The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1129 Bernal Avenue - Staff Reportc ti Address: 1129 Bernal Avenue City of Burlingame Side Setback Variance for Hot Tub Item #7 Meeting Date: 11/23/98 Request: Side setback variance for 0'-0" setback where 4'-0" is required for a new hot tub at 1129 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 23.01.040 (a)). Applicants: Charles & S.D. Eigenbrot Property Owners: same Lot Area: 6000 SF (50' x 120') General Plan: Low density residential Adjacent Development: Single family residential Date Submitted: October 8, 1998 APN: 026-183-070 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - construction and location of new, small facilities or structures -(e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Suminary: The applicants, Charles & S.D. Eigenbrot, are requesting a side setback variance for a hot tub located adjacent to the left property line where 4'-0" is the ininimum required for pools, hot tubs or spas at 1129 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-l. The hot tub is 5'-1" x 6'-8" by 29" high, and will have a bench on two sides. The hot tub will be located 36'-6" from the rear property line. A side setback variance is required for 0'-0" where 4'-0" is the minimum required for a hot tub, pool or spa (CS 23.01.040 (a)). The applicant is also constructing a pump hot�se to enclose the mechanical equipment which measures 5'-0" x 5'-0", 25 SF in size and 6'-6" lligh. It is also proposed to be located adjacent to the left side property line. Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code related to swimming pools, hot tubs and spas states that accessory equipment which is enclosed in a soundproof structure requires no setbacks and may be placed adjacent to a property line. The pump house is proposed to be soundproofed to meet these requirements. ��II�� *Side Setback (L): Rear Setback: Set.back from building: Pool Equipment: Pool Fencing: Lot Cover�ge: 0' -0" 36'-6" 8' -0" 0'-0"(enclosed) Fence w/self-latching gate on left & right side of house 33.4 %a (2,004 SF) ALLOWED/REQ'D 4' -0" 4' -0" 5'-0" 0'-0" if enclosed must be fenced with self latching gate 40 % (2,400 SF) * Side setback variance required for 0'-0" where 4'-0" is required for hot tubs, pools or spas. Meets all other zo�ung code reqt�ire�neuts �nd regulatious for swimming pools, hot tubs and spas. Side Setback I�a��iance fo�-Hot Ta�b 1129 Berytal Avenue Staff Comments: The Chief Building Inspector's notes (October 13, 1998 memo) that a one hour fire- resistive wall is required on the pump house wall at the property line, and that acoustical treatment is required for the pump house. The City Engineer notes (October 13, 1998 memo) that the pump house must be enclosed and sound proofed per City code because of the location on the property line. The Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. Staff would note that the adjacent property owner at 1125 Bernal Avenue has submitted the attached letter (dated September 16, 1998) supporting the proposed location of the hot tub and pump l�ot�se. Study Meeting: At their meeting on November 9, 1998, the Planning Commission asked several questions regarding the plans submitted. The applicant has submitted the attached letter and revised plans date stamped November 16, 1998 which respond to the commission's questions. The commission noted that the plans show adding another s11ed off the kitchen windows which will block them, is this the intention. The applicant notes that this shed is proposed to be located below the existing deck and will not block the windows which are above the deck. The commission asked if a permit is required for the electrical work proposed. Staff would note that electrical and plumbing permits will be renuired for installation of the spa. The commission also asked if permits are required for the 7.5' tall trellis shown extending from the property line to the building. Staff notes that this trellis would be considered a fence which is limited to 7' high a distance of two feet from the property line, and the applicant has reduced the height of the proposed trellis to 7'-0". A building permit is required for a fence which exceeds six feet in height. The commission asked the applicant to provide elevations at tl�e corners of the lot. The plans date stamped November 16, 1998 show the elevations at the property corners. Required Findings foi• V�ri�nce: 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): (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 applica��t, 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 111C� will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; anci (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. Side Setback I�ariance foi•Ilor Trrb e 1129 Bers�al Aveni�e Plamung Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public llearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested variance. 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 date stamped November 16, 1998; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Ofiicial's October 13, 1998 memo and the City Engineer's October 13, 1998 memo shall be met; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Maureen Brooks Planner c: Charles & S.D. Eigenbrot, applicants and property owners City of Burlingttme Plnnning Commission Mrnutes October 26, 1998 clearance of the chimney from the structure; aware that this project has been reviewed by a design reviewer but the project still looks like an addition on top of the house; the roof pitch of the house in the field is different than is shown on the plans, will applicant remove the entire roof and rebuild it; how were the front elevations shown at property line arrived at; elsewhere notations show elevations of 9.5", how were they arrived at; the elevated deck at the rear is 4'- 4" off the ground, people seated on this deck will be above all the fences around the property, why is this height needed; how does the dormer on the second floor fit into the architecture of the building, could it be changed to fit; on the left side of the building from the street, how was the 3' average floor above grade determined, how does it fit with the garage and sun room; correct plans the sidewalk is not 10 feet wide. Provided all the information is available to staff in time the item was set for hearing and action on November 23, 1998. APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2714 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-l. (JOHN BUTTE, ALDEN HOUSE II, APPLICANT AND PETER & SALLY BECKER, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: at the rear on Alvarado Drive it was hard to determine the rear of this house, could they add a street number at the rear so could identify lot as one on Easton; there is a large tree on the east side, noted as "tree A", will it be removed; there are a lot of dimension lines on the site plan which have no dimensions on them, add all the d'unensions; clarify on the site plan what is on the first floor and what is on the second floor; the shed roof shown is very flat, this lack of slope seems to be driven by one window, can you consider some other solution to the roof like changing the window and increasing the slope. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on November 23, 1998, providing that the information is available to staff in time. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOT TUB ADJACENT TO THE LEFT SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1129 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES W. & S.D. EIGENBROT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: plans show adding another shed off the kitchen windows which will block them, is it the intention; will the applicant need a permit for the electrical work proposed; 7.5' tall trellis is shown extending from properry line to the building, does the applicant need a permit to install this; elevations should be shown at the corners of the lot. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on November 23, 1998, providing that the information is available to staff in time. APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-STORY, 3-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1459 OAK GROVE, ZONED R-3. (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND RON GROVE & JOE RAVELLA, PROPERTY OWNERS. CP Moiu�oe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners commented: C. Key noted that she _ lived within the notice area so would abstain on this item; would like to see more detail on the landscaping at the front of the building, what is being planted; do not see the guest parking space -2- NEW �XIORLDS, HOMES and LANDSCAPES DESIGf�IING and BUILDING EXCELLENCE City of Burlingame Plauning Coimnission 11/12/98 Re: Study item's for 11.29 Berna1 Avenue; preliminary hearing 11/9/98. General and Landscape Contractors 1307 Lake Street, San Francisco, CA 94118 Phone / FAX 415-386-4411 Lic. # 7415 58 Shed is on ground level below deck and will block no windows. (Kitchen on 2"d level). Permits will be pulled for electrical and plumbing. 7.5' ta11 trellis changed to 7.0' tall (noted on plan). All corner elevations noted on plan. RECE�VE� Thank You. Greg Kirchner Designer / Builder NOV 1 6 1998 CITY OF BURLIN�NME PLANNING DEPT. ,�ry cir } ' �R� CITY OF BURLINGAME .��' APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COn�INIISSION �� Type of Application: Special Permit Variance�Other Project Address: � � ^ � �� ' � � Assessor's Parcel Number(s): LD �� ' ��'' �� APPLICANT , � • Name: �-- �,•� � � '�� ;' �. � �e,�, � °r - � Address:_� �� j� �" �` �'. � f� �;r City/State/Zip: ��( � (^ r ; ,C,CI.-r�, C �( � ( � r n , � Phone (w): ,�-' �, ,� �... � �r. (h�; ' u � � l c�� f1X: ` � , t- - r -i� • � �� ' f � ' 1 i' PROPERTY OWNER Name: �-{ �� 4'� `� r p � ri" �� ,'v! � ��, � r !} �� , %� ' F . +°rr7 a Y�.� v , Address: � � l �s. ��v �.0 �n-�- � City/State/Zip: � � '�� Y � ° i> �- � ;__ o � � �' i ,? f �� - �< <- � } -. +r Phone (w): � � y {� �_'� �,: . � � - - �� h) � '� -, : `� �, , f ° � ARCHITECT/DESIGNER � Name: �' � �i�CGd�p►'�f�es%�I�- �`Ccn��iaU�� . Address: _ / .�ib 3- LQ��e .Sfi � City/State/Zip: �� ''�� G�T� �%t �1 `o�ff� Phone (w): `%�S 3��, y� // �h,: y�s 3 �� fax: . - � ,` � - _ ;% Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. f�: � /� S � �6 �1 �f // PROJECT DESCRIPTION: t7 �'� "l �� la'1 i ICt i�Gt / Q1�1 AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. .. , o � �i �' Applicant's Signa ate I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Pl ing Commission. ��'�t {.e_F� 1 �� b o � Pro erty wn s Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------------------ RECEIVE� Date Filed: Fee: OCT - 8 1998 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. '. BURLJNGAME - h.�� c , - �,. CIT1' OF :UFLINGA��.�IE ��AF;IANCE aPPL►C�TIONS The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will 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. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. The existing swimming pool and sewer lateral combine to make one side of our backyard a superior choice for a spa placement. The swimming pool deck offers a concrete area that can be added to without eliminating planted area. The sewer lateral also will not be covered with reinforced concrete, spa, and utility hookups in the proposed plan, allowing better long term maintenance of the lateral. The plan also allows the current grassed area to remain as a planted area rather than adding additional concrete coverage. The proposed placement is therefore part of a harmonious landscaping plan. b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. The existing pool-side azea is congested by the presence of the pool's pump house or shed. The proposed plan makes this area available for pool-side seating and entertainment. Proximity of the spa to the pool is logital, but other than the proposed placement, this would again occlude the pool-side area. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. No properties in the vicinity have a significant impact from the proposed spa placement. Placement on the property boundary will not have a detrimental impact on the property at 1125 due to two things: the nature of the spa's construction, and the nature of the building at 1125. The spa is new and constructed to high quality standards (ISO 9000). These include the use of no 90 degree turns in the circulation system (water flows quietly), and substantial insulation within the spa cabinet. The spa operates at lower sound levels than existing pool shed near the same spot. The pool shed will be replaced by one constructed to applicable code. Home at 1125 Bernal includes a 2-story addition on the property line. The proposed spa site is next to this addition. The addition has no windows on this side. New landscaping features offer additional buffer . Spa will be invisible from home at 1125. Backyard of our property is within a fence system with gates built to code. No unimpeded access from the street or adjoining properties. Spa has lockable cover when not in use. No public right-of-ways effecte , no nei hbor's access to their property effected. � h�o w wi// the proposed pro�ect be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT The spa placement as proposed hides it from the home at 1125 Bernal, despite its proximity to the property boundary. Other potential placements do not have this characteristic, and so would have greater line-of-sight and sound impacts on 1125 Bernal Ave. The proposed placement and associated planned landscape features prevent substantial view and sound impacts on other adjoining properties. RECE� �/�C� � siss ��.r�, OCT - 8 1998 CITY OF B�RLINGANiE PLANR�ING DEPT. a. Describe the exceptiona/ �r extraordinary circumstances or conditions a,pplicab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. . . Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common tn other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures7 How is this properry different from others in the neighbo�hoodl b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t frorr� the denia/ of the app/ication, c. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms7) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exceptionl Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property7 Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbagel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage 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 sprinklers be installedl Could the structure or use within the st�ucture create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removall. �eneral welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped7 d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodt If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the characte� of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinityl Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why you� project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,sns�...ar„ OCT-07-1998 13=�8 PARADISE VRLLEY SPAS P.01 i • ' 'I . I 1-98 � �ar�es Epgenbrvt �:1�Toise l�ve1 a}f sundance Tango Hydrothez�apy spa Mr. �igenbr�at, m writ�g this letter to respond to yaur cancerrts regarding the naise level of the spa dch ya� have pku�chas�ed from our corr�pany. All Sundanee spas are manufaatured to avide ttie $inestj quality hydrothera�y while amitting the lowcst pessible noise. Th� idauce �roduct! has rnan� design features which allow it #o operate with such little ise. Fit§t is the �silent filtration feature which has a noise level equ$1 to ambient. The Ey otkieF ti�e thiat the spa wauld m�ake more noise than that is when yau are actually in ; apa u�ing the jets. There are two settings an the pump, arad even with the pump on igh, thG noise is Iow_ Tha rcason for tlus is that Sundance uses Aqua#low pumps, which ; the qunet�ist pumps in the industry. We also use a patented maaifolc� pinmbing syster,� uc}� is more fre�-flowing th�.n s#andard systems and thus results in very little r�oise yn the �alumbing system. The �ntire plumbing �y�n and the entire sk�ell and cabinet is mpletelp foam �nsulated wkzich also ix�sulatea for noisc and hea� P1eas� see the attaehed Eer wrhich rated; the Sundance .Rio whic� is a larger spa than yours and so yo�n^s shc�ul�l quie�ter than thf figures given for the Rio. Waitz . ' I RECEIVE� OCT - 8 1998 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. TOTAL P.01 OCT-08-19� 11�57 PARADISE VALLEY SPAS P.01 ��' ��3 MANUFACTURERS OF pUAUTY POATABLE SPAS []IVtSIQN OF CLARK MFG., IAIC. May 15, 1995 Paradisc Va1ley Spas 1737 �outh El Ca�Yir�a R�al San IMateo, CA 94402 KlE: �equest for dbA levei o£ l 9�8 R.io for cusComer Ju�tux Power Dear �eth, This �letter is in r��ard to the request for the met�red decibel level of the Ric� model. A tcst was set upi consisting of a� 1998 Rio. The spa was operated with th� cover r�rnoved, to record typical spa o�+erating c�nditions. TE�e decibei level was recorded at 3 fe� from the front csf the s�a. The readings were a�ctUally measured around the entire �erimeter of the spa, with tt�e levels recorded in ihe! front b�ing high�st. The spa operated wit6in the follawing con�traints: Meter reading - C$.3 to 74.2 dbA Whet� the circ;ulation�pump was mm�ing atid maiz� pump ar' blow�r were not opera.tiQnal, rhe riaise� levei vwas equal ta ambien� it need� to be uoted that the actu,a! installation m�thod �nd locat�on will h�ve an effect on th� total operational level. Cet�tin mountinD situations and Ivcal foli�►ge may incre�se or decrease the aperatianal noise level. Pleasi� cc►ntact me with �ny questions or concerns. Sincerely, /// . "`� ��. Y ' a � 3efft�y Collins R&I�/Test Enginecr Sund�nce Spas c.e.: Justin Power ICa.ren HatSsez� RECEIVE�j OCT - 8 1998 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. FA)C MACHIN� NUMBER$-9091591-9977 • 909/591-f}919 P.OL Box 29�D • 1�951 Monte Vista Avenue • Criino, Caiifornia 91708-29U0 • 9ti9/627-7670 TOTAL P.01 September 16, 1998 Milia Belinsky 1125 Bernal Ave. Burlingame, California City Planning Department 501 Primrose Lane Burlingame, California Dear City Planner, My neighbors Charles and Shirley Eigenbrot, who live next door at 1129 Bernal Ave., have asked me to write to you. They are planning to renew their backyard landscape, and said they need a variance to do it the way they want. I have seen their plan, and I have no objection to it. Let me be more specific about the features of their plan you might be worried about. Their design includes moving the pump and filter equipment for their existing s�nrimmin� pool to a nevv location. It �vould be almost immediately adjacent to our property boundary, next to the part of my driveway where I usually keep my car. Charles has explained that a new pool house for the p�al equipment will Ue constructed to sound-proofing standards specified by the City of Burlingame. The existing pool house does not meet the sound-proofing standards. Where their pool house currently is, they want to put a spa. This position is on the same property line, but just beyond the end of my driveway. Starting at this point, my house comes up to the property line. Since it would be near the property line, a variance must be approved by the City. As I said above, I have no objection to their plan. Where a non-sound- proofed pool house currently sits, a spa will be put. The functions of the current pool rouse �.�vil� be moved to a ne�n� sound-proofed enclosure in a ne�v location. That is fine with me. Sincerely, 9'// � '� ` �; �Iilia Belinsky f � /'2 ✓�� RECEIVEC� OCT - 8 1998 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I 1 �-q �� v�ti�� `�1�� A'�v '�t��N�T �vG�-c... 67�Mo ��2.P�c�� utv� i � P(..�CF_ N� � �..� ,,v �:> 2 . -d-� � iz �� -� � 6'� / t. . rf ~��'�� ,:,� Y'[1 .�r 3 �.. f : _. �Yr A; � .« , �' Y�'« a-f�` a ' ' / � ;s ..,�-� , . . �, , �p�. I �" c F . ' : . . . '. . i' t}� ��. . _„��,.�-• �' .. � - f ' � •. . � ,� �v � __ —_ — .. -.- _ . I I � +:� -:m) � • ' •� •��' �, •t,•^t. . � � � • ,,1 � � , `� � � �,'1 � I � l r /1 /� « .au� � � �,'4f`Y `�" - � , ♦ `� .!'y�r Y%".�i- �'^R�>r. r.. �...- r . y: �.. l.r r��: ,. ' + .' � �R- ' / . ` � � ..'^ . ' . .,. E � � r,y �•l ,� y ��3 . � ��- �i` i: �� r+4 . �. ��, . �"� '�Tv� . ,.. -" ��" f.f% ., `; .�_Y'� . , r'�' - y�.� `: ,k�.: : .. •. . r ��:•'�l.� "ca�• _ •- _— ._ ----' _.. e _ ��.:�t�"/.r\, ' n ii . , ,. . . - --��.+�� Y . . ' � � . •'J�..r�� ' .. . . � „ � � ROUTING FORM DATE: October 8, 1998 TO: CITY ENGINEER �C CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB,TECT: Request for side setback variance for hot tub at 1129 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-070. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: November 23, 1998 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesd�y, October 13, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Rub en � � �' ate of Comments ��o�,, �v�e r�s�s�-i�`� w��v�� -�. � � I� �� , ��,�� h ays� @ �fd��`�( l�o�-s e� �� l �e� � r �'�`� '�� i/ �c o � s � `� �`` � �✓ / C`�/ 0 ROUTING FORM DATE: October 8, 1998 TO: � CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIl2E MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB,TECT: Request for side setback variance for hot tub at 1129 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-070. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: Novelnber 23, 1998 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesd�y, October 13, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben 0/3 Q� Date of Comments /�l%M/� �/d%G�,fC /"!(/ f i �.:�Cr ��iCL E.rL / ��Q S� � .� � /�2 u �i �� r.�:L C�7 % �C�� c: �t. r � i.�l �`" � .� ... L.� U C�. � .^rN L��c-' ��t' i? i� Z/� T�f �/'7� E"" i /�! � C_� /� / f%G,tf �'4 rr't.F 0 • CITY OF BURLINGAME rC_1�[i�l pLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 i. i.�'9 PERNAL AUENUE ARIV:�►�b-183-4�7� Applicatinn for side setback variance far � PUBLIC HEARING hvt t�.�b adjacent to the left side proper�ty NOTICE line �t 11�9 Pernal AvEn�ie, �oned R—i. The City of H�_�r,lingame F'l�nning Commission anno�_mces the following p��blic hearing on Manday, Nove�ber 23, 1998 at 7:0� �. M. in the ��'y 'FfaT'I�'"�"o�:inc """-'CfiamFiers lvcated at 501 R��im��ose Raad, L��.�r�lir�g�me, Califor�nia. Mailed Novewher is', 199A (Please refer to other side) � ��'� .� �a�� -� •��.� CITY OF B URLINGAME . I A copy of the apphcat�,.g�. �dy�g�fi��`c��t�a�s'��ro�e�t may be reviewed prior to the meeting at� fhe :�'�uxriirig T,�e�art��n�� .t :SO1 Primrose Road, � , , �� e>: Burlingame, Cal.i,fozma. 'e � � � � �:' �� . �..;,�,-"` If you challertge tti�.subject application(s) in court; yc raising only,:tfiose issues ,you ar someorie els� raised a' described in�thez,motace a� �n�wntte�n co�e,�pondence .+ � at or prior t� tt�.,�;�ub�c, �near�ng � � ` - � � �� ` � ; , � � �� _ z.� �� :.� � , Property o �F '%� �ho re�ei� tenants abo�t� � noti� �, � � ,;� .� � , 696-7250. �I'Y��xz�ic �ou �; G , � �� ti � �?� � <e,�a� � Margaret 1VI�i'� . �� : ` City Planner � �� ;'. , �. ,•.,� ��. ;, >� ,��.V ; � __ � � � PUgL�G � � , ,(Please refer to other side) .� � , �� : . .., f CE be limited to blic hearing, ;d to the city ming their call (650) � �� } . +��.+.: "' . Y , .:,, .; _ _ ,. . � «- �° - �a; ��" x� ,� . _ . : - ." ; .� �, , , �� .� Y} ,.. , �,:" �U ' . .. � . . ... II . r .�, .., �� , a . � �1 � : a - . � �.... . ... , . � , � r r r ;. j . . � . � . -. • � � -y _. , .� . . ,i - . , �. �,� . , " . .'. r" . � , . :., , � �.� �' ��.�� . . . .. � . .� ,. . ��_ 'a: � '. p� ; �' " r, (, �� . � � �L; � . - �.,. ar� , a' H � ' , ��k4�!Y , .y� � . ... .. � . � ..� R'.. .fY �e`.f�s. �.e:: �+.'. °. " � y � � �, ,, r .�' . . . . �; � � r. :, M � ¢� .,, „ ';. . , � . °4 . . q iy"' � � Y .ti . , ry e .. A . . " � . � �` �' a.`: �; ��c .:.r f '�'"'� r,� •�r - �?t � �... ' � : � _. � y " . ,A, . . . .. , „ � � .. ,. � .�� ; � , , ,. ».t ,� , i ��( ,, . ,. _ . ,.. # , <,.� � , . �. t1 M �� , : i«i � ; i � y ,. , ,� �,.M` � . : W . . ^. , ' � � . �.. . , �- . :.�r °� � _ ,�.. - R 4�1 � .�� i ei � � , � W i c �, � �� :" � �� . w . . 5�� , � � . . � � ttl __. . � �� , ,� ,� � , � _ �. � _ < < �-� � �- �. , ; �j . r . ;;itiW. +, �.y: �. �'" :.ri pi�•. . a� ... _, " � �;* i""„ �- '�� '' b' �+� �� .. � .. .. „� . . �� .��. �� , _ �� M.. . . ..... � � : � � li � ��,�, �M � �,, - :, � „�.,, �� ,, .;, � :.,., .. . ,e�� V � � �_^� � ,� ' � , , � � � � �y�,-�� . _�' . .� r. .. � �' °. .. & � �: *� � � . � j�' � vtu�, . : : . � , � � r , � + Z � � ... " ��-. . ` Nr, . � ' ^ m y . . � . ��'�,: N , „ { :.. wk.�. r . yr Y ^' i: ,x �� y y , � • � ., ! � ` " � . v ' 1 �� n � fic� r` - . � , • � ,:. ., . :� . • �i.. ..� � T . ,. . .. , . .. A. :I, . ��.. ,...„ . � � � ' � � . .'... _. ' . , _ . . 6 \, .. � :..M . a � q . . .�._ . . - : . , �� .. . . . � . N . ! .e., . t. y . Yi' 1 .• . � . � � , ; '., . � .: e. ' ��, . �, , � :. •. 4 � � �� ';^h. � , t: . } : ^ . �. ; � I � +� �� ` � . `• ��, ' . . � � 4 : 't� ` r . , P.o- f, A+k �a , T:� . t a �„ � � , „ , u� � � � . � � � �s _ _ �.. .� � � � ��< : , .: _� ;� � � � �c � � F ' `� �. .. .� .ti . . � ' � � � . ,._.. , 112p� r �; , � �`� � x . �... '�' � ' ��_. ...n +�ili►" . .d�.... �' ' '��t b ��: ., r,Ee � j�.usx" �• �y �� 3 ;:r �-J_ , ��.lGc�.uN�R � .. . � , - „�r �! IE�{ V E, r I�c�l ; J ¢ ; � � � � �"' ��,. � . , , , � � � ��.. � - _ �� m - � s , �, . � r► - . _. � � � .. �,� � . - � .- � • - � k�� :`*�. :� '' .,'`�i;. � �^... .T`�s'�i � '�; � � J tt p � v } , � , � u � . �. � ��, , .. "-.�.� � . � ��, .._ } � ��k. . � � e k��vv .a., � � _ . aif' cv , O . �° , �;� � ... � , - ' �;�� ,� � � �� . _ . ,.. 4 � � . �, , : � }�.QO�3t�el-�- ,,, ,. , : � � � �' '' "� 0 ' � ... � � ,��`,; ,�� 5�1,� 1 ,,» � � . � � . , �' �, • � �•_ � ;� � :�:= � .� � � �. . ; ' � � � � � � � ,, � �� , � _ �,� � � � . � �, ,� oL �� ; r _ . � .. �. _ �, . : .�. .� � ;�. .�,�,., . �, , „ , � � . , �� . Q - �� w f�� , � � :�, , _ �� :�,�1�� y�, . . . , :; �� :•• . . ;: ,.,.: A,� , , � � ` f• * < .� .,� � �. , � ,.��. _ �, . ,,; � W ,� �, � �_ 390� ►3DA R, � . � �,�s . A � • ...�r� �.�*�'' �o . ; ` , ' V' , , � ' . . ,. , : � �, � � � ,�� , F � � . - r. � _ •.: . Q .. � � . _ . .. . .. r �� . . �. �z . ,�^,.. � � � - � ` . � , ....`:, i � ' ; - i.� 'k ' .... �: `:. . . , � � iy' �. w. . � yy':. �� , :..�' � � r �lLLSBvRbu�, � � � ,,.�u ,�. � ;� �. '� � �, �� ; ;:; ` .,� sa - � / � �a `� � ��:.. � . ' '� �, � �;; . � `� , � �� ' RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exernption has been proposed and application has been made for a Side setback variance for _a new hot tub at 1129 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Charles & S D Ei eg nbrot, ��t.y owners, APN• 026-183-070; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 23, 1998 , 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 DETERM�NED by this Planning Commission that: 1. 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 signiiicant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, construction and location of new, small facilities or structures -(e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is hereby approved. 2. Said side setback variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such side setback variance 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, Dave Luzuriaga , 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 November , 199g , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption and Side Setback Variance 1129 Bernal Avenue effective DECEMBER 7, 1998 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 16, 1998; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 13, 1998 memo and the City Engineer's October 13, 1998 memo shall be met; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 2