HomeMy WebLinkAbout1452 Benito Avenue - Staff ReportCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 22, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Graham on Monday, August 22, 1983 at 7:34 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: Commissioner Cistulli
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
Director of Public Works Ralph E. Kirkup '
MINUTES - The minutes of the August 8, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and
adopted.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with Item #12 to precede Item #1.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
12. REVIEW OF 11/27/78 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW PENINSULA SPORTS CENTER AT
1239 ROLLINS ROAD
Penelope Greenberg, attorney with the firm of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson
& Horn, Burlingame, represented the applicant. She indicated a willingness to meet
with all affected city departments to agree on a timetable for completion of city
requirements and requested this hearing be continued to the meeting of September 12,
1983. It was suggested the meeting be scheduled Tuesday morning, August 30, 1983,
Planning staff to confirm. Commission agreed and this item was continued to the
September 12 meeting.
1. AMENDMENT OF 6/13/83 VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 1452 BENITO AVENUE
TO ALLOW CHANGES IN THE APPROVED DESIGN, BY RICHARD TRUDELL
CP Monroe reviewed this request to amend the design previously approved by Commission.
Reference staff report dated 8/15/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received
8/3/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (August 8, 1983 memo), City Engineer (August 10,
1983 memo) and Chief Building Inspector (August 10, 1983 memo); letter from the
applicant received August 3, 1983; June 21, 1983 Monroe letter of action to the
applicant; May 25, 1983 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; June 13, 1983
Planning Commission minutes; 6/13/83 staff report, Item #2 with attachments; and
revised plans dated August 1, 1983. CP discussed details of the amended proposal,
staff review, applicant's comments on his request, code requirements and suggested
conditions of approval.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Richard Trudell commented on his proposal:
has no intention of using the area above the garage for living area; it is large
enough for living area but access to it would almost eliminate garage space;
intends to use this space only for a storage area/workroom; feel that lowering
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1983
the ceiling height and adding a dormer in the garage to match the front of the house
would enhance the aesthetics of the site; has already removed two nonconforming
bedrooms in the basement; there will be no electrical connections except for one
light and no stairwell access. Applicant presented recent photographs of the site.
CP pointed out that if the floor were lowered and the dormer openable it would be
occupiable area and would require one hour separation. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: there would be no control over a future owner's use of this
garage space; don't feel it is necessary to lower the floor in order for the applicant
to use this area as storage space; difficult to find justification for this variance
amendment; would prefer to have the floor raised in accordance with the original
plans with a glazed window; applicant advised access would be by a pull down ladder;
applicant has made substantial alterations to the approved plans for which Commission
made the necessary findings, and has given Commission no basis for findings with
regard to the requested amendment; think the dormer would improve the appearance of
the neighborhood; if applicant is looking for symmetry he should put in two dormers;
removal of the two basement bedrooms provided additional storage space, doubt there
is a need for so much additional storage area, don't find exceptional circumstances
in this case.
C. Taylor moved that the application for amendment of the June 13, 1983 variance to
allow changes in the approved design be rejected. Second C. Garcia. Comment on
the motion: think he should be allowed the dormer, it would improve the appearance
of the house; don't like to see space wasted, have no objection to the storage area,
if allowed it would be required to meet Fire Code regulations. Following roll call
motion failed on a 3-3 vote, Cers Leahy, Schwalm and Graham dissenting, C. Cistulli
absent.
C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the excessive height of this
addition, it is well beyond the normal height of a garage; that the addition of the
dormer makes it aesthetically appealing to the rest of the project; that there is
no public hazard; that neighboring properties will not be damaged, rather they will
be enhanced; and that the addition will not affect the comprehensive zoning plan
of the city since it will not be allowed as livable space. C. Giomi then moved
to approve the addition of the dormer with a sealed window only, the floor to be
raised and with no electrical or plumbing connections; and that the conditions of
the Chief Building Inspector's memo of August 10, 1983 be met. Second C. Schwalm;
motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Taylor and Graham dissenting, C. Cistulli
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN 8' FENCE AT 1208 DRAKE AVENUE, BY PHILIP AND
BARBARA LYONS
CP Monroe reviewed this request to enclose a new swimming pool with an 8' redwood
fence. Reference staff report dated 8/16/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 7/26/83; staff review: City Engineer (7/29/83), Fire Marshal (8/1/83) and
Chief Building Inspector (8/1/83); applicants' justification for the request;
July 25, 1983 letter in support from the neighbors at 1209 Cabrillo, 1204 Drake
and 1212 Drake; aerial photograph of the site; and plans date stamped July 26, 1983.
CP discussed code requirements for fences, staff review, applicant's justification,,
Planning staff site visit. Two conditions were suggested for Commission consideration.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicant, Barbara Lyons, expressed their
concern about the easement in the rear and their .feeling an 8' fence is needed to
P.C. 8/22/83
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION TO
AMEND THE APPROVED DESIGN AT 1452 BENITO AVENUE
Richard Trudell is requesting an amendment to the variance for a 3' side yard setback
granted by the Commission on June 13, 1983. The amendment is to alter the design
of the new garage to lower the ceiling height (from 9'-6" to 8'-2") and add a dormer
window. The interior clear space to the peak of the roof will increase from 8'-10"
to 10'-2". The proposed attached garage has a height of 19'-6". An amendment to
the variance was required because the proposed changes would allow the area above
the garage,which previously was open, be accessible and potentially to be used as
living area. Currently construction has been stopped by the Building Department
since the project was not being built according to the approved plans which were
also used as the basis for the building permit.
The amended proposal has been reviewed by staff. The City Engineer (August 10, 1983
note) had no comment. The Fire Marshal notes (August 8, 1983 memo) that since this
area can now be used as a living area there needs to be a minimum one hour separation
between the garage area and the second floor. The Chief Building Inspector (August 10,
1983 memo) notes he has no objection to adding just the dormer, but if this is the
alternative approved, the floor level should be raised to the top of the plate line,
glazing in the windows should be fixed, the access stairs should be eliminated and
electrical connections in the attic area should be eliminated. Taken together these
items would keep the area from meeting the 1979 UBC requirements for an occupiable
area. If the lower floor is approved, then the project must meet all the requirements
of the UBC for occupied areas.
On August 3, 1983 the applicant submitted a letter addressing his request. He states
that the failure to comply with the approved plans was the result of "architectural
ambitions" experienced as he and his wife saw the structure being built. That the
ceiling joist if covered with plywood could provide a good storage and small workroom
area. Finally, the symmetry of the addition would be better with the rest of the
existing house if a dormer were added. He states his intention to use the attic
area only for storage and workroom. He points out that there would be no access
to the area from the garage because then one could not get a car into the garage.
He feels an exterior stair would be too visible. There is no plumbing within the
house close to this area and one must leave the garage to get into the house to a
bathroom. The electrical panel for the house is also inadequate to handle the
heating and lighting for this area. He feels it's unfair to require him to build
according to the original plans on the basis that in the future someone else may
attempt to convert the attic area to living space. He points out if he were to put
it all back the way it was approved, there would be nothing to keep some ambitious
person from converting the area in the future.
The Commission must make findings for a variance (Code Sec. 25..54.020 (a) through
(d)). The findings made for the original variance were as follows: that there were
exceptional circumstances in that all lots in this neighborhood are small with 3'
side yards; that the variance was necessary for the enjoyment of the property rights
of the owner; that it would not be detrimental to other property owners; and would
not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city (Planning Commission
minutes of June 13, 1983).
-2-
Considering this request for an amendment to the original variance the Commission
should determine if these findings of fact are adequate to cover the change in the
project.
The Commission should hold a public hearing. To amend the variance, findings of fact
must be made. At the hearing the Commission should consider the following conditions.
If only the change to add a dormer is to be allowed:
1. the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of August 10,
1983 be met.
If the amendment for lowering the floor joist and adding a dormer making the area
an occupiable area is to be allowed:
1. the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of August 8, 1983 be met;
and
2. the new construction meet all required parts of the Uniform Building
Code as adopted by the City of Burlingame.
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
8/15/83
cc: Richard Trudell
PROJECT APPLICATION CITY 1452 BENITO AVENUE
BULI RNGAME project address
CEQA ASSESSMENT
---
...o'�......". (project name - if any
Application received ( 8/3/83 )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Richard Trudel l 579-1270
name telephone no.
1452 Benito Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicants address: street, city, zip code
Same 591-3353
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Permit ( ) Variance* ( ) Condominium Permit ( ) Other Amendment
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMENDMENT of the 6/ 13/83 VARIANCE for a garage
addition to allow changes to the approved design (lower ceiling
height and addition of dormer window). The amendment was required
by staff after discovering the design changes which were being
made while the garage was under construction; the changes had not
been reviewed by staff. The proposed design will not increase lot
coverage or height nor affect setbacks; however, it will allow future
use of the space between ceiling and roof for storage or additional
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) living space.
Ref. code section(s): ( )
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION P t n.
( 027-181-270 ) (/1 & 2) ( 12
APN lot no. block no.
( R-1 ) ( 4,950
zoning district land area, square feet
Richard & Jeanine Trudell
land owner's name
Required Date received
(yes) (no) ( )
(yes) (no) ( )
( Burlinghome
subdivision name
1452 Benito Avenue
lucre lsi ngame, CA 94010
city zip code
Proof of ownership
Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Existing single family dwelling
6
Required Date received
(yes) (no) (8 / 3/ 8 3 ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on -site parking; landscaping.
(yes) (no) ( " ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of use on each floor plan.
(yes) (no) ( " ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
(yes) (no) ( " ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
(other) ( ) 1 etter of explanation
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
PPn.1FCT PROPOSAL
Proposed construction,
-gross floor area
Below grade Second floor
(
First floor SF) Third floor SF)
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
Front setback
Side setback
Side yard
Rear yard .91
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
Lot coverage
Ruilding height
Landscaped area
On -site pkg.spaces 1
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
EXISTING IN 2 YEARS
after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full time employees on site
Part time employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach separate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on adjacent sites.
IN 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
Required Date received
"5:) (no) ( — ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(trQs.) (no) ( _ ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. company vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( ) Other application type, fee $ ( )
X
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 ( ) Project Assessment $ 25 ()
Variance/other districts $ 75 ( ) Negative Declaration $ 25 ( )
Condominium Permit $ 50 ( ) EIR/City & consultant fees $
TOTAL FE 25.00 RECEIPT NO. 3366 Received by M . Monroe
I hereh certif un a en y of jury that the information given herein is
true an cor'he y to�tAi pb of 4p k owledge and belief. �ov%
Signature
' Date O CJ 3
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 Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Categorically Exempt
19
M WN,�t AA M da— C LI` Imo- LS l �?
Signa ur -of Processing Official Title Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTING Date Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th,a Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on , 19
Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No
EVELYN H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME