HomeMy WebLinkAbout1460 Bernal Avenue - Staff ReportI
City of Burlingame Item No.
Design Review and Parking Dimension Variance Consent Calendar
Address: 1460 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: January 8, 2001
Request: Design review and parking dimension variance for a first and second story addition at 1460 Bernal Avenue,
zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040)
Property Owner: John & Jennifer Walsh APN: 026-043-180
Applicant/Architect: Jerry Winges, Winges Architecture
Lot Area: 6000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3 - construction and location of limited
numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building
of two or more such units.
Summary: The applicant is requesting design review and a parking dimension variance for a first and second -story
addition at 1460 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (plans date stamped 11/08/00). The existing one-story house now
contains 1977 SF of floor area (0.33 FAR), and has 2 bedrooms. The first and second floor addition would add 3
bedrooms, for a total of 5 bedrooms. There is an existing attached two -car garage (18'-3" x 20'-8" interior
dimensions). Existing garages with a minimum width of 18' are considered to provide two covered parking spaces
(CS 25.70.030(d)). The addition will increase the floor area of the structure by 1034 SF, for a total floor area of
3011 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3020 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum floor area ratio allowed. A parking dimension
variance is required for the existing 9' -0" x 18' -0" uncovered parking space in the driveway (measured to the interior
edge of the sidewalk) where a 9'-0" x 20'-0" uncovered parking space is required.
Staff Comments: Attached
SETBACKS
Front: 1st flr
2nd flr
Side (left):
Side (right):
Rear: I st flr
2nd flr
LOT COVERAGE.
FAR:
PARKING.
HEIGHT.
DH ENVELOPE:
PROPOSED
EXISTING
ALLOWED/REQ'D
no change
* 15'-0" to garage
15' or block average
n/a
26'-9"
20'-0"
no change
*3'-0"
4'-0"
no change
*2'-9"
4'-0"
no change
50'-4"
15'-0"
57-10"
n/a
20'-0"
no change
34.3%
40%
(2060 SF)
(2400 SF)
3011 SF/
1977 SF/
3020 SF/
0.50 FAR
0.33 FAR
0.50 FAR'
no change
2 covered in garage
2 covered in garage
(18'-3" x 20'-8")
(18'-0" x 20'-0")
✓+ 1 unc. (9'x18') in
+ 1 unc. (9'x20') in
driveway
driveway
no change
27'-8"
3072'/2 stories
meets requirements
N/A
see code
✓Variance required for existing 9'x18' uncovered parking space where 9' x 20' is the minimum dimensions allowed.
This project meets all other zoning code requirements. * existing nonconforming condition
' (32% x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF (+ 400 SF) = 3020 SF - (includes attached garage).
Design Review 1420 Bernal Avenue
Preliminary Design Review Study Meeting: On December 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed this project
for preliminary design review (see attached December 11, 2000, P.C. Minutes). The Planning Commission
commended the architect for increasing the roof pitch on the house and incorporating the second floor living area into
the new roof line, and noted this is a nice addition. The Commission recommended that this item be placed on the
consent calendar for action with the added condition that the roofing material on front dormer shall be copper.
The commission stated that regarding the parking, this plan uses the existing garage, it is at a given location which
establishes the depth of the uncovered parking space, a vehicle can still be parked in the uncovered space, would like
a condition added that if the house were to be demolished the variance would expire. These two conditions regarding
the dormer material and the life of the variance have been included in the recommended conditions listed below.
Findings for Variances: In order to grant the requested parking dimension variance for the required uncovered
parking space the Planning Commission finds that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section
25.54.020 a-d):
a) that based on the fact that this is an existing garage and driveway configuration in place since the house was
built which establishes the depth of the uncovered parking space and the remodel does not affect the garage
portion of the main structure, there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
b) that since in order to comply with the uncovered parking space dimension requirements, the applicant would
have to rebuild the existing garage two feet further back from the front property line, the granting of the
application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and
to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
c) that since the parking dimension variance allows the applicant to add on to the existing house rather than
demolishing it and building a new house, the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience; and
d) that because the design of the second story addition was achieved by increasing the roof pitch and incorporating
the second floor living area into the new roof line, the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics,
mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council
on April 20, 1998 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.
K
Design Review
1420 Bernal Avenue
Design Review Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's
December 11, 2000, preliminary study meeting, the project is 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 by resolution and include findings, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
November 8, 2000, Sheets AO through A4, site plan, floor plans, elevations and building section, and that any
changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the roofing material on the front dormer shall be copper;
3: 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 roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 10, 2000 memo shall be met;
5. that the variance for parking space dimension for the uncovered parking space in the driveway is being granted
by the City because of a pre-existing condition on the property, which would impose an unfair burden on the
owner to correct or remove as part of this addition; however, this condition could have been corrected if the
structure were demolished and replaced. Therefore, should the existing dwelling be demolished, the variance
approved for uncovered parking space dimension shall automatically expire, and the owner may apply for a
new variance or may improve the property so that it conforms to the Zoning Code requirements for uncovered
parking space dimensions. In this case, "demolished" means removal of greater than ten (10) percent or more
in square footage of the exterior walls than was approved in the design review application; 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.
Maureen Brooks
Senior Planner
Jerry Winges, Winges Architecture, applicant
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
December 11, 2000
these signs are about 6 inches tall should add a condition limiting the maximum height in the future. The maker of
the motion and the second agreed to amending the conditions.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the mo ' n to approve the sign exception for two bla a signs at
701 California Drive. The motion passed on a 5 - 2 ers. Boju6s and Vistica dissenting) roll call te. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded a :50 p.m.
10. 2001 PLANNING COMMISS CALENDAR - REVIEW AND ADOP ON OF PLANNING
CP prese/tNCHEZ
01 Plannin Commission Calendar. Commission reviewe a dates. C. Keighran moved
approvalmmissio ' 2001 meeting calendar. The motion was s onded by C. Boju6s. Chairman
Lurzuriar a voi e vote on the motion to adopt. The motion ssed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item
concludem.
IX. VIEW STUDY ITEMS
11. HEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1- LICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
ND STORY ADDITION (VITAS ISKANTA, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND
CP Monroe presented a summary of the projec description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public co nt. Vitas Viskanta property owner and applicant, represented the
project and was available to answer questio .
Commissioners noted: plans need to Yave the labels on the north and east elevations corrected; design is
dramatically better, second floor elempfit is better placed, the siding should be lowered and/or a belly band added
to improve the proportion and add ' erest; a siding change at the sill works well if the first floor is at ground level,
as it goes down hill it changes t proportion and increases the appearance of bulk; what is the material which
surrounds the center window the north elevation, the 6 inches around the window should match the one at the
rear; one idea is that you t need to have a strict line around the house, its OK to drop the line in some places
since there is a lot of culation in this design. There were no further comments and the public comment was
closed.
C. Deal moved t put this time on the consent calendar for action with the direction at on the north elevation and
other elevatio s as well the wood siding at the top be extended and the stucco emphasized. The motion was
seconded b C. Osterling.
Chairm Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place th' i on the consent calendar on January 8,
2001, ith direction. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The ng Commission's action is advisory and
not pealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m.
12. 1460 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR UNCOVERED SPACE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND JENNIFER WALSH,
PR OPFR TV Oy NF.R Cl
CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Jerry Winges, architect, represented the project. He noted a
number of design features which had been included in the project, and noted that the nonconforming depth of the
uncovered parking space was existing and the remodel did not affect the garage area. Commissioner asked what
the metal roofing material was on the dormer. He noted copper. There were no further questions from the floor.
Unapproved Minutes page -9-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes December 11, 2000
C. Deal moved to place this item on the consent calendar for the meeting of January 8, 2001, with the added
condition that the metal dormer roof be copper. He commended the architect for increasing the pitch on the roof
on the house and incorporating the second floor living area into the new roof line, nice addition. The motion was
seconded by C. Bojues.
Comment on the motion: regarding the parking, this plan uses the existing garage, it is at a given location which
establishes the depth of the uncovered parking space, can still park a vehicle in the uncovered space, if the house
were to be demolished would want to review this variance, so could condition to that effect be added. The maker
and second of the motion agreed to the amendment.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to place this item on the January 8, 2001,
consent calendar with suggested conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m.
13. 732 LEXINGTON WAZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (SHARON AND DAVID ZOVOD,
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public ent. Jack Matthews, architect, and Sharon and David Zovod, property
owners represented the project. Intention s to add to the master bedroom and reconstruct the stairs to remove
the winders. Commission asked about the fla oof line at the rear; applicant noted that there was a sloped roof at
the front but all the roof lines at the rear were fla , so continued the existing condition with the addition. There were
no further comments from the floor and the pubVic comment was closed.
C. Bojues moved to place this item on the conient,pattndar for the January 8, 2001, meeting. The motion was
seconded by C. Osterling. There was no comm nt on the motion.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on th motion to refer this item to the consent calendar at the January
8, 2001, meeting. The motion passed on a 7-0 voi vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m.
14. 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE - ZONED R-N APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND A SPFkCIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A
NEW, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (G & B CO CTORS, APPLICANT; DEAN FANTHAM AND
CP Monroe presented the project description. There were nokquestions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Bob Wi iams, architect, and Dean Fantham and Yvette
Gorostiague, property owners, represented the project. They not that from their initial studies of the clients space
needs and condition of the house led to the conclusion that the ap opriate move was to demolish and rebuild the
house. Much of this lot is very steep and wanted to retain the flat us le rear yard, so went to two stories; rear of
the lot is about 85 feet above curb. This will be the first two story hou on this side of the street, but there are a
number down the street in Millbrae. Second story allows greater side set b ks than the original house.
Commissioners asked: there needs to be more information/detail on the landsc.Npe plan, should include selection
of plant material which will grow larger; what is the size of the house, 4100 SF th 400 SF in garage. Applicant
should install story poles so neighbors can see effects of addition.
The following members of the .audience then spoke: Bill Kahn 1837 Castinada; Dr. ellinger,3 Rio Court; Larry
Barich, 1821 Loyola; Samuel Honeo, 1812 Castenada; Bob Debenchenzi, 1809 Castro a. Do not want such a big
house on this block, concerned about view obstruction, would like to see story poles ins led; proposed house not
fit existing quaint character; too many cars on street now, unable to sweep streets, these people now park on street,
Unapproved Minutes page -10-
ells Dy. Li l l Ur DUMLiNUAMt YLANNiNUj DDU b`9b J/9Uj May-44-UU t:CDAMI rage 5/5
CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COADUSSION
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other D�ICW UEVItW
..I M, %M-s
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): dw — b !13—
APPLICANT
Name V410616- &R fltl ZrURL
Address: 129 o WOA" su► ( 3[1
City/State/Zip: WKU�614010
Phone (w): 3 4-31-1101
(h):
fax:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: 6 M1
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):
fax:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:10W &CINAI.'S}-
Address: 146o 13GW-hb
City/State/Zip: DY17-UN 6AM5 . -cA 9401 o
Phone (w):
fax:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
*Juwl w106-le-51 Alf}
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6SCC* D 15-(01111 ADV E110+1 A 9W o C7 U N G
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature
Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
WoA---- -'�
Property wner's Signature Date
--- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Filed• �0 " ' Q� Fee: % J oU Y 200 PG�
UU�•
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
;ent By: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING; 650 696 3790; Oct-19-00 2:32PM; Page 2
U I Y OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS
IONS
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties In this area.
1105- MINIM(4m 1)` x Zo re z,uic-� �-t` 1
0A-Ktt-,� I s N O-r Fo $s tPA-e5 V, CALl sE -rKr-- pyl 5-t7 NCB GALAS I✓
(TV Fo do Li-rAcl--� t5 18i fl?-t� -Rtf�-- CAT-1 5tP01T'ff C E 11/ E
NOV - 9 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enJo�IyeAi BiPAT
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result from the denial of the application.
�, pl-,;"IT tzlwv clwu�rz2� `tom
Ptj-� ttpG -jam Z, F-r:--&u c2er-> , 5 tee CC-- twc-- C-OjZACE l s l c srt�C�y
No hla av-, iS "floe ED T#-tAT AvmGTs 'f"h� Vr2l vf-::E W^-(
C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location wiA not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/lc health, safety, genera/ welfare, or
convenience.
WWI, r-)OT C' � Z ,a�-t-wo-151W-f PE�S uPOxe-
!�• �STS Tb �"� � uttt . Tl-� P✓�P o S � �'�� �b (n.S� w► w ►-� o i 7�
C'w�,tlG s �t�c�l-t � `��{ N otz I� G �' �� i��� o� �oNv Er►.� t�
��>N� -n� ,�•ov;-na,.� t s s� co,-��i►.�.� I,,, �-c�rt N � P►'�P��Y�N o
�x �� N� � i (�-�ct✓��sc(l�.zt�(L�.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
'rl t� Ft� (>osep Fp nJ eZ�X wl w 5E cCi,., p4,;:r18c4,5 "n-t -('► t� L s'17 N G
tl�-� At55 ptcA - T 11+S t t�Fep �oo� D F IttlE
l%,1ST1,0C=- F- s IPP,3CS AS w kS tKt-- O�K (STING, C0 F
A�tso 6"-A r�
& '(itr,� Zug i�LoflCL sg;lpt po1-P T ho(A ` tom E�Ct.STiNE- (S-r FL�Cot2
P�-t rt�t�R- • �� N.t�b � �t�v v� c���-t'� w� �.�, ,�o T cam. s �� �
`�t�E p(� PoS�.P �(� lit M�Ir-►TA4►.�S fi}l� GZ�eiLi+.l� Po �1,GI.E� � T-�tt✓ vt�
i zrez v.r.r� �C-�C�R�I►-L'7 �?Y�JC l,.v �'P''��.�tJ� S �i�F►G (�4��i /�S A 5�►-�<� �cMl L`� �InJFLIM-�b.
Sent By: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING; 650 696 3790; Oct-19-00 2:33PM; Page 3/5
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or cone!%tions appiicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties /n this area.
Do any conditions exist an the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and are also not common to other properties In the areal For example, is there a creek cutting
through the property, an exceptional trod specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result from the denial of the application.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception?
li.e., having as much on -site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses
allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship
on the development of the property?
C. Explaln why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or knprovements In the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenlence.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting,
paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the
structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare?
Public health Includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater
systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground
storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseases).
Pub is safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will siarm
systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
Gene a� Is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as
the elderly or handicapped?
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetles, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potential uses on edjoIning properties In the general vicinity?
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? if it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match
existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties In the neighborhood? if use will affect
the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it 'fits'.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures In terms of mass or bulk? If there is no
change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare Its size, appearance, orientation etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of
character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use.
Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of
the neighborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare
your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity,
and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. , vsa rr.►m
ROUTING FORM
DATE: October 5, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
_CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
_FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition at 1460
Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-043-180.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, October 10, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Erika/Ruben to/ t ° 0'o • Date of Comments
i-qo caw+ vrs.� �S
1 J V : o d v a► i e.. s�G�.c�.�C�
r � ' � r. _ •tea �: ,.
Ai
WORM_
r
� v
i
CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
- BURLJNSiAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1460 BERNAL AVENUE
Application for design review and parking
dimension variance for uncovered space for a
first and second story addition at 1460
PUBLIC HEARING
Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-043-180)
NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, January 8, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed December 29, 2000
(Please refer to other side)
° CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this -project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at :fhe",Platining Department at' 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California,.
a
If you challenge the�subject applicat on(s).in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described m the -notice oar m written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the,public l�learir4g _(
Property owner's 'no iecei e x
to notice areresponsible.for 'informing their
tenants about this`fio For 4' It %nal inforination lease call 650
558-7250. Thank you. p ( )
Margaret Mod> o x a i �'
City Planner IN ,$114
�
z a
N �k&Pf-
PUB, HEi4RING I TICE
(Please refer to other side)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a
parkins dimension variance and design review application for a first and second story addition at 1460
Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. John and Jennifer Walsh property owners APN• 026-043 180;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
January 8, 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, 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 is hereby approved.
2. Said parking dimension variance and design review application are approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such parking dimension variance and
design review application are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, Ann Kei hr�an , 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 8th day of January , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval categorical exemption, parking dimension variance and design review
1460 Bernal Avenue
effective January 18, 2001
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped November 8, 2000, Sheets AO through A4, site plan, floor plans, elevations
and building section, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the roofing material on the front dormer shall be copper;
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 roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's December 10, 2000 memo shall be met;
that the variance for parking space dimension for the uncovered parking space in the
driveway is being granted by the City because of a pre-existing condition on the property,
which would impose an unfair burden on the owner to correct or remove as part of this
addition; however, this condition could have been corrected if the structure were demolished
and replaced. Therefore, should the existing dwelling be demolished, the variance approved
for uncovered parking space dimension shall automatically expire, and the owner may apply
for a new variance or may improve the property so that it conforms to the Zoning Code
requirements for uncovered parking space dimensions. In this case, "demolished" means
removal of greater than ten (10) percent or more in square footage of the exterior walls than
was approved in the design review application; 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.
City of Burlingame Item # /_
Preliminary Design Review and Parking Dimension Variance PDR Study Calendar
First and Second Story Addition
Address: 1460 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: December 11, 2000
Request: Design review and parking dimension variance for a first and second story addition at 1460 Bernal Avenue,
zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040)
Property Owner: John & Jennifer Walsh APN: 026-043-180
Applicant/Architect: Jerry. Winges, Winges Architecture
Lot Area: 6000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Summary: The applicant is requesting design review and a parking dimension variance for a first and second -story
addition at 1460 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (plans date stamped 11/08/00). The existing one-story house now
contains 1977 SF of floor area (0.33 FAR), and has 2 bedrooms. The first and second floor addition would add 3
bedrooms, for a total of 5 bedrooms. There is an existing attached two -car garage (18'-3" x 20'-8" interior
dimensions). Existing garages with a minimum width of 18' are considered to provide two covered parking spaces
(CS 25.70.030(d)). The addition will increase the floor area of the structure by 1034 SF, for a total floor area of
3011 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3020 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum floor area ratio allowed. A parking dimension
variance is required for the existing 9' -0" x 18' -0" uncovered parking space in the driveway (measured to the interior
edge of the sidewalk) where a 9'-0" x 20'-0" uncovered parking space is required.
Staff Comments: Attached
SETBACKS
Front. 1st flr
2nd flr
Side (left):
Side (right):
Rear. 1st flr
2nd flr
LOT COVERAGE:
FAR:
PARKING:
HEIGHT.
DH ENVELOPE:
PROPOSED
EXISTING
ALLOWED/REQ'D
no change
* 15'-0" to garage
15' or block average
n/a
26'-9"
20'-0"
no change
*3'-0"
4'-0"
no change
*2'-9"
4'-0"
no change
50'-4"
15'-0"
57'-10"
n/a
20'-0"
no change
34.3%
40%
(2060 SF)
(2400 SF)
3011 SF/
1977 SF/
3020 SF/
0.50 FAR
0.33 FAR
0.50 FAR'
no change
2 covered in garage
2 covered in garage
(18'-3" x 20'-8")
(18'-0" x 20'-0")
✓+ 1 unc. (9'x18') in
+ 1 unc. (9'x20') in
driveway
driveway
no change
27'-8"
3072 '/2 stories
meets requirements
N/A
see code
✓Variance required for existing 9'x18' uncovered parking space where 9' x 20' is the minimum dimensions allowed.
This project meets all other zoning code requirements. * existing nonconforming condition
' (32% x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF (+ 400 SF) = 3020 SF - (includes attached garage).
Maureen Brooks
Senior Planner
c: Jerry Winges, Winges Architecture, applicant
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�+
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1460 BERNAL AVENUE
Application for design review and parking
dimension variance for uncovered space fora PUBLIC HEARING
first and second story addition at 1460
Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-043-180) NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, December 11, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed December 1, 2000
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the applicaidon and plans for this- project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at, the > Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California:
If you challenge the `siibject applications) in court, you may be limited to
raising only ihoseJssues.you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in -written correspondence, delivered to the city
at or prior to the pub46 hearing.
Property owners Wtio receive
tenants abot thi noti�� �
558-7250 � ank _ u P > , ;
d
Margaret o oe 4
°t.
City Planner
PUBLIC
(Please refer to other side)
their
(650)