HomeMy WebLinkAbout1556 Carol Avenue - Staff ReportI
/ ��j� �
«y„�"�..
P.C. 6/27/88
Item #
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNER
SUBJECT: VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE TO ADD A NEW GARAGE AT
1556 CAROL AVENUE, ZONED R-1
The applicants, Paul and Theresa Brown, are requesting a variance
for lot coverage in order to replace their existing oversized one
car garage, 25'-7" x 12�-10" (329 SF) with a new smaller, although
still oversized, one car garage, 14� x 21�-6" (301 SF), at 1556
Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. Current lot coverage on this property is
41.4� (2,072 SF); proposed lot coverage will be 41� (2,044 SF).
Although with the proposed new garage lot coverage will be reduced
by 28 SF, the property will still exceed the code maximum of 40�
lot coverage by 44 SF or 1� (Code Section 25.66.010).
A one car garage, 10' x 20', is required for the existing two
bedroom house. No additions to the house are proposed. The
proposed garage (14� x 21�-6") is larger than required by code for
a two bedroom home (10' x 20') in order to include a utility sink,
washer, dryer and work counter. Utilities would include gas,
water, electricity and sewer. The width of the proposed garage
would have to be reduced by two feet (12' x 21�-6" versus 14� x
21�-6") in order to comply with the 40� maximum permitted lot
coverage.
The existing garage is attached to the house; the proposed garage
would be detached, located in the rear 30� of the lot on the side
and rear property lines. The existing swimming pool will be filled
in order to provide a usable rear yard.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed the request. The City Engineer (June 6,
1988 memo) notes that a lot line survey will be required at the
building permit stage for the construction of the garage. The Fire
Marshal (June 7, 1988 memo) states that garage walls, which are
closer than 3' to property line, must be of one hour fire resistive
construction with no openings. The Chief Building Inspector (June
13, 1988 memo) comments on a few additional building code
requirements regarding drainage, electrical code requirements and
permitted pool fill which will have to be met at the building
permit stage for the construction of the garage and filling in of
the pool.
2
Planning staff would note that a recent
that the side wall of the existing garage
been removed and it appeared at least part
used as a patio shelter. Currently there
covered parking on this property.
Applicants� Letter
site inspection revealed
adjacent to the pool has
of the garage was being
does not appear to be any
In their letter of May 31, 1988 the applicants comment that a few
years ago the previous owner of the property built the swimming
pool and converted the existing garage to a patio shelter facing
the pool. The garage is in poor condition and the swimming pool
takes up the entire backyard. The pool poses a hazard to their
young child and in the interest of safety they have decided to fill
in the pool, recreating a safe backyard where their child can play.
As a part of this project they would like to demolish the existing
garage and construct a new garage which conforms better to the
city�s zoning requirements.
The new garage, although smaller than the existing, will still
cause the property to exceed permitted lot coverage. They propose
a slightly oversized one car garage in order to fit a washer, dryer
and laundry folding table inside.
The applicants state that the unusual circumstances related to this
property are the lot size and the size of the house. The lot size
(5,000 SF) is about 2,000 SF less than comparable lots in the
neighborhood. The house, which covers 35� of the lot, does not
leave much buildable area left. They explain that the only other
place for the washer and dryer would be in the kitchen. With a
toddler in the family, the washing machines are frequently being
used. The excess noise of the machines makes other family
activities such as conversation and studying in the kitchen
difficult.
Also, the proximity of their daughter�s room to the kitchen makes
it difficult for her to take her naps while the machines are being
operated. They also comment that locating the washer and dryer in
the garage will benefit their neighbors. Since their kitchen faces
their neighbor�s kitchen, when windows are open their neighbors are
also subjected to the noise and heat of the washer and dryer.
Locating the laundry facilities in the garage will keep the noise
and heat more confined to their property. They comment that they
are simply trying to provide a usable garage and bring the property
closer to conformity to zoning requirements.
Letters of support for the project have been submitted from Debra
and Peter Tokarski of 1548 Barroilhet and Beverly and William
Crosby at 1552 Carol Avenue.
3
Findinas
To grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that certain
conditions exist on the property (Code Sec. 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property or class of uses in the district,
so that a denial of the application would result in undue
property loss;
(b) that such variance would be necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the
property involved;
(c) that the granting of such variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
injurious to the property or improvements of other property
owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or
improvements; and
(d) that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect
the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Planninct Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action requires that findings be made and should be taken by
resolution. 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 consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May
31, 1988 and that the additional lot coverage shall not
exceed 44 SF;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer�s memo of June 6,
1988, the Fire Marshal�s June 7, 1988 memo and the Chief
Building Inspector's June 13, 1988 memo shall be met; and
3. that the garage shall never be used for living area or
separate residential purposes.
�����a �,--"
��
Adriana Garefalos
Planner
AG/s cc: Paul & Theresa Brown
PROJECT APPLICATION �,j.t'CITY o� 1556 CAROL AVENUE
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT �RLINGAME ProJe�t address
,� � Brown Residence Garage
������,,�� project name - :ny
Application received ( 5/31/88 )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Paul W. & Theresa D. Brown 343-5705
name telephone no.
1556 Carol Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Theresa D. Brown 343-5705
contact person, if different telephone no.
*Zero side and rear setbacks
required for a detached
accessory structure within
the rear 30% of the lot.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Specia.l Perr�it () Variance* (X ) Condominium Permi� () Other �
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
VARIANCE for lot coverage in order to replace the existinc�
oversized one car qarage,25'-7" x 12'-10" (37_9 SF) with a new
smaller, although still oversized, one car garage,l4' x 21'-6"
(301 SF). Existinq lot coverage is at 41.4%, proposed lot
coverage would be 41%, a reduction of 28 SF, however still over
the 40% allowed b.y code. Permitted lot coverage would be
exceeded bv 1% o r 44 SF.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): (25.66.010 ) (
4. PROPERTY IDEPITIFICATION
( 028-301-130 )
APN
( R-1 )
zoning district
( 13 ) ( 3
lot no. block no.
( 5,000
land area, square feet
( Glenwood Park
subdivision name
Paul W. & Theresa D. Brown 1556 Carol Avenue
land owner's name address
Burlingame, CA 94010
Reauire� Date received city zip code
(��) (no) ( - ) Proof of ownershi�
(32s) (nol ( - ) Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTIPIG SITE CONDITIONS
Two bedroom house on 5,000 SF lot with attached one car qaraqe
Required Date received
(yes) (�a) (5/31/88 )
�Yes) ���) � " )
iYeS ) ��ff) i �� )
(.�) (n�) ( - )
(other) ( 5/31/88 )
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all strGctures and improvements;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by tyoe of us�`on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
letter of explanation
*Land use classifications are: residential (sho�v # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT P!?np�cAL NEW GARAGE ONLY
Proposed c^nst•�-uction, "elov� �rade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF)
qro�s floor area First floor ( 3 � 1 SF) Third floor ( - S`)
Pro.i�ct Co�2 �1�oject Code
Pro�asal Requir�i,,,,nt Proposal Requirement
Frnnt setback ]$' 15' mi n. Lct covera;�e 41% 40% max.
Side setback - - �uil�l;rir� heinht 13'-(�� ; 14' Il1dX. I
��i� v�Y � 0� � 0� �* jPl ate,l in ek hei ght 10' � 10' lmax. i
0
��
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
EXISTING
after
8-5 5 PM
Full tiMe emaloyees on site
Part time emoloyees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
IPl 2 YEARS IPI 5 YEARS
� after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent lo�trs; this use conforms
to the General Plan.
Required
(Y�) (no)
�jees) (no)
Date received
( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
( - ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee 5 ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 ( X) Project Assessment � 25 (X )
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Negative Declaration $ 25 ()
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ()
TOTAL FEES $ 6�J .�� RECEI PT N0. 31Z5 Recei ved by B. Wh i ttemore
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
� �
Signature c.Fu, - I� ,� ,-� ,� . Date �_J �� � �{�
pp ant _ �
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
19 ,
Cateqorically exempt, reference CEQA
Code Section 15303(e)
� �� c��.��� J � �2I ��
gnature of rocessin� 0#icial Title Daie Signed
Unless �!�nealed within 10 days hereof the �ate oosted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATIOv OF POSTI�IG Dai;e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjiary tnat I ari City Clerk oF the City of 6urlingame and that
I �osted a true copy of the above Neg�ti��e Ceclar�tion ac the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th� Council Charabers.
�xecuted at ;urlingame, California on
Aooealecl: ( )Yes ( )P!o
, 19
iUDIif! i1. ?f�l_Fr1TTI, CITY CLERK, CITI �r DU�LIP�GAhiE
STAFF REUIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy:
date circulated reply received memo attached
City Engineer ( 6/3/88 ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Concerns Mitiaation Measures
. -_ _ �
Does this project comply with Request comments from the
all Fire and Building Code Fire Marshal and Chief Building
requirements? Inspector.
- - � - 3. CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS
_ If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Cateqorically exempt
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comoleted (
Decision to prepare EIR (
Notices of preparation mailed (
RFP to consultants (
Contract awarded (
Admin. draft EIR received (
Draft EIR acce�ted by staff (
Circulation to other agencies (
)
)
�
)
)
�
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
i
�
�
i
�
)
)
�
)
)
�
)
4. APPLICATIOP� STATUS Date first received (5/31/88 )
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a?ublic hearing? (yes) � Recommended date ( 6� 2]�$$ )
Date staff report mailed to anplicant ( 6�22�gg) Date Conmission hearing ( 6�Z��HH)
Application approved (.i`) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) ��no)
Date Council hearing ( ) A�olication aporoved ) Denied ( )
�' W
s i gn da te
Paul W. Brown
Theresa D. Brown
1556 Carol AVenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
343-5705
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
City Hall
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
RECEIy�p
MAY 3 � 19g$
CI P� OFN NGLDEP�Mc
Following are our reasons for requesting a variance to
rebuild our dilapidated garage and bring our property more in
conformity with Burlingame's comprehensive zoning plan than is
currently the case.
In brief, layman's terms, our two-bedroom house was built
long before (1926?) the zoning plan was created. Our lot is
small and consequently our small, one-story house does not
conform to the zoning plan's lot coverage ratio. Several ,years
ago, a previous owner without a building permit crammed a
swimming pool into our tiny back yard and converted the existing
garage into a sort of accessory structure facing the pool. The
pool and a few feet of cement around it now constitute our entire
back yard. The cement is uplifted by roots, and dangerous. The
garage is rotten, unsightly, and dangerous.
We have a two-year old dau�hter. We went to considerable
expense to install a"safety" cover on the pool, but when it
rains, this cover collects standing water, which turns out to be
as dangerous to a toddler as an open pool. In the interests of
our child's safety, we intend to demolish the pool, fill it
according to appropriate engineering specifications, bring in
topsoil, and recreate a nice backyard where our child can play
safely. In the course of planning this project, we decided to
demolish and reconstruct the dilapidated garage as well, thereby
improving our neighborhood's attractiveness and safety, as well
as bringing our property more into conformity with the city's
zoning plan.
The single-car garage for which we applied for a building
permit is quite basic (involving the required clear space for an
automobile plus a washer, dryer, and laundry folding tablej, and
designed to meet all city building code requirements. However,
the new garage, although smaller than the existing one, will
still violate the zoning plan's lot coverage ratio, albeit by a
mere 1�. The Planning Department indicated that if we revised
Planning Commission
5/31/88, Page Two
our plans so that the garage is too narrow for anything but a
car, we would barely comply with the existing code. However,
being unable to put the washer/dryer in the garage is an
extremely unattractive option to us, explained below. Hence, our
application for a variance.
The following discussion speaks to Chapter 25.54, Section
25.54.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, which addresses the
conditions for granting variances.
a) That there
applicable to
that a denial
loss;
Response:
are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
the property or class of uses in the district, so
of the application would result in undue property
A very obvious exceptional and extraordinary circumstance
applicable to our property is the size of our lot. It is only
5,000 square feet, 2,000 square feet less than comparable lots in
our neighborhood. Given this small lot size and the placement
of the house on the lot, there is only one reasonable place to
build a garage -- the proposed site.
Another exceptional and extraordinary circumstance is the size of
our house. There is only one reasonable place for a family-size
washer/dryer in this house and that is in the kitchen. Since the
family, with a toddler, generates a lot of laundry, the machines
are frequently and noisily running. This causes discomfort in
several ways. The kitchen is the center of family life, the
warmest, brightest room in the house. Conversation is difficult
and stressful when the machines are running. The noise of the
machines also makes sleeping at our daughter's nap time and at
night a problem. Also, the kitchen table must double as Paul
Brown's study desk, and his work (necessary nearly every weekend)
is impaired by the laundry process and noise.
Therefore, if the proposed detached garage cannot be built wide
enough to accommodate the washer/dryer in addition to a car, we
will definitelv experience a loss of property in that: 1) our
kitchen will be far less pleasant than if it did not house the
washer/dryer, thereby reducing the value of our house; and 2) a
garage that holds absolutely nothing but a car is of far less
value than one that can also serve as a modest laundry room.
b) That such
and enjoyment
involved.
Response:
variance would be necessary for the preservation
of a property right of the owner of the property
As explained in a) above, the requested variance would allow us
Planning Commission
5/31/88, Page Three
to enjoy a harmonious variety of normal family activities
{reading, writin�, cooking, napping) in and near the kitchen --
activities currently often disrupted or made stressful by the
noise of the washer/dryer.
c) That the granting of such variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious
to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the
quiet enjoyment of such property or improvements:
Response:
Quite the contrary. The construction of an improved� safe garage
that conforms to city building codes is clearly in the best
interests of our neighbors. Additionally, the granting of a
variance to build a garage of the size requested, to aceommodate
a washer/dryer, will enhance our property value and should
consequently have a favorable effect on the value of surrounding
properties. As designed, the garage would also keep the laundry
noise and dryer exhaust more confined to our property than is
currently the case (our kitchen faces our neighbors' kitchen and
bedrooms, so they are subject to the noise, heat, and fumes of our
laundry operations, especially when windows are opened).
d) That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect
the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Response:
The variance requested is so minor -- 1X additional lot covera�e
-- that adverse effect on the zoning plan would be hard to
demonstrate. Indeed, our project aeeks to bring our property
closer to conformity with city zoning requirements.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our request for a
variance.
Re pectfu y,
� �
u1 W. a d heresa D. Brown
ec: Paul Gumbinger, Gumbinger & Associates
Bill and Bev Crosby, 1552 Carol Avenue
Peter and Deborah Tokarski, 1542 Barroilhet
P.5. Please see letters of support for our application
from neighbors, Tokarski and Crosby.
RECEi�IE�
Debra and Peter
1548 Barroilhet
Burlingame, CA
May 29, 1988
To: The Burlingame Planning Commission
MAY 31.1988
CITY OF BURUN�AM�
a� n � �n�inlf: nEpT.
Tokarski
94010
We support the application for a variance by Paul and Theresa
Brown, 1556 Carol Avenue, to demolish their existing garage and
build a detached garage that fully conforms to the City Building
Code.
The garage they propose to build will be on the property line
with our property. We would much rather have a safe structure
that conforms to all fire, safety, and other regulations than the
dilapidated structure that now stands there. We also support
their request for the additional lot coverage so that they can
house their washer/dryer in the new garage. Their plans show
that this would place the washer/dryer on the side of the garage
away from our property, reducing our exposure to the noise, heat,
and fumes from their laundry, which currently faces directly into
our kitchen.
We also believe that the structure they propose to build will
make the entire neighborhood more pleasant, because it will be
an attractive structure compared to the one that stands there
now. And, to the extent a garage large enough to hold a
washer/dryer ehances their property value, ours may benefit as
well. The Brown's project will help support the desirability of,
and hence, property values in, our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
�,�5�.-�� IZhC�..�a�c..�-
Debra and Peter Tokarski
RECEIVE�
MAY 3 Z lggg
c� � r or- auRUNraM�
n� � `Y�.�Ini(: nFp't
Beverly and
1552 Carol
Burlingame,
May 29, 1988
To: The Burlingame Planning Commission
William Crosby
Avenue
CA 94010
We support the application for a variance by Paul and Theresa
Brown, 1556 Carol Avenue, to demolish their existing garage and
build a detached garage that fully conforms to the City Building
Code.
The Brown's residence is next door to ours on Carol Avenue. We
would much rather have on their property a safe garage that
conforms to all fire, safety, and other regulations than the
dilapidated structure that now stands there. We also support
their request for the additional lot coverage so that they can
house their washer/dryer in the new garag�.
We also believe that the structure they propose to build will
make the entire neighborhood more pleasant, because it will be
an attractive structure compared to the one that stands there
now. And, to the extent a garage large enough to hold a
washer/dryer �hances their property value, ours may benefit as
well. The Brown's project will help support the desirability of,
and hence, property values in, our neighborhood.
�Sjineerely, J
1_-�y�`��� �—�
�j� � `1 (+
Beverly and�William rosby
DATE: � % q��
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDI.NG INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: /�ScSp (- �U� / G`,
0
•
�
your comments by �U/�,(� /c� , l �%��
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for fi�(�
at their ��j ,Q 2�% l Q��� meeting. We would appreciate having
a
e�v� � �i�;
Thank you.
/ v �f ��/ /
�
� � �v
0
��
���"~` � G����'��! •
�� .
. � /' _
�d - � a� �� �'�-y'��.,� � ,�`
r
�
� �
T I�iF:.�I
%�������� � �
` o �� . , � `�' ,
���� �
� ���,� ��'���'�
����
: �� c
���� _
0
,
,
:
N
DATE : � l 9��
MEMO T0: ,CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDI.NG I ECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: /�ScSp �Cl�DI �
.�
e�lv� -- �%C(/�i
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for fi�Q
at tfieir � l��� meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by�U/�,P /�3 / 9��
a
Thank you.
��
� f� - P�� i ,�7 G
�Nd : �� � ��'� �
�= �'��
�,%,�u- s l�= s s 7� ��� �� � �— �'� _
����, L��� � �� �� �,��- C r ) ��
�oa✓ s;r�G� 7'a� `�'' . r�-� � a�"��G � .
,�
�
,
:�
;
MEM� T�: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
DATE: � l q��
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUtJECT: /�ScSD L C�%�bl ��l7U
• �.
` ,CJ�� I�`
Thank you. �� � � d� ��^-
^ i/\ T
�/�a G� ,' /3u, .�y�- �/✓ -
�
�o w� �- c •� �p
�t,/ZD v c�C' c5' cte� �/'Cr l0 �G ll,¢ �� n.'G C'p/t �C�''G%�/�/10 �•�!`y .��. �'.Jr
� / � � /
�` �c� /6� `SS %�d 1� � l�G� � �iPO,/��� /`y �/.1 C S i�ilo� // ��
, � /
, —�p �.c � � re G` � �' i S %�! r c° �'i`%��i /�� D � n � K� .S '
� � E�K !v� r .� G O !'/ /`� // l (J �� �� . /
� �h ;��_�,ld� ��f
� � . ��
/� ` . �4G ��4 G// C' �cJ � �OKN a�d/ !�/+0 GJ CG� vL�/' � y.
C� O � C� � L�v� � �
/ -/ � /� /%�
/ / � � �(r �a d �Cd G� �r d // �� d �'!
'� l�'lT•��r� O� �' S /�
/�� � � �
�� ��
�' ,�� � �L s� �� - ,�
s ,� �� ����
w��� s ���� � � y
�ys�� // ///'/d
/ , //' ���j/ , K� C
����� � �';- �
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ���
at tfieir ��� �Q �� l Q��� meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by _ U/),P /� ,/ 9�(� �'._�5,��'
_
�i�!/�%
cF
�
�,.
�
_ �1`` /� n—�
i
`LJ
� `" �`� �^y �,:
� y . . . � � ' . . --r � =�. . '� �p'''°'s �'S d'y, $ .. • � � ' 4 .. . 1�p�„�. �.. �y�
A �
� `, F. T' r.�'� �' +n:i � .;'a^� ,�d,
� � � .,.�5d+� ����'`w -��_. �.,.�,a7�� �{ � ��� � �� i t�.�,� l,'` W � �
� ��, wNM. �_`�Y �. � � -9(� A t�.i � � �'�� �`, � ,���i t
M �.;h . ...�� _ �". ,� . . �� � ,
�
M , e�.watm bt* MajA9rl"� �' � t r��alYHE�iri,�-�:i r ��� { .� �"�. � ��r.=, `.� 1.:
. ,7,aa�
"'f M .'.e�a�►-�'"..� �w.w .�*ti �.��; �^�M6t—.�'� •�, � r {." A h � — . i. �
�'*�� �
� � � � � � ` -�. . � � � . . � ,� � - , ,
� �., �.;- �' ,�, " � 4:.
�p. , ' .r � y, ' �`r '� � � t � ' , �
.
. , .. _
,.
. , ,,� -
.� • � �. — �" � y:. ' �. .� . -'� � ,,� � ,� ..
� ..,�„ : . �' , , . � , . _ �
3 � � � � �
>>
a ::. . ' ! �` ;.�, '"`'- ,}�. '��� �i+�:�r� .,,
i'e��F! a r Vk�'� K �... �,.- :
� A!
.. R ... ,:. �y . .� �w l�h. �p .. � _ 1
. � �...
.+aF. �� , «t� � � � a. � • � i . �y � ,,�; i ' � .
.� "' �
� �_ � - �,,� y �
a . , � 'aa ' #; . �� :: � � \ c t a� , c * � i ,. � �{ 7 � °p" � �
, . t� � .!, .. . 'T 1 65�.
Ml�b� � � � r. � � /r h 't i� '��` t�i ''� �". ,, . .� ,��
, . .
. , , �
.,
� • �
« .�-,
c R � .. . ,- , ' "rr'�
�
, . A
�' � . • �'� • 1' ' .� :.r . ': � •. �,� � ' . + .. ,�� . � x'� � . � �.. .
, .. "` .+" ri. . • � i'. �. • ' ,•.a � J � t�
, _ i. � 1' S
�.. i . +`" 1' �� . +X � / � -� J1� r.
r
� �� ^ � �s �" , �- (` �
' � • ��`' � ' �.�p,�� � � a;. " `' � . a, . x 5r� � e l�,,i�!�"
_. � `, �:. �� .�i , �i'r,. � '' � .,q .;t` 'i �;� � '� w � � �. � � �
. _
�. _ .,
;i. � , �
+�� .. ^' ;,� `�'�.�` 1� � , �'�.f', �`� . . �` , ^,�' ,
'* - i � _ ��r;, , � � \% •
��'_ � . K !yi f. # .` Y �1 � , - ' . . � .� � y / � e�Y \ �� �
. "
�.�: � :.� � ,,�. ��..f ,�: �
�► °��• :� , _t As �
� ,��° . ,- � �� � ��' �
' ,.� �:' '�i�O,� �� � • `��- �' ' � � -, . � ° c:y,,,�, �
� � ' : �.
� � t � � �., �.,, � ,. � .a ,�, :
� � "'�� F %�: ';� ' � � ,� � , , � ��.� �� ` �. �"� ::�.�
�y ' �7wy,2' . ; ::'.i � � , � �� � �j . � 'rt f �� r-;
.r.r - �� �
� � . `R�i ,�. {, M��t, _ r,� r� � R' ,�� �� .; _ Fy` ' _�� a r,,��i�' . : �
� Yr� ~r .� i -F .. �. T . . . . . � � � .�,�,. �j.�$p�]�' l'w �'�'�(^'�'y.}.�L� �
. . �'� �1� ,,..�y��y� . / ��k+pw� '^� ,�y
_ ��'�' R� w v�is.. � � :�'^ � �..'..�^ � i�,7 ' ��, .������� *�'_ j� FT�
� +' ��� . �l � . ��� �* `�'}
� � �T'. 'S f + $
� i;�.' . ry�:.Y . � ~ � f . .,`'�`` i � ' . � JOw��',,,+(� '�i'
� � .. � � * � � � ,� f1, � � �
rt
�..'w
� ,�� �.r� ^ . 4�.. `���� t �. ..` ' �
JI � 4
u � �
,�o,�r,� ��t.,:��,�' � �,� 'r'eMt�...,�.t �' ` � ...<~ �-,�y�K,� -....�.. - . �"y, ' � � � . -'Tv"'N , �
�' `� '�^� ` +� �'�
.
., ` ��,y �'r.'"T�+ '�"�.� i' .,nt� /� � .i�'W ���.. •;�yr ��� ���� ,.
yyp��f�, A1r '_ ,�-.,.
/Jyy��yp �a �� m� .t.. �y �. �i..�_�� �i � o..
41 y� , y � ✓ � � • �M�r..�"� 'eie �� .1 `�. � �� � \� � Y ��n� y � ` t^. . .
'.
.
F.
e
• - v.
� ,,• . . � � . � . _ .� r ., �x , '
.
�. �
.�
_- �
. . �y �,..� ..-., . .� '�.~` .
t �
,
.. �
,. ,. r ., � � ��< : . � f,� � _. . =. �- � . ��
, .� �
.:. .
, .. - .,, �� ,��� ,' 'f
` ' } � . �`�:�Ij� �; �� � � . � . � µ� '�' ra �(��
', �'i - �.� ., .. �► . � `-`�. �''';�
�--- - � 'A �= cf� ' � ,�,.�
_— fi , , ,
. . �
�..._n ■ - ,, .
. . , � �,�`w�
��,�
��;. � - -• • : .. � . }f .
.; � ,,,;
�, . . � . � . � y. �4 �`, `�.." � a
, „ ,. �. �
-. � , � � . . . �
�� — •�,"� 1 u ��. � ' , t' �'� � :
, . . ,
. -
� � ^^ .
,._ - �. �r „ A ,
,; � �
, V - , ; \
� zfi', .k
.. � � _ - -,� „ ' ` !. ,
�';
_�. , /'�
. . p
-' --1
;
-a: , ,. _- ,.,;�,,r � �, a �! �"' - . �c�
�, �� ,:� ..! v� �
� * � �� � r ��,,..� �. 1 r' • �� f �\ �'
. j �yyy...�I � �� $ • %��`, C � � , ,
� � .
, t �
.
,` ` � 9 . " �p �.� � . ^'� , 1.,
�� ��
��" ^ ,. . . . � _„�s .},�,i �.Y. � r� ' •. � - ` � � • • i � * �* ..
. �� . . . ���{';'.." +'; � �� \ '�� . . �� � �^ ���e,�
� '� e� ✓:i`i'. . � >
��' ` _ � ro. � \� '�a���: s. ;� ; ��}.:.
� ;. �'`" ' •- �(� .z;� '�� � � `e O� �- , .
.,.. `4!`� t .F ...,.i�, ' , � .�.: � xr - �♦ .\ _ q.-'
+ �� , i : .: .�.
, �. • ,�. .� .
i {�' k
� , �' "'� y `" � � r '�
, .
.r--- .� .� r . "� � �, � �, �`' ��
�
.fx.a'1 a . 'r,fi,
�
-
�,,
. Zti� � �: .
�
� W-. .. .- , �, � ,� u .�4 �.
_. i', � " � A ,+.' �, ��'.�,,�` �'"s
. , � s
, ., �. � , �
,.. . � - .. �v �,,
:
;
' �rmr�. • � � ;'� ����/ , ��
� .
�.
�y � ��..r
.
. - : t '�'�iC$ �A�c. � � � � - r , , . . 1RT+. �� �.. � _. .
.
� .�...��� �
\-�y , ��
wy�y, �': . ��.. � � . =�
���,« : �, . �^��.:� . �. ' - .,��y,. � �' � �'�fs .� � �.y;t�► � � F
=b � vl�.r��4 ��, .✓ hl''f ,�. ^ ��.\ ` �
`
_b . -
, ^ ' „ ` �' � �C
�:.
..
v ._ , "'� ,. . , r �� .
' .,
,, , .
���., r. _ .
� x �r �4�5 M
� �.. _ .. q •►� .�e4'"?� "�. " � '� � t4' . .�A..?. a1' � ^�`� .0 4� . _ � �� ,�
^ �r �, .,« +. �. �� ��`�� ,�
�, �� . � , x��"""!'!�� � �.�,, .� �� � �.�
. � . . �
.ti
--� . ��rT .. _,_ � • .y.. _ ,
.
� ; ,
fi ���� ` . ,.� .✓ � "��� . ` � . �.� �� ..
: �h�
�� , +� �, \ . � 'i .§ Y�� �`�t - ���f:,, � ��
� y.��...-*' „� .�«o �,_ f�< �•` a!,''�5' �4*, � � :ML�C���
`,nS�, � .r, ' ' "' • _ ,
� � r
�.- F
. . „ � A - � y '�� , ►� � . ;'��.� i �' . ( .�l. � ♦
��. '� r � �c1j �� , �� .C+::_ ��• +�"'. . i:,�
�'��� � , , ���� ���,��;'. ,�''..r � ' � .
A „�yy /, r��"'��k ' '�a, ^ �' : ��»
.... � ' „�.lR -�.r.,.. ��,j� �� . � A"��"J1�.,��?l '_�1..,My� . ' . k.•1�' , ?�1. .. w..- -,a+-...t��..}.'�..
"� `� '
�ktP C�t��? II� �l�ltl�t%��t12tP
SAN MATEO GOUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
VARIANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 27th dav of June, 1988 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
d publiC hearing on the dppl7Cation for a variance to lot coveraQe for 41% lot
coverage where 40% is the maximum allowed by code at 1556 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1.
�
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLAN�JER
June 17, 1988
. �
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLVED
Burlingame that:
RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE
by the Planning Commission of the City of
WHEREAS, application has been made for a variance for
lot coveraae in order to replace the existina Qaraae
at 1556 Carol Avenue ,(APN 028-301-130 �
,
and
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on June 27 , 1988, 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 hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this
Planning Commission that said variance is approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San
Mateo.
RUTH E . JACOBS
CHAIRMAN
I, MIKE ELLIS, 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 27th day of June ,
1988 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
MIKE ELLIS
SECRETARY
� �
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1988
_�age 2
parking; where is the main Hertz facility, is it operated
ifferently than the hotel operations. Item set for public hearing
uly 11, 1988.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF A 495
Request • letter from applicant concerning what is ,,y�riique about
this site to justify the parking variance; are ther�'` other people
on the sit • clarify number of parking spaces prov��ed; explain the
current nonc formity in parking; is there a sh� next door; could
parking be p vided in the building; clar' ication of project
proposal, numbe of employees does not ree with applicant�s
letter. Item set or public hearing July , 1988.
4. REQUEST FOR ONE YE
CONDOMINIUM MAP EXTENSION FOR
Reference agenda memo, 6/2 /88, with attached letter from John
Brosnan, Tyrone Constructi . CE a vised applicant is requesting a
one year tentative con minium map xtension for a project now
under construction, fi,r�al map is to b completed in the requested
map extension period f
C. Harrison move to recommend to City Counci a one year tentative
condominium ma extension to August 5, 1989. `''�Motion was seconded
by C. Garcia nd approved unanimously on voice v�e.
There was ome discussion about an underground sprin on this site,
could i be capped for irrigation use rather than wa ed into the
storm ewer; CE advised there is a concern about using g und water
that is not tested, a parallel distribution system uld be
re ired and it would have to be kept completely separate f� the
p able system; it would require a big commitment by the prop��ty
owner. '
ACTION ITEMS (PUBLIC HEARINGS�
5.
VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE
AT 1556 CAROL AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/27/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants� letter, letters in support from Debra and
Peter Tokarski, 1548 Barroilhet Avenue and Beverly and William
Crosby, 1552 Carol Avenue (neighbors on either side). Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Staff advised it was not possible to park two cars in the garage.
� �
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 27, 1988
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, June 27, 1988 at
7:3a,\ P.M.
Presen� :
Commissioners Ellis,
S. Gra
}ia, Giomi, H. Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs
Absent:
Staf f Pres�nt :
MINUTES -
None
Margaret Monroe City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; rank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill
Reilly, Fire �arshal
minutes of,,�he June 13, 1988 meeting were
�mously ap�'roved.
AGENDA - Order f th agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. VARIANCES OR ERCENTAGE OF COMPACT PARKING SPACES,
DIMENSIONS OF PAR NG BACKUP AISLES AND HEIGHT OF BUILDING
FOR CONS, UCTION 0 A NEW OFFICE BUILDING WITH GROUND FLOOR
RESTAU T AND RETAI SPACE AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL
Requests: this proposal overed by the previously certified
EIR; what unusual about th's property to justify the parking
variance equests; discuss ow Title 24 handicap parking
requireme s have been met; will 11 CE's comments be addressed in
time for the public hearing. Item set for public hearing July 11,
1988.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A AR RENTAL AGENCY FROM THE
EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD
Re ests: does this site have excess par 'ng in order to allow up
t eight spaces for the car rental use; do s Hertz operate out of
her hotels and have they received permit for these operations,
hy did they not get one in this case; where ve they been parking
these cars; how many people are on the site a tually renting cars
or taking them for service; will a parking va iance be required,
how has rent-a-car parking been handled at other hotels; cars seem
to be parked in the porte cochere area, is it pa of the required
parking for the hotel, would not want it used �for rental car
. •
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes �age 3
June 27, 1988
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. The applicants, Paul and
Theresa Brown, were present. Mr. Brown stated they would probably
keep the solar panels on the existing garage but had no plans for
them at this time, the swimming pool will be filled in; CP
commented the solar panels are not shown on the plans, if
applicants wish to retain them they must put them on the plans.
Mr. Brown advised they wished to insulate the new garage because
they hope to use it as a laundry and workroom, the utility sink
goes with the washer/dryer. Responding to a question about why a
skylight in the garage when there are so many windows, Mrs. Brown
said they wished to make it a workable/usable area, the sun doesn't
come into their yard except over the west wall which is on property
line, the only light that could get into the garage would be
through a skylight.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement that a site inspection confirmed the noise
generated by the laundry equipment in the kitchen, the present
garage is in poor condition and looks more like a patio/shelter,
this is a positive step and necessary to provide a usable garage
and off-street parking for the site, C. Harrison moved for approval
of the variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving
Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall
be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped May 31, 1988 and that the additional
lot coverage shall not exceed 44 SF; (2) that the conditions of the
City Engineer�s memo of June 6, 1988, the Fire Marshal�s June 7,
1988 memo and the Chief Building Inspector�s June 13, 1988 memo
shall be met; and (3) that the garage shall never be used for
living area or separate residential purposes.
Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved unanimously on roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 9' FENCE ON REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY
T�TNFG AT 7(lU W�T.NTTT �VFTTTTF 7(1TTF'T1 A_1
Reference sta eport, 6/27/88, with attac . CP Monroe
discussed details o request, staff rev' , applicant�s letter,
seven letters in support neighbo�-or"'�i�nut (Michael & Sophia
Davos, 758 Walnut Avenue; D ""Brancon, 709 Walnut Avenue;
Virginia Tait, 734 Walnut nue; trice Marino, 750 Walnut
Avenue; Roy Nelson, 774 nut Avenue; F es Guynes, 754 Walnut
Avenue; Cecil Oakes 13 Walnut Avenue); one opposition from
Tony Garisto, 70 alnut Avenue. CP noted that his b-�,�of recent
development he flag lot at 707 Walnut had been discusseth-.in the
staff re t. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at
the p ic hearing.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Jun 27, 1988
Comm'ssion discussed status of the construction
leng h of the fence requested by the applicant,
requi ing fence be placed on property line as
surve .
Chm. J cobs opened the public hearing. Ramona N
told C mmission the second story addition to
Walnut �oks directly into her backyard and h
reverse loor plan, the addition can be see
matter wh�re one looks out, she would like o
yard again; she would consider screening th
might take{�,;two years, but cannot put thi in
drought . '�� ,�
at
:�
_� _ �
age 4
�h�
�7 Walnut,
condition
blished by
� inez, applicant,
he house at 707
se because of its
from her house no
be able to use her
landscaping, which
during the present
Commission co ent: three more feet on � fence will not shield the
addition next door completely, would�applicant consider removing
the fence when landscaping is tall nough to do the shielding;
landscaping wou d soften the fenc , have no problem with the
request, the fla ,�,lot has an overpo ering structure.
The following mem rs of the au ience spoke in favor. Beatrice
Marino, 750 Walnut venue: she h s observed what has taken place on
the flag lot, some i legally do e in flagrant violation of all R-1
property owners and heir ri.� ts, now this addition which is a
terrible invasion of t e appl'"cant�s privacy and property. Frances
Sherman Guynes, 754 Wal ut A enue: she has been in applicant�s home
before and after this d' ion, there is no privacy in her home
now. There were no f her audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Considering discussion�his evening, C. Giomi was in favor of the
fence exception, she und t ere were exceptional circumstances in
that a flag lot is nvolved and there are few flag lots in the
city, there will be no public azard, neighboring properties will
not be materially d maged, the ning will remain the same and the
regulations cause unnecessary h dship upon the petitioner. C.
Giomi then move for approval the fence exception and for
adoption of Co ission Resolution pproving Fence Exception with
the following onditions: (1) that the fence as built shall be
consistent wit the plans submitted t the Planning Department and
date stamped ay 20, 1988 with a 6' ard fence topped by 3' of.
latticework;,and (2) that the fence shal be placed on the property
line as est�blished by survey.
Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comme'' t on the motion: can
sympathi�ze with the situation but do not bel'eve a 9' fence will
solve �he problem, trying to cover a neighbor� second floor level
is no� a valid reason for a 9' fence, will have �o vote no; rarely
vote�for special exceptions but this is a flag lo°`�, it should have
been conditioned when it was created; don�t think'the intention of
the 9' fence is to cut visibility from the second story addition,