HomeMy WebLinkAbout2700 Summit Drive (1 of 2) - Staff Reportt
�
Item No.
Action Item
N•
�i. r
��c'� _
�; ��-� ,4�� k�� ��-�, � ,�, .,ik �.
� � .
.., ' . �
�,�� � �� '�'��a{��� :.'H��� `�' ��`r� xi "�� �,�rr.,.
�;': z.� �.� *. ;�
�R�x ,r f,` _ .�,� ..� '� � Y�
4
y� ,.
t�
a
�. �� � ��
' =t
�
� '' ��"� �`x �^+ ��
.,
� . � .:�
. , �',�� +�,,,. . �rr . � . . � . �. ,
. • • 'a, � A p y '
�
°�.
�fi'�"�'t^, - ,,.....`a '� _��.'.......��s;�4�;.. f {
'� tb•,+ .�.,; :�h�
PROJECT LOCATION
2700 Summit Drive
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit
Address: 2700 Summit Drive
Item No.
Action Item
Meeting Date: 06/23/08
Request: Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to a single
family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Ora Hatheway APN: 026-162-240
Property Owners: Adib and Sylvia Khouri Lot Area: 14,498 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.
Project Description: This lot is located at the corner of Summit Drive and Kenmar Way. The narrow portion of
the lot, in this case along Kenmar Way, is considered to be the front of the lot. The lot slopes downward
approximately 26'-0" towards the northwest corner of the lot (see attached contour map and Boundary and
Topographic Survey, date stamped April 30, 2008). Along Summit Drive the house is single story, but then
becomes a two-story house because of the downward slope on the lot.
The existing one-story house with an attached two-car garage contains 3,395 SF (0.23 FAR) (includes 284 SF of
crawl space with a ceiling height greater than 6'-0" and areas under second floor decking) of floor area and has
five bedrooms. On the main floor, the applicant is proposing to add a front entry element (13.5 SF), enlarge the
existing master bedroom (372.5 SF) and add a landing and stairway from the existing deck (72 SF). On the
lower floor, the applicant is proposing to add a new playroom and bathroom (441.4 SF). With the proposed
addition, the floor area will increase from 3,395 SF (0.23 FAR) to 4,109 SF (0.28 FAR) where the Zoning Code
allows a maximum of 5,539 SF (0.38 FAR). The proposed project is 1,430 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.
For setback purposes, the narrow portion of the lot, in this case the frontage along Kenmar Way, is considered to
be the front of the lot. The average front setback along Kenmar Way is 16'-1 ". At the proposed addition, the first
floor complies with the average front setback (18'-0" proposed where 16'-1" is the minimum required). The
minimum front setback for the second story is 20'-0". The proposed second story is setback an additional 2'-0"
from the first floor, and therefore complies with the minimum 20'-0" second floor front setback requirement.
The existing house contains five bedrooms (family room qualifies as a bedroom). With this project, the number
of bedrooms will increase from five to six (the proposed play room qualifies as a bedroom since the stairway
does not end directly in the bedroom as in the previous design). Two parking spaces, one of which must be
covered, are required on site. The existing attached finro-car garage is nonconforming in length (19'-6" existing
where 20'-0" is required). However, because there is no change in the parking requirement (current house
requires a finro car garage), a Parking Variance is not required. One uncovered parking space is provided in the
driveway (9' x 20'). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the
following applications:
■ Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010); and
■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020).
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2700 Summit Drive
2700 Summit Drive
Lot Size: 14,498 SF Plans date stam ed: Jul 7, 2008
� PREVIOUS CURRENT ; ALLOWED/
EXISTING i 4/30/08 lans 7/7/08 lans REQUIRED
� p ) ; � p ) ,
SETBACKS :
;
,
� ............................................................................................................................................. . . .. ......................................................................�................. ........ .. . ...............................................,................ ..
;
Front (1st flr): 28'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 15'-8" (block average)
2nd flr : ; n/a ; 18'-0" _' _20'.'0�� .............................. .................................._20'-0".........................................
i �,
. . ,
; �
Side (left): ' 21'-0" ' no change no change ' 7'-6"
r� ht 26'-6" 13'-6" 21'-6" 7'-0"
( �9 )�
, ..........................................................................................................................................�......................
: ................................. ...... .... . .. .
Rear (1st flr): ' 16'-0" to area under deck ; no change no change 15'-0"
(2nd flr): ; 16'-0" to deck no change no change 20'-0"
_: ............................... _. .
, ............................................................ ............................. . ....................................................................................................... :
Lof Coverage: ' 3659 SF � 4427 SF 4117 SF 5799 SF
25.2% 30.5% 28.3% 40%
........................,........................................_................_............................................................................................................................................................................�.......................................................................................,.........................._........._................._.. _........
FAR: ; 3395 SF � 4468 SF 4109 SF 5539 SF 2
0.23 FAR 0.31 FAR 0.28 FAR 0.38 FAR
:.......................................................................................;......... ..... . . . . .. .........................................._..._........................_.....__.._.
# of bedrooms: : 5 5 6 ---
: .......................................................................................:...... .................._...... .............................................
Parking: : 2 covered no change no change ; 2 covered
(19'W x 19'-6"D) 3 (18' x 20')
� 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
............................................ ....: _: ..............................................._....................._.....................................
Height: ; 16'-0" ; 15'-0" 14'-2" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: ; complies complies complies CS 25.28.075
i
Previous design required a Front Setback Variance to 5econd 5tory (1 �3'-U" proposed where 1U'-U" is
required to the second story).
(0.32 x 14,498 SF) + 900 SF = 5539 SF (0.38 FAR)
Existing nonconforming covered parking space length (19'-6" length existing where 20'-0" is required).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES
Coordinator. Attached to the staff report are several emails and letters received from the following residents:
Joel Weise (3 Kenmar Way), Gene Weeks (7 Kenmar Way), Jim Hannon (2704 Summit Drive), Anne Righetti
(2707 Summit Drive), Dennis Dellinges, Peter R. Davidson (2694 Summit Drive) and Lawrence and Cynthia
Young (5 Kenmar Way). In addition, an email was submitted representing concerns from neighbors at 2694,
2704 and 2707 Summit Drive; 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Kenmar Way; 12 EI Quanito Way; and 2701 and 2703 EI Prado
Road. Planning staff would also note that Joel Weise, 3 Kenmar Way, noted his objections regarding the
proposed project from the floor at the June 23, 2008 Planning Commission meeting (see attached June 23, 2008
P.C. Minutes).
-2-
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit
2700 Summit Drive
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review study meeting on June 9, 2008,
the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project (June 9, 2008, Planning
Commission Minutes). The designer submitted a response letter dated July 3, 2008, and revised plans date
stamped July 7, 2008. Listed below are the Commissions' comments and responses by the applicant.
1. Would be appropriate to have wood siding along both Kenmar and Summit elevations. Wood siding
should be provided in lieu of stucco.
• The applicant is proposing horizontal wood siding along the Kenmar and Summit elevations. In addition,
board and batten siding is proposed on the gable ends along these elevations (see revised building
elevations, sheet A-7).
2. Reusing a lot of windows (applicant - on/y the double-paned windows).
• The applicant notes that only one window is being reused. The existing double-pane window in the
master bedroom facing the side yard will be relocated in the same room along the KenmarWayfrontage.
The existing window matches the finro other windows along Kenwar Way. All three windows will contain a
painted wood trim to match the trim along Summit Drive (see revised building elevations, sheet A-7).
3. Concern regarding enlargement of the rear deck; the exisfing deck is rather large, but seems to be a
bit of a privacy impacf upon the neighbor; doesn't see the need for fhe enlarged deck (applicant -
clienf is willing to eliminate this aspect of fhe design). Deck expansion shou/d be eliminated; there
is probably a way to incorporate a door fo the existing deck from the master bedroom suite; will
require a review of fhe roofline of the addition.
• The enlarged deck has been eliminated (see revised Main Floor Plan and building elevations, sheets A-3
and A-7). A new landing and stairway will be added off the existing deck to provide access to the yard.
4. Asked if this is the second time a Variance has been requested?
• Planning staff would note that on April 27, 1992, the Planning Commission denied an application for
Hillside Area Construction Permit for an 836 SF addition on the main floorand a 1,778 SF addition above
the main floor. The action was appealed to City Council, which upheld the Planning Commission's
decision to deny. In their decisions, both the Planning Commission and City Council noted that the
proposed addition would have a substantial impact on existing distant views.
5. Regarding the second-f/oor Variance, there are severa/ ofher homes on Kenmar that have similar
conditions with similar addifions due to the down s/ope of the lots; none of the otherhomes have the
two-foot offset; if is a prevalenf condition in the neighborhood.
• The second floor along Kenmar Way was set back an additional finro feet to provide a 20'-0" second floor
front setback (see Main Floor Plan and Landscape Plan, sheets A-3 and A-10). With this revision, the
Second Floor Front Setback Variance was eliminated.
6. Fee/s that massing of fhe addition on Kenmar may b/ock some of the sun for fhe homeowner; will feel
pretty massive; bulk and mass will be facing Summit and Kenmar; consider pushing back the master
bedroom suite to reduce impact.
• As noted above, the second floor was set back an additional finro feet along Kenmar Way. In addition,
the first floor was set back an additional 8'-0" (from 13'-6" to 21'-6") from the side property line adjacent to
3 Kenmar Way. The second floor was set back an additional 3'-6" (from 20'-6" to 24'-0") from the same
property line.
-3-
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit
2700 Summit Drive
In addition to increasing the setbacks on the first and second floor, the size of the project was reduced.
The previously proposed 263 SF deck was eliminated, the lower floor addition was reduced by 281 SF
and the main floor addition was reduced by 78 SF.
7. Install story poles.
� Story poles to show the extent of the proposed addition have been installed.
8. Location of the master bath on the upper level is not directly over the bathroom below. Is this a
design error? Rearranging the bedroom so that the bathrooms can be stacked would be /ess
expensive to construct.
• The floor plan has been revised so that the bathrooms in the master bedroom and playroom are stacked
(see revised floor plans, sheets A-3 and A-5).
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:
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 Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by
the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby
properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit
(Code Sec. 25.61.060).
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 plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July
7, 2008, sheets A-1 through A-10 and C-1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,
footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and NPDES Coordinator's November
19, 2007 memos, and the Fire Marshal's April 3, 2008 memo shall be met;
3. 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;
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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the
roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
-4-
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit
2700 Summit Drive
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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:
9. 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;
10. 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 Department; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Ora Hatheway, applicant and designer
Attachments:
June 9, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, dated July 3, 2008
Email dated May 6, 2008, from Joel Weise, 3 Kenmar Way
Email dated May 7, 2008, from neighbors at 2694, 2704 and 2707 Summit Drive; 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Kenmar
Way; 12 EI Quanito Way; and 2701 and 2703 EI Prado Road
Email dated May 7, 2008, from Gene Weeks, 7 Kenmar Way
Email dated May 14, 2008, from Jim Hannon, 2704 Summit Drive
Email dated May 22, 2008, from Anne Righetti, 2707 Summit Drive
Email dated June 3, 2008, from Dennis Dellinges
Email dated June 4, 2008, from Joel Weise, 3 Kenmar Way
Letter from Peter R. Davidson, dated June 6, 2008
-5-
Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit
Email dated June 8, 2008, from Lawrence and Cynthia Young, 5 Kenmar Way
June 23, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes, From the Floor comments from Joel Weise
Application to the Planning Commission
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed July 3, 2008
Contour Map of Site
Aerial Photo
2700 Summit Drive
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 9, 2008
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SECOND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ORA HATHEWAY, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND ADIB AND SYLVIA KHOURI, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report dated June 9, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Ora Hatheway, P.O. Box 150432, San Rafael; represented the applicant.
Met with neighbors, nine did not object. Two objected.
One person was concerned with view blockage;
Commission comments:
Would be appropriate to have wood siding along both Kenmar and Summit elevations.
Reusing a lot of windows (applicant - only the double-paned windows).
Concern regarding enlargement of the rear deck; the existing deck is rather large, but seems to be a
bit of a privacy impact upon the neighbor; doesn't see the need for the enlarged deck (applicant -
client is willing to eliminate this aspect of the design).
Public comments:
Anne and Cliff Reghetti, 2705 Summit; and Edna Steele, 18 EI Quanito spoke:
Asked if there will there be story poles (Commission — yes).
Asked if this is the second time a Variance has been requested?
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Regarding the second-floor Variance, there are several other homes on Kenmar that have similar
conditions with similar additions due to the down slope of the lots; none of the other homes have the
finro-foot offset; it is a prevalent condition in the neighborhood.
■ Feels that massing of the addition on Kenmar may block some of the sun for the homeowner; will
feel pretty massive; bulk and mass will be facing Summit and Kenmar; consider pushing back the
master bedroom suite to reduce impact.
■ Deck expansion should be eliminated; there is probably a way to incorporate a door to the existing
deck from the master bedroom suite; will require a review of the roofline of the addition.
■ Wood siding should be provided in lieu of stucco.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by CommissionerAuran.
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minufes June 9, 2008
Discussion of motion:
Install story po/es.
Location of the master bath on the upper level is not directly over the bathroom below. Is this a
design error? Rearranging the bedroom so that the bathrooms can be stacked would be less
expensive to construct.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and
Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 8:48 p.m.
10
��' . -
July 3, 2008 Response to Design Review Study Items of June, 9, 2008 -
Re: 2700 Summit Drive , Zoned R-1
-�,.��,;��..����
Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit.
Addition, remodel to a single family dwelling. (Ora Hatheway, applicant and designer:
and Adib and Sylvia Khouri. property owners) Project Planner; Rubin Hurin
Commission Comments
1. Would be appropriate to have wood siding along Kenmar and Summit
elevations.
Response: Wood siding to continue along Summit and Kenmar Way. Wood board
and batten at the gable ends under the roof and horizontal wood ship lap siding on
the main and lower floor walls. (to match existing)
2. Reusing a lot of windows (applicant - only the double-paned windows)
Response: Reuse only one window that matches the other two on Kenmar Way and is
double pane. Remove the existing bedroom window and move to the Kenmar
elevation. Trim all three windows on Kenmar with painted wood trim to match trim on
Summit elevation.
3. Concern regarding the enlargement of the rear deck; the existing deck is rather
large, seems to be a bit of privacy impact on neighbor; doesn't see the need for the
enlarged deck (applicant is willing to eliminate this aspect of the design.
Response: The enlarged deck has been removed in the revised design. The stair
from the deck to the back yard is designed to be built adjacent to the rear wall.
Public Comments
5. Asked if there will be story poles. ( Commission - yes)
Response: Story poles will be erected in accordance with the City of Burlingame's
guidelines.
6. Is this the second time a Variance has been requested?
Response: The property owners had made an initial request in the 1990s.
Additional Commission Comments
7. Regarding the second-floor Variance, there are several other homes on
Kanmar that have similar conditions with additions due to the down slope of the lots;
none of he other homes have two foot offset; it is a prevalent condition in the
neighborhood.
Response: The second floor has been redesigned with an offset of two feet,
removing the need for a second-floor Variance.
8. Feels that massing of the addition on Kenmar may block some of the sun for
the homeowner; will feel pretty massive; bulk and mass will be facing Summit and
Kenmar; consider pushing back the master bedroom suite to reduce impact.
Response: The revised design pushes the exterior walls in two feet on the Kenmar
and the rear (adjacent to 3 Kenmar Way) elevations.
9. Deck expansion should be eliminated; there is probably a way to incorporate a
door to the existing deck from the master bedroom suite; will require a review of the
roof line of the addition.
Response: Deck extension has been eliminated and there is no need for a door to
the deck from the master bedroom suite. After a review of the roof line of the addition,
the redesign proposes a 3' hip roof at the first floor. The second floor hip roof
is not as wide and now approximates the height of the existing hip over the (E) family
room.
10. Wood siding should be provided in lieu of stucco.
Response: Wood siding will be used in lieu of stucco.
Discussion of motion:
11. Location of the master bath on the upper level is not directly over the bathroom
below. Is this a design error? Rearranging the bedroom so that the bathrooms can be
stacked would be less expensive to construct.
Response: The proposed redesign has the bathrooms stacked.
0
S_:� ,. � .
� �+ ie„ � .. .-.
I I J i � � ����
CITl OF BURLII��GAME
pLJaNNING DEPT.
— �s�t� _ __---�'��� `_. l���'�=-�-' � ---- —
{ �
��'' j�� a -J U�
��:xt�_ �� 9 �.�__� - �r—` �_f� � EL✓Z ��'U "` v-- --- ,, ��---��—� — � `'P- ------------
7 C/' � � -�� _ r�i , . � , _ 'i "'�' �___—.
< f ` `v'`-L. � d � i �✓� � f-i /d-'�� ��✓���^ �!`� � i�,r- ".� . �.- � �' J '- -}� �'��-
����_-._-.�.
t �
� c',r � � � T�� Ys'��«�` ��.t � �"� --���t^y '�~`�-�—' ------
`L� � f ^ ~2j ,
. � ___ �,—__�,
t _ ,^ -a �
_ _� ���� � �' � � �..,� �''� �-� G� �� ------
�-] � �:_ �' v`� + r'' �4/ �- i + .�� �'., 1 t;� . d R�x�}'' � �__ i. �j�—_ �-fi;� � _ � � �4+�;�` ___
r
: j,, ) e} J/
� � „d<i./ � : �?•I'�1"6'x/��1��-eC.•� �� .� � i'+Y.r+��•�Ers'`t�„�f;-� �• �'R B.E-J' C�S ' -3 -+ � "..� 't'��,' �. ,P'i � _
� �,�+C7�? � � �+ �� C�� �• � �C:' �� ,�' � ,��''. ,�'��,-'° � � __ ��; — ;�'� '� _:..��"�� -- —•--
I li l.�.d�ii�" � }� � � 3.- � � ,�� � f f /� .� A, ____ ���^"�-� __ �" _
�,t
i �':'�
,-� � �' '�: +�., -� � ��! ,�� � �,,?�;'�,�'
i �S�G �------ � ----- ----
�
`� �
�
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PRF.PARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben `�'�" "v`"
From: Joel.Weise@Sun.COM on behalf of joel weise [Joel.Weise@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:45 P�"
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Subject: 2700 Summit
Ag�enda Item #9 "$�������
xi Ruben 2700 Summit Drive h,qAY -? 2008
�5.12.d8 PC IUleeting
thanks for your time the other
I thought I would send you a quick note now with some comments regarding the variance at
2700 Summit. I will assemble a letter from the other neighbors but I've only had one day
to canvas people - so far 100% of the 10+ neighbors I talked to think this is a really
bad idea allowing
the variance. Others have stated they agree but are concerned about
what they perceive as the applicants being rather vindictive and as such do not want to go
on the record opposing the variance. I will send you a separate email from the collective
neighbors tomorrow morning.
In any case, my feeling (as well as all of the other neighbors) is that the addition as
proposed is much too large, grossly out of scale and does not fit the look, character and
feel of the existing homes in the neighborhood.
There appear to be a number of families living in the house and this has created a
consistent nuisance problem which I can only imagine would be exacerbated given the size
of the addition proposed. A major concern is that yet more families would move in to the
house.
You said that what is their backyard where they desire to extend the addition is in fact
the front of the house. That doesnt make much sense to me since the front door is on
Summit as well as their address, but either way, this will most definitely have an adverse
affect on my adjacent property. I am sure that a child's playroom will mean a great deal
of additional noise and traffic beyond what is already a nuisance problem.
Another issue given what I see on the plans, is the blockage of the Sun into the front
rooms of my home where I spend most of my time. That I have a real problem with since the
other property is pretty much directly south where we get our sun.
I also talked with Pete Davidson at 2694 Summit - he thought that the addition might
affect his canyon view as he apparently looks across the current house and yard from the
west. Pete is rather old and indicate he might not be able to put a separate email or
letter together.
A number of the neighbors on Summit, Kemnar and E1 Quanito are either on vacation or not
available but according to other neighbors may want to make additional comments.
Given the time constraint here, and from what you have told me, I assume that the planning
commission will accept email feedback. Please let me know asap if you would like me to
print this off and hand deliver a copy.
regards
see reverse side of page
�
�
�
�CDAli�lt'�' , „��� �_�. ���G"LD
� AITfi, ��-�'���' �,� �77��N
} nFS1:iF;� 11;.i��;:T
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben `-�T=---�--�-Y. `
From: Joel.Weise@Sun.COM on behalf of joel weise [Joel.Weise@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:16 AM
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Subject: 2700 Summit - additional comments on variance
Agenda Item #9
Date May 6, zoos 2700 Summit Drive
05.12.08 PC Meetin
To: City of Burlingame Planning Commission g
From:
Jim Hannon - 2704 Summit
Pete Davidson - 2694 Summit
Jeff Rothman - 12 E1 Quanito
Hart Chabot - 2703 E1 Prado
Dennis Dellinges - 2701 El Prado
Joel Weise - 3 Kenmar
Larry Young - 5 Kenmar
Charlie Champan - 6 Kenmar
Mike Weeks - 7 Kenmar
Aidi Fang - 8 Kenmar
Re: Variance application for 2700 Summit Drive
We have a number of concerns -
, �..
� �.�,��„,��i � �L�
i,�If�Y — '� 2008
' : ; `; OF 6URLINGAME
�I,�NNING DEPT.
It would have been a bit more neighborly for the applicants to have discussed their
intentions with the surrounding neighbors so we would have an understanding of their
proposal. We appreciate the city bringing this to our attention.
The planning commission has previously rejected a similar variance for the applicant for
similar reasons. We do not see any reason to allow this one to be approved.
Any second story addition or change to the footprint of the house would potentially create
an encroachment of the current bay and canyon views for several of the surrounding
properties.
A house of the size and dimensions indicated on the plans is excessive and does not fit
into the size, setbacks, look, feel, character or composition of the neighborhood. An
additional concern being that such an out of character home would adversely affect home
values in the neighborhood.
The addition penetrates considerably into what we consider to be the backyard. This
reduces the buffer zone between homes and brings different nuisance problems noted below
closer. In addition, the front
(side?) setback appears insufficient in relationship to other homes. For example the
setbacks at the front of 3 Kenmar and 5 Kenmar are both approximately 34' (36' from curb
to front door), making the 'average'
setback of 25' on Kenmar questionable. The applicants proposed setback according to the
plans appears to be only an 'average' of 28'. This would be out of character with the
other homes in the neighborhood. Note that the setback for the adjacent property at 3
Kenmar was excluded from the applicants plans. Given the orientation of the applicants
home it is not clear how a backyard setback is applied.
We already have issues with noise, rubbish and traffic from the applicants. This has been
a consistent nuisance problem as there are a lot of people coming and going at the
property and there appears to be multiple families living at the address; and enlarging
the footprint and size of their house would be problematic as these issues would further
increase. There are typically 5-6 or more cars at this address at any one time creating
see reverse side Qf page
� ,
� t'raffic and parking problems and trash cans and rubbish have been dumped on adjoining
properties. Given that the home appears to function in part as a day care center, adding a
"children's playroom" of 738' as indicated on the plans would seem to exacerbate these
issues. A further concern would be that additional families might move in and increase the
noted nuisance factors.
The applicants have a history of attempting to circumvent the city building and planning
departments (removal of protected trees, encroachment of fences onto public easements,
installation of a new roof, etc) and as such, we are concerned that they may attempt to
make modifications that are not in the best interest of the neighborhood and/or not within
the scope of any potentially issued permit. (Several neighbors asked how the existing
concrete fence on Kenmar could be removed as it appears to encroach on the public
easement.)
The addition will block sunlight on some adjoining properties from the south and west.
2
C(�1tl�ill'i:�7��:� 1;1:\ :;t.� ;.: i i:U "
AFTER PR£PAR�ITIUN
OF STAFF REPORT
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From: mikgen1@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:27 AM
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Subject: 2700 Summit, Burlingame
Dear Rubin,
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item #9
2700 Summit Drive
05.12.08 PC Meeting
I was very disturbed to find out about the plans that are being considered for 2700 Summit. I briefly
talked to someone(the architect I thought) who was doing setback measurements of the neighboring
houses for the variance request. I was told at the time that the addition would be a modest 500 sq feet.
Now I am hearing that the house is being redone to be just under 5000 square feet. That is way too large
of a house for the property. All the neighboring houses are standard ranch style homes with both front
and back yards. The houses themselves are 2000-3000 sq ft.
Generally, construction adds to the value of the neighborhood. Past work that has been done to this
house has had the opposite affect. A fence that was added to the property is so poorly constructed and
maintained that it reflects badly on the neighborhood. It is an eyesore that too is not in keeping with the
area.
Please do not allow the hills to be overrun by houses that overtake the lot size.
These houses were built for open space. Lets keep them that way.
Unfortunately, I will be at a soccer meeting on Monday the 12th and I cannot attend the hearing, but I
wanted to be sure that you heard my objections.
Sincerely,
Gene Weeks
7 Kenmar Way
inilc�cil .1....��conl..c... .a......s...t......n.....e.t.
347-8504
��.��i`�s �;�:
�v�AY - 7 2008
CIT`l OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
S/7/2008
Page 1 of 1
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From: Hannonconst@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:58 AM
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Subject: 2700 Summit Drive
Ruben:
I'm writing about the 2700 Summit possible project. I live at 2704 Summit
I had the neighbor's son knock on my door and tell about his parents addition. He showed me the plans and
tried to explain them to me. I'm a general contractor, so, I showed him what the plans stated and where they
were missing major details.
The owners are trying to add to the bottom of the house and the upper level. The upper level addition is very
clear on these plans. The lower addition isn't properly drawn on the plans. They want the lower addition to
extend 8.5 feet further than the upper addition. No where on the plans, shown to me, is this clearly marked.
The extra 8.5 feet would put the addition 11.5 feet from the property line. That would be a big change to the
neighbors property.
I'm concerned about the project being done properly and within the standards set in the City.
Thanks
Jim
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? _G.et new_twists_on fa_mily favo.rites at_AOL Fo_o_d..
6/2/2008
Page 1 of 1
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From: anne.righetti@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:28 AM
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Subject: property at 2700 Summit Dr
I live at 2707 Summit Dr and I am concerned that the proposed structure will greately impede on the
property of Mr. Joel Weise on Kenmar Dr. I am interested in a public hearing on the matter as well as
several of my neighbors on Summit Dr. Thank you, Anne Righetti P.S. It may also impede on my
view.
�, � � i �� � hi..�
M�Y 2 2 2008
CITI° OF EllRLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
S/22/2008
;`y- �':f��r' .. . '.a`#.�.�� . `'`Fnar`,risT ;;0;,�� �'t,.�`
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ruben Hurin,
Dennis Dellinges [ddellinges@farmersagent.com]
Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:23 PM
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
2700 Summit
� ,., _)�
� �Vl�lll'�U1V1(,.f2�1U1� ��ll:��.L'IVtSV
� �1FTER PREPARATION �
nr,S?'4�'F .P, .F..pOR7'
I have had the opportunity to review the site plans for the project at 2700 Summit. I
have noticed that a new fence is being proposed that will encroach onto the city easement
where there is a sidewalk on Summit. As the plans indicate this will be a continuation of
the fence on the Kenmar side of the lot, it is clear that the look, feel and mass of the
fence will be out of character for the neighborhood. In addition, I would not agree that
the city sidewalk should be encroached upon for the benefit of one homeowner.
Best Regards,
Dennis Dellinges
����� ��'�
��_iN - 3 2008
i.,ITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
,
��_'. ..'f3 '''� _
^ !NG "^F' � .
1
�EvEiVED
JUN - �i 2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
4�`��i�:�.���_� V R��J
(;1'• � ' � . . . . `.Itn�
' ' ,�'tNr ; ' —F'l
��G ���� �.�'. ��.�{ZiiL
�ti1F K b�, ��:b� ►sv �tti �K
t'��.� ;• -�-,:'J ir;`i ; `tl:' '� :Cit.�:1�
t' .�+ .�?�3. r'YJ, :;r,t,'r� ,-kf.E►sr',",a{? i��''�'b `r��
... �, �'�
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ruben
Joel.Weise@Sun.COM on behalf of joel weise [Joel.Weise@Sun.COM]
Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:02 AM
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
anne.righetti@comcast.net; Hannonconst@aol.com; mikgen1@comcast.net;
ddellinges@farmersagent.com; Joel.Weise@Sun.COM
Re: Status of 2700 Summit Drive � ti'U�lI,L1L:�lC�]lYUNRlCL1Y"F.1>
� AFTER PREP.9RATION
�,
� � �'T `'.r'�' �n.'_'PORT
thank you for this status - Although you have indicated that the applicants at 2700 Summit
desired to work with the neighbors, we have only had one visit from them where they
threatened us and I would guess, had no desire to work in a cooperative manner.
I regret that I will be out of the country when the meeting takes place but would
appreciate it if the Planning Commission considered the comments here as well as those
provided on May 7 2008.
I have consolidated comments from all adjacent and other neighbors here.
Given that there are no changes to the project, as far as we know the original issues
continue to exist and have not been addressed by the applicants. (Please see the original
comments from May 7, 2008.) In addition, after reviewing the variance application, we
would make the following comments and responses to the variance application:
The down stairs 'playroom' has look and feel of an in-law unit — at over 700 sqft it's the
size of an apartment and has a separate entrance, plumbing, etc.
Why is #3 Kenmar not on site map? As this is one of the most affected homes it seems it
should be included. The site plan appears misleading as it does not show the actual
position of #3 Kenmar relative to the proposed addition.
Addressing the Variance Applications
a. exceptional circumstances.
We dont see how the justification on the application addresses the exceptional
circumstances or conditions that the variance requires. A lot of odd dimensions does not
seem like an exceptional circumstance. If the lot is of odd dimensions then why crowd
neighbors at the closes point? Why not build where there is more room, eg off the family
room noted on the plan? or within the pocket of the existing patio? Why not consider the
issues presented and reduce the size of the addition so that it does not penetrate so far?
How is the "main living floor of the structure on Kenmar" when the house and front door
faces Summit?
b. why is a variance necessary for preservation of property rights etc.
It is not clear that there is a hardship here. why is direct access to a crawl space and
storage a hardship or necessary from within the home? it would seem that if access is
needed to the downstairs area it could be built without the addition as designed. Why not
expand into the existing deck? Doing so would probably not create the view obstruction
that exist with the current proposal. To suggest that the master bedroom has no other
options for expansion does not seem accurate.
c. why not detrimental
s�ee r�v�r�Q side nfi t^is pa�:.�
�
.. ,_�,
;! b ° .�. � ": �%
,�1�.:���.. 1 �y
iUN � 4 2008
� ;,�' O� BURL!!�Gl�f�fF
-_I '.�J^!li:�`. _. =
The response here does not seem to answer the question — a majority of the adjacent
neighbors do see the proposal as detrimental. Public safety is affected by the
encroachment of the fence — at 2 feet from the curb, this seems to be a potential hazard
to traffic. There is a concern that the previously noted factors of traffic, noise and
rubbish would be exacerbated by allowing the home to increase in size. According to the
plans, the extension of the existing fence will encroach into the city easement and onto
the sidewalk.
The proposed additions size, height and dimensions would reduce the sunlight into the
adjacent property patio and home.
The proposed additions size, height and dimensions would create a view encroachment from
several adjacent properties.
d. compatible aesthetics, mass, bulk.
The applicants response to this question, that the addition is within
the FAR, does not appear to addressed the question here. The majority of
adjacent neighbors feel that the proposed addition is incompatible with
other homes in the neighborhood and would not match the aesthetics,
mass, bulk and character of their properties.
All of the homes on Kenmar are simple elevated ranchers — and no one has
a such a large and massive structure so close to the street. To say the
'mass and bulk proposed fit the average mass and bulk of the neighbors'
is not accurate.
Most of the homes on Kenmar are in the order of 50� smaller —(the avg
size of adjacent properties is approximately 2400 sqft). The look, feel,
dimensions, setback, etc do not conform to that found on Kenmar — the
homes on Kenmar have their front doors on Kenmar, are single stories,
have lawns and landscaping and match in their style.
Given the look, feel, style and mass of the existing fence there is a
concern that any addition would have a similar look and feel which is
clearly out of character with the other homes. An additional concern is
that the site plans indicate the existing fence will be continued onto
Summit and encroach into the city easement and onto the sidewalk. As the
existing fence is out of character with the neighborhood any extension
to it would also be out of character.
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben wrote:
>
> Dear Property Owner,
>
> This email is being sent to you because you expressed concerns
> regarding the proposed project at* 2700 Summit Drive, Burlingame.*
>
> As you are aware, the applicants withdrew their application for a
> proposed first and second story addition from the May 12, 2007
> Planning Commission agenda. The applicants noted that they wanted to
> discuss the proposed project with the neighbors prior to the Planning
> Commission meeting.
>
> The applicant notified the Planning Division that they are ready to be
> scheduled for Planning Commission review. There were no changes made
> to the project. With this email I am confirming that the application
> for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Second Floor
2
1 _
�. _ _.
,; �,;,,
,� i
-; UF ��Ft! !:.;:,, ,,.,_
-�� _A I�! I',! I tJ C> [. _� r
�> Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition has been
> scheduled for a Planning Commission Design Review Study on Monday,
> June 9, 2008. A public hearing notice (small blue postcard) will be
> mailed out on May 30, 2008.
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact me by email or phone should you have
> any questions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ruben
>
> Ruben Hurin
>
> Planner
>
> Community Development Department - Planning Division
>
> 501 Primrose Road
>
> Burlingame, CA 94010
>
> (650) 558-7256 (phone)
>
> (650) 696-3790 (fax)
>
> rhurin�burlingame.org <mailto:rhurin@burlingame.org>
>
3
��������
JUN �� 4 2008
"; 0� �U;?Lii�'G?.h.r�.
' ` ;�";:�' . -_�
PETER R. DAVIDSON
2694 SUMMIT DR1VE
PO BOX 1577
BURLINGAME, CA 9401 D
PC Meeting 06.09.08
Agenda Item # 6
2700 Summit Drive
PHOIVE (650) 348-5451
FAX (650) 348-5452
— CALL BEFORE HAND —
JUNE 6, 2008 C'O�ii1�lU.�VICATIDNhECL1��L
AFTER PREPARATION
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION, OFLSTitFFREPORT
y. ._:_ "' _,_ .-_..-__ ...-__'._._"" '-__
501 PRIMROSE ROAD, ��;; �:
., ,��.. V
BURLINGAME, CA '
;_i i�i - � 20��
RE: DESIGN REVIEW STUDY, ( PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 9, 2008 ) ,-,,, �F �„R�.�ra�;A;;�t
, ..��:ni�r -,.
2700 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY, HILLSIDE
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY VOICE TO THOSE CONCERNED WITH ( 1) EXPANSION OF THIS
RESIDENCE ( BUILDING ) AS PROPOSED AND ( 2) EXTENSION. DOWN EL PRADO, OF THE
CURRENT 1 0 FOOT WIDE ENCROATCHMENT ON THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY .THE ENCROATCHMENT
PROCEEDS ALONG BOTH KENMAR WAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE FRONTS OF THE PROPERTY AND
CONTAINS A FENCE. THE FENCE HAS A MASSIVE ASPECT TO IT �F CONCRETE AND WROGHT IRON.
I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE '69, ACROSS THE STREET ( OPOSITE CORNER ON KENMAR ) AND
OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES AS FOLLOWS:
EXPANSION
A) THE MASS AND BULK OF THE EXPANDED BUILDING WILL VERY SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT
MY VIEW- BOTH DISTANT AND UP CLOSE. BUILDING OUT TO ONLY 13' 6" FROM ADJOINING
PROPERTY LINE (#3 KENMAR ) SLIDES MASS AND BULK MORE INTO VIEW AND DEPRIVING ME
OF CANYON VIEWS
B) WITH ONLY 13' 6" TO ADJOINING PROPERTY (#3 KENMAR )- MASS, BULK, LITE AND
SUNLITE ISSUES MUST BE FORMADABLE.
C) MASS AND BULK , DENSITY - CURRENTLY 4 OR MORE CARS IN YHE DRIVE WAY (PLUS
ONE IN THE GAGAGE} AND ALL THAT ENTAILS - ARE CERTA{NLY MATTERS THAT CONCERN THE
NEIGHBORH40D.
D) WITH REGARD TO THE MAY 5" VARIANCE APPLICATION" ANSWERS BY APPLICANT:
PAI�AGRAF (C) NOT CORRECT AS OTHER CORNER LOTS DID NOT BUILD MASSIVE
STRUCTURES - CONCRETE AND IRON FENCE - ON 1 0 FEET OF ENCROACHED ON ClIY RIGHT OF
WAY.
PARAGRAF (D) NOT CORRECT AS THE MASS AND BULK DOES NOT FIT THE MASS AND BULK
OF NEIGHBORS.
E) WITH REGARD TO NOTICE MAY 17 HANDED TO ME SAME DATE ( ATTACHED EXHIBIT A):
PARAGRAPH (3) NOT CORRECT
PARAGRAPH (1 THRU 5) MAYBE,- PLAYS WITH WORDS - BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF
PROPERTY IS SOLD? CONTINUED
Pa�� 1��f 3- see over
EXTENSION ( CURRENT FENCE ENCR�ATCHMENT DOWN EL PRADO �
I WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS BEING FLATLY OPPOSED TO BUILDING ANY SUCH STRUCTURE
ON ENCROACHED CITY RI�HT OF WAY
I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS GOT APPROVED IN THE FIRST PLACE. CITY AUTHORITIES
STATE ALMOST NOBODY BUILDS ON CITY RIGHT OF AWAY TO THE EXTENT 2700 HAS.
AMONG OTHER THINGS CITY RIGHT OF WAY RESERVES SPACE FOR SIDE WALKS,
UTILITIES,STREET WIDENiNG, ETC
WHILE, IN GRANTING A SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, THE CITY RESERVES ITS PRE
EMINENT AUTHORITY BUT WHO ENDS UP PAYING FOR WHAT IN TERMS OF DOLLARS AND
DELAYS FOR REMOVAL OF SUCH STRUCTURES.
THERE IS ALSO A PROBLEM RUNNING THE FENCE DOWN EL PRADO OF RUNNING SMACK INTO
EKISTING SlDE WALK.
THERE IS ALSO A PROBABLE SAFETY PROBLEM CAUSED BY PROXIMITY OF THE CONCRETE
AND WROGHT IRON STRUCTURE TO THE CURB - ON KENMAR, SUMMIT AND NOW COMMING UP
ON EL PRADO.
,. � ,�
�� �
�I /-
. • �� � !
R � �� a.:.. �.a a� r �� �- :�:>
JUN � � ZnO�
C!'^�' OF GURLINGAME
PLANf�!I!�lr �E?T.
w e� �'.�{. f'.• r� i: ��^ S C' � L"� �a �E' r
, �'
�
1
May 17, 2008
�
��
�
�-� " .
� '
�
������
C
���'� ,
��
��� �
Dear Neighbor,
It has come to our attention that you may have potential concerns regarding the proposed
additions at 2700 Summit Drive, Burlingame. The additions are briefly described below:
f �
� �
We propose to expand what is now a relatively small master bedroom and
bathroom by essentially extending the bedroom and bathroom walt to be flush
with the existing �g room wall. -
�� �
As a result of this work, additional space will be necessarily created below the
master bedroom and bathroom.
�• We will not construct a second level above the existing home. Therefore, current ��
views and sunlight will not be affected.
• The home is not currently used as a day-care center, and the proposed additional
space will not be used as a day-caze center.
• Only one family lives in the home, and no additional families will move in as a
result of this construction.
We would like the opportunity to meet with you at your convenience to describe the
proposed work in greater detail and to listen to any of your concerns. Please contact us at
rm khouri@sbcglobal.net to schedule an appropriate time to have this discussion.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Ed and Sylvia Khouri
�
�
�
c
` �.'�.� z�- a '� -,�''�"
, i� W � 200�
�� BURLINGAMc
Pl_r`-,NN1NG !��-PT
a
� �
. :�i�;�' v r'i'i ,� • S��f' �ti+'t�f
Page 1 of 1
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From: Cynthia Young [cmgyoung@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:11 PM
To:
Cc:
CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
larryyoung@hotmail.com
PC Meeting 06.09.08
Agenda Item # 6
2700 Summit Drive
Subject: Public Hearing on 6-9-2008, Re: 2700 Summit Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Hurin:
We will be unable to attend the public hearing this coming Monday, June 9, 2008.
We are sending this e-mail to express some concerns regarding the proposed addition to the property at
2700 Summit Drive. The addition to the property of a second story to the house may block the view and
disturb the privacy of the adjacent houses and the neighbors across the street on Summit. We received a note
from the owners of 2700 Summit Drive stating they are not adding a second story so we are concerned that there
is a conflict in the story we are hearing from your office and the neighbors. We are opposed to anyone adding a
second story to their house unless all homeowners in this protected view zone are permitted to build up a second
story.
Second of all, granting an easement to build close to the property line encroaches on the neighbor's home and
undermines the character of our neighborhood. There is already a fence that was built over the setback.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Lawrence and Cynthia Young
5 Kenmar Way
Burlingame, CA 94010
Now you can invite friends from Facebook and other groups to join you on Windows LiveT'" Messenger. Add_them
now!
C011li�l UNI C� "ll U��' RL CEI vED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF ST,�FF RFPORT
��I�.r�����
JUN - 9 2008
CIT`; OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
�7��..�'L � {�1 i
6/9/2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
June 23, 2008 - 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the June 23, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Terrones, Vistica and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; and
City Attorney, Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by CommissionerAuran to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2008
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:
Page 3, Item 2a. 2520 Valdivia, second bulleted item:
,
;
#�e-xeside+�c� The neighbors removed the glass patio door from their master bedroom and
closed up that space with a stucco wall. They a/so replaced a four-foot fence wifh a six-foot
fence; the new fence blocks the view when seated in the patio area.
Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Joel Weise, 3 Kenmar Way; noted his objections regarding the proposed project at 2700 Summit Drive
(Design Review Study item from June 9, 2008 Planning Commission agenda). There is a proposal to install
a fence on the public sidewalk. View obstructions will occur. His home is adjacent to the property, but not
shown on the plans; average setback is not accurate. Most of neighbors are objecting to the setback
calculation. The owners have gone around asking the neighbors not to object to the plan; neighbors were
intimidated not to get in the way of the project. With respect to the Variance; it speaks to the look, feel and
mass of the structure; the house is nearly 5,000 square feet and includes an in-law unit; this does not fit with
the neighborhood, the home is too large. The applicant has already built a fence within a foot or two of the
street; have encroached into a public easement. All of the adjacent neighbors object to the plans.
CommissionerAuran recused himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 1, since he
has a business relationship with the applicant.
��' 1 T +'.
.� ,;;:� l �
--��." �.���.�
o���-=
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
❑ Design Review
❑ Conditional Use Permit
❑ Variance ❑ Other:
❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel Number:
PROJECT ADDRESS: �L-~IC�U sU WLWI b l D�[►�� �U l2 C-I 1�U(oL}{tij�
APPLICANT project contact person ❑ PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: /�cf � I� � 4(1 � � � c� V�� V I A IMJ(/Y'� Name: ��Wt�E A- S
Address: ���Q SVWt/1�.y� �r _
City/State/Zip: � 18
UV' l�lG�-a-I'Y! - �
I
Phone (w): � '�j�D�- �? 3 - 21 `� 3
(Home): � � SD?�44 - �� 70
(Fax): /
(E-mail): �
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Pro�ect contact Person�l
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: �2�1 �%�{�
Address: �. � . �,9�G � SO��
City/State/Zip: � �9"�'V ,�y-f-f}�� ��}- ��f/5
Phone (w): �.� / - 2. g
(Home): ��,� ZG, ! - D z 4 �-
(Fax): �
(E-mail)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
�
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and be � f.
Applicant's signature: , � Date:� �.— / LJ -- � ��
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:� � — ��� �
. CDG�l
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
u��
(Home): r� � �'' �` u°� � � �'�
..�, �,o: �
(Fax): ,
.� �
(E-mail): , - �,, ,o� �.�; _ � ,;�F
�IJ>NNING DEP?.
Please mark one box
with m
to indicate
the contact person
for this project.
i1/�
Date submitted:
S:\Handouts�PC Application 2007.handout
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
Project Description:
� ^ �. � .� ` �3 ! '. . . . . .
Key:
Abbreviafion Term
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declinin Hei ht Envelope
DSR Desi n Review
E Existin
N New
SFD Sin le Famil Dwelling
SP Special Permit
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
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 and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to a
sinqle familv dwelling at 2700 Summit Drive zoned R-1 Adib and Svlvia Khouri, property
owners, APN: 026-162-240;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
July 14, 2008, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is
no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15301 (e)(1),
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, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and
Hillside Area Construction Permit 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 14`h dav of July , 2008 by the following
vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval
Construction Permit.
2700 Summit Drive
Effective July 24, 2008
for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Hillside Area
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped July 7, 2008, sheets A-1 through A-10 and C-1, and that any changes to
building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an
amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and NPDES
Coordinator's November 19, 2007 memos, and the Fire Marshal's April 3, 2008 memo
shall be met;
3. 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;
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), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval
Construction Permit.
2700 Summit Drive
Effective July 24, 2008
Page 2
for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Hillside Area
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
9. 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;
10. 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
Department; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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 �'��='v����`��'�a�,'
— Y ,� ., 5 i��'��tr���,
�_ ,�h , BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �� _ �,� ; �,
- ; PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650 �'�� � �� �
- - www.burlingame.org ��a��°a "����'� �
�;����m��.���
��=� . =�4�� �.
: ���,��_,�;-,
_ s-..��-r c� � n ��.'�� :
.us:n� ,� ����'�...
Site: 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Pianning Commission announces the
following publit hearing on MONDAY, JULY 14, 2008
at 7:00 P.Ma in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501
Primrose Raad, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit for first nnd
second story addition to a single family dwelling at 2700
SUMMIT DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 021-130-130
Mailed: July 3, 2008
(Please refer to other side)
J��'��;3��3�=�
� ��.���
iyi�jycr_ i'lO�T7 'V+G-V il9
�� �''�J� � i��:'s�
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Cit,y of Burlinpame
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)
2700 S u m m it D rive
SCALE 1 : 553
20 0 20 40 60
FEET
� � -
, �� , " � � � � ��,�` �,, . �� '��—�. ��
� �� � u� ����b
�� -�m
�� � _� �� �}� � � �� ���� � �
��� �� � �' � �� � .�
� E � �� �.' �
� - � �? A �" � ka� �� �^' �� s �. �
' S &.. " � , ,�
•6 � P ,� ' . ! '� .
i� .' '6 � ����"�° � `
i
" � � � � y� ��� '�� ..�� �� ��� � � : :
��. f � �� � $ � . � � .
� � � x` � �y� � �a ��� � �'.
� . �� � �;'�� � � � � �' +� .� ' ��° � � � ��g �� � � � ,�°°�,
�' `� � "�
# � `� � a�� � �°� `� �� �� � � �
f ��
�-s
t�'
3'
�
�a �
- :� � _,.,.x...
� a * : � `� ` %��o-� � & s� � ':�a, . r k, '� �"� t ��. � � y.�F y �
'm 3 t � �' `�e; . ����, &5"� � a, �. � s^ ,�„ ��- � i . � 3
�' _ `�-��.-` �� �, . �'"� �.�t '� �,, �' � `a� , �' �' s �e � �'� x � , ' � �r' `," e � �r .�
� �
� `k ,�, � � a.. a� ,, � �'� �"� �" X"d_ '»,�"�� �'� . � `a,�.a�� � r� ;x�� � � �� '' � .F� '
� �t x � � � . � M
�` ' �a k � ��"'� � � �`�; R � � "^ c " � � �' s
i� � h x `* � , `z � �� .. _ . � � .'..e"` � .e , � �` � '�� �. �.`� „a'e s s R^
; g _' . �� _ �� � � � ,�� w � ^,���' �� � � � `'�,� ,:. ,/ . .��� . . _ � 3 '.^ .
�a
'4+ � �' a � � � �� x r � � � . �... '�. � . . .. �� �.
mC ,, i ,� �'� � � � �* �i,�am�i^ .�e. J s � "�� „� q'��'��y,� � t�v' � � tk�>.
a � �'� �4��� ��,s� s � �� ° ��S"a h� r� � � `=, �� �
= .' yt' ¢ � 'k � � � : �' F �' €�„' • Y � =�#P Y i `? ',�%
- � a` � �'�*` a , � a. '` "'�' ss��`� ��' `` ��"����� � ���'
� �� � � �.� a � P-T�� �''� � ,�.� ��.' � ���'Qr�.�k�` �� � �'� �'� "� ,� -Y �e ,, "�,� �� ��.
� � t � a -• ,� �-:4.
�� �n��� � ,� - � �� "�- � �a `�»,�. . �� �� � a� .. � � � �" y, -, �
s � � z ,�"�, `� � .��`„s o' �°' �i : ? .�p : ,�,ai. . � � � .� � "n�
� .�'�"� , � ., � "�" ' � •� `� � � � �&� �y��` � ���� .. k �, ���^ ��y� ��` €�e�� �' � _��`gr 1 �� � �a rr � ' . �..
�
��� . a 7� ,, � i � � , b� ��. � � � s «��v���a' � "' . �w S �^ ��� ,�• ,:� N, �,'�
�� � �r ,a � . � �� """� 3 2 ::^H�+^ � �r : "�
� ,f� �` � � 3 .� ���' �� �
�� �.�� � �-
� � �� � � � ��� � � � ��°� ��
.�t�""" � '� . ��,�'- � � ,� `' '�a � � � aa.�t�, � �� . � �� � � "`� . . ..
� � � � �� � � :�. � e �� '.a � � : � � � a�.,' • <. � #' � � � � i
v� �i ��' "��,- . � '`r € � �
� �'� ,. . .� , "�� �;�� g .e,� . �� � .� a ��, r
� � �'���,� � � �"L� � . �'` � 'k:�W+
� -' �: F � a� z€ fm � ¢ .. �� � ,�� '� �m� ��� '�y:t 36 ,� �: � �. +r +�. � E:, �'
� � a.� .e � i,s ..r�< x `� t ,�, �S v� � . ' w- �� � �
`4 4 � .�- � " . " ?�`. �
x
=� ���� " "� �" � � ��� � �'� �� ,,�,�• �� � � ���� ,� i ,��
� � c s��` �' � �� . � � ��� �'y���E �� � i � �� :
� : '�.-� r � .� � � °� a� .���' �•• � y
t� � `� � � � -� �' � �� � � s ��� � � � �' �� `� �, � � .�� "'a� £ � �
; � � � _ ��` � �,� ; �E �' � `� �" �� '� � � m a ��� " �" ���;� �
r
��; € a' � , �, w ��' � � +� ,� "� � { €� ""s, � � �,
`��� .�,_s ,� � ., � � � - 0�� �s v� � � � .-a� c� � �
� � . �� ° `� � � � �"� � ��° _ � `�Fr�'a� �� �� ��R �
� . �p � v ; �r
� � �'. � � :`� �/ - �y i`4� � � � � � �� = e < d�.. M "�,,#, ��,p ' gi '.� s - :
J a
!" � � ;�� � '�+
��'�% ' �� � .�,� ,F� .IR �t Z�� �'� lC� 'P� � t�-� �e '$T eEk '.'° { �� � d a :
3 f
�v �� x �� � � ��� �, �� _� . ��:: ���� � � +r � � � x � �, � g t �ti � z "� �� � � ��
����� �r�� �f � � � � � � . ��� r a � � e �� � ��� � � r
f � y .� : L �* �£ � � _ ,� �
� "� � � �
�` : ��� ��". t� :.. '�, � : x �a ��� E� ��� „��"�� �rp .2
� f �,,s � �� ��� •. �y ... � � ,��.� �� �F . �, P'�',. � � �Y � ,� ��''''°� ��� � � � f �`
�, � �, �R ._ . .'", � s�' *... �' �. -K. ,N � _
� �''w�.: � ������ s � �� �� l�`� � ' � . �' ;y'�S �d'� ..i.e e -� , g , �� � �° � �' �. � �a +�K�
� � .. « „�, �� � . � � t,. � ' � a+��. ��a� � � = x.
� � 3 �,. � �'"T� �° „y„ . � k R .. +' �� a >� � �; .t
` s *�' � �" � „��,� ,��,�''�� �' ' ♦` ,.� � � N, ��.' '�., -:�` ��b� :� �
` 6 �` s� � a ,� �e , i- '`g_ � � � � . � �wr ��- ,y,z a , �
� -�-g r� . � � . � � `
^ � '� � ,� i � � `a �` ', � . � Y �.' � � "�y� - �"*�` � � ���� � a '3 � ,
d . y, ,�' �., °,Y i 3 .
� a _ � m�. s� y" m,��5 ^��,.�` ."'� � ` � sa ",�.w s :
� � .. w� � � � � � �.' ��, T� r rti -� :' ��,. ,}^ �E �a.`�`s ' i
�. _ A ,{�:�,. "s� � �; y �� � �. «
� �.w . � �ty . � � r � �- . � � x �. �' 4 � �"�-���`,� �, ;z � � � .. � � �
� *'a . �.. - v . c�' � � r�-a° �� ''�t�. � �. �r •i
����� ,�..,� �-� ff ^R� ; a x � � .. ��� ' �z �`- '� �� '�•e, .• . . `c �; �'� �, �'`s�`"'�
� � � s ;<� �.,�" ,, ,,: � � :: �' �.� _ '�' . � �.. ;
4 , �' �. b � ,�� �, "+ a1� a ,�n 1 � �' , k _ _�
� :�=.. a'�� � �' ��� °� �� � �� �� � � F � � � 3� ��.. +�'�'��� �
� .A� ¢� t ^VLs ,h�F
� �� � �$ -�� � � � �`� � � � � � � �� �:�. 3�. � �k ��'�� . �� �' �, �� 5�`i ' $ � . ..
� � � �• .� �, ..'� � �k�� �. � � '3 � a a 1 . ��a. 9 `r� � � '� .a°',�a �,.. � "�i
� y.3,ro ����� ` �` � �' w�' � �' ua' > . % . '% � ; '� '$' � �4 ,m aQ+ k��';�
.� �� � �•� � ;l da � � �� y-, � � �*��B��+A� R:"
' s'� -� t3 ._ � E "dc � „� �* �'�i, , �p". "�s¢ � � �:`' g\,� > _' ��,�,�a,� ��s.°R^P� r
`�'� �`� � � �".v� a .��" t `"� x �`�_ a �'w «�.o.�� �. °� �z �, � � �` � >«
�a ,'�' =' � w�� � � � �. � r' a � � � 2 Y ,�a- �i"' � " ...
�, w � �, �, �� ,�� � �� ,m;� � d �K.�"`�� `�: � „� �t ' e �,� � Ns�+� � `� . — , '" �
� � «�� � � � � � �' �'g :''� � �. �
"' �. `� � � -� »� �*� «. � �y � �+ �� �� � � & � � �i '� �, �' .�.
,� ���` �'� ��� � �,. �`�`� � �`,�^�. � ; � � �� ��a � � � �� ��,
�� � � � �
�w. �� � , � .. � �, �"" °� �
� ..�*" 4 ��� � _ �; �z � �� � � ��"fi� � ���` � , � " � ' �
a� � � "� a '� a ,z
Y. .�
t P �� � s2. . � fi
�'�`�:�� a��� � � � � � ��� � ��� � �;��� ��. � ���. �`� � � � � s ,� � � � g
� ` � � x b� �.
a� ` � �°, � � :� � �.v. r.,. �� , z � ��
N.� � 4 a+ � p� . ��: �4 ����`s. ' "Ai � i § �@,' \L �"•�
-� q� «% 4�' ,{^N� � ,� � �-«.Y 8� ",,,�:^,�v ,_,� �'c � � :� �. � . ,� ,�'
=� y`
� � � ,� �� r � � . i'- �� �. � � � � � , a� �� � � ��� �8
� � . � � � � $ �� ��� �. ��� � �� � �"
w x,�" � '� � "�'� '�ti' � .., �� � ' ~ ���.�. `� � � "a.-•�" � �'.�;, � �.v�� �"+. � �,�- ,�.t�
� ; �s,�ti"",�>��,�. <, �.. � _"��'�� a; rrt �t � . .�-� � ". r�� a���`' � €�
�.'-' _.. � .
�,� � a „�a ,� ,� a . �,� �, a E
�� ,, • . ' a,���� � � ; �
"+ti ..,a � �:�y. # �.0
� � `� ���� ' -� ,� �.n, �� � � „�.. ' �
� � � � � .�. „ ��+� �` Y ��
�� �;� �� �7�Q Sur1"11"r�Et C���v� ��� �— ��.
.� � a � �
� � ��� � � ��: � a � �
�
�� ��� � � � �� �� � � � ��� � �
� � : �� � � �.. �g-..�.. — � � �� �, � �,� � �, � � ` �
� �p�+' 3 w � � '
� �, ��� � � �, � � �. �a �� � ��� , � � �`� � �
.�„�,zw. ,�� � � �;,� �a� � v�� . � ti� �F ,�r � � �. . � � ,��, � . ,� � -��, a
� +�°�.:o-, ::��r� �" ��. , �s . � a�'a� �'� � 3.'�'� :
� ,.�- � sr` �,.. �
� �` �, , ���. � � � '� ..� � �,�`���� ��:� � �����.
� . �..��� �� < ,�' �,s�: � � �.. `�. ���