The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2628 Summit Drive - Staff Report� �' �$ ��+� 4 �, _� , ,.� a,�. A``�'�il ,� r��y ti:' 1 a ,� �� >i��s� '�.�"��, �, .� � � � , '�� .�� ✓�'4 �* � ,�� l � ° � N 1 � w. k �v' , S� f t` , a ��" - , w . 'fF +�. ^� `4 �� b .; . � �' � y � � /�� @`�' � t �,i} �?, ., R t �;�� `.$ _ .p -. � �k � �� n � a�.,t�,�.�.:.. !�,`._ y � �'�+,��`¢ �r�'�_i�. t:; . �.4 �'� �, � , "� r 6 .T L y - � � � tN. �';� . ti� �� ak� � 3'4.� -.. ti # � ' � g4 �! a a+ �� rb. Ty��s��',�F f hr t ', 1 ! f` t � ��j�; � � � '�'� �!' n.,. a2,�k `� Y fg �ai+Ja> � �. fXF2 � h,S.. �t. fi 1'.�'b Y4t '•�; 1�h ��r � 4��^-� . � h � � � j"^� � �a � � k �r .�.;'s . �� c�.��,..'�!'�j� .�� . � .� ° � `* ` i � r?��-<� s : � �` t�vtEtl �$ -. . >J?'. a. . � , �,s„.:»...,. � � � �.w r.:. .�� R;� �� . � ! f � . . ...e.�.e,�.'�.u� a.5.1;�$�)A�RLP � R , ��,� �.. u. s�,�� ., . . �` ,�� w. � ��: �}'�i'#� �,� f r � °� �' � ��,a� �, , x '"' r .. �iyr . ��`�� Cy �" � ��. � � � � . � ,. �� at � � a �� r� �... , , , ,�„+�.�� ,. �. � � � � d f +� r "e�` �;+�4 � w� �� , t � ��* � $ � .. � ��' }�.+.��y�,� �{ p � ��,�,� I. .i�. �y�1 fi �� i.�.: i'�# '" ' . Y i�,' ''. � (y� � r ', ,,,�,�f, (F J� •��T ��"'�+� ` � t �' MM' �� a dd r; �e kFl f'� s�j FA: . ,RR — , � MM i ��, s r � .. ! ��'� : ��> ��; t ��'� � �, ��.�P{�rP� � t�'?�e � � i`+wYdr ��4� �� A 4,y�� ,y ..ro� x a i �"��r.trs 4 ,. '�i . � .e _ r � . �y°'.� .� �. City of Burlingame Item No. Regular Action Design Review Amendment and Front Setback Variance Address: 2628 Summit Drive Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Request: Design Review Amendment and Front Setback Variance for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition. Applicant and Architect: Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA APN: 027-271-050 Property Owners: Wayne and Julissa Westerman Lot Area: 19,387 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. History: On December 13, 2010, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2628 Summit Drive, Zoned R-1 (December 13, 2010, Planning Commission Minutes). A building permit has not been issued for the project. During an inspection of the existing building, the property owners noticed that "the existing retaining walls that serve as the base of embankments on the south and east sides of the existing garage are structurally deficient". As a result, the architect determined that these retaining walls need to be replaced with adequate construction and therefore new garage walls need to be built during construction of the addition to the house. A portion of the existing garage walls has a front setback of 12'-8", where 16'-1 ", block average is the minimum requirement, and therefore a Front Setback Variance is required for replacement of these walls. Proposed Revisions: The applicant is now requesting an Amendment to Design Review and a Front Setback Variance for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition at 2628 Summit Drive, Zoned R-1. The applicant is requesting the following changes: ■ Removal and replacement of all exterior garage walls with a non-conforming front setback; ■ Changes to the length of the synthetic balustrade along the South, North and West building elevations; ■ Removal of the door from the second story along the South elevation; ■ Shifting of windows and the addition of windows along each building elevation; ■ Removal of grids from the proposed garage doors; and ■ Slight increase in the plate heights of the garage doors by 1" to 2". The applicant submitted a Variance application and a letter describing all of the changes in the plans on February 16, 2011. Other than the changes listed above, there are no changes to the design of the house. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review Amendment for proposed changes to a previously approved first and second story addition; and ■ Front Setback Variance for replacement of the existing attached garage (12'-8" existing and proposed, where 16'-1 ", block average, is the minimum required) (CS 25.28.072 b). Summary of Previously Approved Project: The subject property slopes downward approximately 23'-0" from the front of the lot to the rear. The existing single-story house with an attached three-car garage contains 3,591 SF (0.18 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add 368 SF along the left Design Review Amendment and Front Setback Variance 2628 Summit Drive side of the existing first floor, to increase the ceiling height in the living room to over 12'-0" and to build a new, 560 SF second story. With the proposed project, there will be an increase in the floor area from 3,591 SF (0.18 FAR) to 5,048 SF (0.26 FAR) where 7,304 SF (0.38 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 2,256 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from three (3) to four (4). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached garage will be slightly enlarged and will provide three code-compliant covered parking spaces (30' x 20' clear interior dimensions). One uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant was approved for the following applications on December 13, 2010: ■ Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010, a, 5); and ■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020). 2628 Summif Drive Lot Area: 19,387 SF Plans date stam ed: Februa 16, 2011 � EXISTING � ORIGINAL REVISED ; ALLOWED/REQUIRED ; PROPOSAL PROPOSAL SETBACKS � ; . ,. ....................... ....... ........................................................................................................ ............. . . . . . , .. .. ..... . . ..... . .... Front (1St flr): ; 12'-8" 16'-6" 12'-8" 16'-1" (block average) (2"°' flr): � none 20'-0" no change 20'-0" . _ , ....................................... ... _ _ . .. _ _ __.......__ .. , _ _ __..._... ... .... _............ ...................... Side (left): : 4'-8" ; no change 7'-0" r� ht 2g'-g" � � 9�_9�� no change 7,_�„ ( �9 )� ; ........................................ ... ... ,. Rear(1st f/r): ; 16'-7" : ..............no c�ange... .. i. ... ..................................................................... a ....................... .....................1..5'.-0�� . � � , „ ; no change ; 20'-0" none - � 2nd flr : � 87 0 , ( ) : ..............................................................................................� , : ... .. . .. ............................................................................ Lot Coverage: ; 3,709 SF ; 4,008 SF ' ; 7,755 SF � no change 19% ! 20.7% 40% : ................................................................_....................... ; ..._ ... ....... .... ......_.._......... .:.............. ...................................................................;..................._................................................ . FAR: ; 3,591 SF : 5,048 SF 7,304 SF' ! 0.18 FAR ' 0.26 FAR no change 0.38 FAR . .....................................................................................................,............................................................................................,.................................................................................................,........................................................................ # of bedrooms: ; 3 4 no change --- ,... , ...........................................................................................,....................................................................... ....., .................................................... Parking: ' 3 covered � 1 covered , , � � (30 x 20 ) no change no change (10 x 20 ) ; 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') : ..................................... . .... ......................... _ � _ ................ ........................................ _ .... ................ Height: ; 7" below average ; 10'-8" no change 30'-0" top of curb . _ .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.................................................................................................................................... DH Envelope: ; n/a complies complies CS 25.28.075 (0.32 x 19,387 SF) + 1,100 SF = 7,303.8 SF (0.38 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached original memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, City Arborist and NPDES Coordinator. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: -2- Design Review Amendment and Front Setback Variance 2628 Summit Drive 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. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. 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 Division date stamped February 16, 2011, sheets AO through A8; and date stamped October 28, 2010, Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 5, 2010 and September 27, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 21, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 19, 2010 letter and September 30, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 12, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 27, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Front Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not -3- Design Review Amendment and Front Setback Variance 2628 Summit Drive occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Erica Strohmeier Associate Planner c. Ellis A. Schoichet, applicant and architect, 307 South B Street #12, San Mateo, CA 94401 Wayne and Julissa Westerman, property owners, 2628 Summit Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 Attachments: Copy of Application to the Planning Commission from originally approved project Variance Application for front setback, date stamped February 16, 2011 Letter of explanation for Design Review Amendment, date stamped February 16, 2011 Minutes from the December 13, 2010, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Front Setback Diagram from originally approved project, date stamped September 24, 2010 Staff Comments from originally approved project -4- Design Review Amendment and Front Setback Variance Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 18, 2011 Aerial Photo 2628 Summit Drive -5- � �URLINGAME ..'` �' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: �Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel #: � � � � �� y ^ � -J " ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: �ZS �U/Y��P/�/� O Please indicate the contact person for this project / APPLICANT project contact person ��Y/� OK to send electronic copies of documents ua' Name: ��i�� C,��'s'�f4 Address: 3�7��ye.� �]� R �f� I City/State/Zip: � C Phone: � • ��3• ��2� PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑� �^ OK to send electronic opies of documents L9' Name: � c_ � Address: %l.,'� S� ��nnnnt� 1/v'i1�2_ City/State/Zip: (�1U�G�,.w+ � �� Phone: �I �� I �i'H- - • � � i Fax: �Sa • 3'{� �So� � Fax: E-mail: �-S��G�'��,v1�..•h�� E-mail: Wt�L'S�Y'h'Z[�Vl G�' Y�a� . �vwt a�� . �+RCHITECT/DESIGf�lER projectcontact person ❑ d rG"� �-' <«`'�ho�y��.�,� ,Cc�vv� OK to send electronic copies of documents C� Name: I�� „� �, ��P� f�.(t� AddrE City/� Phon� Fax: E-ma �k Bu P,ROJ�CT DESC�IPTION: Iq a n�v1 G reu d e- o�%c►r � G /Z � i' GNr,I h ouse ,-Fv�� 3 BR-/ S �i�-- to �3t 7sf: �/�(e�'j,� 3►I�. F� � "1'he c�� .c� �e��.�.i'cr.S Y�..su� q'�tc� c��uG/t lc�ntiv�c� J ac � ah� AFFADAVIT/SIGN URE: I here y c��trnaer penalty of perjury that the information�iven herein is true and correct to the best of my knowl ge and belief. ��n{irant'S s� n�t�ra; / ��tP: 3 Z�/� I am aware of t posed pli ation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submi this application to the Planning Commissien. Proper4y owner's signature: w Date: �` ��i � 6ate submitteci: ,k Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. ❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:�H,alloours�Pcapplicot;on zoos.hondout.doc �ECEIVEa VARIANCE APPLICATION: FRONT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT 2628 SUMMIT DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA FEB 16 2011 Request for a Front Setback Variance to allow an existing encroachment to be removed and �ITY OF BURLINGAME reconstructed to the previously existing line. CDD-PLANNING DIV. The Owners of the property at 2628 Summit Drive respecifully request a Variance that would allow the sequential removal and replacement of an existing 24 square foot legal-nonconforming encroachment. This request is related to the improvements defined in the Design Review and Hil(side Permit (DR/HP) approved by the Planning Commission on 12/13/2010, and effective 12/27/2010. BRIEF: A Variance is required because once the existing legal-nonconforming encroachment is removed there is technically no longer a legal nonconforming encroachment, and the encroaching portion of the residence cannot be reconstructed (without first obtaining a Variance). The design of the improvements proposed within the area of encroachment has not changed from the approved design, with the exception of minor technical adjustments listed in the accompanying Design Review Amendment application. The difference is that the Owners are requesting authorization to completely remove and replace the existing encroachment as opposed to incorporating portions of the existing garage walls into the remodeled structure. The required front setback from the property line for this Hillside Area residence with R-1 zoning is calculated to be 16'-2" in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.28.072b(1) [average front setback). The major extent of the existing home is set well behind the 16'-2" setback line, with only a small encroachment occurring at the southeastern corner of the existing garage. The encroachment parallels the Summit Drive frontage for approximately 7 3'-6", creating a triangular zone with the minimum setback dimension being 12'-8". The overall area of the encroachment is 24 sf. The proposed addition at the First Floor maintains a 16'-6" front setback and the proposed addition at the Second Floor maintains a 20'-0" minimum front setback. (Important Note: Above dimensions are 'Face of Stud') The approved DR/HP documents indicate the bulk of the existing encroachment area to be removed and reconstructed to the same line as the previously existing improvements. However, in the design phase it was assumed that the south wall of the garage could be retained and incorporated into the new construction (refer to Demolition Plan- South on Sheet A2, and First Floor Plan- South on Sheet A4 of the approved plans). As our project team moved into engineering and detailed development of construction documents, it came to our attention that the portion of the garage wall that was slated to remain is structurally deficient. It doesn't make technical sense to incorporate it into the new construction because the foundation of the retaining wall isn't adequately embedded in the earth. Entirely replacing the existing retaining walls around both sides of the southeast corner of the garage is the best way to ensure adequate structural performance over the long-term. FINDINGS: A. Describe the exceptiona! or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The Owners wish to improve the building in such a way as to take better advantage of the exceptional nature of the site. This is a right that is generally available to the Owners of adjoining parcels. In this case, the unusual triangular shape of the property and the topography are the likely reasons why the original garage was built so close to the street. The extreme proximity of the Summit Drive Right-of- Way and steep embankment severely constrain the Owner's ability to change the configuration of the driveway approach to the house and/or change the location of the garage. The current design represents a balanced and reasonable proposal that successfully incorporates most of the existing site improvements. It has been favorably received by the Commission and the neighbors. The specific encroachment that is the subject of this Variance request occurs only on this particular property, and is bounded by existing retaining walls which have been found to be structurally deficient. These retaining walls not only serve the Owners' property, they form the base of the embankment that ultimately supports Summit Drive. 02/15/11 Page 1 of 2 ��iv�u FEB 16 2011 CITY OF BURLINGAME B. Explain why the Variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a��bs ant�ialG DIV. property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denia! of the application. The Owner has discovered that the existing retaining walls that serve as the base of embankments on the south and east sides of the existing garage are structurally deficient. In order to preserve the Owner's right to safely enjoy the property over the long-term these walls must be replaced with adequate construction. It would be an unreasonable property loss if the Owners were required to sacrifice the use of the southeast corner of the garage in order to perform this necessary structural upgrade. The Owners are not asking for any change to the previously approved design, only that they be allowed to build it in such a way as to achieve optimum structural performance. It would be an unnecessary hardship to require the Owners to keep the existing deficient retaining walls due to a 'Catch-22'-like technicality in the governing regulations. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. There is no change of Use proposed with this Variance application, and the current residence and attached garage is understood to be the optimum Use for this residential site. Approval of this Variance will contribute to the long-term stability of Summit Drive by enabling the Owners to replace the structurally deficient retaining walls that form the base of the existing embankment. Removing the existing walls and replacing them with new, state-of-the-art retaining wal[s with provisions for subsurface drainage will better serve the safety and general welfare of the neighborhood and the public in general. Approval of this application will have no impact on public health. D. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of tl�e existing and potential uses on the adjoining properties in the general vicinity? There is no change of Use proposed with this Variance application, and the current residence and attached garage are fully compatible with the surrounding residential Uses. The proposed improvements will upgrade the condition and character of the Owner's property while respecting the eclectic mix of styles currently found in the neighborhood. The massing of the project has been carefully designed to minimize impact of any kind on the neighboring properties. The stylistic treatment of the proposed improvements is compatible with other homes found in the area, while avoiding the monotony that would result from direct imitation of adjoining houses. This home will be an asset to the neighborhood. ( 02/15/11 Page 2 of 2 RECElVED FEB 16 20i1 ARCHITECTURE PROJECi': Addition & Remodel for Wayne & Julissa Westerman 2628 Summit Drive, Burlingame CA DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT COVER LETTER: 2628 Summ Summary of Changes from Approved Design Review/Hillside Perrr� The plans have been amended as described below. Revisior� are clouded Delta 3— 2/15/2011- Variance/Design Review Amendment � SUMMARY of CHANGES: 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME Job#: CDD-�'��IING DIV. Date: 2/15/2011 itiaq & Remodel AO Clouded changes: 1. Removed (e) wood deck, wood guard, wood stair, and b'ck walks u northwest corner of house and replaced with stepping stone path, railroad tie s , placement wood stair, and guard. The existing wood deck has been found to be rotted and the brick walkway has pulled away from the house. For cost and aesthetic reasons we will remove the existing elevated improvements and replace them with a pathway on-grade. 2. Updated top of subfloor elevation at First Floor to reflect the elevation at the existing high point. This results in an increase of approximately 2" from the previously approved datum elevation. The existing subfloor varies in elevation up to 2 3/4" across the length of the house, and will be leveled prior to the construction of the proposed additions. The datum elevation for the approved design was taken at a point where the existing subfloor is low, so the subfloor elevation has been adjusted to reflect the elevation after leveling, which will equal the existing high point. 3. Updated top of subfloor elevation at Second Floor to maintain its relationship to the First Floor subfloor elevation. This results in an increase of approximately 2" from the number previously given. This maintains the intended floor to floor height. 4. Updated Landscape Note #2 to indicate that existing encroachments will remain or be reconstructed. This makes the note consistent with the accompanying Variance application which seeks permission to remove and reconstruct the encroachment at the southeast corner of the existing Garage. Minor changes not clouded: 5. Minor modifications to the layout of (n) wood fences and gates at southwest corner of the house. Owner requested changes to simplify the design, and engineer requested changes to mitigate a large crack in the existing CMU garden wall. 6. Added an 8" extension to brick landing outside east wall of the Master Bedroom. Required to maintain a landing under the relocated Master Bedroom doors (see line 17 below). A0.1 Clouded changes: �. Northwest path, same change as AO (line 1 above). 8. Updated Site Plan Note #2 to indicate that existing encroachments will remain or be reconstructed. This makes the note consistent with the accompanying Variance application which seeks permission to remove and reconstruct the existing encroachment at the southeast corner of the existing Garage. 9. Updated Site Plan to clarify that the 12'-8" setback dimension at the southeast Garage encroachment is taken at the 'face of stud' line. The dimension to the existing face of finish is somewhat closer to the street at 12.45' (approximately 12'-5"). This clarifies the location of the maximum point of encroachment in order to facilitate accurate reconstruction in the context of the accompanying Variance application. Ellis A. Schoichet AIA Peninsula Building • 307 South "B" Street tt12 • San Mateo CA 94401 • 650 • 343 • 3452 r�CI��IVtU FEB 16 2pi1 Minor changes not clouded: CITY OF BURLINGAME 10. Minor changes to skylight sizes and locations. CDD-PLANNING DIV. Skylight sizes and locations have been adjusted to accommodate framing constraints and interior design alignments. The half-cone skylight over the Kitchen has been changed to a'prism' geometry to avoid the need for expensive curved glazing. 11. Southwest fences, same change as AO (line 5 above). �2. Modified balustrade design, same change as A7 (line 33 below) and A8 (line 42 below). 13. Landing extension, same change as AO (line 6 above). A1 Clouded changes: 14. Northwest walk, same change as AO (line 1 above). Minor changes not clouded: � 5. Minor changes to the extent of demolition at the Master Suite and Laundry Room- See line 17 below. A2 Clouded changes: �6. Indicated complete removal of (e) south wall of 1-Car Garage. This wall will be reconstructed in the same location with an upgraded footing/retaining wall and provisions for back of wall drainage. See the accompanying Variance application which seeks permission to remove and reconstruct the encroachment at the southeast corner of the Garage. Minor changes not clouded: N/A A3 Clouded changes: � �. Modified the interior layout as well as the size and locations of windows and French doors at the Master Bedroom, Master Bath, Master Closets #1 &#2, and Laundry. Added a window at Master Closet #1. Owner requested changes to improve the Floor Plan. � 8. Reduced length of glass block panels at the Kitchen from 5'-4" to 4'-0". Creates adequate wall length for range hood and more room for vent chase from the subarea (adjacent to Mechanical Endosure #2). �9. Northwest walk, same change as AO (line 1 above). Minor changes not clouded: 20. Skylights, same changes as A0.1 (line 10 above). 21. Landing extension, same change as AO (line 6 above). 22. Southwest fences, same change as AO (line 5 above). 23. Indicated brick edging at rear landings. A4 Clouded changes: 24. South wall of 3-Car Garage now indicated as new construction in the same location as the previously existing wall. Same changes as A2 (line 16 above}. See the accompanying Variance application which seeks permission to remove and reconstruct the encroachment at the southeast corner of the existing Garage. 25. Glass block panels, same changes as A3 (line 18 above). Minor changes not clouded: 26. Skylights, same changes as A0.1 (line 10 above). 27. Indicated brick edging at rear landings. 2of4 RECEIVED �EB 16 2011 A5 Clouded changes: CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 28. Omitted glass exterior door and shifted remaining fenestration at south wall of Bedroom #3 / Home Office. Owner requested changes to improve function of the Floor Plan. 29. Modified balustrade design, same change as A7 (line 33 below) and A8 (line 42 below}, Minor changes not clouded: 30. Skylights, same changes as A0.1 (line 10 above). A6 Clouded changes: 3�. Modified balustrade design, same change as A7 (line 33 below) and A8 (line 42 below). Minor changes not clouded: 32. Skylights, same changes as A0.1 (line 10 above). A7 Clouded changes: 33. Reduced balustrade length on North Elevation. The se/ected balustrade product has a limitation of 15' for cap and base rails and/or clear span between vertical supports. 34. Bedroom #3 / Home Office changes, same as A5 (line 28 above). 35. Moved Bedroom #3 egress door note from South to North Elevation. Since the door on the South Elevation has been omitted. 36. Dimension from top of subfloor at first floor to average curb at street decreased 2" (to 14'-3"). Since the top of subfloor will now be taken from the high point it is 2" closer to the top of curb datum elevation. 37. Adjusted the top of plate at the garage high point 2" (to 9'-6"), and the low point 1" (to 8'-8") (South Elevation). Technical adjustment to optimize drainage at the Garage roof. 38. Master Suite changes, same as A3 (line 17 above). 39. Glass block panels, same changes as A3 (line 18 above}. 40. Northwest walk, same change as AO (line 1 above). Minor changes not clouded: 41. Top of subfloor change, same as AO (line 2 above). A8 Clouded chan�es_ 42. Subdivided the balustrade into (3) shorter lengths by introducing intermediate piers on the West Elevation. The selected balustrade product has a limitation of 15' cap and base rails and/or clear span between vertical supports. 43. Omitted muntins at garage door glazing (West Elevation). The muntins in the garage door glazing panels were a drafting error. 44. Master Suite changes, same as A3 (line 17 above). 45. Glass block panels, same changes as A3 (line 18 above). 46. Northwest walk, same change as AO (line 1 above). Minor changes not clouded: 47. Top of subfloor change, same as AO (line 2 above). 3 of 4 End of Summary, p/ease contact me if you have Thank you. Ellis A Schoichet AlA 650.343.3452 Accompanying document: Variance Application: Front Setback Encroachment (2/15/2011) RECEIVED FEB 16 2G:1 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 4 of 4 C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Discussion of Supports the m ion with some regret; there coul e some compromise or the sake of neighborliness. ■ Doesn't see a view i e. ■ There is not really a vi obstruction; the further you get into e house, the /ess the i act. ■ esn't see a problem w three roof heights. Vice-Chair " called for a voice vote the motion to approve. The motion pa ed 5-0-2 (Commissio s Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal cedures were advised. This item co ded at 7:47 p.m. 3. 2628 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; WAYNE AND JULISSA WESTERMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, 307 South B Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. ■ Are considering Italian clay roofing tile; provided a small sample for viewing. ■ Also have a significant amount of flat roof; a cool roof may provide too much glare, so are considering a mineral surface cap-sheet in a brown color. ■ The story poles have been erected; demonstrates minimal impact upon the neighbors. ■ Was able to view the site from neighboring downslope property at 2620 Summit Drive; there are no view or privacy issues with the neighbors. Owners are willing to install additional landscaping if neighbor privacy is a concern. ■ Made attempts to visit 2640 Summit Drive on four occasions, but was unable to visit the property; provided photos from the subject site that demonstrate minimal impact upon this property. ■ Requested that a continuance not occur, since application of the new building code could financially impact the project. Public comments: None. Commission comments: ■ Requested clarification of the metal roofing over the entry. (Schoichet — will use aged copper.) ■ Was able to visit the Lambert property; didn't see any view impacts. The predominant views are to the left of the addition, more toward the airport. • Believes that the neighbors at 2620 Summit Drive have some ideas regarding landscaping that would help mitigate any impacts. ■ Well crafted design. ■ Noted that the Garibaldi's son had visited the Lambert property and observed no view impacts from the property. ■ No view impacts from neighbor; the story poles tell the story of how the project hugs the slope. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended condifions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 28, 2010, sheets AO through A6, A8, GP-1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and date stamped December 1, 2010, sheet A7; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that the metal roofing over the entry be of a copper, as well as the downspouts; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 5, 2010 and September 27, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 21, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 19, 2010 letter and September 30, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 12, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 27, 2010 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to complywith all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Vice-Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedure were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. 4. 720 ADELINE DRIVE, ONED R-1 — APPLICATI FOR AMENDMENT T DESIGN REVIEW FOR P.OPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY AP ROVED NEW, TWO-S ORY SINGLE FAMILY D ELLING AND DETAC D GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., C., APPLICANT AND DE �lGNER; AND HOYMA AND TRAM HONG, PRO ERTY OWNERS) STA CONTACT: ERICA STR MEIER Referen�e staff report dated D cember 13, 2010, with a chments. Associate P nner Strohmeier presented4t e report, reviewed cri ria and staff comments. ifteen (15) conditions w` e suggested for consideratio�. Vice-Chair Yie�pened the public heari . Hoyman Hong, 17� Adeline Drive; repres � ted the applicant. '� ■ Feels that the �roposed horizontal gr s are consistent with recently constru� ed properties in the ar . ■ The original Fren� doors were not practi � I; feel the sliding d Com ission comments: '� �� ■ y remove the vertic� • Ok ith the horizontal g s? (Hong — liked the look better). architecture; as well more functional. other : � � S' seoo p,i MIT DRI �i mlt w r parc � � 26 5 MIT DR it ner pa eU 52 3606 � 2656 S IT DRIV Sl1M IT D E SU IT � E (Omi[ fl parcel ( flag ceU 2614 Z3�-311 MMIT IV�� "�_. J 2694 1 SU MIT �R VE 676 MIT IV 1 o i � )3-i _ 2 20 � �`�� T /' � , E iz =q �� o � ,� �� - � u Zir on e . � I��-3� O /I \ J � ,, 3678 �� W _ � (Pro IT'�RI � �J . � j FRONT SETBACK CALCULATIONS z6 ADDRESS FRONT SETBACK' 2606 Summit Drive 9 O `\ MIT D E 1 I 3'-6" + 26 I 4 Summit Drwe 12-8 2616 S�mmit Drive I 9'-6" 2620 Summit Drwe I 6'3" �lev \ 2628 Summit Drwe (Pro�ect Site - actual dimension per surveyor) � 2'_g° / 2660 Summit Drive 22-�� 2674 Summit Dnve � 2 �9� • 2684 Summit Drwe 23'-3" AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK: I 6'- I/8" ercm � FRO NT S ETBAC K � ' Fron[ setback data derived from Google Earth satellite measurement tool assuming average roo � overhang = 2'-O" and average curb to proper,ty hne dimension of 10'-6" (unless otherunse noted). DIAGRAM � W =� Ellis A. Schoichet AIA � Owner. � 10426 NOT TO SCALE �' Addition & Remodel for Wayne&lufssaWeslerman onTc z 415.777.9144 22 SEP'10 � Wayne & Julissa Westerman �,,,,� � ArchitecC DU REF-1 m 2628 Summit Drive EqSA Architecwre 650.343.3452 �� nacHrecnme BUfliflg8me CA �� scers ,o�s,��ng:�n�.�a s,�M,i�us.wi .. ssa.�mai �C1� �' � Ll�i�:' �>� , RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Desian Review Amendment and Front Setback Variance for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition at 2628 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, Wavne and Julissa Westerman, propertv owners, APN: 027-271-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 28, 2011, 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: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said Design Review Amendment and Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment and Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28`h day of February, 2011 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review Amendment and Variance. 2628 Summit Drive Effective March 10, 2011 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 16, 2011, sheets AO through A8; and date stamped October 28, 2010, Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 5, 2010 and September 27, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 21, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 19, 2010 letter and September 30, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 12, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 27, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Front Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review Amendment and Variance. 2628 Summit Drive Effective March 10, 2011 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. . CITY OF BURLINGAME ; ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. _.,. BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA94010 �� .; - — ' PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696 37.90..�.,� = - www.burlingame.org '�s ��ffi-� � �`-� �.- ' °�n� -' -� -# �2-e y`.�`r� : �"• T:. '- r`1:. . ..$. h 4 �!� �01 1 ; �_� t�m� Site: 2628 SUMMIT DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning [ommission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall founcil Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Amendment to Design Review and Front Setback Variance for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2628 SUMMIT DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 0T7-271-050 Mailed: february 1$, 2Q11 (Please refer to other srdeJ -_' _=,- - . `^�f �r� • e�r {� �� (''� �� V � i �...' . 1 �"� � '�.. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development 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) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side)