Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout450 Cumberland Drive - ApplicationVAR IANCE Date filed qII01789 Study meeting 4- n -% $ Public hearing *-Z4.0 Application to the Planning Commission and Action City Council of the City of Burlingame 1. APPLICANT Sf�1.Ly A. Name FF\A/UK n CHAMBERS B. Address 1460 GUM,BLPL.i)/uD RE) City Zip tj¢O/O Telephone 347- Z.Ce9 2. PROPERTY A. Address �qsovc B. Legal Lot 11 Block + Description: Subdivision oak Erovt Manor No.i C. Assessor's parcel number (APN) O2q-- 164--110 Zone D. Existing land use and improvements Ex/S"W& 7-A/O ,6EZ5CW Al O(J� _,847N HIE' 3. VARIANCE REQUESTED -KE O UEsT To ADO R 525-,0KOOM A^,W BATH TO &--XiST/NG- STi2tJG7U E w141CH 14A6 40 4. SITE PLAN Attach site plan, drawn to scale, showing all existing and proposed major improvements, located by dimension from property lines and adjacent structures. Sidewalks and curbs (if any) on public right-of-way should also be shown. Include building elevations, if relevant. 5. ITEMS SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION: Authorization by property owner. —' Title report showing proof of ownership (except for R-1 & R-2 property). Affidavit for Variance. �! Site plans, elevations and exhibits. i� Fee: (0 for application on R-1 or R-2 property) (4for other zoning districts) Receipt No. 0-319 g Received by hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the ' information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge an bel'ef. Signature -l�ti-Pit-Ji Date y- /(1 Z C� \� r APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT FOR VARIANCE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCE 11. Has applicant read Chapter 25.54 of the City .Ordinance Code? Yes V No B. Describe the exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not generally apply to other properties in your area, and the extent to which you may deserve special consideration to which your neighbors are not entitled. G C. Describe why the variance is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property. D. at ha Clew— s O ips would result if your request were denied? ee// -{.-�1,1,et�.t urPht•. Wf— Ceit ,� nv�da�. 7'�- kt:�L IS APPLICANT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? Yes No IF NO, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: A. Owner's name `--' B. Owner's address C. Attach signed statement from property owner declaring knowledge of and agreement to this variance application. `Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 . April 24, 1978 Commissioner Jacobs felt that because this is a narrow lot with two trees in the corners (only one is shown' on plans) the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood; she also felt the applicant would not be able to use his back yard if the garage were constructed in the rear 30% portion, and the application was not in conflict with the General Plan; she therefore moved for approval.of the variance. Commissioner Cistulli felt the consideration of a different door should be included in the motion and perhaps the size of the window. This was briefly discussed and Commissioner JA cobs stated she would prefer not to make specifications as to window sizes. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion failed to pass, the vote being 3-3, Commissioners Cistulli, Mink and Sine voting in opposition and Commissioner Kindig absent. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Jacobs moved for approval subject to elimination of the sliding glass door with substitution of a single, standard size, solid core door. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and upon roll call the new motion carried 5-1, Commissioner Mink in opposition and Commissioner Kindig absent. Chairman Taylor noted that in the absence of appeal the effective date for this approval would be May 2, 1978. Commissioner Sine spoke with staff about procedures, i.e., properties with a nonconformity coming to staff for approval of other improvements and .then further improvements being proposed which then require Commission approval; he felt much of this could be avoided if applicants are informed at their initial contact with staff. City Engineer Kirkup explained that in this case a standard garage could have been constructed, but it was the property owner's decision to have a larger garage which required the variance; under the circumstances staff had no reason not to issue a building permit for the previous improvements. 3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO A HOUSE WITH A 12'0" WIDE GARAGE; PROPERTY AT 450 CUMBERLAND ROAD (APN 029-164-190), ZONED R-1, BY FRANK AND SALLY CHAMBERS Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the home is only two bedrooms with one bath and a one car garage; since the applicants purchased it ten years ago their family has grown and the house is now too small. He explained that the proposal to add a third bedroom, second bath and small study meets code in every respect, except that the existing garage is only 12' wide and code specifies 20'. Mr. Yost reviewed the ordinance specifications regarding such situations, one provision of which allows the mandatory second parking space to be provided on a driveway of sufficient length that this second space can be behind the front setback. Here, he explained, there is a 33' deep driveway, but only 11' of this counts toward the code requirement. He concluded that staff has no objection to the application, as it seems a reasonable addition to a small home. He did note, however, that findings pertinent to Code Chap. 25.54 are required for approval and that the applicant and his designer were both present. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. The neighbor from 452 Cumberland Road, Al Escoffier, felt the proposal was a good one and would be an asset to the neighborhood. There being no further speakers, Secretary Sine noted the following correspondence: (1) a letter dated April 20, 1978 from Arden D. McGregor, 451 Cumberland Road, in favor of the variance, and noting they would hate to see the family move because the home is too small; (2) letter dated April 18, 1978 from John Horgan, 471 Cumberland Road, in favor of the variance, noting they also would hate to see the family forced to move from the neighborhood. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1978, He -noted that Mr. Brisbee has several alternatives: one would be narrowing the garage and losing the storage space; a second would be pushing the garage to the back 30% of the lot,where code permits a garage to be constructed to a side property line; he noted that this second alternative may not be feasible because there is a large tree which would have to be removed and a new swimming pool for which plans were recently approved that would have to'be relocated. Mr. Yost concluded the applicant has provided elevations of the new garage, as per Commission direction, and as this is.a variance.`application, findings consistent with Code Chap. 25.54 are required for approval;, -.:He noted the applicant was present. Robert Brisbee, the applicant,:made.the following points: one, the'property,,is very narrow (46' in front and 44-1/2' in -the rear) ;;,and,,two.,, a letter from -his neighbor, John Spicer, 818 Acacia Drive,. -was presented: ..to the'Commission-,which:indicated. agreement to the variance, and noted thatli,thissprop.erty,would be the one most directly affected by the proposal. Mr. Brisbee also said a Mr..Brown, another neighbor, had given verbal support. The applicant went on to explain that.•if the garage were moved back into the rear 30% of the lot it would block sunlight into the Spicer's rear yard; as proposed, it only faces -a bedroom window.,-: Responding to Commissioner Francard's concerns, Mr. Brisbee,:stated the swimming pool and surrounding fence were being constructed to code and there would be' -a fence between the garage and the house. There being no further questions of. -,the applicant at this time, the public hearing was opened:. Joe Brown of 819 Crossway Road (home across the back fence) --stated he was--in-favor of the application.. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed.'... Commissioner Jacobs stated she had visited..the site and.felt"the,applicant,;was doing a good job of upgrading the property. Cormissioner Mink was concerned.about;_the proposed sliding glass patio door in the side wall-of,:the garage,.noting with this glass door the garage could easily be converted to.-a'family/party room, -especially as the sliding door looks directly onto the.pool area. -.:'The applicant and, -Commissioner Mink briefly discussed this concern; the applicant,.responding to Commissioner Mink's questions, indicated there would be electrical utilities in the garage but:not pool utilities or bathroom facilities. The Commissioner.felt a.garage.meeting minimum code dimensions could be constructed and a_separate auxiliary,building constructed for storage purposes in the rear portion of the lot., Chairman Taylor felt the garage would not be used as -a family room-, Commissioner Mink pointed out the garage could.be:converted if there were a change in -ownership. He felt the minimum garage with a separate storage building was a feasible ,alternative to the variance. Commissioner Cistulli asked -If something other than a sliding glass door could be used. Mr. Brisbee stated he would agree to change.Jhp,door if the variance was contingent on this, but explained the purpose•of the. glass sliding door was because it matches a similar door on the house and he could easily keep an eye on the pool area while working in the garage. He stated he has no intention of using the garage as a party room. Commissioner Cistulli agreed with _;Commissioner Mink's concerns but felt a different type of door on the side wall of the garage may be the best answer. This was briefly,discussed by Commission and staff; Mr. Brisbee reconfirmed that only electrical utilities would be included in the garage but he did not know the exact specifications. Commissioner Sine noted there used to be a nonconforming carport on the site. Page 6 `Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1978 There being no further public input the hearing was._closed. Commissioner Jacobs stated she had visited the site and-noted-thereare other two-story homes in the vicinity and the proposed height -would not create -a problem. Chairman Taylor reviewed the Commission's past policies. about parking and applications with similar problems, noting the City would prefer to have vehicles park behind the front setback, however, there are conditions when:Commission has found that approval of a variance was better for the community as a whole. Commissioner Francard added that in his neighborhood about..90% of;the cars -seem to park in the street. Commissioner Jacobs,,stated.,the extraordinary circumstance is the garage situation, there is room to park cars in front of the existing garage, and the family needs additibnal'room; she further noted'that;'in view,•of-thetestimony and correspondence presented at:the hearing; they -proposal would not be -detrimental to the neighborhood. She therefo'ro"moved for'approval"of the variance'., Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon -roll call.it...carried unanimously 6-0, Commissioner Kindig absent:, Chairman Taylor noted that without appeal the approval would be effective May 2, 1978.` 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AJUDO`CLUB.IN-THE M-1:4DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1342 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-123-080), BY BENJAMIN PALACIO OF KOYUKAN JUDO CLUB (APPLICANT)•WITH GORDON HAGSTROM (PROPERTY OWNER)­(ND-157P POSTED 4/10/78) Assistant City Planner''Yost reviewed the application, referring to a letter from the applicant, Ben`-Palacio; dated April 2, 1978, describing the proposed judo club opeation.. The.letter-states�that it would occupy'.1,900 square feet in an existing office/warehouse and classes would have about 30 students with the majority being 6-14 years old; it also states the classes would only be held in the evenings during=:the` week ,and- this evening .use (classes starting 'at 6:30 P.M.) would allow the club to'use all ,availabl'e.on-si:te.and on -street parking. Mr. Yost noted the background material filed with-theiapplicati.on, including a site plan, proposed floor plan -.and -a, letter',from Victor Fink &!Associates (occupying the space next door to the proposed judo club) which indicated.support of the proposal. Mr. Yost further moted-that other supporting letters were available for Commission's review"and if�approval'is"granted,'the,-following points should be considered: (1) Daytime classes are not proposed :either during the week or on weekends. Classes'on-Monday,-Wednesday and Friday evenings are to be from 6:30 P.M. but could extend over to Tuesday and Thursday if there were adequate demand. (2) Minimum number of students enrolled is estimated to be 30; however, the Building and'Fire'Departments advise that permitted occupant load could be as high as 50 without modification,to the existing building. (3) The club is to incorporate -as a non-profit organization.. (4) The permit should perhaps be limited to Mr.'Palacio and not -be transferable. Mr. Yost further noted that a negative declaration`:was posted for'this project, and concluded that staff has no objection'to the application. Ben Palacio;'the applicant, -confirmed for Commissioner Mink that he would agree to limiting' the hours of his club operation from 6:30 P.M., with a maximum occupancy of 50'and upon his obtaining non-profit status. City Attorney Coleman interjected that the non-profit status was not really a concern here; Mr. Yost explained this was included only because. the applicant had mentioned it, but this was not the usual procedure in this zone. It was confirmed this use could be considered a commercial recreational use. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 24, 1978' Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. Betsy Tontini, 228 Clarendon Road addressed Commission speaking in favor of the application, stating such a club is desirable for the community. Gary McClellan, 1665 Hunt Drive stated this would be very beneficial to the youth in Burlingame. Noreen Nicholson supported the use in the community. Mike Baffico, 1316 Cabrillo spoke briefly in support of the application. Bill Aven spoke in favor of the application, stating that such instruction gives children confidence in themselves. It was noted that the applicant currently teaches judo through the Burlingame Recreation Department and has an outstanding background and reputation.. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. Chairman Taylor explained that the concern of the Commission was not whether such a use would be beneficial to the community, but rather whether the proposed location is'a suitable one. The applicant, responding to Commissioner Mink's inquiries, confirmed he would operate from 6:30 to 9:30 P.M. and classes would not go beyond five days a week. City Attorney Coleman stated that.judo is being discouraged in the Recreation Department because of insurance requirements and added he is glad to see it continue in the City even though it has been cut back in the Recreation program. Commissioner Mink moved the special permit be approved subject to the conditions that (1) the permit be nontransferable and issued only to Benjamin Palacio, (2).hours of operation be from 6:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., Mondays through Fridays, and (3) the maximum occupancy be limited to 50 people. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-0, Commissioner Kindig absent. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1300 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-480), BY DAVID KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (PROPERTY OWNER) WITH BILL BISCOE.OF PAIGE RENT -A -CAR (ND-158P POSTED 4/20/78) Assistant City Planner Yost briefly reviewed the application, specifically making reference to a letter dated April 17, 1978 from Bill Biscoe, the applicant, and a supporting letter dated April 12, 1978 from David Keyston. He referred to specific statements in those letters describing the operation, including a proposed fleet of 25 cars (1978 models); washing, waxing and minor servicing at the Mobil Station on Bayshor2 Highway; operation hours from 6:30 A.M.. - 11:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 7:30 P.M. Saturdays and 8:00 A.M. - 11:00 P.M. Sundays. It was noted that 10 parking spaces had been allocated in the front of the property at 1300 Bayshore Highway, and any additional parking would be available at Anza Airport Parking; delivery of new vehicles would not be made to the Bayshore Highway location. Mr. Yost then referred to David Keyston's letter which confirmed the parking requirements would be satisfied by Paige Rent-A-Car taking over the area previously assigned to Star Rent-A-Car which is no longer in business. Mr. Yost noted both Mr. Biscoe and Mr. Keyston were present; Mr. Keyston thanked Commission for considering this item at this meeting. Commission briefly discussed the details of this application with staff, Mr. Biscoe and Mr. Keyston; the main concern being the washing facilities at the service station. City Engineer Kirkup stated he was unaware of a regular car wash at this station. There being no further discussion at this time, the public hearing was opened. As there was no public testimony, the hearing was closed.