HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmendment� �' � - :
- _ �'= -
- - � :r
- ":
- - -- - } -
!
��� CITY O�
BURLINGAME
� , o°
o �e
�ON�Tm .�w[ 6'
The City of Burlingame
CITY HAI,L SOl PRIIvIROSE ROAD TEL: (630) 538-7250
PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURI.INGt1ME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790
June 19, 2001
Ralph Domenici
Ralph Domenici Construction
P.O. Box 117936
Burlingame, CA 94011
Dear Mr. Domenici,
At their meeting of June 18, 2001 the City Council held an appeal hearing on your application to amend the design
review and allow modifications to the plans (date stamped 8/4/00) originally approved by the Planning Commission
on 8/28/00 for the construction of a two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 1441 Berna1 Avenue,
zoned R-1.
The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's action on your request with modification of the Commission's
direction on replacement of the planter strip along property line adjacent to the driveway. Following a public hearing
on June 18, 2001, The Council approved the amendment to the design review with the following amended conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May
1, 20Q 1 Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August 4, 2000, plans previously
approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French doors off of the master bedroom along
the south side of the property, the addition of a 2'-6" x 4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along
the north elevation, the addition of a sma11 gable over the master bedroom and master bathroom at the rear,
the addition of a 3'-0" c 8'-0" access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features
with the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations;
2. that a one foot wide planter strip shall be installed between the driveway and the property line, narrowing the
paved driveway area by one foot at the front property line e�ending toward the rear to approximately the
point where the drive way narrows at the window projection and the driveway curb-cut and apron, sha11 be
narrowed as approved by the Public Works Department, so that it matches the narrower width of the driveway
paving after the planter strip has been installed, the plans for these revisions shall be reviewed and approved
for compliance by the Public Works and Planning Departments prior to issuance of an amended building
permit by the Building Division, standard required inspections sha11 be called for during the installation of the
changes;
CORRECTED COPY
JiTNE 25, 2001
June 19, 2001
1441 Bernal Avenue
page -2-
4. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that any changes any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the plate
height, roof height, or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo ( attached) shall be met;
7. that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that is projected from the landing up as a
cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
All site improvements and construction work on this site under this amendment will require separate application
to the Building Division and Public Works Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a
building permit must be issued. One extension of this action, of up to one year, may be considered by the Planning
Commission if application is made before the end of the first year.
The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
If you wish to challenge the Council's decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days
of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to State or Federal law.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
CAK\s
1441 BERN.acc
c. Linda Frye, property owner
Chief Building Inspector
Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office
(LOT 10; BLOCK 45 ADD BURLINGAME NO 4 RSM A/45; APN: 026-044-100;)
June 1.9, 2001
144� Bernal Avenue
page -2-
4. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
that any changes any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which
or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or ,
roof height, or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo ( attach�� shall be met;
l include adding
the plate height,
7. that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so��t is projected from the landing up as a
cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the hous�; and
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the C�l�fornia Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame. �
All site improvements and construction work on t�s site under this amendment will require separate application to
the Building Division and Public Works Depa.rtr�ent. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building
pernut must be issued. One extension of ttus action, of up to one year, may be considered by the Planning
Commission if application is made before the end of the first year.
The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
If you wish to challenge the Council's decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days
of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to State or Federal law.
Sincerely yours,
�'�irr ���.,��-%hr, .�'
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
CAK\s
1441BERN.acc
/
c �
ROUTING FORM
I)
♦
DATE: July 21, 2000
TO: x CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new
two-story house at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-
100. (Revised Plans)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, July 24, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
�
%� �-`�, d �°`� � �
�, ��, ,,�-,, � �%� .��-
�
�
',�`"`r` � �
� �� �
Z 1. t�o � �'�' v
� � �
�1 �Zy 1 o�dDate of Comments
ct�-� ��' �
��� � �-�- �
� �
, ,� �o v �o �'l�c.i 2 d i`'�'
�
U
��
. �
� �
��/
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 06.18.01
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY Gr
DATE: NNE 11. 2001
APPROVED
FROM: CITY PLANNER BY
SUB.TECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL WITH AN ADDED
CONDITION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1441 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution and
should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public
hearing the following conditions should be considered.
Conditions recommended by the Planning Commission:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
May 1, 2001 Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August 4, 2000 plans
previously approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French doors off of the master
bedroom along the south side of the property, the addition of a 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window in the
master bedroom along the north elevation, the addition of a small gable over the master bedroom and
master bathroom at the rear, the addition of a 3'-0" X 8'-0" access door along the south elevation and
changes to the architectural features with the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations and that the
driveway shall be narrowed one foot to install a one foot planter strip the length of the driveway between
the wall on property line and the new driveway edge of the curb cut shall be reconstructed to match the
nanowed driveway;
2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
that any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging
a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the plate height, roof
height, or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo shall be met;
that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that is project from the landing up as a
cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and
6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL WITH ANADDED CONDITION FOR ANAMENDMENT TO
A DESIGNREVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORYSINGLE FAMILYDWELLINGAT 1441 BERNAL AVENUE,
ZONED R-I _ .Tune l8, 200I
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission considered this request for amendment for changes to a design review for a new
house originally approved on August 28, 2000. During construction a number of changes were made to the
approved design, a neighbor and the building inspector brought the changes to the attention of the Planning
Department. On Apri123, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the changes. Commission continued
their action twice to the meeting of May 14, 2000 and then May 29, 2001, for clarification from the Public
Works department. At the meeting of May 29, 2001, the commission voted to approve the revised plans
which included the as built changes to the exterior of the house with the added condition that the applicant
should reduce the width of the driveway to conform to the plans approved and to reinstall the one foot planter
strip between the driveway and the neighbor's property line wall. The condition also required that the curbcut
be narrowed and the driveway opening and apron narrowed and relocated to match the relocated driveway.
In their action the commissioners noted the importance of driveway planter strips between properties to
neighborhood character and to creation of privacy between properties; the width of the newly installed
curbcut was requested by the applicant and installed before the wider driveway was installed without the
planter strip, these changes were not "clouded" as changes on the plans submitted to the commission for the
design review amendment; a smaller driveway curbcut opening would also meet public works access
standards for this lot; the fact that the improvements are all in place does not justify retaining them, others
have had to redo construction because it did not comply with approved plans, concerned about the precedent
that retaining these improvements under these circumstances would create; discussed not replacing the planter
strip the entire length of the driveway because of the narrowing (to 81/2 feet) caused by the projection of the
house about midway down the driveway toward the rear and the fact that the entire length of the planter strip
would not be visible from the street; concerned about how the absence of planting along the property line
would affect the neighbor's sense of privacy and also about how removal of the installed curb along the
footing of the wall would affect the stability of the wall since the footing of the wall e�ends on to the
applicant's property. Following the discussion the commission approved a motion including all the changes
to the structure suggested and required that the driveway be narrowed, a one foot planter strip placed next to
the wall and the curbcut reformed and narrowed to match the adjusted driveway (narrowed by one foot). The
motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent) roll call vote.
BACKGROUND:
History
On August 28, 2000, the Planning Commission granted a special permit for height (32'-3" requested, 30'
allowed) and design review for a new two story single family house at 1441 Bernal Avenue. During the
construction the city received a complaint that the house was not being built as it was approved and the
building department inspected the construction. The changes to the design as built were identified and noted
by "clouding" in the revised plans submitted on May 5, 2001 were:
- the rear second floor deck was removed;
- a window was added to the master bedroom (to replace the light and ventilation offered by the
French doors which accessed the deck);
- a roof element was added at the rear where the deck was;
- stucco trim was added at the base of the structure at the front and rear;
- vertical stucco trim extending from the base trim to the eaves was added at the front right and rear
left and right corners of the building; and
- a door was added along the south elevation to allow access to the hot water heater relocated from
the attic rafters.
�
�� APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROl�AL WITH ANADDED CONDITION FOR ANAMENDMENT TO
A DESIGN IZEVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMIL Y DW �LLING AT 1441 BERNAL A VENUE,
ZONED R-I - June I8, 2001
Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the amendment at their meeting on May 14, 2001.
At this meeting the neighbor expressed concern that the curb cut in the public right-of-way looked as if it was
on her property because it extended over her property line (projected into the public right-of-way) and had a
negative effect on the appearance of the width of her lot. She wanted the curb opening and driveway apron
narrowed. Because the curbcut/apron and driveway widening were not called out as a change on the plans,
the City Engineer wished to talk to his staff. The Commission also noted that the driveway had not been
installed with a planter strip along the property line wall as shown on the original plans, nor had this change
been shown as a change with "clouding" on the revised plans. For these reasons Commission continued the
item t� their meeting of May 29, 2001.
Project Action May 29, 2001
None of the changes made to the exterior of the project during construction required additional zoning
exceptioMs. The curbcut work in the public right-of-way required an encroachment permit from the Public
Works Department. The 12 foot curbcut installed was sized at the request of the applicant; the city would
also allow a smaller curb cut. The Planning Commission's action was focused on changes to the original
design review proposal. In their action the Commission found the changes to the e�erior of the structure
acceptable, and approved them. However, they also found that the failure to install the driveway with a
planter strip as shown on the plans did not comply with the design review standards for neighborhood
compatibility and should be corrected. Correcting the driveway would also result in the need to narrow the
curbcut one foot so that the access would match the adjusted location of the driveway. Installing the planter
strip would require that an edging curb next to the wall on property line and one foot of newly poured
concrete be removed from the front property line to the garage at the rear. This area would need to be edged
and filed with dirt to grow plants. The narrowest point between the house and property line wall is 9'/2 feet
for a distance of about 121/2 feet.
Criteria for Design Review
The criteria used for design review were established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted on Apri120, 1998.
These are the criteria which were applied by the Planning Commission. They are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
ATTACHMENTS:
Monroe letter to Ralph Domenici, June 7, 2001, setting appeal
Linda Frye letter to Burlingame City Council, May 30, 2001, requesting appeal
Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2001
Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001
Planning Commission Staff Report, May 29, 2001
Public Notice Appeal Hearing, mailed June 8, 2001
Resolution
�
�
� N� _^�` !
� 1 +�
r
�� CITY p
� �
BURLINGAME
.
�o�$Fwrm J�[ 6 ��o
The City of Burlingame
C[TY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250
PLANNING DGPARTM[iNT BURLINGAME, CALIFORAIIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790
June7, 2001
,
Ralph Domenici
Ralph Domenici Construction
P.O. Box 117936
Burlingame, CA 94011
Dear Mr. Domenici,
At the City Council meeting of June 4, 2000, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your
project to allow modifications to the plans (date stamped 8/4/00) originally approved by the
Planning Commission on 8/28/00 for the construction of a two-story single family dwelling
with a detached garage at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1.A public hearing will be held on
June 18, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely yours,
argaret Ibionroe
City Planner �
MM/s
1441 [3ERN.�cc
c: Ms. Linda Frye
Mark Robertson
City Clerk
�
��
t� � � � ��
�:� . .
. _ .
�.- _.�_ _ _ �.
�
�)�Q 1��
��� � � IdS�VJY1v��- �v �1 �X�--iz��''aY) �
G� �
'�Y� �. �� 2�U c� 1 � �l-'-! 1 1�-��U�_� ��--� .
� �
C� C� I� �'� �, .
MAY 3 0 2001�
_
���
U1
i 2, � � t��,..�. C� .
"�,.�-,,.�.�. � , `� y--o � o
,
��o -ass-��a�1
Agenda Item 11a
Mtg Date 6-4-01
Honorable Mapor � Citg- Council 5-30-01
RE: 1441 Bernal Avenue
Please schedule appeal hearing for
June 18, 2001.
�-
Vi Weber
Deputy City Clerk
C'il�� u/ /3rn`�/in,�runic° /'/c�r�r�ii� ('ui��mi,ti�.cion Unapproved Mlnutes
,
May 29, 2001
sccondcd hy C. Osterling. Cl�air called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga
absent). n��peal proceciures wer.� advised. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m.
VIIL R�GULAR ACTION ITEM
lA. 1441 13I�,RNAL AV[;NUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
"I'O nI'I'ROVI;D NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RALPH DOMENICI,
nPPLICnN"I'; MnRK R013CRTSON, DESIGNER; LINDA FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reler�nce stafi� rep�rt, 5.29, witll attachments. Planner Keylon presented the staff report; City Engineer
Murtura cc�mmented c�n the driveway apron work done within the city right-of-way. Action on this item had
been cc�ntinued� I�rc�m the May 14 meeting. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearin�.
Chairman Vistica �pened the public hearing. Linda Frye, 1249 Bernal, property owner, Ralph Domenici,
cc�ntractc�r, 51O Almer, and Maiy Packard, 1445 Bernal spoke. Applicant noted that they felt that they had
mct all thc I'lannin� Cc�mmission's stipulations necessary to get an occupancy permit; felt that opposition
in the nci�hhc�nc��c�d w��s by people who were opposed to bigger houses in general and their property was
next tc� sc�mcone whc� I-clt tllat way. Neighbor commented that she was not opposed to the changes to the
hc�use hut le� thcir ri�ht t� place their driveway curb cut in front of her house, felt that this installation was
illegal and the city should see that it is corrected to the way it was shown on the plans approved by the
Plannin� Cc�mmission. I F it is not corrected it will send a message to developers that they can ignore what
thc Plannin�, Commission requires. CE Murtuza noted that the curb cut was not to be replaced as part of
the prc�jcct until�it and Iour Peet of the street were severly damaged during construction. The new driveway
and apron wcrc ��laced to line up wit11 the driveway and sized at the city's 12 foot width as requested by
a��plicant. 'The win� oi� the driveway does extend in the public right-of-way 1.2 feet past the neighbor's
��rc�perty linc; since this is public property the city has no problem with this apron location. Applicant noted
tllAl LIICy Il11CI nc� ��rohlcm wit11 a replacement of the curb cut but since it was inspected by the city and
installcd t<� city standards as inspected, the city should pay for the change to the apron and should not hold
up her ��ccu��ancy ��crmit.
I learin�, cc�ntinued: Commissioner noted that the curb cut needs to align with the driveway; the first set of
plans, apprc�vecl by the; Commission, shows the driveway set back one foot from the fence; the revised plans
she�w the clriveway next to the fence, why was the driveway moved/widened? Contractor noted driveway
was dama�cd durin� construction and 4 feet of street and the driveway apron/curb cut were installed in
March; lhc clrivcway was installed later, a month ago to match curb cut. Showed the change in driveway
Ic�cati��n �►Ic�n� wi�h c�ther changes on the plans as requested for this amendment. If apron was installed first
then a����licant anticipated widening the driveway and removing the planter strip along the property line wall;
who cleciciccl tr� huild the wider apron? CE noted that the applicant asked for the 12 foot curb cut with
apron. ('��nu»issioner noted that the change to the width of the driveway, i.e. removal of the planter strip,
is not cic�ucled as a chan�e on the revised plans. Contractor noted that when they started to prepare for the
driveway installatic�n they discovered an over pour of the footing of the neighbor's wall into their property.
�� elt i I� thcy removed this over pour they would make the wall unstable, could not grow anything on top of
over ��our cc�ncrete, sc� left it and put in a curb over the overpour to protect wall, with curb then eliminated
c�nc 1i���t �,lanlcr stri�� along the wall and widened the driveway. Since they understood that they could install
an at-�radr; cc�ncrcle patio without Commission approval, thought they could widen driveway without
Purthcr revicw. �C'P notcd that staff had directed the applicant to show all changes from the approved set of
�
C'ih� nJ Riri�/i��gunr�� /'/un�rii�,�� ('u�nrni,e,cinn U�uy���rrn�ec/ Mi��ules
�.
May 29, 2001
��Iai1s c�n thc rcviscd set o1� plans. Neighbor noted that she did not care about the width of the driveway just
the Ic�c��ti��n c�l� the curb cut. 1'here were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
cl��scc1.
('c�mmissic�ncrti c��mments: l,ocation of planter strips and their role in neighborhood charaeter is a part of
the Plannins� C'c�mmissic�n review and approval, the change to the driveway and planter strip is not clouded
as a ch�in�c c�n thc rcviscd plai�s; agree need more screening between these two properties, will look pretty
hlcal< withc�ut; c1c�c� the �verpour rcpresent as trespass by the neighbor. CA noted that it depends upon the
a�rcemcnt hctwccn nci�,hbo�s at the tiine the wall was installed. Am unclear about who decided what
rc�arclin� thc cw-h cut; 12 foot apron installed, 9'6" apron shown on plans. Review of work in the public
ri�ht-c�l=way is nc�t in cc�mmission's cllarge; far the record public facilities such as these and bridges have
a hig im��act c�n thc ima�c of the city and should be reviewed by the commission. Feel planting strip along
wall is neeciccl anci shc�uld �c� bacl< to tl�e original driveway plan. Do not see why driveway needs to be
cnl�ir�eci c�ver c�ri�inal plans. The 12 foot width of the driveway apron was requested by the applicant it was
nc�t dircctccl hy thc city, there is a smaller driveway standard which is acceptable to public works. CE
CIIIIIII'Il1CCI lllilL II �i�kcd fi�r wider curb cut must have anticipated widening the driveway; why was the
chan�c nc�t hrc�u�,ht tci thc COI1lil11SS1011's attention along with the other changes; plans show little left from
what was a����rc�vcd he(-c�rc. 'I'hece is one point in the drive way next to the house which will be very narrow
i l� e�nc li�c�t is rcmc�vccl frc�m thc width of the driveway. Improvements are all in place. CA noted that the
C'c�mmissic�n can set whatcve;r precedent it wished in regard to removal of work done outside of approved
��I�I1S IIICIUCIIII� fCI110Vi1I and reconstructing whole driveway and curb cut as shown on June 2000 plans.
C. [3��jucs macle a mo�tion to approve the revised plans by resolution with conditions in the staff report
amcnciccl clircctin� thc a����licant to put the driveway back to the way it was shown in the originally approved
��lans �vith a��nc I�,c�t ��lantin� strip along the property line wall and to redo the curb cut to match the
narrowcr drivcway and dit'ferent driveway location. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
'I'hc mc�tic�n incluciccl thc I��Ilowin� amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the
��lans suhmittcd tc� thc f'lannin�, Departinent date stamped May 1, 2001 Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the
Ii�llowin� chan�cs li•c�m tllc nu�ust 4, 2000 plans previously approved: the elimination of the rear second
Ilc�c�r �1cck �IIICI I� rench dc�c�rs oft�of the master bedroom along the south side of the property, the addition of
a 2'-(�" X 4'-(�" cascmcnt window in the master bedroom along the north elevation, the addition of a small
�,ahlc c�vcr thc mastcn c�droom and master bathroom at the rear, the addition of a 3'-0" X 8'-0" access door
al��n� .thc s<��ith cicvation and changes to the architectural features with the addition of stucco foam trim to
thc elcvatic�ns and that thc driveway shall be narrowed one foot to install a one foot planter strip the length
r>f thc clrivcway hetwcen thc wall on property line and the new driveway edge of the curb cut shall be
rccc�nstructcct lc� match the nari•owed driveway; 2) that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
l�uilclin�� shall rcyuirc ��nd amendment to this permit; 3) that any changes any changes to size or envelope
c�f� thc I irst ��r sece�ncl Ilc�c�rs, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing
windc�ws and architccttiral features or changing the plate height, roof height, or pitch, shall be subject to
dcsi�,n rcvicw; 4) .that the conditio�ls of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo shall be met; 5) that the
staicwcl I c�n thc sc�uth cicvation shall be redesigned so that is project from the landing up as a cantilevered
hay ancl hrcaks u�� the lon� south side of the house; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements
c�fthc C'alili�rnia 13uildin� and I�ire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City ofBurlingame.
�)iscussic�n c�n the matic�n: since the distance between the house and property line narrow toward the rear
ol� thc Ic�t an�1 this rcar �x�rtion o�F tl�e driveway and wallis not visible from the street, could the replaced
��lantrr stri�� as shc���n c�n the rn•i�*in�l plan be located only in front of this narrow point; Okay if go back
3
City of Burlinga�ne Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
.
30 to 40 feet; planter strip also functions as a buffer between the two properties at the rear which is
important to the neighbor; increased privacy is important to neighbor; agree that improvements should be
returned to original because of the principle involved do not want to encourage other contractors to do what
was done here.
Chairman Vistica called for roll call vote on the motion to reduce the width of the driveway, replacing the
one foot planter strip next to the property line wall, and narrow the curb cut to match the narrower driveway.
The inotion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
2. 1517 BURLI�IGAME AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERM OR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION
(RAY BRAYER, B Y�R CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROY AND
JANE BORODKIN. P OPERTY OWNERSI (CONTINUED FROM MAY 14, 2001 MEETINGI
May 29, 2001
Planner Keylon presente the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions
were suggested for consider ' n. There were no questions about the application from Planning Commission.
Chairman Vistica opened the public h aring. Ray Brayer, 228 Lorton, appli ant for the project presented
the project. He felt tlie project had imp oved with these revisions, he chang d the windows on the second
floor, worked to tie together the vertical lements, is seeking a special permit or declinin height envelope.
The bedroom is now better with the bat room, and works better than the pr vious plan hen furniture is
added. The Coinmission asked if a wind w could be added in the declining height area, ould help blank
wall on the elevation. Applicant respond that this window would look into the neighb r's bathroom so
they dicl not propose a window in that locati . Commission asked if the chimney needs to e pulled 10 feet
away from the building to comply with the bui ing co . Applicant explained that firep ace would be a
gas insert there ore 10 foot separation not required. Commi sion noted that on the elevation he second floor
eave line is coi sistent but not the case when you look at the front elevations, this happens o the each side
of the second oor. Applicant noted that eave was clipped o the right side and he can make the other side
the same. Con inission noted that on the right side elevati at bedroom windows where there are two
av�ming window the
side of the wall br
all elevations.
�t but should drop down
with the roof plane. Co
i the wall plane, eave should change on the
ission asked to have plate height shown on
There were no further comments
the public hearing was
Coininission discussion: nice design, incorporated a lot of the comments from the previous hearing, with
the changes mentioned to the eaves an roof line, the project looks good: .
C. Keighran moved to approve the app 'cation, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
1) that the proj.ect shall be built as shown o the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
May 4, 2001, Sheets AO through A9, site pl n, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that any changes to
the size or envelope of the second floor, whic would include adding or enlarging a dortner(s) or changing
the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to de ' n review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Official s and City Engineer's February 12, 2001 emos shall be met; 4) that the eave line should drop
down with the wall plarie on the right elevation and elevations and roof plan shall be made to be consistent
with the eaves and roof lines; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
- 4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
,
project at 1337 Palom venue so he would abstain from action on that item. C.
like to add a condition to ' em 2B, 1337 Paloma Avenue, that the downstairs �
used as sleeping quarters or drooms.
May 14, 2001
noted that he would
t space shall not be
2B. 1337 PALOMA AVENUE — ZON R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELL G(JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
ALEXANDER AND GLORIA HIDCHE O. PROPERTY OWNERSI
2C. 313 CHAPIN LANE — ZONED R-1 — APPL
SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS L.
BRUCE HOMER-SMITH_ PROPERTY OWN
�V ONE-
GNER;
ON FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
�HER, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
2D. 1464 CORTEZ AVENU� — ZON�D R-1 — APPLICATION F DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NE WO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWEI�ING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESI & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT
C. Keighran ino d approval of items 2B 1337 Paloma Avenue, 2C 313 Chapin Lan and 2D 1464 Cortez
Avenue with the a dment to the conditions of approval for 1337 Paloma Avenue sugge . ed by C. Vistica,
and with the findings conditions in the staff report for each property. The motion was onded by C.
Osterling. Chairman Vis ' a called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion for 313 Chapi ane and
1464 Cortez Avenue passed a 6-0-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining) voice vote. The motion for 1337 loma
Avenue passed on a 6-0-0-2 (Cers. Auran, Dreiling abstaining). This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2a. 1441 BERNAL AV�NU� — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
TO APPROVED NEW TWO-STORY .SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RALPH DOMENICI,
APPLICANT• MARK ROBERTSON DESIGNER• LINDA FRYE PROPERTY OWNER)
SP Broolcs presented the staff report and conditions of approval. C. Auran was noted as abstaining from this
action since it was on the consent calendar and he had not been on the commission when the items was
originally reviewed. There were no questions about the application from the Planning Commission.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal Avenue, who called the item off
the consent calendar and commented that she was unclear about whether the occupancy permit had been
issued to this property, but it was being shown for sale this week end, is this legal. The CA noted that there
is no relationship between showing a property or selling it and the occupancy permit; this hearing is
regarcling corrections that may be needed to be made to the property. She expressed a concern that the curb
cut was replaced and it overlaps two feet on to the right-of-way in front of her house. CE noted that he
would have to look into this and report back about the situation.
The chairman then recognized Ralph Domenici, 510 Almer Road, contractor and applicant for 1441 Bernal
Avenue. He noted that the plans showed that the approach to the driveway would need to be replaced and
the forms were . installed and inspected by the Public Works Department; the area where the driveway
approach is located is public right-of-way and the city has authority over what occurs there. He noted that
at the last meeting he did not take the opportunity to apologize to the staff and Commission for not getting
3
City qf l3urlingnme P/annrng Canmra�sion Minutes
,
May 14, 2001
the paperwork on the changes to this project in before the work was done on the house. CE asked if the
widening of the approach in the right-of-way was directed by city staff; the applicant noted that it was. CE
noted that he would asl< staff what the issues were. There were no more comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: feel that if something is encroaching in front of a neighbor's property Commission
should at least review the circuinstances by continuing the item 2 weeks so staff can look into it. CA noted
that it is possible that a change was required in the curb cut to meet city requirements since it was being
installed on city property. Feel that the plans are now complete and would be comfortable acting on them;
would be willing to proceed if this were a regular project, but this one was changed without proper
approvals, would lilce to wait until we see if the approach and curb-cut is OK or needs to be changed.
C. Bojues agree that we need to get the information on the driveway approach and curb cut from the City
Engineer so we have all the information before commission acts, move to continue this item for two weeks
to the next Planning Commission meeting, May 29, 2001. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the Motion: are the property line monuments clear on the site, feel we should continue this
item in order to get all the information.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item for two weeks in order to get
more information from the City Engineer. The motion passed on a 6-0-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining) . This
ite�11 concluded at 8:10 p.in.
3. 1517 B�IRLINGAIVIE A NUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A
SECOND.,STORY ADDITIO (RAY BRAYER, BRAYER CONSTRUCTION & DES N, APPLICANT
AND DESY�GNER; ROY AND NE BORODKIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (CONTI ED TO MAY
29 2001 M � TING
At the request of le applicant 1517 B�rl:
�
4. 1870 EL CAMINO EAL, SUITE 100
P�RMIT POR A REAL � STATE USE (P
PROPERTY (�WNrRI
Avenue was continued to May 29, 2001 meeting.
vED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PACIFIC GLOBAL, APPLICANT; PRIME PLAZA LLC,
Reference staff report, 5/l4/0 with attaclunents. 'ty Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Three conditio were suggested for nsideration. Commission had no questions of staff.
C. Luzuriaga noted thaC he will be bstaining from actio on this item because he owns property within 500
feet. �
Chairman Vistica opened the public hea 'ng. Dave Ziegel, bro er of record for the property, noted that the
applicant does not use 3000 SF for real es te use, there is a sma office for meetings and a broker office,
Priin Pacific is a trading company, there are 5 employees, but not 1 are real estate. Commissioners noted
that th applicant ueeds to look at definition real estate use, it go beyond just licensed brokers; CA
noted tha some of the employees may also fal under the financial in itution definition, that should be
confinned a well; C-1 district is protective of thes 'nd of uses and requ' conditional use permit; should
also look at liours of. operation, application shou reflect all hours tha employees will be on site;
application not clear as to use, need to clarify and co back to the Commiss n.
�
Item # Gj
Consent Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
1441 Bernal Avenue
Item # � G)
Consent Calendar
City of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1441 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: OS/29/O1
Request: Design review amendment for a new, two-story single family residence with a detached garage at
1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040)
Property Owner: Linda Frye
Applicant: Ralph Domenici APN: 026-044-100
Designer: Mark Robertson Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Date Submitted: Apri15, 2001
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.
May 14, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting: On May 14, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for an amendment to design review (see attached 5/14/O1 Planning Commission minutes). A neighbor
called this item off of the consent calendar to express concern that the existing curb cut was replaced and the
new curb cut overlaps two feet into the right-of-way in front of her house. The Planning Commission asked
the City Engineer to look into this issue and report back to them at the May 29, 2001 meeting.
The attached May 17, 2001 memo from the City Engineer states that the Department of Public Works
inspected the new driveway approach at 1441 Bernal Avenue and found that it meets all Public Works
standards. One wing of the driveway approach does extend approximately 1.2 feet toward the frontage of
adjacent properiy to the north, however this is within the City's right-of-way and was done in order to align
the driveway approach with the driveway at 1441 Bernal Avenue.
Apri123, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting: On Apri123, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for an amendment to design review (see attached 4/23/O1 Planning Commission minutes). Concerns
expressed by the Planning Commission included the following:
• emergency egress windows for bedrooms #2 and #3 are not shown correctly on plans; and
• extra foam pieces and trim added to elevations but not clouded as changes on the plans.
Current Project Revisions (May 1, 2001 plans): After the Apri123, 2001, Planning Commission
meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped May 1, 2001). The following revisions were
made:
• all changes to the plans from the originally approved design review project have been noted with those
items clouded on the revised set of drawings.
The Commission expressed concern that the windows in bedrooms #2 and #3 did not appear to meet
egress requirements and may need to be changed. Deputy Chief Inspector Tom McGovern confirmed that
based on field inspections, as presently constructed both of these bedrooms have a window with a 5.7 SF
opening which meets egress requirements.
Desigri Review Amendment /441 Bernal Avenue
Current Request : This project is being returned to the Commission because Conditions #1 and #2 have not
been met. The structure that has been built differs from that shown on the plans approved by the Planning
Commission on August 28, 2000: the rear second floor deck and French doors were removed, a window was
added on the north elevation, a small gable was added at the rear, an access door was added along the south
elevation along with changes to the architectural features. None of the changes result in a special or
conditional use permit or variance .
History: On August 28, 2000, the Planning Commission granted approval for a design review and special
permit for height to allow the construction of a new two-story house with a detached garage at 1441 Bernal
Avenue. A special permit for height was approved to allow a height of 32'-3" where 30'-0" is the maximum
height allowed.
It was reported to the Planning Department by a neighbor that the project at 1441 Bernal Avenue was not
being constructed as it was approved by the Planning Commission. Deputy Chief Building Inspector Tom
McGovern went out to the site and found that there were changes made to the structure in the field that were
not shown on the plans (date stamped 8/4/00) that were originally approved by the Planning Commission on
8/28/00. The changes made to the design include:
• The rear second floor deck, off of the master bedroom along the south side of the properiy, has been
eliminated. With the elimination of this deck, came the removal of the French doors leading out onto
the deck which served as fire egress for the master bedroom. However, there is an existing 2'-6" X
4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along the north elevation that meets the fire egress
requirement. In order to meet the Building Code requirement for light and ventilation (10% of the
room area = 25.4 SF) another 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window was added along the north elevation
that matches the existing casement window along this elevation. The elimination of the deck resulted
in the addition of a roof element in between the existing gables over the master bedroom and master
bathroom.
• Stucco foam trim has been added at the base of the building at the front and rear, and vertical trim that
extends up from the base trim to the eaves has been added at the right front building corner, and the
left and right rear building corners. The base trim wraps around to the chimney along the south side,
and wraps around to the beginning of the dining room along the north side. Stucco foam trim has also
been added underneath the north side window of bedroom number three on the second floor, and
around the front porch.
• A 3'-0" X 8'-0" door has been added along the south elevation to allow access to the water heater that
was originally proposed to be located in the attic. Because of the weight of the water heater, it was
relocated to an area underneath of the stairs. An exterior door is needed for access to the water heater.
• It was also reported to the City that the driveway approach has changed from that which was originally
approved. The curb cut area is not within the subject property line boundaries but it is in the City
right-of-way. The concrete for the driveway approach was poured in accordance with the
requirements of the Public Works Department. The project has not had a final inspection, but Ed
Chung, with the Department of Public Works visited the site prior to the pour and noted that all City
requirements were being met.
When this project originally went through the Design Review process, it was referred to a design review
consultant. The revised plans have not been submitted to a design reviewer. The final analysis from the design
2
Desigri Review Amendment 1441 Bernal Avenue
' reviewer on the original project is attached. A copy of the originally approved plans, along with the revised
plans, are included for your review.
CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(5/1/O1) (8/4/00)
SETBACKS
Front (15` flr): No change 27'-6" 15' or block average
(2"a flr): No change 30'-0" 20'-0"
Side (left): No change 7'-0" 4'-0"
Side (right): No change 9'-6" 4'-0"
Rear (ls` flr): No change 28'-0" 15'-0"
�2nd �]I,�: 44'-0" 20'-0"
LOT 34.9% 40%
COVERAGE: No change (2,094 SF) (2,100 SF)
F�, No change 3,226 SF/ 2,780 SF/
' 0.54 FAR 0.53 FAR
PARKING: No change 1 covered in garage 1 covered in garage
(10'-0" x 20'-0")
(14'-0" X 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway
+ 1 unc. In driveway
����" ' �� �No change 32'-3„' 30'/2 �/2 stories
��� ,
DH ENVELOPE: No change Meets requirement See code
' Special permit for height granted under 8/28/00 Planning Commission approval (32'-3")
proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached. Please see the City Engineer's May 17, 2001 memo stating that the new
driveway approach meets the standards for the Department of Public Works.
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.
Design Rsview Amendment
1441 Bernal Avenue
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 23, 2001,
meeting, the project (as altered from the plans approved on August 28, 2000) , with the second window added along
the north elevation, adds symmetry to this portion of the building and fits in well, privacy is provided by a large tree,
and the elimination of the rear second floor deck is an asset since it increases the neighbor's privacy by eliminating
direct views into three rear yards and the enclosure blends into the architectural style of the house, and so the
revisions are found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be made by resolution and should include findings. 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 May
1, 2001, Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August 4, 2000, plans previously
approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French doors off of the master bedroom along
the south side of the properiy, the addition of a 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along
the north elevation, the addition of a small gable over the master bedroom and master bathroom at the rear,
the addition of a 3'-0" X 8'-0" access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features
with the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations;
2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
3. that any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging
a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memos shall be met;
5. that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that it projects from the landing up as a
cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and
6. 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: Ralph Domenici, applicandcontractor
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: SYED MURTUZA, CITY ENGINEE
DATE: MAY 17, 2001
SUBJECT: DRIVEWAY AT 1441 BERNAL AVENUE.
The Public Works Department has inspected the driveway approach at 1441 Bernal Avenue and
found that the newly constructed driveway meets the Public Works Standards.
One of the wings of the driveway approach extends approximately 1.2 feet at the frontage of
adjacent property, which is in City's right-of-way. This was constructed by the contractor in order
to align the new driveway approach in the City's right- of- way with the private driveway on the
private property.
Attachment: Field measurement sketch and Photos
File: S:\A Public Works Directory\Author, By Name\Syed Murtuza Letters\MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE 1441 BERNAL
AVE.wpd
�ER ►�l A- �-
�G��I��
�V�U�
i(10 � c,4 �.- �
�j F � t� A l�.
Ri�N7
oF
Wp `�
�" /3-0 /
City bf Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 14, 2001
abstain from action on that item. C. Vis ' a noted that he would like to a condition to item 2B, 1337 P a
Avenue, that the downstairs baseme space shall not be used as slee ' quarters or bedrooms.
2B. 1337 PALOMA AVE — ZONED R 1— APPLICA FOR DESIGN REVIEW A NEW ONE-
STORY SINGLE ILY DWELLING (JD SSOCIATES, APPLIC AND DESIGNER;
ALEXANDER GLORIA HIDCHENKO OPERTY OWNERS)
2C. 313 CH N LANE — ZONED R-1 — PLICATION FOR
SEC STORY ADDITION (T AS L. HAMACHER,
B CE HOMER-SMITH, PR RTY OWNER) �
�'N'N REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
1464 CORTEZ AVEN �— ZONED R-1— APP TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CIAL
PERMIT FOR DE G HEIGHT ENVE E FOR A NEW TWO-STORY S FAMILY
DWELLING ETACHED GARAG S CHLT, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. ., APPLICANT
AND DESI R: GARY ERNST, P ERTY OWNER)
C. Kei�ran moved approval ms 2B 1337 Paloma Avenue, 2C 313 apin Lane, and 2D 1464 Cortez
Avenue with the amendm o the conditions of approval for 1337 P a Avenue suggested by C. Vistica,
and with the finding conditions in the staff report for eac perty. The motion was seconded by C.
Osterling. Chai Vistica called for a voice vote on the tion. The motion for 313 Chapin Lane and
1464 Cortez enue passed on a 6-0-0-1 (C. Auran a ining) voice vote. The motion for 1337 Paloma
Avenue passed on a 6-0-0-2 (Cers. Auran, Dreili staining). This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2a. 1441 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
TO APPROVED NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RALPH DOMENICI,
APPLICANT; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER; LINDA FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER)
SP Brooks presented the staff report and conditions of approval. C. Auran was noted as abstaining from this
action since it was on the consent calendar and he had not been on the commission when the items was
originally reviewed. There were no questions about the application from the Planning Commission.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal Avenue, who called the item off
the consent calendar and commented that she was unclear about whether the occupancy permit had been
issued to this property, but it was being shown for sale this week end, is this legal. The CA noted that there
is no relationship between showing a property or selling it and the occupancy permit; this hearing is
regarding corrections that may be needed to be made to the property. She expressed a concern that the curb
cut was replaced and it overlaps two feet on to the right-of-way in front of her house. CE noted that he
would have to look into this and report back about the situation.
The chairman then recognized Ralph Domenici, 510 Almer Road, contractor and applicant for 1441 Bernal
Avenue. He noted that the plans showed that the approach to the driveway would need to be replaced and
the forms were installed and inspected by the Public Works Department; the area where the driveway
approach is located' is public right-of-way and the city has authority over what occurs there. He noted that
at the last meeting he did not take the opportunity to apologize to the staff and Commission for not getting
the paperwork on the changes to this project in before the work was done on the house. CE asked if the
3
�
City bf Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 14, 2001
widening of the approach in the right-of-way was directed by city staff; the applicant noted that it was. C�
noted that he would ask staff what the issues were. There were no more comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: feel that if something is encroaching in front of a neighbor's property Commission
should at least review the circumstances by continuing the item 2 weeks so staff can look into it. CA noted
that it is possible that a change was required in the curb cut to meet city requirements since it was being
installed on city property. Feel that the plans are now complete and would be comfortable acting on them;
would be willing to proceed if this were a regular project, but this one was changed without proper
approvals, would like to wait until we see if the approach and curb-cut is OK or needs to be changed.
C. Bojues agree that we need to get the information on the driveway approach and curb cut from the City
Engineer so we have all the information before commission acts, move to continue this item for two weeks
to the next Planning Commission meeting, May 29, 2001. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the Motion: are the property line monuments clear on the site, feel we should continue this
item in order to get all the information.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item for two weeks in order to get
more information from the City Engineer. The motion passed on a 6-0-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining) . This
item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
3. 1517 BURLINGAME A UE — ZONED R-1 — APPLI ION FOR DESIGN REVIEW F R A
SECOND STORY ION (RAY BRAYER, BRAYE NSTRUCTION & DESIGN, AP CANT
AND DESIGNE OY AND JANE BORODKIN, ERTY OWNERS) (CONTINU TO MAY
29, 2001 M NG)
At tl��quest of the applicant 1517 Bur�ame Avenue was continued to M�'9, 2001 meeting.
4. T870 EL CAMINO REAL, S 100 — ZONED C-1— APPLIC N FOR CONDITION SE
PERMIT FOR A REAL ES E USE (PRIlVIE PACIFIC GLOB , APPLICANT; PRIlV� PL LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER
Reference sta ort, 5/14/O1, with attachments. C' lanner presented the report, r ewed criteria and
staff co s. Three conditions were suggeste r consideration. Commission h no questions of staff.
C. L aga noted that he will be abstainin m action on this item because h wns property within �
Chairman Vistica opened the ic hearing. Dave Ziegel, broker of�`ord for the properly, d that the
applicant does not use 30 for real estate use, there is a smal fice for meetings and roker office,
Prime Pacific is a trad' company, there are 25 employees, bu ot all are real estate. C 'ssioners noted
that the applican eds to look at definition of real estat e, it goes beyond just ensed brokers; CA
noted that so of the employees may also fall under 'e financial institution mition, that should be
confirm well; C-1 district is protective of these ' of uses and requires c itional use permit; should
also k at hours of operation, application s ld reflect all hours t employees will be on site;
ication not clear as to use, need to clarify d come back to the Co ission.
�
... . r � _.,,, ..
,;,,; : . . . . .. � ;�._ _>�a..�..�:::,r .. _ ;� ..... .: .. ... : . . . . ..
' '. ,::� •
�%
�� Apri123, 2001
' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
- the house is heavy at the front, one window extending from first to second floors not enough to tie
front together, the proposal is not pedestrian friendly;
- the front porch needs to be considered in the context of the entire house, the pre-caste balustrade does
not fit, the grandeur for this lot comes from the trees and view;
- need to reduce the view blockage for neighbors.
Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the commission's
directions and noted that when the modified project returns to the commission for consideration story poles
which outline the ridgelines of the new construction and document the location of the stair structure at the
front should be included so that the neighbors can take photographs to document for the commission the
impact of the proposed construction on the views from inside the living areas of their houses. The motion
was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to send the project to a design reviewer with
direction and to install story poles before subsequent commission review of the modified design. The
motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 8:17 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 1441 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1RY ��GLE FIAMILY DWELLINGE( IRALPH llOME CI
TO AN APPROVED NEW TWO STO
APPLICANT• MARK ROBERTSON DESIGNER• LINDA FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER
Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no
questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer, and Ralph Domenici, applicant,
noted that they would be available to answer questions. Commission asked if the window in bedroom #3
meets egress requirements; applicant noted that Anderson has special hardware for casement windows,
windows will be casement, not double-hung, will correct plans to show casement windows.
Commission comment: design review was approved for these plans, need to know that more FAR is not
being added with change, feel that proposed changes help the project, removal of the deck at the rear of the
house provides privacy for the neighbors; have different opinion, feel that changes do not help the project.
How did the changes happen? Applicant noted that the changes occurred during consiruction, previous plans
had a deck which looked into neighbors' yards, felt that this was not appropriate, deck and loss of privacy
was an issue in previous Commission review, thought that adding a window in bedroom #4 would have little
impact on the neighbor.
Mary Packard, 1445 Berna1 Avenue, and Viktor Pochron, 1436 Bernal Avenue, addressed the Commission
with the following concerns: plans were approved with the condition that the building be built according
to the plans approved by the Commission, contractor deviated from the approved plans, contractor has
expressed that there is no one in city government who can stop him, contractor needs to abide by the law,
this action is illegal and should not be approved, he enforced on kids who were throwing garbage in his
construction dumpster, this will cause a precedent and create lawlessness, curb cut was moved by three feet
towards her property, this action invalidates city's building process; generally happy with the construction
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
Apri123, 2001
of the house, not too happy with the changes, surprised that window was added in the bedroom, will closely
watch contractor if he is to build house at 1433 Bernal Avenue, this house was reviewed twice by the
Commission, would like to have house built as on approved plans, happy with the removal of the deck,
adding a window was inconsiderate. Staff noted that the second window in bedroom #4 is not needed for
light and ventilation between but not for egress. Applicant noted that several options were considered for
the window placement, need to pitch the roof at the rear of the house, cannot place window there, proposed
location seemed appropriate to balance the light and ventilation in the bedroom.
Further discussion: emergency egress windows are not correctly shown on plans, single-hung windows in
bedroom #2 and #3 do not appear to meet emergency egress requirements, may need to be changed. CA
Anderson noted that the Commission cannot approve what is not shown on the plans, approval must be
based on the house to be built according to the correct plans. Commission noted that the porch on proposed
and previous plans is not consistent, extra foam pieces were added but not clouded as a change; applicant
noted that foam trim pieces were added to the porch and to the corners of the building, foam appears as
columns on front porch or front elevation drawings. There were no further comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: plans need to be shown with correct egress windows, all new foam trim should be
clouded, new window in bedroom fits in well and is small, have not asked to remove windows for privacy
in other projects, window is appropriate as shown.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action when the stated revisions have
been made to the plans and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Comment on the motion: Commission asked if it would be possible to eliminate one windows in the
bedroom and increase the size of the remaining window? Commission noted that the second window
doesn't seem to be a problem, it is already built, not convinced that throwing a window away is the solution,
do not like the situation, would've rather seen these changes earlier before the changes were made in the
field, loss of privacy from window is much less than privacy impact of the previously approved balcony,
does not feel that this is an onset of lawlessness, would like to see accurate plans, do not want to see this
situation again, would not want to increase size of window, second bedroom window adds synunetry,
eliminating the balcony is an asset, the process used to add the second window is wrong, window should
have been shown on plans before it was built project amended, conditions should be followed, these changes
are ok, but the changes could have just as easily resulted in a bad design, need to have a better system to
have construction checked in field to make sure the house is being built according to the approved plans.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the May 14, 2001, consent
calendar or whenever the completed information has been submitted, checked by staff and there is room on
the agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 8:53 p.m.
5. 1338 COLUMBUS AVENUE — ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEVv
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE GAUL
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER• ROBERT AND CAROLYN GAUL PROPERTY OWNERS
Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. C. Osterling noted that he lives within a 500' radius o
the project and would abstain from the item, he stepped down from the dias. City Planner presented th�
6
rling�me Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2000
The tiQn was seco ed C. �ling. ere was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a
vo c te e ti n a p ve. motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The
ite conc ed 8:35 p.m.
�( 1441 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LINDA
FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 8.28.00, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the report,
reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Comtnission
noted that the FAR in the staff report at one point is listed as 3020 SF, should be 3335 SF. There were no further
questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 135 Arroyo Court, San Mateo, project designer,
noted that he kept the same design as was previously reviewed, but made the garage detached, was mindful of neighbor
to the right, kept the driveway where it now is to separate from neighbor.
Commissioners asked: on south facade, it seems that there is an easy way to break up the mass by cantilevering the
stair from the landing up, would help the mass, realize there is a landscape buffer on that side. The applicant noted
that he is willing to make that change, would like to see it as a condition because he is on a tight time line.
Public Comment: Ann Marie Flores, 1436 Bernal Avenue, notes that this as a custom home designed for the lot, why
does it need variances; understand construction will keep happening, on this block there is an elementary school and
lots of construction traffic, could the block be designated a construction zone to reduce traffic problems; design meant
to fit in with neighborhood but will look like a new home, can we request a plaque noting the date of construction;
would like clarification on the plans, states it is set back further than average, but will line up with house next door,
appears this is the average of the block. Commissioners response: the requested increase in height is a special permit,
not a variance, allows for a more traditional roof slope, can be granted based on architectural character; the request for
a construction zone should be made to the Public Works; Traffic Engineering; hope with this design and review, the
date of construction is not apparent as it is with 1970's vintage construction. Planning staff noted that the block average
is based on the setbacks on the entire length of the block, in this average case is 19'-10", proposed setback is 27'-6".
Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal Avenue, would like to thank applicant for efforts on revisions to plans, need to provide
architectural consistency with neighborhood, house on one side is 2100 SF, one on other side is 1200 SF, do not mind
if it is big, just that it is not in our face; would like the project flipped so the bulk is in the back, not in the front, even
if garage is attached toward the back; understand privacy is a sensitive issue, but thought it could be addressed.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: as a point of clarification, there are quite a few gestures in this design toward a traditional
style, this avoids it being a"70s" house, in terms of whether it is flipped, need to understand that the front steps back
alot, the part that does come forward has a small scale; if the stairwell is popped out on the south side it might offer
relief; do not think rooms should be rearranged, has a traditional arrangement; project is in keeping with the
neighborhood.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 4, 2000, sheets 1 through 4,
Approved Minutes -7-
an�i tliat any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an 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 dormer(s),
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the plate height, roof height, or pitch, shall be
subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo shall be met; 4) that the
stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that it projects from the landing up as a cantilevered bay and
breaks up the long south side of the house; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C.
Bojues.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. The item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
DESIG VIEW STUDY ITEMS
711 CONCORD AY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICA ON FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND ARKING VARIANCE
FOR SUBSTAND PARKING SPACE DIMENSI S FOR A FIRST AND SECO STORY ADDITION
(STEWART ASSO IATES, APPLICANT AND DESI R; JEFFREY S. AND JE ER L. SANDERS,
PROPERTY OWNE S)
CP Monroe presented the aff report. There were no questions�
<
airman Luzuriaga opened the p blic comment. John Stewart,
prope ner, represented the proj t.
Commissioners 3
be made wider a
new match the c
transition would
line does not cha
the weather.
the project from the commis
tect 1351 Laurel Street, and Jennifer
ntified the following oncerns: felt that given the ext of the work to the house the garage should
longer to meet current ode requirements; there is interes ' detail on the existing house, will the
ier window detail; con rned about the flat portion of the ro f, provide detail showing what the
from the flat to sloped r of; garage requirements should be m t inside existing structure so roof
e; its all right to revise the ont entrance to extend a covering o r the door to protect people from
C. Deal made a motion to this item on the conse calendar for September 11 2000, provided the variance for
parking were removed and the s adjusted to address mmission concerns. Mo 'on was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a oice vote on the motion hich was approved 7-0. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m.
1541 LA MESA DRIVE - ZON D R-1 - APPLICATIOl
AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A ST AND SECOND S
PROPER'1� OWNER AND DESI NER
R HILLSIDE AREA NSTRUCTION PERMIT
Y ADDITION (KEITH B L, APPLICANT,
CP Monroe pre�ented the staff report. 'T�iere were no questions of s`�aff about the project.
Chairman Luzuria opened the public comriient. Keith Borrell, prop owner and applicant, represented the
project. Susan Chon, 547 La Mesa Drive, next door neighbor also comme ed on view.
Commissioners identifi the following concerns: there is a problem with the r f plan, it needs to be completely
revised, applicant should get professional advice; important to install story poles so e fect of this addition, even though
it is at the back of the building, can be determined by neighbor; horizontal view of neighbor to the left from their
bedroom could be affected by addition.
Approved Minutes -8-
City ofL3i,rlingame Plarrning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2000
Ciiairman Luzuriaga announces that the commission would take a brief break. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50
p.m.
1441 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. (LINDA FRYE, OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Noted letter from Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal, commenting on proposed
project, date stamped June 23, 2000. There were no questions about the project from the Commission.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, designer, 135 Arroyo Court, represented the
project. He noted that this project is an almost exact copy of the project at 526 Marin which the commission approved:
It has an attached garage, the new owner is a single woman and wants an attached garage because she feels safer.
Commissioner noted the garage is a problem, it detracts from the neighborhood character, good proportion and window
trim; this neighborhood is safe, do not feel that safety is an issue. Initially felt "no way" but looked around
neighborhood and there are a few houses with attached garages at the rear, like the design it flows well, the way the
garages are set works well with the design, the first garage is setback 27 feet the second 30 feet, in this case the garage
blends in. Agree, although the predominant pattern is detached garages, but some variation is positive and if this one
is attached at the front it will be a way to see how this works after it is built. What landscaping and tree planting are
you planning. Designer noted plans do not address backyard and there will be no change, the front yard will be lawn.
Suggest larger scale shrubs at the front. Many cities have regulations which require staggered garage doors when they
are at the front of the house, in this case it would look better without the extra off set, the lumps call attention to the
garages.
Speaking on the project were; Mary Packard 1445 Bernal; Mary Napp, 1452 Bernal Avenue; Victor Pucktran, 1436
Bernal; asked what to do about the fact that the plans show the neighbor's property line running down the middle of
the wall which her survey shows is wholly on her property. CE noted that before the applicant submits plans for a
building permit he must survey the property and set the property corners which will define the lot. Commissioner noted
that if his survey does not correspond to hers, she built the fence in good faith. CE noted that this would be a private
survey and the city does not approve them or participate in them, they are done by licensed engineers for that reason;
conflicts between surveys are usually resolved by arbitration or litigation and tend to be very technical. He suggested
that the neighbor submit a copy of her survey to the Planning Department. Ms. Packard also asked that the commission
preserve the space between her home and the new one; expressed concern about the investment she had made in
landscaping along the wa11 which would not survive with the shade created by the new building, the bedroom windows
of the new house face her kitchen; if the house is to be occupied by a single woman why does she need two garages,
the garage should be attached at the rear to provide a driveway to separate their two properties and increase privacy.
Lot of residents here from Bernal, this is one story being replaced by 3000 SF, this is a monster house, will start a citizen
committee to push for a moratorium on such houses; if the Planning Commission cannot keep their neighborhood in tact
then they will; remodel does not mean remove all the house except one wall; would like to keep it with the same facade
as before, would like a garage at the rear. Commissioner noted that the commissioners valued her comments more than
she realizes, hope she is not here because of something that happened two years ago, because two years ago did not
have design review, design guidelines show detached garages at the rear so houses will not extend across a property
from side setback to side setback line. Lived in neighborhood 13 years, want the remodel to keep the present style;
the garage in the front will detract from the neighborhood, did a remodel�himself with at detached garage; need a good
review of vegetation, should plant all around the house. There were no further comments from the floor and the
comment period was closed.
�
City ofBu,rlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Min:ites June 26, 2000
Cornrnissioner comment: biggest concern is the garage which projects out 11 feet to the front, prefer a detached garage
or attached at the rear where it is less prominent. Agree, neighborhood deserves a detached garage to increase privacy
and setback; house has a small entry with lots of garage; the flat. roof at the top makes it look as if the roof is not
resolved, can ask for a special permit for height to address such a problem; first floor plate should be reduced from 10
to 9 feet; on the south elevation the gable projection with window accentuates the height, should be revised; the rear
deck is too large, 13' x 13', high above neighbors place for people to congregate, should be reduced to 3' x 5' so cannot
be used for gatherings; mature vegetation on the left side should be preserved and the trees at the rear protected during
construction and after. In this area need a two car garage, no on street parking, need extra space; design is nice, agree
that flat roof needs to be completed and special permit would be appropriate; balcony should be removed; these are
small lots so the issue of the visual access from the kitchen on one property to the bedrooms on the other should be
addressed with window coverings and good judgement among people; important to protect mature landscaping, need
to add landscaping along the sides to break up the side wall of the house.
C. Dreiling noted with this design a detached garage would also allow the front porch to be extended; the attached
garage is all right but the pattern in the neighborhood is detached, move to refer this item to the design reviewer with
the comments made by the commission for the reviewer to work with the applicant to reach a reasonable conclusion.
Motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comments on the motion: design should consider the next door neighbor in placement of windows, absolutely there
should be a detached garage; if one is to have an attached garage this is the way to do it, but the public testimony is clear
to call for a detached garage; privacy is a balance between eliminating blank walls and the placement of windows.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to refer this item to the design reviewer. The motion passed
on a 6-1 (C. Keighran dissenting) vote. The CA noted that the applicant should try to resolve the property line issue
with the neighbor without doing a separate land survey. The action of the commission is advisory and the item is not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m.
ADDI ON (JEN A AND WENDY VE-1 A, OWNERSI IQB O A. SEIRANG
A SECOND STORY
C AND APPLIC�AN�
CP Monroe riefly presented the sta report. There were n questions about t project from the comm' sion.
Chairm Luzuriaga opened the blic hearing. Iqbal S ang IAS Designs alo Alto, represented th project, noting
he u erstood that there wou be no decision tonig , is deferred from st meeting, if possible w ld like comments
to ddress so that can cont' ue with Building per ' as soon as possibl , rains are coming. Com issioner asked plans
ow a storage area wit ow ceiling but two do ers and gable end 'ndow, is this going to be ed for something else.
Designer noted that ' 1985 a second story s added to this on story house without raisi g the roof, the buildin is
23.5 feet tall, the rmers were added the to maximize the us able square footage, the rea has a 7'-6" ceilin t the
peak, the owne need storage area and ill use it for that. ommissioner asked on t left side the area bet een the
dormers is fil d in to create a shed do er, this area needs ome fenestration to bre up the long, blank w 1, this left
hand side ed looks out of chara er with rest of hous , windows on two dorm s and end window o econd story
area ar ut of scale, one above e entrance is Okay b others are too big. Des' ner noted that owne want as much
light s possible because the ace is small, the win ws are similar to those 'sting on the first fl r. East elevation
h a large dormer; Desi er noted this is 6' x 6' imilar to second story 'ndows. Commissio r noted building has
three fronts, nicely prop ioned with the arche �ndows in the field of w, the new windows wever are in too small
a field; probler� whe 11 in between dormers chieve a box, the dorme over the front porch 's almost too small; could
pull the wall back o you have series of rmers on the north and uth elevation, the st rage room can be used as a
-10-
1Vlarch 30, 2001
City Counsel of Burlingame
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Counsel Members:
We are writing this letter to address concerns expressed a neighbor due to changes
made to the house at 1441 Bernal Aveythat occurred during construction.
1. Addition of a 2"a master bedroom window on the north elevation
During the course of construction it became clear that anyone standing on upper
deck would compromise the privacy of several neighbors. The decision was
made to eliminate the deck, which tlle design review board didn't like in the 15�
place. In eliminating the deck we lost a french door in the master bedroom. 'This
door was required for egress, light and ventilation. A 2'6" x 4'6" casement
window was added on the north elevation to meet code. We felt by adding the
window in the location we did we would provide the most privacy possible for the
neighbor. This window has caused concern by the adjacent neighbor. See
attached photos of window location and views from that window.
2. Trim addition
We added trim to enhance the esthetic of the house aii:er consultation with
contractor, designer and owner. This architectural trim has been added to tlie
drawings for your review. Also see attached pictures & new plan.
3. Driveway approach
"The neiglibor is concenied that new driveway approacli differs from the plaii. The
set approach was installed imder the guidelines, specification and supervision of
tlie Burlingaine Public Works Department, as this is city property. (See pictures)
We know new construction can be amloying and stressful to the neighbors, with
that in mind, we have moved as fast as possible to finish our project in a timely manner.
We hope the result will blend into and improve the existing neighborhood and be
appreciated. The house we replaced was an original 1930's bungalow with no upgrades
or updates, and full of rats. (See photos)
V.�'��'. -.l a
��,� y.`�� ��� j���:�-___
I�al �Domenici-Con ractor
p ��,..�„L �.1�, .� � � � �
Linda�Frv�-Owner (�� � 'a _. �._ •'�r �, �,d:
APR 0 � Z(�01
CITY 'vF f�UF;L'�i�s�E���i��
PLAf�NING DLPT.
� � CIT
• /�r ��
eurtuH¢wMi
, ' `��:..__._�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COMNIISSION
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other '
�, a.^'� �-,p r�,•.-� �:
Project
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): ��.� -- ��-L1- — %���
APPLICANT
Name: �
Address: i ��
PROPERTY OWNER
� Name
#I. . .. i
City/State/Zip: �f4-/L ��%y� ^ O G
Phone (w): J L-�. 2 — �?�`Z �
�h):
fax:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: ��`'r-- �45 J�(�
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
�h)�
fax:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �
) �g l �. r=- �: � / I=� o � �
� y/State�
Phone (w;
(h)
fax_
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
� . .
n �� �
j<�� ���%'l. 'c ��.
/' �, —7 _- —' "�
, � ^)�I , — ,, ' -=--
' �. c� . �.�x �f � "7 �' 3 C� n
�3 .�_ � 1� ��c�. � �� � �t l /
�-� F'�4�' ��Ti� � l , ��.-g�- s'i ;
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certif under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to the be ow ge and belief.
� �- � � �
Appli ignature Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
l�.,1 .�c, � �
Property Owner's Sig ture D te
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY --=------------------------------------�
Date Filed:
Fee:
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311
Burlingame, CA 94010
MEMO:
Date: 7-31 -2000
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
ref 1441 BERNAL AVE.
RECEIVED
J U L 3 1 2000
CITY OF f3URLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
re-submitted plans dated July 19 for the second story addition/remodeling. I have
reviewed the Planning Commission's concerns on the first submittal. The following
comments pertain to the resubmitted plans in relationship to the design guidelines.
1 CompatibilitXof the architectural stvle with that of the existing nei�hborhood:
• There are many different styles represented in this neighborhood.
• The design style proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood.
2 Respect the Parking and Gara�e Patterns in the Neighborhood:
• There are two examples of large new homes on this street with double garage
doors facing the street, that are inappropriate to the neighborhood scale.
• The attached garage proposed in the first submittal has been eliminated and a
detached 1 car garage in the rear proposed. This is more in keeping with the
neighborhood pattern and improves the streetscape.
• The garage structure is simple and matches the style, materials and roof slopes of
the proposed house.
3_ Architectural 5t.� Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistency of the
Desi n.
• The revised floor plan is significantly different from the original submittal. Family
room and ground floor deck have been enlarged. Entry porch has been added, and
other rooms changed. In general it seems a well organized and efficient layout that
makes sense.
• The house has been narrowed to allow the e�sting driveway to remain.
• Upper floor rear deck has been reduced in size and tucked in between the master
bath and master bedroom and behind the roof slope. Front upper deck remains.
This seems to respond positively to the Commission's concerns.
• Roof slopes have been revised and flat roof area has been eliminated. This seems
logical and is an improvement.
• First floor plate height has been reduced to 9' which reduces the bulk of the
structure.
• Windows are consistent in overall design and trim and are attractive, however
there seems to be some confusion of fully gridded windows versus half gridded
windows.
• Detailing of the gables seems to be consistent—I would suggest adding a similar
vent to the west elevation upper left gable at the rear of the house.
• The design of the entry porch could be improved. The stick columns and the
single door seem too small and spindly for the bulk of the roof. The roof shape is
pleasing, but I would suggest stucco partial height wa11s or railing around the
porch, heavier columns (possibly stucco), a recess for the door, other small
windows, or other devices to give a more solid look that is more in scale with the
porch roof and the rest of the house.
4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side:
• The revised plans are an improvement over the original submittal. The added
driveway width separates this house more from the neighboring house.
• Window placement and sizes appear to be a good balance of minimizing disruption
to the neighbors, while avoiding blank e�erior walls. It is difficult to know exactly
where the dining room and bedroom windows will line up with the house to the
right. It appears that they will face a portion of blank wall of the adjoining house.
Since there are two driveways together, I think there is adequate separation.
• Because of the slope of the street to the south, the roof slopes, the double
driveway on the north and the eXisting vegetation to remain, this house will have
minimal impact on sunlight for the neighbors. The sun orientation to the structures
and to their relative heights and massing are a fortunate circumstance.
5 Landscapi� and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Comnonents:
• No detailed landscape plan has been submitted, however the overall concept seems
logical. Care should be taken in selection of trees and plantings to be used.
Summarv:
1. It is my opinion that these revised plans respond very well to the Commission's
concerns.
2. Recommend approval of the overall concept. High quality detailing and materials
and colors will be important.
3. Recommend additional design effort be spent on redesign of the front porch and
entry door area, as noted above.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
����
2
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
July 21, 2000
TO: i� CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new
two-story house at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-
100. (Revised Plans)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, July 24, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
� ! -1�
� �-r�' d �� s G�o�-�
l ) L .f
� �� ,y�/yL f?r �T � -2J�
,{� �
�
� R�y yyl- l /
� �Zy 1 � �Date of Comments
cei►^--� ��' �
/`-G � � tr � �
/ �
, P,. �o v � �-�-u 1 d �`�'
U
/
� ��y,.� c�-�
� �, v
Z 1 � ���
/
��
� _ ,� _1/
� 'r�� Q� (�C,(/LJ��.
._— ,
� ��
V
a�, cirr o
� + �
lr�R4!NGAME
. �
I I
� �
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50). 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.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent �vith the ezisting structure's design artd with the existing
street a►�d neiglzborhood.
� � i vL 4--�U I cvJ (.�`�''�v'^�+� �� ��' �`�'u �e. ,
�r,t�, � ,��' � �- r�u�- c� , j � � �, nz ` rr�-,
.�� � �/ c
t V �� f ' S> w�r!/l ��������1�9���
` f C s l��'QA�(„��/ . ` .a
Y
�1 (�t� (� �� �� Gt.P��G�a��- � }�c���j�
(J
2. Ezplain how tlae va�iety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed
new structure or addition are eonsistent �vith the existing structure, street and neighborhoo
l � ' � �
��s� rs �ct.� Ga-✓�- rw � �a
� �
�1 �� �.�P ' C'�����.
� ��
�
3. Hoiv will the proposed project be consistent with the resider�tial desigrc guidelir�es adopted by the city
(C. S. 25. 57) ? l��
,� � � Z�
I� � � t1.� �
�� /�
����
o�-�.�o � ���i
� a� ��u%�- a.�
� � ' ' E_ j���
(�7it�f — T �
��^- ��� G�� �:.�,P�� /Z�
N�2�YI,��s� �.
V �
4. 'Explain hoiv the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition
is necessary and is consistertt with the cily's reforestalion requirements. What mitigation is proposed
for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate.
�o CTi�� %�-��c�i-� I��,�r� �
RECEIVED
� JUL 1 9 2000
CITY OF BURIINGAME
PLANNING D�PT.
�
sp.frm/11 /98
I. Explain why ihe blen�l of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of'th.�.
new construction or a�lditio�a are consistent witlz the existing structure's design and
with the exisiing street and iaeighborhood. �
How will the prbposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and
characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from
neighboring properties. Neigboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change
to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations
of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,
street and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood?
If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of
development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl Explain why your proposal "fits" in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of "character" as the image or tone
established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the
neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will the proposed projeci be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city? �
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet
these guidelines7
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees locaied within the footprint of any new structure
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the cily's reforestation requirements.
What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation
is appropriate.
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposall If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are
"protected" under city ordinance (C.S. 1 1.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to
replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so.
sp.fim/11/98
�°'� ,,� �
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an
amendment to design review for a new two-story house with a detached garage at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned
R-1, Linda Frye, property owner, APN: 026-044-100;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on �
29, 2001, 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
CEQA 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. 1N urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be
constructed or converted under this exernption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review amendment is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such design review amendment 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.
• . : I: u � ►I
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 29th day of May , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
,
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review amendment.
1441 Bernal Avenue effective June 4, 2001
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Depart�nent date
stamped May 1, 2001 Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August
4, 2000 plans previously approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French
doors off of the master bedroom along the south side of the property, the addition of a 2'-6"
X 4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along the north elevation, the addition of a
small gable over the master bedroom and master bathroom at the reaz, the addition of a 3'-0"
X 8'-0" access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features with
the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations;
2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to
this permit;
3. that any changes any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the plate height, roof height, or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo shall be met;
5. that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that is project from the landing
up as a cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and
6. 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
� '
�r�, c i rr o�.
BURLJN�.AME
:'�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1441 BERNAL AVENUE
Application for design review amendment to an
approved new two-story single family dwelling PUBLIC HEARING
at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. N OTIC E
(APN: 026-044-100)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commissionl
announces the following public hearing on',
Tuesdav May 29, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in thei
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed May 18, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the applica�n-ana��,�an�s���� ���pl�
to the meeting at,,��e rPlatt�ung Deparlmen
Burlingame, Cal,�rrua � ; � � � �
�f
If you cha
raising onl
described
at or prior
Property c
tenants at
558-7250.
� � _� ` � -; �� :
�n� �y � : ,.
zge th��subje.ct application(s) in c
hose��s,ues-you or someone else:
�� � w
t� n�ic� pr„ u�, wr�tten co�espo�
w � , � `• .# ,� x
t e��bl�ic� k��aring �.�t, „� ��� ���> �
��i x" 3 ,
iers vwho receive,this notice' are re�
.a ,
� k � :�
Margaret Mb�roe��
City Planner �`��
�
PU
iotice. For addrtional ir
u.
� r � � ���
� :; � � � � .w.
f� ;� � ,,
� � �� . :�
��
BLl�C "HEARi1�LC
(Please refer to other side)
ay be reviewed prior
va� �1 Primrose Road,
x =�
*$t;a���� � a
S�
�r P �'°it.
urt "�y,x u may� be limited to
.ised a��the ublic hearing,
leuca�l.�liver�d to the city
� �
�� �
;� °� �� f
�� � �,�'
�
� `r',�`
���ICE
ming their
call (650)
t��
>/�. .,
s�
.�, �� � ;�,+ �. '� �na �
. , . �-:
-�dFa.� � � � � ^ '� �`, y "� � ;.q� %. -'i.
� � `��,, � � a�.�` �• •�� ;� t ��1',� �
'��� �•:,� � / � I �' � ^ ^�.! I IR �� ra S Y +�..'�M /�, / * , �
�EF � s ^ � I ��� �� L ,
, , S .,y�. + ` � .,� iK ���
.�� ' ,'" z '" v,�s �� y'�'� ,jt, �� .4� � ..
� �" , :� �,� � _�. �- �''�� �� �,
•-� � , � �, r�y,. � �� r
� ,� '�' j9 ^ +t,: Y ,ry��� a w:`' � .'�'��
j� � �r ���x� ` '� �W� c``'�' � v �..� �� y
�; � `� : t �d` �: i�' " �� ~�,�! �. .,� f "_" ,�.j
r�r � ��y ,�� �X � , �; ' pt���'�h
� ��` � , � . � ;;�'��,<,��
. . . � r} , � �' . ' ` i' � e
�,1�P,' ,: �' � .,�� -�..� ,` 'i'1+�.
¢„�� . �' .r',�• _ `�'�.f 'r.� - r �'�. 4�' 7 . t
i: �� �'' � 4 "� ''� .:s � �w, �'' 'i
+. � ` �. y � �. . 'ti � ' .
\." A s . -. i' /i���
� ' � ' f5 ,� ..,� �! �y)
..C. �°� ,,� °�
r lm . j��� 9� f5`. ` � .;' ,�T �,( -� �� -V
� .
a
' , :
. ��Y� 'i�' . '� ��.�,�� •�1C � �,e,.,�„ �s-1
`?. t'. .� ` I .` ..� ^h'.
. : � �
�
. . � .^ ' ' ._.
i' `i '� � ` ', F�
������
�,". �:��'".�4�
� T. .
� L� '
N I V �,'�,`. ���.. ,'J� ��
�i� \t�f\�'�.
` � � •,`� '�
� �� : +R. � ��
� \ �� � �
�, �
♦
� Y ,, � � :.>�`�i
��, `\ ;���
��� � ,.
'�', x Y,k
! �.� ' �
t� .� '
'y � f
� t �`. �: � r.
�h W �'�'�,,
\ � .T.
�` \ k , d
ie�. ,, �+�
. • ,j •.�,, .�'��, �
+ /�M �.
�t�.. `p• fi���`•a `,�.
� ��M. + ���-- *a�,' ' ��' �r ./ � t:�w�,.
� � � �it � _ � ;r• .�, ,� `.,' �.� �',�,
�' , ; i �''����';`
��'"����. g ,�, `�� �ro� � �
" � ,�4<� ��• � .
� �g��,,� � "�, � .
p► �`', / �,. � �` ��i' �.
,y� �� � '�:s�; 3> ' ,f•
=, f,� � , � _�
, � � �r�{ � . ,., � ` YA' , iJ � h : ;r% � � .
i� `� .� y �� � i '.i "�',.
,�� ' ! ,- .,. , �.
� .
��e� .� *>. •,:, � .�" � ; `� ` . `.
t r v,'
� ,.r .� . . �,.� ��� � ,, ;�
� : % ` f`!': r' � i . `..,
� +� � ;� � �af4 �•' ..
, / •;t `� r • ;,� ��
c ` ��� .: �'� ., � ����R�
u+x•+,�;,. ai r:'. �. � ��.. ' / y: �,..�, R�✓. `! a„ ', � ^ \
', _' ��. �,,� ,�.. - �;: �� •
�. , rr"� '",�q ��` ��;���� ' �'
�+� � ' �' ,�. ',� �`y`�°� , n � .
�� �,� s � ,
` 4 ,�•, ��''^ �: ,�i � � ."
d� � ��
' � y ,�. � �;• ;' ' w�► _ � ''': . ;�'
, �I � � ��'
� �� fi
A; ��r� , � A� � �� Z'f 1� i
�" �i� �'� 'k .i�ff� ;ra� `. �F# i
y{•` �`�= �;y'ia�`� ,:.� 4 -. ���r
, ` r ` �
�` ��a,. ' � ;'�� � � o �.,' y, �`,. ,: a:r .•
� _ �s � ' ' t�v � � �� �� F .,',V' ��
t y � V �,- �' �' �'(.
� � � 3�����-�' � �\ '�
`n �+�,: ,'�? ,!,.� �s, `' �, "•+"
� f ��r. / ; ,.,t,. �. ��.�. ; ,�a' �
.�" ,�,f a, �. `� ��;=%'��y�, .�ir t�:�'. �,
,� ,�s� � •` '` � �� �
9 �, '�. st. �'�"`t�`°��° �, ��
� ,�•i: �: .. ° f �,?,�'t f, '„
.� �� � � � � ,�
�''� � �' ti �..
A �
i �'.
�
J
��, :� � ��� .�' ;.
, \ � yY� 'r,,,, . :.'S� ��± fr �i" .l� A, ��� _
''�•=Q �;• �`� � �, j,� ''�::.�;.��: �F��. ,' -`
,`��'� + ��' •, :� ��`. -e�,�' � ,
�'` �.'" , ' `�; o '�,. �t.�f,.
�.� �� ��4. ) r . Y � ,�� .�� ^ ...
'�t� � � '` ` �~.,, ,�' • ���•" ;,�:.
;�a� �� �}f a �(+7►,.���
�.r : , � ; '� 'i�„ bt',�f. `..�
� ;�... �.i. ° �� � . 3�. � .
� �� � ���` .� �d :$. A, "" � %�".r
� �� ��nD � A s �g y,,.
+ ,, � F; `� � ti S+,r ' �`�n `
? �':'� � � !, � aa., h� ,s� � " �
f �k � y �' 'r � e,� ,� �, �� . �r r� �z .
y,� a 1�S✓F �!, ., � �(� l,��'
A . � �:�,.. � k. � '�'y" ��✓ � '" 4 ,� �'k � �..i� ��. `w/ , .
�, + ¢�� ..�. .���' � • ` ♦ f � �
�4 � � ,{•. E� � � t.
� ,� � � : / � , ". ` '% �� � ;
'y/ JJy�� �4 ' . ,�� i,�..3.
�' �L�`� .,.. . • r� � , �+ � i �,� �' SY. r �€
r �. ��� ��. �� :"�� . ���Y .
:�� � �,. . . . ,. r� � �
� ,
'�' '�� e�' �' .
:�� S E`�• '�
� ," �
i ;f�� t '�'y,� :rb: ,.
�
s ! fD.}—�r 7!.. �
�'M1'��.T� :y
1 . fN��- ��.
Y Yy' dy �
i .,�
' '� � � `�. �..
� � r,�.
�F+I1
_ —' _ �{. S .� �f;
fI i .., .
�iNj ����'''����'3��C�ggg�
����:.�•�w:� �'
'�� � ��. ..�.._
�
+�J * �. �
� s .
._.{ q
� �`lI
�� :ti— y .ia *�.Y��
v.t�.+r.a �• ��" . .
.�Q.. r`.�r ��_�-�rlt
�� I� i .�_
�_ `���� � � k.� — �
II � _ .�___ = 1 � '..r w �� K�
Q 1 � 3- '� _ � ' I
� ` � 3 x ��( �� � +`� � �� f N:. Y + `sa!^I:..
� (:. � ', �s � � .}„ y,._ . >.
�.__
,�,� _ { � �-��, , �
��;��y �Y ' Y. ;- . � -
i x
,. i� f�3x..{ : 'bf . - �� � 4k �� l� r
_._ ; � - —
: . , ... � '.—.�_ :.�; —
�
ii4 * ' �
�rrua�ru� 3 -- � ; k�, • _
`� i��tl,1 ►� ..�
;E ei�+�c_� �_ �p� .__
i�""S_ . . . .
Item # � G%
Consent Calendar
City of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1441 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: OS/29/O1
Request: Design review amendment for a new, two-story single family residence with a detached garage at
1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040)
Property Owner: Linda Frye
Applicant: Ralph Domenici APN: 026-044-100
Designer: Mark Robertson Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7.flning: R 1
Date Submitted: Apri15, 2001
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.
May 14, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting: On May 14, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for an amendment to design review (see attached 5/14/O1 Planning Commission minutes). A neighbor
called this item off of the consent calendar to express concern that the existing curb cut was replaced and the
new curb cut overlaps two feet into the right-of-way in front of her house. The Planning Commission asked
the City Engineer to look into this issue and report back to them at the May 29, 2001 meeting.
The attached May 17, 2001 memo from the City Engineer states that the Department of Public Works
inspected the new driveway approach at 1441 Bernal Avenue and found that it meets all Public Works
standards. One wing of the driveway approach does extend approximately 1.2 feet toward the frontage of
adjacent property to the north, however this is within the City's right-of-way and was done in order to align
the driveway approach with the driveway at 1441 Bernal Avenue.
Apri123, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting: On Apri123, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for an amendment to design review (see attached 4/23/O1 Planning Commission minutes). Concerns
expressed by the Planning Commission included the following:
• emergency egress windows for bedrooms #2 and #3 are not shown correctly on plans; and
• extra foam pieces and trim added to elevations but not clouded as changes on the plans.
Current Project Revisions (May 1, 2001 plans): After the Apri123, 2001, Planning Commission
meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped May 1, 2001). The following revisions were
made:
• all changes to the plans from the originally approved design review project have been noted with those
items clouded on the revised set of drawings.
The Commission expressed concern that the windows in bedrooms #2 and #3 did not appear to meet
egress requirements and may need to be changed. Deputy Chief Inspector Tom McGovern confirmed that
based on field inspections, as presently constructed both of these bedrooms have a window with a 5.7 SF
opening which meets egress requirements.
Design Review Amendment 1441 Bernal Avenue
Current Request : This project is being returned to the Commission because Conditions #1 and #2 have not
been met. The structure that has been built differs from that shown on the plans approved by the Planning
Commission on August 28, 2000: the rear second floor deck and French doors were removed, a window was
added on the north elevation, a small gable was added at the rear, an access door was added along the south
elevation along with changes to the architectural features. None of the changes result in a special or
conditional use perniit or variance .
History: On August 28, 2000, the Planning Commission granted approval for a design review and special
permit for height to allow the construction of a new two-story house with a detached garage at 1441 Bernal
Avenue. A special pernut for height was approved to allow a height of 32'-3" where 30'-0" is the maximum
height allowed.
It was reported to the Planning Departrnent by a neighbor that the project at 1441 Bernal Avenue was not
being constructed as it was approved by the Planning Commission. Deputy Chief Building Inspector Tom
McGovern went out to the site and found that there were changes made to the structure in the field that were
not shown on the plans (date stamped 8/4/00) that were originally approved by the Planning Commission on
8/28/00. The changes made to the design include:
• The rear second floor deck, off of the master bedroom along the south side of the property, has been
eliminated. With the elimination of this deck, came the removal of the French doors leading out onto
the deck which served as fire egress for the master bedroom. However, there is an existing 2'-6" X
4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along the north elevation that meets the fire egress
requirement. In order to meet the Building Code requirement for light and ventilation (10% of the
room area = 25.4 SF) another 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window was added along the north elevation
that matches the existing casement window along this elevation. The elimination of the deck resulted
in the addition of a roof element in between the existing gables over the master bedroom and master
bathroom.
• Stucco foam trim has been added at the base of the building at the front and rear, and vertical trim that
extends up from the base trim to the eaves has been added at the right front building corner, and the
left and right rear building corners. The base trim wraps around to the chimney along the south side,
and wraps around to the beginning of the dining room along the north side. Stucco foam trim has also
been added underneath the north side window of bedroom number three on the second floor, and
around the front porch.
• A 3'-0" X 8'-0" door has been added along the south elevation to allow access to the water heater that
was originally proposed to be located in the attic. Because of the weight of the water heater, it was
relocated to an area underneath of the stairs. An exterior door is needed for access to the water heater.
• It was also reported to the City that the driveway approach has changed from that which was originally
approved. The curb cut area is not within the subject property line boundaries but it is in the City
right-of-way. The concrete for the driveway approach was poured in accordance with the
requirements of the Public Works Department. The project has not had a final inspection, but Ed
Chung, with the Department of Public Works visited the site prior to the pour and noted that all City
requirements were being met.
When this project originally went through the Design Review process, it was referred to a design review
consultant. The revised plans have not been submitted to a design reviewer. The final analysis from the design
2
Design Review Amendment 1441 Bernal Avenue
reviewer on the original project is attached. A copy of the originally approved plans, along with the revised
plans, are included for your review.
CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(5/1/O1) (8/4/00)
SETBACKS
Front (1S` flr): No change 27'-6" 15' or block average
(2"a flr): No change 30'-0" 20'-0"
Side (left): No change 7'-0" 4'-0"
Side (right): No change 9'-6" 4'-0"
Rear (1'` flr): No change 28'-0" 15'-0"
�2�a flr�: 44'-0" 20'-0"
LOT 34.9% 40%
COVERAGE• No change (2,094 SF) (2,100 SF)
FAR• No change 3,226 SF/ 2,780 SF/
' 0.54 FAR 0.53 FAR
PARHING: No change 1 covered in garage 1 covered in gazage
(10'-0" x 20'-0")
(14'-0" X 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway
+ 1 unc. In driveway
� � ��
`HEIGHT• No change ;-� �, : � �2' `3>'�� ��x��;��..� 30'/2'/2 stories
: ��
.,,� � �..��,,�,�� ,
DH ENVELOPE: No change Meets requirement j See code
' Special permit for height granted under 8/28/00 Planning Commission approval (32'-3")
proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached. Please see the City Engineer's May 17, 2001 memo stating that the new
driveway approach meets the standards for the Department of Public Works.
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
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
3
• •
� Design Review Amendment
1441 Bernal Avenue
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 23, 2001,
meeting, the project (as altered from the plans approved on August 28, 2000) , with the second window added along
the north elevation, adds symmetry to this portion of the building and fits in well, privacy is provided by a large tree,
and the elimination of the rear second floor deck is an asset since it increases the neighbor's privacy by eliminating
direct views into three rear yards and the enclosure blends into the architectural style of the house, and so the
revisions are found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be made by resolution and should include findings. 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 Deparhnent date stamped May
1, 2001, Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August 4, 2000, plans previously
approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French doors off of the master bedroom along
the south side of the property, the addition of a 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along
the north elevation, the addition of a small gable over the master bedroom and master bathroom at the rear,
the addition of a 3'-0" X 8'-0" access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features
with the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations;
2, that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
3. that any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging
a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memos shall be met;
that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that it projects from the landing up as a
cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and
6. 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: Ralph Domenici, applicant/contractor
4
MEMORANDUM
���; :�.z•�:�:����r��: � _ .
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: SYED MURTUZA, CITY ENGINE
DATE: MAY 17, 2001
SUBJECT: DRIVEWAY AT 1441 BERNAL AVENUE.
The Public Works Department has inspected the driveway approach at 1441 Bernal Avenue and
found that the newly constructed driveway meets the Public Works Standards.
One of the wings of the driveway approach extends approximately 1.2 feet at the frontage of
adjacent property, which is in City's right-of-way. This was constructed by the contractor in order
to align the new driveway approach in the City's right- of- way with the private driveway on the
private property.
Attachment: Field measurement sketch and Photos
File: S:�,A Public Works Directory�?.uthor, By Name\Syed Murtuza Letters\MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE 1441 BERNAL
AVE.wpd
14 4-1 �ER N A- �--
�'�cuQ�S iaG
D2►UCGVA�
� r � 0,81 �
� t �'Et'� q � �
� � - _ - !, Q, 6' -- �
i
pRIUEk/AY A����Rc4� �
cu,e.g ,� C'��'lE�
l2,7�
w,� cL
�Rop�RrY
CaR►� �2
X MH/Z/< /N S/D�KIALf�
��,9� � - � --
� W��G
�
o.�
2,�� . �.
�
1.2 � 2,9'
������� �V����
it/o S c,� c..-, �.
7. S,
�, � A
�
S �3�0 �
� 4�- 5 I�F �►� A�
puP�C��.
Ri�NT
oF
W p `�
�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 14, 2001
abstain from action on that item. C. Vis ' a noted that he would like to a condition to item 2B, 1337 P a
Avenue, that the downstairs baseme space shall not be used as slee ' quarters or bedrooms.
2B. 1337 PALOMA AVE — ZONED R-1— APPLICA FOR DESIGN REVIEW A NEW ONE-
STORY SINGLE ILY DWELLING (JD SSOCIATES, APPLIC DESIGNER;
ALEXANDER GLORIA HIDCHENKO OPERTY OWNERS)
2C. 313 CH N LANE — ZONED R-1 — PLICATION FOR DE REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SEC STORY ADDITION (T S L. HAMACHER, , APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
B CE HOMER-SMITH, PR RTY OWNER) j
1464 CORTEZ AVEN — ZONED R-1 — APP TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CIAL
PERMIT FOR DE G HEIGHT ENVE E FOR A NEW TWO-STORY S FAMILY
DWELLING ETACHED GARAG S CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. ., APPLICANT
AND DESI R; GARY ERNST, P ERTY OWNER) __
C. Kei�ran moved approval s 2B 1337 Paloma Avenue, 2C 313 pin Lane, and 2D 1464 Cortez
Avenue with the amendm o the conditions of approval for 1337 P a Avenue suggested by C. Vistica,
and with the finding conditions in the staff report for eac periy. The motion was seconded by C.
Osterling. Chai Vistica called for a voice vote on the tion. The motion for 313 Chapin Lane and
1464 Cortez enue passed on a 6-0-0-1 (C. Auran a ming) voice vote. The motion for 1337 Paloma
Avenue passed on a 6-0-0-2 (Cers. Auran, Dreili staining). This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2a. 1441 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
TO APPROVED NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RALPH DOMENICI,
APPLICANT; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER; LINDA FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER)
SP Brooks presented the staff report and conditions of approval. C. Auran was noted as abstaining from this
action since it was on the consent calendar and he had not been on the commission when the items was
originally reviewed. There were no questions about the application from the Planning Commission.
Chauman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal Avenue, who called the item off
the consent calendar and commented that she was unclear about whether the occupancy permit had been
issued to this property, but it was being shown for sale this week end, is this legal. The CA noted that there
is no relationship between showing a property or selling it and the occupancy permit; this hearing is
regarding corrections that may be needed to be made to the property. She expressed a concern that the curb
cut was replaced and it overlaps two feet on to the right-of-way in front of her house. CE noted that he
would have to look into this and report back about the situation.
The chairman then recognized Ralph Domenici, 510 Almer Road, contractor and applicant for 1441 Bernal
Avenue. He noted that the plans showed that the approach to the driveway would need to be replaced and
the forms were installed and inspected by the Public Works Deparhnent; the area where the driveway
approach is located' is public right-of-way and the city has authority over what occurs there. He noted that
at the last meeting he did not take the opportunity to apologize to the staff and Commission for not getting
the paperwork on the changes to this project in before the work was done on the house. CE asked if the
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
'� ION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
)NSTRUCTION & DESIGN, AP
TY OWNERS) (CONTINU ' T�
, T�
widening of the approach in the right-of-way was directed by city staff; the applicant noted that it was. C�
noted that he would ask staff what the issues were. There were no more comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: feel that if something is encroaching in front of a neighbor's property Commission
should at least review the circumstances by continuing the item 2 weeks so staff can look into it. CA noted
that it is possible that a change was required in the curb cut to meet city requirements since it was being
installed on city property. Feel that the plans aze now complete and would be comfortable acting on them;
would be willing to proceed if this were a regular project, but this one was changed without proper
approvals, would like to wait until we see if the approach and curb-cut is OK or needs to be changed.
�
C. Bojues agree that we need to get the information on the driveway approach and curb cut from the City
Engineer so we have all the information before commission acts, move to continue this item for two weeks
to the next Planning Commission meeting, May 29, 2001. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the Motion: are the property line monuments clear on the site, feel we should continue this
item in order to get all the information.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item for two weeks in order to get
more information from the City Engineer. The motion passed on a 6-0-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining) . This
item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
3. 1517 BURLINGAME
SECOND STORY
AND DESIGNE O
29, 2001 ME NG)
, UE — ZONED R-1 — APPLI
ION (RAY BRAYER, BRAYE�
AND JANE BORODKIN, � E]
At t�uest of the applicant 1517 Bur�ame Avenue was continued to
4. I870 EL CAMINO REAL, S
PERMIT FOR A REAL ES
PROPERTY OWNER
� 100 — ZONED C-1 — APPLI
USE (PRIME PACIFIC GLOB�
Reference sta ort, 5/14/O1, with attachments.
staff co s. Three conditions were suggeste
C. L aQa noted that he will be abstainin n
�ray 14, zoor
r.�
lu /�`_a
, 2001 meeting.
FOR CONDITIO�y�SE
'ANT; PRIlVIE PL LLC,
C' lanner presented the report,
r consideration. Coriunission h
action on this item because h�
�lewed criteria and
�o questions of staff.
properly within �
Chairman Vistica opened the ic hearing. Dave Ziegel, broker of ord for the property, d that the
applicant does not use 30 for real estate use, there is a smal fice for meetings and roker office,
Prime Pacific is a trad' company, there are 25 employees, bu t all are real estate. C 'ssioners noted
that the applican eds to look at definition of real estat e, it goes beyond just ensed brokers; CA
noted that so of the employees may also fall under e financial institution inition, that should be
confirm well; C-1 district is protective of these ' of uses and requires c itional use pernut; should
also k at hours of operation, application s ld reflect all hours t employees will be on site;
ication not clear as to use, need to clarify d come back to the Co ission.
4
a
City of Burlingame Planning Cornmission Unapproved Minutes
Apri123, 2001
the house is heavy at the front, one window extending from first to second floors not enough to tie
front together, the proposal is not pedestrian friendly;
the front porch needs to be considered in the context of the entire house, the pre-caste balustrade does
not fit, the grandeur for this lot comes from the trees and view;
need to reduce the view blockage for neighbors.
Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to send this proj ect to a design reviewer with the commission's
directions and noted that when the modified project returns to the commission for consideration story poles
which outline the ridgelines of the new construction and document the location of the stair structure at the
front should be included so that the neighbors can take photographs to document for the commission the
impact of the proposed construction on the views from inside the living areas of their houses. The motion
was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to send the project to a design reviewer with
direction and to install story poles before subsequent commission review of the modified design. The
motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 8:17 p.m.
VIII, gEGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 1441 BERNAL AVENUEw T�O D ORY �INGLE FIAMII.Y DWELLING( IRALPH llOMENICI,
TO AN APPROVED NE
APPLICANT MARK ROBERTSON DESIGNER• LINDA FRYE PROPERTY OWNERI
Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no
questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer, and Ralph Domenici, applicant,
noted that they would be available to answer questions. Commission asked if the window in bedroom #3
meets egress requirements; applicant noted that Anderson has special hardware for casement windows,
windows will be casement, not double-hung, will correct plans to show casement windows.
Commission comment: design review was approved for these plans, need to know that more FAR is not
being added with change, feel that proposed changes help the project, removal of the deck at the rear of the
house provides privacy for the neighbors; have different opin.ion, feel that changes do not help the project.
How did the changes happen? Applicant noted that the changes occurred during constnzction, previous plans
had a deck which looked into neighbors' yards, felt that this was not appropriate, deck and loss of privacy
was an issue in previous Commission review, thought that adding a window in bedroom #4 would have little
impact on the neighbor.
Mary Packard, 1445 Berna1 Avenue, and Viktor Pochron, 1436 Bernal Avenue, addressed the Commission
with the following concerns: plans were approved with the condition that the building be built according
to the plans approved by the Commission, contractor deviated from the approved plans, contractor has
expressed that there is no one in city government who can stop him, contractor needs to abide by the law,
this action is illegal and should not be ap�reo�vent and createawlessness, curb cut was moged by three f et
c o n s t r u c t i o n d u m p s t e r, t l u s v� n l l c a u s e a p r
towards her property, this action invalidates city's building process; generally happy with the construction
5
� ' . . . . _ . _ - . . ., - \...
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
Apri123, 2001
of the house, not too happy with the changes, surprised that window was added iri the bedroom, will closely
watch contractor if he is to build house at 1433 Bernal Avenue, this house was reviewed twice by the
Commission, would like to have house built as on approved plans, happy with the removal of the deck,
adding a window was inconsiderate. Staff noted that the second window in bedroom #4 is not needed for
light and ventilation between but not for egress. Applicant noted that several options were considered for
the window placement, need to pitch the roof at the rear of the house, cannot place window there, proposed
location seemed appropriate to balance the light and ventilation in the bedroom.
Further discussion: emergency egress windows are not correctly shown on plans, single-hung windows in
bedroom #2 and #3 do not appear to meet emergency egress requirements, may need to be changed. CA
Anderson noted that the Commission cannot approve what is not shown on the plans, approval must be
based on the house to be built according to the correct plans. Commission noted that the porch on proposed
and previous plans is not consistent, extra foam pieces were added but not clouded as a change; applicant
noted that foam trim pieces were added to the porch and to the corners of the building, foam appears as
columns on front porch or front elevation drawings. There were no further comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: plans need to be shown with correct egress windows, all new foam trim should be
clouded, new window in bedroom fits in well and is small, have not asked to remove windows for privacy
in other projects, window is appropriate as shown.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action when the stated revisions have
been made to the plans and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Comment on the motion: Commission asked if it would be possible to eliminate one windows in the
bedroom and increase the size of the remaining window? Commission noted that the second window
doesn't seem to be a problem, it is akeady built, not convinced that throwing a window away is the solution,
do not like the situation, would've rather seen these changes earlier before the changes were made in the
field, loss of privacy from window is much less than privacy impact of the previously approved balcony,
does not feel that this is an onset of lawlessness, would like to see accurate plans, do not want to see this
situation again, would not want to increase size of window, second bedroom window adds symmetry,
eliminating the balcony is an asset, the process used to add the second window is wrong, window should
have been shown on plans before it was built project amended, conditions should be followed, these changes
are ok, but the changes could have just as easily resulted in a bad design, need to have a better system to
have construction checked in field to make sure the house is being built according to the approved plans.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the May 14, 2001, consent
calendar or whenever the completed information has been submitted, checked by staff and there is room on
the agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 8:53 p.m.
5. 1338 COLUMBUS AVENUE — ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEV4
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE GAUL
APPLICANr AND DESIGNER• ROBERT AND CAROLYN GAUL PROPBRTY OWNERS
Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. C. Osterling noted that he lives within a 500' radius o
the project and would abstain from the item, he stepped down from the dias. City Planner presented th�
6
rlingame P[anning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2000
The tic�n was seco ed C. 'ling. ere was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a
vo c te e ti n a p ve. motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The
ite conc ed 8:35 p.m.
�( 1441 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LINDA
FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 8.28.00, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the report,
reviewed criteria and Planriing Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission
noted that the FAR in the staff report at one point is listed as 3020 SF, should be 3335 SF. There were no further
questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 135 Airoyo Court, San Mateo, project designer,
noted that he kept the same design as was previously reviewed, but made the garage detached, was mindful of neighbor
to the right, kept the driveway where it now is to separate from neighbor.
Commissioners asked: on south facade, it seems that there is an easy way to break up the mass by cantilevering the
stair from the landing up, would help the mass, realize there is a landscape buffer on that side. The applicant noted
that he is willing to make that change, would like to see it as a condition because he is on a tight time line.
Public Comment: Ann Marie Flores, 1436 Bernal Avenue, notes that this as a custom home designed for the lot, why
does it need variances; understand construction will keep happening, on this block there is an elementary school and
lots of construction traffic, could the block be designated a construction zone to reduce traffic problems; design meant
to fit in with neighborhood but will look like a new home, can we request a plaque noting the date of construction;
would like clarification on the plans, states it is set back further than average, but will line up with house next door,
appears this is the average of the block. Commissioners response: the requested increase in height is a special permit,
not a variance, allows for a more traditional roof slope, can be granted based on architectural character; the request for
a construction zone should be made to the Public Works; Traffic Engineering; hope with this design and review, the
date of construction is not apparent as it is with 1970's vintage construction. Planning staffnoted that the block average
is based on the setbacks on the entire length of the block, in this average case is 19'-10", proposed setback is 27'-6".
Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal Avenue, would like to thank applicant for efforts on revisions to plans, need to provide
architectural consistency with neighborhood, house on one side is 2100 SF, one on other side is 1200 SF, do not mind
if it is big, just that it is not in our face; would like the project flipped so the bulk is in the back, not in the front, even
if garage is attached toward the back; understand privacy is a sensitive issue, but thought it could be addressed.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: as a point of clarification, there are quite a few gestures in this design toward a traditional
style, this avoids it being a"70s" house, in terms of whether it is flipped, need to understand that the front steps back
alot, the part that does come forward has a small scale; if the stairwell is popped out on the south side it might offer
relief; do not think rooms should be rearranged, has a traditional anangement; project is in keeping with the
neighborhood.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolurion, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 4, 2000, sheets 1 through 4,
Approved Minutes -7-
and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an 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 dormer(s),
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the plate height, roof height, or pitch, shall be
subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo shall be met; 4) that the
stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that it projects from the landing up as a cantilevered bay and
breaks up the long south side of the house; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C.
Bojues.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. The item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
DESIG VIEW STUDY ITEMS
711 CONCORD AY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICA'
FOR SUBSTAND PARKING SPACE DIMEZ
(STEWART ASSO IATES, APPLICANT AND ]
PROPERTY OWNE S)
FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND ARKING VARIANCE
iS FOR A FIRST AND SECO STORY ADDITION
�ER; JEFFREY S. AND JE ER L. SANDERS,
CP Monroe presented the aff report. There were no questions�
airman Luzuriaga opened the p blic comment. John Stewart,
prope er, represented the proj t.
Commissioners 3
be made wider a�
new match the c
transition would
line does not cha
the weather.
the project from the commis
ntified the following oncerns: felt that given the ext of the work to the house the garage should
longer to meet current ode requirements; there is interes ' detail on the existing house, will the
ier window detail; con rned about the flat portion of the ro f, provide detail showing what the
: from the flat to sloped r of; garage requirements should be m t inside existing structure so roof
e; its all right to revise the ont entrance to extend a covering o r the door to protect people from
C. Deal made a motion to this item on the conse calendar for September 11 2000, provided the variance for
parking were removed and the s adjusted to address mmission concerns. Mo 'on was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a oice vote on the motion hich was approved 7-0. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m.
1541 LA MESA DRIVE - ZON D R-1 - APPLICATI(
AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A ST AND SECOND
PROPER'I'�' OWNER AND DESI NER)
about the proj ect.
CP Monroe pre�ented the staff report. 'T�ere were no questions of
Chairman Luzuriag� opened the public com�ent. Keith Borrell, �
project. Susan Chon�547 La Mesa Drive, next door neighbor also
owner and applicant, represented the
on view.
Commissioners identifie�the following concerns: there is a problem with the rc�f plan, it needs to be completely
revised, applicant should get professional advice; important to install story poles so e�ffect of this addition, even though
it is at the back of the building, can be determined by neighbor; horizontal view of neighbor to the left from their
bedroom could be affected by addition.
tect 1351 Laurel Street, and Jennifer
R HILLSIDE AREA NSTRUCTION PERMIT
Y ADDITION (KEITH B L, APPLICANT,
Approved Minutes -8-
City of Burlingarne Planning Commission Unapproved Minu[es June 26, 2000
Chairman Luzuriaga announces that the commission would take a brief break. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50
p.m.
1441 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. (LINDA FRYE, OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staffreport. Noted letter from Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal, commenting on proposed
project, date stamped June 23, 2000. There were no questions about the project from the Commission.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, designer, 135 Arroyo Court, represented the
project. He noted that this project is an almost exact copy of the project at 526 Marin which the commission approved:
It has an attached garage, the new owner is a single woman and wants an attached garage because she feels safer.
Comrnissioner noted the garage is a problem, it detracts from the neighborhood character, good proportion and window
trim; this neighborhood is safe, do not feel that safety is an issue. Initially felt "no way" but looked around
neighborhood and there are a few houses with attached garages at the rear, like the design it flows well, the way the
garages are set works well with the design, the first garage is setback 27 feet the second 30 feet, in this case the garage
blends in. Agree, although the predominant pattern is detached garages, but some variation is positive and if this one
is attached at the front it will be a way to see how this works after it is built. What landscaping and tree planting are
you planning. Designer noted plans do not address backyard and there will be no change, the front yard will be lawn.
Suggest larger scale shrubs at the front. Many cities have regulations which require staggered garage doors when they
are at the front of the house, in this case it would look better without the extra off set, the lumps call attention to the
garages.
Speaking on the project were; Mary Packard 1445 Bernal; Mary Napp, 1452 Bernal Avenue; Victor Pucktran, 1436
Berna1; asked what to do about the fact that the plans show the neighbor's property line running down the middle of
the wall which her survey shows is wholly on her property. CE noted that before the applicant submits plans for a
building pernut he must survey the property and set the property corners which will define the lot. Commissioner noted
that if his survey does not correspond to hers, she built the fence in good faith. CE noted that this would be a private
survey and the city does not approve them or participate in them, they are done by licensed engineers for that reason;
conflicts between surveys are usually resolved by axbitration or litigation and tend to be very technical. He suggested
that the neighbor submit a copy of her survey to the Planning Department. Ms. Packard also asked that the commission
preserve the space between her home and the new one; expressed concern about the investment she had made in
landscaping along the wall which would not survive with the shade created by the new building, the bedroom windows
of the new house face her kitchen; if the house is to be occupied by a single woman why does she need two garages,
the gazage should be attached at the rear to provide a driveway to separate their two properties and increase privacy.
Lot of residents here from Bernal, this is one story being replaced by 3000 SF, this is a monster house, will start a citizen
committee to push for a moratorium on such houses; if the Planning Commission cannot keep their neighborhood in tact
then they will; remodel does not mean remove all the house except one wall; would like to keep it with the same facade
as before, would like a garage at the rear. Commissioner noted that the commissioners valued her comments more than
she realizes, hope she is not here because of something that happened two years ago, because two years ago did not
have design review, design guidelines show detached garages at the rear so houses will not extend across a property
from side setback to side setback line. Lived in neighborhood 13 years, want the remodel to keep the present style;
the garage in the front will detract from the neighborhood, did a remodel�himself with at detached garage; need a good
review of vegetation, should plant all around the house. There were no further comments from the floor and the
comment period was closed.
�
City of Burlingame P[unning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2000
Commissioner comment: biggest concern is the garage which projects out 11 feet to the front, prefer a detached garage
or attached at the rear where it is less prominent. Agree, neighborhood deserves a detached garage to increase privacy
and setback; house has a small entry with lots of garage; the flat roof at the top makes it look as if the roof is not
resolved, can ask for a special permit for height to address such a problem; first floor plate should be reduced from 10
to 9 feet; on the south elevation the gable projection with window accentuates the height, should be revised; the rear
deck is too large, 13' x 13', high above neighbors place for people to congregate, should be reduced to 3' x 5' so cannot
be used for gatherings; mature vegetation on the left side should be preserved and the trees at the rear protected during
construction and after. In this area need a two car garage, no on street parking, need extra space; design is nice, agree
that flat roof needs to be completed and special permit would be appropriate; balcony should be removed; these are
small lots so the issue of the visual access from the kitchen on one property to the bedrooms on the other should be
addressed with window coverings and good judgement among people; important to protect mature landscaping, need
to add landscaping along the sides to break up the side wall of the house.
C. Dreiling noted with this design a detached garage would also allow the front porch to be extended; the attached
garage is all right but the pattern in the neighborhood is detached, move to refer this item to the design reviewer with
the comments made by the commission for the reviewer to work with the applicant to reach a reasonable conclusion.
Motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comments on the motion: design should consider the next door neighbor in placement of windows, absolutely there
should be a detached garage; if one is to have an attached garage this is the way to do it, but the public testimony is clear
to call for a detached garage; privacy is a balance between eliminating blank walls and the placement of windows.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to refer this item to the design reviewer. The motion passed
on a 6-1 (C. Keighran dissenting) vote. The CA noted that the applicant should try to resolve the property line issue
with the neighbor without doing a separate land survey. The action of the commission is advisory and the item is not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m.
1548 RALSTON Ay�'NUE - ZONED R-1 �PPLICATION FOR�ESIGN REVIE�FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION (JERF�IY E1ND WENDY VEI
A. SERANG
. �
CP Monroe riefly presented the sta eport. There were n question:
Chai Luzuriaga opened the blic hearing. Iqbal S ang IAS Desi�
he u erstood that there wou be no decision tonig , is deferred from
so that can
�a'tiow a storage area
Designer noted that
23.5 feet tall, the �f
peak, the c
dormers is
hand side,
area
light
e with Building per as soon as pos
ceiling but two do ers and gable end �
985 a second story�s added to this
:rs were added the to maximize the t
mer�need storage are
l�d in to create a shed
ied looks out of chara
of scale, one above e
possible because the
h�s'a large dormer;
three fronts, nicely �
a field; problem whf
pull the wall back/!
�
a and ill use it for that
do er, this area needs
er with rest of hous ,
ace is small, the
noted this is 6' x
ioned with the arche
P �
ll in between dormers c]
you have series of rme
s are similar to those
entrance is Oka.y b others are too big. �
asked on
ome fenestration to
windows on two dor
�f`issioner asked plans
ed for something else.
the roof, the b�
has a 7'-6" ceili
g,�t the
�een the
t left side the area
. up the long, blank w,�Il, this left
and end window o econd story
ne want as much
r. East elevation
ier noted that
in� on the first
to second story ndows. Commissi
in the field of w, the new windows h
ve a box, the dor
on the north and
about t project from the com ' sion.
ns alo Alto, represented th project, noting
st meeting, if possible w ld like comments
�l , rains are coming. C
ndow, is this going to be
�ry house without raisi �
square footage, the rea
over the front p
h elevation, the
onl,e�r noted building has
�wever are in too small
almost too small; could
; room can be used as a
-10-
March 30, 2001
City Counsel of Burlingame
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Counsel Members:
We are writing this letter to address concerns expressed a neighbor due to changes
made to the house at 1441 Bernal Ave,that occurred during construction.
1. Addition of a 2"a master bedroom window on the north elevation
2
3
During the course of construction it became elear that anyone standing on upper
deck would compromise ttie privacy of several neighbors. The decision was
made to eliminate the deck, which the design review board didn't like in the 1s1
place. In eliminating the deck we lost a french door in the master bedroom. This
door was required for egress, light and ventilation. A 2'6" x 4'6" casement
window was added on the north elevation to meet code. We felt by adding the
window in the localion we did we would provide the most privacy possible for the
neighbor. This window has caused concern by the adjacent neighbor. See
attached photos of window location and views from that window.
Trim addition
We added trim to enhance the esthetic of the house aner consultation with
contractor, designer and owner. This architectural trim has been added to tlie
drawings for your review. Also see attached pictures & new plan.
Driveway approach
The tleighbor is concerned that new driveway approach differs from the plan. The
set approacli was installed under the guidelines, specification and supervision of
the Burlingaine Public Works Depariment, as this is city property. (See pictures)
We know new construction can be aiuioying and stressful to the neighbors, with
that in mind, we have moved as fast as possible to finish our project in a timely maliner.
We hope the result will blend into and improve the existing neighborhood and be
appreciated. The house we replaced was an original 1930's bungalow with no upgrades
or updates, and full of rats. (See photos)
V.�'�
��
; .��
I�alp
Linda
f �'��..c�...-
�
-Con�ractor
.� �` .�' � � �z � �� f �.
�� z �:
�er
�r.� �....
{�PR 0 5 ���1
CITY OF f3U;;L'�f�;u�`r��E
PLA��f�IiNG ���'T
/4r` CIT O�
� �R�,.�,,,,,� CITY OF BURLINGAME
�:..� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION
T e of A l�cation: S ecial Permit Variance '
YP PP � P �.Other �,"'� J-�� . �,.,-, �
Project Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): � 2-. � — ��- /� — %���
APPLICANT
Name:_�
Address: f '
City/State/Zip: �k1-,���-�—�-0 4
Phone (w): � L-�. �. — �?�`z �
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: �� �45 I�P(�
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
f�: v
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
� � -_.
,cx�_;;;� ,,�.,��rv,���. , ,� �
�h)�
fax:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �Cc
1 og l�� �, � rd �- � o
; : . �� ,- _ � _ , --"r�. _ .
� ,'- �
'� ���- �� . � ��, r�X i � � �' 3 Cp
�,�� ��+�a�0.��� C� ��-!Ol�
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certif under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to the be ow ge and belief.
��'�--- � �
Appli ignature Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
rc. ` � �p
Property Owner's Sig ture D te
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY --=-----------------------------------
Date Filed: Fee:
PROPERTY OWNER
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311
Burlingame, CA 94010
MEMO:
Date: 7-31 -2000
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
ref: 1441 BERNAL AVE.
RECEIVED
J U L 3 1 2000
CITY OF [3URLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
re-submitted plans dated July 19 for the second story addition/remodeling. I have
reviewed the Planning Commission's concerns on the first submittal. The following
comments pertain to the resubmitted plans in relationship to the design guidelines.
1 Compatibilit�.of the architectural style with that of the existin� nei�hborhood:
• There are many different styles represented in this neighborhood.
• The design style proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood.
2 Respect the Parki� and Gara�e Patterns in the Nei�hborhood:
• There are two examples of large new homes on this street with double garage
doors facing the street, that are inappropriate to the neighborhood scale.
• The attached garage proposed in the first submittal has been eliminated and a
detached 1 car garage in the rear proposed. This is more in keeping with the
neighborhood pattern and improves the streetscape.
• The garage structure is simple and matches the style, materials and roof slopes of
the proposed house.
3_ Architectural Style, Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistencv of the
Desi n.
• The revised floor plan is significantly different from the original submittal. Family
room and ground floor deck have been enlarged. Entry porch has been added, and
other rooms changed. In general it seems a well organized and efficient layout that
makes sense.
• The house has been narrowed to allow the e�sting driveway to remain.
• Upper floor rear deck has been reduced in size and tucked in between the master
bath and master bedroom and behind the roof slope. Front upper deck remains.
This seems to respond positively to the Commission's concerns.
• Roof slopes have been revised and flat roof area has been eliminated. This seems
logical and is an improvement.
• First floor plate height has been reduced to 9' which reduces the bulk of the
structure.
• Windows are consistent in overall design and trim and are attractive, however
there seems to be some confusion of fully gridded windows versus half gridded
windows.
• Detailing of the gables seems to be consistent—I would suggest adding a similar
vent to the west elevation upper left gable at the rear of the house.
• The design of the entry porch could be improved. The stick columns and the
single door seem too small and spindly for the bulk of the roof. The roof shape is
pleasing, but I would suggest stucco partial height walls or railing around the
porch, heavier columns (possibly stucco), a recess for the door, other small
windows, or other devices to give a more solid look that is more in scale with the
porch roof and the rest of the house.
4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adiacent Structures to Each Side:
• The revised plans are an improvement over the original submittal. The added
driveway width separates this house more from the neighboring house.
• Window placement and sizes appear to be a good balance of minimizing disruption
to the neighbors, while avoiding blank exterior walls. It is difficult to know exactly
where the dining room and bedroom windows will line up with the house to the
right. It appears that they will face a portion of blank wall of the adjoining house.
Since there are two driveways together, I think there is adequate separation.
• Because of the slope of the street to the south, the roof slopes, the double
driveway on the north and the existing vegetation to remain, this house will have
minimal impact on sunlight for the neighbors. The sun orientation to the structures
and to their relative heights and massing are a fortunate circumstance.
5 Landscapin� and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components:
No detailed landscape plan has been submitted, however the overall concept seems
logical. Care should be talcen in selection of trees and plantings to be used.
Summarv:
1. It is my opinion that these revised plans respond very well to the Commission's
concerns.
2. Recommend approval of the overall concept. High quality detailing and materials
and colors will be important.
3. Recommend additional design effort be spent on redesign of the front porch and
entry door area, as noted above.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
����
2
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 21, 2000
TO: i� CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new
two-story house at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-
100. (Revised Plans)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, July 24, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
s;
� !---�•
� ��' d ��. � G.�-�-�
l ) �-
� J�, n,,�.,, � ��-� .�
I, �
V
.ely yy�. l � '
��
u
� �2y I �dDate of Comments
ek��cc, f -�
�'rt �e. �`'eQ �- v-Q' �
� .
P✓ �o v � �-�-`�' 1d,`�
U
/
� � �
a, t.�rl V
Z� � ���
� „Q�c,c.P/n
� ��
� �
//� u-t^-''
��
--Y
'' ( F'�'' r �,�,� ' c � r �ar� `r° k ; � , _ . � � �
��1- . k ��..,.. . .': Fkr,
.x• „' rb, crcr o , ' : _ !
�
:
: 'i -: . : � -:
\ <
� � �. , ;, �,RWNaPME ,: , ' CITY,OF. BURLINGAME �
::
'� -�� r tir. - p �.� ' SPECIAL PERMIT APPLIC/aTION .
C ,
� }�n'aw�� � ' �'. - '' �' .
.. . .i . • .. . � . .
��. :, . . . . • ": _ . � . `� . .. .
' � . . . . ., . ' . . . � , . . � � . � � � . .� � ..
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50).' Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning .
Commission in making the decision �as to wheth`er 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.
l. �'' Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing stnccture's design and with the existing
street and neiglzborhood. �/��
� �S � ¢-�v r � �y''�^�w+^�i-C� �e� k9c.. �a ��c�e.
�/�
�� � �� � � � � � � 1 f'1.� / �1. �6�-i'\
� �
���
� �r ,rL �,5 , � u-�-r`GC ����
`�",� ``�
_ �� �� �� ��� �°���=- ����
_ � �
2. Explain how tlze .variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed
rtew structure or addiiio�t are consistertt with the existing structure, street and neighborhoo
� , ^ ^
�
,
� rs �u.� �a-✓-- rv- � ��
� �
��
�� � � �����, _
-3. _��';_ How will the�roposed pmject be consistent wiih the residential design guidelines adopted by the city
(C. S. 25. 57) ? � /� z/'�
.� � p, ' ��'� - �
� � �
� � Cru�-w��,l
�/ v C�, nZuG�- �
pv�Vv � G�
���'� _
. . . e . t � ' - ` -_ � . _ f . . ' _ � . . . � - . . . �
,v,�`� . ,,Y ,�-�7 , �i�-vr/,i �/� j � ��I�l�
. � �c��,
� ; ,
a�
4. Explain hoiv the removal of any irees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition
_� .
' is necessary and is consistertt with the cily's reforestalion requiremerrts. :What mitigation is proposed
_ _ . _�
for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is approp�zate. _
� -.
,.
� ,_ �
� ` ���-S � .°;�
,,
<
, - /
,.
1
1�n �1,�'� � �z� r' � - � .
� : RECE�VED
`
--- '' , , , ` J U L =1 9 2000 ,
' �;,; J� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT. ..
� � �
� `�
sp.frm/11/98 � :
� � � � '� �
`,
��
J \
�� .
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an
amendment to design review for a new two-story house with a detached garage at 1441 Berna1 Avenue, zoned
R-1, Linda Frye, property owner, APN: 026-044-100;
WI-�REAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on �
29, 2001, 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
CEQA 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, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review amendment is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such design review amendment 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.
.:I:►�:�I
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 29th day of May , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review amendment.
1441 Bernal Avenue effective June 4, 2001
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Deparanent date
stamped May 1, 2001 Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August
4, 2000 plans previously approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French
doors off of the master bedroom along the south side of the property, the addition of a 2'-6"
X 4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along the north elevation, the addition of a
small gable over the master bedroom and master bathroom at the reaz, the addition of a 3'-0"
X 8'-0" access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features with
the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations;
2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to
this pernut;
3. that any changes any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the plate height, roof height, or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo shall be met;
5. that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that is project from the landing
up as a cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and
6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
- - . .......... . . ._ . ,.- . . . .__.��., . � ,., .
__„_.='""'"���� - -,_._.._ ..
�
�,t,�' �'T`' o,� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURIJNCtAME 501 PRIMFIOSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�, � TEL: (650) 558-7250
1441 BERNAL AVENUE
p,pplication for design review amendment to an
approved new two-story single family dwelling PUBLIC HEARING
at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1.
(APN: 026-044-100) NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission';
announces the following public hearing on;
Tuesday May 29. 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the�
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed May 18, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, Ca]
If you chal
raising onl�
described i
at or prior �
Property o
tenants a�
558-7250.
Margaret M�
City Planner
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
be limited to
iblic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
_ � �
� -- ��� r - �
s
Item # ,Z a�
Consent Calendar
City of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1441 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: OS/14/O1
Request: Design review amendment for a new, two-story single family residence with a detached garage at
1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040)
Property Owner: Linda Frye
Applicant: Ralph Domenici APN: 026-044-100
Designer: Mark Robertson Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Date Submitted: April 5, 2001
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.
Apri123, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting: On Apri123, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for an amendment to design review (see attached 4/23/O1 Planning Commission minutes). Concerns
expressed by the Planning Commission included the following: .
• emergency egress windows for bedrooms #2 and #3 are not shown correctly on plans; and
• extra foam pieces and trim added to elevations but not clouded as changes on the plans.
Current Project Revisions (May 1, 2001 plans): After the Apri123, 2001, Planning Commission
meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped May 1, 2001). The following revisions were
made:
• all changes to the plans from the originally approved design review project have been noted with those
items clouded on the revised set of drawings.
The Commission expressed concern that the windows in bedrooms #2 and #3 did not appear to meet
egress requirements and may need to be changed. Deputy Chief Inspector Tom McGovern confirmed that
based on field inspections, as presently constructed both of these bedrooms have a window with a 5.7 SF
opening which meets egress requirements.
Current Request : This project is being returned to the Commission because Conditions #1 and #2 have not
been met. The structure that has been built differs from that shown on the plans approved by the Planning.
Commission on August 28, 2000: the rear second floor deck and French doors were removed, a window was
added on the north elevation, a small gable was added at the rear, an access door was added along the south
elevation along with changes to the architectural features. None of the changes result in a special or
conditional use permit or variance .
History: On August 28, 2000, the Planning Commission granted approval for a design review and special
permit for height to allow the construction of a new two-story house with a detached garage at 1441 Bernal
Avenue. A special permit for height was approved to allow a height of 32'-3" where 30'-0" is the maximum
height allowed.
Design Review Amendment 1441 Bernal Avenue
It was reported to the Planning Department by a neighbor that the project at 1441 Bernal Avenue was not
being constructed as it was approved by the Planning Commission. Deputy Chief Building Inspector Tom
McGovern went out to the site and found that there were changes made to the structure in the field that were
not shown on the plans (date stamped 8/4/00) that were originally approved by the Planning Commission on
8/28/00. The changes made to the design include:
• The rear second floor deck, off of the master bedroom along the south side of the property, has been
eliminated. With the elimination of this deck, came the removal of the French doors leading out onto
the deck which served as fire egress for the master bedroom. However, there is an existing 2'-6" X
4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along the north elevation that meets the fire egress
requirement. In order to meet the Building Code requirement for light and ventilation (10% of the
room area = 25.4 SF) another 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window was added along the north elevation
that matches the existing casement window along this elevation. The elimination of the deck resulted
in the addition of a roof element in between the existing gables over the master bedroom and master
bathroom.
• Stucco foam trim has been added at the base of the building at the front and rear, and vertical trim that
extends up from the base trim to the eaves has been added at the right front building corner, and the
left and right rear building corners. The base trim wraps around to the chimney along the south side,
and wraps around to the beginning of the dining room along the north side. Stucco foam trim has also
been added underneath the north side window of bedroom number three on the second floor, and
around the front porch.
• A 3'-0" X 8'-0" door has been added along the south elevation to allow access to the water heater that
was originally proposed to be located in the attic. Because of the weight of the water heater, it was
relocated to an area underneath of the stairs. An exterior door is needed for access to the water heater.
• It was also reported to the City that the driveway approach has changed from that which was originally
approved. The curb cut area is not within the subject property line boundaries but it is in the City
right-of-way. The concrete for the driveway approach was poured in accordance with the
requirements of the Public Works Department. The project has not had a final inspection, but Ed
Chung, with the Department of Public Works visited the site prior to the pour and noted that all City
requirements were being met.
When this project originally went through the Design Review process, it was referred to a design review
consultant. The revised plans have not been submitted to a design reviewer. The final analysis from the design
reviewer on the original project is attached. A copy of the originally approved plans, along with the revised
plans, are included for your review.
CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(5/1/O1) (8/4/00)
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr): No change 27'-6" 15' or block average
2
Design Review Amendment 1441 Bernal Avenue
CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(5/1/O1) (8/4/00)
�2nd �Il,�: No change 30'-0" 20'-0"
Side (left): No change 7'-0" 4'-0"
Side (right): No change 9'-6" 4'-0"
Rear (15` flr): No change 28'-0" 15'-0"
(2°a flr): 44'-0" 20'-0"
LOT 34.9% 40%
COVERAGE: No change (2,094 SF) (2,100 SF)
F�, No change 3,226 SF/ 2,780 SF/
' 0.54 FAR 0.53 FAR
PARKING: No change 1 covered in garage 1 covered in garage
(10'-0" x 20'-0")
(14'-0" X 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway
+ 1 unc. In driveway
�iEIGHT: No change 32'-3"I ' 30'/2 �/2 stories
DH ENVELOPE: No change Meets requirement See code
1 c.___e_■ � _�� r__ L-_—L� _ �.._� __�a.._ oi�oinn ni_��a�� �..��_..,._..� ,. .,.t i��� �»�
vYc.�.aaa Ya.a aaau ava ua.a�ui �! (illb\.Y uuua.a vi �vi vv a aauuaus a.vaaaaaaauoavaa wYYa v� ui t✓�r —✓ J
proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached.
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
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 23, 2001,
meeting, the project (as altered from the plans approved on August 28, 2000) , with the second window added along
the north elevation, adds symmetry to this portion of the building and fits in well, and the elimination of the rear
second floor deck is an asset, and is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review
guidelines.
3
� ..
Design Review Amendment
1441 Bernal Avenue
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be made by resolution and should include findings. 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 May
1, 2001, Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August 4, 2000, plans previously
approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French doors off of the master bedroom along
the south side of the properiy, the addition of a 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along
the north elevation, the addition of a small gable over the master bedroom and master bathroom at the rear,
the addition of a 3'-0" X 8'-0" access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features
with the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations;
2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
3. that any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging
a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subj ect to design review;
4. that the conditions of City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memos shall be met;
5. that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that it projects from the landing up as a
cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and
6. 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: Ralph Domen'ici, applicant/contractor
Item #
Action Ca endar
City of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1441 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 04/23/O1
Request: Design review amendment for a new, two-story single family residential with a detached garage at 1441
Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1(C.S. 25.57.010 and 25.51.010).
Property Owner: Linda Frye APN: 026-044-100
Applicant/Designer: Ralph Domenici
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
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.
The Current Request: This project is being returned to the Commission because Conditions #1 and #2 have not
been met. The structure that has been built differs from that which was shown on the plans that were approved
by the Planning Commission on August 28, 2000, with the removal of the rear second floor deck and French
doors, the addition of a window along the north elevation, the addition of a small gable at the rear, the addition
of an access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features. None of the changes result
in a special or conditional use permit or variance.
History: On August 28, 2000 the Planning Commission granted approval for a design review and special permit
for height to allow the construction of a new two-story house with a detached garage at 1441 Bernal Avenue. A
special permit for height was approved to allow a height of 32'-3" where 30'-0" is the maximum height allowed.
It was reported to the Planning Department that the project at 1440 Bernal Avenue was not being constructed as
it was approved by the Planning Commission. Chief Building Inspector Tom McGovern went out to the site and
found that there were changes made to the structure in the field that were not shown on the plans (date stamped
8/4/00) that were approved by the Planning Department or Commission.
Subsequent to the site visit by Inspector McGovern, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped 4/5/O1)
showing the changes that are already in place in the structure and are different from the plans (date stamped
8/4/00) that were originally approved by the Planning Commission on 8/28/00. The changes made to the design
include:
• The rear second floor deck, off of the master bedroom along the south side of the properly, has been
eliminated. With the elimination of this deck, came the removal of the French doors leading out onto
the deck, which served as %re egress for the master bedroom. However, there is an existing 2'-6" X
4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along the north elevation that meets the iire egress
requirement. In order to meet the Building Code requirement for light and ventilation (10% of the
room area=25.4 SF) another 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window was added along the north elevation
that matches the existing casement window along this elevation. The elimination of the deck resulted
in an added roof element in between the existing gables over the master bedroom and master
bathroom.
Design Review Amendment
1441 Bernal Avenue
Stucco foam trim has been added at the base of the building at the front and rear, and vertical trim
that extends up from the base trim to the eaves has been added at the right front building corner, and
the left and right rear building corners. The base trim wraps around to the chimney along the south
side, and wraps around to the beginning of the dining room along the north side. Stucco foam trim
has also been added underneath the north side window of bedroom number three on the second floor,
and around the front porch.
• A 3'-0" X 8'-0" door has been added along the south elevation to allow access to the water heater that
was originally proposed to be located in the attic. Because of the weight of the water heater, it was
relocated to an area underneath of the stairs. An exterior door is needed for access to the water
heater.
• It was also reported to the City that the driveway approach has changed from that which was
originally approved. The curb cut area is not within the subject property line boundaries but is in the
City right-of-way. The concrete for the driveway approach was poured in accordance with the
requirements of the Public Works Department. The project has not had a final inspection, but Ed
Chung, with the Department of Public Works visited the site prior to the pour and noted that all City
requirements were being met.
When this project originally went through the Design Review process, it was referred to a design review
consultant. The revised plans have not been submitted to a design reviewer. The final analysis from the design
reviewer on the original project is attached. A copy of the originally approved plans, along with the revised
plans, are included for your review.
CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(4/5/O1) (8/4/O1)
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr): No change 27'-6" 15' or block average
(2"a flr): No change 30'-0" 20'-0"
Side (left): No change 7'-0" 4'-0"
Side (right): No change 9'-6" 4'-0"
Rear (lst flr): No change 28'-0" 15'-0"
(2°a flr): 44'-0" 20'-0"
LOT 34.9% 40%
COVERAGE: No change (2,094 SF) (2,100 SF)
F�, No change 3,226 SF/ 2,780 SF/
' 0.54 FAR 0.53 FAR
PARKING: No change 1 covered in garage one covered in garage
(10'-0" x 20'-0")
(14'-0" X 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway
Design Review Amendment 1441 Bernal Avenue
CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(4/5/O1) (8/4/O1)
+ 1 unc. In driveway
HEIGHT: No change 32'-3"' 30'/2 �/2 stories
DH ENVELOPE: No change Meets requirement See code
' Special permit for height granted under 8/28/00 Planning Commission approval (32'-3" proposed where 30'-0"
is the maximum allowed).
This project meets all other zoning requirements.
Staff Comments: See attached.
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:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the paxking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative Action should be by resolution and include
findings made for design review, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April
5, 2001 Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August 4, 2000 plans previously
approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French doors off of the master bedroom along
the south side of the property, the addition of a 2'-6" X 4'-6" casement window in the master bedroom along
the north elevation, the addition of a small gable over the master bedroom and master bathroom at the rear,
the addition of a 3'-0" X 8'-0" access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features
with the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations;
2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
3. that any changes any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the plate height, roof
height, or pitch, shall be subj ect to design review;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo shall be met;
Design Review Amendment
1441 Bernal Avenue
5. that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that is project from the landing up as a
cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and
6. 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: Ralph, Domenici, applicant/contractor
4
�r�, eirr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLJN('.AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
<�, BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
I 1441 BERNAL AVENUE
Appeal of a Planning Commission decision of
an application for design review amendment to
an approved new two-story single family
dwelling at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1.
(APN: 026-044-100)
•
The City of Burlingame City Council announces
the following public hearing on Mondav, June
18, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed June 8, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of tlle application and plans for this project inay be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the Plai3ning ' Department at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, ypu may`'be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pablic hearing,
described in clle notice or in written con-espondence delivered to the city
at or prior to tlie public hearing. � �
Property owncrs who receive�this notice ��re responsible for it�forming their
tenants about this nc�tice.- For additional information, ple�se call (650)
558-7250. Thank you. i�'
4�
, ;z : � �a�� , :,.3t e ' � �s_�,�:.a�a � � � � r
�a �
Margaret Moi�roe �� � � � ° .- � ��$� �.�.,.�.-...,�.-�.. �- �� ��
City Planner � � � � � ,�-• �a��w��-F >
�.� �'' �
t � ��
PU�LIC"HEARING�NOTICE
(Please refer to other- side)
= M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y R E P O R T =
San Mateo (CA)
**********************************************************************************************
* Date :06/07/2001 Prepared By : *
* Time :00:00:00 Prepared For:JUNE 18, 2001 CC MEETING *
* Report Type :SINGLELN.TCF Company :APN: 026-044-100 *
* Sort Type :PARCEL Address :1441 BERNAL AVENUE *
* Parcels Printed :68 City/ST/Zip :BURLINGAME CA 94010 *
**********************************************************************************************
*******************************
* Search Parameters *
*******************************
Parcel Number...68
026 053 O10 thru 026 053 050
026 053 130 thru 026 053 180
026 054 O10 thru 026 054 060
026 054 130 thru 026 054 180
027 164 O10 thru 027 164 030
027 164 180
027 164 190
027 162 O10 thru 027 162 030
027 162 170 thru 027 162 190
027 143 O10
026 044 030 thru 026 044 160
026 044 170 thru 026 044 200
026 043 050 thru 026 043 190
�
MetroScan / San Mateo (CA)
garcel # Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
026 043 050 Pollard Steven C/Rosa M 1461 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1920
026 043 060 Jeide Antoinette M 1457 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 070 Quinn Chen Deborah Et A1 1453 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1926
026 043 080 Ambus Peggy 1449 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 090 Bean Marjorie A Tr 1445 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 100 Kilki Sait & Tassie Trs Et 1441 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1912 650-342-1256
026 043 110 Momtaheni Nasser C/Neli H 1437 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1925
026 043 120 Flores Ann Marie 1436 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 043 130 Dejesus Miguel A& Kathlee 1440 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 043 140 Crosatto David J Tr 1444 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926 650-347-2855
026 043 150 Swift James W& Mary F 1450 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1928 650-347-7914
026 043 160 Nappi Frank Edward/Mary Fr 1452 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 043 170 Danielsen Thomas H& Vivia 1456 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1956
026 043 180 Walsh John P/Jennifer G 1460 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1951 650-344-6950
026 043 190 Flahavan Stephen C& Lilli 1464 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1990 650-375-8155
026 044 030 Dombek Regina Tr 1469 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925 650-342-3243
026 044 040 George John K 1465 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 050 Hosking Gordon/Marjorie 1461 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 060 Gogarty Henry A& Winifred 1457 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1908
026 044 070 Gogarty Henry A& Winifred 1453 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1948
026 044 080 Andreini Gary & Kathleen 1449 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1929
026 044 090 Packard Mary C 1445 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 100 Frye Linda D 1441 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 110 Ruth Mckay Trust 1989 1437 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 120 Grandinetti Michael A& L 1436 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1941
026 044 130 Marchetti Franca M 1440 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1941
026 044 140 Millet Jim A& Barbara L 1444 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927
026 044 150 Detweiler Bruce C& Susan 1448 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1931 650-344-5970
026 044 160 Simonetti Oriano & P J Trs 1452 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1921 650-375-0309
026 044 170 Feix Donald C& Sharon S T 1456 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925 650-343-1555
026 044 180 Naughton James G 1462 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927 650-343-7984
026 044 190 Mcginty Gail A Tr 1464 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1912 650-344-0853
026 044 200 Schembri Charles J 1470 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1954
026 053 O10 Della Pietra John & H M 1433 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1939
026 053 020 Torres Anthony M& Nancy 1429 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1927 650-344-2696
026 053 030 Vann Charles & Ann-Margare 1425 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1924
026 053 040 Asimos Dean;Asimakopoulos 1421 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1927
026 053 050 Somers Patrick M& Laura F 1417 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1926 650-340-8154
026 053 130 Kirchner Richard & Rebecca 1412 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924 650-344-4096
026 053 140 Cretan Clifford V& Patric 1416 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 053 150 Dow Todd A 1420 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 053 160 Mc Govern Jon T& Kelly 1424 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 053 170 Rich Todd William/Denise M 1428 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1994
026 053 180 Serefiddin Ravil & Nuriye 1432 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1923
026 054 O10 Tam Wing M;Kiyota Noreen N 1433 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1921
026 054 020 Bell Betty J 1429 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 054 030 Car Olga Et A1 1425 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1920
026 054 040 Roddy Peter S;Grier Linda 1421 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1920
026 054 050 Wright Anne Keeler & Trent 1417 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1913
026 054 060 Germanov Emil Tr 1413 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 054 130 Calderilla Marie A 1412 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1926
026 054 140 Minden Lori 1416 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1990
026 054 150 Mc Donald John M& Lara M 1420 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
026 054 160 Alper Philip R& Jeanne B 1424 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
026 054 170 Munoz Elizabeth K Tr 1428 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1924
026 054 180 Weismann Richard M Trustee 1432 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
027 143 O10 Technomet Capital Inc 2100 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1924
027 162 O10 Galante Dana M 1433 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1926
Informalion compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions mukes no representations
or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report.
�
MetroScan / San Mateo (CA)
parcel # Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
027 162 020 Olivier Pamela K& Bruce E 2104 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1926
027 162 030 Lewis Kenneth A& Mary A T 2108 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1924
027 162 170 Marshall Raymond C& Linda 2111 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1929 650-344-2486
027 162 180 Ho Henry C& Recina S Lam 2105 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1929 650-558-1168
027 162 190 Jancsek Joel P/Suzanne M 1449 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1940
027 164 O10 Lico James A& Margaret R 2101 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1929 650-685-4695
027 164 020 Flygare John A& Paola P 1419 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927 650-375-1025
027 164 030 Burt Dennis E& Rosalie V 1417 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1928 650-348-2170
027 164 180 Norton Richard A Tr 2109 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1958
027 164 190 Kiesel George T& Charlott 2105 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1927 650-344-4960
m
�
Information compiledJrom various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no represe�ttations
or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this reporl.
.
�
.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
Sean O'Rourke , being duly sworn, deposes and says: "
that he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, that acting for the
City of Burlingame on the 8'h day of JUNE , 2001, he
deposited in the United States Post Office a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, a
copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the
persons listed on the addresses attached hereto and made a part hereof, to wit:
that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to
NOTICE OF HEARING pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of
Burlingame that on said day there was regular communication by
United States Mail to the addresses attached hereto.
G 8 0
1441 BERNAL AVENUE
���, ciry o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLIN,fiAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
,,�q�. BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1441 BERNAL AVENUE
Application for design review amendment to an
approved new two-story single family dwelling PUBLIC HEARING
at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1.
(APN: 026-044-100) NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Mondav April 23, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed April 13, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at, the . Planning Deparlment at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) ii1 court,�you may be limited to
raising only� those issues you or s�meorie else raised at the public hearing,
described in tl�e notice or in written coirespondence deliver�d to the city
� ,:,,
at or prior t�5 th��publ�� k_Lea�;ing. �
�� �-�
Property o�rs�vJ�io recelYe this notice are resp�onsi�i�a���or in:forming their
tenants aboi�t thisr"no�i�e� ��For additional informationx please call (650)
z €,
558-7250 '�hank �`qu. � �
� 8 � ; > s,,. a �
s� �_ �e
� �� �
tg � `f��rtu�� r+".�" °'-�c
� t ��� � ���. � �'��j� ��ji� Y �f r�
\ ��� .4, t� �rt '^, �'� �� X
Margaret N�o��o� %� � � ���.� . � � �
City Planner �`°� ��{ ,x� -•� �- f'�
yy vX ��9a�� kiT F�� f
� � gp . . ..� .
`��°�
PUBLJ�C�`HE�►RING.NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
' = M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y R E P O R T =
0
San Mateo (CA)
**********************************************************************************************
* Date :04/13/2001 Prepared By : *
* Time :00:00:00 Prepared For:APRIL 23, 2001 PC MEETING *
* Report Type :SINGLELN.TCF Company :APN: 026-044-100 *
* Sort Type :PARCEL Address :1441 BERNAL AVENUE *
* Parcels Printed :68 City/ST/Zip :BURLINGAME CA 94010 *
**********************************************************************************************
*******************************
* Search Parameters *
*******************************
Parcel Number...68
026 053 O10 thru 026 053 050
026 053 130 thru 026 053 180
026 054 O10 thru 026 054 060
026 054 130 thru 026 054 180
027 164 O10 thru 027 164 030
027 164 180
027 164 190
027 162 O10 thru 027 162 030
027 162 170 thru 027 162 190
027 143 O10
026 044 030 thru 026 044 160
026 044 170 thru 026 044 200
026 043 O50 thru 026 043 190
MetroScan / San Mateo (CA)
Parcel # Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
026 043 050 Pollard Steven C/Rosa M 1461 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1920
026 043 060 Jeide Antoinette M 1457 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 070 Quinn Chen Deborah Et A1 1453 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1926
026 043 080 Ambus Peggy 1449 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 090 Bean Marjorie A Tr 1445 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 100 Kilki Sait & Tassie Trs Et 1441 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1912 650-342-1256
026 043 110 Momtaheni Nasser C/Neli H 1437 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1925
026 043 120 Flores Ann Marie 1436 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 043 130 Dejesus Miguel A& Kathlee 1440 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 043 140 Crosatto David J Tr 1444 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926 650-347-2855
026 043 150 Swift James W& Mary F 1450 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1928 650-347-7914
026 043 160 Nappi Frank Edward/Mary Fr 1452 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 043 170 Danielsen Thomas H& Vivia 1456 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1956
026 043 180 Walsh John P/Jennifer G 1460 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1951 650-344-6950
026 043 190 Flahavan Stephen C& Lilli 1464 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1990 650-375-8155
026 044 030 Dombek Regina Tr 1469 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925 650-342-3243
026 044 040 George John K 1465 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 O50 Hosking Gordon & Marjorie 1461 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926 650-342-7650
026 044 060 Gogarty Henry A& Winifred 1457 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1908
026 044 070 Gogarty Henry A& Winifred 1453 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1948
026 044 080 Andreini Gary & Kathleen 1449 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1929
026 044 090 Packard Mary C 1445 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 100 Frye Linda D 1441 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 110 Ruth Mckay Trust 1989 1437 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 120 Grandinetti Michael A& L 1436 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1941
026 044 130 Marchetti Franca M 1440 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1941
026 044 140 Millet Jim A& Barbara L 1444 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927
026 044 150 Detweiler Bruce C& Susan 1448 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1931 650-344-5970
026 044 160 Simonetti Oriano & P J Trs 1452 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1921 650-375-0309
026 044 170 Feix Donald C& Sharon S T 1456 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925 650-343-1555
026 044 180 Naughton James G 1462 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927 650-343-7984
026 044 190 Mcginty Gail A Tr 1464 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1912 650-344-0853
026 044 200 Schembri Charles J 1470 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1954
026 053 O10 Della Pietra John & H M 1433 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1939
026 053 020 Torres Anthony M& Nancy 1429 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1927 650-344-2696
026 053 030 Vann Charles & Ann-Margare 1425 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1924
026 053 040 Asimos Dean;Asimakopoulos 1421 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1927
026 053 050 Somers Patrick M& Laura F 1417 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1926 650-340-8154
026 053 130 Kirchner Richard & Rebecca 1412 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924 650-344-4096
026 053 140 Cretan Clifford V& Patric 1416 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 053 150 Dow Todd A 1420 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 053 160 Mc Govern Jon T& Kelly 1424 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 053 170 Rich Todd William/Denise M 1428 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1994
026 053 180 Serefiddin Ravil & Nuriye 1432 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1923
026 054 O10 Tam Wing M;Kiyota Noreen N 1433 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1921
026 054 020 Bell Betty J 1429 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 054 030 Car Olga Et A1 1425 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1920
026 054 040 Roddy Peter S;Grier Linda 1421 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1920
026 054 050 Wright Anne Keeler & Trent 1417 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1913
026 054 060 Germanov Emil Tr 1413 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 054 130 Calderilla Marie A 1412 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1926
026 054 140 Minden Lori 1416 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1990
026 054 150 Mc Donald John M& Lara M 1420 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
026 054 160 Alper Philip R& Jeanne B 1424 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
026 054 170 Munoz Elizabeth K Tr 1428 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1924
026 054 180 Weismann Richard M Trustee 1432 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
027 143 O10 Technomet Capital Inc 2100 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1924
027 162 O10 Galante Dana M 1433 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1926
Inforrviatiwi canpiled J'rom i�arious sources. First America�: Rea! Eslate Solutiaas, L.P. makes no representations
or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained ir: this report.
0
MetroScan / San Mateo (CA)
Parcel # Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
027 162 020 Olivier Pamela K& Bruce E 2104 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1926
027 162 030 Lewis Kenneth A& Mary A T 2108 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1924
027 162 170 Marshall Raymond C& Linda 2111 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1929 650-344-2486
027 162 180 Ho Henry C& Recina S Lam 2105 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1929 650-558-1168
027 162 190 Jancsek Joel P/Suzanne M 1449 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1940
027 164 O10 Lico James A& Margaret R 2101 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1929 650-685-4695
027 164 020 Flygare John A& Paola P 1419 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927 650-375-1025
027 164 030 Burt Dennis E& Rosalie V 1417 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1928 650-348-2170
027 164 180 Norton Richard A Tr 2109 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1958
027 164 190 Kiesel George T& Charlott 2105 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1927 650-344-4960
Information compiled from various sources. First American Real Estale Solulions, L.P. makes no representations
or warranties as to ti:e accuracy or completeness of informatio�z contained in this report.
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
Sean O'Rourke , being duly sworn, deposes and says:
that he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, that acting for the
City of Burlingame on the 13`h day of A�ril , 2001, he
deposited in the United States Post Of�ce a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, a
copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the
persons listed on the addresses attached hereto and made a part hereof, to wit:
that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to
NOTICE OF HEARING pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of
Burlingame that on said day there was regular communication by
United States Mail to the addresses attached hereto.
�_ D �^-�-��- y/I 3�b !
1441 BERNAL AVENUE
��� cirr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINS'.AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
��+ � BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
i 1441 BERNAL AVENUE
Application for design
approved new two-story
at 1441 Bernal Avenue,
(APN: 026-044-100)
review amendment to an
single family dwelling
zoned R-1. PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
MondaY, Mav 14, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City
Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed May 4, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF .� URLINGAME
A copy of the application ancl �%�ans foi-�thisaproject��may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at �the ,Plarining `Department at ��5Q1 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those �issues you or sonleone else;raised a� the public hearing,
described in tl�e notice or in� wri�ten conespondence> d�li�rer�d to the city
at ar priar to the public hearing. � = �� � � � �, � ��� ���"� '
�
Property ow'C►ers who receive this notice are responsibles�'oriij:forming their
tenants about this� rio�i�e: �'or���additional informatiori� ple��se call (650)
558-7250. Thank y�o�i. 6 ., ;� � �'i
� �� � z�
�� g � ,� ��� , , ��
x
Margaret Nront'o�� � �}���,�,,������� �� �,� � � �=.F ��� ��
� �� �
City Planner y �. �'=,f �� ��'
PU�LIC FiEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other si�1e)
• ' = M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y R E P O R T =
San Mateo (CA)
**********************************************************************************************
* Date :05/04/2001 Prepared By : *
* Time :00:00:00 Prepared For:MAY 14, 2001 PC MEETING *
* Report Type :SINGLELN.TCF Company :APN: 026-044-100 *
* Sort Type :PARCEL Address :1441 BERNAL AVENUE *
* Parcels Printed :68 City/ST/Zip :BURLINGAME CA 94010 *
**********************************************************************************************
*******************************
* Search Parameters *
*******************************
Parcel Number...68
026 053 O10 thru 026 053 050
026 053 130 thru 026 053 180
026 054 O10 thru 026 054 060
026 054 130 thru 026 054 180
027 164 010 thru 027 164 030
027 164 180
027 164 190
027 162 O10 thru 027 162 030
027 162 170 thru 027 162 190
027 143 O10
026 044 030 thru 026 044 160
026 044 170 thru 026 044 200
026 043 050 thru 026 043 190
MetroScan / San Mateo (CA)
Parcel # Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
026 043 050 Pollard Steven C/Rosa M 1461 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1920
026 043 060 Jeide Antoinette M 1457 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 070 Quinn Chen Deborah Et A1 1453 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1926
026 043 080 Ambus Peggy 1449 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 090 Bean Marjorie A Tr 1445 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1929
026 043 100 Kilki Sait & Tassie Trs Et 1441 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1912 650-342-1256
026 043 110 Momtaheni Nasser C/Neli H 1437 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1925
026 043 120 Flores Ann Marie 1436 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 043 130 Dejesus Miguel A& Kathlee 1440 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 043 140 Crosatto David J Tr 1444 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926 650-347-2855
026 043 150 Swift James W& Mary F 1450 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1928 650-347-7914
026 043 160 Nappi Frank Edward/Mary Fr 1452 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 043 170 Danielsen Thomas H& Vivia 1456 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1956
026 043 180 Walsh John P/Jennifer G 1460 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1951 650-344-6950
026 043 190 Flahavan Stephen C& Lilli 1464 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1990 650-375-8155
026 044 030 Dombek Regina Tr 1469 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925 650-342-3243
026 044 040 George John K 1465 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 050 Hosking Gordon & Marjorie 1461 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926 650-342-7650
026 044 060 Gogarty Henry A& Winifred 1457 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1908
026 044 070 Gogarty Henry A& Winifred 1453 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1948
026 044 080 Andreini Gary & Kathleen 1449 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1929
026 044 090 Packard Mary C 1445 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 100 Frye Linda D 1441 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 110 Ruth Mckay Trust 1989 1437 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 044 120 Grandinetti Michael A& L 1436 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1941
026 044 130 Marchetti Franca M 1440 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1941
026 044 140 Millet Jim A& Barbara L 1444 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927
026 044 150 Detweiler Bruce C& Susan 1448 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1931 650-344-5970
026 044 160 Simonetti Oriano & P J Trs 1452 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1921 650-375-0309
026 044 170 Feix Donald C& Sharon S T 1456 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925 650-343-1555
026 044 180 Naughton James G 1462 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927 650-343-7984
026 044 190 Mcginty Gail A Tr 1464 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1912 650-344-0853
026 044 200 Schembri Charles J 1470 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1954
026 053 O10 Della Pietra John & H M 1433 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1939
026 053 020 Torres Anthony M& Nancy 1429 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1927 650-344-2696
026 053 030 Vann Charles & Ann-Margare 1425 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1924
026 053 040 Asimos Dean;Asimakopoulos 1421 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1927
026 053 050 Somers Patrick M& Laura F 1417 Drake Ave Burlingame 9 1926 650-340-8154
026 053 130 Kirchner Richard & Rebecca 1412 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924 650-344-4096
026 053 140 Cretan Clifford V& Patric 1416 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 053 150 Dow Todd A 1420 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 053 160 Mc Govern Jon T& Kelly 1424 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1926
026 053 170 Rich Todd William/Denise M 1428 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1994
026 053 180 Serefiddin Ravil & Nuriye 1432 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1923
026 054 O10 Tam Wing M;Kiyota Noreen N 1433 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1921
026 054 020 Bell Betty J 1429 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1925
026 054 030 Car Olga Et A1 1425 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1920
026 054 040 Roddy Peter S;Grier Linda 1421 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1920
026 054 050 Wright Anne Keeler & Trent 1417 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1913
026 054 060 Germanov Emil Tr 1413 Bernal Ave Burlingame 1924
026 054 130 Calderilla Marie A 1412 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1926
026 054 140 Minden Lori 1416 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1990
026 054 150 Mc Donald John M& Lara M 1420 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
026 054 160 Alper Philip R& Jeanne B 1424 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
026 054 170 Munoz Elizabeth K Tr 1428 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1924
026 054 180 Weismann Richard M Trustee 1432 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1925
027 143 O10 Technomet Capital Inc 2100 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1924
027 162 O10 Galante Dana M 1433 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1926
/nfonnatio�: cornpiled from various sources. First American Real Estate Solutions, L.P. mukes no representations
or warra�:lies as to the accuracy or completeness of i�:formation cw:tair:ed in this report.
' ' MetroScan / San Mateo (CA)
Parcel # Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
027 162 020 Olivier Pamela K& Bruce E 2104 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1926
027 162 030 Lewis Kenneth A& Mary A T 2108 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1924
027 162 170 Marshall Raymond C& Linda 2111 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1929 650-344-2486
027 162 180 Ho Henry C& Recina S Lam 2105 Poppy Dr Burlingame 94 1929 650-558-1168
027 162 190 Jancsek Joel P/Suzanne M 1449 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1940
027 164 O10 Lico James A& Margaret R 2101 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1929 650-685-4695
027 164 020 Flygare John A& Paola P 1419 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1927 650-375-1025
027 164 030 Burt Dennis E& Rosalie V 1417 Vancouver Ave Burlinga 1928 650-348-2170
027 164 180 Norton Richard A Tr 2109 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1958
027 164 190 Kiesel George T& Charlott 2105 Hale Dr Burlingame 940 1927 650-344-4960
Infonnation compiled frorn various sources. First American Real Estate Solutions, L.P. makes no representations
or warra�:ties us 10 the accuracy or completeness of information contained in lhis report.
.� .
CITY OF BURLINGAME
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
Sean O'Rourke , being duly sworn, deposes and says:
that he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, that acting for the
City of Burlingame on the 4`h day of Mav , 2001, he deposited
in the United States Post Office a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, a copy of which
is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the persons listed on
the addresses attached hereto and made a part hereof, to wit:
that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to
NOTICE OF HEARING pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of
Burlingame that on said day there was regular communication by
United States Mail to the addresses attached hereto.
� O y�.e. s,���o/
1441 BERNAL AVENUE
��F, ciry o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLIN�AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
,�+ - BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1441 BERNAL AVENUE
Application for design review
approved new two-story single
at 1441 Bernal Avenue, zoned
(APN: 026-044-100)
amendment to an
R 1 ily dwelling PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, April 23, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed April 13, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the applicatzon�and plans foi- this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at :the. Planning � Departrnent at SC?1 Primrose Road,
`,,,
Burlingame, California.
_�,,.
If you challenge the ��sabject application(s) in court you ma���be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at„th�e�„�ublic hearing,
described in tk���notice or in written coi7espondence �Le�ered to the city
at or rior to tlie� ublic hearin ,$;� , c' ° �° ` �y �v��`�
P P g „:� ;���� �� ;. �� `���
� �_ �. , ��: .e
�-a���, �� ,���,�. .��,�,a;
Property o�vners who�receive this`notice are responsibYe��'or iri%rming their
tenants about this.� not��e�� �For ad.dition�l mformation;, ple�se call (650)
558-7250. Thank yau. '� `
�_� F
_ � ; � ��
` ».. ��„ ��., � �,g � .� �, �
. �.
���� �, i
Margaret Monroe �; ¢� -- �. � � ��~" ,/
City Planner `��; � � �����--- '�' � / �'
�: �.<,`, ' , r
,� �.� ���,��� � ,��,%
� � �,. �n .�,,. s,_ ,1 ,'�'
PU �LIC'fH�i4R(NG�NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)