HomeMy WebLinkAbout2621 Adeline Drive - Staff Report:
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit
Item #
Consent Calendar
Address: 2621 Adeline Drive Meeting Date: 2/26/O1
Request: Design review, variance for second floor side setback, and special permit for height for a second floor
addition to an existing two-story house.
Applicant and Architect: Amy Gordon Hall, Gordon Hall & Associates APN: 027-172-240
Property Owner: Justin and Alexandra Kromelow Lot Area: 4491 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures
provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before
the addition.
February 12, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting (February 1, 2001 plans): At the Planning Commission
design reyiew study meeting on February 12, 2001, the Commission commented that the front of the house is
quite tall. The Commission noted that the frame over the existing 8'-4" ceiling height in the living room adds
18" of height to the front and suggested that the applicant consider a different framing arrangement, perhaps
dropping the framing by using engineered wood. The Commission also expressed a concern with the gable at
the rear of the house, and suggested that it be changed to a hip roof to integrate better with the existing hip roof.
The Commission moved to place this item on the consent calendar for action.
The applicant submitted a written response, dated February 15, 2001, and revised plans, date stamped February
16, 2001, to address the Commission's concerns with the project. The applicant notes that the ceiling structure
in the living room has been reduced by 5" (using engineered lumber), and therefore the overall building height
has been reduced by 5", from 32'-4" to 31'-11". The gable end at the rear of the house was changed to a hip roof
(sheets A-4 through A-7) to integrate better into the existing hip roof.
Current Summary (February 16, 2001 plans): The existing two-story house contains 2,028 SF of floor area
(0.45 FAR), has four bedrooms, and is located on a corner lot. Since more than 50% of the walls of the existing
attached single-car garage (839 SF) are below grade, the garage area is exempt from floor area ratio. The
applicant is proposing a 305 SF addition to the existing second floor. There are no changes proposed to the
footprint or floor area on the first floor. With the addition, the floor area of the remodeled house will be
increased to 2,333 SF (0.52 FAR) where 2,337 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With the proposed
remodel, there is no change in the number of existing bedrooms (4). One covered (220 SF) and one uncovered
parking spaces currently exist on the site and meet the parking requirement for a four bedroom house.
If two covered parking spaces are required in the future, the existing house would have to be remodeled to
accommodate a two-car garage by removing 221 SF, or a floor area ratio variance would be required. The
applicant is requesting the following exceptions:
• Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010);
� Variance for second floor side setback (5'-11" proposed where 7'-6" is the minimum required)
(C.S. 25.28.072, e, 3); and
�
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit
• Special Permit for height (31'-11" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed)
(C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1).
2621 Adeline Drive
CURRENT PREVIOUS PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLOWED/
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL �Q�D
(2/26/O1) (2/12/O1) (1/22/O1)
SETBACKS
Side 5'-11"' S'-11" 5'-11" n/a 7'-6"
(2"a Flr. Exterior):
Lot Coverage: no change no change no change 1739 SF 1796 SF
38.7% 40%
FAR: no change 2333 SF 2561 SF 2028 SF 2337 SF
0.52 FAR 0.57 FAR 0.45 FAR 0.52 FAR
Parking: no change no change no change 1 covered 1 covered
(11'-0" x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: no change no change no change 4 ---
Heigl:t: 31'-11"2 32'-4" 31'-4" 27'-10" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: n/a n/a special permit not in see code
req'd compliance*
" �X1SL1II�' SIIUGLUIC 1S ilUi1GUI11UIII1111�' lIl UGG11I11I1� I1G1�'I1L CIIVCIU�C.
' Variance for second floor side setback (5'-11" proposed where 7'-6" is required).
2 Special Permit for height (31'-11" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
All other zoning code requirements have been met.
Staff Comments: See attached. Staff would note that the applicant submitted a letter, dated November 30, 2000,
signed by three neighbors in support of the project.
January 22, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting (January 12, 2001 plans): At the Planning Commission
design review study meeting on January 22, 2001, the Commission noted that the new dormer over the existing
entry will not work with a nine inch separation between elements of the structure. The Commission noted that
changing the shed roof to a gable end would benefit the design and they could support the encroachment it would
represent because of the visual benefit of the change. The Commission commented that they could not see a
hardship on the property for the floor area ratio variance and suggested that it be reduced to comply. It was also
�
�
Design Review, Yariance and Special Permit
2621 Adeline Drive
suggested that the second story addition along Adeline Drive be set back to eliminate the side setback variance
and that the gable end be changed to a hip roof. The Commission directed that this project be brought back to
design review study after revisions have been made.
The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped February 1, 2001, to address the Commission's concerns
with the project. The applicant eliminated the dormer over the existing entry (North Elevation, sheet 5). The
existing shed roof along the right side property line was not changed. The applicant reduced the second floor
addition by 228 SF (see 11" x 17" second floor plan which shows areas removed), and therefore eliminated the
floor area ratio variance and special permit for declining height envelope along the interior side property line.
In the previous application, a floor area ratio variance was required to exceed the maximum allowed FAR by 224
SF. The applicant noted that several alternatives were considered to set back the second story addition along
Adeline Drive, but that the original design was still the best solution. The gable end was changed to a hip roof
over the second story master bedroom addition (North Elevation, sheet 5). The change to a hip roof caused an
increase in the height of the structure by 1'-0", from 31'-4" to 32'-4" above average top of curb. A special
permit for height and second floor side setback variance are still required for the project.
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: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 12, 2001,
design review study meeting, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design
review guidelines.
Required Findings for Variance:
In order to grant a second floor side setback 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;
3
�
Design Review, T�ariance and Special Permit 2621 Adeline Drive
(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 e�sting and
potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Variance Findings for Second Floor Side Setback Variance: Based on the findings stated in the attached
minutes of the Planning Commission's February 12, 2001 design review study meeting, the project is found to
be compatible with the variance criteria listed above.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed
is appropriate.
Special Permit Findings for Height: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning
Commission's February 12, 2001, design review study meeting, that the proposed 31'-11" height is integral to
and enhances the architectural style of the building and is consistent with the architectural integrity of the
neighborhood, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for design review, variance and special pernut, 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 Departrnent date stamped
February 16, 2001, sheets A-1 through A-7, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 16, 2001, memo shall be met; and
2621 Adeline Drive
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c: Amy Gordon Hall, Gordon Hall & Associates, applicant and architect
5
s
, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
square footage going? Commission asked for the applicant to show floor area, floor by floor, so they could
understand the changes from the existing to proposed. Commission noted that variance is larger.
Commission instructed applicant to reduce mass and bulk. Applicant stated that he feels this comes down
to basement definition and asked if filling-in the existing basement to reduce the FAR by 1,209 square feet
would make sense to the Commission? Commission responded that this suggestion would do nothing to
reduce the mass and bulk.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment he floor: Ed Bonert, 124 Costa Rica, Mary Ann
Nickels, 116 Costa Rica, Jean Marie Buckley, 1 Costa Rica: they support project, saw the proposed plans
and have no problem, feel that this house i charm, just because it is large doesn't mean it is unsightly,
looks large from outside but house is s all inside, addition to rear will give good balance, deep lot can
handle large rear addition, this hous 's the beauty of the block. There were no other comments from the
floor and Chairman Luzuriaga clo ed the public hearing. �
Chairman Luzuriaga instructe the Commission to give clear concise direction t e applicant. He noted
that this property has a uniqu situation with approximately 1,700 square fe f unusable basement, needs
more consideration and direcfion from Commission. Commission fe that project is going in the right
direction, but there is a problem with granting such a large FAR ance, would like to vote on a project
they can stand by and justify alone, but filling-in basement ' still result in a large FAR. Commission
asked staff to report on a proj ect in the last block of Chap' at was approved last suminer that had a similar
situation. Commission noted that this is a large lot shouldn't need an FAR variance, the existing north
elevation has a nice consistent fabric, the new uth elevation is larger and plainer, and proposed north
elevation has a large mass of windows, e same problem seen on monster houses; not generally
unapprovable but nothing to link eleme s together, fragmented parts, may result in not having a 1,000
square foot family room. Commissio cknowledged that sending proposal to design review consultant may
not be appropriate since the archi t knows what he is doing.
C. Vistica made a motion place this item on the February 26, 2001 regular action calendar or on the
next available calendar a a time when all the information has been submitted to the Planning Department
and reviewed. The m ion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on mo 'on: Commission asked if the new basement area�en�'d"count toward FAR under the new
ordinance, CP onroe replied that the entire basement would count towards FAR under the new ordinance.
Chairm uzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar
when ans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent).
The lanning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m.
11. 2621 ADELINE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SECOND FLOOR
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION (AMY HALL, GORDON HALL & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JUSTIN
AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW. PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Applicant and architect, Amy Gordon Hall presented the
project and noted that a study model of the original proposal and changes to the second was created for
11
, Ciry of Bur[ingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 200I
reference. She made the changes required to comply with the FAR and declining height envelope, but could
not adjust the setback due to the curve of the street. She looked hard at the roof change, the second floor over
the vaulted ceiling needs to have a gable end. Commission referenced sheet 2A7 noting that the section
drawing shows that the frame over the existing 8'-4" ceiling adds 18" of height to the front and asked if
applicant thought about a different framing arrangement, perhaps dropping the framing. The applicant
replied that they are planning on taking out the ceiling in the living room, used to have 6' plate height due
to the roof, now they are going to have a 7' plate due to the new hipped roof. Also need to raise plate height
since they are adding round-top windows and with a 6' plate height a 6' person would not be able to look
out the window. Commission commented that the piece at the front of the house is quite tall, 1'-10"
between floors, look for a way to get 1' reduction, sheet AS shows the ceiling line and second floor with 1'-
10" between them. Commission encouraged applicant to reduce height, make ceiling as low as possible,
maybe use engineered wood to reduce the space between the floors. The applicant noted that they have a
high roof pitch because they are trying to keep it consistent with the existing. Commission noted they like
the height, but questioned why little gable chunk at the rear is still there, why can't that be made part of the
hip roof style. Applicant said she that could be worked out. Commissioned asked if the windows in the
shed dormer at the rear are changing? The applicant replied that since the second dormer is no longer
proposed they are not changing existing windows if they don't have to. Commission sees a very tall
structure, with the addition taller than the neighbors, roof over the entry is better, but asked the gable to be
cut off and asked that the height be lowered 1'-10" or 1'-6". Something needs to be done with the height,
reduced ceiling heights from 9'-9" to 9'-6", reduce plate 4". There were no other comments from the floor
and the public hearing was closed. Commission complimented applicant on removing FAR variance, great
job except for a few tweaks.
Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion place this item on the February 26, 2001, consent calendar or on a
consent calendar when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked.
Comment on motion: Can make findings for second floor setback because of lot size and shape on corner,
location needs architectural variety and the proposed height is consistent with the architectural integrity
of the neighborhood. Second floor side setback variance fmdings- 1) lot substandard since lot area is less
than 5,000 feet, 2) encourages architectural variety, special permit for height. 3)keeps the architectural
integrity of the structure and neighborhood.
This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chauman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place
this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised and submitted as directed. The motion
passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent) . The Planning Commission's action is advisory and
not appealable. This item concluded at 10:48 p.m..
12. 341 DWIGHT RO
SETBACK VARIAI�CE FOR A
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHE�i
CP Monroe briefly presented
�D R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
�EW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND SPECIAL
GARAGE (DORON KLEIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NICK
iption. T�iere were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Doran
Commission and said that he was available for questions.
himself to the
12
GORDON FIALY. & ASS4CIATES, YNC.
RESIDENT,�AL ARCHITEC�'i�'RE
1610 UNION STiiEET l�r FLOO12
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123
,�� �
'x'RANSbiITTAL SHEET
ro: RUBIN HURRIN, PLIINNER m�M�
Amy Hall
Cqr,rnnrn�: n�rr:
C:ity of Surlingame 42/15/01
PIUC NUML;QR: T02'AL NO. OF PAC;PS INf1.UDING GOVEIt
650-696-3790 1
Yl{UNL- NUMHEft: RE�
650-55$-7250 2G21 Adeliae Stxeet
CUPY:
�-���5 ��So� ( s35 -- 1(�� 5
❑ URC;ENT X POR REVIEW ❑ PLL'ASL' CUMML'N'1' U PLL'ASE itLl'LY ❑ PLLASL' RECYCLf;
Px+oposed Addition for. 2621 Adeline
Ci.ty o£ Bu�lingame Pla�ning Commission Review
In keeping wi� �c eommcats of �c Ciry of Bur3inga�nc Pla:u�uc�g Corzuraissio��, wc havc iricorporaocd rhe followiag
chan�es to our plans & elevations.
The small gable end portaon, which remain�d at the rear oF the eew roof, has been changcd so a hi,p xooE '�'hat
part o� thc rooE is, now, inttgratcd into thc cadsting maiia hip tooE slopc.
Therc has also bccn an ovcrall hcight rcducpon oE 5 inches. Wc have bcen ablc eo do this by rcmoving 5
inches from �e Living Room ce�ing scructure, using engincered lumbcr ia the ncw coasuuction.
We believe this complebes our add:essing of the various concems widi the project. The sesult should be az�
aesthedcally pleasing addirion to the neighborhood.
Z'hank you for your dmc & coesidcration
Amy G. kiaU, Assoc. A�
Gordon Hall & Associatcs, Inc.
RECEIVED
FEB 1 5 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
TEI.EPH(�NF..: 415.391.1726 C'AX: 415.359,1610 C61.1,Ul,AR: 415.SU5.3997
Zd Wd8Z:�0 T00Z Sti 'aa� 0I9T 6S� STb :'ON �NOHd £ZSb6 d�—�S—l���ilS NOINfI 0ti9S : W02l�
i
..
City of Burlingmne Plunning Commission Unapproved Minutes
January 22, 2001
you considered putting some of the useable area below the first floor, this area is only one-half foot off ceiling
height: will have to do foundation work anyway��a'pplicant needs to document for commission why these
options are not viable, identify phyical hardsh�i '6n the property for variances requested. South elevation begs
for something to break up tall wall, dorme��fiice double hung windows on parts of the house but no consistency
in windows you are replacing some cas ent some awning type with different detail, second floor windows are
quite different all windows should low original existing. Done a good job from the point of view of design;
but height and full basement ar roblems. In case of the basement, has a 7 foot ceiling height, counts toward
FAR but ceiling too low to as habitable area, could excavate basement and move space in attic to basement;
should commission consi er a condition that the basement of this structure shall never be used for any living
purpose? Created a sp ial permit for height up to 36 feet to allow room for architectural style, this is a request
for 37 feet, a vari e, can the roof pitch be adjusted so that it complies with the special permit requirements.
Should be note 't is not just the height and FAR, it is also the bulk of the building:which is an issue, given
�the width of e lot and setbacks. It appears the front porch is falling off.tfife structure, how will it be
reattached? s the FAR and height indicate this will be a very large hous , ere are ways to have almost as
much hou within the code and maintain the style, should be transfo d; for height could drop the roof pitch,
drop the econd floor plate to 7 feet, could put split level at rear ince a lot of the rear of the house will be
remove` anyway, decrease the basement area by using some it for split level at the rear. Variances must be
granted on the basis of hardships existing on the propert . ill skylights be tinted. The garage is an existing
structure. Would like the applicant to come up w' solutions, not the Commission, have identified the
problems, do not want to set a precedent, need to� ve unique findings regardingh the property for variances.
Susie Kosvitch, 144 Costa Rica spoke in f or of the project. This is a beautiful house, when it went on the
market the neighbors were worried that it ould be demolished, glad applicant is interested in pursuing it; house
sits high it was built that way, gives i character; the houses on either side are big; this house occupied by an
elderly lady and has been deca .,in overtime, it will cost a lot to restore it; it would be a hardship to the
neighbors to loose a neighbo who is willing to restore it. There were no further comments from the floor and
the public comment was osed.
Chairman Luzuria noted that the commission has given the applicant lots of direction and that the key issues
are FAR and hei t, would make a motion to continue this item and for the applicant to address the issues noted
by the comm' sion and return to design review study. The motion was s.econded by C. Osterling. Chairman
Luzuriaga alled for a voice vote on the motion to continue this ite�to a future design review study meeting.
The m on passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Keighran absen�t) ice vote. The Planning Commission's action
is a visory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:1-9'p.m.
11. 2621 ADELINE DRIVE - ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES FOR SIDE
SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA R.ATIO, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING
HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (AMY AHLL, GORDON HALL &
ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW, PROPERTY
OWNERS)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Amy Hall, architect, and Justin and Alexandra Kromelow,
property owners, represented the project noting they were there to answer questions.
0
T
City, of Burlingante P[anning Commission Unapproved Minutes
January 22, 2001
Commissioners discussed the proposal: on the front elevation the new dormer over the existing entry will not
work with a 9 inch separation between elements of the structure, can this be done physically, have an existing
converted shed roof, changing this to a gable end would benefit the design and could support the encroachment
it would represent; do not see the hardship on the property for the floor area ratio variance request, the lot is
small but the FAR formula benefits small lots; concemed about the front setback variance, the structure appears
to be loaded at the front, needs to be setback. FAR could be addressed, for example, by adjusting the space
within the master bedroom and by reworking the second floor, gable end on the Adeline frontage would work
better as a hip to reduce the mass and bulk; second floor side setback encroachment is 7 inches, this could be
eliminated, special permits have been created to enhance design, the change of rooflines fits into this; variances
should be eliminated. Things that would work to reduce mass are hip roof, work with dormer, reduce side
setback 7" by dealing with shed roof, eliminated FAR and front setback variances. Prefer dormers to skylights.
Should be noted that at this time basement areas do not count in FAR so there is extra square footage in this
project because of the parking provided in basement is attached without affecting FAR, an advantage over flat
lots the same size. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Deal noted that the applicant has gotten the direction and understands the need to follow the neighborhood
character, commission comments provide enough direction so move that the application be brought back to
design review study. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to bring a revised project back to design review study.
The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission s action
is advisory and not appealable. This item conclude at 9:51 p.m.
12. 1404 HILL�DE CIRCLE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS F�EIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (RICHARD H , ALFONSO AND HARMON ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT• ANDREW COTTON HEIDI NEILSEN PROPERTY OWNERS
CP Monroe presented a summary of the
had any of the neighbors commented.
commented.
ect description. Staff was asked if the item had been noticed and
the item had been noticed, and no none of the neighbors have
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comm t. Richard Harmon, architect, and Heidi Nielsen and Andrew
Cotton, property owners, represented the projec They noted that the addition is at the rear of the house and
the back yard is fi�ll of tall trees, they are redoing a a 'tion to the original house and improving the appearance
of the rear of the hoa�,e; their hardship is the width of th ' lot which averages 36'-1" and tapers to 19' along
the rear property line; tli� �xisting first floor is 7 feet above cu
Commissioners discussed: both special pemuts requested appear to be warr'�a;
not 12' ceilings, the addition of the porch is nice, would suggest that the 8 foot
scale and 7 foot doors would work better, could make look taller with a tra�
like to see rear dropped 2 feet,
�rs at the rear are out of human
ii; could consider continuing
the shingle siding around on the second story to the rear; like metal roof at rear. There were no further
comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Vistica thought the comments were clear and moved to place this item on the consent calendar for the
February 12, 2001, meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
10
ROUTING FORM
DATE: January 16, 2001
TO: �CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
5R. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB.TECT: Request for design review, variances for side setback and floor area
ratio, and special permits for height and declining height envelope at
2621 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-172-240.
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, January 16, 2001
THANKS,
Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean
-� • %z� � �-�-�' �-���
1� I 6 �/ Date of Comments
sGti-�c�� � e- ;�o ��a � v .e
s�
FROM :, 1610 UNION STREET—SF—CA 94123 PHQNE N0. : 415 359 1610 Jan. 12 20�1 11:15AM P1
.8ant�By: CITY 0� B;JFLINOA�IE PLANNING� S50 686 3780; Jan-10-01 6:OOPM; Page 2'4
C«'1C OP 8i1W,tNVAi� YLIJJ.iTNC nL•PARTMLN't' SOl PR1MRnSYi ROAD P fd30) iS8-7230 F(ESO) e9tr3�90 �
AP.FL,ICA'1'1QN TU TH� �'LAiV'NING C4MNL�SSION
'Itiypc of xppUtx+tfon: Desigt� Rt�view 1� Cc�nditiona! Usc Pormit,_, Varianc� 2
Spvcial Pcm�itf� Other�„�araci Number: �.-o la��Q�L 21f
2l�2 j ,4�-.�lt� �>i��l - � t?i
project addresa: ,,,
APp�,,�CAN?
PRo��;ttTY �wNER
:. �. �� . , ► '�! �! ` • .. • t � _ .
Address:_ �21 �.c�t..JNE al'�T"
Addre��;
CitylStato/Zip: � O
Phone (w): ��5a��� �-5 35a�`��
r��:��) �7-a 5`�
(�:t<.�� _loQ�-- ((o�� �
ARCHITSCTYDESIGNER
Ctity/Stute/Zip:�
PhOhO(w1:
ihr �
(fl�
Narnc•�L�t%C�O�r�S �l1—�
,
� 4-��L �- d.s5c�.
���s� b �� � s Pleaee indir�te with an asterisk *
City/St�tclZap:.�l ��GI� D. _�'�(Y�
thc camtact p�r�un far thls pt�oJect.
�
Phone (w)��'{�� 1 '� 721o,�OF�"�C� �
( )��15� 5o5~3�IQ7 <�c.i.)
b �� t�r.,�-3--2Gt`7� (���;1
(tl��.��1-- ���L47
o�" 533 � • � I �1u..t,��lCz
�7� f�—i34t Sd�C-r
��-)'� �c�� L.�! UNG-� �' "�r'' �s tJ� W C�,�.� �1D . '
AF�'AD!►VX'I'/SIGNATURE: 1 i�crcby ccru'ry undcr pa�slty of perjury lhat tbc infom�atio�
given herc�n is true and correc� co �he best uf my kaowlaige and belie�
� ' G�-� 1 12 D!
A��i«t s.���: ��,��,�,o n�te:
I know about ths �x�oposect �pplication unci hereby authorize the above spp]icaat to subrr►it tbiA
applicatioa to the Planni�g Cornmiasion.
Property owncr'� dg�cu►turc:���l_���tSQ� ���`' Datc:� { 1�' 4!
i�c: Nr.r��ua
�ws�nn� c an� wa,�
C �) WINn t0 N
� �) WINt70W51'O �MAIN
MA5�12 5'CLInY
ie�-���xn�-���
��-ii�� c�n.i�
�
� --
CI.OS�t C �� "
MA51�K' 13A�OOM
_ ��-io�� c�iur�
.•
�
1L1
Z
r�w
u� rc
nOfzNl�t2 8 WAl.L512EMOV�n
���I�O3M I'I.ANS 0� I�VIOUS
�XISfING �X'f��lA2 WAGc MI'I"I'AI, ON I/ II/ OI
O� 51�t7 t70�2N1�t2 � _
....
�
z�� —
O�NING
< �)
n4�2M�i2 WINnOW
r�� c �� na�n�� vinNnow
no�nn�� & wa.�s ��n
�120M f'LANS O� I'�VIOUS
suvnnirra. oN i� iv oi
N�W S�CONf� ��OOp p�AN
i/4�� — i� -o��
FI,U:�I I�i�2TN
N�W MA51�1�
C�nt200M
14'-I"z I1'-O"
< N) WAI,I, t0 MAtGN
C �) INT�1�0�2 WALI,
�
Z
�
�
�
�
�
Z
.,
C N) nOl.nl.� f'AJ�t7 WIM70W
��
��
��
��
., �
Z
„
p�vious s�nnirr�. nA�n i,i i,oi
p�01'OS�t7 S�CONt7 �I.00f2
WA5 OV�f21N� MAXIMUM
AI.I.OWAl31.� 5,�, l3Y 22h 5,�,
5L�3MI1'1'Al. nA1�n I ,31,OI
t�MOVAI. O� SQL.�Af� ���t
A — 180 5,� ,
r� -� �e s,�,
228 5,�, t01'Al. t�nLlG110N
.
CITY OF BURLINGAM�
VA�R�NCE �iPP�I�Aile�Iv1S
RECEIVED
FEB �- 1 2001
�ITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
VARIANC� RF.QUrST: SID� SrTBACK
Mr. and Mrs. Kromelow, who reside at 2621 Adeline Street, are propasing a 30b S.F.
second floor addition to their home. The addition includes raising the roof over the living
raam and changing the roof fram a gable to a hip end. Appraval of this a�dition requires
a side setback variance for 1'-7" on the Northeast corner of the proposed second floor
addition.
a. Describe tlie exceptional or e�rtraordi�tary circuf�u7mices or conditio�:s applicable
to your property wliicli do ttat apply to ot/Fer�so�:esties ir tliis area.
Lot 61 located at 2621 Adeline Street is 4491 S.F. and is one of the smallest lots in the
irrune.diate neighborhoad. Located on the corner of Adeline and Benito, the Iot is an od�
shape, angling sharply towards the rear of the property due to the curve of Adeline Street.
!�11 adjacent lots do not have this ea�treme circumstance. The foatprint of the eaisting
portion ofthe house protruding toward Adeline Street is set back 9'-0" and 5'-11" from
the praperty line at each corner {See site plan}. The setback from the midpoint of the
building to the property line is 7'-6", which is the required setback on the second floor.
In additian, there is an existing dorr�er on the second floor which is 14'-6" from the
property line.
The proposed second story addition is directly above the portion of the building
m�ntiar�ed above protruding towards Adeline Street. Tha Nartheast corner i� iri violation
of_the second story setback of 7'-6". The corner of the buildin� closest to the pro�ertv
tine is setback 5'-11". �'e are requestina a setback variance of 1'-7" for the corner of the
�ro�osed second floor addition. The odd shape of the lot mal:es it e:ctremely di�cult to
comply with the minimum setback requirements. It would nat be architecturally
appropriate to step back the corner of the proposed addition to comply with the setbacks.
It is more aesthetically pleasing to maintain the vertical lines of the existing building in
conjunction with the proposed additian.
b. Explaijr wlry tlie variaitce request is ftecessary for tlte preservatioft atsd eitjoynre�it
o,f � subsfaiifial property sigl�t afid w:t�f tttir�aso:ln�le propesty lass or
u�iriecessar,�l h[�rdslt�� ttt[glit result fro�n tlie deliial of'the applicatioe�.
All af th� ��ts ir. ±h� immediate r.eigh�:h�o� ::�ith ±h� ex�eptior. of t�:� u�re::��lows have
nearly parallel lot lines. The adjacent lot 1 is considerably larger ihan the Y�roinelows to
com��n�.,ate for *1:� �..r���.e e�:.n�e en A�eline c+re�±. (��� s:te glan; Tf the KrQm�ie ::�s �id
�ot have the hardship of t�e curved property line on Adeline Street, their building �hould
be compliant «-ith the re�uired setbacks.
.
The Kromelows need to add another bedroom on the second floor and move their home
office into their existing b�droom an the second floar in order to accommodate their
growing family. If their substandard ]ot were slightly larger to compensate for the curved
property Ii�-�e on Adelir�e lil:e their adjacent neigr�bor's lat 1, th�y wouId not be, in �
violatian of the required setback.
If denied the setback variance, the Kromelows will not be able to realize the full potential
of iheir 1ot as their neighbors have. This wiIl resuli in a loss of properiy value due to thc
restriction of potential huilda.blc arca on the second floor.
c. Explai�r wlry the proposed use at tlte proposed locatio�i will ►tot be detrimental or
itzju:i�us to praJ�esty OT lt3if3TiiVEiiieiiiS iii �Ile ViClfFltj% or ta puhlEc 1iealtlE, safer1,
getieral xlelfrzre, Oi COtEV@llfeilCB.
Lot 61 is located on the corner of Adeline and Benito. It is directly across from the "park
like settir�" of the Kohl Mansion property therefore there are no houses across the street
on Adeline. The proposed addition would only be visible from the neighbor across the
strezt on the carner of Adeline and Benito an� thLir adjacent neighbor on Benito.
Attached is a letter from all three adiacent neighhors stating their su�port for the
prot�se� additian at 2621 Adeline Strect
The proposed addition of a second story bedroom does not change the use or character of
this residential neighborhoo�. A large portion of the proposed addition falLs within the
existing second story attic space in the house. The impact on the neighborhood will be
minimal due to the fa�t that there are na neightsors across the street on Adeline. Th�
footprint of the house will remain the same therefore maintaining all existing trees,
vebetation; sidewall:s, and driveways.
The proposed addition will have no impact on public health, puhlic safety or the general
welfare of thz commanity. Public convenience and public access to streets; sideu�all:s
and driveways will not be affected. We feel that the proposal is consistent with the city's
policy and gaals far c�riservation a�d develogment.
d. How will tlte proposed project be comPatible witlt the aestlietics, �riass, bulk and
char�eFes of tl�e ex:istif�g at�EI�3f3�8ii�El'sI I1SeS Olt [Z[IjGltiliig prap� �Ees ir� tlte
gesieral uiciszit��?
Please refer to the attached pictures of homes in the nei�hborhood w7th similar
architectural elements, raoflines and bulk to the prapased s�can� flaor addition.
The general architectural style of the immediate neighborhood is quite varied. The
h�mes have an eclzctic "cattage" feel rather than large "estate type" ha�es. P�1any of tka
horr�es have similar characteristics ta our proposed addition sucr� as front gables and hip
2
roofs in conjunction with dormer windows. Most of the front gable ends are architectural
elements protruding towards the front property linc similar to aur proposed addition.
Another commonality in the neighborhood is the addition of a second story space;
cancealed largely within existing attic space. This architectural approach reduces the
apparent mass and bull: of the building. As you can see from the pictures of neighboring
propertics, there are numeraus e1,•amples af houses with two story elements that tie into
the main roofline in a similar manner to what we are proposin�. We feel that the
pra�osed addition is campatihle with the existing architectural styies in the neighborlioa�
and camplements the existing style af the r�ar�e.
The bulk and mass of the proposed gable addition occurs on Adeline Street. There are no
neighbars across the street to be adversely aff�cted, only the "park like setting" of the
Kohl Mansion Property.
\ tl
� .
20'-3" 12'-5 1/2" 15'-i" 33'-3 1/2" � .
B.� \ \
-- �
9,03� z6�-s• � � .
. < < -- � •
8b5' f ��-��5� � IQ09'
�-- �YCAM -- \
�_ _ 10.58' \ �
� , 11:�� - � �
� ° � ° � � � " YCAM I:� �
II.��' �
e.5e� e `° o a a� rncc _Gn� s_ �- - �
� �a _ �
9.i ' ,\' �
— — - - � SYCAMOI:�
— PROPERTY C 12'Uq � � � m
�Q LINE
f — � 10,65' , �
� �� `'� �' V
� � - � CI?A55 �_ `�v -- -�: � YCAM -� o m �
� v � -�, —�. !w, �r� TI� ., \ ` � m
� Z < ` e " - <
-Ni , � � � <` �`�QL,,� �2A'Q 13.09 �
a8,0 � ` I< < 9.9' 10,2h' o, � ,4�' I L� �<'��! / 1 � °
, < < �3 �` , � �s����� 79 y � —Gnass _
� rorrrrvaconrvwai e o
>YCAM < < � , ��ee vrrrirw�n ca:w; t ��i� � � � ' /�/Q T% (F) p
o ^ j � � � I2.1 <q
P.�� ` � _ r�. r� �ni ux.rr is � �/ ` NTF
_ ' � � � F - I.iFEEff�[LOWt/WN,L � `� � � ` ` (c� R
L J� � l
� � 8,49� <�) �ALCONY �\�\� ,�; �' ° i .��� � � S�Oe�v
�.18 c Ist ��001? ��- �,'s._i�-' �\ ` ` . A�k
6,9 < � � \ Y,` � ` t
_ AV —� ` � � a.� �` E t. ,
CLlpf3 ° � , , `
o < ♦�
6,24'' 6.88' 6.90' ;cv °nN � `,��\`,��\`\ �\`.\�,..\�;`\ `L ' � •
e ��-- p e � e° � -n " ��I'f:01'OS�b' ; ��,. �`,, \ `
� > ,� 6 5.62' �XISTING � '2
� VI:IV�WAY D'merit�in.Fl \` ��ZNI� �LOOI?.�� `.���`.�� �0011°f?Wi -
e . . " 15'-0" � �
e a �AI�nITION. .,. O� f�LIILi�WG i �
—_ — � � �� �� �� �� �� �\ � �` �\�\ �\`�\ J f�I:ILK VAC'fJ3.'16K.K i I
` \�.i.11➢�,�� ����� \ • ` <�>�IN.FLf?.cdlSiFl.f?-<IA.12'> 2f'ISEI:S N rnnoi �
I � �E ` f `\� � � �� 3 ' a `�`: �. C E) �IN.FLf:@2NI7 FI.�. � C 23.A5' ) w�� c
� I . . 6.96' �� 8N6? 4 . � �� .
� I t ' . . . . �IN.�LI:. -,20' Y In F� . Gf.A�� I I �
��� , a
V� � `_� < lO.�r5' �II
Q ` � F � rn � ` 8.46' ''�
I �
�w . � .
4"tJ,��
9.26' 103B' .
6,06 - �9 °p ��03'� e -. i 7,27' i� �- _ — �
SYC ° @CL�ne ef W'd °' �i 7 5g� d_ PROPERTY LINE � _ _ -- �q 7O,
;� s R�x� �
11:�� � < � �� _ � =\ � ir.i�.• o
0 0 _ - ��NC� 9,95' 3 f:15E1'S
` top, �and�riq "' � m
b.IB�' < 41:ISCI:S o.�
� .< < m o
< . ' o
�t <
�
S� ° I ' f ' ` �z
c�v SYC �
� � TI:�� N Z._?„
m a7 0 I
�m J �
v
53q.� -o � 31'--11 1/q��
� 17'-11 5/8" 6��-1��� - -
�
SYC 1 t 0'=0" -- —
�� -- - - SS�E PLA�I
�F WAY , SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
: -
RECEIVEL�
�lb����� JAN 1 2 2001
bp��� CITY OF BURLINGAPJIE
PLANNING DEPT.
� �
�
O�
w
� O�
N (�
O
� � rn
Z O � N
�
O
� O
� � V
. O� O
x � �
�� � � W
O
�
� � � O
O v � .
00 C1i N
-P O� o
O �
Crl
O N �
�
O �
�
�
0
. �
O
�X151", ��0�" ��AN-2�21 A(���IN� n�,
A55� 550�:5 � 01' 61, 13� OC K 6
�,
. .
RECEIVED
FEB - 1 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION P L A N N I N G D E P T.
SPECIAL PERMIT OBJECTIVE: HEIGI3T
Mr. and Mrs. Kromelow, who reside at 2621 Adeline Street, are proposing a 306 S.F.
addition to their home. The addition includes raising the roof over the living room to
32'-4" and keeping the hip style roof. Approval of this addition requires a special permit
for height. A structure between 30'-0" and 36'-0" may be allowed upon a special permit
under chapter 25.52.
1. F�plain why the blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of
ihe new construction o� addition are consistent with the existing structure's
design and with the existing street and neighborliooc�
Please refer to the attached pictures of homes in the neighborhood with similar
architectural elements, rooflines and bulk to the proposed second floor addition.
The general architectural style of the immediate neighborhood is quite varied. The
homes have an eclectic "cottage" feel rather than large "estate type" homes. Many of the
homes have similar characteristics to our proposed addition.
Another commonality in the neighborhood is the addition of a second story space,
concealed largely within existing attic space. This architectural approach reduces the
apparent mass and bulk of the building. As you can see from the pictures of neighboring
properties, there are numerous examples of houses with two story elements that tie into
the main roofline in a similar manner to what we are proposing. We feel that the
proposed addition is compatible with the existing architectural styles in the neighborhood
and complements the existing style of the home.
The bulk and mass of the proposed gable addition occurs on Adeline Street. There are no
neighbors across the street to be adversely affected, only the "park like setting" of the
Kohl Mansion Property.
Attached is a letter from all three adjacent neighbors in support of the proposed addition.
2. F�plain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior firtish materials and elevations
of the proposed �ew structure or addition are consistent with tl:e existing structure,
street and neighborhood
The existing house incorporates a variety of architectural styles and details. The exterior
finish material is entirely stucco. The main roof is a hip roof accented by a dormer
window on Adeline Street and a shed dormer on the adjacent neighbor's side on Benito
Avenue. The windows are an eclectic combination of wood French doors and windows,
steel divided light windows, diamond paned leaded glass windows and aluminum sliding
windows at the shed dormer and the gable dormer. There are a few steel windows that
have wood shutters.
The desi�n intent for the proposed second story addition is to keep the e�erior fmish
materials consistent and to blend the mass of the addition gracefully into the existing
rooflines. We also felt that is was important to unify the e�erior elevations by creating
some consistency among the different styles of windows.
The aluminum window in the existing dormer will be replaced to match the other wood
casement windows in the proposed hip addition over the living room Thus, all casement
windows on the second floor, facing Adeline, will be consistent. The lazge window at the
proposed hip addition will compliment the window directly below in proportion and
materials.
The proposed hip end above the living room is consistent with many homes in the
immediate neighborhood. (See pictures) The height of the new roof (32'-4" from
top/curb to top/ridge) was determined by the 7'-0" plate height at gable end in the master
bedroom. 'The pitch of the roof is consistent with the eatisting hip roof. Due to the fact
that the maximum hei�ht is 30'-0" a special permit is required. A structure between 30'-
0" and 36'-0" may be allowed u�on a special permit under chapter 25.52.
The existing vaulted ceilin� in the living room caused the floor level of the proposed
addition to be 1'-10' higher than the existing second floor Iine, therefore causing the new
roof to be 1'-10" higher. The proposed addition would be compliant with the maximum
height standards if the living room ceiling was not vaulted. We feel it would be
compromising the original interior architecture of the house and a hardship on the
Kromelows to remove their vaulted ceiling in the living room.
3. How will tlie proposed project be consistent witli t/ie residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (G S. 25.5�?
Design Criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review:
1. We feel that the architectural style of the proposed addition is compatible with the
existing character of the neighborhood for the reasons stated in question number
one.
2. There is no increase in #he number of parking spaces or change to the existing
driveway or garage.
3. We feel that the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure meet the
Burlingame residential design guidelines for the reasons stated in questions one
and two.
2
4. The design intent of the proposed structure is to have minimal impact on the
adjacent properties and neighbors. There are no houses across the street on
Adeline where the proposed hip addition is. The proposed addition would only be
visible to the immediate adjacent neighbors. Attached is a letter from all three
adjacent neighbors stating their support for the proposed addition.
5. The footprint of the existing house will remain the same therefore maintaining all
e�usting trees and vegetation. We feel the e�cisting house and proposed addition
will be appropriately balanced with the existing landscaping. However we are not
opposed to additional landscaping or screening if required by the design review
boazd.
5. Explaii: liow tlte removal of any trees located wit/iii: tlie footprir:t of any new
StTliCtllP� OT QIIlsltlOil lS IieCeSSQJy Qii(I IS COi1StSteilt Wltit i{IB Clij� �S TQ�OTEStQtlOf1
requirement� jVliat snitigation is proposed for tlie removaC of any trees?
�Yj3IQIi1 Wlij� tj11S iilliigQilOfi 1S LZfI�IrO�J'1Q%
No trees will be removed as a result of the proposed addition.
FROM : 1610 UNION STREET—SF—CA 94123 PHONE N0. : 415 359 1610
�:.i��"rn0���uoa�{�U;�u�;::��� >•_
599�-�89 �0��) 1.
Jan. 09 2001 04:33PM P5
i C�' Y�-/ Vf�. ����)� '�'
. �' ��'� 9� �' �
:Ss��pd
�
:au�rj
,,, �"''''�_.l. : ��`;1 ./I'Y�'rJ�� �� '�
:- C
••.._ - �
����5 �
�. -- -�l h ' V
. � � /' �� :ssa3PP�'
����� .t` / - � �
_ f :a�N
�— f,�,- . z
�
�
� � � ' �
�.� • , � .
r� � f��� / �?�l :ssasPP�'
���� r� �
� :3Luej�j
,
;7 �xx�7-�r}� i7^ �'t
•anuQ au�iapd iZ9Z l�;�afo�d nnoiauco.t,}Z aq� �xoddns �q���� pere j�esodozd a� ol ��afqo
�or� op °anYxQ acnjapy iZ9Z l� uoi�ipp� pasodojd a� pannaYnar an�� patfdisiaptm aLjs
aar�z�uT�xng `ant.�� auitaPd 9ZiZ uo��voZ ��afox� `a�uaptsa� nnoj�uzor}I :a�
� ��aur�t�daQ �utuu�jd auz�$utjmQ :oZ
'1d34 JNINNI/ld
3WtlJNlla(18 �� ,11f�
���Z s�- N��" OOOZ`0£z�Q�anoN
a�ni����
0 �0�6 d� `au.i��ui�an8 � an�aQ au��aPb' LZ9Z � nno�auioay� eapu�xaly
��
s�
M f +°..
• ��
-' . � � L � �' r� �{
� � +Y��
. ' ���
� r` .
y JR p � '�
• � 1�
.i a� b ., _�.
i ^''...^., , . ti ' �• �Sy.
� � V.
t ` �;j.
f�
��,
. f..nf � .��.�. .. ..._„__� .�s-• � ; .
1
�f
iI
� �,.
• �,�,
;��
i�
� ���� � �i�
..q�;� �
' :��
� _.�.
� ���,�Gd�,:� _
�. � ; �
' 'N.v...�.
� �.� i.�W� l...�
�
a �
��� /� ff�f G-E �
�
�,, �
�
�.
���- p
� '��c��11� ����f�Y G�� �l� ��
�'_� � ,�'� - �
, ��
t,l� � �. �
�' 'a'
;', . � a �r Y , • . S �
1 , a � �.:
, `4� � ��F .� ! � * R � ?
i ,.. ` .' � h F i � �p�+„ �'�'�1 �
��� .•� \ . n + �� �{• Fy� .�f `�s . � .
� I .��1 ��:,. . _ � ��� � � +� �,� .
�
a
���� ' �, � � �,
�� � �,,�. � w*,.� �'`;,r. r _
�. J � '� r� �i�I: ��� .. y�, � �.
. � el.. � .c"...-� e �•
;.� � �� �' .� . -�� -�'�"�
; .
.
� �� �
.
�. ' � � �°,a. � � � � "',4.....
. �� . ., . _..v �ry �..
� �'�,� � y�9' n�i � `�� � �
��,� ��� � � � .
�� I" �4 � f "F �
� 1
,i �� ,., �� � P . � ��'��ir W� '� . .
� � ... rl � e � �IIA '��4'*K�d.i�� .
� �; .,. . .. �4 . . .'y � � �� b �Y�
F „#`" �:
, .y
..::'� � ..,... ' .
� II IIr I ... ....
�
M�i N !
� _ ��
,,
.,
_
���y ,� ��� , .
�� ���� '
�����'
.
,
°� �'�'��I�� , � _ � .�: � ���� ..� . .: ,
� ����� :R
� ���:��
��;��
�.
��;������
�,=�, �1 1 2 2 0 01
CITY OF BURLINGHME
PLANNING DEPT.
� 5 , f ,
..
*. � y ' +
, � � � � � �
. , � : � % .. 'k ' � . �,;.... . ��'
�..,,
-�y � t � � � ti t�:' . . . . . . . �i
_� `" ti"' '"'�,� � ''�'-. . /�l _�.�---!\/U S�% �f � L
� � ,,� �� _ �� ;�� �� ' C� 1p.� � ,�Nl� ;
,�.a �, ` �,- '�
�:;�� '�,, '� ` � � ����`����
.r :
,,
.
,
_<. �:.. �.� � . M �y ,
- �..,� ,,� F l . - ., . ._ '' ._ . , . �. :� .. ,
.. � ' � �' - x , �M��.. ' `r. ��`+,. � g . � �� . �� w
,. •
. --_.
.
-. ,,.. ro.,� �. i., �, r� y�9�
.. ��
�. �. s , .. _, . ��� .. i; �._ ` �', , �. t . ..� y .. . . � - ' . . . �
k � � _
� w� �,.�,.x,""w�" �. .. � - �, . "'�., `� .: . .,�.,w !K
�y , W
»r._,,,�,,,� �, 5, ,.v N .�� i` 1 %� /�/J Y
-h��. '..0 .6d.' "�. . rl"�k'�
,�"t r _ `'' �'� , f ,y l � : � 1, ��,.✓ O�i ` �
,� � ,�T _ � w�
,.. µ ...� . �� y�����
1 y��'C J4' r � r ��'Y''�„, �5'.'�
� 'f ry ��
�-....,, r '4� � . �,.,
�'^ in , �1 � P t ,
��� ``+„ � � Iiw a��'' � �a�r � 's" � ev ` �,�
� �`"�""'""�,.,, ' '".�+� %''d � �"' � 1� �ik � � ��,s
' .� °� �
,. . �� —
�
� r�� � F �. '
. ..,+ r"N�nM ,�'�"""� . 4 ���t � " � . k ...'r^r; �
,'M � '�. - tlr- �� !`�. . .
�1' f'
i.
' � . t � �" � 1 , , � ... .. . ; '
'r- "' ' �e
�
� �w �. .,r., rc. :.' . f �
-N
w.
.�.�'{�'a. � row». N;y�� ,��„ ✓".�% Lii� . '���.�y i.�. }� . � ^ ., � 'f �f. '
- *. V - I� �..<9E''� .lu. ��:_� . �� �IR1:� �'AR
r �' �
': 5�-. �¢� a �'`� - a 9.� �� - �' 4- :. � , +� .
a��-�4..� *� a:: r�(, t�.� � ' � n ��' � � u, , m
ju iw
� � � �-� 'i� � �'.5�. � ,.�" . �� .?_. � .
A �' �T l � �.�,'�J ..J- k
.... � '
f p � f ' }f � � '�����' aV� , i�X ..
� ��� '. �� � �
`. #� ftN � �' p� �,+ -
� � .: �.I, k i, _ �3 � i� 4 {T'�c� kl � P� � ..aal�
.,,{" � �Gn i _ ��, �. 4 � *�s
�� f
.
' y� , .. E . , �. � � . _ . . u.i,ese
n, ,
, ; �F, ., ��,
� � �
r � �
+� � � ,.
,, ' ''�, " ; ,"
'. . � �P�,F�.. e �
!. , .. . . , l .
J r�
_ � . ��1 :v
. .. v' .. Vm ���� � . Gy�"�c-: „���f�����r.i, � I�',;.,Io �, .
�il P. il�a i
�� s ��' sr,s�y. ��,�. � :� � � ,3s t� ,u + r t.. � tr.,�� �+*:
„ � � a '°';..
� �+I � I �� R �
��` .� kYi^VIU^ „I �� Y � I?�6M'�� i I �i �. � I .� i s:l
� �
� ��t � � �
b
� � ,} � . 4 aA�}�' �i ��`� yG � i t
�' i��s r. � �
�,. : ::�: ,� _ _ _ .«.,.
o Po�P y � /v"�
23 4� D
� y��.;;. � , `a.J � � N � �
�
AN 1 2 2001
C11Y OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
���:wv�.�
.�� .�=e y
2 2001
/�/O G�-�e �05
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
� . .� _ �." �_ �a �► . "� y �.r � a � �Ir
* a`' + , + �` �" ^ �� �,, � �► � ��.,+' �: �, , �. �, Y
'�`� � .:j� y� ;'�" �� � � �- sr ''3�'�� �� i �.
� � � � �,rt'� �; w3 ..�' r I � K�,� N �
�'s y '� "y,� ,�:A , , .. � + J +�'P'r , i, �M ,� �� R �S ' � ...i
f ��qyq �,.
,ii},-� � �� �i�j�� r,.., ► `�q":���'h► '�� .�.'��ry° i�j,, .�� � 1��1 III� , . � E �� � ��..
3 } ' ��, + '� I �,y
* d� • `��� •�.
i ' 4 ij � 1 ��y� ��..� � F
''4 . � . �t ill��4 . '�" . "� A" �:
a
�
� a �,,, .
�� � � � � ��•'�'�'� �liy�� �V u � �"' y ' �
�4 � a ' rd+
xria : R � f . � ���j��{'�. ��. A/
� i� ' r / rr.� • C
$. � �:;: . � t :
� _ , ;p• � , � � � �� ` �� �'" . . . . ��y� ��� . �'4.� .,
�'' M L
�'� � y���:. �!1� �{ .� • 1�'� .�. :f•��.4
C L +f 111
r , ww.. "�ro��` ' � �,il�� _ � ) � � ��
♦ .. . � ' Y '� �. ��.� =��', ���.
, �
� ;:
. , , +,; ' ^' ; � '��.
L� "
. .�� . . .;, �,;�. � �. .,�� , .
' �e � 1+' � ^ :,t � ��-" � ►
,. s � +�.
�'_ � � � , �,;� ;`�'sii�►'�,, .� a
I"��V ` ��� ir � �� , i.;�
� �'. u .
M� d �r
� . `���t �. ,
a�� �...Q 3� u �� .�i � ����M�dl hk3 ������ � ��� �.
�E � �
„
i ��r
, i�
.: .�W � �u. . � - -
_
` �� „� �lYqy�'M
u
�i� � �i� i ,' � ��
� ..
��
. 'T � ,i „,�' ,
�.
� ��� M1
f ����:,�..
� u
�i� a�
r,
� , f
' � ,by
,�
� � � . � �. II . . �, � N,.i..,..
�n 0.. �
� �^ i �� � �{� 1 A� �4�. ��,`i afi � ' , � . '
��' d� fIra , r ��,. �,'� i'� �} r �
f!_���� � i� �€I..�, - . . 'I! . �.'.�� . �, - .
� P !.
� ' � i � r � ��Jj��'*:'. . � k ' �
�` �' },� '[
f'�ll I�. . q,� � �{ 3 �. . � � , . .
,1 � �, ., �f„������:�k.. � . P + . � � .. �
� —9
,
�� . , t � : -.�: �! � �
� E: ,� � � ;
, .:. , , . ,
' � .�
� . _ ,��
� � ' '� � � ��
.
. . �. ,y�,
. � . . ., �. ..� .. ���ill�Y' .. � �
- .. . � u . - - � ' y. �r
_, . � ^:� � .' 4{ � ���s �1� A .
.. , ., - , . �..,ti�,� � � �YYW4'� hi�YN� �is;: �`.:..c , I ��i � � ���7��� ` l'U��I i�i'�� i ,.
_,,,,..� � ' '� �! . � ,1:�� ai��b 1 � ����� �, ���, �. �� �
�,' ��.�, �`"�'� ��' � � ,�''
w ,�. ' r� r 3 ,h.�r,� j,
�� l � ki w .��u�
.� � , ��� i�O ' �I " ��°i � � a�sk+'� ������� {�`I M,� �� � � ' � ,f , f��.��, ��u� � ��I���� �^�jl �� �,
� ._ � I i�..� ik� �.ai i` � r9A�'z.s,a0-.� y,fi�"�k �� �k�c:�,�"b�r� �� "�p .,,� � ... ,. . ,
� ,x.. ,�;
� . 7 �� „����„',� � +'y �, �
, ,� u�� , ,� � #�•��,, � ,; �
� Y '�
a' ���r�� � `" d
' ��-- �%��Y C`-��4 f3C� � � � � * ,. � �
� ;� � � � ��. ,�,.
��qs� a`y � � � . �J jl '�'M'T �;�a � �.. h PY�
� . �,�/b �'�� �� N: �. �� :�.� �
��: . �
�
�'.
k ��:
�; �� � . 4, y� ,,*,�
�
# � � � o^ � � _ t�' �.�y'���y �� � �,
� : jjj � �4 P i
1'� . �i ffi p� .� ti . •,,f'�_^� j
� �� �is r P � ., � 5� �g; �.�� .k,p � L.''.
�� } � � �a �"�n�L�� �� �M ' � j� � n � � �. "�u �" �' yr �
4� i d �' ���1' � Y �� ��, � �w F '�
p� � �tl
�p � F � w., ,
I� �-E t I Yt���C., .: �� ��i � � d�t� r ! ' ���
t� ,� �` L � �
• . ' . �'� Ff� , � ut,�`�'��� R�� '��`' .` ' � �-. +' r
� .. , . .
;i4! V 4 �,'�.� .. a+ �"� vV� R � .n'� r�" � . .
y� �4 � t
. d � �_. � Jq��' � � . . .
o � . � K ��i.
I ��'k (.
� 1
A 1�. � � . .'. e�"' � T. I� �� �f' . �'�
G r ��V
� , � � � �� ,....
� � ,�
�� � , r z
, �� � �' P' °�u°y�'� �` w
�� . � h� y '�i h
f +-r� '
dn�., b;. . �. i, �� # ��l��.��yh��, � ^��.CNw� i � Po�o,�i�I��lYI
� �";o� Y`����` �- �", � r;
R h 1�
� � �u� 4 ;t°�������� �
� ,
.-. X
�
��f��', ����� . ` �����I��� -'
I I .- �� �� h;
� � � ��� �� �, I�� �
� 1��'
',
f :1 � �,.��. �� W���,�d91'5I4r�Nd
.pwi�y,�„ �ner�i��.
�,4
�i : w �
� ��:`.. � ...��! U .���� .....�%.��
/4 �? C,4sri��o
. ��
�° �� � �� �' �
+��. :,�ya .,
.,
��
k
�
+ri '"�
.�: � � ,iMtl' "
,. � •�p�...� ... ..... ._.
- ��r. .�-�I�N�. .. _ .ip'�
�E�VEC�
�i 1 2 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
,' "'� , �,,,,�l�"
R
.� e
� ', "� a�.
Y���. r'♦
�
,
,�
��;
;�
� •,� �.
�f.., Y �
��'f u,'�r ���'�I y�� i
� �
� JiJ � lL
� i.l� s IY. ��9:�Jbla � ,�L.�, �
�
= � =���/��j �z �� ��lD
��
.. .
�w
i
� ,� �
�<< ,� � � �
r: , � � - � ��
��
��1 � ,�� , �.�,o�
,a, � � ;n
�, — .v.... ��
�� ..,.
�� � �' � �...
4 � i c
,:�,; �� y � �
�� '��,
� � "��� ° �'
� ' F� �� —
� � ' � �� �`�
. ��„r.W.,;�,i�,,., �..�� ..
� � ,��� , E�,� � � , �
��.� � . f r�
A:, p"_
.N'�
� ��
�
�� ��
��=�;
k'
w' y
� �sl'
�r,��
,� ra.
I .
`,� . � '
�� ,
�
. * _
��
* ' .'�y �`
. �� � , r
•� �,
�E
�� ��� . .� �,
.'�` ,������,.�
�
,���
�'
��,
�.. ��,N�� ka�,"
<p, ..�AMAM+iMIiQ „.
, _ �� ��°
�.. � 1
f 4, i�� � �
�iq{x`
4ng.
..k�
� ��i
5 L �.�
� '�
�5 k ,.
� � ..� r i���..�„i.,, „"mM'�' .
. . , ,:.-.::.i ,•r,�arvrv7mrnn � °� �r
, ,_.,,,..._. � _,
, .:.. ... .... . .... . . 1...���! . R���-
.. ' . . . . � .. . . . .... � , ... .. .. . � � � � �
.� i i � . , . ' :
� � i �..:�r. .�.. . .
;i � � � � ._ . . �
, n J . � � � � ;4
.��<. ,. ,
,, s �, { � , ,r �
u�jj F I�I 4 �� � i�� y:; ! � "��#� li �: l� r 1 a; I t�
i � 17 � 5�. .. { . �. , � e's � �fl� � . �� ; � 4.: aD �. S � �
_ ��'i���� I �' r!!i;�!I F ����. � , �f � � � ��, �, ;; . ' �' ��� ���+r �t'::r ,� ; � �,�; ��� ���� ;� � , � 3 �������� iJ 1 2 2 0 01
/�Z v $�/U /i0
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
w�lE t ��tt
� � y���p�
, � .�iJ.�:d:+���G����.,: . . .�
a�..�v��
1 2 2001
26/� ��1- LE
CITY Of BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
" ���� ��z;�Y �'���,� �- .�— a �,h
,�r�' `�T� ��. CITY OF BURLINGAME
j BURLJN('iAME P�`NNING DEPARTMENT � .
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
fBURLINGAME, CA 94010
� TEL: (650) 558-7250
ib„ ..• '
,
2621 ADELINE DRIVE
j
�; Application for design review, second floor
• side setback variance, and special permit for
height for a second story addition at 2621 PUBLIC HEARING
' Adeline Drive, zoned R-1. (APN: 027-172-240) NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
� Mondav, February 26, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
, Mailed February 16, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
�il+'<'��3,r��$'�>:`.'�� .. .
.. . .. . . . ..... _..-..... ....�._ . . _.. . .. ._." -."."._ q .
�
. �' .tg�'+�'s.-���,*<��
. c
CITY OF BURLINGAME �
A copy of the application and plans fo�;this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at;=�"the Planning ; Deparhnent at�+501 Primrose Road,
� Burlingame, Cali�oiriia. � � � � �.�,
,�r �_ �
� �� . � � � � <� T
� � If you challenge the subject application(s) in �court; you m
- � � raisin onl £'.those issues- ou or someone else raised at the
. g �_ �.� __Y. _..��. ....w..... � �_.�__.y
� described in the,natice, oruui wr�tten cor�es,pondence-�1�1ia
, at or priar to the:put�l� hear��g.��� �, ,� �;;,� ;�;�.�ti.;��'�; �."�
� .� � � � i� �. � � �
Property o�ners wlio receive thi� notice�:are responsilile �i
tenants abo, t thisrnofice:�� Fo�add�tronal>mformatio�� p�.
558-7250. T ank q ou ' ` ;{ y�' `
' `� � ' "`~' ��
� � � �_- '� w � �F ' � � �{ �,, � ---�� �,� �' ,a �
�` �` + _: �y�=, � ° ` � �.�.�:.� � i � �� a' �
� Margaret Mo roe.'� � 'v� �'''� ` � "�' �' �
� � City Planner � ���`` `-�. `� � °� ��� j,��'
, ����4 �, I { . � � `�
;
, .;
PU
(Please refer to other side)
CE
be limited to
�blic hearing,
:d to the city
ming their
call (650)
�.
� . ��
�
E_ , _ .
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERIVIIT
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
review second floor side setback variance, and special permit for hei�ht for a first and second floor addition
at 2621 Adeline Drive zoned R-1 Justin and Alexandra Kromelow, propertv owners, APN: 027-172-240;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 26, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials
and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substanrial 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: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures
provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 % of the floor area of the structures
before the addition, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review, variance and special permit are approved, subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review, variance and special pernut 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, Joe Bo,Les , Acting 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 26th day of February , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ACTING SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, variance and special permit.
2621 Adeline Drive
effective March 5, 2001
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped February 16, 2001, sheets A-1 through A-7, and that any changes to the
footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 16, 2001, memo shall be met; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Califomia Building Code and Califomia
Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
. .
_ � � "'� � �� .' � . _ _ ` { , �,� -
• o •.. � � � '�
_ � � ' � � �;4� � _+�;- �
• �„� �� . , J w �
n •+�� "�.� t�'
• '§ . �'9�. . . , }�";�� ,. . `��?r� tb i � ,� �s. - :.x. �
.
,...� .��. .
� (�
�
< g.Y
.
, :
.
�_ � � �,� z , � : . ,
..._ -.,�. �T . � .
� ;�
,v'y�n'` . �'�a"�� � .;AB +��'�." .. ^ .. . .
'�� � St5TER5 r� �
r � `� � �{ ��'�. #�:.� J � �@ , # -
� ` � �� ` p F' , � �, � . � �� Q„� : � ��._
� ' �
���'� � ��' ° 1�F;�,. O '�
. �.
' � MEt�L� P
� ��� �� � � PpY pR �\/ E
���� � �F H t G H � �� ��.� �o°� s8s ��.
t
` PO a
� SCHOo i.. ��;,�� �� -� -
� � X;'_�' � : a . ..
�' '� , 1
� 7 . �•Y � �
. :3 � �1,�" A. 1 u � ' � �y�'
. . ' ';[� •�:,ti� � y..,. . '�, �� � a. � �
# � � .� �'
a:�g��i�. A}� `T��. � b' ..'
;-' '''i§ � �+� � . ' . � si
,
,
; .., N � � ' �..
�' �t '
�
.
: , ti .� t - �- � ., . } .':
� " ' .' ��.' .,' .
,� �, � ,,� < �r �y8p � � �
_ � -� , - rv� � ., , .� . � _
' .� ` �`T ��'': / y �6 :� �` . �
� : _- . # � �, � ,:;,; 6h� /y�L � � ..
�� �" c:: � � �• .� - �
> � z
P k
- �: #�` - � �
�, • , � � .
. � �
, �, ,�;
. _
�
=
- �.
. ..
�, �, � ",. ��,`
� � � �., . � �� :�' :ti . . ._ �, ;�,�'
� . � ,.�';�� ss,�� HALE pRIvE
�6 >, _
uRL
� i* . ,;�,,,�
c o 4 � ��.,�E � - � _ e .; .
n' �-Y ` �: Fi�, �;
1 �`� �:, ��
�'"�� � ,� � . �; �� � ' , Q � .
• � � ;
. , _
4'�A <, `� � t �` ��
� �` : �
. - �j 4, � i �
� `� . e. �. , " _
� �` . .. . r .. . ,�, �
, � � ,� . �
� , '� . s�. "�ir �' � ;
�_ • E � � 1� � q P�-'.��. .
� V� �. ' ��� .. <tP �_� .
� � � � f . - ��; �%"'�;; � .
�e �' ,� �;. ��.. � � �..R � •
,`� ,�. # �
�� � � �Q �" � '�ra �'�
r "� I / �. � �.��
� l� � ' �•, ` �� � � ; t fi �,�,, ,
'�` � � `a'' .�'a "-� � ,�, � r , F 't.
, qQ �� �
� , � �� .. .:
�
o � e � ��
� �r F � � _ _. � � _`� y� .
., �
\
' ....- � � ._ _ . ., .
. ,�'� ,� ,��- � _ , . � Y .
., � - . � .- �. ..
"� , .. �:� ����y"1� � �,�,> �� ��d '�
� P�,
^ � ,�f
�Si. � � Y � � rY- � � � �s ♦
Q. � . �� � �� x � . �
a,� <: .:� � � :�� � � ,
r � � . � � � �� �
E _ i . � �r► >'� 1i�. �
.�
262 r Ad�l �,r,,�. br,��e,
�
�
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Yariance and Special Permit
Item #
Design Review Study
Address: 2621 Adeline Drive Meeting Date: 2/12/O1
Request: Design review, variance for second floor side setback, and special pernut for height for a second story
addition to an existing two-story house.
Applicant and Architect: �Amy Gordon Hall, Gordon Hall & Associates APN: 027-172-240
Property Owner: Justin and Alexandra Kromelow Lot Area: 4491 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
January 22, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting
on January 22, 2001, the Commission noted that the new dormer over the existing entry will not work with a nine
inch separation between elements of the structure. The Commission noted that changing the shed roof to a gable
end would benefit the design and they could support the encroachment it would represent because of the visual
benefit of the change. The Commission commented that they could not see a hardship on the property for the
floor area ratio variance and suggested that it be reduced to comply. It was also suggested that the second story
addition along Adeline Drive be set back to eliminate the side setback variance and that the gable end be changed
to a hip roof. The Commission directed that this project be brought back to design review study after revisions
have been made.
The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped February 1, 2001, to address the Commission's concerns
with the project. The applicant eliminated the dormer over the existing entry (North Elevation, sheet 5). The
existing shed roof along the right side property line was not changed. The applicant reduced the second floor
addition by 228 SF (see 11" x 17" second floor plan which shows areas removed), and therefore eliminated the
floor area ratio variance and special permit for declining height envelope along the interior side property line.
In the previous application, a floor area ratio variance was required to exceed the maximum allowed FAR by 224
SF. The applicant noted that several alternatives were considered to set back the second story addition along
Adeline Drive, but that the original design was still the best solution. The gable end was changed to a hip roof
over the second story master bedroom addition (North Elevation, sheet 5). The change to a hip roof caused an
increase in the height of the structure by 1'-0", from 31'-4" to 32'-4" above average top of curb. A special
permit for height and second floor side setback variance are still required for the project.
Summary (February 1, 2001 plans): The existing two-story house contains 2,028 SF of floor area (0.45 FAR),
has four bedrooms, and is located on a corner lot. Since more than 50% of the walls of the existing attached
single-car garage (839 SF) are below grade, the garage area is exempt from floor area ratio. The applicant is
proposing a 305 SF addition to the existing second floor. There are no changes proposed to the footprint or floor
area on the first floor. With the addition, the floor area of the remodeled house will be increased to 2,333 SF
(0.52 FAR) where 2,337 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With the proposed remodel, there is no change
in the number of existing bedrooms (4). One covered (220 SF) and one uncovered parking spaces currently exist
on the site and meet the parking requirement for a four bedroom house.
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2621 Adeline Drive
If two covered parking spaces are required in the future, the existing house would have to be remodeled to
accommodate a two-car garage by removing 221 SF, or a floor area ratio variance would be required. The
applicant is requesting the following exceptions:
• Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010);
Variance for second floor side setback (5'-11" proposed where 7'-6" is the minimum required)
(C.S. 25.28.072, e, 3); and
• Special Permit for height (31'-4" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed)
(C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1).
CURRENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(2/12/O1) (1/22/O1)
SETBACKS
Side 5'-11"' S'-11" n/a 7'-6"
(2"a Flr. Exterior):
Lot Coverage: no change no change 1739 SF 1796 SF
38.7% 40%
FAR: 2333 SF 2561 SF 2028 SF 2337 SF
0.52 FAR 0.57 FAR 0.45 FAR 0.52 FAR
Parki�ig: no change no change 1 covered 1 covered
(11'-0" x 20') . (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: no change no change 4 ---
Heigl:t: 32'-4"z 31'-4" 27'-10" 30'-0"
DHE�:velope: n/a special permit not in see code
req'd compliance*
* Existing structure is nonconforming in declining height envelope.
' Variance for second floor side setback (5'-11" proposed where 7'-6" is required).
2 Special Permit for height (32'-4" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
All other zoning code requirements have been met.
�
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit
2621 Adeline Drive
Staff Comments: See attached. Staff would note that the applicant submitted a letter, dated November 30, 2000,
signed by three neighbors in support of the project,
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c: Amy Gordon Hall, Gordon Hall & Associates, applicant and architect
.i
�"'
City of Burlingame Item # 11
Design Review, Two Yariances and Two Special Permits Design Review Study
Address: 2621 Adeline Drive Meeting Date: 1/22/O1
Request: Design review, variances for second floor side setback and floor area ratio, and special permits
for height and declining height envelope, for a second story addition to an existing two-story
house.
Applicant and Architect: Amy Gordon Hall, Gordon Hall & Associates APN: 027-172-240
Property Owner: Justin and Alexandra Kromelow Lot Area: 4491 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Summary: The existing two-story house contains 2,028 SF of floor area (0.45 FAR), has four bedrooms,
and is located on a corner lot. Since more than 50% of the walls of the existing attached single-car garage
(839 SF) are below grade, the garage area is exempt from floor area ratio. The applicant is proposing a
533 SF addition to the existing second floor. There are no changes proposed to the footprint or floor area
on the first floor. With the addition, the floor area of the remodeled house will be increased to 2,561 SF
(0.57 FAR) where 2,337 SF (0.52 FAR) is the ma�cimum allowed. A variance is required to exceed the
maximum allowed floor area ratio by 224 SF. With the proposed remodel, there is no change in the
number of existing bedrooms (4). One covered (220 SF) and one uncovered parking spaces currently exist
on the site and meet the parking requirement for a four bedroom house. If two covered parking spaces are
required in the future, the existing house would have to be remodeled to accommodate a two-car garage
by removing 221 SF, or an additional FAR variance would be required. All other zoning code
requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following exceptions:
• Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010);
• Variance for second floor side setback (5'-11" proposed where 7'-6" is the minimum required)
�c.s. 2s.2s.o�2, e, 3�;
• Variance for floor area ratio for 224 SF (2561 SF, 0.57 FAR proposed where 2337 SF, 0.52 FAR
allowed) (C.S. 25.28.070, c);
• Special Permit for height (31'-4" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed)
(C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1); and
• Special Permit for declining height envelope (19.4 SF, 1'-4" x 14'-7", along the right side extends
beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.28.075).
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Side (2"d Floor Exterior): 5'-11 "' n/a 7'-6"
Lot Coverage: no change 1739 SF 1796 SF •
38.7% 40%
.-
�
Design Review, Variances and Special Permits 2621 Adeline Drive
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
FAR: 2561 SFZ 2028 SF 2337 SF
0.57 FAR 0.45 FAR 0.52 FAR
Parki�:g: no change 1 covered 1 covered
�i i�-o°° X 20�� �io� X 20��
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: no change 4 ---
Heiglit: 31'-4"' 27'-10" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: special permit req'd° not in compliance* see code
" DX1Slli1�' SUUGLUIC 1J i1Vi1GUi11UiIi1lllb' 111 (1GGllillil�' i1Clb'ill CIIVGIU�)G.
' Variance for second floor side setback (5'-11" proposed where 7'-6" is required).
z Variance for floor area ratio for 224 SF (2561 SF, 0.57 FAR proposed where 2337 SF, 0.52 FAR
allowed).
' Special Permit for height (31'-4" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
° Special Permit for declining height envelope (19.4 SF, 1'-4" x 14'-7", along the right side extends
beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: See attached. Staff would note that the applicant submitted a letter, dated November
30, 2000, signed by three neighbors in support of the project.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c: Amy Gordon Hall, Gordon Hall & Associates, applicant and architect
2