Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1232 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report. �A- J. � . � TC: DA`E: � �' � � i'' ' 2.,�, ,� �' t, GITV C,t. O'x AGENOA BURUNGAME I T EM n �::;X:�:. STAFF REPORT DATE �_ �_�_ HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY March 13, 1995 F�oM: C'TTY PT.ANNF.R BYPROVED s �=-' E � T: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING CONIlVIISSIONS DF.NIAL OF A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings for each variance. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. (Action alternatives and criteria for findings for a variance are included at the end of the staff report. ) The Planning Commission considered the following conditions for the front setback variance: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 1995, sheets 2(foundation and basement plan), 3(main and upper level plans) and 5 building elevations); 2. that within 30 days, a property survey shall be made and submitted with revised plans to the Building Department in order to meet the requirement of the city En,gineer's February 9, 1995 memo; 3. that the requirements of the chief Building Official's memo (2/13/95) shall be met; 4. that within 30 days from Planning Commission action on this project, the applicant shall submit revised plans- denoting the walls at the front of the building as new and sha11 pay all applicable fees to the Building Department; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. 6. that construction plans for the project including construction of the foundation and walls for the front and left side of the structure shall be submitted to the building department for plan check and structural engineering review; 7. that all portions of the foundation built at the front and left side of the structure shall be excavated for inspection as determined by the structural engineer and Chief Building Official; 8. that an amended building permit shall be obtained including a penalty fee for getting a permit after work had been completed. . nw � 3.20:93 ' APPEAL OF THE PLANIVING COMMISSIONS DENIAL OF A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 232 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. page -2- For the variance for driveway dimension the Planning Commission approved the following conditions: 1. that the driveway setback shall be 9'-2" as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 1995; 2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on February 27, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Kelly absent) to deny the 8'-8" front setback variance and voted 6-0-1 (C: Kelly absent) to approve the parking variance for drive way dimension (9'-2" requested, 9'6" required). In their action the commissioners noted this is a new structure and no longer fits in the non-conforming category, there are no unusual circumstances on the lot and therefore no findings for the front setback variance. For the parking dimension exception the commission noted that the driveway is only 4 inches smaller than required, this distance has existed and the driveway has been useable for many years, and that the conditions should be revised to address only the driveway exception. BACKGROUND: Jack McCarthy, designer, representing Thomas O'Connor and Elizabeth O'Sullivan are requesting two variances in order to build a new single family dwelling at 1232 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The variances are for: front setback, 8'-8" requested, 15' required, and parking, substandard driveway width 9'-2" requested, 9'6" required. The new house would have two stories and would have 2,964 SF of living area with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a game room and a family room. The framing of the entire structure is in place. This item came to the attention of the Planning Department when a neighbor asked how the house, which appeared to have been dernolished, was allowed to extend so close to the street. A search of the Building Department files showed that on August 9, 1994 Mr. O'Connor had submitted an application for a building permit to remodel the house. The Planning Department's plan check showed that most of the front wall and foundation and the wall and foundation on the left side of the house were being retained and unchanged as a part of the remodel. The remodel and second story addition was to occur at the rear of the structure. The existing front setback was 8'-2" and the existing driveway width on the left side of the structure where the wall was retained was 9'2". The retention of these walls and the one story portion of the structure allowed the applicant to retain the non-conforming front setback and driveway width without Planning Commission review. Subsequently the applicant noted that they found a problem with the foundation of the portion of the front wall foundation which was to be retained. They removed and rebuilt the exiting wall and the left side wall and replaced them. In this process they reformed and raised the foundation under these walls. New stud walls were installed. The Chief Building Official inspected the site at the Planning Department's request and stated that it was now a new house not a remodel and the project would have to comply with all the UBC and UFC requirements for new construction. The project was red tagged and the designer . �., .�► 3:2Q:9� APPEAL OF THE PLAI�iNING COMMISSIONS DEIVIAL OF A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 232 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. page -3- was notified by the Planning Department that an application would have to be made for the variances as if this was a new house. Planning staff have put together a chronology of building permit actions and inspections for this site. (attached) The history on the foundation is somewhat confused by the fact that after the building permit for remodel of the house was issued on October 17, 1994, Mr. O'Connor requested two amendments to the rear and right side foundation in order to add a habitable basement area (November 9 and November 18). A review of the plans checked and still on file in the Building Department note that neither of these revisions included any change to the notes that the existing front and left side foundations were to be retained. Therefore, no building permits have been issued for any of the work done on the portion of the front and left side foundation and walls presently in place. If these were to be retained, the applicant would need to submit as built plans for the structural engineer to check, excavate a portion of the foundation for inspection, and get a retroactive building permit with penalty fee. /M 1232CABdt.209 ATTACHMENTS : Action Alternatives and Criteria for Variance Findings Monroe letter to Jack McCarthy, March 7, 1995, setting hearing Elizabeth O'Sullivan-O'Connor and Thomas O'Connor letter to Planning Commission , February 28, 1995, requesting appeal. Planning Commission Minutes, February 27, 1995 Sigrid and Hans Geiger letter to Planning Department,February 14, 1995 Eugene and Gloria Bordegaray letter to Monroe, February 22,1995 Chronology or Plan Submittal, Plan Check, Inspection and Inspectors Comments at 1232 Cabrillo Avenue, March 10, 1995 Planning Commission Staff Report, February 27, 1995, with attachments Map of Public Notice Area Notice of Appeal Hearing, March 10, 1995 Resolution , , �• ACTION ALTERNATIVES �%%� / � � `` 1' � 1. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant�s request. If the action is a variance, use permit, fence exception or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant�s request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. VARIANCE FINDINGS (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. _ �ti . 0 (`��E �t�� 4� ��zlt�c�ttxn.e GTY HALL - 50i PRIMROSE ROAD .e� (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 rnx (4i5) 342-83H6 March 7, 1995 7ack McCarthy 5339 Prospect Road #311 San 7ose, Ca 95129 Dear Mr. McCarthy, At the City Council meeting of March 6, 1995 the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your Front Setback Variance and Parking Variance applications at 1232 Cabrillo Avenue, Zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on Monday, March 20, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, �� � �/j� � �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM: smg 1232CABR.acc c: Elizabeth O'Sullivan 2623 - 20th Street San Francisco, CA 94116 Thomas O'Connor 1338 - 36th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 City Clerk A p�'nrd a' 'ecycAad c+Acs t J _ ti i cB-��-1995 @S�OPI`1 FROh1 TO .:;'�42'3386 P.Ci2 February 28, 1995 City of Burlingame City Plannin� Cammission ; VVe wou�d like ta appeal the decisivn m�ade on February 27, 1995 by . the Pla�ning Cammissian rega�ding che £ront setback varian�e at Iz32 Cabrillo Avenue. � Respectfully, � p �c�ur,�- � `,�.�. ' ����� ��-,�rf.� � � �_ �_ , ir� ') � ` Ar �1r � �n� . e � �'�';._ I�� n c; � J . �,� ,��, �/•`n,V: r�r'.!n.i . _ �ri., ' TOTAL P.L�� _ ti Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1995 � 3. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (ELIZABETH O'SULLIVAN AND THOMAS O'CONNOR, PROPERTY OWNERS AND 7ACK McCARTHY. APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 2/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There was discussion regarding the fact that the plans in the packet were those submitted for the changes to the original building permit. The old plans originally reviewed did not include the notes about the changes to the front and side foundation. The Chief Building Inspector determined this is a new foundation, therefore a new house. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy, project azchitect, 53395 Prospect, Suite 311, San 7ose and Thomas O'Connor, 1338 - 36th Avenue, San Francisco were present to respond to the commission's questions. Commission asked the applicant if he had understood when the original design was done that the non-conforming structure could invade the front setback so long as the original foundation and wall remained, if it was removed then the structure must meet the cunent zoning and uniform building and fire code requirements. Mr. McCarthy stated it was understood that it would be necessary to retain the walls in order to continue the exception to the setback requirements. When it was discovered that it would be impossible to retain those wa11s because of the termite problem, they thought it was okay since they were keeping the same foundation line and capping the original foundation. Gene Bordegaray, 1236 Cabrillo, 7ean Hargrave, 1227 Cabrillo and Sigrid Geiger, 1237 Cabrillo spoke in favor or the project. They have no problem with the siting of the house in the exact same location as previously placed. Steve Pade, 1205 Cabrillo, spoke in opposition to these variances, the encroachment into the front setback with a two story house changes the character of the street. He stated there should be no need or reason to grant a variance to a new structure, they should abide by the guidelines required of everyone. This would set a precedent for him if he remodels his house. This lot has no unusual circumstances it is the same as all other lots on the street. Mr. McCarthy gave a copy of the survey, showing the placement of the original structure, to the commission. C. Deal remarked this is an all new structure and no longer fits in the non-conforming category. There are no unusual circumstances on this lot and therefore are no findings for a front setback variance. He then moved denial of the front setback portion of this application. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and the denial was upheld by a 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kelly absent) voice vote. C. Deal then moved approval of the parking variance portion of this application, by resolution. He noted that the areas is only 4" smaller than required, the 9'2" distance has existed and been useable for many years, the conditions should be modified to retain conditions No. 1, amending it to address the driveway only and condition No. 5, addressing that all new needs to meet all requirements of the UBC and UFC -3- _ � 'Burlir=game Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1995 as follows: 1) that the driveway setback shall be 9'-2" as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 1995; 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and passed on a 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission adjourned for a break at 9:05 P.M. and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. . NTENNA EXCEPTION FOR A SATELLIT DISI3 ANTENNA AT 707 EL CAMINO REAL, NED R-3 (CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CONFE CE ASSOCIATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY A ST CHURCH PROPERTY OWNER A DONALD NEPTUNE APPLICANT . Reference s report, 2/27/95, with attachments. CP Monr discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Dep ent comments, and study meeting questio s. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan open the public hearing. Tom Felton, Chairman, 'ldi� Avenue, San Mateo, s present. Alex Bodgis, 601 Burlingame Ave ambiguity and subjectivit f the antenna review guidelines, exceptions and satellite ordinance. There we no other comments and the public hearing Committee, 1550 Adeline commented regarding the pdings as they apply to the a�, closed. C. Jacobs, notetl that the placemen was lower than the roof ridge, visible only fr m Hillsborough Town the neighbors had not complai ed, an effort had been made to make the ins ation compatible and it wo ld be painted the same color f the roof based on the information suppli in the packet and provi by the applicant, moved to ap ve this antenna exception application, by r olution, with the follow g conditions; 1) that the satellite dis antenna shall be installed as shown on the lans submitted to the anning Department and date stamped anuary 17, 1995 Site Plan and Elevation • 2) that the condition of the Chief Building Inspectors' Janu 23 1995 memo (roof and supports shal eet wind � load require nts of Chapter 23 of the Uniform B'lding Code) shall be met; 3) the installatio of this satellite dish r 'res separate application to the Buil ' g Department, with proper plans and engin 'ng calculations, as r ired for a Building Permit; 4) that t antenna dish installed shall not have a diame r greater than 7'-0", r rise more than 25'-0" above the rface of the ground relative to the roof, and shall be painted with nonreflective paint, in a color to ma the roof; 5) that the antenna shall have a maximum rise of 12' a ove the roof ridge as viewed from the rthwest elevation; 6) that the applicant or property owner shall e responsible for an amendment to this u permit if future construction on any adjacent property require elocation of the dish antenna, removal d reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant an r property owner; 7) that the applican shall permanently maintain the nonreflective surface of the 'sh and its support structure, or remove 1 the equipment and support structure; 8) that as installed the satellite antenna shall meet all the requirem ts of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, includ g connections from the antenna inside the uilding to any television equipment; 9) that the satellite enna shall be removed at the time this tenant eventh Day Adventist Church) leaves this premiss and i the new tenant wishes to install any type of ant na he shall comply with all the code requirements in e ect at that time; and 10) that any modification to e antenna or its location shall require an amendment this use permit. -4- _ ti � 0 ' ")MMUNICATIOi►1 �tECJEI'�!� �:�TER PREFARATION �, � ` ^. � �..�r r, . rN��' Pebruary 1Q�, 1995 City of Burlingame Building/Pta�nz��ng Department Dear Sir/Madam: � am the owr�ex at ���� � C~r�i � fc ll.L-p f�U� , this letter is ta ��form ,, you that I have seen the structare of the building at. 1232 � Cabiillo �.. ' Avenu� �nd have no problem with this house as it is being �� � constructed. �� Sinc�rely, `` � / , K. ,C.�-%�e � U _�. _ ► � �2 r � � ���;: l G� E � � ( G��� A �� �� <C��.,�' � � .���� 3 �� GENE BORDEGARAY 1236 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Ms. Margaret Monroe City Planner City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Application for Variance A.P.N. #026-156-220 Dear Ms. Monroe: , ..r .'".ii'��C.%�C1f� ��t.�.aS4%�`_4i •. TEfi Pf�£A1�RATIOM t �. ` � � . ,�g I recently received your NOTICE OF HEARING for a request for variance at 1232 Cabrillo Ave. I live next door at 1236 Cabrillo Ave. and have lived there for almost 24 years. I've seen the subject structure. It's front wall is located at the same location as the front wall of the previous structure. Similarly, the side wall along the driveway is also in the same location as the sidewall of the previous structure. I have no complaint regarding the location of the structure with respect to the front property line or the side along the driveway. As a matter of fact, the owners seem to be doing a very good job of construction and the aesthetics of the design are pleasing and compatible to Burlingame's ambiance. Since this structure is well into construction, and since the City of Burlingame, has approved the plans and already issued several inspection approvals, it would be inappropriate and certainly untimely to require alterations to the structure and its foundation at this time. Therefore, I feel that the Planning Commission should grant the variance as soon as possible and allow the owner to proceed with construction without delay. If you wish to discuss this matter with me, please don't hesitate to call (737-7711). Sincerely, Z � ` � Eugene & loria Bordegaray �; C��� �E� �� � � � 155'S c�ry e� QURUN F' AN��Nr, rF��i� , � � March 10, 1995 CHRONOLOGY OF PLAN SUBMITTAL, PLAN CHECK, INSPECTION AND INSPECTORS COMMENTS AT 1232 CABRILLO �VENUE Items in this font relate to the construction of the detached garage. Items in this font relate to the remodel of the single family residential structure. August 5, 1994 Building permit issued to O'Connor for a new garage August 8, 1994 Called for first inspection on garage-Mike Terwilliger inspector assigned. Inspection for Footing Steel (in foundation) and UFER ground. August 9, 1994 Application and submittal of plans to the Building Department for a residential remodel at 1232 Cabrillo August 15, 1994 Planning Department Plan Check returned to Building Department noting retention of 8'8" front setback because there was no change. The 9'2" side setback at the driveway was also noted as existing and being retained. A survey of the front setback was required and confirmation of garage dimensions. Floor area ratio was checked and it was noted that the extent of the remodel triggered the "new construction" criteria and new structure was 3400.49 SF where FAR allowed 3415 SF. Because of garage dimensions corrected an FAR variance was required. Residential structure was subsequently reduced to eliminated FAR variance. Declining height setback was rnet, as were accessory structures, HACP, fences and size and location of trees. September 23, water service to garage inspected. Rough electrical panel inspected, noted to tag when gas disconnected. � October 13, 1994 October 13, 1994 October 17, 1994 Inspect rough plumbing, DWV and dry wall Plan check complete on August 9, 1994 submittal of residential remodel showing wall at front and left side in tact. inspection for wiring. O'Connor picked up building permit for residential remodel. October 18, 1994 inspected electrical and gas relocated from house to garage so that service could be continued for tenants in house during remodel. During this inspection Terwilliger recalls discussion with the contractor/owner about whether the gas could be relocated from the house to the garage so that the house could continue to be inhabited by the tenant while a remodel was undertaken. Also there was a conversation at this time about what alternatives exist with a remodel when foundation problems are found. Mike Terwilliger indicated that if the problem was in a small section of the foundation the Building Department would allow it to be replaced. It was implied that the house was still occupied by a tenant at the time of the discussion. He was unaware, and not informed at the time,that any building plans for remodel of the house showing retention of any part of the existing foundation had been prepared or were going to be submitted to the Building Department. When shown later what part of the foundation was stated as being retained and was subsequently removed, it was not, in his opinion, a "small portion". This discussion on the site took place in the absence of the review or presence of any plans for work on the 0 house. He thought it was a"being helpful" discussion of work which might be done on the house in possibly the distant future. The inspector had no reason to bring up setback issues, nor was he asked about whether setbacks would be a factor if a portion of the existing foundation were to be replaced. November 2, 1994 Service OK in garage. The permittee has not called for a final inspection on the garage permit as of March 10, 1995. November 9, 1994 Revised rear and right side foundation plans submitted, structural engineer approved a block wall for adding a basement area at rear of house. November 14, 1994 Revised plans resubmitted to Planning. Same Planner rechecked noting proposed plans for foundation change to the rear area creating a retaining wall and basement area would create habitable area below grade with separate entrance outside and interior access. New area should be considered a bedroom for parking which is Ok for a 4 bedroom home. The designated "game room" must keep the wall open 50°Io to the hall way or it will be considered a bedroom and a second covered parking space will be required. Plan check noted that the basement room shall not be a secondary living unit and shall not contained any kitchen. (Blue Sheet) (Note: basement area does not count in FAR.) November 14, 1994 Issued amendment to building permit for new foundation, block wall, at rear of house to create a basement area. November 18, 1994 Submitted another revision of rear foundation plans showing a conform systern rather than a block wall. Plans showed replacement of rear and right side foundations with new system. The front and left side were not addressed and continued to be shown as "existing being retained". Planning did not review these plans since the area being shown was identical to that on the November 9 revision and it was covered by � Planning's November 14, 1994 comments. November 18, 1994 Foundation inspection for footing steel. According to the inspector assigned, only the new basement area at rear was inspected. January 27, 1995 Planning staff received a compliant from a neighbor about why someone could build a new house without a proper front setback or variance. Staff reviewed building file and determined building permit issued for remodel. Asked Building department to check foundation and red tag if construction was done without a permit. February 1, 1995 Chief Building Inspector made a site visit, determined that foundation at front and left side was new. He instructed an Inspector to place a"red tag" on the construction. February 1/2, 1995 Red tag posted on site. February 2/3, 1995 Chief Building Official and City Planner contacted by application O'Connor who said he was a plumbing contractor, was not busy and wished to continue with plumbing installation in rear portion of the residential structure. CBO and CP gave Mr. O'Connor permission to continue plumbing work in rear portion of the house that would not be affected if the front had to be removed to the required 15' setback. Mr. O'Connor agreed on the phone. February 6, 1995 Jack McCarthy, designer, submitted an application to the planning department for a front setback variance required because of termite and dry rot damage. February 13, 1995 Issued public notice of variance hearing. February 27, 1995 Planning Department took application directly to action and public hearing. Since both the left side wall as well as the front wall were removed applicant needed two variances: one for 8'8" front setback (15' required) and one for driveway width ( 9'2" provided, 9'6" required). Planning Commission granted variance for driveway < < width, denied variance for front setback. February 28, 1995 Appealed Planning Commission decision to City Council. March 6, 1995 City Council set public hearing for March 20, 1995 MM, Planning Department March 10, 1995 , . ITEM 3 City of Burlingame Front Setback & Parking Variances Address: 1232 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 2/27/95 Request: Front setback variance for 8'-8" where 15'-0" is required to the first floor (CS 25.28.072-(2) a). Parking variance for 9'-2" where 9'-6" is required for driveway width (CS 25.70.020 c (1)). Applicant: 7ack McCarthy Designer, Inc. APN: 026-156-210 Property Owner: Elizabeth O'Sullivan & Thomas O'Connor Lot Dimensions and Area: 50 x 120, 6000 SF General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary• The applicant is requesting a front setback variance to build a new single family dwelling at 1232 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The new house would be two stories, and would have 2964 SF of living area with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a game room and a family room. The front setback variance is for 8'-8" where 15'-0" is required to the first floor of new structures (CS 25.28.072-(2) a). In addition, a parlcing variance is requested for substandard driveway width (9'-2" proposed; 9'-6" required). This item came to the Planning Department's attention after a neighbor called asking how the residence which appeared to have been demolished was allowed to encroach so far into the front setback. A review of the Building Department file showed that the Planning Department approved plans for a remodel and addition. The existing detached garage and the front portion of the existing house were to remain; the back of the house was to be demolished and rebuilt with the addition of a second story. The Chief Building Official made a site inspection and noted that the walls which were shown on the plans as to remain had been removed. In addition, the floor and floor joists had been removed and the foundation at the front of the house appeared to be new. A stop work notice was issued by the Building Department, with instruction to apply for a front setback variance. The applicant was also informed to submit revised plans to the Building Department so the project could be reevaluation as a new residence rather than a remodel. This affects the energy calculations, fees, and requirements for a property line survey and water and sewer connections. Planning staff notes that with the original Building Department plan check, the project was determined to be "new construction" for the purposes of determining allowable floor azea ratio. By code defuution, the term "new construction" is used solely for determining floor area ratio (CS 25.08.477). Because the entire house has now been demolished down to the foundation and � i� FRONT SETBACg & PARKING VARIANCES 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE much of the foundation has been replaced or rebuilt, the Planning Department views the project as a new residence which must meet all code requirements. Site Information: The former house was 1905 SF. A new detached garage (19' wide x 23' length) was built between August and November of 1994; the building permit for that construction has not been finaled. This is considered a one-car garage by Planning Department standards because access to the right side of the garage is blocked so that a car cannot maneuver into it.l This project increases living area by 1050 SF (56%; from 1095 SF to 2965 SF). Front setback: lst,flr* 2nd floor Side (left): Side (right): Rear: Lot Coverage: FAR: PROPOSED 8'-8" 20'-0" 9'-2" 5'-4" +60' 36.9 % (2211 SF) 3401 SF/.567 EXISTING 8'-8" not applicable 9'-2" 6'-2„ ± 11' to garage 39 % (2342 SF) 2342 SF/.390 1 covered + 1 uncovered in d/wy (e) 9'-2" driveway not given no 2nd story n/a MAXIMUM ALLOWED/REQ'D 15' (avg = 14'-2") 20'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 40 % (2400 SF) 3415 SF/.569 4 bedrooms requires 2 spaces, one must be covered 30'/21h stories see code n/a 1 covered + Parking: * 1 uncovered in d/wy 9'-2" wide driveway proposed Height: DH Envelope: Accessory structures: 28.86' meets requirements no changes to e�sting garage Staff Comments: The City Engineer noted in his February 9, 1995 memo that this shall be considered a new house and a property line survey is required. The Building Official noted that all work shall comply with the standards required for a new house. The Fire Marshal had no comments. lAn existing garage 18' wide by 20' deep garage can be considered a two car garage (CS 25.70.030 (a)). However, an orange tree and a sump pump block access to the right side of the new garage, limiting its use to one car. The remaining square footage is considered storage azea. iJ , , � FRONT SETBACK & PARKING VARIANCES 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE Required �indings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commiccion Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action 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 as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 1995, sheets 2(foundation and basement plan), 3(main and upper level plans) and 5(building elevations); 2. that within 30 days, a property survey shall be made and submitted with revised plans to the Building Department in order to meet the requirement of the City Engineer's February 9, 1995 memo; 3. that the requirements of the Chief Building Official's memo (2/ 13/95) shall be met; 4. that within 30 days from Planning Commission action on this project, the applicant shall submit revised plans denoting the walls at the front of the building as new and shall pay all applicable fees to the Building Department; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Sheri Saisi Planner cc: Thomas O' Connor, property owner Jack McCarthy Designer Inc. 3 1 V�� U ll O� �V��u�ll�.IV(r'�u1V11� � Q� � ��G=d���UU Il ��� � � UUDl1U� ��I1WIn`'lll�����UV �vve of Avvlication: Special Permit ariance Other Project Address I Z 3 Z c-,a ��.��.� o Assessor's Parcel Number(s) �� � ( � �/ � 2� � ����,(�y� APPL/CANT R PERTY WNE ��Q�S %1 Q'� 26� "Z�' ow�-�c,-: st� sF Name: ,�•a�l�- l''�`GA�L!�-� n�S�U��2., �ML Name: Thomr�5 �'��NNo2 �4�1,6 Address: ; �3 � r�s �� �� � r� � 3 � i City/StateRip: Sa� �bs �, G� .`) s i 2� Telephone:(work) �a3 9� 3•� �� z- (home) ��� �73-�i57z. �EARCH/TECT/DES/GNER � Name: ��1� �� ����� r��z 5 �Ur--� ��, 1,�� Address: � 3 3� P u-as �4�T �+� g3 �► City/State/Zip: ��� �--� Jo5 � G1� .`') s� 2% Telephone (daytime): C�faB� `�73 ��t �Z Address: I 3� S-.� 6'"' �4 Ve City/State/Zip: S r- ��� Z� Telephone: (work) S - (� ( Ihome) �15� i5Z-7zSc laSf dat2 � �"�mr�a�`i �rr Z/7�92 �� Please indicate with an asterisk !"1 who the contactnerson is for this nroiect. PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON• �`✓ ��v� �-+ i �'d Cp �'�I r� �� ��--� � S Z �+ ��' i i-� U T/J �� � a.� v ��z �,G .-71 � Y D..�E L(�� 1�+ U �-10`� u�� r� � 1� �/-r � T' �-c-rU I bti-r • DC.1 �. Tv �o N C.�il t�c ti7 rir Yif l 7 / � S n �' � R. D� �yb M � !� ra \v � i1 l/� �-r7 /0 �'' /' �7 � D )1+ %� �YO!✓T � �C'p ��i � L/�_ �/.L iY J�• r-a L- 4� AFF/DA V/T/S/GNA TURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and cor�ect to the best of my knowledge and belief. ,% � ,�:' ✓'j Applica s ' nature � Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. � � � � J- roperty Owner's Signature Date --------------------------------------------------OFFICE USE ONLY Date Filed: 2" g' � Fee � ----------------------------------------------------- Receipt # Letterls) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: ' P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing (date) 2 Z P.C. Action ,s�as Appeal to Council? Yes No projapp.frm Council meeting date Council Action �, � Variance: 0'Connor residence, 1232 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to you property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Fifty or more years ago a residence was constructed on the property at 1232 Cabrillo. The original structure was shingle sided. At a later date a past owner changed the exterior look. He wired and stuccoed the structure completely covering the shingle siding. In the process he backfilled the property to a point above the foundation line. (At points this backfill was as much as 8" above the concrete). We, in our remodel and addition to this residence planned on preserving the existing front and left side walls and floor in this area, but, upon demolition of the structure we found extensive concealed termite and dry rot damage making these walls completely useless. (The foundation was and is in good structural shape). We were forced to remove the concealed damage, cap and dowel the foundation to bring it up to proper grade, so that we could proceed as planned with the project. The designer, the structural engineer, and the City Building inspector at various times all saw the damage and each agreed that the damaged wood was beyond repair and must be removed. If we were forced to move the front of the structure back to the new City setback line this property would suffer by not being allowed to remodel that portion of the structure that is in the front setback as the neighboring properties would be allowed to do under existing city ordinances. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. By City ordinance when a residence is remodeled the existing envelope is allowed to be retained within the front setback area as long as there is no increase in the non compliance. This we planned to do and were issued a permit to do. It was only upon actual demolition that the concealed damage and the high backfill problems were exposed. Any other residence in this zoning district would be allowed to do as we proposed. Not allowing this equal right by means of a variance would cause our property substantial property rights loss and hardship not required of our neighbors. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the vicinity or to public health, general welfare, or convenience. The existing single story portion of the residence has been non conforming to the current ordinances since it was constructed 50 or more years ago. We are not increasing the non conformance and all other portions of the residence comply with the current ordinances. We are only reconstructing what we have had for 50 or more years and there would be not change for the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience by granting this variance. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthe#ics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. The adjoining structures are two story residences. Half of the structures on the same side of the street are constructed in front of the 15' first floor setback. Many of the two story structures are also in front of the 20' setback. The single story massing of the proposed structure is equal to what has existed for 50 years and the balance of the structure is in complete compliance with all other City setback, height, mass, and daylight plane requirement. This variance would not alter the existing mass, bulk or character of the surrounding properties but would give us the same property rights as our neighbors. y � , Variance: O'Connor residence, 1232 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Foundation capping. These photographs show the existing foundation (Dark concrete) and the new cap the installed to bring the foundation above natural grade. The new cap and floor joists are at the save finish floor level as the existing residence was, therefore there was not increase in the floor height fram the plans originally submitted. �� - _ x-� t � �. � - - �� - - �_ � �� ` � ; i � - i _ � -� � � � _� = �_ �__� � = _ � � - � _ `� = � � -i : : .�. : � • i �'Vi. . - - '���.. �. ... . .... ��.-e,.� � Variance: O'Connor residence, 1232 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Termite and Dry Rot damage: These photographs show the extensive damage caused by the high backfill against the structure. Also, the original shingle siding is still visible on both photographs. When the stucco was originally applied they put a dry pack concrete footing to the face of the wood in an effort to protect the wood. This failed but until we actually started demolition it gave the appearance of a stable foundation. � , . ., - COMPLAINT FORM � • DATE: Z ' I � �,5 FILE ADDRESS: _ �Z✓ Z (�l�C,b`'/ //� COMPLAINANT NAME(S): ADDRESS: / � PHONE #- GU%?��1 �G�i : COMPLAINT: �/t/�j RESEARCH CIIRRENT ORNER : �(� Z Q� G'� h (� � S �( I i V Ct h APN O Z�O ' I 5 LO - 2 � O ADDRESS: Z�23 Z(�--��+ S'f'� S�n �VGt�1Gijlp CQ, �l4'�IL� ZONING �— � CURRENT RESIDENT: PHONE 21 %' 28 t,�SS y ��, x 2z.�r ��, �,�A�2 LOT: BLOCR: SIIBDIVISION: �aS-►z�n Fa�d, ��rl, �fo, Z RESEARCH NOTES: ��Y' ✓Y v� ACTION TAKEN REFERRED TO: �l// G• ' f'%�� �^I � � � DATED: d y � N�c�a�'Prw DATE OF: SITE INSPECTION: LETTER: WARNING NOTICE: SITE INSPECTION FINDINGS/ACTION NOT$S: ��'�,� �G�,���71, Cl/%� � '� '7� �• O� G>� � -). �%08� GI�%3 -6�/�� Z � - �z- � �' � /���'"�% -' �ll�� � � l ` �"S ��;��;r�> O V �'l'i — �c�r.�i�G/ lDl=� " ' �� J Y� � � U T G{� % f� i� �'YI l l r'`� t7� � /��J / {.� -T1� 1��- ��4 / v/{'C � 7 ��� A ����'�d'� �f�./ �(J�"'� C Y G{�� �' Xl Sfi r�' ��,.; ,-� ,. �"�� ,_$'�l l/ � fhP�'� _� alo�; v�'�f'�' i;� f-2� I'l �Gv .L` -�{] dr?�- ��-�!V PC% C'�✓o G %,, ' :r' /A � '� � - ��� � , /- /�; %' � �> > s . , Ci �y ( , ,� r ;� . -: � S . / h�l !s� - S�y��.�..��.. . ,sl7iic�r .n�� ✓� r� �� / ,�d �-,� � %� �� ; :�.6r<-, � �I (USE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL NEEDED) h ��j��.��,� ' � 1 � �U DATE : _ t/ � q � q TO: oC CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: � REQIIEST FOR � �"� AT � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: � . 2� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �, ��� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah Z `G - Date of Comments ' � IM'i' Gi �-�^-�� � �- �Vt.e.�...r" �-�-c�2 -b�.�-.� Gl P�'"�^.'�� � ��l.tl�^"� �,.lv� .-Cl-e j�3-�t�,�.�, . Q U � �.��� � .� � ROUTING FORM AT DATE : � ' � TO: CITY ENGINEER _.Q� CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: � REQIIEST FOR � �J 0 % ll� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: � , 2.� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �,��� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah Z �3/ � Date of Comments A 1� l�Jo.^K �d Cv.,,. �� y a 5 � r►c°—w h o vs e, " ,'�-�—r�-✓��{�c}--rtiza �Q o � , .�� � ROUTING FORM DATE : � q � � TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR �_ FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : � REQIIEST FOR _ �I v {�� � f ��'� � �J AT � lla SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �' , 2� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �,'L� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah 2-� Date of�Comments �O CO � . . � . �'� ,� V J J � � V � � ,_+; ; ;. ? � N � � � � N N �N M � � N � t � � � i� � � 40 � �T v � �� �N I�P,O,e �>��`-� �o r� � � r �� I I ' � �' � � 1�' I 4' - -� �� I'O , � t 3' I J'= ��� N ��� � l 3 � .� e , ' 15 15 l`7 �� I�I , ls3'_�'' � g � 1�� �� � �������� �� � :; p�;;� � <<.�:�' � ;_ CiTY OF F3URLINGAME �,N�11�1(� !?�R% ��,.----.r-• .---�.,�---'_"" ��eV�r�qE.' '1"V�n� S2-ibLtCk-5 I rne.�.S�red o✓► Fe.�Oru�c rU Ibi ���5 J b�1 S�ud e.,+ ac, ss� S-�-u.� -I; J }�;�bQn !-��r���, MeaS�Ye � e�-}5 are -Fwm -�.u. ��- S"�V �t. L'I'VYe. -F� P�U,�� r� � � n-�. . Rvera.�e = � 4 � " Z�� .�� �w � � 1 � � ILrD T-�� P� — � i ,��� �u�� � � ����� ��� 1 �i � I �n � ' � �, �,../ �"1> �'P�vr-� T _ U� lL�' � 17 �-1'i`-1 �i �y 15�. ila� � �►,�,►+ 1��; I��_��' � � l lo� i l� ► c1 f�� � _�w{ , 'i ` �� t,� •, , �� r �, ... _ _ . ._ .. ._.. � �; �"' ` � " i "� � �.. ' . .._.__+. ... . ) � L.._ . 1 . i ._ ; , .P. - ---•�r a � �G o r---� ►--� v�- ��, � �,�-� � I �Z � � G� �� ��� o , �., ��. � r-�G��•. ,-�-, � � � � � , )�, ,� � • � � ' I CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRIIARY, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers lqcated at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1232 CABRILLO AVENIIE APN: 026-156-210 APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SETBACR VARIANCE FOR 8'-8" (WHERE 15'-0" IS REQIIIRED TO NEW STRIICTIIRES) AND A PARRING VARIANCE FOR SUBBTANDARD DRIVE�PAY WIDTH AT 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informinq their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER FEBRUARY 17, 1995 _, , _t;�' �/-� >:5� �� ; � a �11�- ^ ; O:� �� , �✓� �� I � �,� `C � � � _3 J",-, �-c,-.� "� ' � . ; ��� � � S_���j��� � � : �'_T - � `-��� J�_� � ��� � i / � �� �� � ��� ��� �21�� �� _ �� � ���� �� 1 � ��� ����� � ��� �, ��� � �� . � �i1�c��-o�� � ������,� � �;, ��-�� � , ;�.� , ,� � � � -f,�� ' P� � � � ��`:tK �:,, :�� ��n�`r': � �c `� . � . . . . . �Y. � �.. ' _ i �`'k� 5' , . . �`F " `�� a , . _ �. , � � � .. e R �g „ k ,� : , m$ .9 . '� . �� t - ' ' y � �#'s� r . i.��'n' _ r, . �. a ' y^:. , � v . . ! & ,A, _.' „! � 1� . � f � � 4n '�' A " � �J�� . �. .:. _ . ,. k- =� .� - �.. .; � ' ra. ,� e ... �, , . . . - .�: � �'{� ,: .� "t � " m,i9 ';.. . r . - �. � ' ..: � t�" ,4 , " � .. k �y,� ' , �_, 8,� `K �. � �� . a z . ` � "`�� � �° „ � ' � �, + _ q, � ; � . _:� �:., � ��� , � �� � - �-d r ',r.. � . '. _ �nf�^ � ; I r � � _ �'1y'�.? � � t � ��.' � � � � i tl' k . . .. . � "� ,,, � � . , � �. � �... . � _� ��� «:, ` � `A � �/ '" '4v +��Y � �',#� M _ k � �� ~ R �� � `+'c*.. �� �v, • F`-' ^ . 1 . � �g � . j \� .. v� — '. � ��. -'rL � � �. �k � . � ��. r. .4 .. " ' 'f � � ' � .. r � - p. � � � � ��� � f . i - y � _ � .. �.� � �� � � o I A � �M ,t �' � � . _ . � k - . _ i• f �l $� t� b ��,�� � a !. _ � , ' zE �� . . .. ; f i. � ' �� `�R' � ➢14,,�.. �� . �t �� �Iy t� ..L.' �� f4� �� _ty". �� _i.- . � � � � � � . �- � * 4 . L `� � � �._ � - 1 T ... . � ^4 ' .. R` j , ,:� . —t � .,�� , , �� �—� � '� �' °� � �, ��� � � "' „� �. A 'ti . &3. }'�_� <'� �=. � � �`'�� ° �, �' �,���; ,;� J�� + �i ' � . '`� , � > /�� � � r � y � �,. �"�.J" % i� .'�� .* � ; "' e�" !. * � � `''i � �! T i � ��.. r u "s . .. 3 } ,� . . �� { � ` F �'` :7 9 h_ � �.M ' p� , j �� '`� #. .. . . ,f . : /� �c. � �{ as' M1c # t�.` �'a 1� � � ;, . � 1F �s� � � � ��� � S" �� �� ; ,`°� -` �F,�; � �`,{�V �'. ' �� � � "F' .,.. � , V,,,� w �=�s � . : � � � ,: = s`�- �, . � �,` ��� , �,� '�' �" ' � • � -� . i � �� . 5 ; �� lii!� � a ,r �� � .. 3 � � P - .�; _ � a �Oo y�,..,'° ! � '� r�'f' � , , ' , .,' - - .� . .� x . . a � ,. _. x�.. .. ,: � ,. '_— � � " r h� '. .��a� � , ... �,, ` •'. . � ' I � - ��. �, R -. . . - ' " � . . t°.� r' a � � & �• �����.i . ��,. �" �2� � �<'{, ��, { � ,� , � '1 � � , � �� ` � :. �� ,� ,��; ` � ` '��`"' - a�F; �-� � '� >.y �w— �� ..,..�_ a; , _ � ����. -�� � —�•4 . i � � rR � ;' , � ` " �. ' i- �i��. ; �v � j'�, ..� �' � . , , . . �� � � d' � .,y�y,-. � . . � r . � r _� +� �..� , .�::' fi �.'..., � �f.I� ��� �:;.� � ^�' . �.;� '� £:;^,y� ' f �` —� y , � , .� ,� ,° ._ , . . . A�r � >^ .. t h� '?7 � .�f �(✓�. �, ��' � �a` d'_', y, , � ��� . � r ��� � �'4 - �� � ��,�. � ,,,.,� '`—�•�„e � „�' 8�.� t � • s .�,Y. .�, � ��r � v � � � ��� �-.. ; � �_ � 'rs � R " ,,� '9�,�;,��� y _ ,�� ` ` �:; � �` � �� .,. �, ;� A�� � - � ,�:�, � �,. g �`+` • � A � k ."�.y�y.• � 1� ��»'. ;. ,i a � � � ��F .r . � +� � � I+ ��� � . ^� ..�� , �e �� ��� ��:� � �{�� � . y '� - a: '!s Yy�� ..�. a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCE RFSOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a front setback variance for a variance of 8'-8" where 15'-0" is required to the first floor and parldng variance for 9'-2" where 0'-6" is rec�„uired for driveway width at 1232 Cabrillo Avenue. APN: 026- 156-210 ; property owner: Elizabeth O'Sullivan and Thomas O'Connor. 1232 Cabrillo Avenue ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 27, 1995 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption is hereby approved. 2. Said front setback and parking variances are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variances are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. �� 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 February , 1995 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY , •� �; M�`f_: : Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variances 1232 CABRII,LO AVENUE effective MARCH 6, 1995 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 1995, sheets 2(foundation and basement plan), 3(main and upper level plans) and 5(building elevations); 2. that within 30 days, a property survey shall be made and submitted to the with revised plans to the Building Department in order to meet the requirement of the City Engineer's February 9, 1995 memo; 3. that the requirements of the Chief Building Official's memo (2/13/95) shall be met; 4. that within 30 days from Planning Commission action on this project, the applicant shall submit revised plans denoting the walls at the front of the building as new and shall pay all applicable fees to the Building Department; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. r� �' �� �� �ie , O 2i 2o i9 ie i� i6 is i4 is iz ii � io " _ 3•.� 75 [ 47 50 50' • - .. - . .. - 50 4o ia 50 _ N 55 04 W - �n.ibOA AVE. � loo' 50' So' - . . . . 50 2G 24 i 50' 0 � � � 0 0 0-..� � � � �°� I�� 0 0 o I � o N r N N N ! � ` � g /p / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 �/ �/2 ' vr �/ �po gp J gp• . .. .. �' 1 50 2G 24 50 0 .. . ���� � � � I 55 �.! � So' So � 50' - ,, .. .. ..,e.... �.:,_. :,. " � .. _ . .. 50. �_. _. , ....,,. _ /7 /6 /5 /4 /3 /3 /� // 24���" 23 22 2/ 20 /9_. /8 o N �'' N .. .N N - % - O O O7 ;,�r 'r , 23 22 2/ O /9 /B /7 ^ ,, /6 /5 /4 /3 /2 So' - 5'� 50 . . .. , 121.0 .. . . 50 �; so I244 i24o i2,34 i23o izz8 {221}N55'04' !21(0 ` 121Z;i GORTE L AVE. � 12(0l;`�, 1245 12.41 IL37 1233 1227 IitS IZZI �Z�� ILoq ,'�Zo7 50' .. ; So' 50' .. . .. . .. .. , .. . 50 o -a,o�� o00000000 �� -� �2 �" ' ¢� "!� � " " ( � � 7 �� 8 � 9,� / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 � // /2 . � .. 50' l00' 50' + 50' � 5� .. . .. I 5 6 . .. ; 'o �n o , o - ' i• So � 50' �• 50' 49.42' N�... 95a' S� •• - � - 50' 5 /3 /2 // /0 24 23 22 2/.se. 20 /9 /8 /7 ; /6 /5 � /4 /3 .o � o /232 � �„ 'o 'o 0 125� � N1244 �z4o it3� � � s lLtB � /t24 �yzo IZ��o � !z/2r izog , `= O9 BO ; 7 O O 23 O 2/ O /9 /B O i 5 26 /5 tTM /4 /3 50' . i So� 50' 50' .. .. .. .. 45' 11 • �; •• 50' i ` ��, ' ABR/c c o � AVE. � � 57 �z49 / 5 N55'oa w/237 1255 �zz9 /Zt5 l2zl �Zi7 /Zi3 i2o9. 50' 25.67' 2433 50' 20 �0 50' /L'�$ ' .. . .. .. .. _ .. - 50' O� � O � ' � O O O O O O O9 /0 // /2 /3 /4 /5 I I I I � o . I I � � N � /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 20 2/ 22 6 I~ —j 8� 9 �/0 // . .. . , 50' �5b7' 24.3�7' 50' I 20' 30. I �. 25. o' 5a' • ' .. 50. —50'— — —� —50'— �-�5' 25l loo' I5o � / � _ � . .. .. .. �. 37 36 35 34 33 � 32 � 3/ 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 �I � a � ' � . � N I I . 29 I 2B 2� , 26 25 � ( 24 I 23 ' O 2/ 20 /9 /B /7 /6 , . : . 50. 50' .. � . I 50 100' oo'. So'�, _. � . .. .. . .. /LSZ �� N��� W 122 S y ILL�°' /ZZO /2/(0 /L/L KE �RA�� AVE. � "' � O O eO 19 ��O O O O /0 // l2 /3 /4 /5 /6 o O � � — a o . N� �I� � . -� N 2 � 6. I � I ' /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 � /9 � �' � � 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIlVIROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL announces the following public hearing on MONDAY the 20TH DAY OF MARCH. 1995, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE APN: 026-156-210 APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 8'-8" (WHERE 15'- 0" IS REQUIRED TO NEW STRUCTURES) AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written conespondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER MARCH 10, 1995 � � , � � � , RESOLUTION NO. - ' RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, . AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a parking variance for _ 9'-2" where 0'-6" is required for driveway width at 1232 Cabrillo Avenue. APN: 026-156-210 ; nronerty owner: Elizabeth O'Sullivan and Thomas O'Connor, 1232 Cabrillo Avenue ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 27 , 1995 , at which time said application was approved; WFIEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on March 20. 1995 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and a11 other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption is hereby approved. 2. Said parking variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance aze as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certiiied copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of March , 1995 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 1R Y � 1 Y � _ f EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variances 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE effective MARCH 20, 1995 1. that the driveway setback shall be 9'-2" as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 1995; 2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.