Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Burbank City's Response

In response to my query about the monster-sized house (see post below), here's the response I received from Burbank city senior planner Patrick Prescott: "I did not receive the photos you attached, but I have spoken with Tom Zartl and reviewed the plans for 1053 East Elmwood. The home in question is built at a four foot side yard setback. This setback meets the minimum requirement for side yards, which is 10% of the width of the lot. The average width of the lot is 45 feet; therefore, the required side yard setback is four feet. The lot size is 12,940 square feet and the floor area (including the 34 square foot portion of the garage over 600 square feet) is 5,162 square feet. The floor area ratio for this property is 40%, which is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The maximum height in the R1 zone is 30 feet. The highest point of the home at 1053 East Elmwood is 29’-10”, which complies with code." I still say this violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the anti-mansionization codes.


  1. Anonymous2:28 PM

    I find your "dismay" at the house at 1053 Elmwood quite ironic given that you are the listing agent for the house next door, and have the words "build your dream palace" in the listing ad. I guess mansionization isn't so bad when you stand to profit from it, huh?

    As a neighbor to the monstrosity at 1053 Elmwood, I can only imagine what will be happening at 1047 once it is sold.

  2. sfvrealestate11:11 AM

    Seems hypocritical, doesn't it? However, this marketing approach was extensively discussed with the sellers of 1047. The house at 1053 is the reason they're selling the house at 1047. They'll have no control over the property once it's sold nor will I. If it makes you feel any better, not all of our potential buyers plan to build the same kind of building