The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1517 Burlingame Avenue - Approval LetterC��..�tP �tt� Q� �1Z.2`�.tYCL��2IxiP SAN MATEO COUNTY C�TY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 ' March 9, 1977 Mr. Zev Ben Simon 1517 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Mr. Ben Simon: TEL� (415) 342-8931 Since there was no appeal or suspension by the City Council of the , Planning Corronission action at their February 28 meeting, the variance from Code Sec. 25.50.Q80 to.enlarge a building with noncon�orming side yard, in an R-1 District at 1517 Burlingam� Avenue, b�cam� effective March 8, 1977. This variance was unanimous�y approved by the Planning Commission. Yo�rs very truly, (/t/�"'.t 1� / �� LC,� 2� %� �. �iayn e Ni < Swa n Cz t.y P�i a�ner WMS/s cc: Bui�lding Inspector �y Cl erk Assessor's Office, Redwood City (APN 028-285-300) •' Bur'lingame Planning Commission Minutes Page , 6 February 28, 197,7 to the adjacent property owner. C. Kindig agreed with C.s Mink and Sine that alternatives should be pursued and also suggested Mr. Thuesen pursue the possibility of a cantilevered carport. Chm. Taylor stated his feeling that Commission should continue to require that each house in Burlingame maintain covered parking. It was the consensus of Commission to table this item in order to allow the applicant time to redesign. ' A short recess was declared at 9:15 P.M., after which the meeting reconvened'at 9:25 P.M. 6. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO ENLARGE A BUILDING WITH NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD; PROPERTY AT 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE (APN 028-285-300), ZONED R-1, BY ZEV BEN SIMON �,.�..,....�..._.:,__.:�..., _. .. C. P. Sa•�an stated that Commission had received information on this application in its packet of material; the C.P. and the applicant were available this evening to answer any questions. Mr. Ben Simon told Commission they wished to enlarge their home by adding two bedrooms and a bath upstairs. The applicant owns the adjacent property also and had remodeled both properties about a year ago with no addition to the structures. There is a common driveway with two-car garages for each property located in the rear. C. P. Swan discussed these properties, stating that the vacant lot had recei'ved a relocated house. In order to gain access.to the garage at the r.ear of 1517'Burlingame Avenue an easement was required. He noted that in addition to a two car garage there would 6e space in the back driveway for two cars. Chm. Taylor requested audience eomments in favor or opposed; there were none and the public hearing was declared closed. C. Jacobs felt that the applicant did have a hardship and that his proposal would be an improvement to an R-1 property. Chm. Taylor noted the available parking and did not feel Commission would be inconsistent with its r.equirements for covered parking if this variance were granted. C. Kindig moved that this variance application to enlarge an existing building be approved. C. h1ink proposed findings of fact: that Commission in its collective opinion found the requirements for a variance had been met, specifically, without this variance the applicant would be denied full use of his property and thereby suffer a hardship, the granting of the variance would in no way be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood, and it is in conformance with the General Plan. Second C. Cistulli and findings of fact adopted unanimously by voice vote. C. Kindig moved approval of his previously stated motion; second C. Sine and approved unanimously on roll call vote. 7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO ENLARGE A 6UILDING WITH NONCONFORMIPdG FRONT SETBACK; PROPERTY AT 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD (APN 029-273-190), ZONED R-1, BY ROBERT J. SIMP10NS It was determined Mr. Simmons was present this evening. C. P. Swan explained this application to enlarge an existing nonconforming residence; the front yard is only eight fee�; in depth and code requires a 15 foot front setback. To require the building be cut off in front would be a definite hardship. The C. P. saw no reason why this variance could not be considered favorably. Replying to C. Jacobs' question, the applicant told her he needed to obtain a debris box in order to clean up the property as requested at the study meeting. fie stated (�e planned to live in the house himself. C. A: Coleman wished to know when the proposed work would be completed as staff had received complaints regarding this property. Assuming the variance were granted, the applicant believed work could be completed in four to six months. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 28; 197i• would plan to park automobiles in the driveway. Mr. Thuesen purchased the property about 2-1/2 years ago and at that time there vras an existing carport which had been built without benefit of a building permit. Storage of pool equipment in the small garage made it unsuitable in depth for parking an automobile; additionally, the garage floor had been raised 12" above the driveway grade level, making it unusable. The C..P. remarked that one possibility might be to ramp up to that level and still have one covered parking space. The applicant wished to use 100% of his rear yard for his own enjoyment and it was noted this might pose a problem should other residents ask a similar favor. An inspection of the property this evening indicated three cars parked in the driveway. Mr. Swan questioned if the proposal by the applicant was the best possible solution to the problem and mentioned there might also be a problem with the proposed fencing between the driveway and the property next door. There were no Commission questions at this time. Mr. Thuesen addressed the P.C., stating Mr. Swan's review had indicated the conditions as they were. He felt ramping up to the present garage would be aesthetically detrimental. He added that he had discussed the matter of the fencing with his neighbors and that it would be basically what is there now, constructed of wood and at the same height. One of the problems was the present carport must be brought up to code in order to do anything at all. He felt the covered carport requirement would be a hardship on his neighbors as.it would block off light. During Commission discussion it was brought out that the applicant is presently parking three cars tandem; his lot is large, approximately 122 feet in depth; with the extra space from the carport area the applicant's proposal would produce 100% enjoyment of the backyard; there is very little space around the pool at the p.resent time; the house now contains three bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths which, according to code, would require two covered parking spaces; the applicant planned to extend the decking, move it over to the property line, and then place a fence on top of that deck; with the neighboring yard about two feet below Mr. Thuesen's driveway, it would appear his neighbors would be faced with close to a nine foot wall. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor of this application; there were none. He then asked for audience comments in opposition. Mrs. Flora Stamp of 2614 Hale Drive stated she wa5 not against the Thuesens improving their property but was concerned about being blocked off by the proposed fence. She stated if it should go up nine feet it would darken one end of their kitchen, with no sun at any time. C. P. Swan commented that pools must be enclosed by a four foot fence, and the permitted height of a fence along the side property line is six feet. Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed and�asked for further Commission questions. C. Mink stated his feeling that it would be to the detriment of the City to establish a principle of not requiring a covered parking space for each residence. Chm. Taylor suggested the applicant see an architect in order to solve the problern and still maintain privacy. C. Sine wished to give the applicant every possibility to solve the problem since the garage ��as unusable as such. He was in agreement with C. Mink but suggested, with the perrnission of the applicant, that this iteiTi be cont:inued for 30-60 days to enable Mr. Thuesen to explore alternatives. The aE�plicant c�uestioned the belief by some Commissioners that granfi.ing this exception to the zonincl req��irements would se�; a precedent in Burlin�ame. He noted that under present City building regulations he could tear down the two structures and construct a cantilevered covered carport; a cantilevered carport would cut off his neighbors' ligf�t and constitute a hardship to them. The C. A. reviewed code requirements for granting of a variance and added th�t legally the hardship concerned was the har�clship to the property owner, not