HomeMy WebLinkAbout2714 Easton Drive - Staff ReportItem #6
CITY OF BURLINGAME
DESIGN REVIEW AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENYELOPE VARIANCE
Address: 2714 Easton Drive Meeting Date: l l/23/98
Request: Declining Height Envelope and Height variance (C.S. 25.28.075 and 25.28.060)
for first and second story addition subject to Design Review at 2714 Easton Drive,
zoned R-1.
Applicant: John Butte, Alden House II
Property Owner: Peter and Sally Becker
Date Submitted: September 30, 1998
Lot Area: 7434 SF
APN: 027-194-090
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single family residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family
residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up
to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
Requests for this project: The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum height and
the declining height envelope regulations to construct a 201 SF second story addition to expand
the master bedroom of the existing three-bedroom, three-bath residence; and to expand the
footprint of the first floor by addition a 371 SF family room in the rear of the residence. The first
story addition conforms with the R-1 zoning regulations. The project is subject to design review.
The exceptions to the code are:
1) Maximum height variance to allow a second story addition with a height matching the
existing residence of 51' where a maximum height of 30' is allowed. Height is measured
from the top-of-curb below the site on Easton Drive.
2) Declining height envelope variance for a second story addition at the rear of the residence.
The proposed master bedroom addition would extend outside the declining height
envelope approximately 96 SF (12'-0" x 8'-0") in gross floor area.
Summary of the Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum
height and declining height envelope regulations to construct a 201 SF second story addition to
expand the master bedroom of the existing three-bedroom, three-bath residence. The master
bedroom addition would extend over the garage in the rear of the existing two-story residence.
The applicant also proposes to expand the footprint of the first floor by adding a 371 SF family
room in the rear of the residence; this first-story addition conforms with the R-1 zoning
regulations.
The second story addition requires a variance from the maximum height and declining height
envelope regulations to match the existing two-story residence. The parcel rises steeply from
Easton Drive, with the first floor finished floor at an elevation of 26'-6" above the top of curb.
The 20% slope of the lot does not qualify for the height measurement exemption allowed for
slopes of 25% or more, pursuant to Section 25.28.070.2, therefore, when measured from the top-
of-curb, the existing house and proposed second story addition have a height of 51'-0". If
measured against the adjacent finished grade, the existing residence and second story addition
would have a height of 29'-0". The neighboring houses along this block are also located at the
top of the slope that rises above Easton Drive.
The applicant has prepared a diagram which is attached to the variance application that
demonstrates the minimum setback of the second story addition that would be required to comply
with the declining height envelope regulation. This diagram illustrates that the second story
addition would have a 15'-6" setback from the side property line, instead of the proposed 4'-6"
setback, that is consistent with the existing two-story residence. The project conforms with all
other R-1 zoning regulations, as demonstrated by the following table:
Site Coverage:
FAR:
Front Setback:
(lst Floor):
(2nd Floor):
Side Setback (R):
Side Setback (L):
Rear Setback:
(lst Floor):
(2nd Floor):
Building Height:
Declining Height:
No. Bedrooms:
Parking:
PROPOSED
1809 SF = 24%
3160 SF = 42.5%
48'-0"
48'-0"
4'-6"
5'-0"
48'-0"
48'-0"
51'-0" *
does not comply **
2 covered +1
EXISTING
143 8 SF = 19%
2588 SF= 35%
48'-0"
48'-0"
4'-6"
5'-0"
48'-0"
59'-0"
51'-0" *
does not comply**
2 covered + 1
ALLOWED/REQ'D
2974 SF = 40%
3879 SF = 52%
15'-0"
20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
3 0'-0"
see regulations
N/A
2 covered + 1
* Variance required for height due to measurement from top-of-curb. Measured at grade adjacent
to residence, the addition and existing residence would have a maximum height of 29'-0".
**Variance from Declining Height Envelope required for second story addition.
Project meets all other zoning code requirements
Staff Comments: The City Engineer's comments (October 5, 1998 memo) require roof drainage
from the additions to be directed to the front street (Easton Drive) by gravity. The Chief Building
Inspector and Fire Marshall had no comments on this application.
Design Review Comments: In her comments dated October 13, 1998, the Design Review
Consultant considers the addition to be well designed and its construction will improve the
appearance of the rear elevation. Because the house is located high above the street on a well
landscaped hillside, and the addition is in the rear of the residence, the Design Review Consultant
does not foresee any impacts to the appearance of the residence from Easton Avenue. The
impacts to adjacent neighbors will be negligible, as well, because of the orientation of the
neighboring houses helps preserve and maintain privacy.
Design Review Recommendation: The only recommendation made by the Design Review
Consultant is to change the exterior colors to find a color which better blends with the
neighborhood scheme.
Study Questions: At their meeting on November 9, 1998, the Planning Commission asked
whether the applicant could add a temporary street number at the rear of the property to identify
the subject house from Alvarado Drive. In his response dated 11/16/98, the applicant did not
directly answer this question, but responded that the house is not on Alvarado Drive, and referred
to the picture board he submitted with the original application which also serves as a vicinity map
to demonstrate how the houses and streets are configured. The applicant also responded that the
tree identified on the site plan as "Tree A" will not be removed to accommodate construction of
the addition. The applicant has added dimensions to the first floor (existing plan) as requested by
the Planning Commission, and states that the floor plans of the existing first and second floors are
already included on Sheet 3 of the plans. Two additional diagrams were provided with the
applicant's response to the study session questions to demonstrate an alternate roof design with a
pitched roof over the proposed family room addition.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No.1591
adopted by the Council on September 23, 1998 are outlined as follows:
(a) compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the
neighborhood;
(b) respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
(c) architectural style and mass and bulk of structures;
(d) interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
(e) landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant; and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
�rmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the
requested variances (maximum height and declining height envelope). 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 September 29, 1998;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding a
dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and
3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Janice Jagelski
Planner
c: John Butte, Alden House III
Catherine LM Nilmeyer, Design Review Consultant
�
Ciry of Burlingnme Plnnning Commission Minutes Ocrober 26, 1998
clearance of the chimney from the structure; aware that this project has been reviewed by a
design reviewer but the project still looks like an addition on top of the house; the roof pitch of
the house in the field is different than is shown on the plans, will applicant remove the entire
roof and rebuild it; how were the front elevations shown at property line arrived at; elsewhere
notations show elevations of 9.5", how were they arrived at; the elevated deck at the rear is 4'-
4" off the ground, people seated on this deck will be above all the fences around the property,
why is this height needed; how does the dormer on the second floor fit into the architecture of
the building, could it be changed to fit; on the left side of the building from the street, how was
the 3' average floor above grade determined, how does it fit with the garage and sun room;
correct plans the sidewalk is not 10 feet wide. Provided all the information is available to staff
in time the item was set for hearing and action on November 23, 1998.
APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2714
EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-l. (JOHN BUTTE, ALDEN HOUSE II, APPLICANT AND
PETER & SALLY BECKER, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: at the rear on Alvarado
Drive it was hard to determine the rear of this house, could they add a street number at the rear
so could identify lot as one on Easton; there is a large tree on the east side, noted as "tree A" ,
will it be removed; there are a lot of dimension lines on the site plan which have no dimensions
on them, add all the dimensions; clarify on the site plan what is on the first floor and what is
on the second floor; the shed roof shown is very flat, this lack of slope seems to be driven by
one window, can you consider some other solution to the roof like changing the window and
increasing the slope. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on
November 23, 1998, providing that the information is available to staff in time.
APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOT TUB ADJACENT TO
THE LEFT SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1129 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES
W. & S.D. EIGENBROT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: plans show adding another
shed off the kitchen windows which will block them, is it the intention; will the applicant need.
a permit for the electrical work proposed; 7.5' tall trellis is shown extending from property line
to the building, does the applicant need a permit to install this; elevations should be shown at
the corners of the lot. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on
November 23, 1998, providing that the information is available to staff in time.
APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-STORY, 3-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1459 OAK GROVE, ZONED R-3. (RON GROVE,
APPLICANT AND RON GROVE & JOE RAVELLA, PROPERTY OWNERS.
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners commented: C. Key noted that she
lived within the notice area so would abstain on this item; would like to see more detail on the
landscaping at the front of the building, what is being planted; do not see the guest parking space
-2-
9
Y ,
November 3, 1998
John C. Butte
Alden House II
2422 Hale Dr.,
Burlingame, CA 94010
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
RECEIVF�
NOV 1 6 1998
CiTY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT,
Re: Response to 11 /9/98 Planning Commission meeting comments
on variance application for an addition to the residence at 2714
Easton Avenue, Burlingame, California.
1. "Could a street number be added somewhere on Alvarado Drive
to help locate the rear of the subject residence"?.
The rear of this residence is not on Alvarado Drive. As is
shown graphically on the submitted picture board, the rear of this
house is on a long private driveway which serves the houses on
either side of the Becker's home as well as theirs. This driveway
intersects a widened area of the Hillside Loop at the south end of
Alvarado Drive, between ���' _ Alvarado and 1��,j __ Hillside
Circle (next to the "Secret Stairs" going down to Easton.
2. "Will tree "A" be removed?"
No trees will be removed .
9
3. "Add missing dimensions on dimension lines."
There appear to be only two dimensions missing; the two at
the top of the "EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN" describing the width of
the front porch and the width of the front of the house. The missing
dimensions are highlighted
on the enclosed sheet.
4. "What is on the first floor and what is on the second floor?"
All the rooms on both floors are labeled on the "EXISTING"
plans for those floors on the third page of the submitted plan set.
5. Could the bedroom window which forces the low slope on the
proposed family room roof be changed to allow the roof to be steeper
pitched?
One of the design variations being considered is to raise the
family room roof pitch and provide a pan-lined recess in the roof
surface to allow the only rear-facing window in the bedroom above
to remain. Two elevations are enclosed to show this look.
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Peter Becker.
�� ,
�
o n C. Butte
Alden House II
��--------------------------40'- 5"---------------------------�;'
�f'---------------------32'- 8"---------------------� �
�, � �
--�-
�
�
�
�
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
��
l!')
'�'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
t
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
t
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
'--�
RE�EI�/E�
NOV 1 6 1998
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
----�----
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
N
�
Ln
_� fV
1 �
I �
I �
I
1
o� �
1
� �
1
O OI
I
I �
� I
I �
V 1
- -1C-�-
I �
I �
1
� I
� �
1
� I
O �
�
� �
1 ;I _
I �
I
-� O
I N
I I
I 1
I
1 I
� 1
I 1
1
1 1
I 1
1 1
I I
I _ V�
7"-------------�c`
� ����
EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN
Becker Residence
2714 Easton Ave., Burlingame, CA
'�:3Y
W
t-----------19'- 8"-----------�------------20'-
, �
�
�
-.
�
-�
�
.
.-.-
.---
----
■-..
.---
■-..
����
����
���
I����
'��n■
■���■
��
,.
RECEI
NOU 16
i
i
i
i
�
I
I
�
1
1
I
I
�
1
i
CITY OF BURL N
PLANNING , ;�
�
�
�� �
�
�
�
�
�
�`
.
� �
i `
�
i �
� �
� I
i �
i �
� �
� i
i �
� �
i i
-i
i i
i i
- . i
i i
_� i
i �
� �
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
,
,
�
�
.
�
,
�
�
�
_ ,
�
,
,
,
�
�
-;
,
,
-,
,
;�
0
�
�
N �
� O
� �
� O
� � rn
� � �
� �
� � O
D � c
�
� � _
V � C
�
� Q D
c
� � r
� n
� � m
� rn
m �
.. y
D z
N
N
W N
�
R
� '
',
I��� '
� �',.
,
1
-
I��� �
���
I����
����
����
����
����
I����
����
��W
��
�
N
I��
I��
� �
�
�
�
i i i i i i�-----+i i i k===d i i��
I 1 I I 1 Il----JI � --=1----__�
1 I 1 1 I I�-----JI � �--���-�
I I I 1 I 1� ----JI
I Illl lf II
i i i t i ir----�i
i i i i i �r----��
i � i i t ir----�i
I I 1 1 I I�-----il
1 I I I I 1�-----�I
� ---
_I 1 I�i1{----�
REGE!!/EC�
NOU 16 1998
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
N
?
(n
5
.i
.i
,
,
,
_ �
—,
—,
,
_,
-,
_,
-,
,
,
,
a�b Cir o
t3URLINCAMi� CITY OF BURLINGAME
;,ti �� APPLICATION TO TI� PLA,NNING CONIlVIISSION
Type of Application: Special Permit�Variance Other
Project Address:__ �,.r1 f y /_',�-S�i(I ��I�(�/� , /�Gr/��/f�G�,�� �
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 4�� % �,3 , /.3L � � L�, �,�57'7�jt% f���iv ��
APPLIC T �G1>�� �, � P �
Name: o �1 � �
Address:��'2Z c`%G'r �a .(�c%'
City/State/Zip: �� l�7 oa k c�
Phone (w): ,S`77 3�� ���
�h�. �� �'��
fax:i�s�� �� 2 '��y��
PROPERTY O WNER
Name: �{' �iC �P�,(�,�',P
Address: ���y 1�/� �i�.
City/State/Zip: /_'�� ,,. /.
Phone ):
h�'s��-s�3<
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: /�G.�G=� /-�AG�Sf� .�
Address:_2 �( 2 Z �-�C� � 1�.-.
City/State/Zip: �t � �(N �' a��,c C�
Phone (w):�� :��(0 " ��lp �
(h):�(o.�� � `�� —�.� Z D
fax: � SG 3�2 ^ ��1�%� <�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��a.��s
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
��� L�
i'� �. x l 2����
�x 7�wsfv �✓ c�,� ( �
�I r�Frc � Gar'/1 ��) ��l��� � �
AFFIDAVIT/SIGIVATURE�I her y certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to � be of my knowledge �n� belief.
—2�1� 1�
s Signature
Date
I know about the�posed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission. -.
� (���� - � .
P Y ' g �;`_'' �� s;�� �9��
Pro ert Owner s Si nature Date -� --
--------------------------------------- - ----FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ---------------
� : 4� a ►rn, ; --� ---- --- --
Date Filed: 9 30 �' F�; ��{ ( 0 �- �j4'� � S� �¢ U� Q,�,�(
� �
Planning Commission: Study Date: � 1 � 9� Action Date:
September 28, 1998
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
i o _ ---- -- �„C
(�� �-�,:� . _ . �
I�'�-•-• �LJ '/ � �
�- ifi'I ��1) �. �� '� .fl[
�� � : i�
Re: Variance application for an addition to the residence at 2714
Easton Avenue, Burlingame, California
LETTER OF EXPLANATION
t�
Mr. and Mrs. Peter Becker of 2714 Easton Avenue, Burlingame, are
proposing two small concurrent additions to the rear of their home.
One is a 16'-8" x 12'-2" extension of the existing office over their
garage. Because this area is on the second floor at the side of the
house its design would ordinarily be impacted by the "Declining
Height Envelope". However, there is no means to apply that element
of the city's building ordinance to a lot as steep as theirs. For this
reason the Beckers are applying for a variance to allow construction
of this office extension.
The concurrently proposed ground-level family room addition on the
other side of the lot conforms with all planning regulations. Details
of that addition are included in this application to give the Planning
Commission the full picture of proposed changes.
Lic. No. 723409 • 2422 Hale Drive
` �'',
Alden House II
• Burlingame, CA 94010
���" _ i998
�., ;_. r- .,
�-
r �i�. r�t ,,.i.� �4:'r"�dr`i� .
�i �;., � �'� r��;�
• (650) 342-6446
� . T
VARIANCE APPLICATION QUESTIONS
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to
other properties in this area.
The existing roughly 10' x 20' office space over the garage in this
residence is an awkward shape . It is confining and difficult to use.
The existing flat tar and gravel roof over the rear half of the garage
is unsightly and unusable as a deck (despite the railing which has
apparently been added for appearances.) The proposed extension of
this room would greatly enhance its utility.
This addition would also significantly improve the appearance of the
house from the rear. Because of the steep frontal approach,
essentially all entrance and exit person traffic is from the rear.
While the Declining Height Envelope cannot be applied to a lot which
varies in height by more than 23 feet between its front and rear
setbacks, the proposed design of this addition complies with the
spirit of that ordinance by stepping back the entire side of the room
extension and adding a small deck whose appointments are designed
to match those on the similar deck on this side in the front.
��
� e � �� � � �.5� : y
SEP 3 0 199�
ci�v ��_ ,��;���:�.;r-.,.,,���-_:
PL�iV�°i"�t� �;��i� .
�
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and
what reasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might
result from the denial of the application.
This grand-appearing house on its over-size lot has only three
bedrooms and this awkward office space at this time. All three
bedrooms are used by the family of four. The house needs a
utilitarian area of usable proportions which this expanded office
would provide. Such an area would most attractively and concisely
be placed in the now vacant and unattractive notch above the rear of
the garage.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
The proposed addition is this location will have no impact upon the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience of the
neighbors or community. The addition would be substantially behind
the adjoining residence on that side. The use of the expanded room
would be the same as it currently is. The pitched, tile roof and
small "real" deck should be substantially more attractive from that
side than are the existing flat roof and "fake" railing.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential
uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
The proposed office extension would contribute significantly to the
overall face-lift proposed to the back of this house. It is apparent
from the enclosed set of pictures that the only other house visible
from the rear of the subject residence has been very attractively re-
done. Its Mediterranean style is similar to the Becker's. The
proposed enhancements to the Becker residence compare favorably in
style, mass and bulk with this house.
SEP3Q139�
�� 7 I V� E..+�J `�i �i;�,�.�,`:.:,:�,1:dlr�.
PLtiilfi�Dii'�d� �`;_s:;�r,
�
Z i ,,�� u
J � �
I '
�' . ,
i
� �
I '
J �/
i
I '
/
: ���
-�-r --
��
�i,
�:
�
'�C-L .------------- --
I �
1 �
I �
I �
� '
� !
' o
� N
f�_�__���������_�������������___����'
� i
',i ���
i ``��
� � I
I ��
' 1''I ''I ''I 1 I I `` I ``1 ``I �
--------r--------------------- ;--------------------------
,�
-,�--
�
,
,
�
�
,
�
,
, �
, ,
,- ,
,, ,
, ,
------------------------------ �---------------
----------------------------
, ------ - -
�� 1
�� �
„ ,
.. ,
__�___,00 oo_
CALCULATION OF STARTING POINT
HEIGHTS @ SETBACKS:
FRNT 99.02
REAR - 79.42
19.60/2 = 9.80
� �,
� , .
o� i ,�'
� '
' 1 ��.
� , ,�
� �
� � �'
� �
� ,
' � 90.22
� ,
� , �� '
�-`4 - —
99.02-9.80=89.22
+ 1.00 (AVE. FRNT HT)
90.22 (=90' - 3"
= 100.00 - 9'-9")
; I�
_ � �._� ,
��P � 0 1���
� �-� , „�
,, _ k.��>�._. `��,.=. „v.�
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE @ NW CORNER
9/ 2 9/ 9 8 � SCALE: 1/4" = 1'- 0"
BECKER RESIDENCE
2714 EASTON AVE., BURLINGAME; CA
� CITY OF BURL�NGAME
BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 696-7250
�`fi4 EASl"C�td URIVE
f�F'IV : ��7-194-0�0
Npplication for height and declining height pUBLIC HEARINC�
envelope var,iar�ces for a fir�st and secorid
stor�y �dditian s�_�bject to dEsign review at NOTICE
��'7i4 E�stan Ur-�ive, zor�ed R-i.
The Gity af E+�_�rlingamE F�lanning Commission
anno�_�nces the following public hearing on
tMonday, Nove�ber 23, 1998 at 7:�0 R.�I. in ihe
C�:�;� -Ra`TI—C-6�_incil��am�er�a l ocat ed at �� 1
F�r�imr�ase Ftaad, P�.���lingame, Califo•r�nia.
hiailed Pyove�ber 1.;, 1498
(Please refer to other side)
"'' s;�'''' y �Sy.��` (p''����� ✓�
Property c
tenants a�
696-725a.
Margaret Mc
City Planner
rs who recerve th�.s anoiice,are;responsible for infornung their ,f,;�
this notic;e` For additioiial information, pXease call (650) �•
�
ink you ,
� �.. s�
..����, � ,� � � } �����' ` �� o
3 �
,:
� akzgs �� �a � ��a�� °a�' � �� '; r 4
roe E � � ��:
� �
w
y x a�.' ,.�� ��'+a��,�r,a�,k� e� :"� � rs`� r�� 3" h x�^'-: C
; ���� �,�: � ��; ' �.��� �:�" � , .:z� ���
PUBLIC fiH'EARING' �OTICE ��"�' � �'� ��';�E}
�:
. -�s.., .,�c,.�a.���. ....< .a..���...' . � . . . n�Y?'!}�+� ?k�'f:Y�. �3�''i!
� . ._ �: �'ay.+-.���:i.4 . : � �. _ .
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME ���� ��` �'
A copy of the application,an.d plans�£o,z..ttais;prQject may be reviewed prior ,
to the meeting at the`� P1ann�ing ��eparftnent at �501 Primrose Road, ,s
Burlingame, Califo�a�.` "`
{
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, yau may be limited to
.. raising only those issues you or sorneone else raised at the;public hearing, �:
described in the.rnot�ce ��r:.in--wntten corre�pondence delivered to the city �� qT?�:.� ��� �
at or prior to tl�e;;pt�bl�c�hearuig� � �-; � ��, �� z; � , ,X ��
� . � ;� � '
. .�:R,
(Please refer to other sideJ , ��<, . �o���� .�,� . ,aF��� .����,�� t �;�: �';; _ .:• �
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGDRICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
Wi�REAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for�
maximum hei�ht and declinin hei�ht envelope variance and_design review for construction of a fir t and
second story addition at _2714 Easton Drive, zoned R-l. APN• 027-194-090; Peter Becker,�opertX
owner' and John But�e�Alden House II, applicant•
WI-�REAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 23� 1998 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staffreport and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERNIINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and
addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set
forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption Class 19, Section
15303- construction and location of new, small facilities or structures, is hereby approved.
2. Said variance and design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said
meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
.�.:I:u:►I
I, _ David Luzuria�a, 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 23 th day of November, 1998 , by the following vote:
AYES: CONIlVIISSIONERS:
NOES: COMIVIISSIONERS:
ABSENT: CO1��IlvIISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval categorical exemption, variance and design review
2714 EASTON DRIVE
effective DECEMBER 7, 1998
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped September 29, 1998;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, or changing exterior materials and
windows shall be subject to design review; and
3. that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended
by the City of Burlingame.
Item #3
CITY OF BURLINGAME
DESIGN REVIEW AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE
Address: 2714 Easton Drive Meeting Date:l l/9/98
Request: Declining Height Envelope and Height variance for a 201 SF second story addition
and 371 SF first floor addition, subject to Design Review at 2714 Easton Drive,
zoned R-1.
Applicant: John Butte, Alden House II
Property Owner: Peter and Sally Becker
Date Submitted: September 30, 1998
Lot Area: 7434 SF
APN: 027-194-090
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single family residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family
residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up
to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum height and declining height
envelope regulations to construct a 201 SF second story addition to expand the master bedroom
of the three-bedroom, three-bath residence. The master bedroom addition would extend over the
garage in the rear of the existing two-story residence.. The applicant also proposes to expand the
footprint of the first floor by adding a 371 SF family room in the rear of the residence; this first-
story addition conforms with the R-1 zoning regulations.
The second story addition requires a variance from the maximum height and declining height
envelope regulations. The parcel rises steeply from Easton Drive, with the first floor finished
floor at an elevation of 26'-6" above the top of curb. The 20% slope of the lot does not qualify
for the height measurement exemption allowed for slopes of 25% or more, pursuant to Section
25.28.070.2, therefore, when measured from the top-of-curb, the existing house and proposed
second story addition have a height of 51'-0". If ineasured against the adjacent finished grade, the
existing residence and second story addition would have a height of 29'-0". The neighboring
houses along this block are also located at the top of the slope that rises above Easton Drive.
The applicant has prepared a diagram which is attached to the variance application that
demonstrates the minimum setback of the second story addition that would be required to comply
with the declining height envelope regulation. This diagram illustrates that the second story
addition would have a 15'-6" setback from the side property line, instead of the proposed 4'-6"
setback, that is consistent with the existing two-story residence. The project conforms with all
other R-1 zoning regulations, as demonstrated by the following table:
Site Coverage:
FAR:
Front Setback:
(lst Floor):
(2nd Floor):
Side Setback (R):
Side Setback (L):
Rear Setback:
(lst Floor):
(2nd Floor):
Building Height:
Declining Height:
No. Bedrooms:
Parking:
PROPOSED
1809 SF = 24%
3160 SF = 42.5%
48'-0"
48'-0"
4'-6"
5'-0"
48'-0"
48'-0"
51'-0"*
EXISTING
143 8 SF = 19%
2588 SF= 35%
�• �
.
�• �
. �
�
48'-0"
59'-0"
51'-0" *
does not comply ** does not comply**
3 3
2 covered +1 2 covered + 1
ALLOWED/REQ'D
2974 SF = 40%
3879 SF = 52%
15'-0"
20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
30'-0"
see regulations
N/A
2 covered + 1
* Variance required for height due to measurement from top-of-curb. Measured at grade adjacent
to residence, the addition and existing residence would have a maximum height of 29'-0".
**Variance from Declining Height Envelope required for second story addition
Project meets all other zoning code requirements
Staff Comments: The City Engineer's comments (October 5, 1998 memo) require roof drainage
from the additions to be directed to the front street (Easton Avenue) by gravity. The Chief
Building Inspector and Fire Marshall had no comments on this application.
Design Review Comments: In her comments dated October 13, 1998, the Design Review
Consultant considers the addition to be well designed and its construction will improve the
appearance of the rear elevation. Because the house is located high above the street on a well
landscaped hillside, and the addition is in the rear of the residence, the Design Review Consultant
does not foresee any impacts to the appearance of the residence from Easton Avenue. The
impacts to adjacent neighbors will be negligible, as well, because of the orientation of the
neighboring houses helps preserve and maintain privacy.
Design Review Recommendation: The only recommendation made by the Design Review
Consultant is to change the exterior colors to find a color which better blends with the
neighborhood scheme.
Janice Jagelski
Planner
c: John Butte, Alden House III
Catherine LM Nilmeyer, Design Review Consultant
v cir
`�R�N�,M�, CITY OF BURLINGAME
;,;:: �� APPLICATION TO THE PLA,NNING CONIlVIISSION
Type of Appiication: Special Permit,�Variance.
Project Address:
'? ( �i r�s �iiJ ` i
��,
l
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): �� %- �3 � /3L � � ��, ��57'77/Il !�%��ti ��
APPLIC T �G.D��/ �, �, e �`
Name: o �1 /--r �
Address:��f2Z c�G�r �a .7r2,
City/State/Zip: I�r� l��Da kcc�
Phone (w): ,�I ' 3�� ���
�h�. •� ,�'�� z
fax:� s�� �� 2 '����
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:�G.��/�-� /-� C�S/; .�
Address: 2�( 2 Z ��l-�'(c� f�-.
City/State/Zip: �ct � �(��' ��,�2 �
Phane (w):_�� 3�0 � ��"lp �
(h):�os�v) S-7�' -l.� � D
fax.f�9sG) 3�(2 '���l�i�_ to��
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �rro.�as
contact person
/=j r�
for this application.
/' �i / � -
� "� ;C� l z " Z � �x l �Gr/S/v �✓
�}
L/ ��iC � G�f 2��) C���{s�- i� r\
AFFIDAVIT/SIGIVATITRE: �I�her y certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to�h be of my knowledge �n� belief.
� �� r I(
s Signature
Date
I know about the�posed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission. �� � r ;� d�-a.. �
������� �.,_'S=
�> �.�
������g _�.
Property Owner's Signature Date SEP 3 0 1998
--------------------------------------- - ----FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------ �
- - � ��irt�t-C�� �r�Li i ; �:�iv7 �
$:4yR�rn, PLHi�lNdi�� 1��P�r.
Date Filed: 9 30 �' Fee. ��� �' ���� � S�� �.2 V i Z�n�
Planning Commission: Study Date: � 1 � 9� Action Date:
PROPERTY O WNER
Name: l'�� �,�C �C��,C �',P
Address: � �`� f�� �i�.
City/State/Zip: /_'�f� �. /.
Phone ):
h�' S % � - S.S�.3 �
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
�� �
� � � i \
— Jl�� lt� � I�' �
Designers F� Builders —
est. 1977
September 28, 1998
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Re: Variance application for an addition to the residence at 2714
Easton Avenue, Burlingame, California
LETTER OF EXPLANATION
Mr. and Mrs. Peter Becker of 2714 Easton Avenue, Burlingame, are
proposing two small concurrent additions to the rear of their home.
One is a 16'-8" x 12'-2" extension of the existing office over their
garage. Because this area is on the second floor at the side of the
house its design would ordinarily be impacted by the "Declining
Height Envelope". However, there is no means to apply that element
of the city's building ordinance to a lot as steep as theirs. For this
reason the Beckers are applying for a variance to allow construction
of this office extension.
The concurrently proposed ground-level family room addition on the
other side of the lot conforms with all planning regulations. Details
of that addition are included in this application to give the Planning
Commission the full picture of proposed changes.
�
C
utte
use II
����� ���;���;.
SEP 3 0 1998
� CITY 0� �'��� f;i%;�;�vs�
P�H(VfJi�C aE€'�d�.
Lic. No. 723409 • 2422 Hale Drive • Burlingame, CA 94010 • (650) 342-6446
. *
VARIANCE APPLICATION QUESTIONS
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to
other properties in this area.
The existing roughly 10' x 20' office space over the garage in this
residence is an awkward shape . It is confining and difficult to use.
The existing flat tar and gravel roof over the rear half of the garage
is unsightly and unusable as a deck (despite the railing which has
apparently been added for appearances.) The proposed extension of
this room would greatly enhance its utility.
This addition would also significantly improve the appearance of the
house from the rear. Because of the steep frontal approach,
essentially all entrance and exit person traffic is from the rear.
While the Declining Height Envelope cannot be applied to a lot which
varies in height by more than 23 feet between its front and rear
setbacks, the proposed design of this addition complies with the
spirit of that ordinance by stepping back the entire side of the room
extension and adding a small deck whose appointments are designed
to match those on the similar deck on this side in the front.
��������_��-�
�s �.L _v
SEP 3 0 1998
CI�`Y OF E3URL!ivi �,id1�
PL,�iV N I�! G[:� �; T. �
0
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and
what reasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might
result from the denial of the application.
This grand-appearing house on its over-size lot has only three
bedrooms and this awkward office space at this time. All three
bedrooms are used by the family of four. The house needs a
utilitarian area of usable proportions which this expanded office
would provide. Such an area would most attractively and concisely
be placed in the now vacant and unattractive notch above the rear of
the garage.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
The proposed addition is this location will have no impact upon the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience of the
neighbors or community. The addition would be substantially behind
the adjoining residence on that side. The use of the expanded room
would be the same as it currently is. The pitched, tile roof and
small "real" deck should be substantially more attractive from that
side than are the existing flat roof and "fake" railing.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with ihe
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential
uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
The proposed office extension would contribute significantly to the
overall face-lift proposed to the back of this house. It is apparent
from the enclosed set of pictures that the only other house visible
from the rear of the subject residence has been very attractively re-
done. Its Mediterranean style is similar to the Becker's. The
proposed enhancements to the Becker residence compare favorably in
style, mass and bulk with this house.
�-� � � �, � ��R ;�"�,. �� _
SEP 3 0 139�
Gi��Y' f�t= 7
i7�,j;-i�.il,j ..;�'��'JI�'.
��-\���L�i�`��a �;:.3'`i.
�
-----�______________________�-''___-_-____-__-_�_---------
Z � '� LI
,
J � i�
I '
� . �/
0 �
I '
J �/
�'
� �
: �'�
�-t---
1 '
I I
1
I :
�
�-� ------------- --
, � :
� �
� �
, �
� �
�
' o
� N
„ ,
„ ,
„ ,
...
__1___ 1_00 00_
CALCULATION OF STARTING POINT
HEIGHTS @ SETBACKS:
� , -,
------------------------------------�
,-', ,i,```
,-' ,
.- , ,
i `��
�i''I ''I I � I I `I``i `�i ' �_
1,1 "1 �1' 1" 111'1'
I'1 "�� 11' 1" . I'1 �"
.
ti
i
. �
� �
i
.' i
�i i
.
i
•------------------------------ �---------------
FRNT 99.02
REAR - 79.42
19.60/2 = 9.80
99.02-9.80=89.22
+ 1.00 (AVE. FRNT HT)
90.22 (=90' - 3"
= 100.00 - 9'-9")
y� � r�.' � Q �P'_' 'o'`'
� � �.,� � � e � � �� 7;.,. ."y'
.. :4:-:. ':� . ' .
� �,
� , .
C: � �/�
� '
� � ��.
� ; ,-
, � ,
� � :
i , /'
i �
' � 90.22
� �
� � �—
� '
-�--`� - —
SEP3Q199�
.�I�f`Y" �}�` ��i�';?_�",�s;,: . .,=
=, �v, �.
P�t'��L;�Ji���J('a�� L;=�:-
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE @ NW CORNER
9/29/98 {,�} SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0"
BECKER RESIDENCE
2714 EASTON AVE., BURLINGAME; CA
�
w� ,�,
� •'�
� �
�. �
.
o '
I "
J /
i
i
I '
/
: ���
_IC'� --
I '
1 I
I
1 :
�
�IC'-�- .------------- --
I �
I �
1 �
1 �
� '
� !
' o
� N
�
--------------------------------------
�.''`r�
, ' � �.�
, i
�� i
, i �.
� I ��I ''I 'I ' I I `\ I `�I �.I
--------r---------------------�--------------------------
,
,,
-,�--
,
,
,
,
�
� � �
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, �
, ,
�-------------------------------�.---------------
----;�----------------------rr-------------------------
..
�� �
.. ,
„ ,
...
__1___ 100_00_
CALCULATION OF STARTING POINT
HEIGHTS @ SETBACKS:
FRNT 99.02
REAR - 79.42
19.60/2 = 9.80
� �.
� , .
� � !�
i� �
' i ,�.
� , ,�
� �
� � S�,
i �
� ,
' � 90.22
� '
� '
� .'
99.02-9.80=89.22
+ 1.�0 (AVE. FRNT HT)
90.22 (=90' - 3"
= 100.00 - 9'-9")
����„����� �, >
�
' � ,.� 'ti ._ .
�EP3Q�199�
;��; `:' ;�� ; ,:_`;>>., . _.. ,'•r;'=
�'�_.tii'vivii'�u iJE;';.
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE @ NW CORNER
9/ 2 9/ 9 8 fw� SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0"
BECKER RESIDENCE
2714 EASTON AVE., BURLINGAME; CA
�
�
Design Review Comments
City of Burlingame
Property Owner:
Applicant Address
Date of Review:
Design Guidelines
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mr. & Mrs. Peter Becker
2714 Easton Dr.
13 October 1998
RECEIVE�
OCT 1 41998
CITY OF BURLINGAME
FLANNING DEPT.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT
OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
The house is barely visible from the street. It is located high on the property and
behind massive landscaping. The style of the house is in character with the
neighborhood. It is very similar to its adjacent neighbor. The style is a Spanish
style with wood windows, stucco finish and tiled roof.
RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
The parking and garage are accessible from a private drive at the rear of the
residence. It is not at all visible from the front elevation.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE,
AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN.
The second story addition will not be visible from the street. It is visible from the
rear of the residence, and the two adjacent residences. The second story design
will eliminate the existing flat roof deck at the rear over the garage. The designer
has incorporated the existing style of the residence in the addition. I feel it will
actually tie the house together better than it stands today. The addition is
following existing second story lines on the right elevation. The house sits high
on the hill, giving the illusion of a massive structure. However, the house is not
very large, especially considering the size of the lot.
INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE
ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE.
The eastern neighbor (2710 Easton) has their second floor set forward from the
said residence. The western neighbor (2718 Easton) is opposite the second floor
addition, and located at a higher elevation. As previously stated, the addition is
not visible from the street. There is minimal impact from this second story
addition.
�
.r
*
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.
The location of the residence above the street isolates it tremendously. The
landscaping is very mature and massive. Few will notice any construction taking
place. There is a large tree on the east side of the proposed addition which I hope
will remain. It will allow a bit more privacy for that house at 2710 Easton.
Variance
The existing house does not comply with the declining height envelope. The
proposed addition follows the line of the existing right side elevation. The
situation with the steep site does put this property in a different situation than a
typical, flat Burlingame site. The original house was well planned for the site,
and i feel the proposed addition follows those parametres and improves on them
as well. I would suggest the Commission grant a variance regarding the declining
height envelope.
Recommendations/Comments
The proposed design is well thought out and will improve the rear elevation of the
residence. The variance will allow the second floor addition to improve the rear
elevation. My only comment is that the existing trim color be revisited to find a
color that may better blend with neighborhood scheme.
���%��
Catherine Nil eye A
2 'h hours
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
September 30, 1998
TO: �CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIltE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for declining height envelope and height variance for a second
story addition at 2714 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-194-090.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: Noveinber 23, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, OCtober 5, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Rub en
�, � o a Gi L�ci �►1. cc-c% 2.
I_ � c� �
�J � /� '
FJ� � �
s w� �
! 0� 5 9'8 Date of Comments
� J� ,�,,,., �— d �.� �-
�
C+ � � G
c� �
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 30, 1998
TO: CITY ENGINEER
�CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
_FIRE MARSHAL
_SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
_CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB�CT: Request for declining height envelope and height variance for a second
story addition at 2714 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-194-090.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: November 23, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Mondny, October 5, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
�� �'�` �'` ��
��
/� � ��' Date of Comments
ROUTING FORM
DATE: Septeinber 30, 1998
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
x FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB.TECT: Request for declining height envelope and height variance for a second
story addition at 2714 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-194-090.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: November 23, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, October 5, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
�" Date of Comments
� ��t.���� �
��