The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About471 Cumberland Road - Staff ReportD'� t � P.C. 4/9/90 Item # / MEMO T0: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY PLANNER SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ADD A FIRST FLOOR FAMILY ROOM AND BATH AT 471 CUMBERLAND ROAD, ZONED R-1 John and Marilyn Horgan are requesting a side setback variance (3' proposed, 4' required) in order to make a 740 SF family room/bath addition to their house at 471 Cumberland Road, zoned R-1. The proposed addition would be one story at the rear of the house. The side setback variance is requested in order to extend the existing side property line wall 28' to the rear. This project conforms The existing house is will be 55g larger or Staff Review to all the other zoning code requirements. 1,350 SF. With the 740 SF addition the house a total of 2,090 SF. City staff reviewed this project and had no comments. Applicant's Letter In his application for a variance Mr. Horgan notes that some of the properties in the neighborhood were built after the second world war and have a 3' side setback. He would like to extend the existing side wall for his new addition to avoid an unsightly one foot inset along the north side of his house. The room would not be a second story addition, he notes, and roof eaves have been designed to make the addition blend into the rest of the house. Insetting the house, he feels, would result in making the addition appear "jerry-built". He notes a number of homes in his neighborhood have 3' side setbacks and his neighbors do not object. He feels the addition will not be visible and is similar to other additions approved in the last several years in his neighborhood. The applicant attached a petition in support of his request signed by eight of his neighbors. Findinqs for a Variance In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Sec. 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; 2 (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. Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should include findings for a variance. The reason for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that as built the project shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 8, 1990; and 2, that as built the structure shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. V� �� - Ma�a6t�et- Mbn oe 9 City Planner MM/s cc : John and C1ari 1yn Horgan W. Sellman STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. Proiect Address: 471 CUMBERLAND ROAD II. Proiect Descrivtion and Permits Rec�uested: Side setback variance for the addition of a 740 SF family room/bath to the residence at 471 Cumberland Road, zoned R-1. The variance is required to provide a 3' setback where 4' is required (CS 25.66.050). The proposed addition would be one story at the rear of the house. The side setback variance is requested in order to extend the existing side property line wall 28' to the rear. The project conforms to all other zoning code requirements. III. Propertv Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 029-163-050 Lot No: 5 Block No: 5 Subdivision: Oak Grove Manor #1 Lot 5ize: 5,750 SF Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: single family residential IV. ExistinQ Site Conditions and Adiacent Land Uses: Existing three bedroom one bath residence. All adjacent land uses are R-1 single family residential. This use conforms to the General Plan. V . C'E A Status - Categorically exempt per CEQA Code Sec. 15301 Existing facilities Class 1 (e) (2) (A). VI. Proiect Data: Proposed New Construction: 740 SF Existing Area: 1,350 SF Proposed Percent Increase in Area: 55� - 2,090 SF Proposed Front Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: Declining Height: Lot Coverage: Building Height: On-site Parking Spaces: NA * 3'-0" 34'-9" NA 36.3� 16'-0" NA Rec�uired 15' or avg. 4'-0" 15' NA 40� 30' NA APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Application: Special Permit Variance �Other Project Address '�7� `�/�'�'113�i�.1�NJ ��d • Assessor's Parcel Number(s) APPLICANT Name : �oH�/ �` �19�e�� y� iYO.eG/�'Zl 0.29- /63 -OS'� PROPERTY OWNER Name: �.yiv 1j /�9iPiLyN .�1�/�P19� Address : li7/ �l/�6E'.QtA�/e ��D . Address : '�7/ «�'�f13E�PLfJN� �t"d , City/State/Zip ��l�P�/NG.9M,E City/State/Zip ��l�P1/N6A�1� Telephone : ( Work ) �'y�"'%�3'`�� Telephone ( Work ) ( Home ) 3'y� "-z g'y2 ( Home ) Architect/Desiqner: �1�r, ��--a.,.�-� by Name : W • 5�� mz�• .351P- �'3 y�- 3 S'3 =2s'�'-z- ,.. v � . �ar. Mi.�� C.-� . ?� ��`=. �� : � Addre s s: �'� 1(, � �y. �... •��o � Telephone ( daytime ): 41 J` - 3 4 I-�t �`� S Please indicate with an asterisk (*) who contact person is for project. . PROJECT DESCRIPTION �OM ��Dl��T�4�/ viQ06INd �L4a�Q • : AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct t,o t�he best of my knowledge and belief. , „ --�`�„ � G--_ � �i - S"- 90 Applicant�s Sig ature Date I know about the p�oposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit t�his application. � i� ,,_�'',�,, — / 3 -J'- y'O Property Owner' Signature Date � xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOFFICE USE ONLYxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Filed: , �� Fee �s`� Receipt # �h .� � Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete:. Date application accepted as complet.e: P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing P.C. Action / ''' �L' <��;,'Q<?i��%J Appeal to Counci . Yes Council meeting date Council Action (date) � � %C' �r�, � i � oa �suRurvcnMa �>.... �iiL� .•L�J CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for 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 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. �fr� Not all properties in our neighborhood were built �i�i� the Second World War. Those like ours have 3-foot side setbacks. To retain the es- thetics of our property, we need to retain the existing 3-foot set- back for our proposed family room addition. 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. A variance for a 3-foot side setback we�uld permit us to avoid an un- sightly 1-foot indentation along the north side of our home. In the de- sign of the planned ground floor room, particular attention has been paid to roof eaves and other amenities so that the line of the house remains consistent and attractive. The room would not be a second-story addition. A 1-foot indentation w�ould clearly be an indication that the family room was an addition and not part of the original home. It would give the appearance of being gerrybuilt. 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. Homes in our neighborhood, built before the Second World War, have 3-foot side setbacks. They are routine. Our house and a numbex of others on Ctiimberland Road, Marin Drive, etc. have such setbacks. Our neighbors do not object to a 1-foot variance that w�ould keep our hane symetrical and consistent. d. Discuss how the proposed use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetic5, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. The proposed family room would not dominate the property. It would be within the guidelines for bulk, mass, etc�, It w�uld not be a second floor addition. It would be quite similaz',�additions approved in our neighborhood� in the last several years. The neighbors do not object to it. The addition would run along a fence that separates two back- yards. , �.t� J�.��l9t�e �Errn►a� March 7, 1990 We, the undersigned, agree that a room addition planned at 471 C�amberland Road, which would include a three-foot side setback, would not be a neighbor- hood eyesore or hardship and would conform to the existing structure on the property (which has a three-foot side setback). We agree that the proposed first-floor room would not be out of character for the neighborhood, which includes a significant number of homes, built prior to World War II, with three-foot side setbacks. We agree that the property owners, John and Marilyn Horgan, should be allowed a variance for their project. Signed �, ` �"�e� �.- �' C�;r� � ', ��, �� Address: , �� , ; � -� �<2 � � _�� / / L L�'LJ �-?�-� �..7 � � i � i � , � ��,�-� __ ,Y�, f � . �G(/IL�C _ .., �f� � C° U� ��az �%'�� /� G l �� Y��'��-, , .�� .�- %� J � �� ti�, y-� �, �� , . ��c � ��L y�� a� � . �.�� T �- � �'�:� y�� .�� n-�. � � � �� _ �' � � .� _ �� - ��4. �� . � � n �� ;� :�.�, .. ►�h � ��_ .. ,.� , . � , . ._ f-. - , 1 _ - �•�C, C�.dVt� �o✓� . _ __ � ,_ `� _ _ �•i � . � ��:�::� a � �;�.- , , �__ � �� ; � ° � �' _ , /�� _ �. � �. �� - t: � y � � .. � � � a � � � � � � • .�r _ " � ' __ r .� � � �_ � �- � � th �r � � � .;� � � � .� � . _ . �. ,� . ,,,� i - - _ : ,. � l,�r . � �, - � I_.__-.. �- � _ � � �.: _ � � � � Z � � �� , i.: ; . �� _ v -s;. � � Vk �"� � � �` � t ► f 'i . ' -rn- � �- - f � a f� 4 � � � � �� y � d, �i ~�r-�.- i ....� � + ..� �� '�J.r, ��_��:� � �� :, . �`� � '� . � � � �► �� - � �� N� ��. �:..� �:� � � �• .- - ,.�.;,;�,..� ,��r., ..�• .. r �•�. : �..�► -�. . .� _a� �� ` � � .� � ... .. ��` � , '� � ��' � `� '� � Pt,YM av'f� ' � wY y � � . i�� ,_ ' �. .��.. ..._..� � . � . �.�.E lnz.�� .Q",� ��C�'.�X�'C.��C�1�C.e CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 NOTICE OF HEARING Side Setback Variance NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, the 9th day of April. 1990, 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 regarding the application for a side setback variance (3'-0" proposed, 4�-0" reguired) at 471 Cumberland Road, zoned R-1. 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 March 30, 1990 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, April 9, 1990 at 7:30 P�M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Larry Lautenschlager, Zoning Technician; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City ' Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 26, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A ONE STORY ADDITION AT 471 CUMBERLAND ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/9/90, with attachments. ZT Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant�s letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. John Horgan, applicant, was present. He noted his house is between two other homes on Cumberland both of which extend back 12�-15', his house is depressed between them, the proposed first floor addition would follow the line of these homes; two other houses on the street have added up, he is proposing a one story addition at the rear; the neighbors immediately to the north would be most affected and they have urged him not to indent the addition. Glenn Mendelson, 475 Cumberland Road spoke in support: he would prefer looking at a straight wall rather than having it inset. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi made findings: the existing home is two story, the addition will be one story, it will not impact the neighbor to the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 9, 1990 north nor block light to that site; the zoning will not change, it will remain a single family use; the addition will be compatible with and enhance the neighborhood. C. Giomi moved for approval of the side setback variance with the following conditions: (1) that as built the project shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 8, 1990; and (2) that as built the structure shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion as seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PARKING VAR�ANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMI�� . � RESIDENCE AT 815 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Ref ence staff report, 4/9/90, with attachments.,�' ZT Laute chlager reviewed details of the request, staff,��eview, Plannin staff comment regarding definition of bedroom -and staff determin ion the room designated on the plans as libra�i meets the �riteria �pr bedroom, applicant�s letter. Two coy��itions were suggested fo� consideration at the public hearing. fr� . ,,,�� Staff/CommissiQn discussion: some interior�.�°'`wallpapering and cleaning up have�,�een done; possibility of ope,�'ing up the wall next to the staircase;,and some doorways, this�-"'could result in the library not being c�b�sidered a bedroom. .�•�, Chm. Ellis opened the`�,,public hearing.,; Chris Pockney, applicant, was present. His commei�ts: plans provide one covered parking space and two uncovered spacesry-��are available in the driveway; the house is a two story California �``bungalo,w" built in 1912, they feel it is important to preserve that part:•�if Burlingame�s heritage, they are concerned that the addition fi•�y"�into the architectural style of the house itself and the neighbo�3ioa,�d; most homes in the area have only a one car garage, the property is terraced, in order to put a two car garage at the rear o��'" the lot`,, they would have to bulldoze and regrade extensively and,,�-Would lose s�veral trees as well as much of their landscaping; tY}�re isn't suff`i,cient space in front of the retaining wall to ,ja�.�ild a tandem g�r��age. Applicant wished to stress there is su�iicient off-street p�king. Responding to f`'Commissioner questions, `'�pplicant stated their objection to .�vpening up the library was � ainly the appearance, opening the,doorway all the way to the ceili�g with other doorways which are;-not that high would present an �dd appearance, also matching;finished floors and wallpaper and ob aining appropriate molflings would be difficult. Applicant did t feel a tandem garage:�`would blend with the residence. There �a�re no audience comme,�fits and the public hearing was closed. �.,,�' , Co ission discussion/comment: this is a good sized addition and �ie�lot is more than 5,000 SF, applicant is filling up t� front of �, "�