HomeMy WebLinkAbout2713 Trousdale Drive - Staff Reportr- ---
�,��,,;��,
�''�
MEMO T0:
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNER
P.C. 11/14/88
Item #
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 152 SF GAZEBO
AT 2713 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Shashi Desai, applicant and property owner is requesting a
Special Permit to construct a 152 SF (14� diameter) gazebo next
to the existing pool and spa towards the middle of the lot at
2713 Trousdale Drive, zoned R-1. A Special Permit is required
for any gazebo which exceeds 50 SF of area (Code Section
25.60.010 n). This lot slopes sharply to the rear. The gazebo
will be built in the flat area immediately behind the house.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The City Engineer
(September 26, 1988 memo), the Chief Building Inspector (October
3, 1988 memo) and the Fire Marshal (September 20, 1988 memo) had
no comments.
Planning staff would note that the proposed gazebo will be placed
toward the middle of the lot. The first half of the lot is
level; the rear half of the lot has a steep slope upwards.
Anplicant's Letter
The applicant has been informed of the requirement of a letter
explaining the purpose and need of the proposed project, however,
he did not submit a letter.
5tudy Ouestions
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their study
meeting on October 24, 1988 (Planning Commission minutes October
24, 1988) and requested clarification of the diameter of the
gazebo. The structure will have a 14' diameter, it will be
built in the shape of an octagon and will have a total area of
152 SF. Maximum height of this structure will be 11'.
Plannina Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reasons
for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the 152 SF gazebo shall be constructed as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
September 23, 1988; and
2. that the gazebo shall never be enclosed or converted to any
other use without prior approval of the Planning Commission.
C���i � ' ��
Adriana Garefalos cc: Shashi Desai
Planner Earl Hinrichs
PROJECT APPLICATION
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT
�
Application received ( 9/23/$$
Staff review/acceptance (
R�d��TY °� 2713 TROUSDALE DRIVE
BURLINGAME project address
����w��f'' Iproject name - if any
)
1. APPLICANT $hdS{11 Desai 692-03Q2
name telephone no.
2713 Trousdale Qrive, Burlingame, CA 94010
5-� t`��rik.. t-le-k�►.w PI�� applicant s address: street, city, zip code
�a D�e C� 951�� Earl Hinrichs, Sierra Custom Pools, (408) 224-8615
►'� � contact person, if different 3O3 CO11V@I1t1011 Wd�/, telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION $te.6, Redwood City, �A 94063
Specia.l Per�it ( X) Variance* O Condomi�ium Permit O Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SPECIAL PERMIT to construct a 152 SF (ly' diameter) gazebo.
A gazebo over 50 SF of area requires review b_y the Planning
Commission. The structure wfill be 11' high. All setbacks
and lot coverage requirements will be met.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): (25.60.�J10-►1) (
n. PROPERTY IDE�ITIFICATION
(025-012-320 ) ( 48 � � 30
APN lot no. block no.
( R-1 ) ( 17,544 SF±
zoning district land area, square feet
Shashikant P. & L. S. Desai
land owner's name
�Mills Estate No. 11
subdivision name
2713 Trousdale Drive
address
Burlinqame, CA 94010
Renuire�! Date received city zip code
(y�) (no) ( - ) Proof of ownershi�
(�) (no) ( - ) Owner's consent to a�plication
5. EXISTIPlG SITE CONDITIONS
Sinqle familx home with pool and spa
Reo,uired Date received
(yes) (�) ( 9/23/88 )
(yes) (no) ( )
iyes ) (no) ( le� I �� 88 )
(yes) (no) ( )
(other) (MISSING )
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
c�!rbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on-site parking; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of usc�`on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
1PttPr of Pxnlanation
*Land use classifications are: residential (sho�y # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT Pf?�F�SAL NE��J GAZEBO ONLY
Proposed c^nsi.��-uction, "elow orade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF)
qross floor area First floor ( 1.� � SF) Third floor ( - �F)
Pro.lect Coc�e
Pr•ooasal Requi r�mc�ni,
Front setback n d _ __
Side setback n a
Side yard 11' %' min.
�---
°''r var" 100'+ �� 15' min.
�roject Code
Proposal Requirement
Lct cover�;�e 13/± 0°0 111dX.
rui i:t �ri�� hei�nt 11' -� 14' 17dX �
Lardsc�zned area nl � a I '
� -�
nn �ite okc�.sn,ice� � n/a � �
a..
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
EXISTING IPI 2 YEARS IDl 5 YEARS
after after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full tine employees 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 senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on adjacent lots; th,is use conforms to
the General Plan.
Required Date received
(y�) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(,�es) (no) ( - ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firr.is ( ) 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 (X ) Other application type, fee 5 ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts 5 40 () Project Assessment � 25 Q( )
Variance/other districts 3 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 Q( )
Condominium Permit � 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ (
TOTAL FEES 3 15� . �� RECEI PT N0. 3413 Recei ved by B.41h i ttemore
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and cor q the best of my knowledge and belief.
�` rl `' �� C j' �`� ��
Signature Date
nnli t "—
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Imoact Report is required.
19
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Categorically exempt per CEQA Code Section
_ 15303 (e), construction of accessory
structures
Ri`c__ C� t �_I���
igna re of Processing Official itle Daie S gned
Unless �onealed within 10 days hereof the r�ate oosted, the deterr.iination shall be final.
DECL,4"ATIO^! OF FOSTI�IG Da1:e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjnry �hat T ar� Cit,y Cler� of the City of 6urlingame and that
I �osted a true copy or" the abo��e fJe��ti�•e Ceclar�tion ai; the Cit�� Hall of said City near
the doors to ih� Council Charabers.
-xecuted a� ;urlingame, �alifornia o��
^,r,aeal,��f: ( !Yes ( )"n
, 19
-- 11I-,---",Lf'„T?. .,-` _,.. . ..,, " ;L:;LI'i��„�E
__- _—.�__._. __._.....- •_.. � -.- _ .
{ _�^,,;,w*_-: �.- � ,- ._- .. .� . _ __... _
STAFF REUIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer ( 9/26/88 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( " ) (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 CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOPI MEASUP.ES
Concerns Mitigation Measures
3. CEQA REQUIREP4EPlTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Categorically exempt
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Ini ti al Study cor�ol eted
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
ZFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR acce�ted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
�
�
�
�
c
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
>
�
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review oeriod ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.0
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
i
)
4. APPLICATIOPd STATUS Date first received ( 9/23/88 )
Accepted as comolete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 10/24/88)
Is application ready for e!�ublic hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( )
Date staff report mailed� aoplicant (►rlCr/�� ) Date Correnission hearing (J///cf �'�l
Application approved (✓ 1 Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) no)
Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
-�n �. ��. � .
signed date
._- _- �-- -
- - - ---. . _-- - - - -- - -- -
- I�. �' --� - �-
� � S�_�. "
- ��+� ��.��- ---
: �,--�------�---
-�------ - - =4-. ,
' f -- - � --_- -_ ' ,
� _!. . _- - . - - . : -. - � .
. _-- -- -
���_�___�_ _� ---� � ��_--
�� , � ,,
__ _� _
� �€ - � �___-__�_-�-- __
���__ �� , .
. .- �--4 � � � 1- �l/��� G -
---����'si-�=�-Y - ----. _
_--�--
1
���������
OCT181988
CITY C�� OURLiP�Gt1M�
ni r •�^•ll� �r: !7r.��t,
DATE: � 2�— �
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DI�ECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: � �% /
��
�. - s �
�4C� ZP � C�
An applica�tion has been received for the above p roject for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for
at their �L�-. 2� �q �� meeting. We would appreciate havi
your comments by ��. �j, [q'�?�
Thank you.
� . - ���,��
�,
��- - ` ����
�' z� ��
� ��,
��� ,
,,2-� .
a ��
�
r
DATE: � 26— ��
�.
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DI(2ECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: P�ANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: � �' / �j ���Q�S�� pf��•
- s�
1 �
An applica�tion has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �
at their G+. Z� ,�q �� meeting. We would appreciate havi
your comments by �C�. �, �q� /� _ ?_��
�J
Thank you. , � ��.��
TLf � �� %7 n i N- /
� �C! i / l v�- f� �f � ~
/��'�w • ,
/�0 ���f.��rG'�/`
� • ,.
G' ,� • �.�
f .
DATE : � 26' �
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDI�NG SPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DI�2ECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: �% I v r��BtJ<S��Q �IT�J• � 0; �
O �S' D C�. � C.�.
An application has been received for the above p roject for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for
at their ��. Z� ,�q �� meeting. We would appreciate havi
your comments by �G�. 3, [q'�
Thank you.
�- � � �- � ���
�« C� � � �---�._�-? �
�� �
y - .�v .-- ��
,
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSIGN
OCTOBER 24, 1988 _
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, October 24, 1988
at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: Commissioner Garcia
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 11, 1988 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - With a change to the description of Study Item #1 to
read ". .. a 152 SF gazebo at 2713 Trousdale Drive
...�� order of the agenda was approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 152 SF GAZEBO - 2713 TROUSDALE
DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Request: diameter of gazebo. Item set for public hearing November
14, 1988.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE PROJECT - 1128 CHULA
VISTA AVENUE, ZONED C-1
Requests: are the residential units to be condominiums or
apartments; will residential parking be separate from commercial
parking, how will this parking be kept separated; identify proper
address; list of existing nonconforming commercial uses in this
area which might impact parking; how will the project be policed to
assure retail space does not expand; are aIl handicap requirements
met; parking requirements for uses on site. Item set for public
hearing November 14, 1988.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
October 24, 1988
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A MEETING ROOM AT THE IBIS HOTEL FOR
CLASSES - 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Requests: can the use permit be limited; how long have classes been
held on this site. Item set for public hearing November 14, 1988.
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO TWO
LOTS - 1249 VANCOWER AVENUE
Requests: explain alternate upper driveway, is this an option; has
Hillsborough been made aware of this application; number of
driveways. Item set for public hearing November 14, 1988.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
5. VARIANCE TO REAR SETBACK FOR A DECK TO BE CANTILEVERED OVER
A CREEK EXTENDING TO WITHIN 5' OF PROPERTY LINE AT 433
OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/24/88, with attachments. CP noted the
neighbor to the rear has requested a continuance of this item;
neighbor was present and withdrew his request.
CP Monroe reviewed details of the application, the previous request
and city action, Commission/Council requests and guidelines for
review when the previous application was denied without prejudice,
staff review of the current proposal, Planning Department comment,
Council�s recent adoption of an interim urgency ordinance regarding
development on lots with a portion of creek on them (processing of
this application is not affected by this ordinance), applicants�
letter, comment from the neighbor to the rear, findings necessary
for variance approval. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. If the first floor deck is
denied and Commission wished to consider the existing second floor
deck, one condition was suggested.
CA commented that in view of Council�s action adopting the urgency
ordinance Commission could use Council�s policy stated in this
ordinance as one justification for denial if they felt it
appropriate. y
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Donald and Pamela Asplund,
applicants, were present. Mr. Asplund�s comments: they have
attempted to meet the concerns expressed about their previous
application, the 176 SF portion of deck built on footings has been
eliminated, the larger first floor deck and the smaller existing
second floor deck have been retained, the proposed deck will be
cantilevered from the house by steel beams, a long narrow deck
would be too expensive because of the cost of supports, the current
plans have been drawn by a civil engineer supported by a soils
engineer, from the rear this deck will appear as a shelf.
t� ��"�'; ii � �►-,:,. ,� :.�• »�.
� . r
�� � � � ..�� � . .at
. `' � i rw' , ` ��
• •�'h t "A Y� � Yi-4�.
f�'" ,� `l: ` . . 3. ' �'s�
.,, , -, �. . �.g.,^��' .
� �� � �.
"? iC
�`-„k'°� '4 �' „'� �,y• \ t�t
, � F, �
L � a�{�"�
_ i • �� A x �- 4.
� � �`� � - z � , ±� � y �+"� ....
` M1 ��� i `
''��� � ` ry �
"�K � a• �- �, -� * -f � t
, i � .'=�• M1 �'�'� ' �5��`"� '� •
�, . ' �
� i k•
, ti .� . �: ;
:'�' '' � " '��`�: - - , r - '.�
.�^�, ` ,� �� r : ; •�
, �� „�� -��� - -, "�
�� �,
♦ Y I �v .
...� .. �# �$� �s �. !•'.� �`�' � J I+._ ► ,��,
� J
,:%. '� :, "•� s • '.
.
.�•
c e ���� �
,,�,� � ��- ,. : �, �.:
���� ;� � ° � ��F,
� � � � � - �� � ¢ � -� �� z �'�-� �
� F �
�,_
o� � `�- � .� ���� ��� � ,. � __
h f3 � T.. � :NiT4 itY M � r•.�.� �, �
�{jy,��.,,� y� 1, ��� + M '.1 � `�,y�n e
� s "' Y.� "4" r ' r�'n. R'y s
/'J,,. a '�� �- . �' '��"l '� r�._ �:
,: �i
��.,,, ° '�"y , .� ,
,- � '.� ; � <j � x �.
���. ;�. • � �
�
� ,.
,. 'ts
� .��.�_
., ��� �
���
; � ,
.
� } '_ .� ,; , .L ��. �
.., � � .; � �.a'"-t,, ';?'!�' . \ � ; �; � -
:.��� c�� � , .�t:, ''x-°ia � � ' �:��„ � =�' "•• �
� .
�� ' ,�a� �m �?� " '�� �ti� �i� � -� ' �
�;�.. a 4 � .. ; ♦ J4 � 1ti 1, • -�'ti r. ' �K`+j` . ��-, � � ::�F � i
� � 8.'� � ' - ,f �+l.a�c'�O' - ,� ls n �
� .:I � '��. `, rM��'u� ��'V�. �.�f .Y�
''► r . ,;..,. ; t �. n � �,
� y .� }. , �� y�� �� � f .�i �.a '.
�� ��� .!► ��>�,.�� `� ' � �� �, ` -
- �_ ,p� �r y � � ° �,. ' � � �.x � , . .. �,
.�.t. , � � � aj
# � �„ 4K:• � '�•"t �1�+' „} ^�.,�� � . :p �,.```_
� �'�ii; + � � �; "j��.�7..�":, � �, � i ��� .-'}✓' -.,.�,*� .� .
♦ i R � ��' . ` SP �� � \ . � F`,� . rf�4 � �\ ��, �' W , �
A �. � y �r,� S
�� 4� � _ . � � � k.�y, ,y �`" '�1� � ? ` �l.+ ���l�t
V�` � � •• 1 J ?� '�; A g�.. , �� � i1 :'���, .
.,�, � *' � . 3 a rP�:- � r'�..G �' ;. � �� � : p' yp �
a�� . � �'�� t ya '"!.' " �.a'�'n� i
� .� ~x� ���"/�+ � � ��.. � �� `µ,� µ � `�',,.s S i ?� � ♦ i "� � � ti.�� +", � � �
� � � . � � � � ��� � � � �• .
�y J : r�a� �'����" /� � � �, ��3' �a' " :3�. • �,f . �t�„ �{ .. � fi. ,� , �,,
�S"�� ""����y,='� #a- ' , � '. � 8� ��. � � • • L�,, .\ ��w �� •
• R.
' I �.� . ;f''t d F 7,�'^F' . � � .C.. y
t. �a .. � �..
_'� l, � .'� ` 4�{.�Sa , �a' �{ .,`r�' : ,� ..�� _, i';A��. � \ .�.
.• � .
. �S' "� "
" � .� " � . � ...,�. .. � t �
, y •�
,` .
,
) M1
...: =�► ` � r'�'�� ,, k �,. ep � . -� � �:t 1.,;,a `� 4 , ��•�1 � ,�.
,� � � �
t `� ;�'�w�Y ..
,yd" . t s�s, .1.
�:�� ��I : fl,s � k �,� �� o` � � �`..;. "Lr,�;. , ,� � , "1' �y �:.
Z�'A+� � k3,7"'� 3x�� �- i.�, i r-.
.�' � "� �, - .,��''►� '��, �.�_ _ ,i� ,
t 'a .�, • ' ,�yy `'1
� • • • � t� -+F3 . �. ' t• `'�c
�' .�,� � �i .,�` �,�. -'j a ` ��F,r �. +�
. ,
•>, t�
�� - t' ` ►x ,� 4i� `�< "•!". ., ��, �"�
`� � �'✓ � .• . :,� �S i.�. ���:' . w� �n �'t3. � ._ ;+s�, --�--m'' " 2
.. ,�,l.i',� ,�r,ib.r � ~� �`� .�� . �{"'J «° 't- � '� ��
`.y � wY?'�.�'.: �v �,,.,�7 f'ir4,' �%� � I ' � Y,'f � �; + �, �
'�. ;�A .� • '�� � ,� �
i • �
� ��
� i� � a a,`�..,, �Q:. .�� ��" s
�
w
'T��
��
*��
� ,. `
�
�4s. �
�he C�i�� �f �u��Iirtg�mP
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
SPECtAL PERMIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 14th day of November, 1988 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application to construct a 152 s.F. Gazebo, at 2713 Trousdale
Dr. ZONED R-1.
0
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLAN�JER
NOVEMBER 4, 1988
�
RESOLUTION NO.
�
RESOLVED
Burlingame that:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPE IAL PERMIT
by the Planning Commission of the City of
WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit for
CONSTRUCTION OF A 152 SF (14' DIAMETER) GAZEBO
at 2713 TROUSDALE DRIVE
, ( APN 025-012-320 �
and �
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on NOVEMBER 14. , 1 88, at wh.ich time it reviewed
and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this
Planning Commission that said special permit is approved, subject
to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A'� attached hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San
Mateo.
RUTH E . JACOBS
CHAIRMAN
I, MIKE ELLIS, 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 14th day of NOVEMBER
1988 by the following vote: �
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MIKE ELLIS
SECRETARY
6. PROJECT PROPOSAI (continued)
Full ti�e emuloyees 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
EXISTING IPl 2 YEARS IPI 5 YEARS
after after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on adjacent lots; this use conforms to
the General Plan.
Required Date received
(y�s) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(y�s) (no) ( - ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firris ( ) 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 $100 (X ) Other application type, fee�$ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 O Project Assessment $ 25 �( )
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 Q( )
Condominium Permit $ 50 O EIR/City & consultant fees $ O
TOTAL FEES $ 15� . �� RECEI PT N0. 3413 Recei ved by B• 4Jh i ttemore
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and cor.ree� the best of my knowledge and belief.
/ . ' ' ' , �� -, � C. ,� 4/
t__._ �` t , C � �
1
Signature `� � u"� � �� Date �
�-9�r_�.ti �
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 Tmoact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Categorically exempt per CEQA Code Section
15303 (el� construction of accessory
structures
igna re of Processin1v Official
C� � --- �,--i-#-�
itle Daie S gned
Unless �!�nealed within 10 days hereof the ��te oosted, the deterr.iination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF FOSTING Dai:e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perj�iry ihat T ar� City Cler� of the City of Burlingame and that
I �osted a true copy of the above Ne�ati��e �eclar�tion ac the City Hall of said City near
the doors to ih� Council Charabers.
-xecuted at ;urlingame, California on
Apoeal��ci: ( )Yes ( )f!o
19
;l1DITFf �l. "AI_F�1TTI, CITY CLERK, CIT`, �' �L'ftLINGAfiE
�i--
���' � �� �
': . �� �'.s :>e �
�.,� �a. i � r��r _ �<; � �. .
°F' r ,
#..� ,� �L ��'�„�.� ,�
�,� V�� Y , � ~� }� A � i � � � ��4 � �
_ "'_ ' ' � 3` . � � _ ,M . •�+ ",��- �.. . �, M
` ��� � � _ � � � `� � � .;;; ,�p` � �4-t" 7
,
s" �. "� °b'� � R, t "�' ' . � �." ; x�., F, 6i „?� �dy_i�
�, � � -
�
.: `p4�;�,��. i4, e; .. � , °' 'A' � �� �' �
, � � �. e'V 3' � y� �i�'. jy>� <i�o .� ° �
v� � �� �k ,� 6 �, � � � v � Mi` F T3 �� �� ��r . \j r >f
::�. � aer .�, ` -� � .. a i +� � �� ,�`A�, �,,.�'.�;;. � :� �a
. -' � , b� . �� .i � T 3 t T • . �.� .. �". <tl� Y.� .
� r . �:.
` � � � � -� � � �,� '� •� ''� �Sfi'�5;;; �� � �-3« � ',. �'�- i4 ��,. ;c�'
4 {` � � ^s� � a. '� { -A- e� l� � ` J � `5 '�y.4�� ^ �� �. ..
� � ���;..
\ , �`K. , �'i,�,.yp���. .s. .9"� w
. -;� f, � bt. 2� � .����'
�y[� .4 � -;�i
���� ��4� � ' � 4_ ..RF.a'� i:� —�_ .1',��y. ' -
,.t." . � �*f�Y'�' � � �,��' ', C- ' ii *K ,r �t .'� . ("cY'. .�w � �t:
, ��� . .
��ri i �� j� � * :� `_ � y�', ' y'�. ��.� !k . `�, . .�"��. � � "� �' �i
�fs�, �..- \/� ` . .. , , � ..t, :?� �r �.1. *� t•:. . ��
`�' � � ��� � y � �� t' , * �����
,. � � �� � � �
� :C�j ��i;.� y ` .�.+,
� .� I�"'t • � ^5�x..
s• �
q �`� ' � � � F' s� � ` � �` - �'- �l "h
1 � } ' f ' ap_ �.� • .a�.� '�.
; �,� � ¢y, `i� � '* ��. < ,�,• �i..^ - � � ` �� '� .� ^ ik �^e d xi. * � , y_ . � �
�� 6A *i�+ .. ' � � +. � �.. . y-� iF �5.14' .
ay �'. �? . � �, � �.J'�- ;�,�
� � . . _ �
�.us��"'� , �` .� �tiy �:r, �1 e: � . •�:. �'{ � . ` '•A�
_ � . �' '�� �c� � , �,� . � � i ' � � .
/` ,'� ` � '� �' i� :'� �� �°= y ' � � � ���.
°, � " ,� , � � , �r i `' .. � ,I �, �,a�;-� �: ``"� ,����,
� .+��y
. � , ,
1 � •
4 . K � �' . �. ' � ;.., �, .'�=;:� . �a.�t -- 1 �, ' 9?�
� -._ " .�, . '��" t .. .. . ,� �3' 1
�.�� �£ � �, ' � ��/ ,' k 4 • ' �'µ � ���t� 4 ��
� ��,' � �",� �+. � � �,j +^ n
��,� � • � ,� ,� � °. �y
��'' .� � � '� � ' z�'� `� `: � � � _�ir�' . �' � � � �S ��` "�"� . . '�+
. ." � � � `•�. ' , q, � . . :: ,..: ` /�µ . �,
� L Y 7 .. � ' � '^' �., � F � `..� ^ '+y �:
� � ' �..'. . . / � �. � �4 ^ � � � ' ,. � �r ^B
T
� _ ' r � " „Cvtl� .'L' eit,,�y �
v .lvC• `�, \ "� €� 6» •'.��� *�`` �i 'k •/,L
Q "�" _=:� +! _ �,
�e"4 . ,�'� ���� �,f � ����4 � - � �:.�,� �4 s� td' } e�''� i
� :_x�a. ��. � f 4�e „ ..�� :� �
� 1 (� . i� , tt � � : «
�� � ' �„� '�" �'e � ��t " � �� �:. �.�'��� �� ��y. �,�ay�\� ,,�; y �'�"+�,-�.� ���q r�,���-�
;: p .� � .: �. 7r � _ `+? 1.A ..�y,Si �...s ( J� ,��,` �
'��`��, " / .'.h � �J '� �, � �'� F � „
a, � "�.', �, a r: �� � 4, �ji, ��a��.,,'� y`.� 'r^� ` �s
�., � _ / �, y" � � `�` '_�` � � ' � • � �. �,,. � ` • � .� �
,
�/ � J' ,�r� }!�� _` ' . �"'e.. �.v �_-� 4 � � �`� :Jr� s ,�„ ,e ;..#
i �. T y'' m° �' " �� ��: � ��
F �- � � �� : °�' , .., �s.' a .� � ,
'� � �i�� 4 �� 4, � x i a � �, .<'` � ����� ,� ��' ~ � �� ���+ -
�..� 1 � 3� �� �� a'C,� �' �J. �, 1, . �c * . �f .'L' . �� l � L Y�,• . � �'� � .
� !' •, t �, � ����� � �" _ ,
# '. s�'. . .. � � �",^ W }��� Y�� Y �' � �� F .��. • � . fi � Ys•f.
S? � :?� a` �. �hc ,, � � � X{ �_ �tJ,
! dF„` W� 4� �".t ` , �'a4,a ��� � ' .. �4 K, : ���' �/}� . .��� �'�A � A M� �`S �yY', � � i '!"
.
g�,{��-��--LL..aaa�a�..//�`•• tq �,_ �
� ,�� '' �
�� ' �i .. r. �✓ Y^ � � �. P'�� sn� �y�'.�°+ �' . � , ' � �! �( �j_j(J ,� •�}�� N�S� � vr -ri!
! �'' C " .p
`,� �" �� q'+�° ' � r�a � �,� . . J' .e�. �. �#w+'a � k;`..^ � � ���fj
. i. y 3t � .-';Y � i ' � r, �+� �' � .�� � . ,�� �'1 aC'�� �� 'n � ',3 ��, . �'
_ . . ..
.
. -�, - ��( r "� .��" � �F ' 3�v 9y�, . s 4"
� � t� # � �p a � '�� :�, - � �.,� .
� � .
�- r
, � �.�.�, , . � :.- ,�.�
� ���tl � '� '��;.
5� ��.�: �� ��� =;� , �� �� ?��,. , �' _ _ ,� � .����
�,
t
;� .�`�'�,��� �"' ,�.,r��� ._<� _ .
fi $ z ���4 ,,�, �.,.:
,,�� � ' t �` ,�' .'� �� '.k ``^�' y �
�e -�� � T
� . \' ' � � :i�j �y ..
♦ ,
t ..
CALL TO ORDER
NOVEMBER 14, 1988
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, November 14, 1988
at 7:32 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSIOtd
Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs
Commissioner Giomi
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos,
Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank
Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 24, 1988 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Item #4, Tentative Parcel Map, 1249 Vancouver Avenue
was continued to the meeting of November 28, 1988.
Order of the agenda approved.
ITEM FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMI
- EXPANSION OF EXISTING ORIENTAL
9 BROADWAY. ZONED C-1
Reques s: history of sign �'compliance for t„�j,ia-�S'�i"'siness; plan
sh ng proposed interior re�odeling;���,�1�tt$'e original conditions
f the special permit. Item�� public hearing November 28,
1988.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 152 SF GAZEBO AT 2713
TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 11/14/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting
questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Responding to questions, staff advised the code requires a 4�
separation between the pool and proposed gazebo, there appears to
be much more than that; the backyard takes a sharp slope upward,
gazebo will be located in flat area immediately behind the house,
it will not block views and is 11� tall.
•• t
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page ".
Nover.{�,�=r I�-:, 1988
r
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mrs. Desai,��'applicant�s
'fe, was present. She stated the gazebo woul�?�e used for
e tertainment, her son intends to use it as a cluk���ouse, it will
no be enclosed. Commenting on the lack of a lett� explaining the
pur se and need for the proposed project, she a ised her husband
has een out of town and she teaches schoo , she had thought
perha the landscape architect would take c e of such a letter,
the pur�ose is for entertainment and to beau fy the backyard.
The follc� ing members of the audience sp e in opposition. Carl
Lollin, 2�4 Rivera Drive: concern abou adding another structure
to this prop�erty, with a new owner it uld be enclosed, utilities
added and a�t;illegal conversion occ , the 11� height will not
obstruct neig�ors� views but anot r structure added at another
place on the 1 t could obstruct v' ws, concern about fire hazard
from weeds on th��hill especially ith children using the gazebo.
Commission pointed ut 40� lot.r`�coverage is allowed by the code,
total lot coverage 'th this �roposal is only 13�5, any accessory
structure over 50 SF ust be reviewed by the Planning Commission,
this gazebo will not bl k v'ews. FM Reilly advised his department
works annually with the s dents to abate weeds in hillside areas.
Further comment in oppos ti n. Morrie Gersh, 1616 Granada Drive:
he lives up the hill fr th� site and asked what fire protection
plans have been made f r this ew construction, last year the Fire
Department inspected he whole rea and wrote all property owners
asking them to abate he weeds, n thing was done on this lot. Fire
Marshal discussed Fire Departm t�s procedure to alert all
residents of the need for clea nce of weeds around their
properties, some eople are very coop ative but it is difficult to
get compliance. Virginia Lollin, 280 Rivera Drive determined the
gazebo would b constructed of redwoo , she was concerned that
redwood would urn easily, fire would up the hill and could
easily spread
There were �10 further audience comments and �e public hearing was
closed. 1
C. S.Gra m found no problem with this applicati n; regarding fire
danger, he did not think it would be increased b, the addition of
this ga ebo which would be no different than a de or a fence or
any ot er wood accessory structure which did not req ire a special
permi ; children need the backyard for play area, t y would not
play in front on Trousdale. C. S. Graham moved for app ,val of the
spe al permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution pproving
Spe ial Permit with the following conditions: (1) that th, 152 SF
ga ebo shall be constructed as shown on the plans submitted`to the
P anning Department and date stamped September 23, 1988; and (2)
that the gazebo shall never be enclosed or converted to any other
}
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page L
Nove:�bGr ' �, 1988
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mrs. Desai, applicant�s
wife, was present. She stated the gazebo would be used for
entertainment, her son intends to use it as a clubhouse, it will
not be enclosed. Commenting on the lack of a letter explaining the
purpose and need for the proposed project, she advised her husband
has been out of town and she teaches school, she had thought
perhaps the landscape architect would take care of such a letter,
the purpose is for entertainment and to beautify the backyard.
The following members of the audience spoke in opposition. Carl
Lollin, 2804 Rivera Drive: concern about adding another structure
to this property, with a new owner it could be enclosed, utilities
added and an illegal conversion occur, the 11� height will not
obstruct neighbors� views but another structure added at another
place on the lot could obstruct views, concern about fire hazard
from weeds on the hill especially with children using the gazebo.
Commission pointed out 40� lot coverage is allowed by the code,
total lot coverage with this proposal is only 13$, any accessory
structure over 50 SF must be reviewed by the Planning Commission,
this gazebo will not block views. FM Reilly advised his department
works annually with the residents to abate weeds in hillside areas.
Further comment in opposition. Morrie Gersh, 1616 Granada Drive:
he lives up the hill from this site and asked what fire protection
plans have been made for this new construction, last year the Fire
Department inspected the whole area and wrote all property owners
asking them to abate the weeds, nothing was done on this lot. Fire
Marshal discussed Fire Department�s procedure to alert all
residents of the need for clearance of weeds around their
properties, some people are very cooperative but it is difficult to
get compliance. Virginia Lollin, 2804 Rivera Drive determined the
gazebo would be constructed of redwood, she was concerned that
redwood would burn easily, fire would go up the hill and could
easily spread.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. S.Graham found no problem with this application; regarding fire
danger, she did not think it would be increased by the addition of
this gazebo which would be no different than a deck or a fence or
any other wood accessory structure which did not require a special
permit; children need the backyard for play area, they would not
play in front on Trousdale. C. S. Graham moved for approval of the
special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving
Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the 152 SF
gazebo shall be constructed as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped September 23, 1988; and (2)
that the gazebo shall never be enclosed or converted to any other
. ;
n
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSIO.��
NOVEMBER 14, 1988
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, Gity of Burlingame
was'�alled to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monda��, November 14, 1988
at 7:��2 P.M. Y
tr
Present:
Absent:
ia, H. Graham, S. Graham,
�ity Planner; Adriana Garefalos,
Coleman, City Attorney; Frank
ineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
October 24, 1988 meeting were
AGENDA - Item #4, Te�ta ve Parcel Map, 1249 Vancouver Avenue
was continued o the meeting of November 28, 1988.
Order of the �nda approved.
Commissioners Ellis,
Harrison, Jacobs
Commissioner Giomi
Staff Present:''>. Margaret Monroe,
`'�Planner; Jerome
Eryrbacher, City E,
Y"
MINUTES - The miriu,tes of t e
unanimous`l.y approv d.
�.i
'r
ITEM FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMEN�"'�,- EXPANSION OF EXISTING ORIENTAL
RUG AND ANTIOU SHOP - 11� BROADWAY ZONED C-1
Requests: history of sign compl�nce for this business; plan
showing proposed i terior remodelincj�;,� include original conditions
of the special p mit. Item set for'�.�ublic hearing November 28,
1988. �n
2. SPECI PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 15�� SF GAZEBO AT 2713
TROUS E DRIVE ZONED R-1
Reference s aff report, 11/14/88, with attachmen� . PLR Garefalos
reviewed etails of the request, staff revie study meeting
questions Two conditions were suggested for cons� eration at the
public h aring.
Respon ing to questions, staff advised the code re ires a 4�
separ ion between the pool and proposed gazebo, there pears to
be m ch more than that; the backyard takes a sharp slope-upward,
gaz o will be located in flat area immediately behind the house,
it will not block views and is 11� tall.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page �.
November i4, 1988
use without prior approval of the Planning Commission. Motion was
seconded by C. Garcia.
Comment on the motion: gazebo will be located in a cultivated area,
not on the hill; Fire Department needs to pursue the concerns of
the neighborhood regarding weed removal; children will be in the
backyard even without the gazebo; it will not obstruct views.
Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH BEDROOM
1612 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1__ _ Y
Ref rence staff report, 11/14/88, with attachments. PLR G efalos
revi wed details of the request, staff review, Plann' g staff
comme t, applicant�s letter. One condition was sug ested for
consid ation at the public hearing. Staff explained e sequence
of even s leading to the applicant�s decision to apply for a
variance.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bob Gam e, applicant, was
present. He tated they had seriously considg���d adding a second
story but this presented several problems,�e family room needed
to be on the s e level as the dining ro and kitchen, to add
another bedroom stairs they would have to extend the existing
structure to the ear anyway, placemeyi� of stairs would take
additiona� space an present a hazar - to their young children,
extension of the gara would take awa�rear yard play area for the
children. He stated t ere is space,to park two cars, one in the
existing garage and anot er parked ehind the gate; the lack of an
additional covered space ould n create a visual impact; their
neighbors have no objectio to he project. They would like an
additional bedroom but if th ariance is not granted they can use
the additional family room sp
Responding to a Commissio r ques on about the sequence of events,
Carol Gamble advised th had sol their previous home, they have
two babies, they had a contractor re dy to go and needed to move,
so decided to proce . In support the variance Mrs. Gamble
noted there is a 14� long driveway wher cars can be parked behind
the front setback�"�with this proposal the eighbor�s yard will not
be shaded as wo '�d be the case with a secon story addition, there
are exceptiona circumstances in the way the roperty is situated
in relation t the neighbors. '�
Paul Rott , architect, discussed the sequence of ents leading to
the var�; nce application and the fact that th owners were
committ�°d to a contractor and a time schedule; he fe$� there were
exceptfonal circumstances in the existing house and it�.;. placement
r«.,
on th'e lot; there are only two places for another garage s"tructure,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page = rt
� Nove:�:�;ar _.,;�`, 1988
o e in the front yard which would be detrime �al to the
n ighborhood or adjacent to the present garage in th �`�middle of the
ba kyard which would require demolishing the exis 'ing garage; if
the existing garage were enlarged it would prohibi any addition to
the ear of the house. Regarding a second story ddition, the city
was iscussing second story regulations but here had been no
ordin ce adopted at that time; additiona parking space is
availa e in the driveway behind the front se�back and is permitted
as an xception under the code. Respond"ing to a Commissioner
question, architect advised most suburban;�areas require a two car
garage fo � a single family home. .��`
The followi g members of the audiencc�"`spoke. Ivor Morris, 1608
Ralston Aven e: he had no objectio � to the proposal. Michael
Love, 325 Chap'n Lane: for the recor� he advised he did an informal
survey on Chap � Lane and found �king requirements were met but
none of his nei hbors park in t ir garages; he felt there were
good reasons fo��, the regulatic�i� requiring two covered parking
spaces but in this� instance wi�h the long driveway he would find
for the applicants nd not re`quire more covered parking. There
were no further a�ence comments and the public hearing was
closed. t �r
During Commission discu:
the application for vari
exceptional circumstancE
�n there was concern expressed with how
e evolved. C. Harrison found there were
s outlined in the applicants� letter,
the shape of the lot �nd 1 cation of the existing dwelling limit
the addition of a t�o car arage or extension of the existing
garage, the varian�,e is ne ssary for the preservation of a
property right of he owners, 't would not be detrimental to the
neighbors nor adve sely affect he zoning plan of the city since
there is room to ark two or thre cars in the driveway behind the
front setback. �'
C. Harrison mo�fed for approval of th variance and for adoption of
Commission �esolution Approving V, iance with the following
condition: () that the project as bu� t shall be consistent with
the plans bmitted to the Planning D artment and date stamped
October 19 1988 and November 4, 1988. otion was seconded by C.
H.Graham.
In comm�nt on the motion C. Ellis stated`�his concern with the
process; of the application but found th re were exceptional
circum�stances in the narrow lot, the house s�its back on the lot
whichitakes away area in the back which could k�i� used for a second
garage; he would not want to see a garage put irr�.�the front even if
the,�e is room; the house with its front door on he driveway side
lititits putting anything in the front. Further co nt: there was a
�me factor involved in the sequence of events; can ot support the
�inotion because the house covers a lot of property, �.t will be a
four bedroom, two bath house with family room on one level, 37$ lot