HomeMy WebLinkAbout1369 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report (2)�' !
�� -/c:..<.� �• ��sy�- -�e� �,
I i f,:r�r'�� .i`Y•� '^' � '��: �.a � il
'� ;'�'r��.'��,� • 'i•"!,i•'���� �
• �;;�:".. .r,C I'.;.='�}.,'•�ti' �'�'F'. �. � . i . . '� •`�d �
��:� �, � . Z A
" •� �i�,. �i C 'r i., ' � �
n.':tl�. �..' : '. '
.�. :`n,p�� ; '_',
�C,�S��, ;'y�: •1,' � ..1i �
:Z'^ k , ��
t "Ey�i::'. ,ti' '°�'.�+' ► " y
;��h- �..��
9
�f�� �
e . _.;�_
K i � !'
c �`� ��
1� • ��
I ' "'
, � _.
f �4
i . � �( � ,:
�' I >
��
�
0
_ —,., . ..
� i•.
L _'.
`:. � \
: � , � �,,
_ ; aE�i� a� '
' _' � �
a. y ,
:'i n/T �� ,�I r�
� ��
��ile} �;a:
y- . , . ��'-ic.
� `.
�
t�
� �_; . �
� ��,���`:
� �, - � =
Pr ��' � ' . L �_, �'1 � .
. .9.� ' ♦ � -' � � :!'T�
. . ,`� � �• 4�4'.
q�_ ,� �. "� ra!'� i
��� � , ..�s l�t�l ..
�"!� — -' ._ `,.+.�• �i� .
S1^.+�YT � - +:' i.'� t e' ' '.. �
y_ .. �f !. ' ' .i: _, •"4 . ��
�x ` 1' � �
. f. ., a-'i . a-s n .w i: �' ♦ ..
� . yi �. f �"j . 1 � `�"ry. .
/''' 4 A
��, .,,•%� . V � .�.IIH ^ '�
' �4��Tq •. -� ,� •+ � . _�', 07-'1�1-i00
�.�� ..�� ., " - -
.��'i'` .`
�
Item # ,�
Action Meeting
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Side Setback and Height i�ariance
for a First and Second Story Addition
Address: 1369 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 2/11/02
Request: Design review and variance for a first and second story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1
(C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S. 25.28.060(a)(2))
Property Owner/Applicant/Architect: Gary and Mary-Claire Diebel APN: 026-058-040
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Date Submitted: November 5, 2001 Zoning: R-1
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 applicant is requesting design review, a side setback variance and a variance for height far a first
and second-story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing one-story house contains 1,983 SF of
floor area (0.33 FAR), including a 534 SF detached garage and shed. There is an existing 94 SF baseinent area
(mechanical pit) that is not counted toward the overall FAR under C.S. 25.08.065(b)(3), because it is a mechanical
area that is under 100 SF.
The first floor addition would add 272 SF and the second floor addition would add 688 SF. The total floor area of
the remodeled house would increase to 2,943 SF (0.48 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the ma�cimum allowed.
The existing detached garage meets the parking requirement for this four-bedroom house. The family room proposed
at the rear of the first floor addition is defined as a bedroom, and is therefore counted toward the parking
requirement.
The front porch of the subject house appears to have been enclosed many years ago and currently has bronze
aluminum, sliding windows. Part of the first floor addition includes restoring the front porch to its original open
state. The proposal includes removing the wall between the front entry stoop and the enclosed porch, removing the
aluminum windows and framing at the front elevation and replacing them with wood columns, capitals and beams,
and removing the west side wall of the enclosed porch. The porch is flush with the side of the house, which has a
non-conforming side setback of three feet where a four foot setback is required. Since the proposal includes
demolishing and reconstructing portions of the porch a side setback variance is required.
The subject property slopes steeply up from the street with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet from the
front property line to the rear property line. The height of the proposed second floor addition would be 41'-9"
measured from the average top of curb (62'-1 "), therefore the applicant is seeking a variance for height. The average
top of curb elevation is 21'-8" below the rear property line.
The applicant is a requesting the following:
• Design review for a first and second story addition;
• Variance for height (41'9" proposed where 36' is the maximum allowed with a special permit); and
• Side setback variance (3' proposed on the right side where 4' is the minimum required side setback).
Design Review and Varimice for Height 1369 Bernal Avenue
CURRENT ORIGINAL EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(11/5/O1 with (11/5/O1)
A1.3 and
L-1 1/3/O1)
SETBACKS
Front: Istflr No change 37'-10" 37'-10" 15'-0" or block average
2nd flr 53'-10" N/A 20'-0„
Side (left): No change No change 9'-0" 4'-0"
Side(right): No change 3' front porch� 3'-0"* 4'-0"
reconstruction
4' rear one-story
addition
Rear: lstflr No change 15'-0" 31'-0" 15'-0"
2nd flr 31'-0" N/A 20'-0„
LOT No change 39.5% 35.3% 40%
COVERAGE: (2,374 SF) (2,123 SF) (2,400 SF)
FAR: No change 2,942 SF/ 1,983 SF/ 3,420 SF/
0.48 FAR 0.33 FAR 0.57 FAR
PARKING: No change No change 2 covered 2 covered
�2i �-s°° x 2i °-6°°� (20°-0�° X 20°-0���
+ 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered
HEIGHT: No change 41'-9"Z 35'-2" 2�/2 stories 30'
whichever is less
DHENVELOPE: No change No change Meets requirement See code
* Existing non-conforming coHdition
' Side setback variance (3' proposed for front porch reconstruction on the right side where 4' is the minimum
required side setback).
Z Variance for Height (41'-9" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached. Please see three attached letters from neighbors concerning this proposal.
January 14, 2002 Design Review Study Meeting: On January 14, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed first and second story addition for 1369 Bernal Avenue. The Planning Commission asked the applicant
to provide the following information:
• Landscape plan, suggested adding mature landscaping with a crown mass above the window, at the front of the
house to screen the bare wall;
• Story poles to help visualize the addition, suggested using orange netting between the poles so the mass of the
addition is obvious, should be installed no later than the Friday prior to the Planning Commission action
Design Review nnrl Vm•imtce for Neight
1369 Berna! Avenue
meeting; and
Building heights and finished floor elevations of the two adjacent houses to the left and right of the subject
property.
The architect submitted a landscape plan and elevation drawing showing the building heights and finished floor
elevations of the two houses to the left and right of the subject property. The landscape plan includes planting two,
24" box size, Italian Cypress trees, (one on each side of the front door), planting one, 24" box size, fruitless olive
tree in the front yard, and planting one, 15 gallon Japanese maple tree at the rear of the house, (in between the
bedroom and the new family room addition), in addition to other shrubs and vines proposed. Story poles were
installed on Saturday February 2, 2002, and are to remain up until at least the date of the action meeting, Monday,
February 11, 2002.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required 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) 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 by resolution and include
findings made for design review and variance for height. 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
November 5, 2001, sheets A1.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and sheet L-1
Design Review and Variance for Hcight
/369 Berna[ Avenue
and A1.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped January 30, 2002;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5, 2001 shall
be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first
or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or
relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
design review;
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.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
c: Gary Diebel AIA, applicant/architect
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 5, 2001
TO: _City Engineer
Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
✓ Recycling Specialist
Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-058-040.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 5, 2001
TO: �City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-058-040.
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
November 5, 2001
TO: _City Engineer
Chief Building Official
�Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-058-040.
�'1T � TT TTf)TTTf1 1 ! i �.T _ __�_ _ _ C �i/�i��
\
� 1 t�t�t� i�1: v ii: vv : ivivLivay, i �vvci..u�. �� �vv �
� 6 C���
Reviewed Ey:
' ��
Date of Comments: �� ` � � � �
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November S, 2001
TO: _City Engineer
�Chief Building Ofiicial
Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-058-040.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission U�zapproved Minutes
January 14, 2002
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Keighran dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m.
12. 1369 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL,
DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter was submitted after preparation of
the staff report by Laurie and Jim Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, dated January 10, 2002, which expresses
concerns they have with the proposed project. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attorney representing the applicant, 216 Park
Road, and Gary Diebel, architect and property owner, were present. Mr. Hudak noted that this is the
architect's personal residence, slope on the lot 20' from front to back is an exceptional �ir�umstance for the
height variance, would like to open up the existing porch at the front of the house, proposed floor area ratio
is under the maximum allowed by 500 SF, adequate on-site parking is provided, detached garage will remain
at the rear of the lot, this lot is raised substantially above top of curb level, side setback variance is justified,
existing house was built in the 1920's with a 3'-0" side setback, there was an existing front porch but it was
enclosed, the applicant is now restoring the porch to it's original design which is located in the side setback,
restored porch will reduce the existing living area, proposed addition at the rear of the house complies with
the required side setback, neighbors not in opposition to the side setback variance; in regard to the proposed
height, the Commission recently reviewed a similar project at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, this project had a
similar problem with measurement of height, first floor is approximately 20' above average top of curb, lot
rises approximately 30', if house was measured from ambient ground level it would comply with height
regulations, as measured from average top of curb as the code requires, proposed house exceeds the
maximum height limit by more than 10'; there are two other 2-story houses in this neighborhood at 1360 and
1361 Bernal Avenue and therefore the proposed 2-story house will not be out ofplace, can't see second floor
addition from street level, will not block views from the uphill side; would like to address two letters of
opposition received from neighbors to the left and right of the subject property, on the right side 3 of the 4
windows are stairway windows, fourth window is in a laundry room which is between ��� washer and dryer,
there is a planter box proposed under the laundry window, plants in the box will help screen the view into
the neighbor's yard.
Further comment: Mr. Hudak addressed concern about reducing the light and air into neighbor's properties,
second story is set back 10' and will not be disruptive, the existing large tree at the rear of the property
probably creates more shade than the proposed addition would; architect has designed the second floor so
that it cannot be any less intrusive into the neighbor':; yards, the existing tree at the rear yard of 1365 Bernal
Avenue will screen their yard, new second floor is set back and will create a physical separation.
Commissioner noted that he did not receive a copy of a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham, staff
noted that it will be in the staff report for the action hearing; like the porch on the front elevation, can
something be done above the arched windows, need to decrease the mass in that area, south elevation is nice,
east elevation is a flat plane and needs more articulation, applicant noted that there are vines growing on that
side of the house, vines grow over the first story parapet; north elevation is barren, would suggest adding
additional mature landscaping at the front of the house to screen the bare wall, a tree that has the crown mass
above the window would be ideal; concerned with the first floor addition at the rear of the house reducing
14
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
January 14, 2002
the size of the rear yard, applicant notes that there two patio areas at the rear, building is set back 15' from
the rear property line, rear yard is shaded by the large pine tree; concerned about height and in general the
mass of the addition, suggest placing story poles to help visualize the addition from the street, and relative to
the neighbors, think the house will be tall, but would like to see the story poles before making any
conclusions, applicant noted that if ineasured from adjacent grade, the house would measure 26'-3" in
height.
Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue, Patrick and Debbie Cunningham, 1365 Bernal Avenue, and Jim
Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, spoke concerned with the proposed height, there was a similar application
before the City Council at this site in 1993, variance was required to exceed 36' in height, at that time City
Council indicated that it could approve the project if the height were lowered to 35'-9", current proposal is
increasing the height from 35'-2' to 41' adding 6' to the existing height, this is not a flat lot, will affect
sunlight on the low side of Bernal Avenue, second story addition includes a 689 SF inaster bedroom, feel
that this area can be adjusted, his house is lower than the foundation of the subject property; objection is to
height, this site is higher than theirs, existing mature landscaping provides privacy, house was built in the
1920's, landscape has matured and created privacy in their yard, will loose privacy with this addition, will
block sunliaht in the afternoon, backyard is now damp, additional shade from addition would increase the
problem of keeping the rear yard dry, will loose some view of the sky and will see only second story, sees
no justification for variance, does not oppose the first floor addition, invite the Commission to 1365 Bernal
to view impact from house; property is similar to subject property, entire yard is landscaped, will loose
privacy and sunlight, applicant referred to four windows on my side but one window is actually 3 windows,
house is only 1600 SF, use of the rear yard as living area, concerned with compatibility with a neighborhood
of small houses with people who enjoy using their rear yards, there is a large Monterey Pine tree in the rear
yard, sun comes in from right side of the lot, addition will block sunlight into the rear yard.
Mr. Hudak noted that the property owner is sensitive to privacy, in the design he pulled the second floor
back as far as he could, the only way to address the neighbor's concern is to eliminate the second floor;
Commission asked what the proposed plate heights are, applicant noted that the first floor plate height is 8'-
5" and the second floor is 7'-6". There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: this is a nice design, with a second story addition set back from the street the steep
slope on tr : l:�t is an exceptional circumstance for the height variance, 7'-6" plate height on the second floor
is below normal, cannot deny the property owner the right to have a second story, this site is not in the
hillside area so there is no review for view blockage, if windows are eliminated will have a flat stucco wall;
still concerned with bulk, story poles would be helpful, property owner knew that height would be a problem
when he purchased the house , concerned that the house will dominate the street, would like to see average
heights of adjacent buildings.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following
information has been provided:
• Provide landscape plan; suggest adding additional mature landscaping at the front of the house to
screen the bare wall, something that has the crown mass above the window would be ideal;
• Provide story poles to help visualize the addition, suggest using orange netting when installing story
poles so mass is more obvious, should be installed no later than the Friday prior to the Planning
Commission action meeting;
15
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
January 14, 2002
Provide building heights and finished floor elevations of the adjacent houses (two houses to the left
and right of the subject house);
This motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comment on motion: this is a well-handled design given the site, view is blocked by what is there now, due
to the small lot sizes in Burlingame the Commission cannot guarantee privacy nor does zoning address
privacy, feel that the impact will be minimal.
Chairman Vistica callcd for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when
the requested information has been provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:40 p.m
X. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of January 7, 2002.
CP Monroe review briefly the planning items covered at the Council meeting.
Review of Special Planning Commission Study Meeting on Housing Element of
December 19, 2001, and City Council Review.
There were no comments on this item.
Discussion of Amendments to Zoning Regulations to C-1 Subarea A, Tenant Size, Definitions and
Timing on Permit Expiration.
Commission and CP Monroe discussed draft of proposed zoning changes. After some discussion the
commission suggested that this item be brought back to the commission at study for additional
review. CP Monroe said she would try to get this item with the comments noted on the next
commission agenda.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Bojues, Secretary
UNAPPROVEDMINUTES 1.14
16
REGEIVED AFTER PACKET
PREPARATION
Laurie & James Hyman
1373 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
650.340.9123
January l0, 2001
City of Burlingame
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Regarding: 1369 Bernal Avenue Design Review
Dear Planning Commission:
�tem 9f1L - l�by �ernat
PC Meeting 1.14.02 - DR Study
We live at 1373 Bernal Avenue, ne� door to 1369, and wanted to voice our opinion of
the proposed changes being reviewed by the Burlingame Planning Commission. The side
setback and height variances for the proposed second story at 1369 Bernal create two
concerns regarding our property.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of our property is that it is set back and up from the
street level, affording us a great deal of privacy. Our backyard is also well protected
from line of site of other properties and the surrounding area. This privacy is one of the
primary reasons that we purchased our home. The proposed second story, along with the
set back, would create a line of windows facing directly into our yard and thus taking
away the privacy.
Our second concern is regarding the decreased sunlight that will reach our yard due to the
additional height of the addition. Our garden was designed to thrive based upon the
sunlight it now receives. Additionally, we much enjoy the sunny afternoons.
While overall the plans look very reasonable and it appears that the owners of 1369 have
taken great care to maintain the look and feel of the area, the proposed addition much
reduces the privacy and sunlight our yard receives and will greatly detract from its use
and enjoyment.
Thank you very much for considering our views upon your review of the proposed
addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue.
Sincerely,
Laurie & Jim Hyman
1373 Bernal Avenue
RECEIVED
JAN 1 4 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
FROM :KaIT AMiFM
rte�.�t� zo, �aa i
FAX N0. :415-882-4222
To: Burling�ne Plwuting Commission
Fm: Patrick 8z Debra Curmingham
1365 flernal Avenue
Nov. 20 20e1 06:52PM P2
RECEIVED
NOU 2 1 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
�e� 1369 Bern81 Avenue Variance Applieation
Wc rcceived our first notice of the application for vansnce by way of
pogtcard, reccived Saturday Novcmber 17. Due to the a�plicati�on's
schcduling immedi.aicly following t}u Thanksgiving Holiday, v�r
oppostunity to respond is quite rushed. W e will do o� best to expre9s rna
concerns to you.
We underst�d thst our neighbors The DiebePs, of 1369 Bem.al P�venue
havo mede � application to bnild a second story add,ition to their home,
increasing the current heighi by another 10 fcct, requiring both height aad
se�back code varisnc�s.
We arc opposed to any hcight increaqe on the existing stru�ture. We are
very concerned that tho hcig,ht incre�e of this proptrty wo�uld block light,
�r circalation and greatly invade our currer�t stste of privecy. Our livuig
�eas �d beckyatd face the home of 1369 B ernal, �d it wauld be very
intrusve to hav�e a 10 foot second story eddilion complet.e wiih vvindowS
looking int.o our praperty. The privacy snd light end sky view that we
have now and which o� house hes hed far s�,wenty ye�s, wa9 e. m�n re�o�n
we decided to buy our house. Thc ehann and ambiance of our home i9 pgrt
of the scclusion we feel in our baekyacd and othcr living areas. It would be
very un9ettling to have this takcn away from us. Our back yerd with pati�o is
an extensian of ot�r home, w}tich is small and a singie st,ory,
Uryder the proposed vari�nce we would have a new, very high wall fecing
direckly into our p�io, fmnily room, living room and dinir�g room. The
proposod vari�.ce would allow the ho�use et 1369 B ernel to violete height
restrictions, which were enacted for the mutual benefit of ell citizens, The
non-canformiiy wiih rcgerd to height restrickions �rould be epproximetety 10
feet. Thi.s wovld gre�ly negativcly impect our ecc�ss to light, eit circuletion
and privacY- Qttrto litcrally it will c�t a shadow ovcr our propctty.
FROM :KOIT RMiFM
FAX N0. :415-882-4222
Nov. 20 2001 06:52PM P3
Th� impact of thc non-conforming stYvcture is exacerbeted by the fac:t
that the Diebel's lot sits at a higher cicvati.on than ours, which makes the
proposed non-conformuig addition tower even higher over our house th�
�'ould be the case if we were on the same elev�.i.on.
I would eLso like to s$y that in 1993-1994, other neighbo�s on a� block
opposed a simil� oversized structtue. How m�y times does one or
othcr neighbors have to continut to oppose a non-crn�onning �� �
this lot? Thiv home is alrcady 5 feet higher than the residenntial d�ign
guidelines of Burlingamc and thtre arc no compclling re�oits to allow the
requested vari�c�, whcre as the variance will ncgstivoly impact our u9c and
�njoyment of our properiy and r�duce it's valuo. Thc
proposed variance will
uPSet the functional end eesthetic hsrmony snd belanee tha�t }� existed
between these two fine Burlingame homes for 70 yesrs snd �o� n� be
grented.
We do nvt appose the praposed ground level f�nilY room eddition in the
rear of the houst.
We thank you for your cansidcrgtion in this matter.
Sinccrcly.
�.�,�,,•�.c� ` ��Cw.�,.�. �o�,.,.__.
Petrick d� Debra C �
(650} 343-0322 ���
(415) 989-1833 (Pet�ick)
(41 S) 284-4414 (Debra)
RECEIVED
NOV 2 1 2001
CITY OF BURLIN�AME
PLANNING DEPT.
�age i o� 1
St�bj: (nes se:b�eet}
fla�: 'El'�41ff� 8:45:� AM Raais� Star�dard Ttme
�rw�:
To:
Ms. Keyclon:
�ers ta our- diseussior�or� Faday, .,baa, 11 aboutlte� 1Qon tonigta#'s Pl�ir�g Gornrr�ission agenda. This is the
applicahon for design review, side setback and height variances for a first and second story addition at 1369
Bec�a��.( Gary DiebeL, applicant )
1 am partictdarly c�cemed atxaut_tha f�i�ht ua�iance__ Ttie�'s_t�ause is � the trigh side nf Bernal Ave.
and towers over our property directly across the street. The height variance, if grar�ted wiA adversely affec#
srutigt�t ta�ur pro�r�tmhichis t�naac�eptahle tcra� T-hcreqt�es#e�� incr;�ases the existing height by
over six feet and further blocks the sun as it mov�s toward the west.
lt appears�hat d he made to_�e design ta minirrvze ths hsight and- sabsfy the concerns of those
of us who would be affected. �
A similar request for t�iarjees �vas su�mitted t��e �tity�ifl �3 �r a farmer owner of 1369 Bemal Ave. At that
time, the City Counal decided to limit the allowable height to 35' 9" if an expansion was,to be approved. This was
in respflnse to the same c�arncQms from the neighbo�hoodffiat exist in the current appiiration. The currerrt request
is for a height of 41' 9".
l will attend �t's rr►eeting and will appreaa�e-it i#-yottini�i �ktde my commerrts in the informa�on given to the
Commissioners. Thanks for your help.
Chartes Penner
1364 Bernal Ave. Burlingame, CA
Phane: 650-342-9807
��.dnecriav Ian�iary 1 h ��Q� Americ,a fh�line.• C`,1 PennPx
CITY OF BURL[NGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Y(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
��� CITY O�
BURIJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
' ;.o'
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Project address: P 3 6 9 g� R K9 � 11 ►'�N tr�=
APPLICANT
Name: �(�Y �` ril/IRY- <<9/R� J�i£'��L
Address: I3b`) ,�FRA/gL /�Y�N�F
City/State/Zip: PbvR �-� �l6/im� ; �'� `1 fz'i4
Phone (w): 6,�0 •�.�5� • A f�8 S
�h�; � so - sSB � 8�� t-
(�: �s�. sSE A8� E
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:� 6 �rh � �I.s f#��' �r c�-n%T �
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):
(��
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: C�AizY �b/EBt%L , R/fJ � �bIE��L /}ND c�mp��y
Address: �'-�'• �X / D `}' �
City/State/Zip: ,P�b�R �� N��m� ,«1 y¢�l% Please indicate with an asterisk *
Phone (w): �s�ir��: �S /��z �t= � the contact person for this project.
(h):
���
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fi1��5�T' /�ND S�"c'cti�a �S 7'c� Ry �}r�,t�� Tia N
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: � Date: %���/ 0/
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Co ission.�
Property owner's signature: ; Date: ��/�/ �� 1
REC�IVED
Date submitted: �► � 5�ol
�
NUU - 5 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PCAPP.FRM
CTI'Y OF BURLINGAMB PLANNING DEPARTMENT SOl PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
���
��
,,, .
.�
RECEIVEC�
NUV - 5 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
C,�'�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING p�pr
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 can 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.
a. Describe the exceptional or e.xtraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area�
The site is exceptional from the neighborhood norm in its steeply sloping topography. Overall, the lot
slopes up from front to back at i7-zo9'o. The slope in the front yard is 25- 30%. Without the existing front
retaining walls, the slope would be approximately q6% in the front setback.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right and whai unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial of the application.
A variance is required on the steeply sloping lot to allow a second story addition. Many neighborhood homes
have a second story whether original or later additions. Also many houses have severa( bedrooms and
the maximum floor area. Our program simply calls for adding a third bedroom, bathroom, and family room.
The first story family room will bring the lot coverage to within about forty square feet of the maximum lot coverage.
Therefore, the third bedroom requires a second story. The proposed design is about 50o square feet be(ow the
maximum allowed by the F.A.R. The height limitation seems unreasonable for this project and limits the house to
one story.
G Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenienc�
The proposed design is intended to mitigate the impact of changes on the street and neighbors. The second story addition
will be built above the existing footprint. It will not affect views. Numerous trees, including city street trees limit views in
the area. The Declining Height Envelope is much more restrictive on this site due to the steep slope than relatively flat lots.
The second story is well inside the envelop� it is roughly in the center of the site. Any impacts on neighbors' light and
privacy are greatly limited. The structure's overall height is also limited by design. The first and second story plate heights
are 8'-5" and 7'-6" respectively. Many recently approved houses have plate heights of 9'-0" on the first story and 8'-0" on
the second story. Additionally, water runoff will be directed to the street through an underground drainage system.
d How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity? �
The main change visible from the street will be the restored porch. The porch alterations will reduce the apparent bulk and
mass of the house and significantly improve the front facade. The porch details develop a scale appropriate to the site and
neighborhood. The house is similar in height, mass, scale and setback of neighbors. The proposal maintains this harmony.
The second story addition will only be visible from certain angles and is designed roughly in the center of the site. Care has
been taken to fit the additions with the existing house in terms of massing, scale, details, and spirit. The design attempts to
blend the new construction with the existing. Its goal is to be a reasonable and creative architectural extension.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT S01 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 55&7250 F(650) 69Cr3790
RECEIVED
ITY
* CITY OF BURLINGAME N 0 V 1 5 2 0 01
VARIANCE APP CATION
�. f -�r' C(�� j�=,�,�%�-C�C` CITY OF BURLINGAME
'"�� PLANNING DEPT.
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 can 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.
a. Describe the exceptional or e.xtraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The photo board of the existing house shows indentations in the stucco at the extents of the porch. This reflects where
the porch was enclosed many years ago. Currently the porch has dark bronze aluminum, sliding windows. The windows
clearly are out of place and do not match the original wood windows of the remainder of the house. The design proposes
to restore the porch to its original state, which is compatible with others of the neighborhood of the same time period
(i9zo's). The porch was designed to be flush with the side of the house. The existing setback is three feet.
b. Exp[ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial of the application.
The variance is required for the side setback to restore the porch. Without the variance, the work cannot be performed
in adherence with the original i92o's design.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to propeMy or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenienc�
The design will not affect views or privacy, but will improve the light quality both inside the porch and outside it by
restoring its original open state. In addition, the restoration will improve the general environment through significantly
improved design.
d How wil! the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the �acisting and potentia! uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity? '
The porch is not large, but affects the front facade greatly. It improves the character and decreases the apparent mass
and bulk. This is reflected in the rendering when compared to the photos of the existing house. The design is compatible
with porches on other houses built in the same time period. The porch details are designed to develop a scale appropriate
to the neighborhood. No alternative could be more compatible in character with the neighborhood and original design.
�,t.�' c'T� o,� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
� ; ' TEL: (650) 558-7250
u�,
1369 BERNAL AVENUE
Application for design review, side
setback and height variances for a first
and second story addition at 1369 Bernal
Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-058-040)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, February 11, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed February 1, ��'12
(Plen,se refer tn ot{zer side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF I3URLINGAME
A copy of the applic�ition and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at dle Plan��in�� I)epartment at 5p1 Primrose Road,
Burlinga►��e, California.
If you challen�c. �;.� sttbject a}�plicatic�n(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising oiily those issu�s you ��i' sorneone else raised at the public hearing,
descrihed in the. notice or in ���ritten correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public heariiig. ��
Property owners who receive this notice are re�sp��nsible for irt�orming their
tenants about this notice. For additiona] ii�formation, please call (650)
558-7250. "I'hank you.
Margaret M�nroe .""� �.� �sl:�� ��,'��,�
Ciey Plan�ier ' -" �, ��
PUBL.IC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to ot/�zer sidE�)
I
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT
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 and variance for height for a first and second story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Gary
Diebel and Mary C. Lee, property owner, APN: 026-058-040;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 11, 2002, 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 submittecl 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 environtnent, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article
19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - 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.
2. Said design review and variance for height are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and variance for height are 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, Joseph Bojues , 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 1 lth day of February, 2002 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and variance for height.
1369 Bernal Avenue effective February 20, 2002
l. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Deparhnent
date stamped November 5, 2001, sheets A1.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and
building elevations, and sheet L-1 and A1.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations,
date stamped January 30, 2002;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November
5, 2001 shall be met;
that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope
of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the
structure, replaci�i� or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
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.
� . �.�� -i . � � - - �� . {�.. � � ►,� `� �� j �
• r �� � - � 4 �� � , .
r �v�^� �` �''; a L � .o ��. � � i'° � ,?!► �s
,� .a ,y �, r � f ti � ��
� �' � i� Yi� •�,° � .� 4a � �u " '.�S
'4 ��� ti »° 'a � �a;' � � �;
a+.�,,
� �t� � �,l� � � j�i i.
!�
, ��� �' ,�� ` r�.���� � � � -� � � �a� :�����
4A •, '' �; . � �+� � �,�, � � �� � �f .
•'4i'� 1:� , � 1�� yy' .Sx',F �� �'
n� �. � � ��c,. � t .f� - �^J: � . ✓'���� � ,�,����
:� y! .+t , �r ��� �
`%i� ` ~� �`£� �` `�
�,` • � r ��? ��� � ; � "� " :,, � , .,; � � �' F .;�
� �� � . . � �, „ � �� �; e ,;�' `�1 � .
�. � » n
F' � v�
t �,+� � $ �_ •�, �. , . f �i �".if
��y' �• � .�$ � �� �� �:. � « � � , �z a �'� �� �}Y
��� ��: : �� .,� � ��4;�y i " �r " �
� M .`, . q�. �" / � � � .„� + 'Pi ,, �� ��; � i � � �, +., � Y, r , k.
�. �� .�,F7�'pw�r � � � � {., * y � 1 � ` � � �f ���,�`J. sa.:.. � .
� � " ' �
, ° �
�'�`�"' ���... ,�� �i�, .. � �s� � � � r �?:. \ �.. �, ��� �g,j��: '� � rrY�_Yi
;.� �� - � �' ,,�\` � n�' q"SiF.: x �� � �.'� ,
.m:��� , � '�r �� ,.�t�"+��,4: � �•'Y' *� ,�,
� � j ,yip �' C� � V'�• F,r_e ��,!� : �• � ,h� �.' -��'n
� > �, '� `r,�t � � � . �. Ji �r �i�W
,'�, .� a ���� µ� ����
..� �"�q� ��� �` s. ^� �' �. ' �, -ra,
��r',�+� ',�1 �'•�,� . , '� ' . "�°` ' �'�,3� M ��r'`..
'�?�� ° h� � � sa .�i .b t� �� . � � � ��, f ii�� � �4�' � '" � �. .
_ � ;� �� � � � �:. ., � � � � � :,�.� �� .� � � ,�:,.
�'i .n t�� �i� -� 4'Z ` ` � ny. �:
,� �/,�i� • � �i+ a�': ��K� �' a', fF"'.:�. �.� . .
s. ��{, ,
�ff+x
� � y,�i �� �y)/
j
�. , � 4'' � �," y ��
. , � , �o.
� 4_, f ��Yg.�y. � ;�. _ ,.ry��� � A�� q�� ��,. ��.
( �i� � .:. tr' ..: � 1�! 8' f�y� ��' ,�. V � Y � .. £ � � � �.�, �`j
, � �
� ""�' y' � : r , � , I"' �° ^ ,...�,,, �' ,.
;r , --_ , �.�. .
� � ��, �:, �,,, ��pp+� ��'.�
��''`` ,,., �.,�
�� ti � r �� �A�a.y �' ; `� i' . ���` � Y� 1 � a , �� a� ,� � �� '�� .:�5„� � .
���m� f "„�'�,'+�' .. ,�..s.r e '..$'' �j,�„'���'°. % ,.�,N ..�,�" a
�,.�' ' � • �•�', .. �'�' � � ' � � ` °� y�. � `
� i %^� � ~ =,a;�� � '�'°`,.. ,� .�
s� �"„�.,� r � �i�, �t �'�$� fP' � �r \�,
�IIrrr 4 ���� g &'
.F �n�r � � � � .
°' 4, � �... � � �oyy�� "�' F �`�'. `�, A �,.�. � �< �,
' �, +� ..w� � ',� , . � � . � . � ..� � � .
$«ee �� �y�. ;�r, f�� �'�, *�� � � + � -,�
��� ��' <:'s . � v� � �M
- „�„ ��� �` d' ,,�4' j a ' +'+v.' .�
5't �) "' ,.,� � ' ��
� y 8 :,
�.4�,� ' � � � � � . '
��r .�. . j� 'O .;� ' � Y ,+• � c1y,�, F� f
'��� �a :�� tg� > � ' }Yr�" � '.;�,� ,. r � , �,�. � �. =:� i
' `�4'� y /'�� '!�� \�, � :��c� �� �,�� �»y �, �- �} �� {
. fl ! �w@'g . S� • �{k" y , ' ".a�� '0.' �� _
.. Y �{y � . �`. t �`3 ��'up d. �� _ ., :. ) .�
�`�C /�` s� � . �,�`)'�cy�- y � � `�.�;:� af���� ��� � �.:3� � ..,_4' �gt `
�� f:�r � .v �,; : e* �fir,��'� .�,� ,.�, °d ,y�w � ... �'�'
�, { - .. y �, ...�� �'i � `t. �� b'3^� � � �� ' J�• � ° 4� : y`.i�..
.,�-� � • � h < � � � �, '�" '7.1 �� • '� ' i� '�` � . 'y2 �
\M �� :Y. S h P � � . � A} r
.
•
�!. '*. e h y+ � 4:- � �. . . � h A .�, �4\� � '�l.�i! s�s �-�
� � � � � °�
/ y ` k `� + s� ''� �j ;�, � � +� ° �� � �
� ` � �a". .. �'�, � ,��, Ii�' ? �
�.i�``� ��., � fl �""'�: , t�„ :
� ,.,� �� �� � � �° y ��° � �'.
`� � �ri�,af ,y� , .,�• �r � Y
� ,,.! . � ,y`�{ o- '��'�` • , � ��* c�~ � Y
�� �` \ Q� at�� �.. � �'-l.;:
.^,.� .�� � � „ { . . `� �
. aT y�_ a e s,� i/�. � F'tiy'�. ' yt
�o�:��r�� � /p'•. ��^z� �� f e �*k2 �� .� �. '��� �� � :�, ������� �� Y?,r
� W�. � r � � 'a� � �� � � n s �� 'P'�as
� �� � w � �. ���h, � �H��^a �� � .,m.
�.
w '�
� 3 . ; �' `�.�.-� f � �;* �a� �, �" �� � ',�, �,��:
��� � ,-f � �
"`� . �� �� � � a ` � � �.� t`y' � F.�O /�, � ��� E�. �
�.,: �``�� �� . .
`� a �,,�:;,
% ' �� �s
� � �
� ��� �� '�
rr� V � � `�' �; �
t � � ^. � „ ;,,. . -.
Y i:"i�, i � <
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desiQn
review and variance for height for a first and second story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1,
Gary Diebel and Mary C. Lee, propertv owner, APN: 026-058-040;
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council_ and a hearing thereon held on March 4,
2002 , 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 hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council 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 ��� V e a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per
CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - 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.
2. Said design review and variance for height are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and variance for height are 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.
un•[�1.�
I, ANN MUSSO, (;ity Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4�h day of March , 2002 ,
and adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and variance for height.
1369 BERNAL AVENUE
effective MARCH 4, 2002
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 5, 2001, sheets A1.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building
elevations, and sheet L-1 and A1.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped
January 30, 2002;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5,
2001 shall be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of tii�
first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,
replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review; 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.
��4, ciTr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLJN(;AME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
,�, a BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�,�� TEL: (650) 558-7250
1369 BERNAL AVENUE
Appeal of a Planning Commission approval
of an application for design review, side PUgLIC HEARING
setback and height variances for a first
and second story addition at 1369 Bernal NOTICE
Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-058-040)
The City of Burlingame City Council
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, March 4, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed February 22, 2002
(Please refer to othE:rsiclel
CITY' OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at tlie Ylamung Departmen� ,` 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingarne, Californi�i.
If you cliallen��c the subjecl application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those�issues you or someone else raised at thc public hearing,
described in the uotice or in written cc�rrespe�ndence delivcred to the city
at or prior tb the public hearing. ��
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants abouC this notice. For additional information,, ple�se call (650)
558-7250. Thank you.
, _.
.. , � _ ,-
Margaret Monroe = �:� '�, �.—�-�� (� `/
Cit Planner �' � - - ��� -��
y
PIJBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Plecrse rcfer to othe�� side)
City Council of Burlingame
501 Primmse Road
Burlingame, Ca
Febnaary 20, 2002
City Council of Burlingame:
On February 1 I, 2002, We sent a letter of opposition (please see attatched) and attended a meeting with the
Planning Commission regarding the variance for 1369 Bemal Avenue. As residents of 1360 Bernal Avenue,
we are sending this present letter supporting Pat and Debbie Cunningham's (1365 Bernal Avenue) appeal to block
the proposed addition at 1369 Bemal Avenue. This addition would greatly obstruct any light coming into the front
part of my home on 1360 Bernal Avenue.
Thank Xou For Your Consideration,
"��ntiC�
r
Kim M. Carpenter
1360Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, Ca
City of Buriingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Ca 94010
City of Burlingame Planning Departme�t:
I live across from the proposed location at 1360 Bernal Avenue. As the house at 1369 Bernal Avenue is built into
an ascending slope, my house at 1360 Bernal is built into a descending slope, thus creating a canyon effect for my
property. Therefore, the intended structwe to be built at 1369 Bernal in conjunction with this canyon effect would
greatly obstruct any light coming into the front part of my home.
Thank You For Your Attentioq
Kim M. Carpenter
Charles Penner
1364 Bemal Ave
Burlingame,CA 94010
Home Phone 342-9807
February 20, 2002
Ms. Ann Musso
City Clerk, City o� Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd
Burling,ame, CA 94010
Dear Ms.Musso
'� fior design review, sid�setb�ck anc�height �rianees.�r a fust and second story
addition at 1369 Bemal Ave ( APN: 026-058-040 ) which was approved by the Planning Commission on Feb. 11,
2002.
���sta� Patrisl� aad�ebi �ngh� �-�� agreement with the
C�imin�'s pasitiou aitd ask thatyaa a� my name to the tist af those who are in qpposition to the proposed
variance_ �pra�uousl3�sent-aletter-of- �nortestaboutihe_variansp �rior tath�_Fe�Ii ipeeting which is on file with
the City.
�haue bae�ioldiLat--ynu�o�'ice-�uill_riUttf�the C.it�r Council�the_appeals nrinr in_th�}r meeting tonigh� If that is
nat conect, I will appreciate your contacting me at 342-9807. Thanks for your assistance.
Sincerely,
�.
en���. �
i��Liu�!
T_---___________ ____ ______ __ ______.__ ____________
�=- ��
�_ � �� . - ����
;�
''��. _ i C q K'zr� .v G E� c.rP T.
Ms. Keyfon:
" on �aday, Jan.-'�� a6ou�ifem_1�_toaigE►f`�P[ar�ning-�omc�,ission agenda. This is the
applicatior� for design review, side setback and height variances for a first and second story addition at 1369
Be�a[-�irae�-( Ga� Diebel. applicant }
kar�r�Ia�Fy-e�eerr�ed abora�t#te-Meigh�va�ane�-�#►eappli�s-#�oas�is- e high side of Bemal Ave.
andtouversauEr ouc prope[t�c directl� acxossthe street_ Tkieheightvariancerif g��ed will adversely affect
�►{igkt� fo-�proper� wkiie#�is unaeeeptable#a�s.--�k�e F�ed �ariar�insx�ses the ebsting height by
ave� six. feet-and fu�ther blocks the sun as it r�oues.touYard the �vest
f# appears'�a� �todifieatio�►s� be-t�adet�t�e desig�-to-r�i�frtize��k�e't�h� and s�psfy the concerns of those
o�us whawwuld he af#ected_
/�sit�ilaF ►e�tes� f� � ' ed-#o t#e-sF�-i� 499�#ay a#orAaeF���369 Bemal Ave. At that
tic�ae; th�Cit� Couc�cil deddedia liaut thaaUovwable heightta 3� S" if an expansion to be approved. This was
ifrrespor�seto-�e�arnee�e��s-fre�the�eigk�bcxk�ood-tha�-e3est-ir�tk►e-e�er�appli�tior� The currerrt request
is fo� a heig�if. o� 4'l' g".
FwilEa#e�dte�igk�'s+�iee�g-and wil�appree+atei# if ents-�te information given to the
Commissioners. Thanks for your help.
C��s Penner
1364 Bemal Ave. Burlingame, CA
Phone: 650�42-9807
��ec�av �e:hn}anr 20 �f� A-m�riFn (Mlin� f;T Pa::�r -- -
�� CIT7 �
� �
BURL.INGAME
"� o°
o9� �o
allwTEo Juwc `•
The City of Burlingame
CITY I IALJ, 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250
PLANNING DEPAR"IMENT BURLIIJCiAME, CAL�ORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790
February 21, 2002
Gary and Mary-Claire Diebel
1369 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94070
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Diebel,
At the City Council meeting of February 20, 2002, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your
project for a design review and variance for height. This application was to allow a first and second
story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. . A public hearing will be held on March 4, 2002 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA.
We look forward to secing you there to present .your project. Please call me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely yours,
C�-,. ., � ,
�Marga�e Monroe �
City Planner
MM/s
APPLHRCC.acc
c: property owner
City Clerk