Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves variance for new home at 949 Lee Drive after debate over gas appliances
Summary
The Planning Commission approved a use permit and variance for 949 Lee Drive, allowing reduced rear and front setbacks; the 4–1 vote followed discussion about lot constraints and a commissioner’s request that the applicant consider all-electric appliances to meet Menlo Park’s climate goals.
The Planning Commission on Aug. 10 approved a use permit and variances enabling the demolition of an existing one-story house and construction of a two-story residence with a detached garage at 949 Lee Drive. The applicant requested a rear setback of 10 feet where 20 feet is required and a reduced front setback from about 25 ft. 3 in. to approximately 23 ft. 9 in.
"What we're seeking is relief from the rear yard setback of 20 feet. As you said, we're asking for a 10 foot setback," said Margaret Wimmer, the project's architectural designer, who represented homeowner Roy Omer and described constraints posed by an irregular, cul-de-sac lot and adjacent multifamily property used partly for driveway and parking.
Planning staff (Chris Turner) confirmed the existing house sits at about a 13-foot rear setback with no prior permit or variance on record; staff noted a nearby property received a similar 10-foot rear setback via variance in 2018–2019. Commissioners debated whether the request sets a problematic precedent and whether the reduced setback would materially harm neighbors; several supported the request given the lot shape and existing conditions.
A separate line of questioning and concern focused on gas appliances. One commissioner noted Menlo Park's Climate Action Plan aims to electrify 95% of buildings by 2030 and urged the applicant to consider induction ranges and electric equipment. The applicant responded that they will comply with current city ordinances and that requiring electrification for this project alone would be unfair unless the city adopted a universal ordinance.
Commissioner Schindler moved to approve the use permit and variances as in the staff report; Vice Chair Katie Beruzzi seconded. The motion passed 4–1 with two commissioners absent. The front-setback question arises under the subdivision ordinance and will be acted on by City Council, which holds decision authority for subdivision-ordinance front-setback variances.
