HomeMy WebLinkAbout1532 Bernal Avenue - Staff Reportc�
Item # �G
Consent Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
1532 Bernal Avenue
t
��
Item # /G
City of Burlingame Consent Calendar
Design Review
Address: 1532 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: OS/23/OS
Request: Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage.
Applicant and Designer: Dale Meyer Associates APN: 026-033-200
Property Owners: Larry and Mary Jo Nejasmich Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited
number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in
a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under
this exemption.
May 9, 2005 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 2005, the Planning Commission
moved to continue this item to the May 23, 2005 consent calendar with minor changes as discussed by the
Commission. The Commission noted that they felt that the new proposal was a great improvement over the
original proposal but some additional changes to the plans were requested concerning: window egress, corbel
size, uncovering the header at the front porch, mullion patterns, a trellis cover over the rear porch and the plate
height of the second story.
The applicant submitted revised plans and a letter addressing the Commission's concerns on May 11, 2005. The
applicant notes that the plans have been revised to show all egress windows, the header at the front porch has
been exposed in keeping with the Craftsman style, the exposed beams at the front and rear elevations have been
enlarged along with the knee bracing, the second floor plate height has been reduced to 8'-1" and the mullion
pattern on the windows has been made to be consistent. A trellis has not been added over the mud room porch
because if one were to be added then the proposal would exceed the maximum allowed FAR (3,420 SF proposed
where 3,420 SF is the maximum allowed).
Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached one-car garage
(1662 SF, 0.28 FAR) to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The
proposed house and detached two-car garage will have a total floor area of 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) where 3,420 SF
(0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed FAR is at the maximum FAR allowed on this 6,000 SF lot.
The proposed new house will contain four potential bedrooms, requiring one covered (10' x 20') and one
uncovered (9' x 20') parking spaces on site. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached 376 SF
one-car garage (11'-4" X 29'-4", clear interior measurements) and replace it with a new detached garage (20' x 22',
clear interior dimensions), which will provide two covered spaces. One uncovered 9' x 20' space is provided in
the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage (CS 25.57.010).
Desi`gn Review
.
Table 1 —1532 Bernal Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
SETBACKS
Front(1 S` flr):
�2nd�r�:
Side (right):
(left):
Rear (ls`fl'r):
�2nd �Y�:
Lot Coverage:
FAR:
# of bedrooms:
Parking:
EXISTING
20'-0"
none
5'-2"
8'-10"
57'-0"
none
1,777 SF
30%
1,662 SF
0.28 FAR
unknown
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
(O1 /26/05
20'-6"
24'-0"
4'-0"
13'-0"
44'-6"
48'-0"
.............................. .. . . .. .
2,358 SF
39%
REVISED
PROPOSAL
(05/11/OS)
20'-6"
26'-6"
4'-0"
13'-0"
41'-0"
47'-0"
2,263 SF
38%
1 S32 Bernal Avenue
ALLOWED/REQ'D
20'-6"(block average)
20'-6'� ............ . . .. ..............
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
2��-�n
2,400 SF
40%
_.._......_ ...... .............
3,420 SF�
0.57 FAR
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
_ ..........................................................
30'-0"
.................... . ..................
CS 25.28.075
1 covered
(11'-4" x 29'-4")
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
3,311 SF
0.55 FAR
4
2 covered
(20' x 22')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 14'-2" i 25'-0"
,
_ .................................................................. ................................................................................................1...................................................................................................
DHEnvelope: complies � complies
(0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3420 SF (0.57 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached.
3,420 SF
0.57 FAR
_.._...._..
4
......................................... ..............
2 covered
(20' x 22')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
................................................
26'-6"
complies
Design Review Study Meeting (March 14, 2005): At the Planning Commission design review study meeting
on March 14, 2005, the Commission referred the project to a design reviewer with direction (March 14, 2004
P.C. Minutes). The following changes were made to the project:
■ Footprint: The living room and the guest room switched sides due to the moving the entryway from the
left side of the house to the front of the house and because of the inclusion of a front porch. The size and
shape of the rear deck was also changed to reflect the craftsman style.
■ Roof Configuration: The roof configuration was completely changed and the pitch was changed from a
4:12 to a 5:12 (see roof plan, sheet P3).
■ Front Elevation: A covered porch was added that faces the street, the stucco exterior was replaced with
wood shake siding, windows with craftsman style mullions replaced all the original windows and exposed
beams were placed in the peaks of the roof.
�
Desi'�n Review 1532 Bernal Avenue
■ Rear Elevation: Wood shake siding and stone siding replaced the stucco siding, a trellis that is supported
by wood columns was placed over the rear deck area, the second story uncovered deck was removed and
exposed beams were placed in the peaks of the roof.
■ Right Side Elevation: The gas fireplace flue box was replaced with a stone chimney towards the rear of
the house, the stairwell was brought down to grade and incorporated a larger window area, wood shake
siding replaced the stucco siding and exposed rafter ends were incorporated into the roof eaves.
Left Side Elevation: The entryway was switched to the front elevation, a stone chimney was added
towards the front of the house, more windows were added towards the rear of the house, wood shake
siding replaced the stucco siding and exposed rafter ends were incorporated into the roof eaves.
The following is a list of the Commission's direction and responses by the applicant. The applicant submitted
revised plans date stamped April 22, 2005. A summary of the design reviewer's analysis, dated Apri122, 2005, is
provided in the following section.
1. Need to announce from the front properry line, the location of the front door on the side, use landscaping
and something structural; structure lacks as sense of entry.
The applicant revised both the entry to the house and the exterior materials to give the front elevation
more of a sense of entry. A front porch was added that brings the entryway from the side of the house to
face the front property line, the building material was changed from stucco to wood shake siding, the
second story was pushed back for better articulation, chimneys were added, all of the windows were
changed to include craftsman style mullions and exposed beams were placed at the roof peaks to bring in
a more defined architectural style (see revised plans date stamped Apri122, 2005, southwest elevation
page P3). The design reviewer notes that the new style is a complete departure from the previously
submitted plans, that it is a major improvement over the former design and that the front porch is a
welcome addition to the streetscape. Please refer to the design reviewer's analysis, date stamped April
22, 2005, and the summary in the next section.
2. Needs something to make the house more appealing; southeast elevation has two blank walls at the
location of the kitchen and the master bath above; lacks windows and proposed windows are too small;
windows should say there are people inside; no character.
The southeast elevation (revised plans date stamped Apri122, 2005, page P4) has been revised to include
more windows with mullion patterns of the craftsman style, the entryway has been moved to the front
elevation, the back deck is now covered by a trellis, a stone chimney has replaced the gas fireplace flue
box and exposed rafter ends were incorporated into the roof eaves. The design reviewer notes that the
side elevations are broken up with articulations and variety and that the windows seem compatible and
harmonious and are consistent on all four elevations. Please refer to the design reviewer's analysis, date
stamped Apri122, 2005, and the summary in the next section.
3. Northwest elevation fireplaces are gas so no chimney is required, but they need to be integrated into the
structure, they appear as storage boxes on the outside of the building.
Both gas fireplace flue boxes on the northwest elevation were replaced with stone chimneys and the front
most iireplace was moved to the southeast elevation (revised plans date stamped April 22, 2005, page
P4).
3
Design Review 1532 Bernal Avenue
4. The windows on front elevation do not line up to support the building above and the massing is out of
balance, project needs better massing.
The applicant revised the plans so that all windows on the front elevation were replaced with windows
that incorporate craftsman style mullions, the second story was pushed back from the front of the house
for better articulation, stone chimneys were added to both sides of the house for more balance and
exposed beams were added at the roof peaks for more balance between the two stories (revised plans date
stamped April 22, 2005, page P3). The design reviewer stated that because of the articulation of the side
walls and the direction of the gable roof, the massing is an appropriate interface with the neighbors and
that the overall bulk is mitigated by the deign features.
S. The roof over the staircase looks like a"hat'; the wall needs more articulation.
The northwest elevation was revised to include more articulation of the staircase; the exterior wall was
carried down to grade, the roof placement and pitch were changed and a larger window area was added to
the stairwell area (revised plans date stamped Apri122, 2005, northwest elevation page P4). Please refer
to the design reviewer's analysis, date stamped Apri122, 2005, and the summary in the next section.
6. Front porch is not appropriate on the side, the California Building Code will not allow a port cochere any
more.
The applicant moved the entryway from the left side elevation to the front elevation and incorporated a
front porch area that faces the front property line (revised plans date stamped Apri122, 2005, southwest
elevation page P4).
7. The ornamental stucco band is too massive and not seen anywhere in the area.
• The ornamental stucco band was removed because the exterior building material was changed to wood
shake siding (revised plans date stamped Apri122, 2005, pages P3 thru P4).
8. Need to revise the flat roof at front, may not see clearly on elevation, going to look odd when built, know it
exists with the current house but does not need to be repeated on the new house.
• The entire roof was changed to a 5:12 pitch and the flat roof area at the front was removed (revised plans
date stamped April 22, 2005, pages P3 thru P4). Please refer to the design reviewer's analysis, date
stamped Apri122, 2005, and the summary in the next section.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (dated Apri122, 2005): The design reviewer met with
the applicant to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project. In a letter dated Apri122, 2005,
the reviewer notes that the design has been completely revised to respond to the Planning Commission concerns.
The reviewer comments that the shingle/craftsman bungalow style proposed is compatible with the scale and
feeling of the neighborhood and with Burlingame in general. He states that the new style proposed is a complete
departure from the previously submitted plans and a major improvement over the former design.
In regards to interfacing with adjacent structures, the reviewer notes that because of the articulation on the side
walls and the direction of the roof gable slope, he feels that the massing is an appropriate interface with the
4
Design Review
1532 Bernal Avenue
� neighbors. In regards to the landscaping, the reviewer notes that the planting of six Mayten trees may be too
much because these trees will grow into two major clusters, the potential canopies of which are not shown on the
plans. He also notes that planting of a row of pines along the right side fence may not be appropriate. Staff
would note that the landscape plan was not altered from the original as suggested by the design reviewer.
In summary, the design reviewer notes that this is a complete re-design of the previously submitted scheme and it
should be judged on its own merits. He applauds the owner and architect for the flexibility to come up with a
new design concept that is much more compatible with the City of Burlingame and he recommends approval,
except for the noted minor tweaking of the landscaping plant selections.
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 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 for Design Review: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's
May 9, 2005, design review study meeting, that the new proposal is a great improvement from the original
proposal, that the house is compatible with the mass and bulk in the neighborhood, and that this design was
approved by the design reviewer referred to this project, 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 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
Apri122, 2005, sheets P 1 through P5, and Boundary and Topographic Survey date stamped January 26,
2005; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to
this permit;
2. that all planting shall follow the landscape plan on page PS of the revised plans (date stamped Apri122,
2005);
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 prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved
5
Design Review
1532 Bernal Avenue
in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
5. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect has been built according
to the approved Planning and Building plans;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
7. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners
and set the building footprint;
9. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
11. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall
not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all
the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
12. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 27, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's and
Recycling Specialist's January 28, 2005 memos and the Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's January
31, 2005 memos shall be met;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
14. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
15. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Erica Strohmeier
Zoning Technician
c. Dale Meyer, applicant and designer
C
Date:
To:
From:
Project Comments
01 /27/2005
d City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
a Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 1532 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-033-200
Staff Review: 01 /31 /2005
1. See attached.
2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
3. It appears from project plans that the proposed warp section in the driveway
approach extends beyond the property line projection into the street. Plans
shall be revised to show the warp section within the property line projection to
the curb and gutter.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 1/28/2005
�, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS N� 1� ��`i'
Project Name: ¢� ���--I�tu�.4�
Project Address:_�Z ��. �
The following requirements apply to the project
1 _�_ A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building pernut issuance.) �� �c. 5r1.4;�o By � v�c7,�Es�O (��7
�Z�.aM���c �t�"e�,�Z .
2 � The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3. The applicant sha11 submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project sha11 comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5 � A sanitary sewer lateral � is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
8 Submit tr�c trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a tr�c impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show a11 existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
� �. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 _�l The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and conshuct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 � The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 � The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 � The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 —�— The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle sha11 be placed in front. T'he
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
01 /27/2005
❑ City Engineer
X Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
d City Attorney
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 1532 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-033-200
Staff Review: 01/31 /2005
1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC),
the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal
requirements.
2) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
3) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the
property line.
4) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line.
5) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be
constructed of one-hour fire-rated construction.
6) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window
or door that complies with the egress requirements.
7) Provide guardrails at all landings.
8) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than two risers.
9) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
10)The fireptace chimney must terminate at least finro feet above any roof surface
within ten feet.
� Date:
.���.. � l .Z�l
Project Comments
Date
01 /27/2005
To: � City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
� City Arborist
� City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
X Recycling Specialist
� Fire Marshal
� NPDES Coordinator
Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 1532 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-033-200
Staff Review: 01/31/2005
Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and recycling deposit for this and all
covered projects prior to demolition, construction or permitting.
Reviewed by: �
Date: � �j� �� ��
Date:
Project Comments
01 /27/2005
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
d Fire Marshal
� NPDES Coordinator
Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 1532 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-033-200
Staff Review: 01 /31 /2005
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide double backflow prevention.
Date: ;� �,�_6 s�
Reviewed by: � � ����
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
01 /27/2005
� City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
� City Arborist
� City Attorney
� Recycling Specialist
� Fire Marshal
� NPDES Coordinator
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 1532 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-033-200
Staff Review: 01/31/2005
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited
to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the
construction project (including demolition).
Additional stormwater requirements may be issued as conditions of approval for this
project.
Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available
for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project
proponents.
For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
Reviewed bv: � � -
Date: ��f3��o.5
DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTURE-INTERIORS-PLANNING-DE VELOPMENT
851 BURLWAY ROAD #700 BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PHONE: 650-348-5054 FAX: 650-348-7119
May 11, 2005
ERICA STRO�IMEIER
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 PRINIROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
RE: 1532 BERNAL AVE.
APN: 026-033-200
Dear Erica Strohmeier:
This letter is in response to Planning Commission's comments from the meeting on May 9, 2005
concerning the above referenced project.
1. All egress windows have been indicated on both the floor plans and elevations, as
requested. See sheets P2 and P4.
2. The header at the front porch has been exposed; in keeping with the Craftsman style,
as requested. See sheet P3: Front Elevation
3. See sheet P4: Northwest and Southea.st elevations: The exposed rafter ends remain
as drawn. These are the actual rafter ends, partially covered with a fascia board and
gutter. See sheet P3: Front and Rear elevations: The exposed beams have been
enlarged along with the knee-bracing to give these elevations more depth.
4. The second floor plate height has been reduced to 8'-1", as requested.
5. The mullion pattern at the second floor rear windows has been made to be consistent
with the rest of the house, as requested_ See sheet P3: Rear elevation.
b. A cover over the back porch offthe Mud Room has not been included because it
would increase the FAR past the allowable limit.
If you have any questions, I would be pleased to respond.
Sincerely,
RE�� V�
DALE MEYER A.�.A. MAY Y��; '�-�
c�Tv oF euH�
p�AN�tp!'�; , ,
APR-20-2@05 06:51 PM WINGES ARCHITECTS 658 343 1291 P.02
WINGES
ARe��T�crs
M�MO:
Date: 4=19-2005
PlanninA Cornmisslan
City of �urfingame
501 Primrose Road, Bur�ingame, CA 94010
ref: 23Q1 Hiflside Drive
RECEIi/�C�
APR 2 2 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PIANNING DEPT.
1 have visited the aite, the atreet and the surraunding neighborhood and reviewed th� initial
plan$, I have had one meeting with the archltect re�arding the original plans and have review�d
faxes of the new dasign dlroctlon, The design has been completely revised to respond to the
Pl�nnin� Commission concsms. I have the folfowing comments on the fat+�st revised plans
dated April 11, 2005.
1 Com�atib�lihr of the architectural stvte wlth that,�f the existinn ne�phbarhood•
+ Th� neighborhoad and street are a colle�tlon of eclectic styles.
• The shingle/creftsman bunQalow style proposed is compatible with #he scale and feelin�
of the neighborhood and with the Burlingame envlronment in gen�ral.
• This new styie proposed is a complete dep�rture from the previously submitted plans and
a major improvement over tha fprmer design.
_r-�1 1= • -J � • � _�_��; � - _ • .l •�l�
� The existi�� free atandin� rear garage is be.ing replaced wlth a new 2 ca� free standing
g�rage at the rear of the propefty.
• The new desipn r�tains the rear garaga cpncept, and is comp�tible with tha previ�us
gars��e pattem and that of the nei�hborhood.
3. Archltecturel Stvle. Mass and B��k of the Structure. and Intemal Consiatencv of �Q Qeal�n.
. The floor plan Is an eff+cient compact layout and the placement of roome, stairway and
overal! lnt�mal flow end orierrtation make sense.
• The front porch is a welcome addition ta the streetscape, arid in combinaticn wfth the
sec;ond floor setbaak at the front, produces a human �cale at #he street,
• The side elevations are broken up with articul�ations and variety.
� Barge �3o�rd d�taila, ver►ts and windows seem campa�kible and harma�ni�us and �re
consistent vn all 4 el�vetions.
• Trellis and recesses produce a variety of shadow pettems.
• The overell bulk seems mitigated by the �bove desi�n features.
• Thi� totally new design reoriented the front doar to the s#reet �nd has added the missing
charact�r af th� original submittal.
• Fireplace boxes shown on the frst submittai have been ropl�ced by � stone chimney.
. Al! flat roofs have been eliminated.
wwGES ARCNqgCTB, INC. t20tl FfOWARD AVE. 8WTE3f1, Bt/RLINOAA� CA 9�oto i FA7(: (BSOJ 9�5-f294 /,hlo�wlnysaela.com / 9EL: f�) ��-170�
ARChIliECTURE / MA$TEI4 PI.ANMINO / lNT�R/OR ARCNITEC77JRE / 9PACE PLANNrNQ / OES�cN CouNSEUNG
City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 9, 2005
Chair A�an and C. Osterling r�cused themselv�from this item since th both live within 50�. feet of the
project. ey stepped down from the dais and le �the chambers. �` ��,
Reference staff report May 9, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed �riteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Brownrigg asked if
�
all present Planning Commissioners had visited the site, all responded yes. There were no questions of staff.
A�ting Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San `�,.
Ma�eo, represented the project and offered to answer questions. Commission did not see any fault in the \�`
design, but had concerns over the elevation drawings showing one size window where the floor plans show
another size window, look carefully at the kitchen windows and cabinet location; this needs to be addressed
and cle'ared up at this stag� of review; egress windows need to be noted and to scale; do not want FYI or
second P7anning Commission review when under construction. Designer agreed that all windows should
reflect correct sizes. Commission stated that designer needs to be more careful in future to make sure
windows drawn match size indicated. Same house plan as on Cabrillo? Yes, but added wrap porch in front.
Is this porch deeper and longer7 Yes, this porch is 6'-5" deep and is longer. Commission noted they see
this as an improvement to the Cabrillo house. Mark Hammitt, 1326 De Soto, happy that lot is being
developed; the proposal on this sloped grade looms; drove by house on Cabrillo Ave. and feels it is a nice
h�iuse, but is hard to imagine on De Soto; street can stand some improvement, but this house is out of
cha�acter for this block; does that matter, leave it up to the Commission. There were no further comments
and t'he public hearing was closed.
�
'�
C. Deal �moved to place this item on the consent calendar at the May 23, 2005, Planning Commission
meeting a�er the windows and their dimensions had been corrected on the floor plans and elevations. He
�,
noted that tlie "neighborhood" extends beyond the 1300 block of De Soto and that this house works with the
neighborhood;, this house is fine. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on the, motion: The focus in design review is not just on this' block but within the broader
neighborhood, and design can also vary between different sides of a street; the proposed house has a lot of
traditional aspects to it and this is what Burlingame is trying to achieve in the design review guidelines; this
's an improvement from the house on Cabrillo because things have been done to;break up the front fa�ade
a d the bigger front porch is good; do not want to see this design again; this is a great job and would support
it; strated with designers casual response to Commissioners �omments about the windows and the p'I'�ns.
Acting'Chair Brownrigg ca�Jed for a voice vot�to continue this item to the May 23, 2005, consent calendar
when pla�s had been corrected as directed. TH� motion passed ori�a 5-0-2 (Chair Auram;and C. Osterling
abstaining�. This item was set;for the May 23, 2�05, Planning Comf�ission meeting and� it will not be re-
noticed. Tf%,s item concluded a��.8:35 p.m. �'
5. 1532 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LARRY AND MARY JO NEJASMICH (64 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Brownrigg and C. Keighran recused themselves from this item since they live within 500 feet of the
project. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers.
:�
City oj Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 9, 2005
Reference staff report May 9, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. She noted that this project was
referred to a design reviewer and is a complete redesign of the original proj ect. Commission questioned the
address on the design review letter written by Jerry Winges and ZT Strohmeier responded that was a typo on
the design reviewer's part, this is the response letter to 1532 Bernal Ave. Commission asked if the FAR
calculation included the residual square footage after the 100 SF exemption for covered porch; staff
responded yes.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Riffel, Dale Meyer Associates, 851 Burlway, represented the
project. Commission commented on windows in the guest bedroom and asked if they will meet egress
requirements; wood windows have no mullions at the master bedroom on rear elevation are different then all
other windows and need to match; like the overall design; front seems to be lacking articulation because of
the two large floors; second floor should have plate height of 8'-1" instead of 9'-0", the lower plate would
still allow for vaulted ceilings on second floor; door on back porch off of mud room should add an overhang
with similar detail to other overhangs on the house; is a great improvement; change is much nicer; beam
should be revealed on front elevation to show craftsman style of the house; wood railings should have more
detail; comfortable with existing detail, knee braces are fine; corbels should have a heavier dimension to stay
appropriate with the style. Larry Nej asmich, property owner, 1720 Crockett Lane, Hillsborough, stated that
he wants to see the project passed as is without any changes, that these changes would cause a huge time
delay, that he cannot afford to postpone the project, and that he does not like the direction the Commission is
going but that he would make minor changes to the project if that is what the Commission wants. There
were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission Directed:
• Review and make all window sizes on plans and elevations;
• Note all egress windows from bedrooms, confirm that opening dimensions meet CBC egress
requirements;
• Larger corbels should be added;
• Uncover header at the porch
• Make the mullion patterns at the rear consistent with the pattern in the rest of the house;
• Add a cover over the back porch off the mud room which matches the roofs over the other porches
on the house; and
• Reduce the second floor plate height to standard 8'-1".
C. Vistica moved to place this item on the consent calendar at the May 23, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting with minor changes to the plans that were discussed. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on Motion: the changes requested are minor and can be addressed by placing this item on the
consent calendar.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote to continue this item to the May 23, 2005 consent calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Brownrigg and C. Keighran abstaining).
This item was set for the May 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting and it will not be re-noticed. This
item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
7
�� 1N�Z�oS �°C IMiI�J�+eB
1532 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DALE
MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LARRY AND MARY JO
NEJASMICH (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg recused themselves because they both live within 500 feet of
this property. They stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Auran opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road,
represented the project. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioners asked: have
oriented the front door to the side property line, but there is nothing on the landscape plan to
direct people to the door at that location, no identification; door faces garage next door so all
right; this is a new house, not limited by having to use existing attributes of an existing
structure as you are with a remodel, do not see "character " here, does not appear to draw on
any particular style, rather appears to be driven by the floor plan; house does not fit the
neighborhood, includes no specific "style"; submittal appears hurried as if style is not yet
resolved, height is good, low and not massive;
■ Need to announce from the front property line, the location of the front door on the
side, use landscaping and something structural; structure lacks as sense of entry;
■ needs something to make the house more appealing on the southeast elevation two
blank walls at the location of the kitchen and bedroom above; lacks windows and
windows too small, windows should say that there are people inside, no character;
■ Northwest elevation know fire places are gas so no chimney is required, but they need
to be integrated into the structure, they appear as storage boxes on the outside of the
building;
■ On the front elevation the windows do not stack and the massing is out of balance, they
don't line up to support the building above;
■ The roof over the staircase looks like a"hat", the wall needs more articulation;
■ Project needs better massing;
■ Front porch is not appropriate on the side, CBC will not allow a port cochere any more;
■ The ornamental stucco band is too massive, not see it any where in the area, often used
in new subdivisions;
■ Need to revise the flat roof at the front, may not see clearly on elevation, going to look
odd when built, know it exists with the current house but does not need to be repeated
on the new house.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Bojues noted that there are a number of inter-related items on this project which need to be
addressed and made a motion to refer to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
.
Comment on motion: Dale Meyer is a capable architect and understand how projects can be
owner driven which does not give the architect a lot of control, working with the design
reviewer will provide a third party to resolve issues.
Acting Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The
motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Keighran, Brownrigg abstaining, C. Osterling absent) voice
vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
9:10 p.m.
APR-20-2@05 @6:51 PM WINGES ARCHITECTS 650 343 1291 P.03
.. , — ._. ....._.—�----- -........ _....
w�N�Es
aRCHirecrs
� interFa�e af the �rppo$ed Structure with the Adiacent $tructure� to Ea Sfd��
RE�EI��i�
APR 2 2 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAMt
PLANNING DEPT.
* The seCond floor is set bs�ck on the right side ta ease any impact on the nelghbor to the
ri�ht. The nei�hbor's driveway gives separation between their home and thia new house.
• The hiQher 2 story wall on the left side is separeted from the neiphbcr's house by the
proposed drlveway, givir�g spe[� between th� structures.
• Because of th� articulatio� of the side walla, and the direction af the raof gable slope, I
fee! that the massing is and appropriate interface with the nelghbors.
5. Land�,�pinn and Its Pronarlion to th� Mass and �ulk of St�uctural Comgonents;
• There is an �xisting 20" #ree at thg str�at property Ifn�, which romain� a� the major tree.
This Is supplemented with additional smaller trees and other plantings.
� The house !s framed with 8 Mayten trees, 3 on each side near the sidewalk. Thi� may be
tao m�ny tre�s sinCe these wlll �row into 2 majar clusteB, and the spread of tha eventual
canopres ar$ not shown.
• The smaller colorFul Japan�se maples seem an �pprvpriate scale nearer the h�use.
+ Screen plsnting at the rear yard seems �ppropriate, however I wauid question the row af
pin�s alvnQ the �ght side fenca.
Sum �ry:
Thi� is a complete re:-desi�n bf the previously submitted scheme, and should ba judged on its
ornm meri#s. I would disre�gerd any fonner comments from the first �ubmittal since they no Ionger
apply. ,
I applaud the Owner �nd Architect for the flexibility to come up with a whnle new concept much
more compatible wittt Burli��ame,
I recommend approval, except for minar tweaking of the land�caping plant selections.
Jerry L. Wing�s, AIA
Princ' I
WIMliEB ARCHCCEOTS. INC. I�YO NOWARD AVE. 8U/7€3ff, 9URLINQ.411IE, CA 410l0 i FAX.•(4101 J�.1-t2af / iMp@whp�iaN.00m / TEL: f6�0) 9�1iof
Af7CFl/�EGTUFE / Mq9TER PLNiVNlNG / INTERlOR ARCH1iECTURE / SPAG�PLANNINO / OE$IGNCOUNSELfNG
DALE MEYER ASS4CIATES
ARCHITECTURE-INTERIORS-PLANNING-DE VELOPMENT
851 BURLWAY ROAD #700 Bu�.,rivG�, CA 94010 �E��I���
PHONE: 650-348-5054 FAX: 650-348-7119
APR 2 2 2005
April 22, 2005
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
RE: 1532 BERNAL AVE.
APN: 026-033-200
Dear Erica Strohmeier:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
This letter is in response to the design consultant's comments dated April 19, 2005 concerning
the above referenced project.
Comment 5: Landscaping
The existing 20-inch diameter tree at the street property line remains the major tree.
It was our intension of framing the house and property with the Mayten trees, which
will grow to an average height of 8 to 10 feet. The Fern Pines at the rear yard will
effectively screen the adjacent neighborhood houses, and will reflect the vegetation
along the nearby creek. The Fern Pines, along with the Pittosporum and Camellia,
will provide a lush backdrop to the rear yard from the family room and rear deck.
If you have any questions, I would be pleased to respond.
Sincerely,
DALE MEYER A.I.A.
L �.
1
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Prunrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 wwsv.burlin ame.org
.,;
� -
��`; CITY O�
�,�No�,E APP�ICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
"��,. �� �
,��..
Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number: D2� - 033 - Zoo
Project address: 1�32- ���2.y.t{�V A�E. ,�u�z.�IN�AM�. ,�Q. q�¢o�o
�* APPLICANT
Name: bA4.E M E.`f E 12. AvSoG .
Address: S5 { Bu R�.wA�{ {�,.p, �t -� o 0
City/State/Zip: {3t�R1-INl�AM� � C,a� g �pt n
Phone (w): bsD. 3�-Y . SoSq-
�)�
ifl: (oSv. 348. �l l t 9
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: LA1�.R`� � MA�►YJc (•t�ASNtc.f�
Address: 112.0 ��GK�'('"f LAN E
CityfState/Zip: N ILI..s �o �uCsH . GA R`{� I o
Phone (w):
(h): �So. 34�4 . l4 �5
(fl: lv5d. 3�i'. 515`i
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: tJAL� M EYE IZ- a.SS�� .
Address: 85� Ci���W�►`P �C� � "(oo
City/State/Zip: f3uR�.INC+AM�, C,A �'q»o f o
Phone (w): (o�v�, 3'�8. SoS�
(h):
(fj: 45�. 3�l3. 'f 1 l 9
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact persRECEIi��r,o�'ect.
�.�
JAN 2 6 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PROJECTDESCRIPTION:__C��Mo1.�Tto�.t o� ~�xtSTi�tC. No�e�.. [,1�vJ Co�.ISTR�c.?iotJ
p� Z,-STolz'� tZ�SfD�11cE c.if A C��TACi�ED GaR�a[s�,
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: :) !� ,� � v,�,�- Date: l- 2� - O�
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
Property owner's signature: ` Date:��` �� ��
Date submitted: �• 2� � 0 5�
PCAPP.FRM
�
. �
G�S �� n ►' ev 1� GtnJ �S �/ i GL. VI.Q.t,t� �^ S� r S I n� � � k'" ��•% . �
� � . J
cl K, vtl, h a�al ���..�c1 �a.ra.
� �
March 13, 2005
City of Burlingame
Planning Departrnent
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Re: 1532 Bernal Avenue Site
Dear Sirs:
����I�G�
MAR 1 4 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Inasmuch as it is not possible for us to attend the Burlingame Planning Commission
public hearing on March 14, 2005, we would like to publicly comment on the application
for design review for a new, two story single family dwelling and detached garage at
1532 Berna1 Avenue zoned R-1 (APN:026-033-200)
My wife and I currently reside across the street at 1551 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame.
We do not feel this particular design conforms to the surrounding homes on the street
with respect to the fact that there is no Front Porch or Street-front entry in this design.
All the surrounding homes have a Front Porch or Street-front entry and we feel this new
two-story structure should have one as well, to match the feeling of the other homes
there.
Thank you for considering our view of this matter.
Sincerely,
...� �@� ���k�/
COMMUNI CATION RECEI VF,D
�lFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPQRT
Charles and Sharon Bona
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
desi�n review for a new two-story sin�le familv dwellin� and detached two-car �ara�e at 1532
Bernal Avenue zoned R-1 Larry and Mary Jo Nejasmich propertv owners, APN: 026-033-200;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
May 23, 2005, 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—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or
structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a
residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of
said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , 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 23ra day of Mav, 2005 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
1532 Bernal Avenue
Effective June 2, 2005
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped May 11, 2005, sheets P1 through P5, and Boundary and Topographic
Survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require
and amendment to this permit;
2. that all planting shall follow the landscape plan on page PS of the revised plans (date
stamped May 11, 2005);
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 prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that
these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a
Building permit is issued;
7. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department;
8. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building footprint;
9. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation
of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff;
�
Exhibit "A" Cont.
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
1532 Bernal Avenue
Effective June 2, 2005
11. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District.
12. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 27, 2005 memo, the City
Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's January 28, 2005 memos and the Fire Marshal's
and NPDES Coordinator's January 31, 2005 memos shall be met;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
14. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and
California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
a
r
��� CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
� ' a,s TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790
''b..,m,,,,,�e� www.burlingame.org
Site: 1532 BERNAL AVENUE
Application for design review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached pUBLIC HEARING
i garage at: 1532 BERNAL AVENUE, NOTICE
zoned R-1. (APN: 026-033-200).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission � -
', announces the following public hearing on '
, Monday, May 9, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the I
City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. I
�
' Mailed: April 29, 2005
' I
' I
� (Please refer to other side) �
A copy of the aF
to the meeting
Burlingame, Ca
�
If you challe��e
raising only �(i�
described in 'he
at or prior to hE
�
Property ow � r
their tenants b
(650) 558-7 0
CITY OF BURLINGAME
,� � .�... ,.�.�: .���,�.
.�;;� ,�„ ��; �,� ��.�� �
�
rlic����n anc��plans for th�'project �� y be reviewed prior
a��,.f �"�anning Department �,�5�- Primrose Road,
� ��� �
F`:'� S �: _. � �'. Y �
`v�
,t,�a �� f�.,,�a . "� ' �y
:h���"ub�ject apphcafion�s) in ea�rt, �� m be limited to
����i1%e`s �you or someone else rarse`tl��Q�ie'� blic hearing,
i��e���'�u'rit�e�''��es���� '� �� � �ve ed to the city
� � � �� � �
informing
please call
� .���'���w, f
�� -�
�. �$� ,�
Margaret Mo�x� �. �
�
City Planner ���4� "�
� fi` �g�.s
a,.
PU �;IC
(Please refer to other side)
�
�� ��
��� ��
�4•E � �
a�,a f.
0�`�CE
'� �raJ�.t ca�fil�u�.d %� v�a�r �.3, �oo� G�.+ G(�►�d�✓ .
- , �
�� , , � , � �
, �, - _, � . ',� -� �" � � .� � , � �
�� � �� �
.
� .
. ..
• < ,,
�
� � , �� ,� _�� , � .� � ��` � ,� :�.
�. �� �' � � � .x ,, � �� �"`� � �. ,w�' ,.�,, -�
o� �i
� �. �� � � �� � ������ ��� �
��,A a �� 9 '�. , r X,.y;.,,"` q ;�' ,�,���.��� �� ; ��t,x�.
n � ^ � i;
�. r�w .,� %��,� K" � � $O� r � �; �� s
'� '�„ . �y . �;.s .:. ��t5 � ,a �, , � z� u
. � �z^ � ' ,�` � C �'-: g �"' � "" ,� � . � .
�� ��
� r,� . - ` ". , � ' '`� _ k y .. s7 ,� N ` . � `6:. .
Po�� � � " � n .. ' � . . .
�
• � ' � � '� '�'. . �.�'�`° .' '"i a
:
;�' . '�'. � � "�' F¢ � �`a� `°�+^a „� �x � 4 . � ri �.
.
Y . a �
� ",x.. �¢ e( C�' . �� , - ,J: .S �� .a �� � .g''�' Y.
m�
� w
. +.� ; �. . * .r � s .
' .
� ^
�' av "'p� � � ` `�[ „
' p • a. . . _�� =: ,� }�'c� ��i_ �a� � �-'"�az'� �� 7. *� t;� �. ! i� q � _ '� � >
�€V' �` . � �., . ... . 4 l:a � � 'tS. F
� � � &
.. . �,«
�V ', K � � 'Fy� '. '. C . � ��� . ,y ��� .i " L :4 . �, ,� �
�
y � �/y+ '. .,� �, �l�l � fw�..���, � �a�'��
� ��°�, _ fk, � ��; �(` ��'� �"°'� � - �" �� s� '�,: a,� �';; �� � � � w�',� :, �� ��- :9 s� x � �,� " j e ,�- „' � n . ��,..�4�`°'� r
� � ' �1a . 'Y q�,e.,� � a �` � fi �u '�'� � &, z'� �.a * � ��q � ,� � .
1 `�. QJ ' S w . . � �� �" c3 � ,. `"�t. -. , �' t � '�, iq,, � ra �� tA. r q � {
;'f. �, ..���� � " 4b. V �� �i. #�v . � �, . '�g �� � "� �
� �� �� a ` �� � x
;'" ,:� �i� i` ' `�'�:• � :�* � `�x. �`� a� my.� _ �•,' r ,",�;� 1 Z� a r k � h °1 � ��.
:��, y����r� � � " �` 76y,�' �'.Y `�7 r,< 1 � s �°�'r�+�
f � . �./` ;R ` ° ��,'.�,a�i'�tt y�,,.',,��` ' 1 Jd� � .# ���" _ <� �`° . �.��F�' ° � � ' P'��'��� �,.. ='���
,�� � � �s.M � � � �� �, � �'� t �� „ �'� � ,� � �� !� � �� i � � �, Jf ''�.a„ �` ��,",' �'' � q,,.�
�. � �: • �� � '� �� . �
.� � 6;� ^.%�� i e . � �^ Q�.'� �z S: � � � � a` Q � � � ,�,�� `'�+. � > ��; ..�. � �.
� �.
+.. a� �g� � .�„ �� �J , , A`�l y � y ��a "
:� � I.���. ,`,�� \ ""1�'19
�:'_ :"� ,, �.�r +:`� ,.. ��.� ��`����" �!".� .0 � ,.����,����_:• n m� $;yw � �y� -,'ii ti "'b! � vk, tif„'ap.
��.I� ',�° a:� � ° s<�3'� �y* - 4 �v; �'.�� �L � . `{� �t ' �'��r ,� t � � cr �.
{ �_
w� �-' +. ` � t a,����� t�y�'.2 �� �... y�� t '.,� y,�+t+, 'i e��
�pr' . � ��`.� � � x '� c' .q5' . �
w
: � �' . g � k �, .. � � °'�y�yyr
� ��� � .. � . %
t � � ` �
��q'� s� �'�a � ;�#a � ��i s u �s ,K���„ ��"" �� � � I� �t 4, a. � `�ti v �# �. �.,.
� �y, . � �:�,�y . . � �"� � � � '"�, � � , e �� a w. # `c. ;< �i, � �..,, .
F t1 �� „ .�$ a. r
�``� �.� ��"�� . � � ':,'*� � � , t/{�� �' y �~ 4 �^r� `� �f'� . � �� � �� • .� `' ry.f
�yY � ��$� ... '�` „r`k4�r� �� .tit. � Fc '� n�<� ; ��"� dl �J�` ` �'��.� r,3,� �r ` �'. �
y�. `1 . �y , �r . � 3,. Y, r .
� � � � � � ,� ��,n <.*��{,, K^c, t �"�.`"� � .�� ,� � ,� �; �1. 0." �
,
�
I t '��� „� �H� �, �°` � �, � � � 'iY`�r � ��bC�p„ • �7� �� t" ! �` �'�� ��` � s'. �* ,r
e�• � ,�,�
w �4 . ' ' �
", �`"� `"�� �� ` �.�1���' i. �,"���"�'�,�� °�. �°���`� �\�l s}' °�� "�� �
..
t;
, . �
i � �il' ��u� '�
, �, . � .
.,, ,� � �
i� '" : .. . �� '. , , , , ;;,'�a��,'t�� . �,�w'&�...�n�y",.�`�' � � � �; �= �;:�, �'i
! � " ^.��_ �
`,� �,� � ., a`'.,'A , �4�,?� `� � � '�`�► �; ; �, -, 'S t^'�� . i�� � 0 ,��' ♦ ./,�� � ���d.
'TMu� I,� �t f 3 � p i� Jy,� �. p� . - � / ��f-.'� - � �T � � �.�M ��. �*�/
� ,� s � ` !,� ����� y y�� t� �� ��r� w`� `'� �j g � � ' / y � ��� .. ���Y
a • � '�. � pa* . � �'. j �F"x' �,', , t�. �
+� • �, *�, c"c4v� ' �+�" , ,, . t ..wr� `�` � A � �#1 � I r�?j�� �' � '�" . r
' ! � ,,.�'" � a6�, `i�¢ � �
., • �
c;�' � s � � �.� � a ' '�,'c � 4 •` � 4. � � i � r. r"`�'` {-
� y f�� ., i � y �s
.� ��.;�� �'� . � � � �` ?ti� �r i�». � i 4�� '� !S� &� �
, y .. , �„ +� �:. . f" '�7. � � .S � t��, (
• ' e ,�
� � �S4 . , ; . '' ��
k �,.:r' �4 I,A,�`i��4i � �"^ � �"}�'(��� w � +.:. /,�a.� 1 �a • ��" �� �r R �; � 3y l'� *�!�` � �� ����I h .
�+��aya.,,'^ • J �� �,y,r� ` = i �j�+ .` �, ���t s'., '� � �'1�f Kt,% ��':
��;� v ar�. . . � r ����r r, . � � � ��f � +' �� f c �t. i�}�4^ .
�' y>' `r�� e^+'J" . � `4 . Y�' ur'` av t yf� ,/ ',TS. �• "� 7s:'"!, � `�i.,
q g �y x a au$ � ,f�% .� �� t V( ..a� � � 7,j !'
N�:f! 3�' �A�w� � �� � i.�'. 4\. ..s" ` a � �r . . ti � ti ; s
• y �.�� .
.,�yi'.1� 1,Cd E�¢ eM ,(' 4 ,*� J' ,� t ' 7 . �.^ - < ,,� .M � t.�,�' .�. �t:`" � � �.'y ,.'�" ;.
� " c�� '"`' r "� �°.� . „ ���� � ,. , � ;� � � �. / � ,. �; . �. � � � � S�� t
,
;
�i��";k ,. - a,,' �A,. Sc,Q_a, i "°9 �6 �a�i�i 1 ��
�, � � t / s ;: � � u ,��`��'+ j d�F.' „ r ��
av 1 } � f • � � , � p � �
t4�r " •' l� i J ,/
„� �� •�. � � �,'�j � �;� �"'�M '. ���t' / �/}S� ~1 ��`1� � � "' t� 4%•�%SO�`:
,
r,
.
,
�,��' �� '��` � / ���,`" � s� ,�+ �� I J • �,� ? A �� �
, '3�, �„� ,
. "�. r -. . � ..
_ .�� . �, � `+!� � ' , �� 6i�'"-..." : d,." s' . ';' 3 U��,��
,,� ��fti Ra �s.-y�S� �. ;1 �,tNr�: ?� ! .,;�y.
, , .
. ,,
�, �„�•, ��� a � ��. '� " .tS . �� T��.�°-,�a4 �k',.n:3 q �r4,,, � .,� . �
,
�2
.. � �
., � (�,
� �� � � �. �k� � . i � � l �.-R^. }� �•� , t � .�. . . .. � . .• ^J
, ,� , ; � r -:.:. ��r'' ; r', �k � ' ` �11 �, �'e< c> . �°'�" . �'�
,
,
s. ,
.- ,
. .. � C`: r, .� � � �� e`t �,a, •. ? t � Y�. P�'..
..
� _ _ �. '��
� , ; g,�yY�,� �`,► � �•, � �n x � � � ` � ,��p
� �! T {�� ,; � #� � �� �y.r � � "� � � �' > . � w:
,.
, �, , , `�,` � , ,
.-
. � �
a;
�. r � �
� , ♦ r� V w��_ . y � ,3,
. �,� . . "u, �"j� ;.� �. , , t' u _ ze .+ � w
��
� . �at :e'�a.v.. � . „ ... �,� '�i,�„ 3 �. ' ,� �A r� �.,�n �'v:ry,'�`a�
o, .0 �.,.. - , :. :. f � �' � .
.
A
_ .� � .�w.; . '.y.^�,� , �: , �; � � � >�tS �x� F . '�& � f,y 'zr,,,. *� "� " � � � i -
' ��R„� r'il�a�,�t'� �� �t�r ;� : '�� q:�-� . �- � '1 �' /��„�'' " �,"�%�� w " � ;i�,�� � �'.'
�' p � = �.
_
�` � fr `" �, ;� ��' �, 4 � ,,��/` �� � / ,a� j3• Y �, '�w, " �� ,.- 3` • . � �3'
•.�� d �' "� � � � ���i � ��A� f �
�
f �, `$� � '�.�'a���, �'..�w � ...y� �,r, S �°4
,
. . . . .'ry � - . � ,� � f
. '� � � � �'
�` , . y " �
" � °+� � ' � -\
a 7'�"�"�'! r ! ,� �ti , � /'' � � � }�`�
., -. .
.:
, , t. ��,,+�
�+ 4 � X 4,
B �(�r. � - .. � � ry a , . i �"'�. . xv / .
�t � � �a�`Q��` ��'�''. �•`� /' n,. �"�F y} ,.����Tis, r�`� �� .A'i�m ��
.
FK � .a �.ti � �,`' ,. �` � � � ,d�r� � � ,d'�' �f�- •a � �, •'�,�r "d q �' � ,c 1j�:` •
.
* , � , ) , k s k . ` ' a � �� z��`, ro
�`. P�f . `1�i o '.. \ # ? ijl��e�Y -4�'" �.' �� , - ,, :. ' • � . �! � �� ✓ w " �.sl` f '� ,y'�Y,
t' t �it .t � !,. �: . � / � � �.r
� . . . . ... ,e�,. /�
.
�.. -.. �Un� � . . �r �v, " ,.Bs� . ,� � r !' � /
.. ; �y' y � ,,r
�. , 7T ,�^� .. �o.. s' ":� . � re . � �« , ,l„ r.'' �a �rr1��
� . +� . � ,y"� '� �. ;�, ./ . .,.�� 'k'y�'t. �, km:- i ��.9 ° . +�e��a�^�'�'� .�.'�, s' .
� x .
... � . . .. � ,
�, 7y;'.� . .• ' ! � , .z ''�.S„/�' y� �j� '` �'' f �y +: ���� Y
� �; r f }.. � � � �� ,
:�.�;�,� `�, � 2 ; �.� �� "� ��/'` ;� "��� •..� �" ��.
�"'i . � �� � �'..� � ���� F � �„ . �� �� ��°�� � ,��yt � &k��, '�' ,,�
qy{ � / � � . �� ��x A`�i�,.s� �� J��• � p� ���• �p��' 'd
� �A . t �-J9 fi .,�� *
� °'�•�.�� � �.�-�� � " 1 ;' '`�►� l�Fy. , � �`` ��, �`�r� a.; , , � �.�;,,,
. "
. �r
� � ,a
f �
;� a � � e k > .TP _ , V. >, k
�� � � , � � � � . . �,.
� , � � f, ✓ �� � � � �� � � ,,� � � r �
�� �•
�, ,� � �, � �� �`� � "� �. �.� � �,
: "• � �-�'r ' ,�`��!^ �:, � d ,' ..�� € . . � h ,' � h;
-� � . � . � �' ��-
'� �'*, ��','� "�- �,�, � �► , � - � - - � `� � � �
���' '' � , � , �: , ; � � � -
�{.. , �j��- ,"� °?�F��� � ,� � 244�.g,�
� � �+. �` ��t , ♦ �'� '',} �`a �. h � ,�,. �
� '• ��� � tn r�" , t i `" � - �� �
�� � � / � � ,.. � ��� � :� � � .� �. � ' . . � i.
�
� � � : � �� f. ��� � � Y.; .. � � . � * �� :: V# .4 � a�� � `ii� � a 1 �.J', ,4 �-. t� , yy ,�^ � �i �{}:
� �� �
��
f ' �,. .a �' ,� .
,
.. .� .
y., "'�. � ��v � ..�A'� ,"^ � , .. aa. w.. • p' �, BMt..�/ .; i � �'•. ?.s'� . . . . t�:.��., "�-
� � �