HomeMy WebLinkAbout1545 Carol Avenue - Staff Reporta
µ
.E.
co 'a, �i. i c• i, f i tY
l < 1
Item #
City of Burlingame Action Calendar
Extension of Parking Variance for Parking in the Front Setback
Address: 1545 Carol Avenue Meeting Date: 8/13/07
Request: Parking Variance for parking in the front setback (C.S. 25.70.030 (3)(a)).
Applicant and Property Owner: 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 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 that time. In 1975 there
was no uncovered parking space requirement. The 1975 building permit 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. The curb cut and driveway were never removed.
In 1987, Zoning Code changes caused the property to become non -conforming for uncovered parking by
requiring that "a vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property line except in
a garage, driveway, or other approved parking"'. Since the driveway and curb cut on Carol Avenue had not
been removed as required, the subject property 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.
In 2002, one of the property owners had a medical condition that required him to travel with oxygen
equipment. The paving for the non -conforming uncovered parking space was in poor condition and the
property owners had the paving removed in order to repair the driveway and make access to the house
easier for himself and his medical equipment. The removal of the pavement eliminated the non -conforming
status for the uncovered parking space. The property owners therefore applied for and were granted a 5-
year parking variance by the Planning Commission to park within the front setback (August 26, 2002
Planning Commission meeting minutes). With the Variance, the property meets the current code
requirements for one covered and one uncovered parking space.
Summary: On August 26, 2002, a parking Variance was granted by the Planning Commission to allow for
a single uncovered parking space (9' x 20') in the front setback at 1545 Carol Avenue (August 26, 2002
Planning Commission meeting minutes). The driveway leading to the carport in the rear of the property
measures 7'-4" length x 14' width and does not meet current code requirements. The dimensions of the
covered parking space are existing nonconforming. When the parking variance was approved in 2002, one
of the conditions of approval stated:
"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
1 Municipal Code Section 25.70.030, c, 1
Parking Variance for Parking in Front Setback
1545 Carol Avenue
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
2, 2002)."
The applicant is now applying for an extension of the Variance and 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: 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:
that onsite parking at 1545 Carol Avenue shall remain as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2007, sheet 1; with a 9' x 20' paved parking area in the
front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue and a 14' x 20' covered parking space in the
rear of the property accessed by a curb cut on Barriolhet Avenue;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002 memo shall be met; 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.
Lisa Whitman
Zoning Technician
2
6 � )
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 ombarftl .�6�
F, - k.,.—
"T' APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISS.IO.M. 2007
BURLINGAME
C11Y Of EUR_INGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Type of application: Design Review
Special Permit
f� 9
Project address: I545-
Conditional Use Permit Variance
Other 7 Parcel Number:
APPLICANT
project contact person? 6-
Name: /D 5
A /l/ (21li0 c
Address: A�W
C67M1 C%(f -•
City/State/Zip: &z�nllt-wamec,11
tlp l0
Q
Phone (w): G ►� i �
y10 nP. ")Gek? tun er,
m �t c G� ti n e-
(h):
(fax):
-
C j 't h fr-rl f Pi�l
gov-.W-
c,an�
PROPERTY OWNER pr ject contact person?
Name:
Address: a0 q Fb-ye sf Q
City/State/Zip: —Tfll aCa (4
Phone (w): 00,1 3 (q qt q f
(h): S'Q )-nej -
(fax):
(e-mail):
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER proj ct contact person? ❑
Name: �S�'/yi Lo &Jefy -o �.c� v�� 5 C a ✓t
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):_
(h):
(fax):
(e-mail):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Please mark one box with 0
to indicate the contact person
for this project.
1
51c) ,-0,7 0
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: �� Date: 0
W111
PP 9 —T
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to
submit this application to the Planning P Commission /
Property owner's signature: Date:
Date submitted:
S:\Handouts\PCAPP.FRM
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
prope which do not a ply to then properties in this area. you -ecf
l0 5�?afJ l'�� aF1'ac ��cf 9 Q r`a e-
eon Ve -S too
��S
hoo vr� L q,7�� l�e�-c� f C>`O VPO rf ( '�'� u v e�
1 h 1 q5) G e%� la &e oL w 7 �fi a S i vi��j %r CQ r K r1 i1 e� e� �1 T o o S 1, o
¢rO"Y) {3 Gtf{/�rc�i het. /'Uo C�y7u�iv�� pa 5
So / a cflr,n dr'K'ri S��ccc� w rjvz�u� deck �y v/d aLr(uPcvay
y)ec)4r~ j�PCei 0 at, /)v71c,e c�F C' 1Gtr2 e o•F h�(_e {-'rrom l gq5 - /,
oZnD,Z��°ems hen•led /�fi4ef-��2�hc•-fi��r�cc�� ���•r� ln� did aH,.7thrng
of- �h e Cam- o r't Gu , � ( J
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary 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. A o
�uS`)aei� d��� b�c� /�,�006 o. cr �e L,ea-P o
�v �Qr�t firre� rntercct, f?1 YorK c,� v�i,'(� S� f/ /5Y� Coro %,
lot A F
I - re-
�rra u� s t ►--e� 1 m I fs
F�ri l C �o�k�v�`r-eviv)�[� ��) ja�� �ass�rs6c�.
c)tSi h11i4( f i J
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. 6 e ighL>oj s /)r� e- "f v c e° yv /a -e V
� ham � y u s o�rzn�- ��r ve tvaL ��has
1J�jaer�'�] �tr��e i99y1 �-�uG))ie- (,e,or�� --ei �l�ak� � c' 4-c,
U cL r-t cz n C4i, w h e r) C �� wicks p%4 a t r r' f-ro r) fi
beg!c�niYte r7f fC�vt SC rr1 r{ of vim% v-)e
- 2�e r-) � �,r S W ! h Ca ►' S i4 ldpr r r° �. �!''� i
ka,v -e /3 e Q Vf e J-5 C A r Id �� Y) q r'c i
�°hUIG Uehi'CIe5 5� aL-p/�t�r1`cl- LkSee-
via. /v?at Chil m(Sc> Itue_ ode 417-- "f"�' fr
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? More 551,aW �Cevie s C r r� t� t?�1 r
l L P /Da U-e i o r� r>
� cti-c(-i v
n r� �-or-C�7, �rbsS 1a�-z�Q 1 a v� aLSc�v� lv� N_Cct� I`eUYIVU
a �-eaAl
c
i-
�a�C�IUy� ��`�' cv5�y> �n��,��>.
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.ore
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,
views 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 with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be
consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
M�v
June 19, 2007 JUN 2 1 '1007
CITY OF BURLWGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
I am writing to you to make a request for a variance for my home at 1545 Carol
Avenue in Burlingame. Even though our original request for a variance in 2002
was based upon my husband's poor health condition, and sadly he is no longer
with me since Dec. 18, 2006, 1 am again requesting a permit to use my front
driveway for parking. The detached one car garage was built in 1995 for
$23,000. The garage is entered only by an entrance on Barrioilhet Avenue.
To use our old driveway for parking purposes would help to alleviate the parking
congestion of a narrow street. In addition, it would also allow for a safer
environment for the young children who live across the street from me in several
homes.
Currently, there is a parking shortage due to many factors. It is typically the case
that most families have at least two cars. In other situations, families needing
caregivers for either elderly parents or for their children with special needs, would
have cars to park on the street as well.
The real estate market has also become quite competitive, and prospective
owners may very well be annoyed by the fact that they would not be able to use
such a convenient front parking area, especially since two car families are the
norm.
During the improvements made to the front areas of our home, we made every
effort to integrate the front drive, porch and path area using pavers. This was
done to ensure that our home would blend in with the rest of the homes in our
neighborhood, while helping to relieve the parking congestion in our community.
Respectfully Yours,
Billi Cline
1545 Carol Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
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 Marries, 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.
5
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
Name- PICT001e.JPG
Dimensions: 2272 x 1704 pixels
:4S
1) INTO> c)
jug CD CIA f
tO
\�\ � � \ � /� \ \ �\ \/ /� /
/� �� � � \� \
opt,
kif
711
ck�
pt-4-
PM
Fla wo
cy
I
Name: PICT0016.JPG
Dimensions: 2272 x 1704 pixels
��-qs o a-,fo I )4() b
o n
J
�le-
��
I
ow.
eo"
"'� Li Ana,
7
m
-- A � -5; �,
7, �j -;,na
r`.
( q L
Date:
troy
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
Project Comments
June 29, 2007
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
d Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Request for extension of parking variance at 1545 Carol Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-303-100
July 2, 2007
No comments at this time.
Reviewed by: ��`� Date:" -7
Date:
To:
From
Subject:
Staff Review
Project Comments
June 29, 2007
City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
City Attorney
Request for extension of parking variance at 1545 Carol Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-303-100
July 2, 2007
Project proponent, contractors, and sub -contractors shall implement Best
Management Practices (BRAPs). o revent and .keep dirt, debris, and other
construction materials and wastes fro. o.lrluting street, gutter, and storm drain.
Ko Please use applicable BMPs.as swn in the attached brochure.
Reviewed by: Date: 07/02/07
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Project Comments
June 29, 2007
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Request for extension of parking variance at 1545 Carol Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-303-100
Staff Review: July 2, 2007
Project Comments
Date: June 29, 2007
To: d City Engineer
(650) 558- 7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558- 7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Subject: Request for extension of parking variance at 1545 Carol Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-303-100
Staff Review: July 2, 2007
No comment.
pe�F
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 7/02/2007
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
V ff06U1"1--K '7-- aA1Vr -�tCH G,,I
�y i3��aQ r0 170
pp. '
/�Ll'L.l-C`p /TN CI: / f�ii-10-Y10 CO MC a-74
V41114-fC /I Ep . C. 6r GIFT e_1 f (e-
,i /I Lam? c C�CoeI TN /� '
ro r�'..r
11 Reviewed By:
Date of Comments:
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
AND PARKING VARIANCE
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
variance to park in the front setback for at 1545 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1, Billi Cline, property
owner, APN: 028-303-100;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
August 13, 2007, 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:
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 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.
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, , 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 13th day of August, 2007 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and parking variance.
1545 Carol Avenue
Effective August 23, 2007
1. that onsite parking at 1545 Carol Avenue shall remain as shown on the plans submitted
to the Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2007, sheet 1; with a 9' x 20' paved
parking area in the front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue and a 14' x 20'
covered parking space in the rear of the property accessed by a curb cut on Barriolhet
Avenue;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002 memo shall be met; 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.
-2-
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 016H16504325
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PH (6 0) 558-72 0 0 FAX: (650) $ 00.260
/ www.burlingame.org
1 • { X Mailed From 84010
Site: 1545 CAROL AVENUE US POSTAGE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces PUBLIC HEARING
the following public hearing on Monday, August 13, NOTICE
2007 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers,
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for extension of Parking Variance for use of
an existing uncovered parking space within the front
set ac at 545 CAROL AVENUE zoned R-l.
APN 028-303-100
Mailed: August 3, 2007
(Please refer to other side)
City of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
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.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
q. s
. N.�
!
s_
441
! AV
=ItS
t
.
87
CO s yMwi�„ VV �` r � 7 `S►'
9
� � R
4R `�•rR �g � ::„� A.F r ✓4 4 �\ �`, � r q.^ nM rM•
` .7
v
rs
. � F
� ``W fix. '"�. � ��. �.','�'� �" � � � •. ` � "��'��"'i� ,
ss
SAN MATEO
7 ,�,
�' q � . `•,� \ yew , w +�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
August 13, 2007
This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by
the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Deal asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests.
2a. 3209 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
ATTACHED GARAGE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST STORYADDITION
TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIEL BIERMAN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND RICHARD
MURRAY PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
2b. 518 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN &
ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND SEAN MCKENNA, PROPERTY OWNER) (53
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Cauchi moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolutions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Deal called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were
advised.
Vill. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 1545 CAROL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF PARKING VARIANCE FOR
USE OF AN EXISTING UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (BILLI CLINE,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three (3) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Billi Cline, 1545 Carol Avenue, Burlingame, represented the applicant. She indicated that she had letters of
support from nearby neighbors.
Public comments:
Dennis Barnard, 1541 Carol Avenue; Stephanie Shoffner, 1540 BarroilhetAvenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa
Avenue; and Anne Merrick, 1537 Carol Avenue all spoke in favor of the request, noting parking congestion
in the area. Additionally, it was suggested that if the building envelope changes, the Variance would no
longer be valid.
Commission comments:
The use of the parking space works now, but invalidate the Variance if the footprint of the property
changes.
2
(City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 13, 2007
The hardship supporting approval of the Variance is the oddly shaped lot.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that onsite parking at 1545 Carol Avenue shall remain as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2007, Sheet 1; with a 9' x 20' paved parking area in
the front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue and a 14' x 20' covered parking space in
the rear of the property accessed by a curb cut on Barriolhet Avenue;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002 memo shall be met;
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; and
4. that the Variance will be come invalid if building envelope changes.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner
Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m.
4. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FRANK AND ROBIN KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Appreciated that the applicant submitted an application for approval of the proposed change, prior to
making the change during construction.
Public comments:
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department, Sheets
Al, A2, A6, A7, 1-1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey (date stamped July 24, 2006) and Sheets A3
through A5 (date stamped July 16, 2007); and that any changes to building materials including
window type, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to
this permit; that 6x wood knee braces and 2" x 4" corner trim shall be used; that the citrus trees
along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house shall be
replaced with large scale evergreen shrubs, such as Bay Laurel;
3