The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report, �� , ,��ti �'�Y� ; ITEM #3 City of Burlingame Special Permit, Side & Rear Setback Variances Address: 1000 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 11/14/94 Request: Rear setback variances for first floor extension and second floor addition (CS 25.28.072-4 (a,b). Special permit for accessory structure height and side setback variance to extend non-conforming gazage with facade and arbor (CS 25.60.010-(h), 25.50.080, 25.28.072-3 (a). Applicant: Joseph & Janete Bojues Property Owner: Joseph Bojues Lot Dimensions and Area: 17,126 SF General Plan: Low density residential Adjacent Development: single family residential APN: 026-186-030 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 % of the floor area of the structures before the addition or 2500 SF, whichever is less. Project Summary: Joseph and 7anete Bojues, applicants, are requesting a special permit and side and rear setback variances to extend the first floor, add a second floor and extend a non-conforming detached garage at 1000 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing three bedroom, single story, 1940 SF house is located on a 17,126 SF lot. Easton Creek traverses the eastern portion of the parcel. To stay clear of the creek, the original house was built towazds the rear and left (west) property lines. The original house was constructed 13'-4" (at the closest point) from the rear property line. In 1952, an addition was built, with a building permit, 5'-4" from the rear property line. No Planning permits were required in 1952, possibly because the 5'-4" was seen as a side setback at that time. The proposed addition would increase the first floor area by 200 SF, providing a family room and enlarged bedroom. One bedroom would be eliminated to provide stairs to the second floor. In addition, the covered porch at the entry would be remodeled. The proposed second story addition would add 960 SF, providing a bedroom, master bedroom and two bathrooms. The total number of bedrooms would increase from three to four. Total living area would increase by 1160 SF (60%) from 1940 SF to 3100 SF. Floor area would increase by 48% from 2450 SF to 3610 SF. Floor area ratio requirements do not apply because the area would not increase more than 50%. The iirst rear setback variance is required because the new first floor walls would be located 7'- 2" and 11'-8" from the rear property line where 15' is required. A second rear setback variance is required for 14'-8" where 20' is required to the second story walls. � r. SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE & REAR SB VARIANCES 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE The existing 490 SF garage is non-conforming because it does not have a 7'-0" side setback. (A detached accessory structure can extend to the side and rear property lines if it is within the rear 30% of the property; this structure is not.) The existing flat rooferl garage would remain, and an 80 SF arbor (4' x 20.17') with a pitched-roof facade would be added to the front of the garage, increasing its footprint to 570 SF. Tfie facade is designed to match the azchitecture of the house. A side setback variance is required for the arbor because it extends the existing non- conforming 5'-7" setback (7'-0" required). In addition, a special permit is required for accessory structure height. The height of facade would be 17' at the peak where 14' is the maacimum height allowed. Front setback: Side (left): * Sirle (right): Rear: * Lot Coverage: FAR: (not applicable) Parking: Height: DH Envelope: Accessory structure: * PROPOSED no change 5'-7" ±72' 2nd flr 7'-2" lst flr 11'-8" lst flr 14'-8" 2nd flr 16.1 % (2750 SF) 3610 SF/.21 2 (e) covered + two covered + driveway uncovered driveway uncovered � meets required height 17'-needs special permit not given-scales 15.5' n/a (e) height meets requirements EXISTING ±63' 5'-7" ±58' lst flr 15'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 14.9 % (2550 SF) 2450 SF/.143 MAXIMUM j.7.OWED/REQ'D 15'/average 7'-0„ 7' -0„ 15'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % (6850 SF) 6980 SF/.408 two spaces, one must be covered 30'/21/z stories see code 14'-0" Meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Inspector noted that all work is to comply with cunent State Building Code. The City Engineer and Fire Marshal had no comments. /ss cc: Joseph Bojues, property owner Brent Lords, architect 2 �;, �( �!��r � il ITEM #5 City of Burlingame Special Permit, Side & Rear Setback Variances Address: 1000 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 11/28/94 Request: Rear setback variances for first floor extension and second floor addition (CS 25.28.072-4 (a,b). Special permit for accessory structure height and side setback variance to extend non-conforming garage with facade and azbor (CS 25.60.010-(h), 25.50.080, 25.28.072-3 (a). Applicant: Joseph & 7anete Bojues APN: 026-186-030 Property Owner: Joseph Bojues Lot Dimensions and Area: 17,126 SF General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition or 2500 SF, whichever is less. Project Summary: Joseph and 7anete Bojues, applicants, are requesting a special permit and side and rear setback variances to extend the frst floor, add a second floor and extend a non-conforming detached garage at 1000 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing three bedroom, single story, 1940 SF house is located on a 17,126 SF lot. Easton Creek traverses the eastern portion of the parcel. To stay clear of the creek, the original house was built towards the rear and left (west) property lines. The original house was constructed 13'-4" (at the closest point) from the rear property line. In 1952, an addition was built, with a building permit, 5'-4" from the rear property line. No Planning permits were required in 1952, possibly because the 5'-4" was seen as a side setback at that time. The proposed addition would increase the first floor area by 200 SF, providing a family room and enlarged bedroom. One bedroom would be eliminated to provide stairs to the second floor. In addition, the covered porch at the entry would be remodeled. The proposed second story addition would add 960 SF, providing a bedroom, master bedroom and two bathrooms. The total number of bedrooms would increase from three to four. Total living area would increase by 1160 SF (60%) from 1940 SF to 3100 SF. Floor area would increase by 48% from 2450 SF to 3610 SF. Floor area ratio requirements do not apply because the area would not increase more than 50 % . The first rear setback variance is required because the new first floor walls would be located 7'- 2" and 11'-8" from the rear property line where 15' is required. A second rear setback variance is required for 14'-8" where 20' is required to the second story w�lls. . SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE & REAR S/B VARIANCES 1000 Vi11VCOUVER AVENUE The existing 490 SF garage is non-conforming because it does not have a 7'-0" side setback. (A detached accessory structure can extend to the side and rear property lines if it is within the rear 30% of the property; this structure is not.) The existing flat roofed garage would remain, and an 80 SF azbor (4' x 20.17') with a pitched-roof facade would be added to the front of the garage, increasing its footprint to 570 SF. The facade is designed to match the architecture of the house. A side setback variance is required for the arbor because it extends the existing non- conforming 5'-7" setback (7'-0" required). In addition, a special permit is required for accessory structure height. The height of facade would be 17' at the peak where 14' is the maximum height allowed. Front setback: Side (left): * Side (right): Rear: * Lot Coverage: FAR: (not applicable) Parking: Height: DH Envelope: Accessory stnccture: * PROPOSED no change 5'-7" ±72' 2nd flr 7'-2" lst flr 11'-8" lst flr 14'-8" 2nd flr 16.1 % (2750 SF) 3610 SF/.21 EXISTING ±63' 5'-7" ±58' lst flr 15'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 14.9 % (2550 SF) 2450 SF/.143 2 (e) covered + two covered + driveway uncovered driveway uncovered ►� : meets required height 17'-needs special permit not given-scales 15.5' n/a (e) height meets requirements Meets all other zoning code requirements. MAXIMUM ALLOWED/REQ'D 15'/average 7'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % (6850 SF) 6980 SF/.408 two spaces, one must be covered 30'/2'/z stories see code 14'-0" Staff Comments: The Chief Building Inspector noted that all work is to comply with cunent State Building Code. The City Engineer and Fire Marshal had no comments. 2 SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE & REAR S/B VARIANCES I000 VANCOUVER AVENUE Study Meeting: At their regular meeting on November 14, 1994, Planning Commission asked for the neighbor's comments, especially the neighbor to the rear. Commission also refened to the applicant's letter of October 27 and asked about the building permit history. Planning staff notes that records show the original house was built in 1925 (SF not noted). There is a record of building permits for additions and alterations in 1937, 1940 and for the 1952, although the square footage of the additions aze not noted for 1937 and 1940. The County Assessor's appraisal report (copy attached) notes the floor plan of the house was "completely impractical" in 1952. Planning staff would note in their evaluation they considered the garage a detached accessory structure. The single wall and gate between the garage and the house was deterrnined to be no different than a fence. Correspondence: A note was received from Mr. Robert Shafer, property owner of 1001 Bernal Avenue, is enclosed. Mr. Shafer invites Planning Commission to view the project site from his rear patio. 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 aze 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 ot 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. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): 3 SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE & REAR S/B VARIANCES 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission 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 and date stamped October 27, 1994 sheets showing ground floor plans, second floor plans and building elevations; 2. that the framing of the first and second story at the rear shall be surveyed before the Building Department framing inspection to insure that the height of the structure and the rear setbacks match those which are proposed; 3. that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo dated October 31, 1994 shall be met; and 4. 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: 7oseph Bojues, property owner Brent Lords, architect 0 ' . �iK.l� � � t City of Burlingame Special Permit, Side & Rear Setback Variances Address: 1000 Vancouver Avenue ITEM #3 Meeting Date: 12/12/94 Request: Rear setback variances for first floor extension and second floor addition (CS 25.28.072-4 (a,b). Special permit for accessory structure height and side setback variance to extend non-conforming garage with facade and arbor (CS 25.60.010-(h), 25.50.080, 25.28.072-3 (a). Applicant: Joseph & Janete Bojues Property Owner: Joseph Bojues Lot Dimensions and Area: 17,126 SF General Plan: I,ow density residential Adjacent Development: single family residential APN: 026-186-030 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 % of the floor area of the structures before the addition or 2500 SF, whichever is less. Project Summary: Joseph and 7anete Bojues, applicants, are requesting a special permit and side and rear setback variances to extend the first floor, add a second floor and extend a non-conforming detached garage at 1000 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing three bedroom, single story, 1940 SF house is located on a 17,126 SF lot. Easton Creek traverses the eastern portion of the parcel. To stay clear of the creek, the original house was built towards the rear and left (west) property lines. The original house was constructed 13'-4" (at the closest point) from the rear property line. In 1952, an addition was built, with a building permit, 5'-4" from the rear property line. No Planning permits were required in 1952, possibly because the 5'-4" was seen as a side setback at that time. This item was originally scheduled for a public hearing on November 28, 1994. The applicant requested the item be continued to the meeting on December 12, 1994 (see applicant's letter dated 11/28/94). The project now before the Planning Commission has been redesigned, after coordinating with the adjacent property owner to the rear (Mr. Shafer, 1001 Bernal). The family room formerly proposed on the first floor (7'-2" from rear property line) has been eliminated. In addition, there is minor reconiiguration of the iirst floor interior wa11s. The proposed addition would increase the first floor area by 157 SF, providing an enlarged bedroom, enlarged bathroom and hall to the kitchen. One existing bedroom would be eliminated to provide stairs to the second floor. In addition, the covered porch at the entry would be remodeled. There would be minor reconfiguration of some interior walls. The proposed second story addition would add 1103 SF, providing a bedroom, master bedroom and two bathrooms. The total number of bedrooms would increase from three to four. Total living area would increase by 1260 SF (65 %) from 1940 SF to 3200 SF. Floor area would increase by 51 % from 2450 SF to 3710 SF. Floor area ratio requirements do not apply because the area added would not increase the area of the house by more than 50%. I i A . . SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE & REAR S/B VARIANCES 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE The first rear setback variance is required because the new first floor walls would be located 5'- 4" and 10'-0" from the rear property line where 15' is required. A second rear setback variance is required for 14'-8" and 15'-0" where 20' is required to the new second story walls. The existing 490 SF garage is non-conforming because it does not have a 7'-0" side setback. (A detached accessory structure can extend to the side and rear property lines if it is within the rear 30% of the property; this structure is not.) The escisting flat roofed garage would remain, and an 80 SF arbor (4' x 20.17') with a pitched-roof facade would be added to the front of the gazage, increasing its footprint to 570 SF. The facade is designed to match the architecture of the house. A side setback variance is required for the azbor because it extends the existing non- conforming 5'-7" setback (7'-0" required). In addition, a special permit is required for accessory structure height. The height of facade would be 17' at the peak where 14' is the maximum height allowed. Although the front elevation appears to show the house and garage are a single structure, they are not; they are connected by a fence. Front setback: Side (left): * Side (right): Rear: * Lot Coverage: FAR: (not applicable) Parking: Height: DH Envelope: Accessory structure: * PROPOSED no change 5'-7" ±72' 2nd flr 5'-4" lst flr 10'-0" lst flr 14'-8" 2nd flr 15'-0" 2nd flr 16.9 % (2891 SF) 3710 SF/.217 2 (e) covered + two covered + driveway uncovered driveway uncovered .; meets required height 17'-needs special permit not given-scales 15.5' EXISTING ±63' 5'-7" ±58' lst flr 5'-4" 13'-4" none none 14.9 % (2550 SF) 2450 SF/.143 n/a (e) height meets requirements MAXIMUM AT.7.OWED/REQ'D 15'/average 7'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (6850 SF) 6980 SF/.408 two spaces, one must be covered 30'/2'/z stories see code 14'-0" Meets all other zoning code requirements. 2 , SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE & REAR SB VARIANCES I000 VANCOUVER AVENUE Staff Comments: The Chief Building Inspector noted that all work is to comply with current State Building Code. The City Engineer and Fire Mazshal had no comments. Study Meeting: At their regulaz meeting on November 14, 1994, Planning Commission asked for the neighbor's comments, especially the neighbor to the rear. Commission also refened to the applicant's letter of October 27 and asked about the building permit history. Planning staff notes that records show the original house was built in 1925 (SF not noted). There is a record of building permits for additions and alterations in 1937, 1940 and for the 1952, although the square footage of the additions are not noted for 1937 and 1940. The County Assessor's appraisal report (copy attached) notes the floor plan of the house was "completely impractical" in 1952. Planning staff would note in their evaluation they considered the garage a detached accessory structure. The single wall and gate between the garage and the house was determined to be no different than a fence. Correspondence: A note was received from Mr. Robert Shafer, property owner of 1001 Bernal Avenue, and is enclosed (dated November 21, 1994). Mr. Shafer invites Planning Commission to view the project site from his rear patio. The Planning Department received a second letter from an adjacent property owners at 2025 Cazmelita Avenue (see November 19, 1994 letter from Carol & Gary Deatherage). The Deatherages state they have no objection to the proposed project as long as the project does not encroach into the yard area behind the garage. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions e�st 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 3 , SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE & REAR S/B VARIANCES 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE (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. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions e�st on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposerl use, at the proposed location, 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; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and chazacter of existing and potential uses on adjoining 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 and date stamped December 2, 1994 sheets showing ground floor plans, second floor plans and building elevations; 2. that the framing of the first and second story at the rear shall be surveyed before the Building Department framing inspection to insure that the height of the structure and the rear setbacks match those which are proposed; 3. that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo dated October 31, 1994 shall be met; and 4. 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: Joseph Bojues, property owner Brent Lords, architect 0 , . � ' �- ' November 28,1994 Joseph A. Bojues 1000 Vancouver Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Sheri Saisi Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Sheri, - .; �;,�r �, . �A 17(} � :x�r�-R � R��EIV�� p'�RATIp�� We would like to request a continuance for our variance application. Mr. Shafer, who owns the property at 1001 Bernal, said that if we make some modifications in our plans he would support our request for the variance. Thus, to accommodate him, we will make these modifications and resubmit the plans to the Planning Commission. We hope that this has not caused any inconvenience. Sincerely, , � �� oseph A�Boj 'u,es 1 ��/ '�-t � �: 2 F; 199� C!'iY OF E3l1RL!NGH9VIE Pt�tVN{NG DE4�T. MIlVUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMNIISSION November 28, 1994 � � CALL �O ORDER � � � A regulaz ��eeting of the Planning` \Commission, Ciry of Burlingame Galligan on 7Vlonday, November 28, Y.994 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL''�- � �� was called to order by Chairman PRESENT: Commissioners Deal, ELlis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Key and Min.k. Chairman Galligan welcomed Commm�sssioner Key back. �'� ABSENT: I�Yone STAFF PRESENT: 7ane Gomery, Planner; Sheri Saisi, P3�nner; Jerry Coleman, Attorney; Donald Chang, Associate Civil Engineer; Ken Musso; Assistant Fire Chief MINUTFS - The minutes of the November 14, 1994 meeting were amended to reflect the amendment of the minutes of the October 24, 1994 meeting to indicate: Agendize Freeway Oriented Signs t��t for Council/Planning Commission Joint Meering, Saturday, April 22, 1995, 9:00 A.M. Also, Item #6, 459 Cumberland Road, p.4, paragraph 1, the text of Condition #4 adressing requirements for review of future bedroom additions is deleted because staff misunderstood the motion and Condition #5 is renumbered #4. The minutes were then approved. AGENDA -''/ Item #4, Parldng and Side Setback Variances at 1237 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, and ' #5 Special Permit, Side and Rear Setback Variances at 1000 Vancouver Avenue, Zoned R-1 are CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 12, 1994 PLANI�iING COMMISSION MEETING. The order of the agenda was then approved. � FROM THE FLOOR Henrietta Clasmeyer, 2005 Carmelita Avenue, spoke about the thick grove of trees at the rear of 1001 Bernal and asked that the commission note the possibility of fire if more construction occurs. Commission asked that she contact the applicant and if resolution is not possible, please come back to the commission for the public hearing on December 12, 1994. -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes - November 28, 1994 i � , Commission noted for the record that i�\the modification of the primary residence is going to further increase the non-conformity of the struct�ire, that was not the intention of the code change allowing expansio�-o� the primary unit in circumstances v�rhe� this situation e�sts. The intention was to achieve a conforming s`�ructure that is the primary residence. `�his application has more problems than just the carport. Ano�er concern is that with a new applicati�tn there is a problem that goes back 55-60 years. Because with a 6' wide driveway between buildings ther� is simply no way to put a car in the back of this property without �iestroying the other structure. Motion was seconded by C�Tacobs and passed on a 7-0 roll cal�_vote. Appeal procedures were advised. \ 4. PARKING AND SIDE�SETBACK VARIANCES AT 1237 BALBOA AVENUE ZONED R-1 mnrrc.rrm,�rt � t�.�rT� . �.� �__�. . _ --- _ _— _ _ _ , f �, 5 CONTINUED TO 12, 1994 PLANNIl�TG COMNII$SION MEETING � SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AT 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (JOSEPH & JANETE BOJUES, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTSI. CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 12, 1994 PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (GARY Reference staff' report, 11/28/94, with attachments. Plannez Gomery discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Plannin� Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the,public hearing. Larry Weinstein, Design-Br�ild Solutions, was present to explain his clients project. The commission's suggestions at study session were �ppreciated and the now proposed reconfiguration of the parldng lot for 29 spaces is preferable and allows more turnaround space. The two trees that are to be removed Will be replaced in the front of the building !with two 30" box trees. There . were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted this application is in accord with the general plan. There is an abundance of on-street pazking in this area. C. Deal then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with findings incorporated-by reference and with the �ollowing amended conditions: 1) that the roject shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Plannirig Department and date stamped Novem�er 21, 1994, Site Plan revised to show access to the roll up door with a total of 29 parking stalls (22 standard stalls, 5 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls); 2) that the conditions of the City Engineers' October 7, 1994 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors' October 17, 1994 memo, and the Parks Directors' October ��1, 1994 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be open 8:00 A.M, to 5:00 P.M. Monday through �riday with a maximum of fifteen employees including the proprietor, on site, at any one time; and 4) that`the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. -3- C�o�7 Oo �� MG°3�O�1 c� G ° ° ° C�Q4��G�15�� Ci1G� ° ° f�l�f�1C� C�OfM]G�]A ��D�f�l Tyae of AQvlication: �Speciai Permit �Variance _Other Project Address 1000 Vancouver Avenue, Burlinaame Assesso�'s Parcel Number(s) ° x �-/�� -° 3° APPL/CANT Name: ,7c��Pr�h anrl ,7an�tr� Rn�nac Address: 1000 Vancouver Avenue City/State2ip; Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone:(wOfk) (415) 343-0100 (home) �ai s� 579-1199 ARCH/TECT/DES/GNER PROPERTY OWNER Name: Josen'� n.. �ojues Address: i_��`)0 Vancouver AvPnt�P City/State2ip' Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone:(work) �415) 343-0100 Name: Brent Lords� Address: Trinity Architecture City/State2ip:4431 Pampas Avenue ��,� 34 � -�' I z i Please indicate with an asterisk l'1 who the contact nerson is for this aroiect. Telephone (daytime): Oakland, CA 94610 telep one� 51�) 53Q-0864 -�'G�x �SC( rY1�� PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON: Remodel/Addition to 1000 Vancouver Avenu AFF/DA V/T/S/GNA TURE: (home) (415) 579-1199 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge nd belief. � � �� /�.:� ��.��.-_— ``' /0 ,,' :� _�Y A plicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application, and reby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. ,� �7 py P erty Owfrer's gnature ate --------------------------------------------------OFFICE USE ONLY ---------------------------------------------------- Date Filed: '2 Fee � Receipt # 7 ' ZZ-3 Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as c mplete: ��1 ' P.C. study meeting (datel� �'�`�' �/� P.C. public hearing (date) -� �� 2'� Z'�� P.C. Action ,z�sz Appeal to Council? Yes No projapp.frm Council meeting date Council Action Joseph and Janete Bojues 1000 Vancouver Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Planning Commission: October 27, 1994 Please consider our variance for the remodeling and addition to our home at 1000 Vancouver Avenue. I have been a resident of Burlingame for over 20 years and have lived at the cunent address for 18 years. During that time a great deal of work has been put into improving the grounds and some improvements in the house. We plan to live the remaining years of our lives here for sev- eral reasons: we very much like the Burlingame community, we enjoy the location of our home, my business is located in Burlingame, and my wife's family lives in San Mateo. My wife has very strong ties to Burlingame since she spent her childhood in Burlingame/San Mateo, and her father had his optometric practice for thirty-iive years on Burlingame Avenue. He was also very active in Burlingame community service organizations. Unfortunately, our home has many shortcomings and inadequacies that we would like to remedy to make it more livable and to fulfill our living and family needs. Our home lacks an appropriate family room, a dining room , adequate closets, appropriate bedrooms for future children, and a functional circulation flow within the house. One that does't force you to go through a bedroom to gain access to the kitchen or go through another bedroom to reach the outside yard. The un- desirable room ananagements and poor circulation flow is due to the fact that the house was originally a cottage, and rooms were just tact on to the next over a period of time. We would very much like to have the variance approved. If the variance is granted, we will be able to fuliill our family needs in the most viable and functional way. It also allows us to main- tain a safe play area for our future children. We appreciate your considerarion of our applicarion for a variance. Cordially, � oseph A. ojue . ,, City of Burlingame Variance Application by Joseph Bojues and Janete Van Bokkelen Bojues a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. Our home is located on a deadend street which limits the access to the property. Because of the topography and the location of the existing structures , we have limited area to use for our remodeling. There is a severe slope that bisects the property. The slope is at an approximate 60-70 angle and drops to an lower area approximately 12 feet down. This makes a large portion of the area almost impossible to build on. To compound the situarion, there is a creek running through the property. The right side of the house and part of the right front of the house butts against the severe slope which goes down to a lower area. On the left side of the house, there is a two car detached garage that limits expansion in most of this direction. The house as currently ( and legally) located on the property would not have complied with codes if the East property line had been originally interpeted as the backyard ( 13'-4" set back). For a legal kitchen addition in 1952, the city obviously interpreted this as the side yard since it was located 5'-4" from the East property line. The family room extention would not extend as far as the building of the kitchen by the previous owners many years ago. The location of this kitchen addition limits the possible, practical loca- tion of a family room and dining room. There is a ten foot wide (unused) alley easement along the North end of the East property line. This causes a 5'-0" reduction in the lot and places the neighbor's property line 23'-4" from the main part of the house. The side of the garage is 5'-7" from the North property line. This was constructed legally at the time the garage was built. � 1 b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation a d enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unr easonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. The variance for both the first and second floors is necessary to meet our family needs in the most viable and functional way. We plan to start a family, and the current house is inadequate for a family with children. We need to expand. Currently, our home lacks an appropriate family room, a dining room, adequate closets, and appropriate bedrooms for future children. Also, there is an undesirable circulation flow within the house. This is due to the fact that the house was originally a cottage, and rooms were added on in a poorly planned fashion. For example, to go from the rear hall to the kitchen, you must go through a bedroom.To exit the side door to go to the rear yard, you must go through the other bedroom. The future dining room and family room need to be next to the kitchen. We cannot expand to the South because of the creek. We would also have to remove a magnificant tree that is benefical to the neighbors. Building forward on the house and toward the creek would create an awkward floor plan and would protude over the slope to the lower area. It may not be aesthi- cally pleasing. More importantly, the architect and the engineer do not advise building in that direction because it would be unsafe for current loads and for performance during an earthquake. To correct the poor circulation, to provide access to needed additional bedrooms, and to create an adequate size bedroom, the rear wall must be moved out. Expanison behind the garage is not viable since it is too far from the kitchen. If the two story addition were placed in the rear behind the garage, th ebuilding area would have to be 4 feet from the garage and 20 feet from the property line. The limited footprint available would not create a functional, workable area. Accessability to this area would require eliminating one of our bedrooms. Aesthetically it would be an unsightly structure. We also need this yard since it is the only "safe, protected" area in which small children can play. The other side and front areas are adjacent to the steep slope. Playing in these areas may endanger the safety of our children. •; � ,, b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation a d enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unraeasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. ( Continuation ) A variance for the screen is needed because if the screen has to be moved over and not be flush with the exisring garage, it would narrow the garage opening. Thus, two cars can't fit through. It would also cause an unsatisfactory, unappealing architectural condition. �� c. Explain why the proposed use at the the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. By making the improvements other than in the rear portion of the house, it would have more of an undesirable effect on our neighbors at 2025 Carmelita and 2005 Cannelita. Building on the area behind the garage would cast shadows on 2025 Carmelita's viewing deck, would create a privacy problem for them, and would limit the enjoyment of thier deck. The structure would also be closer to 2005 Carmelita's home and would mitigate thier privacy. We spoke to both neigh- bors, and they did not like the locarion. To us the cost would be prohibitive, and our home would have an undesirable floor plan. Thus, the remodeling with the variance at the rear of our house would be most advantageous to our neighbors on Cannelita because it would be a greater distance from their homes amd would maintain thier privacy and view. If the variance measurement is taken from 2005 Carmelita's property line, a vaariance is not required. This is due to the 10 foot alley easement between the two property lines. The proposed variance should have little affect on the other house in the rear, 1001 Bernal. This house is approximately 60-70 feet from the rear property line. There is also an existing fence,a large shed and a large,thick barrier of evergreen uees between that house and the property line. These trees are approximately 100 feet high. This buffer of severallarge, thick evergreen trees blocks our ability to see that house from our roof(Please see photo).The house at 1001 Bernal is a one story home with no windows on the roof facing the rear. The house is not occupied all the time since the house is used as a"retreat" for Mrs. Shaefer. She lives in her primary residence with her husband across the street at the end of Bernal. The proposed location has the least affect on all our neighbors for any addition, whether a variance is needed or not. Our house would comply with building codes and give us the opportu- nity to sesmic safety and foundation structure. Thus, we feel that the proposed variance for both floors would be the most benefical and advan- tageous solurion. ,y c. Explain why the proposed use at the the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. ( Continuation ) The screen would be 90 degree angle to the neighbor's property, and it would be only 6'" wide. Therefore, it would have no impact on the neighbor. � � � ! d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and charac- ter of the existing and potential uses on ajoining properties in the general vicinity? The architectural style would conform with the exisring style of our home. It is important to us that the addition does not look like an addition. The house would conform with the basic style of other homes in the area. Ot=T-�r�-1'�'�4 1r,:4Et FR[If'1 CIT`i [IF EII_IF.'L:IlGi=�f'iE T[I �4_�91:=1 F.1=�3 � , i. aF � f�� il,l(' ��1i�Uz�.Q��l� 0unun � F', Joes�ph �S. Bbjues i�,y :-;', ,, ,,.: ��G�� G� �� Janete Van Bokkelen , '�....,..• Bojues The Planning Commiss(on fs requited by law to make f(ndings as defined by thg City's ordinance (Code 5ectlon 26.62.d20►. Your answerB to the following questions w111 assist the Plennfng Commission fn makfng the decision as ta wheth�r the findings can ba made far your request. Ple�se type or wr(t� neat{y in ink, Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questfons, 1. Fxp/aln why the prapossd use et tha propos�d location wfll nat be detrlments/ or, lnJurlaus to property ar Improvements /n tlre vlclnity or ta puhltc haalth, sefety, generel w�lfere, or convenlence. Joseph Bojues and Janete Van Bokkelen Bojues 1000 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame `�he proposed screen does not affect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. It does not affect neighboring �roperties' views, light, or other structures. The screen is designed to be perpendicular to the adjacent property at 2�25 Carmelita. zt will be the width of the garage, six inches thick, and seventeen feet hic{h from the g��,a��. It will be located four feet in front of the existinq garage. ( Please see architectural drawings ) 2. Ho w wfl/ tha propvsed use be /oceted and canducted in eccordence w/th fhe Bu�lingema t3sn�ra/ Plan and Zonfng OrdinenceT �- The proposed structure is in comolete accordance with residential use. 3. How w1// the proposed profsct be competl,b/e with the e�sthetlCg, mess, bulk �nd cherac%i of the exlsting snd potentla/ uses on ad/oi»!ng prapertJss fir the gansrat vlc�nityT The puroose of the proposed screen is so that the design aesthetics of the garage�`�e architecturally compatible with our home. This is currently not the case. The use of the screen provides a pleasing architectural view from the street ( to integrate the garage �.aith the house ), but does not block the view nor the light of our neighbors as a pitched roof would. �n fact, the screen is 59' feet from the front property line and 72' feet from the curb of the street, and 60' feet from the rear of the nropertv line. It would not impact neither our rear neighk:or ru�r our adjacent neighbor who has a two-story home that is at least ten feet higher than the proposed screen. 17.182 �p,frm Tf1TAI P.l�� ,�. � � � �� s/�� ; �� • r�� r �� ''_,^�: 5- : �a�. � , �' �`,,�1'•'�`` it' \ � � � v , .. .. < _ ;, �� . • �^-� � � . �. f � ..� ,� . - - , � . . �� . - �. 1�� . , t � '� '�` �., : ; � i� "- - _ - , . ��, �` i -�. i ��G _ � ��i ,u'` � � � J a�, � '�. �� yLc+.,� f• �s f..i` : � i � ., v�/C�✓ d� aO%✓ G,?i1tiG`i�4 f J�- 4I�/ jOdf U?`` `QOO �aiRG/GYG/-• i1►"�¢ � i _ k�� s / / �� f - _ �� 1 74 � rir� , � � �. F�s : — � _�..; � �r�� w. .� .f' �T � ��T� � �.�� -y�'�y�y/-'��-, `� -.�� d : Y' � � i��►��.�". � a. . ��i��,,.' �: � � � � '��v�� +"�-: ��l�l. �%�,cw •� Z�'�� 2rr+c�iTq -t,Y'i� Lyri�np(. _. r�tai� l.�Lvo� d .� r ' , r. ' C � �` . iri. � �--.`•'"�+s; . + �•, �� '. ,:� s<< _ , . .�� -- V ��/U d� 7j Da ,i C�r.�.� �/4 i tl•r9 A�'/' %�moT' ,.. � ♦ �: / -y7= , �r �� :'T�'d';�rlt` y', ai� �" � �w � t �� _ `� I..� �'�P�'_ _ +. �.�'�', �' �'�"'r' E 1[. _.: � •��: 'I �� '1�� , _ 9�', * � � I� ','a ° `` .�� r +x ,.'�a,�d!r. . " . r "- . . . . . . , '�. .'�i . . . . . . . . . . .'�� I ��` . � . . ��.� .. . � 1I + s ��_,�F 1 z � I r � fi��—� ,---•yr "�i�I . . ;, � � y�� ,..�i.�W.-.� . ,.`�`��+�� . _ r . . . � � % .�� — ,�., ' , •t . . . �i2� . • . - ' _ ' s . . H� .. �J� ��.. �.. . �. , • .. — '� - ' i* �. . ' � �� .. '+� � � ,r� ,� ;,,�„ , . � ,, , . . r , ,Jr� �� F��+,�H'�"r,�� ., .. v�' t:�'� ;�,6.i ��j_�v�J`�. `,, � 'i, ��,J7�l� ! YY. �ti.} � �.'1— V �'V��y'�'�,. ., /i% :�;5' ;�1 -!a ., « 1 �*� �t�. � F� � i "e�. ei� . � �G, �'1' . ' � . � �.rA�'� �l� �f4y�. k `� t � �,�� ;2��1 t � _ -.� �� ;�,� .� ,a�.,��,` Y � �iti t ;Y� { = ., ». � ��^ l✓i> � �� a - \ ' � a t I`� �at y, "`�.. � + ui� , n �� .{�� ` '� � �.Ky�� 'F' ,��" —1 �� 3„ ;�' > -'�� I �y,� j y � �� ,� !�^ +{'� ,ys ' I y � t J A ''q �3 ' } ��`�� ` �' ' _` � '_ :��'!�i - � :. .:�� t� +�� .,� ,�.. �,? }�"' 'Si J- +F '�,. � . � l. �� . ^ �� j +''��. �2'.� jr� , \ i^�"� � � s.>;' � ; ��. {�.�.'�:�Z ��'�` `� : � - - - W �/! �w �� 2. 4//,� ��Y�� ."i.`�c. -F l'o:.;, ��,-�r._l-. �c f•oa r, . ' ��- ' � V/ tu� o � �t � � � �ti /dG/ �j�tti.t� -�ts� �JvJ' �jd�.rG�drd. a �� } �'� >.( � . ��'. • .►iY _ . ��, ; ��+' f . ��'� , i�� f.�.,`�r�.�� .. : t�' ( jIl tiR {� o �t` � d �n-c �hc{ ,S �Yo�r�t ovY 7` /'vsr � `'dt� l P i� • r � � � 1�,, i I _..✓"'^t - - ;, �� 4 � � r � � � >7��"- � - �� C_ 1 • �� .r� �� "G �!/ d� T r��'t � G� l6dD 1/��7G!/��Yr r �i'4rt� �/�v,�Yl Gi-��k 2%�a f,��b5 e �P/� �Dt�i,�i�' Gy�e�c� �r�a. 1�! L' w .? :Jov�� j /�� o � �, , , . � I � :��',' �'� L .. *� •r � t� ' � _. ,� �` �. �A v �� GZPI=II f d � r - -- - _ � �d s �' _ -�" Gzr��li�a . � � � � c� � r� �` � # � rx� � ♦— y� � `'' � r ��' •� ��°�� jh� Vlew' �G-G.1� /�d/ %�Gtlr2l -�ro„a avr /^oofi• „ � r � � ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 10�2g��14- CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN REQIIEST FORcS�Gi G( l p�%�Y}� / 7 .�i � J� r�,r�u�� c f��'�. �hl� ) �- re�� s��hcr�,� �av�r ��c� � AT ��(/� V G��J�O(/1 I��{� 7/ Y�i�J v% � �� Z� � 5�� y �d� � � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �O.U. REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: /��3/'� � THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah li7 � Date of Comments �`� � ��- � ��y w�� :�.� �� C�� , , ;., � , ROUTING FORM DATE: IO' Gg' `�(� TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : REQUEST FOR cS��ii Cf l p�r f'}� /� f jJ}� a�j ,�j2t��`i-� ��9�f �f�r�a'� ��1� ) ¢ �-er� se�h�rG,� r��v�i ��c� � AT �l��%/ / I�Q{�I r O(/1 I�L � �l��i�I �� y Z� d sf�v y G�dd� �'o� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �0.�� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: 1��3I'� � THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah r;� %�� o!��r Date of Comments �-1 b Lu �M vi't �{�'r _ � , , � , � ROUTING FORM DATE: IO' Zg' �� TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR �_ FIRE MARSHAL � PARRS DIRECTOR � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : REQIIEBT FORcS,�'��'j1 Gf � p�r f')') / f fjT}� ��'j ,�{�� i9�t �f�t .�a' �h�� ) �- re � sef�crc,� vav��c� � �/ � �v�� - y Zv� Gi Sf�r y G�G�GLC �I �� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �0.�� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �� 3�' �� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah '�'� Date of Comments No ��,,,��,�,,,�- _ � i�� , , �, � � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 The City Attorney noted that this should be reviewed as a 6 bedroom single family house with a parlflng variance. Item set for public hearing November 28, 1994 pending necessary responses in a timely manner. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT AT 125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 (JO�IN STEINER, PROPERTY OWNER AND PHILIP D. WILKINSON APPLICANTL Requests: Is new carport 4' from e�cisting second unit; need elevations of carport and roof with dimensions; roof should be solid; Special Permif �application question #2 states, "proposed addition will conform to the City of Burlingame General ,pl'an and zoning ordinance", if this is so why then the need for so many exceptions; history of building permits on property; how long has applicant owned this site; are both units rented; was consideratton given to moving the curb cut and driveway to improve access to the carport; will palm and pine tr�be removed. Item set for public hearing November 28, 1994. 3. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO HOUSE, SPECIAL PERNIIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO GARAGE AT 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (JOSEPH AND JANETE BOJUES PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANI') Requests: If accessory structure was attached to the house would it need height and side setback variance; contact neighbors for comments, especially next to rear; building permit history. Item set for public hearing November 28, 1994. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (GARY HIRSCH. PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGN-BUILD SOLUTIONS APPLICANTI Requests: Clarify driveways; define exceptional circumstances; existing plan shows all compact stalls, try a redesign approach to show maacimum standard stalls possible then ask for a variance for the lesser spaces; try diagonal parldng approach; Public Works to address size of parking stalls; where is the ramp located; address 10' easement given to City, where is it shown on layout; historical prospective, how many parking spaces originally at this site; door somewhat covered, keep door area completely open ; what is the required space for handicapped access from parking space to sidewalk to walkway to front door. Item set for public hearing November 28, 1994 if all information is available. ACTION ITEMS Chairman Galligan informed all applicants for action items that the rules of procedure for the commission require a minimum of 4 affirmative votes of the seated Commissioners in order to pass a motion; there are only 6 members seated tonight. If any applicant would prefer to be heard by a full commission, they may request a continuance. There were no such requests. 5. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 128 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 (MEHMET DEMIRKOL. PROPERTY OWNER AND THOMAS W THOMPSON APPLICANTI Reference staff report, 11/14/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three condirions were suggested for consideration. -2- // - �i- 9 � /2� v� vr .s T/� ��+ �, H�r ��,o � S// .r i T / c� a/ T3�2,N� (.�/-f � c- /�- .�3.4�lG f c/ P 7—� / OO a!��-�-. c� c�!/i�[.. Tv i.,-� .!'p,E��T �20 �a �l � o /3-/>ct��Ti �oe� - T�f-,� .�� r G�� -1 SZi Gi.�� i�i-�+.� .l�i ,Di� O � ! C�o / �i�/Li--�c� (�Jic� /3FL L�r o�� 2- yo� T-� ��- . f=szi� �- y_ o��-r ��,,.. - ��v�L.�r r yo v U��. �F= �� ,--3->-., .� L��-- �Z ��i.� r�.�, �� .3� s� — Z� 7 /� ��,�u �- ��-��s-- L a fl o �3�-,-,�- �}v--P /�v�r- [..� �. c. �->r e �r f�/�r.�� J �-/- z�� -7 ��'�� - --- - �- �::��i�_ � :_ i9�4 - - _ GiTY +�E �ll 4URGAME - - P�",tNIPd� [?��T. � r. �W To Burlingame Planning Commission: _.:� � ��' m�, �.. Na�°ember 19, 1994 This is to indicate that Carol and Gary Deatherage «ho reside at 2025 Carmelita ha��e no objecUon to the proposed garage xreen and the variance applied for at 1000 Vaacouver A��e. We �i�ould ha� e an objection if the addition «as built at 1000 Vancouver in the backyard behind the garage. ��tdL�/�A� �� -___� � Carol Deatherage (�) �� ✓ e� — -- / Dea erage , f ��'A�� : � 2 �? 1994 . _ �f'.1`~rl�N �`��!►�E R �'F?Ep� �,A i � . D �,N G1�Y �ii- �:.,�i�:CaIaHIV1E !�'�J�.N1V��!G �EPT: �-.. � � � � . .� � L S^ !] . ... .. _ _. . . . . . . . . , ..:.,,� .. .. -.. ..�-' . . ;. . .-.,. , ._ _ . . . . ., .. . , ..,-:-'T'-a-,.,-romc-� . _.. _.,, _ • APPRAISAL REPORT—ASSESSOR'S C�FFICE—SAN h7ATE0 COUNTIf', CAL�FOr2NIA� - - ��' R CODE No. y% APPRAISER �t'i L j< DATE �PPRAISED 3-� S- J" L OCCUPIED d w.v e � ..� . . { ,_I ._ : . _�. ._ _. __ ��}' :; j' . , _ _ _ . �_.__ _ LAND VALUE � . > � C/ d � .Z _� -�-- -- -- , o _ --}—.._�_� _,_ ----- _ � _._..:_. IMPROVEMENTS -� � S cf a % SQ a , ,� S ha� � � B�oCK � � � ` � j . � 9 6 PERSONAL PROPERTY s � -_ _. ' �� p dc{e d _. __ ASSESSED. �nrvD IMPROVfMENTS PERSONAL PROPERTY e�oCK _..__ , _.._ T� �, �----= _--- 1-9-�Z- -- -n ..:.._ VALUE r- -- . , _ 1 ' i 3 �b c�Xi Grvnt �. J�POp _ � ; _ � s��, o b s�.-� s i j � INTERIOR • ( /, c � _ - - _ _ -�-- ---- . _ __... _ - LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY � I � - TRIM CONDITION �,�N �� 1 S� � �� 0 1� �. o � � � S T'o (t� t X PINE ✓ ' i I 9� M j 1 N - - ;_-----� -- ;__ ---r---_-- -----. _._.---- STORIES USE. �' �r7(Zt}Ge „� I � � FLOORS CONDITION 2� � � i i J, HARDWOOD 12 % l 9 s Z- NO. OF ROOMS � ' i � ' EXTERIOR WALL FINISH � CONDITION ' �- ' �� ' } ' N � � � S S 1} I {- � , _ . _L-----_ ___ _ _ . __.._ . e .10� ly X�X4X !�9 x/L X'3� W S i � I ALL CONDI ION l�C�t-�� _ /�'Ie 1 � I� S � ;2 . i , i . __._ __...1 I k �.:.. � - N w � I � � ' c� ti I�i .1 �- Q A S �! n c i� �9s — a-ql�`t 3�e� _ _ �_-.___ _ _ -_-. *-- , - _ . � -----. - - - ROOF ' PITGH CONDITION ' ' � � ' - � � �/ ' i ! ; I CEILINGS ' �� PJA-S �E �Z COND� I,�N � I l �1 C FOUNDATION ! ; ' I n CONGRETE � � ' I �RPp /�ol.Jr�I 1R.) �. �^- CI�CtT Knr�1 GONSTRUCTION WOOD FRAME � � �7N I3 AS r� Ii t e BASEMENT EXCAVATED GRAOE LEVEL N� N e GARAGE � D X� y DOORS 4�T �� r_oNd,�,oN � s�,d,tiG WALLS ��S � I c ROOF�,� /Nc I FLOOR � a N � C YEAR BUILT NEW GOOD MEDIUM POOR �9 2s ❑ o � ❑ FUNCTIONAL AND ECONOMIC DEFECTS Th� < ho�se /,,as beNN R�-v��.�le ��a ��T�-�,, �!-,� ��Up�Y ��/qN 1S Gp'rnd�"�f�4 /i.t�+RAc��C•A� � ' INSV��,� ,r�T fleAT,Nc Sy.rfe�, F�� Qldc This .f,z e , OUTBUILDINGS n ,� S i� � C{ - l O X I 7. r, i�� „1�:�1 � �J ' T�� ri �f �� o! C' ��e � t r--- �] I I��ri_S�i! 7 nii„�.a�"�nh/ — I',ORRtt ��lir.u> r. �n � LOT SIZE ZONING APPRAISED s REMARKS NO. � D O Q_ _�� 1�l C D V V E� 2 ST' BATH^s—No. r FLOORS �� N o' � �"� VALUE ESTIMATE—COST APPROACH—EQUALIZING FACTORS Wq�NSCOTING WALLS BU�LDING cos7 o'oc000 VALUE � � S�' E�' � ��Y� SQ Fl. ��s Q �j C � � PLUMBING FIXTURES No. �\.�__ d %- ��X-�RA T� �P T�d �9S i.v f BA5EMENT �� SHOWERS V L°, Tu � GARAGE �l �D �� _ I I 6 a g U o a LIGHTING FIXTURES V WIRING � ,.,, ShN d � 1 �O �� Q � S HEATING ' .� � D �� WATER HEATER I. Q Sro G£_, �� FIREPLACES I t _ �� BUILT-IN FEATUR�S -Z'Q�-� l „„, Ls_ � o y q y %'x � e �,e ti1� - r_ 1 T c �LU_.Sa% �� ", 3�.SS �y9� � C`l,ass TOTAL �� s' � y 9� RENTqLS APPRAISER'S OPINIC)tJ OF MARKET PRICE OBTAINABLE FOR PFtpPERTY S ADDITIONS B. P. No. I� (o L DA'TE �� ' 4• � � AMOUNT S�(� � `7y3 -� ��iv.yo _ so i��y - � - /-s'! - i nn FOR Ff/_ T fi ` f 0 _ 3-JS�� Z 1�1� c , ,�. � , , , AJ��,`'E pR�,,c� � .� ,� -� a�E"'J6 � � � '.s. �I A�`�J��R' - ��t�;�;, t __- -, _, - � - � �> ^ y �;�_,��. �R�av � � � � ypo� � � AJE`�JG �oo� I I �,, �os . . • ♦ 1py5 ►o°� I ,��o � �- I� ��o\ � ZSO� � I ¢ � y�o5 � r� � , �� . � �.�• 1 � 1 I 1 __ , , CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISgION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28 1994 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. 1000 VANCOWER AVENIIE APN: 026-186-030 APPLICATION FOR REAR SETBACR VARIANCES TO THE MAIN DWELLING, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTIIRE AND A SIDE SETBACR VARIANCE TO EBTEND A NON-CONFORMING BTRIICTtTRE AT 1100 VANCOWER AVENIIE, 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. Please note, when possible, and when multiple family or commercial development is involved, thia notice shall be posted in a public place on the project site and on neiqhboring buildings with tenants. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER November 18, 1994 i000vwrrc.a�b �� RF�OLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL PERNIIT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK 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 special permit for accessory structure height , side setback variances to extend non-conforming�a�e with facade and arbor and rear setback variances for first floor extension and second floor addition at 1000 Vancouver Avenue, APN: 026-186-030 ; property owner: 7oseph & Janete Bojues 1000 Vancouver Avenue ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 12, 1994 , 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 Class 1(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 % of the floor area of the structures before the addition or 2500 SF, whichever is less is hereby approved. 2. Said special permit, side & rear setback variances aze approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variances and special permit 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. CHAIRMAN 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 12th day of December , 1994 , by the following vote: AYFS: COIvIIvIISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY .� ��.��, � II: Conditions of approval categorical exemption, special permit and variances 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE effective JANUARY 3, 1995 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 27, 1994 sheets showing ground floor plans, second floor plans and building elevations; 2. that the framing of the first and second story at the rear shall be surveyed before the Building Department framing inspection to insure that the height of the structure and the rear setbacks match those which are proposed; 3. that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo dated October 31, 1994 shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.