HomeMy WebLinkAbout1524 Cypress Avenue - Staff ReportC, ; '
MEMO T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNER
Cont. to 6/13/88
I tem # 7
� _ E.- -� ��-/.��
-��ex�-#4-----
TWO VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT A DETACHED ONE CAR GARAGE AT 1524 CYPRESS
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Doug and Lori Thomas are requesting two variances in order to
remove the existing detached one car garage (16'-6" x 19'-2") at
the rear of the house between the deck and the pool and replace it
with a new detached one car garage (11� x 26') on the left side of
the house at 1524 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. A parking variance is
required for construction of a one car garage where the code
requires two covered parking spaces for the existing three bedroom
home. The garage will be located approximately 59' behind the
front setback, therefore there will be room in the driveway to park
an additional vehicle (Code Sec. 25.70.030).
A side yard setback variance is required since the garage will be
located 1' to the side property line where 4' are required (Code
Sec. 25.66.050). The code exempts detached accessory structures
from setback requirements when they are contained in the rear 30�
of the lot. The proposed garage is not exempt from setbacks since
it is located toward the middle of the lot. No additions to the
house are proposed.
Backcrround
This project was originally scheduled for the May 9, 1988 Planning
Commission meeting, at which time the applicant requested that the
project be rescheduled for the first meeting in June. Additional
time was requested so that the applicant could discuss the design
of the garage with his neighbors and address their concerns. The
current proposal is slightly different from that originally
submitted. The garage has been moved further back on the property
so that it is approximately 59' behind the front setback whereas
the original proposal showed the garage approximately 40' behind
the front setback. Also, approximately one-third of the proposed
new garage will be within the drip line of the oak tree, whereas
the original proposal would have involved approximately 18� of the
garage extending into the drip line.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The Chief Building
Inspector (April 28, 1988 memo) and the Fire Marshal (May 2, 1988
memo) note that one hour fire resistive walls are required for
those walls of the garage which are closer than 3' to property
line. The City Engineer (May 2, 1988 memo) suggests that a
condition be attached to this project requiring that if the oak
2
tree is removed or dies a code standard garage be provided on the
property if the house is ever expanded.
Applicants� Letter
In their letter date stamped April 13, 1988 the applicants explain
that because of the location of the existing garage, the driveway
curves around the rear of the house and thus the entire backyard is
either asphalt driveway or garage. Because of the inaccessibility
of the garage, it has not been used for parking, and over the years
the structure has deteriorated and is currently in very poor
condition.
They go on to explain that the unusual circumstances related to
this property are the fact that the pool occupies the rear third of
the yard and therefore affects the placement of a garage on the
lot. Also, there is a large oak tree approximately 75' high and
2-3 feet in diameter in the backyard approximately 10 feet from the
house, which also limits the placement of a garage. The only way a
two car garage could be provided would be by removing the tree.
They state that by granting the variances they would have a usable
garage and could remove their vehicles from the street as well as
having some landscaped and usable backyard. The applicant has also
submitted a letter from a soils engineer which states that in order
to avoid structural damage to the pool no structure should be
placed closer than 6' to the pool. Also submitted is a letter from
a landscape architect which explains that for the protection of the
existing oak tree the garage should not be placed within the drip
line of the tree.
Findinas for a Variance
In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that
the following 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
3
d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
PlanninQ Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Findings
should be made for affirmative action and action 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 existing garage shall be removed and the new
garage (11� x 26') shall be constructed as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped June 2, 1988;
2. that the garage area shall never be used for living area
or separate residential purposes; and
3. that should the oak tree ever be removed or caused to be
removed the one car garage shall be demolished and
replaced by a two car garage to code requirements.
�,������ C� 2�. �� _.
�
Adriana Garefalos
Planner
AG/s
cc: Doug and Lori Thomas
PROJECT APPLICATION ��d "�" °- 1524 CYPRESS AVENUE
Ft CEQA ASSESSMENT °"R""G""'E project address --
� ��pro,7ect name - if any
�..o..�..�:
Application received ( 4/13/88 )
Staff review/acceptance ( ) (H� 3�3-5802 �
i. APPLICANT Doug and Lori Thomas (W) 952-5335
name telephone no.
1524 C.ypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Specia.l Perr�it (� Variance* (X ) Condominium Permit () Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Two VARIANCES for parkinq and side setback in order to remove the
existing one car qaraQe (16'-6" x 19'-2") and replace it with a
new one car qaraqe (11' x 26'), where the code requires two
co�cer_ed arking spaces (20' x 20') for the existinq three bedroom
home. The r�o op sed garage would be located 1' to the side aroperty
line where the code re4uires 4'. No additions to the house are
proposed.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.70.030 )( 25.66.050 )
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
( 028-294-100 ) ( 18 ) ( - ) ( Burlingame Heights
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
( R-1 ) ( 7,500 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Dou4las & Lori Thomas 1524 Cypress Avenue
la�n ' owner's name address
Burlinqame, CA 94010
Reouire� Date received city zip code
(3�es) (no) ( - ) Proof of ownershi�
(�as) (nol ( - ,) Owner's consent to anplication
5. EXISTIP�G SITE CONDITIONS '
Existing three bedroom home with detached one car garage
(16'-6" x 19'-2")
Reo,uired _ Date received
(YeS ) �� ( +�+ 2 3`�' )
�Yes) � ( " )
(.�s) (no) ( - )
(other) ( 4/13/88 )
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall;s 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).
*Land use classifications are: residential (sho�v N dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PR�F�SAL NEW GARAGE ONLY
Proposed c^nsii-uction, 3elovr orade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF)
9ross floor area � First floor ( 2 g h SF) Third floor ( - �F)
Pro.ject Co�� �roject Code
Pro�osal RPquir�ms�nt Proposal Requirement
�—
Front setback ���+ 15' min Lot coverT;�e 2�%± 40% max.
Side setback - - �uilr�:n� hei�ht ; �� �� �� 14' max.';
s;dP yard 1' 4' late 1 ine height' 8'— �" 10' max.
r----
2ear yarci �,�'t � 15' mi n "^ �i te nkc�.sn,�ce� i 1 � 2 i
�
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) "
EXISTING IP! 2 YEARS IN 5 YEARS
after � after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full tine employees on site
Part time employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
-�
_ �,
C.�
�_
C:�
,__
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent lots; this use conforms
tn the General Plan.
Required Date received
(,�s) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(,yaas) (no) ( - ) 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 $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 (X ) Project Assessment $�( X)
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 ()
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ()
TOTAL FEES $ 55. �� RECEIPT N0. 0�82 Received by L. Gandol fi
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is,
true and correct to the best of my k wledge and belief. �
Signatur I Date y�.� j
pplicant
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 ,
Cateaorically exempt per CEQA Code
Section 15303 (e), new construction
nf arcPCSnr�� Struct�re�
��� '� �� �Q`J/7 c� - �- ��
gnature of Processin Official Title Dai:e Signed
Unless �ppealed within 10 days hereof the �ate oosted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATIQ'V OF POSTIPIG Dat:e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and-that
I �osted a true copy of the above Ne�ati��e Declaration at the City Hall of said Cit,y near
the doors to ilia Council Charobers.
=xecuted at 3urlingame, California on
Ap�eale�i: ( )Yes ( )P!o
, 19
JUDITHTi. MALFATTI, CITY CLERK, CIT1 r; „URLINGAPiE
STAFF REVIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy:
date circulated reply received memo attached
City Engineer ( 4�21�gg ) (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 61ITIGATIOP! MEASUP.ES
Concerns Mitigation Measures
3
IF APd EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed (
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
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4. APPLICATIOP! STATUS Date first received ( 4/13/88)
Accepted as comolete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a�ublic hearing? (yes) (ii�) Recommended date ( 5� g� gg �
Date staff reoort mai led aopl icant ( S/� /�� Da�ei C� ��sLiUn h� �ng ��I �()
Application approved (jJ ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) ����f� Y
Date Council hearing ( ) A�olication aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
�% i 5-.�-�
signed date
CEQA REQUIRE�1EMTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Categorically exempt
-- ��....��..�P
APR 1 3 1988
CI i � , .�ru�ti�,...ii�
F'� t..F'��C: nFPT, �
FIRST FLOOR �xiSrjNG) �
1524 CYPRESS AVE.
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
RFr..��vED
APR l 3 198$
SECOND FLOOR �,�xISTIrvG) C�°'`•'•"��n��`'��''G'TM`
1524 CYPRESS AVE.
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�,
�
Doug and Lori Thomas
1524 Cypress Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
REC����p
APR 1 3 1988
CITY OF BU�;����;,q�y1E
�" � "Nini�: �FpT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We wish to demolish an existing, but obsolete, one-car garage on
the right, rear side of our house and replace it with a useable
one-car garage on the left side of the house which would then be
on the same side as the driveway. As part of the process we would
also re-landscape the entire yard and re-pave the driveway.
By demolishing the obsolete garage and replacing it with a useable
one, we will be able to:
o Remove both cars from the street - one in the garage and the
other in a tandem parking area of the driveway;
o Have a landscaped backyard with a lawn, providing us with
greater enjoyment of the house and increasing the value of
the house and neighborhood.
BACRGROUND INFORMATION
The current residence includes a 1-car garage that is
approximately 65 years old. The garage is located in the "back
yard" between the house and the swimming pool (The swimming pool
occupies the back 1/3 of the lot.) . The garage abuts the property
line on the right side and is on the side of the house opposite
the driveway. Thus, the driveway is on the left side of the house
and curves around the back of the house to the garage. Due to the
garage's unusual site placement combined with the driveway curving
around the back of the house, the entire "backyard" is either
asphalt driveway or garage, leaving no room for a lawn or area to
enjoy (See attached drawings for a more detailed description) .
Based upon discussions with adjacent residences who have lived in
the neighborhood for 10-20 years, the garage has not been used for
car parking for at least 15 years due to its obsolescence and
inaccessibility. Instead, current and past residents have parked
their cars on the street. Over time, the garage has not been well
maintained. The result is a poorly managed, rotting structure.
VARIANCE REQUIRED
In order to meet our goal, one, or possibly two, variance(s) will
be required.
Doug and Lori Thomas
Page 2 of 4
The required variance would be to allow the garage to be built
one-foot from the property line instead of the required four-foot
setback
The second variance that may be required would be to allow a
one-car garage to be constructed, even though we have a 3-bedroom
house. Section 25.70.030 of the Building Code requires that
three-bedroom homes "... shall provide garage or carport space
for at least two vehicles." However, Exception #1 of that Code
Section states that ". .. the requirement for additional carport
or garage space may be waived ... Where a driveway of
sufficient dimensions, measured for the legally established front
setback line to an existing garage, will accommodate the
prescribed number of automobiles; in such a case, tandem parking
will be permitted ..." Our desired plan provides a driveway of
sufficient length to accomodate a second car; therefore, Exception
#1 is valid and we would like it to be approved.
Section 25.54.020 ofthe Code - Power to grant variances - further
states that "The variance may be granted provided that the
commission finds, after a full investigation and public hearing,
that all of the following are true:
a. ... there are exceptional ... circumstances applicable
to the property ... so that a denial ... would result in und
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 injuriou
to the property or improvements of other property owners ..
d. That the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city ..."
Our response to each of these points is as follows:
A. Exceptional Circumstances. We do have several unique
circumstances that critically affect the size and placement of
the garage:
First, the pool occupies the back one-third of the yard and
any garage built must be kept at least six (6) feet away
from the pool or structural damage to the pool could occu r
(See attached letter from soil engineer.).
Doug and Lori Thomas
Page 3 of 4
Second, there is a large, mature California live oak tree
(approximately 75 feet high and 2-3 feet in diameter)
located in the back yard approximately 10 feet from the
house. The only way that a two-car garage could be built is
if this tree were removed. But even if it were removed, the
resulting placement of the garage would obstruct the view of
our backyard from the windows in our master bedroom. We
feel that removing the tree and blocking our view would
result in undue property loss.
Third, to keep the oak tree alive, it is important not to
place the garage too close to the main roots of the tree nor
under the tree's drip line by any significant amount (See
attached letter from landscape architect.) . Hence, it would
e better to place the garage on the side of the house.
B. Preservation and Enjoyment of a property right of the Owner.
Given the existing situation, we have no real enjoyment of our
"yard" because we have no yard. We are also forced to park
our cars in the street because the existing garage is so
inaccessible and obsolete. By granting the variance, we will
be provided to opportunity to finally enjoy having a backyard
and remove our cars from the street.
C. Not Detrimental to Other Property Owners. Our neighbors are
supportive of our plan.
D. The comprehensive zoning plan of the city will not be
adversely affected. We believe that the zoning plan will not
be adversely affected by granting the variance, but doing so
will instead be consistent with the city's goal of minimizing
on-street parking and prevent future conversion of the garage
to another use. For example, if a two-car structure were
built closer to the pool/ farther away from the house, it
would be a more ideal size & location for later conversion to
a pool house or second unit.
In addition, the existing design/layout of the house
essentially precludes additional expansion (particularly
bedrooms). Note that the two bedrooms upstairs cover 100% of
the buildable area. Thus, the possibility of additional
bedrooms, thereby generating additional parking requirements,
is virtually nonexistent.
SIIM M ARY
We request being granted the variance necessary to replace our
obsolete 1-car garage with a new, useable 1-car garage for the
following reasons:
0 Under Code Section 25.70.030 - Exception #1 we have a
driveway of sufficient length so that "the requirement for
additional ... garage space may be waived ..."
Doug and Lori Thomas
Page 4 of 4
0 Under Code Section 25.54.020 we are able to demonstrate that
there are extraordinary circumstances, that ourselves and
our neighbors will then have the quiet enjoyment of our
homes, and that the city's zoning plan will not be adversely
affected.
0 We believe that it will be good for the value of our home
and neighborhood, and help eliminate the on-street parking
problem that exists in Burlingame.
Sincerely,
�� -
Douglas A. Thomas
Lori H. Thomas
Owners:
1524 Cypress Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
April 12, 1988
Mr. Doug Thomas
c/o The Koll Company Sierra Point
1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 590
Brisbane, California 94005
RECOMMENDATION FOR SETBACK DISTANCES
FROM RETAINING STRUCTURES
We are writing this letter to confirm the verbal recommendation given to
you recently concerning setback distances from retaining structures. We
understand that you may be locating new footings adjacent to a swimming
pool at your home.
The general recommendations for mitigating lateral stresses on retaining
structures from adjacent footings are as follows:
Footings should be below a plane extending up from the bottom of the
retaining structure at an inclination of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Footings can either be below this plane by moving the footings away
from the retaining structure or could be located below the plane by
lowering the footings. For example, if the height from the top to
bottom of the retaining structure is 4 feet a footing located on the
surface 8 or more feet away from the retaining structure should have
little or no effect on the structure. If the footing were embedded
1 foot and the height was 4 feet, then the footing should be a minimum
of 6 feet from the retaining structure.
We trust that this recommendation is sufficient to allow you to determine
the required setback for your proposed garage. If you have any questions
concerning the recommendation, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
��
Ted Splitter
G.E.797 REC��VE�
ELG/E184 APR 1 3 1988
CITY UF BURLINGAM:
�� r•�roiniC: �F.pi.
h r; �ti h ��
A 5 S
April 8, 1988
1
O C I A T E �
Landsea�u� Architr���un•
Euvirmm�<•ntal Plaunin�;
! � 15 Sansum�• Stre��t
`�uidio 3731
',.+n I�rancis��u CA �) l l I I
� i I51 956-:b.1�72
• , ,
Mr. Doug Thomas
1524 Cypress Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Thomas:
As requested, this letter is written to record our recommendations regarding the
protection of the existing Oak tree at the rear of your residence adjacent to the
existing garage.
The Oak tree has a trunk approximately two feet in diameter and a canopy spread of
approximately forty feet. It is a beautiful and valuable tree.
In order to optimize the health and long life of your Oak, or any large mature Oak tree,
no structures, pavement or irrigation water should be allowed within the dripline of
the tree. Plant material placed within the dripline should be species which do not
require summer water.
If the existing garage can be removed and no new structures placed within the dripline,
the tree will be most benefited. Air and water will transfer freely through the soil to
the roots and produce the best growing conditions.
Please let me know if I can provide further assistance.
Sincerely,
��� �
,
� ��
i� � ��� .
� �-�� �.
Paul Barber
PB/mfb
REC���-�-�
APR 1 .� 1y��
c��,
�" �' n,in��;`���TM=
�
�.� ����
t
,' ,
.;,`J,%; ..
DATE : ���i �_ �% / ! ��
MEMO T0: C?TY ENGINE�R
CHIEF BUILDING i�dSF�,�'-OR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOP. OF P;�,";;�:�
FROM:` PL,ANNING DEPAR-;`",�NT
SUBJECT: G�,��QRLP%L fp ,/�G�/},Y�'.�z
�" ����.P ..�E'f �Q G
v
/%P l G�i�'S'C�j�,�! �' c
�1 �� �? ��' �a�% - iC�lc�� �Y
An application has been received for the above project `or review by the
Planning Commiss�ion. The application will be scheduled for G/7
at their /%%J 9 �rf� meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by ���� f �,S � f��
� a �' � d��
- v�� �
Thank you. �, /�/hniK
�/�Or� ��JG� �/� K y ��d/�Jo H
✓
�o � �1„ ��
��
%G� G�(�
� .5�� Cy�r
���
��� ��' «<.��'�" O« �y'N�d�f' �/���'�
� � - �« � �� � � /
`�'S S � d t7 � /'�c" � /0 - �4 �•z �% �` �•-. ��i . .
w� //s ��t � ,� � ,
�
�
.�.��
����
�
�:r
DATc: i� .�/ /��
MEMO T0: CiTY ENGiNEER �
CHIEF BUILDING PECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PP,RK.S
FROM:" PLANNING DEPAR7MENT
s
S U B J E C T: GG�iQ nCt/� 7�Zj /� ,t�t'�r � S � GCQ .S'� ,V Li G
�P ��'dS�i's? C'' c
�� � a � �� ��� �
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commiss;ion. The application will be scheduled for �C/5'
at ti�eir_ /%%c/ 9 �y� meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by ���, f �,S ����
Thark you.
� - �)�:,;v / N Ca
r.� , �, ��; ���'�.,c E-! �-C.
� .
- --
Sr� ��� c� A c.0 ��. SS l h��%
�rl�';� � �7 � , �� Fi_
C�Cp,a�.51,(L�� � v J
�� 2 g �
�
lcril �'�_
/ SZ C��r
a�l�rj��
��'''� C .� � � � �'r1
i'� ��- � � � ►��_ �,F �r�.�� ( r � �1-�-�,� n�
�� i N f V� C��._..�> : v6� ._
., �
;
; � .
�
DATE : i� -�/ / � -
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PP,RKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: l���ah�/� fp
/�P,�/a,r-a���
�'� y �� .��Ce S��.ha
'Sd�'� � / �
� �`� a ���� � �c� `'�"��i�P �'v
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commiss;ion. The ap�lication will be scheduled ror �G/`T
at their_�_ l y� _meeting. We would znpreciate having
your comments bY__�[��� G.S ,���-
Tnar�k you.
v; /'lQ����?/
� �fl
�
�� �'�
/SZ C,�e�r
OV�iu�o
` ' �����
�-
. / o.�� � w�:G� ��,�� _ ��
j r�/�'� /J' ct ��"% � �� /� � � _ � � � / /.s -�t�jJ�,
/y!'t� �Grs•C�Ct.C�v Ssi�JGc 7�v`! . �
�l ��� � � �, `,e���,,7,,r��,-� /mP �
�,���� �, o��n �' l��'�`� s�s� >��
� � � �, ���
w��� - ���� � ��
� ��� , _ .� �' /
�� i� � �� _
-��� . . �,�� , �� �� c
� � � . � �,��.����
r � ��
I �-� .�r'" `�r�!A����7!��� � p / //�
���2'�1 � r� .,��--
��_iG�-r� c
_ �� �
, � �� �
% l� C�-�.�� �
- �� �- �f-� .
s� ;
;
,
,
��
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
May 9, 1988
4. VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A
DETACHED ONE CAR GARAGE AT 1524 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Item continued to the meeting of June 13, 1988 at the request of
the applicant.
TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO
THREE PARCELS AT 1249 VANCOWER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Re rence staff report, 5/9/88, with attachments. CE Erbacher
rev ewed this request to divide an existing parcel into three
parc ls. He discussed zoning, minimum lot size, street frantages,
setba;ks, Town of Hillsborough review, Hillsborough requirements,
city staff review, parcel map criteria, lot frontages and lot sizes
in the\ neighborhood, study meeting questions. CE recommended
approval with 11 conditions as listed in the staff report and noted
Commissiori may wish to discuss compatibility of the proposed lots
to pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood.
Commission/staff discussion: all development conditions will be
shown on the map and recorded with the deed; Hillsborough will
require driveway access to Armsby be limited to a 30' maximum width
driveway at the joint property line between the two parcels
fronting on Arms��y; staff did not know if this proposal had been
reviewed by the architectural review committee in Hillsborough; the
matter of utilities going through Parcel F which fronts on
Vancouver will be resolved with PG&E and the telephone company; CE
advised contours show� on the map are the existing contours, no
major grading is proposed, just the driveway; the two parcels on
Armsby will have an Armsby address coordinated with Hillsborough;
FM advised there would .be no problem with Burlingame�s fire
xesponse, they are familiar with this area.
John and Theresa Colombo, applicants, were present. Chm. Jacobs
opened the public hearing. The following members of the audience
spoke.
Ken Musso, 227 La Prenda, Millbrae: he spoke in favor of the
proposal as one of the future parc'el owners.
Clarence Cravalho, 1265 Vancouver"��Avenue: he expressed concern
about f�.�Ye safety, particularly corz'+ ct response from 911; he was
also oncerned about his retaining�, wall and that it not be
disr ted by any new construction and �elt a two story house would
to r over his home if put on that s��de of the lot as well as
invading his privacy in the back yard. CA advised Burlingame does
not have design review, this application is a map to create three
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :_�ge 6
May 9, 1988
parcels, the developers would be required to buil,; to city codes
regarding setbacks and height.
�'
Charles Kavanagh, Civil Engineer who prepared the map, sta�ted they
hoped to save the 24" pine tree by realigning the driveway slope,
they are propoSing a drainage ditch to collect any sur,f�ace waters
and help protect the slope, as the upper lots ar� developed,
easements can b�; granted over the lower lot, drainagc water would
go through a cld�sed conduit to an approved drainage facility on
Vancouver. �
,
Carl Goldstone, l0,ik'agan Drive, Hillsborough: he.was concerned that
perhaps Hillsboroug�i�s Town Manager and Council were not aware of
this proposal and t�,at the only condition requested by the Town of
Hillsborough was th� 30' driveway, he fel� this project might
impact Hillsborough a much as Burlingame, if Burlingame grants the
subdivision a condition should be included that the Town of
Hillsborough grant an �asement for access onto Armsby; he believed
Hillsborough should hav a public hearing on this matter since two
of the parcels front on rmsby. CA stated that Hillsborough�s only
control is access from` Armsby, not over the subdivision in
Burlingame, access may n,ot be a matter for Council action in
Hillsborough and it is up`�.,to the developer to get the access. A
Commissioner shared the con�cern of Mr. Goldstone that the Town of
Hillsborough be aware of this project.
There were no further audienc� comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission/staff discussion/comtii�ent: CE confirmed the map is
complete, access is a part of tYl,e conditions of the map action;
have a problem with the abuttirieg driveway, this will not be
attractive and will look like a s�reet, could some planting be
required down the length of the drive ays; think the full 30' width
..is needed to make a turn from the str et; concern that the Town of
Hillsborough has not been adequately i formed about this proposal;
conditions include items which will hav to go to Hillsborough for
action; since action on an access easemen must go to Hillsborough,
think Commission should concern itself �th the effect of this
devel9pment on_Burlingame.
C. Giomi moved to recommend this tentative an final parcel map to
City Council for approval with the 11 condi 'ons listed in the
staff report. She found this proposal is c patible with the
pattern:%of existing lots in the neighborhood and omplies with all
crite�ia for map action. Motion was seconded by C. arcia.
Comment on the motion: concern about safety on Armsby Drive.
Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and
H.Graham dissenting, C. Harrison absent.
, �. .�.` . . ��:.
— _ .,. .�
t . _
`7b'.�'� �1Y//�/1�'� '"l ��7
� �
., , _ .
� � � ; �, : _�,:��r . _
c. _ y � �� — , � .br'��� �.t. "�� w
- i� ,- , .,,�..,, ,�; - � _ „ . _
�. , � _ ''��� .o,,�l, ,�'
�: *�� . , - - - o � ��
� . . _ � i
. � • _ �R � t� ` t��
. . ... r ' 0 -t �•
.wr� - .. , ,� • � .� � • , ��• Ir
- -_• '1 ' . ��.' ;_• � }�__������ F . � � � '�
�� - , � �-�" � * -
� S �'-' \ /'� � T �, ,
, �, d � 5� � • � r . �',,
, � �����.
� ;. � ; .
'!� ,'-� � •� • ---- t ,, _ N (f� ��I'� y� ',
, � � ul �, ._�. � , � . �
� ''� �]' _ b'� rr� y t 1 �s- .. . .�
. ; � - N ,�,� � ' ,�„�"
��� J) ,.�., � '� -
N \ 1 S
_ � �. , � �
" � '� � ` t ��f � � '� r�
, � , . " � :. � Q � ,:,.;�
�2 � ,�� �� w
•� _ �
• �v � � r — ' f, f ��' �"�_ . cj � �." �-. � „";' YR-
- ., `�" � � �'� �'�. � � � � � :ti
�-" ,� � . �. _ a
.. r � . '� `q r -�.�- �` � .
.i. � � _ , �Tj t(1 ° -- �'�, �
� � ' � ^ � � ,�: .
• �.� J� .� . � �
- � �"` ..
. i� � ,� -n . '.�'• �. - -'+i�r. .. -,:+I . � ,,�,.rr..
� � ..,. � �� " a,��! �
• ' 4 '�+ � ��� �I�[����� � M �
e � �� � � �
Q� �� � . �,�,��
.-.�.�� � �-
� ��' ��° ,3 �ii � '� � ,
'� , � ��"''r' �, ,� + �' � "�,��. � � ` .
'�` � ;�"l� i � '� ' i f • `� - �-f�+.c--� ,��.�
1 � . • %�, �
�: '� . � n � � •r4 �' �`, `r r \ . � , �, -• . . �
_ - � � ;��: � � � .
. ,--
,,,,,_„� _ �-- "' -�_ _. �
. a . , � r
. � �, '`� .,, �. r � ,,,, k _ � �,
, •, > , -
; •' iY� r!� � �' ,. •
,« <�,t� � �. � � _ .
� � �",�r-
��� t:� ��L � ��--• -- ,.+���' , r. - � ' ` ' i
♦ �., . '�°�'°' _�iK' � � '���,� _ 4, ; �/�► • .;c
� . � � � �•�� w, ��ir/�'�� � ,�I . fy �
� �1 ' •� � , � , �~•• f � � s� rY
, � � .��� • �q � � �' , � � �
' �--� � �-----� �_ � ,� � � ��
� .� ��:.� � t� J ^� � � �� M �` �, ^ �'
y � � � � ,f.r• c . - .�+� " . �
� �\ . � � :!� ' � • , ���
.f! � ► r. i ` `' �
'1 ��► r �1 � f �.... � � - � u
��tQ C�tf� IIf �,�u�itrt��zmP
5pN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HAIL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
NOTICE OF HEARING
Parking & Sideyard Setback Variance
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 13th day of June 1988
at
„ •, �,,�mr,Pr� _, 501 Primrose Road,
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall�
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
d pub11C hearing o11 the application fOr building a one car garage where the
Zoning Code requires two covered parking spaces and locating the garage
1'-0" from the sid� property line where the code requires 4'-0" at
1524 Cypress Ave, 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 PLANNER
TEL:(415) 342-8931
� _. �
�'�
�
, -.
� .'
June 3, 1988
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLVED
Burlingame that:
RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES
by the Planning Commission of the City of
WHEREAS, application has been made for variances for
p�rkina and side vard setback to allow construction of a detached
garaae at 1524 Cvpress Avenue (APN 028-294-100� ,
a�d
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application�on. June 13 , 1 88, 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 variances are 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 Planninq 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 June ,
1988, by the.following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MIKE ELLIS
SECRETARY
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
June 13, 1988
o� the variance with conditions 1, 2 and 3 as listed in the staff
rep�rt. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia.
In discuss.ion on the motion it was agreed to remove the,�,.CE"'�s June
6, 1988 memo•-_from condition #1. Conditions of �p�val follow:
( 1) that the coridi.,.tions of the Fire Marshal � s Mc�*`'25, 1988 memo and
the Chief Building �In�,yector � s June 2, 1988.�.�mo shall be met; ( 2)
that the project as bi�ilt shall be ,�onsistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning DepartmentM•��nd date stamped May 31, 1988
except that the interior stai�r� to the second floor shall be
redesigned to meet Uniform„�«�-�uilding Code requirements and the
length of the garage sh�fi�r be increased �to• a minimum of 24' , the
wall storage reloca "'to the rear of the garage and the garage
door widened and placed; and (3) that the plans as revised shall
meet all the quirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire
Codes as a�'nded by the City of Burlingame.
Mot' was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent.
eal procedures were advised.
7. TWO VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT
� A DETACHED ONE CAR GARAGE AT 1524 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/13/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant�s letter.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Doug Thomas, applicant,
stated they would like to remove the existing garage at the rear of
their house between the deck and pool and construct a new one car
garage at the side of the house, this would improve their property,
take their cars off the street and give them some usable backyard
area; the existing garage has been used to some degree in the past
but it is in poor condition and difficult to get into. He had
concern about condition #3 which would require a new two car garage
be built should the oak tree be removed or die; a new two car
garage could only be built in the same place and would eliminate
view from the back bedroom windows.
Applicant/Commission/staff discussion: the pool covers the rear 30$
of the lot; applicant wished to put the new garage at the side of
the house to create some backyard space; he believed that
differences with his neighbors had been resolved, he has moved the
garage back so it does not block neighbor's windows. Applicant
stated a landscape architect felt the oak tree would survive with
the proposed location of the new garage; material for the walkway
to the pool may be brick, he had been advised that brick on the
surface or 2" below is acceptable.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
June 13, 1988
Richard Zambon, 1520 Cypress Avenue expressed his concern about
solar access to the two solar panels on the roof of his garage
which is adjacent to the applicant�s present garage, these two
panels heat his swimming pool, what would be planted in the area
after the existing garage is demolished; he was also concerned
about fences and access for painting the side of his garage; he did
not feel the applicant's existing garage was dilapidated.
In response applicant stated he was attempting to address his
neighbor�s concern about fences and access for painting, he would
not be planting any large trees, he did want to seal the fences
between the two properties so that the pools were enclosed. There
were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion/comment: have a problem making findings,
cannot find sufficient reasons to grant a variance; it appears the
existing situation is depriving the applicant of use of part of his
land, the existing garage is between his deck and his pool, the
variance would enable him to better utilize his property.
C. Giomi moved for approval of the two variances and for adoption
of Commission Resolution Approving Variances with the following
conditions: (1) that the existing garage shall be removed and the
new garage ( 11' x 26' ) shall be constructed as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped .7une 2, 1988;
(2) that the garage area shall never be used for living area or
separate residential purposes; (3) that should the oak tree ever be
removed or be caused to be removed the one car garage shall be
demolished and replaced by a two car garage to code requirements;
and (4) that the removal of the existing garage and relandscaping
of the area shall preserve solar access on the adjacent property
next to the original garage site.
C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the
piacement of the house, the oak tree which has been there for many
years, placement of the pool and existing garage; the garage is not
in the best condition and will need to be replaced in the near
future; this property has a long driveway which can be used for
parking; the variance would not adversely affect the zoning plan of
the city nor be detrimental to other property owners, light to
adjacent structures will be preserved.
Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-1 roll call
vote, C. H.Graham dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures
were advised.