Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1704 Toledo Avenue - Staff Report (2)Item #11 CITY OF B URLINGAME HILLSIDE AREA CONSTR UCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS AND PARKING Address: 1704 Toledo Avenue Meeting Date: 9/22/97 Requests: Hillside Area Construction Permit and variances for lot coverage, front and side setbacks and parldng for number of uncovered parking spaces (none provided where one (1) is required for new construction) [CS 25.70.030(a)(1)(a)] for a iirst floor addition qualifying as new construction at 1704 Toledo Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: John Stewart, Stewart Associates APN: 025-082-110 Property Owner: Li Yin Liang Lot Area: 7,748 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), 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, John Stewart, is requesting a hillside area construction permit and variances for lot coverage, front and side setbacks and parking for a first floor addition qualifying as new construction at 1704 Toledo Avenue, zoned R-1. More than 50% of the length of all walls were inadvertently removed at the start of construction a few weeks ago in August, therefore the previous Hillside Area Construction Permit is void. This project now qualifies as new construction. The previous proposal approved in April, 1997 did not qualify as new construction because less than 50% of the length of all walls were proposed to be removed. No change is proposed to the building envelope, footprint, floor plan, building elevations and roof ridge height (17'-0" as measured from average top of curb) from the previous project approved by Planning Commission in April, 1997. History: In January 1997, the Planning Commission denied a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a iirst and second story addition on this site (January 13, 1997 P.C. Minutes). The proposed total floor area of the house was 3,709 SF (including the attached garage). The new height of the roof ridge was 25'-0". The project was denied on the finding that the second story construction obstructed the existing distant views from habitable areas inside neighboring houses. In April, 1997, the applicant reapplied for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and lot coverage variance for a first floor addition, signiiicantly reducing the size and impact of the project as compared to the previous proposal. The Planning Commission approved the project (April 14, 1997 P.C. Minutes). The project did not qualify as new construction because only less than 50% of the length of all walls were being removed. A building permit was issued on August 20, 1997 for a iirst floor addition and remodel. Hillside Area Construction Permit and variances for lot coverage, front and side setbacks and parking 1704 Toledo Avenue On August 22, 1997, the Planning Department received a complaint that the entire house was being demolished. Planning and Building staff visited the site and confirmed that more than 50 % of the length of all walls were removed, qualifying the project as new construction. A stop work notice was put on the project (Violation #97018) pending action by Planning Commission. Summary of Requests for Present Project: The applicant is proposing to add four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a kitchen, a family, living, dining and laundry room, and an entry and covered porch with a total floor area of the house to 3,155 SF (.41 FAR) (.51 FAR allowed) (including the attached garage). The applicant is applying for the following: 1) Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new house (C.S. 25.61.030) (only the original garage remains). 2) Lot coverage variance for 40.8 %(3,167 SF) lot coverage where 40 %(3,099 SF) is the maximum allowed (C.S. 25.28.071). 3) Front setback variance for 15'-0" where 23'-0" is required for an attached double car garage (C.S. 25.28.072, 2a). 4) Side setback variances for 5'-0" (left side) and 5'-6" (right side) where 7'-0" is the minimum required (C.S. 25.28.072, 3a). 5) Parking variance for number of uncovered parking spaces. Projects qualifying as new construction must provide two covered and one uncovered off-street parking spaces [C.S. 25.70.030 (a)(1)(a)]. The e�sting 15'-0" driveway length dces not adequately accommodate an uncovered parking space. Current code requires that an uncovered space measure 9' x 20' (9' x 15' provided). The existing 20' x 22' garage meets the code requirements for two covered parking spaces. All other zoning code requirements have been met. 2 Hillside Area Construction Permit and variances for lot coverage, front and side setbacks arcd parking I704 Toledo Avenue Front Setback (lst): (2nd): Side Setback (L): (R) : Rear Setback (lst): (2nd) : Lot Coverage: Building Height: Parking: PREVIOUS 19'-0" none 7' -0" no change 22' -0" none 40. 8 % 17'-0" 2 covered No (.50) 3,907 SF PROPOSED �XISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D New Construction: Floor Area Ratio: H.A.C.P.: Declining Height: Accessory Structures: Fences/Hedges: Trees: *15'-0" none *5' -0" *5'-6" 20' -0" none *40. 8 % 17' -0" *2 covered Yes (.41) 3,155 SF 29'-0" none 5' -0" 5'-6" 20' -0" none 33 % 17' -0" 2 covered n/a (.33) 2,581 SF *Requires Hillside Area Construction Permit n/a none New 6'-0" high fence and gate at side yard walkways. No trees to be removed. 16'-0" (average) 20' -0" 7' -0" 7' -0" 15' -0" 20' -0" 40 % 30' -0" 2 covered, 1 uncovered see code (.51) 3,979 SF * Hillside Area Construction Permit and variances for lot coverage, front and side setbacks and parking required. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official's September 2, 1997 memo notes that all construction must comply with current energy and building codes and that the depth and width of the existing foundation must be verified for compliance with current codes. The City Engineer and Fire Marshal had no comments. Planning would note that the applicant has removed two windows from the left wall (at family room) and two windows from the right wall (at master bedroom) since the previous proposal. The applicant has also changed the sliding glass door in the family room (facing the rear yard) to a window and the window (facing the patio) to a patio door. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Perinit: Review of a hillside area construction permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Required Findings 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; 3 Hillside Area Construction Permit and variances for lot coverage, front and side setbacks and parking 1704 Toledo Ave�zue (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 Comm.ission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings for both variance and hillside area construction permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following condition should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 26, 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 action by the Planning Commission; 2. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 17'-0" as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Toledo Avenue (99.75'), and that the top of plate and iinal roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and rooiing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure, with roof, sha11 not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 2, 1997 memo shall be met; and 4. that this project sha11 meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: John Stewart, applicant/architect 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PI.AIVNING COMMISSION MINUTES F_ . . APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, (KARA�'I' ; January l3, 1997 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1141 ;IRCI, APPLI�ANT AND PROPERTY Requests: Revise drawing o evation showing overall height since it does n seem to reflect the height of the found ' n; what is the exact size and location of th oor; what type of material will be the plywood; what are the special circumstance o justify the 9'-6" plate height; what ctural divisions exist in the garage, provide a plan; what is the proposed or intend use for the garage, in addition to two cars; fr outside the house appears to have two st es, plans reflect only one, what is the sq e footage of the house; what is the per ' sible lot coverage for the R-3 zone; plans sh a side setback of 4 feet, but neighbor who di survey indicates that setback is less, what ' the side setback from the structure. If the � formation can be gathered in time the it is set for hearing at the meeting of January 27, 1997. ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1704 TOLEDO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LI YIN LIANG, PROPERTY OWNER AND GABRIEL Y. NG, AIA, APPLICANTI Reference staff report, 01.13.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Gabriel Ng, architect for the applicant, 1375 Sutter Street, suite 311, San Francisco and Shu Re Liang, daughter of the owner addressed the commission. Both spoke about the restrictions, caused by the lot and location of the house, placed on the remodel attempt, noting communications with the neighbors and changes made to the plans reducing the size of the second floor and changes made to the plans reducing the size of the second floor and design of the front of the house. Commission asked if they were informed of the need for a Hillside Area Permit in initial discussions with the Planning Department prior to their purchase and told that there could be opposition from the neighbors if the views would be blocked. Ms. Liang responded in the affirmative. Karlyn Schneider, 2705 Arguello, Susanne Bock, 2704 Arguello Drive, Hera Kostekoglu, 2708 Arguello Drive, Henry Sommer, 2709 Arguello Drive, 7ohn Morgan, 2720 Martinez Drive and Alba Lopez, 2725 Arguello Drive, spoke against the application verifying the rooms in their houses from which their distant panoramic views would be blocked by the second floor addition and the probable negative impact on the value of their properties. The neighbors would prefer the addition go out on the first floor not up. They also presented a petition in opposition to the application with 60 signatures There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal then made a motion to deny this application noting the original CC & R's which limited these houses to a single story had lapsed and had been supplanted by an addition to the zoning ordinance requiring a Hillside Area Construction Permit. Noting the specified review criteria -2- , CTIY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 1997 . are obstruction, by construction, of the existing distant view from habitable areas within dwelling units. Fach application is taken on its individual merit. C. Galligan seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commission complimented both the neighbors and the applicant's a.rchitect for their attempts to resolve this issue. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE ECLARATION AT 601 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED -3 CON BROSNAN PROPERTY O R AND NEIL GABBAY APPLICANT . Refer ce staff report, 01.13.97, with attach ents. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, lanning Department comments, an tudy meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested r eonsideration. Chairman Elli opened the public hearing. Neil bay,19 South "B" Street, Suite 7, San Mateo, azchitec for the property owner, presented a r dering and pictures depicting revised elevations of the roposed building and the sunounding s tscape to the commission. There were no questions r comments from the public and the h was closed. Commission discuss the benefit of adding to the housing stock d noted for the record that if this project is not bui t to the requirements of a condominium, i.e. parking and open space; a future condominium co version without a variance would not be no sible. Commissioner Galligan then ved to approve the negative declaration, y resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that th roject shall be built as shown on the lans submitted to the Planning Department and date sta November 26, 1996, Sheet A.1 th ugh A.7, PL-1 and T1. 2) that the conditions of the City gineer's November 14, 1996 memo, he Fire Marshall's vember 12, 1996 memo and the Par Department's November 20, 1996 mo shall be met; 3) tha use and any construction for th use shall meet all the requirement of the Uniform Building an niform Fire Codes, 1995 Edi 'on, as amended by the City of Burli ame; 4) that the project sh be subject to the state-m ated water conservation program; complete Irrigation Water agement Plan shall be sub 'tted with landscape and irrigation pla�s at time of permit applicati�; 5) that this proposal shall e required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordin ce passed by the City of Burl game in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; 6) that all construction shall abide by construction hours established by the municipal code; 7) at all new utility connections to se e the site and which are affected by the development shal be installed to meet cunent code s dards and diameter; sewer laterals shall be checked and eplaced if necessary; abandoned utiliti and hookups shall be removed; and 8) that should any ultural resources be discovereci during co truction, work shall be halted until they are fully inv tigated. The motion was seconded`�y C. Mink and approved 7-0 voice vote. advised. � procedures were -3- , Burlingmne Planning Commission Minuies April 14, 1997 concerned that locked gate across driveway prevents access to on site parldng; 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 parking 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 stam�ed 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 parldng on site accessible; want fence to protect kids but coul e relocated so not across driveway; many houses in city have gates across driveways, need a matic so that uncovereri parking can be used as well as garage. Chairman Ellis c�d for the vote on the motion to approve the side setback and parldng variance. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 roll call vote (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were reviewed. j�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 70HN STEWART STEWART ASSOCIATES APPLICANTI 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 oor; 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 ', 708 Toledo, commented that the proposal was alright as it is, but does not want to see an er 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- n 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 worldng 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 BAT'HROOM 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 OWNERSI. Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study 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 current 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 are 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- ., . , . .; } . ., . PERMITS REQUIRED: `.. ,� '��_,,✓ CITY OF BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TELEPHONE: 415-696-1600 (WRITE FIRMLY ON HARD SURFACE) Site Address: �� ������ Type of Work: rL��i� * STOP WORK NOTICE * No building, structure or part thereof shall be erected, constructed, altered, enlarged, improved, repaired, moved, removed, converted or demolished unless permits have first been obtained from the City Building Official. UBC 301(a) Please submit permit application to the Building Inspection Division within 48 hours so that a permit may be issued for continuance of construction. If you fail to comply ' with this request, this notice may be referred to the City Attorney's office for legal action. s z :.,, �z � . �' �::L��� ..t� � . I � I BRING THIS NOTICE WITH YOU. ORIGINAL NOT TO LEAVE THE JOB SITE Description/Remarks: ��� � /" ��p �/� /�-�L �D l��,C LL � � L OVC�_�`( �1-�?�� (1� G -�� � �`-:,.- �-�. . :.� �:<. , . Inspector _� /��� Date _ . * STOP WORK NOTICE � JOB APPLICANT FILE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY RUG—��-19� � 1 c� 1 i' FF.Of'1 �.= I TY QF EURL I fJGR�IE TO 5919578 P.�3 �r �6o�;U U �11f'� �.+sd���A��lrall�ll� � I.I , � � �����{��� 1��.Q�l,������ �� ��� �l��+uYI.�� "��� Pi�rtnlrt,� Commtssiorr is requir�d by !aw to make� �findings �s defined by tt�e City's ord�n�nce iCod� S�ctinrt 26.54.02� aWd�. '�our answers ta the foliQwing questions wili e�ss�st th� Planrtfng Commisg(on in making the decision �� to whetl�er ths findin�s can b� made fa�r your requost. Please �ype or writ� ne�tly in ink� Refer ta t�e baak of thfs form for assfstanc� wlth these questi�ns, �. Describe the �xc�pt3otre/ ar extreord/n�rry clr�ur�sterrces or condltldn� �pplla�b/e �a yaur propettity wh1�h do not apply #� a�tl��r propert%�s in fliis a�rea. Please see the attached letter. Recently your Commission approved a Hillside Permit for the remodeling of this home. By error, the General Contractor removed existing walls and ceilings that were to remain and now that more than 50% of the walls have been removed, the homeowner must obtain a variance to construct the home as previously approved. Although the existing garage which is to remain provides substantial front and side setbacks, it requires a variance because it does not conform to todays setback requirements. We are only requesting a variance for the setbacks of the existing garage. The home and its additions conform to all zoning requirements. b. L=xpl�ln vvhy th� verl�nc� r�quest �fs nea�ssery for the pr�s�rvatlan end en�Qymar�t of s �ubsta�tlal �pre�p�rty ►�ight �nd what unre�son�ble property loss or unn�ces�e�y h�►rdship mlgh# re�ul� fr'om th� de�tf�1 of the �ppll��ftr�n. The garage has a 15' front setback and a 5' side setback. The garage setback is the same as that found thruout the neighborhood. The Owner is just asking to use the home in the same way as other homes in the area. If the owner is forced to move the garage back, they will lose the opportunity to use the existing home foundation, subfloor and under-floor framing which remains. This will cause a financial hardship. c. ,Exp�a,I,n wlry �he propased us� at th� prr�po�ed location vvill nat be d�trlr»�nt�l or Jnjurious ro praperty or improv�m�nts In th� vl�lnity dr ta publfc health, safety, ,�eneral w�l'f�re, or con w�nianae. The existing garage has existed in this location for many years and will not negatively effect health, property values, etc. If the property owner is forced to move the garage back, the result will be that the home must be moved back. This will negatiyely effect the view of adjacent neighbors. This was a major issue and the existing design as approved by your Commission addressed this issue. d. Kaw will �he p�opnsed praj�at be ccmpstlbl� v�r,ith the aesth�tPcs, n�ess, bulk �nd ch�r�cter of the'�+�xlstin� and potentla� u��s on �rdjolning prap�r�t`�s 1r� th� gener�l v/cinJt`y?' Originally your Commission denied plans for a second story addition on this home due to neighbor concerns about loss of views. The approved p�ans were for a one- story addition that was pushed as far forward towerds the garage as possible to protect the view of adjacent neighbors. The resultant r c i similar to others in the area. ��������,; AUG 2 6 1997 CITY OF BURLING�iME 12l62 vsr,frm PLANNING DEPT. STEWART ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE . INTERIORS . PLANNING 1351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (415) 591-8283 FAX: (415) 591-9578 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Planning Commission Re: Variance Request: 1704 Toledo Avenue Dear Commissioners: August 25, 1997 Job No. 9712 Recently we applied for and received a Hillside Development Permit for the remodeling of this home, We appeared before you as one of the neighbors had questions. We then applied for and obtained a Building permit which was issued. The problem is that the General Contractor, Peter Sun of Genesis Builders, in error removed approximately 86 linear feet of walls that were supposed to remain as well as the portion of the existing ceiling joists and roof that were to remain above these walls. Basically the garage walls and ceiling remain, and the roof and walls of the house were removed. As a result of the excess demolition, the Building Department has placed a stop work order on the property. The Code requires that if more than 50% of the walls are removed, the entire home must conform to requirements for new construction. Unfortunately, even though the walls and ceilings that were removed in error will be rebuilt in their same locations, in order for the project to go forth as designed and previously approved by your Commission, a Variance is required. We are hereby requesting a Variance for a 15' front setback on the garage where 23' is required and a 5' side setback on the garage where 7' is required. The home will be rebuilt exactly as shown on the approved plans. Also, most if not all of the other homes on this side of the street have similar conditions. The design as previously approved by your Commission will fit in very well with the other homes in the neighborhood. We ask your forgiveness for the Contractor's mistake, and ask that you approve the Variance for the existing conditions at the garage. Please feel free to call me should you require any additional information. Sincerely, � John L. Stewart, AIA cc: Lisa Liang Peter Sun, Genesis Builders �ECE��O��:� AUG 2 6 1997 C!TY OF BURLIN�AIVIE PLANNING DEPT.