HomeMy WebLinkAbout1612 Howard Avenue - Staff Report., �-
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
P.C. 12/12/83
Item #1
SUBJECT: VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 1612 HOWARD AVENUE
Paula Poor is requesting a variance to the required 5' side yard setback in order to
relocate the detached garage at her residence at 1612 Howard Avenue. The new 360 SF
garage is proposed to be located 20' further back on the lot, but not within the rear
third of the lot. This lot backs onto Easton Creek and drops off sharply into the
creek.
Staff have reviewed the proposed project. The Fire Marshal (November 21, 1983 memo)
notes that the property line wall must be one hour construction. The City Engineer
(November 29, 1983 memo) notes that because of the location of the garage relative
to the creek the applicant needs a survey. The City Engineer needs to confirm the
creek's capacity through the property and the driveway to the garage needs to be
paved. The creek needs to be cleared of debris (cleaned if required by the City
Engineer) and slope protection installed to protect the garage foundation. The
Chief Building Inspector (December 1, 1983 memo) asks for a site survey. Since this
project was first submitted to the city for a building permit the Chief Building
Inspector had already sent the plans out for structural check when the Planning
staff identified the need for a variance. The letter from the structural engineer
(DES, November 4, 1983) shows that as designed the structure at this location on
the lot will be adequate so long as the changes itemized in the letter are made.
In her letter (November 14, 1983) the applicant identifies her reasons for requesting
the side yard setback variance: they need to enlarge the house to provide more living
space; the garage must be on this side of the lot because it is the only side with a
driveway; the rear 42' to 62' of the lot is unusable because it slopes into Easton
Creek; if the garage is placed back an additional 10' to come under the requirements
of the accessory structure code no portion of the structure will be on the flat (bank
top) part of the lot; placing the garage further back would also interrupt the flow
of the creek and be highly visible to neighbors; and the proposal will not affect the
zoning of the site.
A site visit shows that this lot is affected significantly by the presence of Easton
Creek. As the site plan shows, at least the rear third of the lot is in the creek or
creek bank. Easton Creek drains to the bay about a third or a quarter of the hill area
of the city. City staff is satisfied that as proposed the new construction will not
affect the capacity of the creek. However, the applicant would not be allowed to build
any structure which could affect the capacity of the creek. Therefore there are limits
on the use of the rear portion of this lot which are clearly peculiar to this property.
To grant a variance the Commission must make findings regarding the following (Code
Sec. 25.54.020):
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 prop�rty 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
-2-
d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the
comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. At the hearing they should
consider the following conditions:
1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of November 21, 1983,
the City Engineer's memo of November 29, 1983, the Chief Building
Inspector's memo of December 1, 1983 and the DES letter of November 4,
1983 be met; and
2. that the project be built consistent with the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped November 15, 1983.
U � LU�� IIN�
'�l�l
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/ s
12/5/83
cc: Paula Poor
Robert Onorato
. �
- �
(garage)
�
PROJECT APPLICATIQ�N �,j.t'CITY o� 1612 HOWARD AVENUE
ft CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLINGAME project address -_
11/16/83 �'^���1���•'��• Project name - if any
Application received ( )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
i. APPLICANT Paula Poor 343-9305
name telephone no.
1612 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Robert E. Onorato, 600 E1 Camino Real, 583-5944
contact person, if different Sd11 BY'UnO, CA94066 telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Perr^it () Variance* ( X) Ccnc�ominium Pernit () Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION VARIANCE to allow a 360 SF garage to be built
within the required 5'-0" side yard area. The present qaraqe will
be removed and the new qaraqe site is located 20' farther back
toward the rear of the lot which steeply slopes back to a creek;
however, the proposed site is not within the rear 30% of the lot
and therefore is sub.iect to all setback requirements. The relocation
of thP garagP is necPssary� as a res�lt of a�roposed family room/den
addition to the rear of the house. The proposal meets other zoning
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is �eeaed) requirements for �Ot
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.66.050 �� � coverage, height,plate-
line and parking.
4. PROPERTY IDEPITIFICATION
( 028-315-010 )( 7 )( 6 )( Burl i ngame Park No. 2 )
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
� R-1 ) ( 8,158 >
zoning district land area, square feet
Paula Poor 1612 Howard Avenue
land owner's name �U1^�ingame, CA 94010
Reauired �ate received city zip code
�p'es� (no) ( - ) Proof of ownership
�s �(no) ( n.a . ) Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Single family residence with detached garage. Rear of lot
slopes down to creek at rear of the lot.
Required Date received
(yes) �n�o) ( 11/15/8�
(.Yes) (�) � " )
�ye5� �1�%
n
iYeS) ��) � " )
(other) ( `- '.'- )
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall;s and
curbs; all str�ctures and improvements;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by tyae of us�`on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section s) (if relevant).
letter of exp anation
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PP,�POSAL (.NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY) (GARAGE & FAMILY ROOM/DEN)
Proposed consiruction, Below orade ( SF) Second floor ( SF)
gross floor area First floor ( 7 50 SF) Third floor ( SF)
Project Code Project Code
Pr000sal RPquirement Proposal Requirement
Front setback 15 �+ 15 � Lot coveraqe 30.6� 40% max.
Side setback 11.d. Il.d. Ruildinn height ].1�-5" 14' max.
Side yard p� 5� plate 1 ine 8' -1" 10' max.
Rear yard 41' j5' On-site pks.spaces 2 l+
�--; , , ;
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
Full tir�e emnloyees on site
Part tir�e emoloyees 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
-� .-.
IP! 2 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
IP! 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach separate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Single family residences on all adjacent sites; this use conforms
to the General Plan.
Required
(3�) (no)
�) (no)
Date received
( — ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
( _ ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany 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 ()
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Negative Declaration $ 25 ()
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ()
TOTAL FEES $ 40.0� RECEIPT N0. OZ45 Received by_ H:Towber �
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and corr c to the best o m owledge and belief.
Signature Date l�" �� � �T�
Applican
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:
Cateqorically exempt: Reference
Code Sec 15101(e) -- Existinq Facilities.
� G✓' ��ln� �,,,� IZ - Z-�3
Signa ure o Processing Of icial Title Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof tne d�te posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTIPJG Dai:e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk oF the City of Burlingame and that
I �osted a true copy of the above Neoative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th� Council Chambers.
Executed at [iurlingame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
19
EVELYPJ H. NILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
STAFF REVI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received
City Enyineer ( 11/21/83 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no)
Fire htarshal ( " ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
Concerns Mitigation Measures
Do the plans meet all Fire and Request comments from the Fire
Building Code requirements? Marshal and Chief Building
Inspector.
Do the plans comply with all Request comments from the City
Engineering Dept. require- Engineer.
ments?
Will the proposed garage Review this site and adjacent
location have an adverse impact sites; request comments at the
on adjacent sites? public hearing; make determina-
tion.
Are there any other feasible Review site; discuss with the
alternatives to the proposed designer; make determinations.
garage location?
3. CEQA REQUIREMEPJTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? N0. Cateqorically exempt.
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
RFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR accepted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
�
i
�
c
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
�
)
)
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 11/16/83)
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes (no) Recommended date ( 12 / 1 2/ $ 3)
Date staff report mailed tp aoplicant (f�l-1 �) Date Commission hearing k.Lj� � )
/
Application approved (� Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no
Date Council hearing ( ) Anolication ap rove ( ) Denied ( )
y � ,� �Z-z �3
signed date
DATE : /� �2���3 _
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
;�f RE MARSHAL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ��/ir�tc� f�Y �
� �� ��
� 7� G�
��
�.
�
i�� .
i���l�ir.µe
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for i�ta?O.�
at their �Z�/Z��3 meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by li%�3o ��3
-T
Thank you.
Helen Towber .
Planner
.
s/
att.
l I' 2i I�3 -- ��� t�7 ((►�- �� ��
�-�Ne mvS� (�
C�� �"r'�l..C.��v'rJ CcS`
C� �.�N s �.S��e-�" �Z�
o� Pr�Por � �
on�C� � ��v�'
c Y��� �►'� �—�0 vo�
t1(1 •�w�S
Q .►=-o.
-�
�
�
�;; � � �: � ��i �: � November 29, 1983
MEMO N � V ��: 1983.
�
CITY Of BURLINGAME
T0: Planning Department P�NN�t�o��r.
FROM: Public Works - Engineering Division
Re: Variance for a garage to be built within the
required side yard area at 1612 Howard Avenue
Because the construction of the garage is close to the side property line
and within the creek slope, the following will be required at the Building
Permit stage:
a. The lot be surveyed at the boundary next to garage.
b. That a Civil Engineer confirm cree � capacity through the property,
especially at the new garage if required by the City Engineer.
As conditions of this variance, the following should be attached:
1. That the driveway to the new garage be paved.
2. That the creek area be cleared and debris cleaned if required by the
City Engineer and that slope protection be installed to protect
the garage foundation.
� / ' �
. ,;�,
/
./;:..- Cj � �,�, " ._
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
FCE:mg
� , Y
DATE : % �Zl��3
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER `
��IEF BUILDING INSPECTOR (��� �� ��� �- �Z'�''�`S �-'� �
FIRE MARSHAL
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
���� � R
• Tl� !�G �
C�-ct..c � /lv ��
i�o� �i�C
v
, `� Lyii��
�'1�/�i-D[ i'���IP/�.l�e
�
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ��o�
at their lZ / Z��3 meeting. We would appreciate having
/
your comments by lt%3O ��3
�
Thank you.
Helen Towber .
Planner
s/
att.
�L
�
•� �
� O .
��Gi$'1 ��
,,
��1— / — � �
y�� � � � � y ,�J�f G�.� />r• �� f
� �
,C.� � � %�,.� f• ,�'): ✓ � S �c�'.-3
�� , % �� /..2 �% �� �.��
��� ��°d� l} .
,� l /i . /�� � ,('o v � .��
� ���il � /7` /! c �r �r�- �-� � � �[
�s�f - ,�
� ,��'� . > �
,%� r �,�Gc,r ��� �� f� Gz d S/
�
/� �,t �/�i .zf .,�` rl � S / c '"� i
/
;%�cr � �i'�` " ��
�
.��r � i, �i �� �
>�'.S u.�d ���
� C`"� S f � � /� � �r�''� �'��' �`� �e
�
/ . DFPr. - � %`��°
/� iJ ,,��/ c�f�2 G
f i� �����/ /�� .,,(
` � /�' ' � %��� �/ �
D /` %��� �e� i ��'" � `�� ,
�.,..e�l
.. �� �� �
.,� -
�:
-#
�
hTovember 4, 1983
Building Department
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA S4010
Attention: Pete Kriner
RE: Plan Check Review — Residence Addition
Address: 1612 Howard Street
Dear Mr. Kriner:
272-0918.33
0
We have reviewed the plans and calculations for the above
referenced project only for their structural conformance to the 1979 �
edition of the Uniform Building Cod�. Our comments are as follows.
1. Structural drawings and calculations shall bear the
signature and professional registration number of the
responsible engineer.
2. General notes shall be provided on drawings addressing
material grades and strengths, nailing requirements, etc.
3. Drawings shall be revised to show the following:
A. Nailing of vertical and horizontal plywood diaphragms.
B. Minimum header sizes.
C. Roof rafters framing in from opposite s3des of a
. partition lapped at least four inches per Section
' 2518(d)3.
.
�. ,
D.`��4 x 10 beam at family room per calculations. Plans and
sections show 4 x 8 beam. Beam shall extend to inside
. corner of closet wall for support unless adequate
foundation support is provided for bearing wall.
E. Adequate slope for drainage of flat roof, or ponding
loads shall be included in design of inembers supporting
roof per Section 2305(f).
DESIGN & ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS 303 BRADFORD ST. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 (415) 364-6453
'v
x . � . �
Pete Kriner -2- 272-0918.33
1612 Howard Street November 4, 1983
F. Concrete cover for rebar per Section 2607(0).
G. Maximum height of concrete block wall at garage
foundation. Indicate scale of detail 3/3.
4. Rear wall at garage foundation shall be designed as a
retaining wall unless lateral support is provided during
construction after backfill and prior to pouring of slab.
5. Lateral calculations and detail shall be provided for
parapet connection at garage roof.
Please submit an itemized response and revised plans and
calculations with all revisions indic.ated as such.
Sincerely,
DESIGN & ENGIIVEERING SYSTEMS, IP:C, r
�O✓'►,Piw � %� o��r,�
- Karen S. Robinson
Civil Engineer
KSP./dv
.
. �
November 14, 1983
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
• � Burlingame, Ca. 94010
If we move the garage back the 10� the code requires�
w.e will be completely off the level area and will be
involved in additional retaining walls for the drive-
way as well as the retaining walls already neccessary
for the garage itself.
In addition if we situat.e the garage further back,
we could be obstructing the flow in the creek as well as
creating a disturbing appearance from the neighbors
vi ew point.
I do not believe that my request will have �y adverse
effect on the present zoning plan of the City of
Burlingame.
Respectfully yours�
Paula Poor
I� v� ta �r i.: � Yr' IG: iia�
�i0� %� .; ��
C1TN QF B��I.li1lG�141tf
Members of the Commission: ���� ���
I respectfully request your consideration in'regards
to the proposed construction of a new detached garage
situated on the side p'ropei ty line located forward �of
the rear one third of the property as required.
My husband and I are in need of expanding the living
area of our home which necessitates relocating the .
e�dsting garage 20� back form its present location.
Th'e garage has to be locatecl in thi's area as �ve have
access onl_y from this side of our property.
Our problem is further componded by the fact that the
rear 42� to 62' of our property slopes into the creek
situated behind our house. '
�. �s � . . , „\ ; f' y, � � { ; �� i ��i � di4� � � ` 7 Y:ac
�*
�
:"�A 'Y",� • �-0� � '„�` � �q ` J i! • s �'� ,�" _
� �, � � "�' �� �'^. - _ �'�
� . , • �o- ,
fi � .,, ,
- �L"� _ ,h'�'.: � �' iF �- J �� . -
�,. . r �� �r �� "�' `� "g �,, �
i ����— rb,t� `:�»; � ��.�T�
\� �," � � k �..:�'�_" - L.—�t r . . . , .
A.�"'� T .`� 1 � ,�'L-.�- �,`
� �� . � � � � � • � �' - ����� �
,,, _
1 � . � �
.
�� .� �
,� �d. w � `w. ��� � -- ��,-.�` � _
. � -
�4 � .�` '`} � ^ � t iti M�'� '� � ; {'"�� t� � �:r
'i- ,� '� � � f� ..;,� _ �"' i„�;��:
, „-,
. .
- • .
�� � Y i � `, ` "� -
, �,
� � � ��� �'��� , �e'
� � `��
� < ° �'`� .
.. � .. . ° � �. yi
�
�;� T ,Y
a � � ��� ,� ti a '�`�a,.
�'�7�; '�& � ? ~ '. � iCL� . +� �/A
�t , � `"'��� _'� .'���;', ' `� __�I
�,�-TM ��y^ ( 4 � ��� •. �'y� � — ,
� '� - �.R{ ,:� r Zq�� � �: t a :. .. � `��. -�� _ /.,, � 1
� +dv'
�-� '� i . :?� ,. .. } �� � *� �
: �
l� b
� � �� � . �1 . �9 ~�-", ' \ � � _ J �-� 1�, .. � � r „ � .
,� � ;` '� ��� �y;� `�'t Owj' r ` _� "' G` ,
"�! '�� s� � i,�.r I` t- � �� �' � � �E'
, � �' ��. �� �; � � � � � � :� �
,. :�` = v w'� �. . . �i�
r1 �., � i.- .. �,. ` � � � �
„ , .,
. � r� � s.
� ...
, � �,
�.
�
� � � , .
� ' �,, n ,.
� °+ � � � ��., . ,. _V� � ;�' � , _
�, . , AL
/ .! �V' i" �^.) � I _ ��� f � � .`:��
� � .
1 � �i
r � � .� $ � ` % ,.� • � �� _ry �
T r
� �.N f' `��y s —� ����J
s. t � � �
�,,� ;�' � `�;. � _ G �, ��h
� F� ; y" �� ;+" � � � . `7} � � ���
�,=� ' j — �'N`a �.. �� �i
� ��� ���: � ��� � .. , �
1 f� �4
J ^�
� �, � "� �,�� � , �' � �
� , �� ,. � � .�. � � �
i� 5 R"^ {
��'.,� �` ' �" � � � 9 '�'` �'�.t ,t�
, ; = .
'�� :�> '� �� � . . r� � �. - _,_
..�e.-K �� . .& � .�. • � `"�myyy�� r � . a �.: �,..��n � .s }' Ml \
�: # � �•��� - � , ` ; �• � O � �� * } .
� a � ", � �4.
� -�.`� i d. . `y 'b�/L �,/ \v . � :,, "� ' ,:�. "-
� ,y t
� �.e,' . ' r ,..c��i�"� �II � ,'t �" �14 � `�
Y
.
� �
�,'�`�� ' " a� ^ / � �''
�y9�` * :,� � � � ��' �'c � � q�_-^�1.� .� . � "'r,.
`� � ��� . — 3; .. #;�" �� r^✓ �:�
�;,� a _ ,.�� �`y
; ,
�
t � � 7�
� ti ,, � . ,�.� � .. ; � .}
� � �
�� �- �'� � -id �� �'� �►'^. 2i• �� '° ✓
T . �`.�,e�e: . l�: � .4`; .� i . � �' .: - ,.
'�2 r. ,�� ;� -' ,. ` ' _ � �i,".. ;. �'' �� � .
.�� � ,ro`� � '.� �. � � ���
�
� 4:
•�� �. : � �ti�� .„ , � } � .._-'. �
� `"� '�^ -' \ y��� � ,�` � % '.t%$;, = ��aA�� # 'S`/� �,1.
� � z � " �,, � ;� � �
� � �� �„� ,
� . szx' � :a `.�:. 0� � � -- �q ��Y `''" � .' t -.l�r �, �
-�
. �S' t a �i - � �� A � _. 4 '�� �r �.J
� � �^� , ��k�� -,�Y ..� ..if , _ �?fr.� '�Y". � �� € l,l .
� � . . � .. . . .�
� fH
_ ! . �} L . i � � �� �
� • ,
� : ..�,✓-� � . . . "*._ " � �.
�.'
'"�l..yN i - . � � :-.� ' �r .
�'��'*�� � ��' � �� � �_ � x. � �'�
_ �� „t ` �`. �� � s`; - "�- K
.�.K �, % � �` - - "
I�ir - �" �� � ,• � _ �;, ' -
, �?. .� � � � ��
n � � � �+� � ,.* . .'.� � � T . • � f,�``y.. ' `�l��+,y,yp. ��
�' 7 W-'z �Fp hY _ .%� J� . ro8�r - �y�i a ��.
4 ' - .. � � - — � . � °� "`I .� � J �
i��'C'.� � ,� � } x� - , . r -:' � �i a
ea � } x,- � � ' y'��` _ _ _ � } ,
�^��+ _ ' ,.� " ��.-�s r* ` ' "� y�t .,'�, � ..+'�' �r �} 4'� . � _ � .
i � p°�y' " « '� `�' � I
�' ''�: � � -- � y �':�r '��,+�. �";"� �,� w�'y"=�--� � �
.m ��, �� �'� � ����^�, ` � .'., .�.��`� s � � ' .�„ � � � �
����� � ���r . - .:'� �' � �'� 4+� J��' '�" � � � it,9;,�.• �:� ,w-
qy, ,J ', �� � a-, {k� ,��.,+�" �±� ! �
� .� �. - =Lrw i'!�� ._iJ�Y�� .. '�� �. f( ' C���'"�:7"1 .�.��{i�c �}�'� �.'�.`�'