HomeMy WebLinkAbout2700 Summit Drive (1 of 2) - Staff ReportItem No. �
Action Item
PROJECT LOCATION
2700 Summit Drive
City of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 2700 Summit Drive
Item No. v '
Action Item
Meeting Date: 04/27/09
Request: Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved 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.
History: On July 14, 2008, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review and
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition at 2700 Summit Drive, Zoned R-1
(July 14, 2008, P.C. Minutes). On August 11, 2008, an application for FYI regarding the design of the rear
stairway and perimeterfencing was reviewed and accepted bythe Planning Commission (August 11, 2008
P.C. Minutes). A building permit was issued on December 15, 2008, and construction is underway.
Proposed Revisions: The applicant is requesting an Amendment to Design Review for changes to a
previously approved first and second story addition. The existing house contains a sloped crawl space
underneath the main level, ranging in height from 3'-0" at the front of the house to +6'-0" at the rear. The
area of the existing crawl space greater than 6'-0" was included in the FAR calculation for the previously
approved project (approximately 284 SF). In the previous approval, the project included adding a new
playroom on the lower level adjacent to the crawl space at the rear of the house. The applicant is now
proposing to convert a portion of the crawl space at the rear of the house to habitable area with an 8'-0"
ceiling height to match that of the playroom (see revised Proposed Basement Floor Plan on sheet A-4,
date stamped April 2, 2009). This portion of the house does not meet the definition of a basement since it
is above grade.
In her letter dated April 2, 2009, the designer notes that the property owner would like to seismically
upgrade the foundation at the rear and left side of the house because the floors in the house slope to that
corner. As part of the upgrade to the foundation, the applicant is proposing to add new retaining walls and
a four-inch concrete slab floor in the lower level to create a storage room. Planning staff would note that
the proposed room qualifies as a bedroom and would increase the number of bedrooms to 7. The existing
two-car garage and driveway provide the required on-site parking (two covered and one uncovered
parking spaces). Visible exterior modifications include replacing an existing doorwith a larger door (from
2'-3" x 5' to 3' x 6'-8") and adding two new 6'-0" x 3'-6" sliding windows at the rear of the house. Along the
left side of the house, one 2'-6" x 6'-8" door and one 3'-0" x 3'-6" sliding window would be added. Other
than the proposed changes described above and in the applicant's letter, there are no other changes
proposed to the design of the house.
Summary (includes proposed revisions, plans date stamped April 2, 2009): 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.
Based on the first and second floor addition approved in July 2008, the two-story house with an attached
two-car garage contains 4,109 SF (0.28 FAR) (includes covered porch and lower floor FAR exemptions) of
floor area and has six bedrooms. With the current approval, the applicant is adding a front entry element
(13.5 SF), enlarging the existing master bedroom (372.5 SF) and adding a landing and stairway from the
Design Review Amendment 2700 Summit Drive
existing deck (72 SF) on the main floor. On the lower floor, the applicant is adding a new playroom and
bathroom (441.4 SF). With this application for Amendment to Design Review, the applicant would like to
convert a portion of the existing crawl space to habitable area with an 8'-0" ceiling height, which would
increase the floor area by 681 SF from 4,109 SF (0.28 FAR) to 4,790 SF (0.33 FAR) where the Zoning
Code allows a maximum of 5,539 SF (0.38 FAR). The proposed project is 749 SF below the maximum
allowed FAR.
The house contains six potential bedrooms (family room on main level and playroom on lower level qualify
as bedrooms). This project includes adding a storage room on the lower level which qualifies as a
bedroom. Therefore, the number of bedrooms will increase from six to seven. Two parking spaces, one
of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached two-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 two 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 following applications were originally approved with the project:
■ 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).
Lot Size: 14,498 SF Plans date stam ed: A ril 2, 2009
EXISTING PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED ALLOWED/
APPROVED (4/2/09 plans) REQUIRED
;
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 28'-0" 18'-0" no change 15'-8" (block
average)
(2nd flr): n/a 20'-0" no change 20'-0"
Side (left): 21'-0" i no change no change 7'-6"
(right): 26'-6" � 21'-6" no change 7'-0"
� .....................................................................................................:.....................................................................................................:..........................................................................................................
Rear (1sf flr): 16'-0" no change no change 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 16'-0" no change no change 20'-0"
.: ..................................................................................................... �..........................................................................................................
Lot Coverage; 3659 SF 4117 SF no change 5799 SF
25.2% 28.3% 40%
�. : . : . ............................ . ... .
FAR: 3395 SF 4109 SF 4790 SF 5539 SF'
0.23 FAR 0.28 FAR 0.33 FAR 0.38 FAR
: .....................................................................................................,..........................................................................................................
# of bedrooms: 5 6 7 ---
. ...............
:.....................................................................................................:..........................................................................................................
Parking: 2 covered no change no change 2 covered
(19'W x 19'-6"D) Z; (18' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
......................................................................................................,...... ......
: .................................................... _....................................................
Height: 16'-0" 14'-2" no change 30'-0"
_ .................:........................................
, .....................................................................................................,..........................................................................................................
,
DH Envelope: complies complies no change CS 25.28.075
Z (0.32 x 14,498 SF) + 900 SF = 5539 SF (0.38 FAR)
3 Existing nonconforming covered parking space length (19'-6" length existing where 20'-0" is required).
2
Design Review Amendment
2700 Summit Drive
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal and NPDES
Coordinator. The City Engineer and City Arborist had no comments.
Planning staff would note that the FYI's for the rear stairway and existing fence as required by conditions
of approval (#2 and 3) on the original project were reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission on
August 11, 2008. These conditions will remain with this application for Design Review Amendment.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Design Review as established in Ordinance No.1591 adopted by
the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
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 clearlyforthe 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 date stamped April 2, 2009, sheets
A-1 through A-8, and that any changes to building materials, exteriorfinishes, footprint orfloor area
of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the detailing of the rear stairway shall have a stucco base with a wood rail, and shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to construction;
3. that the existing fence shall be modified to be made of stucco with brick caps and all light elements
shall be removed, and the revised fence shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI,
prior to construction; further, the fence shall not be extended unless the design of the extension is
first reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's April 6, 2009 memos and the
NPDES Coordinator's April 7, 2009 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
3
Design Review Amendment
2700 Summit Drive
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. 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;
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the 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
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Ora Hatheway, applicant and designer
Attachments:
July 14 and August 11, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Letters of Explanation, dated April 2, 2009
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed April 17, 2009
Aerial Photo
note compliance of the
project has been built
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes Ju/y 14, 2008
5. 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (ORA HATHEWAY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ADIB AND SYLVIA KHOURI,
PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Commissioner Terrones noted that he had listened to recording of the June 9, 2008 meeting at which this
item was previously discussed and would participate in the deliberations this evening.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Does the same type of 10-foot easement (public right-of-way) exist along other lots on Kenmar
W ay?
Existing fence history (Meeker — legally in place via an encroachment permit).
Ora Hathaway, P. O. Box 150432, San Rafael; represented the applicant.
Surveyor found the property lines and determined that Kenmar Way has a 10-foot easement (public
right-of-way) from the curb into the property.
Tried to meet with all of the neighbors to address concerns expressed from neighbors and the
Commission.
Also tried to address the bulk and mass and eliminated the need for the Variance; no longer
proposing to extend the fence, but will continue to request approval of an engineered retaining wall
on the rear with a wood fence above to match existing; pillars are being removed.
Additional Commission comments:
Clarified scale of site plan.
When encroachment permit applied for, was the design called out in the permit (Hathaway — not
known; though she suggested applying stucco and brick elements to improve appearance; applicant
would agree if conditioned); also remove lighting from the fence.
The fence is an eyesore because of the bollards being off kilter and the lights; obtrusive.
Public comments:
Peter Davidson, 2694 Summit Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Steve Sterling,12 Kenmar Way; Joel
Weise, 3 Kenmar Way; and Cliff and Anne Righetti, 2705 Summit Drive spoke:
■ Objections to view impacts.
■ This applicant has been involved in four construction projects since 1989, none of which were
issued building permits. The encroachment onto Kenmar and Summit is most bothersome. The
original proposal that was withdrawn would have continued this encroachment.
■ The family includes both an attorney and a structural engineer that are involved in the project; is this
a conflict.
■ There has been a pattern of withdrawing controversial items, then coming back again later for
approval.
■ Questioned structural engineer's qualifications to certify the story poles.
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Ju/y 14, 2008
■ Need to verify the existence of the ten foot easement (public right-of-way). The encroachment
permit issued in 2002 does not reference an existing easement, it should have been referenced.
The extrapolation of the same encroachment down EI Prado may be justified on the grounds that
the original encroachment permit did not specify. The encroachment should be looked at to be
certain that it is represented accurately. Perhaps the fence should be removed.
■ Neighbors are concerned with the addition and the fence.
■ Has heard that multiple families are living in the house.
■ People are trying to understand the accuracy of the story poles. Who certifies the story poles
(Cauchi — certified by a licensed surveyor). Concerned about having a family member certify
information.
■ Majority of people on Kenmar Way would like another opportunity to provide more commentary.
Thinks everyone is entitled to do something with their property, but likes status quo (Cauchi — view
policy protects distant view; doesn't appear to be a significant impact).
■ Homes in the area are not grand. A larger home doesn't appear to fit into the neighborhood. The
addition would reduce some views and eliminate sunlight and reduce privacy. Not directly impacted
by proposal.
Further Commission comments:
■ Requested clarification of route of stairway from deck; will the base be another stucco wall
(Hathaway — could be in order to provide more privacy. Proposed to continue the finish of the rear
wall).
■ Will same railing be used on wood deck (Hathaway — yes).
■ Landing of the staircase; how will it be treated (Hathaway — railing and a window for ventilation).
■ Will there be a daycare center (Hathaway— grandchildren stay during the day; will not be a daycare
center).
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
More Commission comments:
■ Have received clarification and commitments regarding the fence from the applicant.
■ Noted that average of block is taken from curb on plans, not from easement (note: average front
setback was calculated from property line).
■ Applicant has worked well to modify the design, has eliminated Variances.
■ The view intrusion from the Davidson property is no more significant than existing impact.
■ Only outstanding design issue is the detailing of the rear stairway (materials, etc.). Can condition as
stucco base with wood rail.
■ Should include a condition that the lights be removed from the post, stucco columns and add brick
elements; also do not extend the fence.
■ Should include a condition that ensures that any change to the fence to extend it be brought back to
the Commission for review.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
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 detailing of the rear stairway shall have a stucco base with a wood rail, and shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to construction;
7
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes Ju/y 14, 2008
3. that the existing fence shall be modified to be made of stucco with brick caps and all light elements
shall be removed, and the revised fence shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI,
prior to construction; further, the fence shall not be extended unless the design of the extension is
first reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
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
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the 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
13. 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.
L
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Approved Minufes July 14, 2008
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners
Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appea! procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
CommissionerAuran recused himself due to a business relationship with the applicant for Item 6. He left
the Council Chambers.
�
C/TY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Approved Minutes August 11, 2008
■ Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council adopted an ordinance
amending the Sign Regulations.
■ Denied the appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission's decision regarding the project at 1790
Escalante Way.
■ Reviewed the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee regarding the Burlingame
Downtown Specific Plan.
■ The appeal of the Commission's denial (without prejudice) of the project at 1837 Hunt Drive was set
for a public hearing on August 18, 2008.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — July, 2008
Accepted
��, FYI: 2700 Summit Drive — review of required changes to a previously approved design review
project:
Accepted
19
CI
�'ai
°����
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
� Design Review ❑ Variance � Parcel #: OZ �— I(o Z— 2`i'D
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2��� �� w�,w�.�'� �
� Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: � � � i� �4
Address: �.Q . �o x l�o�.3z
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: 7�k� �In 1` 1�1,���
Address: 7 ZF�D ��� y�.v�.� I��'
�
City/State/Zip: l J` City/State/Zip: V
�Fy - o � �o
Phone: �"�s Z(o I - ,c�Q� Phone: � �
Fax: � ��5 �-�$ `(� 7 , -hv�( t- Fax:
E-mail: � ,. � � E-mail:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: � f�VIQ � `�J 0 (�
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
F-rnai!:
" � ` o ��.�'� ,- �.l�
_., �
�:PR 0 2 2009
- . .:yF QI.�RLINGAME
�=.9�V1�IIhJfi f)��T
* Burlingame Business License #:
PROJEC� 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 belief.
Applicant's signature: - Date: Z �
I am aware of the proposed application an hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: ��-�`C� �"«—�� Date: l�=?�-��'
Date submitted: `i��2-�� �
* Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:�Handouts�PC Application 2008-B.handout
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
Project Description:
� p,o I ,' � a�'o �
c,�a� s -i�
�Lon �
�
��
.0
�-GU� nu.-S�y
Gt.- p� o� �`Il D Yl .
ry �r-r- c� -1� rS �- G... c�
v
�@�/:
�,u u
CUP
DHE
DSR
E
N
SFD
SP
reviation Term `
-. _ _, . _ ,o..
Conditional Use Permit
Declinin Hei ht Envelc
Desi n Review
Existin
New
Sin le Famil Dwellin
Sqecial Permit
-�.� � � �� n �,',�, �--�.d �.-}-- -� ►-
❖ Addendum to Approved Design Review
❖2700 Summit Drive
❖ Owners: Adib & Sylvia Khouri
❖ 2700 Summit Drive
❖ Burlingame, CA 94010
.;.
❖ Designer: Ora Hatheway
❖ P.O. Box 150432
❖ San Rafael, CA 94915
❖ oahbeinCa�yahoo.com
❖ April 2, 2009
�'.� ,_ ,, , `'rii.�`
,' Y OF 8l!R;_1;�i�^,^,r���
���,=',+`,!�! � _ �.
The owner would like to seismically upgrade the foundation in the rear and
west side of the house. Currently the floors in the house slope down to that
corner. The owner would like to stabilize the foundation and would also like to
pour a 4" concrete slab where there is now a dirt floor and to make an 8' head
height, to replace the existing posts with beams to the bearing walls. This
area is used as storage now and currently has a door access from the rear of
the house.
The owner would like to replace the existing 2'- 3" x 5' basement door with a
3' x 6'-8" wood door and to have two new 6' x 3'-6" slider windows on the
rear/north elevation and one 3' x 3'-6" slider window and one 2'-6" x 6'-8"
door on the side/west elevation. All window and door specifications to equal
existing or better.
FAR allowed existing
5,509 Sq. Ft. 4,742 Sq. Ft.
proposed
5,393 Sq. Ft.
The basement now has 318 sq. ft. of headroom that is 6' or greater. The
proposed storage area is 770 sq. ft. and would have a head height of 8'.
A new retaining wall would replace the existing center footing and continue on
the west side and rear footing.
This would not change the existing footprint of the house nor would it change
the landscape. The windows proposed would be below the level of the
existing 6' fence on the rear elevation and under the existing deck on the west
elevation.
This would not add construction time to the current building permit. Meaning
that the time to finish the added work would be held within the time already
given to finish the work currently approved.
Sincerely, Ora Hatheway
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
AMENDMENT
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 Amendment for chanqes to a previously approved first and second story
addition to a sinqle family dwellinq at 2700 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, Adib and Sylvia Khouri,
propertv owners, APN: 026-162-240;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
April 27, 2009, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is
no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15301 (e)(1),
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 Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment 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 27th dav of April. 2009 by the following
vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
2700 Summit Drive
Effective May 7, 2009
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 date stamped April 2,
2009, sheets A-1 through A-8, 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 detailing of the rear stairway shall have a stucco base with a wood rail, and shall
be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to construction;
3. that the existing fence shall be modified to be made of stucco with brick caps and all light
elements shall be removed, and the revised fence shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission as an FYI, prior to construction; further, the fence shall not be extended
unless the design of the extension is first reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's April 6, 2009
memos and the NPDES Coordinator's April 7, 2009 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
2700 Summit Drive
Effective May 7, 2009
Page 2
10. 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
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential
designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the 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
13. 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 �`�y` ��°�.��',�
.� ��z. �s�.=
—' . �, BURLINGAME, CA94010 ��.��.��� � �
' PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 69�=�f19Q `"- �-�_•'< w
- www.burlingame.org �'_:��;=�.e:� �
�„�•��-.�-���
�,_��.� �,� ��� �� .�
u,2 � e .�uq 3 a�.' '� �a
��w +��r � � +lc.^fi
Site: 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE �`3�L- �� �
riv ,.v_�''.�2�
� �� e�� �
-a�.:�?{i LY.p.M �fS{ {-!' 5
�� i'iCs� � �%:3�
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the pUBLIC HEARING
following public hearing on MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2009 NOTICE
at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to
a previously approved first and second story addition to
a single family dwelling at 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE
zoned R-l. APN 021-130-130
Mailed: April 17, 2009
(Please refer to other side)
City of Burling�aone
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) 558-725D. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
. ..�
� � ,; ., , ,�
. . u
� i ��
t � � ��' ,a� ,� �� f i �
,
���a a � � �,� � � \�/
,�
,� � � �, —, �` � `,
. � r�"� ` a � ` ,� .x �, ,«�k' �"� . .. " �" '� ?�
� ��� , -r` . x"t� ��� ' . ;�� � �
�n �� �� � �,>
�p �
,r .
p`- r a 4 . s��� .,��� �.�
.
`,� y ,
�
. e ' , - �i .. �� ! ,. "'� � _:u � . ' �
�" •. "- � li � `�'+"<ys' .r F ,.m
�f ' %�� A��g , ~ �f ;�' ^.���.„a.�.cg ; V9jue � �
xi,
,° � _ ao- � � 3}t � ,. � 1 � '�" �, 4�, �M �✓.ci
` � �` � 4 <�;'"� ��° � �`a� n��� .�+_ '�3`"$'������"�4t`) a{,
�l «� �`} k ��, '� � �' , - � ��:��' �
�` � �'` �r t� -' a�
�.� ,r.,c�� �' �. �, � � - � $� , ,��pi �� x , .� � 1:,� , �e.-�' /� "� � .
� ;
�y,,�` �%r� � ,. - � . ti ,�'� � �
i{j`� �'� � � '�' � ��� :' f , � . '`�� � ; � �'' w� I k�' `3� ) `
� ;,
�� � � �- ��g s / :,�,� � � y ,""z � _ e�
.,-,�, . �� P � � sr'� � > � �' *� '��',��, / �T. 1 . �; `� �'� " �� � d`.
�
N, �
� � ��� .' ^ �', � �� m � , r `� �t�"� " �,� ^��§ � ` � � ,�' : ��,
0 \
�'a; ., b � � yS . � ro' \ '� ^� � = r,: - � ``�'` . _ r' �`�� F.. ,a.
s ��4>
� �� � . � ; � . . � � �
_ .✓�' �. � . \�n. ��,a.: ,.. �`,�� r :.`, w �k^r_ � .L f,� :; Y ��
� � �l ���A � �aR' `�i� ? .\, � r � fi ' ] � � � ( J �� !
a ._ r
, � � e L� � r? r / 'tv .
� ,y� ,�' � {- ✓ ..y '{ h
��� �� `� � � � .� � '�
y � � `_ � .r . . ,��: � '- �`,��.`�� .�
�,„ �` �' v � i � ��t ;�Q
7n$` s �` , r �.,,1-,-�"' 1 ti � � � p �' i ,�.'"�"" �S �v,l�"'�., .��°1
� , . .,a, �' ta� . s'�„^� � r`' § .�' � �,. � � J; , f'�c. '". � ti.�� � � . ,� ,;�,.�.
� 9*.
.
� m
� � - - � ' `✓ � �' � �, #�
� o _ 1� �� ` � � � � � �,�� ��.j'� . � � �� �'� � ,� �
i � / � �,a �+`y + � t �, �' / � � � � �;
�
�{`
, f
t /�` �'� � ,� ��. ' , � �" �� h � t._ �, \ a �� ��r,- 1' , .
/� � �;' , � �� "� � � � �; :� �;a �" `a �
� �
� �� � ` / �,*� . ai�"� _ .. ��� �" i �i � y �.- � . �� �,'�`�,y
y� � . �^'�. �� x
t �;' � / `f . � � c= �� *"� y .. ���s,�a��a:° ._ '� t, * �,�'� \ �� `*� �k � `� t � �. "
z e f C - ?�1 .� ;r � f rs��'� "'7 ! I e �� �S �1 �� r...,�`^�'
�.o .� � � ~` ,�'�� �:. . „ �+.s jl .c, �.S � c�
,. . � � `A !t"" { e � / '/��� ,�re 1 `✓.'` '. �� / �q � <
' .�.,��' �{�1i k� "'v f �:3 1�5 � � � � i � .
�
� � � �� J �a � x '` ^ r$
� >
- `' *� �� �r� z� s'' ,� ;� . -` � r` �� ta .r' ��.��'�' � �
� , � .ti �;'��.. �"�a� �'� �� � � J � ' �
i a.� ` <� s� ~Y� a�" � "� �( � r ��„�°'`�, S
, ,
: ,�� �� � , �� � � �-� , �7 �"° � i 8 �, '��
�,�
���.. ��. , P� s ; + � .. ,�� �`,;,,..� fi .,,t,��
f '� a �".Yl . a , � �a `�" �� �,� y �a'�� i� �� s� �3 t .. . ��.:, � ,�,
4 *� �,.� ..� + . �� � �,a r . � � _� , �C ;` . � "��4 ,�� r: { f\-��� ° �;,. . „ . � � �����.
3 .Y � e ,w t s` �"�. :k ��
Y� .� { v � o ; -F � : b= � � � :
o J ,�� i � .tn -� / � ;il � J�
. � '� k �'' ''� ,. Q a,�, � Q� = J � � �Y �* .��.� .� .. � z
c � �� �
�+^�, =s� m�� �� � � � > t'� < � .`' %,. � d � � ' �
z
y .
�� � �, s 1'r �. i� & c � .. �,. .a � �� � , �� : <��. � ���� ¢ .... r � �� �Y� ,�, .. � �,L, y..
�^�a�.., � G . ., X r� : � � . �� �
N `
se
1 �
��.� � � � �! `� /f St '� ` �� �, � � � e. `y r l ,� , �,{�+ t'� �
� �� � �, _ �� ,, '� ��- �
'�! ��t ��,. ., � °,,�. � � . . �' L J�1f�1 cli�jn {& h . - � "'
�� " �� � � y � �" � a �� r x �." v `�, r � r , s � .�
f � ' � y.�> i � *�; � � +p
� ��� ��.a�� ���� �,° ��s���� �=����� � � ����}�
� j' . i � � �. � ; µ`t ' . �'�I \ � ..� J ,
,
.i � . �� ' �i, ' .,
a°4rt,�. � �" � "'�"�j�� �.f�5 � ' �
'% '�, {r�� � So � � r��s' �r�`�,'� � _ � .�' _a . � � , t ,�,-„`
x �
4\� ` � Pr'��,% � ,, �" w � � '� `'� � � ._ _ � a � �' s�
�i � ia�� � j x � �� ' � �� �_ '��*,�
„ � � �" � � . ,_ � � `�� �t � �� , p g., c%� �' ��s
. � �s�� �, .��� ,� � � r� +�. '� ° C� � �,�' �.gd
, _
� �. �
._
` ���;� ', -a t^s�= ,� .� , "� :: � 1 � �M
�i ��- /
_.
�
,
� • � �
�
�� � ! .*`>�a�'/ "��a��;' ,"_",, p � � e Y �' "t
�.e ' �� y��, � "�
_,.
�� :. � "� . „z .Y* >� �: �� �„.,, ,»,.. '� � -�i�E { 4 �f � fi
� � �„ � ,. �� � °�` S >
��,�� �¢ /,,,� �� ','�- ��'g� � �R�` ���,I � �t� *"
�
.� � ;� �- �" � � � r �"
� �' ���� �" ' i t� ' � r, �� � 1 � .� �'
� �`� cl�'" , � �p � ,�,_ �� � ���� i� � � .;. , „.. �' '. ��� .
'�-.", � � ♦ � � � � � � � � `� a .�3 . � ��+-E�, � � r � . ��y-
v i��`-- �Su � U A. � ` � �` � . a� C � � � ,
� '�-, �g�` a s � � . � �S✓ �s-�
�Y �. � � � c _ 7 ��` � � t
� ~ � I � �c�-����� _ , � � . � .. �'�����'�`T; E
.�..� � � � a� : , y„ � ,� L ., . f�,i,�Y
p,g. r � � �.: l V ' � L �g��'�p � C A.�� � �,1� .� � � '�t.� i �
^ . �
�
- �e< F .�+� �'x+ �'` � ,
r^
s . 11`F� y � � � � , � Z . . � �� ,
. � � � 5 .ia� .
� - , .
« � �
.N, . 4 , i�e. � � , �' � � � = r ] � � - '��'`�p_:�
a<
�
, ' �' ,._. � . 1 „ ,. `
e
�
l � � r
i � � � 5 S �
_-. z � � '. ��.:kr.�. .ax _.�� � , � � �, , ,�� , � �.
t ."°� , � w. � � �' � ��� � � �`,
sN ��
� r
i {i�7 - '`� � rr�+� � � �., � �, ,�� �'. ,' . � ,� `7�.
� ��� ���f�
� , `� � ,�a. . �. �,. ... . ,.�� .. �a
_ ,
�p „ .� .- -:°�"-� l� . t
I� � � l\\�. �+, '�' f • • • "�'�`
�� h� 2700 Summit Drive
� :� �" ., � �� _ � `.
� w ^ . . � -.
�i Y
i % � �\
^'/ _ I � rn
��_ _/ / / ,.. �:t\, � .' V ._ .. ,���� • �'.� � "' r:`'� .. . � M�;
� � J �V , u�.i � � � � � �s� o � �` :
x � �S.t2 - (,. ' � � `j�„rc.f., j� �, d^ 'R
� F : ^ � � IY 4 � Ji � i
;f��R '` � - J� � �. � ��t�,�.� - bs � � ��e � " �...a ' t