Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2930 Trousdale Drive - Resolutiont ♦ w "� � ` RECORDED AT R�Ql1EST OF � Please return recorded copy to: Planning Department City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 _ , .., • • ' � � � � • R�Co�,��� ai R�a�EST OF ��� �� z �� � •ag �YSi���;f N :>I.�;,GN ;t�C,r�2flfR ; r. y►i �,.1 E` ;� r, { i; N �'f r . �:';'•i. i _ . �, _ - _ .- . . _ - � . . -_r.-: ' . --. �"^ =-'-• - i �^----nr.�.�.•-�� -- - :* - _..:��_�:��;- -�=�w� I hereby cer�if� th�s�...� �� :t3 '�U�i� t`F'ilf? �i'�Pi rC1Y� � of tMe .docu� flri,g�nal , �� vrhjch i5 �n. 'F'� 1;� 711 �Il� D��1 C� i' pa�� ��.i �;'�� :'1 _ .. .. �µ �r1 Mar�garet�Flonroe, City Planner �� � m� �'- �" ��� �,.,.__ :� /� RESOLUTION NO 14-89 RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, application has been made for a variance to side yard setback for a dining room expansion at 2930 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-311-030 and � 1' WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 13 , lggg, 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 hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that said variance is approved, subject to the � conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Q It is further directed that a certified copy of this � resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San C� Mateo. � � — �J G/ �l � � CG�� RUTH E. JACO CHAIRMAN Ct 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 13th day of March 1989 by the following vote: � AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ELLIS, GARCIA, GIOMI, HARRISON, JACOBS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: H. GRAHAM, S. GRAHAM ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE � �til c.l � �t / MIKE ELLIS SECRETARY v � r a a EXHIBIT "A" Condition of approval, variance to side yard setback for dining room expansion, 2930 Trousdale Drive (effective March 21, 1989) Property owner: Paul and Dorothy Ratto 2930 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 m � G � C� N � 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 14, 1989. � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 13, 1989 _ . .. • .�.�..�-�ry...._. 4. "NE.�ATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AN��ii{ING VARIANCE �, . FOR ''TH��ry,„, OPERATION OF BATTING CA ;"" INCIDENTAL SALE OF BASEBALL �'T''�NI,,S�..,�AND INDIVID AND GROUP INSTRUCTION IN BATT I NG — 18 7 2 ROL`L'�id��.. Z ONE D M-1 � Requests : why a 7: 00 .'y . starting time "�.t,�,would the snack bar consist of, an ooking facilities; will sna��aa to the number of e oyees; who will be there all the time to su u-.�se; describe e classes, how big, will there be a difference in t�f'i� su ; will they supply goggles and helmets. Item set for public aring March 27, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DINING ROOM EXPANSION AT 2930 TROUSDALE DRIVE. ZONED R-1 _ Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter, neighbor�s letter in support. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Paul Ratto, applicant, was present . He advised the dining area is too narrow and they would like to widen it by 3'. A Commissioner stated he could appreciate the applicant�s request but had difficulty finding exceptional circumstances to support the variance. Applicant commented on the ordinance change since they had had the plans drawn previous to the change and had been working on the house over a long period, now because setbacks were increased they require a variance; this addition will not be noticeable from the street; the house next door has a 15' side setback and is about 8' lower than his property, they cannot see the addition, their 15' setback consists of sloped yard only. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: a 7' side yard setback is required, applicant is proposing 6', cannot find exceptional circumstances with this property to justify the variance, meeting code requirements would be only the difference between 13' and 12� dining room width; agree there is nothing unusual or exceptional about this lot, would it be possible to lengthen the dining room rather than making it wider; do not think one foot with a slope and a 15' yard next door will interfere. C. Giomi moved for approval of the variance request for the reasons stated in the applicants� letter and those stated by Commission this evening; she found because of the slope and distance to the neighbor�s house there will be no impact on the neighbor; the neighbor has a wider than normal side yard, well within what the . , . Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 Marc�� 13, 1989 new ordinance requires; this proposal is not an unreasonable request. Motion was made by resolution with the following condition: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 14, 1989. C. Jacobs seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: C. Giomi added findings: granting of the variance will not change the general plan nor the zoning of the property, there were no objections from the neighbors and there will be no visual impact on the neighborhood. C. Garcia commented the staff report includes many findings: the proposal meets all other code requirements, it is only a one story addition, there are no windows to interfere with the neighbors and the neighbors' letter supported the project; the addition will not be noticeable from the street; there is roughly 21' from applicant�s wall to the neighbors' wall and neighbors� property is 8'-10' lower. Further comment: do not feel the first criteria under required findings has been satisfied, this criteria states there must be circumstances or conditions applicable to the property which do not apply generally to property in the same district, it appears this property has a wider setback on one side than the other, do not see the difference between this home and others in the area; with the findings added by C. Garcia can support the project. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and S.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Refere e staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments., `CP Monroe. reviewed etails of the request, staff review, appl.i�ant�s letter. Three con ions were suggested for consideratibn at the public hearing. C. rcia advised he would abstain...;'"' .. , �,. .;�.° Discussion: docume ation of ownership�,�;�ncluded in the packet; the total square foot e proposed ,:r�would include the proposed enlargement of the gara , ther�-°are two exterior entries to the house . �. �.� PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH BEDROOM AT 1472 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 �v Chm. Jacobs opened the p�iblic "hetiaring. Jim Valenti, designer of the project, was pres�t. His co ts: existing front door is on the south side of �^ie property, am�ne���ntry will be put where the existing dining �m is now; house is vac t at present and in poor condition. T�l�e were no audience comments d the public hearing was closed.,, From there way rt a J $�"ite inspection and study of the plans, C.`°�arrison found �re exceptional circumstances, this is the onl� reasonable expand the existing garage interior to the house without � �z� G, _/� P.C. 3/l�./89 Item # � MEMO T0: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNER VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DINING ROOM EXPANSION AT 2930 TROUSDALE DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Paul Ratto is requesting a variance to side yard setback in order to make a 3' x 15'-6" (47 SF) dining room extension which will enroach 1� into the required side yard setback at 2930 Trousdale Drive, zoned R-1. A 6' side yard will be provided where 7� is required for this lot with an average width of 85' (Code Section 25.66.050). The proposed addition meets all other code requirements. Since this is only a one-story addition, it is not affected by the declining height envelope. Staff Review City staff reviewed this request and had no comments (Chief Building Inspector 2/23/89 memo; Fire Marshal 2-22-89 memo; and City Engineer 2/27/89 memo). Planning staff would note that in March, 1988 ordinance 1362 was adopted which increased the side yard setbacks for lots with a width of 54' or greater. Prior to the adoption of this ordinance a 5' side yard setback would have been required for this property. Ordinance 1362 increased the required setback to 7�. Applicant's Letter In their letter date stamped February 14, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Ratto note that they have lived on this property since 1983 and during this time have spent over $100,000 to improve the property. The work has been scheduled over a number of years based on priority and affordability. They have always intended to add on to the dining room and they checked to make certain the project would meet all required setbacks. In the meantime, however, the setbacks were increased. To meet their needs, the dining room will have to be widened at least 3'. This addition will not be noticeable from the street, as it will be situated behind a fence. In addition the house next door has a 15' or more side yard setback and is approximately 10' below this property, so it should not be affected by this addition. A letter has also been submitted by Trousdale Drive noting their consent They do not feel that the project as privacy or light. Findinas for a Variance their neighbors at 2920 of the proposed project. designed will affect their In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): -2- (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; (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. Plannnina Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Findings should be made for affirmative action and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the planning department and date stamped February 14, 1989. ������a Adriana Garefalos Planner cc: Paul Ratto Onorato Associates, Inc.