The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2160 Trousdale Drive - Approval Letter� . LINGAME "�"� 1... °R.4'Tco Wsi b, ' t x : ;. .. .�. . . � � ' C� . e C�� ;w`:� �x�.�z� _�xr�.e � .. � , � �; _. . . �: "`'�'''°` '"5`YaN� tv1A7E0� COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CAIIFORNIA 94010 TEL�(415) 342-8931 December 8, 1982 Mr. John Sp��il�di�r►g -', Spaul di ng Go�istr�ic�a on . 639 Bair I�s'!'�nd-''Road° Redwood City,,GA. 94063 Dear Mr. Spaulding: , . . .: . , : ., x ., ; _, , _ =-� - fi. Si nce ther� w�s�''no''apJ�eal` tb ox�.: �us��ns� on by �the G� ty Counci 1, we wi sh to advise the��Ftav�tii�er �2�, `i982- P1`anning Co"rrmission approval of your special permit appl i cati on became effecti ve ;DecembQr �,:.1;982: �-: =` � .;:. . ., ,:r _ 1. This appllc��io•�r' �as to alloi�rco��tructaon of:-� det��bed=�arage a�� 2160 Trousdale Drive for �1�: 'ana"Mrs: Edward`franRe: Tiie November 22, 1982 minutes of the Planning Commission state �he permit was;a}�p.r-fly�d...�Tih the following conditions: 1. that averall height shall not,exc��d..��'-,-0"; .. 2. the plate, line shall no� ex�eed, 10'�-�8";_ .;=; :=:,_;.-_ ��-. � 3. the: maxi.mum area of the, garage.:shal:l.��<�xce.ert-_?#-1 SF-; - 4. tl�at` the� candi�i�vns`'of th'e �Chief Building inspector's memo of November 3, T982 be me:t,; and� t _ ,� - �= :- > , ,.�, . _.. _ . 5. that the existing carport i� t.li� rSid� ya��l ��_,�v€�. -- .a , � . . . _ All site �I�pr�ver�ents�`and°construction work w�11 r�quire separate application to the Building Department. Sincerely,.yout�s, ,. • , I��U�� ,,.`,-� '� l � Margaret Moi�roe City Planner MM/s cc: Mro anci Mrs. Edward Franke Chief Building lnspecii,r Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 22, Block 13, Mi11s Estate No. 4; APN 025-094-080) • w . INTER-OFFICE MEMO To PZanning Department From: BuiZding Division Nov . 3, 1982 RE: 2160 TrousdaZe Dr, ShouZd the appZication be approved, the BZIZZCZZYl9' D27JZSZOYI recorrnnends the foZZm,�ing items be a condition of the approvaZ. 1. Copz� of survey be submitted to BuiZding Division before foundation inspection is caZZed. 2. Eave pro�jection incZuding rain gutters cannot extend bez�ond propertz� Zine. Pete Kriner �...t�� . Chzef BuiZding Inspector 'NOV3��2 CI P�NNING OEPTM� PK/pma .M v- r� I� i i� ��.. :�i i: C: ir Pa ge 2 Burlingame Planni��g Commission Minutes November 22, 1982 report for Item #2; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/13/82; aerial photograph; photos of the site; site drawing; "no comments" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (11/3/82), Fire Marshal (10/25/82) and City Engineer (10/29/82); letter from Charles Mahnken, the applicant, dated October 13, 1982; letter in support from John and Jacqueline Moran, 2616 Summit Drive; November 8, 1982 study meeting minutes; and site plan date stamped November 12, 1982. CP Monroe discussed details of the proposal; staff review; applicant's justification for his request; answers to questions raised at the study session. Planning staff noted conversion of the proposed structures to living space would be extremely difficult, and recommended approval with one condition as listed in the staff report. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Mahnken (applicants) were present. Chm. Mink opened the public ��earing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the hearing closed. Commission discussed overall lot coverage with the proposed addition; acknowledged that the pr000sal preserves views and maintains the setback requirements of the code. C. Harvey made a motion to approve the Special Permit based on the structure's compliance with zoning requirements and minor impact on affected lots; second C. Cistulli. Chm. Mink conditioned the motion that construction shall be as shown in plans submitted with this application and conform to the Uniform Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. � 3. SPECIAL PERP4IT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2160 TROUSDALE DRIUE, BY SPAULDING CONSTRUCTION FOR MR. AND MRS. EDWARD FRANKE CP Monroe reviewed this request for three special permits (to exceed height, plate line and floor area) to construct a 741 SF detached garage replacing the existing garage on this site. Reference staff report for Item #3; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/14/82; aerial photograph; November 3, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; "no comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (10/25/82) and City Engineer (10/29/82); October 1, 1982 letter from Spaulding Contruction Co., signed by Mrs. L. uurham, �15�, irousdaie indicating "no objections" to the proposal; October 14, 1982 letter from Spaulding Construction Co. presenting the project; November 8, 1982 study session minutes; and plans date stamped October 14, 1982. CP Monroe discussed details of the proposal; code requirements; staff review; applicant's reasons for the request; answers to study session questions; Planning staff observations. One condition, as listed in the staff report, was suggested for Commission consideration. Edward Franke (applicant) and John Spaulding (contractor) were present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion included: clarification by C. Harvey that the overall height of the proposed design could be maintained at 15'-0" (based on a 9'-6" garage door, a 14" header and 4'-4" rise for the 4/12 roof slope); existing carport next to the present garage should be removed if the application is approved; proposed roof line is compatible with other nearby structures; a hip roof would reduce the visual impact from the street. C. Harvey made a motion to approve the three Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that overall height shall not exceed 15'-0", (2) the plate line shall not exceed 10'-8", (3) the maximum area of the garage shall not exceed 741 SF, (4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 3, 1982 be met; and (5) that the existing carport in the side yard be removed. Second by C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Cor�nission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, November 22, 1982 at 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Harvey, Leahy, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 8, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-57P FOR THE PROPOSED 350 ROOM GRAPdADA ROYALE HOMETEL PROJECT AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD CP Monroe referred to the Response to Comments document for Draft EIR-57P and Planning Commission Resolution No. 8-82 with Findings recommending the Final EIR to Council for review and action. Reference staff report for this item with attached resolution and Exhibit A, Significant Effects, Miti�ations and Findings. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the effect of using underground parking to reduce the FAR; clarified that Response to Comments to EIR-57P calls for an improvement to the existing sewer system by the city, not an expansion to the system; reducing the height of the hotel by one floor and/or eliminating the parking structure would eliminate the need for a Special Permit to exceed 1.0 FAR and would reduce view obstructions; Chm. Mink noted that Item #9 of Exhibit A"Significant Effects" should be changed to read "increase in jobs would result in increased need for housing in San Mateo County." The Commission acknowledged John Raiser who wished to speak on this item. He noted that this project will reduce or eliminate views from adjacent buildings and wanted this point more emphatically stated; SeaBreeze office building views of the bay will be eliminated. Chm. Mink acknowledged that the Final EIR does identify and discuss the impacts on views from adjacent structures. C. Giomi moved to recommend that Planning Commission Resolution No. 8-82 be approved and EIR-57P be forwarded to the City Council. Second by C. Harvey; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BATH HOUSE AND CABANA BEHIND THE EXISTING HOME AT 2614 SUMMIT DRIVE, BY CHARLES MAHNKEN CP Monroe reviewed this application to build a 119 SF recreational structure and 71 SF cabana at the rear of this property adjacent to the swimming pool. Reference staff P.C. 11/22/82 Item #3 MEMO T0: PLANNING CON�IISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2160 TROUSDALE DRIVE The applicant's representative, Mr. Spaulding, is requesting three special permits to build a 741 SF detached garage to replace a 350 SF garage at 2160 Trousdale Drive. The three special permits are required for height 17'-2" (maximum permitted 14'-0"), plate line 11'-3" (maximum permitted 10'-0") and square footage 741 SF (maximum permitted 500 SF) (Code Sec. 25.60.010). The proposed st�ucture meets lot coverage and setback requirements. The"additional height and area is being requested so the applicant can park his recreational vehicle in the garage. Staff reviewed the November 3, 1982) the property line. (memo of October 2 application. The Chief Building Inspector comments (memo of on ��he need for a survey and for keeping proposed gutters within The Fire Marshal (memo of October 25, 1982) and City Engineer 9., 1982 ) had no corrments . Spaulding Construction, representing the applicant, submitted two letters (October and October 14, 1982) presenting the project. In the letters they note that the reason for increasing the size of the garage is to enable the Frankes to park their 9'-3" high motor home inside the garage and to leave space to expand the house on the west side by 4' in the future. At the study meeting the Commissioners asked a number of questions (minutes of November 8, 1982). Staff diseussed these with the applicant's representative. A less pitched roof and lower over-all height could be obtained (see proposal #2 on plans) if the roof were rotated 90 degrees. However this alternative was not the choice of the applicant who prefers the surface of the roof to be visible from the front of the structure. The aerial photograph shows the relationship of existing structures to the proposed garage expansion. The aerial shows that the homes on that side of Trousdale are all abo_ut the same size and have about the same setbacks. The new garage would, 1�'ike'�`the .exi,'sting .garage at 2160, be adjacent to the neighbor's garage wh i ch i s al so ��iui-1 t` c'1`ose' to the property 1 i ne . The recreati onal vehi cl e to be housed would be 9'-3""i'n height.. The gross square footage of the proposed garage is 741 SF; the net or interior~ sguat�e footage.i.s, 696 SF. The Spaulding number of 675 apparently comes from measurting the interior net square footage. The plans appear to be drawn to scale. - _ _.. Planning staff would point out the proposed plans show no utilities In addition the area between the rafter and roof peak at maximum is the code height required for dwelling purposes. The clear interior and rafter is 10'-3", one foot above the top of the RV. within the structure. 4'-7", well below area between slab Planning Commission should hold a public hearing which should also consider the following staff condition: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 3, 1982 be met. � Marg ret Monroe City Planner cc: Spaulding Construction MM/s Mr. & Mrs. Edward Franke � 4—r � PROJECT APPLICATION ��.�CITY o� 2160 TROUSDALE DRIVE �t CEQA ASSESSMENT euRUNcatite project address .� � Franke Residence �b,��oW„�•'� Project name - if any Apptication received ( 10/14/82 ) Staff review/acceptance ( ) 1. APPLICANT Spaulding Construction 369-2066 name telephone no. h39-1 Bair Island Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 applicant's address: street, city, zip code John or Jim Spaulding 369-2066 contact person, if different telephone no. � � TYPE OF APPLICATION Special Perr^it ( X) Variance* O Ccnc+omi�ium Pernit O Other *Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Three SPECIAL PERMITS to construct a 741 SF detached aaraqe to replace an existing 350 SF garage: (1) maximum rnnf hPiaMt e� rmitted is 14'-0" !17'-2" is proposed); (2) maximum plate line permitted is 10'-0" (11'-3" is proposed); and 3 maximum nermitted area �� SF (741 SF is proposed�). The proposed struct�re meets lo� coveraqe and all setback requirements. The jnrraa�P in arPa and height is proposed in order to house a recreational vehicle in the structure. (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s): �; 25.60.010 ) ( � -� �� r0 +� U O O r � . �, r ••r � . � �� b � � �� a� o L r U � a� +-� � a1+�= � � N ¢oa� - �� • O r � M -a +-� �� o � � � � a� o � a � lQ N •r 1p � N .� � � N � O •r • .0 L U i-� r6 cn �3 s � 4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ( 025-09�-080 ) ( 22 ) ( 13 APN lot no. block no. ( R-1 ) ( 8,400 SF . zoning district land area, square feet Mr. and Mrs. Edward Franke land owner's name � Mills Estate No. 4 subdivision name 2160 Trousdale Drive address Burlingame. CA. 94010 Reauired Date received city zip code �� (no) ( - ) Proof of ownership ��es� (no) ( _ ) Owner's consent to application 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Single famil,� residence on level lot with detached garage. Required Date received (yes) #� ( 10/14/82► �YeS� %� � �� (YeS ) {� ( " ) �Yes) %� � �� ) (other) ( " ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and curbs; all structures and improvements; paved on-site parkino; landscaping. Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area by type of us�`'on each floor plan. Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant). Site cross section(s) (if relevant). letter of explanation *Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT PP,�IPOSAL NEW GARAGE ONLY Proposed construction, Below orade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF) gross floor area First floor ( % 4 1 SF) Third floor ( - SF) Project Code Project Code Pr000sal Requirement Proposal Requirement Front setback n,a , - Lot coverage 2$ , 3% 40% max. Side setback n.d. - Building height 1]'-2" jG.'-Q" Side yard 6" 0' * Pl aie l i_ne 11' -3" 10' -0" Rear yard 5'-0" �'* On-site pks.spaces 2 2 _ .. -- �- � 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) EXISTING IPl 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS after after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM Full tir�e emaloyees on site Part time emoloyees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Trin ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles "`Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES Residential uses on all adiacent lots. This use conforms to the General Plan. Required �j*�s� (no) �� (no) Date received - ) Location plan of adjacent properties. n.d. ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. firrns ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. comoany vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee $ () Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 () Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 () Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ (! TOTAL FEES $ 10�.�� RECEIPT N0. 5818 Received by H. Towber _ I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correc to the best of my knowledge and belief. SignaturE� � ,� �� Ua-te ��/ /p Z-- � �App l i c��i� . !�� .� r► r- /U *— fr� � STAFF USE ONLY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. The City of Burlingame by on , 19__, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: Categorically exempt: Existing Facilities, Class 1. ��,�,Q CITY PLANNER II � Si�gnatu e of Process'fno Official Title Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te posted, the deternination shall be final. DECLARATION OF POSTI^lG Date Posted: I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Ne�ative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to th� Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o 19 EVELvr� H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME .. �. � STAFF REVIEW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply receivec City Engineer ( 10/21/82 ) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) Fire Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no) memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERN$/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Con ce rn s Mitigation Measures Do the plans meet the require- Request comments from the Chief ments of the Fire and Building Fire and Chief Building Departments? Inspectors. Will the proposed design have Review site and plans. any adverse impacts on Request comments at the public adjacent properties? hearing. � 3. CEQA REQUIREMEPITS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: Is the project subject to CEQA review? No - categorically exempt. IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study completed Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed RFP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR accepted by staff Circulation to other agencies Study by P.C. Review period ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � � i � � � � 4. APPIICATIOPJ STATUS Date first received ( 10/14/82) Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aop licant advising info. required ( ) Yes( X) date 1�/21�82 P.C. study ( 11�8�82 ) Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) —(� Recommended date (/�� 2�� Z) Date staff report mailed �to oplicant (/�/!?l� �) Date Commission hearing (/1/z � � Application approved (✓) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) no Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication approved ( ) Denied ( ) � �D�C �►� 4 � signed da' te �� . - � � � �: � ;;� � � � ' � �;f �, � ' �� .s� � �� , � � � � � � '� �z ., � " ` �» rr " .� � : .. y � i'� aY��,� , � �`4 }y , j � � �^ ..+.� P:� V �" ,�` L` ��" �.. . :.+�`� "' 9dn'�� j 4 � L ' iiyN „ • +�,.'�• � ir. 4.. s� ` V., c♦ i. � �' �: . � � � � �� . � �.. 5� - x'� � �. a � �'�''i� ,y 1 . . 1 � {' ,�' �r.. � `�' � +4� �� .. , � :, A �'l, �o � 4 '� � � �� ^ � d � `• � � � � � } , ,,� � . � . �' i ! ' ; �� IN� f 5 �� {'. ?�' .. � .ryt . . �, .. � i, l ; �� ` � f ; , � . ~�. � y ��. �� Q� t ,"t F r: � s> v' - ,� �' 1 3"� ^� % , . �. � � � - w' �- '� i '� � t� 4�7 .�' t'� �.€ x'�S`'¢$� �e � . i,i e A � n �� , , � s, ,�.� ey _ G ' � �F -' ex �� ,- � � a�e .A ,,,, �. �`"� ,` s , x . ,,.. � . � �''"�, � � a; � � �� t� � 'y„ a�.... � � � f/� ',n' �a"" � ' n v , ,�' �+n. t9 -'��'�CY � �,. # g�3� � � � � a `" ��, * �Y� �� '. c ... � _ � '� .� � ��'� 1 � ,�,., ,` .; � * r � � '� '6 � 6 � ,�_. � �. � _ � > �, fa � K : � �, �, i E � �� '� � � z �°+� > ,� 4 ' �, - '*„ m k � ,��,�r � �� .N � ?� � � T � � �,.�� — � � � ^"? �t� ��"�S�` •�. '�`_A# �Pet, � . f.. �d '� 1��'�a`�L—n„�'f _� `�� k�,�`. ' i.�� . ` . ' r , • � . r _ � .. . '� , �.,..., w . A. ,`�` .: � ' �� . , d _?."'.�_. :C �— _ � � ��.� ` ,,� ! � ? (' '. l�:..*2 � �'+ . , ' ` Yf � � ' �,,., � �� .. � �'a � a > E �� k�, � � �� ., � �,. � • i � � F' �' .- �-�.' jp�� y��,t �v y �r "� .�ye^ �� T�T' ., . . .�.;�� `. �. � n � ` � � \. � "/'�-- _ / � � �� b � � .�FT,, � . � �w a ... . _ �.. �' f . s . t _ _— sr: k �, : �, y. . ._ _ f 4M S+ '� � �`f a,y� L �' � a. .� k. i x ; p s�p J �� aa "P. � .. , .. b . � `'� n '� ` . �.� ��`A d" � � � , � v. qy . �`, .�=' `` ', ' '° ; „�,�" fi r- � �;:>_ . `�,i � t Q�� i .. _�, �, - aM�N a— �pl �.t C"V�''' p� .' R� a f� r�N.J �''J � �� !,g �" � � ] � Z f M� �aS�� . ..' r�� °«i'' 4 �. ; i °�` � . . �.. � "� � "�', r _ � �� ; ^�,r%�W'� �:��4��4( #Rr � .. �* � � �� '�k � .. fi _ ♦ ''� & �� . �4a'm �' . , 3� " � �. - �. e �pe 't ' . � J i '��'^+"-�� fi 1 �� ' • � � Y�p � �• '. :� K.. � . ,�,.,� �� —. . �„ �' :� �.,_,y� � { , — p � �.� � j , � f� � _ r � � .h 1 �� * � i . -�� , � � � / � a,� �� ' � "�at ' � `' `; � �S �` � �� v`i. �� E 9 - : ` �- a° : / �� .v� � � � -"�," . :. � - . � .� Y � r ;`�.. �� /� � �. � !� �, � I �� N �� , � r - f � � � � �, � ��_✓�� W �.. '� �,ys� � y;: � � 1 1 4 �� "� T // w � "n�"p t •ix' .. . � � � « ��' � y� n+� °:�� . .. ... � �"M:..:.� � � � � �.a?"" z � . ; � � s } �� ,� a ' � _'S . . . � � � - ��:� •'{�.�'��..: , �* �,#� �: `3� '�� . � a , � � � — � - p . " . ; ay� ' . � ;s : ,.. '1` .� � .M �:.:. - :' .. , � �.�. ,�i � ;ak�'£.a' �� . . � Y — . , . 4 ; �' . _... .. �..ic...- � � � :. . � . � � r x�:' - _..,.---�"' � — s s f. `� � r y. 'i,'` 'u` �, �� ;: r, • „ y . � ' � . .�"' '� - � � � yA� 3 � � � , � + � � �� rYy � �- ' �. — � � a, . ,� �� ,� �, � , y.p�p � � � » �.. µ f ��1�. _ - �-- � �p..�. i '[' rM' �� „ �: �' ... � �� .: .. � i� '- d "w � .. - � _ _ - Ff }"��., s ."i,. e . . . — . � � � : � �; `.p �+` : ; ' � t �:. �� ! .,- _ 1 i� m -. yl �M > � a . � . �_ � 9✓"a!k � � � . � �— � �, � . % `. i G � i � +YA � r ti `�Y'� � t��k� � ��f $r' �4' _. • 1 + - l. � I �� _' ,` , '+•, ` .�, _ �r h:.� — ��' � . . ; � �� a.� �rr.e�..� � v ` t " a � �y,yi� �` �� w..�.�'►��%' l� � { r : � _ "s � �� ` . �, v . v ,y�� ' � f "b� s � -� �.: ��. � �. �4 � � ..,# ,�; , � k ,� , '• � � � �� s � ; r� � � � ,�� „ � �!► C,.q�, , �� .�� ; � ,�,�,� - E��4D �� ` � � ,��:� � . . .� ,4 _ �� _ p�'V _ _ � . �� G ��a ; ... �� ' �: . �, � �;p �' i�� , . . , � �� ' �� ' �� _ . � _ � . , ,. � , , ' . ..K' . z.. , . . � �rt;..:.`kS ' w Y� .Sy�''� gyc, �� '� � K �.� � "__ � a � ^ � �.. 7 � �: �: _ _ ��'' �dn , � � � . � _ +�►�-, �� .� � ��. , � � � ;� ��,. � - �, �— *� � `: ' �- . `� � — � -- � ,�" � � � . ., � . — ,-: -� �it►� � " - � ..', �� . ;� - � � ��. � � r �: � , � � t �_ � r �.. � � ;�"� - e�• "s:�.: . , 1� s'�`� ,.. , - - �`. �' . 4''� � . _ � ' .�: 5r h ;M1 ,� ` ��_ � .�y � ,�;;. ,y� �'� �/4+ '� � .: � r : _i- �, '� : •�' �� ? '-� - � � , . �+r a� � ► ,-.� .�"�' . . .-. _ . . �' . . r_, .�C . �. '�` r. INTER-OFFICE MEMO To PZanning Department From: BuiZding Division Nov, 3, 1982 RE: 2160 TrousdaZe Dr, ShouZd the appZication be approved, the BZIZZLl�2YGg D27JZSZOYI recommends the foZZozuing items be a eondition of the approvaZ. 1. Copz� of survey be submitted to BuiZding Division before foundation inspection is eaZZed. 2. Eave pro�jection incZuding rain gutters eannot extend beyond property Zine. PK/pma ��:�tv�� NOV3A�� Pete Kriner �y�v^� . Ch2ef BuiZding Inspector C� pLANNING pEp ME October 21, 1982 MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR ��-�� INSPECTOR FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: PROPOSED 741 SF GARAGE AT 2160 TROUSDALE bRIVE Attached are plans and the project assessment for this proposed garage addition. Please review the plans. They will be on the November 8, 1982 Planning Commission agenda for study. Your comments are due November 10. Thanks. `rv`� �� Helen Towber Planner HT/s Att. �� Zs - I�-� S 0 e,Pr��" rn�� i� �o C�orn rh,e�� o Y� �� S�O�O,S �� . � 0 V��S g.� Q. /�/ZsI ��i � /y� 9//lGG�J"/� ��V V � ��` �� .v�„� ��/7 ci�-, �� .�� G�� / ��,�� October 1,1982 Mr. and Mrs. ]�urham 2158 Trousdale Blvd. Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Franke Residence �i��►�1rV�Ily OCT 1 � 1982 CITV OF BURLINGAME PLANN1h;c pEpL Dear Mr. and Mrs. Durham; Our firm is presen-�ly submitting plans, to zhe ci-ty of Burlingame, for an expansion to the garage at the Franke residence, 2160 Trousdale Drive. The scope of the add- ition will be to increase the garage size from 350 square feet to 675 square feet. This expansion will enable Mr. and Mrs. Franke to park their motor home in the garage. If you no objections to these plans, please sign below. � Thank you for your co-operation. Sincerely, : � ; `,. - ,'�t�/�� j',r,-�i�C� L�[.'L�i� �G_.�'i/ _..r' � ,/ L' John Spaulding �� o 0 C�o��c� �o� C�oo 63J BAIR ISLAND F10AD, REDWOOD CITY, CA. J4063 415/369-2066 October 14, 1982 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: Franke Residence 2160 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Dear Gentlemen; ��:�YV�� OCT 14 1982 CITY OF BURLINGAME PUINNINC DEPT. Our firm presently has a contract, with Mr. & Mrs. Edward Franke, to expand the existing detached two car garage, at 2160 Trousdale Drive, Burlingame, contingent upon the approval of City Council. The garage expansion is for the sole purpose of parking their Recreation Vehicle out of sight and weather and also to provide additional space for future expansion of the west side of their residence by approximatily four feet. Your consideration of this matter is appriecated. Sincerely yours, , John Spaulding .7P �� o0 C�O��f��'�C� �O� C�Oo 63J BAIR ISLAND FiOAD, REDWOOD CITY, CA. J4063 415/36J-2066 � .. . .. r � " Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1982 Municipal Code Section 18.08.240 of the Building Code; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 9/15/82; aerial photograph; Exhibits A-D, Park Corporation Building Study; September 29, 1982 memo from Kris Konecny, Park Project Coordinator; Park Corp. Yard Landscaping Plan dated 11/1/82; October 12, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; "no comments" memo from the City Engineer; October 18, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; study meeting minutes of October 25, 1982; November 2, 1982 memo, Architectural Review of Park Corporation Yard Building, from Kris Konecny; Wall System drawing, stylwall panel and insulation and interior surfacing method. CP discussed details of this proposal, staff review, Commission comments at the study session, and showed samples of the proposed exterior material. She noted code requirements of Sec. 18.08.2�0 and five suggested criteria for Commission review. Planning staff recorranended findings be made on the basis of these criteria; three conditions of approval were suggested. Kris Konecny, Park Project Coordinator, was present representing the Park Department. Discussion: comparative costs of inetal and block buildings; Fire Department has determined this type of structure is safe for the intended use; the building will be placed on a slab foundation; no major mechanical work will be done there. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the hearing closed. Commission comment: this building is the best alternative proposed in a number of years. Addressing design criteria enumerated in the staff report, it was found the height is compatible with the area, glare or light reflection will not be a problem, the building and its color are compatible with its setting, and construction material is compatible with its intended use. It was pointed out the entire building would be insulated; the office space insulated and heated. C. Harvey moved to accept this desiqn as submitted with the following cond�tions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of October 12, 1982 and the Fire Marshal's memo of October 18, 1982 be met; (2) that the landscaping be installed as proposed in the landscape plan dated November 1, 1982; and (3) that the final building plans and siting of the building be consistent with the plans dated October 8, 1982. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 119 SF BATH HOUSE AND A 71 SF CABANA BEHIND THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 2614 SUMMIT DRIVE Requests: drawing which shows the drainage from the roof area of the bath houses; setbacks from the structures as proposed to the property line; graphic showing nearest structure on adjacent property. Item set for hearing November 22, 1982. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 741 SF DETACHED GARAGE AT 2160 TROUSDALE DRIVE THAT EXCEEDS CODE STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT, PLATE LINE AND FLOOR AREA Requests: reason why a roof with lesser pitch could not be used; aerial photograph to see relationship to adjacent neighboring structures; height of vehicle to be stored in the garage; check square footage of the proposed garage. Item set for hearing November 22, 1982. _ , _. � , Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting of November 1, 1982: Page 4 November 8, 1982 - Approved the revised Anza/Owen Office Park project, 477 Airport Boulevard, to be confirmed by resolution at their November 15 meeting. ' - Continued the revocation hearing for Davis Banquet and Party Center, 1450 Rollins Road with the condition that affairs contracted through December 18 be allowed but no other affairs contracted for. The Horns (property owners) to present a concrete proposal for the use of this site for Council review prior to December 18. - Approved a revised Bayfront Traffic Allocation procedure; denied extension of traffic allocation request for BayBreeze office project, 1484 Bayshore Highway. - Introduced Ordinance Limiting Retail, Office and Dwelling Uses in the M-1 Zone. - Approved the Negative Declaration on the Housing Element amendment, scheduled for hearing and action November 15. - Appeal of Commission's denial of the snack bar at 801 Mahler Road was set for hearing November 15. CP reported BCDC had approved Phase I of the Marriott Hotel project, 700 rooms, and Marriott expects to corrmence construction in March, 1983. She also reported Council's concern about businesses fronting on alleys or public parking lots. ACKNOWLEDGMENT October 12, 1982 letter from Janet K. Fernandez, new owner of La Petite Cafe, 851 Burlway Road, confirming her review of the conditions of the use permit previously granted to the property by the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT � The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary 0 November 12, 1982 MEMO TO FILE: 2160 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM: PLANNER SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 741 SF GARAGE At the 11/8/82 study session the Planning Commission requested some additional information for the public hearing of this application. In conversations with the architect on 11/10 and 11/12 the following was discussed: 1. The 4-in-12 pitch of the proposed roof design cannot be reduced because wood shakes are being used. A steeper pitch is required for adequate drainage. 2. The over-all height of the recreational vehicle is 9'-3". 3. The gross floor area of the proposed structure is 741 SF; minus the 5" walls, the net floor area is 696 SF. /,�.�....-�".�-- Helen Towber Planner HT/s October 21, 1982 MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR CHIEF FIRE INSPECTOR FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: PROPOSED 741 SF GARAGE AT 2160 TROUSDALE �RIVE Attached are plans and the project assessment for this proposed garage addition. Please review the plans. They will be on the November 8, 1982 Planning Commission agenda for study. Your cor�nents are due November 10. Thanks. ��-�`� �� Helen Towber Planner HT/s Att. , . STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ) I, Marnaret P1onroe, declare: I am the City Planner of the City of Burlingame. On November 12 , 1982 , I deposited in the United States Post Office at Burlingame, California, with postage thereon prepaid, Notices of Hearing on the application for Special Permit pertaining to the property designated as 2160 Trousdale Drive a copy of which notice is attached hereto. Said notice was mailed to all property owners named on the attached list and to each person named in said application, which is incorporated herein as if the same were set forth in full. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Burlingame, California, on November 12 198 2 . � � MAR ARET MONROE CITY PLANNER