HomeMy WebLinkAbout2684 Summit Drive - Staff Report�i
��
r.i
�
�. _ - -
..,. ...
.< . £
, _, � .
, ,: t a � � ,, : r, ;. , :�
� , - �"' � : r :�.�..� '
��a`' } '+ "'4�'� �'�1 �� E -.t ,ti , �: •. r..�+'ti -� _aa �. _
,,,y� yr,.* i ;�� r: = rr..` �, r
4 `+ ' - -,�
�L�*� Y .,� .
_ , �;-,� w— � ,;r. -�,� �� , I,:, _� �_' - �-�„.;� i �
, > > �s .� � `�An
1:�...� ? . � . .�` ���� �- �- � . I Cjb,,,,� �
n : �� � � � I �i�.� � � • ,�1�' " � s��''�� � I ���f`��e�� !I
� � r
.�
�� r , f _ .
w � /) � - � I
;� ����r� � ��� � ��.'.+ �� +,II' .. .. , .
"w�.�- � -�-0 4ti .�-�..,' ` � �: �I � � � r � L
�' �~�"� si:,�' h� e�'� �i•: ' �r e � u
r „ � �
�r � •,+�idy-. � � . :� ',� .. � � : -� � ti �'6
� .a�� y/�l,..r^ e��� I� L3 �µ.w j�' �� d'
'�2t� 3- s ,t ! i,f,�,� _ t i C ', � -3 �'����` �e %�/ �� I
� �� T
�a'"o- n J � . \ �' � � ■� • r �t! ! F Sl�,."'�"��L���'� �
ki�
ti -� . R t = �; � .i� � R, � � r � �� F`� �^, �
_ r � �„Gi `� \I 1 ��„i! �.; .
/ i � - �:.sr r--� ��,� .. ' Y • .
_ �; -y,�� �.� . , � �- , -�l` r �� ° I:� �
'`K'` , . � .. � I '
t
=� � _ ,r ���I
.:l; � ks ��, � ��i f
: �
t� � I �
\r 4
L � ` �
e` e `� �. � s
�'�y : �
_ >� _
City of Burlingame
„;
Design Review and Hillside Area Conshuction Permit for
a Second Story Addition
Address: 2684 Summit Drive Meeting Date: March 8, 1999
Request: Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a replacement and addition
to a second-story deck (C.S. 25.08.477, 25.61.02).
Applicant: Joe Costa, Garavaglia Architecture
Property Owners: Ed and 7eannie Kaufman
Lot Area: 17476 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section:
APN: 027-271-010
Zoning: R-1
15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family
residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up
to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
Date Submitted: January 5, 1999. This project was submitted to the Planning Department after
October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect.
Requests for This Project: The applicant, Joe Costa, Garavaglia Architecture, requests approval
of:
1)
2)
Design Review for the replacement and addition to an exiting second story deck;
and,
A Hillside Area Construction Permit for the replacement and addition to an
existing second story deck.
Summary: The applicant, Joe Costa, is proposing to remove an existing 633 SF second-story
deck with stairs and replace it with a 648 SF deck (15 SF increase) with stairs and a new 160 SF
trellis off the rear of the second story of an existing single-family dwelling which is subject to
design review and a hillside area construction permit at 2684 Summit Drive, zoned R-1. The
project meets all zoning code requirements.
The existing two-story house now contains 3755 SF of floor area, including four bedrooms and
an attached 2-car garage. The existing deck is 16' above grade and includes 633 SF of area. The
applicant proposes to remove the existing deck and replace it with a new deck that is 15 SF larger
and includes a 16' x 10' trellis. With construction of the new deck and trellis, the total site
coverage of the house will increase from 2880 SF (16.5%) to 2995 SF (17%).
Staff Comments: The City Engineer and Fire Marshal had no comments on the project (1/11/99
and 1/7/99 memos, respectively). The Chief Building Inspector notes (1/8/99 memo) that the new
and replacement stairs and handrails must meet current codes for dimensions and rail grasp ability.
The project conforms with the R-1 zoning regulations as demonstrated by the following table:
c
Design Review for a Second Story Addition
�: ,
Front: lst flr
2nd flr
Sule (left)
Side (right):
Rear: 1 st flr
2nd flr
LOT
COVERAGE
FAR:
PARKING:
HEIGHT.•
DH
ENVELOPE:
BEDROOMS:
PROPOSED
28' -4"
28'-4"
18'-6"
20' -4"
38'-7"
36'-7"
17%
(2995 SF)
4403 SF
(25 % FAR)
2 covered in garage
+ 1 uncovered
27'-0" (from avg. top
of curb
meets requirements
4
This project meets all zoning code requirements.
27' -0"
4
2684 Summit Drive
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15' or block avg.
20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
40 %
(6990 SF)
6692 SF
38 % FAR
1 covered
(10' -0" x 20' -0")
+ 1 uncovered
30' /2 'h stories
see code
N/A
Design Reviewer Comments: In her comments the design reviewer notes that the new deck and
trellis will not have any impact on the character of the neighborhood; that the replacement deck
does not affect the existing parking patterns; and that the new deck is designed to be compatible
with the existing style of the residence. Due to the steep, heavily vegetated hillside where the
house is located, the deck provides a level and accessible vantage point to view the canyon that
extends beyond this hillside lot. The design reviewer does not anticipate any impact to the
adjacent neighbors from the replacement and minor addition to this deck. No landscaping will
be effectsd by the deck replacement. The design reviewer recommended approval of this project
and had no additional recommendations for conditions of approval.
Conclusion: The design reviewer notes that the project is in compliance with the design review
guidelines and recommends approval of the project as it is proposed in the materials submitted to
the Planning Department on January 5, 1999, Sheets A-1.1 through A-3.2.
EXISTING
28'-4"
28'-4"
18' 4"
20' -4"
38'-7"
38'-7"
16.5 %
(2880 SF)
4388 SF
25 % FAR
2 covered in garage
+ 1 uncovered
2
Design Review for a Second StoryAddition
2684 Summit Drive
F'indings for Design Review: The following findings address the criteria for the design review
approval as established in Ordinance No. 1602 adopted by the Council on September 23, 1998,
as follows:
1. that the design of the replacement deck and the new trellis is consistent with the design of
the existing residence which is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; and
therefore, the new deck will have no impact on the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. that the replacement deck at the rear of the house will have no impact on the existing
parking and garage patterns established in this neighborhood;
3. that the architectural style and mass and bulk of the replacement deck, stairs and trellis is
well designed and compatible with the existing character of this residence and is within the
lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements of the city;
4. that the proposed replacement deck is not significantly larger than the existing deck and
will be located in the same area of the existing deck, and therefore, will have no greater
impact on the neighboring residential structures; and,
5. that no existing landscaping, including the 18" diameter oak tree at the bottom of the stairs
off the deck, will be effected by this replacement deck and therefore, because no new
landscaping is required there will be no change to the appearance of the lot.
Findings for Hillside Area Construction Peimit: Based on the summary in the staff report, the
project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the city's hillside area construction
permit guidelines based on the following findings:
1. that the placement of the second story addition shall not have a substantial impact on the
views from the adjacent properties because the new deck will be similar in size and profile
to the exiting deck, and the 160 SF trellis will extend over the central portion of the deck,
with open sides and a height no greater than the height of the eaves of the exiting
residence;
2. that the addition shall not have a substantial impact on the character of the neighborhood
because the second story deck and trellis will not be visible from the front of the property
along Summit Drive, nor will it have an impact on views from adjacent properties; and,
3. that the addition shall not obstruct distant views from habitable azeas within the adjacent
dwelling units because the trellis will have open sides between the support posts, its height
will not exceed the height of the eaves of the existing second story, and the trellis will
extend 11'-0" from the house, which is 1'-0" greater than existing deck, and sha11 be
placed in the center azea of the deck. Therefore the new deck and trellis will have no
substantial impact on the view lines of the canyon to the west from adjacent properties, and
3
Design Review jor a Second Story Addition
2684 Summit Drive
because neighbors within 300' of the property were notiiied prior to review and did not
call the matter up for public hearing by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings, and the reasons for any action
should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped 7anuary 5, 1999, Sheets A-1.1 through A-3.2;
2. that any changes in design to the proposed size, design or envelope of deck, trellis and
stairs, or exterior modifications to the design of the second story of the house shall be
subject to design review;
3. that during construction, the applicant sha11 protect the existing 18" diameter oak tree
located at the base of the stairs;
4. that the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Chief Building Official in his
memo dated January 8, 1999; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
7anice Jagelski
Planner
c: Joe Costa, Garavaglia Architecture, applicant
4
12f21/1995 i7:@� 415391964? �a�RAVAGLIA ARCH PAGE 62
- r �y r,ir 4� �, . , . .
.�RUN CITY OF BURI,I�rTG.AME
• ' :,� A.�.'�'LICAT�ON :TO T�: PLAN1VIt�TG COMMI�SSIGN ' :
�,_
Type o� appllcatlon:,,.�,Speciat Permit Variance Qtt�er
Froject Add�ess: �B �Su+�ri.�T C7cZ�u�?,
' Assessor's Parcel N�mbez(s): 02'7��.i o. �c
AFPLTCANT � P�t()►PERTY' 4VF'N�R
Nattie: _ c�� C.�s�"'�"�� Gr�W:A�Il�A�. NamB:_ �E�o.��,.»� I�a��� r��.� .
Address: 1.��' r-�'1a.a�-c�at-t��' �'�;, ���'�.It� � Ad�z�ss: 2���i Sc� h r� ��r Drc:�a �,�
c��is�x�z��: �� ��.,.���; ���;�.� �Lty�s���7��:.r..���� M�,,�h� _ �:,a _ ��o�o
Phone (�v}: �41 S' � b91- `lf�'�� � .Ph�ne. (w):
(h?; (h?: e�sb.�#at .�-.6�4�'� .�
,
fax s� � s- -�' 6 A`7 '. fax: �So -�01- bh
� r�e°� 4 - �'7
A]L�CI�ITECT�DESIGNER
Nam�:.-_Gr�4vt-�uac,�LtA A�wG�����.��,� Pl�se indicat� wi,th an ast�risk * c�te
r
.. Address: _�S",� _Mc, u�r �, a r, � v�.�+ s� �,5u �T�� ! �� �. cantact p�rson for this application.
Ci�y/StateJ�ip: `,�Nr.� �s�.�a�c�S�.r� � c:,4. g�lo.�
Phone �w): 4 i�� -?� �- q 6�� .
"
C�),
� fax; �.4,5�.�t _-..�_6�4-'�
P�"tCI�C� riESC�IPT�U1rT:_ C��'R►:Ac.r� �x�s�'rra.� Z3�. P�r- �fL�;av� o�
u, l T'N t7 �
AFF.�I]A�I'�iSXGNATURE: I h�by certif'y. under penaltw of pe 'ury that th� infprmation given
hereu� is true tuz.d co��th� �est of my kno.wled � and b�i,ef. � I� J c�c� ,�
� �� � i �'�
�; 2 �
Applicant" s 5ignakuxe � ate
4' J
I knaw a�o�it the proposed ap�licatian and hrrc�y� authorize.the above applicant� to subrnit this .
appticatian to� the Planr���n---P� Commissi�r►. �J
( �,�, ` Z�
— � � � . ��
Praper�y a` n,ex`s Sig�ature ate ,
�_�.__��..,...__ _�.... �....... ��-- -FCa1t UFFICS..USL O1�I:Y- . ..-,-........,...,,.._.. __.�..._______�.»........
�
,..
. .. . .
,
Date Piled; Fe�:
Platining Gommiss�on: Stud�► Date: � ��.Actian �7ate: Q�C E� V E� ."•
--rTc �... . �
i:;: �,: ' '�
, . .;�
JAN - 5 1999
CITY OF BURLIVGA�v;,:
PLANNING DEPT.
Design Review Comments
City of Burlingame
Property Owner
Applicant Name
Project Address
Date of Review
Kaufman, Jeannie & Ed
Joe Costa, Garavaglia Architecture
2684 Summit Drive
2/15/99
Design Guidelines for replacing existing second story deck
1.
2.
RECEIVE�
FEB 1'7 1999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT
OF THE EXISTING CAARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
Not Applicable
RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Not Applicable
3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE,
AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN.
The design of the proposed deck will blend in well with the architecture of the
existing residence.
4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE
ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE.
The existing deck is being replaced, so other than a new deck with different
handrails, the closest neighbors, located to the right, may not even notice.
The neighbors behind the deck are so far below the residence; there should be no
impact for them.
The lot to the left probably will not be able to see the deck, the house is in the
line of site.
The lot is extremely large for Burlingame. There will be no impact on the
neighbors.
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.
The landscaping was not a dominant aspect of this property, the expansive view
is. No landscaping will be effected by the deck replacement.
Page 2
Kaufman Residence
2684 Summit Drive
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Being that this was a replacement deck, it affects few neighbors or line of site for
the neighborhood. The deck will take advantage of the incredible view from this
residence. This will be an asset to the residence.
v�Y
Catherine . . Nil eyer A
3/4 hours
��� #sdw. S� �FS v . Y . i } . . .ii�'�' � � ����
t°�� �z1 rM1I . �S�
,v , } � `.i�.. ' ' .
1 � y ��
7 � ,"�'�-% k. � :'� }� . .
,,h�1+�� . -,,x�' ..'�'� s"f.• .�� � --' , � .. . �y;t - '
Q
3
8
rf:. �
W
�
�
3
� �,
� :��- �
,�
.�::,�, :
�►
� ;�
Q
�
�
�
. ..41 .
t� '
\
�
:
:
.
0'
.
.
� -.
0
e
o�
�
�
w
! � �� `
� :�' i � ;'N � i �i:; ��� ��
���� �� ♦> � ���� t � �� � � . <-
. . � . Jt' � .. .- . -� ��a'X.�. ;@p� ��� ���
' ". � .. , .. . . . ._ ' ` ; ,
.�
- .., _ .
.
,._ € �.,_ m_ . e. ,
, , : , � ._ . ��
�.� _ ��
fi Y
i�,: . �.., � ; .
���; q �
. . : r, }�� � �
\ _ � +�
`;� � '�
, � �
.�� ;` � : -U. 4 � � .� . .. .
� p
_ :.� �y � ' ; .�
. � � �� � �- �� �/ZO
��
? _�. . Z.�OsiO
�
�
z,roR4
�^0�
.�
�.
���� s
.
♦
Su,� 2�8� ,
"y�� •.
`68
3
�
, ': #
. . �-��
� �,; .
�C'lv
��
� ��s `,�
Z���
��
`
�
�1 �
�� �
�r � �
��
��>
� h
�
�':.., �
`
za2.8 �
�
, _ _� ��
'"`+;�`' -
� :;
2(�(op
,,��
�y.
�-
' v,
�12t d� �
�_
Design Review jor a Second Story Addition
2684 Summit Drive
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMP'rION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
� ' :• ��• �:- � ��. c� . � .�� .�• �:- .�- • �- •�
' . . �� . � 1- - •1 •1 1' H � �- -� . 'll'1 . �� .1.� �� • . -. •1� •\ 1-. .�
•i' ! 11 /� • :� j ��� � � � .1 .J� .:IJ ►c 11�_l � ��'y �•1" �
� • •' � 1 .1� .� -
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
March 8, 1999 , 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 DE by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption Class
3, Section 15303 - construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures
including single-family residences is hereby approved.
2. Said design review and HACP is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such design review and HACP are as set forth in the minutes and recording
of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
JERRY DEAL, CHAIRMAN
I, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular mee6ng of the Planning Commission held on the 8
th day of March , 1999 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DAVE LUZURIAGA, SECRETARY
5
Design Review for a Second Story Addition 2684 Summit Drive
EXHIBIT "A"
Condirions of approval categorical exemption, design review, hi[Iside area construction permit
2684 SUMMIT DRIVE
e�`'ective MARCH IS, 1999
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitteri to the Planning Department
date stamped 7anuary 5, 1999, Sheets A-1.1 through A-3.2;
2. that any changes to the size, design or envelope of deck, trellis and stairs, or modifications
to the second story of the house shall be subject to design review; and
3. that the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Chief Building Official in his
memo dated January 8, 1999;
4. that during construction, the applicant sha11 protect the 18" diameter oak tree located at
the bottom of the stairs; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
�
♦
t
• CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� BURLINGANiE, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 696-7250
�:E84 SUl+it*iIT URIVE
AF'IV : ��7-�71-01 Q�
Hpplication tor, hillsidE ar^e� cor�struc�tian PUBLIC HEARING
pEr-mit ar�d desigr� rEview for�� a seconci story NOTICE
deck r�eplacEment: and additian at `b84 S�.immit
Drive, �uned R-1.
The City of B�_�r��Iingame F�lannir�g Cammission
anno�_mces t{-�e following p�_tblic hear,ing on
Monday, March 8, 1999 at 7: Qt� �. I�. i n t h e C i t y
RaTl—'C'o`iinciT��CFiam�,er�s lac�ated at 54'�i F�rimr�c�se
Raad, H�.ir�lingame, Califor,nia.
Mailed Fe�ruary �6, 1999
(Please refer to other side)
;
: -�. �-:��� � ;:-;;j
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for #.his project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at :; the Plannirig' Department at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Cal�fornia.
If you challenge the'subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues yotz or. someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the noticc� or in written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior Co the publ�c,.Fheanang _: �._, .�: �..
Property owners who receiv� � notiee;��:lesponsible for informing their
tenants about'this nottc���.,, F'o���ddilibr�a�1 �infonnation, pTease call (650)
696-7250. Thank you ; ` �' � r �
� �_ ' fi ��.� �'�€ � �"�� ���� a
�
Margazet Monroe � � ��� � �,� ��` �
^ � - � � tc F���g �
City Planner � � ���'� � 3 , ,
�
��: �� �? � ;,.
PUB1.������4RfNG �NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
� _
- ,;_. _ _
q
� :�� �,�>��
�� �, .14 [IS pZ' � O
S/) � } v 0�`� . . � �. '�i. O �4 '�6Y� � LLa� �� �
so 9p ,�,�p� `'``� �`e ��y tiw N �`��E, O c9 Z4
:SEY tG$Z f'�' . o �� �ti �� t� � � •.o �y 6. r, U
o �q a ,a �'/ t E� � s / � ��o w �� v � a � `,��`t3- �6V6� � .�
'a v
'C ZE �J7�/� %%I�7/ `ap .� si �z � F O ��' q�'� O a' � n � n
�Ob � � � O i . �� � ��
d '6g��" \:,° zssF� y��i � �F�� � . . � a �'� l `� E / .
�jG z . � r � �' O. y6
�
Eros z/ \ O c oti s� r ; ��� y�. ,
. O .. c'3, Q�n . C� . . . o �q, }' 1 7r - : . r 1 � . �._ .` . �,
e // 6�,F s'�+, 04v � ' /�� 'c's� s�c'�i p� �F a ,,i � 16 �1 ¢� � � •"
f
�a � ('� � ^'t� \ '/ \�. � � d� .' � a'� '�, � - . z � `;, .
4 b lD O -. S r � O a�+
9 %� �'� '' - s °/ �, � � � � zz a o 0
Sz � �� �� � � � O �q b....
� .OLL6 �dyi ,� /, �' �'
05'l l O L 991 . stf- •��.. vw' �, `�tB ��c. � ` Z, d o�,
Soi: —' `� � � �:� �y�' .� � � m� '��.'� . 1 `�j e`'�� Q �'
,.o ��� � 862� �2 �� 77 �\� � Jti'� �!, .�+ e6�' �.' .n a . �t'i.i ` �� L� �`� . N.
'a"�, .t+ . , . � �y GG p0� y �1F 0 . � �o 0
,LE' s �'/ � S/� s"� F� / � 0 �'sr �,y �`' 0 � ' o� � � `� . y' �
/ \ yy O l O
CO � ,J
M la \ b%6 °2 ti . �z s��i s�2.. � a :. ' . " � a 9 �6''d �� ��..., o . �� S
\ .s . � FD d' d e.�" . . . O
V�•o\ � w' 9� � �40� r� � �, s`/ '..�,, ]� y . 5E � G d"o �� 6 t�l
Z� �' � �n` e�B b LZ �' `.� d�, � � :�oZti� ,6g�9 fi � � 7
r' , ,,,' � � o s��y �g 6 5 d •, q b 6 O r -oa ��'�
� . L. O9 O � �v . ��o°i �� BA`''�-,�il� ot•b �.'. OZ a� w o �
�s b O gE .oz iz o� S� O /� �, �`" Lf F s o�� . �� sr y 8 �` .� y. d/ 6' d `� `f � A y O
F� . �`yV t1' `�a s • y�L �� cs. zd�. �� e� m i y4 _ �?? o N�o z � 6 f 9 0 �.
G96Z 5 �B�b S4 9i� � d`c m \ co ul� � �N p � S7.
d r, ( �
/ 6' O n o` 8� .. � i �,� . �;,_ �� y a� s� �
oy ot�y os �- O �� o y .J O o�
�5 � ;3¢ p�. S,B '!i 6I � �,` � ;r'�S- -� � � rn
� B y
. �-J. O , O � . . c�� �- y \ p (� � 1�
� ... .p6-A � ZBBa ��FgFis . Vp\ .� .w� �� � � � _
0 3� � O ``/�I, s� efl os ' ti� � 9 w ,ZZ ���/ D �g�' "
�•�1 . ��' i9 � � ti , sY Fbz[ W o Z
• 49� �F- / �68� `^� '� s��,� ?s �n 5Li'ii n ° o+ �
. p 's�y,q . p � a \ Q
ti ? O '� � �� o
��
�S?s� ,)B � �3 >6 fr: � zc, � � � � "' � ` � p y(
S2Q. w �i. � dn O 79,a7' �`>c. ' ��, yZ V` reg '� �
kT � -L "T� d� b �s � i
v� / w �y � r� � m �v �
� � O �� 27��� R� 'a..a.�Z' ' � �N ` O ' U 0
U � � O � v
� A .x /322y �"� \ w � " � N- O '
-+ � �l 0 0 \ y9 y � � � I28 g5� o y O
� c.
�+ � s � O� oy '/'� 1v ��:: 'tn
' ; -.1 s.o � �"'. S9• �,°S � / N � I'�" o� `�
w g oi. ;b ,6,�� �� � �
N W 3 O ' �
;� � y o � � � I
3sis. ,�y /2''
� � IOQ 4Z N � � �� -1 W O � O
� _ w �ac}a � �
O u+ .� G � ?� / . J � i� O l�� � �` w •
� ti - O .a ,, ` � -'� � - � a �,
� ti+ � ��j . ,.; (,i� J � �F� N Y `
\
� . • ``� j i� E� �y� �'n _ 1�9� ��'� laa a�' � � �Iw
ti � W � 6, � \ c�n .. 61��1 �� �4 �� o w
� q .� O � w Op l� {a _`�° y �Z' v p °�
� .� �,� � � n � 0 W O � Q
p N /� m � . O O� � . � .,
u �r �
:�. a G, 13� 13,y.�.� � w �,
� C. G� N Ig' Z�CG. 4 ai qOS� � � A � W
� aD m N O �
O !T
. � a� / � ` e ° � �� A°' oti
c„ �„ _ �,, ,,E
�•\'�9j• � v � a /'�� .S4 < 4�\ 0 w� O L \ � O'
�\ Q W A /�" CA W `�l N
� ti oo. � 1 �Z�oS �N ' _
w � � in N
N w o o �
� -� o
.cvi ti 79. l6' � 38. 80' � 'a °o p� - 27� O o I� o
V
� � � � � � N _
O `p' � � � O � �.,� �' rn � O
0
n; J aa 4,�� ���, 5�, '9 ,'i� ` N I a
� .� �. 12& �Tp I T
r
O � �tr w �D�\ � a v� '� �`
c� � �V w � � ��j �i
0 -o � „ � 5p� v
yt�� g y l78.og � "'�, � � "� b y, `� gc.
�e 15Z � �n � O A Sc
Q O��:a 4�, n�� 44' � 101.13' G 9"1 � 'n �'s� � �
13 � ��
`? `6 p r2i. �r � D �N � �2� �3 w
� \ w BN ?o l9 �
S � �. N 0
9�'�a � �2 � '� O � � �' C O
� ,� , � � -{� �� � - \
� � A o' ti` nNi
aa x ��� �''`s- R� O '� ti�'
Q'i O � `� ,B� �'� � � W 0 NN .Rl
�
n o � ;�
sa �, � n' � N s� �
ao. "�d �. • V ^ � �D v � `! �i
o. � ��.3. U� N N D rn ti
� v � �
�; i U .
� �� t� � ���-�,— � � �� � CU
� in ^,� o',?'`� I o (d' tv s8941'E. �yA � /0304� .a
, y' �; C� o. .t9 55 y�+. \ � i?� /3� s�� '�n N�
�
Design Review Comments
City of Burlingame
Property Owner:
Applicant Name
Project Address:
Date of Review
Kaufman, Jeannie & Ed
Joe Costa, Garavaglia Architecture
2684 Summit Drive
2/15/99
RECEIVE�
FEB 1'7 1999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Design Guidelines for replacing existing second story deck
1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT
OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
Not Applicable
2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Not Applicable
3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE,
AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN.
The design of the proposed deck will blend in well with the architecture of the
existing residence.
4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE
ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE.
The existing deck is being replaced, so other than a new deck with different
handrails, the closest neighbors, located to the right, may not even notice.
The neighbors behind the deck are so far below the residence; there should be no
impact for them.
The lot to the left probably will not be able to see the deck, the house is in the
line of site.
The lot is extremely large for Burlingame. There will be no impact on the
neighbors.
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.
The landscaping was not a dominant aspect of this property, the expansive view
is. No landscaping will be effected by the deck replacement.
Page 2
Kaufman Residence
2684 Summit Drive
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Being that this was a replacement deck, it affects few neighbors or line of site for
the neighborhood. The deck will take advantage of the incredible view from this
residence. This will be an asset to the residence.
�
Catherine . . Nil eyer A
3/4 hours