HomeMy WebLinkAbout1153 Bernal Avenue - Staff ReportBURLiN9i
AGENDA
..
EM
STAFF REPORT MTV
....'w.. •• DATE l 11 16l 8 7
TO: _City Council SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: November 6, 1987
FROM: C'i ty Planner APPROVED
-- - By
SUBJECT: Appeal of _ Planning- Commission's Decision on Two Variances for a
Residential Remodeling at 1153 Bernal Ave Zoned R-1.
The City Council hold a public hearing and take action.
Conditions Approved by the Planning Commission:
1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's October 9, 1987
memo shall be met;
2. that the second story addition and garage replacement shall be built
as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped October 1, 1987, with the added condition that a fence be
placed perpendicular to the property line on the side of the driveway
closest to the house, with a push gate placed so as to avoid the pool
and spa area, the gate to be no closer to property line than 21, with
the existing gate across the driveway to be removed; and
3. that a planter or other'fixed obstacle shall be placed in the 1.5' area
between the garage wall and the spa.
To grant a variance the City Council must find the following apply to the
property (CS 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 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;
d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the
comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
m
2 -
Action Alternatives
1. The City Council can uphold the Planning Commission and app"rove th'e
applicant's request for a variance to the 5' pool setback requirement
and for a variance to the 5' side yard setback requirement. The City
Council must make findings regarding the variances and/or accept the
Planning Commission's findings.
2. The City Council may reverse the Planning Commission's action on the
variances for the pool setback and side yard setback and deny the
application. The reasons for such action should be clearly stated.
3. The City Council may deny without prejudice the application for the two
variances. This alternative should only be pursued if it is determined
that additional information is needed, if the application contains
material not considered by the Planning Commission or if the Council,
identifies some revision to the project which requires additional
review. Council should state sped'ifically for the applicant, Planning
Commission and staff what additional information and review is needed.
BACKGROUND
Mr. and Mrs. Brosnan are requesting two variances so that they can add a
second story to remodel their two bedroom, one bath, single story home to a
six bedroom, two bath, two story house with a new two car garage at the
rear of the lot (CS 25.66.050). One variance is needed for a 3' side yard
('5' required) so that the second story can be built over the existing side
first floor exterior walls (CS 25.66.050). The second variance is required
for the separation between the spa and the new garage (1.5' requested, 5'
required) (Ord. 1185). This variance resulted from the need to replace the
existing 17' 2" x 17' garage with a code standard 20' x 20' garage after
the swimming pool and spa had been installed by a previous owner.
This applicant initially applied for a variance for the side setback (3'
requested, 5' required) and for a parking variance in order to retain the
17' 2" x 17' garage while adding 4 bedrooms. The planning commission
denied this request without prejudice (August 24, 1987), instructing the
applicant that there appeared to be alternatives to the requested project;
and a revision should be submitted which showed parking to code
requirements. On October 1, 1987 the applicant submitted new plans with a
garage designed to code standards but requiring a variance to the
separation between the pool and the new garage structure.
A previous owner of this property had converted the 17' 2" x 17' garage to
a pool house. Through a code enforcement action he was required to
recreate an operable garage door and modify the property line fence so a
car could gain access to the garage. The required improvements still
exist. However, the Planning Commission in their review was careful to see
that the new garage structure as designed provided for a relocation of the
- 8 -
fence so that the gate along the side -property line between.the garage and
the property line on the Broadway frontage was removed.
Planning Commission Action
In their second, October 26, 1987, review of the request for two variances,
side setback and pool setback, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and voted 6-1 (C. Jacobs dissenting) to approve the project. In
their findings the Commissioners noted that the placement of the pool
created an exceptional circumstance for building a garage as required by
code, the new garage is making the parking situation better by providing
useable parking to code standards, and additional space in the house is
necessary for the applicant's enjoyment of the property for his large
family.
Mr. and Mrs. Van Horn at 1145 Bernal Avenue, two doors down Bernal toward
Carmelita, wrote to the Planning Commission objecting (Oct. 22, 1987
letter) to the variances because the larger size house will overshadow
literally the one story house next door at 1147 Bernal and because moving
the garage closer to the pool would mean it is even less likely it will be
used for parking. The Van Horns appealed the Planning Commission's
decision (Nov. 2, 1987 letter) on the basis that the exterior stairway
connecting the pool area to the second floor of the house will increase the
noise associated with using the pool which is already loud. Mr. Van Horn
also feels that the use of the exterior stair will invade the privacy of
his rear yard.
Attachments: Monroe letter to Mr. & Mrs. Brosnan, Nov. 2, 1987,
Re: Appeal Hearing
Mr. & Mrs. William Van Horn letter to City Council,
Nov. 2, 1987
Planning Commission Minutes, Oct. 26, 1987
Mr. & Mrs. William Van Horn letter to Planning Commission,
Oct. 27, 1987
Planning Commission Staff Report, Oct. 26, 1987
Notice of Appeal Hearing, Nov. 6, 1987
cc: Patrick & Maria Brosnan
Mr. & Mrs. William.Van.Horn.
//`�9 &rna� 19lxhu�
l3urlri�ny„�, �a�r�rniOL
i o - MQ ► 4e-r s 4 +hG cx� Chu. r—; I
e: 'cttes4 mprovai ,5' yar(ance� ar7d acid t�-,'oh n-f- f 153 rnAl Aw
2 ur,al�rs�-av►cl -I-�a� -1- �(ann�n9 �'o•-><mrssion oL,�rou�d
a66 ve r�s lne �i t nj o
now e��so Include_ a of C_L- 0�4
Tom- rosna►�s are- h;c� net
S h6e� o-nd L - j f-he ►�,a%G.
`1
d (2-V �Sjcjer bC�-i K![ 1 SO IMQY��J
c 4 SG 11 riol bt ' r1L (J0. r 1 ►l
h-o o-c..ct tea r l L
`� Prf_v OLc l "n
S u v►, ra t_t^ Z-� -4v- 5e Geri cl s TU r y t s b c, ! J
o, eie ¢k J V,• 1 �h -F h¢ 6e-S4 w '. l I t h `} k, w s,r�,( -1
r"<, 1^'lU ISge��
�rtv I v�y Yom wiii 6e_.. .se r(otas� n(rvnrns�c_oi/.
1 --� :yl rc{d, F�c
ONY h o us ef. vv i I 1 be. C( -slI)a ll !-� o use.. -I- w o I a Q h cucw,S : l
1tc�h-i- aIri 16Wr � � wiL( �rn ba�� b neja4,ve-_ c-PC-ec-4-ed c-s
W QJ a.es4J c- Valut3l
was (7ArN cl+E rac-I-to►� e livti1 ( l f
NO us � ex ode�l. � n ut u�) C4 ail-4-k*Ls �
woctifd
o-ppz al -f-ha
l
CA14►cu�dse. ne.►c�hbv�s c>r s�c��• ►Ss��
%1Qv e n �oor r'ar�,�
_-, ! '("�1'lS Jt r ry�ill ;Ult2 /
►i is Cti (h DS+
CIYN 4SSurr C-e-
I � j P- ►�*1, i 1 •tS O r -i^tI-v D �4 vn � � 1 eS �` l
Ulf (l l ,DQ,. I Il �i'e r�-i•e [�( I n OtJY1.il Yl C � 1 %1 �{'le. �tc�Y't-� �,r.-+'� r� 'r""
ra Snar+S
1 r1Qn� you Tt�
l t)Ur C-tlY►StdQt4AIb-1�``-�" ►�',y �p tn'�' dt
v i e w o-4, e l a PPAM 1. /
��rlct,rt�, �Our.S
1
M,,) Vt Fo- s 4e r
c e C z of
i II i Ilul I ""I I:M11"'I-f lii+:li I � >111111 It. I�l 1":�1: 111 G.I11
lJ LIIi LIIdGAMLt (..ALIT UI4141A 1604ulti (•11h1 J-1.2 86-1b
November 2, 1987
Mr. and Mrs. Brosnan
1153 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brosnan:
At the City Council meeting of November 2, 1987, the Council
scheduled.an appeal hearing on your project at 1153 Bernal
Avenue. The hearing will be on November 16, 1987 at
7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers,.501 Primrose Road.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the
appeal.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
cc: City Clerk
MM/ag
Burlingame, Ca.
9,4G1U
(�I the undersigned, would like to request an appeal on, the two
k. ar-.1 ances granted for the Property at 1 153 Bernal Ave. by the
P l anri i ng Comm. on 26 October, 1987 • The house Plan as ex-
F l a i ned at that meeting, includes a 2 x 4 -Foot overhang at ghe
rear . of the 2nd . story with an exterior dec
k a,r-id stairs leading
to the Fool area. Presently,
the noise associated with the
use of the Friol is barely toler•able. With exterior access'on the
seco ndl f lbor• deck, Fr• i vacw in 'our 'lard is encroached upon and
the noise level seem- likely to increase Perceptively.
We would like an opportunity to express these views during an
appeal. hearing.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. and Mrs William Ua.n Horn
1145 Bernal Ave.
Burlingame, Ca.'
94;i10
This letter was hand delivered before the Council meeting
but was placed in the wrong mail box. Appeal hearing will
be scheduled for the November 16 meeting.
City Clerk a
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING CON"ISSION
(=QRM 26, 19H7
("MIL, 'I%-) ORDER
A regular meeting of. the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, October 26, 1987, at 7:31
P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jercme Coleman,
City .Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer;
Ken Musso, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 13, 1987 meeting were
unanimously approved with the following corrections:
Meeting called to order at 7:31 p.m.; item 1, Page 1,
second paragraph "president" should be replaced with
"precedent", and in third paragraph "receive only" should
be in quotes; item 6, page 4, second paragraph, "Singage"
should be "Signage".
AGENDA - Item #5 dropped. Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
x1. TWO VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Reference staff report, 10/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, history, staff review, applicant's
letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. CP Monroe verified that a gate in the fence, is now located
in front of the garage.
Chu. Gicmi opened the public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Brosnan,
applicants, were present. They commented that they are willing to
comply with all city requirements. Mrs. Brosnan stated garage is
currently being used for storage because of the small size of the
house, but items will be moved when second story addition is
Burlingame Planning Cannission Minutes Page 2
October 26, 1987
constructed; currently have no place to put belongings. Some
discussion ensued regarding the need for an obstruction in the narrow
1.5' area between the garage and spa, to prevent someone from falling
in the spa. The removal of the gate at the front of the garage to
ensure use of garage and the realignment of the fence were also
discussed. Mrs. Brosnan ccm-rented there would be no problem leaving
the driveway open with no gate, or in placing a permanent obstruction
in the narrow area between the spa and garage. Would like to maintain
existing setback of 3' on second floor to create symmetrical look on
the addition.
Speaking in favor of the application, Richard Hoskinson, 1915 Broadway
Avenue: he stated applicants are good neighbors, trying to provide a
pleasant place for their children to live, believe project should be
approved. There were no further audience comments, and the public
hearing was closed.
CURLission comment: '1m agreeable to approval of this project since it
was previously denied without prejudice, and applicants are trying to
comply with direction given by CaYmission, however, need the gate
issue resolved. SomA discussion followed regarding the removal of
the existing gate in front of the garage and the addition of a fence
perpendicular to the side property line, along the driveway edge
closest to the house.
C. 0. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the
placement of the pool/spa which have caused problems in the expansion
of the garage; applicants are trying to build a code standard garage;
The new garage is making a bad situation better; They need additional
space in their house. C. Sr Graham moved for approval of the two
variances with the following conditions: 1) that the conditions of
the Chief Building Inspector's Oct. 9, 1987 memo shall be met; and
2) that the second story addition and garage replacement shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped October 1, 1987, with the added condition that a fence be
placed perpendicular to.the property line on the side of the driveway
closest to the house, with a push gate placed so as to avoid the pool
and spa area, the gate to be no closer to property line than 2', with
the existing gate across the driveway to be removed; and that a
planter or some other fixed obstacle shall be placed in the 1.5' area
between the garage wall and the spa.
Second C. Harrison; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call, C. Jacobs
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
3W�FvomngIj0 A
A d0 �110[
iiT0rt
I_a .aO H I..a D O w D T T T L M _ •..a W P 1_a D ._a [,j
°PaTI-aap aq SaTOUDT
aq? a- i :i_ isan,aj - 1. c Y.., + l -i a w -'t ...a am a D 1_J H H ° R t N j '{'t I t1 T :1- 1 ; i- i h I '=' ''i _! o A
I"1TD •_aan a._a'i! - iiJDI!Ja _i BuTljo, •_aaI TI• 'anDws 1Iiiii. i._ai 1-,T
f_ao!ITPPD aqj anf_aT' PI..a•I' p00q._a0qgsTaI aI UT .j YI.I1a. . D _T.
_a ..t :�. 1„ f i J _a � I. ..� •i.. _ 5 I_a T J •.a 'U •_i a D I_a T S
°RTagTT 'IIJaa= sin, 5I-aTj•_ind •-a00 a50•.an6
a q j f o a 'W Y I b r a T
I -a a n a : D a ._a s D o= ::' T i_ o ._a a q , ol •..a a :_• i i T
....� I_a a A a y i p,
-
i'•� ,, n
:= r ..i.. T + T B I.a T h •.a u s :� a a •_a "i ,`'_
•1- + �� � �_i L� f
m o I_� I= � I..a D ' R I_a D a_ T ,: ,_� I -F ! T j
S T a 6 n ._a D ri
a,
° - rD 10 — bf_a Tq.-aDa
- I_a._aa_;I_aoJ
._ao[:[i IIJ ..ahlo a.i_01:i•iaT TD ol
IIJaa'_ joI_a
_aiIii
:•aB U._1 U�_ � i,•_agn ��l =yp aq j
+.�:j_ laaf 7
1-aDgl •..aa' o T o DO- aq! ..aij..�_
a_1I.aD T.'aDn
aI-if-i.r{.
°r:.,T. T'0•..aa:�_T. [ _ TDU.-a88 !.i:' I. L I' 1iipDq_._aani_i
T T T t'i r'i�1_a•_aaS
-
�_� � T T
-i` R.-ait PI-aij0a_ Paz T •-._aani
'- •{- 'i- =• I_. -
i U•C �I_a ° a
L T �- 1- Fi. _ rl i i ly
JIDWS
R •_a O :.,_ = -- a 1"a f i i'i
i 1'
-•+
I a a n D L _� n T pun '� i
a-- i
��a_...T
0
'j i I IJ ;" 'Li f-a � _�
TT
T ' I' i Q I -a
SITS TTL
' i I f '"
j� ST
a s. I" 1 o q ra I•j 1 ° .
I_a .-a _i D
f_a IWI _..� r D I f_a a f!! f_a •_a �_� T i i
I_a H pun 'I I
iDi,..�
�1 T ..� � a g j n D
1••� •� o �••1 w o '-a f a
T q 1_� I-i �� T I
.:}a 4 qis = T
(, li iij..�_'_7
_�. �_� -�na�.:_ I..a T •Y
_. I•' •i•
q..i 'i •1'
_is ' t ii5 -
- 'i- - - ? �_
D ._a ij.L .........
_
I
'•-� 1-i ..�
-any 1•LiUJ98 Ss{.
I• Jof
sanf-an T•_aDn
+ii 5f_aTII_aD._aB
aq! 0A.
I-a0T:;_ DaCgo _aY"Io
a jD._a,q
jT_a_a of a 1T T
p1no1'1
Inq r1861
49Z ._a aqojD1I
bI..aTlawaIIj
I_an r -.'- T wwo:' _,a T 1a,•,...i
- - •-• ...� t; -
� T '_j
raI - -�I_ 9- . . o-�
- ..a .�_ �.: a �- + ?_ I"' -
a ',,
T �� � a r-i
�� �� r r r. i � 1 �
- � a I., - ,•siapun
_
�-
I_a T w 1: t.a u! 03 B I_a T I..a I_a D T d B I!J D 6 I_a T T •_a n 8
0TOKI
TTDH
a t!J n B f_a T T •.a r'I e f o R+ T 3 a,
.L
1861 122 °i--'II
.Lacw3a 4uYls 40
NOLLVeVd3dd 83,.JV
03AII038 N011b0INnVjbvC)`j
P.C. 10/26/87
item #
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: TWO VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Patrick and Maria Brosnan are requesting two variances so that they
can add a second story to remodel their two -bedroom, one -bath house
to a six -bedroom, two -bath house with a new two -car garage at the rear
of the lot (Code Sec. 25.66.050). The variance is needed so that the
second story can be built over the existing first floor exterior wall.
The second variance is for the separation between the swimming pool
and spa and the wall of the proposed two -car garage, 1.5' proposed, 5'
required (Ord. 1185). This variance results from rebuilding the
existing garage to meet current off-street parking requirements of
two covered parking stalls for a six bedroom house. The pool was
installed when a narrower garage was located at the rear of the
property. As a part of their remodelling, the applicant is proposing
to remove the existing one -car garage and replace it.
History:
In August the applicants requested two variances, one for parking and
one for side setback(3' proposed, 5' required), in order to add a
second story to increase this house from two to six bedrooms (the
applicants have six children). The parking variance was for a
1712"xl7' garage where a 201x20' garage was required. At the August
24, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission denied this request without
prejudice. The planning commissioners discussed the existing
conditions on the site and the project at length, generally concluding
that there were alternatives to the project, particularly in the area
of parking. The motion suggested that the revised submittal show
on -site parking to code or close to code requirements (P.C. minutes,
Aug. 24, 1987).
Staff Review-
City Staff has reviewed the revised plans. The Fire Marshal (Oct.
13,1987 memo) and the City Engineer (Oct. 12, 1987 memo) had no
comments. The Chief Building Inspector (Oct. 9, 1987 memo) comments
that the side wall of the house 3' from property line does not
violate the UBC. However, the foundation of the garage will need to
be built so that no lateral pressure will be exerted on the pool or
spa wall.
Planning Staff would note that in their design the applicants have
tried to address the on -site parking, as required, for a six bedroom
house. The garage, as proposed, is 1914"x21' with a 91x516" area on
the end of the garage to house the pool equipment. Municipal code
-2-
requires that pool equipment within 10' of property line be fully
enclosed.
A concern about lot coverage was raised with the original request.
The revised project has a 39.8 percent lot coverage, 40 percent
maximum allowed. The pool was placed when the old garage had a width
of 1712"; therefore, the required setbacks from the pool and spa were
met. The placement of the spa limits the width of the new garage to
about 19'.
kPplicant's Letter:
In their letter of September 4, 1987, the applicants state that they
are now going to build a new garage to city code requirements.
Variance Findings:
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 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;
d. That the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Planninq Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Findings should
be made for affirmative action and the reasons should be clearly
stated for any action. At the public hearing, the following
conditions should be considered:
1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's
Oct. 9, 1987 memo shall be met; and
2. that the second story addition and garage replacement shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamp ed October 1, 1987.
"geq�M
ao n �''o'eft�-
City Planner
PROJECT APPLICATION AY14ME
CIn 1153 Bernal Avenue
CEQA ASSESSMENT iproject address
Application received ( )
y.....r' project name - if any
Staff review/acceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Mr. & Mrs. Brosnan 347-7831
name telephone no.
1153 Bernal Ave., 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
Two.variances, one for a second story addition' to
be constructed 3' to side property line where h
code requires 5' and for a garage extension which
.will be about 1'6." from an existing spa, where the
code requires bl separation. The protect meets all
other setback, lot coverage, hei ht and parking
requirements.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): (25.66.050) (Ord. 1185)
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
(026-183-010 ) ( 1 ) ( 37 ) (Easton Addn. #2 )
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
( ,--- R-1 ) ( 6,000 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Patrick J. & Maria` P. Brosnan 1153 Bernal Ave.-
land owner's name add ff:.lingame, CA 94010
Required Date received city zip code
(yY-Z -(no) ( ) Proof of ownership
6y9nJ (no) ( �) Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
...One story, single family home
Required Date received
(yes) (ftb (10-1-8,7) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on -site parking; landscaping.
(yes) (00:X (10-1-87) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of use on each floor plan.
(yes) (rib; (10-1-87) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
(yes) (rA:k 9_4-87) Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
(other)
) letter
*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
Existing House= 1,642
SF Proposed construction, Below grade ( — SF) Second floor (1, 610 SF)
Existing Detached
gross floor area First floor ( 97. JF) Third floor ( ___ SF)
Garage = 551
Project Code Project Code
SF Proposal Requirement Proposal Requirement
Front setback
Side setback
Side yard
Rear yard
15' mi
7.5'
Lot coverage 39. 8% 40 % max.
Ruildino height 30301
Landscaped area
On -site pkg.spaces 2
3'
5'
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
Zone/ 4ami_w
IN 2 YEARS IN 5 YEARS
after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
0
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residentail uses on.all adjacent lots. This use
conforms to the General Plan,
Required Date received
(gam (no) ( ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
19W (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 ( )
Denied without preju- S. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100
dice, no
additional
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts
$ 40
fee
Variance/other districts
$ 75 ( )
required.
Condominium Permit
$ 50 ( )
Ref. P.C.
Minutes of
TOTAL FEES $ ---
RECEIPT NO
August 24,
1987.
Other application type, fee $ ( )
Project Assessment $ 25 ( )
Negative Declaration $ 25 ( )
EIR/City & consultant fees $
Received by
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature Date
Applicant
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on 19 ,
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
gnat of "Processing Official IMtle 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 TH . MALF TTCITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
STAFF REVIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated
reply received
memo attached
City Engineer ( 10/6/87 )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Building Inspector ( 10/6/87 )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Fire Marshal ( 10/6/87 )
(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
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
with all
Building
project comply
Fire and
Code requirements -.,Building
Reuqest comments from the
Fire Marshal and Chief
Inspector
Does the
project meet
Review applicant's letter
the four
legal findings
letter and plans, make
required
to grant a
determination
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 ( )
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to
applicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date
P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( )
Date staff report mailed t�oplicant (
) Date Commission hearin ('
Application approved ( ✓ ) Den` " (
) Appeal to Council s)�� (no)
Date Council hearing (�/r/ Ig / )
Application approved ( Denied ( )
A17.01.11"&I .20 lb.-7
signed date
�u�crsg'4rce C� nN '�
l;5"3 kvwl/C�lv�e
AM
Ittaw te 41- (7 0
Y i-
v�
- SEP 4 -1987
CITY OF gURLlNGgM
��NING DEPT. E
DATE: OC f-
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING SPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ley -
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will he scheduled for ��c0
at their DCT- 2b, %�%?� meeting. We would appreciate having /
your comments by O C f• t' %��
Thank you. 1-tCZ� eAa q �c,.,�•-
RECEIVED
OCT 131937
CITY OF BURUN(�1ME
INti OEPT.
r
DATE: OC
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
It6.0[IV ED
OCT 181987
CITY
P.AFNINODEP ME
SUBJECT:
//�' � ✓�'�r> v`Pi�-fib. `' /
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning r ommissinn,The appliratinn will he scheduled fnr . 04�e '
aL Lheir L�L f.- -��f{'���� muuLiny. Wu Would appreciate hdvmy
your comments by (:nCf-• 13, 19�
Thank you.
I
1,87
toy, C-4 CL.
It
DATE: QC
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM:- PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for 4000h �
at their_ ocl- Z�, %�%�% meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by �Cf• 1 f %�
Thank you.
C_Oi4fAt ese., le
�s j
//o s f -e IX, e-
/ , d�O/�/T / H ej K Ce P,3% o /P a �a
ie
Lcfo 0,p
6a/
1
,!:�iQ c/' d 6�ela1 //e
ORDINANCE NO. 1185
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS
FOR SWIM11ING POOLS, HOT TUBS AND SPAS
The CITY COUNCIL of•the City of Burlingame, California,
does ORDAIN as follows':
Section•1. Title 23, regulating the installation of
swimming pools, hot tubs and spas, is amended to read as follows:
"TITLE 23
..SWIMMING POOLS, HOT TUBS AND SPAS
CHAPTER 23.01
REGULATIONS
23.01.010 Definitions:
I. Swimming Pool. The term 'swimming pool' or
'pool' shall mean any artificially constructed pool. -
used for swimming or bathing, twenty-four inchco or
-in depth at any point, and with a surface area exceeding
one hundred square feet.
2. Hot tub and spa. 'Hot tub' or 'spa' shall mean
a -similar facility of twenty-four inches or more in depth
at any point and with a surface area of less than one
hundred square feet.
23.01.020 Permit to install, construct or alter.
No person shall install, construct or alter any
swimming pool, hot tub or spa without first obtaining a
building permit and appropriate electrical, plumbing,
mechanical or other permits from the building official.
Application for such permits shall be accompanied by
plans in sufficient detail to show:
I. Plot plan, showing location on property and
relationship to all existing or proposed
structures.
5/1/80
6/10/80
i
2. Dimensions of unit, including depth and volume
in gallons.
3. -Type and size of filter system.
4. Unit piping layout with all sizes of pipe and
types of material.
5. Waste disposal system.
.6. Construction details.
7. Fencing.
8. Deck drainage.
If any wall of a pool exceeds four feet six inches
in height, the plans must be prepared or approved by a
registered civil engineer or licensed architect.
23.01.030 Registration of pools, hot tubs and spas.
The building official shall keep a register of all
swimming pools, hot tubs and spas within the city. '_natters
to be recorded shall include the address or legal descrip-
.tion of the property, size of the unit, a general descrip-
tion of the improvements and accessories thereof and spaces
for dates upon which inspections by any authority of the
city are made.
23.01.040 Location on property.
Pools, hot tubs and spas, as well as separate acces-
isory equipment, shall not be constructed in that portion
of the property which is the front setback. (See Section
1 25.62.010, et seq, of this code.) There shall be a
r
distance of at least .four...fa" between any unit and any
side or rear property line and at least,,IiNS„g" between
a pool and any other structure. .
Separated accessory equipment, if not enclosed, shall
be ten feet from the property line. If enclosed in a
soundproof structure, said enclosure shall meet require-
`
ments of Municipal Code Section 5T$8;0 No portion of
' 2
t
a pool, hot tub or spa may be constructed in any public
utility easement or drainage easement.
Hot tubs and spas above ground may be -placed
immediately adjacent to another structure. If they are
to be below ground, the distance shall be regulated so
that all portions are above a line drawn at 45 degrees
(1-to-1 slope) from the junction of the foundation of the
adjacent structure and grade.
23.01.050 .Safety requirements.
A fence entirely enclosing the pool, hot tub or spa
or yard containing*it shall be erected and maintained.
Such fence shall not be less than four feet six inches,
nor more than -six feet in height, with no openings
greater than sixteen square inches. All gates -must be
self -closing and self -latching, and the latch or lock
shall be located at least four feet six inches above the
surface of the underlying ground or floor. A space at
least four feet in width shall be provided between the
line of the fence and the edge of the unit. Fencing is
to be constructed and approved before filling the unit.
Walks or decks surrounding the unit shall be
finished so as to minimize slipping.
Overhead electrical conductor clearance shall meet
the requirements of the latest edition of the National
Electrical Code, except that (1) no utility lines,
,service drops or any other overhead conductor shall be
allowed above any portion of the surface of the pool,
hot tub or spa; and (2) beyond such overhead area such
lines will be allowed within an eighteen foot radius of
a pool or a ten foot radius of a hot tub or spa.
3
t
0
23.01.060 Lighting. •
No artificial lighting shall be maintained or
operated in or about a pool, hot tub or spa in such a
manner as to be a nuisance.
23.01.070 Water supply.
There shall be no inlet connection between any
domestic water supply line and any circulation pump, filter,
water softener or other apparatus or device that comes in
contact with the water in or from the pool, hot tub or
spa. Backflow protection shall be provided between the
-domestic water supply and any direct connection with the
unit water supply. If the water is added by a removable
hose or similar device, an antisiphon device or Backflow
preventer shall be installed on the nearest hose bib.
If the unit has a filter cleaned by a backwash pro-
cess, it must terminate in a separation tank or into a
_sewer in an approved manner. For the purpose of this
section, a separation tank, also called a reclamation
tank, is a device which separates and removes slddge and
waste filter material from waste water and returns the
.clarified water to the pool.
"If the unit has a filter element which is removed
for cleaning purposes, the element shall be removed and
cleaned in an approved plumbing receptacle connected to
the sanitary sewer.
a
23.01.080 Enforcement officers.
The director of public works and the building
official shall enforce all provisions of this chapter.
23.01.090 Variances:
Exceptions to the regulations of this chapter shall
4
be applied for and granted 'pursuant to the variance
provisions of Title 25 of this code.
_Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as
i
required by law.
Of
,Mayor
I, EVELYN H. HILL, City Clerk of the City of
j
Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was
introduced at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council
held on the 16th day of June 1980, and was adopted thereafter
j
at a regular meeting held on the ?th day of ' j.,11 y 1980,
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILIiEN: Amstrup-Barton-Mangini-Martin
NOES: COUNCIUMN: -None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Crosby
ity Clerk j
5
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
A Commissioner confirmed there were oil spots in the garage as evidence
two cars parked there. CP read letter from Ernest and Elizabeth
Gd tner, 2212 Davis Drive confirming the applicants do not park their
car anywhere but in the garage and expressing the opinion the existing
gara a area is adequate for this remodeling project. There were no
audie a comments and the public hearing was closed.'"
Commissi discussion/comment: photo of the two cars par d in the
garage has alleviated some concern, it would not be f sible to move
the garage er, it would detract from the appearana of the house, am
in favor of t e proposal; understand the applicaehave good
intentions and ill park their cars in the gar but this is an
enormous expansi , have never voted for a f' a bedroom home without
parking to code, a children get older th number of cars increases and
children stay at hom longer now, iX
is granted it could set a
precedent for such re ests; it is le to bring the garage to code
standards, this is a la a home, wq willing to give a 1' front
setback variance to exten the g age, future owners might have two
large cars; this is differe an other four bedroom additions, there
is a possibility of creating full sized garage, with such extensive
remodeling do not think th va 'ance is justified.
Have no problem with t project a presented based on the Minor
Modification finding , would defer t experts about the possibility of
expanding the gara it is not the Co fission's function to redesign
houses for appli nts but rather to look at the proposed project;
Commission can ook at alternatives.
C. H.Grahamxnoved to
on thF
that the
to reit would
remodanyway, b
inj tice to approve
ti e. Second C. Jac,
.Graham dissenting,
deny the parking varianc without prejudice, based
entire area around the gara a is part of the plans
create a need for a new roof **bait applicants are
scause it is a 4/5 bedroom additikup it would be an
it, have it called up and prolong e processing
obs; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call,,7ote, C.
C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were -advised.
6. VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION
TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, City Planner comment, applicants'
letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
A Commissioner asked if the laundry area in the garage conforms to
code, CP advised if this installation had been done without benefit of
building permit the applicant would be required to pay building permit
penalty fees. Further discussion: the sliding glass door on the garage
which faces the pool was installed by the prior owner; possibility of
two garages on this property with two driveways and two curb cuts;
a garage in the front would be accessible; partition and amount of
storage in the garage; condition requiring the partition in the garage
be moved back would provide the code required depth needed for a
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
seconded by C. Harrison who incorporated by reference the findings
prepared for the Minor Modification.
Comment on the motion: called up this item because of the size of the
addition which almost doubles the size of the existing house, concerned
about the den which could in future be used as a bedroom,,have a basic
concern about parking, this is a large house on a small dot; have no
objection'to the variance for side setback but am concerned about three
bedrooms plus a den which could become another bedroom; there are
alternatives, the house has other rooms which could,Ae converted, the
garage could�be extended into the dining room, three is a possibility
of extending width of the garage another 10' without affecting the
front doorway,'`'�yith redesign another code standard parking space could
be added; this proposal seems unique, expanding the garage and cutting
down the dining r�pom would result in a disfinctional floor plan with
very little utilifiy; alternatives suggeste#d would change the
applicants' way of\living, don't think would be fair to ask them to
go without a formal dining room; with 'egard to the family room/kitchen
it is my understanding it's a kitche with an eating area, would
suspect that a family ,doom is what ey are going to be using the den
for, doubt the den will% ever be u'd as a bedroom.
Motion was approved on a'�'4-2 r
dissenting, C. Ellis absent. 4
5. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A
SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTUR
1 call vote, Cers Garcia and Jacobs
peal procedures were advised.
BEDROOM SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE
209 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report,/$/24/87 gwith attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the requests staff review, applicants' letter. One
condition was sugges e'a for consideration at the public hearing.
The possibility of,'dding to the existing garage was discussed. Chm.
Giomi opened the ptblic hearing. Richard and Vicky King, applicants,
were present. They presented photograpks of the existing garage
showing both cao parked inside and a letter from neighbors confirming
they do not pal on the street. Mr. King\ comments: they have a large
family with t o resident children and two children who visit on
weekends, th home is much too small to accommodate their family, they
have looked t a variety of alternatives but hive strong commitment to
stay in th Franklin School District, they woul prefer to invest in
this prop ty rather than relocate, there have b en no four bedroom
homes on he market in their neighborhood during a last two years,
the addi ion will add to the value of their propert and neighboring
properties, they have always parked both their cars i the existing
garage there is also room in the driveway for another ar, part of
their lans involve moving the washer and dryer from the arage to the
secon story, adding to the garage would destroy the break st room.
They do not plan to use the playroom for a bedroom but have�emm.
the
closet there, without a basement or attic storage is at a pr
Parking is a problem on their street, a number of neighbors do not park
in their garages. They would prefer to have all their bedrooms on
the same floor.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
parking stall; code standard of 20' x 20' would still not be met; if
the variance for parking were not granted and applicant were required
to meet code standards lot coverage would exceed code and could be
processed under a minor modification; the condition requiring moving
the partition in the garage does not eliminate the laundry facilities,
to use the full length of the garage would require placing the washer
and dryer elsewhere. Distances from front of garage to property line
and between the garage and the pool were discussed.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Patrick Brosnan, applicant, was
present. He confirmed there is a spa between the pool and existing
garage and that the house is completely fenced. It was noted applicant
had said if Commission found it necessary he could bring the garage to
code standards. There was a concern about the garage area being used
as living area. Applicant advised he could expand the interior depth
of the garage but could not get 20' x 201, at present they are using
the garage for storage, distance from the main part of the pool to the"
garage is approximately 31, the laundry facilities would be moved
upstairs in the new addition, he does need extra space in the garage
for the pump and pool equipment.
The following members of the audience spoke. Bill Van Horn,
1145 Bernal Avenue: he had always thought this was a small corner house
appropriate for a small family, Bernal/Broadway has a bad parking
problem, he had never seen the garage on this site used for parking,
his main concerns were parking impact and size of the addition. Vera
Foster, 1149 Bernal Avenue: she could sympathize with the need of the
applicants for additional space but with this addition her one story
house would be sandwiched between two 2-story houses; she was concerned
about space, light, air and property values; she had no objection to
the variances but expressed concern about the size of the addition.
Jack Schakel, 1900 Broadway: he had no objection to the addition nor to
the variances. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: there are alternatives to this project. With the
statement it is imperative an addition with five bedrooms provide a
garage to code standards and recognizing from a site inspection the
applicants may need the addition in order to make room for storage in
the house, C. Jacobs moved to deny the two variances without prejudice,
with the request that resubmittal of the project provide parking to
code or close to it. Second C. H.Graham.
Comment on the motion: would prefer to act on the two variances
separately and approve the variance for side yard setback for the
reason that the existing house is already 3' from property line. Staff
requested for clearer procedure since lot coverage may become an issue
in expanding the garage to code standards a vote on the entire proposal
with clear direction to staff and the applicant. C. H.Graham withdrew
his second.
Motion was then seconded by C. Garcia with the suggestion that after
the garage is widened the gate could be removed and a fence installed
from the garage to the sidewalk leaving the driveway open to the
garage. Comment on the second: am concerned about providing
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
sufficient parking, think C. Garcia's suggestion merits consideration.
Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote,
C. I.Graham dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
,l
Recess,9:45 P.M.; reconvene 9:58 P.M.
7. THRF,E VARIANCES FOR PARKING, SIDE AND REAR SETBACIS AND MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL USE IN TWO STRUCTURES TO ALLOW A FOU TH APARTMENT UNIT
ADDED, \WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT TO REMAIN AT 12 5 CAPUCHINO AVENUE,
ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request,\;noted processing of the application since May, 1987 and
discussed her"staff report of June 8, 1987 wit}i attachments: details of
the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions.
If approved two conditions were suggested f consideration at the
public hearing; i'f denied one condition wasuggested. CP confirmed
that if this appliigation were approved th Building Department would
ensure all corrections were completed toode. C. S.Graham advised she
would abstain on this item. ,,,�+,���+++����
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing./ Frances Caldwell, applicant, was
present. Her comments:\When she dispovered this unit could not be
rented she suggested its\rental be restricted to someone who does not
drive a car, there is a need for h using for seniors and the
handicapped, this apartmentis on the ground floor and accessible to
Broadway, she requested the ari nce be conditioned accordingly; she
has completed some of the cor e tions required by the Building
Department and would like to f*,,nish the work so it would not be a
problem in the future. She stated she has always been able to find
parking in the lot across th street; she purchased the property in
February, 1987, would like o avoi any litigation in regard to the
matter. Applicant advised the lowe unit would be made handicapped
accessible, a sliding doo would be ut in, there would be space
reserved in front of th unit and onl one parking space. Staff
advised that regardles of the person cup'
the unit the Fire
Department would requ' e a 5' protected athway into the unit so that
the door has room to swing and the person to exit, therefore a second
parking space would not comply with code.
Commissioner co nt: Commission has never co sidered public parking
lots as a part required parking; applicant eplied because of the
public lot the a are on -street spaces available. The request for a
stipulation ' the variance that the ground floor unit be rented to
someone who does not drive a car was discussed, is''# legally
enforceabl ,,t would be difficult to police, how binding would such a
restrictbe on a future owner. Applicant inquired ',4bout the
possibil,` y of a permit with annual review. She also asked for an
interpr ation of the condition should her request be denied, is she
restricted only to storage use in the lower unit or could it be a
lau ry room or recreation room. She also felt that 30 days might not
be enough
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
sufficient parking, think C. Garcia's suggestion merits consideration.
Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote,
C. H.Graham dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Recess 9:45 P.M.; reconvene 9:58 P.M.
7.� THREE VARIANCES FOR PARKING, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS AND MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL USE IN TWO STRUCTURES TO ALLOW A FOURTH APARTMENT UNIT
ADDED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT TO REMAIN AT 1225 CAPUCJINO AVENUE,
ZONED R- 3 .'
Refe ence staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CPVMonroe reviewed
this equest, noted processing of the application sidce May, 1987 and
discus ed her staff report of June 8, 1987 with a achments: details of
the req est, staff review, applicant's letter, s dy meeting questions.
If appro ed two conditions were suggested for nsideration at the
public he ring; if denied one condition was ggested. CP confirmed
that if this application were approved the uilding Department would
ensure all orrections were completed to de. C. S.Graham advised she
would abstai on this item.
Chm. Giomi opened the/riance
ic hearing Frances Caldwell, applicant, was
present. Her coNnenten she d' covered this unit could not be
rented she suggest"'bd ental b restricted to someone who does not
drive a car, there i'sed for housing for seniors and the
handicapped, this apat is on the ground floor and accessible to
Broadway, she requeste v riance be conditioned accordingly; she
has completed some ofc rections required by the Building
Department and would o finish the work so it would not be a
problem in the future"Atated she has always been able to find
parking in the lot acthe'street; she purchased the property in
February, 1987, wouldto avoid any litigation in regard to the
matter. Applicant adthe lower unit would be made handicapped
accessible, a slidi/g door would be\put in, there would be space
reserved in fronto6f the unit and only one parking space. Staff
advised that reg rdless of the person opcupying the unit the Fire
Department wou require a 5' protected'pathway into the unit so that
the door has room to swing and the person 'o exit, therefore a second
parking spacId would not comply with code. '?,,,_
Commissioner comment: Commission has never considered public parking
lots as,,4 part of required parking; applicant replied because of the
public/lot there are on -street spaces available. "The request for a
sta,ptfiation in the variance that the ground floor unit be rented to
someone who does not drive a car was discussed, is i&..Jegally
enforceable, it would be difficult to police, how bin(Ang would such a
restriction be on a future owner. Applicant inquired about the
possibility of a permit with annual review. She also ask�d for an
interpretation of the condition should her request be denied, is she
restricted only to storage use in the lower unit or could it`be a
laundry room or recreation room. She also felt that 30 days might not
be enough
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
parking stall; code standard of 20' x 20' would still not be met; if
the variance for parking were not granted and applicant were required
to meet code standards lot coverage would exceed code and could be
processed under a minor modification; the condition requiring moving
the partition in the garage does not eliminate the laundry facilities,
to u e the full length of the garage would require placing the washer
and ryer elsewhere. Distances from front of garage to property line
and ��tween the garage and the pool were discussed.
Chm. G'omi opened the public hearing. Patrick Brosnan, applicant, was
presen He confirmed there is a spa between the pool and existing
garage and that the house is completely fenced. It was;#noted applicant
had said\if Commission found it necessary he could brri`ng the garage to
code standards. There was a concern about the garaga area being used
as living rea. Applicant advised he could expand;?'the interior depth
of the garatge but could not get 20' x 201, at present they are using
the garage for storage, distance from the main
rpart of the pool to the
garage is appFoximately 31, the laundry faci4ties would be moved
upstairs in the new addition, he does need extra space in the garage
for the pump and pool equipment.
The following members of the audience spoke. Bill Van Horn,
1145 Bernal Avenuey he had always thouq'ht this was a small corner house
appropriate for a shall family, Berna�/Broadway has a bad parking
problem, he had never seen the garage on this site used for parking,
his main concerns werNp parking impa t and size of the addition. Vera
Foster, 1149 Bernal Oenue: she could sympathize with the need of the
applicants for addition 1 spacp/but with this addition her one story
house would be sandwich2q betv�,4en two 2-story houses; she was concerned
about space, light, air aid upioperty values; she had no objection to
the variances but expressed concern about the size of the addition.
Jack Schakel, 1900 Broadwa.�� he had no objection to the addition nor to
the variances. There were n further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed. t,
Commissioner comment:/there are alternatives to this project. With the
statement it is imperative an ad it with five bedrooms provide a
garage to code stanadards and reco izing from a site inspection the
applicants may need the addition in order to make room for storage in
the house, C. Jacobs moved to deny t e two variances without prejudice,
with the reque"rthat resubmittal of a project provide parking to
code or close o it. Second C. H.Grah m.
Comment on the motion: would prefer to ac on the two variances
separately;,and approve the variance for si yard setback for the
reason that the existing house is already 3' rom property line. Staff
requested"for clearer procedure .since lot cove age may become an issue
in expanding the garage to code standards a vote on the entire proposal
with clear direction to staff and the applicant . H.Graham withdrew
his second.
Motion was then seconded by C. Garcia with the suggestion that after
the garage is widened the gate could be removed and a fence installed
from the garage to the sidewalk leaving the driveway open 'to the
garage. Comment on the second: am concerned about providing
c� he CfttIl of llurfingamr
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-893I
NOTICE OF HEARING
TWO VARIANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 26th day of October, 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 public hearing on the application for a second story with a 3' side setback
instead of 5' and a spa located closer than 5' to a detached garage.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
October 16, 1987
File
fu Tttu .III 'Q=fi ngamr
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
TWO VARIANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 16th day of November, 1987 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a
public hearing on the appeal of an application for a second story with a 3'
side setback instead of 5' and a spa located closer than 5' to a
detached garage 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
November 6, 1987