The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2 Anita Road - Staff Report� � r �,�,�.� �� CITY OF B URLINGAME VARIANCES Item# 1 Front Setback, Exterior Side Setback and Uncovered Parking Variances Address: 2 Anita Road Meeting Date: 3-11-96 Request: Front setback, exterior side setback and uncovered parking variances (C.S. 25.28.065 and C.S. 25.70.030 a, la) for existing substandard conditions triggered by the new construction requirements for a proposed second floor addition at 2 Anita Road, zoned R-1. Applicant: Mark Curtis APN: 029-291-240 Property Owner: Same Lot Area: 40' X 109' = 4360 SF General Plan: Low Density, Single family residential Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a), Single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The applicant is requesting three variances for front setback, exterior side setback and uncovered parking. The front and exterior side setbacks are existing conditions. However the applicant is intensifying the substandard driveway depth by decreasing its length by two feet from 15'-4" to 13'-4" in order to move the proposed new garage forward away from the interior side setback line. The applicant is proposing a two car garage with a second floor addition of two bedrooms and a bathroom totalling 1115.5 SF. The existing house is 1,248 SF. The proposed addition is 89 % of the existing house and triggers the new construction definition. New construction requires the entire structure (including all existing conditions) to meet all setback, height, lot coverage and parking requirements. The variances are for the first floor front setback which exists at 13'-11" where the average of the front setbacks on the block is 18'-6"; and for the exterior side setback to the first floor which exists at 5'-4", where the required exterior side setback is 7'-6". The second floor addition is at the rear of the building and does not affect or alter the existing front and exterior side setback conditions and meets all other current code setback requirements. The third variance is required for the substandard driveway depth presently 15'-4" from property line to face of existing garage. The proposed, attached, two car garage projects an additional 2'-0" into the driveway, decreasing the driveway depth to 13'-4" where 20'-0" is required for new construction. The two car garage is required regardless of the number of bedrooms because of the new construction requirements. There will be three bedrooms in the house after the addition. Presently the house has one bedroom and a single attached, off-street covered parking 1 VARIANCS 2 ANITA ROAD space which meets code required dimensions and a substandard uncovered space in the driveway at 15'-4". All other zoning code requirements are met. Front Stbk (lst): (2nd): Ext.Side Stbk(L): Int.Side Stbk(R): Rear Stbk (lst): (2nd): Lot Coverage: FAR: Height: Decl. I-it.: Parking: PROPOSED no change 47' -0" no change no change 30'-4" 30'-4" 37% .51 22'-9" complies 2 covered 13'-4" driveway depth *�* EXISTING * 13'-11" none ** 5'-4" 3'-5" 50'-4" ± 50'-4" 27 % .27 11'-6" 1 covered 15'-4" driveway depth *** ALLOWED/REQ'D Avg . of block =18' -6" 20' -0" 7'-6" 3'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % .59 30'-0" Meets all other zoning code requirements. * Variance for substandard existing front setback. ** Variance for substandard existing exterior side setback. *** Variance for substandard driveway depth. 2 covered 20'-0" driveway depth Staff comments: The Associate Engineer states in his February 8, 1996 memo that the curb cut shall be 16'-0" from low point to low point. Cars are allowed to park between garage and driveway but shall keep clear of the sidewalk azea for pedestrian walkway. The Fire Marshal and the Chief Building Ofiicial had no comments. Study Meeting: At the February 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commissioners had several questions (P.C. Minutes February 26, 1996). The applicant responded to the Planning Commissions concerns in his letter dated February 29, 1996. The applicant states that his lot is 40'-0" wide where the average width of a residential lot in Burlingame is 50'-0". He also states that his driveway is located along the exterior side of his lot making it impossible for him to achieve the driveway depth required by code with a to code garage (21' deep) and meet the side setback requirements unlike other properties which have the driveway starting at the front of the lot and extending down the side of the property. The applicant also states that the addition was placed as shown to meet the declining height envelope requirement along the interior side property line for the second story addition and to eliminate the need to cantilever the second floor over the side of the garage facing Anita Road, in order to maintain the proper room sizes in the bedrooms. 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): 2 VARIANCS 2 ANITA ROAD (a) there 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 Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include iindings made for the variances requested. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built with three bedrooms and a two car gazage as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 2, 1996, Sheets 1,2,3 and 4; and 2. that the project shall meet all California State Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Leah Dreger Planner c: Mark Curtis, applicant and property owner 3 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANTTING COMMISSION February 26, 1996 � r CALL TO ORDER � A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman 7acobs on Tuesday, February 26, 1996 at 7:30 P.�VI. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink, and Jacobs ��` t ,,. Absent: None a` Wellford � ,� Staff Present: City Planner, Mar�et Monroe; City Attorney, 7erry Coleman; City Eng�eer, Frank Erbacher and Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall ,� MINUTES - AGENDA - The minutes f the January 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting the February 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting �ere approved as mail�;d @ February 2, 1996 and Febru 15, 1996. - � .r� e order of the agend�f was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SETBACK, EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK AND UNCOVERED PARKING VARIANCES, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 2 ArIITA ROAD, ZONED, R-3. (MARK CURTIS PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) Requests: expand on what is exceptional about this property; how far is garage from side setback (3.5'); could garage be moved back since 3' side setback allowed; why was it placed where it is now shown? Item set for public hearing March 11, 1996. �4�� FEB 2 9 1996 CITti' OF gURL11�1GAIVfE PLANIVINi, DF �-f. Dear Planning Commission Members: Mark and Sandra Curtis Two Anita Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 February 29, 1996 I would like to take this opportunity to answer your questions regarding my application for a variance at Two Anita Road. First I would like to address your question of what the ex- ceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that apply to my property. One exceptional condition is the location of the driveway access. Most houses in the area have driveway access from the front of their property with the garage located at the rear of the property. If this condition existed on my property I would have sufficient room for uncovered parking. However my driveway access is located on the exterior side of the property (see site plan). To provide proper uncovered parking on my property, in this case, would require a lot width of approximately 44'. Since my property is only 40' wide I do not have sufficient room to provide proper uncovered parking. Regarding your question on why the garage was moved 2' closer to the exterior side set back. The wall in question was moved for the aesthetics and quality of the project. If the garage wall were to remain at the present location two conditions would be created that we would find to be visually unattractive. First, the second the second floor would have to be stepped in from the first floor, a� the interior side, to meet the declining height envelope require- ment. Second, the second floor at the exterior side would have to be cantilevered over the garage to maintain the size of the rooms in the second floor addition (please see attached drawing). It is very important to maintain the size of the new bedrooms and although this can be achieved we feel having the entire second floor cantilevered creates a bulky appearance that we wish to avoid. To conclude I would like to review the proposed project. If the variance were granted the remodeled house would have three bedrooms, two baths, and a two car garage with a total of 2363.5 SF. If the project had not tripped the "New Construction" requirement the new two car garage would provide sufficient parking for the three bedrooms. I am aware of and support your efforts to limit the monster remodels, but I believe the proposed project would still be a��Od�st--�ell--��e- portioned house. I would like to thank you for your time, sincere y � � Mark Curtis �� t�i�.t�) C�-,�� C,.�. _� __..._.. �---_ ' �----�.__._—_. ��'�• � �ji^ I ti-�•, � � c 7 v � � /�LT� � N�1� i G ��' r'. (� i � V I�.-V�l Sl�% �-- i�- �G- E� N �uJ S�c��N-� � �TUfZ- � � vU1�T��t�1 �4�� T �* CITY OF BURI�INGAME euRUN¢wMc ��APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION ..... Type of Application: Special Permit X Variance Other i� f� �� . �` �-- �j; Project Address: 2. A N�"� l�c � O�-D , � �, ,,,�nc Assessor's Parcel Number(s): _�2� � Z.`� 1' Zy0 r�ITY nF F31��rvu;�,�r6s- PLAN(�ING n�=�i, APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name:__MA�e K 2't'1 S Name: MP� R..�C. �� Q.,-f1S �" Address: Z. ArN 1Ti� �. Address: Z AN l T"�R �D City/State/Zip:�V 2�.► �l G.r4ME C�r ��101(-� City/State/Zip: i3U Q.L.�h1C,�P�V"l� �A- �y01O Phone (w): �ti � S� , �� "Z.��d Phone (w):�N'S� —I��-�D �n�: �'-� ► s� 3y y- l y ��( rn�; Cy � 5� 3�1 �I - t y`7 4 fax: fax: ARCHITECT/DFSIGNER Name: C�W til CR D�S� ��►� Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. (h): PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VAP.1 /4 ^1 C E �O� � 12�0NT A N 17 �x��Z S�DL_ S�T 13 .K S �� yC��Tli�l � _ ST�vc'i'vR.� _ � � AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. I-I1-qS Appli ant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commissio � -11'�I� Propert Owner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------------------- Date Filed: � Fee: � �--�� • � Planning Commission: Study Date: •� Action Date• � � ��g4-�f� �„�v `� ��'° 7r� �� , � ii�` {�. �`:"- �''�"� � f � -� - � . �-� � �}_ �r� �� °� (��/ (� �Q j� ��j � BURLJNGAME . �10� U II �0 ��JJ�IL��U!lII� � �� ,,,� �� , ,� _.; � __ ,. ��G�O�fI��[� ,��iB�f�� 4.. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the��'s��inance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions v9i'ifi�r�ar�s�;�.F1��4a�ning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be mad�'�#�t��ii��Ef�quest. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to youi propeity which do not app/y to othe� properties in this area. �� xT�-� o c7� �v�}-y� GO�a� 7� 4iv '-7_'l��-7-' !�-`P,PI 1�S � "T�-�S t�D��"T`t� < S �� i�}-� �-r STI/vGs S7�.c,�Tvae� �ltt5 t� ��E��1 � TZ�-nk�v�� ' 11�( �� -17�vG �1- � St�v�� fA-v� �,�n/ r�v� �w�� c�� GvTU 2�. �,us Z Do�.s �t- T+� � ni ►L =. �t-tOu�D � �v� .A �� b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the� ervat� nd enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary haidship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. f' �S� �1%�n D� 1 S ?�-i"E K� 12 F-f1sD�1 7�-1�.5 ��l �1-+vc-�. I 5 I�t E C�SS P+-� �.� 1n/o v L� �. E�-� L 1 k� � l�E.. S�2UG -1�-�-� U��+�.ps'17�5 � 1-�F�VrC„ �R,��%I �l%L.� t�ONE. I N Tii"�. l� �o a s� � N C.c.. V t� � N G, N�) 1�G � TG!-� F,N � W i N D6u� S�'�t,-E�TiZa �-�'�-- V�(5+ 2.Rt�� =�.�sv �r�r'� o�J , �,.�D �TQ,�c�N cz-prt_ �9PGt�-Pc��"vS .► c. 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. i"�, 1/P� ►a�r.��f� 3E.�'`�G�, Sc9��.�T t S 'T't� �i.l-oc.`) �%�c-�S�TI►vC,� s-t��-ry c� -ro t��. r��r.� w 1-��,�. �T� I�s t3�. �1 t�ou�D F oiZ. 5� �E�t�.S r . •. Nc`�T �ilS� N G. �rvy� �Ps�1G+�.�. � S�r�� ,,.�v�►��n1�� . S��v��. ,�. �E.�r con�sr��ron� w�� 3�. ��iJ v.r►-n+t�1 -rH-�. �'Rot�EfL ��T �IG.S - �-K��..� �c3� No r� E.U,rr►vE. A�� ry N�i G�N�o�i ��o��^i`Es� d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character � of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining pioperties in the genera/ vicinityT 4�� / N GE Tff� / �`'1�� 7� A-�� H-AS 5 U 6�-1 !7r VE(ZS ( T� � L 1!� C,oNnos , coMM�Rc� �-L vsE , �v�.�x ,�� s �NGc� - �i�t�G�' s-c-R.�c�-ry e.�.s ,-N� -�r-o �os� s-rQ,�-ruP.�. w � �� T w�-rH —i''-1�'F—SE� M A�N � �15 � S l�c N i7 �1 OT l� t=�F� �T T I�k'� P►�� S�l�} �TI C-S �rr `C�E ArzF.Pt. Ti�-�-� MP�SS ►�D dVL� O� T�-1� �Rp�OS� �� 5'�c�T l,J ► L L �3E. V�R,`� i�'�o D�ST CAM1�.Gl� �'b �'� t 2/92 vx.frm 100 �N tT G�1Do CA`�1 +�.E�., C32.0 �N ��.1'� � t_pr ��- S� M• /�N l� �'� �.�IC. (..� rJ(�,, � R' �� - T _ 7_ � � t� �°1 cao �F�N i r�1S J �-.A- �P►U �-�. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to y�ur property whJch do not app/y to other properties /n thfs area. Do any conditions exist Qn the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cuttinfl throuph the property, an exceptional vee specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existinfl structures? How is this property different from others in the neiphborhoodt b. Exp/ain why the variance �equest is necessary for the piese�vation and enfoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. Would you be unabie to build a project similar to others in the area or nei�hborhood without the exception? (i.e., havinp as much on-site parkin� or bedrooms7) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception7 Do the requirements of the law place a� unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? 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 convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the svucture affect neiphborinp properties or structures on those properties7 If neiflhborin� properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphtinp, pavinfl, landscapin� sunliphUshade, views from nei�hborin� p�operties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfare? Public health includes such thinfls as sanitation (parbape), air quality, discharpes into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and thinps which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., under�round storape tanks, storafle of chemicals, situations which encourape the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseasesl. Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 wll 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 patherinfls, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storape or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially danperous activities like weldinp, woodwork, enpine removal). �eneial welfare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community �ood. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and poals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to o� parkinp for this site or adjacent sites)T Is the proposal accessible to particular se�ments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped7 d. Ho w wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining p�operties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existinp neighbo�hood7 If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If chan�es to the structure are proposed, was the addition desipned to match existin� architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neiflhborin� structures in terms of mass or bulk7 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 nei�hborhoodt Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and peneral patter� of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parkin� available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the character of the nei�hborhood will chanqe, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existinp and potential uses in the �eneral vicinity7 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. ,sros�...n,,, 0 DATE: _ �•2 �. � �, I � '�L � ROUTING FORM i � r� Ce S -' l�- /`� .. � `� � � �� o%�- TO: iC CITY ENGINEER . CHIEF BUII.DING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB7ECT: REQUEST FOR � � .-P�-Eer«n- Si'd�. .�c�f6ac�. �.� c�' c�e� �-G�, a�- d,r� ve �.U�� AT � f�Yt_t ��. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �� . 2�, �q -�f' ( REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY:. ��P�G.� . ( o� ,� I�(o , THANKS, Jane/She '/Leah / ,�) i '��X � . � � Date of Comments _ ' ` �v,�-r�,, � Gc� C�-t,� �� 6 � ��✓L�— ,�.r- �.s.'� �r �G� y�-�� , Gi� a.`e ��.,c�-tQ .� �-�"'�"' � ��i"`� � � �� '�� /��fi1r �� C�- � ��,. , �� P� -- w��-�,�, � ,�� __�-u.��'� C�� CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMNIISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 11, 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. 2 A1vITA ROAD APN: 029-291-240 AN APPLICATION FOR THREE VARIANCES FOR EXISTING SUBSTANDARD FRONT AND EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACKS AND VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD DRIVEWAY DEPTH FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2 A1�TITA ROAD, ZONED R-3. 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, MARCH 1, 1996 i I .. � � , , �. � �r. � " �e-� I �e-� �� : I � �� _�� ... �:'� r : � _� � �� ..:�.� r �� .� �. .' ,,.�- , � ��— �t , r - �;� ? -� , g - � K�. � A 2� at � EL j2o R � � W ,.�► �= ' {� . � � �� = - -�� ,� � -< ' � � —�� i s �..� - � . , � ! . �. � � . �. { � � t' ; � � � • � • . � ��'� � � �� .1 � � � � � ..:.. �. �,. �.,. - �,,, ,Z � ■►"'', ��', _ P/ 7 R ��~ .� � i ' a '��-', _ .f . � � � � _ � : - . ��.�; � _ �► ,. .. � �•. � ��8,� . r _ �_.. � •: f -� • . ; � I(0 ��: � S L� 2�� w I �•3 �� '� �.... _ _ � IJ i tA —' -- �ZoR O -- .� _. _. .�... C- .� ' � C � -�Y o � 2 � ; � �, « .. .w � _ �h w' � � � . � � ' . �� :` �-.F ; s San Mafec� � � �� l�i�� ! �oo _ ,�,� ,. � . �. ��- - � t. - . . ,,.�,� T - —.- �-' � ' .. � �� .. �-�. � � • j 4"� ' . � T 1 � 3 , s ,� �''�, FE` _� � , �' ' � !�'F� �T�f� , � ��'' . � '�`'`` � A -�_ . � � � R• �•�� ` i�� ' � � �� ^+ � -. `; .. � / � r � _ a r� *�� , ^ >i �� A �`�pR- Ga � _� � � F 1 � / ! � r � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, FRONT SETBACK, EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK AND UNCOVERED PARKING VARIANCES 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 front setback, exterior side setback and uncovered �arkin�, variances for an existinQ substandard condition trig e�red bv the new construction requirements for a proposed second floor addition at 2 Anita Road, zoned R-1 APN• 029-291-240 ;_property owner: Mark Curtis, 2 Anita Road ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 11. 1996 , 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. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (a), Single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption hereby approved. 2. Said front setback, exterior side setback and uncovered parldng variance is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such front setback, exterior side setback and uncovered parking 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, Karen Kev , 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 llth day of March , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption, front setback, exterior side setback and uncovered parking variance 2 ADRIAN ROAD effective MARCH 18, 1996 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 2, 1996, Sheets 1,2,3 and 4; and 2. that the project shall meet all California State Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. i � � � � � �C-�-v�. � � ��-- ��% �� . t r,,,� �._», `� �``. �. , � 1� � / -�. �' J' "`-� v J�' r� . ! � � ;� � �_ �J � f ��