The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1361 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Reporta . , (� � . � '`!�� _ ��d cirr �� y..r-�" '� AGENDA �� BURLINGAME I T EM tt ��:r.. STAFF REPORT DATE 3-20-89 TO: ,.,� lITTl1DTII '�MTr�� jr�� rnT�Tr,�r_r. SUBMITTED BY D A T E: �R r,�n�u�—l�T� �„�q APPROVED FROM: ��+� �j,T�a?ATL�D 6Y S�B�ECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1361 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 RECOMMENDATION• City Council hold a public hearing and take action. The following conditions were considered by the Planning Commission: 1. that the project shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 24, 1989; and 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's September 21, 1988 memo shall be met. Action Alternatives: 1. The City Council can deny this request for a three bedroom addition (six bedrooms total) with one covered off-street parking space (two required). Council should cite reasons for their action. Planning Commission denied this application without prejudice. 2. The City Council can reverse the Planning Commission and grant. the parking variance required for the three bedroom addition. Council must make findings based on the criteria in the code; action should be by resolution. 3. The City Council can deny without prejudice the request. This alternative should be used only if the Council can give the applicant, Commission and staff clear direction on what additional information or revisions should be made. A time frame for resubmittal should be included. The Planning Commission denied this application without prejudice directing the applicant to reduce the bulk of the structure and include fewer bedrooms. To grant a variance the City Council must find the following circumstances exist on the property (Code Sec. 25.54.020 a-d). The circumstances particular to this property for each criteria must be included in the findings for the action: z (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 and enjoyment of a and to prevent hardship; application is necessary for the preservation substantial property right of the applicant, unreasonable property loss or unnecessary (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. BACKGROUND• Patrick Barrett is requesting a parking variance in order to make a 1,040 SF three bedroom/two bath second story addition to his existing three bedroom house at 1361 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The parking variance is required because the existing oversized one car garage (12�-3" x 31') within the residential structure does not meet the code required 20' x 20' covered parking area for a house with four or more bedrooms (Code Sec. 25.70.030-a). The house is set back 22� from the property line, so cars in the driveway cannot be parked behind the required 15' front setback. The present house is 2,469 SF including the existing 380 SF garage. The proposed Y,040 SF addition would increase the total area in the house to 3,509 SF or by 42$. Plannincr Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on February 27 and voted 5-1 (Commissioner H.Graham dissenting, C. S.Graham absent) to deny the request without prejudice. The Commissioners directed the applicant to review his plans and reduce the square footage thus reducing the bulk of the building and to reduce the number of bedrooms. Concerns were expressed about the size .of the addition, the length and the height of the proposed project. The denial without prejudice gives the applicant the opportunity to address the Planning Commission�s concerns and resubmit the project to the Planning Commission. The applicant decided to appeal the Planning Commission decision to deny without prejudice to Council rather than redesign. 3 EXHIBITS• - Letter to City Council from Patrick Barrett, February 28, 1989 I requesting appeal ! - City Council Minutes, March 6, 1989 setting appeal for March 20 - Letter from Margaret Monroe to Patrick Barrett noticing of ; hearing i - Planning Commission Minutes, February 27, 1989 - Planning Commission Staff Report, February 27, 1989 w/attachments ; - Notice of Council Appeal Hearing, mailed March 10, 1989 - Council Resolution '�I - Plans date stamped January 24, 1989 MM/s cc: Patrick Barrett �r�,�:,;�� l-1E� � �� 1�� c�-r o, ��ur,�� c:;,:v "� � "��`uIPfG p�!'; February 28, lg8g Patrick J. Barrett 1361 Cabrillo Ave. Burlingame, Ca. 94010 City Council City of Burlin�ame 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Dear Council T��iembers, '-:o'.�i♦ �'�g • •;�y ! 1' I tNish to appeal the February 27th decision of the Burlin;ame �lanning Commission regarding a denial of a varianc� for the property at 136'! Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame. yS-�nc r �y, � /� �: � , � G � � �/l��.'��/ _ Patrick J. Barrett Homeowner -------------------------------------------------- March 3, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: Hearing should be scheduled March 20, 1989. �� Ju ' A. Malfatti City Clerk for the next meeting, MA R 3' 1989 � �� e e n� C� �� P ti✓ � � � e 0 r Public Wor�;'s memo of March ^ recommended co��ncil award the contract to the low bidder, Echo-West, in the amount of 31,729,922 for the construction of the par{;ing structur� on Parking Lot A. RESOLUTION �9-89 - AGREEMENT FOR UNFEINFORCED MASONRY EUILDING SURVEY - CF 782�0 Fublic Wor{;s' memo of March 2 recommended council approve an agreement with James E. Russell for preparation of a report to the State at a cost of ��,625. In 1986 the State passed SH _ --- .-- 547 which requires every city to prepare an inventory of potentially hazardous unreinforced masonry buildings in its jurisdiction, and to develop a program for reducing the dangers of these b��ildings. The report must be submitted to the State by January 1, 199U. f. SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT FERMIT FOR FENCE AND CARF�ORT AT 9�5 LA6UNA .� ;-'� Public Work's memo of March � recommended council approve an _ encroachment permit for an e>:isting c�rport and fence installed _ in a waterway easement subject to conditions that if destroyed _ - or replaced they must be replaced to city code by property ' . = awner. __________ g. DENIAL �F CLAIMS: (1) ETHEL COHN• (�) SOUTHFkN FACIFIC CO. ._:`�'__, < . City Attorney recommended denial of cl�ims for (1) sei-<ure of the Sheraton Hotel computers, and (2) for indemnity regarding the station agent l:illed �t the Purlingame Avenue Train Station. Councilman Mangini moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilman Lembi, carried unanimously by voice vote with Councilman Pagliaro abstaining from vote on item "g. (�),�' ARBOR DAY CELERRATION Mayor Amstrup reminded everyone that tomorrow is the Arbor Day celebration and if the weather is rainy it will be conducted in the Council Chambers. COMMISSIONEFt COMMENTS Councilman Mangini noted two comments in the Flanning Commission minutes which did not reflect city policy. He wanted commissioners reminded that their comments are part of the public record and that they must be acc�rate. Council concurred that holding a joint meeting with the F'lanning Commission as has been done in the past would be desirable. SCHEDULE HEARINGS Councilman Pagliaro asked that council review the F'lanninq Commission items regarding (1) a hobby shop at 1��0 California Drive ,,...« ��d (2> church use at 1157 California Drive. Hearings would be at the March 2i_� coun�il meeting. G�ty;Council M�yor Amstrup scheduled an a M3ilU,�eS - PPeal hearing on March �C� for a variance at 1�.61 Cabrillo. 3/6�'8� ' CULTURAL ARTS Mayor Amstrup noted a letter he received from the County Cultural Arts Commission requestinq to mak� a presentation to council. Council acl:nowledged its support 4or the �rts b��t most preferred not to have a presentatian. ACb::NOWLEI)GMENTS _ , a. Commission IMinutes: Civil Service, January li�; P�r4; and �ecreation, FebruarY 16; Library Board, February �'1; Flanninq, February �7, 1989. � -----..F. •- - - --;.... .--_ `r' - "--_ ��. _, `..-��r,s= _-_=� ,: y:�;* a,r �,r- i�,+,+,�;. N.+,H:»...n..�..:w•r i � »,». ...... I, ,, � � ._. � _" �-�-- �.�$ lYx.�� .U�,C ��'.�z�.��cC�"Yr.e SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNINGDEPARTMENT BURLINGAME�CALIFORNIA 94010 (415)342-8625 March 7, 1989 Mr. Patrick Barrett 1361 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Barrett: At the City Council meeting of March 6, 1989 the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 1361 Cabrillo Avenue. The hearing will be held on Monday, March 20, 1989 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 regarding the appeal. Sincerely yours, ��-_ �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: City Clerk m Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 27, 1989 `"°°s.�. . granty�'��,�,r�ariance for the specific reason the,....•--applicant wants a garden, if �1��,,�arage were moved back an a,+c�c�Y�tional 5'-4" it could be completely cori��. in the rear,,,.�0� of the lot and would not need a variance to side y .tback. C. Giomi moved to deny the variance request. Motion S'"�sec'�d�e,d„ by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: can unde nd applicant's de �,��or more garden space but that is no son for granting a variance. �' Moti o deny passed on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. eal procedures were advised. 8. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1361 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant�s letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Di$cussion: garage door appears to be 8� high, deck is included in lot coverage figure, second floor is set back approximately 25' from the front of the house. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Patrick Barrett, applicant, was present. His comments: he has three sons and a daughter and needs more space; he is able to park his van and a truck in the existing garage, has been living in this house since 1975. Application was originally submitted in August, 1988, it took some time to clarify information, until January, 1989. Staff commented on the interpretations of a third story which needed clarification. among various codes, and confirmed the new hillside view ordinance does not apply to this area. James Devine who helped applicant prepare the plans addressed Commission: original plans did not show proper grade and caused an issue in definition of third story, he was more used to working with building codes, not zoning codes, four different floor levels made for complications. A Commissioner noted there is no deck shown on the site plan; staff advised the 35� lot coverage figure does include the deck which staff added to the calculation. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: R-1 building height maximum is 30� from average top of curb, this project appears to be within the 30' limit; have a concern about the number of bedrooms, all homes on that street are small, six bedrooms will generate more cars. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 27, 1989 With the statement he understood Commission has no right to decide number of bedrooms, it is impossible to put a two car garage in the back of this lot, C. H.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment �f the property rights of the owner, he needs more than two bedrooms, it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, and 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, even with six bedrooms the roof line will be set back and make the building look smaller. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the two conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: cannot support the motion, number of bedrooms cannot be limited but Commission is being asked to approve a parking variance, see no way to provide more parking, do not think a six bedroom house should be approved on this street given the parking impact with a church across the street; R-3 code requires 1.5 spaces for two bedrooms and it has not been policy to give variances, interesting to do this in R-1; will support the motion, rather than thinking of the number of bedrooms added would tend to think of the very definite need in this case, there is no place to put additional parking even if only one bedroom were added, support C. Graham�s findings; will not support the motion, do not fully agree with the findings, it is an ambitious project for this lot, will negatively impact the neighbors, too big for the site; think ordinances are set up to favor R-1, residents of the city; R-3 and R-4 property owners are not necessarily citizens/residents of the city; findings to support a variance must be made in any zone; the more bedrooms, the more the impact. Motion to approve failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi and Jacobs voting no, C. S.Graham absent. According to the rules of the Commission it takes four votes to pass a motion, any less constitutes a denial. Appeal procedures were advised. Further discussion: there is a ground floor family room in the back, three bedrooms on the first floor. The Chair allowed Mr. Devine to continue: he commented it was never Mr. Barrett's intention to add three more bedrooms; when designing with the neighbors in mind he tried to blend it in to the existing structure and keep it low, he ended up with this area which could be three bedrooms, he would be happy to reduce the number of bedrooms, applicant asked for two bedrooms and one bath; applicant needed two more bedrooms for a total of five. C. Giomi moved to deny this application without prejudice with the statement her concern is number of bedrooms and bulk of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 27, 1989 structure, she would like less square footage and fewer bedrooms. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion to Mr. Devine: you will keep existing width, length and maximum height, is there any way to make it smaller. Mr. Devine advised he tried to keep the neighbors in mind, within the bulk of the building he was only able to rearrange interior walls, he talked to neighbors on both sides of the street, they liked these plans; the only way he could reduce the size would be to rearrange interior walls. Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, Cer H.Graham dissenting, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. RECESS 8:55 P.M.; RECONVENE 9: 06 P.M. Ref ence staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. C�`�'�Monroe revie d details of the request, staff review, Plan�"ng staff comment, applicant�s letter, letter in opposition s,�`gned by 29 merchants 'n the Broadway Commercial Area, study mee�ing questions. Three condi ions were suggested for consideratio�"'�at the public hearing . �� Discussion: there is a street floral vendo,�`�who has operated on Broadway from the b k of a stationwagon f.,�� the past 20 years, is this legal; Floating antasies has moved��from this site to join a florist up the street Broadway; cafi Commission deny a special permit on the basis of th number of, a given type of business in an area, CA saw no factual b is fc�,�`�denying unless somebody didn't want competition; a Commiss'or��r thought a special permit was required for businesses in tY}�� building because Commission wanted a diversity of establishment,�", wa ed to look at parking and wanted to look at what was going.F�in there part of the consideration was to not have duplication��of businesse on this site; Commission has previously turned dow��a pizza parlor ' the area because of their proliferation in t�t same zoning dis ict; it is unusual for business people tp''�sign such a petition, it is not Commission�s role to decide �.°he type of business going this building other than for park�.r�g considerations. Chm. Jacob,,s''opened the public hearing. Vladimir �er, applicant, was pres t. His comments: when he applied to leas this space he was di ected to the Planning Commission, advised he�``��eeded a use perm' and that parking was the concern, when he made his app ication in December there was only one flower shop on oadway, t re are now two shops; there were misunderstandings betw n the roperty owner and the leasing agent so it took awhile to ge the property owner�s consent. The second flower shop provides only�cut P.C. 2/27/89 I t em # ,� MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMMISSION FROM: PLANNER SUBJECT: PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1361 CABRILLO AVENUE. ZONED R-1 Patrick Barrett is requesting a parking variance in order to make a 1,040 SF 3 bedroom/2 bath second story addition to his property at 1361 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. Currently there are three bedrooms on the property, with the proposed addition there would be a total of six bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to use the existing oversized one car garage (12'-3" x 31�) which is within the residential structure�where the code requires two covered parking spaces (20' x 20'). In order to meet the standards for a two car tandem garage (which would also require a variance), the garage area would need a minimum depth of 40'. There is a 22� long driveway in front of the garage, so there is not sufficient room to park a vehicle behind the 15' front setback. The existing house totals 2,089 SF with a 380 SF garage area for a total of 2,469 SF. The proposed 1,040 SF addition would result in a 42� increase in area for a total of 3,509 SF. Staff Review City staff have reviewed this request. The Fire Marshal (February 6, 1989 memo) had no comments. The City Engineer (February 6, 1989 memo) notes that since code standard parking cannot be provided on the property, he does not object to the proposed request. The Chief Building Inspector (January 21, 1989 memo and September 21, 1988 memo) notes that the existing garage which is attached to the house will be required to have one-hour fire resistive construction. Planning staff would note that this application for a variance was originally submitted in August, 1988, prior to the adoption of the declining height ordinance. Therefore, this project has not been reviewed under the declining height envelope regulations. At the time the project was originally submitted the plans did not include sufficient information for staff to determine whether the proposed addition would constitute a second story or a third story. The applicant was informed on August 18, 1988, September 29, 1988 and January 9, 1988 that additional information was required on the plans submitted before the pro�ect could be reviewed for a variance. On January 24, 1989 plans were submitted which provided the required information. The regulations in effect at the time this project was submitted specified that a garage on the ground floor attached to a house would not count as a story. Therefore one could have two and a half stories above the garage (for a total of 3 1/2 stories), as long as the 30' height limit from average top of curb was not exceeded (Code Section 25.08.600). Under this exception in the -2- code, which was in effect at the time this project was filed, the applicant is proposing a two story structure above the garage, which would be allowed. Based on the revised definition of a story in the declining height ordinance,however, the garage would count as a story, therefore what the applicant is proposing would be seen as a third story in the zoning code and not allowed. A�plicant's Letter In his letter dated August 12, 1988 the applicant explains that the proposed addition to the house is needed because his family has increased in size and there is need for more bedrooms to accommodate his three sons and daughter. He is able to park both of his vehicles in the existing 31' deep garage. In addition there is 22� of parking area in the driveway. Findinas for a 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; (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. Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Findings should be made for affirmative action, however the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 24, 1989; and 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector�s September 21, 1988 memo shall be met. (�� G�� Adriana Gare alos Planner cc: Patrick Barrett .: , PROJECT APPLICATION ��T� °� 1361 CABRILLO AVENUE �t CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLINGAME project address_-_ �*bmp��,�� 1Project name - if any Application received ( $-12-$$ ) Staff review/acceptance ( 1_24-89 % 1. APPLICANT Patri ck Barrett 347-9232 name telephone no. 1361 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 applicant s address: street, city, zip code Jim Devine (Home) 343-4051 contact person, if different telephone no. Note: 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION Special Perr^it () Variance* ( X) Condominium Permit () Other *Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. This project was originally3 submitted August 12, 1988 prior to adoption of the declining height ordinance, therefore the project is not being reviewed under the declining height envelope. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARKING VARIANCE for a 1,040 SF second story 3 bedroom/2 bath addition. Total number of bedrooms on the property wi increase to six. A licants propose to use the existing one car qara e(12'-3" x 31') where the code requires wo covere parkinp spaces (20' x 20'). (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s): ( 25.70.030-a) ( ) n. PROPERTY IDEPITIFICATION ( 026-056-020 ) ( 2 ) ( 42 APN lot no. block no. ( R-1 ) ( 6,000 zoning district land area. square feet Patrick J. & JoAnne Barrett land owner's name Renuire�! (�e� (no) (�� (nol � Easton Addition No. 3 subdivision name 1361 Cabrillo Avenue a�ur�ingame, CA 94010 Date received city zip code ( - ) Proof of ownershio ( - ) Owner's consent to a�plication 5. EXISTIP�G SITE CONDITIONS T{�ee bedroom house with a one car gara�.�(12'-3" x 1') Reo,uired Date received (yes) (rsa� ( 1/24/89 ) �Yes) �� ( '� ) { �� (oher)�� ( 8�12�88 ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall;s and curbs; all str4ctures and improvements; paved on-site parkino; 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) ('f releyant). letter of exp'lanation *Land use classifications are: residential (shoiv # dwelling units); office use; retail Existing house = 2,089 SF sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). EX1Stlllg Gd1"dg2 = 38O SF 6• PROJECT P�np�SAL NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY Proposed c�ns�cruction, "elova orade ( - SF) Second floor ( 1,040 SF) N2W 2nd Story = 1,040 SF gross floor area First floor ( - SF) Third floor ( - c�) Pro.ject Co�� Pr000sal Requi rrmr�nt Front setback 4�' 15' min. Side setback - - Side y�rc1 5' S' R�ar yarcl 43' � 15' min. ^roject Code Proposal Requirement Lot covera;�e 35% 40% max. r�,; i�� ,�� heic�ht 30' 30' max. Lardsc�ned area - � - � 2 n,, ;jta nkc�.sn,�ce� � 1 i � + � + 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) EXISTING IP! 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS after after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 7 Full tine employees on site Part tir�e employees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Trin ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles *Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES Residential uses on all adjacent lots;� this use conforms to the General Plan. Required Date received (gc5) (no) ( — ) Location plan of adjacent properties. (�s) (no) ( — ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. firris ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. comoany vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee $ () Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 (X ) Project Assessment $ 25 ( X) Variance/other districts $ 75 ( ) ^Jegative Declaration $ 25 ( ) Condominium Permit $ 50 O EIR/City & consultant fees $ O TOTAL FEES $ 65.0� RECEIPT N0. 2�06 Received by �.Gandolfi I hereby certify r enal of perjury that the information given herein is true and corr __ to t,i�bes�of�y�uyowledge and beyti'ef. i . i �IL � �L%/ �� . / , , I % "�. ." - � " - - STAFF USE ONLY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. The City of Burlingame by on , 19 , 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: ateqorically Exempt per CE ode Section 15301 (e) p �_�---� ��i� Si atu of Processing Official itle Dai:e Signed Unless ��nealed within 10 days hereof the �ate oosted, the deternination shall be final. DECLARATIO^� OF POSTING Dai;e Posted: I declare under penalty of perj�iry that T ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Ne��ti��e Declar�tion ac the City Hall of said Cit,y near the doors to ih� Council Chaoibers. =xecuted a� ;urlingame, California oii , 19 , Aooea 1 e�l : ( ) Yes ( ) f!o `UDITH �\. 'l�L��tiTTt, CITY CLERK, CIT`, �' �URLI"JGAPiE STAFF REVIEW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply received City Engineer ( 1/30/89 ) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( �� ) (yes) (no) Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no) Park Department ( - ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( - ) (yes) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Concerns memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Mitiaation Measures Does this project comply with Request comments from the Fire all Fire and Building Code Marshal and Chief Building requirements? Inspector. 3. CEQA REQUIREP4EPITS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: Is the project subject to CEQA revie�N? Categorically exempt IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study comoleted Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed 2FP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR accepted by staff Circulation to other agencies � � � � � � � � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Study by P.C. Review oeriod ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � � � � � � � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4. APPLICATIOPJ STATUS Date first received (�} � ) Acce ted as com lete: no ��`�� p p ( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( �/ ��8 Yes( ) date P.C. study ( Is application ready for a?ublic hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( 2_ 2 �_ 8 9) Date staff report mailed to aoplicant (.X_�2-��) Date Corr�nission hearing (:�_�-/_�y'j Application approved ( ) Den��d (c��)��r;�U��c`�peal to Council es) (no) Date Council hearing (-� _� p__ � 9) Aoolication aporoved ( ) Denied ( ) � � / �, � J� � ,� ] t r I . •. .. August 12, 1988 NIargaret lZonroe City Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road nurlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: Parking Variance for 1361 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame Dear P�ls. Monroe: I am requesting a parking variance for the above address in order to build an addition to my home. The reason for the addition is the fact that my family size has increased (3 boys and one �irl) and there is a need for additional bedrooms. The existing oara.ge measures 31 feet in length. I am able to store both my vehicles in the gara;e at this time. There is also an additional 22 feet oi parkin� space in the driveway. I hope the above information �,�ill allow you to grant my request for a parking variance. Sincerely, Patrick J. Barrett 1361 Cabrillo Ave� Burlingame, Ca. DATE: j _� MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING I ECTOR FIRE MARSHAL DIRECTOR OF PARKS FROM SUBJECT: An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ' at their__ ��_ �� meeting. We would appreciate having .I your comments by � 3 j� . �_. Thank you. � �, � LA,�� c� �� s�� --�-�� w � s �-�C__ 1 s PLArJNING DEPARTMENT r DATE: MEMO FROM: SUBJECT: An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ' ' � at their_ '�.� �'�.�} �'�� meeting. We would appreciate having ' your comments by �� 3 i Thank you. �1 ��y� J�' � ; �ti y�,��.-�� G �� ►:�_�� ,�„�,, - -� ` ' ' �-�� ,�� ,� d�G �'�'� � � ��..e�41� � . , � � G�� 7� � ��. � q 9 _�� %��c � �i�i �i�2%�'-� < � �� `� � .� c �� •_ / � � �� /iL��y�i�� 6 � ' ,% , /�,��/- / ,� CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL DIRECTOR OF PARKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT • � . i DATE: �,. -__ MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER � %� CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR�! FIRE MARSHAL ' DIRECTOR OF PARKS FROM: SUBJECT: .� An application has been received for the above project for review by the i Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ' at their �� J�} ��'� meeting. We would appreciate having' your comments by ,� � � Thank you. � �C�C-�r"L,� TD C��P�C�,- �"��:�a�,-t � , ��`'Z � .' ca r-�liy�`"�„'� �J'�" ��/ f � � � ; \.=•�� `/ 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OATE: � - MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FROM SUBJECT: FIRE MARSHAL DI�tECTOR OF PARKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT � 36� �Ab�� t'� _ _ � � �'�q t/' �►�C� --- An applica�tion has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for at their � '' ZL� S% meeting. We would appreciate having your comnents by �c��-. �� 1Q8� �.^ _ F� �' �� D � Thank you. ,�(� , f' d/�ni�� .d� � � , %�j � �'s 2 �• � il / / '.' /+ %1 / r� ^ /1/'p �d % �� ' . ` [Nr<<"�� G' �f' ' �% ' �j JCfiL �` J � .� �/l l� / � � , � �`� �' /�� -�y �� S� � d �� /� 'c" ;��y/�� _ u ,�� ,Z� // �4� /��i ��`C' w' �� ` �o � � �� ^ . � � � � ' �44 . .. � y _ a � � ,. ` � r r1~ , �' � " �✓ �'L '�� "� � } ii� '�' � � � � y 3�-: '�- �,1��9+ �'�y"4 I . � y.� ( xwg �[ � ` ` � � � � � �w � l�.. a.�� -� �, �'�., � . � � � �. r �- ��.. �� ``�; �� ' . - �" � �i � , . �e �� - �� ,� � . �/�� . * u � � � ��. . 1� e �� . `�,y'�� , < t. pr � � ,� \� .. .��1` ,.i"4 Y . � ��..... -. � �„, �#��. ` �� f �� ui+, �� "wry`- �:~ . �� ,��,�.. � . �� . �„ �f � . ._ � 4+r..4 • 7 r � . ♦'d � �� % �1 � \ � � � � �� ' � r• . � . •� � � � � . ' � / 4' .. . �. .. �.. � �, '*.�: _ % ;� � � � �,. ,. _ �� r '' ' ' ,, . � \v 'r � . � � . fw 1P � r ri p � �.��, ��:^ ..y�,� - `' . s >.,.�' �� ✓ `�� V "y }', , ^� � ��. � . , . � .,. ' .1, �; �N ,. _ , ` i � //� /�) .�� 1,.��.�* � . j� '" .. � ' #4 �t[ / . _�� '� ` `'';9 "�.'�,, � � .��r �, +cf,. V �= � __�s ✓d't'.; . k � � \/`�1� „� �� '�r'`;� .. � �.. . .. � ,, ' ± y� w ' , � . . °'7�-� �� µ�ii� yr:' T"?' @\. �' 4 h. � ,�4 ' • �'`�x:f u� . .. V4\� ai'�Fi�n� V � $� '� . ` �� h� d "Mf',�y✓ �" � . . . .� .e. ' �,�"..i� � ,"� f;� � � . �..5 , � ' � � !✓ .. � •,:. "+. . - �j _ - . . . , .. . . e� '�� :_; , � - �� a�� .' � ,� ��,. -�'.� ; � � � ��, � ' o� " !. r. , % :; _ . , � . � �'�, ._ .,- �'. . �. �, ��,r'�'� . . . � � 1! � _ � e � . . :� � :�,� � �. � � � � s_ , � � �; �` . �.�,t s �. . �y , ,�, �., � , . � �^� , ,, , , ,,: . ,a, �k:; �.. ,�� <. � � . �. „�...� i •�' qi r ' " 4 � . . .� '�,, . .. ��,.��,. � � �� . � �`d� � � . ��.� � �'` >��z � , �� . , • � , � 2 �, �'"� � , � �,�� {.x.. , `� , �,,� , � . h '�- .. �� ' �d, . . �;: � ! .yR � y ':� �"'•� .. �s 1��, ": 'a� ~"wr.�� `� ' �` �' � � `4,�. � Y'�� 1� �4 q. �� "� ' . ..�� , h , ��`�� . a.�� *ti .�1i � °j3 .:: ^' �� '� 4k. � ., �S ` �� y, �;zy �'� �.t r .,r� .Ci ,e�- `-•+. � , i '�_� . .. .>V'� ��- �`�,y :: ��. �.+a ::�/' � . Q . . _ � � 9X ' ;.. � . 'A . � � � � � �' . ;., ��§.4 � 4 � tiP \ `'C�a� ak ,��. i 1 J . . '� { ti Y+,�. ` : t' � , � �� i;: � , Vj•�. ��. , , `^ ,'�' � ✓ .._ . n � � � �; +, 5.�^:' S� � �� ' � . 1 L�` u"' � .3��,� � ;'4 ✓. x .„`'� . � :.��,,+a 4' ,�' ''�� ,� A �� , ;. ., . � �`� , ' �"`'"�_ �' �� Y�,} '"w - �_ �`"�'` • � . � � �'� }� �. �, _ ��,�, '+� ats � ,'� � `. ,�; •4 «•{ ��' �•1� '� . � , � ,, . t � � �� „ : � _, � ; . , � •t >1 �. � . �r""� �� ` � � � �,�� , . . . ., . . , . , ,. , , � , ;;, -W.� � �. c�;,, .,� �/' . . . � , x x , ��- . �� `� �, ' � f `'•" ` � �� . t'� ; � ' �� . _ ,,. �, ' ',� � 4 r' � � .� � ��'�� ,i� � �nti:, - �" �"' � (g*.�� t � .� , m.V�: �� . , � . 4,� � � ' ' X . � . � � 1 Y � A � �. � in. . *� �� "`��. � .� , � � " � � ; �� fi ..�-�� ;;�. r a.. �'.� ��:' ''�. , , , .. , �� : s� •,. , - �� . � �o : ,, fT' F � � �� x . . � „ "`X ^ �, � ?f+� � w'' . � �j ��-�, ^y " � ;, �P'� ,,�� ;.. :�t ' � '� � �� ., ,,� �. :�=�' �`:1� �tl . � � .�~ �. =�.-� �, �lV'7 �.��1� a�� a .� � `Y'.a � � 1�"�'�f:� „�'�.`S;, �_ �;� r� �. ,�` • y y, � .;�jr < . �,� �`+ ,�Y� � ��t''; � '- � \' . a. � .y.E � . . �.� . . � � T ,� `�� . „i, ..l�, . `11fi' ,� � ' .. �� ' . ; � . h iC •:�i; ,hy' @ *� ` . • , .. y � . ��; .. � .�. � � +t. , ��i,.. "�� b. ."�: �. '� � � 7 ' . } � `�, � � � - �' �i .a �r�,�x� ��, v "�?y �j� ;. '74�. � . �.' . . Sh'S w � � M ,� Y;� . � � 4 -� � � ' "�° � � .}q z�. W� .; �^ . �� 't � ` � � `P�' � �x .y'v: 4 � q� � �` R � � A ir ,4i �/ •�. "�` y .y,�' � �J ",�� `b!,. i� ',�'1n ., � .D` i�b - �" y � Y .��` i, � ,� a':s -±rc: �. � ..� ., : .� � + , J `s�q.ct .. . .• r -' t, 9�,y� � ,. ��2.'sy" � � � � w. . � � .� {�p �.. � ;� � � • .. '' � � ' � � y b �g p�� •� . � �'� y� , � 1 �„�T M a�.,� s ..� � + . �'i�, � " �y�� ,g4 � '�t e ti _ `yq'.,t'.w . � t- r �''�,a, y«;"'^�?x '� � ��, v �Sy��` �"hf., '� ' ' 'P4 i . ,:' �', . , s'�y�i .f a ,. �. � , � � pK, s� .� "�. � ,�r�� , _ � : �,�. : ! � sa.o. A. Y�� lMr1., t� �' s> r�� r �. �i � ° >.,�k�`,�` . ,pr, ,,�y¢-„ �. �^�. � � � �� ,� r,c��` �� " � �s'" a� ` �� %" f _ � � ` �_ ��` ��^s'� ^ '�s„•+, �`�A � % ' ✓ :_g }� y� �+ � s �: » ' � " �� ?.,: � r� ,, �`��y,A ' '�4�+', � � � v � �.� r: ��..: '� �� s �, � � . i ,� y� _ . ��{.: r �h .,�. � � . . .y<_.. �Y "+�ta rJ ;rs '-� , i' ., � .. t� " 1,, � . . '�.r�. . I �' ap ,. �.. . t,,. ` y � g � - !7 ' �``'- � ` � � `� ` �: '� � . . �� - �`.� �- � �, � �� ` �:� �s ,� ^ :: `� � � • �-,w � ' � w � � �:,� �« I'�� a '�. ` � , �'' � � `'� `�, �, ��.+ ,� � , . '� � r�- . � a+ - "6j, � •°,�,, ��t, �,t. , ,� y�_ ��A �!� � � ] . � � 'a�. , . �.;..�.ya� '�D. . '�G�" `�� , � . � i�. .' . . "s " y , � � +� ,'-,� ' . . - "y., � � d.' ��t� �'�''� . t�'.� � ., '�:.'`�..� t� � ♦'" �+y„�' �4 �y, �� . � .� . , �"' .��+i ,a t �.�� ,: �,�,; , � ' �� „ `�:� � . � ~ � �`.' �-' a � \ �� b",r � .•�4�. .. .... .. �\, `.�i':'f``. , '�'", ;«�.�'... -!�d� .. � ,a 't " : : �he C�tf�r IIf �u�Itrt��tznP SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING PARKING VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 27th dav of Fei�ruary 1989 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council C:�amber� , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the application �or the construction of a� BDR/2 BATu ond +ioor �ahich will increa�e The number of be2rooms from tbrPe to six wh�l prov�ding one overed off street pa.rkinQ space (12"x31') where two covered is req�ired (20'x20') �t 1 61 Cabrillo, ZONED R-1. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLAN�IER FEBRUARY 17, 1989 . , �r"t � {.,e,a„ �hP C�i�� f ��zx�i�t��tm� SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(al5) 342-8931 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING PARKING VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 20th day of March, 1989 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the appeal of an application for the construction of a three bedroom/ two bath second floor which will increase the number of bedrooms from three to six, while provi ing one covere o-s ree par ing space x w ere two covered spaces are required (20' x 20'), at 1361 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER March 10, 1989 t ' t RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, application has been made for a variance for parking to allow a three bedroom addition at 1361 Cabrillo Avenue (p,pN 026-056-020 � and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 27 , 1989 , at which time said application was denied without prejudice; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to Council and a hearing thereon held on � March 20 , 1989 , 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 Council that said variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto: It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 , 1989 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: City Clerk