The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About704 Burlingame Avenue - ResolutionRECORDING REQUESTED BY: Planning Deparhnent City of Burlingame WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE CA 94010 Resolution No. 060-2003 �OC #� 2003-204720 07i24/2003 08:57R RI Fee:NC Page 1 af 5 Reco�ded in Official Records County of San Mateo i.�arren Clocun Assesso--:.ount.}� Cle-k-Rec�rder 4_-orc��+ oy, iil ��! ! i�i ;i ;i i'ji i j�.� I I� �i ��I��' ��;�'�� i !'� ! i 'i� 1 ; `I � @ �� ' ; � i ��,�� .I � � I I � A 704 Burlin�ame Avenue ; APN: 029-173-110 TITLE OF DOCUMENT �� I hereby certify this to be a full, true and correct copy of the document it purports to be, the original of which is on file in my office. Date: 7_21 _0'i Marg ret onroe, Ci Planner RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE RESOLUTION 060-2003 RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a variance for side setback and lot covera�e for a single-story addition and a new detached gara�e at 704 Burlingame Avenue zoned R-1 Kaldor Trust property owner, APN: 029-173-110; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 23, 2003, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: �� 3. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Said variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variances are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. ,, TIM AURAN ` ' " I, , 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 23rd day of June , 2003 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Auran; Bojues; Brownrigg; Kerighran; Vistica; Osterling; Keele NONE NONE NONE SECRETARY Illilililfliil{!IIIIIIIilllill"liiilllili�lllliliilil 2��32 oe ��Z� EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and variances 704 Burlingame Avenue effective July 7, 2003 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 16, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-4; the decks on site shall be no higher than 30 inches above adjacent grade and the side setback to the deck and planter along the left side of the driveway shall be no closer than 9'-6" from the right side property line; 2. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's May 1, 2003 and the City Engineer's May 5, 2003, memos shall be met; 3. that the side setback variance and the lot coverage variance shall expire if the house is demolished or remodeled to an extent greater than 50% of the existing floor area; 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 5. that both variances, the lot coverage and side setback, shall become void if a second story is added on to the house or if the building is demolished, also the existing non-conforming setbacks shall be corrected or subject to variance should a second story addition be added in the future. !Iliiillili►il!iiil►illiill;Ilillii�{��'�'�I1�,�i►�i�'�!I'� ��.�� ! ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Apri129, 2003 _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal ✓ Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney Planning Staff Request for lot coverage and side setback variance for single story addition and a new garage at 704 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-173-110 . STAFF REVIEW: Monday May 5, 2003 �� 1��,�- �G��,( ��,� � Gr�� P�� 2� � � f .�- -�..� � a,,,,� c�Q� c�-v�e� o� cc� a� . � �w�� rd �=f3 nvy � atiw/ � ��v�r��dr � �J � . � P.�,�vUu i�c�,< ili' illl�i'lii�iiill!!I��li►l�il�'��i��!!�I� ��r�:�-_J:��,��, , Reviewed By: ate of Comments: '�� 3 ROUTING FORM DATE: April 29, 2003 TO: � City Engineer _Chief Builciing Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Staff Request for lot coverage and stde setback variance for single story addition and a new garage at ?04 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-173-110 . STAFF REVIEW: Monday May 5, 2003 �, � � �� ;�,e� � �� , , � �, illlllllll�lifll!Illlliiilllliflillliil��llllillii�l! 2�� 02�� Reviewed By: V� Date of Comments: �'C d��3 � ! A I m Warren S ocu Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder RECEIPT # 269523 Clerk: JNAGUE 07/24/2003 08:57A Document Num: 2003-204720 thru 2003-204731 REC. NO.: 2003-204720 # Pgs : 5 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 19.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204721 # Pgs : 5 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 19.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204722 # PgS : 5 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 19.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204723 # Pgs : 5 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 19.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204724 # Pqs : 6 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS ' FEE: 22.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204725 # PgS : 6 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 22.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204726 # Pqs : 6 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 22.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204727 # PgS : 7 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 25.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204728 # pqs � � DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 25.00 REC. NO.: 2003-204729 # Pgs : 7 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: 25.00 Page 1 Assessor phons 650.363.4500 fox 650.363.1903 email assessor�care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Clerk phone 650.363.4712 fax 650.363.4843 email clerk�care.co.sanmateo.ca.us 555 County Center Redwooci City, CA 94063-1665 web www.care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Recorder phona 650.363.4713 fax 650.599.7386 email recorder�care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Ni TE� C ��G A I m � Warren S ocu � Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder RECEIPT # 269523 Clerk: JNAGUE 07/24/2003 08:57A Document Num: 2003-204720 thru 2003-204731 REC. NO.: 2003-204730 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: REC. NO.: 2003-204731 DOC TYPE: RESOLUTIONS FEE: TOTAL NO CHARGE FEE -----> TOTAL FEE ---------------> TOTAL PAYMENTS ----------> Page 2 0.00 0.00 555 County Center Redwood City, CA 9d063-1665 web www.care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Assessor Clerk Recorder phons 650.363.4500 fax 650.363.1903 phone 650.363.4712 fax 650.363.4843 phone 650.363.4713 fax 650.599.7386 email assessor�care.co.sanmateo.ca.us amail clerk�care.co.sanmateo.ca.us email recorder�care.co.sanmateo.rn.us # Pgs : 7 25.00 ## Pgs . 9 31.00 273.00 �� CITY p � � BURLINOAME �.y�oq ,900 A �qp7[G JUNE m The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIIvIROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250 PLANATING DEPARTMENT BiJStLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790 July 8, 2403 T. Randolph Grange 205 Park Road Suite 203 Burlingame CA 94010 Dear Mr. Grange , Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Cauncil, the June 23, 2003 Planning Commission approval oF youx application for a lot coverage and side setbacic variances became effective July 7, 2003. This application was to allow for a first floor additioiz and a new, detached garage at 704 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The June 23, 2003 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 Deparhnent date stamped June 16, 2003, sheets A-1 tl�rough A-4; the decks on site shall be no higher than 30 inches above adjacent grade and the side setbacic to the deck and planter along the left side of the driveway shall be no closer than 9'-6" from the right side property line; 2, that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's May 1, 24Q3 and the City Engineer's May 5, 2003, memos shall be met; 3. that the side setbacic va,riance and the lot coverage variance shall expire if the house is demolished or remodeled to an extent greater than 50% of the existiilg floor area; 4. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and that both variances, the lot coverage and side setbacic, shall beco�rae void if a second story is � added on to the house or if tlle Uuilding is demolished, also the existing non-conforming setbacks shall be conected or subj ect ta variance should a second story addition be added in the future. All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department, This approval is valid for one year duxing which time a building pennit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered Uy the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to cha11ei1ge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter tiine is required pursuant to state or federal law. Sincerely yours, ��—� Margare Monroe City Planner EL\s 704BURLI.cca Bruce and Cindy Kaldor, property owners 704 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOT 17 BLOCK 12 BURI.INGABLES NO 1 RSM 20/49; APN029-173-110) :ity of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Offici 's memos dated arch 24, 2003 re rements of the C ornia Building an� �'urlingame. The tion was Comment on e motion: ap� meeting; l' e the added detail ojues called for a procedures we� me o shall be met; 4) niform Fire Codes, 2 C. Auran. � June 23, 2003 t at� the project shall meet all the 1 Edition, as amende�i'y the City of :c�ft has answered all of e questions the '�the garage and how it elates to the house. vote on the motio to approve. The mo 'o l. This item co luded at 8:00 p.m. ion had at the passed on a 7-0/4oice vote. 5. 704 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRUCE KALDOR, PROPERTY OWNERI (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report June 23, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if a lot coverage variance is granted for 96 SF, could the applicant come along and add more to the lot coverage. CP Monroe noted no, based on the conditions posted if the building is demolished then the lot coverage variance goes away and the new construction must meet current lot coverage regulations. All Commissioners have visited the site. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, project architect, stated that since the study meeting the lot coverage variance request has been reduced by 57 SF and the garage has been pushed back as far as possible and reduced in size. The existing house is a small house, master bedroom proposed is only 12' x 14', not oversized. Demolishing the garage and moving it to the back of the property reduces the mass and bulk on the lot seen from the street. Commissioner stated that they like the design but have a problem finding exceptional circumstances on this property, and noted that this is the only house on the block with a detached garage. Mr. Grange noted that 10% of the floor area of the house is in the porch alone, the house is small and they don't want to cut up the house. Considered filing in the porch and pushing everything forward, but can't do that because of the garage location. Commission noted that applicant states in application materials that they plan to retire in 3 years, do they really need an extra bedroom, what is the rational behind 3 bedrooms, can addition be made smaller, what is the hardship. Cindy Kaldor, property owner, stated that she and her husband bought this property four years ago expecting to retire in the house, her husband is planning on retiring in 2 years, in October she found out that she is responsible for 2 elderly aunts that are in their 90's, and will most likely be moving in with her. She also plans to continue to work and need a home office. An additional bedroom and bathroom will be easier to live in than 2 bedrooms. Looked at other options, like moving ,but want to stay in the area. Adding a second floor would require adding more space than needed in order to keep the design balanced. Talked with all of the neighbors about the project, and they were pleased with the project and happy that project does not include a second floor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: can see hardship due to configuration of the structures on the property and architecture; addition is modest, hardship with covered porch; sympathetic with reasoning for variances but don't agree that family members moving in is a hardship to justify two variances; need to be judicious in granting variances, we don't want to pave over Burlingame and lose green space, applicant should reconsider other options, second story addition or reducing rooms; porch is not really a hardship, several houses in � City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes 6. Burlingame have large porches; support project, limited by configuration of existing structures, this proposed project is less of an impact than going up; Commissioner asked CA Anderson if the project could be conditioned so that variances go away if new owner decides to building up. CA Anderson responded that Commission can add a condition that the variances are voided if a second story is added in the future. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions and the conditions suggested by the Commission: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 16, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-4; the decks on site shall be no higher than 30 inches above adjacent grade and the side setback to the deck and planter along the left side of the driveway shall be no closer than 9'-6" from the right side property line; 2) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's May 1, 2003 and the City Engineer's May 5, 2003, memos shall be met; 3) that the side setback variance and the lot coverage vaxiance shall expire if the house is demolished or remodeled to an extent greater than 50% of the existing floor area; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements ofthe California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 5) that both variances, the lot coverage and side setback, shall become void if a second story is added on to the house or if the building is demolished, also the existing non-conforming setbacks shall be corrected or subject to variance should a second story addition be added in the future. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motions: o.k. with this approval with the added conditions that the variances are voided if a second story is added, maker and second agreed to amended conditions. Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 2825 NTERA WAY ONED R-1— APPL TION FOR A HILLS E AREA CONSTRUCTION PE AND REAR SIDE SETBAC ARIANCES FOR A REAR DECK (ROBERT AND RE A CHAN, LICANT AND PR ERTY OWNERS) (5 OTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: June 23, 2003 Reference st f report June 23, 2 , with attachments. CP onroe presented the repo , reviewed criteria and staff mments. Four co itions were suggested fo consideration. Some Co issioners noted that they dr e by the site but ' not go onto the prope . All Commissioners visit the site. Commission disc sion: no hardship for side setback variance, walkway/stair, w uld eliminate side setback v'ance; other alternati hardship but ere is a solution without v ances; no convincin� setback, th e is a hardship because of t steep slope on the lot. C ir Bojues opene e public hearing. Robe and Regina Chan, prope owner, and Georgina Ladder, 831 Frontera W, were present. Applic as available to answer qu tions. Deck is rectangul ape in order to use oped space in the rear y d. Commission asked wh he deck couldn't be ma smaller. Applicants s ted that without a vari e the deck size would be re ced and usable yard are ould be lost, reducing e deck would also creat empty area for people to 1 into, want to cover en ' e area for safety. Small deck is not the best alte ative. Live above on the ri side, notice a discrep y in the plans; built conc te wall to hold back di at was moved; because of e slope loss of privacy ' a concern in this area• sa owner moving dirt, ne to either dispose of dirt no or fill in yard. There ere no further comm ts d the public hearing closed. ¢ next to deck for rear setback; �n for varianc�s made a �uerstana some understand rear 0 City of Burlingame P[anning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 3. 704 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIIZST FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRUCE KALDOR, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:28 p.m. Commissioners asked: • Provide a better explanation of the hardships on the property to justify the variance, for example a second story addition would eliminate the lot coverage exception, why not proposing; • Concerned about expanding the foot print of the existing house and some one later adding a larger second story; • There is little back yard left with this proposal, need a stronger rational for the exceptions; • Neighbor adjacent to garage should be contacted about the extension of the house and the new garage; • Simple to reduce this project to comply with lot coverage, reduce the garage some and the house some. Chair Bojues place this item on a future action calendar when there is space after all the information has been collected, addressed and reviewed by staff. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 4. & 5.1230 BROAD Y, ZONED C-1, BROAD AY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIO USE PERMIT FOR A OD ESTABLISHMENT (VITAE ARC URE, APPLIC AND ARCHITECT; ZE JONES, STARBUCKS COFFEE, APP ANT; TST'N CP�Monroe briefly presented,�ie proj ect. Commission asked the following q�'estions: .;. � • How much seating ,is�'available at the Burlingame Avenue Starbuck's site, indoor and outdoor; • Have seen a security officer at the Starbuck's on Burlingame, describe the program; • When are the peak sales hours, how do they correspond to available parking on Broadway • Will deliv�ries be made at the front or from the rear; f�r • What st�idards does the city usually require of lunited food services regarding tr�ash, clean up and sidew�lk cleaning; • Ho� can the business encourage customer use of the public parking nearby, can an access into the store m the rear be created; ��y'�' , •�w will the "outdoor" seating area be secured at night or when the business is closed; � How many similar businesses have outdoor seating in the Peninsula, what sort of problems have;arisen &om such seating; have there been problems created inside the store from outdoor seating; in this evaluation should consider at least one site within a block of a high school. CA Anderson noted that this is an application for a limited food service which is a change in type of food service on this site but a permitted option if the criteria are met, in this case the applicant is also asking for an increase in the seating limitation for a limited food service business so that requires review as well. �" The co ion set this item for the consent caler��r after the information has been submitted, when there was spa e available on that calendar. This ite sconcluded at 7:46 p.m. � �'+ ,r' ,� 3