HomeMy WebLinkAbout1715 Ralston Avenue - Staff ReportITEM # 5
CITY OF B URLINGAME
VARIANCE
Side Setback Variance
Address: 1715 Ralston Avenue
Meetinq Date: 5/9/94
Request: Side setback variance to build an attached carport at
1715 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1. A 3'-3" side setback is proposed
where 5'-0" is required (C.S. 25.28.072 3a).
Applicant and Property Owner: Dr. and Ms. J. Schubiner
APN: 028-313-030
Lot Dimensions and Area: ± 53' X± 110' _± 5,830 SF
General Plan: Low Density, Single Family Residential Zoninq: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 -
New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(e),
Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, and carports.
Summary: The applicant and property owner are requesting a side
setback variance to construct a 10' X 20' attached carport. The
proposed carpor`t will have a 3'-3" side setback where the code
requires 5'-0".
The existing one story house has three bedrooms which would require
parking for two spaces, one covered and one uncovered. Currently
there is parking for one uncovered stall in the 10' X 72' driveway.
There are no covered parking spaces on site. The existing parking
conditions are nonconforming. The carport will provide for one
covered stall at 10' X 20'. The existing side setback on the north
side of the house is 13'-3". The proposed carport will have a 3'-
3" side setback which is 1'-9" less than the required 5'-0" side
setback.
Front Setback:
Side (north):
Rear Setback:
Lot Coveraqe:
Heiqht:
PROPOSED
18'-0"
* 3'-3"
± 72�
to carport
39.8%
± 16'-0"
EXISTING
18'-0"
13'-3"
26'-4"
to house
36.4%
± 13'-0"
ALLOWED/REO'D
15'-0"
5'-0"
15'-0"
40�
30'-0"
Dec. Ht. Env.: not applicable only one story addition
Parkinq: 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 covered/
1 covered existing nonconforming 1 uncovered
* Side setback variance for 3'-3" where 5'-0' is required.
Meets all other zoninq code requirements.
1
srns ssTaAcx v.�xr�uvcs
1715 Ralston Avenue
Staff comments: The Chief Building Official indicates (April 11,
1994) that the carport must remain permanently open on two or more
sides and a building permit will be required for construction of
the structure. The City Engineer and Fire Marshall had no
comments.
Neiqhbor's Comments: Planning Department received two letters from
neighbors supporting the project. The neighbors at 1725 and 1716
Ralston Avenue had no objection to the carport.
Findinqs 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 preserva-
tion 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.
Planninq Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should include findings made for the variance requested.
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 submit-
ted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 6, 1994
Site Plan and Elevation/Perspective;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's April
11, 1994 memo shall be met (carport must remain permanently
open on two or more sides, and a building permit shall be
obtained before construction);
3. that the side setback for the carport on the north side shall
be a minimum of 3'-3"; and
4. that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform
Fire Code requirements as amended by the City.
Jane Gomery cc: Dr. and Ms. J. Schubiner - property owner
Planner Adrienne Leigh - designer
2
CITY nF PU�LIN(�AME
APF'LICATION TO THE F'LANNING COMMISSInN
jjrne of Anv/ication: Special Permit �Variance Other
Project Address � -7 � � R � LS � � �
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) � � � f � 1 � " �% ..'� C.�
APPL/CANT PROPERTY OWNER - (�. � �� ` �-,� ,,� � �. t-- � �; � ,
Name: 7 � t 1"'(1 � . � � — _ �
�� S �� tt J � i 6\� �_R Name: -�� �=, � ,� �
Address: I-1 l J 11 �� s i� �J Address: I� i_5 `-r-1 �-S i�;-��
City/State/Zip: �� �� �' � t�� C�-�-n�f� �?� �"vl � City/State/Zip: ����'- ���J G�n ��= ��r 4 v i L
Telephone: (work) ,� / � � ?� �� 7 �� ? � `� Telephone: (work) � /.S � �1 �
(home) � � i i � � � '� � � (homel
Name: �c� i � �=� -,���-1� � � � . �
Address: I �1 l � ��' � � c;v�
City/State2ip: �� , ! � � � �� �- y� -�.,, ��' `1 Y u ! �
P/ease indicate with an asterisk !`l who the contactnerson
is for ihis n�oiect.
Telephone (daytime): `J � `� % ' 7 � ;� _ �'
PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON: S i n�� t-� ?, N i_�L � A i�� N C� � e- C� v t=s� 7�- Y� t i� 2
(' t�r � 1 � l� �T e�� �! �- -� O t2 � �'�- i � t_ � E C'i� �.0 j 2�-' C� �� � r.�
(V� — C - - _� - ' J' ' �-�' � � "
AFF/DA V/T/S/GNA TURE: �% E L � l�C4 � i4r� � n.) c�-.. �� �7 c=�� o�
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. �
�
;
� :-� � �� � . �- � �
Applicant's Signature Date
I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application. '; , ^ - -
�� � -� � � ^ - � '�� � • ��' � �/
P�r,�j�ierty Owner's Signature Date
,, � �
--------------------------------------------------Q F F I C E U S E O N LY ------------------------------------ ----------
��
Date Filed: '�' Fee ��� � Receipt 9�
Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete:
Date application accepted as complete: '
P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing (date?
P.C. Action
,srez Appeal to Council7 Yes No
a�;�.rm, Council meeting date Council Action
��� ciry o�
BURLINGAME � Q�pO� �� ���L������
`�, . � �O�rl���lf�(�[� �af��L�2���'���il� -�. SC�h�1��n-e-� —
�.�- ,._.
�...e ��... .
S i c� -P �C�_ � l C�r L'e_
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 exceptiona/ or extraoidinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to youi
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
Our 1939 home was built to earlier building code standards with only a 13'�" side lot
available for a carport. The original garage was torn down over 20 years ago. Now to
replace it in Che backyard would be unacceptable for two reasons. First, we wQuld be
building within approximately 12' of a 100 year old- 4' diameter- Redwood Tree. Second,
our backyard is already very small (see photo A& B) and to place a garage in it would
so severely handicap our enjoyment of our yard that we would not consider building one
there. We believe that a garage in the backyard would disrupt the root system of
the Redwood Tree.
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unieasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
Our request is for covered parking in the form of a carport. Granting this variance would
greatly enhance our value, beauty and convenience. The carport would shield us from the
sun, rain, sap, dew, pollen, dirt and bird droppings. It would be stylish and add
grandness to the property. Without this side variance we will continue to live without
covered parking. The small size of our backyard , close proximity to the 100 year old
Redwood Tree makes a garage in our backyard an unacceptable option.
pc� ►� S E- � ���.�, � p i�-��2-!c� ,�,,. F.�- � Ho ro e�- o � R, �, .; _s E--- (r '
i1 S C� � � f � 'J C�1�2_(' J !� G � � , � \ � 1 � � C t-� ..
4 \i 1�'� \i � i i C:l. V 1� 1. 7- i V � A� ��'� f C,-.G.�7 , C� �-� �� � F� S C� _� C'1� 4V C'i
�.�,�:�;�ci�� '�,iv� C:.�;��t> �.o � �.,�L: c,r �x ��C� �Z�.C. C- ("r. ��-i�o (`C���- 7c-'1.�, �(.'i� G�� � :('C �, ���'., A�' v�JO.��d�
c. Exp/ain why the propose�d us�at the proposed /ocatio�n wi// not be detiimenta/ o�i injurious ���
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or �'
convenience.
Public health, convenience and public safety will not be affected by any changes. The •
general welfare of the community will be improved by respecting the root system of
a 100 year old Redwood Tree. Also we will not be covering more land with cenient by
placing a garage in a small backyard.
We have spoken with Erwin and Irene David who own the house adjacent to our driveway.
rir. David is very much in favor of our building an architecturally compatible stucco carport.
Since we have many Oak and Berry Trees dividing our two properties; the David's view will
only minimally be changed and they have no objections to our carport. ?�I�c4..ti�- C�� �. N r�c lo� F�-�
d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass,'tiu%k`�and char�ctei ��
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
In keeping with the architectural style of our home and neighborhood, I have enclosed
photos C, D& E of comparable structures from the 1930's and 1940'S. Our proposed
carport will blend with the existing structure. Our goal is to build it so it looks like
it has always been there. The Mediterranean stucco style home will not be compromised.
The house will be more charming and our driveway will appear less like a parking lot.
Most homes in our neighborhood are larger than ours and this increase in size is more
appropriate for our neighborhood.
PCLi�SC� ✓1t�1�.; c ���Cc�JLI> >�ii�(�r-r-� �� �,F �.XTEYZ_cei2 <.'r�Ki'<:r.'. � r�t=� i( a��,
12/92 vx.irm
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your
property which do not app/y to othei properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the ahernatives to the va�iance impracticable or
impossible and are also not common to other properties in tf�e areal For example, is the�e a creek cuttinQ
throuph the p�operty, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot �hape or unusual placement of
existinq structures7 How is this property different from others in the neiphbofiood7
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the p�eservatfon and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the appCcation.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception7
1i.e., havin� as much on-site parkinp 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 urueasonable limitation or hardship
on the development of the property?
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or inJurious
to pioperty or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, saf�ty, genera/ we/faie, or
con venience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neiphboring properties or structures on those
propertiesl If nei�hboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, li�htinp,
pavinfl, landscapinfl sunlighdshade, views from neighbo�in� properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the
structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfareT
Public healih includes such thinfls as sanitation (garbagel, air quality, discharpes into sewer and stormwater
systems, water supply safety, and thinfls which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underpround
storage tanks, storafle of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseasesl.
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire p�otection? Will alarm
systems or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly satherinfls, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dan�erous activities like weldin�, woodwork, enfline removal).
�eneral welfare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community �ood. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social be�efit7
�onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parkinp for this site or adjacent sitesl7 Is tfie proposal accessible to particular sepments of the public such as
the elderly or handicapped7
d. Ho w wi// the proposed pioject be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the gene�a/ viclnityT
How does the proposed structure or use compare aestheticaUy with existinp neighborhoodl If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If chanpes t,� the structure are proposed, was tfie addition desipned to match
existinp architecture or pattem of development on adjacent properties i� the neighbo�hood? 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 c�mpare to neiyhborinp stn�ctures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no
chan�e to structure, say so. If a new sVucture is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with
other suuctures 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 �eneral pattern of land use.
Will there be more traffic or less paricin� available resulting from this usel If you don't feel the character of
the neiphborhood will chan�e, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible witfi existing and potential uses in the peneral vicinity7 Compare
your project with existinfl uses. State why you feel your project is consisterrt with other uses in the vicinity,
and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,zroz�..mn
! ' �c � :��E.�;�l �� �;� �
�.��-.�a-�.� �. y � a. o
�n,,,;� � � � y �
� '
_,
, �cw�v�
`'� w'i��d-ti��.,^. �� fti �L
�J w LQ... r`�n.z. �. �r V 0 i p
_� �
�(
� 4 �.�.� `�t2-vY� �l. ii0.,y '-„ C'C,2Ji�v ..
1
�-.._ �� "-��� :.
•f
�i l� l�i, _. .
. ....��.. � � � . � r_'. . . , .
fi i
� ✓ �{/J Cd7 � L/Y��'��/Y�U t1 �J �I-I LN�'� .✓llL/"�` ,`Y �-L
1
�� �,; �. c-��,..t. c5--�-�- -�--vf -�.�,.�-z. .
�'D'��.c�'�-�,-w ,'�: - (� �r�' ��. �.o �� � �-�.....�' ..�. ,..
r
�
G. �� ,�'ll'�.r.� � � (�t7-��y�_�4_..«-�,.
�1
_) /��c..riit: �
/
� �-� � CY�. �-- cL
�
� �
L- / �
G
��`�i'�.�o ;�`�:;''4r� -��
� � " t994
CC�'�' OF B -� _���uHmt
�=d .� -�•.�• ,r:a7
�- . ; .. _
i 'i
s
i� �
, x��cr�v `�� �
�
� �'.r,,' i
.,.,�.�
i'�'"_ _
`
�
` � /y9'�
/
� �, � '
/
' s / i
� � /
►
����
iZ/ �-'
%' ��,i
/
L��
� �� �
� �G�
,
.�i�
% ' ' ���
/
� � �
► �
�i �
f
0
C/i �/
L , r.
-��
i� � i
,
,� ��
/ �
,, , _' .i� iii� ���
�
�,
����
� „ ,
S' '
/ �
� /
/
� / �
�� i / , i
i ' /, � i ,
�
� I
.� �
� � i
'r/Lii�: ,
�`l ( � ��s ��
�s ��� s�� �e�--� ��� ��� .
-;- �.e.Ps b e -� �v�e� � d� � �o v S P � ��eQ ,S
�� ��a� �S +�,.�. �\s�� '� ��e � s Ubo� -�-
� S � �e �e � � � 5 S t cQ -e c� �- � �o �s�, � �-� -4-0
� o v.S � �`2 � P Ov � Cc� c � �,Jo w��' b
h � � � I�- �,
�� ��M� 1�-� C 6 �`2.+� �P cu �Jc� �(' 1�.---✓�J
�; Y� �`�C S o e J�2 �' Cv �'r� � l� . Vv � �Jp J � di `o v-�'
�� ��.�.�_ G�. CC?� S� � o ; � , �nC�,� \L y O v .
,_x_ . .. � ...�: ;� _. _.
II
1 1
� • - -
; - - - - - - k -�- �, �-�",�'� �"� "� 1 ' � ;�
j•. .M . :�� � � � I ♦ ♦.��� �r.
o., .
` �� V i `.,�`.��� ���►��`r�*v�' ,'�;-'�,:�,�
. .
� .�
, � � � ♦ , . � ��
� , �1i, °"i+ 4� ' � � �. '�
� � � • �` �;�,�� � �; > i�
• • � � ��� � ��.�� �
. � . ' �A� � _ I
. � # �, �
♦ . . - � �. . ,�' . ' � L. • � _
. ' yr � "i �� � _ _ r _ - - •-b'Y.=«nc' � _— �" _.7�
. � t.
���� ._�
�
� i. '�'1�
S�
h.
a � . ..
��' � :,� ..,;� ,.. �.
. - ' M .
f ,.: � �.`: ,
�.:,:k�� , ^ .•
Z .
= f�
� �
\ +
'\ �
1
'\ '
�..L�'�;_•y `�., t ;+ ,
,,.Vy.' .,`. , .
I � \ �./ �� I..�S ) ��
�I��� O � 136� L � �r���
�-�6-Yv� �� J(� p j= � 2� �� Z� �
�
� l2 0 � c � � �t--� � o �2-�� ,_,,� o o P � �Z.—
'� S�Z� c; i— y��i� S I�lac�rJ
3y � x �a7-�- � c ��.
�
- •,�','�j�
� �� � -�-s � d � s o � �� ����/ {��
S{�N �=�z'�d 7��+� 5��� ; ���/
'� d 1 s-j� (�' 01-� 7\ �7{��� s
� Q 1 S C��! S-� 1� 3.'�`�ia ���E- �,
� � 71-�-0 �,l
�� �� (J ✓ �`1 U �
�� �/
l. � ��,
s�� o��'�� �1c� N� Q��-1 � l��f
�� ��o
��� .�'�'� ��'� :�` �
D7�-� ��
1� �i �I-� ��� Hod � G��o�T�
:_�,-_� � �
�
��
-�— -- — �
( `�� ~ `% � _��zk;p �•�'
. '�-:' �'-�; ' � ���
�. � .. ^�'i� ,�i �t,'" � y" _ .
"f�i;}�r.`�.�.t�'���� � � _ .
�� � �+� =���- � .ql � ��`.a��.;
f .�.� . � r �r ;,� '
"�`_� �. .� .�} � �,� , .
,i L.�. � .��'fi� �F yti
�i�''�' - f
'� y.:
� �,�
� �i
�i . .
� �
. .� :
� � _���,�t
' r ` . �::�r�f�"�
�
a.
�
� I
i� ~ J�'�
�:r ��.
, .
t " t.Ms
�� �^�
I _�
���,' ,��ly " . _
�r� �� �. �� t w �r.
�
, �, � , � ;� ,
..
r �
�� , � • �
�. '� �• .
t �.
I 5 l 5 �� � �
� ���
j� ���-S � ,�o-�eg � I^ -
v (-' �� � �� � U v � � �
�� � W`l �
� - � �� J �1
�c� �`� �� � �S e '� � �
. �
. t
I � / `'\�\
0
m
ROUTING FORM
DATE: � -T. � I �' ��
TO: �CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BIIILDING INBPECTOR
FIRE M�I28HAL
PARRB DIRECTOR ' •
CITY.ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN .
SUBJECT : REQIIEST FOR S�l/� � �5���/ Q(//�— I/��'/��J�'
� b�til�' �cY.d�� -
AT I ��� �I.S��� , zoY%�� %��/
SCHEDULED PLANNING CONfMISSION ACTION MEETING: Y�� ! 2�l ���
REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: `�" ���' ��
THANKS,
Jane/Sheri/Leah �� Date of Comments
C'a✓��Or�-l� �'''L�S�'" ,�c..�.�cw �0�'�`�-r-� e.�� c�,4�-a, D�'`,
o,� „�.o �' � s � ��s • i3�r ��� P �•.�.� � �us �-
�vo �
n
a
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
TO:
, 4�Il��I�
'`� CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
PARRB DIRECTOR " •
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN
��,I /�, �,//
SUBJECT : REQIIEST FOR S�(/� � ..�fCJQ(//� ��/�/Q{�J�
� b�i1/� � GG�1Y.f� J!�}'
AT I �I � ��.5��� , ZO!'%�� /� ��
SCHEDULED PLANNING CONtMISSION ACTION MEETING: �✓lY� l 2�� ��"fT
REVIEWED BY STAFF� IN MEETING ON MONDAY: `?" � I/ '��
THANKS,
Jane/Sheri/Leah
-.
/ � ,� ����`��`1`
� �
�
`'
� Date of Comments
� .
l
�
�
.K
� � �_M �� � ��/
DATE : }- -T � I I ' �y"
TO: CITY ENGINEER
ZCHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
PARRS DIRECTOR " •
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN
��,I /�, // r '
SUBJECT : REQIIEST FOR S�U[ � �S�f �J QGf�- V��'/Q%%�'
� bl�l�l� GC�Y.f��l� �
AT � 7�� �l 5��� , z��%�lil %�'/
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �fJY��( 2�� ��
REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: `T�I I'��
THANKS,
Jane/Sheri/Leah ��( Date of Comments
�� ISJ�`�.YV b� �
i
0
,
l O' V
:.
0
. �
�
C�
�
, o:
:
�
.�
0
.
Q
i . �
l�`
�
�
�
�
.
� o
,
s
. �
_�
(
�.
+�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
4
,�
v
� _.
�.
� , ��
� ,
I ' i� ��S ► I IJ (s'
��'rP�ED
i � I..ANA�.(�
_ _ ._-_...._I
- _ --�---., �
�--------( E ) HOT TUB
�
�_ _ ,
�
_- 1� • --- - • --�
� �. , ± ' '
FV ��.
.,
�.l.c� � �� i
�� �� .�� rn � ` I
3
�� om
1,FwrJ OR� ,
�oo�m •
�
�
I
;
i
t
;)
�
�
;
�
�
� �
�
! �..._.—_._
� ! ba�yQ
,
i��
t I
;
i �
,
� r��
�—��:
i�
�
'i
i
;
� a-� �'�
���-c�+�-�s
52.5 �± �rr,
� '
. �. �
c�os e �S� �
riiP�S�1' .
(�'J �� i4 �1
��N���
��
EXISTING RES DENC�
I y p��J�� f� .
i
� �
1 '
,
z
, �
�
�.X►ss,c1 G- %-a'`
C� ��
, a �lo � s c= 18 �C� S-
I � (.,�f} �i - `J c� �
,, o Co�e�o
p� � � � WP � ,�
� S'j�0 (ZY}{�-E S H E p c I�� S�
1 ��LOPOSE'n �,C y r
I�� � c���� 2� - Z-
j �;
� �j � �� ' ��
� `� ��P�se��-F�= �3�
, . ---
� I Pro,�as�� ►o� .
�D � �.« � 39, 6
/,�s� ,i � c�
( F �i�. P-� ^� � �;tsp'�.j�� � • `4 L
't06 �'f —#� � � � \ �\ . : � � � � 0 W O�� � , � `1
�
��v�r1G-
1�0 o,rY-•
�
Pr�o�c�Ep /
C�R�o2T
RR-F'� -id x ao
R- '
�o�-,�„
--- �y� '�_�__
�
Y,' = 1 `-.� "
�
� � �
.,
� I' 5�.5 � 5 y= �o�.s
.�; J I _
�! / O� ,S �� 5 3. a�-
F'oyrR \ � 53,�i x iio- S8� �,
� S S ,s x =
- ��\ � 8 7 ,�f �3y�
P�+ � 'Y d� � �3y3= ��/U _
.,. � �,
`�:y� : �� � .- .
� � ,, � �, ,�� .
''' �
, ;� -
� II °o
�- �
�� I � %' � �� .
S�'/T�
P��-iJ
1'� t /�fzs. S' .Sc�F-��3i�� O��J�Rs ,�r,hrr�
_
i i i� � n f r�fl I� i� �fr �''' �'� I'"1
� kXlsi I��
NE Ig►+t�o 6�S
�� O�Am��R
�-,00 y�� �E9,�
�_
t x�ST� �► �
5'f� RrI�FrE f}�� A
�E) '�Ac.Ky�Rv
�
�
��
7
�
`I�
�l
r
``
�
�
.
_ ; !
� � , -�E 1 t-'�� � � � (�
�
(E)� DECK � ' O ; (r+t�r-�E -�-t.�
� 0 Av�oVL
crRR�� �� r� �k � ,� �Z-�>
�(� � � � E ►� �7 �. ;-
., � �
m P�s'r�
Pj�O��
�I
t
' `� �
ApR - b ��'�4
?�C A�Pa 2'C o J��—
3� �� .� � �' Pa c�
�P�Ro�� �y 3a�
B�o��J ; 3� ���,���t
��� ��►,J �— p��-�
�� / ' / r/ 7`,
- � -- -- � �; �' .
� � '� p �, y
J �� A p u -�
. r� � + ��� � �.� �
� �� ; ' � �
�? �
�� ! . - � _ �
fi rL.� � ; , �` _ -- _ --
� �� , �...r. - . Y ... fl �-'
o r ; . —��
� `� ('� ' � 3C',-
� � �,
� . � ( �. ���
. � . , , � �o
X � ' / _ � _. . v - �y
���� �� ; - �
�O , �� � ; E-(�L
V,' ' .' . . i . .
„ � I i� �
I � �(
���'s _ �� , � M �
�`�' 3 � ' � -- °� � �
�" � _ �L �
� � , . ; � f
�� . � , �
� � �-� -. --fi- i ,
� �, � �
�
- o�,. � ' ; I y l�
...-..._ ._ . . . , . . . . . ,� �. � = � �
- � i � �
. � . �
�i � � i'' �_ ' � � ��
� � p � '' l� - . ' � 1 '
�� o �
,� � � � ;
— ;� � � Z
� � � '`'. ; �
I � � � � �
� .0 , p. �
y � 2 �. , ;. � ��
d . . . � �
,
� � iy , 2 ;
'J T � , �
� � � � ' ' I . ��
�� � - � � �
� � � 3 � , � � 1,
� � � � �� �
� � � (, � :.; . = �
v � - � '�� : � ��
, �, � �
. � o �' �.` - � � �
a �n � �- - � i�-� . .<- I—
� � ;�� �1�.� �
� � Q , .!- �.��- L
� � � C � � .. _
(�- 7 cG -J �! � ', o
� � � ��
� J � � v � � - � C7
a- 3 z- � � �
�
- �
_.; :-__-_,_; =�/ �
a�
�����
�
.
��:
_� ; �
�� ��
_r
! � �,
�
r -
_ � .�
. � ���
, : . ..
.�.
- �: _.
� �. t�
� -� r: �
� ., {r �
�;,.•"� ;'� , �v „�;
` �.
�
,: , ., ,
� a,
.f 9!�
�
�
� ,
� '
� f
�
� ;
.. . , , �`''°�
E R �-� "�..
�_ � � 1 ., �
�• I�
;,r �
,�
. - :
't
- 7
1 � `� . • .
y�,� � �
� . � ,"'*�..
-- . . l i�a ' �
�� � �
• _ �� � °'�' `�
� T1��� �
4. � �1
�� t w
' A. �
� K
- '� Y h' �
.�
..�. � -� 4 ,. ~
.ft^` �.�% -_�• �� \ � - _' . .
\ .
� ' �
\ ' '�;i ' C
� t . �t. . ;' . � .� �.� _,
,
� . , i ���,
� - _ � - . �
�,
,� . �
. . . . , #�� ; ��_. �
, � ' � �._ �
. . ' j�' ^ � K ti
� � ��, r , � >> �� : � r r �
�k �, � � , �► � +:< � t - •� � � �
a: � �
u - t r��
" Y 4 j '
r•• is °t . . . ;� � •
.�► � � ,�� � _
s . ,� � � �
��. � A� � .
—��. ,,,,.,.... , � � � � Q ��
- . 4 . .' . 3 � _ i �' �.7 '
1
� 'f - �. . � ,
� • � � � '�„ ��:� � � , � 3.��...
' �� � . � v M1, ,�� � . � ,
_ t � � ;,� ` �� f' �
3 ' y �I � `� � r� i �1 �i i� ` �` - i . � ' ' �
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
participate in vices at
check feasibility barriE
to alleviate jaywal ' ,
employees/customers��f o
number of peopl��at each o
May 9, 1994
one.��me, there is need for a parking study,
�� on California Drive to direct to crosswalk
Saturday and Sunday hours and number of
ar businesses that share the site, estimate
�rvices.
Item set �br Public Hearing May
inform�ion.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1994 pending receipt of additional
\`' S. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ATTACHED CARPORT AT 1715 RALSTON
: AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (DR. AND MS. J. SCHUBINER, PROPERTY OWNERS AND
APPLICANTS).
C. Galligan's property is contiguous to this property and he felt
participation would have an appearance of impropriety, he therefore
turned the gavel over to the Vice Chair and did not take part in the
discussion or the vote.
Reference staff report, 5/9/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed
the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study
meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration.
Acting Chm. ,7acobs opened the public hearing. Dr. Jeffery Schubiner,
1715 Ralston Avenue, the applicant stated his reasons for the request and
was available to answer any questions. There was clarification about the
setback requirements. There were no other public comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Mink noted that the addition of broken horizontal lines created by the
offset of the front of the car port will add to the aesthetics and
character of the existing house, and that as stated in the documentation
submitted by the applicant the project will not be detrimental to other
properties in the area, he then moved to approve the application with the
following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 6, 1994
Site Plan and Elevation/Perspective; 2) that the conditions of the Chief
Building Inspector's April 11, 1994 memo shall be met (carport must
remain permanently open on two or more sides, and a building permit shall
be obtained before construction); 3) that the side setback for the
carport on the north side shall be a minimum of 3'-3"; and 4) that the
project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code
requirements as amended by the City.
Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Galligan
abstaining) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
-3-