The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About125 Bloomfield Road - Approval Letter`. , "�. � (`��e f1�i#g u� ��txlt�c�ttm� CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD re� (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 r�x� (4i5) 342-H386 January 5, 1995 Philip D. Wilkinson Wilco Construction P. O. Box 1017 Redwood City, CA 94064 Dear Wilkinson, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the December 12, 1994 Planning Commission approval of your special permit application became effective January 3, 1995. This application was to allow expansion of the primary residential unit at 123-125 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. The December 12, 1994 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 5, 1994, site plan, house and carport elevations; and other sheets date stamped November 4, 1994 including floor plan, foundation plan, building sections and electrical; 2. that the carport roof shall be of Class B fire rating or better in order to meet the requirements of the Chief building Inspector's 11/7/94 memo; 3. that in order to meet the requirements of the City Engineer's memo dated December 5, 1994, the curb cut for the driveway shall be relocated to a size and location approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit; 4. that the primary unit shall be 125 Bloomfield and that any additional expansion of 125 Bloomfield shall require a special permit from the Planning Commission and that there shall be no expansion of the secondary 123 Bloomfield structure; A ,,"� a"e`Y`� p'°Ps ci .. • , -( 7anuary 5, 1995 123-125 Bloomfield Road page -2- 5. that the project shall provide 50% softscape in the front yard between the property line and face of the structures and that the softscape shall be concentrated in the area in front of the dwelling at 125 Bloomfield; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform building and Uniform Fire � Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. Sincerely yours, �� . . �,� ��.� . Marg t Monroe City P umer MM: smg ATTACHMENT(s) 1z3-125s.cca c: Barbara Steiner, Tr. John Steiner Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (Lot 7, Block 26, Subd.Name Lyon & Hoag Sub Town of Burlingame RSM B/20; APN: 029-272-090) ; . . ;, � r ROU'�ING FORM DATE: 1 � ! �3 �t � TO: CITY ENGINEER �- CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRB DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: � AT CITY PLANN�R/ZONING TECHNICIAN REQIIEST FOR ��(,� C��/(�YI-( � \ C��/ ��. �'.� s � den� 11 �t. l� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION � MEETING: !v ��`� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �� . ! THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah �--_ ��( � a�� C�'�� . � c ��r r,U r �4 �D Z 4 Date of comments c v v�� S� �v/ �� ,v�sed ✓7 "l o �r f � �J � �O� � �' �' �`-�' � G�- cGi�joo s-�,.-�� 'o c��,� �n �� 61�s ('W o�� nar� ��rG�.- �� ss e ,� �j�► ,S �'� u�r��Q �.-� 2u�,��,� .r� r^o�G�- rK.�� , � t l��►� w• �%a� h�-r.�. n.o cos�� / � � f ��t� ��s�� "� �� , �, ��• re� �� I '�� S� t �/ �� r ,� %� � � �� , T, �,. -' f �, , I'I'EM City of Burlingame Special Permit to expand primary unit Address: 123-125 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: 12/12/94 Request: Special permit to expand the primary residential unit on a R-1 property with two units (CS 25.50.025). Applicant: Philip Wilkinson Property Owner: 7ohn Steiner Lot Dimensions and Area: 50 x 150, 7500 SF General Plan: Low density residential Adjacent Development: single family residential APN: 029-272-090 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 % of the floor area of the structures before the addition or 2500 SF, whichever is less. Project History: The first project reviewed by Planning Commission was denied without prejudice at their meeting on November 28, 1994. Commission noted at the meeting there were alternatives which should be explored (see November 28, 1994 minutes). In response to Commission's concerns, the applicant chose to relocate and redesign the carport and resubmit the project. The applicant is now providing a 10' x 20' carport which would be located in front of the second unit at 123 Bloomfield. Three parking spaces are shown (one covered, two uncovered) rather than the two provided with the previous project. As shown, the carport meets code requirements for dimension but not for back up. The two uncovered spaces shown are located in the old driveway area. Because the driveway no longer leads to a garage, Commission approval is required for this location to be considered as meeting the on-site parking requirement (CS 25.70.030-a). In order to meet code requirements for vehicle maneuvers, the curbcut must be relocated and widened. The placement of the carport was chosen to screen the second dwelling structure. The carport design was improved by providing a pitched roof to match the elcisting architecture. Lattice is proposed for the sides of the carport and a redwood fence between the two dwellings is proposed. The carport would be located on a new concrete slab and a new concrete driveway would be provided. There are no changes to the proposed addirion to the existing main dwelling (refer. to the floor plans date stamped November 4, 1994). SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND PRIMARY UNIT 125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD PrOject Summary: Philip Wilkinson, applicant, is requesting a special permit to expand a non-conforming use at 123-125 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. The use at the site is non-conforming because there are two single family dwellings where the zoning only allows one single family dwelling. Code section 25.50, non-conforming uses and structures, allows expansion of the primary non- conforming residence upon approval of a special permit (CS 25.50.025). Due to its size, the residence known as 125 Bloomiield has been determined to be the primary residence at this site. The site is also non-conforming because parking dces not meet current code requirements for both number of stalls and covered parking (Note: Pazking is considered a use - CS 25.50.025). Presently, there are two uncovered parking spaces in tandem. Both are located on a 6'-6" wide driveway. The driveway contanues beyond these two spaces, and runs between the two dwelling units, which are about 8'-3" apart. The City's records show that at one time there was a 16' x 17' garage located at the end of this driveway.l It is not known when this garage was demolished. The primary house (125 Bloomfield, the northerly structure) is currently 1255 SF and has three bedrooms. Its main floor level is 5' above grade. The structure has two stories at the front of the house. The right side setback to the structure is non-conforming, but the non-conformity would not be extended (1'-6" setback; cunent code requires 4'-0"). The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 140 SF kitchen at the rear of the structure and build a 918 SF, two story addition. Living area would increase to 2033 SF and a 200 SF (10' x 20') carport would be added. The main floor level at the rear would be extended to provide a 459 SF kitchen and family room area (18' x 25.5'). A floor would be built below this first floor extension, creating a split-level home. A portion of this lower floor would be 2.5' below grade. The area below the first floor extension would have a concrete slab, 8'-0" ceiling height and would provide a laundry/mechanical room and a workshop/storage area. The workshop/storage room was considered a bedroom for parking calculation purposes. Staff notes that the entire parking situation for the site does not need to be brought into conformity. However, the applicant must provide parking on-site to current code for the dwelling he is expanding. In this case he needs to provide one covered space and retain one uncovered space for the remodeled unit, plus one uncovered (same as now provided) for the second unit. Given the present proposal, if the driveway is relocated closer to the carport and the use of the old driveway area for uncovered parking is approved, no parking variance is required. The second unit (123 Bloomfield) has two bedrooms and is approlcimately 936 SF. There are no alterations proposed to this structure. 'This parking conformed to code at the time these structures were built, but dces not conform to current code. 7 SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND PRIMARY UNIT Front setback: Side (le, ft): Side (right): Rear: Lot Coverage: (both dwellings) FAR: (not applicable) @oth dwellings) PROPOSED 20'-0" no change EXISTING 16'-0" 3'-0" , �� , ,�, � e ��R��s � S1'-9° ��,��f�� , l�r� �'l r��,nT � 28.9 % 22 % (2167 SF) (1648 SF) 3169 SF/.422 ParkiRg: 1 covered + 2 uncov. in (e) abandoned driveway Height: DH Envelope: Accessory structures: 15'-0" meets requirements none Meets all other zoning code requirements. 1'-6" 98'-3" 2191 SF/.292 2 uncovered in driveway 27' n/a n/a 125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD MAXIMUM ALLOWED/REQ'D 15'/average 4'-0" 4'-0" 15'-0"-20'-0" 40 % (3000 SF) 3900 SF/.52 this application: requires one covered current code: 4 spaces, 3 must be covered 30'/21/z stories see code n/a Staff Comments: The City Planner noted the carport roof must be solid to be considered covered parldng. The Chief Building Inspector noted that because a solid roof is required by Planning, the roof must be Class B fire rating or better. The Fire Marshal had no comments. The Associate Engineer noted the front property line is located 2' from the back of sidewalk, thus the back up area behind the carport is 20' not 22' as shown on the plans. In response to the revised plans, the only comment was from the City Engineer, who asked that the curbcut be relocated to provide better access to the carport and uncovered spaces. He also noted the curbcut cannot decrease the available parking on the street and that it cannot exceed 25 % of the lot width (12.5'). Planning staff notes the applicant (via telephone communication) expressed willingness to relocate the driveway to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3 SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND PRIMARY UNIT 125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD The City Engineer submitted a second memo addressing the 8'-3" width between the two structures (see attached, 12/7/94). The City Engineer notes that if Planning Commission approves this application, he would consider a 16' wide curbcut as long as street pazking is not affected. Study Meeting: Planning Commission reviewed this item at their regular meeting on November 14, 1994. The property owner responded to Commission's inquiries with two letters (both dated 11/18/94). One letter provides a history of the property. Mr. Steiner notes the property has been in the family for three generations and expresses the property's significance to him and his family. He notes that he chose to use redwood siding (which was more expensive) to maintain the character in the neighborhood. The second letter addresses Planning Commission's inquiries. Regarding conformance to the General Plan and Zoning Code, the applicant notes that the site is larger than most single family lots and that the units are smaller than most single family dwellings. He also notes the single request before the Planning Commission is the special permit to expand the primary unit and that all other zoning code requirements have been met. The property owner and his family live in the primary unit. The unit at 123 Bloomfield is rented to a San Mateo Police Officer. Addressing why the e�cisting driveway and rear yard could not be used to provide parking, he notes the existing 6'-3" driveway is uncomfortably narrow to drive a vehicle through. In addition, he notes several large trees would have to be removed to accommodate a garage in the rea.r yard. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 4 SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND PRIMARY UNIT 125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. 1'he 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 December 5, 1994, site plan, house and carport elevations; and other sheets date stamped November 4, 1994 including floor plan, foundation plan, building sections and electrical; 2. that the carport roof shall be of Class B fire rating or better in order to meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's 11/7/94 memo; 3. that in order to meet the requirements of the City Engineer's memo dated December 5, 1994, the curbcut for the driveway sha11 be relocated to a size and location approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit; 4. that the primary unit shall be 125 Bloomfield and that any additional expansion of 125 Bloomfield shall require a special permit from the Planning Commission and that there shall be no expansion of the 123 Bloomfield structure; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Sheri Saisi Planner cc: Philip Wilkinson, Wilco Construction Barba.ra Steiner et al tr, property owners of record � CITY OO F PURLINGAME APPLICATIOO N TO THE PLANNING COO MMISSIOO N . �- - -, �j�ve of Avnlication: ' Special Permit Variance Other Project Address � 25 Bloomfeild Assessor's Parcel Number(s) n � ca _� ��_ n A n APPL/CANT * PROPERTY OWNER �� r�-� St�c ►'��-' Philip D. Wilkinson Name' Wilco Construction Name: John� einer �f Gal �; �� Address: P. o. aox 1 01 7 Address: �� R � nnm f a i �� r,-s,-�� City/State2ip•Redwood city cA, 94064 Telephone: (work) 14 �� 6 s- � S 6 5 _ (home) ARCH/TECT/DES/GNER Name: Wilco Constructi on Address: City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip: Burlinqame CA, Telephone:(work) ( 41 5) 579-1 000 (home) � 41 5 ) 341 -31 05 P/eace �ndicate with an asterisk /"1 who the contact nerson is foi this vroiect. Telephone (daytime): PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON• 2 st�ry addition to sinqle familv residence AFF/DA V/T/S/GNA TURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. . _�. �° _ 7 � Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed applicatio , and h y authorize the above applicant to submit this application. - � • l0 i � `� Pv perty Owner's Signature Date --------------------------------------------------OFFICE USE ONLY � Date Filed: �0 -��%� Fee � �� '� Receipt t� � f "�lcCo� Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: �l�•2�"9� �'1�ir�YLl) f r.v/,r��• Date application accepted as,, complete: ' P.C. study meeting (date) � �� P.C. public hea�ing (date) ' P.C. Action ,ziez Appeal to Council? Yes No a�;�.fm, Council meeting date Council Action -�h� cirr O.a �j'�/ j� j�� pj� • � RLlNGAME �� U U �Ir L�DI�JIfU��p�y��U�ll VC , . , . ��u�o.. ��u�o� ��u��u�� b.� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.0201. Your answers to the following questions wili 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. 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or. /nfurious to property or impro vements in the vfcinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. Proposed addition will not be detrimental to above mentioned concerns, It will in fact improve these things. the existing portion of the structure to be removed was not built to existing building codes. No bedrooms are to be added so there will be no increase in on street parking. 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT The proposed addition will conform to the City of Burlingame General plan and zoning ordinance. The main residence is the structure to be improved. The nonconforming structure will only be painted. 3. How wi// the proposed proJect be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the exlstir��n��!l �@� t��9hl�t�l�� t�-�n� �in�� . terior siding, roof pitch, roofing materials, gutters and The proposed project will not be seen from the street. Exterior siding, roof pitch, roofing materials, gutters and downspouts all to match existing structure. Addition to be painted to match existing structure I 2re2 ip.frm 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or lnJuriuus1 to pioperty or Improvements In the vlcinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neiflhborin� properties or suuctures on those propertiest If neighborinQ properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphtinp, paving, landscapin� sunli�ht/shade, views from neiflhboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure vr use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or qeneral welfare7 Public hea/th includes such thinps as sanitation (Oarba�el, air quality, discharpes into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., unde�flround storage tanks, storape of chemicals, situations which encoura�e the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sp�inklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly flatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services li.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). �enera/ welfare is a catch-all phrase meanin� community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and developmentl Is there a social benefit7 �onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parkinfl for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular sepments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT Ask the Planninp Department for the peneral plan designation and zonin� district for the proposed project site. Also ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated use and zonin�, then explain why this proposal would "fit" accordin�ly. 3. How wi// the pioposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing neighborhood and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties fn the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existin� neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If chanpes to the structure are proposed, was the addition desipned to match existinp architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neiphborhoodl If a use will affect the way a nei�hborhood or area looks, such as a lon� term airport parkinp lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to nei�hborinp structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no change to st�ucture, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the nei�hborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure chanpe the character of the neiphborhood7 Think of character as the ima�e or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parkin� available resultin� from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existinp and potential uses in the �eneral vicinityt Compare your project with existinp uses. State why you feel 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. ,sres .�.� (`�� (1�i#� .of ��xxli�t�ttme CITY HALL - 50i PRIMROSE ROAD r[�� (4i5) 696-7250 PIANNING DEPARTMENT BUR�INGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 � ��x (415) 3a2-B386 December 6, 1994 Philip D. Willdnson Wilco Construction P. O. Box 1017 Redwood City, Ca 94064 Dear Mr. Wilkinson, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the November 28, 1994 Planning Commission action to deny your special permit application without prejudice became effective December 5, 1994 . This application was to allow a special permit to expand the primary unit at 125 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. A denial without prejudice allows you to come back to the Planning Commission for reapplication without another fee within a reasonable time (for example, three months) as determined by Planning staff. Sincerely yours, �,a��;�-�, �_ Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s c: 7ohn Steiner Barbara Steiner, etal Chief Building Inspector A �+.�a m � a�oa� C.� City of 3urlingame Planning Commission Minutes - November 28, 1994 IT FOR STUDY 1. S ECIAL PERMIT AND P VARIANCE FOR A PERMANENT TENT AT 1333 B YSHORE HIGHWAY,ZONED C-4 G DEVELOPMENT A5SOCIATES, PROPERTY Requests: present�ndings to help commission suppo increased parking , lot coverage and FAR; do they need a variance for ibt coverage or FAR; be more sp ific about number of parking spaces for variance; what is the pazking a�rrangement with the One Bay Pl Office Building; number and type of functions in the tent in the course a year and what groups would m e use of it; how will public know where to park; parking study of week d count and impact. Item set for p' hearing December 12, 1994 pending necessary responses in a' ely manner. ,o 2. SIDE SETBACK AND LA SCAPING VARIANCE AT 80$� BURLWAY RQAD, ZONED O-M Requests: If second story were rebuilt, ould e�sting nonconformity remairi;-�l�re and unloading area; what is the extent o t and second floor fire damage; wh� height be; what is the existing number of p' g spaces assigned to this buildi consequences of a lot merger; would they still eed landscape and side setback � existing circumstances that make this an unusual roperty to grant a variance with all information received, item set for public hearing mber 12, 1994. ACTION ITEMS is on-site truck loading will first floor ceiling g; what would be the �riances; what are the �iis reconstruction. If �3. SPECIAL PERMIT AT 125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 (JOHN STEINER, PROPERTY OWNER AND PHILIP D. WILKINSON, APPLICANTI Reference staff report, 11/28/94, with attachments. Planner Saisi discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. John Steiner, owner, and Philip Wilkinson, applicant were present to answer questions. They explained the project, the building materials and their space and budget constraints. The second unit on the property was built legally, with permits, in about 1930 by John Steiner's grandfather. The commission explained that they felt the carport diminishes the project and suggested the applicant explore other reasonable solutions. 7im Steiner, 326 Clarendon, brother of the property owner spoke in support of the project. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis noted there are other alternatives for this project that should be explored and suggested the applicant work with planning staff to move this application forward. He then moved to deny the project without prej udice. -2- City of'Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes - November 28, 1994 Commission noted for the record that if the modification of the primary residence is going to further increase the non-conformity of the structure, that was not the intention of the code change allowing expansion of the primary unit in circumstances where this situation exists. The intention was to achieve a conforming structure that is the primary residence. This application has more problems than just the carport. Another concern is that with a new application there is a problem that goes back 55-60 years. Because with a 6' wide driveway between buildings there is simply no way to put a car in the back of this property without destroying the other structure. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. . 4. P�RKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANC�S AT 1237 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 TO DECEMBER 12, 1994 5. SPECIAL �ERMIT, SIDE AND REAR SETBAC AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (JOSEPH & JANETE G CONIlVIISSION MEETING VARIANCES AT 1000 VANCOUVER OJUES, PROPERTY OWNERS AND DECEMBER 12, 1994 PLANNING 6. SPECIAL PERMIT PARKING VARIANCE AT 1525 AD WNRR ANiI T1FC7ftN_R7777 n enT � Reference staff report, 11/28/��, with attachments. Planner Gomery di� criteria, Planning Department comi�e�ts, and study meeting questions. Four MEETING , ZONED M-1(GARY d the request, reviewed itions were suggested for Chm, ligan opened the public hearing. Weinstein, Design-Build Solutions, was pr ent to explain his clients oject. The commission's sug stions at study session were appreciated and the ow proposed reconfigurati n of the parldng lot for 29 spa s is preferable and allows more turnaround sp ce. The two trees that are to be removed will be replaced in front of the building with two 30" box ees. There were no othe comments and the public hearing was losed. �\ Commission not his application is in accord with th general plan. There is an abundance of on-street` parking in this area. C. eal then moved approval f this application, by resolution, with findings incorporated by reference an with the following amend ditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted the Planning Department and da stamped November 21, 1994, Site Plan revised to show access to the r 11 up door with a total of 29 par 'ng stalls (22 standard stalls, 5 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible st�11s); 2) that the conditions of the ity Engineers' October 7, 1994 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors' Octo 1994 memo, and the Par Directors' October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be en 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P. Monday through Friday with a maximum of fifteen employees including the roprietor, on site, at any on time; and 4) that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the'` use shall meet all the requirem ts of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. �c� ROUTING FORM DATE: �� TO: _�_ CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRB DIRECTOR � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: �Y AT CITY PLANN�R/ZONING TECHNICIAN REQIIEBT FOR � l� � � ��m � �C � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION � MEETING: Iv ��+`� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY : �(�1 ,�-�'� �� y THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah � �� ' ( � Date of Comments ._-----� /l 7�� i'��U� s�� ,t��6v, `oL� � av��orf � f�--�ttJ : r' � � �;�,�.�" �-�y,p.�� , �,� ��s �� 2 ' -��- � -� �� - � y''�,o�.�':�-��e, � � Ne -f' �- -�.e ��r� a�f " y w I� �s s%�w�-� � h—l-�u �� ,/ (�// I`-./�,,,�' -/I,,,, (� �, l'JULL'\/F) GL�i'M1U'v�/-� Y�'%'Vin'v� '^i ' �� -G�t ..'1.'`''��L(il.u-c,� `�/�l� i,V Y�-1.4.A-'' lA.'� i�`',�lS�-'VVL2-V1J�-' ! � ci�l � � y�� U�� r !� � - � lc�` —�, - C� � ��r'�:c��-t' s��c_ �', �-r��i� 7� /�� . �" c-G-�v'��,�� -�� a��G�'��J s"�.��.�, �� 7I� �� L��1� Z�G�� p,� �?�e�� -�T %-,� ��%zv�'/��rf�" � ,�s ,�'�� -2',�� /��/��.�- o� �,��r�riy � �' �" �S'`'.��'��..1�'.�`��'�=�T��2�% ��f , ,��S��l��'�� u��,di7r� i.� �� oT�i�� C �'� �l�e�-Xi�,�,�'� i�� `�' MEMORANDUM �*c -.r,; ' � i�, TO: PLANNING � ` �%`�� FROM : ENGINEERING �ITY �� Pi.iPd�,lC�SC,�ME ��,,��e�,,�-. ��,.-r.�� DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1994 RE: 125 BLOOMFIELD DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND PARKING There have been discussions about placing a garage to the rear of the two structures on this lot. The distance between the two has been said to be 8'-3" at a single point and to get this clearance the vehicle would have to be at an angle to the structures (not parallel). This would require the narrowing of the proposed addition a number of feet (4' to 5' estimate) to allow a full sized vehicle to back out of the driveway. Attached is my May 12, 1992 letter regarding another site decreasing driveway widths. The full sized vehicle would take virtually all of eight (8') leaving little clearance. My recommendation is that this would not be the best solution unless it is the onlv solution to achieve the required on site parking. The proposal for one covered parking with an adjacent standard parking space and the allowance for one space fronting either of these spaces allows more usable access. Should the Commission choose to approve this plan the driveway opening for a standard two (2) car garag� may be allowed but will require possibly relocating either the driveway curb opening to accommodate street parking or a combination of relocating both the carport, the adjacent space and the curb cut to protect on street parking. Dimensions to adjacent property's driveways would be necessary to determine this detail. Frank C. Erbacher, P.E. pa Attachment MEMO T0: FROM: DATE: PLANNING ENGINEERING MAY 19, 1992 +bt��Eii�� a� 1 s �s9z �ITY OF BURuN(iAM� PRANlYING OEPF, RE: VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR NEW S.F.D. 9'4" AT 1564 COLUMBUS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 For all new structures, 10' minimum parking spaces (9' space plus 1' for the sidewall obstructions) are required for single family developments. Most driveways have fences which are about 6" wide at property lines. With a fence obstruction assumed, the minimum width from property line of 10'6" is therefore needed in any area where uncovered parking is to be provided (6" fence plus 10' space and clear on the other side). The allowance of a 6" encroachment into the 10', provided it is clear of car doors, has been the accepted practice to meet the zoning code requirements for required parking. I believe this particular site has no need of this uncovered parking at an�r of the obstructed areas. �'�� i�`-�--��,--'_'�..i--�,�--J"�,��_._-1.- r=___...___�,,.�. s--�,,--,,.�- ---��_--,,,-�-�-` � ti For backing up maneuverability, there is a concern when the driveways � are too narrow. The largest normal vehicle is a full size van or pick up. Their width is approximately 6'6" with mirrors extending 8" to 9" clear (total width of about 8'). Normally an additional 9" to 12" on either side should be provided allowing a minimum clear .�% width of 9'6" to 10'0" for any extended backing up distance. From ' a policy stand point, except for short intrusions to 9'6" clear, I � strongly suggest that the 10' clear be held. �� -�__�--_- _... --_.. -L .�� ....-- -'�-__ _."- At this site, because of the narrow lo , the existing driveway is much narrower and the proposed driveway is a significant improvement. Since the encroachment of the structure is only at four (4) points, I suggest that a 9'6" driveway (probably will, at some time, include a fence for 9'+ clear) is sufficient for the new house on this lot. If this were a remodel and the structure was similarly placed for remodel widening, I believe we were pressing for at least a 9'0" clear area so approval of this at 9'6" seems consistent and reason- able. Were this a full sized lot and a new home, I believe 10'0" should be the standard clear width of the driveway, except for the 6" maximum encroachment for individual obstructions. rank C. Erbacher ds frank\1564colm.bus . - .,-• e ROUTING FORM DATE: J� J� �� TO: CITY ENGINEER —�- C$IEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DI1tECTOR � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: � AT CITY PLANN�R/ZONING TECHNICIAN REQIIEST FOR � �� '.Z,� ✓ ��m ��.�� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION � MEETING: !v ��I( REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: ��, �-�'_�� Y ! THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah .._—� �D Z4 Date of comments ��( � a,��. � ��r �r � � �� S� ,��1�� c��. � - �l. �� : ��sed /�� l�Y� f �'d-� CGLl�OVf U``� ��{� �.e�.- $�vG� �� C�--- �o c�� n �� 61is (�i,� o��D 7ar� c�sG cl��s �, �.► 5 r-��u�r�� ,. �u�,��,) .%- rim��- m.�s�-- �o� ar� r 6��; � t!cd c►� w• ��a� 1�.� .za cv.��-� � �� / � %� 0 � ��f� , �2�� ;1 1 �' ( I � r, r ��, '�-c; � L I":>-,� ; J I> 1 �A �U^ � ;,c r j9 � ` '. ROUTING FORM DATE : � � I � � � TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR 1/' FIRE MAItSHAL � PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : REQIIEBT FOR �C.�(, �ll �.� , � .. . , r � AT lr ��m �� C � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION � MEETING: !v �� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY : ��, �--�'_ j�� y r THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah ...--._ I 0-Z�-�,-q� �ate of comments 0 i�0 C�zy��,�,� � �� se� � �av � � �� o�f � �� l 1 � �� J o Cs�u�,c�� 1 ��i —�i ,`� — �—�'� � �� '�r��lf �� — � ��, �C�, IU � C'' f � s`, YI ,S ,�`' _ ,� r�.t.� a ,'�-��)�� urlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 � �� :�-,. The City Attorney noted th is should be reviewetl as��l" 6 bedroom single family house with a parldng variance. Item set for ic hearing November 2$s��94 pending necessary responses in a timely manner. \/�. SPECIAL PERMIT AT 125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 (JOHN STEINER, PROPERTY �� OWNER AND PHILIP D. WILKINSON, APPLICANTI. Requests: Is new carport 4' from existing second unit; need elevations of carport and roof with dimensions; roof should be solid; Special Permit application question #2 states, "proposed addition will conform to the City of Burlingame General plan and zoning ordinance", if this is so why then the need for so many exceptions; history of building permits on property; how long has applicant owned this site; are both units rented; was consideration given to moving the curb cut and driveway to improve access to the carport; will palm and pine trees be removed. Item set for public hearing November 28, 1994. 3. REAR SETB K VARIAN FOR ADDITION TO HOUSE, SPECIAL PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VA ANCE FOR DITION TO GARAGE AT 1000 VANCOWER AVENUE, 7(1NFTl R_1 (T(1 P�T AT�TTI TA F R(1TTTRC U17llU�T?TV ll�x7T�TR7? AT�TiI AUU77l�AT�TT� Requests: If accessory structu was attached to he house would it need height and side setback variance; contact neighbors for comments, specially next to ; building permit history. Item set for public hearing November 28, 1994. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PA NG VARIANCE 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (GARY NTR4�N_ PR(1PF.RTY [1WNRR Nll 11FCT(;N_RTT il Q(1T 7TTT(1NQ ApPT 7(`ANTI Requests: Clarify driveways; define excepti al circumstances; e' dng plan shows all compact stalls, try a redesign approach to show maximum standar stalls possible then a for a variance for the lesser spaces; try diagonal parking approach; Public Works to ddress size of parkin stalls; where is the ramp located; address 10' easement given to City, where is it sho n on layout; histori rospective, how many pazking spaces originally at this site; door somewhat covered, eep door area comple't ly open ; what is the required space for handicapped access from parking space to si alk to walkway to fr t door. Item set for public hearing November 28, 1994 if all information is availab ACTION ITEMS 5. Chairman Galligan informed all applicants for action items at the rules of procedu'"�e for the commission require a minimum of 4 affrmative votes of the ted Commissioners ii�,�order to pass a motion; there are only 6 members seated tonight. If applicant would prefi�r to be heard by a full commission, they may request a continuan � There were no su�� requests. ��, �� "� FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 128 CLARENDON ROAD, ��ONED R-1 (MEHMET Reference staff report, 11/14/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggestetl for consideration. -2- November 18, 1994 To: City of Burlingame Planning Commission From: John Steiner Owner/123 & 125 Bloomfield Rd. Re: Property History Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I have taken the liberty of putting into words some of the history of the 125 Bloomfield Rd. house and why I am most anxious to remodel it, live in it and call it my new home. First of all by my living at 125 Bloomfield, I will be living back home in Burlingame once again and will be much closer to my business, The Oak Grove Market, which I own and operate. Other reasons for this decision follow: To me the 125 Bloomfield house is not just another old house. This old Victorian lady is part of my family heritage, because it was the first house my Grandfather John Parker and his bride Mary Celia Conway ever owned in Burlingame. The house was purchased from Mr. Frank Ferreira (also Known as Frank Frates) around 1919. It was built around 1910. Mr, Frates, according to my Gxandmother, was a fantastic gardner. Grandmother immediately fe11 in love with the house, the gorgeous flowers, shrubs, the �.r�es and the yard. She wanted 125 Bloomfield to be their family home and she got her way. There were three children, two boys and one girl, Barbara Steiner, my mother. 125 Bloomfield has always had a real warmth about it. A warmth and a friendliness that was created when relatives from the city or the neighbors would gather at the Parker House for an evening together during the depression, and the war years, and after the war years when all the holidays were celebrated at Grandma Parker�s house. I am old enough to remember a few of those holiday gatherings. There were other times when my older brother and I would run up and down the old stairs over the protests of Grandma our baby sitter. A glass of milk and a home-made cookie would always follow her stern lecture on safety. There is another element at the Bloomfield house that also contributed to its warm feeling and spirit. The house is up, off the ground. Its bright, because the sunshine seems to follow the windows all day long. The minute you walk through the front door � .. ; � . you have the impresssion that this house was a wonderful, safe place in which to live. As you can already sense this house means more to me than a roof over my head. It has a strong historical value to both me and my family. I know that my Grandparents would be very pleased and happy that I am claiming my heritage on Blaomfield Rd. for my family home. This historical value is why we have decided to use the more expensive redwood siding to keep that original charm and character that this Burlingame neighborhood demands. I feel this addition will maintain the beautiful character this house holds and also update it for better living in the 1990's and many years to come. I thank you in advance for your support of my request and look forward to the meeting on November 28th. �incerely, , / �' ` / � , .� f � . � - .�' �.� � John T. Steiner November 18, 1994 To: From City of Burlingame Planning Commission John Steiner Owner/125 Bloomfield Rd Phil Wilkinson Wilkinson Construction Lic# 593759 The following is in response to your questions and concerns that were brought up at the November 14th meeting relating to the proposed addition at 125 Bloomfield Rd.: 1. Elevations of new carport? Please see attached plans. 2. How will this addition conform to the Burlingame General plan and zoning ordinance? There are so manv exceptions? The Burlingame General Plan designates this site '�low density residential�� and allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre. This lot is 7,500 SF, which mathematically would allow 1.4 units. Although the two units are non-conforming, it is important to note that they are in fact legal and recognized by the City. The site itself is larger than most residential lots (7500 SF) and the units are smaller than most residential units (936 and proposed 2035 SF). How does it conform to the zoning code? The zoning code allows expansion of the primary unit upon approval of a special permit. The application for the special permit is in progress. Otherwise, this project meets all other zoning code requirements and we feel that there really aren't so many exceptions. The right side setback and parking at the site have been non-conforming for a number of years. However, this application does not extend the non-conforming setback. In addition, this application would be providing the number of parking spaces required of current zoning codes. The lot coverage is 11.1� bellow what is allowed; floor area ratio is 10� below what is allowed if the project qualified as new construction. The project is intended to replace and expand the existing kitchen and family room area; the room below is provided because it utilizes valuable space and makes economic sense. It should be noted that the room below will not adversely impact the overall look of this addition. . i . . 3. History about the property? (see attached). 123 Bloomfield is rented to a San Mateo Police Officer. 125 Bloomfield is the home and primary residence of John, Lisa and Johnny Steiner. � �. Concern about not using the rear yard & existina drivewav between the buildings. Explain why the existing drivewaX could not be used to provide parking As the home owner of this property I have to be the first to say that I would much prefer to have parking located in the rear yard, however, we feel that the following notes better justifies a front area carport. *The dimensions of space between the two structures are 8'1" from corner to corner and 6'3" from side to side. A minimum of 9 feet is required. By moving the addition this would extend the non-conforming right side setback and create the need for a side setback variance. Also, the angle an auto would approch the opening would still be 8'1" making it rather tight and uncomfortable to drive through. If a two car garage was to be built at the rear yard on the right side a 40' pine tree (74�� Diameter) would need to be removed. If the garage was to be placed on the left side two palm trees (12' high, 80" dia. & 15' high, 84" dia.) would need to be removed. The trees are beautiful and have strong sentimental value to the Steiner family. Sincerely, � , r �l/� �. lC� �_ John T. Steiner �, c p l � ' � r ' ,� � ,. � ,�.�t }� .. , � g r � �� , �x . � �.,. ' ° �� `�� ...�. ` �1 ; � �� : , � � � � V� � �R�� t —. � � � i� '�� l� aKa �� ' . 'Snr - .. � � � Nv � . C L�4R��I�o ^/ t� .�. � `p '� � �"' ,�z� � � � ��"�`" �' x. , ' � � � � �. 4 �� . 1■`� Y � � � � �� } W , .. . N Y � ' �. �� ,�♦ € . ��j� , . . ,��+,��"`�� A � �V " � � � � � , tL� � � � M � � � � � ? � ` � � �� . - �� t,.00�lF��G[.O � �� `�„ �� °' � � �: E , .�_ � �" �� s � , k� � �� '� �4 � � �� ..�• .� • . ,. �' � � � �� _ ;� y e _ �. � ;� A � j �� ' � , �� , - �X' . . .. , wr:•k : � ��'�z '" ' �. ' .� �, � , � � �� ' � � �� . �.� y � � �, " �"� , � �! , �,. �� y �� .�� k x� .� _,1 v�tA,^" � �F r� u :� � ;,��a �r,� `` t� � .a. � �, � , . , ` � „ ,- � � �W I C'i � �' � �` ., ;� , � � �tT � � d�4D �� ,� � ` W � � � ��: � � �a�� ,� �e � 4 �� F � � .. . 1' s';?Y �� * ; -� ' o�"� ��' :�r "� �� f � ":;;; � � � � � � ` � '��F ... ,,�q . A€'.�i'u...':�... � � � �� . � �� ;'��.. � ��, � � �� _� � � ° �; �; � � °� � ;�.�. �� +� 4 . :_ � � `_.,. r... � ,.: - �� M> . , ,x,. ^�/w a€� y . � : rh] A� _� . . � . . .. T �� <. . � ._ # a, �� _ ,� ; �,,. ,.. . a �. �+ F �A � � �}S': 3 L '^� . � ' � � � .��.�:. �'�*.' . ¢� ��" � � 4.+ a �. �' �Hi��;:.� '� w' � ' " : i - : e � � t �� ,� n . �, .: , • �. .. , . > , . ;� . � � � ,,. �� 's � ��: .. � ., p � . � � $�- t .� � �� . n�� - k � 6 CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF BEARING The CITY OF HIIRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 123-125 BLOOMFIELD APN: 029-272-090 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO EICPAND THE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ONIT AT 123-125 HLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1. 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. Please note, when possible, and when multiple family or commercial development is involved, this notice shall be posted in a public place on the project site and on neiqhborinq buildinqs with tenants. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER November 18, 1994 123-SBLO.nph r RESOLUTION NO. RFCOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL PERNIIT RFSOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a s.�. ecial permit to expand the primary residential unit at 123-125 Bloomfield Road: APN: 029-272- 090; property owner: Bazbara Steiner, Tr. , 2014 Ray Drive ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 12, 1994 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, TI�REFORE, it is RFSOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and revieweri, 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 Section 15301 - Class 1(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50°l0 of the floor area of the structures before the addition of 2500 SF, whichever is less is hereby approved. 2. Said special permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Special Permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. 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, 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 12th day of December , 1994 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY � II: Conditions of approval categorical exemption and special permit 123-125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD effective JANUARY 3, 1994 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 21, 1994, site plan, house and carport elevations; and other sheets date stamped November 4, 1994 including floor plan, foundation plan, building sections and electrical; 2. that the carport roof shall be of Class B fire rating or better in order to meet the requirements of the Chief building Inspector's 11/7/94 memo; 3. that the primary unit shall be 125 Bloomfield and that any additional expansion of 125 Bloomfield shall require a special permit from the Planning Commission and that there shall be no expansion of the 123 Bloomfield structure; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.