The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1234 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Reportd�ws~ � � ' } � . � 1 , �� C 1 T V �� / . �'- { � �/ .,/ e� AGENDA BURLINGAME � i r En.� re �� :, STAFF REPORT MTG. �_�_(�� 'L�.�e � D A T E 7 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: JANUARY 24, 1992 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVED 6Y APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A LOT COVERAGE S�B�E�T: VARIANCE AT 1234 VANCOWER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. (Action alternatives and required findings for a variance are included at the end of the staff report.) Conditions considered by the Planning Commission were: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 12, 1991 Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4; 2. that the storage shed shall be removed from the property; and 3: �hat the� projeet si�all m�e� aI� Uni��rm �3��.ding and i;riiform Fire Cod� requirements as �merided•by the City�of Burlingame. Planninq Cnmmission Action � . � • At their meeting on January 13, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-0 (Commissioners Galligan and Graham absent) to deny a request for a 43g lot coverage (40� allowed, 42% presently existing) in order for the applicant to add 93.5 SF to the footprint of their house for a master bathroom at 1234 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 (Planning Commission minutes, January 13, 1992). In their decision on this request the Planning Commissioners noted that this proposed addition 4' from the property line would further extend a very long wall adjacent to the neighbor's side property line, seemingly almost to the rear property line; useable rear yard area for this site appears adequate but is on the other side of the lot providing no relief to the neighbor adjacent to the addition's side; there are alternatives inside the house to increase the size of the bathroom; it is difficult to make a finding of hardship when the site is already developed to 42% lot coverage. BACKGROUND• Mr. and Mrs. Whit Hall, applicants and property owners, are requesting a variance to lot coverage (42� existing, 43� requested, 40� allowed) in order to add 93.5 SF to enlarge the master bathroom which is in need of structural repair (Code Sec. 25.66.010). The present structure exceeds 2 40� lot coverage but appears to have been built that way and is therefore existing, nonconforming in lot coverage. All other zoning code requirements are met by the project (see Planning Department project assessment and staff report, January 13, 1992). This project includes relocating the master bathroom and enlarging it by extending the footprint of the house. The construction would require the removal of an existing shed. If approved, this shed would not be allowed to be replaced by this action. Subsequent review would have to be requested before the shed could be rebuilt. EXHIBITS• - Action Alternatives and Variance Findings - Monroe letter to Melinda and Whit Hall, January 23, 1992, setting appeal hearing - A�ieiinda and Whit Hall letter to Judy Malfatti, January 14, 1992 requesting appeal - Planning Commission Minutes, January 13, 1992 - Planning Commission Staff Report, January 13, 1992, with attachments - Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed January 24, 1992 - Project Plans MM/s cc:� Mslinda and Whit Hall - ACTION ALTERNATIVES AND VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, fence exception or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant�s request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be give� to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. VARIANCE FINDINGS (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. _ '�//n- �C..._.-_... \.Y�.Q �.YA�A�4� .V � �.{-I�.l��i.{ �.�14i�.11 �.G � � �./ CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 January 23, 1992 Melinda ai�d Whit Hall 1234 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hall: At the City Council meeting of January 22, 1992 the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 1234 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on Monday, February 3, 19.92 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 50,1 �rimrose Road. • � We'look forward to seeing you there to present you.r project. Please� call me if yau have arry questions. • , Sincerely yours, ' � ' �' t0�"� I� A'�►�_ Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: City Clerk � <�lk-�, January 14, 1992 Melinda and Whit Hall 1234 VancouverAvenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Judy Malfatti City Clerk City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Malfatti: .�CEIVEQ �� 1992 Y UF F3UHLINGAIIN� 'RI�ENING DEP7 ✓ .� , , ��, � �� We would like to appeal the decision granted on January 13, 1992 by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission regarding our request for a variance for the above address. We can be contacted at the following numbers: 854-0102 Whit, work 940-6643 Melinda, work 375-0759 home Sincerely, M�n� Gc�� Melinda and Whit Hall Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 13, 1992 The�e were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved to grant the variance request with staff report. He found there were exceptional configuration�of an existing porch, the granting necessary for the��reservation and enjoyment of a right of the owners,'it will not be detrimental the neighborhood. Motian was seconded by C. .,�'rI`il F�' 4 the conditio�s�'in the circumst��`es in the of th��application is s�s�tantial property �� is compatible with is. Comment on the motion: would`agree to ext�d the building somewhat but a 13.7' front setback would be g��nti a nonconformity, would prefer a 15' front setback. Comments in ' port of the motion: this section of Burlingame was built long be re th�re were setback requirements, setbacks are not uniform, do �ad`t think th��s application violates the general vision of the neighb hood; this house., does not have an obvious short setback, another ir�lar 2.5' would make..no difference; if the hedge ever grows back�t of this will be hidden;,�,think the proposal is in character with e neighborhood. �. Further comments• have no problem with the design but,`��hink there should be a 15 front setback, otherwise Commission will be�,creating another nonc fornaing condition on this property; applicants�bought a property w ch looks crowded, that corner will look more crowded'�with this pro osal. � Moti to approve the variance request failed on a 3-2 roll call vote>. Ce Deal and Jacobs voting no, Cers Galligan and Graham absent. peal procedures were advised. •�11. LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A MASTER BATHROOM ADDITION AT 1234 VANCOWER AVENUE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter in support signed by three neighbors was noted. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Melinda and Whit Hall, applicants and property owners, were present. Mrs. Hall advised the existing master bathroom is in need of repair and is too small for two adults to use at once; they would like to convert unused yard space, into useable living space. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. From a site inspection C. Jacobs found this side of this house is very long and only 4' from side property line; on the south side it seems to extend almost to the rear property line; all useable open space is on the other side of the building which is good for this property owner but she was concerned about the neighbor with any further expansion on that side; there are alternatives inside to make a larger bathroom. C. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 13, 1992 Jacobs moved to deny the lot coverage variance for the reasons stated. Motion was seconded by C. Mink with the comment a little more creativity could have solved the problem within the footprint of the house. A further comment: cannot make a finding oi exceptional circumstances applicable to this property to support the variance, i� more lot coverage is a minimal amount but it will be added to the 42� which is already there. Motion to deny the variance request was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. . SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATING HOURS FOR Ref ence staff report, 1/13/92, with attachments. CP Monr,o��'reviewed detai s of the request, staff review, applicant's lett�r, required findin s. Four conditions were suggested for consild-eration at the public aring. CP advise only one call had been received from��''those noticed of this hearing, no�bj ection was made; a maximum enroY"lment f igure is included in Condition #2. ��>'r� Chm. Kelly oper3�d the public hearing. �.��;arry Krusemark, applicant, was present. Respon� ing to a question he��advised the increased hours will allow a lunch ho and recess, 2Q;'�of the 90 students will probably stay. There were no audience,�acomments and the public hearing was closed. t ,,,�` C. Jacobs found this school use in an exist the special permit ame �"1 is an asset to the community, it is a school building. She moved for approval of :nt with the following conditions: (1) that the school shall ope te ��om 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday; (2) that e fol��wing amended conditions of the August 5, 1986 special permi. shall app�� including: (a) that access to handicap bathrooms shall �e provided t� all tenants; (b) that this operation shall comply wit�� .a11 Uniform Fi�e and Building Codes as amended by the City of Burlin�g`ame; (c) that this�r.,leased area will be used as a school as describedz,a�,��i the June 18, 1986�1etter from Larry Krusemark with a maximum enro'lment of 90 students, �rades K-8, with five teachers and three assi�ants; (d) that True Lea�ning Center shall be limited to three evening functions at the schoc��. per year, and that these be coordin��ed with other tenants; (3)�'�that the following amended condit,�on of the June 2, 1987 special pe it shall apply: (a) that the area nsed by the True Learning Center sha,l be increased by 2,074 SF (rooais 11 and 12); and (4) that this use p�x�mit shall be reviewed for comp`liance in September, 1992 and/or upon coik$laint. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved �0 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Graham absent. Appeal procedur�s were advised. P.C. 1-13-92 Item # / / MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A MASTER BATHROOM ADDITION AT 1234 VANCOWER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. The applicant and property owner Mr. and Mrs. Whit Hall are requesting a lot coverage variance to add a 93.5 SF bathroom to their master bedroom at 1234 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The addition will add 93.5 SF to their existing 2531 SF house. This addition increases the existing lot coverage by 1� from 42� to 43� where 40$ is the maximum allowable (C.S.25.66.010). The addition meets all other zoning code regulations. Staff Review The Chief Building Inspector had no comment, the City Engineer had no comment and the Fire Marshal had no comment. Planning conducted research to determine how this structure reached 42� lot coverage. No records were found on file for any expansion of the building through permits, but there were also no records or old assessor's rolls found on file to disprove that this house was not originally built at 42� lot coverage. Therefore, Planning came to the conclusion that the structure is existing non-conforming at 42� lot coverage. Applicant's Letter The applicants letter, dated December 12, 1991, states that the existing bathroom is out of date and too small for their growing family. They would like to relocate and modernize the current bathroom creating a larger more functional master bathroom. Findings for a Variance In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must f ind that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preserva- tion 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; E (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. Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should include findings made for the variance requested. 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 submit- ted to the Planning Department and date stamped; December 12, 1991 sheets 1,2,3 and 4; and 2. that the storage shed shall be removed from the property; and 3. that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Leah Dreger Zoning Technician cc: Whit Hall STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. Project Address: 1234 Vancouver Avenue II. Project Description and Permits Requested: LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE for a 93.5 SF bathroom addition to the master bedroom at 1234 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing non- conforming lot coverage is at 42� where 40� is the maximum allowable (C.S.25.66.010). The proposed addition will increase the structural footprint of the house by 1� to 43� lot coverage. The roof line will be consistent with the existing roof. All other zoning codes requirements are met. III. Property Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 026-173-200 Lot No: 27 Block No: 36 Subdivision: Easton Addition, Burlingame No. 2 Lot Size: 6000 SF Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: Commercial/Residential District IV. Existinq Site Conditions and Adjacent Land Uses: Existing single family dwelling on site and existing single family residences on adjacent sites. V. CEOA Status: Categorically exempt per Code Section 15303, Class 3a - New construction or conversion of small structures. VI. Project Data: Proposed New Construction: 93.5 SF of habitable area. Existing Area: 2531 SF of living space including attached garage. Proposed Percent Increase in Area: 1� increase in area from 2531 SF to 2624.5 SF. Front Setback: Side Setback: Rear Setback: Lot Coverage: Building Height: Declining Height Envelope: On-site Parking Spaces: Proposed Required 15'-0" 15'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 16'-0" 15'-0" 43% 40� 12'-10" 30" or 2 1/2 stories N/A N/A no change in number of bedrooms F'LANNINti UtYAH 1 MGn 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 Type of Application: Special Permit X Variance Other r,-a��a�1\/C� Project Address 1234 Vancouver Avenue � 026-173-200 DEC 1 2 1991 Assessor s Parcel Number(s) CITY OF BURLI�lGAlViE APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER p�p�{��RG DEPT Name: Whit Hall* Name: same ��'''��/,vy'}i..; .�-- VtJpE-�'�'�" ,��,� Address: 1234 Vancouver Avenue Address: City/State/Zip Burlingame, CA 94010 City/State/Zip Telephone:(Work) 415-854-0102 (Home) 415-375-0759 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: same Address: Telephone (daytime): Please indicate with an asterisk (*� who is the contact person for this proiect. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Add 93 5 square feet to master bedroom. This new s ace will be utilized as a master bathroom The existinQ master bathroom 42.25 s uare feet will be converted into a walk-in closet. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. � � Z !2 �'t/ Applican 's Signature Date I know about the proposed application, and above applicant to submit this application. � � / Property O ner's Signature hereby authorize the / 2- / z Date -------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------- Date Filed: Fee Teiephone (Work) (Home) Receipt # Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: ' Date application accepted as complete: P. C. study meeting ( date ) P. C. public hearing ( date ),i— j"��y �„� P.C. Action �t �v Z= Appeal to Council? Yes'� No Council meeting date_ '� - � - � ? Council Action �'%,/� �) ;'C� /� _ c�v'� ( � c/�,' 11 I Ti �� /C/ S CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISS7��I�ED VARIANCE APPLICATIONS DEC 1 2 1991 In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section(�'�t�}�J,��GAt1/�E a-d ). Please answer the following questions as they ap�v�{�� pEp�' your property and application request to show how the findings can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information , for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. �, C��rr�'v�- m�,� ba!��m i s �,"'� q-- C�.h'rU`►� , a,n,� n,o� ��r�� du�� o f�� ,u1;c,u�5 a�rr,� J � �,f- �C�,�,,,� h� f'he- ��'� � b. Explain why the application request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. �� ►'U�05CGfi (l.r�Q. � I,�OU�.0 � �+� U� 1 u 2�P� �F 1 i' �� inCor�Or� G�5 � DF � h.01�LSG. "(h� COr►�1�+' DF �j�RGU in. I'r�c y�� is �'i ct� wnh��'nn.a.l-- �� rrs IOGc�,l�t� L pl��,s� sc� ��la.�). Yh.� u�,�re�- m.a�r1� ��r►-�. i 5�rnu,(,(_ Gu�.� u,►�.h+��'�nA,( �r h^�� /�'� q� �1 '�-�`t a�' c. Exp al i� hy 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. SGC A,�15�+''G►" FD l�(it,CB�'1'B�'l � �'�(JCU�Q�i- �(,rm.l � Q�pUC�iBr� d. Discuss how the proposed 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. 5cc, an�►' � �u�,�'��` � � �U�- (� � �D�'cah� t, ciTr • �� . eueuN�a�+e �..o.�,,..�; CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT t�PPLICATIONS ��v�'�� In order to approve an application for a Special Permit DEChe 2 199t Planning Commission is required to make findings as �.�c��INGA1ViE the City� s ordinance (Code Section 25. 52 . 020 ). Please ��r� � following questions as they apply to your property to show how the findings can be made for your application request. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. l. Explain why 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. The addition will be in the back of the house which is not visable from the street, nor from the neighbors property to the north, east, or west of our property. The impact to the neighbors to the south will be minimal as the maj�ority of the addition �aill be blocked by their detached garage. 2. Discuss how the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The addition is for residental use in an R1 zone. The required permits will be sought from the appropriate city departments. 3. Discuss how the proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing neighborhood and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Per Code 5ection 25.52.020 (3), the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of Title 25 (Zoning) in the operation of the use. The addition will be to the back of the house beside our neighbors detached garage. The house was built in 1959 and has sustained only limited upkeep. The house has been a rental for the past 10 years and is in great need of repair and attention. By adding a new bathroom, and gutting the existing, we will eliminate the dry rotted, out dated bathroom, and bring our house up to the level of those in our neighborhood. Melinda and Whit Hall 1234 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 December 12, 1991 City of Burlingame Planning Commission City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Commissioners: Thank you for taking the time to consider our proposal. We are seeking permission to add a bathroom to our existing house. ��°;��6�� oEc � ? �9gi !�IN Cl� F3URLINGANiE PL�'�i`�;i�?�::� �E�� Obtaining a variance will allow us to add 93.5 square feet to our master bedroom. This new space will be utilized as a bathroom. The current master bathroom is 42.25 square feet, has extensive dryrot, is out of date, and is not functional for a working couple. Due to the small size of the existing bathroom, the two of us are unable to get ready for work at the same time in the bathroom. The shower in the bathroom is a small corner stall unit in which it is nearly impossible to wash your hair without hitting your elbows on the stall walls. Also, the bathroom has one small sink and limited storage space. Our current morning routine is for one person to get ready in the master bathroom and the other person to get ready in the hall bathroom. This works OK for us now, granted inconvenient as it may be, but will not work well once our family has increased by one or two. Addition of a new master bathroom will provide us with the space required for two adults. Regardless of the outcome of your decision, the existing master bathroom will have to be gutted in order to repair the dryrot. A master bathroom in the new location would make the master bedroom more functional. If the variance is granted, we will then seek a permit to build the new bathroom and convert the existing bathroom into a walk-in closest. ��EIVEt� The addition will have no visual impact from the street as it DEC 1 2 1991 will be in the back of the house. Th? same roof and wall lines will be used (please see the attached photo) . This pOrtion Of C�'�((�F ��1RLlRG.A��: the yard is not readily accessibly and functional due to its ;�1 `�1Li\!�'.:i t;r.� ` location (please see the attached site plan) and is currently occupied by an unsightly storage shed left by our tenants. The addition will be an asset to the house and neighborhood as it will increase the attractiveness and appeal of the house and yard. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, M�r n��- G��-�� Melinda and Whit Hall '��„""�� .. � � :� �� `� > �. ^ `"� � � �, � � a �r- � c;. � ' . �� "�i � '��rr � � , �� . ..,�q'�is�• . �r , .� . � � 'J , .�.�. . . �� - .. �. tr, � �. . t , z�.' ; .MIG �'' a.': { y <tah ^ � `� . � t , a ' y w , �R"' � 'z �lf: jF„.', r ; � :s , � . �' ;�t �.. .a•` , " . '� � �. � � 'y��"�� ; ^ ' ' '• � �,�� ,�,�C .._ � . .. . . '•�' dw ,' � Y� . .. � . ' � y�� _ y� 'a� i�- i� 3Y :ww : � . � � . , . � . !4::. �� :�� .^h� �� ' . . G . �.. � , r ,.,��;��: �v �/ �� rn�.. .� � 8ER N A1.. d � Y= �z�� ►z3a � � ;� ;,�� _. ��9 �� ,�� ' � ,3� - � � ��; �r � �' � � �, � .. . :, , � , , .. .., , :; . ,� , ;,� ; � , � < +� \ � . � , f S . _ . e.�.�' ' . � i � � � �� •• . . . �., °'. f� n- �, � , t� qC�,k. �� .. •+� {., � �,' . . W i + � � , � p � � I ` ' � �d�': : P , �� . �� F � �' ' , , ; � � , �, � � ,�i�: , ,{ , • r. � - �'+f Mw4.�4'5... , . ...» � � . .... „ 5��, � . zn ' 'F I � ..��: ~"�'�� s� � - 12310 1234 t23o �t2�' .. � � � A ,�� E , ,� �`~*�`� v� ER J� � �� ` � � �I�� , � �» l i�ha t23� ��.�'�,," � �1� �„� � �. �. ,.� _. — 12 ? ' '� 125a c b 1;' 4 ar w a4 � ' � �'�: � � y ' � .. . ' ` Sr ` ''�d�� "'� � �� " k � . ' '4��.. . :��r. �`' ,�t ��' �t��" ' �� Lf � Y N �. � ' �� i. �� ' $� ,�� _ � � , � , '"` ' �. , =i� J p �' � �� v'yt " � �.,d , �. � 5 w '� � '� `"� ��, ' K � '• � ` � � � asq� ; �{ `� ` Py . . . � � �� ' � '` � � � �. �� ;. , r y L � . . � � � .. �� , • : �.. . �� y '. >.. ' • - .. �t� : . .. _...,. . . °�"k _.. ` _ _ . : . .. � Q 1'f 1� �Ou � OA '�f _ _—_ _ .... �� , � j � �> �+r ;e�+t ':�; �a�s�r:.:-' - . �a „ � �";� " � � � `: j ��iris�o'�o��l . � � �. _ h� �r . , .F _. . �ww� : , / . ... ;�� . y CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 13th day of Januarv, 1992, 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. 1234 VANCOUVER AVENUE APN: 026-173-200 APPLICATION FOR A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A 93.5 SF FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM ADDITION AT 1234 VANCOWER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. THE EXISTING LOT COVERAGE IS NON-CONFORMING; THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL INCREASE LOT COVERAGE FROM 42�b TO 43� (40� IS THE MA%IMIIM ALLOWED). 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. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER January 3, 1992 t � * i CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMR03E ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME CITY COIINCIL announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 3rd day of February, 1992 , 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. 1234 VANCOUVER AVENUE APN 026-173-200 APPLICATION FOR A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A 93.5 SF FIRST FLOOR BATHROOM ADDITION TO THE MASTER BEDROOM AT 1234 VANCOIIVER AVENOE, ZONED R-1. THE E%ISTING LOT COVERAGE IS NONCONFORMING; THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL INCREASE LOT COVERAGE FROM 42� TO 43� (40`-k IS THE MAXIMIIM ALLOWED). 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. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER JANUARY 24, 1992 , ,. January 27, 1992 Dear Burlingame Mayor and City Council, ��CEIVED JAN 2 ? 1992 C�7'1' OF BURLINGAME PLAIVNING DEPT My wife and I are appealing the decision of the Burlingame City Planning Commission to deny our request for a lot coverage variance at 1234 Vancouver Avenue. We have reviewed a copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and would like to respond to the issues that were raised. 1) Length of house: Our house appears long because the garage is attached and the wall is continuous. It should be noted, however, that the addition will not increase the length of the house. Please refer to the part east elevation and rear elevation plans attached. A rough measurement of the house across the street showed it to be 85 feet in length. In addition, their house is oriented in such a way that this longest side is parallel to Vancouver Avenue. �ur house is 89 feet in length, but this dimension is perpendicular to Vancouver'Avenue and not visible from the street. � 2) Four feei from property line: It was noted that our house is only four feet from the property line. Four feet is the required setback for side yards of lots our size. The proposed addition will be uniform with the existing house and will not violate any of the setback rules. 3) South side extends almost to rear property line: The setback rule for lots of our size is 15 feet. Our house is currently 16 feet from the rear property line. Again, I would reiterate that we are not increasing the length or width of the existing house. We are only asking to extend the rear and side wall to fill in a corner of the house where a metal toolshed now sits. 4) Concern of neighbors on that side: �- �� We have discussed at length our plans with the neighbor most effected by this addition, Betty Basich. She has supported our proposal and signed the enclosed letter . � .� stating such. Her detached garage sits on the property line and will effectively block their view of the addition. She has also stated that she would rather see the addition built then look at the metal toolshed that currently sits in that corner. Please note the number of neighbors who have signed our letter and the additional letter generated by our neighbor, the Weber's. We have spoken with each neighbor individually regarding our plans. All of the neighbors that we have talked to are happy that the house is now owner occupied and not a rental as it had been for the last ten years. Not one neighbor has objected to our plan. 5) Alternatives inside to make a larger bathroom: Yes, there are alternatives inside that would make the current bathroom larger. The simplest alternative would be to convert the closet which backs up against the bathroom into bathroom space. This, however, would decrease the already minimal closet space in the master bedroom by 50%. Another alternative would be to convert one of the bedrooms into a bathroom. However, one of the reasons we bought this particular house was because of the number of bedrooms it has, which we desired to accommodate our anticipated family. .' 6) A little more creativity could have solved the problem withi.n the �existing fcotprint �of the house:� �. ' We have had f_our contractors and one�designer come through our h�use to discuss possibilities. All iour contractors and the designer emphasizeu ta us that� � currently, in new construction,and remodeling, attention is going to the master bedroom and kitchen area. It was a contractor who suggested building out that unused corner as the most feasible and cost-effective way of incorporating a larger bathroom into the master bedroom. Everyone else we have talked to agrees. The current floor plan is such that to try to increase the size of the current bathroom within the house would not be cost effective. Other suggestions, which we do not wish to consider at this time, are to bulldoze the house and start over, or add a second story. 7) Exceptional circumstances or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that do not apply to property in the same district: Our House was built in 1959 and it has been a rental for the last 10 years. The house has not been updated in 33 years (including appliances or fixtures) and the upkeep has been minimal. We both work 40+ hours per week, unlike most of our neighbors who are retired. our needs are to have a modern functional house. ♦ ./ � • 8) 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: It is our right as property owners to update our house. We will enjoy a master bathroom far more than an obscure corner of our yard, which is boxed in by our house and the neighbor's garage. We will be inconvenienced each day we live in our house if we cannot make it functional. 9) Granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity: A toolshed currently resides in the space we would like to incorporate into the house. This toolshed is old, rusty and unsightly. Removal of this shed and addition of a new bathroom increases .the public health, safety, and general welfare, not only of our neighbors but ourselves. 10) 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: The addition,will not be easily visible from the•street. Th.is additiori will not� change the le�gth, 'width or roofline of the house (please refer. to photo and elevation plans) and will conform with the existing �esign of the hause. We realize it is hard to get a picture�of what to do and therefore would like to invite you to Saturday, February 1 or Sunday, February 2, and proposed project and the minimal impact it will neighbors. Thank you for your time and consideration. we are trying come over, show you the have on our Sincerely, � � � �� Whitney S. Hall .�,� � .� � . ��`� . � � �T+ � _�� .`` � � `\ � I �� ai� � � . � �,�� • � •� � j � � ��•. �.� . . �; , ;� . . s: �. .�•�� . � •�j'• '.' • .w �• i' !' i � '•.I �. . �� a � �_� � . �; . . • � �� - . �. , . , �. . • , . w . � ,; . st . , .v �;�- , • ',� < ` ' � � h ' �• . � f . ! I� �.•�' '� � � _--- ---- �� .,�--- -- -- ---- r � � L � � . �'o Mn,Tc� C-w � 71t�G � � R�� , ; . -- - . - � � r--- � � � - i j. i � , � I \� � �� / �,� ;, C � �. . �� i_ ._ ST� ' � . / �- Ne�u a.�-r�an� • -- . j, • � . . ___'----�,-� -- - G.1. Sctzr�n � . . vE.�.,T r 1 � � . --�-,L---1 �11'Ot`ri OF .�aTING$ ✓ � ��..� �S�" �. L C�1,��" l o N � , 0 � � �oo� L�NE - � G�- �EC�IVED JAN 2 7 1942 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. / - \ � / � �_- ----_: � - -f-_ ' 1 ' \ � / / " ,i � L-�lEw S'ruc�o To ; � MA.-r�c} Exirri�c � . �� ; - �� t .. i - N ew P.�n�-�+.or, • � ---;�—�-I . � ; _.�— . - � � -r=-;--- - I ,� L�. , � ' � � I . � - -- ---- -- - - -..;. _ --- - -1- — �- ---- - - - _ _ . _ . -- � ---- ----- ---- - - - ---- --- - . � �EA1Z �LEVA�T I oN ' ---, SCAL� 4 = I �- O � Ep �uvcL y�� - 3a'� — ; :i � i e ' . . �i �� . . . ., t i Y .�—..' .�--------'� Sv,✓ GovtL.E� l=�i_iJcG �ALK .J�` ___ -.1� /O'_ � � � � � � � C7 O CS � • � ' �ZO$E guSN£5 � I• � 6,�r}ss o � _ �a � ti� ?ET� \ /�"Q T '� 0 �,a., �6 y � e1O n � C� � 4��.� o � = f � �_ � 8�,�., _ — , c��'� � �� ._ - o Cvry rR l, � �� a � ") � =' �' ) �.�.1 � '�/ \ �� , � � I NEIGHBORS CONSENT FOR VARIANCE AT 1234 VANCOWER AVENUE My wife and I are applying for a variance to the City of Burlingame to build out the southeast corner of our house. This space will be utilized as a master bathroom. This will be a one level addition and in no way will effect our neighbors enjoyment of their property. If you have no objections, at this time, to this proposal we would appreciate your signing below. Thank you for assisting us with our effort to gain approval from the planning commission for this project. Name : � ��,��---�� Name : �'�y ,�'� �- -I / Address : �� , � �� Address : � ZZU Vi�l COI.W�(,/. �1/� Signature`�� Siqnature: Name: ~ , Name: Address :�� 3 6�� G� �� Address : Signature:� ��`��ignatur Name: Address: Signatur ss : � �U a(�b� �.✓�4 ture: ��C�O �l GD J AN 2 7 1992 C' ptANNING DEPTME � �'`'�'��`� . .. Page 2 Name: f.y�,,,, J �i�h . .�r � C-o��,.Gx Address : �� 9 �� Signature: Name : �'a,, f.,� c�jL ��h�Cc.2 b� j Address : �Z�-a ��'�`„�� _ Signatur � �} e ti i� /�.l . f� f�'m an Name: /j,lo _� /�. ��y�� ,-�.,-I ,�. Address : � � �� Q�n 2 � /� � Signature:��_ � �� . U Name: . Address: � t, � � �e, Signature: . Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: RECEIVED JAiV 2 7 1992 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT C��`(yU� v .. T - �� . �� . �r-�`�'��L� � � �� -`=� �> �� `�,� � `� , � �� ,�`� �Z� .. �,�,� ��,v � �.�..wz.�`�' � �� ,� . , � �.� �� , ze�-��- . �� . � ` �:?�✓ ,� �'�' L`� �'/�-2� '��`�' f � � �j Ll �3 � �� j.; ; . � �,�J �,-�x"P� � .�.� �h �� G�� L� yu'".0 �� . 4 G�'" G-�� " ��/ ` { j�J • � ' ��.�1`�i'�'" � . • . -x` �"��Z � Gz�-� �' .. � . �� ; �-r� > �> ?i ,1,�i,� �- ` ,- � � �,! �, .f-E-'� /� '! �r` � � �J �� ` • , ,� -�� , `,�"� �� _ _.. .,�� .. _'` �' u✓� J. �- ) "�._l�:, �//' � �.,r' ��i� ,��'�,�J � '� � T � / ._� � i ✓� �� L�-�� t.�� :: �ti �•L r�� L�n/Ik' ` L, / � � � � fl I L �� ! `� . ,:� % �. G' ,� ��CEIVED �� JAN 27'�.' CITY p�'��RLI�fGAME p�l�t�l1NG DEpT