►
Description
San Bruno Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2010 5a. 524 Poplar Ave.
A
The
524
Poplar
Avenue
this
is
a
request
for
a
variance
to
continue
an
existing
non-conforming
setback
and
use
permit
to
allow
the
construction
of
an
addition.
With
the
total
floor
area
of
2072
square
feet,
point
69,
which
exceeds
the
point:
five
five
FA
our
guideline,
/
sections,
12.1,
24.0,
10
and
12
200.0
30-point,
be
two
of
us
amber
no
zoning
ordinance
staff
report.
Please
good.
B
Evening,
commissioners,
as
indicated
the
item
before
you
as
a
request
for
a
use
permit,
as
well
as
a
variance
to
allow,
in
addition
to
an
existing
residence
at
five
to
four
poplar
avenue,
the
applicant
would
like
to
expend
stay
in
the
living
room
living
space
to
the
rear
of
the
existing
property
and,
as
you
noted
from
your
site
inspection,
the
neighborhood
does
consist
of
many
san
francisco
style
homes
constructed
at
zero
lot
lines.
The
property
in
question
is
25
feet
wide
and
the
existing
home
is
built
all
the
way
to
the
property
line.
B
The
applicant
is
requesting
the
use
permit
to
extend
0
because
may
extend
the
the
living
space
or
a
net
increase
of
175
square
feet,
as
they
will
also
be
demolishing
the
enclosed
patio
that's
located
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
The
variance
is
to
extend
the
living
space
along
the
left
side
of
the
property
and
maintain
that
zero
foot
setback,
and
that
would
be
so
they
can
get
a
code
compliant
stairwell
to
access
the
first.
B
In
the
second
floor
of
the
residence
right
now,
the
stairwell
is
very
steep
and
it
does
empty
right
into
the
garage
also
having
a
non-conforming
garage
as
far
as
depth.
So
by
reorienting
the
stairwell,
they
will
have
a
deeper
garage
where
they'll
be
able
to
park
a
vehicle
and
they'll
also
be
able
to
make
that
stairwell
more
code
compliant.
So
as
a
result,
at
the
second
story,
they're
requesting
to
extend
the
living
space
to
accommodate
that
stairwell,
as
well
as
expand
the
dining
area.
B
This
item
was
reviewed
by
the
architecture
review
committee
and
at
that
meaning
there
was
staff
expressed
the
concern
that
was
conveyed
from
the
neighboring
property
owner
that
this
edition
along
the
0
setback
on
the
left
side
would
impact
their
privacy,
as
well
as
the
light
into
their
property
they're.
Also,
as
you
see
from
the
site
plan,
most
of
their
residences
as
well
at
a
zero
foot
setback,
and
then
it
does
step
in
and
jog
back
right
around
where
this
edition
is
proposed.
B
So
the
architecture
review
committee
did
discuss
that
concern
and
requested
that
the
applicant
take
another
look
at
the
measurements,
because
we
kind
of
compared
the
google
map
with
the
site
plan
that
you
have
in
your
packet
and
when
the
architect
went
out
and
did
more
accurate
measurements
from
the
to
verify
the
location,
the
neighbor
property.
They
realized
that
the
addition
would
extend
about
two
feet
beyond
where
the
neighbors
common
zero
foot
setback
is
so
it
would
extend
about
two
feet
where
their
property
jogs
back
their
house,
so
the
applicant
did
revise
the
plans.
B
B
The
committee
also
recommended
that
the
deck
to
the
rear
meet
the
three
foot
step
back,
so
staff
is
recommending
as
a
condition
of
approval,
that
the
plans
be
modified
to
meet
that
three
foot
setback
and
that
a
five-foot
privacy
wall
be
installed
along
the
deck
it
is
shown
on
the
plans,
but
we're
asking
that
it
be
moved
in
three
feet
and
that
the
deck
be
set
back
to
be
compliant
with
the
side
yard
setback.
As
noted,
you
do
have
a
letter
from
the
adjacent
neighbor.
B
I've
spoken
with
him
on
several
occasions,
sent
him
a
copy
of
the
plans.
He's
out
of
town
wasn't
able
to
make
this
meeting
but,
as
indicated,
he
does
have
concern
with
the
height
of
the
addition,
as
well
as
the
proportion
of
the
addition
that
extends
along
the
zero
foot
setback
that
it
would
have
an
impact
on
to
light
into
his
property.
You
also
have
before
you,
the
sustainable
buildings
check,
look
checklist,
our
apologies
that
was
not
included
in
the
packet,
be
happy
to
try
to
answer
any
of
your
questions.
C
Just
a
couple
things
that
the
first
one
is
related
to
the
deck.
The
way
the
findings
are
written
now
assumed
that
the
condition
that
the
deck
be
set
back
three
feet
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
possible
to
make
the
findings
of
approval
unless
that
deck
was
set
back
three
feet
and
I.
Think
it's
something
that's
easy
to
easily
accomplished.
So
that's
something
that
is
reflected
within
the
conditions
of
approval.
The
second
thing
is,
you
know
regarding
the
neighbors
issues,
the
neighbor
did
provide
a
letter
objecting
to
it.
C
I
apologize
where
you
stop
you
as
staff,
we
usually
try
to
work
out
these
issues
beforehand
and
not
bring
you
unresolved
issues,
but
I
think
this
is
one
where
staff
is
still
confident
in
that
the
findings
for
approval
as
they're
drafted
as
the
addition
is
laid
out
now.
If
the
Planning
Commission
did
have
concerns,
though
you
could
consider
I,
think
one
mitigating
factor
could
be
the
overall
roof
height
and
lowering
the
roof
height
for
some
of
the
NATO
neighbors
concerns,
but
as
the
way
is
proposed
now
we
still
are
confident
in
our
in
our
recommendation.
C
C
D
B
And
also
when
you
look
at
the
plans
submitted
by
the
applicant,
you
can
see
on
the
sheet,
there
is
photographs
and
if
you
one
of
them
it
does
show
the
rear
deck
and
somebody
standing
on
the
duck.
And
then
you
can
see
that
side
of
the
property
where
there's
two
windows.
That
would
be
the
side.
The
neighbors
expressing
concern
about.
E
B
D
A
F
F
So
we
really
would
like
to
change
that
one
and
put
a
privacy
wall
over
there,
and
that
is
also
explained
in
in
plans
so
I
clearly
made
it
I
made
it
very
clear
to
him
that
that
is
not
the
case
anymore.
We
would
have
a
privacy
of
all
over
there
and
then
we
would
prefer
to
keep
that
privacy
wall
on
the
property
line
and
then
go
in
with
a
new
deck,
because
that's
existing
right
now
and
then,
with
the
newer
deck,
go
in
three
feet
but
again,
depending
on
staff
and
watch.
F
What
you
appreciate
is
which
which
way
to
go,
but
I
explained
that
to
him.
The
other
part
would
explain
was
that
he
was
really
concerned
about
the
height
and
the
only
two
feet
out
where
he
is.
We
don't
even
overlap
with
our
addition
to
where
his
windows
are.
So
we
really
do
not
see
too
much
of
an
impact
on
the
windows
that
he
has
on
that
side.
And
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
really
would
like
to
get
the
height
is
all
the
houses
are.
F
E
I
husband
did
I
Lynam
line.
Item
number
11
speaks
to
stormwater
management
through
landscaping,
etc,
but
I
don't
see
any
landscaping
plans.
So
that
was
one
question
and
then
similar
to
that
you've.
His
checked
off
water
conservation,
plumbing
fixtures,
but
I,
don't
see
additional
work
in
four
bathrooms
or
anything
like
that.
Is
that
something
you're
doing?
Oh
it
was
it
just
checked
off.
Well.