The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1372 Vancouver Ave - Approval Letter� � l �� c�z�� zz��.� CITY HALL-SOI PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 July 19, 1988 Michael and Kathleen Serratto 1372 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Serratto: PLANNING DEPARTMENT (415) 342-8625 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the July 11, 1988 Planning Commission approval of your application for a parking variance became effective-July 19, 1988. This application was to allow a bedroom addition to the single family residence at 1372 Vancouver Avenue. The July 11, 1988 minutes of the Planning Commission state your variance was granted with the following condition: 1. that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 15, 1988 and July 1, 1988. 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. Sincerely yours, �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Chief Building Inspector Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 4, Block 44, Easton Addition No. 3; APN 026-058-110) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes �ag� .. July 11, 1988 retaining wall is raised about 2-1/2' so it is -��r:��ossible to nlarge the bedroom and leave the walkway; he would.not iike to see t patio cover removed, it does provide protection to the living are in the back of the house; a denial w�.�ld result in undue prop ty loss; approval would not be- detrimental to the neighb hood and would not adversely affeet the zoning plan of the city. C. Harrison mov.ed for approval of t�e�variances for parking and lot coverage and for adoption of ��Commission Resolution Approving Variances with the following cofidition: (1) that the project shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 15, 1988 and that the additional lot coverage shall not exceed 75 SF. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. �'' Comment on the mo ion: can under'stand the variance for parking, this is a Ray P��garage, but have a. concern about lot coverage, do not think tja'e patio cover needs to 'k5e,_ this deep; staff advised if the patio�,�'over were constructed differer►tly, more freestanding, the lot c�rerage variance would still be",-required. Further comment: ,do not have a problem with the patio� cover, with some exposur�s this is necessary; cutting off the cover, would be unatt�active. Mp�ion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. �/ 9. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A BEDROOM ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY ��_ HOUSE AT 1372 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/11/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Michael and Kathleen Serratto, applicants, were present. Length of the driveway was discussed. Mr. Serratto advised several of their neighbors had no objections. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham advised she was familiar with this house, there is no way around the parking situation. She found there were exceptional circumstances, there is no place on this lot for more parking, there is room in the driveway for a second vehicle; the variance is necessary for the protection of the property rights of the owners, it would not be detrimental to the neighbors and would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page ; July 11, 1988 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bill Lacs, Lacs Design and CortStruction and Rafael and Lisa Portillo, property owners were pre�ent. Mr. Lacs commented they have tried their best to satisfy the 'regulations of the city and his clients� needs; it has been diffi�ult with this narrow lot and they did not want to intrude into the setbacks. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the`.statement he made a site visit, there are exceptional circumstan'ces in the lot size and inability to provide more than a tandem gara'�e, the variance is necessary for . the preservation and enjoyment o, a property right of the owner, it would not be detrimental to the neighbors and would not adversely affect the zoning plan ot the city, C. Harrison moved for approval of the parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building ,;Tnspector's June 14, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 9, 1988 with revised floor plan;of the garage date stamped July 1, 1988 showing a 40' long ta�iiiem parking area; and (3) that the garage shall never be used for living area or separate residential purposes. Motion was seconded by �l. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: this is an example of what can'be doile if applicants are helpful in trying to improve a project. Motion`'passed unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.'', 8. VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND LOT COVERAGE TO ADD A BEDROOM TO THE RESII]�ENCE AT 1708 DEVEREUX DRIVE ZONED R-1 Reference staff reportg, 7/11/88, wi�,h attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staf�£ reivew, applicants' letter. One conditi'on was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Nfinimum bedroom size was discus�ed. Chm. Jacvbs opened the public hearing. Joyee and Marshall Feldman, applica�its and property owners, were present':� Applic�nts/Commission discussion: why not ext+�nd the addition back to the patio line; Mrs. Feldman stated there'�is a retaining wall which'�they would have to remove so they left waLkway access to the sid�'� of the house; they park one car in the garage in winter, one ca �is parked on the street. There were no audience comments and t}y� public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have a basic concern about where people park, have no objection toa third bedroom but this is a relatively short driveway. C. Harrison stated he shared this concern but from a site inspection he found there were exceptional circumstances, the �, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 11, 1988 C. S. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the following condition: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 15, 1988 and July 1, 1988. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. ^�' ✓� 0. VARIANCE TO REQUIRED REAR YARD IN ORDER TO BUILD A DECK 5' FROM PROPERTY LINE AT 433 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE ZONED R-1 CP`�Ionroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staf# comment on history of this property, applicant's letters, lette`� in oppostion from Paul A. Schumann, 1525 Bellevue Avenue, Hillsborough (neighbor to the rear). Three conditions were suggest�d for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: existing decks, proposed decks; concern about roving creek, staff advised originally the property line was in the center of the creek but when applicants purchased the property it had moved over to the opposite bank, staff was not aware that it had moved in the last few years; one proposed deck will be cantilevered, the city will assure any footings on the other deck will not cause erosion, impede natural flow of the creek, etc. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Pamela and Donald Asplund, applicants and property owners, were present. They discussed their research regarding adding outdoor living space to the rear with their broker, the Planning Department and their future neighbor to the rear before purchasing the property. There was no final inspection on the house when they purchased it. They would not have purchased it if they 'thought there would be no outdoor living space; creek area they own is approximately 250' long, the section of deck over the creek would be only 29' long; the lower portion of deck is over land; they need the deck area for outdoor living, without it use of the rear of their home would be limited; they were shocked to hear at this late date of the strong objections to the deck by the neighbor, the neighbor to the rear speaks of mutual benefit of the open space of the creek but this area is applicants� land, property line is on the other side of the creek; if allowed to build the deck they will use it, neighbor�s pool makes as much noise in the summer. Applicants presented photographs of the area behind the house and to the side, proximity of creek, slope of bank, view of neighbor�s lot; they said the deck off the master bedroom seats only four people, nothing in the back is usable, there is a steep slope and a lot of water; the area next to their driveway is small, with setback there would be no usable area and it has no structure for cantilevering; the Dept. of Fish and Game and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have advised they would not need permits if there were no Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 11, 1988 footings in the creek; the side area is on the street, it is a side yard with no privacy and no access from the house. Responding to Commissioner question, applicant advised she would like to remove the large acacia trees and replace them with shrubber,y, but would not want to change the look of foliage; removal of t�•e trees would not weaken the bank as tree roots are not remov ; applicants' living room is about the same height as the neighbo �s pool, end of the deck would be 5' from his property line. ,� Speaking in opposition, Paul Schumann, 15� Bellevue Avenue, Hillsboroughn he owns and occupies the prop ty directly to the rear; his biggest concern was injury to his �iet enjoyment; a deck coming off the center of the applicants��house, right off the living room, will double the activity are�`of this home, he would expect major activity on the deck; e'�en casual conversation reverberates down the creek; applicants/ now have a three bedroom, three bath house, two stories in par,�, a built-in garage, large living room {which would be doubledj'with the deck), they have a deck off the maste'r bedroom and anffther deck off the family room which extends 2' in�o the rear setback; when they were purchasing the house he sugges�ed they ma�e an offer subject to whatever permits were needed. `"Mr. Schuma�n felt applicants wanted extension of their living area`�,and this would be detrimental to him; he commented they have oth�r options, they might open up the roof off the attic, add a deck and.use that for recreation. Commission/Schumann discussion: Schumann's patio is off his living area, it faces a 20' wide p'ool which is about 10-15' from property line; applicants may be quiet people but sound reverberates, noise from neighbor's pool must r"�verberate also; neighbor has lived there over 25 years, when appl�,cants' house was built and when the existing decks were built he�� received no notices of public hearings. In rebuttal, applicants stated the�,were not noisy people, try to keep their children quiet and respec��their neighbors; they hope to live in this house a long time; if t�ere were 15 flat feet in the back and no creek they would be able to`.use it; they do not want to destroy the creek, they like the setting�r any noise would be only normal living noise, no large parties; th�y thought a deck on the roof would be more intrusive than what they`,are proposing, also the attic is the only storage space the house h��; Mr. Schumann has a patio off h3s living room, that is all they ar� asking for; perhaps they could�'�use latticework to lessen intrusion,``qr remove 2-1/2' of the exi t'ing deck; encouraging them to go up i� asking for less privacy,-� � Commission comment: from the neighbor's property, all�vegetation on 433 Occidental is gone except the acacias. Responding to a Commissioner question, applicant said they would confer with their engineers regarding fencing on the deck and putting latticework