HomeMy WebLinkAbout2683 Summit Drive - Staff Report..,� ,,. :r' .. . ,
' y'+� ` i�
A'° ��..:*. ,� ,, �� `��,s ` � � ? w,
�,.,+4
� �, � �. � �
.. � A x�, , y���,r,
rdl � x,� y „�R&?,4 t� n` .s
. ' . � #! '9 +m
�x�� �,�, � y � h' �,h s � � .
�°' �r
��` � `� +�A,. a , �. r ��" `�'1�
'�I � � � '
... 5. � .' y� d"
� a� g�'��� a 1� .� ' n i4<:,
y' "fi
' ,k'� t� } ,�^ ,.,
. Z� �=•� � . .. .y y� � � ;
.. • '� � ,.. . '
�` .
93 ,� �K �, 'µ�' ,, y� •
��Y �"f•
�ty,"�• .M' �++?7�1� � .
>"i
" � ' �
�¢�,'�:��,, �''�r''n'�, "�'�"�.�h, �' �� '>"", �, � 4 4 � a�
f
� :,� ' ^' . = - � a � �� H`� ;'i�.i� �„ � � 'y ��v
� 5 . � ;� ,. t, �.,=�pr�� � �z�"" �,�,*ti,e w"z�.� ,.a,�, <_.
���� ���� � �t r
.� a-� ,,.:r,w ,,,, : "� '`.�`�
. .. . � ; ,. � . .::� '`� k` . . `4�r.; :,�
_. . ,
' -��' � - .. . , .
_��
�,
�
� ,..
,...�,-.......+..��� h'" "�
�� w, � ��' ..
- �." � :. . : ��. � . .
us�.r..m... ��. , " ' _ ",�5 � �; . , �
� .. . ..0 �,� ..
uv� -�,,:,.�.... - �r,,.�o .W �. . r W.. . . ., �.:. raa�
Cit of Burlin ame Item No. $d
y g Regular Action Item
Design Review, Hillside Area Construcfion Permif, Special Permit and Variance
Address: 2683 Summit Drive Meeting Date: February 12, 2018
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for building height,
and Variance for front setback for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Samaneh Nili, TRG Architects+ Interior Design
Property Owners: Sunil and Katherine Koshie
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 029-182-140
LotArea: 10,164 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a
second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this
exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of
a project.
Project Description: The subject property is located in the Hillside Area on Summit Drive on the second lot from
the corner. The site is located on a sloping lot, which slopes from back to front with a grade difference of 15 feet
from the average at the rear property line (112.76') to the average top of the curb (97.85'). The applicant is
proposing a second floor addition along the left side of the house. The total proposed floor area of the project is
3,711 SF (0.36 FAR), where 4,352 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch
exemptions). The proposed house is 641 SF below the maximum allowed floor area.
The existing front setback of the house is 24'-6" and there is a block average of 46'-0" on Summit Drive. The new
second-story is proposed to be built keeping the same setback as the existing first-story at 24'-6", and therefore,
the applicant requests for a Variance to the second-story front setback requirement. All other setbacks comply
with the development standards.
The proposed height for the project is 35'-11" due to the slope of the lot and therefore requires an application for
a Special Permit for height greater than 30 feet.
The existing house has three (3) bedrooms and would increase to four (4) bedrooms. The project requires two
parking spaces, one of which must be covered with the interior dimensions being 10'-0' x 20'-0" for covered
spaces and 9'-0" x 20'-0" for uncovered spaces. The house has an existing two (2) car attached garage with
(clear interior dimensions 19'-4'/z" X 19'-5") and therefore meets the current parking code requirements.
A new driveway is also proposed with the construction, which would remove three trees from the front yard (one
8" Oak, one 12" Oak and one 17" multi-trunk Pine). The driveway will accommodate an uncovered space. These
are not considered protected trees by the City's municipal code, and therefore do not require a tree removal
permit. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant requests the following applications:
■ Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2));
■ Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61);
■ Special Permit for building height between thirty (30) and thirty-six (36) feet (35'�" proposed) (C.S.
25.26.060 (a) (1)); and
■ Variance for front setback for the second-story 24'-6" where 46'-0" is the block average (C.S. 25.26.072
i3));
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Specia! Permit and Variance 2683 Summit Drive
2683 Summit Drive
Lot Area: 10,164 SF Plans date stam ed: Februa 2, 2018
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS ; ;
� :......................... .. .......... ...:... . . ............................. .... ..... ......................................... . . ..............
, ....................... . ........ _ .......................................................... . ,
Front (1st flr): ; 24'-6" 24'-6" 15'-0" or block average
(2nd flr): ; --- 24'-6"' 46'-0" (block average)
. .................................................... .....
_: . ...................................... . ........................... :.......
Side (left): : 10'-0" 7'-2 3/8" 7'-0"
(right): ; 10'-0" 10'-0„ 7'-0„
_: .................................................................................................................................. ..............................................................................................................................................
. ............................................................................................................................. . . ,
Rear (1st flr): ; 35'-1 '/z" 35'- 1'/2" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): ; --- 35'-1 '/2" 20'-0"
: ................... . . .....................
Lot Coverage: . 2,430 SF 2,444 SF 4,070 SF z
23.9% 24% 40%
; :. ............................ . . .....................................................
...... . .. _ _ ......................................................... ........ ....................:..... .
FAR: ; 2,250 SF 3,711 SF 4,352 SF 3
' 0.22 FAR ; 0.36 FAR 0.42 FAR
,. ....................................................... .
. ...............................................................................................................................................
# of bedrooms: : 3 4 ---
................... ..............................�...................................... .. ................................... .. . ...... .............;.................................................. . ................................ . ..............
Off-Street Parking: ; 2 covered 1 covered
(19-4'h" x 19'-5") No change (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
� ... ............................... ..
_ . ...................................... :.................... ........................... . . ..................... . ............. . ..............
Building Height: ; 26'- 5 7/8" 35'-11" 4 30'-0"
DH Envelope: --- complies CS 25.26.075
' Variance required for second-story front setback less than the block average of 46'-0".
Z (0.40 X 10,164 SF) = 4,070 SF (40%)
3 (0.32 x 10,164 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,352 SF (0.42 FAR).
4 Special Permit required for height greater than 30'-0".
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire, and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on January 22, 2018,
the Commission raised concerns regarding the location of the new 24" box trees and windows along the left side of
the property. The applicant responded at the meeting that the location of the trees would be revised and that the
windows would be sand blasted to maintain the privacy and views of the neighbor at 2675 Summit Drive. The
Commission noted that the flat roof and sloped roof at the front did not interface well and should be revisited. The
Commission also requested story poles to be installed to allow study of any potential view impacts. Overall, the
Commission believed that the project was well articulated and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar
when the plans have been revised and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached January 22, 2018, Planning
Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised sheets dated February 2, 2018. The plans show the
revised location of the new 24" box Sycamore trees and also that the left windows are sand blasted to address
neighbor's concerns. There were no other changes to the plans.
�
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permii and Variance 2683 Summif Drive
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:
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.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: The proposed addition would maintain the existing style of the
neighborhood, which contains predominantly split-level ranch style homes. The location of the garage is not
changed and is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. The design is well articulated by adding the new
second-story on one side and retaining the remainder of the house same. To break-up the massing and bulk of
the house there will be a new front porch and hanging metal roof with beams. Added details such as window
grids and wood bellyband provide scale and visual interest to the home. For these reasons the project may be
found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria.
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.
Suggested Special Permit Findings (For Height greater than 30 feet): The existing house is located on an up
sloping lot that slopes approximately 15 feet from the front of the property to the rear. The finished first-floor level
is located 14 feet above the average top of the curb elevation and with an existing 8 feet high first-story the
second-story can be built up to 7'-6" tall (top of the ridge) without a Special Permit. Therefore, the project may be
found compatible with the required Special Permit for height greater than 30 feet.
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
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Variance 2683 Summit 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.
Suggested Variance Findings (Front setback of the second-story that is less than the block average of
46'): The front setbacks for houses on Summit Drive range from 24'-0" to 75'-0". Given the configuration of the
existing properties along Summit Drive with three of the properties accessed from an easement along the rear
property line with the rear yards abutting Summit Drive, it is not a typical block configuration with a true average
front setback pattern. In order to meet the average setback of 46'-0", the new second-story would have to be set
back by 22'-0" which would not coincide with the current layout of the house. The proposed new second-story is
designed to align with the front setback and would maintain the existing front setback of 24'-6" and be more
consistent with the architectural character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project may be found
compatible with the required Variance for the second-story setback, which is less than the block average.
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:
that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped February 2, 2018, sheets A.00 through L1.0;
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 staffl;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 Engineering Division's November 9, 2017, the Building Division's December 27,
2017, December 7, 2017 and November 2, 2017 memos, the Parks Division's November 2, 2017 memo,
the Stormwater Division's November 7, 2017 memo and the Fire Division's November 11, 2107 memo
shall be met;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
0
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Variance 2683 Summit Drive
9. 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;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016
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:
11. 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;
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
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.
Sonal Aggarwal
Contract Planner
c. Samaneh Nilli, applicant and architect
Sunil and Katherine Koshie, property owners
Attachments:
January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Response Letter, dated February 2, 2018
Story Pole Plan
Story Pole Certification
Application to the Planning Commission
Letter of Explanation submitted by the applicant, dated January 10, 2018
Variance Application
Special Permit Application
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 2, 2018
Aerial Photo
5
� CITY O
F � � f ,`,1�
� �"�
^e ,
=a
� �'ae �e'o'w wr e
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, January 22, 2018
7:00 PM
Council Chambers
c. 2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Special Permit for building height and Front Setback Variance for a
first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Samaneh Nili, TRG
Architecture + Interior Design, applicant and designer; Sunil and Katherine Koshie,
property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal
attachmenrs: 2683 Summit Dr - Staff Report
2683 Summit Dr - Attachments
2683 Summit Dr - Plans - 01.22.18
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 2675
Summit Drive, and he indicated he would be aftending fhe meeting.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of fhe staff report.
Questions of Staff.�
> Whaf is considered the block? The eight properties from where Summit turns, down to Burlingview?
(Gardiner. Can confirm with the project p/anner.)
> Should this have a Hillside Area Construction Permit? (Gardiner.• Believes it qualifies as being within
the HACP area.)(Terrones: The agenda description includes the HACP.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant.
There were no questions of the applicant.
Public Comments:
Naomi Tanaka, neighbor to the /eft: Wants to restate what has been discussed as concern with the
applicant. Concern with the privacy on the side, with windows aligning. Concem with views being
obstructed from family room.
Sunil Koshie (Applicant): Will work with neighbor to address concerns. Has reviewed plans with neighbor,
exchanged some emails, and met at the architecYs office. Had considered adding trees for privacy, but
neighbor was concern with tree roots and impact on fence. Suggested translucent windows, which is
agreeab/e. Back yard became overgrown but can be trimmed back to open up the views for the neighbor.
Commissioner questions:
> Wil1 the landscape p/an be revised based on neighbor input to not have the screening trees? (Grange:
Yes, the plan pre-dates the meefing with the neighbor.)
> Can a!I the windows on side be sand blasted or frosted? They are not view windows. (Grange: Yes,
City of Budingame paye � Printed on 2/8/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 22, 2018
they will allow the light but provide privacy.)
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Nice project - clever solution to a strange building and lot.
> The flat roof and s/oped roof on the fronf look awkward in their adjacency. They are both nice
elements but when they come together they look awkward.
> Well articulated.
> Should have story poles, not just for the neighbor to the side but also the neighbors behind.
> The architect has made a good case for the variance, and it can be supported.
> There is good support for the Special Permit for height, given the sloping lot.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye: 7- Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto
City of Builingame paye p Printed on 2/8/2018
Plan Review Comments Response
Date:
Applicant:
Project Address:
Owner(s):
Re:
February 2, 2018
TRG Architects
1014 Howard Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
2683 Summit Drive, Burlingame, CA
Sunil & Katherine Koshie
Plan Review Comments-Nov 1 st, 2017
Plannin� Division Comments:
Comment Sheet No. Comment Response
#
1. a. L1.0 New trees at the left side of the property has been relocated. See sheet L1.0.
All windows at the left side of the property (adjacent to neighbor 2675 Summit
2. a. A3.2 Drive) will be translucent sand blasted windows. Window type at the Hers
Closet will be Hopper. See sheet 3.2.
A2.2, A2.3, The adjacency of the front roofs has been revised. See sheets A2.2, A2.3, A3.1,
3. a. q3.1, A3.2 A3.2.
Please call if any clarifications needed to avoid a second round of comments.
Thank you,
Christine Abdelmaseeh
TRG Architects, Inc.
1014 Howard Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94010
650.579.5762 tel
650.579.0115 fax
www.trgarch.com
Page 1
� iuui i i i i i i i i i Yini� i i i i Y,iiii�iiii'i°iiii�i Yiiii�'iiii`iii'.
���,«w,Fs. ���6-.�-0 �-.�� —�: - �..�a
. r
�
•� �•
Ji'i'i'i'i'i'i'
a , ,
i...�....i , i , i
.
:�;� a..m�»:��
� FS\ n50.5"I�.UI IS
4.5)e3
E-MailM1admin'Tjbgucl��am
�rcM1iittti �y
tt �
Can5u1un1(S):
PmJa+:
Koshie
RESIDENCE
Remodel & Addiflon
APN: 027-224-020
2683 Summif Orive
BUNingame, CA
�rtsl:
Sunll & KaMedne
/ Koahie
i �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
A�mOi
■momi
■�■�i
��■�i
��■�i
��■�i
����i
■�■�i
■�■�i
�����
L
�,�
��
__-------------- -----�
� PROPOSED S/TE PLAN
lCNF. 1/I'�Td •
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
Date:
� CITV
�� O�
� . .� i �
�`��'�
�
'� '�= ; ;
�. /�' ��U
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
Project Address: z(�,�j 3 S« H-,.,�,;� ��-;y�
Assessor's Parcel No.: `� Z�" 2 2�-{ � b Z�
Owner's Name: � �S �� e
This is to certify that on Z 2� � (date), the story poles located on the above-
referenced site were installed or inspected by the undersigned, and found to be in conformance
with the design, height, and location shown on the ptans, elevations, and the attached story pole
plan.
For additional information, please contact me at qZS-7� 7-���(phone no.)
i��� (�
Signatur�
���� ��
Name (printed or typed)
-��-c �a,I � y p v-
Title
/�,p►N D S
5�� �RG
� F�
c�� DYIAN M p
=' GONSAIVES
.,, PLS 8475 Q
=�� Regis#er online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.burlins�ame.ors� �j�:
�,�pay+�'�T,
f(__�il�C_�
BURLINGAME
�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Ty�e of application:
d Design Review ❑� ariance ❑ Parcel #: (}�G�-- 2'Zl� ��LO
❑ Conditional Use Permit C3" Special Permit ❑ Zoning % Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: e��,�� �,�, �nm i� �r,i��e
APPLICANT
Name: _ ���mav�Q� �� f � o
Address: �(�`L� �0 f,�,`��r� j��iP
City/State/Zip: ��� �,� i� �
Phone: 6�' �7 � _ fi7� 2.--.
E-mail: ���,►�nn no �1 (� �r��v v�^,
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: ��'-� ��rr�;�ci-�
Address: ��'`�14 �,�AJ�,r� ���U�
City/State/Zip: �� n I� ��, � y� C7 1
Phone: �����`����� �rL,
E-rnail: _�' c:ornCtr�o� r� , (�o��'"�
Burlingame Business License #: � "T���Z-.
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: ��r4r�vi � ��rn-��ar��e ��:51� iP
Address: �� � cJet mrn a� �r� ��
City/State/Zip: u�s 1in��m�i �'_f� �LiC1 � �
Phone: �[('i i��i �� � 7�(' 1 Zl
E-mail: �tin��.���.�I�;�� �6 Cim.u�. Com
���������
�v��'� -� zo�T
c!rY �= S��L�NGAME
^DD-P(.,a;�N1�lG DiV
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. �_ (Initials of Architect/Designer)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
AFFIDAVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and beliefa�,
`�----�__.----
Applicant's signature: Date: �)T'� ) �C � �
I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature:
Date:
Date submitted: 1j� GU> � � .2�
S: �HANDOUTS�PC Application. doc
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
�
Project Description:
Key:
Abbreviation Term ;
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declining Height Envelo
DSR Design Review
E Existing
N New
SFD Single Family Dwelling
SP Special Permit
January 10, 2018
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 2683 Summit Dr.
Dear Commissioner,
Thank you for reviewing this proposal to remodel the house at 2683 Summit Dr. This is a deceptively
tricky site to work with, and we have strived to find the best composition of elements possible. The project
requirement for a special permit for height due to topography, and setback variance to build on top of the
existing footprint, are addressed in the other write-ups, and will be covered in detail at the meeting.
For the owners, the most concerning issue with the is the dangerous existing driveway. In its current
configuration, it is extremely steep, and backing out is hazardous for both the residents and those driving
on Summit. There is virtually no visibility for one when backing out right into a blind curve where traffic
certainly moves at least at the speed limit. We studied numerous options to improve the situation;
lowering the garage to lessen the slope of the driveway, moving the garage to the other side of the house
etc... What we are proposing is to lengthen the driveway in order to reduce its pitch, and enter into
Summit Dr. further away from the blind curve to improve visibility for all.
There has been an ongoing effort to reach out to immediate neighbors, to share the plans, and assess
any potential impacts; especially the neighbor to the left. The owners of 2683 Summit (this project) left a
letter with their contact information early on in the design process. Once plans were developed, a
complete set of drawings, including 3D images, was delivered to the neighbor with additional contact
information.
Thanks for taking the time to review this project. We look forward to the meeting.
Sincerely,
Randy Grange AIA LEED AP
1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 • 650.579.5762 voice + 650.579.0115 fax e admin@trgarch.com
CITY
.:,`�:,�:�''.�. ��
�,
`1 �.��
,M1 o �: O
9pow�rc
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can 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 fhe exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
5�e �--�o�-c,�n Lc�
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial properiy right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from fhe denial of the application.
c. Explain why fhe proposed use af the proposed location will not be deirimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or io public healih, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
d. How will ihe proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
a. Describe the exceptiona! or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are
also not common to other properties in the area? 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 neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
subsfantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial 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 parking or bedrooms?) 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. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location wifl not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safeiy,
general welfare or convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties? 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 general welfare?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), 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).
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or
sprinklers be instalied? 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 of flammable or hazardous materials, or
potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
Genera/ welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and
goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this
site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or
handicapped?
d. How will the proposed project be compatible wifh the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinify.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing
architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a
neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, 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 bulk? If there is no change to
the 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 neighborhood? Think of character as the
image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. W ill there be more traffic or
less parking available resulting from this use? 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 general vicinity? 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.
HandoutslVariance Application.2008
December 19, 2017
Attachment A
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK 2"d FLOOR
2683 Summit Dr.
a. The need for a front setback variance for the second floor stems from the
system of block averaging to determine the setback requirement. The
existing structure at 2683 Summit is the one with the smallest setback,
although significantly greater than the City minimums and what would be
typical for most neighborhoods. At 46', the average front setback is nearly
at the center of this property, creating an extraordinary circumstance and
hardship here.
The system of block averaging, as outlined in R1 zoning, originates from
the general intent of the Design Guidelines, which state:
"The character of the neighborhood is defined in part by the houses and buildings
that make up the edges of the public space (the street). The house fronts blend
together to form an edge to the street that we perceive as the boundaries of the
street. The house fronts define a street the way walls in a house define our living
room or the way a fence defines our backyard."
However, the Design Guidelines (other than the section that describes
how to define a neighborhood) were written primarily for flat, regular lots,
in typical neighborhoods. In the case of this area of Summit Dr., the
curving road and hillside setting make the concept of a pedestrian friendly
outdoor neighborhood living room irrelevant and unattainable; even
defining "the block" is difficult. With front setbacks on this "block" ranging
from 24' to 75', the average is wildly out of sync with the theoretical goals
of the Design Guidelines. It places one in an in-between no man's land,
achieving none of the goals. Aesthetically, the second floor makes sense
as proposed. The existing house is already at this setback and we are
merely continuing that setback upwards. To meet the 46' foot block
average, one would need to offset the second floor 22' back from the first
floor which makes designing an integrated second level nearly impossible.
b. Denial of the variance would cause unnecessary hardship. Clearly, the
intent of the system of averaging setbacks is to establish a consistent
"lining up of houses" along the street. Enforcing the average setback on
this property would achieve nothing, since alignments along the street
would still be wildly out of sync; the first floor of the house is still where it
is. This proposal does not create a new nonconforming setback. It would
merely allow the second level to align with the existing first �evel, which
�
would be well behind minimum requirements. ���" �'"
Dc;: �' � � � �7
CIiY �F t�Ur�LiN.ra�^�M�
CG�-Pl�t��P�`s;3C7 �IjJ.
c. 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 are no proposed changes
that would impact public health, safety, or convenience. Public health and
safety are generally the purview of the building codes, and there are no
code issues with this proposal.
d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass,
bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining
properties in the general vicinity. The uses will remain the same as
they are today and the same as other properties in the general vicinity.
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinaame.orp
� CITY O
'`� ' ! 1 �1
T`�`�;�� „�-',�
����� _ A
4i�ou•
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can 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.
1. Explain why fhe blend of mass, sca/e and dominant strucfural characteristics of the
new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and
with the existing street and neighborhood.
�e� t-1 riGtc.�'1Gcl
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materia/s and elevations
of fhe proposed new structure or addition are consistent wifh the exisfing sfructure,
street and neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
4. Explain how the removal of any trees /ocated within the footprint of any new
structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation
requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the remova/ of any trees? Exp/ain
why this mitigation is appropriate.
Rev. 07.2008 � See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinqame.ora
1. Explain why the blend of mass, sca/e and dominant structural
characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent wifh fhe
existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring
properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of
neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlighbshade, views from neighboring properties.
Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the
structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the
neighborhood or area.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and
elevations of the proposed new sfructure or addition are consistenf with the
existing structure, street and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it
does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of
development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone
established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the
neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design
guidelines adopted by the cify?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet
these guidelines?
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.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees /ocated within the footprint of any new
structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's
reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of
any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate.
W ill any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are
protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace
any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so.
Attachment B
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT
2683 Summit Dr.
Note: There is an extreme upslope on the lot between the curb elevation and the
existing building pad. The height ordinance was written for flat or nearly flat lots,
and does not work in situations such as this. The existing roofline is just 4' below
the 30' height limit as measured from the average top of curb, hence the need to
utilize the option to go to 36' by special permit. The actual height of the structure
next to actual grade averages about 22' maximum at gable ridge, and 19' at flat
roofed area.
The mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood.
While the application proposes an updated look and style for the house,
the mass and scale remain compatible with the existing house, street and
neighborhood. There is almost no change to the existing footprint, and no
daylight issues as this house is on the north side of the neighbor, and 22'
away at the closest point.
2. The rooflines, fa�ade, materials, and elevations of the proposed house
and garage are consistent with, the neighborhood and street. The
proposed materials and detailing form a rich combination, with board and
baton siding, integral colored stucco, varied rooflines, divided lite windows
etc. . .
3. 1. The architectural style is compatible with that of the existing house and
character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood houses range from a
new modern make-over, to ranchers, to craftsman, to the proposed
farmhouse aesthetic.
2. The attached garage being proposed is existing to remain. All houses
along this stretch have attached garages.
3. See items 1 and 2 above for comments about style, mass and bulk.
4. There is a lot of distance befinreen neighboring structures, as stated
above.
5. The landscaping on the property will be improved, and a final, detailed
plan is being worked out.
4. No trees within the footprint are proposed for removal.
� �,��.:��� �� ��
� r f�t (r� �! T
� �. , 6' ed � :.: t �
CITY �JF �13riL�PdarAil/�E
CG�-r�L�,.f�9i�di�G �!L!
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT 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
Desiqn Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for buildinq heiqht and Front
Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing sinqle familv at 2683
Summit Drive, zoned R-1. Sunil and Katherine Koshie, propertv owners, APN: 027-224-020;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 12, 2018, 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 the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one-
single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from
environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the
construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of the
project, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Variance are
approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for
such Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit 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 12th dav of Februarv, 2018 by the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction, Special Permit and Variance
2683 Summit Drive
Effective February 22, 2018
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning
Division date stamped February 2, 2018, sheets A.00 through L1.0;
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 staffl;
3. that any changes to the size
garage, which would includ
amendment to this permit;
or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or
e adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an
4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's November 9, 2017, the Building
Division's December 27, 2017, December 7, 2017 and November 2, 2017 memos, the
Parks Division's November 2, 2017 memo, the Stormwater Division's November 7, 2017
memo and the Fire Division's November 11, 2107 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction, Special Permit and Variance
2683 Summit Drive
Effective February 22, 2018
Page 2
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2016 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:
11. 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;
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
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.
..i''��
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
'� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
3;�;,; ' BURLINGAME, CA 94010
`''�"'°::.'��-_ .=.- PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 2683 SUMMIT DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2018 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA:
App�ication far Design Review, Hillside Area fonstruction Permit,
Special Permit for building height and Front Setback Variance for
a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling ot 2683 SUMMIT DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 027•224-020
Mailed: February 2, 2018
(Please refer to ofher side)
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
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
2683 Summit Drive, R-1