Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1459 El Camino Real - Staff Report� � , *� � . VA�R IANCE Application to the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Burlingame 1. APPLICANT �� Date filed �-' �•�� � Study meeting Z • (5-1� Public hearing 2-2 7 -� � Action � � - �- �ta��..�� — �C �.x.,,�:-�..� �/�o��� A . Name ��K � E � �G r� �� • s. Adaress I�}.Sq Et C�.IM�t�1 c� EA�L City Qv��,;�1�jG}�p,�E ��, Zip Q�°�.i�Q Telephone ?j�4- i�� 5 2. PROPERTY A. Address i�Jr�, E�1 G�V�/`1 N O ��,t.{�L 1�Li�1..1 1J C�A�� . G,L� . B. Legal Lot Block Description: Subdivision C. Assessor's parcel number (APN) Zone D. Existing land use and improvements � • � w + � � � � •� � � • • � � ► [ •a �� � •� � � ra �i � � � � - - + � , � ► • ► • r � � + � � � 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. ✓ Title report showing proof of ownership (except for R-1 & R-2 property). ✓ Affidavit for Variance. ✓ Site plans, elevations and exhibits. ✓ Fee: ($40 for application on R-1 or R-2 property) ��(-�75 for other zoning districts) Receipt No. ,315 � Received by I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. . a Signature �_ Date .Z • '�•� �j - -- - �_:. =-� { APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT FOR VARIANCE LEGAL tZEQUIREMEN'T'S F(�R VARIANCE 1-1. Has applicant read Chapter 25.54 of the City Ordinance Code? Yes ✓ No -�--- B. Describe the exceptional circumstanczs or conditions applicable to your pr.operty which do not generally apply to other properties in your area, anc� the extent to which you may deserve special consideration to which your neighbors are not entitled. I� N��j iVE IA F��RS 4-�b'T�l E v�E t� ►� D o� 5 �Tv AT o o ry AS rt��( SE L�- 1 v� � � LD �1 c�T w� I t�1 ��"t"KE\T"['�Eww�,,,SE �'F S��►D D cD rv�o �E Lt U I NG S pACE�_� _►"C' D� D t.1�i" D ES'T'R+R+��l i'NE Lo�KS Ar.1t� v Pt�u E G1 t- �NE ��Z�p��.iti/ •W �J�.Z \ AV� I�G � 1 �.15� �o �c� � S NC�" � 1� I f�1G QJ�1�/0 N� C-�r*1 SE� •'T ta E RE Q SON 1 wo �1 ��,��{_E i'o Aebl� D�uJ �, r N s T� A l� p'�. �� D��1 � O N Tvl� LS`c F-T S��� o� Z'�E v t.� t\, l S T1-1AtT i+��t�E 1 S N o Ro c� � o� c� so . C. Describe why the variance is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property. ��� �_( A►v� ! M� RAv i�Jc1 i'NE V I� 1 V E I�N D LOOKS o F TµE t3�CK, v N t 1 13y Ar�DI �1G V N � E2�1EAT�{ L\v I 1�1� S�AGE • 1� T1-�IS `S N�T �QSS�'� � c�ul.t,aN o'Z' Co►.1T► r.� v�. �vv i Nc� ��.1 T��S �N iT'• u��-4�c,1� � ALso Mq�Ft • Fo� r�y rKcsc�� . U. What hardships would result if your request were denied? �tT T�� P QE �EuT "rl � E vJ E A�2.� L.�,V I i�i G 1 l�1 �A o1•1 E L3�D RCX� M t�}P �. My 'DAv q�rErZ 'Fo�a.. �r�4�. Q AST c� ��p �� oF y Er�r�s N P� g� N S�� � PI �1 �, A� N 1� P �A��) 1 W c{ . � 1�1 T►�'C L� V I N 4�RDow� R�RE A� w E uJ bv LD ' c�vE1�. IS APPLICANT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? Yes No � IF NO, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: A. owner' s name_ �$�S "�; .�,.� rC N�� B. Owner's address 11��j G�GIGETt W• l-�1 ��SBO�QUUC� i�► • C'�• C. Attach signed statement from property owner declaring knowledge of and agreement to this variance application. � . 1.�:.� v F4 �,V E� 1.j � l r'c,�R Gb� 1� �- l� � �3V T� W� �Ac/`j iJ t� i r . 3E c.�Av S E o� L�c�. o�' ��� � w c� s�►�4c t, :�D � � �.rci "Tl�� 'Twp _�3E� �Q�b r'V�S A�1 � oN E P�"'C� �OO�VI .Wc3c� �-� �.r� � c3 l,� � S ri'� E,r.t LA-2�k ca ���'avv�� �� �}T �R� �� �R�SEra ��t'� �� ` c.a.� �t o i ���=�t�.� '�`o i�v y A . E �� �� t� ucz�� N y,c�,,n��. ��2�A , f3E ��4v s� -(��.� ► 5'T�kE A2. �q .� q,iRE w u p I�1. �4t�1 D w d v �.� U► i�t 'lo coNTiN�E �u D at�t�w � ��►v�til. 1 � �� -t-�E � Y � . _ SAvVI t. ( F �iE b c� rJ c�-t" l-� AV c, „n0 R.�, L�V I N � PAc. E �t ' �`'� wd v L 1� +�Av E^ o hn O t�.E c� ��`�°"' ca'� 3 � �c., �qaw�� . . �� .. ., ' � �- 1- City Council Minutes - March 20, 1978 RECI:SS After a short recess at 9:55 P.M., Council reconvened. 2. APPEAL OP riR. i1ICP. GEI��R FROM PLAI�NING CON�IISSION DENIAL OF VARI�;iIC3:, 1457-1459 c.L C�'.riINO i:F:AL. At the requcst of Mayor Crosby, the City Planner reviewed this variance a,pplication for enlarYement of a studio ap�rtment at the rear by enclosin£ three �ara�,e sp�ces and C�nverLinh thcm into two bedrooms and a bath, cvnstructing a carport'to cover three parking spaces and providing an open parkin�; space in front of a dupLer,. 1le had transmittecl to Council YLannin�t Commi.ssion docucncntation of action on this variance and copy of site pLan. The City Flanner noted tt�at �;r. Gener had conmitted himsel� to seven s��ecific actions i.n order to accomplish this vari_ance and his memo of Piarch 14, 1973 reconimended that Counci.l give cLose consideratiun to apnroval of tl�is appeal. • Mayor Crosby onened public heari_ng on ttlis appeal. Mr. P1ick Gener, 1457 EL Camino Rea1 announced he was available for qucsttons. There were no other comments, and the public hca-ring was declared closed. Councilman �arton questioned the present non-conformity of thi_s properCy. The City Plann�r confirned that there are two rE�sidentiaL bafldings on one Lot and the rear buildin� uoes not have the requi_red side or rear yards. Councilman Mangi_ni stated he had visi_ted the property and t'raou�;ht the modification wouLd be a great improver�ene:. He spolce of �,r. Gener's willin�,ness to cooperate with the City in agreein� to these 7 con- ditions. Counciirnan Sarton objecteci to g,rantin� var.iances on non-conferming properties because it wouLd set a precedent and questioned ti�e pa rk in� . Mayor Crosby noted each variance must stand on its o:en merits. The City PLanner, commented that there would be �o adciiri.onal unie:s, and more parkin� spaces. Five parking snaces for tt-�ree un'tts wnuLd saLisfy Che parkinh requirenents. In response to �uestioa iro:� Mayor CrosUy he i.ndicated where these fiv� spaces would be. Council.rnan P.mstrup aCated th�t the ulani:in�; Conmi.ssioil l-�ad c�isnE�- proved of riodification to this non-con,_ormirg prv��erty, anu h� tttoubht they shouLd be up!teld. In response to comments from Councilr,�an I�iarti_n, tfr. Gener agreed t:o various structural interior modifications of I11S pLan. T'he Council- man stated he had another concern - that i.n the future it mi;;ht be possible to convert this bacic uclit into two units. 'ihe City Attorney stated resoLution could Ue prepared and recordecl for notificativn in event of sale of property that th�s is only a three- unit property. Councilman riangini moved that this variance be granted, with the underst�ndin� that there be onLy three livin� units and with the seven stipul.ations a�;reed to in the City Ylanner's m�mo af 3/14/78, second by Councilman Piartin. Mayor Crosby questioned why City Pl.anner had recommended Council give consicieration to approval of variance. The City Ylanner re- plied that 'tf the variance is denied tlie City wi11 sti11 havr an enforcement problem, there wiL1 be less desirable livin� space, and the work that �115 been commenced in the re�r buildinF wi11 t�e sub- ject to le�;islatiaii to remove it. If the variance is npproved improved Living space and parkin�; wi11 resul.t .ilunF with construction of sidewalk, curb and gi�t�er as specified in PIr. Gener's agreement. Councilman Amstrup and Br3rton quesCioned if the �aorlc alrcady done by Mr.. Gener had been iLLe�a1. City Planner replted.Lhat the variance �. . � � a_� z ; . • .� appltcation ftself w<�s a result of enforcement of violations to the buiLding codes. ; CounciLman Plartin cammented that whiLe he did not approve of. � peopLe dot.n� c•:ork witklout a building permit, he was concerned � with the appearai�ce of E1 Camino. tlpproval of this variance will not only im��rove the site, but ttie City wili gain better uniCs � and better parking. ' , . . I � � � . i d Motion carried on Che folLowing roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMI;N: CROSBY,MANGINI,2•fARTIN NAYES : COUNCILr1��1: AMSTKUP, 13ARTOy The City Attorney stated he �•�ould prepare a resoLution to be recor.ded. • 3. APYEI.L OI? COUNCILN'uAN ZRVING S. AI•;STRUr I'ROcl PLAN�7Ii�'G COPti•1ISSI0.1 GRANT OF SP'r'CIAL 1'}:P.t•iIT TO AN7.A Pi1RF:I;:G CORI?OF.ATION lOR r1Ii2PnRT PARKII:G FE�,CILITY, 701-&01 AIRYOiZT L'OU;.F.VF;iD Mayor Crosby announced that Letter oi rSarch 9, 1978 from David tl. Keyston, Trustee, Anza Sharcholders' Liquid�tin� Trust, had r�- quested appeal hearing be delayed to meeting of �pril 3 penc;ing dispositi_on oi Sheraton narl<ing. Fie stated ttlat this apF�eal. wouLd be put over to this first Ccuncil meeting in F.pri1. COMMUNICATIOivS 1. WiLLIAM A. OJA�:IAN APPF.ALING PLANNING COM�iISSION DEi�IAL OF ?'ER�SIT FOR CHCNGE IN COPY, T�;'0 SIG?�S AT i'IILLS E�TF,TE PHl;krL4CY, 1Fi? 8 1:L C� mino Council received ]_etter of March 15, 197° from '.•ir. Ojaki�n r�nE.ealin� this March 13, 1�78 c:enial by the PLanning Con!r,iissi.on. i�tr. Oja�iar. requested hearing on i•Iav i5, 1978. City F,ttorney advised tfzi.s cate c,�as speciried because this involves an estate and one of the prin- cipals is now out of to�an. kith concurrence of Council Diayor Crosby set this hearing for �iay 15, 1973. 2. NAtiALI?; ROTHSCHII,D, 2II29 r'.4RIPOSh DRIVF, REQU;�STI2�G CO3:5:[D'i,:r"•.1'ION TO A;� O:ZDIi��;i:Ci; I'Oi: Yi:`_.�5�'::VATION Oi� T1:'.:ES �^.ND VIEI�,:> F::G�i P;?Z�:r':'L'E Pi20PEP.TY . _ __ Ms. Rothschild subr�itted wi.th her letter of February 27, 1978 r_opy of an ordi.ti�nce fram the city of SausaLito for the Preservation c�f trees and vie��s from private property and asked that Council con- sider enacC:�ent of a simiLar ordinance in Burtin�;ame. She requested that she be informed of an appropriate study meeting when this couLd be discussed. Mayor Crosby set this matter for consideration at the April study meeting. � STt1FF riFr10R�1NDA . . � 1. CITY MANAGER: P.EQUEST�FOR CROSSIyG GUARD EL CAMINO REf�L AND � P�1Y D1:IVG/�:OS1sD:1LI;, DII:S. L.ANA SCOTT_. ___ � City rfanager's memo of rSarch 16, 1978 atCached the traffic survey of EL Camino Real and Ray Drive/KosedaLe, with the comment that � warrants are iiot meC for an actult crossin£ guard. Hiring of one is not recommended by the City Manager's office or the Traffic, Satety ttnd Parking Commission. , M � With concurrence of- Counctl, Mayor Crosby announced this matter would be considered at the next Col�ncil meeting, and htrs. Scott � could Ue notified. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 27, 1978 4. VARIANCES FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.070 AND CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF 3 COVERED PARKING SPACLS TO ADDITIONAL APARTMENT SPACE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT WITH LESS TFIAN THE REQUIRED NUMaER OF PARKING SPACES; PROPERTY AT 1457/59 EL CAMINO RFAL (APN 026-013-050), ZONED R-3, QY NICK GENER p(APPLICANT) WITH h1RS. T. GENER (PROPERTY 04JNER) __ Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the property is nonconforming for three reasons: (1) there are two separate residential buildings on the property (code stipulates one); (?_) the rear dwelling unit is within three feet of the back and side property lines (code stipulates 15 feet for rear yard); and (3) ther� should be five off-street parking spaces on the property, four of which should be covered (there are only three covered parking spaces). Mr. Yost explained that the applicant proposes to enlarge the studio apartment which is above the garage by enclosing the three garage spaces and converting them to two bedrooms an d a Uath, and to replace the lost par4;irig with a new carport between the rear unit and the front duplex (providing �hree parking spaces). A fourth off-street parking space is to be provided in front of the duplex, just behind the required 20 foot setback. Mr. Yost reviewed code requirements concerning nonconfortning buildings. He stated thai; the proposal could be amended ta provide off-street parking to code standards by approving a variance to convert only two of the three garages to sleeping quarters, bringing the number of off-street spaces to five. He also referred to the City En�ineer's memorandum dated February 24, 1978 which suggests providing curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements as a condition for approval. Mr. Yost advised Commission on the variance requ�rements and the applicant's affiid�vit, and various considerations, i.e., obtaining a commitment from the property owner for public improvements. Mr. Gener, the applicant, was present. Mr. Gener explained that a truck owned by a tenant in the duplex would not fit into the existing garage and the new carport would accommodate it. Commissioner Cistulli felt that perhaps a variance could be granted v�rith an amendment to the plans, with remodeling of only t�ro of the garages on the south side of the structure, leaving the third space on the north side as a garage; however, he was concerned that i` the property were sold the downstairs bedrooms could be converted �;o apartment units. Mr. Gener stated it would be built as one unit. There being no further discussion, the public h�aring was operied. The following people spol;e in opposition to the application. Milan Dulik, 1449 Balbaa Avenue, was concerned about the overloading of sewer facilities. Chairman Taylor advised him this proposa'I does not call for any additional units, but an addition to an existing unit. Oakley Kephart, 1480 Highway Road, stated his concern is �;he parking and felt it was not fair to tenants not to provide parking. He noted that Highway Road is utilized for off-street parking and residents on that street have to get a permit for overnight guests. Anna Alexander, 1504 Highway Road, agreed with h1r. Kephart, stating there is already an overloading of the street. Alexander Hanson, 1516 Highway Road, did not feel the 20 foot yard should be used as a parking lot and stated this would compound the problem of more cars on the street. Secreta.ry Sine read a letter received February 27, 1978 from Thomas and Julia Prager, 1454 Balboa Avenue, which opposed the proposal because of the parking. Mr. Gener responded to the concerns, stating he could not answer the sewer problem except to assure that an additional unit is not proposed. He stated he plans to landscape the front yard if �:he variance is approved. Mr. Yost noted that a six inch curb along the driveway leading to the new carport would prohibit people from parking in the front area. Mr. Gener stated he would agree to these changes and conditions including the public improvements and the 10 foot wide pedestrian easement. There being no further public input or discussion, the hearing was closed. Comnissioner Kindig and Mr. Yost discussed the property line distances briefly; Mr. Yost stated there would be 32 feet to the face of the building f=rom the front property lirie, a 12 foot wide parking space and 20 foot setback. Commissioner� Kindic� felt the amended plan was agreeable. Com�nissioner Mink stated that even with the a►nended proposal there are two areas of nonconformit,y: (1) the side and rear setbacks and (2) dwelling units in two separate buildings on one parcel. He therefore four�d the addition would be contrary to the General Plan and moved tf�e variance be denied. Corrmissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 4-2, Commissioners Kindig and Taylor dissenting and Commission Francard abs�nt. Chair�nan Taylor advised the applicant of his right of appeal. � . •� • , . , - , �� E N�VI RON M E NTAL ASSESS M E NT Application for a Planning Department Date Filed February 8, 1g78 Determination on the Need for a Project EIR Recommendation L�f yeM<«/ly �,YGyt1,(�f Form E2, Revised July 1975 T Tentative, Subject to Revision Date Posted 1. PROJECT Name 1457/5q E1 Camino Rea.l CEQA File No. Description Unit remodel and carport construction Type of Permit Required Yard variance, parking variance, bui.lding permit. 2. APPLICANT Name Nicholas C,ener (owner's son) Telephone 344-1435 Address 1459 El Camino Rea1 3. PROPERTY Owner's Name Yvonne Gener. Telephone Owner's Address % Applicant Legal Lot Block Description: Subdivision APN 026 013 050 Land Area 8160 Sq. Ft. Zone R-3 4. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3 apartment units located in 2 wood frame structures. 2 one bedroom units in front single story building and a one bedroom unit over three car garage in re�.r building. 5. PROPOSED PROJECT Convert downstairs garages to bedrooms for rear �init, yielding a 2 bedroom unit, and build a 3 car carport between two structures. 6. FEE: $25 Receipt No. 31 S�. Received by I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is tr.ue and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature Date � -� -� � (Applican 7. EVALUATION BY CITY PLANNER �j'e.�%` i,�n�ue��st f tp,!"e G�1T�o,d/'i��i%r� Br,o�r�f �m %� /J�d1� �d�y �ad• C�i,c���a� Cll�f s !i1 c/vdi Signature � ��� y Planner) Date �. 6 8 v � `.`" ` , . , . . t • ' � , . DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT PROPOSED PROJECT 8. IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT What are the objectives of this project? �crease size of one apartment unit, from one bedroom to two. What alternatives to this project have been considered? None. Applicant has considered relocating. How much environmental effect will this project have? Increase potential population of site. Minimal effect in this area. What are the adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented? Potential increased use of a.11 services and resources common to population increase. What mitigation measures are proposed to reduce these aciverse impacts? New construction wi11 be built around an existing large tree on site. 9. PROJECT DETAILS A. Present land uses, project area: Use 1(describe, area SF) Apartments - 2870 SF Use 2( " " ") Parking Garage - 616 SF Use 3 ( " " " ) B. Present land uses, areas adjacent to the project: Apartments to the North and South. El Camino to East and single family residential to West. C. Effect on topograph and natural features: None D. Effect on trees and vegetation: None `!' ' . , , . • � � , . � , . E. Proposed construction Below grade First Floor Second Floor Third & above F. G. H. I. (Gross floor area, GFA, in square feet, SF) 0 540 SF (carport) Lot coverage (area) 3410 (%) 41% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) • 43 (excl. carport) Building height ± 9 ft. (carport) f 20 ft. (exist. max. ) Proposed materials Redwood and metal or built-up roofing for carport. J. Estimated Flows in gallons per day Water consumption (gpd) Wastewater from site (gpd) K. Estimated people at site Number of residents Permanent employees Visitors, customers, etc. to site L. Estimated parking required Autos all day parking Autos short term parking Trucks and service vehicles M. Estimated vehicle movements A.M. peak hour P.M. peak hour Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years 650 575 650 � same 650 same 0 � 5 per wk. 1 3(@ night) 2 per wk same same same same same to site � from site to site 3 from site same same s ame same same Q � NOTE: A11 estimates concerning autos are made assuming variance� are granted.