The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1468 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report� + , .� ... . . � . . . . . . . . . BURLINGAME, CALZFORNIA June 15, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Frank Pagliaro. ' PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Pledge was led by Fire Marshal Bill Reilly. ROLL CALL COIINCIL PRESENT: HARRISON, KNIGHT, LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Meetinq of June 1, 1992 and the Study Meetinq of June 3, 1992 were approved on motion of Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, carried unanimously. Councilwoman Knight thanked staff for the verbatim minutes concerning the senior commission discussions at previous meetings and said she would not pursue the issue further. PRESENTATION OF FIRE CAPTAIN'S BADGE Mayor Pagliaro expressed pleasure in presenting a badge to new Fire Captain Craig Barretta. Mrs. Barretta and their two sons assisted in pinning on the badge and collar pins. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FOR TWO VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO - PARKING VARIANCE APPROVED - SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE DENIED City Planner reviewed her memo of June 3 which recommended hold a public hearing and take action. Sandy Belluomini and Dan Hart- man, applicants and property owners, are requesting a side setback and parking variance in order to remodel the first floor and add a second floor to their house at 1468 Cabrillo. Thei existing deck along the driveway will be removed and replaced at a smaller size off the dining room and the existing garage (17 feet 6 inches by 17 feet 4 inches) will be retained. The remod- eled house will have four bedrooms requiring one covered and one uncovered parking space; a parking variance is needed for length of 17 feet 4 inches where 20 feet is required in the garage. The current setback requirement for this house is four feet and the existing setback is three feet. To extend the first floor another 11 feet requires a variance. The second floor will be stepped back to meet the side setback requirement. The existing one story two bedroom house has 1550 square feet of living area; the remodeled house with two stories will have 2,879 square feet of livinq area excluding the decks and porches; the lot coverage will be 40 percent. The Planning Commission denied both varianc- es at its meeting of April 27; some of their concerns were lot coverage would not allow the garage to be brouqht up tc two car standard in the future and setback would be further impacted by the fireplace in the side setback. Councilwoman hniqht asked about figures concerning square footage of project and about the fireplace; City Planner explained. D:ayor Paqliaro opened the public hearing. Dan Hartman, applicant, said the figures concerning dimensions of project are wrong in city documents; project will be below maaimum lot coveraqe; if variances are granted a iuture owner could make a full size garage; a portion of yarage is actually 21 0 l feet long with the partial extension of the back wall; he showed a plot plan and photographs of the garaqe area extension and proposed two square foot area. Councilman Harrison asked the City Planner to respond to the dimension question Hartman raised. Councilwoman O'Mahony also had some questions on figures and asked if there would be an exterior light on the small deck at the dining room and if it would be used as a living space. Applicant said light is not shown on deck plans, it would only be for display of flowers, size is three by six feet, too small for living area. Council- woman Knight asked applicant if he was aware of neighbor's concern about a light on the deck, she asked the City Planner about moving the setback of the new addition at the side rear; she approved of the gate on driveway, will increase children's living area and provide more security. Patricia Gray, 1616 Adeline, lives two blocks from this site but was concerned about all the small houses disappearing from Burlingame; all the changes in neighborhoods with houses being made bigger is chasing the working people with more traditional life styles out; was generally opposed to giving variances. Marita Grandouskis, 1464 Cabrillo (adjacent house), objected to the variances, particularly the side setback; asked if a door is planned for the dining room deck, concerned about living area next to her home; concerned about loss of privacy with large windows facing her home; when children grow and have cars where will they park, existing parking is not adequate. eouncil reviewed plans for deck and determined there would be a door; discussed the size of windows with the Fire Chief, fire code addresses height of window sill, not size of window. Mayor Pagliaro closed the public hearing. Council expressed no concern with parking variance being allowed, the project would appear less massive than having attached garage, two cars can fit in the present garage and several more can fit in the driveway. Council had some concern about the side setback request, present wall is too close to property line, extending it further would compound the problem, perhaps wall should be set back to four feet, the required first floor set- back; family is too large for this small house and need more space; sympathized with Gray's comments, sad to see old house go but we must also accommodate newcomers; hard to make findings for this variance; applicants made a real effort to retain the character of the building and make it compatible with neighbor- hood; concern about light on deck at side, perhaps could consider low lighting as an alternative. Councilman Lembi moved to approve the parking variance and uphold the Planning Commission denial of the side setback variance, requiring a four foot setback with conditions. Seconded by Coun- cilwoman O'Mahony. The motion carried unanimously on roll ca31. C HEARING - APPEAL FOR FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO V R IMPROVEMENTS TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1720 SHER UTTCIN �,'i-O� _ rtnvnrn nrr•r�.T.... ......,.T�...r,... .,....____ City Plan reviewed her memo of June 3 which re ended council hol public hearing and take action. avid Gallegos, applicant and operty owner, is requestin our special permits and two variances 'n order to retain a, 73 square foot detached accessory structure t the rear of e lot at 1720 Sherman. A number of improvements ave bee ade to the original carport located at the rear of th at about the time the garage attached to the house wa verted to a family room. Over the years the two sided port wa enclosed and grew by over 200 square feet with e addition of athroom with shower, stor- age/garage ar , pitched roof and sk 'ghts; some work was in progress there are no buildinq perm on file for much of all t work. The Planning Commission appr ed a one space 2 i 0 0 TO: DATE: �� - �� T� o� l�,,,�----- AGENDA BURLINGAME I T EM u �,,� �:�;��;.. STAFF REPORT MTG. �,�.p��, DATE 6-15-92 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED � BY JUNE 3, 1992 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVED 6Y APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING SUBJECT: VAiIIL"�l\CES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 RECOMMENDATION• City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. (Action alternatives and requirements for findings for a variance are attached at the end of the staff report.) The Planning Commission considered two conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 12, 1992 Sheets 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and April 15, 1992 Sheet 7; and 2. that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on April 27, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0 (Commissioner Deal abstaining) to deny this request for a 3' side setback (4' required) and for dimension of the required covered parking space (17'-6" x 17'-4" proposed, 10' x 20' required) in order to make a 302 SF addition to the first floor living area and add a 1,115 SF second floor to the house. In their discussion the Planning Commissioners noted that they could not find exceptional circumstances with this lot that made it different from the other lots in the neighborhood, the setback variance would create a very narrow corridor on that side of the house and take lot coverage up to 40$ with a substandard garage 17' x 17' where 10' x 20' is current two car standard; the narrow side setback is further impacted by the 6" intrusion of the fireplace into the side setback; windows could be treated architecturally to reduce the impact of close proximity to the neighbor; since present proposal is at 40� lot coverage, if someone in the future wanted a properly dimensioned two car garage they would have to get a lot coverage variance, garage should be done now with the size of this addition; this proposal includes enough reconstruction to be equivalent to a new house, Cotnmission would not consider a side setback variance of this kind for a new house; side deck is all right because of its small size and mid-lot location, it serves as an architectural feature more than a recreation area. 2 BACKGROUND• Sandy Belluomini and Dan Hartman, applicants and property owners, are requesting a side setback and parking variance in order to remodel the first floor and add a second floor to the house at 1468 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing deck along the driveway will be removed (200 SF) and replaced at a smaller size off the dining�room and the existing garage (17'-6" x 17'-4") retained. The remodeled house will have four bedrooms requiring one covered (10' x 20') and one uncovered (9' x 20') parking spaces. A parking variance is needed in order to provide a 17'- 4" deep covered space where 20' is required. The plans propose an extension of an existing 22' long wall 3� from property line another 11' to the rear. The current setback requirement for this house is 4'. Therefore extension of the existing nonconforming 3' setback for 11' requires a variance. The proposed second story'is set back to meet the side setback requirement. The existing one story house has two bedrooms and 1,550 SF of living area. The remodeled two story house will have 2,879 SF of living area (excluding 200 SF of decks and porches), a 53$ increase. The 302 SF garage would remain, bringing lot coverage for the 6,000 SF site to 40$. EXHIBITS• - Action Alternatives and Variance Findings - Monroe letter to Sandy Belluomini and Dan Hartman, May 5, 1992, setting appeal hearing - Daniel Hartman letter to City Clerk, April 29, 1992, appealing Planning Commission action - Planning Commission Minutes, April 27, 1992 - Marite Grandovskis letter to Planning Department, April 21, 1992, in opposition - Planning Commission Staff Report, April 27, 1992, with attachments - Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed June 5, 1992 - Project Plans l�i/ s cc: Sandy Belluomini and Dan Hartman JD & Associates ACTION ALTERNATIVES AND VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant�s request. If the action is a variance, use permit, fence exception or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant�s request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. VARIANCE FINDINGS (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. V�� V' A�� NM Y��w . Y� �J l� v1 � _ '�' CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 May 5, 1992 Sandy Belluomini and Dan Hartman 1468 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Belluomini and Mr. Hartman: At the City Council meeting of May 4, 1992 the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 1468 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on Monday, June 15, 1992 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. _ _ _ Sincerely yours, � ��` '" w,r I !�'�-. MarY aret Monroe g City Planner MM/s cc: JD & Associates City Clerk � APR 29 ' 92 16 � 48 PF�N � P'IED P . 2 ��uC. �� D�niel F M�rtm�rr, M.D., FA.C.S. �� E I V� Q Qtol�ryngology/ Head �nd N��k Sur�ery RPh �� J i992 Fa�ial Plasti� Surgery �LtdY M�lfatti 17YOFBURUNGAME Apx'i]. Z9, �.�92 city clerk RLNNNIN�DEPT, Burlingame, CA RE : 1468 Cabril�.c Variances Dear Ms. M�lfatti, This �,etter is written, to state our int�n�iOxt to appeal the April 27, 1992 de�isian of the Building Committee to den�r our applic�tion �pr �wc� variar�ces an ouz 1468 Cabrilla home remodel_ We are requesting a heaxing with the ftill city �ouncil on ,7une 1, 1992. � �_� � � S�.ncerely, �. Dan�el E. Hartman, M.D. i��.,?-;� �.: , -;�� ::;::� c, i' . +., ,. �,. .. ,.. f-�-r:a.�- . �r t CI I I �.%Y �'i.sF�'� i1:.ti'ui', � Boarci �ertifi�d (415j 923-3135 Assistant Clinical Professor, 2i00 Webster Street, Suite Z02 Universiry of Californi�, San Francisc� San Francisco, C�194115 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 27, 1992 byt..�auto brokerage, is it auto sales. Item set for public hearing May il, 1`992..� if all information has been receided; or brought fo�,r�,ard to the meeting �of, May,,. 26, 1992. �,,�� 6. SPECIAL PERMITS, VARIANCE EXCEPTION FOR Requests: did this proposal nee raffi location; discuss required parking and parking provid , property owner d applicant's figures seem to differ; why ca the fence be made to be que; elevation of the fence at the f ; why is a storage area needed a e front; what provisions ar here for landscaping; specific list types of equipment e stored in the front area; discuss peak hour tra 'c for this o ation, cars and trucks; is a retail postal outlet fo �the pub ' anticipated at this site now or iri the future. Item set for lic hearing May 11, 1992. ITEMS FOR ACTION 7. SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, letter in opposition from a neighbor at 1616 Adeline Drive, study meeting questions, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP also noted letter in opposition received after preparation of the staff report from Marite Grandovskis at 1464 Cabrillo Avenue. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Sandy Belluomini and Dan Hartman, applicants and property owners, were present. Ms. Belluomini addressed the required findings for the variances: they wish to retain the garage at its present size and not e�end it 2' in length to meet code; she presented photographs to show that the garage is adequate for two standard sized cars and storage of additional items; with the existing driveway they have parking available for six cars off the street; the design of the new addition will preserve the traditional look of Burlingame homes, garage at the rear will keep the bulk down; they are trying to retain as much of the original structure as possible; it would be unnecessary hardship to add onto the garage at a substantial cost; they are trying to retain open space on the property, going back even 2' on the garage will remove yard for their children. The proposal would not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity, they are attempting to maintain the structure as it is since they understand people in the city have a problem with large expansions. Ms. Belluomini presented photographs of the house at 1616 Adeline and noted it is not small. Dan Hartman spoke in response to the letter from their neighbors at 1464 Cabrillo: the side deck area will not be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 27, 1992 lit and the new deck will be less than what is existing, the new deck is for privacy, plants, flowers, etc. , not big enough to sit on; houses are close toqether in Burlingame, they are not changing the existing foundation line, driveway remains unchanged; house is in the same place except for the 3' x 6' deck, only a 3' extension at the dining room toward the back of the house. Applicants discussed the proposed windows, there is an 8� distance between the fence and windows because of the driveway, they are keeping the existing windows in the living room; the current deck and large sliding glass door will be removed; size and location of new windows will be about the same as existing; they are within code at 40� lot coverage. Applicant presented additional photographs of the house on the other side which she said shows there is adequate space between their homes. Commission/applicant discussion: plans show the side deck as 4' x 10', not 3' x 6'; applicant said this deck was intended to be decorative, not functional, they could reduce it but wanted to create an aesthetically pleasing space outside the dining room; on the other side of the driveway there is a large rosebush which will block the neighbor's view of the deck, they have done some additional planting along that side also. Applicants advised windows on the second floor are dormers with seating area in front of windows in their children's rooms, they are the only true windows in these rooms. Staff confirmed with this proposal the site would have 40� lot coverage including the garage. Commission questioned why the fireplace extends an additional 6" into the side setback. Applicant replied this was an engineering problem, if it did not do so they would have to move a wall in. Commissioner comment regarding Sheet 2, demolition page: it appears applicants are gutting the entire inside of their house. Applicant responded they could not get the staircase to the second floor without creating the central hall, they are keeping the floor plan of the existing house except for changing the hallway. They discussed portions of the foundation to be retained. The Commissioner noted that basically applicants are demolishing the house and building a new one. Mr. Hartman said view of the house from the sidewalk today and after the proposed project is completed would be about the same. Further Commissioner comment: applicant has an existing 3' side setback and wants to extend that another 10', he will then have an even longer nonconformity; why not take up the foundation and move it over since the house is being gutted anyway, loss would be 1' on rooms on that side. Applicants noted about 60� of the hardwood floors will be retained, they refinished the floors recently and do not want to replace them. There were no audience comments in favor. Marite Grandovskis, 1464 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke in opposition: regarding using the driveway as a buffer area, she thought recreation area for the children and family should be at the rear, by extending to the rear they will reduce usable Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 27, 1992 back yard; placement and size of the new windows will result in neighbor's loss of privacy, windows upstairs appear to be 5' in length; the rosebush on the fence is large and beautiful now but in the fall and winter it will lose leaves and not block view; the proposed deck and doors onto that deck will take away her privacy. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. C. Graham stated she could not find exceptional circumstances applicable to this property to support the variances requested, there is nothing unusual about this site that makes it different from the rest of the neighborhood, she could live with the parking variance but not the side setback variance which would create a very narrow corridor on that side and take lot coverage up to the 40� maximum; a 3,400 SF house is not a small house. C. Graham moved to deny the side setback and parking variances, seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: do not have a real problem with extension of the side wall but applicant could get parking to code by removing the shed, will support the motion; cannot find exceptional circumstances, with this degree of reconstruction applicants could have moved the home over; have a problem with the 3' side setback and the added intrusion of 6" with the fireplace, it would be easier to consider area in the rear for the family if the project had a new side setback of 4', concern about the windows is a legitimate concern, they might need to have windows as high as 5' but this could be mitigated in some way such as recessing them, design itself is very pleasing but am concerned about the 40� lot coverage, if someone in the future wanted a larger garage they would be asking to go over 40� lot coverage, parking is a significant problem in the neighborhood, think it is appropriate to do it right at this time; side deck is well done, it is cut in and in the middle of the lot, not as offensive as it might be, fairly small and an architectural touch rather than functional. If this plan were to come to Commission for a new house the Commission wouldn't even consider it because of the side setback, this proposal is enough of a reconstruction to be considered a new house, applicants will have to bring electrical, plumbing, sewers, all services up to code except for the foundation and that's not logical. Motion to deny the application was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXTEND TH�"P`�RS�F-�.ELQOR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE AT 1813 r.nvnr.a TDTV� n'��v_� Reference staff report, , with chments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the st, study meeting ques�ie�s required findings. Four cond' ' ns were suggested for consideration a�l�.,,public hearing. P.C. 4/27/92 Item #7 �ECEIVED A? � � � 1992 �7Y OF BURLINGAM� PtANNING OEPT. M�rite �randovskis 1454 Cabrilla A+��_ Burlingam�, Calif_ 9�010 April 21 � i 992 Th� City af Burlingame Pianoing 1?ep�rtment 5 Q 1 P ri m ro�e R�ad Burlingame, Gaiif_ 9��10 Rf: Building �pplic�tior� A_P_N_ : 02�-Q41-12�: 41�65 Cat,rill� r��.;� C�ear- t�1�. ��1t�r�rc�E : �,fter- bri�fi� r��i� Fh�rir�� tl�,e t�uil�lir�� l�r-�t. ��: prup��:e�1 t:�� ur ��jar_:�t�t t1�1�h�C+i�� r� �-�8�1� 8 f�UfTiL�Bt t�f Obj�rtlGtl� �r�f� '�i1Sh tC� ��5��"B�S tQ yC�i_J. �� fjj� t}��;� f��1'fl�l C�bjE�C-tt�=�� 'YS�ith ��t�e�t d��l ��f ��dr��L; G��S��L:� ��' f�r�iily t7as ti�red �t x��e ��ret:er,t �r��1re�� far alrr�u;t tt�rir-t�� TiS�� 4t}5� .y��r4 �c7d ��e tra�,�e �15t�dy{: err j a.y�d �rr�i c:�t�i p�r�d rrii_�# �a�13 y c: �-r_��►�rati ve ar�� t:c�r��:i ��er at � r�� ti orfsr►i �{: �ri th � i�� r�ei gh�ar�; i�� tr,e ��st. The falluSrVitlg 1� a li{.t of o�ar �t�jec:tic�r�� re��r-dir�r� tt-�e �irap��:ez; ��l�n,. Tt��1� c�t,jet:tit�r�s ��ili be listed ir� ar�ier af ��_ar- prir_�riti��: ;�r�+� � r-�t1c�r,�1, ��r� a��ii�:��l�, for- ��;t� �bjecti��n ��ill tj� �tat�d. '��her��er p��:sit+le: �t,�� 'v�ri�� C1tB tI'IE' I11�tOt"l� C��I 'r�r`P!t�:�'I t�1�' 7�j�C:tiC�ti l�: b��=�?�. QBJECT i QN � t Tt�e c.r-��ti [�n t�f � si d� d�cl� i ntc� tt-,e ��ri �,='e��,r�� i tt7 r�l��rs l��ei��ng �int�i that deck Cqr�d �i l��flt �7L,r�',rk'• t.hi�f f�Qllr- History af the Problem: �ecaus� ��f th� �Qiurr��u�: rr��ter?a] tl��at tl��e ��l�r�r7ir�� c:orr�rr�i�:sian rr�ust attEt7d tr� in tt��i� �:�se �r�� ti��er �,, I��ill a�tt�rr�pt t0 �� 8� brl�'i 8'� �O��l�ll�. I L�GiI£?�+F lt 4r'v'l11 =:17if1C:�' t0 =:�!� t�"i�� l7titll tt"18 t-�L:�'i�l� �'f{9C�tt�tiPtlt f� 8tl ��err��r�er�cy lir�l��tir�g or�dinar,ce�� I{ll� tl�+� ��'lE:tlf:� �j��`i"��,r; r,� i'!1�i�I 1�'� fti� tir�firie lt"� i7:l�t- t��1jC, t�F51�;. r�v� 'v�'� �11 k:t"�0'�rY. �rV� �1�� jr�lC��1G�i G�"BStIJC"�',, �tid �t"�U� i��ilt"e � G�t-t�lf� SffiC�lJtlt C+f d�i�Eitl��: 'v�'1tYilfl 5 l�l'd�C� 2� r�aur peri��_ ��i��LJ�2 �f t�'i� H�t"tfi"�19f1S Cll�l'tti?� lil�_!l�f11i'1�7�?Qi�� af �hett- 0 dri��;�,r�y, I ha�e e::p�ri�nc�d chror�ic: �1eeR �epris��ti�n. i�ddltiQti8111�. th�l� t18VP GGtl�le�'��d 'r1'�18t (iIiCB �'�'�� 8�111�f�_l811�.� t�lt8i1�� nci�►sed �1��e pot'�h tu �n �pen ��4i�t�i� ar�a i�+��t�+� appr�ximat�]y 1+;� ta i� feet at our batt-�ra�m and �edraom respertivel+�- Ttii1 sid� por+:h no,r; �eern�� to be u�ed b�� th� Hartrr�ans �J � pr-irr7ary ii��ing �r�� thra��gi�c�ttt the ��!�: c��r�ICI� 'r1r'1�h �8t 1l� lTl�t�tlltl��. �iFC�3U�� 01� t�I� G'��75� �I�C�i:1t111t1� Qf �hlu �jl�Ci li+�ir7g �red, ��e �r� unable to k:e�p side ��rir��o�f��s r�pan ,�ur-ir�� tt�e day Ga�.�us� �f t�ie cur�tinuou� lo�ad nois�s origin�ting frorri tt�eir- decl� interfer� ��ith r�n� ability t� �:ar-r-y �uut my �Yar�;, hal� p�rar�� cor��er�ati�nc et�. Al�o, �,tre ��ter, t��l uncamtor�tabl� �asir�q our bathr��am G��a�� if ;;�� r_an he�r them perte�tly �j�ll, ! im�gir7e th�y tr� ar� vrithit� e�r�h�i �f ��ar �cti�itips. The G�mbinatiori of the�e ��ove to acti�ns ��an-gain�� iights �r�� daiiy n�iti��, t�a� reiuited, I�+�li�ve, in sor7�e �ery grav� con�eq��ences ta my he�lth and �ther aspectl c�f rrty lite. F�ation�l tv ahjecti�n #1: r.�id� �eck 'r�rith a light ab��e it}. tir1r� 8i� Y�'�ltit��rlt1� �,�rt7�t_ the f�at7�:ti�n or Rurpoce �f this si�e �e�k �r��ould ��. I belie�re th�t �y alln,�ring the ��aildinq nf � ci�e +�eck:, tt�is may in fact �� ar, �tterr-,�t at c.irc��rr��enting the �uitin� iightin� +�rdin�nce, �rhich ! feel C.i►Ctfld�tlt thE H�t"tt7i8tl�. �]�F_. �ft�P�] 81�'�t��? 01.. �� fll� �Bcl�tl 1� 8��Q11r��, :nt� ;i�ill ance again h�ve the s�me difficult3es �t; d+�ti:criGe�1 at��+��. ��art��rrr�ot-�, t►ecau�e th�� are r�istively sr-nall lots, r��ithet- the length �f the h�u1e� �r the �ri5�et;�•��a�. �r'r'81�t�t�tit � side er�trance, es��Gially as in thi� case; the+� alre�d� plar� to t��ve thr-�e ott��r entr�nc�;�. lf the Hartrr�an�r as th�y r:laim�d to me, �r-e i:ee�itig ii�hts �n f�r t:PGUi�itl� l�PB�C�Ci�., th�rY ar-e �ariru� ce�ur-ity s��ltems a��aila�iie ;�rr�ich �re by far- mare eff�c:tive and �:ertair�ly nat di=:r�.a�tiv� to nthers. 1n f�ct, I fe�1 that the E�;isting t��to flr�odligt7� or� thei r g�r�ge i s�ti 11 a�otenti al �rohl err7. I r� tt�e ��rr�mer-ti rr�� i t i�. tol er�bl � �iec�us� af a cl i mai ng ro Je t►ush �iutsi de rriy b�dre�orr7 �r�rindo ;^� �ef �lsi ng the li�ht. Hv��e�r�r thr�ughout th� rest of th� yaar- ti��e�e li�hts �till c�ntir�u� ta pravide �u��taniti�l glar�. Pre�io�aal�a #.her-e ;��s � sir��le light fi�,ture �nd the li�ht �Y,t�� ca�ntain�d '�^rittltn ��'ei8�iv81i.� t.rt�all a�e�. !n gar�a_r�l, I beli��e lt i� I,ItI'fr'1�B �0 d��►7'r'r tiiP aUi�i�iii� 11 dPC�;=� Ot U��'t +��n st� u�t�are� ��ri the �:ide �f these houses �:�n iut�: �f this �ite� ��,�t7ich �r'rOlJ�tl er��nur �g� ar7y ��n-goin±� �cti+rity and the ��tential tor subseq�a�nt ri�i �.e �r-�+� 1+��: of pri �bcy ta tt�e ad j a��r�t nei ghb�t-s. I�,� oul d 1 i I�:e to make nute, tt-�at arr��ng a rr�yr i�d �f reasrnc for my farnily c.h��sin� ��e�ifically ta r�r��4r� to �uriir7game frorr� 5at� Francisc.a, was th� ��,eat�er an� ttie t-�latis�e �ist�t-��:e�: c�f t��e t�aa�ses frorr� ��c�� other and the �bilit�a ta l��ave a fair �:i�� back: yard fa� enjoyrr�ent. Therefarer tifii �elie��e tt��t �esi�r�L, of buil�inqs sho�ald et��aur�ge outdac�r li�ring to��rard�� th� r�at� of hc�ias�sr a~. is consi�:t�r,t ��fith nei�h�orir�g t7orr�es, ther�t�y maint�inir�g tt�e tranquility �f tha nei�h�arho�d�:. �r�1e �ur-�etves r-Er;�t�tly cornpleted a decF:, v�hich beca�i�.e it �r�r 8� el ev�t�d to the 1 e+�el of r�ur �nd the nei ghbor''S h01.3�:�, i t�Cl ud�d ��i�'i ��3C!� �� al i 1 ec nat �nl y a c�nc��n f�ar � �_ar �ri+r�r�, �ut �l �o as � can�i derati+�n � f our adjac�nt neigh�ars. OBJECTION � 2= 4r�INDQWS: si�e, �mount, and 1��atiot7. Tt�N l�rq� �:ize ared am�unt nf ��indc��,hr�: an th� cide �t th� hous� �.tacinr� 1�G ��S�P��t��J !�lt� +_3i� ��V��1l1G11� �.�i l�C�G tiiti�I�I�Viif� ti��7��1� 4��.�1G �I� incr�afied la�S Gf R�1�18G1� 1�G1' US. F��G8US8 our e�i�:ttnr� �id� ;^,indo;,�s are a�t�;�e th� level af the fence, the da5�rn�.tairs �;�rind�av;r plan �,t;�auld cre�; e dire�t �ia,hrs int�, o�ar t�ome. The �iropas�d �hrindo�s,�c an their 2r�d �,tor� ,�ruuld create not only a lo�� of pri��c�� into o�ar horr�e, bufi inta our b�c�;y�rd as �•r�reil, ti�t�ict� is samething ;�rp rec.�ntl� �,�rork:ed har� tn �r��te. Ration�l for � �: �(1p �1C�`iU,�(pS Er�cl�}_:ad ar-e picti�r�es �uf Rropertiec t�-��t „jet-� t'��:��ttly d��te?upe�� ,�rithin �CIC�(� � blacks of ��ar prap�rty. Fie�se r-�ote tt�e side view�ts. Ir7 ail irtstanc�� the 4�2��rZ �hrttl�o'r�� Ot�1 �hp ;idB ; are rei�tis�ei�� srr-�eil �n+� �trate�i�aiiy pi�ced s0 8� Ciut to �e intrusi��e to��ards tt�e nei�h�ar's airead�a e;�:i�tinr� �:tr�_�cture�. ir� c.a��s ��`c_. �r•rh�re there are r-el�ti�eiy ]�r�er �Y�rindo��,�s, �sidec ��f tt�e t�t fla+�rj, it iy in inst�r�cps �i,�herp the l�r�ei of th� fir�.t flr��r is �rir-tually ]e��el �•��ith tr�e qround � not �t�ov� th� f�r�r_.e a� i n� hi � c�� - '� uu �,��i 11 r�c�ti ce that the 'v�r t t1s�GV•� .�,' �fi Itl� SBCC►tlt� ��tQt-t �� t1I ��1�'L;P_. �1�ll��r� 8t-� (�tJl �P_. ct7i#3� � 8t1� ��efinit�ly non-intr�asi�r� to their a�j��.�nt tiP_.1��"1�1Qi"c. H8�lltlt� �BErI ltl t�lE?St'. ��ort��s, i dr�n't G�lie�� t�7at eitt7�r tha_ re�idar�t ar� r7�i�h�ors �uffer ��cau�e th� `r�'1t1�C!`r`f� are nat huqp. In thi�: particuiar ir7stance al�.�, I b�1i�+�� tt-��t ��1tI�0'r�f�� ran �+e ta�tef��lly �t�d �esth�tic�lly d�siqr7e� gi�rinq �t�i�l� liqht to the t'��tder�ts �h�hil� rn�int�lriing cr�rtsider�ti�n for fihe priv�ci� oi n�i�at�br��v,. OBJE�T I dN � 3_ Th� f�liu,yrin� i�. r��ii� a car7cer-n r-att�er tt�ar� ari ��jection. ��'e •��ro�ald li�;e t�a t��,�e c.l�rit� in regard t� e4i�tiriq �r��erty lir�e�. ��on revie��r nf tMe p1�r�Sl ��te felt th�t the distan�e t,�t�,�reen ��ar pr-��r�ty line �nd the neighb�ry h�use ap�earer� to C� s�isu�ily le;c fror�� o��r per�p�ctive th�n a; reprEaerit�d in th� dra�;riri��. ��r� of cc�«r�e ��uld iik:e to b� sure �f the �c�.��racy of th� rr�ea��ar-err��nt� ir� �rd�r to �,r-�{�ent 8tilj �litlCll�tiBS ti:atr�r 8S ��) 8S itl �fi� f��tu��. QB,�ECTI�N "�t__ Yari�nc� r�garding Rarkiny. ;�itt7Qugh �Y��e realite that tt�e1� uid ho��s�s ;��er-e bui�t ,•��iih iris+_affir_:ier�t g�r�qe ��+�c-e �c�r Gut r a_r� l n��, ih, e�U � ec l to Ct��.' �aar ki n� +r�r� ar�l e. � t b��{ �11a��Ying this S��{��I��`•E �I�I� �Q� CQ'�J�r�l�� ql�;als �� p�rcet�t. In +ather-��,�,r�rd�, if th� �,l�n� �,�re ta include tt7e rt7at��at�d par�;ir�� req��ir�r77ent, ;�r��:id the to��i 1 at c�,�era�e e:�ceed 4u p�rcer�t? I i the ar7s ;5rer- i s�e� tt� tt�at qu��:ti �r�, �fl�ti �'rE OGjBC� tC+ �h� �8i��;ltl±� �l8f 18ilCE t�t�laB'�tt�. Rational for �4: !f th� tot�l 'rV1�hnU� th� p��killi� �8ri��tCe e�:Geed� �C� pet�CeC�t, th�t1 �j•r� fee] tt7e Y�orr�e ��o�ald t�+� a�rerbuilt for tt�e l�t si�e. ;� �ir��i t�3r_�te. tt� g�t't�r�] ;�;r� f��l fit1�t iti 1718t1t� itlst�nces these iots i�: thp �r�� r� c��rer-built. As �n �V�r7��le, I refer yc�u tn th� house lacate� an tt-�e ��th�r sir�� c�f tt�e Hartm�n�:, 1�;�2 Laarilic;. '�r�,� ret:ail the pre�riaus o,��r�er, �JG!�� L��JLIJI!}. �LIIf�lLl�C��Il�� L'��1_ `�1� ILl��7 L�1 �I�III Ult� 1UII+�J1l�1IG it� �1f.7 h+�rr,e. Nad h� been ir� y�una�r �n�i iri b�tter t-�e�ltti, he ��ould h�+�e �eet� �Gle t� e;��re _,s hi s c��r��ern�: an� pr�t�ct t�i s i r�ter�t:ts, dnd per �raps �u4t� a i��u�e rnr�t�stt'�si ty w•,� �a�al d not h��r� b�er� biai 1 t r7ext r��c�r to hi rr�_ Ha 5�� er, tt�e H�rtm�t7s b�ugt�t this praperty v,rith full H:nr�,htledq� ofi tt�� c.1o18 pt'C�;�ltliltt� �,f tt7e h��s� ti�;=;t duor-. ,hr'� t��o at-e concerned ab�u�. m��s �nr� bull�, �nd �re cancern�� baut the l�s, af pri4��c:y, ligt�t �nd �,ur�shiri� th�t th�ir addition ��y creat� fot- �as. ,�'� d� n�t ��ish ta prat�st any�r�e's riqht to e�rar�� speciblly in 1i�ht af c.i��an�ing n��t:. �;11 �,;re �s� i� tt��t it t�P d��n� ,h,ith consideration +�f nvt �nly nei�hbnr 1, t��lt n�i�hbnrt��od r�or-ms an+� n�;,j ��ilding �e cor�sistent t��itt�in r�eiqht�nrh��ar� rhar-�ct�ri�.ti�s. Fnr er:�rr��►1�, ha�ina � 6 ft�o� fence �nd gatQ ctretct� �Clrflcc thp frant af the t�n�_�se ra� pr��►ced� �ni y i urther �ddc to tt�e �ppearan�:e i�f ma: s�nd bul N:. I t mi±�ht t�e �reat perha�� on h��g� l�,ts. t��at �eems i;�a�pr+a�+ri�t� �n a lot `f� feet ;5, ide. In con�l��i�r�, I w,�i�t� t� r�iterate a�ar pa�:itian that �•�j� �re ind�e�d caddened tn hatre t�� n thrr�ugh f�rmal ct�a��r,�l=_; t-e�ardin� ��r r�eighbar`s prapased pl ans. Ha ;�re��er: i n 1 i ght of a past eVp�ri enc�s, tt�i �,hr a� tha ant y ��tior� ,��,�� feel S�ras �v�iia�le to us in ord�r tr� protEct n�,�r present �nd fut��re i nter�st�:. �� an e;am��1 e:�rhi ch may t�e rppre 1�ntat i v� af n�ir n�ed to far-m�ll�a a�p��l to the Planning C�mmi��i�►r� is th�t �_�p�an re5�ie�� f the prup� ��d pt an �. �Are �x�r��sed a�ar concerr-�c ar�d i�� j e�t i �n�: a 1 state� i n j�i�m�+�r 1�n� ��t��'�t� fi�i pl9f �tli t1i� de��T�tt7l�flt pmp10��8eS. The f Ol l 0�r�r i tl� d��: � 't�Gl' i� �t�l, '�SrB t el:�l�i�t� t7 t�� f�llt(I t�l� �i��titlltll� tj��l8t t�(!k't1� 5fii� 1�5��t ��j thcit I'1t'.�. �"i�Jfit tJ�' �i�i1 C:C�tltBl��l� �flB dC��it�tl�i �ril� 18� hli'(t kt1171� Of uWi� GUt1LBt-t-i4, and tt��t t�e �njr�utd �►� �ur�t�%tir�� _as atter ;p��:ir�� t,�itt� tt��e H�r-tr��r�� it� and eff:art t� �r�rc�rk �iat thes� �:ur-�cet�r�s �n�� a��+i� tt-��ref�r-e f�t-t�r�51 ftliti�� uf vut C:j�rri�il�irits. Ti� d�t�, ��r� ti��re r�ut tie�r-�� trurri t��irr�. �, a re��alt, ��r�e c�r� ut�lt� �s,urr�� tl�r�t_ tt�ese cur�c�rr-��., ��, utt7ers ir� tt�� ast, ti��,�e ? al l eti ar� deaf ��rs �r�� ttiu:� �ur- � �nl y a�r�i 3��] � u�ti ur-� i s tu �ppe�i i ur-rr��l l U t�� yc�ur f,�ll cr_�rr�rni�:�iun r-eg�rdina �,�ir caricerr��. '�r`� �r-e �r�tef u] t ur t t�� a�sput-tut;i ty t�� 1 i�t our- cori�.Fr-r�� r�� th�r�k ��u t � r- tt��e ti rrae �r7� �f f ar-t ot�� uur G�rt i n r�a�i n�a t t�ese t�G j�cti oris dti� t;�kl tl� ti��et"f� i rita r c,�,{:i ��r�ti r�ri �trfiiet-i r��,�ki rig yout- f i ri�i de�i si oti. Re�:p�r:tfullt� '�r,�at-L,. �� 1�t�i # e L,t-8tid��ski �� :.C.: To a�l Pla!-�r�ir-n3 C+arr�rr�i�sir�r7er-�: �n� °larir�ir�� C��par-trner�t P.C. 4/27/92 Item # '7 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNER SUBJECT: SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND A NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO AVENUE. ZONED R-1. Sandy Belluomini and Dan Hartman, applicant and property owners, and JD & Associates, designer are requesting Side Setback and Parking Variances for a first floor remodel and a new second floor addition at 1468 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing two bedroom, single story house (1,550 SF) with detached garage and shed (357 SF) is remodeling the first floor and adding a second floor (3,436 SF, 45$ increase). The existing deck (200 SF) will be removed, and the existing garage will remain. The first floor wall is being extended at 3'-0" along the side property line, where the code requires a 4'-0" side setback (C.S.25.66.050). The new house will have four bedrooms requiring one covered and one uncovered parking spaces. The existing covered space is 17'-6" wide X 17'-4" long where the code requires 10'-0" X 20'-0" in length thus requiring a parking variance for substandard length of one covered space (C.S. 25.70.030). The uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway at 9' X 20'. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Staff Review City staff have reviewed this application and the City Engineer noted that he had no comments on the application as long as the back up area for two cars from the garage is adequate. Staff has checked this item and there is adequate space for two cars to maneuver from the garage. Applicant's Letter The applicant responds in his variance applications that the proposed three foot side setback follows the line of the existing house. The addition is only a small portion of the overall house and will not be a detriment to any neighbor. The existing garage currently parks two cars and�with two uncovered parking spaces in the driveway� provides parking for four cars on site. A neighbor at 1616 Adeline Drive has submitted a letter in opposition to the proposed variances. She complains that there are too many large houses being built on small lots in Burlingame. This destroys the character of the City and discourages young people from moving into the neighborhoods, since there are no small to moderately priced residences available to purchase. ,� E Study Meetina At the April 13, 1992 Planning Commission study meeting the commission asked for an explanation on which portions of the house and foundation are being retained, and what is part of the new construction. The applicant responds with Sheet 7 additional plans date stamped April 15, 1992. This plan shows the existing and proposed foundations. In his letter of April 15, 1992 the applicant notes that the existing first floor bathroom, living room, and entry way will remain. Where the house is only one story, with the new construction, the existing foundation will be saved. New foundations are provided for seismic retrofit and additional underpinning for the second floor. The inside dimension of the garage is 17'-6" wide X 17'-4" long as indicated in the applicant's April 15, 1992 letter. The exterior dimensions of the garage are 18'-2" X 18'-0" as indicated on the plans. The code requires 10' X 20' inside dimension for one covered parking space, which is required based on the number of bedrooms in the new house. It is feasible to add another 2' to the garage, by removing the storage shed, rear of the existing structure, adding a concrete slab, new walls and roof, and rebuilding the shed in another location. At present the property owner is able to park two cars in the existing garage. The applicant will present photographs at the meeting. Since the owners feel the existing garage is adequate in size, they feel the additional cost would be unnecessary. 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 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 existinq and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. 3 Planning 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 for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submit- ted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 12, 1992 Sheets 1,2,3,4, and 5, and April 15, 1992 Sheet 7; and 2. that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Jane Gomery Planner cc: Sandy Belluomini, Dan Hartman JD & Associates CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular called to P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, April 13, 1992 at 7:30 Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 23, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with the following changes: Item #9, variances, 1645 McDonald Way, continued to the meeting of May 11, 1992; Item #11, temporary trailer permit, 1450 Rollins Road, continued to the meeting of April 27, 1992; Item #12, tentative parcel map, 2918 Adeline Drive, tabled. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND A NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: what is being retained, this appears to be a total reconstruction rather than remodel; amount of existing and new foundation; actual size of the garage; is it feasible to add another 2' to the qarage to meet code requirement. Item set for public hearing April 27, 1992. 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE FIRST FLOOR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE AT 1813 LOYOLA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: number of bathrooms with the proposed addition; can applicant extend the paved parking farther back on the lot on the east side in order to get the car out of the front setback area; will there be any grading associated with the parking pad. Item set for public hearing April 27, 1992. RESPONSE TO PLANN:LNG COMMIS�ION C��J�ST:I:QN':',� 1.. Can 24" b� added to the end of t.h� buildin�? t.i �;., ? T Y �... :, t n:�r� � "� 1i�� Cll�% �� `: %�.j��-1�IGNIVIE PLA�IP�ING DEPT It is possible . Tc� ��ia so howev��r wnuld cause the removal c7f the �xi�ting st�rage shed, r�rnoval c�-F t,h� r�ar of the buildin�, th� adding of � �mall cor�c. slab, new walls and roof at thi� ex�.ension and rebuilding of the removed shed. At present we arc ab1� to �ark our two car� in the exis�inC.� garaye. WE will have phcatographs at the rneetinc�. Since we now have a garag� of ad�quate siz� w� feel it would bc of nc� useful value to incre�ue its size. Additions of this size are very costly p�1- square foc�t . 2. What is being saved o•r repl�ced? As shown on th� p.Lc�l�a this is an uxtt�ri�iv�= 7-emodel ��ith �ddi.tions. We are going to sav� the �xisting bathr�om on the first flaor a� well �s the living roc�m and it:� fire�lac�, the entry way (with new window� and door) ancl will cor�vert the existing front bedroom ta a library. Tr�c existin>� f1o�r�in� system and its fourid�tion wi11 b� ��dv�d. 3. How much of th� foundati.vn ia n�w ar�� I�o�-� much exist.ing? We have providEd �.he fio��r�c��tion cirawi ngs wi�ich show that all af th� cxisting founc�atioi� i� to bi� ;3�VC�d. DUc= to seismic retr�fit there will be �xtra fnund�tzon work as well as adding underpinnin� to �xi�tin� footings wh�r-e ther� are two stnries over. l,lhcre the housE is only one st.ory the foundation will remain as is. Our contractor has told u:� there would be significant savings with t.his appro�,.ch. In order to build the hom� w�. want for our �FamiJ_y wi.11 rec�uiY�� a. lar�e amount of rnor�ey anci time. Buildinc� i� v�ry exper�sive these days. 8�,� saving th� it�ms a� discu�s�c.� in r�spon�e #2, leaving thc �xisting �r�a��.ndation ��r�r_! by l�r�ving intact our existing garagu will �llow �au to bu.i.lci our n�w home. 4. What is the �c�.ual siz� of the garagE? The actual 51ZE of tl�� garag� i� a:� p�7- �.f��; sii�� plar-� . Tts overall dirn�nsion i� 18'-2" x 18'--�0" . The �taff noted the size of th� garag� a� 1� 'x 17'-��" k�cc�-�uu�; 1�I�c lU' ment.ioned is th� minimum width ��f a�,turidard parl:ir�g space and th� 17 °_4�� i� tl��e inai�:�� C,ilfl'It91"1�101'1 o�f tfi� gurage length . 7he actu�l in�id� dirn�nuiUn� of th� cxist.iria garage are 17'-6" wid� by 17'-4" lori;�. F�espectfully submitted, Dan Hartman Sandy Belluc�mini STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. Project Address: 1468 Cabrillo Avenue II. Project Description and Permits Requested: Side Setback and Parking Variances for a first floor remodel and a new second floor addition at 1468 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing two bedroom, single story house (1,550 SF) with detached garage and shed (357 SF) is remodeling the first floor and adding a second floor (3,436 SF, 45 � increase) . The existing deck (200 SF) will be removed, and the existing garage will remain. The first floor wall is being extended at 3' -0" along the side property line and where the code requires a 4'-0" side setback (C.S.25.66.050). The new house will have four bedrooms requiring one covered and one uncovered parking spaces. The existing covered space is 10' wide X 17'-4" long where the code requires 10'-0" X 20'-0" in length thus requiring a parking variance for substandard length of one covered space (C.S. 25.70.030). The uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway at 9' X 20'. All other zoning code requirements have been met. III. Property Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 026-041-200 County: San Mateo Lot No: 38 Block No: 48 Subdivision: Easton Addition Burlingame No. 4 Lot Size: 50' X 120'/ .138 Acres Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential IV. Existinq Site Conditions and Adjacent Lanc1 Uses: Existing single family house residences all zoned R-1 wit General Plan designation. surrounded by single family h a Low Density Residential V. CEOA Status: Categorically exempt per CEQA Code Sec. 15301 Existing Facilities Class 1(e) addition to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10.000 SF and the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. VI. Project Data: Proposed New Construction: 302 first floor, 1,115 SF second floor, and 112 SF decks and porch/ 1,529 SF Total Existing Area: 1, 550 SF single story house, 200 SF deck (to be removed), 357 SF garage and shed / 2,107 SF Total Proposed Percent Increase in Area: 45$ /3,436 SF TOTAL Required Proposed Front Setback: 15'or Avg. 17'-8" Prop. 19'-2" Exist. Side Setback: 4'-0" * 3'-0" Prop. 3'-0" Exist. Rear Yard Setback: 15'-0" 28'-5" Prop. 26'-5" Exist. Lot Coverage: 40� Max. 40� Building Height: 30' or 22 Stories 30'-0" On-Site Parking Spaces: 1 covered * 1 covered (10' X 20' ) (17'-6" X 17'-4") 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' X 20') (9' X 20') * Side setback Variance for 3'-0" where the code requires 4'- 0" and a Parking Variance for one covered stall substandard in length by 2'-8". PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURI�INGAME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION gURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 Type of Application• Special Permit �Variance Other Project Address �� G�RILLt� �Ur r Assessor' s Parcel Number ( s) (�2( •(7G} I•��t� `�� r APPLICANT . PROPERTY OWNER -, -,, SANpY pA N �fTf��`�� fi I�l ``�, "'; Name : ��LLVOMW � / }-IARTMA�.I Name : ,C3ELLUOM �til / Fif��TMf}1�1 Address: 14Co�j G�1�41LLD �UF Address: ��-Co�a Cf}�E�QItLb �(�E• City/State/Zip JB��LIf.,IC-�/�'r�►F Cl�-DI U Telephone: (Work) �7�-.S�%'S�-' (Home) �jy"0' )�%7i� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER City/State/Zip� �� Ol� T�.ephone ( Work ) �77 � ,r->q-��- Name : �f� � �SS OG• Addres s: I�rl�g 'Pr l�—(/ M/'7 �%�' l3v�►-. , GA � �1�-0 ► b I hereby certify under pen ty of�perjury that the information given herein is true cor ec to best of my knowledge and belief. �� •- "f � }�' " � �` � �=v w ,� '",„ H e,., 9 �✓ � +"�,.� � ,� � ',�;�� , v�.. �k:..�,; . - ,�'� ' " • � Applicant�s Signature� Date I know about the proposed ap, icatio , and hereby authorize the above applicant; sub it th� ap li ation. � ��m • . ..� �� 1�*• c'�' 't s'`r �� / t�':;�y » a�,�s:::vs:.. .. Property Owner�s Signature Date Fee Telephone ( daytime ) : � 3 �3 � � �� PROJECT DESCRIPTION SE�I�(D �I-�n%% /CIiJD1T1�7t,,) � �Qsr ��o�� 2�r�op�� AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: ---�----------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------- Date Filed: Letter(s) to applicant advising application Date application accepted as complete: P. C. study meeting ( date ) c�� /'��-�2 P. C. pu P.C. Action �(��11/� Appeal to Council? es�� No Council meeting dat -._.�� - �j � _- Council ( xome ) '3�I-D- �-72 °�� Please indicate with an asterisk (*1'who is the contact per,son for this proiect. Receipt # incomplete: ' lic hearing (date) �C=/'�i C-; lI >/l1�-' St'� i��L !� f%�-It.. Ac t i o n, -.-��. '�' o ��- U �i�iK' i��' � � v�� i'L�<'C �'' /' J T/ O �`I,'" �, r: �.• . ., � �� CI`i'Y OF BURLINGP,ME . SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS 51D� SiETP�f�''iK In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Please answer the following questions as they apply to your property and,application request to show how the findings can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please w•rite neatly in ink or type. r,,�� a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. T'c�-�s c.0 �c.L F ou o w /�-�N � I sT ►� Cc 5�7�-h-�. . i" li�� R�I�-'�lA�► Rt'��u7-S olll c. y� �A s I�1 f��c�C, �dR--'�Icxl o F r'i� �ClST`/hl�i SE7"6�elc (,�y-lcM l5 �loc,� R7 (,�SS TH�I r v2 r�7 b. Explain why the application 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. TO <.R�nT�� Jo 4 I � �h �o No o�E. TQ M�� 1a�fe`� r� �� uS�u�� N�I�+�o� c. Explain why the granting detrimental or injurious vicinity and will not be safety, general welfare TN�� f�� irt�o►� ��u,o�� EXllzp� ��14�1`i l S � w��,� w►c.c. 4� o� �enl� 1r �lo� wo�{�p ouc. y� T��c7. n� �UR�aS�. (T (��L� �fd7� �"�T of the application will not be to property or improvements in the detrimental to the public health, or convenience. i� �XlsTll�lq S�T.��K . TH� u�e� s��o(zT. d. Discuss how the proposed 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. � T� n,�.� s�rP�K w!c-(, F�u.ov� �rH� �x�s-r�tiG f�ID rl-f�� Is IN K�°�►�C� �1lTf( t� �xls7�ING Hous� r.: �.• . . � �� CITY OF BURLINGANiE SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Please answer the following questions as they apply to your property and.application request to show how the findings can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to grovide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. THis �s Ai� �xis-n�,� G��e�c-� w+��c�+ N�1S SE2UGD ov�e �� 'U�e rtw0 G� RS S ir�cF WE �,oUG H�r" -�r�E �-�vsF , I T �5 GU�REI�ITLY C�Y��1r3LE OF t�A V►r�cT Tt,c�O C�ir25 ��RKED INSiD,E. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. b. Explain why.the application 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. D�►� �X15T�NG G�AG-E IS �US'r SLICHTL`� SMALL��2 `�A�� i-H� �UiQREr.1'"r 1�i�12KIfJ -c�i (e�QU�t2�M�ti.4-i :�HIS I S r4 -I"w0 GHR G�t2ac-,� -r��r w�s t3c��T Tp �tDUSE Tw0 C�t�S, —r� I��Q U114� US 1� T�.�A (� I'j� 1� W1�.1 �IUr� 'i� �� KE I'f- S�IG� HT�Y !_-ft►��fZ wov►� pur �N U�1FA��e f-1�t�Dshl� vPaN v�. c. Explain why 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. Dv�2 G`h4AC.-�� 1S SIM��f�E2 � M�iN�� G��1G-�� til i� �E�} . I7' IS G,�ffir�L,� �F pRovipir.�C7- I��1�KIr•1�,— `FOr2 �'w0 C,q-2� (�UIrHI� `rN"� GA�r��kG�-� �ND "r�v0 G�MS i� "�f� l��u�w�1 y� � �OT�L, OF �OU2 1°f1RK►� SPf1C.E'C, `�ilS S(TUAYlO�. IM�20V�S -j�-� N�IGH�eHca�D �3Y T�i<�►�� s oF� �t"N� Srr�'"�T d. Discuss how the proposed 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. `f `K Is Is fYN. �x rSTrNGr G�fh2A�-� I.�HrCF-f (,UlTFf' �� f fDUSF , I� IS ��l Gtl�t�4AC'��2 � � � � S l r� `rft� �-REA . l5 COW(P�T►G�C,E G�l�71-F OTffE►Z DATE: TO: ROU'I'ING FORM . v�..� � � �- CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL pARRB DIREC.TOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN � SUBJECT: REQIIEST FOR I/t� .► _ AT � � ' �" SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION .A�93i""'MEETING: � � REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: ��'� �� THANKS, ° ��,e�/ Sheri/Leah � ��Date of Conunents � T : /�� /�, � �;��??� - , L��J � ��'=�'�'!` � � �f��, �� n � � � �� -�.�� `�� .n��--�� -r�e l 5' �d��,,,� , ��'��-�-�-- �, � �� ''-, ,. 0 0 � �Yi�-e� a�.� � �� :c��:��.� %�''` ;.� 199� �TY OF p�►RLiNGAPhE p':.kPINlNG DE��i. aa��bta�o7d �a�..o��.a�0 . n • � . ��e.�.�„ �� , ��,,� �.�oQ �.Q I�' � , ' ,� .� �° � �. � ��w.e., � � � � �` ' . � �-�c. .�.�=E :� � , �� i,,.o,,,�.e,,d, �;,,,�, a�, .c�.-� . �. a-� d�.� J U J a� , n • o� ,�,��-- -•c�t�a �I' a-�K. � � I -- ,� � ,I ' „a,�. �y� i�'�l . � 1� � .3'I, � i+ t�.t�?''�.t� � a�.. GZ., �o-r�2� � G� U ' � � J�� .�-b,*�+2� 4't'�' C!� �1.� �'° `� � J� , �, � .�;a, �.°�,`.��'`°t � � ��-�.....e. c�-U-�. ' .�•.-�r., . �4,.0 �,.d .�.� a�e. �►�v-�� . a � �� . � a�� /� � � � V/��/�7y\ � �� . U , ' 4 (�-u.. ,�x�,oQa�c.K, -�-a+.�.. �+�.a� -f.�-+�-2 � v-c� . c� v- �� . � f a.�v.`� �-%',wa'"c' �4.� � �'�- . . ��/Ij� �m.,,ti •,`� ,,,�.��Q „�,��e -�'�� • �Q, -u-�-i� � � ,, � . . . , ��a,,,�,4., � �, 19 Y �, . � • . ' aL'�.�M.�,(�, t l� �G �� . r Ah'� _P' �, A�F {� ��+' S a,�'y,Y.�� ;� �, ,�� " ��; { �� ., , �� 3 4 � � 2��1, , y y ; .��. � �, � .� ' , _ . �. �,., . ; � ��.� � �� ; �� .,� � � � rr� � �� '. � �� `' � �� ' , �=�` � '��.� , , , � .�- G� �.� , � .. � � n � � � , � � _ � . �. , _ . ;� , , ,. � S'� � ii �F- €�,� S .-N,� 4_�' - '� �n � � r " �� ; �'' ; �� . at �� A� ��. ,, /�` � { ._ =� ti, , . . � � ��' � '� � �� .� � ., . , . � s� �� . a , � , �. .�� s k� � � - � ��,�:: � r � ' . , .:, -:.. _ 4 Y L � 1 e . . , �� b# �� , � �$ � � �. r �. � � �. s � �� , ,� z. P^ � �.� ��.�° -'� �- F� „��a,^•�' � , � -. - . y� �. � � � �; � �-� - � � � x��' ��> � � :: . � � � , �� — � , �� _� � �u"�`�� ti r . �-- ,. �: ,k ,',�� , �ta g .� .,� , � �o . � �� ' . '��; � i .a , 4 S � 8 „ a � �..,- - �� ,�` . . , . �� . .. ,. , � ; y� �.. � 4 � ; ,�t. � " � � � � ' t .. � � � . ; � + +� � ' _ � . , ,.. . � . � � ` �� ` x � , � � �:, �e� . �� a�, _ �. � : t � � � �� _ � � .� .� ,, A� . . — � . � , �� e . r" � - C"� �. .. �� y�� , `� �,.:; $ � ��.�. � , ,,, . -a ,,_ ... °�'� � r�n, Pa . ��. � . � ,* � �*� • � � . : r � «_ � . � �. Y � �� ir � �. $.r. � � . �"��' �. � ^" � � �., e ,• f �X `` ' 3 - � ;'N� f � . - � �, � , � ,. .." _. f 16�,�`� �.� . : > . . . . .��, �. e. v ��', � �� '� � , z � , .x � �, �� _°� � � �` » �� , , , � � � ' .;�, y� � � � �S, n� �� .;��:: � � � �'�.� ,= �� . � . � k � , , , ,.-, . .. , ,. � ` � ` . -, , , " � . « F �. . , �`°' , � � �� - s - � e�� 4. - I d� �� o� � . � ` � � ,��' . � � � � �, � � � � � . tr ` � . � � � , � , � � °� � � t , � �. � e . � �r'^�� .� �, � P � : 'a � � � �� * � �� . <s , � ' % {.- x � ' . i 1'�" . � �' �"�` � - - � n , ` � � <, � � � +_ ;� � . $ � ..�� m %� _ ' � •• �"6 � '" � ; �; o`' § , � � �ai'+�� }� � � �� '� , � � �.�,�� r� � '. � � �� ` �y0. �'Y' Y�� , � , � .. b � '�„ , ... ; , � ,. �. . 4 �-. '!s w � � '� ,� a r �; � � , , � � �. 4. ,- � �� ,.. a ;� � �� e � �.. _ . , . ,-. � . , , � �� :� � � � � �. �x; � :. r, . ,,� � ,'� , ...: "� j ., � �y ian. ,. -# � � }� A � '� � �.$ � _,se-„ �� '�4.�`�,ye� 6p y�3, ,.'Y a' _ � � �i � $ T� �`{ $b . �" .f � � . x � ` m, a , r. �w`� � _ y..� �� S .+To a , . 9� ¢�`� �' -. � s 'r � > �: � � f . :.. � � .. p R . � �� .. . �. �4` iCln �' � +i� , }� �qt � :x�-.. �� .. I ,. , AI' �� . . � �� . �'J��. �� 4 3 :•�;i." 4n a � S� . .. a . � y.�. c. ''R ^ .pe �T'y' .. .. �� . �, •i. d ' . . ry�' . , � . . '�. . .+" � i �rv'M � �, .�i � J Y ..,.:, r ... .„ k t .. � . ... � � ., � • � a ` # � �� L � �„ . � ° .n- � ��. �� ... , . .: .. . . -'r" m � : � � . ' �'��`` • . ' � X 't '. ,' .� ` � -�: �ti,,. , s y a �,�' . . . , -� � , . � v r . � :,- . e �c , y : < � K .. . .'r. e r �" � �` _ � � _ e ,� �y�iG� �� .. , . � � �� ; � , � ._ � � u N � x� o � w �` � J � R �� ,'� . �- � - ��_ � � � , � � A � �,. '�`+�� t� �� . � `• � �: � ._ ~�� ::. CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLIN(3AME � CA 9 4 O 10 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNZNa COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 27th day of April, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1468 CABRILLO AVENIIE APN: 026-041-200 APPLICATION FOR A PARRIN(3 VARIANCE AND A SIDE SETBACR VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO AVENUE� ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER April 17, 1992 CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME CITY COIINCIL announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 15th day of June, 1992 , at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1468 CABRILLO AVENIIE APN 026-041-200 APPLICATION FOR A PARRING VARIANCE AND SIDE SETHACR VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND BECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO AVENIIE� ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER JUNE 5, 1992