HomeMy WebLinkAbout1562 Cypress Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permits for Accessory Structure
Item # 8
Action Item
Address: 1562 Cypress Avenue Meeting Date: 10/28/02
Request: Conditional use permits for replacement of an existing 225 SF storage shed with a new 180 SF
detached patio shelter/lanai.
Applicant and Property Owner: Lillian Vasey
Designer: Sergio Galdamez
General Plan: Low density residential
Adjacent Development: Single family residential
APN: 028-295-100
Lot Area: 10,200 SF
Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures Class 3(e), Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios,
swimming pools and fences.
November 13, 2001 Action Meeting: On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission denied a request
for a special permit and four conditional use permits for replacement of an existing wood storage shed with a
new concrete block storage shed (November 13, 2001 P.C. Minutes). In their denial, the Commission
suggested that the proposed accessory structure should be smaller and shorter so it is closer to complying with
code rcquirements; and that it should be consistent with the neighborhood. At the time the Commission
reviewed this request, the concrete block storage shed was partially built. The partially built structure was
kept while the applicant worked on revising the plans.
The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped September 5, 2002, to address the Planning
Commission's concerns. In the previous proposal, a special permit for length and four conditional use permits
were required. With the revised project, the applicant eliminated the special permit for length (30' previously
proposed, 24' length currently proposed), conditional use permit for roof height (11'-6" previously proposed,
10'-0" currently proposed), and a conditional use permit for storage exceeding 10% of the gross floor area of
the house (the proposed use has changed from storage to a patio shelter, which also requires a conditional use
permit) (see Table 1). The applicant is now proposing the following changes to the project:
• reduce the overall size of the structure by 45 SF (from 225 SF to 180 SF);
• reduce the length by 6'-0" (from 30'-0" to 24'-0");
• reduce the height by 1'-6" (from 11'-6" to 10'-0"); and
• change the proposed use from storage to a patio shelter.
Summary: The applicant, Lillian Vasey, is requesting three conditional use permits to replace an cxisting
wood storage shed (7'-6" x 30', 225 SF) with a new patio shelter/lania (7'-6" x 24', 180 SF) at the rear of the
lot. This structure will be open in design (has three walls with an opening facing the rear yard). The applicant
intends to use the accessory structure as a patio shelter. The structure will have a stucco finish (painted gray)
and will contain blue ceramic tile for roofing. The exterior fnish, paint color and roofing material will match
the materials on the existing detached cottage adjacent to the proposed patio shelter.
Originally, the building department received a complaint from a neighbor regarding the construction of the
new storage shed. The existing wood storage shed has been demolished and the new acccssory structure is
50% complete (walls have been built). The patio shelter will have three walls, with the long side open to the
yard. The location of the proposed patio shelter is in the same location as the existing wood storage shed, but
is smaller in size. No changes are proposed to the existing single family dwelling or the nonconforming
cottage. The following code exceptions are required:
Conditional Use Permits for Accessory Structure
1562 Cypress Avenue
1. Conditional use permit for two or more accessory structures on one lot, each having over 100 SF of
gross floor area (existing 1,130 SF nonconforming accessory living unit and proposed 180 SF detached
patio shelter/lanai) (CS 25.60.010, a);
2. Conditional use permit if all accessory structures on one lot exceed 800 SF. Existing (1,130 SF) and
proposed (180 SF) accessory structures total 1,310 SF (C.S. 25.60.010, c); and
3. Conditional use permit for an accessory structure to be used as a patio shelter/lanai (C.S. 25.60.010, n).
Table 1— 1562 Cv ress Avenue
CUI2RENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
(10/28/02) (11/13/O1)
Location on Lot: within rear 30% within rear 30% within rear 30% accessory structure
within rear 30% of lot
Lot Coverage: 3 I.5% 31.9% 31.9% 40%
3214 SF 3259 SF 3259 SF 4080 SF
Floor Area Ratio: 0.32 FAR 0.32 FAR 0.32 FAR 0.43 FAR
3214 SF 3259 SF 3259 SF 4364 SF
Length: 24'-0" 30'-0"* 30'-0" 28'-0"
Height: 8'-0" to plate 8'-0" to plate not available 9-0" to plate
10'-0" to ridge 11'-6" to ridge* 10-0' to ridge
# of Accessory 180 SF ' 225 SF 225 SF 2 or more exceeding
Structures and Size: patio shelter storage shed* wood shed 100 SF requires
1130 SF cottage 1130 SF cottage 1130 SF cottage conditional use
permit
Total Accessory 1310 SF' 1355 SF* 1355 SF 800 SF
Structures Area:
Rear Lot Coverage: covers 47% of covers 47% of covers 47% of may cover 50% of
rear 30% of lot rear 30% of lot rear 30% of lot rear 30% of lot
Use: 180 SF 225 SF 225 SF see CS 25.60.010, n
patio shelter` storage shed storage shed
Previous project required conditional use permits to replace an existing wood storage shed with a new
concrete block open storage shed.
Conditional use permits required for construction of a new patio shelter/lanai (refer to pages 1 and 2 for
descriptions of conditional use permits required).
2
Coitditional U.se Perntits for Accessory Strttcture 1562 Cypress Avenue
Property History: Currently, the use on this R-1 zoned site is nonconforming because there are a total of
three dwelling units in two separate structures. There is a 1,904 SF single-story single family dwelling at the
front of the lot, an 1,130 SF single-story two-unit cottage at the rear right corner of the lot, and a 225 SF
detached wooden storage shed at the rear left corner of the lot. The old San Mateo County Assessor's
appraisal report for the property indicates that the cottage and storage shed existed on the site in 1932. The
Sanborn Map also shows that these three structures existed on this lot in 1945 (maps updated most recently in
1945). A copy of the appraisal report and Sanborn Map have been included in the staff report for your
review. There is one covered parking space under an existing porte cochere at the front of the lot and several
uncovered parking spaces in the driveway.
Because a third unit was added to the cottage at the rear, code enforcement on the cottage began in 1974. In
1975, a court stipulation was filed with the Superior Court allowing the two units to remain in the cottage at
the rear as long as the kitchen facilities were removed from the third unit and that the area in the third unit
would not be used for living quarters or dwelling purposes of any kind. This unit was later made to comply
with the stipulation.
Staff Comments: See attached. Dan March (1569 Newlands Avenue), owner of the property behind and to
the left of the subject property, submitted several photographs of the partially built accessory structure as
viewed from his property. These photographs are included in your staff report for review.
Study Meeting: At the October 15, 2002, Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission asked if the
patio shelter will still be used for storage and how the proposed structure differs from a carport (October 15,
2002 P.C. Minutes). In a conversation with the applicant, she noteci lhat proposed patio shelter will not be
used for storage of any kind. A carport is defined in the zoning code as a roofed automobile shelter open on
one or more sides. The proposed patio shelter has walls on all three sides with a post in the middle of the
opening (see photograph below). In addition, there is mature landscaping in front of the narrow portion of the
structure, the structure is only 7'-0" wide (clear interior space) and the distance between the proposed patio
shelter and existing cottage is only 6'-0". Under these conditions, it
. �' would be very difficult to maneuver a vehicle into the structure.
�;
,� �
_ - � - •.�, , , ? 1
.
\ " �`
..
,
`� {"�_
4. :1..
'�€ ,;-. _ _ �." .
,� " ����
i �( ,'�. �F ���
..+v
r�"t,- .?, • �i,t
� l
�.
�� r
_ �i ,�r
' ''�:'
Thc Commission also asked if the applicant could make
arrangements for Planning Commissioners to visit the site. The
applicant made her phone number available to all Commissioner's
(Planning staff faxed contact information to Planning
Commissioners) and noted that she would be available to
accommodate site visits the weekend before the public hearing.
/ '
Conditional Use Per»:its for Accessory Structure
1562 Cypress Avenue
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for number of accessory
structures, total size of accessory structure and for a patio shelter/lanai use, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare,
or convenience;
(b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general
plan and the purposes of this title;
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the
general vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be taken by resolution and should include iindings for the conditional usc perniits. The reasons for any
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
Conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped September 5, 2002, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that the patio shelter/lanai shall not exceed 180 SF
in area (7'-6"W x 24'-0'D) and shall not exceed an overall height of 10'-0" measured from adjacent grade
to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 8'-0" measurc from adjacent grade;
that the patio shelter/lanai shall have a stucco finish (painted gray) and shall contain blue ceramic tile for
roofing;
that the accessory structure shall only be used as a patio shelter/lanai and shall never be used for any kind
of storage, accessory living, or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include
additional utility services and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit;
4. that the property owner shall provide a survey of the existing portion of the accessory structure and the
property line, and it shall be accepted by the City Engineer before any building permits are issued; if any
part of the partly completed structure is found to be across the property line it shall be removed;
that the accessory structure shall have three walls with the opening facing the rear yard; an amendment to
this permit shall be required if the accessory structure is to be enclosed on all four sides;
4
Conditional Use Permits for Accessory Structure 1562 Cypress Avenue
6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 10,
2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's September 9, 2002, memo shall be met; and
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
Lillian Vasey, applicant and property owner
Citv of Bi�rlingame Plnnning Conimission Unapproved Minutes
VI. STUDY ITEMS
October 15. 2002
1. 1562 CYPRESS AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
REPLACCMENT OF AN EXISTING STORAGE SHED WITH A NEW DETACHED PATIO
SHELTER/LANAI (LILLIAN VASEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SERGIO
GALDAMEZ DESIGNER) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked:
• Will the patio shelter still used for storage;
• How does this structure differ from a carport, it appears to be right off driveway; and
• Could applicant make arrangements for Planning Commissioners to visit site.
There were no further comrnents and this item was set for the regular action calendar when all the
information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10
p.m.
2. 1655 SEB STIAN DRIVE — NED R-1 — APP�ICATION FOR C DITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMEN ENT, HILLSIDE A CONSTRUCT E�N PERMIT AND ECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT
FO NOVATION OF EXISTING SYN OGUE AND TEM RARY PERMIT FOR MODULAR
ILDINGS DURIN CONSTRUCTION ITCH REITMA , PENINSULA TEMPLE SHO M,
APPLICANT A PROPERTY O ER; ALEX S FELDT, HERMAN & C IVER
ARCHITECTU ARCHITECT P NNER: RUBEN IN
CP Monro�/presented a summa�of the staff report.
VII.
Com issioners asked: ;' /
• Staff report stat that this project wi ave no impact on the parking, h ever the access route to
the tempora uildings appears tq encroach onto existing parking ar , please clarify; and
• Provide a estimate in terins of,dates for how long the temporary b ildings will be needed.
�
, ,
There were further comments �id Chair Keighran set this item for e regular action calendar when all
the infor tion has been subm�.t�fed and reviewed by the Planning D partment. This item conclude t 7:15
p.m. , %
ON ITEMS
Consent Calend �- Items on the consent calen
sirnultaneously, nless separate discussion artd/or
public or a c�mmissioner prior to the time the �
/are considered to be routin . They are acted on
tion is requested by the app cant, a member of the
ission votes on the motio to adopt.
Chair ighran asked if anyone in the au ience or on the Co�
conse t calendar. There were no reque .
3A. 1 CRESCENT AVENUE — ZO�ED R-1— APPLICATION
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HFiGHT ENVELOPE FOR A�
STORY ADDITION (JOE A,p�D LISA LARRATT, APPi��
2
d to call any item
�R DESIGN REVIEW D SPECIAL
WER FLOOR, FIRS AND SECOND
fT AND PROPER OWNERS; ANA
3�}3-� /9/
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 13, 2001
Chai V' ti called for a voic �e on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Oste 'ng sent). cedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
5. X 1562 CYPRESS AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
(LILLIAN VASEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SERGIO GALDAMEZ, DESIGNER)
Reference staff report, 11.13.01, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and Staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were4 no questions of
staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Lillian Vasey, 1562 Cypress, applicant and Vera Vasey were
available for questions. Commissioners noted that the staff report states that the existing wood shed has not
been removed, it still exists within the partially completed concrete structure, is this correct. The applicant
acknowledged that this is correct, the wood shed was falling down, wanted to replace it, and did not think
permits were required. Commissioners noted that they are disturbed that the concrete blo •K �uilding was
built without permits, applicant should have done her homework, would like to see the height reduced, the
new structure will be larger and taller 13' at property line than what was there, not proposing wood siding or
paint.
Dan March, 1569 Newlands, lives in house in back of this one, the proposed structure is along his side yard,
object to the height and design of the structure, concerned that construction started without permits, if
approved it should be used as stipulated for storage only, not by tenants for night parties, the original storage
structure was not objectionable, i+ �*�as lower than th� fence height. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: there have been classic problems with this project, proposing to take a
nonconforming use with multiple units and expand it, applicant should rethink the project and change it to be
closer to code, don't have the right to infringe on rights of neighbors, purpose of the code is to protect the
community, the new structure is a lot different than the storage shed that was there, it isn't consistent with the
neighborhood, would have rather seen a straight forward application, not one that came in after the fact;
structure should be smaller, shorter, applicant should come back with a different projec� .,:oser to code
requirements.
C. Keighran moved to deny the application based on the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C.
Key.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m.
6. 1423 BALBO VENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
AND SPECIAL P IT FO�HT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AND DETACHED RAG (C BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES
Reference staff report, 11.13.01, with attachments�P'Monroe pres��ted the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if there is a State
4
Photographs submitted by Dan March, property owner at 1569 Newlands Avenue
�� . _ �
�
�1�i!�
��
''"����
� �
, � ���
,
, f`i��j�
,�„Fy;�`� �`iyy �fi� --r-
1
�,=,;.'i���� '`�' 'ti � •
•..-;� '
.;
r �
, \ � '�4. '- �
� X� '1''^:.�`�,i���'�^,
,�l�• � � r ,
!N ' :.'y '/ .
t • '�
• . .. . ' � �� �'�
-t� x : ` , ^f =, _ ;`.
� -
. �
c,, ` �+.� � , - �
�•..�'� r � '.S� �
a '` ;
. +� ; .
. � d;.
�', s� - �y �•
� l'1 . .
?w'I
• �� �` ��' ' � .
�" �,,;�r,�=
N. .� .
, ��� �. ^.: �
} � x. I . �J� �,� fi� �
��.y r��;.
�•�`� � . .1• �. ''�l`
< � •;. � ' .
.. 'r'� � '�t . � �. �
,.—„ „� •• ' ?���
,'' � `' � ,
. , . _ ...,i;,
� �` ;�: . '�
� � ' �y„ . . :.� � ' ` ,t�. _�lFj1�
� ��'�`:.. , . w{�-�¢'
, . � , �:'� �,. ` : r� r
+ �.�r :; 'ly��w::��� .�'
�jL�'['�r �
� riM,. 5 .� �. .'i''R�'��� :��
�' :����,,1� � •'�. � �i �
. t � 4: �t�K \ ,�
� �. e
`4 y r*�
. . . . � ' �� 1 �'�1 � `� �.% -. ♦
, � _�li:�.6:.�,- .. �,..�y�� , .. Y.
'_•�`.
- _..._ ..:_4__ :� .
.. ;�.
,
�d+�'.; •
y . � J�
�.' \�
. . „ .L .
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 6, 2002
TO: ✓ City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_City Arborist
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for accessory structure (patio shelter), number of
accessory structures and accessory structures on one lot exceeding 800 SF at 1562 Cypress
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-100.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, September 9, 2002
�, �L' `-
; ;�;.e-
��� '
M1 /
l'(/ I /
V
� k
� �
!�-CI�tC�( u�'�
��
,a�vw�
� v
��
v✓L� �
l I ( �
�' . Ge'� _" � ���!.��r� � l/- -�-�....,
� �
��,-� U `�- ��� ���'�-�'�'� .
Reviewed By: 'v V •
Date of Comments: Tl ��
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 6, 2002
TO: _City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
�/ Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_City Arborist
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for accessory structure (patio shelter), number of
accessory structures and accessory structures on one lot exceeding 800 SF at 1562 Cypress
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-100.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, September 9, 2002
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
September 6, 2002
_City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
i�Recycling Specialist
_City Arborist
_City Attorney
Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for accessory structure (patio shelter), number of
accessory structures and accessory structures on one lot exceeding 800 SF at 1562 Cypress
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-100.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, September 9, 2002
�,���-- � � ,� 0��
� � � ��
��
� ���� r
� ��
4 C�yj �s `U. �
� � �
�����j c� ,
,
Reviewed By: r Date of Comments: �/�/� i--
CITY OF BURLINGAMF. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
��6, CITY OA
BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�..m w
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit�_ Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Projectaddress: 1562 Cypress Ave, Burlincrame
APPLICANT
Name: Lilliana Vasey
Address: 1562 Cypress Ave
City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone (w):
(h): ( 650 ) 343-7891
���
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):
c�:
certify under penalty of perjury that the information
t_of r�kn�d�e and belief.
JUL 3 1 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PROJECTDESCRIPTION• Rebui�ding of storage structure.
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE:
given herein is true and cor�t
ApplicanYs
I know about the proposed
application to the Planning
Property owner's signature;
�
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: Lilliana Vasey
Address: � ��� C��/Ii1YPSS AVP
City/State/Zip: R,�,-i i ngamP, C:A 94010
Phone (w):
(h): ( 650 ) 343-7891
���
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
RE��I��a
Date:
the above applicant to submit this
�
, ./�
� � ,. ,
.�!, ✓/ � . . �. � �` /
� �
�. - . � / .
PCAPP.FRM
�.�c �. ��'������ .dV
�
CITY QF BURLINGAME PLAIIVM1iING DEPARTMENF 501 PRtMROSE RQAD P(6.ifl} 55R-72S0 F(6S0)696-379tI
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CONDITInNAL ITSF. PRMiT APPI.ICATiON
CITY i)I� i3iTi2I.ING�IM'i:
PLAIVNINti UI;PT.
'I11e Planning Commissian is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Orciinauce (Code
Section 25.52A20)_ Your answers to the follo�ving questions can assist the Pianning Commission in
mal:ing the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Flease type or write neatly
in ink. Refer to the back of'this form fbr assistance with these questions.
1. Exnlain why thenrnpnserl use at thenri�posed loeation wi[I n��t be detrimental or injuriou.s t�
property or itnprovefnents in tlte vicinity or to public /iealtl:, safety, ge�teral welfare, or
cort venienr�
'1'his proposed patio shelter in no way effects any c,ther property because it will �e a decorative structure
Matchin� with the existit�g. (See picture #3 and #�). lt will be lucated in the sa.me place as the original old
struc,-tur�, in th� back of th� proFart_y at 1562 Cypr�ss in th€ courtyard ar�a. Th�re is absolut�ly nc� adv�rse
effect on public health no adverse effect on pubiic safety, no negative effect on the general welfare of the
community, and no adverse effzct on public convznience.
2. How will the�roposed use be lorated and canducted i� accordance with the Burlingame
General Plan and Zoning Or�linance?
This is a small, Patio Shelter structure that :,onforms completely with the residential nature of the propert_y
and zoning district. This proposed structure is a repla�ement of what h�s afways existed on thz property
in the past. According with the meeting dated I U/09/01 the following applications was required:
1- Sp€cial p�rm;t for an acc�ssory strut;ture which �xceeds 28'0" in l�n�th ( 24'-0" propc>s�d)
(C. S. 2528.035,5).
2- Condition�l use permit for �he roof height of an accessory structure exceeding 10'-0"in height
( Proposed 10'-0"j (C. S. 25.60.O10,h) and
3- Cenditianal use �ermit for starage in an structure exceeding 10% af the gross tloor area of tlie
house ( 180 sf is proposed where 19D sf is the maximum ailowed) ;(C. S. ?5.50.OID,1)
The proposed structure is: l0'-0" height, 24'-0" ten�rth, and T-5" wide. It will de finish with stucco
in Grey color , and the roof will be with a decorative Spanish biue ceramic tile according with the
2xisting Cottege .( See picture # �) . The proposed Patio Shelter wili be open wall in the front , not
windows , not store furniture , only will have grape , p(ants and t7owers to make a comfortable space
to dimii3ish tt�e mass impact of the neighbor . Another reason to built the patio shelter is because
we lost our private space accordin� with the different height in both propertiEs.
4- according ivith canditional use permit for two or more accessory structure on one lot over 100 sf
( C. S. 25.b0.01 U, a) and eaceeding 800 sf on one lot (C. S. ZS.bO.O 10,c) please see the exhibit # 1
#� w�hich show the Appraisal report the record of the panning dept. of City of Burlingame.
3. How will the propnsed nrnject be cnmpatible with the a�stheties, mass, l�ulk and character �f
tlie c.xistin� and potentia! uses on adjoinirrg properties in the general vicinity?
The proposed Patio Shelter is completely cumpatibie with the aestliet'res, mass, bulk and character of
�xisting and pot�ntial us�s on adjoinin� pr�p�rti�s. Th� propc�seti patio sh�lt�r replaces the original storag�
structur� which was already dilapidated. So, in fact, the proposed storage structure will increase the
aesthetic look and character of the property adding to the oierali aesthetics of the neighborhood.
�������1��
SF p - 5 200?_
CI�(Y U'r l�Ul<1.11vl�AME
oi aNtdiiVG UEPT
�/G Tc/.2E ,
� �
��c��v��
S E P- 5 2002
CITY Uf �Uf�LIIaC;HME
Pl_AfJ�JING DEPT
- -- �.�.
#.P�:
:•r. ;�;'; �
. .":�'-j „ N .
; �:.:
>3: • . ?3-+:�'-,� _,
-� �
• ' •• .
•�
." .
✓ :;
��.
. _ �w f '
1 �
i
� . •
i�
.
' �"�t . •► ' •
' � `
• a
• I I
. � j�
. a-- _�.
���
.. ` . . ► .
� � ' - ' �
�• • � ` •
,•
� '•
0
� . -`: . . ' ;� �� �, '';.,�"�''- �': - ; � . .
�` ' ��:�. n. ' � � #� , ,- . ' ��' �' ' �
• �, ;� • �+t 4 � � . �� ; � • • r �
- . t ',� --�r .e �, '+' • ,r. � • � •
' k � � .. � ��i , � ��• , '� �
� - ! � � • , � w +'� � 14, • }' .
.� , ' , .s'� �• �;. ���.! `� \ 1 ��♦'�'� + .�' �
� ♦` ` w . ;r",1�-/@�` �. i. ��►•.� •M,� ' . w� � j
� . � � � �
, . . - �i.� ; .' . .�;�^ . i `
. .-
��. \ ' • � s � � .' � ; � � �� . �
� i R � • � � f � y• � ` ' �7 �� � � `' ♦'.
� � �' �� �'
� �•,, s � � ,-i ' ~� � � � • 1�� ;v •
� � � • � . � � r �`uu// .
1 j , . !'i � . w �' ' . � _♦
• sr , . ^
�'',�, • ��,.i.t"� ' ! � �' ., �.i � ` ' ,
.
.K ' :� ' � �'. � � � �� '� , .
� �.,..+-^ '��� ,�¢�'� - :'�l : �� r � � . � � � �b �� � ! �
� r � � 1� ' � r � �~ �.��'� •
. � � Y • ._ `_� �
�� ( � � ...- . ... .. ~'�` _ � � .. _ ` . •
t�. . � � � . j� . .. �,.�.��_ . _ � _ _ _.-,�.�, �
� I - ri-.>�' ,.�..�+� '.-y.'.+. •
f � ��
� " 1 �
.�`� .- W:+.: r�.
� • , 'r ' . -��:..
� � � 1
. � � ,
1
f~� � �
� � � '� .
' � •, I
I
..
•�,
� ` ' � .. •
�� �[i� •• •
I�� ��
� ��. ' �
,�
,\,,� .
: • � '
�
�' �
�
�, .. ` , w
. '
. . �� s
�' i � `
�'� � � # .
:
:,� �� -_
. .
� • . .
� _ , �,`.. - �'
i � "� } � �..tr_:�r
i
�
s
� • 4
� • � • �
� :;- .
�� �i
►
N, �
��
1 �
� �,/ �
`� �
�
�
���
� �
1� �
- %„ t
.-I � �' ' I
I
4 f�
� �
1�
7 ' ► .
' �� �
!' ; �
�, 1
' _ �
.
t
� ��� T � � � �_� i
.
.
�i crurz � � �
S E P- 5 2002
I;ITY G: ; ;i%�iivG�ir�1t
PLAiVNIfJG DEPT
�-, • ., — _
'c�i��,��i�1;FL�
..t
�^_.
.,
-_`,►
: j �
�
, �..
i • ,� _
..
�' •t.
.` . '
� . . . K
- i ��{'Ri� � �n,T r � ..
:� � 1
, �4 � :;��.
. "• � . t •
' ,� ".� • � .
.__ . �
S ,�� c . � , � � ^ �`�e ,,� ' ' 1
� �. • , ~ r ►� � • ` `' - �
.. .
. [ . �. � 3 . ,� � �� � - ��a �� � .
.}i'~ ��. � - ` � �r
:�. • �
• �r . :.. �: ."�� � �� f
' � . r.r - � �� - ' � ��_3 � "s � .
, '� •� r • ` M • . , �
�
• • � �
�� � • • � . , � •`� - .
� ' w _ _ � ` �,
.� ' �. ., � .:
— ,� �. _ � _ 4
'+i►. � •+� '1► ` �' • � e
�j ��`-_� � � ` �r ' ����� � <,3 �'` - , -
*` � .� R � . , - � � �
�. � . -� • �- �`•. � _ -, i
� 1 � ��' 1 � � �` .� � �
M y ? y � • � � ic - � _ -_. � +
�� ����� � � � x�
� �� _ �� �
e'� � �, � -
. - �� �'� �� �
� ' ���Y ��� i -
��`t' � � �
*_ :�, .� , _ }
, - � � _ - ' �
. ��-��� _ .� _ � �� _ �� �
� -�_.-= ,� - � _
� ♦ � --
- � � ,� �
� � = � �: '� �
,
' - _r
3- : �
_ _ �
. --���. �� '- � _ '
6'� .
+ '
♦�w ��l � •� -� � . � '�� �-
- _�- - � .-� � -_ ���� # , '
� . , _ ��' � � � � �
- I � . = 1`
_ � � � -
_ � _ . '� . �
� �,,�'F,
'�� -� � s � �
: _ � . � . — . -. _ . r. . _-� �- _ _ .
_„
�.. } ,:
�} _� � �
- �'_�` � ... r. .
, . �: -� � � . .
.s ^�
F .
.. . �
' y .
� P� I �� � � ._. _ �� �
�,�s � : �._..__.� _ _��
— = - ,_ - �
_ - ; � ' �
- ,�� �. _ - -
;
_ =� =
��-� -. .
� � �a�i �'.:z: .�. _
����.:� _.
"__ . � �
{ :1 i � . .w .�.,r•-��► � v� . ��:. . -. . .. - - .
....� ! ' � , . . r _
_
-- �. .. _ - � _ . . .,
- . , - - - .,•t:.
� �� - � � ��� ,
;,1 _ _ �' _.�� _ _ t -
' �� �" _� ;�} ���: 4� �
._� 1 �' _ �e� '' � '_ `�4
=-{�j'�S� . _ �tt - .•- � �� _ _ _ Ey �
�
�{��-�� 'v` �'� : ��,
- ! t-" �„�- �. �`a
#� �,
" � � - —� +��+�s".
- - �-` , �-a �
_ _ _ _ -� ��`� � ' '��l -
�
_ . _ i. �- � '_ � � � .. ^,
�� .
X.e �� �; �' . w'� � � ���..
_,�. ���' � � - , a 'i ;� _
� y � �
_ . ��� � r' F' � 4' �• -
� _� ��_ . .�i� __.�'c,_ . y., �_.� .-�� ` _4I- ��`���`� - -
-�, + '—�`...,_ ;�� � � � .dj��� - .-'$'s��'� _
� .,. �,�( s� � � _- - . � � ., ,
�
� �. ; -,x - � �� � � ! '- ��
_Y���� -c�'-. ...`4 _ ��� � ' .'� Ta4r i .\ _
� �
�� � � ���: ' � � �. �
_ + M ��� $ . • � ( - ��+ � _ . _ .
� �.' �, . .
� ' � :� � � _ -- R �, _ _ y '
� i d . :-
;�. �`,� � � _. +; � �
f�, �� . :�. � �:, � =-
��,m.. a i.� ` f : :
€` s : �= .
� ;^ � � 4
- � 3 . `_ -
- -:'3 i .-� _. � .+. _ . -. a- _� . . — -
��
� o_
y c�
yO�'9 , \ti 4,�/ ` � 23 20 � ,
'Q� v o� . i9
s�� 7 � h
/3 \� b 0
30 � �2 � h
\•
��i � ��P so. l � �� v .
Ao, � �� O
�ti5 %,,� O � � s3� 9
� 2 s� � �. .
� � �500
S
C
io ' -
�, .
�s �
C
v NEWLANOS
> �' �,
`%_
50 ���
��L
G� ,
! SAN MATEO, CAL/f
.-- ,�,
/B /9 O 2/ O 23 � O� � ,?
�o �a�, `�� �= pg O ; , ,u� �
,00
\ --- Q
45 �4 � ' 33 32
3p<- � 3O h /5
�� ' � 295 „ .�� ,� o —
4 Sp �
46 I 42 3 36 3/ � O� J � /4
loo' Q
� ,yS, SS, � S� iao' 2.
� � 30 � -
� I � a C�
'�
0
i 2 / I /0 BO O � bO OS � �' $/.� (
�
s a .so' sd .� ' ss' So'
00 15102 C,�press �Je...
� C YPRESS „
� PARCEL MAP VOL S6/5/- 52
� /s \ PARCEL MAP VOL 30 7//2,�-24
�
� �
R � ��
- . .vE.v- e.c�cc€
�6eros �,�e,e�
� I
LJ
'I /i Hro.
.�..7 0 JO�HOS6
� �I
`v
n -
// -7.�
ii '�� PfRSH/NG ScNao[ , ;' ,
�-, � //• Sf.Fiv.M //ear /a � EL EC. L/6HTJ. �' � ' I
sz�
//Q�/ " � � • �.
/� / . . � . ����•J a / , .
� /-� �.
�/ � .
�/
//
N
y ... . �e..iis.� .
J/� IS .T� N/WtwNLtf I.rJGO wuw<.war �,S7g / G�
_ i.xtz
ss � � _ : � � a a = — : n = _ : n � s z � aa a sa a a v a = :' a x = a = � s = a � = a�� _ = a = � r x m a a � = aa = a = a -
e ., ' �, NEVYLANDS `
i ,�, .
EA. . � .... .�� iT56 /�'�9
/L'LC ^'�rv-.��./ ,� NEIv_ ��C� I��iI N�.oialloS
l "' �
�
�
,_�
�vwcSr �.!%0 �^�b /:70L -"'___- /✓DU� .l� /J.90 �����.,o • l"✓w ...... . ._ . .
� `
�
�
__. 3
�. � CYPRESS
� a a r = � : � � a � a � a � _ ; a s s e x — � _ _ � � _� � — a L{�= s -z = = a v � +�c c c = — c � — — — — — � —a = = o — _ —
--- - -�• � •� • • � •-
.
i �� 1������������■NIlnl�l�!���i,w►�
• , / . . � : :i , ;�If�������■�■��■■Giur�ii[�iC�1lS�Wi�4.'i� -
FriF��■��■■�0������■■��G��■�i/,�7i[
- / �. _�: - .� _i � ■i � ��■�����������■���e�a�■■�� :a - - . _ .� .. , ,
• �11■���■����■�����■■��■��A����u
� � t c�■�■ ■■■���■������■��■wi�w��■�rr
������i��■���■������■■�■Wit���i��d •
- - .. ■■■�■���■���!!l1�����■lI���L=���..�
• / : � i = • �i��i3�i�iiii�i�������u���Ss�����i�Lii�i � - • -
i::r�.'�'�Ll�■��` ��s�o����■��■��■�� '
l
, : , r„�� � ■r__ �.-------.����■�■�■ d � � -�
- / I:�!!'����R�'��F� Io■�H�■�I�������� � �
� , , ' �I�!ql;;l���11 ��� ■■ ■�■�Iw����#■�e
• : • r�n�cs����� ���iii ■�■��■��iu�■����s�
:::C:��::C�3��CC:■C:��:C::CC: e . -
- . ■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■�■■■��■■■■■■■i � _
■�■L�y�l,���f■iiiild��l�■d����=��� ir'�
■���■������■�������e���s�■ ��
. . - : . _ ' ' iiiii�ai iiiiiiiiiiii isiiiia��w , . . . � � -
� ■■■■■ n �����������■ �7��li "r■ii
— ������■i.:7■■■�■■���■���i�Q�i:�
. ■�����■�r��l�s��■■■�����■�■�:7!'S8i'i.'1 _
���■�����■ ����■��ee��:��������1 .n �
�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiai�ii.�!��,i��n���� '
■��������� iiisi�w ���� Yr��n��u!��b
��■e�■ ���■��c�■�a�■da���r�����_ .
■■■�■ ■����N■���II���C�l���l�R1 ■ ��
' ' " ■i�H�����ni����i����rE1�11R�� : . . . - _ .
� (� ����■�■����■���■■■��■■��■�!r:��. _ �
■���� ���r.� ��n�� c���� ��A�� a��c�a
■���■��erz�■��►i�.�s��r�r�u��s�r� i� d �
- . .O � D ---- - - -- - --- -�---�--- � I - -
, T, , , —� �p . � t
. � �
� , ; ,� ,
, . „ . � . + _
_ .
� �fl� �
, . � an � ,
, . ;. .. ; . i � .
. . �
. . � ,��
, , , .,
, ..
��i � . . " . „ - . j , -
I _ • '��!>-� �- , � -
d ir= _ � � - . � � .
► .�
. .,
�� � - :. � . �� - :
, i �..
.
,
I . I ��� � , , , .
. . j• . �-
.
�, - � . . � _ - -
:.. . .,.. - .
. ��--�� ---- �.
�.xLo' - � -
- , �'�--- -- �--
J - CONDITIOI� ,
_ j .w
:
:y. �
--- � , . -
0
AL LANO VALUE
23. o ��,.
33.� � �
. . • �
I
� �/f
�,i.�, c'T" o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
�� �E PLANNING DEPARTMENT
• � � �• ' • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
*'',,,.«o,,,,�•�'� TEL• (650) 558-7250
1562 CYPRF3SS AVENUI3
Application for conditional use permits
for replacement of an existing storage
shed with a new detached patio PUBLIC HEARING
shelter/lanai at 1562 Cypress Avenue, NOTICE
zoned R-l. (APN: 028-295-100)
The City of Burlingame Planning
Commission announces the following
public hearing on Monday, October 28,
2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California. �
Mailed October 18, 2002 I
(Pleuse refer to othPr ,side) '
� _. __.__ .__..__..
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the applica on �an% r�t��pro"�'t,may be reviewed priar
to the meeting a�.he �lar�nipg� D� a, ent a� 1 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Cali�rnia. � c,�
� � . �.
: �''� � : `�-�
If you chall�nge t�e subject application(s) in court, y�u ma.
E..
raising onl}��hos ""ssues ��you or someone else raised a� the_,�
�escribed iri t� 'c or in wr�t��n coric.spond�nc��_deliue
�-� x < � � � ;_.
at or prior t t a��y,� �j'`� �t,�„�� ��� �
� �a. x ..
�4 �_����e�...
Property o'ers � o r� iX�e this notic� are r�5ponsible�`for i
tenants ab t thi �-rio�i� ��� �or �additicmal informatiori ple
558-7250. -' ank u. p ` , ,,.�, i
I�n��`� � �,
�� �. � `�
3.a,� ;
Margaret b �o��
City Planner `�
�,� ��
PU
(Please refer to other side)
� ..,w, ��,/
��x' � • � � ����
:�.., '-,�.�::"a�> � �:.
��4R�i��;;�I�"fiICE
be limited to
�blic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for conditional
use permits for replacement of an existin s� tora�e shed with a new detached patio shelter/lanai at 1562
Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, Lillian Vasey, property owner, APN: 028-295-100;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
October 28, 2002, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per
CEQA Article 19, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(e),
Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences, is hereby
approved.
2. Said conditional use permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permits are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said
meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, Ralph Osterlin�, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 28th day of October, 2002 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use pemits.
1562 Cypress Avenue
effective November 4, 2002
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped September 5, 2002, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that the patio shelter/lanai shall not exceed 180
SF in area (7'-6"W x 24'-0'D) and shall not exceed an overall height of 10'-0" measured from adjacent
grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 8'-0" measure from adjacent grade;
2. that the patio shelter/lanai shall have a stucco finish (painted gray) and shall contain blue ceramic tile
for roofing;
that the accessory structure shall only be used as a patio shelter/lanai and shall never be used for any
kind of storage, accessory living, or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not
include additional utility services and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit;
4. that the property owner shall provide a survey of the existing portion of the accessory structure and
the property line, and it shall be accepted by the City Engineer before any building permits are issued;
if any part of the partly completed structure is found to be across the property line it shall be removed;
that the accessory structure shall have three walls with the opening facing the rear yard; an
amendment to this permit shall be required if the accessory structure is to be enclosed on all four
sides;
6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 10,
2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's September 9, 2002, memo shall be met; and
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
1562 Cypress Ave
Summary of Activity (7-1-OS)
Discovery and Enforcement Action of Garage Conversion
March 1, 1974 BFD Inspection report indicates Inspector Pearson conducted an
inspection of a unit at the north side of the garage with Building Inspector Hill and the occupant,
Jeff Hardman. Inspector Pearson drew a sketch of the structure while Inspector Hill took
pictures. Inspection findings indicate that the garage had been converted to living purposes.
July 31, 1974 City Manager, Charles Schwalm, sent Mrs. Vasey a letter requesting she
call the City manager's office within a week for the purpose of discussing the conversion of the
garage into a residential use.
October 10, 1974 City Attorney, Jerome Coleman, sent Mrs. Vasey a letter requesting she
contact him to set an appointment to discuss the necessity of abating the illegal living unit since
the tenant has now left.
November 22, 1974 City Attorney, Jerome Coleman, sent Mrs. Lillian Butto (aka Vasey) an
inter-department memorandum that requested confirmation of an inspection to occur at 1562
Cypress Ave on November 27, 1974 at three pm.
November 27, 1974 BFD Inspection report indicates Inspector Pearson conducted an
inspection of the interior of the rear structure with Building Inspector Calwell and with Mrs.
Butto. The inspection revealed three dwelling units within the footprint of the building. The area
that appeared to have been the original two car garage had apparently been recently converted
into a dwelling unit complete with bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. A sketch was made. While
conducting the inspection Inspector Pearson noted a hazardous condition on the adjacent
property and while discussing the matter with the owner of the neighboring property Pearson was
informed that the garage had been converted into living quarters within the past six months.
December 2, 1974 Chief Building Inspector Calwell sent City Attorney Coleman a memo
informing him of the results of the November 27, 1974 inspection; the structure contains three
units and that one of the three exists where the main dwelling's garage had been occupied.
Memo indicates the original sketch and photos taken had been lost but Xerox copies exist.
Memo also references an attempted initial site inspection of February 19, 1974 as well as a letter
from the City Manager to Mrs. Vasey dated July 31, 1974.
December 9, 1974 City Attorney Coleman sent Mrs. Lillian Butto a letter acknowledging that
the dwelling units at the north and west of the structure are non-conforming units but that the
former garage is clearly an illegal conversion that must be returned to its garage use.
Additionally, as part of the restoration of the garage, an adequate fire wall would have to be
placed on all walls of the garage in order to protect the remaining units. Additionally,
undocumented interior alterations to the two non-conforming units would need to be address
through a permit.
1562 Cypress Ave. Summary of Activity contd.
Page 2
Discovery and Enforcement Action of Garage Conversion contd.
March 3, 1975 City Attorney Coleman sent Mrs. Lillian Butto a letter advising that the
converted garage area may be used for storage, but not as a living unit or dwelling area. Use
of the area for storage is as acceptable to the City as use of it as actual parking of
automobiles.
March 14, 1975 County of San Mateo Superior Court of the State of California Stipulation
and Order No. 189720 between City of Burlingame and Lillian Vasey for Entry of Judgment
signed. Agreement states that Mrs. Vasey agrees to use on the main dwelling unit fronting
Cypress Ave. and the two non-conforming units attached to the garage. Additionally, it was
agreed that the kitchen facilities will be removed from that unit of the property which was
formerly a garage. Sheet rock shall be piaced on the two interior walls of said area, and
windows upon said area and upon the rear living unit immediately adjacent thereto, which
windows are upon the property line, shall be covered.
Apri12, 1975 City Attorney Coleman sent Mrs. Lillian Butto a letter enclosing a copy of
the recorded stipulation that was signed.
Apri13, 1975 City Attorney Coleman sent Mr. Mark Jones of Bay View Federal Savings
a letter summarizing recent action taken against Mrs. Lillian Butto and enclosing a Release of
Lis Pendens which was recorded.
Discovery and Enforcement Action Regarding Unauthorized Unit within Single Family
Dwelling.
February 22, 1980 Chief Building Inspector Kriner sent Lillian Butto a memo advising that
while conducting a complaint inspection an unauthorized apartment was observed. Additionally
the memo indicates that the garage converted into an apartment had not been converted back to a
garage. Memo required Mrs. Butto to obtain a building permit to "convert these violations back
to compliance with the code."
February 25, 1980 Building Permit #1117 issued to Lillian Butto to remove the kitchen sink
unit and cap off drain and waste in wall.
Inspection of Main Dwelling and Garage Structure (no violations observed)
June 9, 1981 Typed note to Helen from Ann advising of Douglas Karph (aka Don
Martin) that if the City "wants and affidavit from him, he will sign anything". Note also
indicated Mrs. Butto (Vasey) came into the office and spoke with Jerry. Mrs. Butto will be away
from three weeks and will contact Helen when she returns.
1562 Cypress Ave. Summary of Activity contd.
Page 3
Discovery and Enforcement Action Regarding Unauthorized Unit within Single Family
Dwelling contd.
July 20, 1981 Notes to file from Zoning Aide, Helen Towber, indicatcs site inspections
were made in June of 1981 to confirm complaints made regarding illegal units in the main house.
Apparently a studio unit was reported behind the first door on the left of the main dwelling, as
you travel north along the driveway, and another unit is accessed by the sliding door on the north
side of the dwelling. On or about June 18, 1981 Zoning Aide Towber and Chief Building
Inspector Kriner inspected the two non-conforming units attached to the garage as well as the
"garage" at the rear of the property. Garage appeared to be used for storage of a bed, furniture,
clothing, ects. But no cooking facilities were observed.
A follow-up site check was performed on July 14, 1981 by Building Inspector Hill and Zoning
Aide Towber for the purpose of inspecting the main dwelling. No separate cooking facilities
were present in either of the two locations noted by Mr. Karph.
Investigation of Complaint regarding possible illegal rental units in back of house
September 3, 1997 Planning Department Complaint Form indicates there may be illegal rental
units in the back of the house.
September 9, 1997 Planning Department Complaint Form indicating SFD with non-
conforming units as well as on street parking problems and trash and maintenance issued.
October 1, 1997 Memo to File from Planner Brooks. Memo summarizes a September 25,
1997 conversation with neighbor, Liz Horton, regarding the non-conforming units at the rear of
the property. Additionally, memo summarizes a conversation between Planner Brooks and the
City Attorney regarding an ongoing dispute between the Butto-Vaseys and the Hortons
concerning property line dispute as it relates to a fence.
Hand written notes indicate that Planner Morton was unsuccessful in making an appointment
with Mrs. Butto-Vasey for the purpose of inspecting the portion of the property governed by the
March 14, 1975 Stipulation is been followed.
October 30, 1997 City Attorney Anderson sent Lilliana Vasey a letter informing her that
Planner Brooks was attempting to contact her for the purpose of setting an inspection
appointment to verify the number of dwelling units agreed to with the City.
November 3, 1997 Mrs. Vasey sent City Attorney Anderson a letter in response to his
October 30, 1997 letter questioning how the "fence situation" with the neighbors trigger an
inspection of the property and what dwelling units need to be inspected.
November 6, 1997 City Attorney Anderson sent Mrs. Vasey a letter explaining the need for
the site inspection; complaint received regarding the number of dwelling nits located within the
rear building.
1562 Cypress Ave. Summary of Activity contd.
Page 4
Investigation of Complaint regarding possible illegal rental units in back of house
November 19, 1997 Planning Department Complaint Form from tenant in "rear cottage"
describing UHC complaints. Notes indicate that tenant has been served with an eviction notice
since property owner is moving daughter into the unit and an inspector took pictures of code
violations.
November 26, 1997 City Attorney Anderson sent Lilliana Vasey a letter regarding her
November 12, 1997. Letter included copy of the 1975 Stipulation as well as a final request for a
site inspection to confirm the use of the rear building.
December 8, 1997 Hand written notes on the September 3, 1997 Planning Department
Complaint Form indicate an inspection of the building was conducted a member of the Planning
Department along with Building Inspector McGovern. No kitchen facilities were observed in the
area formerly a garage since it appeared the area was being used for storage. The inspection did
reveal that a portion of the side yard fence exceeded the 6' solid and 1' lattice limits. Mrs. Vasey
(Butto) was informed that Warning Notice with a 2 week compliance time would be forwarded.
Planner Brooks sent Lilliana Vasey a letter advising that the site inspection she and Building
Inspector McGovern conducted earlier in the day did not reveal a violation of the stipulation but
that Inspector McGovern would be in contact with her regarding any building code violations
observed. Additionally, Mrs. Vasey was formally notified of the fence height violation.
December 10, 1997 Planner Brooks sent Mrs. Vasey a letter acknowledging that the 8'6" high
side yard fence between 1560 and 1562 is an existing non-conforming condition which may
remain. The letter also informed Mrs. Vasey that if the fence is ever replaced the new fence must
comply with current code requirements.
Lilliana Vasey Fence and Window Concerns
March 17, 1998 Code Enforcement Officer Palmer sent Lilliana Vasey summarizing
results of earlier in the day site inspection to address her concerns with respect to a fence
installation and window replacement on the property to the east (Hortons) of the Vasey property.
In summary, no violations noted.
Application for Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit for Accessory Structure
(denied)
July 31, 2001 Application to the Planning Commission for a Special Permit and 4
Conditional Use Permits to allow for rebuilding of storage structure.
1562 Cypress Ave. Summary of Activity contd.
Page 5
Application for Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit for Accessory Structure
(denied) contd.
October 9, 2001 Appears from the summary provided in the Planning Commission's Study
Item #1's staff report for a special permit and four conditional use permits to replace an existing
wood storage shed with a new concrete block storage shed at the rear of the lot that the existing
structure was partially demolished and that 50% of the proposed new concrete block is complete.
Special Permit is for an accessory structure which exceeds 28' in length (30' proposed).
Conditional Use Permits for:
1) Two or more accessory structures on one lot, each having over 100 SF of gross floor area
(existing 1130 SF non-conforming accessory living units and proposed 225 SF detached
storage shed).
2) All accessory structures exceeding 800 SF on one lot. Existing 1130 SF and proposed
225 SF accessory structures total 1355 SF.
3) The roof height of an accessory structure exceeding 10' in height,(11'6" proposed).
4) Storage in an accessory structure exceeding 10% of the gross floor area of the house (225
SF proposed where 190SF is the maximum allowed).
Commission questions/suggestions from the Meeting Minutes:
• Could the applicant revise the project to reduce the number of code exceptions required?
Would like to see a shed that does not exceed maximum allowable height and SF for
accessory structures; like to see the length reduced so a special permit is not required.
• What will be stored in the shed?
• Check to make sure the eave detail at the rear property line meets code requirements. No
overhang is allowed.
Commission gave following direction to staff: Confirm that the odd shape of the lot is what is
shown in the assessor's records; does the project require a condition about bringing roof drainage
to the street; a condition should be added that requires a property line survey because the new
accessory structure is within 1'-0" of a property line.
Item was set for the regular action calendar at the October 22, 2001 meeting.
October 22, 2001 Planning Commission Action Item #5 staff report show that the City
Engineer notes in a memo dated August 6, 2001 indicates that a property survey shall be required
if the proposed structure will be located within 1'-0" of the property line and that all roof
drainage shall be directed to the street frontage. Attached to the report was a response from the
property owner/applicant that addressed the Commission's October 9, 2001 questions/concerns.
November 13, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes indicates that the application for
a special permit and conditional use permits for replacement of an existing accessory structure
was denied.
1562 Cypress Ave. Summary of Activity contd.
Page 6
Application for Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit for Accessory Structure
(denied) contd.
November 20, 2001 City Planner Monroe sent Lillian Vasey a letter advising that the Planning
Commission's denial of the conditional use permits and special permit application became
effective November 19, 2001. Mrs. Vasey was further informed that she may not reapply for this
same project for a period of one year from the effective date of the denial (11-20-02).
Enforcement Action To Remove Partially Constructed 225SF Storage Shed.
February 22, 2002 Planner Hurin sent Lillian Vasey a letter reminding her of the November
13, 2001 Planning Commission denial for the special and conditional use permits to allow the
225 SF storage structure. Additionally, the letter informed Mrs. Vasey that the partially
constructed storage shed must be removed by March 25, 2002.
April 10, 2002 Planner Hurin conducted a site inspection and found that the partially
constructed storage shed had not been removed. Hurin apparently took 3 photos.
April 17, 2002 Planner Hurin sent Lillian Vasey a letter reminding her of the
Commissions denial of her request for special permit and use permits to allow the storage
structure as well as results of his April 10, 2002 site inspection. Mrs. Vasey was advised that the
storage structure must be removed by May 10, 2002.
May 15, 2002 Code Enforcement Officer Palmer sent Lillian Vasey a"Final Notice"
advising her that the she must do one of the following by May 27, 2002:
• Totally remove the structure.
• Retain the two walls adjacent to the side and rear property lines so that it would function
as a fence. If this option is chosen these walls would have to be reduced to a maximum
heightr of six feet above grade in order to function as a fence. The remaining walls would
have to be completely removed.
• Reduce the size of the storage shed so it will be less than 120 SF and not greater than 10
feet in height as measured to the roof ridge.
Second Application for Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit for Accessory Structure
(approved)
August 23, 2002 Planner Hurin sent Lillian Vasey a certified letter advising that the
Planning Department determined that she could submit the proposed project as a new application
with the appropriate filing fees. The letter further outlined what types of permits must be
obtained for the proposed project.
1562 Cypress Ave. Summary of Activity contd.
Page 7
Second Application for Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit for Accessory Structure
(approved)contd.
October 15, 2002 Staff report for Planning Commission Study Item #1 indicates the
application is for conditional use permits for replacement of an existing 225SF storage shed with
a new 180 SF detached patio shelter/lanai.
Meeting minutes indicate that the Commission asked the following:
Will the patio shelter still be used for storage?
How does this structure differ from a carport, it appears to be right of the driveway.
Could applicant make arrangements for the Planning Commissioners to visit site?
Matter was set for regular action calendar.
October 28, 2002 Staff report for Planning Commission Action Item #8 indicates the
application for three conditional use permits to replace an existing 225 sf storage structure with
a new 180 SF detached patio shelter/lanai was approved with the following conditions:
1. The project shall be built s shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped September 5, 2002, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that the patio shelter/lanai shall
not exceed 180 SF in area (7'6"Wx24'-0"D) and shall not exceed an overall height of
10'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of
8'-0" measure from adjacent grade.
2. The Patio shelter/lanai shall have a stucco finish (painted gray) and shall contain blue
ceramic tile for roofing.
3. The accessory structure shall only be used as a patio shelter/lanai and shall never be used
for any kind of storage, accessory living, or sleeping purposes; shall never include a
kitchen, and shall not include additional utility services and/or a toilet without an
amendment to this conditional use permit.
4. The property owner shall provide a survey of the existing portion of the accessory
structure and the property line, and it shall be accepted by the City Engineer before any
building permits are issued; if any part of the partly completed structure is found to be
across the property line it shall be removed.
5. The accessory structure shall have three walls with the opening facing the rear yard; an
amendment to this permit shall be required if the accessory structure is to be enclosed on
all four sides.
6. The conditions of the City Engineer's September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's
September 10, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's September 9, 2002, memo
shall be met.
7. The project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
1562 Cypress Ave. Summary of Activity contd.
Page 8
Second Application for Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit for Accessory Structure
(approved)contd.
November 5, 2002 City Planner Monroe sent Lillian Vasey a letter advising that the Planning
Commission's approval of the conditional use permits became effective November 4, 2002. A
list of the 7 conditions of approval noted above was included within the letter. Additionally, the
letter informed Mrs. Vasey that all site improvements and construction work will require
separate application to the Building Department and that a buildin�permit for the detached
patio/lanai must be issued within 60 days of this approval or no later than Fridav, January 3,
2002.
Building Permit Application for the Planning Commission Approved Covered Patio/Lanai
December 30, 2002 Lilliana Vasey submitted a Permit Application #2021927 for a patio
shelter-covered lanai (as-builts) to be decreased in size — New tile roof. Plan Check application
expires 6-30-03.
January 14, 2003 Revised application resubmitted by architect.
January 17, 2003 Building Division Plan Check comments were sent to applicant advising
that the re-submitted drawings do not fully detail the required compliance with Code and
Ordinance. Final issue is that the submitted survey does not show the existing portion of the
accessory structure in relationship to the property line as required by Use Permit condition #4.
Additionally, the survey must bc stamped and signed by an engineer or surveyor.
Enforcement Action of Expired Planning Commission Approval and Building Permit
Application for a Covered Patio/Lanai
April 1, 2005 Since Permit Application expired site inspection with the owner, Lillian
Vasey, was scheduled with Building Official Cyr, Senior Inspector MacNeil and Code
Enforcement Officer Harris. Property owner did not show for scheduled appointment.
May 27, 2005 Code Enforcement Officer Harris Spoke with Mrs. Vasey in an attempt to
reschedule the April 1, 2005 site inspection to ascertain what if anything remains of the partial
undocumented concrete storage structure that was to be reduced/reconstructed into a covered
patio/lanai. Mrs. Vasey advised her mother is currently in hospice and has only days to live.
CEO Harris will re-contact Mrs. Vasey on June 17, 2005 to reschedule site inspection.
June 24, 2005 Site inspection conducted with CEO Harris, Chief Building Official Cyr,
Lillian Vasey, Vasey's contractor and contractor's secretary. Unfinished concrete block structure
remains in place as noted in past photos by staff. Cyr discussed several matters with Mrs. Vasey
and the contractor. We explained why the plan check process was not completed and Cyr
explained that the 1-14-03 resubmitted plans were not stamped and signed by an engineer or
surveyor. We advised we would follow-up with a written letter regarding next step.
1562 Cypress Ave. Summary of Activity contd.
Page 9
Enforcement Action Regarding Complaint of Garage Area of Rear Stru7cture has been
Converted Back into a Dwelling Unit and is being Occupied.
May 27, 2005 CEO Harris reviewed the Planning files for this site and found that this
building has two non-conforming units (one to the north and one to the west of the garage) and a
garage/storage area. "I'his area will be inspected during the site inspection for the unfinished
concrete block structure that is to be redesigned into a covered patio/lanai.
June 24, 2005 Interior of garage/storage area conducted with CBO Cyr, CEO Harris and
Lillian. Vasey. Results of the inspection show the area being used for storage only. No evidence
of a kitchen. Mrs. Vasey showed Cyr and Harris the vacant non-conforming unit to the north of
the garage and indicated that this was the unit that had recently been occupied. Tenant moved
away.
NOTE: After reviewing the Planning Address file for this site and noting the current lack of a
garage door to this area, it does not appear that re-establishing auto access into the garage/storage
area was a requirement of the 1975 Stipulation Agreement.
City of Burlingame Planning Comrnission Minutes
October 28, 2002
• plans need to reflect what is proposed specifically at this site, not just a"typical" structure;
• applicant needs to verify the dimensions of the footprint proposed and include exact dimensions on
plans;
• provide slope of roof on proposed patio shelter; and
• provide exact height dimensions at low and height points of roof.
Chair Keighran called for a roll voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the
plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
C. Auran resumed his seat on the dais.
8. 1562 CYPRESS AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STORAGE SHED WITH A NEW DETACHED PATIO
SHELTER/LANAI (LILLIAN VASEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SERGIO GALDAMEZ,
DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the
height, width and length dimensions of the existing partially built structure were available. Staff responded
no, but that the applicant may be able to provide that information. Commissioner noted that he was not able
to visit the site, but thanked the applicant for making an effort to arrange site visits for the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Lillian Vasey, property owner, and Sergio Galdamez, designer,
were present to answer questions. Commission asked what is the width, length and height of the partially
built stnicture? Designer noted that currently, the partially built structure is 10'-6" tall, 7'-6" wide and 30'-0"
long. The plate height is approximately 10'-0", will need to reduce the plate height so that the new roof does
not exceed 10'-6" and shorten the structure to 24'-0". There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: was not able to get onto the site prior to this meeting, but was able to see the
structure before the last meeting, is in support of the project given the changes made and the number of
exceptions reduced, like the use of a lanai. Commission noted that the existing partially built structure
seems larger than shown on the plans, a lot taller than proposed now, is very close to the neighbors at the
rear. Planner Hurin noted that based on the proposed plans, the length and height of the existing, partially
built structure, will have to be modified. Agree that the structure is large, but if the applicant follows the
plans it will be an improvement, roof tile will be consistent with the existing roofing on cottage.
C. Bojues moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 5,
2002, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that the patio shelter/lanai shall not exceed 180 SF in area (7'-6"W x 24'-0'D)
and shall not exceed an overall height of 10'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a
maximum plate height of 8'-0" measure from adjacent grade; 2) that the patio shelter/lanai shall have a
stucco finish (painted gray) and shall contain blue ceramic tile for roofing; 3) that the accessory structure
shall only be used as a patio shelter/lanai and shall never be used for any kind of storage, accessory living,
or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional utility services and/or a
toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that the property owner shall provide a survey
of the existing portion of the accessory structure and the property line, and it shall be accepted by the City
�
City of Btsrlinganae Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Engineer before any building permits are issued; if any part of the partly completed structure is found to be
across the property line it shall be removed; 5) that the accessory structure shall have three walls with the
opening facing the rear yard; an amendment to this permit shall be required if the accessory structure is to be
enclosed on all four sides; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire
Marshal's September 10, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's September 9, 2002, memo shall be met;
and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the mo 'on to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 5 p.m.
9. 1532 CYPRESS AVENUE — ZONED — R-1- APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SEC D STORY
ADDITION (JOHN RICHARDSON, APPLICANT; KRISJON SWANBERG, ARC ECT; ANN
HARRiNC;TnN_ PRnPERTY OWNERI (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATH _E BARBER
Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Anne Harrington, property owner, noted that the Commission at
their meeting in February, 2002, suggested that the windows on the front elevation be modified but didn't
modify them at that time. Now that construction has commenced she realizes that the windows should have
be changed. Commission noted that this is a visual improvement from the sidewalk and that the changes are
appreciated. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that t�
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 28,
2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the changes that the trellis
over the driveway shall be removed, the two support members at the front of the trellis which support thc
gate may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7
�feet on or within 2 feet of the property line; and amended plans sheet A.1, dated stamped October 17, 2002
showing the addition of two bay windows at the front and the reconfiguration of the front porch; 2) that the
inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east (front) elevation shall be shifter to the left,
away from the door and closer to the outside windows, so that the left side of the elevations is more
symmetrical with the right side of that floor's elevation; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, and
changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design rcvicw; 4) that the conditions of City
Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July 16, 2001 memos shall be met; and 5) that
the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:11 p.m.
i �,,
/'.
7