HomeMy WebLinkAbout2725 Summit Drive - Staff Reporti► sio .F.�
PROJECT LOCATION
2725 Summit Drive
Item #6
Action Item
�
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Special Permits and Hillside AYea Construction Permit
Item #6
Action Item
Address: 2725 Stuninit Drive Meeting Date: 5/24/04
Request: Design review, special permits far height and attached garage, and hillside area construction permit
for a new, one-story single family dwelling.
Applicant and Property Owner: Denise Balestrieri APN: 027-224-240
Designer: James Chu, Chu Design and Engr., Inc. Lot Area: 12,186 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited
number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in
a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under
this exemption.
Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and attached garage (2326 SF,
0.19 FAR) to build a new, one-story single family dwelling and attached two-car garage. The lot has an irregular
shape, measuring 72.39' wide at the front and 92.24' at the rear, and is 164' deep at its longest side. The proposed
house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 3,984 SF (0.33 FAR) where 5,000 SF (0.41 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed FAR is 1,016 SF below the maximum FAR allowed on this 12,186 SF lot.
From the rolled curb and gutter, the lot slopes upward approximately 21 feet to the rear property line, and about
14 feet to the existing and proposed finished floor. Because of the upward slope on the lot, a special permit for
height is required (31'-10" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed) (measured from adjacent grade the
structure is approximately 24'-0" in height).
The proposed new house will contain five potential bedrooms (den qualifies as a bedroom), requiring two
covered and one uncovered parking spaces on site. The new 21' x 21' attached two-car garage will provide two
covered spaces. A special permit is required for the proposed two-car garage because it is attached. Two, single-
wide doors are proposed and the face of the garage will be oriented towards the side property line. One
uncovered 9' x 20' space is provided in the driveway in front of the attached garage. The existing driveway slope
is nonconforming with a 23% slope. With this project, the applicant is proposing a 15% driveway slope to meet
the current code requirement which will require grading and excavation. The driveway slope will need to be
approved by the City Engineer.
Three existing trees along the right side property line (8 to 12 inches in diameter, not protected size) will be
removed as part of the proj ect. An existing 24-inch tree cluster is located in the left rear corner of the lot and will
remain. The Landscape Plan (sheet L.1) provides a plant list for new landscaping, including six new 24-inch
box- size trees to be planted throughout the site. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The
applicant is requesting the following:
• Design review for a new, one-story single family dwelling and attached two-car garage (CS 25.57.010);
• Special permit for building height (31'-10" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.060,
a, 1);
• Special permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.28.035, a); and
• Hillside area construction permit for a new, one-story single family dwelling (CS 25.62.020).
.{
Design Review, Special Permits and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2725 Summit Drive
Table 1— 2725 Summit Drive
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1 st r): 42'-6" 29'-6" 28'-5" (average)
� .................. .................................................................................................................................:.................................................................................................................... ........:...............................
Gara e: 42'-6" 29'-6" 25'-0"
_.. ......................................�.................................................................._................................................................... ...._....._........._.....___..........................................................................................:.....................................................................................
Side (left): 3'-6" 7'-0" 7'-0"
(right): 27'-9�� ��_��� ��_���
,.... ,
Rear (1 st r): 25'-0" 20'-0" ; 15'-0"
� _.... .............. ....... ..... ... ....................................................... ........_............................. . ......................... .
Lot Coverage: 2326 SF 4019 SF 4874 SF
19% 32.9% 40%
FAR: 2326 SF 3984 SF 5000 SF'
0.19 FAR 0.33 FAR 0.41 FAR
.................. ......................................................................... ,.................................. . .................... ........ ............................................_..........
# of bedrooms: not available 5 ---
Parking: attached attached2
2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
1 uncovered (21' x 21') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
Height: 26'-10" 31'-10"3 30'-0"
� ...... . ... . .... .. ... . . . ....... . ..............................
DHEnvelope: not available complies CS 25.28.075
Hillside Area Permit: --- required4 CS 25.62.020
' (0.32 x 12,186 SF) + 1100 SF = 5000 SF (0.41 FAR).
Z Special permit for an attached two-car garage.
3 Special permit for building height (31'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed.
4 Hillside area construction permit for a new, one-story single family dwelling
Staff Comments: See attached. Greg and Deborah Cosko, 6 Hillview Court (letters dated April 21 and 23,
2004) and Catherine Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive (letter dated April 19, 2004) requested story poles. These
letters were submitted prior to installation of the story poles. Story poles were installed and surveyed for
accuracy by a licensed surveyor. Planning staff would note that the applicant has agreed to eliminate the
chimneys in the living room and master bedroom after a neighbor expressed a concern that they may block views.
The chimney in the family room remains and rises 2'-6" above its ridge (measured to the top of the spark
arrestor). This chimney is five feet wide and two feet deep.
2
Design Review, Special Permits and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2725 Summit Drive
Action Meeting (May 10, 2004): At the Planning Commission action meeting on May 10, 2004, the
Commission noted that the proposed design is nice, that the structure is single story and 1000 SF under the
maximum allowed FAR, and that the plate height is 9 feet which is typical for first floors in the city. They also
noted that the roof pitch is acceptable and that the field visit indicated that distant views from the neighbors'
houses at 6 Hillview Court and 2754 Burlingview Drive are not blocked by the proposed new house (May 10,
2004 P.C. Minutes). However, the Commission expressed additional concerns with the project and continued the
item until the requested information was provided. Below are the Commission's concerns and responses
provided by the applicant.
1. Corramissioner noted concern about the plantings in the southeastern corner of the lot, to protect views
need something not straight up, need a medium scaled tree-like-shrub whose height is easy to maintain
and keeps a nice form; fence could have small shrubs in front or be softened with a vine planted on the
inside and kept to a certain height, vines would grow through the fence and soften both sides; the
applicant could also return with a landscaping suggestion for the areas of concern along the fence.
• The applicant provided a letter dated May 17, 2004, from the landscape architect, describing the
plantings and growth rate for the landscaping in the southeastern corner of the lot. The landscape
architect notes that the three 15-gallon Pittosporum trees (Pittosporum Undulatum) have a fast growth
rate and will reach 20 feet in height at their maturity. He also notes that these tree provide a dense
evergreen buffer along the property line. Because of the trees' growth characteristics, the applicant has
decided to remove the three Pittosporum trees along the southeast property line. The landscape plan was
not revised to show these trees eliminated, but has been included in the conditions of approval. They will
not be replaced with other trees.
The landscape plan also notes that 5-gallon size Rhododendron shrubs will be planted along the fence
line. These shrubs have a moderate growth rate and can be trimmed so that its height does not extend
past the top of the fence.
2. Recognize problem with landscaping and would like a condition added that the landscaping along the
fenced property line not exceed a certain height, landscaping should be kept to the height of the fence.
� A condition of approval has been added requiring that shrubs planted along this fence between the subject
property and the property at 6 Hillview Court be maintained at a height no greater than the top of the
fence and never to exceed 7'-0" (maximum fence height allowed in the City).
3. Concerned about the views from the house at 2731 Summit Drive, could not view story poles from there
since no one was home, uncomfortable acting until have made a site visit there; should continue this item
to the next meeting so that the commissioners could view the story poles from the uphill properry, would
also like to see a pole added to the story poles to indicate the height and location of the one chimney
retained.
3
�
Design Review, Special Permits and Hillside Area Construction Permit
2725 Summit Drive
The applicant installed additional story poles towards the front of the house so that it can be viewed from
the neighboring property at 2731 Summit Drive (see revised storypole plan, date stamped May 12, 2004).
Story poles were also added to show the height of the chimney to be retained in the family room.
Design Review Study Meeting (Apri126, 2004): At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on
Apri126, 2004, the Commission noted that the overall design is nice and that the designer has done a good job
with the architecture (Apri126, 2004 P.C. Minutes). The house has been kept to one story which reduced the
impact given the slope and location of this lot. The Commission also requested that the applicant install story
poles to evaluate the view impact from the proposed new house. The story poles need to include chimney
locations and the story poles must be surveyed by a licensed surveyor. The applicant submitted a story pole plan,
date stamped Apri127, 2004, and installed the story poles at the site. No changes were made to the project since
the April 26, 2004, design review study meeting (no changes suggested by the Planning Commission).
The Commission also requested that Planning staff provide phone numbers of the neighbors who expressed a
concern with view blockage from the proposed new house. Contact information is attached to the staff report.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 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;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for the height of the single family dwelling and
for an attached garage, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property
(Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
�
Design Review, Special Permits and Hillside Area Construction Permit
2725 Summit Drive
Required Findings for a 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 hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for design review, hillside area construction permit and special
permits for height and attached garage. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
Apri115, 2004, sheets A.1 through A.6, L1.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, with the exception
of the chimneys in the living room and master bedroom which shall not be installed as part ofthe project;
and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall
require and amendment to this permit;
2. that the three Pittosporum Undulatum trees shown along the southeast property line on the Landscape
Plan dated stamped April 15, 2004, shall be eliminated from the landscape plan and that no trees or
shrubs shall be planted along this property line whose natural growth tendencies would cause them to
grow taller than the property line fence or a maximum of seven feet; vines on the fence whose height can
be maintained by property owners on both sides axe an acceptable alternative;
3. that shrubs planted along the fence on the southeast property line between the subject property and the
property at 6 Hillview Court shall be maintained by the property owner so that its height does not exceed
the top of the fence or a maximum of seven feet as measured from adjacent grade on the 2725 Summit
Drive side of the fence;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first floor 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;
that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and
set the building footprint;
6. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
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;
5
Design Review, Special Permits anrl Hillside Area Construction Permit
2725 Summit Drive
that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved
in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
9. 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;
10. 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;
11. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's, and Recycling
Specialist's March 22, 2004, memos shall be met;
12. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance;
13. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence,
the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm
Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff;
14. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
15. that the proj ect shall be subj ect to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landscape and imgation plans at time of
permit application; and
16. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c. Denise Balestrieri, applicant and property owner
James Chu, Chu Design and Engr., Inc., designer
�
`• City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 10, 2004
structures d any grading or e rth moving on the site shall be required comply with all the regulations of
the Ba Area Air Quality anagement Distric , 16) that prior to eduling the foundation inspection a
lice sed surveyor shall cate the property rners, set the build' g envelope; 17) that prior under floor
me inspection the urveyor shall cert' the first floor elev ion of the new structure(s d the various
surveys shall be cepted by the Cit ngineer; 18) tha rior to scheduling the roo deck inspection, a
licensed surve r shall shoot the ight of the roof rid and provide certification that height; 19) that
prior to sch uling the framing � spection, the proj ec architect, engineer or other �censed professional shall
provide chitectural certific ion that the architec al details such as window cations and bays are built as
show n the approved p s; if there is no lice ed professional involved ' the proj ect, the property owner
or ntractor shall pr ide the certificatio nder penalty of perjury; ) that prior to final insp ction,
P nning Departme t staff will inspect d note compliance of the rchitectural details (trim aterials,
window type, et . to verify that the pr 'ect has been built accordi to the approved Plannin d Building
plans; 21) t all air ducts, plum 'ng vents, and flues shal e combined, where pos ' le, to a single
terminatio and installed on the p rtions of the roof not visib from the street; and that ese venting details
shall be ' cluded and approve in the construction plans efore a Building permit 's issued; 22) that the
appli nt shall comply wi Ordinance 1503, the C' of Burlingame Sto ater Management and
Di harge Control Ordi nce; and that during de ition of the existing r idence, site preparation a
onstruction of the ne residence, the applicant all use all applicable ' est management practice as
identified in Burlin me's Storm Water Ordin ce, to prevent erosio nd off-site sedimentation storm
water runoff; 23 hat the proj ect shall meet 11 the requirements of� e California Building and ire Codes,
2001 edition, amended by the City of urlingame; 24) that t shutters shall be consiste with the size
and shape o the windows; and 25) th all windows shall be e divided light windows he motion was
seconded y C. Brownrigg.
Ch � Osterling called for a vo' ce vote on the motio o continue action on lot ending plan revisio and
a rove the conditional us permrt for re-emer g lots and the design rev w, hillside area con ruction
permit and special permi or attached garage r lot 1. The motion passe n a 6-0-1(C. Keele a sent) vote.
Appeal procedures w e advised. This it concluded at 8:30 p.m.
6. 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, ONE-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES
CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report May 10, 2004, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the story
poles as installed had been surveyed. Staff noted yes. The commissioners all noted that they had made a site
visit. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer; Denise Balestrieri, property owner and
Sonya Son, property owner; Aneglo Arsella, 2731 Summet; Greg Kosko, 6 Hillview Court; spoke. The
applicant noted that two of the three chimneys were removed because they were not needed change type and
the third, wood burning with spark arrestor in the family room is only 2 feet taller than the lower ridge of the
master bedroom area, and will not be visible. Commissioner asked if the roof could be designed with a 5:12
slope. Designer noted that it could be but would affect the volume inside the 9 foot plate, this building is
one story and would like to keep the roof pitch, can't see the structure from the street, did study 5:12 and
:
� City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 10, 2004
8:12, thought 6:12 looked the best; removed the chimneys because the neighbors did not want them;
Commissioner noted concern about the plantings in the southeastern corner of the lot, to protect views need
something not straight up, need a medium scaled tree-like-shrub whose height is easy to maintain and keeps
a nice form; Commissioner asked if the windows are true divided lights; applicant noted that they were;
Commissioner asked about the spark arrester on the remaining chimney, looks like it is 3 feet wide rising
over the ridge.
Neighbors commented: live in property to the right, was out of town, returned last night, looked out of
window and this proposed project blocks a good portion of view of East Bay; story poles did not include
area of chimney retained so do not know if it blocks view; strong concern about plantings along fence if over
6 feet (higher than fence) will block his view to the southeast and east, shrubs should be kept to a maximum
6 feet. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: design is nice, the structure is single story, it is 1000 SF under FAR, the plate
height is 9 feet which is typical for iirst floors in the city, roof pitch is OK; field visit indicated that distant
views from Kosko and Payne houses are not blocked, recognize problem with landscaping and would like a
condition added that the landscaping along the fenced property line not exceed a certain height. Landscaping
should be kept to the height of the fence. Concerned about the views from the house at 2731, could not view
story poles from there since no one was home, uncomfortable acting until have made a site visit there; this
lot calls for a one story house with interior court yard; nice house design, visited neighbors, no view
blockage, can continue item for additional site visit; fence could have small shrubs in front or be softened
with a vine planted on the inside and kept to a certain height, vines would grow through the fence and soften
both sides.
C. Vistica noted uncomfortable acting without seeing the view form the uphill neighbor so would move to
continue this item to the next meeting so that the commissioners could view the story poles from the uphill
property would also like to see a pole added to the story poles to indicate the height of the one chimney
retained. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comment on the motion: the applicant could also return with a landscaping suggestion for the areas of
concern along the fence.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue for additional site inspection, revision to
the landscape plan to address plantings along the fence lines, and installing a pole to demarcate the location
and maximum height of the one remaining chimney with spark arrester. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Keele absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
7. 836 NE ALL R
A ONDITION
ASEMENT A
Z"ONED R-1— AF
E PERMIT FOR A
DETACHED
OWNER; JD ASSOCIATES, DESI
BARBER
FOR DESIGN
;� TWO-STORY SING
(ROBERT ALFAR , E
(45 NOTICED) OJ
�V�W, SPECIAL PERMIT
'AMILY DWELLING VY�TH
[CANT AND�PR�ERTY
PLANNER: !�THERINE
Refer ce staff report May 10 004, with attachments. P Monroe presented t report, reviewed crit '
an taff comments. Thi en conditions were sug sted for consideration.
Chair Osterling op ed the public hearing. obert and Germaine aro, 840 Newhall oad, property
owners were pre nt to answer any questions. Commission noted that plans did not call out window type,
�
`� City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
April26, 2004
time to matur d see if more space w required or needed in the house on the emerged lot. Regulations
and design eview guidelines wor ogether. Design review has � its, FAR is a paa-t of des' . Feel this
effort is step in the right direc ' n give all Commission has eard on this subject.
C ir Bojues made a mot' n to recommend the regula ' ns for emerging legal lot ithout amendment to
e City Council for a on. The motion was seco ed by C. Keele.
Comment on the otion: At joint City Cou iUPlanning Commission eting expressed concern abo a
lot of new ho es looking the same in res nse to the current design idelines, need to increase div sity,
now have to address mass and k, not need more. Like e idea of looking at the desi review
guidelin in conjunction with cu ative effect, it is importa , need to look at the whole pi ure not just
FAR address mass and bulk.
�'hair Bojues called for a 11 call vote on the motion
without change to th ity Council for action.
dissenting; C. Bro 'gg absent) roll call vote. hi
action. This ite concluded at 9:50 p.m.
e'recommend the regulations r emerging legal s
; motion passed on a 4-2- (Crs. Auran, Ke' an
item will go forward to t e City Council f further
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, SINGLE-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HUR1N
Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that two letters were submitted by Greg and
Deborah Cosko, 6 Hillview Court and Catherine Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive, requesting story poles be
installed to show the proposed building envelope. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Denise Balestrieri and Sonia Sohn, property owners, and James
Chu, designer, were present to answer questions, noted that they met with two neighbors at the site, they are
in support of the project; reviewed the letter from the neighbor at 6 Hillview Court and is aware of his
concern with height, proposed building is not that tall, existing house is approximately 19 feet from adjacent
grade, will erect story poles to show the proposed height and envelope; the view of the bay is to the
northeast, Mr. Cosko has a view towards the west, will not impact his view; error in staff report, existing
house has an attached two-car garage, not a one-car garage as indicated in staff report. Plr. Hurin noted that
type of protected view is not defined in the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance, only indicates that
review shall be based on obstruction from construction on long distant views especially from habitable areas.
Commission asked what is the current ridge height; designer noted that the existing ridge height varies
slightly but is four feet lower than the proposed ridge height at its highest point. Commission pointed out
that the staff report indicates the proposed height to be 26'-10" above average top of curb.
Greg Cosko, 6 Hillview Court, noted that he has a fabulous view of the airport and towards the hillside in the
northwest direction, he loves the view and wants to preserve it, living room faces the subject property, do not
see rooftops now, concerned about the new extension out towards the rear of the lot where their current view
corridor is now, concerned about how the new increased ridge height and chimneys will affect his view,
chimneys are a real issue since the shape may get quite large and block more view, it appears that the new
ridge height may be five feet higher than the existing ridge height, would like to see story poles installed so
�
' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
April26, 2004
that the view impacts can by analyzed, will provide before and after story pole pictures at the next meeting;
concerned about the proposed landscaping, do now want to see fast growing tall trees planted, the existing
pine tree now blocks view of existing rooftops. Commission asked if the Mr. Cosko would be available to
allow Commissioner's to view the story poles from his house after they are installed; Mr. Cosko noted that
he would be more than willing to make arrangements for the house to be available to Commissioners so that
they can see the impacts. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Commission noted that they couldn't ensure preservation of a view from trees, but
asked if the two neighbors could come to an agreement about the type of trees to be planted; CA noted they
could work together and come to an agreement, but also that the Commission can address the issue through
review of the proposed landscape plan. Commission noted that the overall design is nice, designer has done
a good job with the architecture, visited the site and also viewed from Hillview Court and Burlingview
Drive, understand the neighbors concerns, story poles need to be installed to evaluate the view impact from
the proposed new house. Commission noted that the plant species chosen for the proposed landscaping is
generally small to medium scale, achieves privacy without blocking views.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the story poles
have been installed and surveyed by a licensed surveyor, story poles need to include the location of the
chimneys. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the
story poles have been installed and surveyed by a licensed surveyor. The motion passed on a voice vote
6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:05 p.m.
9. 1148 O ORD ROAD, Z NED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STO SINGLE FAM DWELLING AND D�ACHED GARAGE (BRIAN � GINA FORNESI,
LICANT AND OPERTY OWNERS�JD & ASSOCIATES, DE GNER) (57 NOTICED)
Plr. Hurin bri y presented the project escription. There were no estions of staff.
Chair B ues opened the public c ment. Brian and Gina Forn i, property owners, were
quest' ns, noted that they like urlingame and want to build nice house in this neighborl
va e to the neighborhood. ere were no other comment from the floor and the public l�
�tt to answer
want to add
was closed.
Commission discussi �i: the designer has done a ve nice job with the design, the ouse is well-articulated
and will work nice on the block; wondered if t stone veneer proposed at th ont could be extended to
the sides of the use, it is not a make or bre decision but the property o ers may want to conside it,
feel that the hitecture can be enhanced th the stone material along t e sides of the house.
C. Keig an made a motion to place is item on the consent cale ar. This motion was se onded by C.
Qhair Bojues called for a
available meeting. The
Commission's action is�
vote on the motion to p
i passed on a voice v
and not appealable. �'
c�this item on the �
6-0-1 (C. Brownr
item concluded at 1
s�calendar at the xt
bsent). The P ing
0 p.m.
10
May 17 04 11:z6a Michael Callan 6503440295 p•�
�.
MICHAEL CAILAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
]40� ROLUNS ROAD, SUITE D
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PHONE: b50.344.0294
FAX: b50.344.Q295
City of Burtingame
Planning Department
Attn: Ruben
Project: 2725 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA
Re: Landscaping Plan
Backyard Tree Height
RECEIVED
M AY 1 7 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
M��i
17, 2004
The Evergreen trees proposed for the rear sauth/east comer of the lot are Pittoporum
undulatum trees, which will reach 20' high at their maturity. These trees can be easily
shaped/toppect due to their thick foilage and ovai st�ucture. 7hese fast growing trees
should provide r� dense evergreen buifer along the property line.
Please let me know if you have any additionai questions.
Regards
Michae! Cailan, ASI.A
Landscape Architect
Ca License #4076
M�y 12 04 12:45p
To:
Conapany:
Fax number:
From:
Mr. Ruben Hurin
City of Burtingame
(650) 696-379U
James Chu
Number of pages inclading caver sheet; 2
Date transmitted:
Re:
Comments:
Hi Ruben,
May 12, 2004
(6501 345-9�87 p.l
RECEIVED
MAY � 2 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Story pole plan for 2725 Summit Drive
We decided to install more story poles with orange netting to show the outline of the
gaxage roof area, that way the neighbor of 2731 Surrunit Drive and Planning
Commissioners could evaluate the view issue better. A new pole by the family room wi11
also be install to reflect the height of the chimney as requested by the neighUor of 6
Hillview Court.
I;f you l�ave any questions, please contact me.
Thank you for your time,
mes Chu
Chu Design Engr.
FAX TRANSMITTAL
[U DESIGN & ENGINEERING INC.
39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
Tel: (650) 345-9286; Fax {650) 345-9287
1 i � ,
N � ,
�
Q, L,4I�lDS o� R���� �, RECEIVED
T¢ �„�,�� DOG NO 2��� mf185�F
�� o��/ � �„ MAY 1 2 2004
� � 131.d6'
��'°"� ����w / - -� � �uooc+� -"- � � �, � ,p, CITY OF BURLINGAME
� -' $� r__ �-------------------� , � 2a `�� � PLANNING DEPT.
-�
� - �_ r � i
Nr --.-.�.: =:.. :. --'�? _ --- --- � --' --------------�� � �
Q� 1 �' '.l:: :J.:':::--.�_:. - .1 � � ;� e,.. .�s4
................ ...
................. ......
I I J - :: i.'rr �• ,� .': f::.-.i':. �:.'.:'. _ .'�'.'.-'r '.�.... �':. �� � � - - - '°s � ,�. '�j
�:.1'.•:.•. - . �j�.' ��'�1�.' � h:: '. '- 4 �'�"� � �` � �` �a�' � �
�� .':.�::._�-r:.:i•r.:•:.-:.�rr.�ic:.i�:::r:.'..._
. ...............
lD ' l' '.-. :'.'r.-:. � �: .'iii.•.:.: .�..: : : ��ei�i!` � . - - - � :-: r: .': :_ _. :I i ti � � �,.F- �
� �':.r.�:.•r.:•r.�:. =.�rrr-:1 . ' ��:�'.: .r.l.: ...I °t° ��i ` _ .Aena.nN J
fTI - - � 4 - '�- _ _
� oaen� � =
.. . ' . . . . . :: To eE PHwrEA 1 s
.s•:::_::: •-� _ �� i �
�� :�:::�.: �=: :: =::::�:::. �
� ... ..... ..... . ..............
... ............ . :.
..:::. � �:::.. .. ............ . . . .
...... .... .. . :. ....
r:-::: �. _ - . . . ............. ............. . ..:.. .
o i �0.... . � i � :
..: ��..........._.... :::�:t �
.._.
... .... _ .
.......... ...........
� ��--� -�--�� -� .......... .
...... .......... ___
..... ..::► ::::::::::::.�:::;.::-:._ .::::::::-:.:�. ��- . .:.::::.�. �:.�.:�::.: �: :�.:�:::::_:-. .. 1 ,_ w ;
(D LOT2 � !:�"" ::' ..•.r.• :::::.:::::::::::::::.::::.:::.:::�:::::::-::: ..:.�: :..-::::::•:.�.-_.:: :::�::•:::::�::�::�.. ::� r ��--=_--, �' �
'-' Lk1�ID5 L,OIYaESEN � •rr J': ri.:':.:-.::. � ::.:: -.::.�::::. � ::.•. �::::.:::. .�.-: -- ! �y � � �. 9
ID . ...... ..... . ...
,... ..... ..... ............. . . ................. ,
...-- - ... . ..... ............. .............. . �
..... .. . . 1 _
pOG: t-m53914 0 5 G. __ "'t__�__- '•:. � r.:.r:.�r:.•: i::.. :-:.:::: -. -7_ _ • . --- ! �t �11- m
- Ql86 SQ. FTk I.': r.':.-. :': rrr. � .t :•. :.:.-v-. .. ..- �'f�E'31D ! r r 4 1� . �.�J
:1� � � j ::::::::::::.:•.•::::.'.::.':. a1 � �J�_ L . — . — . ��
_ . _ . — . _L �.'.' .T.:�:.'—.':'.'=:�:: t:: — — — — — ' — r ' � I � , m
! C:r_::::.:::::.�.'._.�::..:: � 1! 1 9 $ 25
.3i371�:� ': ; '.�. ..
B - - �:�:::::::•r..:,�,.�:... �.�... f �, t u d
::�:::._::.�.:.'.�- .. n
-- : ..
/ ��'% ' .ti•:::.- � .. .... �:-t=:. ': / n- .: � 1 1 � � li ,� � �
\\ �I i . . ;.-'�' .c::.:•.�::'.;:� -:iio:.-�f.•�:�:�-::ii.�:� 1 � r� � �is � 8 LOT I�
1,.� , � .: � , � - . i::.': .': :.:::. .': .:C:.':: ' '.'.'lt:.�, .. . . - - . . . .� � f � . � l, F
�.�4Y� f " �.. r�". �.. �" f.r:: � N� - rl 1 I! � �uma� r�oa.
� _ .. ..)-.� .: r.:.::..�
.. �::.,:_?-` '�' . ..:::':-.:.
✓:'�:.�' ,:. '.' :.4�'.'...- �./.-::: -f....... .��.; . f l4
.:;�-.'.,.,>t: _ '_• :.��y:._.:..,.•,.•'::. f:•:::�:.��:•:•:::::-::?`.�•• ::--:f..:�. i:::::::.:::t:..::::�:::�:::::� ��e�atrnxA� t'."."::�T.. '�"0�
... .f�: �: : ' ..:' .:�^:�'`� 1-::,':: _. -: ��'.":.1:... .�: J 1 f 1
,.a._�-� - ' - . f- : ::.•::::: �.:'J: . ../.'::.�:::'... .
L ' ` , , � . _ _ '-...i4,. •': . ';" . f.�.-r :: � . -. �.�: rr: r.':.:.': ': �'..:z. _:::::..:::1�:: •: :•::..:�: � :.'.i I i 1 tl 1 u 1 I � 1 I f:..�.�.7::.:. .::1 �
,' , ... :•. , ., •':�.
---� •• +�--'--�'j'•
�-..; -:,. ......�•:, . .. . . l.. ....
:.::�:
. . .. . ..- �, .�--.-.,_, :.� .... ... ..... .._.. , c -.: �:��:::::::::::: : � .� � � � - � � y ,.�:::.�. a ��
���=:.:;:_::.:_.:..�....�_��--= .:.::::::::::� :::::: �: �
� .. . . .r_:_��-�.- .::;.a':::: :^:.".•{3ir= �:.J.�::: :• :.14-.I.._.�. ' - u '•f..l.YltU.�:.�:.'
. �-.: '.L _ l4
c . . j... - _ _ :.f ly
�._•.. - ':i:
.: . : .............. . _
w '.'1:::.'.': ' - 0
- . . . . ... ;
. ..... ..� • . . : .
� . �. _ ...,.� �.. .._ ..,.. ,.,. .-`�:
.. ... . ... .
- ' �::':.':::.�:.•r.:'�:'::r.-.1: � :.�:::: �j.t:: _:-. :.�1
_ - :'S'A. ..
"L -
�•J V
"�,
,� :::::::::::::.�.:: �.::
1
c �
- � r�- - :.I ii .�
- - - i::.'-::.-:.•rrr.:•:: :r.i�:
AG - {', _ ' ii u
� ::::::: :::..:.::: ' -. I.: �:.:: � - .x-x': ii: :•:. �
•.a - - - } _ � � >
- �1.�: . :-:. � .. :.v �." _ _ -
b � :'.'.�.".: .'.:.':: ' .•�
U1 ��' - - - - F' � �
crucar, �' - - -- �•^ -:�--.�� _ :'t
- ��.'. _ 4�i.ar�a�nei
W jw - - i:.': � � /
i --- _ 1
ra + �� r::-::::: � _ _ - � i
,cc�e�ox - " � `: + ,� Rw
rsmr+eG uuu _ - � y.:.:. ; "�� � /
_ 1:...r -
� _
_ - /
7 � - - r _ - _ ,�•�,,y,• .
V _ Y �a ._ — % _ — _ roPcfeax _ ` t'. '.:..._.� � ����:.:�e�::.':I f 1 � � / � � /
~ - - �� , x x x 4 _ .. t�a•�i -- - ,/S �
� %�x s /
� ��� �. x (g�an,,, �,- BE ` ` -� � � y /
8 ~�• �x 1 1
� ��3����� '' � - y x'�� /��_� --_s 1
Q -r re� m• neee ro --� __ _"� % 5'-0' t
�, � I 2 L�. eE �8t7vev . <F� raa s� l64D3 �� 1.-�' ,�'ts� ri�6t� `
In ffJ @' TI� TD HE I�iMOhD r _
�' !! I�bv� � � 1 .� �
~ �°�`�"�. �r RECEIVEt� �
� ,,,�����..� ��
o \ `
EX19TM3 �3IDP� � \
\
I
�
� � �
�
I� ;i �� �� � CtiY OF BURLINGAME `
� �� SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN / P L A N N I N G 0 E P T.
E w� scu.e: ira�-r-a� !
6i
.
_, �
CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC.
39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
Tel: (650) 345-9286; Fax (650) 345-9287
Apri127, 2004
City of Burlingame
Planning Department
Attention: Ruben Hurin
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Story pole for
2725 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA
Dear Ruben:
RECEIV�D
A PR 2 7 2004
CITY OF BURLINGqME
PLANNING DEPT.
Attached please find a story pole plan that shows the location of the story pole, and
orange netting (represent three major ridge line). A licensed surveyor per PC
recommendation will verify all ridge heights, and pole location.
If you have any question, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
es Chu
Project Designer
Cc: Denise L. Balestrieri
, �,4NDS OF i��4IK�
'___.�,�„���� DOC NO 2��� �11854
n
o�
I
-N
r� �
�,m.o��,� ��� ���-
E NSl'19_21"lU 3"`0 131.46'
— � - X - � fE1 UIPOD � �_ _k - - �C �
QI �
� - 0 w P�� -----------� G.UShR
- � --_ �------- i �or n �
� - i
------ _ --- =--� -------- --�--------------�
� � :.:..:::.:..... -. �. __� --------- � , �
F ... ::::::::::::::::: +::: :::::::_::::::::::::::::.:.- —�
� ►::':.::::::::::-::� :::.: .: :::: :.:::i �
, � ...:. . :.:. . ....:...:....:. ..F:..:..-:.-: ...::..:...:....
� .:.:.. .........:....:::... ... _.... -- i.-.-.--
i ::::::::.:. .. . .. . �:.:i::::::::::::::: :::::::: .: ::::-::.. ::: -:.. _ .
� �. . . .- . : . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : — _. . . . . _ � . . . . . _ �
F ::..:::..:.: .:...:: :...::::::.:.:::...::::.:.::...::....::.-.._._.._ .._ ,... i �� �� — �
r ......................._................ _....:.::::::: ::::
� :..:.....::..::.... -.... :.::..::.:. ...::.:.... . ...,__ i
_ _ .
� /
� ,-
r
_ ,�n �raw
_ �_
�eavr � �. _ . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..:. . . ..:.. .::. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ._,_ � _ _ I
_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . oasrrG uousE �
- 10 Fi?10VID
�
'. .".�..".'.'.". :': ' ' ' _ ' ' ' '.".'.'.'.'.'.'.".'.'.' '. .". � .'.'. '.".": .'.'.'' ' .'.".'.".'.'." '. .... ..
... ...... ....... ..
..... ..... ._.
..... ...... ..... """' "'
....... ..... ... . . . . .. ��.. ...
� ....... ...... . ."' Ei3iDD':_':.':.':.'.".:::.':.-.'::. :..: .::: ._ .... ' . . .:'.'.'::""""""'.'."'... ..._ .� _ �
� �',"::.".".".".�.�.".".".�. .":.�.�.�".".".":." ::................. ..........._ ......'. .' . ."."::.�.":.":."::.".'."."::."."."::.'.'.":.".'. ":':.': ���� �
LO? 1 � f.-....- ..... ...:....: ...::..:..:...:.... .... I - _
I ...... .:...... .:. _................. ................... 1
�._..__ ., _ ._..�' ..................... .................... '".� 1 / _ ` _
LANDS LAUGESEN � � .. .:. . ::. . . .:. . : . . . :. :. . .-:. :.-:. .::: .. . . . 1 � �V _ _ -�
DOG: I-053944 O S .C. � -- -�------ ".. ..' --------- j � �� � \
_ ...........
1
ARE : 12186 SQ FT.t p.7_.� _
Q. .. r:..:::.... � I�1
, , .,-. .. . - . _ . .. ... . .. .. s,�:. ,�,� �s�Q �� �
_� � .: �� �,. . t : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : . . _ 3, . . i � � �
u, �_:::....:�.. _..... _... ��
— � _ �.,..—.;...—.:..—.... — —� — — . — � �� L — —
� � �_ ::. t" I / � / i
g � -���', �::::::::::.:���;:::::: � � � � u
. .. . .. . .......
- i -�';:: _:;:: -.'�.._� :.-.. _ _�..:......-- � ,, � i
-. .
, � ........ ....... ...... . r. n
� ..; ::. ,... ;:.. �:.:.'.'<�.J ....:.:....... � � I i 1
,,.._ ............. �..r. I u �
� `. :� , :.: -,: ` '�.'`.� ...:. . .. .... ...:.. .::. / � / �
L�.g (E) � , ..x '" ''�- :. .'. .._ ,.�......:.. _. ." j.. _: . r:::.. n.": �.".... . .. . ..1 / � / � 111 E
-.�..-'�---...... . -.�.�.�.i..�.�.� .. ll'.�.�'---- �--..
DRI 7 � � `" -. �. � �-•'::-:. =- :: �:: _'.. . '.�.". .".'." /. . . . . ._ � . .... ."."...".".": j � / / 1
„:.. ..,
,: - .:
::. :.- _ , . . .. � �,� �
:
,.. ... . .__ ��
__. . _..
•. .::.. - _. _ . � r.. . . .....
__� ; _..... .: . ..' . -. ,, .-�. F _.. :._ :...- :tr/:.. .::.•:. ._. 1.... ...I ......�:�.-.-.. i..: ..if:..:.... ��..`............ j ...��.,..-.. 1 II
.:: :- _;.....-__�';;,..., ... ,�, �_._..'.'. .'. ;�... Il. . � �k��kp�aF r'.. . .�..... sm'-�'1—
. -:.. -.-. _. - .1=: :. •, : .... . . - 1. i . . . : . . : . . . .�� . �N IF� 1 1
..-. ., . �. . . , .
- = 4..j-:--.-: .:.: 'S' :. _ F... .. ......'.':.:'.:.'..: : X.'.'.:..... ....1 1 II I II II 1 II 1 9 � II I I �.1.. .:.:1 �11
:. .-.: ....
...
. . . y ...........
. : . . .'�.: - • �3 -
. ' ': .:-:.. . ."._. ._ _ _ ....
` .
k
I:..... . I 11
�- - 1-.. . � �..:::::.._..::.:...r:. i ::::::.....:.... ��� t.i..
_ ,.. ;...
_6x_ - _. -- _ - _ ' ,._-:-.. . oi.. L91 i uJ�UA uJ.__ . _ u
-. �' '
^-� . : :.:. ....... I-= t . .
, .`
: ,: =.. .
I
�.:.::...:.-..
�. .
.. ......: ., .- ..:. ..-_�'
.: . :. .; ::.... - :.:...- :
..
..�.-a . . :. . . .:. �. - -
_
—.. . -- :. _ > , i. :,.. • : - . . . . .. , i� . :. . . . t.-.. : . A
,.: .:_ .
��
-- _.. .....
�.. ........
... _.. . .... . . :.... .
.•
;-:
,. .. , �: C : . . . . . . . . . : : : . : : : . . .1 : . : : .. . +. .r. . : : : . : : : : : . : 1
,...: .. .. . _.. _ .,. -.1. -: 1= I
„ . . ._, _ _ .. . •
j ;.
-.
�.�Et ' � -. .r._ -° �;--F" .. � . . : . . ._ �.:. .:.. : . . .
. . ' . ' ;_ ._.�:: ;- �' ��
_. .
_ - :-. .' - ' �. - . . . - - : . .'.'_ .'.'. :': .'.'.' . Y.1 ". . . .
..._. . . . . ._ ....:: .:
.. .. .: . .:
-.
-..:: .
, _ . . ._ 1,. ,.:...._, . ;: -" : 1 ::: ...... :....-. _r
- • .._ •.
_ f ..:::......... ....i::::. .. .:: .::...:........-...-.. . .. .. ii
_ . . .:.. .... .: :. . :..:. .
�6 _ .� . . . .. . . .. . .. : �:.":. . . . .. . . r
�a =_-:�.-_'"_. . .......... . . ' l'...:.::..... .:....1.::...:.::. .__..: .'..: .:...:....:. -.....:=.......:---...':::... ... ..: ...'.:.. .. -_.���...-.. I � ____�
�nuca�c. :.. : -_-:_:-:=..� -= _ ' �_ ::. ::::..: ...'::.'.'{':... �. _ .� = Fo
�m
��- .. ..,��. .
I 3 . :... ::� .: ..'. -, .._ -__ _ _ __ _ q
....._ .. . .
. .:.�_ :.' ..� .. -. ...
� . 12 '' . • ' � "".... ..-� _- .. ' .
I(E) Fi4 DR4M
�Bi.00K . . " f. . _".": : .": ."_ _ ' _ .-�-.'.'.�.'. . �. . � _ _ . . ./ l._....i
- ._ . �. t...... _
..�:� . :....... . . :.
....__.... ._.. _ .
.. ...... . _ . ... ............
.. .. .. .. ...:.. ................ ._........._....
�BE �� WALL t _ _ _ .. . . .. . .
=�X�— _ TOPCf8.4NK
X��7C�
L --
�
FJ+VE ELE`�.• 398.41
LOT 2�
�����,.�.{
�
EXISTMG �E8IDDJGE
�
ml
;I
��
a'�
�I
w
wi
�I
�I
�� � _
._,
6 �
/ ,
� � r:.. ���r � I
(FJ8'7F�ET0-�----__ � �
ee ��� -
/
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN /
SCALE: I/8"=1'-0"
!
�
L� I ��
111- / .
11
� /
/
� / / /
/
� 1 ,/ �
,___ � %—x 1 i /
� --- -__� ' (
/% 5�.
� � 1(33��^ ,49� I
---
EIVE[� � �
C
� �
R 2 7 2004 � � \�
�
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME `
PLANNING DEPT.
r
,,
- - � � —x—x
�� bv rnff To - - � _ _ x —��
��
CE) Q' iRff T (E) POOL 51ED 164 _� %
�� To�� �3� r
�
�
B & H SURVEYING, INC.
CALIFORNIA LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR #7701
901 WALTERMIRE ST • BELMONT, CALIFORNIA 94002 •(650) 637-1590 • FAX (650) 637-1059
May 6, 2004
City of Burlingame
Building Department
501 Primrose
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Story Pole Certification
2725 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
To whom it may concern:
RECEIVED
MAY 1 0 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
This letter is to certify that on May 6, 2004 our survey crew checked the heights of the story poles at the above
mentioned site. The poles have been constructed as shown on the approved story pole plan.
CN �
Wayn Haas, PLS
O �A� p S�
Vcc���y�Py�r ���sl��,�
O
—' LS7701 �
� ExP iz-3/-oy �
cP� ��P
t 9T��F CA:��F��
�
�,
N:\bh\4573-02�Survey\4573-storypole.doc B&H Page 1 5/6/2004
R���IVED
A PR 2 2 2004
Burlingame Planning Commission
c/o Ruben Hurin
Apri123, ZOO4CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Ca 94010
Commisioners,
Re: New Single Family Dwelling
2725 Summit Drive
APN 027-224-240
We are writing regarding the above referenced permit application for a new
home development. We are the adjoining property owners along a southeast
portion of the property.
I met briefly this morning with Ruben Hurin who was very helpful
explaining the proposed development.
We do have concerns regarding this development but do not have objection
in principle to the idea of a new home being constructed there. Our concems are
as follows:
a) The new new roof line, while only modestly non complying,
is several feet higher that the existing roof line and it appears
��� _" it will substantially alter and block much of the view we
presently enjoy. The existing roof line is not presently visible
from our home as our view is above the house to the trees and
hillsides beyond toward the northwest. Additionally several
chimneys extend even further than the proposed new roof
lines.
b) The new home will extend further into the backyard than the
existing home (including a chimney as well) blocking view
where there is presently no structure.
c) We would like to be sure that the planting along our adjoining
properties is consistent with the existing character which is
low growth Monterey type shrubbery.
We hope to attend the meeting scheduled Monday, Apri116�`, to further
explain our concerns which we think should be able to be addressed by the
designers in some manner that doesn't create unreasonable hardship on the
developers. We welcome this opportunity to provide our input.
Greg and Deborah Cosko . . , ' � � j ` ; � ;' '; �-;
6 Hillview Ct, Burlingame � . " � ` ` � `; ` � r ; °� . �
";x � .. 's ,'.. �..,.
RECEIVED
A P R 2 1 2004
Burlingame Planning Commission
c/o Rubin Hurin
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
94010
Commissioners,
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Apri121, 2004
Re: APN 027-224-240
2725 Summit Drive
As a follow up to our note yesterda,y (which was inadvertently dated
4-23) we would like to request some sort of `story poling' or project
`outline' be erected that would show how the proposed new home will sit in
the lot showing height and encroachment relative to the existing structure.
It would be helpful if this included the fireplaces in their proposed
locations outlining height and width.
Thank you for considering this request.
Greg and Deborah Cosko
6 Hillview Ct.
r .. . .., §��`d.: , _ , : � ,' ,
' - 1 s . :'i
� i,._ r. . �i - '. �it-�f.` � _,
i �. �. � � " �1'.a ,'l; . � : �.. �
�; , . . . i . ,. . _.. . .
:�,;.� n.... .i. si fE _ fi�� ,f .' . ,f G ,� ,
. . ' . , , � . 6 . , : � , . . . , .. .
• " ' 1. : . . . i .F � . . . . ' - . . �- . . �.s ...
,S.
: ;�'� *� ' i ♦. ;�, �-�--� -�,
���.+wn
`� 1
L r . r� �
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: New project at 2725 Summit Dr.
Dear Ms. Monroe,
Catherine A. Payne
2754 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 347-1994
April 19, 2004
�����VED
f'� �J �� � 1 2004
CITY OF �UIt�INGAME
PLANNIiVU CEPT.
I received notice for a new project at 2725 Summit Drive in Burlingame and
would like to request that the applicant put up story poles to see what impact
the new structure would have on existing views in the area.
Thank you for this consideration.
Sincerely,
•� 1
L2�����'^{ � " /
_. l �
Catherine Payne
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
�a� c�Tr o�
flURLINOAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
��'^x...n w�re e''oe
Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Pernut Variance
Special Pernut � Other Parcel Number:
Project
APPLICANT� L.rY�J ��� �
� i_i�
Name: �� I�l� �� �
��
Address: �'�� ��� ���
City/State/Zip: �
Phone (v�t��i��������
(h):
���� ��
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Address:--�,��—'--� � �%
City/State/Zip: �= t' ��^� �7 I` I
Phone (w):
(h):
cfl:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER,� � I �
� 1 ' l.1
Name: _ N��/ � i �' �
Address� �.���� � Please indicate with an asterisk *
��,��� the contact person for this project.
City/State/Zip:
�. �� x� I� RECE►VED
Phone (w): l�'� I i
(h):
(��Co���S-����
DESCRIPT19N:
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify
given herein is true and correct to the best of my
D�Qpplicant's
I know about the proposed application and hereby
application to the Planning Commission.
D`Property owner's
MAR 1 9 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
of perjury that he in�ormation
� belief.
Date:� � �
above applicant to submit this
f[J
PCAPP.FRM
u
B
\ �1 , �
� .� s � �� ' -e� � � � C � � �-v�-c� � pe � � cs�- S
� � c��-- � `��
�� �` � �,-� C�e�Y���,/ / _
� . (�" c��.�•�9.J�..�
�J 2� -� w� -� ��� s � � �-� � � �-�, � L
��
� j �
S. C��, --�-� � �: �1y�, �- .�� � ��
a.�,
' � � `"""�;� � �+µ; ��.'^..r t 1, '��`� �.. � '�,..�'�. ��_... �/ °4
� �f .«r �� `�*•�i..� �v� .../�
�� � - � - � � �
�
�
Cit;� of'Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org
� � � �1.'I' I"I" � � •
EIVED
��� CIT7 ,� ������. , CITY OF BURLINGAME �����.
�'!�'•"•�""!E ' SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION . M R 2 2 2004
�..m....•''� F BURLINGAME
PLANNtNG DEPT.
• .
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
existing street and neighborhoor� - -
The proposed home is one story, with small portion of the proposed roof over the 30'-0" height limit (2'-4"
over) due to the existing sloping lot at first 40 feet (14 feet lost in calculating the building height). The
overall building height proposed is about 5'-6" higher than the existing home, with the rest of roof height
matching the height of the existing, therefore the mass/bulk will be minimize from both the street, and the
adjoining neighbors.
Z. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of
the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood.
The proposed French country inspired home is located within a variety of older styles neighborhood. The
steep roof pifch, shutters, cement plaster, and typical French roof vents aze all consistent with this style and
it should blend well on this block without changing the character of the neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed single-family residence with attached garage is consistent with City Design Review
Guidelines, and it complies with all zoning requirements, except for the attached garage & height (Special
permit) where it's minimal above the 30 feet height limit, but it is allowed under the special permit process.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or
addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What
mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate.
No trees will be removed, with new landscaping for the entire lot is proposed. sPECPE1uvt.��t
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existingstructure's design and with the
e.xisting street and neighborhood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties
will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think
about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlighbshade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include
those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
� How does the proposed structure compaze to neighboring structures in tern�s of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say
so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of
the proposed new s�s•ucture or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adj acent properties in
the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by
size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these
guidelines?
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking ..^� garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of a�y new structure
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements.
What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this ynitigation
is approp�iate
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under
city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If
no trees are to be removed, say so.
SPECPERMFRM
t
Cif�.of'Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org
� �� s u� �rrr ��.
,��` `�T" �� CITY OF BURLINGAME R C E I V E D
�!�!�!�E : SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
'�"°*.,�.�..'. I� R 2 2 2004
��}�"� � CITY OF BURLINGAME
1,� PLANNING DEPT.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
existing street and neighborhood.
The proposed new single-story residence with two car-attached garage is consistent with the existing one-
story home, and it's also consistent with majority of home in this "hillside" neighborhood (where 90%+
homes have attached garages). The proposed front setback is approximately 29.5 feet or 41.0 feet from the
street curb, with garage door facing south, all of which will minimize the mass/bulk from the street view.
2. Explain how the variery of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of
the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood.
The proposed French country inspired home is located within a variety of older styles neighborhood. The
steep roof pitch, shutters, cement plaster, and typical French roof vents are all consistent with this style and
it should blend well on this block without changing the character of the neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed projeci be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed single-family residence with attached garage is consistent with City Design Review
Guidelines, and it compIies with all zoning requirements, except for the attached garage & height (Special
permit) where it's minimal above the 30 feet height limit, but it is allowed under the special permit process.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or
addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What
mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate.
No trees will be removed, with new landscaping for the entire lot is proposed. srEcrExlvt.�xlv1
,
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 -'
www.burlingame.org
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominantstructural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existingstructure's design and with the
existing street and neighborhood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties
will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think
about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include
those to the right, left, reaz and across the street.
> How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say
so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of
the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adj acent properties in
the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by
size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these
guidelines?
1. Compatibility of the architechual 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 component�.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structu�e
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements.
What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation
is appropriate
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under
city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If
no trees are to be removed, say so.
SPECPERMFRM
_ .
.� ,
1 _
�, cirr
,�r at CITY OF BURLINGAME
6URLJNC�AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
-,�. BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�...�,,,,„,•''�� TEL: (650) 558-7250
Site: 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE
Application for design review and special
permits for height and for an attached garage
for a new, one-story single family dwelling at:
2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, zoned R-1. (APN: 027-
224-240), continued from the May 10, 2004
Planning Commission Meeting.
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, May 24, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City
Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed-May 14, 2004
(Please refer to other side)
A copy of the a.
to the meeting
Burlingame, Cal
If you chal ge
raising onl o;
described i t
at or prior t t
Property o er�
tenants ab t t]
558-7250. an
Margaret 1VI�
City Planner
�
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
� SpraJc ay be reviewed prior
n�� ;n�n �en��l Primrose Road,
limited to
ic hearing,
to the city
ming their
call (650)
(Please refer to other side)
y
i
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW,
SPECIAL PERMITS 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
desi�n review, special permits for buildin� height and for an attached gara�e and hillside area
construction permit for a new one-story sin�le familv dwelling with an attached garage at 2725
Summit Drive, zoned R-1, Denise Balestrieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, CA, 94402,
property owner, APN: 027-224-240;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
Mav 24, 2004, 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, 15303, Class 3—(a)
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one
single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized
areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this
exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review, special permits and hillside area construction permit are approved,
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such
design review, special permits and hillside area construction permit are as set forth in the
minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
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 24t" day of Mav, 2004 by the following vote:
Secretary
�
m
EXHIBIT ��A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, special permits and hillside
area construction pertnit.
2725 Summit Drive
Effective June 3, 2004
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped April 15, 2004, sheets A.1 through A.6, L1.0 and Boundary and
Topographic Survey, with the exception of the chimneys in the living room and master
bedroom which shall not be installed as part of the project; and that any changes to
building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require
and amendment to this permit;
2. that the three Pittosporum Undulatum trees shown along the southeast property line on
the Landscape Plan dated stamped April 15, 2004, shall be eliminated from the landscape
plan and that no trees or shrubs shall be planted along this property line whose natural
growth tendencies would cause them to grow taller than the property line fence or a
maximum of seven feet; vines on the fence whose height can be maintained by property
owners on both sides are an acceptable alternative;
3. that shrubs planted along the fence on the southeast property line between the subject
property and the property at 6 Hillview Court shall be maintained by the property owner
so that its height does not exceed the top of the fence or a maximum of seven feet as
measured from adjacent grade on the 2725 Summit Drive side of the fence;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first floor 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 scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building footprint;
6. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation
of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
7. 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;
8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
�, �
�i
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, special permits and hillside
area construction permit.
2725 Summit Drive
Effective June 3, 2004
Page 2
9. 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;
10. 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;
11. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's, and
Recycling Specialist's March 22, 2004, memos shall be met;
12. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
13. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff;
14. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District;
15. that the project shall be subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of pertnit application; and
16. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
� ���" ��' ,i � � °�. �., � II. k� ��
-, �.; �+F¢, / "�, "' ' '�" � ..
� g�, e
��_ o . . � �:: � . p� j� .
3
� , �t , � n � � � �o- �,. � �� � r " �
� u
� ' � . � o ,� a�y: �r � ,�, -� ,a'^� � ��'A� ri� r + � ��
� Y�.. � $. ' -� �ito-� }1 a - a' �. u�, ,, x- .
r �
� � �` � � �� ��". �q �'_u, `.�t �, �� � £ i t , '� "� �
� �`'_ . . . ..�� i�� � � �, ��,r w- .� *�w ` �` ` '�'1�'., p
, � : :. �, � �;�� � � �s ' +�' p.
�� �� � �
��� � �,` �,�� =t�` 1 �
;� � �,
�,
�� � �' � �� ��� � � ��� � ' �� �}
.,,
, 4. �
.
,, �
�� ��� �- � �.-� �. : � �ni�a liwwns 5zzz �.,�� , . � � . �� � �� � �;
.
�.�, .
��
.��
..
� ��
. �s ��..
� .
� ���� �� p e
.
a,
,
.
�� � � ��� �
. �
� :°' �X� = ,,,r �,} �s �. , � ' �" '� i,� n �'�
; =" � � � "�''� � .
� � � . � ,� � ,� � � ��' � � � � . ,. � �
�Y�✓ S �� § �n £��R� � m . § tl�d�S w� � � �v'�p�
�'y i�':.� � � � �°: ,3� � �� �r � f �� �� � � �
2-,
.
,�
w
. *R.� � . v .. � .��* ;5�t " � ,� �� .
� � } : � �� a .-� ,RL T� 2 � .,�,. � � _i i
� :a� " '�� a's� � � fi
� n� :: �^%g �.. �m`_ . t
� � , ��"" x'^� � b p � .
: i �_'
� � `� � �� �
� l��S��`� ' f y � y �, ; �
�' 4 �' -��Y�»�" �� � '� y"' '�'��
'^ �M „„u�.. � � � '`�'''�H,,>-- � "a� �"" ,; �Ye� � �� '�`�
, �
„ ��
a "�=.;"5�' � .. _ , '�,�' � ��S ' � � � � �s� x "'�4 ,
, � , � . , ° � , ,� `� �. �.
, . �.- �, � � .� � �,4 -. , ��- - <
g . . �� -: '� '"��'.� � �. �� ` .:
z
�� ���� � . �. �� :� . ,.� .,�. ,�` .+. �� � �� ' � ° ;+��.� °''�- ��.��..
; . r '
d,
�ji. `� "� ��� � �` y .A, �� � y, ��" x = F '
�
� .,...r" �"„y�^ s . .. ,� `�w;."'; y�, � ''�' � `4� ,
i"�' € .,.��j'�, ny ` � _�'",' :�,y � �� _ . . �.�. v�i.�..e. [ .
F
� I
����� ���� ,`� ��;�,. + � �� ��'� �^� ,: �� � � �
.� �, ,�,k � w' .
�
.��'��� � . _ � � �t � � � .
C . .'s���.F,��� r�?` , � �'�,i+ �;�t � f � � .� �..
�
� ,
. _ � ��. � .. �
� . �� '. . �,� >� �� .�`;��§ i Sx�,-, � t � `,� �� •
d s � ' ` � � '��,
f
fi o u y
� � M � � � '�� � �- ' : ( �� 1 �'�''s�- ,
; � , � �� � �
� � . ; � ,� � Q, 1§ # ; R �s . �.
.��� �s�$� sf #'� � �rr �:�ii $ .:�;. � ��; 4 . �' �� �aw„ � . r
� � �, "� . � svz;; i e'�;
h r . �N
�w�, � � � ��� `')
• .�s��z�' 's VF, �F t �S_ � � �
� t�� `.� � �,'� f � �a�� j ii � ���. � � �e.�w�
� �.. �. ,� " � � � . .-:�, ��' , ���� �
d /"" " � xr� . ..
fi�y e � }
. * . � � �� �� � �� � x� a
�" �. _� � i i .#* 6� , R' �', � '€ k%�-�. � �
�,.� � �� �` e� r � c� '� a
.a fC : �r � . d r , �0 4 � �' r "�F- �
y� we
.,..;� � "`t . e � i�"°�� +c �,X� .� a : a� � ..
�
, � � � s. ..�'r.,,r� dtf � . �
x ,
' �
„ � �b �
' f
"�,s-- a .,� in,.. ,�' ,�°. - .
` � • � ,� � � � ��
�
F ' �ry r I
� � N� '� � e �. � � : �.� , �
�,..
' �• � � ,y= � '. F'& S. . � .
_ z
N
• � ° � `� . :.�.. -�, ir .�,.. . ^ _:� �
..a " ' =MY s� n¢v
G{�t +1 � ' ' ` ` . ",u . F"Y � .
�- � �,�, . �� � .
. � Y
� � t
�� ��.� c.�� � �� .'�. ��„ `B+ �`
c y .. s�� rtM. ��. . `+bY. �4� �. � .
� ` a� ` �,� .� � ,� ��� '��
;w. x�;. ��£. �, � .4
.. ,�� � � ��� ..
� �� � r": a�r y�, t .. �>
w 8 *. �. � � ... �',�',`°�� ' its' , ,... �` ��.i��
� ,� �" ��". , � n ��= p �.� �� � ,�.
��b � ��';��$ � i. &�4:�.
'.� 9 � �.. � i�. . �
'� ��. � . . � �Mg . , {`*
�k` � # ," �aq� �,�w ��a a� i�.. ��� .�
�" �44'�` •� , e � �. . � d� ' . �r _'
. P:� �'x '.� Tg'.
, # ,���:e.' ' ��' a�� �."'�" '' �.:� �^'�
,� �� � � j ��, � � k
4 .. � tr:i �� } : p' x�"'> �„ �
� t"a 4 a .��e
�''� � r � , .a � ,%
-�'` � k � �r ��� � �� r� ,'�
f
�'��S � b' �P 4� � �k .Si
�3 � '�� w�YRk1�Y:�t�.A dG .w y:.. .
��} � *r � �.s
� �� �y„,; � '`�,+' � .�t� ..� . �� i�s
�
. t� x �`' "� � �`x .
a p
� ,� .�.�� � . �S �ft . .
� �� � � # �-
_� �� �i �� � � . � � � . . �.
� �Y � 4 � � � � �� . �<�" ✓'4
. .. ..��:�. � � ��..s ..�� s_ "" A_�.u,.. '��'�' .z�� ":�.�,,#E+, a„ � � :.
"�„ �,�
�� ��
�"l .,� ,
4
::��`�"� ��
� ���
e�.�*� �� - . e "° #