Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1453 Cabrillo Avenue - Application; �`y, t VA R IANCE Application to the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Burlingame 1. APPLICANT A. Name� B. Address City� 2. PROPERTY ,�1 Date filed ,- �•�� �'�- Study meeting � �-�g Public hearing I' Z�� 7� Action „���� 7 — O i�'� ` � e�,��� Zip Ct,-c�,(� ( (� Telephone �;� � � �,LO�; _ A. Address �`t'��J ����b �v�� B. Legal Lot `�] Block �� Description: Subdivision .��i.5� �c4Ci.�,iio� No. �i- C. Assessor's parcel number (APN) oZ�--C�'-�Z-- o�� zone �-� D. Existing land use and improvements s��e -�a+�.��.y �o� w�� ���� �� 3. CLc/L � ��✓Lci.c ,� � i � 4. SITE PLAN Attach site plan, drawn to scale, showing all existing and proposed major improvements, located by dimension from property lines and adjacent structures. Sidewalks and curbs (if any) on public right-of-way should also be shown. Include building elevations, if relevant. 5. ITEMS SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION: � Authorization by property owner. .� 'X X M � Title report showing proof of ownership (except for R-1 & R-2 property). Affidavit for Variance. Site plans, elevations and exhibits. Fee: ($40 for application on R-1 or R-2 property) for other zoning districts) Receipt No. �y-�� Received by �I � I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the � best of my knowledge and belief. Signature Date I-� - � � �, rt � l., r APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT FOR VARIANCE LEGAL REQUIREMEN'PS FOR VARIANCE �'1. Has applicant read Chapter 25.54 of the City Ordinance Code? Yes�_No B. Describe the exceptional circumstanczs or conditions applicable to your property which do not generally apply to other properties in your area, and the extent to which you may deserve special consideration to which your neighbors are not entitled. C. Describe why the variance is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property. U. What hardships would result if your request were denied? � -. . �- �-- -• . .. ..�..� IS APPLICANT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? IF NO, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: A. B. C. Yes No Owner's name Owner's address Attach signed statement from property owner declaring knowledge of and agreement to this variance application. m � rQ�iPY7 .,, � �� � ��. - -�. ,��� ,� '� . � � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 23, 1978 Addressinq Commissioner Francard's concerns about restrooms and the well (children's access to the hoses if the water is unsafe), Mr. Somerville assured tha� everything would be up to code specifications. Men's and women's restrooms would be provided and the well has been declared good by the Department of Public Works; any problems would be carefully checked out before the water is used. He added that the garden would adhere to any water usage restrictions placed on a single family residence. Commissioner Mink felt the garden was consistent with the General Plan in the area of open space and pocket parks, but inconsistent because 63 garden plots would possibly generate more traffic than single family uses. He felt the garden would introduce an unknown structure to a single family area; and other garden projects have not been in residential areas. He believed the concept was fine and would like to see such a project in the City. Commissioner Sine stated he would not want such a garden next to his home; parking would be a problem, the project is commercial in nature and he concluded it does not conform with R-1 uses or the General Plan. Commissioner Kindig agreed with Commissioner Sine. Commissioner Jacobs felt the applicant should be commended for her intention on this project; however, considering the location, she moved for denial of the special permit. Chairman Taylor felt the concept of the project a good one, noting it is an opportunity for a number of segments of society to come together in a community project. Cor�nissioner Cistulli seconded the motion for denia�l and upcn roll call the motion carried 6-1, Chairman Taylor dissenting. Commissioner Mink felt staff should be directed to see if there is another location which would be more suitable as such a project would be good for the City. Commission agreed with Commissioner Mink. A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. 2. VARIANCE FROM COQE SEC.� 25.66.050 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE TO A SIDE PROPERTY LINE; PROPERTY AT 1453 CABRILLO AVENUE (APN 026-042-060), ZONED R-1, BY GARY E. WALTER ' Summa� of Action: Motion that variance be granted with the understanding that the garage would be 8' from the house and that the laundry area would be built on a solid foundation, noting there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property, carried unanimously 7-0. Asst. City Planner Yost reviewed the application, explaining the circumstances and the problems with the sloping lot. He emphasized the principal difficulty is the distance between the house and the proposed garage, noting that a 4' separation is proposed which meets code but with the narrow driveway it would be difficult to maneuver a car into the new garage. He advise� that staff recommended the new garage be located 8' to 10' from the house even though it would require a slightly higher concrete block foundation with more excavation. He reminded Commission that findings would have to be made consistent with Code Chap. 25.54 to grant a variance. Gary Walter, the applicant, stated that he had been approached by neighbors who were glad he was doing something with the present garage. He stated he would be willing to comply with the recommended location and place the laundry area on a permanent foundation. Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes t iR,„ Page 3 • . January 23, 197£3� Carol Kimpson, 483 Rollins Road, Burlingame stated she has gone to the garden in Palo Alto for four years and felt such a garden would be a fine opportunity for Burlingame. She also noted there did not appear to be any problems with the garden in Palo Alto. David Hinkle, 204 Bayswater, Burlingame stated that he supported the garden as it would support the health of the community and he.would like to see this a community project. Paul Walker, 861 Clara Drive, Palo Alto who would be managing the garden, stated that in workinq with the applicant he found that she has made every effort to have the best garden possible, es�ecially in addressing concerns of nearby residents. Rhonda Barnes, 143 Dwight Road, Burlingame said she had been at the Palo Alto garden and there is a garden project at Beresford Park in San Mateo, in a residential area, where young and old work together; she concluded that it would be a nice thing for Burlingame and noted that there are two bus stops in the area. C. Jacobs pointed out that the problem does not appear to be the garden itself, but instead the proposed location. The following people spoke in opposition to the project. Marti Knight, 23 Dwight Road, Burlingame emphasized that the concept of such a garden is not what is being opposed by the residents but instead the chosen location and she listed their concerns as noise, home values, traffic congestion and policing problems, i.e., residents having to determine if strangers are actually visitors to the garden. She suggested that other more suitable properties be considered, i.e., near the Peninsula Humane Society or near Washington Park which is close to bus lines, has parking areas and bike racks and is near a senior citizen center. Irene Mitchell stated she had sent a letter dated January 19, 1978 which was in opposition to the garden and was advised that her letter was part of the record. John Till, 26 Bancroft Road, Burlingame questioned the negative declaration, stating he felt such a project should require an EIR. Chairman Taylor advised him that the Commission had considered this question at their meeting January 9, 1978 and it was the consensus of the Commission to uphold the City Planner's decision that no EIR was required. Mr. Till then stated that he was oppo�ed to the garden project. Mrs. Dario Garcia, two homes from the garden site, spoke in opposition, stating that such a garden belongs in the country. Mildren DaDalt, 39 Bancroft Road, questioned earlier references to the Williamson Act. City Attorney Coleman stated that he would have to research this as the Williamson Act is not commonly used in Burlingame. Mr. Somerville explained that Mr. Dotter had made reference to this at the January 9 meeting; however, there is no intention to apply under this act and the applicant would pay full taxes. Jeanne Mathews, 16 Clarendon Road, stated she would prefer not to have this near her home as there is already a parking problem. Correspondence: It was noted that Mrs. C. Perin of 29 Dwight Road wrote a letter in opposition to the garden. Ther� being no further public input, the hearing was closed. Discussion between the Commission and Mr. Somerville followed. Mr. Somerville stated the garden does not appear to be the issue, but instead traffic and parking. He pointed out that many gardens are in existence and parking and cars are not a problem. He noted that single family homes would also add to the traffic and stated that the garden would not decrease the value of homes. With regard to strangers, he said such gardens are for the community, they are generally used by nearby residents and become a place where people know each other. He added that a resident couple would be ltving there also. He emphasized they were trying to be as flexible as possible to alleviate residents' concerns. "� " � Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1978 Commissioner Kindig moved that the variance be granted with the understanding that the garage would be 8' from the house and the laundry area would be built on a solid foundation, noting there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property (i.e., the slope) and with the modifications noted above, the findings pertinen t to Chap. 25.54 are in fact applicable. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously (7-0}. 3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.050 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CARPORT WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND FROM SEC. 25.70.030 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING GARAGE RECENTLY CONVERTED TO A LAUNDRY AREA TO CONTINUE IN ITS PRESENT USE; PROPERTY AT 132� CARLOS AVENUE (APN 027-153-240), ZONED R-1, BY FRANCISCO H. PANIAGUA, JR. (PROPERTY OWNER) Summary of Action: Mo�ian for denial,based on the finding that there has been no testimony submitted to show that there are exceptional circum- stances, cdrrie� unanimously (7-0). Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, pointing out the problems and specifics relating to this item. A previous property owner had converted the single garage to a laundry room and added a non-code family room without benefit of a building permit. (Staff report is on file witn the application.) Mr. Yost said staff could find no special circumstances for the parcel consistent with the first requirement of Code Chap. 25.54 to grant a variance. He also noted if the application were denied, all other technical infractions could be corrected with a building permit. He emphasized that the main points to the application are: (1) the proposed new carport encroaches 2' into the required 4' side yard, and (2) the new carport would use up much of the present driveway length not allowing a second car to be parked off street behind the front setback. Two variances are required, one for the 2' side yard and one because of the absence of a second parking space behind the front setback. He noted, in order to approve the application or deny it, findings of fact are required under Code Chap. 25.54. It was noted neither the applicant nor a representative was present. City Attorney Coleman advised Commission as to the alternatives and requested the item not be tabled as it would be put in limbo and action could not be taken by his office as to the violations. Staff noted that an agenda had been sent to the applicant; staff has had no direct contact with the applicant, but instead with real estate agents. Ernie Schellenberg, realtor, San Carlos stated he listed and sold the property last year (1977). He explained he was not the applicant's representative but might clear up a few matters. The property is owned by the applicant and the real estate companies are involved because there is some question as to who would have to pay for the violations, the present owner or the former owner. There being no further discussion, Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak, the hearing was closed. Commissioner P1ink moved for denial based on the finding that there has been no testimony submitted to show there are exceptional circumstances and the affidavit submitted with the application has not shown sufficient information there are exceptional circumstances. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Commissioner Sine stated he had visited the site and there were possible alternatives available to the applicant. Upon roll call the motion for denial carried unanimously (7-0). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes � ,+�, Page 6 • � � January 23, 1978 � 4. EXCEPTION FROM PERP�ITTED HEIGHTS FOR NONCONFORMING FENCE AND HEDGE�*�, PER CODE CNAPTER 25.78, AT 1516 ADELINE DRIVE, PROPERTY ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. JOHN A. ESCOBOSA. (*) ALLEGED TO BE REDUCED FROM ITS PRIOR HEIGHT, WHICH WAS FOUND BY THE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 5. 1977 TO BE A PUBLIC HAZARD Summary of Action: Commission made findings that there are exceptional circumstances and motion for approval of a 4'-10" fence on a diagonal line with all vegetation over 2 feet high to be removed from the exterior � of the fence approved on roll call vote (6-1), Commissioner Sine dissenting. Asst. City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the City Council made a finding December 5, 1977 that the hedge is a"public hazard"; the applicants are requesting permission to have a hedge that has been reduced in both height and width since the Council's action. He stated, as per the Commission's instructions on January 9, the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission had been advised of this new proposal; at their meeting January 12, 1978 a motion was made and unanimously carried the the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission feels the present hedge is a"traffic hazard." He reminded Commission that findings must be made relevant to granting or denying a variance. Mrs. Escobosa addressed the Commission, stating the hedge had been reduced in height and noted that Council had found it a"public" hazard, not a traffic hazard, because it was unsafe for pedestrians since it overhangs the sidewalk. She felt with the present situation the line of sight at the intersection is adequate and that the intersection is a traffic hazard because there is a school, a park and a store within a block. She suggested a 4-way arterial stop sign to reduce the hazard, insuring safety for children and securing privacy in their yard. She stated they would be willing, as an alternative measure, to put the hedge at a 45 degree angle (not in 15') and noted that the shrubs on the Balboa side had been trimmed back. Commission agreed there is a problem at the intersection. Several Commissioners had visited the site and driven in the area, noting ther� is presently a traffic hazard. It was also indicated the 45 degree angle alternative would not address the problem without modification. Mrs. Escobosa stated they felt they were being singled out, which is not fair, and they would have very little privacy with a wire fence which was suggested as a possible alternative. It was pointed out the property line is 3' in from the back of the sidewalk and the fence is on City property. On the Adeline side the roots of the hedge are on the property line. Cotrtinission briefly discussed the basis of the T.raffic, Safety & Parking Commission's decision. Commissioner Sine felt a survey of existing properties should be taken to see how many are not in compliance with code before singling out one property; he felt they should deal with all instead of one. Chairman Taylor felt that although Commissioner Sine's point was well taken the application was before them and action should be taken. There being no further discussion the public hearing was opened; there was no public input and the hearing was closed. Conunissioner Mink discussed the alternative.plan with staff, setting forth specifics which would provide adequate sight distance and protect the applicants' privacy. City Engineer Kirku'p reviewed his memorandum dated January 19, 1978 and indicated ' the proposal set forth by Conrrnissioner Mink would provide adequate sight distance if the hedge is removed to the first post or break in the fence with a new fence 4'10" in height and of the same material as the existing fence. As this proposal was satisfactory with staff, the applicants were asked if it would be an agreeable