The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2930 Adeline Drive - Staff Report (2)MID PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC Statement of Qualifications Country House Memory Care, Granite Bay The 3z,400 square foot, 4z unit Country House Memory Care facility is Granite Bay's first facility dedicated to memory care and is specially designed by dementia-care experts to look and feel like a family home offering z4/7 service and support for seniors afflicted with neurological diseases and disorders such as Alzheimer's. Mid Pacific Engineering, Inc. performed the �*-��+"��$ �� _�� Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the project and provided Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspections support during const:ruction of the project. The Fairhaven Skilled Nursing facility consists of a �o4,5z9-square-foot, two- story building with io7 rooms and i5� beds for both skilled nursing and assisted living health care. Associated development included site improvements for construction of new pavements and underground uts"ities. Mid Pacific Engineering, Inc. prepared the Geotechnical and Geologic Hazards Report for submittal to CGS to obtain approval for this OSHPD project. Fairhaven Skilled Nursing Facility, Sacramento :--.-� _ _ — � I m CITY OF BURLINGAME HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE Address: 2930 Adeline Drive Meeting Date: 3/23/98 Requests: Hillside area construction permit (CS 25.61.020) and front setback variance (CS 25.55.010 l,a) for a first and second floor addition qualifying as new construction at 2930 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1. Applicant: Joyce Ford, designer APN: 027-030-040 Property Owner: Kathy Hutchison & Luis Rosario Lot Area: 51,445 SF (1.18 AC) General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction ar Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), 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, Joyce Ford, is requesting a hillside area construction permit and a front setback variance for a first and second floor addition qualifying as new construction at 2930 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1. This residence is within the area designated as the hillside area by Ordinance 1448 which requires a hillside area construction permit for any addition to all or a portion of an existing residence. This site is located adjacent to Mills Canyon Park. The project qualifies as new construction, therefore a front setback variance is required for 44'-0" (measured to the iirst and second floors), where 49'-8" (average of block) is required. Present iirst floor front setback is 44'-0". The proposed new second floor front setback matches the first floor at 44'-0". The applicant is proposing to add an entry and dining room on the iirst floor (134 SF) and expand an uncovered deck (631 SF). The applicant will be removing the front covered porch (209 SF) to add the entry and dining room. Lot coverage would be increased to 3,671 SF (7%), which includes uncovered decks, exterior stairways and balconies which exceed 30" in height above adjacent grade. The applicant is also proposing a 2,939 SF second floor addition, bringing the total floor area of the house to 5,755 SF (.11 FAR) (including the garage and open spaces 12' or higher and exempting 100 SF of covered porches, CS 25.08.265). The maximum allowable house size is 8,000 SF (.16 FAR) (25.28.071-1, c). The areas under the second floor balconies are considered covered porches since they are over an exterior exit from the dwelling (CS 25.08.265, 2). The proposed second story addition matches the footprint of the first floor. The second story addition would provide two uncovered balconies (280 SF), three bedrooms, two and one-half Hillside Area Construction PerntU & Front Setback Uarinnce 2930 Adeline Drive bathrooms, an office room and a family room (2,708 SF). A second e�cit is required on the second floor for any dwelling exceeding 3,000 SF in gross floor living area. The applicant is providing a second exit from the family room on the second floor by way of an exterior stairway. The lot slopes 165' (39 %) downward along the left side property line, 161' (33 %) downward along the right side property line, and has a cross slope of 14' (23 %) from left to right along the front property line. Because of the slope the top of the second story addition will be a ma�cimum of 4'- 3" above the paving edge along Adeline Drive. The existing two bedroom, one and one-half bathroom house is 2,586 SF (.OS FAR) (including the front covered porch and attached garage). The existing house also contains a 632 SF first floor uncovered deck. This project qualifies as New Construction (addition is 95 % of the existing gross floor area) and Floor Area Ratio applies. Any single family dwelling qualifying as New Construction must provide off-street parking for at least three vehicles, two of which must be covered. The existing attached garage has a 25'-6" wide X 21'-6" deep clear interior dimension which meets the parking requirement. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The project was called up for review after neighbors within 100' of the property, Planning Commission and City Council were noticed. Several neighbors expressed their concerns in a letter dated Febniary 10, 1998. Their concerns include possible obstruction of long distant views, construction hours and noise and traffic congestion due to construction. �. �'� 1 *Front Setback (lst): *(2nd): Side Setback (L): (R) : Rear Setback (lst): (2nd): Lot Coverage: Building Height': Parking: no change 44' -0" no change no change no change ±316'-0" 7% (3,671 SF) 4' -3'/z " 2 covered, . uncovered New Construction: Floor Area Ratio: yes .11 (5,755 SF) EXISTING 44' -0" none 35'-0" 8' -0" ±335'-0" none 6% (3,218 SF) -11'-6" 2 covered, 1 uncovered n/a .OS (2,586 SF) `Building height is measured from average top of curb to roof ridge. ALLOWED/REQ'D 49'-8" (average) 49'-8" 7' -0" 7'-0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (8,000 SF) 20' -0" 2 covered, 1 uncovered see code .16 (8,000 SF) 2 Hillside Area Construction Perntll & Front Setback Variance H.A.C.P.: *Requires Hillside Area Construction Permit Declining Height: Complies Accessory Structures: None Fences/Hedges: None Trees: No trees to be removed *Hillside Area Construction Permit and front setback variance required. Meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: 2930 Adeline Drive Planning staff would note that the applicant has addressed the Building Official's and Fire Marshal's comments. The Senior Engineer has suggested that a soils report be provided, but one is not required at this time. Study Meeting: At their meeting on March 9, 1998 the Planning Commission asked that the applicant place story poles to show the height and depth of the proposed addition (P.C. Minutes March 9, 1998). Planning staff would note that they have asked the applicant to install story poles outlining the addition. The applicant has been informed that these poles should be in place no later than March 19, 1998. The city boundary line is indicated on the aerial. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a hillside area construction permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). 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 3 Hillside Area Constructiort Pennit & Front Setback Varia�ece 2930 Adeline Drive (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. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following condition should be considered: 1. that the addirion, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 5, 1998, Sheets 1-5 with a maximum roof ridge height of 4'-3" as measured from the average paving edge along Adeline Drive (elevation 389.62'); 2. that any changes to the footprint, building height, window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit; and 3. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c. Joyce Ford, applicant/designer � MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 1998 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on March 9, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan (in at 7:05), Luzuriaga, Mink and Key Absent: Commissioner Wellford Staff Present: Planner, Kristin Johnson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall; Assistant Fire Chief, Ken Musso; City Attorney, Larry Anderson MINUTES - Page 3, para. 2, line 4; of the minutes for the meeting of the February 23, 1998 Planning Commission, were corrected to read; "There were no� comments from the floor and the public hearing was continued to the meeting of March 9, 1998, and p. 6, para. 2, line 6; "Subcommittee member noted that he did not want to add another level of review, but wants a committee to review all second story additions, if there are no problems or problems can be resolved, project goes right to building permit;" C Deal then moved approval of the minutes. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey, and passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Galligan and Wellford absent). AGENDA - The arder of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2930 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (JOYCE FORD, APPLICANT AND KATHY HUTCHINSON AND LUIS ROSARIO, PROPERTY OWNERS) Staff made a brief presentation of the project and the Commissioners asked that the following items be addressed: requested story poles be erected which define the height and depth of the proposed addition; a soils report (referenced in the Senior Engineer's 2/2/98 memo) is not required to be submitted at this time, it will be required as part of the application for the building permit; indicate the city boundary line on the aerial. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. -1- City of Burlingame Plnnning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING SIDE SETBACK AND FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH; AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR USE OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND FOR A WINDOW WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE AT 1446 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (STEVEN AND JULIE DeVINCENZI APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). After a brief presentation of the project from the staff the Commissioners asked the applicant to explain the reason for the double doors in the workshop area in the accessory structure. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. APPLICATION FOR TWO SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR EXISTING CONSTRUCTION FOR A NEW SECOND STORY ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1228 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONING R-1, (STEPHEN JOHNSON APPLICANT AND STEPHEN AND ALISA RUIZ-JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff reviewed the application and the Commission had no comments or questions at this time. This item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS A HOME OFFICE AND FOR RECREATION AND TO ALLOW WINDOWS WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE LOCATED AT 539 FRANCISCO DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (ALICIA FAUGIER APPLICANT AND ALICIA FAUGIER AND VINCENT BONES, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff made a brief presentation of the project and the Commissioners requested the following information be included in the action packet: does the applicant have a home occupation permit; staff to review vapor barrier requirements, will the structure be required to be demolished if a vapor barrier is required; what are the applicant's alternate plans should the accessory structure be required to be demolished; please indicate scale of plans on drawing and dimension side setbacks; provide a floor plan of the rear of the residence; is it possible to create an addition at the rear of the home to use for a home office; explain why windows are required to be located 6'-6" from the property line; do the new windows installed require a building permit and was one obtained for the new window installation. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS). and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK PROPERTY OWNERS). After a brief presentation of the project from the staff the Commissioners asked that the following questions be addressed: need to consider guest parking on site; where is garbage located; document amount of storage space in the building; how is access obtained to the open space from "Unit C"; -2- / ��r -� ' BURIJNQAMi CITY OF BURLINGAME �� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COlVIlVIISSION \�'. .e� Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance Other �� Co�vsr��rGTio�e �lz.,�riT Project Address: '1-`J3o �-.��-��E �I/� . Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 4 2�-- O� O�D -�--� APPLICANT � PROPERTY O \ ��\�� Name: JoYG� �� Name: L-��s ,�DS,�¢�O Address: P� � � ,B41G ZZ8 City/State/Zip: /'�/E'�� P�� G� 9�z•6 Phone (w): �h�: (� so 9�B - 3S8Z fa�c: Address: z-�'/ 3o f��EG IN� �4l�• City/State/Zip: BG/ll-L��i/��'�I� i G/� (o So 4�i/- Z3�.g4�/D Phone (w): � (h): fa3c: � 5��/ — Z 3 6 S ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: -JoYG� �� ,l��5/�� Please indicate with an asterisk * the ��l�li�t/ .�r' Address: Po • BO.� �Z8 contact person for this application. City/State/Zip: /i1F�� %��'- ,� � q¢� 7�( � �� / � � Phone (w): � S � �16g_3 S8 Z. (h): faJc: J� N 3 0 19g3 C:!TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SF--�a�u'� S7-a�Y �D�77�� ?r ,�,�c,e57�� ,��5��E Lo�-T� e� ff«G�l�� zD icf� . AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my Y.nowle�ge and belief. ��G� ��-�. /�3��96 Applicant' Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby thorize e above applicant application to the Planning Co is ion. �>� !� � ` i�-� /6} 3 �� Property Owner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ---------------------- Date Filed: Z�� Fee: �' Z � o, o 0 to submit this Planning Commission: Study Date: 3`� �� Action Date: 3 23 `18 r�, ciry o� � BURLJNG�IME a -- �� iTY C�)F EU�LING/1ME VA�I,�,NCE �PPLIC��TIOO NS The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptiona/ o� extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. 5 e � �-4�-a ��n e� b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ o� injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. Q How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aestheiics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT t2/s2 ��.�, a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on ihe site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the areal For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood7 b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the application. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parkinp or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed location wi// not be detiimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or „_ convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfarel Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbagel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Pub/ic safeiv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl wll alarm systems or sprinklers be installedl Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removaq. �eneral we/fare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and developmentl Is there a social benefit7 ' Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicappedl d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits'. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no chanDe to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this usel If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the peneral vicinityt Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. �sns,,..n,�+ 02/24/98 1J:22 '$`d15 967 05a2 PENINSULA BLUE f�002 JOYCE FORD, DESIGN and PLANNING P.O. BOX 228 MENLO PARK, CA 94026-0228 (650)968-3582 February 24, 1998 Ruben Hurin, City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlin�ame, CA 94010 Subjert: City of Burlingamc V�rinnce Application for: Minor Mociificalion for Front Yard Setback for Property located at: 2930 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, California a. The existing residence is already built on the property ute with a front yard setback of 44'-0", the average required being 49'-8" for the residences alongside said properly on Adeline Drive. The cesidence located at 2898 Adeline Drive has a 99'-0" front yard setback which lengthens the front yard setback average for properties taken into cansideration. b. The existing property has a do��vnhill slope from Adeline Drive down. The elevation hei�,,.hts begin at 389+ (average at street level) and drop to 225+ (average at rear of property line), which is a 164± foot drop. The existing struclure is built ortl:o a graded area 23+ feet dovm from the top of the street, It would be difficult, due to the extreme downhill slope, to construct a proposed addition at the ground-level towards thc rear, and would encroach onto the existing front yard setback to expand forward on the property. Also, it would be an extreme hardship to move the existing residence the 4'-7" to make the structure within the required average fron[ yard setback of 49'-8". The current proposal for a second story addition does not change the existinb condition ofthe 44'-0" front yard setback_ c. There is no chan�e to the use of the proposed structure which will continue as a residence. The existing front yard setback does not currently affect neighboring properties, nor will the proposed addition make any change to the existing front yard setback that would impact or affect neighboring properties. d. The majority of homes on Adeline Drive are two or three story stiructures, not depending on the front yazd setback. Xn additior� the proposed addition at 2930 Adeline Drive will not affect the aesthetics of the e�cisti� neibhborhood because there will be no change to the existing front yazd setback. T6e view from Adeline Drive to the top of the existing structure is currently at 13'-4". With the proposed second story addition� the view from the street to the highest ridge line (located at the furthest point from the existing front yard setback), will change to +4'-3" (which is just below standard eye-level view). J�� FEB 2 4 1998 UIl'i �'� Bl,a��f`. -��,iVit pl hnia.,!`� _, ..'=DT CITY OF BURLINGAME c/o Margaret Monroe, City Planner/Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 February 10, 1998 RE: APN: 027-030-040 - 2930 Adeline Drive Reques� for minor modificntion and hillside aren construclion permit Dear City of Burlingame, We, the neighbors living at 2925, 2929, and 2933 Adeline Drive, are concerned about the request for application for minor modification at 2930 Adeline Drive for the following reasons: 2. � Possible obstruction of long distant views from homes, leading to decreased property value (the attractiveness and market value of the homes in our neighborhood is due in large part to the views). We request a temporary, visual demonstration of the final height and width of the new construction (i.e. something simple, such as outlining extreme height and width with string or netting for a day). This would help us better determine the impact on our property in terms of view and value. Noise in the neighborhood due to construction. We request that all construction work be restricted to weekdays only, begin no earlier than 8:30 AM, and end no later than 5:30 PM. And, that special considerations around noise and cleanliness be taken into account, especially considering the amount of new babies in our neighborhood. Traffic and congestion due to construction. We have concerns due to the limited parking and the dangerous nature of our roads. We would like the opportunity to first address the above concerns with our neighbors at 2930 Adeline Drive and, if necessary, via a project review with the City of Burlingame. We are formally submitting this request within the City of Burlingame's seven day deadline. If you need additional information, or if we have not followed the appropriate procedure, please contact us immediately. Also, we would appreciate if you could inform us of the next necessary steps and time frames. Thank you, � d �/' � ! � Kelly Miller-Bailey and Andy Bailey (Note: Expecting new baby within the next week) 2925 Adeline Drive 343-6997 ��.�� .�- /,��-�,�-� onda and Bob Tatemichi 2929 Adeline Drive 347-7103 �i-e�-'�� Susan and Daniel Dan 2933 Adeline Drive 343-6293 /, �G�G' iki�C�� c� 1 \��.i�I V �� FEB 1 21998 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Page 1 of 1 0 DATE: ROUTING FORM TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR _ FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR �-j �j �i,� _ n�� " �11 �,aY Q��i�i �'�M AT �a �r� f4d�l � �, � ✓� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIvIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: �Q.ID+'U�t,►'�I �- � IQq � THANKS, Maureen/Kri stin/Ruben 2/2 � g Date of Comments `�-O ✓ � c�- S o [ � f �C.2 a �i � � ' / ' Q�Of' G�o��n�lii / 'ti-� a`� [��O � / s � / J� lu� % L ,e��P C�. � � La�. �-� l GLo � �oC'�/-P�tti e:��c� sc `/ S LC (o-s� � � � .� c_.a�- l � b �;��e � � � -�� -, �' �-��e . 0 ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: _ CTTY ENGINEER .� CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR _ FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR _ CITY ATT'ORNEY FROM CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ��i ( V1bY Q✓�7Y.� i�i a M AT _ �a �� l4d�l �✓t�, n �� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIvIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REV�W BY MEETING ON MONDAY: �P.�Ucu'�-1 2-i IQq� THANKS, Mau re en/Kri stin/Rub en � �y-�'otr'a( S{arr nDrL fs�•y,r�-}-e� `�� "ate of Comments G3 ' ROUTING FORM DATE: �. TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR � � ( V-tbY �7Y,� i �i C�'� 6Y� AT �a'�/� l4d�l ►vi,e_, n,i� SCHEDULED PLANNING CO1��IIvIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: �a-� I�q� THANKS, Maureen/Kristin/Ruben � Date of Comments S� � �`�G� � �C� S� � '�, Ir`e., ��" I '"`-` �XJC�-� `� � o� ,�e-�. � ,� (,� , . �� L 1 Z APPRAISAL REPORT—ASSESSOR'S OFFICE—$AN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CODE No. �{-/ APPRAISER—� �j DATE APPRAISED 2�?�S � � IMPROVEMENTS F. /r/, �N /�C J- S qPPR. ASSD. - �iT� oF B�.eL i.vqA:.,E, - oa • ? r_c 1�/ � � NG (, / c a n/ �/ Nc oF o La�� 3P��-3y B�k 4�uQ[ �N�A.. ION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY / NO. OF ROOMS � E%TERIOR WALL FINISH CZ7:L] �. ROOF PITCH GONDITION ��R� o�.4✓t=� r�A�_ — FOUNDATION GONCRETE ✓ CONSTRUCTION I SLUW(� Sc-E�3.f3r.heZ WOOD FRAME ✓ BASEMENT EXCAVATED GRADE LEVEL No/Y(: GARAGE �3 X 2L DOORS / Nc,�F'�+c-q� WALLS ROOF FLOOR t�c(SrK T��d srr,rJ�t co�vc. YEAR BUILT NEW GOOD MEDIUM PO❑OR /5t./ � Q � FUNCTIONAL AND ECONOMIC DEFECTS OUTBUILDINGS Sa S� . r — `-� . . . . . . , . ^ _— �� . 4aT�J �I � i3 3:. ' � j;t.ev � f�,z�bt � ,:vt . . � R� ' � " I _ � � ri� - __�-. __ / . . .. . _ . .� .. . ; ! �'• ,H4 J ' I � INTERIOR . f - _ -�.,— � . -/, / TRIM-PINE / . . . CONDITIO� ...__ _ .. ..._ __ __. _ ..__.. {_.... i��... . L:� FLQO/RS-HDW 2iMf 2k'MS �N4tL� PLYW�OV GONDITIOP ; i A_iN.iLT �I, � / I Z�7 1�i-I li�✓D (ofe 6�E , i � , , �, ALLS@WAINSG07S CONDITIOP . � � a/� � � �f'n �� .3� ', ✓�Ji�G � . . . i .. �' ' , � � � � / � CONDITIOI , . / CEILINGS ' i.. . . �/AM � _ ', �n , �=r'SI.i:Jl - "—'_ ._-- ; -� NO. Z% 3 n � I r- �� BATHS--No Z F�OORS � i i L c VALUE ESTIMATE—COST AP OACH—EQUALIZING FACTORS WAINSCOTING . WALLS BUILDING COST %GO00 VALU[ ��-C �SHC� �� K � PLUMBING FIXTURES No. �� _ � .r�� j 7 SO. FT. 0 f 6 z�iz 6 Ca�G -, BASEMENT SHOWERS � � �� E S"rALL �`�GL.ESS ,L60�Z GARAGE I (.�' IOG UGHTING FIXTURES A.�� WIRING 'C/� AsPw4�� ccNc n�,Nv �S rci,2 b,t3 FtlK.v.tcE W� HEATING (� N7�'hL . i=d �'CEy �s 2oeG ,� �• �� 3co -r�cR.-�asrA� coN< VAr�c z3 WATER HEATER � 5;�,1�6N J 3p �, .� �. � .� L / - �ic ri.cc �� FIREPLACES / tA�Gc dRiciC "��d�Q �.��✓�LE f[t/c BUILT-IN FEATURES GaB17- VJ�%�� K�%��°1 I sserc � �� y A3'-r-' 2 JE�w` 17T1 H i.Auu)2 M � � iicSsr.v6 �ro C�-a, �Orf %��..�� sw�neL I.��b�s. ,� �� .� � / D RENTALS TOTAL I I I i C L 2� I APPRAISER'S OPINION OF MARKET PRICE OBTAINABLE FOR PROPERTV S ADDITIONS B. P. No. C%I .3 DATE,i-/�-S �AMOUNT S/ LOT SIZE , � ZONING APPRAISED � s REMARKS TN s�R � �^'�+t /33�cd o.a �e7� S 1 o c.(c � gL1�ae N. /.G � 2. /T �s .QE�o rir d 70 81� ,_,.�✓..a T..+.r D.i�e. TNERL foRE APf._A`oS__SS /.''� /-' / r,� _ +ye.. � L� J7a- ,7 x OCGUPIED , �� . ��r W ? � � �� J J� � � � % OJ� �� V v �q�0 ___ . � � � ♦ aq t'l aql0 � � � �� -�... 1 .. / �ga �.� 5 Los � �.930 � �E1�5 : j a429 ` • .. t � , — •• ; 2433 � Z � �� Q3e Mtu.s c�►�KoN �`. ��c�. � � u� t �� ' � 3 k- �I �' �r 7 ,� r � 0 0 � V H U G � J J � S CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Priiurose Road Burlingame CA 94010-3997 (650)696-7250 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 2930 ADELINE DRIVE APN: 027-030-040 APPLICATION FOR A HII,LSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION QUALIFYING AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 2930 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1. The City ofBurlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Mondav, March 23, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 696-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe Mailed March 13 1998 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERNIIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE RFSOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: �t � -_• � • �-- � •�• -� � .�� • �- .�- � �_ �- .�� . �� -�u ,�� ,- �, _ • . � -_ • .� ��• ..�� • � , t'. .�i r. •� . ` 1 :�- �- �� - • -_�•'• . � •1 1 1 1�1 , � , . • �••�_,. �.i- WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 23� 1998 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per Article 19. Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), 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 constructetl or converted under this exemption. 2. Said hillside area construction permit and front setback variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such hillside area construction permit and front setback 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 ofiicial records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Jeny L. Deal , 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 23rd day of March , 199g , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, hillside area construction permit and front setback variance 2930 ADELINE DRIVE effective April 6, 1998 that the addition, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 5, 1998, Sheets 1-5 with a ma3cimum roof ridge height of 4'-3" as measured from the average paving edge along Adeline Drive (elevation 389.62'); 2. that any changes to the footprint, building height, window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit; and 3. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amendetl by the City of Burlingame.