Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1545 Carol Avenue - Staff Report (2)Item #I City of Burlingame Action Calendaril Parking Variance for Parking in the Front Setback Address: 1545 Carol Avenue Meeting Date: 8/26/02 Request: Parking variance for parking in the front setback (C.S. 25.70.030 (3)(a)). Applicant and Property Owner: Gordon and Billi Cline APN: 028-303-100 General Plan: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 5,440 SF Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1(c)(1) — minor alterations of existing private facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. History: The lot at 1545 Carol Avenue has two street frontages; the primary frontage is on Carol Avenue and the secondary frontage is on Barriolhet Avenue. In 1975 a building permit was approved at 1545 Carol Avenue to convert an existing attached garage accessed off Carol Avenue to a living room, to demolish an existing parking structure at the rear of the property, and to build a new carport at the rear of the property. The carport replaced the demolished parking structure. The approved carport was accessed from a curb cut on Barriolhet Avenue and provided a single covered parking space for the property, which met the off-street parking requirements at the time the permit was issued. The driveway leading to the carport measures T-4" length x 14' width. In 1975 there no uncovered parking space requirement and the driveway space is too short to meet the current off-street uncovered parking space requirement (9' width x 20' length). The building permit also included a condition that the City Engineering Department should remove the existing curb cut on Carol Avenue that was used to access the driveway and attached garage on that frontage. This curb cut and the driveway on Carol Avenue were never removed. In 1987 code changes made the property at 1545 Carol Avenue non -conforming for uncovered parking by requiring that uncovered parking must be provided in a driveway leading to a covered parking structure. The property at 1545 Carol Avenue, since the driveway and curb cut on Carol Avenue had not been removed as required, retained an uncovered space at the front of property in the paved area leading to the converted living room. This non -conforming condition was allowed to continue so long as the uncovered parking space was not altered. Summary: The applicant is requesting a parking variance to allow parking within the front setback at 1545 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1, so that they can re -build the uncovered parking space and replace the curb cut in the front yard facing Carol Avenue. The applicant recently had the paving for the non -conforming uncovered space removed, thereby eliminating the non -conforming status for the uncovered parking space. Before the driveway on Carol Avenue was removed, the property was conforming in the number of parking spaces (two), with one covered parking space in a detached carport accessed from Barriolhet Avenue at the rear of the property and one non -conforming uncovered space accessed from Carol Avenue in front of the house. The uncovered parking space was non -conforming because uncovered parking must be provided in a driveway leading to a covered parking structure. When the non -conforming uncovered parking space was removed, the property became non- conforming in off-street parking: the code requires 1 covered and 1 uncovered space on site for a house with fewer than 4 bedrooms, where the property now has only 1 covered parking space provided in the carport at the rear. Parking Variance for Parking in Front Setback 1545 Carol Avenue The applicant has a medical condition requiring him to travel with oxygen equipment (see August 1, 2002 letter attached). The paving for the non -conforming uncovered parking space was in poor condition and the applicant, unaware that the space was non -conforming in status, had the paving removed in order to repair the driveway and make access to the house easier for himself and his medical equipment. The applicant is now requesting a parking variance to park in the front setback. The proposed uncovered parking space will be located in the same area as the non -conforming uncovered space that was recently removed and will be accessed from the existing curb cut on Carol Avenue. Because of damage during delivery of paving materials the existing curb cut and sidewalk will have to be replaced. The requested variance will make the property conforming in off-street parking spaces by providing a covered parking space accessed off Barriolet Avenue and an uncovered parking space accessed of Carol Avenue, returning the total on -site parking to 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space on site. The applicant is requesting the following: • Parking variance to allow one uncovered parking space in the front setback (C.S. 25.70.030 (3)(a)). Staff Comments: The Public Works Department has commented that the sidewalk, driveway, and curb cut will have to be replaced to current city standards. Planning staff would note that because of the nature of the request it was determined that this project could be brought forward directly to the action calendar. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be so directed. Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) That the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made a parking variance and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 9, 2002, sheet 1; with a paved parking area 9' x 20' in the front setback accessed by a curb cut on 2 Parking Variance for Parking in Front Setback 1545 Carol Avenue Carol Avenue; 2. that the parking variance for parking within the front setback shall in five years, the curb cut shall be removed and replaced by a curb and gutter that meet City requirements at the expense of the owner when the parking variance expires; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Zoning Technician 3 e �s� • yam= a � y .� r . � t�- -a- �t 11 m k x a:.t City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin a�g 14A, CITY U W"gME I APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance _ Special Permit Other Parcel Number: J � `2 3 Project address: / 5 y,5 CA ro f A V e 17 I't e tt r- h n o ciM (), APPLICANT �1 Name: G C r-at. rn I nC-) AddressJJ 14.5 0 Llk rC I A L) P City/State/Zip: 13 i,t C Phone (w): (h): &5®-IrlR-6aa5 (f): ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name:UJ_emCC LcrnasC1�eS- Address: 17 5 (c y late, ST- City/State/Zip:_ A/ v I s o_ 022 .9.500.2 Phone (w): G50- !J61- 7100 (h): (f): PROPERTY OWNER ,r� Name: (DOfi 4) n i 1.7 / 1)1 C�+ � i I n, e, Address: 15 4 5 C 4t_ r- 0 ( a Q-e . City/State/Zip: S Ck tr' ( I h 4I a M E1cl t(o Its Me— (w): (h): !0 5 0- 5 r7 9 - OG S (fl� r o ec.f ken 0cA 1-1 one r- - 10 �} rn a n ane �- Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. Sto- f-&- L i c er-) se 5 1 t543Co' ;Z'7 c ba. (anee eou(cL be 4r q -doe- crop- Pei-to�. ��??_ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Re Ci t-\ LQ iCO C I- AC, rCtac il"i n+ dt- i U P 1, a:q 0 r i o i I d © h e- 0---i r K s rl cr Aa_C Vie__ J_n ((d rlue(,-,,a`j now Cor-?5(d_ek-,,d cZ SN} cK'hei %,e eitY AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and orrect to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: P,L, C Date: 11 I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: 1 - - 1O2_ 56� Date submitted: RECEIVED AUG - 9 2002 PCAPP.FRM CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org 0' CITY p BURLJNCiAME ECEIVED AUG - 9 2002 (Y OF BURLiNGAME PLANNING DEPT, The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. add jot FI-oni- ffc2c_Jle- � 3c. ra3t, iS 6LpproUe- , �ervn t t in 1g45) f eplace 1 w i t--h �5ingie cap - garage oL ass c bl� F'm1j, I a i-ri of hej% (/L)o d i-I ueway Pm t-K i ri f h e v-e, .) © l� e c.� d-d ►'t-r o n a ( Pu r K r v1 P ro 'Cf /-� ey v l d b. Explain why the variance request is necessaryfor the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. Q I f ez%t G ne t)Orta nc.e pccr-K, nc s�aa c t� v l d err tie WCL 5i e.e, . 141 us � i m or fan l 1 f y o e.e � d, Ct 1 DW hlusbcenj GLosf eSaccessi 6'1�`,� Ie �ro�f �vc{r .Slnc� ne ISs, 2oo2 he mus4- u:s dxY�, � �u� hts ccc>1"b �,Cf��nlC. l>bSi-ru�fVe pca�moncLrc� �iS�aS� c���'ra�a� C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or e o n d ;Z,c s injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general h Q h*s �7, welfare or convenience. n d-`cR poi,d Ocwiew��e Would 411ou-) avc %e55 was, ear, oar na. v-rc cv sfr�e �t� 'w-ov i de- Mom vn�v� �c verechi�l�`t� Q vl J Ut St bt �l . f a sS��Sh ,5ince l qq5 7fie e>i� -C-rant cl �oecv� tv a s t-e s e8 �-% r- b n e. C czr- cur k, �7 c C�' 11-h e r ID►'� `r S e -� ' p v C1 tetwtnj c,� li'h n o (2o(—, )aiots `fib n,e� h bars _ 7 d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? (JCcF-tar c cbmpfirye n �Ae- c'teSf1ef(CS e) 1e1P1JS,(fe;Lj91fiCJ 0 h d q p v h ee s L 5/vvf i) a r (if -toe S3 a-C n elj hbo 1 f-Lp�J�r arK lx�h'-) se t�s 04F CefM j 5t fv�Qt5e d� Si llr cry cr�icLpleclse ie,�ttAp � mVARTRMdeSt r)(f 01,& nfor Cri) elJc, eje!&o (f me-+a. i City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.or a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on -site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, - vs from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent vAth other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. VARTRM ROUTING FORM DATE: August 12, 2002 TO: City Engineer _Chief Building Official _Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for parking within the front setback at 1545 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-303-100. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 12, 2002 l/ 'OL[✓.}�� f7 ✓o eAIvEr✓y / i`1pfiCH L OYL`Cp r-.0 17C C/� / c it �� -�/� C- vrr� 2� Reviewed By: Date of Comments: Burlingame Planning Commission: My husband and I are asking the City to grant us a permit to repair with concrete the approach to our front driveway at 1545 Carol Avenue. • Please note: My husband suffers from COPD ( Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease - a combination of emphysema, asthma, and bronchitis.) On June 18, 2002 I had to call 911 because of his shortness of breath, to take him to Kaiser Hospital Emergency at Redwood City. After a 3 night stay, he was released with the stipulation that he use oxygen at home as well as on short trips away from home. It must be carried at all times in our car. This service is now provided by Apria Respiratory Service. It requires him to use at home a 40 lb. Oxygen concentrator, and take with him a cart to hold the oxygen cylinders. At some point in time his condition will probably require use of a wheel . M.R. Shoemaker, was able to get Gordon a handicapped placard chair.0ur physician, Dr for our car. It is imperative that we have the closest access from our front door to our car which is our front driveway. In 1975 an owner converted the little front garage to a room, with the city's permission. In 1994-5 I purchased and remodeled this property which included work on the main house as well as replacement of the old carport with a single car garage. Access to that area is from Barriolhet. At all times Montclair Construction and I worked with the city to make certain that all regulations were met. If we cannot use our front driveway, it will mean that the distance to our car will mean either 27 feet or 43 feet which are the distances from our back family room door to the detached garage entrances. In inclement weather this is certainly not convenient. Evidently there has been some change in the interpretation of the 1994 regulations and we now need to apply for a variance in order to: 1) park our car in the front driveway and replace the cracked driveway approach with concrete. If you need further verification of my husband's medical condition, please contact Dr. M.R Shoemaker at Kaiser Hospital in Redwood City - 650-299-2015 or Dr Todd Lasman who supervises patients with respiratory diseases. We would really appreciate your attention to our request. At best we have enough worries with this medical condition. Additional stress certainly doesn't help. Respectfully yours, Gordon and Billi Cline _14j4jW-t Nt-(< 1545 Carol Ave xy,� Burlingame 650-579-6005 August 1, 2002 RECEIVED AUG - 9 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES PLACARD NUMBER: H560544 PLANNING DEPT. DISABLED PERSON EXPIRES: 06/30/2003 PLACARD IDENTIFICATION DATE ISSUED: 05/11/2001 CARD/RECEIPT This identification card or facsimile copy is to be carried by the placard owner. 'resent it to any peace officer upon demand. Immediately notify DMV by mail of any change of address. When parking, hang the placard from the rear view mirror, remove it from the mirror when driving. When your placard is properly displayed, you may park in or one TYPE: N1 TV:92 Co: 41 * Disabled person parking spaces (blue zones) DOD: 02/16/1929 x. Metered zones without paying. ISSUED TO ' Green zones without restrictions to time limits. * Streets where preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants. You may not parr: in or on: CLINE GORDON C BURLINGAME CA 94010 Purchase of fuel (Business & Professions Code 13660): State law requires service stations to refuel a disabled person's vehicle at self-service rates, except self-service facilities with only one cashier * Red, Yellow, White or Tow Away Zones. " Crosshatch marked spaces next to disabled person parking spaces. It is considered misuse to: * Display a placard unless the disabled owner is being transported. x Display a placard which has been cancelled or revoked. Loan your placard to anyone, including family members. Misuse is a misdemeanor (section 4461VC) and can result in cancellation or revocation of the placard, loss of parking privileges, and/or fines. 035 DPP000 Rev(3;01) Burlingame Planning Commission: My husband and I are asking the City to grant us a permit to repair with concrete the approach to our front driveway at 1545 Carol Avenue as well as a variance to build a one car parking space in old driveway (front setback by city interpretation). • Please note: My husband suffers from COPD ( Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease - a combination of emphysema, asthma, and bronchitis.) On June 18, 2002 I had to call 911 because of his shortness of breath, to take him to Kaiser Hospital Emergency at Redwood City. After a 3 night stay, he was released with the stipulation that he use oxygen at home as well as on short trips away from home. It must be carried at all times in our car. This service is now provided by Apria Respiratory Service. It requires him to use at home a 40 lb. Oxygen concentrator, and take with him a cart to hold the oxygen cylinders. At some point in time his condition will probably require use of a wheel chair.Our physician, Dr. M.R. Shoemaker, was able to get Gordon a handicapped placard for our car. It is imperative that we have the closest access from our front door to our car which is our front driveway. In 1975 an owner converted the little front garage to a room, with the city's permission. In 1994-5 I purchased and remodeled this property which included work on the main house as well as replacement of the old carport with a single car garage. Access to that area is from Barriolhet. At all times Montclair Construction and I worked with the city to make certain that all regulations were met. If we cannot use our front driveway, it will mean that the distance to our car will mean either 27 feet or 43 feet which are the distances from our back family room door to the detached garage entrances. In inclement weather this is certainly not convenient. Evidently there has been some change in the interpretation of the 1994 regulations and we now need to apply for a variance in order to: 1) park our car in the front driveway and replace the cracked driveway approach with concrete. If you need further verification of my husband's medical condition, please contact Dr. M.R Shoemaker at Kaiser Hospital in Redwood City - 650-299-2015 or Dr Todd Lasman who supervises patients with respiratory diseases. We would really appreciate your attention to our request. At best we have enough worries with this medical condition. Additional stress certainly doesn't help. Respectfully yours, Gordon and Billi Cline 1545 Carol Ave Burlingame 650-579-6005 August 1, 2002 RECEIVED AUG - 9 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ��� o'T o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT gURIJN A E 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 1545 CAROL AVENUE Application for a parking variance to park within the front setback at 1545 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 028-303- 100) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, August 26, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed August 16, 2002 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applicabe reviewed prior to the meeting a, lag' Departmentt'1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cal' r r If you chae t " u ma be limited to l fig�'� _ raising on l hos sues ed a he blic hearing, described i tWj r: riteTcorreslfcciet3 erd to the city A at or prior t t 1 C A t_ VX Property o ers o r 01161 or i orming their tenants At thi nba- informatio pled e call (650) 558-7250. + ank u. II' Margaret a o City Planner,; } PL. U�1=1►RltNOiICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND A PARKING VARIANCE TO PROVIDE A SINGLE UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE IN THE FRONT SETBACK RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a parking variance for a single uncovered parking space in the front setback at 1545 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1, Gordon and Billi Cline, property owners, APN: 028-303-100; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 26, 2002, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED -and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class l(c)(1) — minor alterations of existing private facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. 2. Said parking variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the parking variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Joseph Boju6s , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for parking variance 1545 CAROL AVENUE effective September 3, 2002 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 9, 2002, sheet 1; with a paved parking area 9' x 20' in the front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue; 2. that the parking variance for parking within the front setback shall in five years, the curb cut shall be removed and replaced by a curb and gutter that meet City requirements at the expense of the owner when the parking variance expires; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002, memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 40 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 penalty of perjury; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Who noted in his second that he would like to add a condition that the fluted corner boards on the house be increased to 1 inch by 8 inches. The maker of the motion accepted the addition to the conditions. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 7. 1545 CAROL AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (GORDON CLINE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; WEMCO LANDSCAPES, DESIGNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 8.26.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe clarified condition 2 noting that it should read: that the parking variance for parking within the front setback shall expire in five years and that the curb cut shall be removed and replaced by a curb and gutter that meet city requirements at the expense of the owner when the parking variance expires; in 5 years time the property owner may apply to the Planning Commission for a time extension for this variance , so long as the application is made prior to the termination of this variance action (September 3, 2002). There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Gordon and Billi Cline, 1545 Carol Avenue, property owner, represented the project. Neighbors Stephanie Schafuner, 1540 Barriolhet, Claire Evants, corner of Barriolhet and Carol; Ann Mames, 1537 Carol; also spoke. Applicant noted moved to Burlingame in 1994 as a widow looking for a small house which could afford and remodel; added a family room and enlarged the main bedroom, replaced the car port at the rear with an enclosed garage, retained the parking space at the front; husband has a chronic pulmonary disease, cannot leave the house without oxygen tank, garage in rear yard is too far for him to walk; Carol Avenue is a narrow street and it is a benefit to the neighbors to get the car off the street; have removed vegetation in the planting stripe and will install interlocking pavers to make it easier for people parking on the street. Neighbors commented: On Barriolhet the garage is right next to the sidewalk, street is narrow if park on street cannot see, do not object to parking in front in old driveway, the person who lived there before always parked at the front; people who rented this house before always parked in the front setback, support request; parking on Carol is terrible, anything can do to get cars off the street is to everyone's advantage. Commission asked applicant: have iron gate at front across driveway on plans how do you get through to parking when closed; like to have gate to keep in grandchildren when visit, neighborhood is safe, usually gate is open. There were no more comments from the floor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 C. Keele noted that there are exceptional circumstances on this lot with the odd shape of the lot and the double street frontage which have dictated the location of the on -site parking, compounded by the placement of the main structure on the site make it infeasible to put the covered parking at the front of the lot or in front of the garage, so moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions amended as suggested by staff. 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 9, 2002, sheet 1; with a paved parking area 9' x 20' in the front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue; 2) that the parking variance for parking within the front setback shall expire in five years (September 3, 2007)and that the curb cut shall be removed and replaced by a curb and gutter that meet city requirements at the expense of the owner when the parking variance expires; in 5 years time the property owner may apply to the Planning Commission for an extension for this variance, so long as the application for extension is made prior to the termination of this variance action ( September 3, 2002); 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002, memos shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Keighran called for a voice �,ote on the motion to approve the variance request. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 8. 138 LOMA VISTA DRIVE — ZONED R-1- AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL MAGALONG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DESIGN STUDIO, DANIEL BIERMANN, DESIGNER) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 8.26.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Michael Magalong, designer, and Cheryl Hochstatter, property owner, noted that they were there to answer questions. Commissioner asked how does moving the bay window affect the views into the neighbor's windows, are they aligned? When put in bay removed window to the left so has no effect on the neighbor. Commissioner asked if the bay window could be aligned under the peak of the roof and centered on the window above, may make the room asymmetrical but would improve the appearance of the outside of the house a lot, could also move the window in the family room further from the bay. Designer indicated that relocations as suggested would be all right, would make the family room window the same size as the center of the bay window with all the divided lights the same. Commissioner noted relocating the family room window would break up the large expanse of stucco on that wall as well. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved approval of the application with the amended conditions that the bay window be relocated to align with the peak of the roof and the window above and the family room window enlarged to match the center window of the bay and be relocated to the left, by resolution with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 9, 2002, sheets Al and A4 through A9 and date stamped June 14, 2002, sheets A2, A3 and A10, including that all windows on the first and second stories shall be true divided light windows; that the bay window on the first floor be aligned with the peak of the roof and window above, that the window in the first floor family room be relocated to the left, be made the same size as the center piece of the bay window and that all divided lights be the same size; that all downspouts shall be copper downspouts; and 3 Q A I V a �kv s k. Y P+ L L% 9� o. N_. a YoI Yi' d j n In IX �CIeW 1 Y 'b c M � a i 0 s 1 kd ��� olA Rv,New_y 16'45' CaYo7 Av<, ck�,.e,R<si 10.0e C{}f�oL /T Ike Gee fr.y_oi . 1� w L _ LLJ PLANNING COPY