HomeMy WebLinkAbout1236 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
ITEM #--2
Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for Accessory Structure
Address: 1236 Cabrillo Avenue
Meeting Date: 1/12/98
Request: Variance and Special Permits for construction of a new detached garage (accessory structure).
Variance is required for a 1'-0" side setback where 4'-0" minimum setback is required for an accessory
structure which is not within the rear 30% of the lot (CS 25.28.072 3(a)). Six Special Permits are
required for a single accessory structure exceeding 600 SF gross floor area (735 SF proposed), for a
plate line which exceeds 8'-0" above grade (plate line of storage area is 13'-1" above adjacent grade),
15'-4" roof height where 10'-0" is the maximum allowed, for windows which are higher than 10'-0"
above grade (11'-10" height proposed), for storage area which exceeds 10% of the gross floor area of
the main structure (290 SF proposed, 257 SF allowed) and for use of an accessory structure for
recreation purposes (CS 25.60.010 (b), (g), (h), (1) and (m).
Applicant/Property Owner: Eugene A. & Gloria Bordegaray APN: 026-156-220
Lot Area: 6000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - construction and location of
new, small facilities or structures - (e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports,
patios, swimming pools and fences.
Summary: Eugene & Gloria Bordegaray, applicants and property owners, are requesting a side setback
variance and five special permits to build an accessory structure to replace an existing garage at 1236
Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed garage would be located 15'-1" from the rear property line
and 1'-0" from the right side property line, in approximately the same location as the existing 1 P-3"
x 20'-1" (226 SF) garage to be replaced. The proposed garage would be 497 SF with a 238 SF second
story storage loft, for a total of 735 SF gross floor area. The garage will provide parking for one car,
a workbench and storage area. The existing main dwelling structure is 2574 SF. Since the number of
bedrooms in the main structure is not being increased, the existing one -car garage can be replaced with
a one -car garage. The applicant proposes to use the workshop area for gardening, woodworking and
model building. The height of the garage would be 15'-4". There is a provision in the code where a
15'-0" maximum height is allowed for an accessory structure, provided the roof is pitched from ridge
to plate, the ridge is no closer than 5' from the property line, and the rear plate height does not exceed
8'-0" above adjacent grade. The proposed garage has a rear plate line of 13'-1" above adjacent grade.
A variance is required for a 1'-0" side setback where a 4'-0" minimum side setback is required because
the proposed accessory structure is not entirely within the rear 30% of the lot. Special permits are
required for the following:
1. a single accessory structure exceeding 600 SF gross floor area (735 SF proposed);
2. a plate line which exceeds 8'-0" above grade (plate line of storage area is 13'-1" above adjacent
grade);
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1236 Cabrillo Avenue
3. 15'-4" roof height where 10'-0" is the maximum allowed;
4. two windows higher than 10'-0" above grade (1l'-10" proposed);
5. storage area which exceeds 10% of the gross floor area of the main structure (290 SF proposed,
257 SF allowed); and
6. use of an accessory structure for recreation purposes.
The roof of the garage is proposed to be pitched from side to side with a 3/12 pitch. There will be
electrical service, but no plumbing is proposed in the new structure. The garage is proposed to be
finished on the outside with shingles, and will have a composition shingle roof. There are two 4'-0"
x 3'-0" windows proposed on the first floor and two 4'-0" x 2'-0" windows proposed in the second
floor storage loft (1l'-10" above adjacent grade), and a 6'-0" x 6'-8" double door, all on the left side
of the garage facing the back yard. The storage loft is accessed by a pull down stair, and will be used
for storage of seasonal displays. The storage loft is 238 SF, and there is an additional 52 SF of storage
area in cabinets in the garage area. The second floor storage loft has a maximum height of 7'-0", and
varies in height from 5' -3 1/2" to its peak at 7' -0" .
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (November 10 and December 15, 1997 memos) that a
survey is required if the structure is less than l'-0" from the side property line, the roof drainage shall
be drained to the street, asks the applicant to show how the property drains to the street when the
elevation at the rear of the property is lower than the street elevation, and the drainage pipe shall be
within the property including the downspout. The Chief Building Official notes (November 10, 1997
memo) that a survey is required if less than 12" from the assumed property line, a one -hour fire resistive
wall is required on the east wall, no overhang is permitted on the east wall, and the storage loft shall
be designed for 60 pounds per square foot live load. The Fire Marshal notes (November 10, 1997
memo) that no openings are permitted in the garage wall closest to the property line.
Study Meeting: At the December 8, 1997 study meeting, the commission asked the applicant to address
the number of exceptions to the code he is requesting and what benefit the structure will be to the
neighborhood and city. The applicant has responded in the attached letter dated December 10, 1997.
The applicant states that the accessory structure has been designed to compliment the design theme of
the main dwelling, and will be replacing an existing structure which does not comply with current codes
and is in need of major refurbishment. The Commission also asked why the work and recreation areas
cannot be added to the main house. The applicant states that this would require an alteration to the back
of the house to receive the addition, and the rear deck area would have to be demolished. The work and
recreational activities planned would also fit better into a garage -type environment rather than in main
living quarters.
The Commission also asked how two covered spaces could be incorporated into this structure should
someone want to increase the number of bedrooms in the house. The applicant states that the two spaces
could be easily provided in a tandem configuration by extending the back of the garage to the rear
property line. Staff would note that a tandem garage does not meet code requirements for two covered
2
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1236 Cabrillo Avenue
parking spaces and requires a variance. The applicant also provides two other alternatives for side -by -
side garage spaces. The first alternative, a 20-foot wide structure at the proposed location would place
the new structure within 3' of the deck, and 3 trees (one orange tree and 2 palm trees, 61" and 72" in
circumference) would have to be removed. Staff would note that under this alternative, access to the
left side parking space would be difficult since there is only 1l'-0" between the main house and the
proposed garage structure. The second side -by -side garage alternative would place the new structure
along the rear property line. Staff would note that this alternative could provide two covered parking
spaces and would meet the code requirement for entering and exiting the spaces. However, the
applicant states that this alternative would eliminate 25 % of the back yard space and would also require
the removal of a total of 5 trees (3 mentioned above plus two smaller trees behind existing garage).
PRIMARY DWELLING
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
No change to primary dwelling
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
ALLO WED/REQ'D
Setbacks - Front:
N/A No change
15'/Average
Side (Left):
No Change
4'-0"
Side (Right):
*1'-0"
4'-0"
Rear:
23'-2"
15'-0"
Lot Coverage:
39.8% (2389 SF)
40% (2400 SF)
Accessory Structure size:
*735 SF
600 SF
Plate Height:
* 13' -1 "
8' -0"
Building Height:
* 15' -4"
10' -0"
Window Height:
*11'-10"
10'-0"
Storage of Household
*290 SF (11.2% of 2574 SF
257 SF (10% of 2574 SF
Goods:
GFA of main structure)
GFA of main structure)
Parking:
1 covered, 1 uncovered
1 covered, 1 uncovered
*Variance required for 1'-0" side setback where 4'-0" is the minimum required. Special permits
required for a single accessory structure which exceeds 600 SF (735 SF proposed), for a plate line which
exceed 8'-0" (13'-l" proposed), for a 15'-4" roof height where 10'-0" is the maximum height allowed,
for storage area which exceeds 10 % of the GFA of the main structure (290 SF proposed, 257 SF
allowed), and for use of an accessory structure for recreation purposes.
The project meets all other zoning code requirements.
3
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1236 Cabrillo Avenue
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that
the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Required Findings for a Special Permit:
In order to grant a Special Permit 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 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 findings. The reasons for any action should be
clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
Conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped December 1, 1997, Sheets 1 through 8, Site Plan, Demolition Plan, Floor Plan, Utility
Plan, Cross Sections, Building Elevations, and Lot Coverage;
4
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1236 Cabrillo Avenue
2. that the accessory structure shall be used as a garage and workshop, with 238 SF of storage in the
second floor loft area accessed only by a pull down ladder, and any change in use of the structure
shall require an amendment to this special permit;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and the Fire Marshal's November 10, 1997
memos, and the City Engineer's November 10, 1997 and December 15, 1997 memos shall be
met; and
4. that the accessory structure shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Maureen Brooks
Planner
c: Eugene & Gloria Bordegaray, property owners
�1
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1997
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Pla ' g Commission, City of rlingame was called to
Key on December 8, 1997 at 7: 0 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
MINUTES -
GENT) A -
APPLICA
F�7
Commissioners
Commissioners
City Planner, Mai
Engineer, Donald
ffey, Deal, Galligan,
and Wellford
Monroe; City Attorney,
Fire Marshall, Keith
minutes of the November 24, 1997 Planning
The der
FOR There ri
FOR A FENCE
of the agenda was
no comments from the
and Key
Anderson; Senior C
were approved
N AT 1170 VANUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1,
'PLICANT AND PPnPIRRTY OWNPPI
Requests: Pla ing Commissioners revie d the item and requested a applicant to state any i
he might have the variance for the hei t of the fence; why is it cessary for the lattice
above the frameNset
of the fence; it shout a noted that this is a fen a exception, there is
material includee packet which is not re vant to that issue. There were no further que
and the item waor public hearing on Janu y 12, 1998.
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW GARAGE AND
�j STORAGE AREA AT 1236 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (EUGENE A. & GLORIA
BORDEGARAY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
Requests: Planning Commissioners reviewed the item and requested the applicant address the number
of exceptions to the code he is requesting and what the benefit of the structure will be to the
neighborhood and city; why can the work and recreation areas not be added to the main house; in
general the parking standard for a single family house in the city is two covered parking spaces, how
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1997
could two spaces be incorporated into this structure in the future should someone want to increase the
number of bedrooms in the house. There were no further questions and the item was set for public
hearing on January 12, 1998.
APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE MAIN BUILDING AT 2840
CANYON ROAD, ZONED R-1, (FRED NURISSO, GREEN AGAIN LANDSCAPING,
APPLICANT AND GENE MUSANTE, PROPERTY OWNER)
Requests: The Planing Commissioners reviewed the item and had no questions. The item was set
for public hearing on •January 12, 1998.
APPLICATION FOR �'�
MODIFICATION FOR A
NED R-1, (BENJAMI:
PROPERTY OWNER).
HILLSIDE AREA \0
ZST FLOOR ADDITI
'. FELIX, APPLICANT
Requ ts: The Planning Commi*,
poles a d The
to outline the pery
be place at the height of the deck
site inspec ions. There were no fu
12, 1998.
Action ITEMS
APPLICATION
CONDOMINIUM
KAVANAUGH.A
NSTRUCTION PER
AND DECK AT 2649
AND ALBERT G. &
s reviewed the item a;
of the additions propo
ce; the purpose is to ii
questions and the item
R A MITIGATED
FRMIT AT 1520-1524
Reference staff report, 1 08.97,
request, reviewed criteria, Tannin
seven conditions were reco ende
the ublic noticing area of this ro
over o Secretary Deal. The A t
membe of the commission eligib
four to
. Did the applicant wish
AND MINOR
TINEZ DRIVE,
C. BAGGIANI,
asked if the applican could install
for the deck area the r1kbon should
Cate the impact on distan views for
Ns set for public hearing o January
ATIVE DECLARAI
)RIBUNDA AVENUE,
OWNER). (61 NOTICF
N AND A 6-UNIT
ZONED R-3, (JACK
with attachments. CP Monroe and Comm\he
ssed the
g Department comm nts, and study meetingTwenty
:d for consideration. air Key noted that sid within
ject she would abstain m this item. She the gavel
ing Chair then advised t applicant that thnly four
to vote on this item tonig and passage woee of the
� proceed. Yes.
Acting Chai Deal then opened the publ hearing. Jack Kavanaugh, 454 Hillcrest Road, San ateo,
the property caner, introduced himself. Neil Gabbay, 19 South B Street, San Mateo, arc lu ct,
responded to a uestion about the ceiling h fight of the below grade ga e; he noted that 8'-2" s
the minimum req fired because of disabled ac ssibility for vans but they h d designed to about 8'-8'
could a UPS truck et down there; no, they ex ct that UPS trucks would liver from the curb; was
there any reason tha a parking space was not inc ded at grade at the front of the building next to the
-2-
!• CIT
/euRLINQI►Mi CITY OF BURLINGAM E
�� •.A• APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMNUSSION
Type of Application:-X-Special Permit_XVariance Other
Project Address: l Z 3 (o GAB rU I.LO A.V r., , -6 U fLL 1 }J G AM F.,
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 02 G - I S (o - Z 2 O (LQ-r Z.Z - -6 L arc.K Z3
APPLICANT
Name:_ 6 t31-ltr 'E>OtZO PC ARAy
Address: 12 3 !o 683MI L-Lo A.M.
City/State/Zip:'S V I%$.t "C4A%.1@r GA 1A910
Phone (w): (It 18) -737--I lI 1
(h): (4lS) 34-1- 06$S
fax: (415) S76- Z531 (w�
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: '=�Aµr,
Address:
City/State/Zi
Phone (w):-
(h):—
fax:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: '::�> A M E.- .
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):
fax:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person
M
for this application.
DRdyF� WAy AMT> AJ�VcG.Bg-r PA•rlo. R"L-hc 4utTH LARunsm DBtAcNViD
G.AILArCatt: LuGL.VDLj-X(Q SL", DTt�lVr'WA`f P-UAD PATIO.
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
i -1- 9-7 _
ppli s ignat6 e TDate
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
i VL\ Vl 1 1liL
---------------- 'v _-=1''7---? -
��. r�
Date Filed: Fee: NOV 0 7 1997
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: OF BURUNC,.AME
7 NNiNG DEFT.
CITY
RLlN¢AMi CITY Y OF IIJ1{yY Y1VIN\ili"9Y1l E
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions exist.
b. Explain why the variance request Is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result from the denial of the application.
The existing garage (accessory structure - detatched garage) is approximately 80 years old and is in dire need of
major repairs or total replacement. It occupies a portion of the rear 36% of the lot. A costly "repair" of the
structure would not accomplish improvements to two major difficiencies; a proper foundation, and a raised floor
slab elevation. If the structure were demolished and replaced, the current code requirements would mandate a 4-
foot side setback (the existing structure is 6 inches from the side property line). This 4-foot side setback would
bring the structure closer to the house structure and would impinge on two 40-year old trees located adjacent to
the proposed structure. Also, there would be a reduction of approximately 156 square feet in the usable
backyard space if the 4-foot side setback was imposed.
C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or Improvements In the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
The proposed structure will have the same use as the existing structure. It will have a slightly larger "footprint"
but will be located in the same general vicinity as the existing structure. The neighboring properties all have
similar side setback conditions. The two side neighbors and those in front and back, all have garages that are
adjacent to their side property lines. My neighbor on the south side has a garage along the same side property
line as my existing (and proposed) garage structure. The proposed structure will not have any negative impacts
on public health or safety. It will however, have positive impacts on general welfare and convenience. The
replacement structure will be an aesthetic improvement over the existing deteriorated structure and will upgrade
property values and neighborhood standards. Convenience will be enhanced due to the enhanced usability of the
new structure. The existing structure is undersized and not usable for standard sized vehicles.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
The proposed structure is designed to match the existing house design. The design is compatible with
neighboring design themes which have been in existence in the neighborhood for 50 to 80 years. The proposed
structure is similar in size and height to adjacent property structures. It is slightly larger than the existing
structure but similar in mass/bulk to other garage structures in the vicinity. It is directly next to a neighbor's
garage of similar size. The proposed structure will not change the character of the neighborhood. Parking
capability will improve due to the slight increase in garage size. This project is consistent with existing usage.
Most neighboring and vicinity properties have similar size garage structures located adjacent to their side
property lines.
12192 vr.frm
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable, to your
property which do not apply to other properties In this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, Is there a creek cutting
through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request Is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result from the denial of the application.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception?
(i.e., having as much on -site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses
allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship
on the development .of the property?
C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or Injurious
to property or improvements In the vicinity or to public heakh, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting,
paving, landscaping sunlight/shads, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the
structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater
systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground
storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseases).
Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm
systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
Genera/ welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as
the elderly or handicapped?
d . How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties In the general vicinity?
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match
existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If use will affect
the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no
change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of
character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use.
Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of
the neighborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare
your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity,
and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vi :. 12A2vsr m
Dec, 2.1997 2:IOPM SFIA BDC 876 2531 No.9378 P. 2/3
CITY OF BURU NGAME.
qw— -# VARIANCE APPUCATIONS
The Plaannlno Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the Clty's ordinance
(Code Section 26.64.020 a d). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
aa. Describe the or rd&wy or eond9Uana apppA&ab4* to yaw
propwTy Wgch do not agpi/y to oaths! propendes In this mm.
No exceptional or extraordirmy ciccwnstaaees or conditions exist.
'PL-l.Ase. dSi&r=-
b. Explain why the vwftnce requnt Is neemarry for da prw&v radhn and enjoym W of a
an6starrdtr! pnvpwry r►9Iit end W*fft a sons s omperary Am= or wary !hardship
n*ht result loan: the denfat of the v L
The luting garage (===y stnrct n - detatchcd garage) is apprmrim atdy 80 years old and is in slit! =cd of
moor repairs or tohi-repiac emst It o m pies a pardon oftbe gear 36% ofthe lot_ A cosdy " epaa" ofthe.
gnu== would = pu_sh to two moor diffidandear as proper fatutdation, n d a mated flocs•
dab ekvatiaa if the lure mess: demolished and replaced, the catrrmtt code -- - - ie+emmats would nmwdate a 4-
foot side setha& (tbe mds;tm structure is d inches from tha side property line). This 4-float silo sd w* vsaeld
bft tbo SUVOMM closer to ft housn saucture and would imp mp on two 40-year rid Uves bawd ad*= to
tba praPposad structure. Also, these would be a reduction of appr+os�sately t 56 aquae+e feet in tksa
.ublo
backyard space iftbe 44ot sides seftcJr was H%X=91.
a EWI&b why aloha proposwd We at dW piraopposed ievca>dpW wdi nor he dear waoar or b*niawa
to p vpwW or lnrprove nM /n the vkh*y or to pahft he&%% salKy, waAfaraa, or
aonvenhw ar.
no proposed mucttswill have the saute use as the emsting stn==. It will have a slightly laegw faotpeint"
but will be located in the smme general vier as the existing structure. The neighboring properties all have
amaiiar side setback editions- Zoe two $ide neighbors and those in f unt mad back, ell have g man throat see
alljaat to their aide property lines- My neighbor• on the souls side has a garage along the some side property
line: as lay existing (cud proposed) Same mucam. The proposed shucture will not issue any negamm impacts
oa public bW& or safety. it will hwever. have positive impacccs on general were* sad cx wadeaoe- The
w*cmeat muctare will be as aesthetic unpruvem a over the eod=g detatorated smicasm and vA WW=k
peoptst7 vak" and ndghboditood standards C.ow4eoiause will be eAvaced due to the enhanced usabr'lity ofthe
new stnsct�. The easting mucam is undersized and not usable for standard and vehiclm
d. hiow wrilf atria pn*owd pirrvjiMbe C811TWObb U th the aasR/rsdcar man, bm*wdcAveew
of tlw eexlsdW aed post sues on ad rW PMPWdv In the oerwal vhab*Y?
The pmpon d structure is designed to match the existing louse design. The design is compatrbk with "
ngighbomg design aromas which halve beers is cadstenoe m the neighborhood for 50 to 80 yeasts. The proposed
mucwre is sbm lar in size and height to adjacent property structures. it is slightly larger than tha at>sthtg
structure but similar in u msft& to other garage structures in the vicinity. It is dh=dy next to a neigbhor's
garage of similar sine. The proposed structure wiltslut change the character of the steig6paridas
capabfty will improve due to the slight n' =c a is prap size. This project is c msin= with cds6mag_umet
Most neighboring and vicinity properties have sirrtr�ar sin garage structures located adjacent to then side
12rY2 yr 1m RECEIVED
DEC - 2 1997
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING OEPT,
Dec. 2.1997 2:11PM SFIA BDC 876 2531
No.9378 P. 3/3
tj Ma 150RDEGARAY
1236 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 9.4010
Dear 33URLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION:
Dec. 2, 1997
This is an amendment to Item a. on the Variance Application and should be attached thereto:
Although the Planning Commission may, or may not, consider the following condition as
"EXCEPTIONAL. or EXTRAORDINARY", it does create a situation whereby access to the rear
of the property would be seriously compromised.
The proposed structure is located on nearly the same site as the existing (proposed at 12 inches
from the side property line). Two alternatives exist:
1. Move the structure 4 feet from the property line, or
2_ Move the structure to the rear 30+/0 of the lot.
The first alternative would require the driveway to shift 4 feet north, which would result in 3
impacts-
o Access to the backyard from the driveway would be reduced to approximately 4 feet at
the stairs to the rear deck. This would be extremely narrow and would not provide
convenient access or adequate access in emergency situations.
o The relocated driveway would require the removal of a large (26-inch circumference)
orange tree that is approximately 3 5 years old.
o The relocated structure would require removal of an existing Yucca Palm tree (61-inch
circumference) and a 50 year old Wax Palm tree (72-inch circumference).
The second alternative would require elimination of approximately 300 square feet of backyard
space and adding approximately 5 feet to the existing driveway which is already 80 feet long.
This alternative reduces the usable backyard area in exchange for unneeded driveway area. Since
Burliname's weather and open -space environment encourages outdoor activities, it seems
counter -productive to eliminate backyard space which is beneficial to outdoor family activities and
pleasures_
Both of the above alternatives present such overwhelmingly negative impacts to me and my f mily
that I would abandon the proposed project altogether.
Sincerely,
DECEIVED
DEC - 2 1997
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
�r4, CITY C.
SURUNGAME CITY Y OF BURLI NGAM E
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or Injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity of to public health, safety, genera/ we/fare, of
convenience.
The proposed structure will have the same use as the existing structure. It will have a slightly larger
"footprint" but will be located in the same general vicinity as the existing structure. The neighboring
properties all have similar side setback conditions. The two side neighbors and those in front and back,
all have garages that are adjacent to their side property lines. My neighbor on the south side has a
garage along the same side property line as my existing (and proposed) garage structure. The proposed
structure will not have any negative impacts on public health or safety. It will however, have positive
impacts on general welfare and convenience. The replacement structure will be an aesthetic
improvement over the existing deteriorated structure and will upgrade property values and
neighborhood standards. Convenience will be enhanced due to the enhanced usability of the new
structure. The existing structure is undersized and not usable for standard sized vehicles.
2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted /n accordance with the Burlingame
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
Although I am not familiar with ALL the provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
my proposed improvement remains consistent with the current usage. My proposal to replace my
small deteriorated garage with a larger, code -compliant structure is consistent with the
development of residential property in the R-1 Zone District. Although the proposed
improvement will require a special permit and/or variance, the proposed use as a garage with
storage area is similar to present usage.
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinity?
The proposed structure is designed to match the existing house design. The design is compatible with
neighboring design themes which have been in existence in the neighborhood for 50 to 80 years. The
proposed structure is similar in size and height to adjacent property structures. It is slightly larger than
the existing structure but similar in mass/bulk to other garage structures in the vicinity. It is directly
next to a neighbor's garage of similar size. The proposed structure will not change the character of the
neighborhood. Parking capability will improve due to the slight increase in garage size. This project is
1 s/ss consistent with existing usage. Most neighboring and vicinity properties have similar size garage
`p.fm, structures located adjacent to their side property lines.
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving,
landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems,
water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks,
storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems
or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services
(i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials,
or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and
goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for
this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or
handicapped?
2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also
ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated
designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would "fit" accordingly.
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the
existing neighborhood and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity,?
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing
architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a
neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area
and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change
to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as
the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more
traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change,
state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your
project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state
why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
12/92
w•1rm
GENE BORD>EGARAY
1236 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Replacement of Detached Garage
1236 Cabrillo Ave.
Request for Variance and Special Permit
Dear Planning Commission:
Nov. 7, 1997
WTV G l 1997
CITY OF BURUNGAMIE
PLANNING DEPT,
I am a homeowner at 1236 Cabrillo Ave. in our beautiful city of Burlingame. My wife and I have
lived in our home for over 25 years. Although I have made permitted improvements to the main
structure over the years, the detached garage remains essentially as it was when it was
constructed over 60 years ago.
The garage is in desperate need of major repairs or total replacement. I've opted to replace the
garage IF it is possible to enlarge it for much needed parking space and storage. The detached
garages on both sides of my property and in the front and rear are similar in area and height to my
proposed garage.
My proposed garage will need a variance and/or special permit. The conditions requiring this are:
The proposed detached garage is in the rear 38% of the lot. (The existing structure is in
the rear 36% of the lot.) The proposed side setback for the replacement garage is the
same as that of the existing garage, 6 inches.
2. The proposed accessory structure exceeds 600 square feet in gross floor area (ground
floor - 495 square feet; storage loft - 238 square feet; TOTAL - 735 square feet).
3. The peak of the roof exceeds 15 feet above the adjacent grade (15 feet - 4 inches).
4. Portions of the two windows which give natural light to the storage loft are more than
10 feet above the adjacent grade (11 feet - 10 inches).
The storage area of the ground floor plus the storage area on the loft (290 sq. ft.) exceeds
10% of the gross floor area (2733 sq. ft.) of the main dwelling structure (10.6%).
I've designed this new/replacement structure with specific requirements that are unique to me, my
family, and our needs. Each of the items above were included in the proposed structure for the
following reasons:
1. The structure's location is being maintained on the southern property line, identical to the
location of the existing structure. This will ensure maintaining the maximum usable space
in the backyard. This backyard space has become increasingly important to me and my
family as our grandchildren have come to enjoy many summer hours with us. Moving the
structure away from the side property line or towards the rear property line will
substantially reduce backyard recreational space. (See photos 1 and 2)
2. The proposed structure is designed to meet 3 basic needs, enclosed car storage,
workshop area, and miscellaneous storage area. The areas are allotted the following
space allocations:
Car storage: 200 square feet
Workshop: 245 square feet
Misc. storage: 290 square feet
The workshop area is required to support my and my wife's hobbies and recreation.
These include gardening, woodworking, and model building. All of these require space
outside of the main dwelling structure. The storage area is needed to develop storage
space which is severely lacking in the main dwelling structure. It is needed, in part, to
store my extensive collection of "Dept. 56" miniature villages. This is a seasonal
collection of miniature houses which I put out for display during the Christmas Holidays
but which must be stored during the "off season". This collection requires considerable
storage space and is stored along with other seasonal items such as Halloween,
Thanksgiving, and Christmas decorations.
3. The peak of the roof is 4 inches higher than the allowable 15 feet above grade. I've tried
to keep the storage loft headroom below full height standards for occupancy (8 feet) yet
maintain an area that is accessible in a standing position. This promotes safe and
convenient storage access. Although the ridge height is very slightly above the 15 foot
maximum, it is important to note that the structure will not appear as high as its
dimension. The lot slopes down from the front curb to the back of the lot at an
approximate slope of 3.5%. This means that the ground level at the garage site is
approximately 2 feet below the front curb level. From the sidewalk, the garage will
appear 2 feet shorter than its actual height. (See photos 3 and 4)
4. Two windows are proposed to give natural light to the storage loft. Although these
windows are located just above the 10 foot height mark, they were included in the
design for 2 important reasons:
a. They provide natural light to the loft area which would otherwise
require artificial light in the daytime, and
b. The aesthetics of the design (the West Elevation) is greatly
improved by the windows in lieu of a blank wall face.
The windows look north into my backyard and are approximately 35 feet from my
neighbor's backyard. Privacy however, is maintained because there are 20-foot tall trees
lining my northern property line to which the windows face. (See photos 5 and 6)
5. The storage area (10.6%) slightly exceeds the allowable criteria of 10% of the gross floor
area of the main dwelling structure. The storage area that makes up the 10.6% is the
loft storage at 8.7% and the ground level storage at 1.9%. However, the ground level
storage will be utilized for actively used storage such as tools for maintaining the
structures and for gardening (rakes, shovels, brooms, lawnmower, wheelbarrell, etc.).
The loft area will be used for inactive storage such as collectibles (Dept. 56), seasonal
types of decorations, personal records, etc.
While reviewing the attached for consideration of a variance and/or special permit, please keep in
mind that my wife and I are long-term residents of Burlingame and our motives for improving our
property are simple and honest. We want to create a pleasant environment in which we and our
family can live happily and conveniently. It is property improvements such as this that help
maintain the high quality and standards that the Burlingame Community enjoys.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Gene Bordegaray
Owner and Applicant
PHOTO #1
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS TO BE POSITIONED ALONG THE SOUTHERN
PROPERTY LINE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
PHOTO #2
THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE WILL MAXIMIZE THE USUABLE
BACKYARD AREA BEHIND THE STRUCTURE. _ _
NOV 0 71997
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PHOTO #3
GROUND LEVEL OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS TWO FEET LOWER THAN THE
SIDEWALK ELEVATION WHICH WILL GIVE IT THE APPEARANCE OF A LOWER
PROFILE.
PHOTO #4
THE PEAK OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE WILL MATCH THE PEAK OF THE
ADJACENT GARAGE. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR A Y-10" TALL PERSON TO §Tt 63% OF THE STORAGE LOFT IN A STANDING POSITION.
NOV 0 7 1997
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PHOTO #5
THE VIEW FROM A WINDOW POSITIONED AT A 10-FOOT HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE.
PHOTO #6
THE VIEW FROM A WINDOW POSITIONED AT AN 11-FOOT 10-INCH HEIGHT ABOVE
GRADE. F � �, I F D
NOV 0 71997
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
GENE BORDEGARAY
1236 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Ms. Maureen Brooks
BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: 1236 Cabrillo Ave. - Replacement of Detached Garage
Response; to Flanriing Commission lviinutes for Dec. 3, 1997
Dear Ms. Brooks:
Dec. 10, 1997
Thank you for your fax of the subject minutes from the Dec. 8 Planning Commission meeting
(copy attached). There are 3 concerns for which the Commission has requested additional
information. My responses are as follows:
1. " ......what benefit the structure will be to the neighborhood and city"
As summarized in the Variance and Special Permit applications, the replacement structure will
have significant POSITIVE impacts on the neighborhood and the city of Burlingame. The
replacement structure has been designed to compliment the design theme of the main dwelling
structure. It will be an aesthetic improvement to the property which in turn improves the
aesthetics of the neighborhood. The new structure would replace an existing structure which
is non -compliant to current codes and which is in need of major refurbishment. Such things as
the lack of a perimiter foundation wall, no shear -wall construction, undersized structural
members, and subsiding framework will be replaced with standard or above -standard
constriction elerment_s. ConcEtruct:c:: of thetomeet C-url(ZL VVua-v ieaifrGmEi+J trVr
electrical and structural elements will make the new garage safer for me and my family but
also safer for adjacent properties. Although the improved structure will result in a direct
improvement on my property value, that benefit is shared with the surrounding properties
by upgrading the neighborhood standards in general. Any property improvements which are
done in good taste and combined with other neighborhood upgrades result in a betterment for
the entire city. These types of improvements are why Burlingame enjoys its enviable
attractiveness and is luring nationwide recognition as a highly desireable residential
community.
2. ".......why can the work and recreation areas not be added to the main house"
In order to add the "work and recreation areas" to the main house, the back of the house
would have to be altered to receive the addition. Furthermore, the rear deck structure would
have to be demolished to accommodate the house addition. It appears prudent to me to
provide the needed areas in conjunction with the anticipated new garage replacement
construction rather than tearing down perfectly adequate facilities on the main house.
In addition, the type of "work and recreational" activities that are being planned for, fit
better into a garage -type environment rather than the main living quarters.
3. ".......how could two spaces be incorporated into this structure in the future should someone
want to increase the number of bedrooms in the house"
Accommodation for two spaces arranged in a "tandem" configuration can be easily provided
in the future by extending the back of the garage to the rear property line. However, a
side -by -side configuration creates several undesirable results:
o A 20-foot wide structure at the existing/proposed site would create an extremely
narrow (2' - 9") accessway between the garage structure and the main house & deck.
This not only creates inconvenient access to the backyard from the driveway, but could
impede access during any emergency -type conditions. In addition, the driveway
widening necessary for access would be severely restricted by the main house
structure. This configuration would also require the removal of 3 trees (a 35-year old
orange tree - 26" circumference, a Yucca Palm - 61" circumference, and a Wax Palm -
72" circumference).
o As another alternative, a 20-foot wide structure could be located at the rear of the
property. This alternative however, would eliminate over 25% of the backyard area
that would be availabe under the originally proposed plan. One of the objectives of the
originally proposed plan is to preserve backyard space which is an extremely valuable
commodity in Burlingame's outdoor environment. Since Burlingame's weather and
open -space environment encourages outdoor activities, it seems counter productive to
eliminate backyard space which is beneficial to outdoor family activities and pleasures.
In addition, this alternative would also require the removal of the 3 trees mentioned
above plus 2 additional smaller trees. The originally proposed improvement preserves
as much usable backyard space as possible while also preserving the trees which
characterizes Burlingame as the "City of Trees". On the other hand, these alternative
proposals to accomrodate a side -by -side configuration for two cars does just the
opposite by eliminating backyard space and scenic heritage trees. These two
alternatives present such overwhelmingly negative impacts to me and my family that I
would rather abandom the project altogether.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission's concerns and if there is any additional
information required, please to not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
12/10/97 13:40
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1997
STUDY ITEMS
0.
1236 Cabrillo
Planning Commissioners reviewed the item and requested the
applicant address the number of exceptions to the code he
is requesting and what benefit the structure will be to
the neighborhood and city; why can the work and recreation
areas not be added to the main house; in general the
parking standard for a single family house in the city is
two covered parking spaces, how could two spaces be
incorporated into this structure in the future should
someone want to increase the number of bedrooms in the
house. There were no further questions and the item was
set for public hearing on January 12, 1998.
,I
FAX TRANSMITTAL
# paw /
0
co I
oar
FAX* ?9b-'25"31
FROM City of Sudingame
PHONE r i0 9'b - 9R O-
FAX JF__ (41 t7 3424086
ROUTING FORM
DATE: b V , 1 O �G
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR
AT
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: o v I C)t rgil�
THANKS,
i; L
Maureen/Kristin/Ruben i\ I k bj 7 Date of Comments
` q-- .
�u;1 Q •s J f;a Q N rr Y -f-
oL � ►�t
}gyp ate+
t u ^i v -t rs ,� � e'►'�-t w,r .e. 1 ►�-1, c o V•{ Iry 4-1 o ., 1
I c �' -e-� v
a J �i c x erg
C ieY
k c t uj t` drr vac P.0 t
12— is- —q7
S�
ROUTING FORM
DATE: Ind V - Q O q9 r7
TO: CITY ENGINEER
—4 CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR
AT
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: _ Mo V , (,q
THANKS,
Maureen/Kristin/Ruben / Date of Comments
s�Vey ►" yr I _/ ///
��✓e�r�5!S rlde- I'JG+ . r7vlkftl
2 d �z
- �J�a�/,,
�a S rL� a `(
3.
vLo o• 6 0 po vndS p Q-- 6� v el"2-
ROUTING FORM
DATE: R6 V � O qq r7
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR k /m
AT G 3(0 �cc� v► l I c) A k e
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: r V l e"), ((q it
THANKS,
1"ril
Maureen/Kristin/Ruben I 1LDate of Comments
- � ( c lcsa'� fo
CITY OF BURLINGAME
rBURLIN�GAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (415) 696-7250
1236 CABRILLO AVENUE APN: 026-156-220
Application for a Side Setback Variance and
Special Permits for the construction of a new PUBLIC HEARING
detached garage at 1236 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned NOTICE
R-1.
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Merv, Jaay= 12,1998 at 7:00 P.N1 in the City
Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed January 2, 1999
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for tliis project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court,`y be limited to
raising only, those issues you or, someone else raised a' blic hearing,
described in the notice or ' written correspondence `ve>� to the city
at or prior to tiiep9z f
Property c
tenants A
696-7250.
Margaret Mo
City Planner
[2-1J
(Please refer to other side)
`sponsibl orming their
information e call (415)
CE
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL 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 a
Variance and . pedal Permits for construction of a new detached garaae at 1236 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned
neGloria Bordegar APN: 026-1 SF-22n; 1236 Cabrillo Avenue, Burling, CA 94010, property owners,
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
January 12, 1998 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials
and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and 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 - construction and location of new, small facilities or structures - (e)
accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is hereby
approved.
2. Said Variance and Special Permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. Findings for such Variance and Special 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, Jerry L. Deal , 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 JIUL day of January , 1998 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption, Variance and Special Permits
1236 Cabrillo Avenue
effective JANUARY 20, 1998
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped December 1, 1997, Sheets 1 through 8, Site Plan, Demolition Plan, Floor
Plan, Utility Plan, Cross Sections, Building Elevations, and Lot Coverage;
2. that the accessory structure shall be used as a garage and workshop, with 238 SF of storage
in the second floor loft area accessed only by a pull down ladder, and any change in use of
the structure shall require an amendment to this special permit;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and the Fire Marshal's November 10,
1997 memos, and the City Engineer's November 10, 1997 and December 15, 1997 memos
shall be met; and
4. that the accessory structure shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and
Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
2
It
City of Burlingame
ITEM #
Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for Accessory Structure
Address: 1236 Cabrillo Avenue
Meeting Date: 12/8/97
Request: Variance and Special Permits for construction of a new detached garage (accessory structure).
Variance is required for a 1'-0" side setback where 4'-0" minimum setback is required for an accessory
structure which is not within the rear 30% of the lot (CS 25.28.072 3(a)). Six Special Permits are
required for a single accessory structure exceeding 600 SF gross floor area (735 SF proposed), for a
plate line which exceeds 8'-0" above grade (plate line of storage area is 13'-1" above adjacent grade),
15'-4" roof height where 10'-0" is the maximum allowed, for windows which are higher than 10'-0"
above grade (1l'-10" height proposed), for storage area which exceeds 10% of the gross floor area of
the main structure (290 SF proposed, 257 SF allowed) and for use of an accessory structure for
recreation purposes (CS 25.60.010 (b), (g), (h), (1) and (m).
Applicant/Property Owner: Eugene A. & Gloria Bordegaray APN: 026-156-220
Lot Area: 6000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - construction and location of
new, small facilities or structures - (e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports,
patios, swimming pools and fences.
Summary: Eugene & Gloria Bordegaray, applicants and property owners, are requesting a side setback
variance and five special permits to build an accessory structure to replace an existing garage at 1236
Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed garage would be located 23'-2" from the rear property line
and 1'-0" from the right side property line, in approximately the same location as the existing 11'-3"
x 20'-1" (226 SF) garage to be replaced. The proposed garage would be 497 SF with a 238 SF second
story storage loft, for a total of 735 SF gross floor area. The garage will provide parking for one car,
a workbench and storage area. The existing main dwelling structure is 2574 SF. Since the number of
bedrooms in the main structure is not being increased, the existing one -car garage can be replaced with
a one -car garage. The applicant proposes to use the workshop area for gardening, woodworking and
model building. The height of the garage would be 15'-4". There is a provision in the code where a
15'-0" maximum height is allowed for an accessory structure, provided the roof is pitched from ridge
to plate, the ridge is no closer than 5' from the property line, and the rear plate height does not exceed
8'-0" above adjacent grade. The proposed garage has a rear plate line of 13'-1" above adjacent grade.
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1236 Cabrillo Avenue
A variance is required for a 1'-0" side setback where a 4'-0" minimum side setback is required because
the proposed accessory structure is not entirely within the rear 30 % of the lot. Special permits are
required for the following:
1. a single accessory structure exceeding 600 SF gross floor area (735 SF proposed);
2. a plate line which exceeds 8'-0" above grade (plate line of storage area is 13'-1" above adjacent
grade);
3. 15'-4" roof height where 10'-0" is the maximum allowed;
4. two windows higher than 10'-0" above grade (1l'-10" proposed);
5. storage area which exceeds 10% of the gross floor area of the main structure (290 SF proposed,
257 SF allowed); and
6. use of an accessory structure for recreation purposes.
The roof of the garage is proposed to be pitched from side to side with a 3/ 12 pitch. There is electrical
service, but no plumbing proposed in the new structure. The garage is proposed to be finished on the
outside with shingles, and will have a composition shingle roof. There are two 4'-0" x 3'-0" windows
proposed on the first floor and two 4'-0" x 2'-0" windows proposed in the second floor storage loft (11'-
10" above adjacent grade), and a 6'-0" x 6'-8" double door, all on the left side of the garage facing the
back yard. The storage loft is accessed by a pull down stair, and will be used for storage of seasonal
displays. The storage loft is 238 SF, and there is an additional 52 SF of storage area in cabinets in the
garage area. The entire second floor storage loft has a minimum height of 7'-0".
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (November 10, 1997 memo) that a survey is required for
the right side property line, the roof drainage shall be drained to the street, and asks the applicant -to
show how the property drains to the street when the elevation at the rear of the property is lower than
the street elevation. The Chief Building Official notes (November 10, 1997 memo) that a survey is
required, that a one -hour fire resistive wall is required on the east wall, that no overhang is permitted
on the east wall, and that the storage loft shall be designed for 60 pounds per square foot live load. The
Fire Marshal notes (November 10, 1997 memo) that no openings are permitted in the garage wall closest
to the property line.
2
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
PRIMARY DWELLING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
Setbacks - Front:
Side (Left):
Side (Right.):
Rear:
Lot Coverage:
Accessory Structure size:
Plate Height:
Building Height:
Window Height:
Storage of Household
Goods:
Parking:
PROPOSED
No change to primary dwelling
PROPOSED
N/A No change
No Change
* 1' -0"
23' -2"
39.8 % (2389 SF)
*735 SF
*13'-1"
* 15'-4"
*11'-10"
*290 SF (11.2% of 2574 SF
GFA of main structure)
1 covered, 1 uncovered
1236 Cabrillo Avenue
ALLOWED/REQ'D
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15' /Average
4'-0"
4' -0"
15'-0"
40 % (2400 SF)
600 SF
8' -0"
10'-0"
10' -0"
257 SF (10% of 2574 SF
GFA of main structure)
1 covered, 1 uncovered
*Variance required for l'-0" side setback where 4'-0" is the minimum required. Special permits
required for a single accessory structure which exceeds 600 SF (735 SF proposed), for a plate line which
exceed 8'-0" (13'-1" proposed), for a 15'-4" roof height where 10'-0" is the maximum height allowed,
for storage area which exceeds 10% of the GFA of the main structure (290 SF proposed, 257 SF
allowed), and for use of an accessory structure for recreation purposes.
The project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Maureen Brooks
Planner
c: Eugene & Gloria Bordegaray, property owners
3