HomeMy WebLinkAbout1260 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report (2),.;::
„��'.: , ;:
^ r�..;,<,`�,.
z'':
. �f� .r''� r
t' �-��. ... . � `�4`tx..:..= r`; �!�
.., � �bY
- JC
t
��i
,� r "�
�
� ^�,
.�.�- ,�; � ,._...,.. �
- - ;,�
.. _, .,r;,.{.�,,.
��"s„ �' �,�. +' � s� `:`5t1 `� � �
1° �� zy { • � .. ,r ; � �,�
� �: • f a .
)�`^♦ �y,, �
,3h�t'�t.�3~i"� � 1 �r�s � i� � �:
� . � � � YS
i _r. ,�,� �,{�;.
; i + : ;, t i ' � r?—,.
4 f
�s�p.q:'. 1 ;��4 5 )•�1
� �j �rC �'
��'1-•��C< ;k' a' S � o �;
�1{,(tq, ��� � S t��, '" r ^ :':��.
". ���� � �' �1��' a/�. �L : 1� .
y'y.� � _..:� �+�� . 7 � — .� ���...�
- }; - � _
ITEM # 7
City of Burlingame
Design Review for a Second Story Addition
Address: 1260 Bernal Avenue
Meeting Date: 2/22/99
Request: Design Review for a second story addition (CS 25.28.040)
Date Submitted: July 31, 1998
Applicant: Ken Ibarra
Property Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Medeghini
Lot Area: 5,264 SF
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
APN: 026-172-340
Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (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.
Requests for this Project: The applicant proposes to construct a 1078 SF second story addition
to add two bedrooms to an existing one-story, 2-bedroom residence. The project requires design
review.
Project History: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their hearing on
February 8, 1999, where it was continued for clarification of whether an addition could be made
to a non-conforming structure without requiring a variance for the pre-existing exception. The
existing structure has a lot coverage of 52.3% which exceeds the maximum 40% site coverage
allowed in R-1 districts, based on C.S. 25.50.080. The City Attorney and City Planner have
determined that because the proposed second story addition will not contribute new site coverage,
the project is not an intensification of this non-conforming situation, and does not require a
variance.
This project was originally submitted on July 31, 1998, prior to the adoption of the current R-1
Zoning Regulations (Resolution 1602, adopted September 23, 1998). Since the project was first
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their study session on September 14, 1998, the
applicant has reduced the size of the second story addition to eliminate the need for the rear yard
setback variance.
Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official, states (August 3, 1998 memo) that the proposal
constitutes new construction under the California Building Code. The City Engineer states
(August 3, 1998 memo) that drainage from the roof shall be addressed under the building permit.
The Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. Planning Staffwould note that this project
does not require a variance for FAR because it was submitted for review prior to the adoption of
the revised R-1 zoning requirements, and the 1078 SF being added does not exceed 50% of the
area of the existing residence, therefore, this project can not be defined as new construction under
the previous code provisions. Planning staff would also note that the applicant submitted
documentation attached to the staff report showing previous discussions between the City and the
previous property owners regarding the history of the enclosed patio. The City Attorney has
determined that a variance is not required to legalize this enclosed patio because the work was
completed at a time when patio enclosures were exempted from lot coverage calculations.
Although this house has been determined to be non-conforming with respect to the lot coverage
requirements, the second story addition can be considered because it will not contribute additional
coverage on this site.
Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Study Meeting on September 14, 1998, the
Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and requested that the applicant demonstrate the
hardship supporting the variance request. The applicant was also asked to erect story poles on
site to show the width and depth of the second story addition and to obtain written responses
from each neighbor regarding the review of the proposed plans. The applicant has since
redesigned the proposal to reduce the size of the second story addition and has eliminated the
need for a rear yard variance. Because the scope of the project was reduced, the applicant did not
erect story poles on site or petition the neighbors for their opinions of the original project.
At the study session, the Planning Commission requested the applicant to provide the history of
how the porch came to be enclosed. In response, the applicant has provided copies of the
previous owner's records and correspondence which demonstrate that building permits were
never issued to permit the enclosure of the covered porch area, and that this conversion was
considered by the City of Burlingame to be `non-conforming'. Previous owners had made
upgrades to the structure so that it complies with minimum building codes. This information also
includes a site survey which demonstrates that the interior side yard setback is 3'-2". This
paperwork is attached to the staff report.
At the Hearing on February 8, 1999, the Planning Commission considered the reduced size of the
second story to be an improvement over the initial proposal, and directed the project to be added
to the consent calendar if a variance is not required to allow the intensification of the non-
conforming situation. As previously noted, the City Attorney and City Planner have determined
that a variance is not required with this application.
Compliance with Zoning Regulations: The project is in compliance with the R-1 zoning
standards which were applicable at the time the application was submitted and originally
reviewed. No variances are required for this addition but staffhas noted where the project
exceeds the current R-1 zoning standards.
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front: 1st flr 14'-0"
2nd flr 30'-0"
Si�le (left): 1 st flr 3'-0"(no change)
Side (right/corner): 1 st flr 7'-0" (no change)
2nd flr 12'-0"
Rear: 1 st flr
2nd flr
13'-0"(no change)
30'-0"
LOT COVERAGE**** : 52.3%**
(2751 SF)
FAR*'�**
PARKING
HEIGHT:
61 % 52.3%
(3199 SF) (2751 SF)
14'-0"
3'-0" *
7'-0" *
13'-0" *
52.3%**
(2751 SF)
15' or block avg.
20'-0"
4'-0"
7'-6"
12'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
40%
(2105.6 SF)
N/A - not new
construction
(2584 SF = 49% max.
under new code) * * *
1 covered + 1 uncovered 1 covered + 1 covered + 1 uncovered
in driveway 1 uncovered in driveway in driveway
23'-0"
17'-0"
30'-0"
DH ENVELOPE: meets requirement
Number of Bedroonis: 4
2
see code
N/A
* The existing first floor side and rear setbacks are nonconforming, but a variance is not required
because the addition will not extend beyond the required setbacks for second stories.
** The existing site coverage (52.3%) exceeds the maximum allowed (40%) by 646 SF; the
project proposes no new site coverage.
***The maximum FAR pursuant to Ordinance 1603, adopted September 23, 1998, does not
apply to this project because the application was originally submitted on July 31, 1998, prior to
adoption of this ordinance.
****The existing and proposed Lot Coverage and FAR include the 335 SF from the covered
patio area; this area contributes 6.4% to the site coverage and FAR.
Design Reviewer Comments: The project was originally submitted for review by the Design
Review consultant on August 17, 1998. The Design Review Consultant found that the original
proposal was in harmony with the existing character of the residence and that the scale and
proportion of the addition would be consistent with the older houses in the neighborhood.
Upon review of the December 22, 1998 resubmittal, the Design Review Consultant found the
reduced project to be more appropriate in scale with the existing residence and project site. The
same conditions of approval from the August 17, 1998 review were recommended to ensure that
the design of the addition would be consistent with the existing structure. The Design Review
Consultant recommended that the applicant match the eave, trim and window details of the
addition with the existing eave, trim and window details, particularly noting the type and
proportion of the windows.
Findings for Design Review Approval: The following findings address the criteria for design
review approval as established in Ordinance 1602 adopted by the Council on September 23, 1998,
as follows:
that there are a variety of styles and shapes of houses in this neighborhood with many two-
story houses existing, and the architectural style of the proposed second story addition is
compatible with the general feeling of the variety in the neighborhood;
2. that the existing house has an attached garage which will not be changed with the addition,
and is compatible with the surrounding houses;
that the addition exhibits a consistent style with the appropriate use of detailing, windows,
trim and materials to match the existing residence;
4. that the massing of the second story addition is within the guidelines and well
proportioned over the existing first story and respects the neighbor's privacy;
that the landscaping on this site will not be affected by this second story addition sitting
over the existing residence.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
�rmation action should include findings and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated.
At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped December 22, 1998, Sheets A-1 through A-4; and
2. that the applicant shall match the eave, trim and window detail of the addition with the
existing eave, trim and window detail of the first story of the residence;
that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, or changing exterior materials
and windows shall be subject to design review; and
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 3, 1998 memo shall be met and
the conditions of the City Engineer's August 3, 1998 memo shall be met; and
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Janice Jagelski
Planner
Ken Ibarra, Applicant
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minures
REGULAR CALENDAR
February 8, 1999
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1260
BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND RICHARD
MEDEGHINI, WILLIAM R. AND M.A. MEDEGHINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (51
NOTICED)
Planner Brooks reviewed the request and noted that an issue had been raised regarding the
existing non-conforming lot coverage on the site and whether that required a variance. CA
Anderson elaborated: it was determined since it was not noticed for a lot coverage variance,
the public hearing would have to be continued to February 22, 1999. The commission had no
questions of staff and asked the applicant to comment. Ken Ibarra, 600 El Camino Real, San
Bruno, architect for the project asked why this concern was not raised before, the structure was
built over 40 years ago, was considered non-conforming. CA Anderson explained the non-
conforming requirements of the code and explained that a determination from the City Planner
was required. Commissioners noted project is a reduction from the previous proposal and if it
is determined a variance is not required the item can be placed on the consent calendar. C.
Coffey moved to continue the hearing to February 22, 1999, and to place the item on the
consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C.Key and the motion passed on a 7- 0 vote.
CATION FO L�
AND SECON�
�. OLIN, APP
OWNERS 64 N
Reference staff re
�uest, reviewed
for Censideratinn
iR AREA IO VARIANCE A
RY ADDITION 1359 COLUMB
�ANT AND JERR D & JANIC
2.8.99, with atta ents. Planner Br s and Commission 'scussed the
r,�a and Planning De rtment comments. ur conditions were ��esteci
Chairman al opened the publi hearing. Alan Oli , applicant representi Janice and Peter
Scattini, 1359 lumbus Avenue n d that he was avai le for questions an would like the
opportunity to res d after public co ent. Commission a ed: if the storage a a was part
the original garage onstruction, applic t noted that the sto e area was put in fter the
gara was built but mat es the original style. Owner noted that ighbor says storag rea
has bee here at least 20 v .
Ralph Osterlin , 1361 Columbus Av ue and Mark Hale, 46 Columbus Aven spoke in favor
of the project, not it is a beautiful c nial; appearance w' not change from t front; the
s age area is not vis' le; minimal additio 1 square footage pr osed; it will not ' act the
neig orhood; in support leaving the storag rea, will allow gar to be used for pa 'ng.
There w e no further comm ts from. the floor the public hearing as closed.
C. Keighran m ed approval of the sign Review and or Area Ratio Vari ce application
for the reasons sta by the commissi by resolution, wi conditions in the ff report,
a ing a condition tha french doors be in lled in the family om below the ba ny, as
follo : 1) that the pro� shall be built as hown on the plans bmitted to the Pla ing
DESIGN REVIE OR A
AVENUE, ZONE -1.
E S TTINI, PROPER
-3-
Ciry of Burlingnme P[anning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999
Department date stamped December 3, 1998 Sheets 2-3 and date stamped January 29, 1999
Sheet 1 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 first or second
floors, which would include adding or enlarging a window(s) or changing the roof height or
pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the City Engineer's December 7, 1998 memo
regarding roof drainage shall be met; 4) that french doors shall be installed in the wall of the
family room below the balcony; 5) that the 637 SF in the detached garage with storage area
located at the rear of the site shall not be removed to allow additional square footage to the main
structure, and that this site shall always provide a detached two car garage; and 6) that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Commission discussion: agree with neighbor's comments, storage area has been there for more
than 20 years, the addition blends with the house and is located in the rear.
Comment on motion: proposal in keeping with the character of the home, addition is to the
rear, providing two-car covered parking even though not required, minimal variance, in support
without adding french doors; project doing the right things, if storage area removed, what would
be accomplished; condition should to be added that the variance is tied to always providing a
two-car garage and storage as a part of the project so that the house cannot be expanded by this
square footage in a later remodel that would require only one covered parking space; maker and
second agreed to added conditions.
Motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to
approve the project. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR LEFT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST STORY ADDITION
AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION AT 466 CHATHAM ROAD,
ZONED R-1. (JENNIFER BURROW, LYNN/LAINE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND PATRICIA
FISHER, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested
for consideration.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jennifer Burrows, applicant, was present and
responded to concern about window type and trim, it will match existing; regarding chimney
height, the existing chimney will be removed. Commission questions: how determine the style
of guardrail; applicant noted they would like to duplicate style of the guardrail at the front of
the house, but it does not meet current code, want something similar which will meet code.
There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: project has been a difficult one, applied under different rules, not sure
what to do in terms of the design, roof as yet unresolved, not a good fit; rear and sides are
better resolved, but have trouble with roof; view differently, existing front facade is charming,
thinks new design works better, applicant done more than her fair share, view favorably.
�
r� ciT w
��R�NQ..M� CITY �F BURL�TGAME
��.���� APPLICATION TO THE PLA►NNING COMIVBSSION
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance�Other �'��J iL�F�� �,
Project Address:__ ��C� /,�+�dL�/r�� �/���
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): � 26 " � 7Z ' 3�{O
APPLICANT
Name: �5�� � ��9n2A- �
Address: 6� v �� C��� ��1 D ti�-�
City/State/Zip: �i'i.�/nl � Cf� `��IdGG
Phone (w): 6�� �S �9 -`f�t
(h):
fax: �Si� —�7 3— 3 2f 3
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: �'� �fv f} S �-,Pp[..E ►(�/�
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
Address: contact person for this application.
City/State/Zip: � �� � � \ f � p�
i� �1
Phone (w) :
(h):
JUL 3 1 199g
CITY OF BURLING�ME
f�' PLANNING DEPT.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:_ �'�-�?ew�—�f?�z-�j �j-��(.Zd�I
i�-n_ � . � . . � .
Sk-eov�r> i�zvvn..�
A��IDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to t e est f my knowledge and belief.
3� �
Applic Y s Si ature D e
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to
application to the Plannin�,Commission_ _ _ .
----------------------
Date Filed:
PROPERTY OWNEI't
Name:_ ��Nt� h-c�c=�.�-,c� �-t �J� B �z�cJ�
Address:_ l Z6� �j �,��� �,,�
City/State/Zip: ��—.
Phone (w): 3 �y — Z� 2Z
(h):
fax:
submit this
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: CITY OF BURLINGqME y
ING DEPT.
F�' JUL 3 1 1998
� Q�C I � C
Revised comments have been included in BOLD type.
Fax ■ Net
Review Time .5 hours
i
�• Compatibility with Neighborhood Style
� There are no dominant styles in the neighborhood. This application proposes to harmonize with
the existing character of the residence. As a result it will fit in with the existing neighborhood. The
scale and proportion of the proposed components are consistent with the components of the
older houses in the neighborhood.
This comment remains unchanged from previous submittal.
2• Parking and Garage Patterns
Not applicable
. _.��'
CSS
A R C H I T E C T U R E
C S S A s s o c i a i e s A r c h i t e c t s
1 1 0 3 J u a n i t a A v e n u e
B u r I i n g a m e C a I i f o r n i a 9 4 0 1 0
Architectural Review
Resubmittal
T o :
Planning Department oate: 4 January 1999
City of Bu�flnqame Project: Medeghini Residence
501 Primrose Road 1260 eernal Avenue
Burlingame CA 94010 Application Num6er
Distributed Via Noted Method Only Mail
Dist.
■
Code
APP
Own
CB
F
Applicant
Property Owner
Agency City of Burlingame
File
Compliance With Guidelines
3• Architectural Style, Internal Consistency
The style of the addition is consistent with the style of the existing residence. As a condition of
approval, we recommend that proposed roof eave•details match existing, that proposed windows
match existing in proportion, type, and muntin details. The plans do not fully indicate these
intentions.
This comment remains unchanged from previous submittal.
4• Interface with Adjacent Structures
Impacts on the adjacent structure have been minimized by holding portions of the addition back
from the building line. Window placement has followed the pattern of the existing residence and
generates a lower impact than that of the previous addition at the adjacent site. �
The redesign has reduced the overall impact of the second floor. �
5• Landscaping and Its Relation to Proposed Building
��
Not Applicable �,,,�"� �'�QJ�� �
�
JP� � ���.�o�Q�.
y QF ���G
_ G��( Q�PN
650 696 1 200
F a x 6 5 0 3 4 3 9.6 8 5 d r e i I i n g p p a c b e I I. n e t
Architectural Review
1260 Bernal
continued
Conclusion
This application represents a reasonable addition to the existing residence. Care should be taken
(and required) to ensure that proposed details actually do reflect existing conditions. Otherwise
the addition may look like it was simply dropped on to the roof.
The redesign has reduced the bulk of the second floor. The result is an addition that does
not dominate the first floor as much as the previous submittal.
Recommended Action:
Approval With Conditions: Match existing eave, trim and window details. Match existing
window type and proportions.
Martin Dreiling
CSS Architecture
;: ` )
This represents the understandings of CSS Assoclates Archltects. My corrections or revisions should be submitted to our office
within five (5) worldng days of receipt of this memo. Failure to contact our office within that time shall constitute acceptance oi the
above as a description of record.
650 696 1200 Fax 650 343 9685 dreilingC�pacbell.net
ROUTING FORM
DATE: August 3, 1998
TO: CITY ENGINEER
,�CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
_FIItE MARSHAL
_SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB.TECT: Request for rear setback variance and design review for a second story
addition at 1260 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-172-340.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: September 28, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 3, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Ruben
:�!r �j��ld�qy C�9��UvdUS�'t
�� J �-
� � cv�► s�^�G�-�°� .
� �Date of Comments
�� s �
�.UIOo.�Ti! Cd �tS'7 5�v�'�
�
��
ROUTING FORM
DATE: August 3, 1998
TO: �CITY ENGINEER
_CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
_FIRE MARSHAL
_SR LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
_CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for rear setback variance and design review for a second story
addition at 1260 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-172-340.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: September 28, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 3, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Ruben
�/ "l�`� ]�ate of Comments
% �„� � n� ^ . c( � i'--�`- -e
s L.�c� % ��-2_ QGY ��_c �/`_� �
' J
� � G� a
-� '�/ �`�
/
CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURL�e PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 696-7250
Appli�atian for dEsign review for� a second PUBLIC HEARING
stary addition at lce�0 Ber•n�l Nver��_�e, �oned NOTICE
r-�.
The Cit�� af P�_tr•lingame F'lannit7g Comrnission
ar�no�.mces the follc�wing p�_�blic hearing on
Monday, February 8, 1999 at 7:0� P. M. in the
L�`y'`NaiT�`"�a�_�nc`•i1'�"-L�ber^s located at 5�1
F'r•im�r�ose Road, B�.�r^lir�game, Calita�rni�.
Mailed January 29, 1999
(Pleasc refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
i�c� kiERNAL AVENUE
AF�N: ���6-17�—:;4�c�
.. . .p � -� 'd'.�'
:y�..;;;; : 3 .":'' . . . ,
A copy of the applicatian 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 eourt, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice ar in written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for infonning their
tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650)
696-7250. Thank you.
-�
Margaret Monroe ���:,��°
City Planner
PUBLIC _HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
�
-. .
,
�
�
� - -�- - �1
�
DRahKE
P "
,
�
:
�
��
. .
��. ,
� t.
.� ,� ;� �. _ � !
�
12�
� 9-s,..,,
19oco �C�• t9os
�
lalo 8 1907
_. _ 1 a !Z ��
�, � C
� � � a.� � �
��'4" _; ���o_.� �y5(v IZ5L l23 Y
SEIZtiIAcL ''� _ �IVErJtJFs
� t3os
� �}ti zeeo - 1255 IZ.
� . _ 4i
�, ,
� - � .�� M � �o� � � -
� ; � ,��� ' '.z.o 4- O
� � ,r �,� �
�� f t �
� � � �
� ! � -; �!
111� M . "� " � �
�At�lcov�Eft '!�"
� � .4
� � � �
� � r �
, �
�oe s� �,3
� �+�
' .; - ��11
� �� . .
�'
t � ` "''�", i .�. �
�
. �
d
..`,. � ' �—�
� ZD ►�! Ir� �t : � —' �
�
�� -1
�
� :-
4���
M
L .
}., . �.
� !
�
� AJ��l� �.
' , � �
.�¢ . �
��
��
�j
b.
�
_. .�___ i r �� �
� . . � � - � . i
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 story addition at 1260 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Mr. and Mrs.
Richard Medeghini, owners, and Ken Ibarra, applicant:
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame on February 22, 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 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 , 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 before the addition, or
2500 SF, whichever is less, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for design review 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.
Jerry Deal, Chairman
I, David Luzuriaea, 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 22nd day of Februarv, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: CONIlVIISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: CONIMISSIONERS
David Luzuriaga, Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval of categorical exemption and design review.
1260 Bernal Avenue
effective March 1, 1999
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped December 22, 1998, sheets A-1 through A-4;
2. that the applicant shall match the eave, trim and window detail of the addition with the
existing eave, trim and window detail of the first story of the residence;
that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, or changing exterior materials
and windows shall be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 3, 1998 memo and the
conditions of the City Engineer's August 3, 1998 memo shall be met; and
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.