The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1515 Vancouver Avenue - Approval Letter_� _.�� . - �-- �.�.E l�Z.�� .U.0 ��Z"�.��C�1'�.e CITY HALI.-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (415) 342-8625 January 4, 1990 Mr. Michael Economou 734 Highland Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 Dear Mr. Economou: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the December 11, 1989 Planning Commission approval of your variance application became effective January 4, 1990. This application was a variance for side setback to extend a first floor nonconforming side setback vertically and horizontally at 1515 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The December 11, 1989 minutes of the Planning Commission state your request was granted with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 13, 1989; and 2. that the project shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. Sincerely yours, ` y�j'I�_ Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Thomas McCarville (designer) Chief Building Inspector Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 24, Block 1, Burlinghome Sub.; 027-141-110) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, December 11, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the November 27, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEM FOR STUDY 1. 5PECIAL PERMIT FOR A MONTESSORI PRE-SCHOOL/CHILD CARE CENTER AT 1 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Reque� s�s:----�ge-.�f students, will there be older children coming to the center after��'s��o,c�l in the afternoon; will there be a designated loading zone, if-�-e�ployees use the drive for parking where will children be dropped o�f;�•-�hat use is next door to this site; will any of the children be usY�g_`public transportation; exterior lighting and signage; how will chil�"�e�e_t from cars to the school and school to the cars, will they be �•escorted by employees; what handicap facilities are included; is this facility in �eration at another location now. Item set for public hearing January 8, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION Chm. Ellis advised the audience of appeal procedures for the action items. 2. VARIANCE FOR SIDE SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1515 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 12/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 11, 1989 Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised on-site parking will meet code requirements. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Tom McCarville, designer representing the applicant, Michael Economou, was present. His comments: the mass of the project will be in the rear of building, appearance from the street will be the same, existing garage will be replaced with a garage in the rear 30� of the lot and parking requirements are met on the site. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs stated she had no problem with this proposal, there are exceptional circumstances, the easement at the side will allow the addition without impacting space of the neighbor, it will not be disruptive to the neighbor. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance application with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 13, 1989; and (2) that the project shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1785 HUNT DRIVE,,_: '`�-.., ZONED R-1 .�`�4 � ,� Reference��s,taff report, 12/11/89, with attachments.,:"� CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, �-P"lanning staff comment, applicant�s letter. Three conditions yr.�re suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP discus�ed code regulations for the required uncovered space. ,:'' .f�� Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing:'� Wilson Ng, designer and nephew of the applicant,' Jimmy ,Huang, discussed the proposed project: the reason for the�i��w.addition is to provide space for additional family members and �iiildren back from school; applicants have lived in this house nine years.and want to stay in Burlingame; it would be difficult t�-�expand at grade so they are proposing a second story addition..-•"He presented photographs to illustrate his contention the addi,��ion will not greatly ,impact the neighbors, it will not block st�rilight; because of vegetation the addition will not be seen frc�iti the house directly in back on Escalante and there will be no ob'struction of the bay view; the house at 1795 Hunt will not see �,h`e addition because of the change in gracle; the house at 1775 Hurrtt will see some of the addition, about 3'-4'; sunlight will not � affected because of the orientation of the hous'es; rooftops �n`Yd be the same height for 1765 and 1785 Hunt because of the elevation of the lots; they propose a gable roof for the addition o �z' G ' P.C. 12/11/89 Item #2 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNER SUBJECT: VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK AT 1515 VANCOWER AVENUE Michael Economou is requesting a variance to the side setback standards- 3'-0" proposed, 4�-0" required (CS 25.66.050). The proposal is to extend a first floor nonconforming side setback, vertically and horizontally. A second floor (766 SF) addition will be above the existing and proposed walls. The two bedroom- /one bath home (1,414 SF) will be remodeled into a four bedroom- /two bath residence (2,271 SF). An existing detached garage will be replaced with a garage located in the rear 30$ of the proper- ty. The dormer on the west elevation meets the declining height envelope requirements Code Sec. 25.28.075 2(35 SF allowed, 29 SF proposed. Staff Review The city staff has reviewed this application and had no comments. Applicant's Letter On addressing the concerns for a variance Mr. Economou has noted a unique circumstance created by the 5'-0" city easement between properties. Allowing the extension of the existing wall would not put him closer to his neighbor than he is now (8'-0"). Also, the applicant believes the architectural integrity of the house will not be maintained if he is required to meet the setback. Preservation and enjoyment of property rights centers around enlarging the home. Mr. Economou believes that a larger home with the appropriate amenities is necessary to preserve his investment. The building extension at the existing setback is twice as large as any other property in the area (4�-0"required, 8'-0" proposed) because of the city easement. Finally, the residences on both sides of 1515 Vancouver Avenue are two stories. Mr. Economou points out that this proposal meets all other city regulations for height and coverage. Therefore, the building will not appear to be any more massive than others when viewed from the street. Findings for a Variance In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find 2 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 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 arid 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. PlanninQ Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on this project. Affirmative action should include findings made for the variance requested. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: l. that the project shall be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 13, 1989; and 2. that the project shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements and as amended by the City; Larry Lautenschlager Zoning Technician cc: Thomas Mc Carville Michael Economou STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. Proiect Address: 1515 VANCOUVER AVENUE II. Proiect Description and Permits Requested: Variance for side setback (3' requested, 4� required) to extend the first floor 307 SF and to add a 766 SF second floor at 1515 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-l. The existing house has two bedrooms/one bath; the remodeled house will have three bedrooms/two baths. The existing 219 SF detached garage will be removed and replaced with a 288 5F detached garage relocated to the rear 30$ of the lot. The side setback variance is required because the new addition will extend the existing nonconforming side setback and the new second story will be built over the nonconformity and new first floor wall. This side of the project is exempt from declining height regulation because the adjacent house is two story. III. Proverty Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 027-141-110 Lot No: 24 Block No: 1 Subdivision: Burlinghome Lot Size: 6,100 SF Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: Low density residential IV. ExistinQ Site Conditions and Adiacent Land Uses: Site developed parcels also stories. V. CEOA Status� with a single family house. All adjacent developed single family, many with second Categorical Exemption Code Sec. 15301 Existing facilities Class le addition to existing structures VI . Pro i ect Data : Proposed New Construction: 1072 SF, 307 SF first floor, 766 SF second floor; new detached garage 288 SF Existing Area: 1,413.5 SF, 219 SF detached garage Proposed Percent Increase in Area: 76� Front Setback: Side Setback (corner lots) Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: Declining Height: Lot Coverage: Building Height: On-site Parking Spaces: 1 Proposed 21� NA * 3' 21' NA 33� 27' covered,l uncovered Required 15' or average NA 4' 15' NA 40$ 30' 1 covered, 1 uncovered �, cirr �r o�. euKUNcaME ��..�.,�..�' �� CITY OF BURLIN�AINF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Address `%�''-� ,,,-fr1�.C.,v�-i- /�� e . i��-I�ti�nca�-�� /�/�� Assessor's Parcel Number(s) �_;� -/y�-�;� APPLICANT , Name: r'i�%1,r�� '�nti; ��:: PROPERTY OWNER Name : �� ' L� �'I�cl�� -( Lc c.��.�tc�i � Address: �� /��I,l��w.�� /� r � Address: i �� h��-Yn%/ /�;,- City/State ��va,�, l�-�2a�� ('f;� City/State �;.�n,� l��w�, ; ,'/�'. zip: '�'yy�; Zip: �� r; Telephone : ( Work ) �;•� y /; ; �i Telephone ( Work ) > ��y- /i>i ( Home ) .�y 3 ��r•��>Y ( Home ) � .3y 3 -2.� �;-;. Architect/Desianer: � Name : � i, �-, �� i�� l� L.;,�� ,_ � � Address: ;.=_�r _ `� �it '�+ `>,.;� �,,�..-;•,-:, ��/�Z� Telephone ( daytime ) : �;fi_;`i , c= �. ;; , , Please indicate with an asterisk (*) who contact person is for project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION /��r, f�, � t,� -� �f��, `�E�u�•tui r AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true ap�l correct to e best of m_knowledge and belief. / // /- �� Applicant�s Signature Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. � �- , r .. i :�_'� � 7 �-��-�-- : �r�^t-c -, t:.; �.�--- � - ; � � , Property Owner's Signature Date xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOFFICE USE ONLYxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ��., Date Filed: Fee ��'�I�,� �, � � Receipt # C�� `�,� Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing (date) /� �� ( P.C. Action �IOPi=' c l� Q �i CDoN r Ti c -S Appeal to Council? Yes Council meeting date Council Action r� �.��;J• � CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLZCATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE ApPLICATIONS In order to approve an application fvr a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Please answer the following questions as they apply to 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 Planninq 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. The project that we are.proposing is a remodel and addition to an existing house at 1515 Vancouver Ave. in Burlingame. We ar asking for a variance to allow us to build our addition in line with the existing house. The house is 3-0 from the side property line where 4-0 is required. First, we are doing no, work to the front of the house, and therefore the architectural style of the project is set. By jogging the side of the house in to meet the required s.etback,(ovE 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. The existing house has a comfortable living room and formal dining room, but only 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. Enlarging the house is a necessity if it is to be used by a family with children. To enlarg the home so that it provides the amenities that would be expected of a home in a nice nieghborhood is also necessary to protect the •owners investment. We feel that expanding within the envelope of simple lines is necessary to will be an asset in terms of appearan c. Explain why 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. As stated above, because the property has a�5-0 easement along the side that we are asking for a variance along, our project wili sctually be 8-O.from the nieghbor's property line, and therefore a net of 4-0 further from his property line.than �a any similar projec on the block. d. Discuss how the proposed use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existinq and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity., � • � The houses on both the right and left,,side of our project are two story houses. Our projects mass.and hieght fully conform with the code in terms of lot coverage and hieght limits. The house is simply being expanded to be a four bedroom,, two bathroom home. We a not building any closer to the property line �he existing building is (over) 1) our roofline would be affected. We are trying to keep the roofline simpl in an effort to preserve the architectural style of the existing Tudor home. Secondly, we have a unique situation because we have a 5-0 easement running along the side of the house that we are asking for a variancc on. We could therefore keep our construction simple and continue the s�de wall of the liouse straight back and sti11 be 8-0 from the nie�hbor's property line. 4) now, so we are not going to appear any more massive in terms of width than the existing building is now as viewed fro� the street. 1) our roofline would be affected. We are tryin� to keep the roofline simpl in an effort to preserve the architectural style of the existing Tudor home: Secondly, we have a unique situation because we have a 5-0 easement running along the side of the house that we are asking for a variancc on. We could therefore keep our construction simple and continue the s�de wall of the house straight back and still be 8-0 from the nieghbor's property line. 4) now, so we are not going to appear any more massive in terms of width than the existin� building is now as viewed froM the street. y�, �' ��e \�------------ ----�-----�--- —�------------------ - { V TAX CODE AREA_ _ _ _ _ ' I . 5 -o ,�= 27- ��'+ � BK.215 BK.26 \ ^ � �A��"�1� i O 3 * i O 2Z - ' $ V.INCDUV£R ,� �` .IVE. R BK.25 _ _ . _ 1 - . �L �. � MrieaW i �I . i Mf5'0/W ' ' � � {f7�1 � �'+ � . " . . � x 15 fc ' S� IA 90' Ilo lie' �e ;:: � 2/ y,�` � O � O O! O O I O O �o u I �2 /3 S 27 ,tej:. O' �� no 7°r 8 uo _�� . I ' � , � �I I —— � " �, � � ' 1 � , �/ ; ZB �s � p� ti �� 9 � e � � �. 1 -, +. '` _ � i ) � I � , I� /� ' ,n cu c �:0 6 ., I �� .' 4'�M "x ` /5 /6 /7 -I /8 i!9 20 i 2/ 22 j'`? 24 25 I 26• � x�s- x�� ky�'�=—_ 1 � ��, -n.n� s° �4 � s: i �3� so � � �ne/6 �Y /' S n "• I �,v+ Y i. n � 9�.S�.S�,:• I r.y: �s "� / �tiV li: � ti`t y So ' B Sc - Se IS 'F 11:t71 '�, O =; ��.� � � : � F �3 �2 �/ ' � '0 39 38 37 36 3S �-� 33 ` � �� ."� � ., 143 O °�'w wc�w � � . /2� /3; • :raxa �,�„ � �p o- f� �,/2 ro •8 . // ;� �� g/0�s � - z� i �_ ss3/ � ie� �� ,,e. s • � �O . . , 9 w,u -'.:J � 0 a� O O ze � z� � O es O za uO zi � � �,+� .._, /3 , � j� �'<r O� ct9� u �a uns nriz as I :� /9 ~ �io Z �° � + j\ 8 .O � Sc �_ .H so se �5 so rcu: C� S O �°� f ��°- O S . � ��t -� wno�w . -6 wok7s / � �� S.,`�♦ , f` ry 37 0 A C�L i±l:/BV$ ` $ V. A° a � g ' �... J i c F� �'�. �/S \� � � Jo. \ ` », 6 O R O� 6 � � Q� � � � � � io i� 2 '/B �� i� ; ..'"�ix� ,, ` R J /9` �i.,s �� , MI' 111.)!' � I !:4of3" `� Gi '�' . 4 �y � � F �6 �f0 y� O 4 M � '� O S _ � I % I9 /I F /Io. ZP � J' �8 � 5 � p J in��i � I � � � �afx� �„ � /0 ' � : P3 �:°' � i'°- O � sd. � � s 7 B 9 ' /0 // !2 ' /3 /I /S /6 ' /7 z 20 �s uo 2/ � uo- � c � Q ^ � r x. ao xar y0 - - - - - s " - � �u p �, _ . : 142 - - - �.� " ,,,�, �, �. ' O y� � z 2.r , . .. . w � � iI . +, N �. O J S ZI � E 1/0' `V /lO' O � • . ; aa� �a.�s � ae _ y�_nr -- 32 3/ 30 29 28 �7 1l5 25 Z! _ re�cn_�e �� O , i £ r' � � �, � 144 5 O. � � 3 'O K � m'. � � � _ � i:�" c�u,.: ne. . e�n: ;, . � .uen � ' Q — — J : 23 /7 g �r O ue /A . � A5 O , �Q ' �� :� i7�5re (*1 ot+! Ii�ii� i=s.o�i _ � ,� O N ,3 7 / � � O � � 2/ .� /9 /E 2 � � �1 �i gc� � � . 9001G ~ ia SC Ie11y � h j/� 110 ' "� Ill LS '..i M55 �I M ,'� - /�—/ I7 E � z7 - � O S R HOOVER AVE. x "° � x 3? _ . 7oIH� . . 110 O _�� ... � . �R, ' So' _ L�4YE � ' � �� 37 ASS£SSA9S ,WP COUMTY OF SAN MATEO LA[/F /6 1 BURL/NGHOME SUB. RSM 9 *9-50 ,1-�j -. �� ' � �► �'�'�r�.► + `' ' �+�r �,�• . �, �.. , -= ` .f r - �. ,. � �� . , ,� �- .j�,�\ r_ ' . , �- _ � -- -- , � , i • • s' ! !� � .� . - ' � j - � . .,�p,`w � � � � � � � � .1'.,� 1 \�� ` .��'. � � �,,. .N , �► +a� #� � d `� � �� ;r' �n q � . - � _"r `�► / � �. -:� �' '� . � _ � q� . � � y �� , � �'� � �,� \� \ �� V� J � 1 � ��,. ��' A� � M s � .i �� % � f �• ;��• � �'1 � � ��'� -.t• y� �� F� �- / � e' �� • /� \ �' ,� �. ` � , , � � `'^�� n ' � � � \� �' `�� ' � � � � .Y � k . � �i � �� i�� \�� r \�Y � O �� F ) , �� , �� .� \�. � f ' �� , � � , ;i�. �� . . ,� � � . �+� .. �� .�� ' . � � .� � , �� — .,e_ � \ `. ~ � `� .' � � ' '+'� �� 'T� ' . ' � � 2 `� .� .,� . . � � ,, _ � � ►. , � � �� _�.y , , � � . � , -� * � , " 't�,: '4'�, � . . � � ,>.; . � �,<'�• � / - , . : , ' � , y `"�_ �• _ ' w � � �' �. , ' �� .: � � � � V Y � , �� + • � ` .. �' �,� �_ �?� �- �, ,� '�. y. .. � , ,� / y � � �� ' � �.:` �� f� � '*.o � � `\�r � ��' � � ,�,. � ,1�� .�► � �'�r � �� ,-' . � �.� . � � . � - � , � � ' • � w �� ,�,�► � ,_ `] . _ �� f�� ' � I � � . � • �• �, � , \ � , ' F\ , %� � � ,� � ♦ // � � �, ^ • '�T� X 7 � �` � � 4 .� �� • � �..� � , � � ' 1 �� '� • � l � �� # �' � �� .�.P lnz.�� U".� ��"�-Z�.��Cx!'C,� CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPAR7MENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 NOTICE OF HEARING Side Setback Variance NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, the llth day of December 1989, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. , in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the application for a side setback variance (3' reauested 4' requiredl at 1515 Vancouver Avenue. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER December 1. 1989 * The date on the first notice mailed was incorrect. The proper date of the public hearing is shown above.