HomeMy WebLinkAbout125 Crescent Avenue - Staff Reporty3
� cirr
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
• _ • • 11 • • W I ■ •
DATE: APRIL 7, 1989—
FROM: -G1TY R1.-AN _NE:R
AGENDA
ITEM A
MTG. 4-17-89
DATE
• k �,l■&1 1
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON A PARKING VARIANCE
FOR THE ADDITION OF BEDROOMS AT 125 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1
RECOMMENDATION•
City Council hold a public hearing and take action.
Conditions considered by the Planning Commission:
1. that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 8,
1989;
2. that the existing studio apartment shall be converted to a fourth
bedroom and the existing kitchen and bath shall be removed as
noted in the applicant's letter of February 15, 1989 and this
property shall be used for one dwelling unit only in the future;
and
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's February
23, 1989 memo shall be met.
Action Alternatives:
1. City Council can uphold the Planning Commission and deny this
request for a variance to the two covered parking space
requirement for the remodel of the dwelling to five bedrooms.
City Council should state clearly for the record the reasons for
their action.
2. City Council can reverse the Planning Commission and vote by
resolution to approve the request for parking variance. City
Council should make findings as required by code for this action.
3. City Council can deny without prejudice this request. Should
this alternative be pursued the Council should give the
applicant, Commission and staff clear direction as to what
specific additional issues need to be addressed in resubmittal.
This alternative should not be pursued unless the plans presented
to the Council vary from those submitted to the Planning
Commission.
OA
Conditions which must be found to exist on the property in order to
grant a variance (Code Sec. 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;
(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.
BACKGROUND:
Terrence Freethy is requesting a parking variance in order to make a
1,334 SF family room and bedroom second story addition to the house at
125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant proposes to use the
existing one car garage, 9;-6" x 241, where the code requires a 20, x
20, garage. There is 69, of driveway between the front property line
and the garage door.
Presently there exists as a part of this house a nonconforming second
floor studio apartment which appears to have been built as a part of the
original house in 1930. The applicant proposes to eliminate this second
unit by removing the kitchen and using the living area as a bedroom. In
addition he wishes to add another bedroom and family room also on the
second floor. The present house has 3,408 SF of living area including
an attached garage of 228 SF and the 644 SF second unit. The remodeled
house would have 4,742 SF, a 39% increase in size.
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on March 27, 1989 the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and voted 2-3 to approve the parking variance (Planning
Commission Minutes, March 27, 1989). Since the rules of the Commission
require four affirmative votes to pass a motion, the motion to approve
was denied. In discussion the Commissioners, comments included concern
that there is space for a tandem garage at the rear of the lot, concern
for how a drive -through garage (to a new garage structure at the rear of
the lot) would look, notation that two cars can be parked in the
driveway behind the front setback, and the concern that this is
presently a large house made bigger with lot area available so required
parking could be provided on site.
3
EXHIBITS:
- Terry Freethy letter of appeal date stamped March 28, 1989
- Monroe letter to Terrence Freethy, April 4, 1989, setting appeal
hearing
- Planning Commission Minutes, March 27, 1989
- Planning Commission Staff Report, March 27, 1989 with attachments
- Notice of Public Hearing for Council appeal of 125 Crescent
Avenue, mailed April 7, 1989
- Plans date stamped March 8, 1989
MM/s
cc: Terrence and Barbara Freethy
Arline Castleberry
Zhr Cha of Alurlin.5umr
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625
April 4, 1989
Mr. Terrence Freethy
125 Crescent Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Freethy:
At the City Council meeting of April 3, 1989 the Council scheduled
an appeal hearing on your project at 125 Crescent Avenue. The
hearing will be held on Monday, April 17, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the appeal.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
s/
cc: City Clerk
Arline Castleberry
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
March 27, 1989
w ld any new owner be advised of limitations on the property; do
the owners intend to continue this use as a senior care facility
with graded accommodations or do they anticipate doing s ething
else w'th the building. Item set for public hearin Aril 10,
1989.
3. SPECPERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE OPERATION OF AN
ENGLISH FT SHOP AND TEA ROOM AT 110 BURLINGAME AVENUE,
vnwvn r-T CTTM ADVA A
Requests: how will t %pub
e taken car of, particularly from the
restaurant; where wille park; 1 this be an intensification
of use. Item set forc heariX April 10, 1989.
4. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIOfb<DF REZONING ALLOWING BUSINESSES TO
TIV TT TTT M""rn TsnTTnc TTm T C o AnVT_TTTV TIDTTTT: 7(1TTT: T1 r-1
Requests: explXpport
the reques to change a condition of the
rezoning and nl businesses o request an amendment of
their use permually; how many f the people who signed
the petition iere from the neigh rhood. Item set for
public hearing1989.
5. SPECkAL PERMIT FUR WjA55r;5 NX 111 IOLA t5UU1-jLYF&aL), GU1Vr,1J l,-
Request does this building meet current parking req .'rements;
durin the hours of the school, 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM and 1: P.M.-
4:00 P.M., number of people in the morning and number i the
of ernoon; amount of parking on site, how much of this is n in
e; could this use be limited to a certain length of time. tem
set for public hearing April 10, 1989.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
_1L 6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF BEDROOMS AT 125
CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 3/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Terrence Freethy,
applicant, was present. His comments: the existing nonconforming
studio apartment was built as a part of the building which was
constructed in 1930, the original plans show a one bedroom house
designed on the main level with a sun porch and den which are now
counted as bedrooms, the people who originally designed this house
apparently had no children, applicants need more bedrooms; they
would like to have a two car garage but there is no way to achieve
this; a drive -through might work for the cars but his truck is too
d G 1
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
March 27, 1989
large; to remove the existing garage which is attached to the house
would require substantial remodeling; they have a long driveway and
could park two cars behind the front setback; they are willing to
remove the extra unit by eliminating the kitchen, applicant thought
that unit would generate more parking concern than a fourth
bedroom.
A Commissioner noted cars could be driven through an open carport.
Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Freethy said they need one
of the rooms for an office, in the original design it was a den; to
incorporate the unit into the flow they added a stairway at the
rear, they cannot incorporate the studio apartment without doing
other additions. They have considered a carport in front of the
garage, there is a basement for storage, the stair at the rear is
interior to the house.
Vaughn Janssen, 121 Crescent Avenue spoke in favor of the
application: he has lived there for 20 years and never had a
parking problem caused by the studio unit, he saw no problem with
this change. There were no further audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Harrison found it commendable the applicants wish to remove an
existing nonconforming unit, in order to enjoy their property they
would not be able to put in a two car garage or even a drive -
through because of what it would do to the appearance of the house;
granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of the property rights of the applicants, it will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements of the
neighbors and the use of the property would be compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses
of properties in the general vicinity. C. Harrison moved for
approval of the variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution
Approving Variance with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis.
Comment on the motion: there is space on this property for a tandem
garage by expansion to the rear so will vote no. C. Harrison added
a finding: that there is a long driveway and two cars can be parked
behind the front setback. Further comment: this is a large house,
they are spending a considerable amount of money and realize a two
car garage would be another expense, but a drive -through would not
change the house so much, think they should provide a standard two
car garage; it is a small lot with a large house but there is room
at the rear for a standard garage.
Motion for approval failed on a 2-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, H.
Graham and Jacobs voting no, Cers Giomi and S. Graham absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
oe P.C. 3/27/89
Item # 6
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNER
SUBJECT: PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF BEDROOMS AT
125 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Terrence Freethy is requesting a parking variance in order to
make a 1,334 SF family room and bedroom second story addition to
the property at 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed new
bedroom is planned to be used as an office. Currently there is
an existing non -conforming studio apartment on this property
which will be integrated into the rest of the house and converted
to a fourth bedroom. Combined with the proposed new addition,
the total number of bedrooms on this property will increase from
three to five. The applicants are proposing to use the existing
one car garage (9'-6" x 241) where the code requires two covered
parking spaces (20' x 201) [Code Section 25.70.030 a]. The
driveway measures approximately 691, so there is room to park a
second vehicle on the driveway behind the front setback.
The existing house consists of 2,536 SF on the first floor with
an attached 228 SF garage and an existing 644 SF second floor for
a total area of 3,408 SF. The new second story will be 1,334 SF
and will represent a 39% increase in area, for a total square
footage of 4,742 SF.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The Fire Marshal
(February 22, 1989 memo) had no comments. The Chief Building
Inspector (February 23, 1989 memo) notes that a sewer lateral
test will be required at the building permit stage. The City
Engineer explains that other than making a carport out of the
existing garage and using it to drive through to a new garage at
the rear of the lot, there is no way to provide additional
parking on this property without substantial demolition of the
existing structure. Planning staff would note that this
alternative would require a parking variance for -tandem parking.
Applicant's Letter
In their letter date stamped February 15, 1989 Terrence and
Barbara Freethy explain that they would like to add a family
room, bathroom and office (reviewed as a bedroom under the code)
to their home. They both have home occupations for which they
need office space. (Staff would note that home occupation permits
have been approved for a special events coordinating business and
a general contractor's office at this address.) They explain that
their family has been growing and they would like to add a family
room on the same level as the new office area. This would make it
possible for them to watch the children playing in the family
room from the adjacent office area. There is currently a studio
apartment within the existing building. They plan to integrate
this unit into the floor plan of the house and will remove the
second kitchen as well as the bath. This studio apartment will
become the fourth bedroom. The existing one -car garage is
attached to the house with a bedroom over it. Since the garage
-continued-
-2-
currently has a 4' side yard setback, it cannot be moved any
closer to the side property line. The existing long driveway
could be used to park a second vehicle. The applicants go on to
explain that they cannot build a two car garage on this property
without removing a large portion of the existing house. They
feel that by removing the studio apartment and converting it to a
fourth bedroom they are actually improving the parking situation
on this property.
Findings for a 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;
(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.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and findings
should be made. The reasons for any action should be clearly
stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1. that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March
8, 1989;
2. that the existing studio apartment shall be converted to a
fourth bedroom and the existing kitchen and bath shall be
removed as noted in the applicant's letter of February 15,
1989 and this property shall be used for one dwelling unit
only in the future; and
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's
February 23, 1989 memo shall be met.
weljm4j�Adriana Gars
Planner
cc: Terrence and Barbara Freethy
Arline Castleberry
C
PROJECT APPLICATION A TY 125 CRESCENT AVENUE
JWR
MNELME1 Nk project address
Ef. CEGA ASSESSMENT
project name if any
Application received 2-15-89
Staff review/acceptance 3-6-89
1. APPLICANT Terrence Freethy 347-6950
name telephone: no.
125 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 1
applicant's aTd—ress: street, city, zip code
contact person, if different telephone no.
2., TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Permit Variance* (X) Condominium Permit Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54_.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARKING VARIANCE for the addition of a 1,334 SF second story which will',consist
of a bedroom (to be used as an office) and a family room. This will increase the.,,
number of bedrooms on the property from 3 to 5 while providing a one car ,garage
(91-611 X 24') wliPrP a two gar garage (20' x 20') is required. The proie't has been
c
designed to meet all other code requirements. There is currently an existi.ng hon-.,
conforming studin apartment on this Droperty which will be converted into a
fourth bedroomandintegrated into the main residence.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): (25.70.030-a)
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
0 -293 28 -080 8 7 Burlingame Park No: 2
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
R-1 8,223
zoning district land area, square feet
Terrence Francis Freethy and
125 Crescent Avenue,
land owner's name Barbara Ann Freethy adares
BuMingame, CA
94010
Renuired Oate received city
zip code
(yam) (no) ) Proof of ownership
(y;?s) (no) ) Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Three bedroom house with an existing nonconforming studio 0
-apartment upstairs. The existing garage is attached to the 'house '
and measures 9'-6" X 24'.
Required Datereceived 7
(yes) (REF) 3-8-89 Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved parkin; ln,
(yes) M 61 Floor plans of all buildingson-site showing: grgossafld oorcapingarea
Exi-sti ng. first by type of use*on each floor plan
floor 2,536 SF (yes) (:m *) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
(ye:s) (no) Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
Existing garage (other) 228 SF (2-15-89) letter of explanation
Existing second
Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
story 644 SF sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be'described):.
New second 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
story 1,334 8F Proposed construction, Below orade ( — SF) Second floor( 1 -334 S F)
gross floor area First floor ( — SF) Third floor
SF)
Project Cnrfs Project Code
Proposal Requirement Proposal Requirement
Front setback
Side setback
Side yard
Rear
yard
321-6"
minl
101
5' 1stfl
611± 1 15' mini
Lot coverage
ruildi!nr, height
Landscaped area
r'n S5te riku.snaces
33 %
40%, max.
30'
30' ma
2
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
EXISTING IN 2 YEARS
after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM.
Full time employees on site
Part time employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)-
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
-Show calculations on reverse side or attach separate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent lots: this
to the General Plan.
,Pr
IN 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
Required Date received
(pis) (no) ( — ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(yas) (no) ( _ ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site.( )
no. company vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( ) Other application type, fee $ ( )
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 (X ) Project Assessment
Variance/other districts $ 75 ( ) Negative Declaration $ 25
Condominium Permit $ 50 ( ) EIR/City & consultant fees $ ( )
TOTAL FEES $ 65.'00.: RECEIPT NO. 4994 Received by'K. Mill s
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
CNCI
S i gna ture ��ZSt3LQ^Ae, Date
ppIican't
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on 19
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Categorically exempt, reference CEQA'
Code Section 15301 (e), additions to
existing structures
I� a c
Siy ture of Processing Official �T tle + zi. Date Signed
Unless ePpealed within 10 days hereof the date oosted, the determination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTING Date Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to the Council Chambers.
xecuted at Burlingame, California on i9
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )No
iUDITN A. ''ALF.aTTI, CITY CLERK, 'C f`, �' DURLINGA6iE
STAFF REVIEW
I. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated
reply received
memo attached
City Engineer ( 2-21-89 )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Building Inspector ( " )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Fire Marshal ( 11 )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Park Department ( — )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
City Attorney ( — )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Concerns
Mitioation Maasurac
Does this project comply with
all Fire and Building Code
requirements?
Request comments from the Fire
Marshal and Chief Building
Inspector.
3. CEQA REQUIREMENTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Categorically exempt
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed (
) Study by P.C. ( )
Decision to prepare EIR (
) Review period ends ( )
Notices of preparation mailed (
) Public hearing by P.C. ( )
RFP to consultants (
) Final EIR received by P.C. ( )
Contract awarded (
) Certification by Council ( )
Admin. draft EIR received (
) Decision on project ( )
Draft EIR accepted by staff (
) Notice of Determination ( )
Circulation to other agencies (
)
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 2-15-89)
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to applicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( 3 — 2 7 — 8 9)
Date staff report mailed to applicant (S j2 z1 9 17) Date Commission hearing /2 7/9 y )
Application approved ( ) Denied ( Appeal to Council yes) (no)
Date Council hearing (�{'1 �--1 i g q ) Application approved ( ) Denied (�L)
i wl-rHvoT �C4uoi '
WVxzzPVffiV)/7r-- S,4
si ned date
RECEIVED
February 15, 1989 FEB 151989
TO: City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
RE: Garage Variance
FROM: Terrence and Barbara Freethy
125 Crescent Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Proposal
We would like to add an office, family room and bathroom to our
house.
Office space has become a necessity since we both have Burlingame
business licenses, and the city allows these businesses to be
operated out of the house. Due to our growing family we would also
like to add a family room which would be on the same level as the
office, and this allows us the convenience of working while our
young children are playing in the next room.
Within the building there is a legal, non -conforming in-law unit.
In the new plans, this unit will be integrated into the house
including the removal of a functional kitchen and the relocation
of the bath/shower to a more central location.
Variance Request
The former in-law unit now becomes our fourth bedroom. We
understand that the city requires a second covered parking space
in our situation.
We have an existing one car garage that is attached to the house
with a bedroom over it. The garage is four feet off the side
property line which prohibits any expansion in that direction. We
have a long driveway including 37 feet from the front of our house
to the garage and 42 feet from the front of the house to the
street. We would not be able to build a two -car garage without
tearing out a large portion of the existing house.
By granting this variance, we also feel that the city will improve
its parking situation, because we have retired an in-law unit that
is capable of generating two extra cars and replaced it with a
fourth bedroom which may never generate an additional car.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Terrence Freethy
DATE:
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING IN OR y
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM:'` PLANNING DEPARTMENT
110A a SUBJECT: � � "'"' �11Im '-
An application has been received for the above project for revi w by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for'',' C �(;�
at their_ meeting. would appreciate .havin
your comments by Fl f 07,
~1 Lvi-c. f 5 m90% apt tV A -eta .
Thank you.
7O : RAN N/ /v G
(vb
nn'' at7h ENT J
DATE:
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ) � � �.." pit Pent* �Q/1 t Qyt,Ct
&dAcgmv� ,,,, i
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for -ho
at their "- �`�� —q—
meeting. We would appreciate .having
your comments by 7
Thank you. Y
/ ` Suva- L ATC�4L_ 767
�Iit/(,�LC— e- Ae- 471e & u�
fcar A NDulr 7//i1 S/ZE
DATE:
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
'FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM;' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Fil
1.-E AU1
V
Va4 i a PLCL Ick
An application has been received for the above project for rev. w by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for
.A�
at their -in&YA I meeting. We would appreciate.having
your comments by rt Z 7 j
)Vey opt
Thank you.
44 t:: r4
A00e 0-
/J. 7%elm
-1he
�lte TitLl Qf Nurlingam-C
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
Parking Variance
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 27th day of March, 1989 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application for the construction of a second story which increases
the number of bedrooms from 4 to 5 and provide only one covered off street parking space
where two are required (9'-6" x 24' proposed, 20' x 20'.required) at 125 Crescent Ave
Zoned R-1.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
March 17, 1989
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, application has been made for a variance for
Parking
at 125 Crescent Avenue (APN 028-293-080
and
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on March 27, 198, 9, 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 hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this
Planning Commission that said variance is approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San
Mateo. �
RUTH E. JACOBS
CHAIRMAN
I, MIKE ELLIS, 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 27th day of March
19a�''by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
MIKE ELLIS
SECRETARY
fit, Chit- oaf 9urliTtgant.0
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
PARKING VARIANCE
TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 17th day of April, 1989 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M,, in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a
public hearing on the appeal of an application for the construction of a second story
which increases the number of bedrooms from 4 to 5 and provides only one covered off-
street parking space where two are required (9'-6" x 24' proposed, 20' x 20' required)
at 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
April 7, 1989
> a r
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, application has been made for a variance for
parking which requires removal of an existing nonconforming second unit
at 125 Crescent Avenue (APN 028-293-080 1
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said application on March 27 1989 , at which time
said application was denied
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a
hearing thereon held on April 17 , 1989 , 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 hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this
Council that said variance is approved, subject to the conditions
set 'forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto,
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San
Mateo.
Mayor
I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a
regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of
April 1989 and adopted thereafter by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
City Clerk