ��� - `4E� - "s �c� 'f.
„�'r�. e� 3�;"X � r` "�'` ; ��
�, r�'� " � �� � ��+u a r.�
„ .w
. .
ti�^^.: ���'-� , �•' .;<� ..,.� ��jl ...'� � �' � ,A�{
� ��� � b� �'W . ��fi, � „�� +t��y �� .
�'^ � �, � �� �;
� �M� •
�0►, � �p � * �� � _ � � � ..
� � �" ��.�� � � ; - � � '� �
, �`� >. " �'� ' �°� �, .� "� \.� � �
,e� �- �e�x
��; g =� �,,.� � �
� .� � w ,:} .�` .
�� � _ �'-,U, f` � ,��.
�' � ��'�°` � �' _ �' � ��
a�- ''�� ; � .
r,� � '"
+�:...
li� � ``��'',�"' '.�!/-.. . � � _. . ` ni�
�
' .,. ��� . :,�
A+ � .fi
w `�ar::4r � ��a .
Sg 4� �
�' } 33
E
� �-�: . � ��' ,R , �l� '�
� ` , '�bQ
�"` � ,
, � �.
� �� � � �� �
4 �. � - � . �}��, � %�
_. � . ,�,d � ' �'�f.�°
r ,� � :� '`� � :
, � .
�_ ���; ��� �:
. , � ;� �
4- w'aY:� ��rL .+.
* � ,. �
� u� �{ �i , � �n '�
•�. � � ga�`' S �p,.:k` ��y�f . `
s�&
� � g .
,� � , ���5 � �� ,r
I � ��j '
�'b � j� T � �_ /s � .. �, s:til
, <,� �.�
,-
f y � ���;�� ,�
r.� 3 �� p'���'� � �
`�� � `
l "'► r� �
.� �u .ieF�'5:�.
� � ��v •
yRg.,. , �.
'��y 3 i�� _. ��
� a � �,' <
��� �� �� �.,:
�t`�� Q� �
�` `�'g '^_''� . �-�
. � ,�� ^��� .
�''
"` ��'� � r �
r�'� ~ ���,u�+rr"" � :
- . . y�G•� * u ��/'±.
� , � �•�
*.�. >
.g ��. . .
� u ��/ _ a -
�
f; , ,
� �
O,� " �, �, ,'�y a � � � -�, ;�
� y '" � �tu"X '� "'� '
� Z..� I �,• .. � A � µ��-N
`�•_ � p , - .
� .6; '-.,� . � �� �+ .
«
�a
�
� � � �
�- �� ��jN�{ �Po� R��,
+ �}., `�`� , ;�; � , �
�� + „ . t',;
�t 9". "� ++�, _ �. �1 :
y $ `�`r i. �r
, � � �¢ x. n�•
r � _ �,
�� � � � � ��
»� � �r � •
i
��� .�� -
�� �R, �� .`
�� - "•3; a �, :
a�':��' & $�� � _ 4 .� � �.� ,� z'� � � f
��� . �
��p ' �� , �� �-� '� , �`..,
O �"
\ . ' �,{sk .� '. , r � S�
�r�O �_
N�
�
. . .. � �....
�s
. � _ �.. ' > ":s _�
e K� � , .
�.; 'i� �- ��
� � 1 ...
a.: t:- , y S .
5Y } ^ �v�
,�:�� ..:� .. � T��.:a .. .���
Y
� . r� S
_5� � ��
:.,� .. �� � F
!;� ����
. �� ��
��_ �
�A�+ i
� • "�� � �
� M �
�;s��; � ���: �
. �
s �_��a � � '� `� �:�
v �� :,
�t� ,. _ �::1�1
b
�ie a. �
..� .€ � ^ .f�' Y . iMy1�
�� '�„s .. � . � } ! �:✓�" � ��
�'� .. �y
� � ,�: ,. �
� ,. ..� :.;.
? ,�F�
_ .. i' � 'ts:. -
.� ; �,�
r�� ,
.x �-
�: ' :�
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE & PARKING VARIANCES
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
' '_• � • �-- � ��• -� . � .�� • �-- .�- •
�' ' �: , ,�,� . � • �� �- - �. , � �, , �� ,1 � �' � . ���- ,l�
� ��'� •� • �- � - -_� �, ,��� �, - • ,�� - ��� •�► .�� •� •�� '����-
: �•n - � :�.� ��'� : :'\ 1 • 1 1 •�� � ,�� �-�• ,i u_ ' • • � ••-r
�. �-
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame on October 27� 1997, 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 Article 19, Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers
of new, small facilities or structures including (a) 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.
Said side setback variance and parking variances are approved, subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such side setback variance and parking
variances are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
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, J� . D.al, 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 2.�h day of October, 1997 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval categorical exemption, side setback variance and parking variances
233 BLOOMFIELD ROAD
effective NOVEMBER 3, 1997
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans date stamped September 26, 1997;
Sheet A1 (site & roof plan, existing main floor plan, existing upper floor plan), A-2
(new main floor plan & new upper floor plan, and A3 (front elevation, rear elevation,
right elevation, left elevation) with a distance of 3'-6" measured from the left side
property line to the first floor of the residence, and a one car garage which measures
13'-6" x 18'-6"L; and
2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
�
ITEM #1
City of Burlingame
Side Setback and Parking Variances
Address: 233 Bloomiield Road
Meeting Date: 10/ 14/97
Request: Side setback and pazking variances for an addition and remodel to an existing residence
which qualiiies as new construction located at 233 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 (CS
25.70.030(a)(la), 25.70.020(2) & 25.28.072(3a)).
Applicant: James Chu, Chu Design & Engineering, Inc.
Property owners: John and Deborah Pivirotto
Lot Area: 50' x 150', 7,500 SF
General Plan: Low density residential
Adjacent Development: Single family residential
APN:029-252-070
Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) 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.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a side setback variance for the existing first floor and two
parking variances in order expand the first and second floor of the existing residence located at
233 Bloomiield Road, zoned R-1. This application qualiiies as new construction because the
proposed addition (1,121 SF, 62.5%) exceeds 50% of the existing gross floor area. (1,794 SF).
The total finished gross floor area is proposed to be 2,915 SF. New construction projects must
meet a11 setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, height, declining height, and parking
requirements. The following variances are required:
l. A parking variance for 1 covered parking space (2 covered parking spaces required);
2. A parking variance for the length of the parking space (15'-0"W x 16'-6"L existing,
10'-0" x 20'-0"L required for 1 space); and
3. A side setback variance for an existing 3'6" left side setback on the iirst floor (4'-0"
required) .
The existing 1,794 SF residence is two stories and has a kitchen, dining room, living room,
playroom (eligible for use as a bedroom) and attached garage on the lower level, and two
bedrooms and a bathroom on the second level. The expanded residence is proposed to be 2,915
SF, a floor area ratio of 38.9% (3,900 SF allowed, 52% FAR). The remodeled and expanded
lower level (from 1239 SF to 1652 SF) will contain a ldtchen/breakfast nook, dining room, living
room, family room, playroom (eligible for use as a bedroom) and attached garage. The
remodeled and expanded upper floor (from 555 SF to 1,263 SF) is proposed to have four
bedrooms and two bathrooms (the proposed loft on the second floor is eligible for use as a
bedroom because it is not open to another room more than 50%). The total lot coverage for the
site is proposed to be 2,042 SF, 27.2% (3,000 SF, 40% max allowed). Included in the lot
coverage calculation is a new 345 SF rear deck and hot tub. The hot tub and deck are located a
minimum of 10'-0" from the side property line. The equipment for the hot tub is contained within
the hot tub unit.
J
Side Setback and Parking Variances 233 Bloomfield Road
The existing two story residence measures 21'-6" and will increase in height to 26'-0" with the
new addition (30'-0" ma�c height allowed) as measured from the average top of curb (0.1'). The
proposed first floor front setback is 25'-0" (21'-6" required). The proposed second floor front
setback is 24'-0" (21'-6" required). The rear setback is proposed to be 64'-0" on the iirst floor
(measured to the hot tub) and 78'-0" on the second floor (15'-0" required first floor, 20'-0"
required second floor). The existing first floor left side setback is 3'-6" (4'-0" required) and the
existing right side setback is 4'-0" (4'-0" required). There is an existing wall with an opening into
the side yard which is attached to the front of the residence adjacent to the garage which extends
into the right side setback. The decorative wall is not considered to be a structure, and therefore
was not included in the measurement of the setback.
The second floor complies with the declining height envelope requirements. The declining height
envelope for the left side of the residence departs from a point 14' -0" above the original existing
grade at the side property line because the finished floor of the left side of the residence is greater
than 3'-0" above the average finished grade (C.S. 25.28.075(6)). Because it is built at grade the
declining height envelope for the right side of the residence departs from a height of 12'-0" as
required.
There is an existing attached garage located on the iirst level of the residence which measures
15'-0"W x 16'-6"L (interior dimension to existing sink) and provides one covered parking space
(10'-0"W x 20'-0"L required for one space). There is an existing sink in the garage which limits
the length of the garage to 16'-6" . One uncovered parking space (9' -0" x 20' -0") is required for
new construction, which has been provided in the driveway.
Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official (memo 9/ 15/97), Fire Marshal (memo 9/ 11/97)
and Senior Engineer (memo 9/15/97) reviewed this project and had no comments. Planning staff
would note that revisions on the second floor include the 708 SF expansion as well as the redesign
of a portion of the existing second floor roof at the front of the residence.
Kristin Johnson
Planner
2
t , Side Setback and Parking Variances 233 Bloomfield Road
233 BLOOMFIELD ROAD - ZONING RE UIItEMENTS
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
Front Setback: lst,fl 25'-0" 25'-0" 21'-6" (ave)
2nd fl 24'-0" 24'-0" 21'-6" (ave)
Side (left): Ist,fl 3'-6" (*1) 3'-6" 4'-0"
Side (right): Ist,fl 4'-0 4'-0" 4'-0"
Rear Ist,fl 64'-0" (to hot tub) 90'-0" 15'-0"
2nd fl 78'-0" 95'-0" 20'-0"/ave
Lot Coverage 2,042 SF 1,239.5 SF 3,000 SF
27.2% 16.5% 40%
New Construction YES - The proposecl floor area (2,018 SF) exceecls 50% of the existing gross floor area
(1,794 SF)
FAR First Fl 1,652 SF First Fl 1,239 3,900 SF Max
(incl.garage) (incl garage) 52%
Second Fl 1,263 SF Seconcl Fl - 555
TOTAL 2,915 SF TOTAL 1,794 SF
38.9 % 23.6 %
Parking - Covered 1 coverecl off-street (*2) 1 coverecl off-street 2 coverecl off-street
15'-0"W x 16'-6"L ('�3) 15'-0"W x 18'-6"L 10'-0"W x 20'-0"L each
space
Plu'king - Uncovered 1 uncoverecl off-street 1 uncoverecl off-street 1 uncoverecl off-street
parking space 9'-0"W x parking space 9'-0"W x parking space 9'-0"W x
20'-0"L locatecl in the 20'-0"L locatecl in the 20'-0"L
driveway driveway
Height (measured fran 26'-0" 21'-6" 30'-0"
tlie average top oj curb-
0.1'I
Declining Heigltt The residence complies with the decluung height envelope regulations.
Envelope Point of depariure (Left side) 1.25' � 14'-0"
(Right side) 0.9' � 12'-0"
*1 A variance is required for an existing 3'-6" right side setback where 4'-0" is required for
new construction.
*2 A variance is required for one parking space where two spaces are required for new
construction.
*3 A variance is required for an existing parking space dimension of 15'-0" x 16'-6" where
a 10'-0"W x 20'-0"L is required.
All other zoning requirements have been met.
3