The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1704 Toledo Avenue - Approval LetterL (`��.e f1�t#� rr.f �ixx.Ctx��ttme CITV HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TE� (4i5) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 940i0-3997 . FAX (4i5) 342-8386 M�y 6, 1997 John Stt�,�vart Stewart Ass. �iates 1351 Laurel St. San Carlos, CA 94070 Dear Mr. Stewart, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the April 28, 1997 Planning Commission approval uf your hillside area construction permit and minor modification for lat coverage application became effective May 5, 1997. This application was to allow for an addition to the first floor at 1704 Toledo Avenue, zoned R-1. The April 28, 1997 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 1997, Sheets A1, A2, A3, A4, AS and A6 with no changes to roof ridge height, footprint, window placement or building envelope without amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit except that the overall dimension of the new construction on the sides of the house parallel to side property lines shall not exceed 60 feet from exterior corner to exterior corner; and 2. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. � . , f May 6, 1997 1704 Toledo Avenue page -2- The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. Sincerely yours, ��U �` � V ��111 � Margaret Monroe City Planner RH\s 1704TOLE.cca c: Li Yin Liang 1704 Toledo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOT 29 BLOCK 29 MILLS ESTATE NO 7 RSM 45/35 36 CITY OF BURLINGAME) � Burlingame Planning Co»vnission Minutes April 14, 1997 concerned that locked gate across driveway prevents access to on site parking; better if garage is 12 feet wide within 1 foot of property line; not concerned about roof being hip or not. C. Galligan moved to approve the side setback variance and the variance for number of covered parking spaces with the following amendments to the conditions: the maximum width of the gazage shall be 12 feet and the gate across the driveway shall be removed or changed to provide an automatic opener so that pazking on site will be accessible. Approved conditions were: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 25, 1997, sheets 1 through 5 and G1) except that the maximum width of the garage be 12 feet and the gate across the driveway shall be removed or changed to provide an aut atic opener so that parking on site will be accessible; and 2) that the project shall meet all the uirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of rlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford. Commenting on the motion Commiss� ers noted cannot enforce keeping the gate unlocked; if going to grant a parking variance then reasonable conditions to insure parking on site accessible; want fence to protect kids but coul e relocateti so not across driveway; many houses in city have gates across driveways, need a matic so that uncovered parking can be used as well as garage. Chairman Ellis c�d for the vote on the motion to approve the side setback and �parking variance. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 roll call vote (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were reviewed. ,�%�APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND MINOR MODIFICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 1704 TOLEDO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LI YIN LIANG, PROPERTY OWNER AND JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted that the overall side dimensions of the structure shown on the plans scaled at 60 feet not the 59 feet noted on the plans. The correct dimension is 60 feet. A commissioner asked if this change would affect lot coverage. Staff noted that the lot coverage was based on the 60 foot dimension. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. 7ohn Stewart, architect represented the applicant noting that he was the second architect on the project; there had been much opposition to the first proposal and he had been told not to increase the height of the exisdng structure, this was done by covering new areas with flat roof and not adding a second,,floor; he received a call from the neighbor on the left (side where wall is to be extended 4 feet `t from existing structure) before he could get to see him the neighbor had discussed the additi with a Planning Commissioner and called to say he had no problem with the project; he did n elieve the redesign would have a major impact on views in the neighborhood. Vic Sangerva ', 1708 Toledo, commented that the proposal was alright as it is, but does not want to see any her extension of the structure; it was noted that the zoning rules require that any change to this structure beyond this in the future would be noticed. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1997 Mr. Stewart made a final comment that soil stability is always a concern and he would have a structural engineer look at the site and design before it is submitted for a building permit. There were no further comments on the project and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he had visited the adjoining neighbors house and felt that if the extension went out no further than shown on these plans it would not have a substantial effect on the neighbor's view. He would be concerned if they wanted to add 10 or 15 feet at the rear; but if they want more in the future the neighbors will be noticed and the item can come before the Planning Commission. Conditions note that this project shall be built as per plans, the neighbor to the north might have a view blockage but existing vegetation will block much and the small amount remaining is not an issue. Based on these reasons he moved approval of the Hillside Area Construction Permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report amending condition 1 to add "that the overall dimension of the new construction on the sides of the house parallel to side property lines shall not exceed 60 feet from exterior corner to exterior corner", as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 1997, Sheets A1, A2, A3, A4, AS and A6 with no changes to roof ridge height, footprint, window placement or building envelope without amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit except that the overall dimension of the new construction on the sides of the house parallel to side property lines shall not exceed 60 feet from exterior corner to exterior corner; and 2) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Key seconded the motion. C. Ellis commented on the project noting that he appreciated the property owner and azchitect working so well within the intention of the Hillside Area Construction Permit. He called for the vote and the motion for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and Lot coverage Variance passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were reviewed. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GARAGE WITH OFFICE AND BATHROOM AND A SKYLIGHT WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES AT 1205 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (RICK AND ELSA KITTS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference sta.ff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and siudy meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe suggested modifying conditions 2 and 4 to remove the word "office" since this could imply that a future owner could have a home occupation in the accessory structure without applying for a special permit, the cunent owners want to use the area. for personal business which is a part of the recreation room use. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Elsa and Rick Kitts, 1205 Grove, spoke, it is a small house, they have chosen to add to the back because of the character of the front of the house; the rooms at the rear of the house aze not suited to an addition; originally had a full bath proposed for accessory structure and reduced it to a half bath; washer and drier are in kitchen now want to free up -5-