Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDesign ReviewDESIGN REVIEW CITY OF BURLINGAME Planning Department August 17, 1999 Michael and Robin Liffman 401 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Liffman, City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 Tel. (650) 696-7200 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the August 9, 1999 Planning Commission approval of your design review application became effective August 16, 1999. This application was to allow a second story addition subject to design review at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. The August 9, 1999 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 3, 1999, sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7, date stamped June 2, 1999, sheet A-1, and date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-4 & A-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Reimbursement of the unspent portion of your design review deposit has been processed and will be mailed to the property owner under separate cover. August 17, 1999 401 Bloomfield Road . - page -2- All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. Sincerely yours, MWVI I M I6, Margaret Monroe City Planner RH\s 401bloom.cca C. Janet Coral Campbell, architect Two Parker Avenue #302 San Francisco, CA 94118 Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOT 23 BLOCK 10 BURLINGABLES MAP NO 2 RSM 20/55 56 CITY OF BURLINGAME; APN: 029-171-450) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND :SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1374 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (LUIS A. ROBLES, APPLICANT AND CYNTHIA AND MICHAEL LAZZARETTI, nn�n�nmv �AiT*Trnn. REQUEST FOR A ONE- AR EXTENSION OF A DESIGN REVIE PPLICATION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 344 OCCI NTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TRI KAIN HAGEY, APPLICANT AND and APPLICATION FOR A LANDSCAPING ANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PENHIG ARY FROM THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR YFRONT DEVELOPMENT AND AL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND OFFICE F ILITIES AT AN EXISTINGSTORAGE AND M �TTENANCE FACILITY FOR A CAR RENTA BUSINESS AT 1650 BAYSHAY, ZONED C-4. C. Visticam ed approval of the consent calendar based on a facts in the staff reports, commission s comments and the findings the staff reports with recommended condition the staff reports and by resolution. was noted for the record that c ition No. 1 of Item No. 6; 1337 Vancouv Avenue should read; that all the wi ows on the second floor shall be laced to match the new windows on the ap ved plans, the windows existing on t first floor may be retained as sh n on the approved plans ". The motion wa , seconded by C. Keighran. Acting -Chair c for a voice vote on the ion and Item 5, 2804 Easton Drive passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal Abstaining and Cmsrs. Bojud nd Coffey absent); It o. 6, 1337 Vancouver Avenue; 7, 1374 DeSoto Avenue; 8, 344 Occidental Avenue a 9, 1650 Bayshore Hig way, were approved on a 5-0-2 (C. Boju6s and Coffey absent). Appeal procedures w re advised. REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, YZONED R-1. (MICHAEL AND ROBIN LIFFMANN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) - SUBMITTAL OFA PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE -CONTINUED FROM JULY 26 1999 Reference staff report, 8.09.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Planning Commission had no questions of the staff report. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The project applicant, Michael Liffmann, 401 Bloomfield Road, was in attendance he noted that he hoped in the revised plans they had addressed all the issues raised by Commissioners Deal and Dreiling. There were no comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: the most recent plans were well drawn; that this project was an example of how the Planning Commission could not make a determination based on the plans submitted because they were so incorrect could not tell what would be built, now all the plans agree and the looks of the project are much improved from the original. C. Deal moved, by resolution, to approve this application with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 3, 1999, sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7, date stamped June 2, 1999, sheet A-1, and date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-4 & A-5, and that any 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 vote (Cers. Bojues and Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR rA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 810 CROSSWAY , ZONED R-1. (FAMOUS DESIGNS INC., APPLICANT AND JOHN & ELLEN HUNTER, Referen staff report, 8.09'R9, with attachments. This project was revised and r ubmitted to the Planning Departure since it was denied ;without prejudice at e July 26, 1999, Planning Co sion hearing. The City Planner pre nted the staff reporr"�and noted the aspects f the design that had been change . since the Commission denied the prof ct. Four conditions were suggested for co ideration. There were no questio by the commission. Acting -Chair Luz iaga opened the puAl c hearing. The applicant was not present. There were o comments and the public hearing s closed. Commission comment: at\last submittal there were some problems with the project, but have worked wil the design reviewer feel plans not quite, `there' yet, but that it is time to approve t11e project; main concern impact o neighbor, satisfied that the declining height envelope variance has been eliminated,\he original project had a significa ,t impact on the adjacent neighbor along°the north side; do not like tower in the mille of the project; rear elevation does not represent mooth design; howe er, okay with the project. It was noted for t ie record; the applicant and his ar6itect arrived dur' the discussion of LLB project. CA Anderson indicated it would,, not be necessaryto reopen the Iublic hearing. z. P P Further discussion: is project will have minimal impact on the street; is an example of how the Declining Height Envelope regulation fai Ito control the bulk and mass of a structure along the side property line, but can approve this project., C. ighran moved approval, by resolution, with the following conditions from the staff eport: 1) that the project shall be uilt as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped At�ust 2, 1999, sheets T1, A4-A7, a date stamped Jund,,23, 1999, sheets Al-A3 with the removal of the existmg`,11' x 12' green house accessory s e, and that any changes to the footprint, floor area, or expabsion of living area within the building shall require an endment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or velope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the requirements of the City Engineer's May 19, 1999, memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Ofty of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 Item No. 6; 1527 Newlands Avenue was requested to be placed on the hearing calendar by a member of the public during from the floor, Commissioner Deal requested that Item No. 7; 401 Bloomfield Avenue be put over for public hearing; and Commissioner Keighran asked that Item No. 5; 1314 Desoto Avenue be put over for public hearing. There were then no consent items. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A NEW WOOD DECK IN REAR YARD AT 1314 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (R.C. SMITH, APPLICANT AND BRIAN AND LAURI SHANAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Brian and Lauri Shanahan, 1314 Desoto Avenue, the property owners and R. C. Smith, 3401. E. Bayshore, Redwood City, the applicant, were present to answer any questions. They noted that they did not intend to store anything under the new deck nor did they include any screening lattice on the plans, if commission wishes they would include it but it was not a part of the project and would have no objection to the lattice being struck from the project. Commission noted, if no lattice in project then findings for project should also be corrected. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Deal moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report and amended findings noting there is no decorative lattice as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 18, 1999, Sheet 1 of 2; 2) that the granting of 4 % lot coverage for deck purposes on this hillside lot shall not entitle the property owner to expand the habitable space or dwelling footprint on this site to more than 40 % of the lot without the granting of an additional variance, even if deck area is removed for the addition; and 3) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame., The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution, amending the findings in the staff report as noted. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. . I APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RECREATIONAL USE OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 1527 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (BARRY L. RAFTER, APPLICANT AND CATHRYN AND JOSEPH BAYLOCK, PROPERTY Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. -3- law- 51 ti City of Burlingame ITEM #10 Design Review for a Second Story Addition Address: 401 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: 8/9/99 Request: Design Review for a second -story addition. Applicant: Michael and Robin Liffmann APN: 029-171-450 Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 4,979 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. July 26, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting: At the Planning Commission meeting on July 26, 1999, the Commission reviewed the applicants' request and continued the project to the August 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting (July 26, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes). At the meeting the applicant presented two color renderings of the Bloomfield Road elevation. The first rendering showed the second floor containing two gables and a pop -out dormer with a gable roof at the stairwell. The second rendering showed a single ridge line and a single gable. The Commission noted that they would approve the double gable alternative with the pop -out dormer at the stairwell removed. The Commission noted that there were discrepancies in the elevations regarding the roof structure and that the roof plan did not match the elevations. The Commission suggested that the applicant address the discrepancies in the roof plan as they relate to the elevations and that the elevations reflect the alternative with the gable and pop -out dormer removed on the Bloomfield Road elevation. It was noted that the changes would not have to be reviewed by the design reviewer and may be brought back directly to the Commission. The Commission also commented that the window and door show different trim on sheet A6, that the bay window cannot be built as shown, that the existing gable left of the garage is shown as existing and shown as new on the north elevation, and that siding trim detail is shown wider on some of the elevations than others. Current Project Revisions (August 3, 1999 plans): After the July 26, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped August 3, 1999, sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7) and a written response (Attachments A, B, and C, dated August 3, 1999). The applicant submitted revised plans which reflect the alternative with the gable and pop -out dormer removed. The applicant addressed the discrepancies in the roof plan so that it is consistent with the elevations and so that the elevations are consistent with each other. Planning would note that a residential plan checker in the Building Dept. did a preliminary review of the revised plans and noted that the roof plan appeared to be consistent with all elevations. Siding trim detail has been revised so that it is consistent on all elevations. 11 Design Review for a Second Story Addition 401 Bloomfield Road Attachment A addresses how the corner and bay windows are installed. The applicant submitted details of the window jambs at the living room/kitchen corners and of the bay windows. Copies of the plans and details were also submitted to Window Express for their review. The applicant notes that the Architectural Manufacturer's Representative for Kolbe & Kolbe at Window Express notes that for houses with aluminum windows that die into structural poles, it is not uncommon for the structural pole to be left and his regular units installed. The units are attached and blocked to the existing structural poles. Attachment B addresses how the double windows above the front entry roof area will work. The applicant submitted a detail through the section of the window sill, wall and roofing. Also attached are copies of the SMACNA (Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National Association) details applicable to this condition. Plate 79 shows a coping detail below the window sill, and Plate 74 shows how far the connecting flashing piece should go over the top course of shingles. The applicant also submitted photographs of a house recently built with a similar condition. Attachment C addresses the use of different door and window trims. The architect notes that the installation of a stained glass window at the rear creates the need for a change to the window trim from that on the rest of the house. The reason for the deeper trim is to provide more stability; lead is soft and does not have the strength of a sheet of glass or glass with panes. In order to create the same look along the master bedroom/sitting area on the second floor, the windows in the master bedroom/sitting area have the same trim as the leaded glass window (see sheet A-6, New West Elevation). Bay and corner windows have trim as shown in Attachment A. Typical dimensions for all other door and window trims are called out on sheet A-6, New West Elevation. Current Project Request (August 3, 1999 plans): The applicants, Michael and Robin Liffmann, are proposing a second -story addition to a single-family dwelling which is subject to design review at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-l. The front of this corner lot is along Vernon Way and the side along Bloomfield Road. The project requires the following: 1. Design review for a first and second story addition. The existing single -story house now contains 2,192 SF of floor area (.44 FAR) (including a covered porch, patio and a single -car attached garage), and has four potential bedrooms. On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to remove 250 SF of an existing patio cover. The project also includes removing 147 SF of the existing attached garage (10' x 18'-9" clear interior dimensions) and replacing the existing bedroom and bathroom behind the garage with a new code compliant single -car garage (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions). A new uncovered parking space (9' x 20') will be provided in front of the garage, where currently none exists on the site. There will be no change in the total number of potential bedrooms since two of the existing bedrooms on the first floor will be eliminated with the first floor remodel. The 721 SF second story addition will add two bedrooms, for a total of four potential bedrooms on the site. The total floor area of the remodeled house and garage will be 2,405 SF (.48 FAR) (excluding the chimney and 100 SF of the covered porch, which are exempt from floor area ratio calculations), where 2,493 SF (.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed FAR. 2 Design Review for a Second Story Addition 401 Bloomfield Road The existing lot coverage on the site is nonconforming and totals 2,192 SF (44 %), where 1,992 SF (40 %) is the maximum allowed. Lot coverage will be reduced from 44 % to 36 % (1,795 SF) with the removal of a portion of the patio (250 SF) and garage (147 SF). SETBACKS PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D Front: 2nd flr 29'-101/2" none 20'-0" Side: (interior) no change 5'-0" 4'-0" Side: (exterior) 20' -0" to garage 6' -11 " 7' -6" Rear. • 1st flr no change 5' -81/2" 15' -0" 2nd flr 29' -91/2" none 20' -0" LOT 36 % 44 % 40 % COVERAGE: (1,795 SF) (2,192 SF) (1,992 SF) FAR: 2,405 SF 2,192 SF 2,493 SF .48 FAR .44 FAR .50 FAR PARKING: 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0") (10'-0" x 18'-9") (10'-0" x 20'-0") 1 uncovered 0 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' -0" x 20' -0") (9' -0" x 20' -0") HEIGHT: 25' -1 " 16' -6" 30' DH ENVELOPE: meets requirements N/A see code BEDROOMS: no change 4 N/A Project History and Revisions (reviewed at the July 12, 1999 P.C. Action Meeting): At the Planning Commission meeting on July 12, 1999, the Commission reviewed the applicants' request and denied the project without prejudice (July 12, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission was concerned with the East Elevation (facing Bloomfield Road), noting that it is the most prominent side of the structure and that the proposed project is out of character with the rest of the house. The Commission suggested that the applicant (1) rework the East Elevation so that it is more in character with the existing house; (2) reduce the second floor plate height to reduce bulk; (3) remove the half-moon vent because it is large (6' wide) and not appropriate to the style of house; (4) rework the roof structure to include a single ridge line and single gable; and (5) rework the window system in the stairwell so that it is in scale with the existing windows and house. The Commission also requested that the applicant provide a detail of the corbels and "outriggers". Revised Project (July 16,1999 plans): After the July 12, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped July 16, 1999, sheets A-0, A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7) and a written response, dated July 16, 1999, which describes the revisions made to the proposed project as suggested by the Planning Commission. The applicant notes that the floor joists have been 3 Design Review for a Second Story Addition 401 Bloomfield Road increased from 8" to 12" and that the second floor plate height has been reduced from 8'-4" to 8'-0". The overall height of the structure (25'-1 ") did not change. The half-moon vent on the East Elevation has been eliminated. The applicant also revised the roof structure by replacing the gable roof at the front of the master bedroom with a hip roof (see revised sheet A-7, East Elevation). The cantilever (12 SF) and gable at the stairwell was eliminated, thus leaving only one second floor gable on the East Elevation. All other gables on the first floor are existing. The removal of the stairwell cantilever reduced the proposed lot coverage to 1,795 SF (36%) from 1,807 SF (36.3%) and floor area ratio to 2,405 SF (.48 FAR) from 2,417 SF (.48 FAR). With the replacement of the gable with a hip roof at the master bedroom, a single ridge line on the second floor east elevation was created. The applicant notes that in order to work out the roof so that the rear/side facade would not change, a small peak has to occur over the middle of the master bedroom. The applicant reduced the size of the stairwell window from 6' W x 6' H to 3' -6"W x 5'H and added shutters, similar to the new windows being added on the first floor adjacent to the garage (East Elevation, sheet A-7). In order to bring the scale of windows on the East Elevation closer to each other, a window has been added at the upstairs hall, above the existing front entry. The applicant included a corbel detail (date stamped July 16, 1999, 81/2" x 11 ") as requested by the Planning Commission. The applicant points out that the new corbels are designed to match the existing corbels, except that the depth will be 1'-3" from the face of building in all areas where there are corbels, not 2 inches as exists presently. The applicant notes that because of declining height envelope regulations, the eave and corbels along the side elevation of the master bedroom and master bath area will match the existing details (2 inch depth). The property owner has requested that the roofing details be made to present-day NRCA (National Roofing Contractor's Association) and SMACNA (Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National Association) details. Staff Comments: The City Engineer, Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. Design Review: The revised plans date stamped August 3 and July 16, 1999, which incorporate all the described changes were not resubmitted to the design reviewer. The design reviewer's June comments are on the originally submitted project studied at the July 12, 1999, Planning Commission action meeting. Design Reviewer Comments on May 25/June 2, 1999 plans: Staff would note that the design reviewer did not review the revised plans, date stamped August 3 and July 16, 1999. The design reviewer comments on the June 8, 1999, plans that the proposed addition will blend well with the neighborhood where there are many existing two story houses. The architect provided an exhibit which illustrates the number of two story structures in the immediate neighborhood. This exhibit will be available for review at the July 26, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. The reviewer notes that the proposed architectural style of the new addition is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed garage is also appropriate to the 11 Design Review for a Second Story Addition 401 Bloomfield Road neighborhood. The overall design has been well conceived, the elevations are varied and bring visual interest to the existing structure. The proposed structure will interface well with the adjacent two story structures to the side, rear and across the street on Bloomfield Road. The existing landscaping is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components. Design Review Recommendations on May 25/June 2, 1999 plans: The design reviewer recommends based on the May 25/June 2, 1999 plans that the design review for the proposed addition be approved by the Planning Commission. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 3, 1999, sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7, date stamped June 2, 1999, sheet A-1, and date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-4 & A-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c: Michael and Robin Liffman, applicants and property owners E City QiBurlingame Manning Commission Minutes July 26, 1999 APPLICATION F R A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF A FRONT TBACK VARIAN FOR A NEW ATTACHED G GE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CARPORT �rOPERTY 40 DRAKE AVE UE, ZONED R-1. TOM PARR RE APPLICANT AND KEITH R. COULSTON. OWNER s � APPLIC ION FOR CQNDITIONAL USF ERMIT FOR A HEALTH SERVICE (CO SELING OFFICE) AN E TING OFFICE BUILDING AT/1290 HOWARD AV�IUE, SUITE 320, Z NED C-1, SUBARE B. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A HEALT 4 SERVICE (PSYCHOTHERAPY OFFI9t) AT 1131 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED,k-1, SUBAREA B Q4EVERLY B. C. Bpjues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in t staff reports, comm' sinner and,t�e findings in the ff reports with recomttiended conditions in the stiff reports and by res tion. I foi the record that co ition No. 2 of Item No. 11; 1131 Howard Avenue should read; "th hours of to 7:00 p.m". The }Motion was seconded C. Keighran. Chair caked for a voice vote obi the motio 5, 4090 Dwight R ad; 7, 1434 Paloma enue and 8, 1322 DeSotO Avenue passed 6-0-1'-1 (C. Dealt/ and C. Visticas sent); Items No. 6„ ,•� 614 Hale Avenue; 9, 154,0 Drake Avenue; 10, 11' 90 Howard 11, 1311 How rd Avenue, were app�oved on a 6-0-1 (C. Visti�ca absent). Appeal procedures were a REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1. (MICHAEL AND ROBIN LIFFMANN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Reference staff report, 7.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Robin and Michael Liffman, property owners and Janet Campbell, architect, 2 Parker Avenue, San Francisco, spoke representing the project noting that they made all the suggested changes to the project except one. Commission recommended a single roof line revision, they felt that this would look odd from Vernon Road and displayed mounted renderings to demonstrate their concern, noting that they would remove the "punched out" dormer over the window on the preferred single gable rendering. Commission asked if the window in the stair well was a different shape, yes it is no longer arched. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: this project has no variances or exceptions to the code, only needs design review; applicant has responded to all the commissioners concerns except one; design reviewer gave the project a positive recommendation before the changes made at commission request at study. C. Bojues moved, by resolution, to approve the project because of the changes made, with the added condition that the gable roof line be used without the pop -out dormer as shown in the rendering, and with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. M City of Burlingame, Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 1999 Comment on the motion: clarify that the motion was for the alternative with the gable roof with the pop -out dormer removed, yes; decision is hard because the drawings are difficult, all the views of the roof do not correspond, hard to act on at this point because there are problems with the plans to the extent that they may not represent the building as it is going to be built; agree there are discrepancies between the elevations, roof plan does not agree with any elevation, can't approve if I can't see what built, contractor will have to decide in the field how to build; revisions are good, like multiple gable solution; felt like the response addressed all the commission's concerns including the window in the stair well; gable side OK, took the pop -out off the stairwell; if the roof plan is inconsistent and cannot be built are we ready to approve, do we need to continue item; rendering makes the project look good, what happens next is the issue, and tight drawings are the way to insure it; concerned with the scale of the house, the existing house is small in scale as are all the houses in the neighborhood, how will this bigger house fit; feel the motion addresses all the items, there are no exceptions to the zoning code requested, it is within the envelope allowed, have revised to address almost all of the commission's concerns, now there is a problem with the construction time table; can these items be addressed with the applicant, no there is a motion on the floor; if there are inconsistencies on the plans, cannot resolve in the meeting, applicants need to sit down with the architect and get them resolved, can this be brought back on the consent calendar for the next meeting. Continued discussion on the motion: Need clarification about exactly what revisions now want to see in the plans; these have already been approved by the design reviewer; commissioner noted that there were many discrepancies in the elevations regarding the roof structure, not the commission's responsibility to redesign the roof, called staff this morning to let them know that there were too many discrepancies in the drawings and to try to contact the architect, it is not the commission's fault that these elevations are incorrect; we need a new application with a roof structure which agrees, feel could build the roof differently using each elevation; prefer a plan with fewer gables. CA Anderson noted should identify which elevation is in error. Commission discussion continued: none of the elevations agree with each other, roof structure needs to be redrawn it does not adhere to the roof plan, needs to reflect what is going to be built; design reviewer did not see this change, commission directed that it be brought back to them directly. Chair Coffey called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the design review with amendments for the pop -out dormer and single gable roof alternative. The commission voted 3-3-1, (Cers. Deal, Dreiling, Keighran dissenting, C. Vistica absent). A tie vote represents no action by the commission and the motion failed. C. Deal moved to continue this item to the August 9, 1999, meeting so that the applicant can address the discrepancy in the roof as it relates to the elevations and have it reflect the alternative with the gable without the pop -out dormer, but the revisions need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission again. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: these are professional drawings, if there are inconsistencies in them we do not know which reflect the intention of the applicant, the applicant needs to work on and decide what they want. CA Anderson pointed out that the applicant can contact commissioners about precisely what needs to be corrected on the plans. Commissioner noted for example on Sheet A6 the window and door show different trim, the bay window cannot be built as shown; on Sheet A7 the existing gable left of the garage is shown as existing and shown as new on the north elevation, there is a difference in siding material as well; some of the trim detail is wider on some of the elevations than on others. CA Anderson asked if these items were there before, yes comfortable with the revisions except the roof. Commission discussed fact that a motion to continue is not an action. Chair Coffey called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue this item to the meeting of August 9, 1999. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Vistica absent) vote. 4 City ,of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 1999 Commission comment: is the direction clear; CA Anderson noted that the architect can call the commission or City Planner; the commission noted that they would approve the double gable alternative. The item was continued to the August, 9, 1999, meeting. Since there was no action on the item it is not appealable to the City Council. APP ATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE )/ARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 810 CR9,S WAY ROAD, ZONED R-1. (FAMOUS DESIQNS CHITECTS INC. APPLICANT AND JOHN & ELLEN HUNTER PROPERTY OWNERS Reference staff rep . t, 7.26.99, with attachments City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Pla ng Department comments./four conditions were sugge d for consideration. 1 There were no questions fro he commission. / ? The appl' t, John Hunter, 810 Crossf,Ay Road and Mark Famous, �7 Westminster, Oakland, architect, presented the pr sect and were available fir questions. Applicant stated that they had been thorough in answering the cossion's questions, noted that' regarding the second floor decking and the concern with intrusion on neighbors, �e-;;odified so the deck is now an outdoor walkway to get to the lower deck at grade; criteria for building the project is that it be private, e windows on the north elevation are for light only, not for view; regarding the,eupola, or stair tower, there will a no viewing from that, purpose is to allow light into the stair well; have redesigned the stair tower so that it ' more proportional on all sides. :F , Commissioner estions: Commissioner noted had worked with applicant in past and asked if thi 's really what he wants; note hat the garage is giant; concerned that structure is not unified with house i front, exterior not touched, other structure attached, added tower to unify the two, expressed concern bete, don't feel has been address , why not extend first floor,,over existing. Apllicant response: the lot is lame too; now has children, 5 bodies in house, need �fnore space, there is no liking space other than garage proposed downstairs; has been through design reviewer, pwanning commission now ,rfiaking design suggestions, process is cheapened, don't feel need to address now; in favor of design review; but not appropriate to re -do design review at this late stage, stair tower stays as fa as he's concerned.,, CA Anderson note, that the Planning Commission acts as design rev�e�v oversight committee d6ign reviewer is making a recommendation to the commission. Mark Fan).dus, 87 Westminster, Qakland, architect for the,,p'roject, noted that there has a small space under playrooTior crawl space, added a°wine cellar, when found out it counted as floor are applicant did not see n ed and it has removed; there is a�ot of space on site, designeo garage can be at rear, an't be seen and allows ther parking on site; as far as tY d cupola, is common in Cie Cod Craftsman homes is stair tower is simil to one at Burlingame train statjen; intent was to use staff ower as unifying feature s well as matching oth existing features; tower is less �� 30' high, important to eep look of house from fr t as is; the stair tower ' 50' behind front of residence ould have to be in neighb is yard across the street o see top of tower; is a ut 3 or 4 feet above the roof ofhe new addition. f There were xio further comments an0lie public hearing was Co 6sioner comments: appli t is perturbed about pro ss, this is a newX*n something we're trying wo#with, trying to get desi reviewers and commissi ers on .the same pht some study items ere placed on consent, severa applications on tonight's nsent calendar wereview and all pass this subsequent review not ha en often, this is a big buijc�i'ing with lots of impact,view; is a large uilding, 5 RECEIVED AUG - 3 1999 Attachment A CITY OF BURLINGAME Question: PLANNING DEPT. How Can the Corner and Bay Windows Work With Minimal Areas Shown at the Corners? Details of the Window Jambs at the Living Room/Kitchen Corners and Bay Window are attached. The Window Jamb Details are Kolbe & Kolbe Double Hung Window Jamb Details. Copies of the plans and elevations were sent to Window Express, along with these details, for review. The Architectural Manufacturer's Representative for Kolbe & Kolbe at Window Express wrote a letter regarding these details, attached herein. He states that for the homes with aluminum windows that die into structural poles, it is not uncommon for the structural pole to be left, his regular units installed, and the units are attached and blocked to the existing structural poles. He has done these details numerous times. This is in fact what we plan to do and what we show in elevation and again in these details. Window Express, Inc. 850 Van Ness r1.ve., San Francisco, CA 94110-1929 ph (415) 643-3737 fax (415) 643-3377 MONDAY, AUGUST 2.1999 JANET CAMPOELL JANET CORAL CAMPmL. ARcHr= Your world look-s better Two Parker Ave, #302 through our windows San Francisco, Ca 94118 wood JANET, I HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE LIFPMANN Windows RESIDENCE RENOVATION. and Ntorio s DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH ACCOMMODATING WINDOW SIZES AND JAMB WIDTHS FOR YOUR Do APPLICATIONS. YOUR DETAILS FOR INSTALLATION ARE TYPICAL FOR THE STEEL CORNER POST APPLICATION YOU ARE WORKING WITH, THE ROUGHING FRAMING OR FURRING AROUND THE STEEL CORNER POST TO OUR JAMB SIZE WILL WORK WELL FOR SECURING OUR WINDOW TO THE OPENINGS. Block Windows PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, Vr ELY YOURS., Skylights ARCHITECTURAL SPECIALIST Alwninwn and Vinyl Windows and Patio Doors — Jbowomc — San hm — So. San Francisco — Pachic Grove — San Carlos — Dublin I !Ko L !BF K 0 L IBF HORIZONTAL SECTION JAMBS WOOD DOUBLE HUNG UNITS Scale: 3 " = 1 '0 " IN FVW-' UNIT DIMENSION WIDTH fRotvH 4t::- "H�w 0417 4pj.4jF4R 7 z 0 z D p4l WWVbW UNITdSiM I LAC). flmmmmmw� �Kou;s � Koi.i;E 0 O n Z Q m (Y,)i.7Tf. 1b, WOOD DOUBLE HUNG UNIT Scale: 3 " = 1 r0 " -47 '1 RECEIVED Attachment B AUG - 3 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME Question: PLANNING DEPT. How Can the Double Windows above the Front Entry Roof Area Work? A Detail through the Section of the Window Sill, Wall and Roofing is attached. Also Attached are copies of the SMACNA (Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National Association) Details applicable to this condition. One is Plate 79, which shows a coping detail similar to our condition, below the window sill. The other is Plate 74, which shows how far the connecting flashing piece should go over the top course of shingles. The Window Sill Detail is a Kolbe & Kolbe Double Hung Window Sill Detail. Also Attached is a copy of a set of photographs of a similar condition, built recently in a new house. WOOD DOUBLE HUNG UNITS M I L ( W 0 F1 K Scale: 3 1 '0 VAN WfGFAF MiTAFRX VERTK_Al. SECTION HEAD M uj ?�AL NP, a 3 $610 j at4 t4l FORMED METAL COPINGS —WITH FLASHING PLATE 79 LIS CAUO plate %U shows three applications of copings tt hich serer special purposes. For design data, joints, and recommended gages, see Chart 12. In Fig A the coping serves a dual purpose, as a coping and as a counter Flashing for the interior wall. The vertical interior piece of the coping (counter flashing) is screwed in place through receiver pockets formed in the coping top. on the exterior wall a continuous cleat is nailed to the wood blocking. The coping is attached to the cleat on the exterior wall and is fastened 2 ft o.c. through slotted or enlarged holes on the interior wall side. See Detail 1. In Fig B the coping serves as a counter flashing on the interior wall and as a fascia on the exterior wall. The counter flashing is screwed to the in- terior wall through enlarged holes (Detail 1). The fascia and lop of coping are fabricated in one piece. This piece is fastened to the face by use of a continuous cleat and lucked to the counter flash- ing. The alternate method uses a full coping cover over a reglet in which a counter flashing is later + inserted. In Fig the coping srrersasa counter flashing on the interior wall and as a fascia on the exterior tall. A metal closure is scretNed to the siding. A clip angle is screwed to the stall through the closure on 3 ft centers. A 1�s x 2 in. bar is riveted to the clip angle and screwed into wood blocking. The con- tinuous cleat, which also serves as a soffit strip, is riveted to the bar. The coping is locked to the cleat and screwed through the base flashing into the wood blocking on 1 it 6 in. centers. 0 FIG A C FIG B SMIACNA Archilactural Manual • ath Ed. �-/ Coping -� Reglet i Counte Flashin ALTERNATE Counter Flashing Fastened at 2'-0" Spacing. Coping Fastening through Slotted or Enlarged Hole, DETAIL1 r Side Fastened through Enlarged Holes FIG C 01TIDM SHINGLE ROOF FLASHING Plate 74 illustrates methods of Flashing shingle slate or tile roofs. For additional roof flashing see ?late 73 (dormers), Plates 61 and 62 (valleys), Plate 69 (chimneys), and Plate 56 (hips and ridges). Figs A and B show method of Flashing the break at a change of slope in shingle roofs. The flashing is formed with an inverted V and is hemmed top and bottom as shown. The apron portion of the Flashing should cover a minimum of 4 in. of the Inverl t Z7. !74 A0A top course oTop of flashing is nailed to the sheathin, .., H •.�� Fig C shows a method of flashing the rake of a shingle roof. Flashing is formed in sections and is lapped in the direction of flow. Flashing is nailed to the sheathing 1 ft 6 in. on center. A hem in the roof flange is recommended for shake and tile roofing. Fig D shows a method of Flashing the eave of a shingle roof. Flashing is formed in sections and lapped. Flashing is nailed to the sheathing 1 ft 6 in. on center. %�W. FIG A I/ FIG B FIG C SMACNA Architectural Manual - 41h Ed FIG D OQ M lLoA• d::aN0M0W RECEIVED AUG - 3 1999 Attachment C CITY OF BURLINGAME Question: PLANNING DEPT. Why are All of the Door and Window Trims Different? There are several types of trims at different conditions, for specific reasons, which are: Insets with no trim exist on two small windows at the rear. We are insetting new tilt -turn windows into these two small spaces, which will require little if any take-up pieces surrounding the units within the existing spaces. See Notes on 2/A-6. The Stained Glass Windows at the tub in the New Master Bath typically have a larger than usual trim, into which we set the leaded glass. The reason for the deeper trim is to provide more stability; lead is soft and does not have the strength of a sheet of glass or glass with panes. In order to create the same look along that top area in the Master Bath/Bedroom, and only on the rear wall, the windows in the Master Bedroom/Sitting Area have been given the same trim as the leaded glass above the tub in the Master Bath. See Notes on 2/A-6. Bay and Corner Windows have trim as shown in Attachment "A". Typical Dimensions for all other Door and Window Trims are called out on 2/A-6. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 X", APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 401 BLOOMFIEL-A, Item No. 6; 1527 Newlands Avenue was requested to be placed on the hearing calendar by a member of the public during from the floor, Commissioner Deal requested that Item No. 7; 401 Bloomfield Avenue be put over for public hearing; and Commissioner Keighran asked that Item No. 5; 1314 DeSoto Avenue be put over for public hearing. There were then no consent items. APPLICATION FOR LOT OVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A NEW WOOD DECK IN REAR YARD AT 1314 DE SOTO AVENUE, AONED R-1. (R.C. SMITH, AP ICANT AND BRIAN AND LAURI SHANAHAN, PROPERTY OWNEkS) Reference f report, 7.12.99, with attach ts. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria d Planning Department com nts. Three conditions were suggested fir consideration. There were no estions from the commission. Chair Coffey opened the pub ' hearing. Brian and Lauri Shanahan, 14 DeSoto Avenue, the property owners and R. C. Smith, 3401 E yshore, Redwood City, the appli , were present to answer any questions. They noted that they did no intend to store anything under the new eck nor did they include any screening lattice on the plans, if com ssion wishes they would include it it was not a part of the project and would have no objection to th attice being struck from the projec Commission noted, if no lattice in project then findings for project ould also be corrected. There we no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C �PSeal moved approval of the projec s submitted, by resolution, with the c ditions in the staff report and Amended findings noting there is no ecorative lattice as follows: 1) that t project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Pla ing Department and date stamped e 18, 1999, Sheet 1 of 2; 2) that the granting of 4 % lot coverage f deck purposes on this hillside lot 1 not entitle the property owner to expand the habitable space or dw ing footprint on this site to mor an 40% of the lot without the granting of an additional variance, eve f deck area is removed for the ad ' ion; and 3) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California ilding and Fire Codes, 1998 ion as amended by the City of Burlingame.. The motion w nded by C. Keighran. C r Coffey called for a.voice vote on the motion, by resolution, amending th dings in the staff report as ted. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. LCAT�ION procedures were advised _ t APP FOR CONDIT NAL USE PERMIT FOR RECREATIONAL USE OF AN ACCESSORY S FOR CONST CTION OF A NEW ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 1527 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (BARRY L R, APPLICANT AND CATHRYN AND JOSEPH BAYLOCK, PROPERTY nUMMD eN Reference staff r*rt, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. -3- Oty of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Chair Coffey open he public hearing. thy Baylock, 1527 New. any questions. I ew garage will hav 3' setback and will match Central Avenu asked, noting it is no clear on the site plan, ' if the c being repla by a one car garag and was commission aware t t was a r ction in the amount parking provided on the site also no oth comments from the blic and the hearing was clo July AN ands he applicant, was presen o answer t existing structure. How Page, 111 rrent non -conforming 18' 18' garage is if the replacement was a ne car garage it will there be an electri gate. There were Sion commentsproblem with the project; do a well; one car garage adegy�te, the driveway is long to park 2 cars Ad far enough back that an elg&dc gate would not be neees C. Deal then mov approval of t/hh ct as s mitted, by r/�nh, with a conditions/eaff re as follows; 1) the project shall as s wn on the pland to a Planning Dean date stamped July 1999, Sheet A -PI and date stamp5, 999, Sheet A-2and Elevations; that the conditions ot Engineer's June 1o shall be met; 3)cessorystructure s all never be used for acciving or sleeping purall never include a kd exceptfor elec calshall not include anyervices and/or plumding a toilet withoument tothis ditional use permit; and 4) troject shall meet allrements of the Califing and Fir odes, 1998 Edition, as ame the City of Burlinga The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 1!11176mm MO 0 1, M, �1-11 =06 IXI KIM Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Robin and Michael Liffman property owners and architect Janet Campbell, 2 Parker Avenue, San Francisco represented the project. Commissioner asked about the bulk designed into the front facade, felt that 8 inch floor joists were not going to work so that when built this facade will be higher by 4 inches to 25.-9"; overall it appears that the inches in errors will add up to almost a foot; if reduce plate to 8'-V it would be cheaper to build and reduce bulk, we could do that; do not understand the size of the window to the right of the front entrance, it is an existing window which is being replaced, can't increase the size because of the placement of the fire place. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussion: the elevations look OK until the front, it is out of 'character with the rest of the house, the half-moon vent is 6 feet across it will look huge and is not appropriate to the style of the house; need to carry through the gables, they do not match on the front; the front is the most prominent side of the structure would like to see it reworked; the roof structure is awkward; would like to see another window system in the stair well, the window is almost the size of the garage door, should be smaller; the solution is to find a scale which closely relates to the existing windows and scale of the house; need a single ridge line and single gable; the- stairwell window over powers the front door and .needs to be changed. -4- :qAtr'T, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JV July 12, 1999 C. Deal moved to deny the application without prejudice so that the applicant can return with a new design, believe that there has been enough direction in the discussion, need a nicer view of the building from the street. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. On the motion: the CA asked if this item needed to go back to the design reviewer, no it can come directly back to the Planning Commission; would like a detail of the corbels and "outriggers" shown on the plans so have some idea of what they will look like. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1. (C. Vistica absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR ECIAL PERMI OR A NEW DETAC D GARAGE WHICH IS THIN THE REAR 40% OF THE OT AT 1412 CA CHINO AVENUE, ZO D R-1. (MEL SPRINGS J.M. SPRINGS Reference st4rreport, 7.12.99, w' attachments. City PI er and Commission discuss the report, reviewed criteria Planning Depart nt comments. Six condi 'ons were suggested for cons' eration. Commission asked i e.door cXthublic anged to swing in, yes. ere were no further questio from the commission. C Coffey openehearing. Mel Sprin s, 1025 Terminal B, San Carl s, applicant was present and ad no objection to in door swing. Th e were no further comments f om the public and the hearing was closed. C. Keighran ved approval of t/projecs submitted, by resolution, withe conditions in the staffThe motion as seconded by C. On the otion: Commissioners aconditions could be chain ed to grant a door swing in theydirer ' n. The maker of the motisecond agreed. / air Coffey called for a voic ote on the motion, by resolution with the following amended�nditions: 1) at the project shall be built shown on the plans submitted to a Planning Department and d e stamped July 6, 1999/2ha A2, Site Pl , Floor Plan and Elevations, and t man door shall be redesig so that it swings into the, 2) -that a conditions of the Chief Buildin Official's March 22, 1999 me o shall be met; 3) that theendati s for tree protection and garage c nstruction in the arborist's re rt date stamped July 6, 1999be fo owed during construction; 4) that he sewer line to the accesso structure shall have a maximui er and the water line shall have a aximum 314" diameter, any c ange to the size of these lines shir a public hearing and conditional use rmit; 5) that the accessory s cture shall never be ufor accving or sleeping purposes; shall ne er include a kitchen, and sh of include additional u'tyservicer a toilet without an amendment t this conditional use permit; 6) that the project sh meet all the ments of the California Buildi g and Fire Codes, 1998..Edi ' n, as amended by th City of Rndinv Thd motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. /VSti ca absent) voice vote. Appee cedures were adv' ed. -5- JANET CORAL CAMPBELL, ARCHITECT ___ Two Parker Avenue. No. 302 San Francisco, CA. 94118-2659 (415) 305-4400 ' curulcump(awotcom July 16, 1999 ECEIV� Mr. Ruben Hurin, Planner JUL 16 1999 City of Burlingame - Planning Department 501 Primrose Road CITY OF BURLII�1faANiE PLANNING DEPT, Burlingame, CA. 94010 RE: 401 Bloomfield Road, Burlingame Residence Renovation for Michael & Robin Liffmann Dear Mr. Hurin: Delivered earlier today to your offices were the following: 1. Ten each of the 24" X 36" Drawings Numbered A-0, A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7. 2. Ten of the 8-1/2" X I I" Corbel Details. In answer to the Memorandum from the Planning Commission Meeting held on Monday Night, July 12, 1999, the following changes made on the drawings are hereby described: 1. Joists between the First and Second Floors have been deepened from 8" to 12". The Second Floor height has been reduced from 8'-4" to 8'-0". This is shown on both sheets A-6 & A-7. The Declining Height Calculations were revised accordingly, as shown on the side (rear) of the house on 1 /A-6. 2. The Half Moon Vent that was described as 6'-0" across has been deleted. See 4/A-7. 3. The Roof Structure was to be reworked as follows: (See A-6 & A-7) a. Add only one Gable. The Gable at the front of the Master Bedroom was deleted and a Hip Roof added. The "outset" area at the stair was deleted and only one gable over the Stairway was retained. All of the other Gable areas are Existing. This also affected the square footage and lot coverage calculations, lessening them by 12 feet. See A-0, A-2 and A-3. b. Want only one ride line. Since the Gable at the Front of the Master Bedroom was deleted and a Hip Roof added, it created one Ridge line. Due to the need to keep the Ceilings intact (not sloped down to T-6") along the edges of the rooms, the Eave line is higher than the Gable over the Stairs. In order to work out the roof so that the rear/side facade would not change, a small peak has to occur over the middle of the Master Bedroom. 4. The Stairwell Window overpowers the front door, change its scale. It has been reduced in size, and new shutters are added, similar in size to the new ones at the lower right-hand window on the Front Elevation (4/A-7). 5. In order to bring the Scale of the Windows on the Front Elevation (4/A-7) closer to each other, a window has been added at the upstairs Hall, above the Existing Front Entry. 6. A Corbel Detail was requested. It is enclosed in the package. As the Owner wishes not to incur double structural charges, the tie-back/tie-down for the corbel itself will be done in the Structural Work by the Structural Engineer for the Building Permit. The new Corbels are to match the Existing Corbels, except that the depth will be P-3" past the face of the building, not 2" out as it exists presently. The Owner has correctly requested that the roofing details be made to present- day NRCA (National Roofing Contractor's Association) and SMACNA (Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National Association) Details. The only area where we can no longer accomplish this, and have to reduce the length of the Corbel and Eave, is along the Rear/Side Face of the Master Bedroom at the Master Bath/Niche Area. The Eave and Corbel will have to match the existing details at that point due to Declining Height Considerations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Janet Coral Campbell, Architect cc: Michael and Robin Liffmann Paul Gumbinger, Architect Files A4E-f34 a.7 �- IH4 Uf4PE�RLAYMI .1 Ft-� f'i4r-p To I2" M i µ, t:;,E`(o t- F-> I N'reRj elc, WAi-1- W He pRI P EGA PL-YWa5V PeC4,4' Wa P2,1P A0::'LAF--0 &M-rF.�K , PTV. r^'� MavTH .I�Y'UGGO ovi5i� UIIF�I-�Yt�1 ENT Corbel Detail SCALE: 1-1 /2" = V - 0" I,�INt�t E RECEIVED J U L 16 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, QTI;� . PkiCOS,- f6f- � ME�+T 424'249 0�- 5" 6FOr4N MOL-0 i 4r` CIT BURJNgAMi CITY OF BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COM[AMSION Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: Ao lvl f::l at o> aw F)OI A WA�, 4 6Tf O 10 Assessor's Parcel Number(s):_ AP No, 62Q' 171 -- +5O APPLICANT Name: M I Gt- A9i L • d d- ?tw,#M i sQ i i i1 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER PROPERTY OWNER Name: 1b<m e7 e�:e eAL- cA+APF-:).EUi Address: TWO ow=4<6- �wr--m OF , K0, �a2 City/State/Zip: 5N r-I—I GycU, GA , gHIIQ, Phone (w): � �b --LI goo (h): Af5) 07 (-, --1 Q-&q fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RENOUA-M, AN EY-t5TI 1l & NQ/16A I NU) �-I &P, ,Z 3 f�A . Flom OM E -57D12q r-- �cI a!�-rj m 6 sti2 c7y "ro g STv2q ON 6 LC11; AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein 7�'?YApplic to thegr,,m yknowledge and belief. ,fit= 1 q , is Sr r ature Date I know about the proposed applicati n to the Plaining Pronertx Date Filed: 4-7- ? 3, A I application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this ture Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY EDFee: 3'n -I- Soo p�os� } I �4 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: APR 2 3 1999 C ITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 98121,16/2.7 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15, 1999 TO: Ruben Hurin, Planner City of Burlingame FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA RE: 401 Bloomfield Road Burlingame REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED MAY 25, 1999 (Received June 7, 1999) BACKGROUND GUMBNGER ASSOCIATES = 60 East Third Avenue, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94401 Fax: (650) 579-1402 • TEL: (650) 579-0995 E-Mail: gumoossoc@aol.com ARCHITECTS Sent Via Facsimile 342-8386 The proposed second floor addition will blend well with the neighborhood where there are many existing two story houses. Your attention is directed to the exhibit provided by the applicant's architect which illustrates the number of two story structures in the immediate vicinity. DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. COMPATIBLILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The proposed architectural style of the new addition is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The proposed garage is appropriate to the neighborhood. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN The overall design has been well conceived. The elevations are varied and bring visual interest to a somewhat mundane existing structure. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE. The proposed structure will interface well with the adjacent two story structures to the side, rear and across Bloomfield Road. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The existing landscaping is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Design Review for the proposed addition be approved by the Planning Commission. Time: 2 hours l� Pc�; mb CE A t' den No,�Avram, AIA '' *sociate mvwn " „ . V"I. M'. .'. Iluilug�"' "�r 1 eCITY OF BURLINGAME rC�LINIG�AM' PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUR 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD APN:029-171-450 Application for design review for a second PUBLIC HEARING story addition at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. NOTICE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, July 12, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall ounce am ers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed July 2, 1999 (Please refer to other side) f CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and`plans for this'project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning `Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject appliyou may be limited to raising only those issues you ,or someone raised at the public hearing, described in the noti or atier#tezt, comp duce delivered to the city at or prior to U144WC,he g� � Property o � � ' �vhb �tecerve �, oti '- responsible '; r irfomiing their tenants aboa o � die information .please call (650) 696-7250 1 Margaret Mohri City Planner PUBL NICE (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME �BU�RL�INJGiAM�IE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 LROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD APN:029-171-450 Application for design review for a sei-:ynd PUBLIC HEARING story addition at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned NOTICE R-1 (resubmittal of project denied without prejudice). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, July 26, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall ounce am ers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed July 16, 1999 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application an6lans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in'` court, you may be limited to raising only those ;issues you; or someone else<raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or inlgw44en correspondence delivered to the city at or prior t ? thie publiG kea R , Property o ho receive gur responsible;for,xnforming their tenants abo noli or dit 1 information, ale e call (650) 696-7250. et a 4. s?. AA ;:►AE i� Margaret M City Planner ¢� IN .:. 1M ... a;a�;wt-0kr,'Y�:'' °"aav3yi�•�tt,;"J..i � .+, ,d:Ysr ..."knn".+�":+�aFy ���-�:�.. .n. t. y. ` .�'��MK�• ' � k< �P4'�i �{' (Please refer to RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review for a second SIOQLadditin at 401 Bloomfield Road zoned R-1 APN: 029-171-450• Michael and Robin Liffman,_property owners; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 9, 1999, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimo presented at said hearing; ny NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per Article 19. Section:15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review is as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Stanley Vistica , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the_ 8th day of Augu t, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD effective August 16, 1999 1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 3, 1999, sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7, date stamped June 2, 1999, sheet A-1, and date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-4 & A-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 0 City of Burlingame ITEM #12 Design Review for a Second Story Addition Address: 401 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: 7/26/99 Request: Design Review for a second -story addition. Applicant: Michael and Robin Liffmann APN: 029-171-450 Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 4,979 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. July 12, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting: At the Planning Commission meeting on July 12, 1999, the Commission reviewed the applicants' request and denied the project without prejudice (July 12, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission was concerned with the East Elevation (facing Bloomfield Road), noting that it is the most prominent side of the structure and that the proposed project is out of character with the rest of the house. The Commission suggested that the applicant (1) rework the East Elevation so that it is more in character with the existing house; (2) reduce the second floor plate height to reduce bulk; (3) remove the half-moon vent because it is large (6wide) and not appropriate to the style of house; (4) rework the roof structure to include a single ridge line and single gable; and (5) rework the window system in the stairwell so that it is in scale with the existing windows and house. The Commission also requested that the applicant provide a detail of the corbels and "outriggers". Revised Project: After the July 12, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped July 16, 1999, sheets A-0, A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7) and a written response, dated July 16, 1999, which describes the revisions made to the proposed project as suggested by the Planning Commission. The applicant notes that the floor joists have been increased from 8" to 12" and that the second floor plate height has been reduced from 8'-4" to 8'-0". The overall height of the structure (25'-1 ") did not change. The half-moon vent on the East Elevation has been eliminated. The applicant also revised the roof structure by replacing the gable roof at the front of the master bedroom with a hip roof (see revised sheet A-7, East Elevation). The cantilever (12 SF) and gable at the stairwell was eliminated, thus leaving only one second floor gable on the East Elevation. All other gables on the first floor are existing. The removal of the stairwell cantilever reduced the proposed lot coverage to 1,795 SF (36%) from 1,807 SF (36.3%) and floor area ratio to 2,405 SF (.48 FAR) from 2,417 SF (.48 FAR). With the replacement of the gable with a hip roof at the master bedroom, a single ridge line on the second floor east elevation was created. The applicant notes that in order to work out the roof so that the rear/side facade would not change, a small peak has to occur over the middle of the master bedroom. 4 Design Review for a Second Story Addition 401 Bloomfield Road The applicant reduced the size of the stairwell window from 6'W x 6'H to 3'-6"W x 5'H and added shutters, similar to the new windows being added on the first floor adjacent to the garage (East Elevation, sheet A-7). In order to bring the scale of windows on the East Elevation closer to each other, a window has been added at the upstairs hall, above the existing front entry. The applicant included a corbel detail (date stamped July 16, 1999, 81/2" x 11 ") as requested by the Planning Commission. The applicant points out that the new corbels are designed to match the existing corbels, except that the depth will be 1'-3" from the face of building in all areas where there are corbels, not 2 inches as exists presently. The applicant notes that because of declining height envelope regulations, the eave and corbels along the side elevation of the master bedroom and master bath area will match the existing details (2 inch depth). The property owner has requested that the roofing details be made to present-day NRCA (National Roofing Contractor's Association) and SMACNA (Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National Association) details. Summary: The applicants, Michael and Robin Liffmann, are proposing a second -story addition to a single-family dwelling which is subject to design review at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. The front of this corner lot is along Vernon Way and the side along Bloomfield Road. The project meets all zoning code requirements. The existing single -story house now contains 2,192 SF of floor area (.44 FAR) (including a covered porch, patio and a single -car attached garage), and has four potential bedrooms. On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to remove 250 SF of an existing patio cover. The project also includes removing 147 SF of the existing attached garage (10' x 18'-9" clear interior dimensions) and replacing the existing bedroom and bathroom behind the garage with a new code compliant single -car garage (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions). A new uncovered parking space (9' x 20') will be provided in front of the garage, where currently none exists on the site. There will be no change in the total number of potential bedrooms since two of the existing bedrooms on the first floor will be eliminated with the first floor remodel. The 721 SF second story addition will add two bedrooms, for a total of four potential bedrooms on the site. The total floor area of the remodeled house and garage will be 2,405 SF (.48 FAR) (excluding the chimney and 100 SF of the covered porch, which are exempt from floor area ratio calculations), where 2,493 SF (.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed FAR. The existing lot coverage on the site is nonconforming and totals 2,192 SF (44%), where 1,992 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed. Lot coverage will be reduced from 44% to 36% (1,795 SF) with the removal of a portion of the patio (250 SF) and garage (147 SF). Staff Comments: The City Engineer, Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. 0) Design Review for a Second Story Addition SETBACKS Front: 2nd flr Side: (interior) Side: (exterior) Rear. 1st flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• DH ENVELOPE. BEDROOMS: PROPOSED 29'-101/z" no change 20' -0" to garage no change 29' -91h" 36 % (1,795 SF) 2,405 SF .48 FAR 1 covered (10' -0" x 20' -0") 1 uncovered (9' -0" x 20' -0") 25'-1" meets requirements no change EXISTING none 5'-0" 6'-11" 5'-81/z" none 44 % (2,192 SF) 2,192 SF .44 FAR 1 covered (10'-0" x 18'-9") 0 uncovered This project meets all zoning code requirements. 16' -6" N/A 4 401 Bloomfield Road ALLOWED/REQ'D 20' -0" 4' -0" 7'-6" 15' -0" 20' -0" 40 % (1,992 SF) 2,493 SF .50 FAR 1 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0") 1 uncovered (9'-0" x 20'-0") 30' see code N/A Design Reviewer Comments: Planning would note that the design reviewer did not review the revised plans, date stamped July 16, 1999. The design reviewer notes about the May 25/June 2, 1999, plans that the proposed addition will blend well with the neighborhood where there are many existing two story houses. The architect provided an exhibit which illustrates the number of two story structures in the immediate neighborhood. This exhibit will be available for review at the July 26, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. The reviewer notes that the proposed architectural style of the new addition is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed garage is also appropriate to the neighborhood. The overall design has been well conceived, the elevations are varied and bring visual interest to the existing structure. The proposed structure will interface well with the adjacent two story structures to the side, rear and across the street on Bloomfield Road. The existing landscaping is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components. c3 Design Review for a Second Story Addition 401 Bloomfield Road Conclusion: The design reviewer recommends based on the May 25/June 2, 1999 plans that the design review for the proposed addition be approved by the Planning Commission. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 16, 1999, sheets A-0, A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7, date stamped June 2, 1999, sheet A-1, and date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-4 & A-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c: Michael and Robin Liffman, applicants and property owners 11 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for de sig review for a second tore addition at 401 Bloomfield Road zoned R-1, APN: 029-171-450; Michael and Robin Liffman roperty owners; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Tklyil 26, 1999, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per Article 19. Section:15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review is as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Ann Keighran, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of A vl , 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: - COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STANLEY VISTICA ACTING SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD effective August 2, 1999 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 16, 1999, sheets A-0, A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7, date stamped June 2, 1999, sheet A-1, and date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-4 & A-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. City of Burlingame ITEM #7 Design Review for a Second Story Addition Address: 401 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: 7/ 12/99 Request: Design Review for a second -story addition. Applicant: Michael and Robin Liffmann Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 4,979 SF APN: 029-171-450 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The applicants, Michael and Robin Liffmann, are proposing a second -story addition to a single-family dwelling which is subject to design review at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. The front of this corner lot is along Vernon Way and the side along Bloomfield Road. The project meets all zoning code requirements. The existing single -story house now contains 2,192 SF of floor area (.44 FAR) (including a covered porch, patio and a single -car attached garage), and has four potential bedrooms. On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to remove 250 SF of an existing patio cover. The project also includes removing 147 SF of the existing attached garage (10' x 18'-9" clear interior dimensions) and replacing the existing bedroom and bathroom behind the garage with a new code compliant single -car garage (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions). A new uncovered parking space (9' x 20') will be provided in front of the garage, where currently none exists on the site. There will be no change in the total number of potential bedrooms since two of the existing bedrooms on the first floor will be eliminated with the first floor remodel. The 733 SF second story addition will add two bedrooms, for a total of four potential bedrooms on the site. The total floor area of the remodeled house and garage will be 2,417 SF (.48 FAR) (excluding the chimney and 100 SF of the covered porch, which are exempt from floor area ratio calculations), where 2,493 SF (.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed FAR. The existing lot coverage on the site is nonconforming and totals 2,192 SF (44%), where 1,992 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed. Lot coverage will be reduced from 44% to 36.3% (1,807 SF) with the removal of a portion of the patio (250 SF) and garage (147 SF), and a 12 SF cantilever addition on the second floor. Staff Comments: The City Engineer, Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. Design Review for a Second Story Addition 401 Bloomfield Road SETBACKS PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D Front. 2nd flr 29'-101h" none 20'-0" Side (interior) no change 5'-0" 4'-0" Side (exterior): 20' -0" to garage 6' -11 " 7' -6" Rear. 1 st flr no change 5' -8'h" 15' -0" 2nd flr 29' -9'h" none 20' -0" LOT 36. 3 % 44 % 40 % COVERAGE (1,807 SF) (2,192 SF) (1,992 SF) FAR: 2,417 SF 2,192 SF 2,493 SF .48 FAR .44 FAR .50 FAR PARKING. 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0") (10'-0" x 18'-9") (10'-0" x 20'-0") 1 uncovered 0 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' -0" x 20' -0") (9' -0" x 20' -0") HEIGHT. • 25' -1 " 16' -6" 30' DH ENVELOPE: meets requirements N/A see code BEDROOMS: no change 4 N/A This project meets all zoning code requirements. Design Reviewer Comments: In his comments the design reviewer notes that the proposed addition will blend well with the neighborhood where there are many existing two story houses. The architect provided an exhibit which illustrates the number of two story structures in the immediate neighborhood. This exhibit will be available for review at the July 12, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. The reviewer notes that the proposed architectural style of the new addition is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed garage is also appropriate to the neighborhood. The overall design has been well conceived, the elevations are varied and bring visual interest to the existing structure. The proposed structure will interface well with the adjacent two story structures to the side, rear and across the street on Bloomfield Road. The existing landscaping is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components. Design Review for a Second Story Addition 401 Bloomfield Road Conclusion: The design reviewer recommends that the design review for the proposed addition be approved by the Planning Commission. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the summary of the design reviewer's analysis of the project and in the reviewer's memo of June 15, 1999, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-0, A-4, A-5, and A-7, and date stamped June 2, 1999, sheets A-1 through A-3, and A-6 and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Michael and Robin Liffman, applicants and property owners RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review fora second tory addition at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN• 029 171 450; Michael and Robin Liffman,_property owners; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Thily 12, 1999, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per Article 19. Section:15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review is as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. I, Stanley Vistica , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day ofhily, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD effective August 2, 1999 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-0, A-4, A-5, and A-7, and date stamped June 2, 1999, sheets A-1 through A-3, and A-6 and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 0 ip*" ARM• CITY OF BURLINGAME �BCURL�INGiAM�, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD APN:0"09-171-450 Application for design review for a se(-ond PUBLIC HEARING story addition at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned NOTICE R-1 (resubmittal of project denied without prejudice). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, July 26, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall ounce am ers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed July 16, 1999 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at,. 5101 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at thd'public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to theubG hearing. Property owners who receive this notice aide responsibleorming their ' tenants about this notice For additional information se call (650) 696-7250. Thank you. Margaret It2onrMW �i 'City Planner PU,c ARt �x -I •yW'._, :fin :7, ;,i'.?. '7:'f.:'n";'�;Y''� G..y. _ n.uwaxxi,,: . _ NR.•. (Please refer to other side) METROSCAN PROPERTY REPORT = San Mateo (CA) ********************************************************************************************** * Date :07/16/1999 Prepared By * Time :00:00:00 Prepared For:JULY 26, 1999 PC MEETING * Report Type :SINGLELN.TCF Company :APN: 029-171-450 * Sort Type :PARCEL Address :401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD * Parcels Printed :69 City/ST/Zip :BURLINGAME ********************************************************************************************** ******************************* * Search Parameters ******************************* Parcel Number...69 029 181 010 029 181 020 029 181 160 thru 029 181 200 029 182 010 thru 029 182 050 029 182 150 thru 029 182 190 029 183 010 thru 029 183 050 029 183 100 thru 029 183 130 029 171 100 thru 029 171 210 029 171 370 thru 029 171 520 029 172 030 thru 029 172 150 029 173 080 029 173 090 MetroScan / San Mateo (C,A) Parcel Number --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone 029 171 100 De Senna Paul F & Mary 717 Plymouth Way Burling 1940 650-343-3172 029 171 110 Karmel Clara 711 Plymouth Way Burling 1940 650-343-3242 029 171 120 Kaileh Ibrahim & Maha 709 Plymouth Way Burling 1950 029 171 130 Biscay Florence A Tr 705 Plymouth Way Burling 1953 650-343-8549 029 171 140 Mcdonnell Gerald G Tr 701 Plymouth Way Burling 1945 029 171 150 Bigelow Alice R Tr 435 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 029 171 160 Foley Richard P 704 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 029 171 170 Sepisnik Karl/Sandra 708 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 029 171 180 Girodo Maurice J Tr 712 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 650-344-5139 029 171 190 Cinti Ronald A & Miche 716 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 650-579-7782 029 171 200 Lowry Sheila N 720 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 029 171 210 Reisfeld Robert I Jr & 724 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 370 Mc Willis Lisa Stone 729 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 380 Dos Ramos Jose R & Jan 725 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 390 Burns Belinda 721 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 400 Pupura Andrew/Clare 717 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 410 Benedict Joseph F 715 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 650-347-3258 029 171 420 Hyman David A;Goller M 711 Lexington Way Burlin 1937 029 171 430 Novak Liane J 707 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 440 Hanson Eric G & Krista 431 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 650-347-4592 029 171 450 Liffmann Michael & Rob 401 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1936 650-579-4615 029 171 460 Leon Jose R & Kathy 704 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-347-3635 029 171 470 King Alexandra Martina 708 Vernon Way Burlingam 1937 029 171 480 Pringle Frances V 712 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-343-7306 029 171 490 Kanewske Catherine V L 716 Vernon Way Burlingam 1937 029 171 500 Lindstrom Donald R & N 720 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-343-6880 029 171 510 Whiteside James R & P 724 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-343-4669 029 171 520 Andersen Dan E Jr & Ca 728 Vernon Way Burlingam 1937 029 172 030 Hunt Mary L 725 Vernon Way Burlingam 1937 029 172 040 Hamblin Richard D & Su 721 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-347-3918 029 172 050 Kelso Helen S Tr 717 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-343-2276 029 172 060 Grymes Stanley & Edith 711 Vernon Way Burlingam 1935 029 172 070 Fernandez James H & N 705 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 029 172 080 Bashaw Jeffrey S;Seidn 701 Vernon Way Burlingam 1938 029 172 090 Porter Jeffrey G/Beth 325 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 029 172 100 Kircher Marcia R Tr 704 Concord Way Burlinga 1935 650-343-2586 029 172 110 Ferguson Yukiko 708 Concord Way Burlinga 1935 029 172 120 Nash Frank/Amelia 712 Concord Way Burlinga 1936 029 172 130 Leigh Dennis W & Anna 716 Concord Way Burlinga 1937 029 172 140 Bugg Molly Mclellan 720 Concord Way Burlinga 1935 029 172 150 Howe Douglas N & Kathr 724 Concord Way Burlinga 1935 650-343-5781 029 173 080 Schott William R & A B 707 Concord Way Burlinga 1937 650-347-1593 029 173 090 Sebanc Ronald P 321 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1935 029 181 010 Mac Ilroy Evelyn A 440 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 650-343-5546 029 181 020 United Methodist Churc 631 Plymouth Way Burling 1948 029 181 160 Mayers Rexford A 620 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 650-858-1375 029 181 170 Cuneo Vivien Hume 624 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 029 181 180 Carli Daniel S & Elsie 628 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 650-343-7802 029 181 190 Briscoe Clifford H & B 632 Lexington Way Burlin 1940 650-342-5325 029 181 200 Mikoleit Franz & Hilde 434 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1938 029 182 010 Kwok Shirley M S 430 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1940 029 182 020 Mooney Thomas D & Dian 639 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 182 030 Stout Irene Tr 633 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 650-344-7566 029 182 040 Ehrlich Dianne 627 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 650-348-0500 029 182 050 Figueiredo Antonio 0 & 621 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 182 150 Wolmuth Sylvia L Tr 620 Vernon Way Burlingam 1946 650-692-1518 029 182 160 Campana William F & N 624 Vernon Way Burlingam 1940 650-344-1468 029 182 170 Gommel Elizabeth L Tr 628 Vernon Way Burlingam 1948 650-347-3478 029 182 180 Witkowski Henry J/Marj 632 Vernon Way Burlingam 1940 029 182 190 Nulle Rodetta M Tr 424 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 029 183 010 Lee Robert 340 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1948 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. MetroScan / San Mateo (CA) Parcel --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number Owner Name Site Address YB 029 183 020 Evars Roy Walter & Ell 621 Vernon Way Burlingam 1940 029 183 030 Mckellar Donna L Tr 615 Vernon Way Burlingam 1940 029 183 040 Rodrigues Nazareth S 609 Vernon Way Burlingam 1941 029 183 050 Borda Russell B & Marj 605 Vernon Way Burlingam 1941 029 183 100 Aebi Bruno Tr 604 Concord Way Burlinga 1936 029 183 110 Sippel Charles E/Leigh 608 Concord Way Burlinga 1936 029 183 120 Eaton John M & Patrici 612 Concord Way Burlinga 1941 029 183 130 Mc Swanson Clement S & 330 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1948 Owner Phone ------------ 650-344-7804 650-344-7067 650-343-3891 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. CITY OF BURLINGAME AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ) Ruben G. Hurin , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, that acting for the City of Burlingame on the 16th day of July, 1999, he deposited in the United States Post Office a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the persons listed on the addresses attached hereto and made a part hereof, to wit: that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to NOTICE OF HEARING pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Burlingame that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses attached hereto. 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD CITY OF BURLINGAME e PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 kw.jrl TEL: (650) 696-7250 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD APN:029-171-450 Application for design review for a second PUBLIC HEARING story addition at 401 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. NOTICE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, July 12, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall ounce am ers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed July 2, 1999 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may, be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else: raised at t.he.public hearing, described in, the notice or in , written co espondence delivered to the city at or prior t the ,public heating. ming their call (650) (Please refer to other side) = ME TROSCAN PROPERTY REPORT = San Mateo (CA) ********************************************************************************************** * Date :07/06/99 Prepared By * Time :9:20:24 Prepared For:JULY 12, 1999 PC MEETING * Report Type :SINGLELN.TCF Company :APN: 029-171-450 * Sort Type :PARCEL Address :401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD * Parcels Printed :69 City/ST/Zip :BURLINGAME ********************************************************************************************** ******************************* * Search Parameters ******************************* Parcel Number ... 69 029 181 010 029 181 020 029 181 160 thru 029 181 200 029 182 010 thru 029 182 050 029 182 150 thru 029 182 190 029 183 010 thru 029 183 050 029 183 100 thru 029 183 130 029 171 100 thru 029 171 210 029 171 370 thru 029 171 520 029 172 030 thru 029 172 150 029 173 080 029 173 090 MetroScan / San Mateo (CA) Parcel Number Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 029 171 100 De Senna Paul F & Mary 717 Plymouth Way Burling 1940 650-343-3172 029 171 110 Karmel Clara 711 Plymouth Way Burling 1940 650-343-3242 029 171 120 Kaileh Ibrahim & Maha 709 Plymouth Way Burling 1950 029 171 130 Biscay Florence A Tr 705 Plymouth Way Burling 1953 650-343-8549 029 171 140 Mcdonnell Gerald G Tr 701 Plymouth Way Burling 1945 029 171 150 Bigelow Alice R Tr 435 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 029 171 160 Foley Richard P 704 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 029 171 170 Sepisnik Karl/Sandra 708 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 029 171 180 Girodo Maurice J Tr 712 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 650-344-5139 029 171 190 Cinti Ronald A & Miche 716 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 650-579-7782 029 171 200 Lowry Sheila N 720 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 029 171 210 Reisfeld Robert I Jr & 724 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 370 Mc Willis Lisa Stone 729 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 380 Dos Ramos Jose R & Jan 725 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 390 Burns Belinda 721 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 400 Pupura Andrew/Clare 717 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 410 Benedict Joseph F 715 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 650-347-3258 029 171 420 Hyman David A;Goller M 711 Lexington Way Burlin 1937 029 171 430 Novak Liane J 707 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 171 440 Hanson Eric G & Krista 431 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 650-347-4592 029 171 450 Liffmann Michael & Rob 401 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1936 650-579-4615 029 171 460 Leon Jose R & Kathy 704 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-347-3635 029 171 470 King Alexandra Martina 708 Vernon Way Burlingam 1937 029 171 480 Pringle Frances V 712 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-343-7306 029 171 490 Kanewske Catherine V L 716 Vernon Way Burlingam 1937 029 171 500 Lindstrom Donald R & N 720 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-343-6880 029 171 510 Whiteside James R & P 724 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-343-4669 029 171 520 Andersen Dan E Jr & Ca 728 Vernon Way Burlingam 1937 029 172 030 Hunt Mary L 725 Vernon Way Burlingam 1937 029 172 040 Hamblin Richard D & Su 721 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-347-3918 029 172 050 Kelso Helen S Tr 717 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 650-343-2276 029 172 060 Grymes Stanley & Edith 711 Vernon Way Burlingam 1935 029 172 070 Fernandez James H & N 705 Vernon Way Burlingam 1936 029 172 080 Bashaw Jeffrey S;Seidn 701 Vernon Way Burlingam 1938 029 172 090 Porter Jeffrey G/Beth 325 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 029 172 100 Kircher Marcia R Tr 704 Concord Way Burlinga 1935 650-343-2586 029 172 110 Ferguson Yukiko 708 Concord Way Burlinga 1935 029 172 120 Nash Frank/Amelia 712 Concord Way Burlinga 1936 029 172 130 Leigh Dennis W & Anna 716 Concord Way Burlinga 1937 029 172 140 Bugg Molly Mclellan 720 Concord Way Burlinga 1935 029 172 150 Howe Douglas N & Kathr 724 Concord Way Burlinga 1935 650-343-5781 029 173 080 Schott William R & A B 707 Concord Way Burlinga 1937 650-347-1593 029 173 090 Sebanc Ronald P 321 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1935 029 181 010 Mac Ilroy Evelyn A 440 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 650-343-5546 029 181 020 United Methodist Churc 631 Plymouth Way Burling 1948 029 181 160 Mayers Rexford A 620 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 650-858-1375 029 181 170 Cuneo Vivien Hume 624 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 029 181 180 Carli Daniel S & Elsie 628 Lexington Way Burlin 1939 650-343-7802 029 181 190 Briscoe.Clifford H & B 632 Lexington Way Burlin 1940 650-342-5325 029 181 200 Mikoleit Franz & Hilde 434 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1938 029 182 010 Kwok Shirley M S 430 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1940 029 182 020 Mooney Thomas D & Dian 639 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 182 030 Stout Irene Tr 633 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 650-344-7566 029 182 040 Ehrlich Dianne 627 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 650-348-0500 029 182 050 Figueiredo Antonio O & 621 Lexington Way Burlin 1938 029 182 150 Wolmuth Sylvia L Tr 620 Vernon Way Burlingam 1946 650-692-1518 029 182 160 Campana William F & N 624 Vernon Way Burlingam 1940 650-344-1468 029 182 170 Gommel Elizabeth L Tr 628 Vernon Way Burlingam 1948 650-347-3478 029 182 180 Witkowski Henry J/Marj 632 Vernon Way Burlingam 1940 029 182 190 Nulle Rodetta M Tr 424 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1939 029 183 010 Lee Robert 340 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1948 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. MetroScan / San Mateo (M) Parcel Number Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 029 183 020 Evars Roy Walter & Ell 621 Vernon Way Burlingam 1940 029 183 030 Mckellar Donna L Tr 615 Vernon Way Burlingam 1940 650-344-7804 029 183 040 Rodrigues Nazareth S 609 Vernon Way Burlingam 1941 650-344-7067 029 183 050 Borda Russell B & Marj 605 Vernon Way Burlingam 1941 029 183 100 Aebi Bruno Tr 604 Concord Way Burlinga 1936 029 183 110 Sippel Charles E/Leigh 608 Concord Way Burlinga 1936 029 183 120 Eaton John M & Patrici 612 Concord Way Burlinga 1941 650-343-3891 029 183 130 Mc Swanson Clement S & 330 Bloomfield Rd Burlin 1948 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. PL YMOUTH O. G m2 r r IN 1\1 � rI U \JVr\ �H J 1\1 r r O1\1 i _r—I '� K Tr- Y 1—nn,L ADC- A /6 WA h WA V BURL /NGAME 25 A VE. . -ARUNDEL ROAD o PLYMOUTH jo- 60' 36' Ile' =a O 26' 24' 20'}} ��30' 14' 3G' N 49.30' E �42' 44' 600 40' 1' 34' OltIQ I� I I I �I I W Q Q Q �t Qc \ 4G' 118' ~ 4V N 26' I1 24' 120' 30' 114, 3G' 48' 50, „ N i 42' i u I OD u ✓ _�� l 40 116 4' „ 5O ti I I$ w A U of p V � 03 03 b o 30, :I 48 so' „ ' • 30' E 50' LEX/NGTON 38' 4.8' so'tA 600 JONI.O O O O O O O Q 0 o 0 0 rt O I b Cb V o, to �a 4, 40' ^ Qi O o O � ''38'. so, „ N 49.30'E so, o VERNON WAY g y Snn 0 �A A; Zi R� o' N 49.30' E a CONCORD WA Y IS o -.� 4 600 R o. o o J � O 8 O O m 01 40' 'O � o v so, o _O - O 5o' O 0 - ol 115.5T' s?T v ti N w W 0Cb b O ti +� A O w R, O O wo O 4i 4.0, JO so, 50' O O 51' cf - _O p - o -- so, OD 64' qD C rn ti O O _ Oti O u$ ' A0' so' o' sr 54' A� A O O O o P 600 BURL /NGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ) Ruben G. Hurin , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, that acting for the City of Burlingame on the 2nd day of July, 1999, he deposited in the United States Post Office a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the persons listed on the addresses attached hereto and made a part hereof, to wit: that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to NOTICE OF HEARING pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Burlingame that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses attached hereto. 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD VARIANCE