HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproval Letter,:: ' ��. �- ��. t'.
� . �'_
- - h
_ -- s=
(`��e f1�i#� Df ��xzlirc�ttx�e
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD re� (4i5) 696-7250
PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 940i0-3997 F�x (415) 342-8386
7uly 2, 1996
Steven B. Groubert
1568 Alturas Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Groubert,
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the June 24, 1996
Planning Commission approval of your side setback variance application became
effective 7uly 1, 1996. This application was to allow a deck and hot tub with a 2'-0"
side setback where 7'-0" is required at 1568 Alturas Drive, zoned R-1.
The June 24, 1996 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was
approved with the following conditions:
l. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped May 13, 1996, Sheets l, 2 and 3.
2. that any changes to the deck or hot tub which affect the side setback on the
west side of the lot shall require Planning Commission review again;
3. that the fence line on the west side of the property shall not be changed nor
shall the trees adjacent to the fence on public property be removed; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and
Fire Codes, 1995 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
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
�
v.�^�a �, ,�,�e � t.t
July 2, 1996
1568 Alturas Drive
page -2-
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.
Sincerely yours,
I' I (� ��•C I V �iV ` ��
Marg�a et Monroe
City Planner
MM: smg
1568 ALTU.cca
c. Mary Dunlap
4100 S. El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
Chief Building Inspector
Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office
(99.93 FT X 121.23 FT BEING PTN MARGARITA & ALTURAS DRIVE
ABAND & PTN LOT A AND PTN LOTS 19 & 20 BLOCK 5,
BURLINGAME MANOR MAP NO ` 1 RSM 26/ 15 16 CITY OF
BURLINGAME; APN: 027-021-290)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE
�r�'���
._.�.......�..
Item # 4
Variance for Side Setback
Address: 1568 Alturas Drive
Meeting Date: 7une 10, 1996
Request: Side setback variance for a deck and hot tub with a 2'-0" side setback where 7'-0"
is required (C.S. 25.28.072, 3a) at 1568 Alturas Drive, zoned R-1.
Applicant: Steven B. Groubert
Property Owner: Same APN: 027-021-290
Lot Dimensions and Area: 99' X 122' = 12,078 SF
General Plan: Single family residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single family residential and Mills Canyon
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section:
15301 - Class 1(e): E�cisting facilities- additions to existing structures provided that the addition
will not result in an increase of more that 50 % of the floor area of the structure before the
addition.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a side setback variance to build a deck and hot tub within
2'-0" of the side property line at 1568 Alturas Drive. The project includes extending the master
bedroom and adding a master bath and deck. The deck is a second floor deck along the back
of the house and drops down to a proposed hot tub area. It is the proposed hot tub area of the
deck along the north west side property line which creates the need for a variance. The required
side setback for a lot 99'-0" wide is 7'-0", where two 2'-0" is proposed. The portion of the
deck which is within 2'-0" of side property line is 13'-0" long and the remainder of the proposed
deck is setback 9'-0" or more from the side property line.
This lot slopes steeply from the back of the house to the rear property line. The deck is 9'-6"
above the grade at its highest point and at grade at its lowest. All other zoning code
requirements are met.
Front Stbk (lst):
(2nd):
Side Stbk (L): *
Side Stbk (R):
Rear Stbk (lst):
(2nd):
Lot Coverage:
FAR:
Height:
Decl. Ht.:
Parking:
PROPOSED
+31'-0
Not applicable
2'-0„
Not applicable
50'-0"
50'-0"
20 %
Not applicable
17.5'
complies
2 covered
1 uncovered
EXISTING
25'-0"
17'-0"
50'-0"
50'-0"
13%
16'
2 covered
1 uncovered
�
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15'-0"
7'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
40 %
20'-0"
1 covered
1 uncovered
VARIANCS
Meets all other zoning code requirements.
* Variance for 2'-0" side setback where 7'-0" is required.
15 6 8 ALT[JRAS DR .
Staff comments: The Chief Building Official stated in his May 20, 1996 memo that Engineering
design will be requirerl for a post-supported addition and the 4" spaced plastic coated cables may
create a potential strangling problem for small children. The City Engineer and the Fire
Marshal had no comments on this project.
Study Meeting: At the June 10, 1996, Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners asked
several questions (P.C. Minutes 6/10/96). The applicant provided photographs of his property
showing the steepness of the lot towazds the back. He states in his 7une 14, 1996 letter that
because of the slope the main deck covers most of the flattest areas and placing the hot tub any
further away from the house and down the slope is not convenient. The comment made by the
Chief Building Official was only an informational statement. There are no building code
requirements for the steel cabling for the balcony, however the property owner states in his
response letter that the cabling will be plastic coated steel and non-stretchable to avoid strangling
hazards.
Findings for a Variance:
In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions
exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) here are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience;
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Commiccion Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by
resolution and include findings made for the variance requested. Reasons for any action should
be clearly stated for the record. 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
and date stamped May 13, 1996, Sheets 1, 2 and 3;
2. that any changes to the deck or hot tub which affect the side setback on the west side of
the lot shall require Planning Commission review again; and
2
VARIANCE 15 6 8 ALTURAS DR .
3. that the project shall meet all requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Leah Dreger
Planner
c: Steve B. Groubert, property owner
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MIlVUTFS
CAb�. TO ORDER
,,
N�onday, June 10, 1996
A
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by
Chairman Ellis on liiesday, May 28, 1996 at 7:3d' p. rn�
ROLL CALL •
Present:
Absent:
Sta� Present
Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis
None
City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Associate City Engineer, Donald Chang;
City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; Fire Mazshal, Keith Marshall
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 28, 1996 meeting were conected to show: C.
Ellis as Chairman and J. Coleman, City Attorney was not present. The
minutes were then approved. -
AGENDA - Item #4, a take-out permit for a snack shop in the Chevron Station at 260
El Camino Real was continued to 7uly 8, 1996. The order of the agenda
was then approved.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
� 1. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1568 ALTURAS AVENUE,
ZONED R-1, (STEVEN B. GROUBERT, PROPERTY OWNER AND MARY DUNLAP,
APPLICANT'l.
Requests: explain the compelling circumstances for variance, hot tub could be placed without
a variance; space there nice for property - not enough jusdiication; explain chief building
Inspector's comment about plastic cables; Item set for hearing June 24, 1996.
2. APPLICA`I'�'O�FOR A SPECIAL P�RMIT TO ALLOW A HEALTH SERVICE USE AT
405 PRIMROSE'ROAD, #203, ZONED, C=1, SUBAREA B1 (TERRY HORN, PROPERTY
OWNERS AND I��.T'HLEEN L ADDISON, MFCC APPLICANT )
Requests: will rescinding-t�e cunent use permit on the existing small office mean that another
special permit for health service use for that area cannot be applied for; in this case is there a
substantial difference in the si� of the parldng variance between 140 SF and �40 SF; Item set
for hearing June 24, 1996.
-1-
� c�v�e ti� 1 ���(0
/
,3�. �L�Nu��G
�oM � S�-�a� G (z.� �6 �
�.� : � S r� �� f��--r� �A� �. .
���� e-- ( S 1�1 S l,t �9-� c�t, e�,� Y�� Qk � V�
Q
� l�� � �� ��-�'�.. �u.�.�-°t�.� �� �� l�`,1 �,,�-
°c�.:� 1� �� � �� I�-�. �� � � �� °}�.�
1�� �� v��r o,�,, le-� � c� �� ��.e. ,��� lo�
61� �n-e .�� �i � e � d��c�- � � � � c�,,,� � (�
�, ,, I
w� � � � a (�w� r.�
_ ��12'"`
2��X e � S I/LiS� 9M. ln `�al�vt f7� 1 v`2 d�('�i►"C ��2,
(�/� 2
1n�� �b � v�,s,►�e `� �--J c��-e� ��e. L�. c�-� a�P
a V av � e,� �. - aQ� �;-� �� � u� �eY w.�� �Q l o�-Q p�
�.����������.������
�-�- �. �� d� ��I v�-�s
3 � � � c �,� ����„ ,�:,11 �. �� � }� -,,�- �� .
� p� `
4� �-a' W 61rt �� �o.e �'� Y e�'r.r� a►yQ e� a e.Qt i 1� ��
`'����ju-�,�,�� '
��
N d�- = Gl,t� ��� S t� c� �a�P.� .a.� �l ` w'l l 1 Ufi'� 4%�� `�
. C�
�t��
� �
` CIT
��R���,M� CITY OF BURLINGAME
��� APPLICATION TO THE PLA►NNING CONIlVIISSION
'e,
Type of Application: Speciai Permit Variance Other
Project Address: %/��� �'[ � � u�fis �Ic '
Assessor's Parcel Number(s):
APPLICANT
c�
Name: J 7 �L'�c�1 �� �%C��� �'
� ��I2f� S �e71
Address: � S b � �
City/State/Zip: �u � � r �{� ��d / U
Phone (w): � �' - �'7% �
(h); ���- �SV�
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: _��=� � �
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w) :
(h):
fax:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER .�
Name: �l�V �i.lb? IGt -
Address: �i ( � s � �/ Qufi ��
City/State/Zip: Suo: �4 b�et1 � ��d 3
Phone (w) : 5g � • 7 i � %
(h): � Jr � - �j 7� �
f�: ��� - 9ga �
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
fa�c:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATiTRE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to ihe icnowledge and belief.
� �� �%z �,��r�
Applicant's Signatur Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commi '
� � �/,� //��
� ,% -i
Prope y Owner's Si�na re Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------
f�
Date Filed: ��� � / � � Fee: �� 2-� � `��
'� ;
Planning Commission: Study Date: '��� Action Date: �' �''�� �
�j� cirr or
BURIJNGAME
. `. .
I��'w.. 4 . _
�.o� II II �U— �lSl/U-91��U�N�L71G�'�111F/U�
tl ������� ����������
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d►. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
E�
Q
c.
Q
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
a. The house is on a down hill slope, and sets long on the
lot. The back yard is actually the side yard with trees,
view and slope giving a beautiful setting in this particular
area. The remaining lot is open, steep and difficult to
utilize.
Describe the exceptiona/ o� extraordinary circumstances oi conditions app/icab/e to your
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
b. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right. The configuration of
the house on this property points to this highly usable area
for this type of use. Denying this use would cause hardship
due to the slope and inaccessibility of this lot and appre-
ciation of property value. Future enjoyment of the outdoor
environment would be hampered due to lack of usable/comfort-
able space .
Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the prese�vatfon and enfoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ o� injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
convenience.
c. The proposed location use would not apply to public
health, safety, general welfare or convenience due to the
remote location, slope of lot and inconspicuous building
design.
� � So ��- he°`v�g� ho�e �-o `1�e. ie��� � S ou�+. lo� -��ee� Qw� �
�
How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
d. Due to the harmonious architectural design, the existing
dwelling and potential dwelling will be in keeping with the
areas immediate to and north of the proposed project. It is
our wish to be in keeping with the natural elements that
surround the property which are heavily wooded open nature
areas.
12/92 vx.frm
a. �escribe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditfons app/icab/e to your
property which do not app/y to other propertfes Jn this area. � �
Do any conditions exist on the site which make othe� the alternatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area7 For example, is there a creek cuttinp
throu�h the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep tenain, odd lot shape or unusua) placement of
existinfl structures7 How is this property different from others in the nei�hborhood7
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary foi the preservation and enfoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unieasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neiflhborhood without the exception7
(i.e., havinp as much on-site parkin� or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses
allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship
on the development of the p�operty?
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrfinenta/ or inJurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
��.^, r�e:�ie.���.
How will the proposed structure or use within the sVucture affect nei�hborinp properties or structures on those
propertiesl If nei�hborinp properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphtinp,
pavinp, landscapinp sunli�hUshade, views f�om �eiflhbo�infl properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the
structure or use within the sVucture not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfarel
Public health includes such thin�s as sanitation (�arbafle), air quality, discharpes into sewer and stormwater
systems, water supply safety, and thin�s which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underyround
storape tanks, storape of chemicals, situations which encoura�e the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseases).
Pub/ic safetv. How will the sVucture or use within the structure affect police or fire protectiont Will alarm
systems or sprinklers be installedl Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly patherinps, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dan�erous activities like weldinp, woodwork, en�ine removall.
�eneral welfare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community pood. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and poals for conservation and developmentl Is the�e a social benefitl
Convenience. How would the p�oposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parkinp for this site or adjacent sites)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular se�ments of the public such as
the elderly or handicappedl
CI. Hnw wi// �.�fj@ �,+iO,q�S@�+rso;ect �s �orr:Qa�%�:� �rr:�h the ae��l;E��s, rsas�, �bvik r���i �;i'�a��cfer
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ viclnityT
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existin� neighborhoodl If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If chanpes to the structure are proposed, was the addition desipned to match
existinp architecture or pattem of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If use will affect
the way a neiphborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to nei�hborinp structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no
chanpe to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of
character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and peneral pattern of land use.
wll there be more tra�c or less parkin� available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the character of
the neiphborhood will chanpe, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existinp and potential uses in the �eneral vicinity? Compare
your project with existin� uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity,
and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,zroZ,,.,,,,,,,
ROUTING FORM
DATE: � ' 1 � 9 �
TO: CITY ENGINEER
-� CIIIEF BU�DING INSPECTOR
FIItE MARSFIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNERIPLANNER
i� .,
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR
_ � ��'t�u.c�12s
AT
�
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY:
THANKS,
Jane/ heri/
N�,_ ��� �o��
�
r"aY
G�-
�� �
Cr�t% a
��
�, 9�� Date of Comments
9 " Space� �las�Fe �
S{-�a��li� P�o���-, �6r
u�i /l �
Gl�if�cD Gc�� IG�S
5 M� �� G�ri ��`'�`' '
� �� �����
� � �✓�yINC���•%!� (�5��/�
C� Lt- •�-� �
�U�-� —.s�,t�%v''�'� � ���40��
�l0 z��c �c d-�► � �
t►
�
C,(3 f
Co-����
�
l � j � ��-
'n� r
ROUTING FORM
DATE: _ � ' j� �
TO: ✓ CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BU�DING INSPECTOR
� FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
� , ..
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR
C� �S�'I�u-c�'�?S
AT
��
��
SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY:
THANKS, ' ,
% s `f �_:
Jane/ heri/ �� '�'� �� ��`/ � Date of Comments
�j � �� v� rr� ��G�t -�" .
�(' ; r
V.t_..':_�.-. ��' L. �. � � � �.
1 �r 1 � ��-
i� r
/,�:%%f� 1
C
ROUTING FORM
DATE: _ �j • f _ GJ �
TO: __ CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BI,T�DING INSPECTOR
✓ FIRE MARSHAL
� PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORI�JEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/pLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUF�ST FOR � � � �J
� ���
AT f 5 (p
i� r
��
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY:
THANKS,
Jane/ heri/
�� �� � ��� T
S ^ � ' � � Date of Comments
�
�
�
. :
�. � . ,
���
_�--
_ _ _ n _��_�.
:2�: ='�1
� - �
� . �, � �- •
r `��"`�■ , �i
.. �� �._.—
, ..
.. �r ; � Y,
• . � I j ��� � ����
. r���;�' , �. ,a�� �; �, � � .
�, �� .....,. ,, � . . _ _ . .
-� - � • , +,� •; '
_ � . :�ss ' � ���
� 4 ?: • � • '�'1'� �''.�
.i . � '� . . . � v��� - ' � � `A
. '�� :•� .� �� .�'r���'�
� -•�' _ ' �!t�, � � r � � .. .��t� . �: . r .�.•��. ���
'�_ .�.:'p►` . �� � •�.�� .�y' �� . �� _��
�.. %rl._� . ,� � . . .+ ..re�.. • y,��
— 7 �` . _ �. . , ` � ..1�' . �y ` ` , ' , •
. 1 �
N •e�� � 7 •-+• . w� ,_`�+�
� � ���'C ��
. 1. 'i� \.
�
�:� � ( � c.�e �v 1�
` "u S � I�l p� O
� S'I e hesJ � t �
-V
iS6� ��-�r�s �.
� S � � ��-�� -��.
.;
.�
�
•��
+► _ . . t . , � �� r� -.,�
'� ._ . _ � --r"�
an ._ _. � _ � '��
� i S w'� � � �(l,e.IM a'� v� i '• � re �'' aV2.e�. ...� a� s o
S�,c.a w S c� v�� o�
� +� ,.�i •.
� + ',
��
�-
r
3n43
� 3os1
� ,�-
ac
Q 3�5`i
\
i51Dq'
..
�
: ' � � li+�
� *'� -
5� 155�-
ix�s 15 .. �... ds �R�J _.
..
0
0
rn
� � �
�
; �
� D
a
Q
�t
�
Q
�
�
a
�
�. ,
�.
,
�
0
�
W
. �
z
�
�
, �
Loy MOr�rEg pR�V�
�` � .��' �
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 PRIlVIROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
(41� 696-7250
NOTICE OF HEARING
The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMIVIISSION announces the following
public hearing on MONDAY. TUNE 24, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council
Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application
and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
1568 AL1'URAS DRIVE APN: 027-021-290
APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT
1568 AL1'URAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1.
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 in written
conespondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing.
The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about
this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1996
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMP'I'ION
AND VARIANCE FOR SIDE SETBACK
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a side
setback variance for a deck and hot tub with a 2'-0" side setback where 7'-0" is required at 1568
Alturas Drive, zoned R-1; APN• 027-021-290 ; pronerty owner: Steven B. Groubert, 1568 Alturas
Drive, zoned R-1; APN: 027-021-290 ; and
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
June 24. 1966 , 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 - Existing Facilities Class 1(e), additions to existing structures provided
that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor azea of the structure before
the addition is hereby approved.
2. Said variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such variance are 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, Charles Mink , 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 24th day of June , 1996 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variance
1568 ALTURAS DRIVE
effective JULY 1, 1996
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped May 13, 1996, Sheets 1, 2 and 3.
2. that any changes to the deck or hot tub which affect the side setback on the west
side of the lot shall require Planning Commission review again; and
3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1995 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
c
� �
/� � a ,�� 1
,� = - �, �' ,..! /� � i. `� . �_ �� ,y� ��i�.r �.
. J ,,� �
, �_-� i' �-"
� � . ��-� ,- ,�� -� ..-�, -
.
"� ! ,� l �� �-- `;� �� o � ,� �— ,� . ��.. , __ � , � �. �
��
� �
��� � �� :�� � �i � s• � � .
.. �_ c E
���� � . �r � �
�
�� ! � �
�j , / C' � � _. ►.._..�,_ .. A ,.,�y; �,...
�•�l j �
� `
I