HomeMy WebLinkAbout1153 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report (2)P. 8/24/87
Item #
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSI
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: TWO VARIANCES FOR VARKING AND SIDE YARD TO,M-AKE A SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO A INGLE FAMILY H E-_A'T 1153 BERNAL
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Mr. and Mrs. Brosnan are requesting two variances so that they can
remodel their existing two bedroom one bath house to a five bedroom two
bath house. One variance is for parking. On site there is a 17'-2" x
17' garage, code requires 20' x 20' or 20' behind the side setback line
for off-street parking (Code Sec. 25.70.030). The second variance is
for side setback (3' requested, 5' required) (Code Sec. 25.66.050).
The applicant proposes to extend the existing first floor wall, now 3'
from side property line, to the second story.
The existing house is 1,642 SF with a 551 SF garage; the proposed
addition will be 1,610 SF. The project meets all other zoning
requirements.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The Chief Building Inspector
(August 3, 1987 memo), City Engineer (August 10, 1987 memo) and Fire
Marshal (August 2, 1987 memo) had no comments. They each assume that
all the requirements of their respective codes will be met in
construction of the addition.
The City Planner would note that there is some history of code
violations on this property (City Planner memo, August 14, 1987).
However, these violations were corrected by the previous owner in 1984.
In addition there is an error on the applicant's plan which shows the
garage to be 18' x 291. A field check confirmed the actual interior
width of the garage to be 17'-2". In addition an existing interior
partition (not shown on the July 28, 1987 garage plans) further limits
the usable parking on the interior of the garage to 17'-2" x 171.
Since these dimensions do not meet the covered parking requirements for
a two car garage, a parking variance is required as a part of this
request. The plans show the driveway to be 21' long. The required
side yard on a corner lot is 7-1/21, leaving 13.5' between the setback
and the face of the garage. To qualify for tandem off-street parking
this area would have to be 20' deep. If the garage retained its
existing length and were widened to 20' (interior dimension) lot
coverage would be increased to 40.5% and a variance for lot coverage
would be required. The garage presently has a slab floor and an
operable garage door. The property line fence contains an automobile
gate.
Applicants' Letter
In their letter of July 27, 1987 the applicants state that they and
their architect were unaware that a variance for a 5' side yard was
-2-
required. The existing house is 3' from property line. They note that
their neighbor does not object to the 3' side property setback. They
reviewed plans showing an inset for 2' and felt that it made the
addition appear unattractive. Moreover with six children they feel
that they need the additional 2' of living space.
Findings for a Variance
In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Sec. 25.54.020 a-d):
a. that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property or class of uses in the district,
so that a denial of the application would result in undue
property loss;
b. that such variance would be necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the
property involved;
C. that the granting of such variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
injurious to the property or improvements of other property
owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or
improvements; and
d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Findings should
be made for affirmative action; the reasons for any action should be
clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should
be considered:
1. that the garage shall be remodeled to provide a usable covered
parking area 17'-2" x 20';
2. that all of the conditions of the January 17, 1983 fence exception
shall be met;
3. that the garage area shall never be used for living area or
separate residential purposes; and
4. that the addition to the house shall be built in a manner
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped July 28, 1987 with compliance with all the standards
of the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code and Municipal Code
as now adopted by the City of Burlingame.
Margaret Monroe
City Planner cc: Mr. & Mrs. P. Brosnan
T PROJECT APPLICATION ,����n °� 1153 BERNAL AVENUE
ftBURLING/4ME project address
CEQA ASSESSMENT
.;- Upstairs Addition
Application received project name - if any
Staff review/acceptance ( 7/29/87 )
1. APPLICANT Mr. and Mrs. P. Brosnan 347-7831
name . telephone no.
1153 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicants address: street, city, zip code
Same
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Permit ( ) Variance* ( X) Condominium Permit ( ) Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
VARIANCES for side yard in order to add a 1,610 SF second story
addition (5 bedroom/2 bath) which will maintain the existing 3'
side yard of the property instead of providing the 5' setback
required by code for a second story, and for parking for a
17'-2" x 17' garage where two off-street spaces are renuired.
The project meets all other setback, lot coverage and height
requirements.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.66.050 j (25'1a.p3o)
(confirmed by phone call to
Assessor's office-7/29/87)
4.
5.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
( 026-183-010 ) ( 1 ) ( 37
APN lot no. block no.
(_- R-1 ) ( 6,000
zoning district land area, square feet
Patrick J. & Maria P.i Brosnan
land owner's name
Required Date received
�). (no)
( Easton Addition No. 2 )
subdivision name
1153 Bernal Avenue
ad res
uM ingame, CA 94010
city zip code
Proof of ownership
Owner's consent to application
I
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
-One story single family -home
Required Date received
(y-es) =(;{T-) ( 7/28/87)
(yes) =(Ffa:) (
(yes) =(FFg) . (
(other) (no) ( 7/28/87
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on -site parking; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of use on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site tVers o c expll ana relevant).
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY)
Proposed construction, Below grade ( — SF) Second floor ( 1,6 10 SF)
gross floor area First floor ( 97.5 SF) Third floor ( — SF)
Project Code Project Code
Proposal Reouirement Proposal Reouirement
EXISTING HOUSE = 1,642 SF Front setback 24' 15' min-,
DETACHED GARAGE = 551 SF Side setback 9'-6" 7.5'
Side yard 3' S'
Pear yard 43' ± 15'
Lot coverage
Building height
Landscaped area
On -site pko.spaces
39.5%
40% max
30'
30' max
2
2
y . • T
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
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
EXISTING
after
8-5 5 PM
one
IN 2 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
IN 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES,
Residential uses on all adjacent lots. This use conforms
to the General Plan.
Required Date received
CEfl (no) ( — ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(�+a� (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 $ ( )
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 ( X) Project Assessment $ 25 ( X)
Variance/other districts $ 75 ( ) Negative Declaration $ 25 ( )
Condominium Permit $ 50 ( ) EIR/City & consultant fees $ ( )
TOTAL FEES $ 65.00 RECEIPT NO. 20718 Received by J . Kran i is k_y
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the st of my knowledge and belief.
Signature Date 7 — .2 7
7-
(Applicant)-
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on , 191
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; reference
Code Section 15301, Existing Facilities
IV n 41 &�W fv� U AJA �-�P— K)6. 14- , t,ci` 77
Sig ture 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 the Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on 19
Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No
JUD T1 H l.- MALFAITI, CITY CLERK, CITY 0E- BURLINGAME
STAFF REVIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated
reply received
memo attached
City Engineer ( 7/29/87 )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Building Inspector ( " )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Fire Marshal ( " )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Park Department ( — )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
City Attorney ( _ )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION
MEASURES
Concerns
Mitiqation
Measures
Does the project comply with
all Fire and Building Code
requirements?
Request comments from the
Fire Marshal and Chief Bldg.
Inspector.
Does the project meet the four
Review applicant's letter and
legal findings required to
plans, make determination.
grant a variance?
3. CEQA REQUIREMENTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? No - categorically exempt
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed (
) Study by P.C.
( )
Decision to prepare EIR (
) Review period ends
( )
Notices of preparation mailed (
) Public hearing by P.C.
( )
RFP to consultants (
) Final EIR received by P.C.
( )
Contract awarded (
) Certification by Council
( )
Admin. draft EIR received (
) Decision on project
( )
Draft EIR accepted by staff (
) Notice of Determination
( )
Circulation to other agencies (
)
4. APPLICATION STATUS
Date first received
( 7/28/87)
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter
to applicant advising info. required
( )
Yes( ) date
P.C. study
( )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes_j) (no) Recommended date
( 8j 2 4/ 8 7)
Date staff report mailed to applicant
(Y�l J� � ) Date Commission hearing
(k12 9(/�7 )
Application approved ( ) Denied (
) Appeal to Council (yes)
(no)
Date Council hearing ( )
Application a�ppp—roveed�( ) Denied
( )
�`/ov
I signed
date
DATE:_
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF'PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: (,W/a-rN
v S��
116-3
1
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for
at their �el I/ � a Q / 9? Z meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by
Thank you.
1153
f / cif
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for
at their %UrT ��� :? 4 / 92 meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by
Thank you.
9
DATE: 2 %�
i
MEMO' TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING IN CTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: l/'�/'a4-r2,C %t5) (->sle—
zy
An.application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for
at their Ur
cr.—�y��% meeting. We would appreciate havi g
your comments by �UvSr� /�71
Thank 'You. o c Oc,- car t— fto v1A -r c Rs-` Vmf\rtskM, — Lvv\
August 14, 1987
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
RE: HISTORY OF GARAGE USE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE
In 1982 the prior owner of this property was cited for installing a
fence without a building permit. When application was made for a
building permit it became apparent that the fence as installed was 8'
high and that the on -site garage noted then to be 17'-6" x about
24'-6" had been converted to a pool 'house.
A fence exception was granted on appeal by the City Council with
conditions on January 17, 1983. These conditions included that a gate
be installed in the fence at the driveway, the reconversion of the
garage be completed before final inspection of the fence and the new
fence be painted to match the existing fence.
The Building Department files indicate that a building permit was
issued for the fence on July 30, 1982 and the garage and fence had been
finaled by December 6, 1984. It should be noted that there is a
partition wall dividing the inside of the garage into two areas: a
17'-2" x 17' front area for parking and a 17'-2" x 11' area at the rear
which houses the pool equipment and washing machine and storage. This
partition wall was in place when the reconversion of the garage final
inspection was approved in 1984.
On August 14, 1987 Planning staff made a site inspection of the garage.
We found the interior dimension of the existing garage structure to be
17'-2" wide (not 18' as shown on the applicant's plans) and about 17'
deep (applicant's plans show no partition). There was an area 17'-2"
wide x 11'-4" deep behind the partition wall. Within this rear area
was the pool equipment. The owner told us that the slab in the rear
area which had been partially jackhammered up was removed in order to
connect the washing machine to the sewer line. Increasing the depth of
the garage to the code required 20' would require removal of the
partition wall and replacement of at least a part of the slab which had
been removed. There would still be 8' to 9' of usable area at the back
of the structure. (Note: the exact amount of remaining space is
unclear since the length of the garage has been reported differently in
different reports.)
A field check of the dimensions shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department date stamped July 28, 1987 indicate an error. The
garage is 17'-2" wide (interior dimension) not 181. We suspect the
length is 28' (interior dimension) but other documents show it to be
24'-6". We did not measure the length of the structure on the field
visit.
VQ
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
Zhr &fjZ of Alurlingumv
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD '
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
January 20, 1983
Dr. Michael Parkansky
1153 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Dear Dr. Parkansky:
At their meeting of January 17, 1983 the Council upheld your appeal of the
Planning Commission's determination on your request for an 8'-3" fence
exception. The Council's approval of the fence exception contained the
following four conditions:
1. that gates which meet the requirements of the Chief Building
Inspector be installed in the existing fence at the existing
driveway;
2. that the 8'-3" fence be built to UBC standards for such a
structure;
3. that the reconversion of the garage be completed before final
inspection and city approval of the fence; and
4. that the new fence be painted to match the existing fence.
City regulations require that you apply for a building permit subsequent to
receiving the above approval.
Sincerely yours,
u'1�lC�l nQ
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Chief Building Inspector
City Clerk
'Um Tits laf Wurlirtp=
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL: (415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
2 Variances
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 24th of August, 1987 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a pub Tic hearing on the application for 1) a 3'side setback where 5' is required for
a second story addition and 2) a 17'-2" wide garage where 20' is required at
1153 Bernal Avenue, zoned R - 1.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
August 14, 1987
r Ils3U1n`�
026- 183-- 0J0
s�o' x J ZD
=)
6 8 O
./_ x
6-_s �� 5
—6 ?S
Jl? x 29 =
s S J
Zhu s A-c -f Cz,
15'
Z'3 6�, 0 Y/ . 6 Do C) -= �3 �- s /lu
i b go
s iy- S
= 36,25 ► 6l n
-51
SF S _ednoo►�rh bat
- - -