HomeMy WebLinkAbout470 Cumberland Drive - Staff ReportP.C. 6/14/82
Item #3
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: VARIANCE FOR REQUIRED PARKING AT A RESIDENCE AT 470 CUMBERLAND ROAD
The applicant, Michael Cortese, is requesting a variance to the off-street parking
requirement for a single family home at 470 Cumberland Road. The applicant wishes
to add a third bedroom and bath to his two bedroom home. The existing garage is
substandard (15'-5" x 20'-6"). A den at ground level at the rear of the garage
prohibits tandem parking as an alternative (see diagram attached) for off-street
parki ng. . . .. y,, ., . �
Staff reviewed this application and had no comments (see City Eng''ineer's memo May 24,
1982, Fire Marshal's memo May,18, 1982, Chief Building Inspector's memo May 26, 1982).
� . �`v `�f``iC•," „ �! .�- ,�: ��-y,`i _ .. . .._;,;,.
In his letter of May 14 the applicant� d�u�l�ines M-i�s'�reasons for' jnequesting a variance.
These reasorrs include the size of his family,,the existing floor plan of the house,
compati bi 1 i ty � wi�M� ex��t�i�ng �ri�e"i ghl�o�'r{�ood �a�i� �cor�s i•s�€en,cy' w'i`th the. `�R=I zone .
Planning �taff notes that it would not be possible.to expand the g.arage to meet
ci ty standards wi thout substanti al �s=�'r` uc'�i��al��. `efi�nge�'�o� the�� M�me and removi ng
interior improvements. Several houses on the block with similar floor plans have
made similar second floor additions, so the completed structure will �e consistent
in appearance v�ith those of other homes on the block. _ .
.. . .__ i, ,.: . �.. '�'i _ r.. i', 'j'.'� .4it � .:r �:_�., f .i .,.. . . .'::T..
,: . .. ___�;��
In granting a..var_a_aa-c�.--t1a�....Cor�m.a.s.s.ion._s.hou_1_d._make._find:i:ngs�`ad.dr.ess�ng the following:
a. that �th�,r�e ���e. �ae,�.p�.iora��l� or -E�ctraord;i-na�ry -circumstanc�s app�l icable
to tf�e,:pr,•-o,p�rtxat�r� �l.��ss ,o�fi uses in- t�he _di-strict., �so �that a denial of
the , a��l-i-�a�,���o���woul�d _r;�sul t ;i;-�� �ndue �r.a�perty_ :lwass-; , � �.,,; .
b. that such �•v�a�'fi�n�e =i�6�u°T�l'be� rreceg�sa�r�r�'-�o'r •t�ie pr-'eserv�ti=on and
enjoyme'r��°' of a-�,proqe,r�y �rr`��'t ���o�i��he-�owne�r of� �he `p`ropenty�`�involved;
.,. . � n z 7 . ,. i i. . ,. . . . , .
� 1 a`:�' i � r.: � . �. , i .� : "���
c. that the ,g;ra�a�ir��-�,f: su��l�� rv�ar��ana�-, wo,ul,d�. not �be::r�ateri'ally,.detrimental
to the �aubl�xc,-;hea1�-��, sa.�fety�, ort w�l,far,e�,�; or {i�n�u.r.-ious ,..�a {�Ghe.:property
or impro:�er��ra�,�; af;,�;t�cr .,p;r�pert�y;�o►�r�ersv�, Qr, t�he� qu1�,t ;�n�o,yment of
such ..prope�"u�,Y ^o� i-rnpr����e►��nt�, � ,-�« "' ; ,,, .:., r;.•� :�r; � �� � , :i�s� ,
d. that `�iie:gr�rr�g� o°�'�s�u�h 4�a�f�`a-h�'ce �wr�1l�=no�r adirers�eT�i-a��ec't the
compre�ie�nsi�,ve �'zon'� ng .'p�`Fa�n� �d`f �YSe'` ci�y"� , . -� � Y , .' ° . `� �.
'� �'�c..:C i�f.. .Ct ,_._��r,.. "�i? -;�,. C�:'i :? .., , C-. ,t.F !• .
Staff recommend�s `'a`p'�'rov�a�l ����h'i'�s�=vari�nce''�r'F," a�f`ter`�a `pi�K�Ffi'c�''�hearimg, the Commission
can make the findings for a variance: ��� " -`� �`
MM/s
6/4/82
`s`'. ":,s' u!?`"^. ,. � ..;��
�
. ,� ��, -�r;, ._ .
� a �n.� - �
, : t,^�'!,t ! ,_:.� i � � '.. ..
cc: Michael.J. Gortese
Ralph J. Button.�
_ .� . . � .� . ` _ ;
. : �G�IGjG,���',1� _ ; �,
- '' Ma��garet Monroe ''
Ci ty Pl�anner - �
PROJECT APPLICATlON
fr CEQA ASSESSMENT
Application received ( 5/14/82
5taff review/acceptance (
1. APPLICANT Michael J. � Deborah C. Cortese 342-4544
name telephone no.
�
N N �
� •r �
�a,�
N E O
I O •r
tF— � a--i
� •r
O E "C7
o -o
N O rt3
�
N '� N
4J � t
i�+-' '
� + >,
6' N �
a�
L � -� •
� �
C � r �
M N N O
O � '6 O
• 3 O i-
� N aJ N
• N i �
� U
N �6 S- 4J
II- O L
• N O
U � E
cn � a� s.
•r � �
N �C r6
-� s. � a�
o � � �
U C_ � O
�
470 Cumberland Road Burlinqame, CA. 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Mi�haPl ,]_ CortP�P 342-4544
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Specia.l Pert^it () Variance* (X ) Ccndor;inium Permit () Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
bathroom addition
ments of Code Sec
VARIANCE
to a home
25.70.030
snace is p
��� �,TY o�
470 CUMBERLAND ROAD
BURLINGAME project address
�b.^o����,��� project name - if any
to allow a 625 SF inaster bedroom and
that does not meet the minimum require-
for off-street
rovided). The
parking (2 parking spaces
second story addition
���;>> add a third bedroom to the existinq 2-bedroom home. Other
zoninq requirements for heiqht, setbacks and lot coveraqe are met
by the proposed desiqn
are required; one
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.70.030 ) (
Reauired Date received city zip code
��e� (no) ( - ) Proof of ownershi�
�ge� (no) ( - ) Owner's consent to application
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
( 029-164-240 ) ( 16 ) ( 4 > ( Oak Grove Manor �
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
( R-1 ) ( . 5,150 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Michael J. & Deborah C. Cortese 470 Cumberland Road
land owner's name a�Uj^�ingame, CA. 94010
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Sinqle family residence with attached one car garage
Required Date received
(yes) � ( 5/13/82 )
�YeS) �_ � " )
(YB5) ��1= ( " )
��
(yes) �_ (
(other) ( 5/ 14/82 )
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and
curbs; all str�:ctures and improvements;
paved on-site parking; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type 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 (show # dwelling units);.office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PR!1POSAL �JEW COPJSTRUCTION ONLY
Proposed construction, Below grade ( - SF) Second floor ( 6 2 5 SF)
gross floor area First floor ( - SF) Third floor ( _ SF)
Project Code
Pr000sal Requirement
Front setback 2�' -�" 15' mi n.
Side setback n/a/ -
Side yard 5 /4' 4'
Rear yard 15' + 15' mi n.
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
Lot coverage 24°0 �° fll
Buildina height 26�-6�� 0� I11dX.
Landscaped area 11 . d. -
On-site pkg.spaces j 2 *
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
EXISTING IPl 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS
after after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full ti�:e em�loyees on site
Part tir^e emoloyees on site
Visitors/�:ustomers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trin ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
All adjacent structures are single family residences. No
comnercial or business uses in the area. This use conforms
to the General P1 an.
Required Date received
(gt�) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(3�as) (no) ( - ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firr�s ( ) 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 $ (
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 (X ) Project Assessment $ 25 (
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 (
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $
TOTAL FEES $ 40. 00 RECEI PT N0. 7429 Recei ved by H. Towber
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 � r .` � / �� �^:-Z"'�- Date t � � ,
��Applicant ,� �
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:
Cateqorically Exempt: Reference
Natural Resources Code 15101, Class 1.
19 ,
�1 �"l1C✓,�� �1�1�
Signa ure of Processing Official Title Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTI^JG Date Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Neoative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th� Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California oii
Appealed: ( )Yes ( )PJo
19
EVELYP� H. HILL> CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
STAFF REUIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIO��
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy:
date circulated reply received
City Enyineer ( 5/17/82 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( 5/17/g2 ) (yes) (no)
Fire Inspector ( 5�1]�g2 ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( _ ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no)
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF COfJCERNS/POSSIBLE h1ITIGATIO^! MEASUP.ES
f.nnrarn� Mitigdtlon MedsUl"es
: ::.s-%�ti.+�i=.�-;r.�:�x.....�. �:o-�. . . :=�
.. ,_......,.._,._._
. . . ..N_. . .
Do the plans meet the require- Request comments from the
ments of the Fire and Building Chief Fire & Chief Building
Departments? Inspectors.
Has the applicant met the 4 Review applicant's 5/14/82
legal requirements of Code letter; make findings.
Chap. 25.54?
Is there any alternative to the Review application and the
proposed addition that could site; make findings.
mitigate the parking problem?
3. CEQA REQUIREME�ITS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this nroject:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? No - categorically 2Xefll�lt _
IF AP� EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study cor�pleted
Oecision 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
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4. APPLICATIOP� STATUS 1phone call Date first receivea ( 5/13/82 )
Accepted as complete: no( X) �&Q?tM�Cto ao licant advising info. required ( 5/ 1 4/ 8 2)
Yes( X) date 5/14/�2 P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a public hearing7 (yes) � Recorrmiended date ( 6/14/82 )
Date staff report mailed �to aopl icant (� I�11�� �' ) Date Comnission hearing (�/i � �)
Application approved (i/ ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (noJ) J
Date Council hearing ( ) Aholication approved ( ) Denied ( )
��' � �da--- t�_
igne
�" '�`� �oLLINS �ol�p
� :�r� .
�� � `� '` "'�,� i� J _ .,�, , �
� . � „�rr�rrrrrr : . , �
� � , . �► ,�
, � . , � �. �, � , .
.�....�� � � �! ;�"� •.. ,� '� �
� � x � -�,� �► ._._� . �.
,�,� ..
�'�' --- '� � .��'•T� , �:-'.-YY- �" �
�.` �".,`� J f ,+�'_. '�,�' ,� :' • � � �
r � � 'f` � ' t 1� �
' ' , s�/ � P K ) ^ r � �� ,� y � -1
� " �. . � � i �
� , � (G � � /� '� . � . � `' �� �, r'..
�'r, "� , x,,"' J � �, • i / *s " �'i� � � �jt,,�
`� ` (jQ� � � ll / � � R �
� •� � ' .
�. � � ",�• �, ke 1► • �
°� � . � �' ' f % �° � '' � "� �
�, � , \ 3 . '
' � :�j� '� ,'`-,� .,� ,i r
� Y� .,�� '�
• -� � t �
, �, � , ,
+, • +a u' � � �' .
� . , , , � �� ��, �.4
` ,�:. �'i.` . , , � ` . �r �.; �r,• ,�y., :,'f�`� ,
+ ,�, <�� � '�. aw �'�► .: i " � ,� �O � . � t
� � �#` ,� �,' �,k •ry .' �R , �. • . �' �Q } � � • ��
r
p� � .� '�" r � �� �,
` '�#' ' s } _ i/�, � ,..n� • �� ,
� �. .�. o ,., a?' ,+' � , �
�i � '�� ,� .A �. . f.�. R ♦
. �'�`, ,�"#,' � •' l ' � � `� � ' � . - � � : ,u ,� ' : ,�
` � 9 •, ��� �� ` �` v ��` ��, �� � � � • . .
.. { " , � �, ^„ . � f . � � �� , ,�� �,�.
. ; �i'�� '. �,.,,�,: � �1•� � . -�/` , �,j r
' ,. �, � , �•�� i � '�. � '`
� � .% i • �'i; �� � Yj.
� . � � +�. � ` w ;„�"
� ��� � y � � � �4 � ` ��
�" C �.
� r s ":!"�'. � aif � ' (q.' , S 1�+ 4 p,�'1►• ' /','r:. � .
� . . - �'�. �:� . . � �� � i �� , i
� _ +� �� 9� � ' .y . : j' ,��
. '. ' . • ', ,
� Y � ,� ��Yr, �� d.R ' � a • r l � s.� �' �'
.` �, -=� J - � .' �
�r � � . ,� � +' � �� � , � ya:y;?' d`� .�
�'` � ' ` .� � �° . �' � + �`"`
.� , ` . . � w '�" �
. �� � : ,, ,� _
�� x :. #t '� .� 1. �`� �, , '�
.�- �. ;�, ' �,, �� �, � . ,�,: �,-
.� ti . . ��:,�. �►:.
� � ,�� , �
� .. ,,�' � '� u`
�► ��-� �,,.. � . �;, . : � ,. . -R, � . � �� �
• �
, �. �p/ ,`` �.* .�,. ��;�, � ..�, �-� g �
�r � •' ` '��. � � ° , ` - . .
w., � �
..x.. y : � . % ,� .
; � .. : ?;'" , , �"'�.r i � r � ' �
.� � O�� ♦
� •�'' ,. � �
'� ,�.. �, : . \� r. �..:, � � .�
�' � . . i
-� - \�� - ,�,,,�° � . . � � � 4� ��.�
� ;,� �-. .�;, � � ,��°�`�, �. .�y. �
���. � � Y j � ;f ' �`!6� . h,�ti ` y� +.�r � � ' �
0. i * �
/�/ �Y . 1 - �,,. � � �
. .. :��R \ f' ' \ .. .��"� . , � '� �
� / � .s. ,i� i �►„'. � -
., • .. �� � t�� `�':.fr�tl��-,;�,.y. „ ,�i.. �
i'! � � ��'� t � � �' �t' � u'},,,�' ` �` ,� � �' "� d, t � =
,w; 4'�` , ���'p� ,.. � ��_ ����, �� � :t ���c
tr �. .,� " ` •� ,�'4� �. ,+ ���
�, _ � � � � . �r ';., '+
�;: . T � �,. � ,s' r
�� ,� :-- ,, , . , . �';�'
� : ,�� {�_ ;.��`• �� � � �� .�„ ,a� �.
�` �� u � ,� �- f � „,,� , �
�■ � �+�� • -. � � �i � � 1 � � I � � �y .�
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 14, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Mink on Monday, June 14, 1982 at 7:34 P.M..
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham (arrived 7:50 P.M.),
Harvey, Leahy, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 24, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and
adopted.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
1. PUBLIC FORUM TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSEQ EXPANSION OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD .
CP Monroe noted this is the second of three public forums required for this project
to allow input from interested members of the public. She ihen introduced Jim Waters,
project engineer, and Kim Erickson, who is preparing the environmental assessment,
George S. Nolte and Associates. Mr. Waters discussed project development and studies
which identified needs of the process. He noted the city's present wet weather study,
consideration given to energy conservation, the need to allow for future expansion
to meet high standards of water treatment, alternatives considered for this improve-
ment and the alternative chosen for expansion of the secondary treatment facilities.
He advised the proposal does not appear to impact any current projects proposed for
the area but does set aside land which will not be available for future use. The
improvement would use more energy efficient equipment; there would be more standby
power; user charges would increase somewhat, more without a Federal grant, less
with a Federal grant. Ms. Erickson advised no major concerns had been received
from State agencies in response ta the Notice of Preparation and that the environmental
assessment was almost in the preliminary draft stage. ,
During Commission discussion Mr. Waters advised re-use of treated water was not part
of this project, that the project was in the design stage now with plans to go out
for bid in the fall and construction expected to take one to one and one-half years.
The project has been designed for existing BOD loads but design would allow for
additions to the system if necessary.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing
was closed. Commission comments: desire that the system be able to accommodate
reasonable growth; consider recycling (Mr. Waters advised there was no reasonable way
to store treated effluent in the area for future use). The Chair thanked George S.
Nolte personnel for their presentaiion.
�
Burlingame Planning Corranission Minutes
ITEMS FOR ACTION
Page 2
June 14, 1982
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE C-1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS AND GENERAL
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE TO CLARIFY RESIDENTIAL USES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
Reference staff inemo with attached proposed ordinance. CP Monroe noted the ordinance
would change residential uses in the C-1 and C-2 zones from permitted to conditional
uses and amend the General Provisions of the code to require consistency with the
General Plan.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Ralph Button, 1613 Coronado Way, inquired what
the changes would mean to building design. He was advised building design would not
be affected, but that a special permit would be required for residential uses in C-1
and C-2. There were no further can�ments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Harvey moved that the draft ordinance be forwarded to City Council with Planning
Commission recorrnnendation for adoption. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1
roll call vote, C. Cistulli dissenting.
3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A BEDROOM-BATHROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME AT
470 CUMBERLAND ROAD
CP Monroe reviewed this application for an addition to a home which does not meet the
minimum requirements for off-street parking. Reference staff report dated 6/4/82;
Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/14/82; aerial photograph; 5/24/82
memo from the City Engineer; "no comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (5/18/82)
and Chief Building Inspector (5/26/8.2); May 14, 1982 letter from Mr. and Mrs. Michael J.
Cortese, the applicants, and plans date stamped May 13, 1982. CP discussed details
of the proposal, staff review, applicant's justification for �ariance and code
requirements. Approval was reco�nended. '
Michael J. Cortese, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing.
Irvin Ungar, 478 Cumberland Road spoke in favor and felt the proposal would enhance
the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. At
the request of the Chair, Mr. Cortese discussed his justification for the variance
request.
C. Giomi found there were exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in the existing
floor plan of the house, that it would be a hardship upon the applicant should he be
required to rebuild his home, that the variance was necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a property right of the applicant, that it would not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare and would not adversely affect the compre-
hensive zoning plan of the city. C. Giomi then moved for approval of this variance
application. Second C. Harvey; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
4. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FAMILY ROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME AT 1564 MEADOW LANE
CP Monroe reviewed this request for an addition to a home which does not meet zoning
requirements for lot coverage or minimum rear yard and side setback dimensions.
Reference staff report dated 6/4/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received
5/26/82; aerial photograph; "no comments/requirements" memos from the City Engineer
(6/2/82) and Fire Marshal (6/2/82); June 2, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector;
1946 Appraisal Report; letter from the applicant, Greg Levy, received May 26, 1982;
and drawings received May 26, 1982. CP discussed details of the proposal, staff review,
applicant's justification and code requirements. Approval was r.ecommended with one
condition as listed in the staff report.