The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2600 Summit Drive - Staff Report (2)Item No. Regular Action PROJECT LOCATION 2600 Summit Drive City �f �urlingar�e Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits Item No. � Regular Action Address: 2600 Summit Drive Meeting Date: January 11, 2010 Request: Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for height and attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design Inc. APN: 027-271-110 Property Owners: John and Janice Gumas Lot Area: 82,342 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 Article 19 Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Background: On April 13, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits at 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame. The Commission had concerns with view blockage issues caused by the addifion that would affect the neighboring property at 2606 Summit Drive and voted to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar once story poles had been installed and surveyed. The project designer and property owners worked with the neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive to develop a revised proposal for the project. The revised project went to the Planning Commission as a Design Review Study item on September 29, 2009. The Commission asked that story poles be installed that outline the proposed addition and that those story poles be surveyed by a licensed surveyor. Story poles were installed and were surveyed on December 8, 2009. Project Descripfion: This large and oddly-shaped lot is located at the corner of Summit Drive and Belvedere Court in the Hillside Area. The narrow portion of the lot, along Summit Drive, is considered to be the lot front. The applicant is proposing a first and second story addition to the existing two-story, 3,997 square foot single- family dwelling. On the first floor, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the interior and add a formal dining room, entry hall and turret, and new garage to the front of the structure. On the second floor, the applicant is proposing to add a hallway, master bath and closets, and an additional bedroom. With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase to 6,6�2 SF (0.08 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 8,000 SF (0.10 FAR). The proposed project is 1,358 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. The proposed structure will be 33'-4" above the average top of curb, which requires a Special Permit. With this project, there is no increase to the number of potential bedrooms proposed (five existing). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. Two covered parking spaces (20' x 20') will be provided in the new attached garage, and the required uncovered parking space (9' x 20') will be provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010, a, 5); _ • i:n_:..i_ n__.. r._..__a_..-,a:__ n,._..,,.:cr.._ c:..,.i ..i ...� • ..i..i:c:._.. m c• G c� n n�. - nuisiuc ru ca �,�i isu u�u�i i rCi u ui i�i a ui oi ai iu ."icGGi iu SiGi y auuiuvi i`V.J. LJ.V i.v2v�, = Speciai Permit fior an attached garage (C.S. 25.28.03�, a); and ■ �r�a�ial Parmitfnrhiiil�iinr� heit�ht hetv✓een 3Q' and 36' (33'-4" �rnr�osed) (C.S. 25.28.060, 2, 1). Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 2600 Summit Drive 2600 Summit Drive Lot Size: 82,342 SF Plans date stam ed: Au ust 28, 2009 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS : _....-------...-- -------------- -- -------- - Fronf (9st flr): ; 117'-0" (to BR1) 131'-0" (to formal DR) 15'-0" (2nd flr): ; 141'-0" (to MB) 139'-0" (to turret) 20'-0" ----._.---...__.___.._..._.__......__..._..--- ------ --------.. Side (/eff): ; 16'-0" (to garage) 7'-0" (to garage) 7'-0" (right): ; 45'-2" (to BR1) 30'-0" (to BR2) 7'-6" __........_._.._....----..._........_...__.....-------.._..-----._.---.....----- Rear (9st flr); ; 46'-8" (to BR3) 56'-5" (to FR/dining) 15'-0" (2nd flr): ; 55'-5" (to MB) 53'-4" (to MB) 20'-0" _..._..---._..__........_._...-------....----..__..._..._.__...;.-- Lot Coverage: ; 3,191 SF 4,797.5SF 32,937 SF 3.9% 5.8% 40% _...------ ..............................---------._...._...-----�__ __..._._---._..._._.._...._....------...-----.......__.;__...............__.._....----._.---- ------�.._......------_---------_._..___...-----------...__.._...---.....----........._.._.. FAR: ' 3,997 SF 6,642 SF 8,000 SF � 0.05 FAR 0.08 FAR 0.10 FAR ..................----------------------._..._�.---.._.._..----._._....------.....__........---_-.._......_..._.._....--------------....--------- ----------------.._...---------...----...--- # of bedrooms: � 5 5 � --- --------.._....-------------------: ----- � Parking: ; 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered �20� X 20°) (20� X 20�� (20� x 20�� 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered � (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') ----------- --- ----.... --------- ----------- ----------------- ---- Heighf : 28'-10" ` 33'-4" z 30'-0" DH Envelope: � complies complies CS 25.28.075 ' Per Municipal Code Section 25.28.070(e), the maximum single-family residential house size shall be 8,000 gross square feet, including accessory structures. 2 Per CS 25.28.060(a)(1), a Special Permit is required for a structure between thirty and thirty-six feet as measured from average top of curb (33'-4" proposed). Staff Comments: See attached original memos from the City Engineer, Chief Building OfFicial, Fire Marshal and NPDES Coordinator. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on September 28, 2COS, thE Co�m��issior� discussed the need for story pol�s on the site ar�d what shculd bE cutlir��d by t"� stor� poles and voted to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar after the story poles have been installed and surveyed by a licensed surveyor (September 28, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes). Planning Staff approved a story pole plan that was submitted by the designer on October 13, 2009. On December 9, 2009, the designer submitted a letter from a surveyor that confirmed the correct placement of the story poles and on December 23, 2009, the designersubmitted a response letterto address the Planning Commission's questions and concerns. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Arcniteciural style and mass ana buik of sfructure; -2- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 2600 Summit Drive 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, 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 consistentwith the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is appropriate. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 28, 2009, sheets T.O, Boundary and Topographic Survey, and SP.1 through A.9; 2. that any changes to building materials, exteriorfinishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. tnat ine condiiions of tne Chief Building Of�iciai's rebruary 5, 2009 memo, i'rie Cij� Engineer's Decerr��e� 15, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 24, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 21, 2008 memo shall be met; 5. that demolition for 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 prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans L_II L_ J:L:_J 1_ ' I.J L__1 1:_1:�... 11 .J:1:...-. L...-..-.�..-.....I ...J.-...i.+.J L�..:L... I.-..-..-.�...-. Siiau uC iiiGuiiiCu iu iiiCiuuc 8 C'vVci JIICCL nowiy an Cviiuiu�iiS Oi aNNivvai auvN�cu uy u�c �ia��y Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all condifions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning �nmmicginn QI' r�t�/ �,'.QI I�ICII Qlj ?��P?I; -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permrt and Special Permits 2600 Summit Drive 7. 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; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recyciing 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; 9. 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 P1210R TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. 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; 11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Erica Strohmeier P,ssociate Planner c. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer, 405 Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 John and Janice Gumas, property owners, 2600 Sum�nit Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 attachments: Response letter from the project designer, date stamped Decerx�ber 23, 2009 Story pofe certirication lefterirom uunbar and Craig Licensed Lanc� Surveyors, date stamped uecember 9, 2009 �opy of the approved story pole plan, date stamped October 13, 2009 1Vlinutes from the September 28, 2009, Planning Commission Desiqn Review Study Meeting Photos of the subject property, submitted by Commissioner Auran �i the September 28, 2009 Design Review Study Meeting �esponse letter from the project designer date stamped August 28, 2009 �linutes from the April 13, 2009, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Letter from neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive, date stamped April 13, 2.009 Application to the Planning Gommission Speciai i-ermit appiication Forms Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed December 30, 2009 P.erial P!;eto � Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 December 23, 2009 Ciry of Burlingame attn: Erika Strohmeier, Planner 501 Prirru-ose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: Response to Planning Commission's recommendations per meeting minutes On September 28, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission, We thanlc you for your concerns and suggestions made with regard to our application for design review for the proposed addition to the residence located at 2600 Summit Drive. Please note that Mr. and Mrs. Gumas had shown and met with Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung the revised design and according to the meeting the neighbors had agreed that they We too, are architecturally sensitive and very eager to address your concerns. We had revised the plans in accordance to your comments. We hope that you find the revised project acceptable for approval. Please see below for response to changes. In response to your particular comments: 1•"Was tlae garage pushed further o�a the lot? a) Response: Entire garage re-designed to the least amount of impact to neighbors. Garage roof was re-design at a lower plate to reduce the mass and bulk of the garage wall facing the neighbor. We had also lowered the entire ridge per plans. 2• "Will have better sense ofpote�2tial impacts after sto�y poles are irzstalled. " a) Response: Story poles have been installed and a�Nait your review and comments. 3•"Rega��ding the tun^et at the entry; it is a prominent piece in the side elevation faciizg neighboi; is dedicated to circulation. If there rernaiT2s an issue with the height, pe��haps there is a�aothe�^ alternative for t�•eabnent in this area. " a) Response: In review of the story poles for this area it is our opinion that it will have miniinal impact from adjacent neighbor's window. This turret is the main focus of the design and was designed to flow within the internal floor plan. It is our opinion that revising the turret layout would create a lesser appealing building with potential of a larger view blockage. '�� i�..._ ; __.. _ ___.. r�cr, � a ��Qnu �; �_ �.� .� �� :,i'v' = "t;�„',�tifivG ;i`�� r�;r�!�h;:� !.:�-==t,. GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS DECEMBER 23, 2009 , 4• Requested phone number for the applicant and neighboringproperty ow�zer at 2606 Su�nmit D��ive . " a) Response: John and Janice Gumas can be reached at John's cell: 415-517-7575 and Janice cell: 415-816-8484. b) Response: Please contact planning depariment for Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung number. In response to public comments: 5•`Have reviewed the J�evised plans; the architectur-al plans to difficult to ��ead ". a) Response: John and 7anice Gumas had mEt with the neighbors on these revised plans and all appeared to be acceptable pending the story poles. 6• `Have agreed to consider the height after installa� �on of story poles. " a) Response: Story poles in place for review. 7• `Desire trees bettveen the properties to be cleaned up in order to improve bay view" a) Response: John Gumas had discussed this request with the owner. In response to additional commission comments: 8•`More than the ridgeline should be shown by the story poles; perhaps orange »aesh could be installed as well better illustrate pote�itial impacts, " a) Response: Story poles have been erected with orange mesh for the commission review. 9• "Turret area also needs to be outlined. " a) Response: Story poles have been erected to outline the Tunet. 10• "Sto�y poles need to show an accurate outline of the euilcii�ag cha7zges. " a) Response: Story poles erected show the most recent re-design of the plans. Thank you for this opportunity to further consider our proposed addition. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650-703-6197 Sincerely, TP_.S.$P �P.LIYCP. Principal € � �� . �_ � .�.� Ci � f� � :,• 7 ;��, vl_�.. w �.- Li,:.iY; ��-•' t`:ri= F?1_}n� `•.�t;ltis��e> >a� �,!`:�ls?�)(�i i�''c`=7, � ��:1��3��. �,��d ��-�� ,�CFNSE� LAl'�� UR�EY�3�� A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 118o ColemanAvenue, San Jose; CA 95119 1011 C�dar St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060 o (831) �25-7533 FAX (831) 426�9182 EMATL: cuz-t�dunbaranc�cr•aig.co�n December 9, 2009 City of Burlingame 501 Prunrose Road Burlirigame, GA 94010-3997 Re: 2600:Summit Drive, Burlingame To the Gity of Burlingame: File No: 09166 San Mateo Co. APN 027-271-110 This letter is to confirm in writing thaY on IJecember 8, 2009 Dunbar & Craig. Land Surveys perfornied a story pole verification site visit. We have deterx�ined that the contractar lias biult the story poles ir� substantial canforniance both horizontaily and vertically witk the story pole plan produced by Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. Please call if you have any questions, Sincerely, C�.��--.� Dunbar and.Craig Land Surveys Curt G. Dunbar, President PLS :5615, Exp 09-30-10 G. .�, s � :�.:,�;5 � :r�. � : a ___. �o , z<;i0 � _ �., L'_ _ .. �;��j�y > I � � � o----! - I I � � � I I �� /— +25'-8" AFF. / % / O Q Q % � I I � , � i � I � i, � ' i -----L-----------I - --�-- ---- I -- . - ;� I � --- -------------�------ ; r— -----, � � � � . 7 F �� - ------------ ------ -- ------- i / — � i i �— �� ' I � � � \ \ ;, � �._._. —\ � �%�5.�� _._._ ,._._. � - �-�-- � ; �. �> —� , \ � �I � ; I � � T � � s� a �r I � W ._._t��=�7�� .��.-s� .�F. -p� i i i I � �� t � ` � � � i �i / �. � �� .w�� I � �\ �'� �� / �._._._._._._._._._._. ��►�=�'�'r�.� ; �, --> , , ;� . � �� ¢�.� � I I � i ,6 — ORANGECONST.MESti I I — � �- ------------J � �$ _ J i '`._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.��P1��=¢fl�2d1�'�� I , � � — .L _._._._._._._._._._.�O��A�=.�bL8�.4�F�� `•—�—•—•—�—�—• •—•--- —��'I I +98`-5`At'F. .� / �e��' .��. ' . C9F�C�Y.BLRF1�=�.�?A�. � � � � +S�'-3' AFR'.� i i i —a�vc�� _ ��.� T. _._._._.—._._._._. \�� . tYL !!s • Aip •P�d.p L'Lli- :� ' L I — — — �"'J � I �I I � s� �i I » I I -- � ; i ; � i � � � `'� I �� I ql � � I I I I; I � I � J � -'°°°'-�> I._'-°`�°_> I i i �r � i I . I — — — — — I � � �\ � �� ' � I � � I ' � I � � I j \'� I I I �uA= � �I � ��\\ � i �. � �� .,� i� '--°m°�° ------ — — — ��,�� —�� _, i -- o--------- � ------------------------ � ._._._._._._._._._.��e�=�4�FeFF),� •\ •` . . . . . .¢IIQ)'..6' AP,P. � �� f3F&��=H9.24' '� �._._._._._._._._._._.�_._._•—•{� �� .\ '�._._._._,_._,_._,_,_,_,_._._,_._._._._��E°�=l��.��.� T,u-o a'�c=�: — � a• _- _ r - r�. � -�:: ::s�., l�+ :; .. r • •;:_r� � �.:. •.. sr � - � s,•_ � ,l : I � � � � �� Rv�� m, �� `. f r t --y�� i X E..�. �,d' � G Fce � �L�' l�lC1 .� � 2�Og ,�IT✓��cCLi^�"t` ir`�n hl_F��{�.�r�IC. �F P.Fat. n _ ^k:t�iitid �r� �� CiTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 28, 2009 Vill. EGULAR A I ION ITE� � Th e were no R ular Actio tems for r iew. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 2. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND JANICE GUMAS PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference stafF report dated September 28, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue and John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive; represented the applicant. ■ Plan was reviewed with the Ngais (owners of the property at 2606 Summit Drive). Commission comments: � Was the garage pushed further back on the lot? (Geurse — revised the upper level addition to push it closer to the front of the property, and lowered the roof and roof ridge; have lowered the roof as much as they could). ■ Will have a better sense of potential impacts after sfory poles are installed. � Regarding the turret at the entry; it is a prominent piece in the side elevation facing the neighbor; is dedicated to circulation. If there remains an issue with the height, perhaps there is another alternative for treatment of this area. � Requested phone number for the appiicant and neighboring property owner at 2606 Summit Drive. Public comments: Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung, 2606 Summit Drive; spoke: a Have reviewed the revised plans; the architectural pians are difficult to read. a Have agreed to consider the height after installation of the story poles. = Desire trees between the properties to be cleaned up in order to improve Bay views. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: = More than the ridgeline should be shown by the story poles; perhaps orange mesh could be installed as well to better illustrate potential impacts. = The turret area also needs to be outlined. a �tpry �plac nePri tp �hnw an a�r�r�tg Q�t�lll2 cf th2 b�llG�ln� �h��ac, Commissioner Terrones moved to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. 3 0 C1TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 28, 2009 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: ■ None. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (CommissionerLindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. X. 1 COMMISSIONER�' REPORTS ere were no Comr�issioner's Reports. XI. DIF�CTOR'S RE Com ission Communic�tions: '� ■ ne. Actions fro Regular City Co cil meeting of � None. FYI: 1462 Bur game Avenue — view of minor Burlingame Aven Commercial Are Subarea A: ■ Schedule as a action item. ■ Provide more in rmation regarding � Why are the slidin doors needed? � Are shopping carts ecessary; if so, a� Why is the alcove be g eliminated? Xfl ber 21, 2009: '�. � ge to existing st efront entry in mate��ials for the liding doors. viFil they be Chair Te�,rones adjourned the meet�g at 7:39 p.m. u u ResnectFullv submitted. Sandra Yie, Secretary n � "i _� , � � '�� " . i� �"' ,� � , ;'� � � � i �� AU�y�1 �� r�, i 4 II 1�' �� n�y� ��y{�I %*ia 8 �� i 4! � i i �� rJi pi„r�4�r� �ry �'�4 � �� a� f � ti�i �� „1a � i �� t tif 1�ri�� 7� .ii�' yntu y.�. �� 1� 1 �+ r lrl'� i� �� v�`k �� v�K�, r s. � � YM� iJ . 1 �1 �:. n '�I,Ci . {, 1 1 r�� I r ��, ir� � a� ^ �i g ' ��i+G ,� , , , u�ff' �� 9 ic i� aq i s i 7j � ._- ��d�1��,V;�ne�',4'ilk4i�d�.�4��'�,'dYl��s�, ��,5ai�., rlf�� , �.. . ,-,�': .. �� : �,:�,.r, � s ��.. � � ,.. ,,. •ri �I� u ii9(S n'�v��.G;��'.�'N1��ir�"iiNlr!'Multlktl��li��i11y11�kM�Pt��l,�3S4?'r;� �i�i�� 5S�,4L��r,11�7y4Z5�7*�`IlY,Y�K�ii+�n�N�J1��'�il�`'i¢1'7,'µr�ii'bj�a��y�At �tl �ry,�". i wt�ti,a ��n7a�� rl f�t"9��i��yi��ra��Vt�� ?�9 ��r�l�� i � , 'i �� ( ' �, �l�aE 4r�`��t�t'{ �� ' . k t:. � I � I r �` Pmt� Fd r .� a��. ��;j t ri i i� P�i+ !n � U � t� � ) �r i. �.an i y�^ �I r i ' � I � � � .� r , � , _ �� `''1 st; � ` 1 �; ��E'rr`j I 4��4t� , I ,4 ��yd��u.� k.,r��•� i�.i:r�w�l'4yl'a.. . i ' / % i% /'� ^ i � ,.;j %'�'''!:.-;- � / 0 , F; ' .,; r�. , C; � i s:7 k.� f 4 � � ;^. C '. .. . � � � �ii'ti.� �i1� ar i�lSti�. _. , _ �. .., . . . � n" i ,�u.. �� ,Iry �,;1uNi1 yUmua^ i4lru c""� �,vs �� }i3�j� � � ��. 4 �� ;��,�.,�� ' '� G��;��iN��d`. � f� rd 9 .rr�; ,. wu. r; . �+,, w: , �rr �n.e'e�.;. `�ry . .7i> �.A .�,+� 7��;-y..)� .,�,k.,,�r ^&. ni��.,�,.,..,� .�.��vax.a� .,�ri�•q.^^� aa:�-° iu (ti"^ ' , r.:�. .r �M:�::. t r +: k� , rn . i t, d+�.r 16 �*i: �� J,'`� 5:.t � ,� 3. (-.s �' Y� , Y .;- q�.,3. — I.. y iu' �l� �»„i „� �. �k4 iCt'r.� r.i fizi�'h :3� s .r .. . f9',� r��. �.., "� . s.�.,r ��,. ','i45 �'!'iy7IF, F, C �k,. �..§ ,.Q`.. �Sqk,.. ',� 1 `k�6=n4,t� ,�6.r,�r�` } ��4u I �t�, 1 .,'C�:�i ti�f-.'. �' 4 ,�� .�� r,n. h v��, , � «ak?� S . �...� u t,�t� t: �re ,�r�.oc,� ,,, ., �-� , �I'�.�e,, r r, �`�s;u�1._h :. . �ai¢�, �-•,c , . t :r �� _.z .s n., ;^'.. . }� ., .� �.... �r`�.{,�, � .�.�� .�'1 �, �� '�� .. �3^,a��. ei,,'�„�,.,,�. �.np,t�r1 �,5'�tt �,� ) ..rs ��.�„a�.,t... �` ,�i. , ,�.c<a �r. .4 a�.t. e i.+ is �,� �1 I �F� ».1.,r11-� i �.,,�s_� � . �.�,� �,s ,.. 4e �. F�Fr��i �..ip � �i ,o,r�.8 �,.1 v.. ,�. �k ., .:, �fi ., �I�., ......:5, M;� , ..�..,��...,. ...,w,v1.L�xJ�,:.,t.,� t Y ��pP." S � 5'�r��'wi'Y � t,,.ur,��.,�: j J �, � ��,� �r ;;�. � �?{ ��r F,fS�I .�'. i, �a. r,; ! � �..� t ', .;, � '��c�tu'i� �,x V > � ��t � rfJ?5�� r'� �t* � „_ � � � ;�r .9Y? '�r.�, wv�d� , .�,,.�.x.,� s�s�wt�, 4_�fi vs,,,, � r r . , I�.�fIV�! (��'. ie�� .u,j'r��4 �...lh.`i'i'n:�� i J�l,�t..,� t ��. ��5.�+� �f+ � tf8 ��rF ' .in.�: dY� i� u� t``�:S9.a � hJ l` .:�gu�' f I lk�lii � 5 �. u G� y�� r �� m�w�F �k ti' �7 � p �;;a�b�� 11t.:1 r"��tii� A,h.,. � �.L� ..�9� �1�7 � �rG hc iy� .'lx� c � �1-.�� 6 � 4�.. N! � - R� } '4:� b,�At .'� 4 I f�:' w ,�i'.',� .�a,ae�:., �. /Ld ri rA�t,1;P.-�3" t e�A.., }n' ( y�. x. � 1 4 z�a�s �rin �i taj� n� r r�{ t 1.�u, r � t�.,,5 +�9ry �..},. .�.�:: 4�aP7'I�;k.�° �" ,..L..y. �.�p�.,+ �k°%�b', f !I-� �� i yu`d 4fM �Y. �wtis a „s 7� !�� ,y � �� rC 4�4t!..n �kr'� I�,51 Pl,i!��" � h � �� b � 117 :�iv°tll P i r I� �:�r ,qiv i l: ,r,T^Wi`�T 1 h-rr � i`�i ^� �� 44.�i i ei 1 fl,�t�1JY.� i ��I r� t �N.a . Tt'�i 1( �y yt�6� � ry 1Ny��-r y �� I P� � 1 dr t�, h' la . 11� �I { � tif ��1�R��r�h�d ��d��^�� I I��I� ic�¢��.ti�t � ' � i p�l , {�,� �:� � ��1 y [�� . � �� '��h�� +n �� y x p �" 4"' ��r rIB�".� �d �!�{ ' I 1 I I � jF .�, � a I Jli,�� tk 1 �. ( I 5 I u� 6 I ,{ ��f � fl ��5 �,� �1� t �� y � F 9 z� b�� icr � � 1 ' �. II I� , s +v k ` � � , �'C Y i � � , a � , ,,,a ' s t°l, r : '' . �. i �� U i�� Y� �., s�n �f W �r� ,�� n�, tt�� }F ��i i;! �� p i �� I I � �� i ' I .i , i. � �I� I i � �I , � �� , i � I � a�� ` ,t II �� .1 „ ,� �� , � � �' ,i � � �' i � 'i !) V ' I� " �� , i I i u f � � i I �I i �i �.._- 1 � ' �i , , ;' �` I � � . . � ` � ,. _ _ s�{1 Geurse Concept�.al Designs, Ince 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, Califomia 94010 August 25, 2009 City of Burlingame attn: Erika Strohmeier , Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: Response to Planning Commission's recommendations per meeting minutes on April 13, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission, We thank you for your concerns and suggestions made with regard to our application for design review for the proposed addition to the residence located at 2600 Summit Drive. We too, are architectuxally sensitive and very eager to address your concerns. We had revised the plans in accordance to your recommendations. We hope that you find the revised project acceptable for approval. Please see below for response to changes. In response to your particular recommendations: 1•"Impacts will be illustrated by story poles. " a) Response: To be erected after approval process. 2• "Existing house has solar panels, hope the applicant will remain committed to re-installing solar panels. a) Response: Will work on implementing solar panels during the construction document phase. 3• "With respect to the Zeft elevation; Zooks like it is on stilts; encourage installing stone on the lower waZls to make it Zook like a foundation supporting structure. a) Response: Due to the re-design as well as the iocation ii�;il,inc. and the ciient agreed inai ine proposed re-design works well in conteat of the site. Currently there is no visual aesthetics at this area of the house. 4• "Clarifzed the depth of the garage; could the garage be pushed in a bit to help reduce the potential view impact; could consider moving storage to the laundry room to further minimize impacts. . . " a) Response: Garage currently neets City of Burlingame clear garage area space. See at±ached p?�ns f�r rP�ised dPs;g.n_ to minirr�ize visual imoact to neighbors. ,� _,i�,� i"i�i GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS AUGUST 25, 2009 5• "Leave the best telephone numbers for the applicant and neighbor to ensure that commissioners can visit the sites when the story poles are erected. a) Response: Based on the concern of the neighbors. GGD, Inc. selected to re-design the addition to accommodate the neighbors' concerns prior to any erection of story poles. My clients had meet with the neighbors with new design in hand and according to the conversation between the two neighbors it is our understanding that the neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive reviewed and approved the re-design of the addition. GCD, Inc. had lowered various areas of the roof to lessen the overall bulk and mass to the rear neighbor. 6• "Should Zook at taking away mass of bedroom no.4 from over the garage, placing it over the family room and shifting the master bedroom forward ". a) Response: In review of the potential re- location it was determined that the relocation of the room above family room or living room would cause greater visual issue's. We had re-designed the addition to more or less accommodate the relocation. See attached plans for re-design. 7• "On the existing front elevation; is there habitable space above the garage" a) Response: Yes, Existing master bedroom closet and bathroom. 8• "What is the overall height of the structure from adjacent grade " a) Response: Previous overall ridge was 28'-10". The new design has an overall ridge from adjacent grade at 27'-1". GCD, Inc. had lowered the ridge an additional 1'-9" per plans. Thank you for this opporiunity to further consider our proposed addition. Should you have additionai questions or concerns, piease do tioi hesiiaie �o coniact us at �5�-7C3-51 �% Sincerely, Jesse Geu: Principal e` ,� �l`�; .-, ��-;:,f; � .� _ �_:�_. � �_. 2 _ _ CITYOFBURLINGAMEPLANNING COMMISSION—,4pproved lUlinutes ,4pri113, 2009 EX. DESIGN 6ZEVIEW STUDY IT�MS 7. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND HEIGHT FORA FIRSTAND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND JANICE GUMAS PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated April 13, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of stafF. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue and John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive, represented the applicant: ■ Addressed neighbor concerns raised in letter from owners of 2606 Summit Drive. ■ Addition is designed to minimize impacts. ■ Trying to create a nicer home design; have created hierarchy of forms that will not result in the appearance of a large addition. ■ Willing to work with the adjacent neighbor to develop a compromise with respect to the design. Commission comments: ■ Impacts will be illustrated by the sfory poles. ■ Existing house has solar panels, hope that the applicant will remain committed to reinstalling solar panels. ■ With respect to left side elevation; looks like it is on stilts; encouraged to consider installing stone on the lower walls to make it look like a foundation supporting the structure. ■ Clarified the depth of the garage; could the garage be pushed in a bit to help reduce potential view impacts; could also consider moving storage to the laundry room to further minimize impacts. (Geurse — the depth of the garage is about 2' shallower due to encroachment of storage into the area. Could also change the roof pitch.) � Leave the best telephone numbers forthe applicant and neighborto ensure that Commissioners can visit the sites when the story poles are erected. � Should look at taking away fhe mass of Bedroom #4 from over the garage, placing it over the family room and shifting the master bedroom forward? ` vn tne exisiirig irani eievaii�ri; is iheie i�a�iia�le space a�ove ii�e �arage? (Geurs� —ihe ir�asiei bedroom is at that location.) ■ What is the overall height of the structure from adjacent grade? (Geurse — 28' 10") Public comments: Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung, 2606 Summit Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Referenced photographs that they provided with their letter. � Only had 10-days to review the information related to the project. � Addition will present a massive wall. a Will block view of airport runways. . .. .. . . .. . . ... . .. . . = uKe the aesign; tne story poies wiu snow tne impact. ■ When was the street sign placed in front of the propert�; considering the state of the postal service; a lot of times the cards are received late. (Brooks — noted tnat notices are mailed out 10-days in advance �nd the project �ite is posted at the same time.) i[�7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 13, 2009 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was ciosed. CommissionerAuran made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. Additional Commission comments: Story poles shall be erected. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion fo place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m. 11 Chris I�gai aa�d Yola_nda Leung 2606 Sun7init Drive Burlingame, Ca , 94010 �l€�fFIIVI�'1 TZCi1�II�C�'�� '�'� £'.��'!� ��"�4� 4�' ��'A�� I�1 � � s�" -- � � ; n �' � rv=�: �� , ��=��ae �¢ � af� April 12, 2009 Received After ��''<.' E. � ?OOg 04.13.09 Planning Commission Mtg. Agenda Iterri 6- 2600 Summit Drive ��r�c, ��.�,=,€ ��,�,��nr� Design Review Board �t n��:i��=; ; L.�^r. City of Burlingame Subject: I)esign review aa� a proposed new addition on Gu�aas's properiy on 2600 Suinmit i)rive, �uriia�game, Ca 9401Q Dear Sirs: We are the owner residents at 2606 Sumtnit Drive and 'unmediate neighbor to the left of ti e subject Gumas property. After reviewing the design of the Gumas' proposed addition, we have serious concerns with regard to the newly proposed garage and additional bedroom at the west corner of the Gumas property which is immediately adjacent to the boundary of our property. The proposed addition calls for an exterior wall which is only 7 feet from our property fence and measuring 24 �eet x 35 feet in dimension. This massive wall, if allowed to be built as proposed, will severely block and limit sunlight through our breakfast area bay window as well as our dining room patio daor and window. The existing two story structure already limits our view of the sky and enjoyment of light to only 30% of the window. With this newly proposed structure and its massive wa11, we believe it will prevent us from seeing the sky altogether, iiuther restricting our access to and enjoymeni of light in our breakfast area not to mention casting a very large shadow over our �rnrarl �r ,�.,t,..�. � . We believe this proposed two story structure is unreasonably and intrusively large, resulting in excessive iiifriiigement into our property rights. The window(s) of the room above the garage will have a close and direct view of our swimming pool, further infiinging upon our rights to privacy as property owners. It goes without saying that these u-�fririgements, aside from affecting our quality of life, causing unnecessary stress upon our entire household, will also undoubte�ly translate �nto a substantial decline in our property value, adversely impacting on our retirement �l��.iug. � ,. �: - ♦ �; Keeping in mind our grave concerns as imme�iate neighbor to the subject property, we suggest that any newly erected garage addition should stand no less than 15 feet from our mutual properly line. Moreover, the second story of the proposed structure should best be recessed from the west side garage wall in order to allow more open space between the Gumas property and our property. As it stands now, our property's second storey has a view of the Bay over the Gumas' existing roofline which is at 28 feet. The height of the newly proposed project will result in a 35 ft roof which will completely eliminate our north view of the bay. We are vehemently opposed to the approval of any height variance and emphatically feel that any variance over the 30ft limit is inappropriate and should not be granted. That said, any new addition at the Gumas property should either stay with the existing 28 ft roofline or otherwise be in conformance with existing building ordinances with no variances allowed. Since Gumas' lot has over two acres of land, there are many different options to where they can built their additions. Other suggestion is that they could build the additional bedroom at the other end (near the street) of their existing structure as an extension to their single storey home. We strongly believe the current proposed design needs to be modified to meet the Burlingame city building height ordinance. The massiveness of the proposed design needs to be reduced to match with the homes in this area. And most importantly, the new design needs to min;mize the negative impact to our home value and the quality of life. The new design also needs to make good use of the size of the lot and create a harmony in the neighborhood. Sincerely, �'.� d�.�. � : ��. ,� Chris & Yolanda Nga� � • . �= — � �: Existing view from our dinning room E�sting view from our breal�ast area __.__ ��_ �- -- -�---�-_� Existin� view to the auport and the bay from 2nd floor bedroom �� ; p� �' View after Gumas Properiy proposed new additions �.�-.�� ; � ; ; � -� � r; �� _ �.=�:i F �-= �� - � � � r� •._� - � � �: � C[TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNtNG DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(6i0) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 ��, cirr oT '(� T p �7�+T �7 T a �7�7T �,7('� (''� A�T T �7 BURUNaAME �S ��1�1� i l�l�l �� 1�� 3��1'i 17 Yli i5 i.� ��1713 S�A�1�7 4�� Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: 2600 SUMI�'IIT DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 O 2!• 2� �•�� APP�ICANT PROPERTY OWNER � s � � Name: GEURSE CONCEPNAL DESIGN, INC. Address: 405 BAYSWATEIZ AVENLJE City/State/Zip: BUIZL.INGAME, CA 94010 Phone (w): G50.703.G197 (h�: G50.343.3093 � fl: G50558.9324 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: GEiJRSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,INC. Address: 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE City/State/Zip: BLTRI_INGAMP, CA 94010 Phone (w): G50.703.GI97 JOI�N GUMAS Address: 2600 Si_TMMIT DRNE City/State/Zip: BiJRLINGI�NIE, CA 94010 Phone (w): 415-621�7575 �h)�. �fl� Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. G50.3433093 � fl. G50558.9324 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �STANDSECONDSTORYADDITTON AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE��,:�y certi�der penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and cor ct to the b st of y k owledge and belief. Applicant's 1 know about tne a��l�ca�ian to the Pr�r»,Prt� nwnPr'c Date: ii/17/fi8 `�_ �'. � s �" � �� +�i; i1i '7 %�Q�i PCAPP>FR'M �. _ ! 0 e Date: 11/17/08 lili'f10i1ZE iI"iE aY'iGVc aj7�i11C."ailt tv Si.l�3iiiI� ti11S CIT" C7� BIiRLiNGF+ME ?L�;NIVii�la DEFT. �iiy of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame_oro � � : �� c r � ., .. � G. � � .� r�, CI7Y � < �^ BURLINC;AME �� RIDGE I�EIGHT CITY OF SURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIOIrT � r, � r r-. �, ,... � �_�,.E�s �';f',-s,' J rx, f � , :, _, <<a .. _- � 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 #he 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. I. Explain why the blend of mass, sc¢le and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the exisling street and neighborhood. The proposed project has very little visibtl�t�� froin tlae street level. The over�ll reclesign o{ tlie the residence and it's roof was thought out very c�re{ully as to not cre�te a large looking �ddition but yet to coll�orate the sin$le stori� into � uni{iecl seconcl ston� aciclition b�� bringing clown t�e roo{ eaves to a staggered elev�tion design. The exterior stL�le lends itsel{ to roo{ desi$n's and over�ll f��a�. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevatians af the proposed new structure or artdition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. As nientioned be{ore the majoriti� of the resiclence's on t�ae block are completlL� dif{erent in �rchitectur�l aesthetics. The pzoposed project h�as veri� little visibility from the street level. The stt�le of tlze residence allowed us to create a blending o{ masses to integrate the existing single storL� �ddition into a second storL� residence with miniinal imp�ct to mass �ncl bullc. All exterior materi�ls were usecl to create � cohesive overall prance of the house with natnral aesthetics. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the cziy ((.:.�'. 2�.�7j? The entire project is consistent wit}i �10{ Burling�me's regul�tions with the exception of the h��ght of th� roof r�clge �t the aclrlition w}iich was rec�iirecl to lie t�cen froin the average top o{ curb. The aver�ge tope of cnrl� w�s deterinined upon � stcep incline whicls creates an a`J'�l" increase over the 'J��-0" limitation. The �ctual riclge lieight {rom existing paving is 28`�2° which is a typic� seconcl stort� construction. The eustin� site is situr�tecl upon � level gr�ciccl site with the rear portion dropping o{f dramatically. Ple�se review this project on existing site con{iguration as weIl as existing contours. a L' t' G e[.,. 1 F..;9„ �; ��;;fowl;yit&�;� 4&n�� yrirrf �f�n,si� eaow ctraertrironr Y. - d'+A��Gub%L 1LV ry[ILG % GIILV vK� VJ �c J' 2�u addition is necessary and is consistent with the cdty's reforestafion requireFnents. I1'hat fraatigation as proposed Jor ti2e removal of arz� Prees? Ex�irir �h,y Ehis r�itigt�EioY is �ppro�raate, No tree's to be re�noved due to t�e new loc�tion o{ the att�ched garage. SPECPERM.FRM Cit� of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www burlin�ame orQ � k-:,... t __... ;:.' ..,.� PROPOSED ATTACI�ED r� CIYY o < � BURUNGAME ��b..,.e.,�.. CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATI�leT ;�, � c ,, c„ ., J ., ,f,_j,,, c i t`_ , A- � ... _._. 1_ 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. I, Explain why the blend of mass, scale and domirtant structural characterisfics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The proposed new relocation o{ the attached garage is locatccl in a�tt�r vicinitg clue to the reason that tlie garage cloors will not face the �cljacent rear rnsidence and actual works better in rel�tionship to the existing clrivewaL� and proposed addition to the residence. T1ie mass and bulk o{ the garage in our opinion woulcl not impecle upon neig]sbors clue to the location on site. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevatio�zs of the proposed new structure or addition are cnnsistenf with tlze existing structure, sireet and neighborizood. The majority of tlie residence s on the block are completlL� cIi{{erent in architectural aest�etics. The proposecl project lias very little visibilitL� {rom th� street l�vel. Tlie overall reclesign of the the resiclence and it's roo{ was tboug�t out ven� care{uIly as to not create a large looking addition but t�et to collaborate the single story into a unified seconc] story addition b,� bringing down the roo{ eaves to a to a staggered elevation design. The exterior style lends itself to roo{ clesign's and overall facade design. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (L:J'. i5.57j? As mentioned before the majoritL� of tlie resiclence's on the block are completlL� cIi{�erent in architectural �esthetics. The proposed project lias very little visil�ilitL� {rom t�e street level. The stt� le of the residence allowed us to create a blending of masses to integrate the e7cisting single ston� �ciclition into a seconcl story resiclence witli minimal impact to mass and bi�c Tlie loeation of the garag� has a clirect relation to tlie existing driveway. The g�r�ge complies to all Citt� re$L�ations. Q, &'ml�ia� tinw t'no pvannvnl nfnnv fran.e Invafvcl tviL�iin the fnntnrint D,f[ztly lte3V StYt[Ctdil'C (1t ..... j..»..�...... ...�.......�..�" J J "__.. _ ac�dition as necessary cand is eonsistent witlz ine ci "ry's reforestafion requiremenis. i�i'hat YrZii��iilf3� iS�iFi�J�,SEI�jEi tl�E:e„4aval �f a,�� °ees% : xplr�ir: r��y thz� mitigati�;a :s appropriate. No tr�e's to be removecl clue to the new location of the attached garage. SPECPERM.FRM Project Comments Date To: From: November 17, 2008 t� City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-110 Staff Review: November 24, 2008 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary appurtenant work. �i, ��1N�f D�CiCVII"cli�f �iiGiECiIOi� L�liiiii,atit�ii i8 i"2 uil'c�. C�rtact �U�3�1� ��,Cf{:�S — q' Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 12/15/2008 Project Comments Date: To: From November 17, 2008 o City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Officiai (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558-7254 o Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 o Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 o NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-110 Staff Review: November 24, 2008 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 3) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 4} Provide existing and proposed elevations. 5) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building ofFicial, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2007 California Building Code for new structures. 6) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy oT ine buiiding is io occur uniii a nev�i Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 7) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 8) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 9) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 10) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non- residential buildings. Go to http //www.enerqv.ca.qov/title24 for publications and details. 11) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that comp!ies �n�ith the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all requireci egress windows on the elevation drawings 12) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 13) Provide handrails at ail stairs where there are four or more risers. 14) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 15) The fireplace chimneys must terminate at least two feet higher han any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 211�. - / Reviewed by: %/ Date: � � Proyect Comments Daie: To: From: November 17, 2008 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 �I Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 iJ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, AP(d: 027-271-110 Staff Review: Novemb�r 24, 2008 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indica�ing location of the device �ifter the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire SprinkBers shall be installed and shop drawings �iiaii �.�'iE �c�,j.,ivvcu �.�'iy iiic Ciic vcNuii�iegi9i Niivi �^v iii�i'�aiiuiiL'il. Reviewed by: �'� 2 Date: �'�i �� Project Comments Date: To: From: November 17, 2008 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Q Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dweiling at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-110 Staff Review: November 24, 2008 � Any canstruction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Include a list of BMPs and erosion and sediment control measure plan as project nc�tPs when submitting plans for a building permit. Piease see attached brochures for guidance. r.._ i i � n 7An 7n7 I=or aaditionai assistance, Cb�ta�i cva �. d� o5v/��+�-3� c.� . � �� `' �� '�� ' � ,��,��rv^� ��r�f�u��'d �� M� �// } vP G%%/% S�o�m.vaar ys�� PollulionTrcvcotio¢Pmgmm � Nmn � �� - at7 ._ . ..:._ � - .- _ .._ . � General �"'"'"� Conslructicm �c 5ite 5u1Pervision 19chedWueu��nNooro.odm'11n�ntri�n fora.y �1=�p �u�byH o� im�w�x�� m� a �n �b1I1Xei J�i mpl<<IY��nedn� o.oP li>��F�me�lloe�ev- �pi�IH�nn op�yowd mLi�e�. PL.r. o-+.h..-. �un..�,�� u�� w.r,h, �n�� m.m � R��„� �id. .,i.� i �� v�..w�w�w d.p�a x Ny �IWmuv o��6 ry��Q1�vme��Ju.�nue a.ukJ�� oJy fo� I�L u�p. zAolu ommmded�aprt J Lite �w p�e hble�ioileu ue milnlu�vnl'u ' aolP�P�'�!:Cneck ioJeu v 9�.0 IY �or % NeJomd�.OrJn v .me > med rtcychbi meo{w �xk.vE v.W� le m@nio�.mvice: w �• �ii�4 JDlepm�o afmuna a and eimo�tlw JehM pmPvly. .m��M.�. waeu o� auw=ra �e musi �uM �innwa�o.o�.,.�,..eo a��n e�• St�ul�n�vater Pollutioll Preven�ion Program Pollu�t�orn Prevention — It's Part of the P1an I�t is y�ur responsibility to d� the job rightP Runoff from streets aadothr.r paved azeas is a major sow'ce ofpollution iu loeal creeks, SanFraucisco Bay andtUe Pacific Ocean. Construction activi6es can d'vectly a$ect ihe ]iealth oFour waters unless confractors and crews plan ahead to keep dirt, debris, and other consh�ucrion waste away from storm drau�s and creeks. Following these g.iidelines will ensure your complianee with local stormwater ordina¢cercquireme�rts. Remcmbe , ongoing moiutoring and maintenance of installed controls is crucial to proper implemcntation. Heavy Equipment Operation Eaxth-Moving Activiti�s mv��4� uu , �eabwlui<lyoam .. dmuwe w�J.UNe�uv�a.m..w...et�io� Jrumuem��ao�we..rypwp�eiwyxiLe- � `*• wa�•�.�wm.�eiwr6l�m. leye�� m� r +m�m � lVm.l�eekd.va�Ni�Lrsmti.<nrv�ortwuwleuow� d.jw � ,.od.owde,ef ��nn�.wiP.aN�.v. .qury o�wa g ux JGvtt�o�L�liu �e�n.�iulmYniiM1ua��dEupior aaarvv > .a , � r m�mam�woyi«w�o�.m,�� wwKoru�mim.,'n,n�mo�,�a�ss�� roiom �` 4vmedinrtlY rvhm Nry byym JNmnLme�emn "N�ry'p�v�men�arim0�uble leedy�levwpmn6 �� I�•Hbw m.ienW�, �.�li�v., �bw n V) whca.. « W<Ennawn. un � .ueluneowS�wkn'0 m•rn i� N �w m.rwa�,�.odAi. � JCIv F��we�nW.q.ud� �n�upmdmm�ul. �qua mlLnll�e�e(ouowie�.¢acin"1)I�i.1 ])Gtl Ceuim.1.a001es�iissou46�elrys 1ui . � .' o��wmmpnna�R.or.�n�,.,euam.ai��t� l9N�0nlaeuvntlen g p. kb.mswuuin. JP..fnmmi r�n�m� �� m.�n.a.y(mm i .n.. JWnm ie(ue6oFmnha1'W �IeI�N Wmmime''w�leow<vwi Joo oo�u+enieul ollmlum�iawu� elunqulpmm�nrpam. Roadwork & Paving "��,�o;�,�.,�NU;w..�4 m�„ .nw�+.an wu B 9 P !➢u nduse Aael o� b luh�aie orelon eq�ipmem or Y JTilo. �ynm'b�sbgNmb..im+u5au.opr+.tiae. rco� oi�iU�ne°�„�nm�oi,�.�n�.ri�c ..� n�, o. n�m,. wm..�� „aNw,u �u�.�.�,�y.e�.a�. mv�;a ��.vo�.e. �rsrta��. �oe- �,w�wu�kti�w�.��yno�. ��w,wi��.cm. •�aeiy��v �d o�xrrnum�roo.m.ie�w�.im O��R�i..+��wriWdl.wJtt..o rtw�iu m�f� oe pluile eEeou vvE �w.1� JCm�6Jnp. Wmpaveim�pMpP�a�aO�mbanmotalal (CvloJtr� i )j� ..M m'wc R"an'�elewvf im�. ienil�n6n).o� g v mvo.e�anluN. JGII� � z�d �.�y<I�mapymp�ie�v tlupass oC..u.. nwmo. pp J oqn�aimwcYsfrjmin�oonul. [IHrbloreaJ�vdPondMpowd..��rm.twY�wn. '�"�'�"�evmsxmavdneen a a � e�uos.+rem�or�w. ma.oe��n � muo�:vw�coovoiruma. ��,.�<rtAe...0 01.�� uedb pTnpn.o�o�Jo=��o«ameio�onuvwi�L °uw Mmn.�o�aaoek�.a..N,y .u�nWt�n.i.,a.e�.,o.�vn .�i.�. w ue�n.ue=Yy s aP weWa�Lvx Fresh Concrete � Mortaz Apglicatioa �. �. ti ' JuoienY�.vYvd �ie wuu.��loaiii...rw.rv.u2 boJJ�r.Ay�e vml d rvua¢ I'mm dY wi��+4 4am w�o1 Painting & Application af Salvents & Adhesives � �..�., �II llaW4 y.Ni vAAune md w�ne� w.y tem �uw�� v4 rywl Ee tlifv (�e y Ix�lnmm�.a�n pu�wo}K JSmuobapnfnavu.nuN peo.Heweiotn�� Landscaping, Crazdening, and Pool Maintenance L'� '�■ ►'� Od9A rnvbY��o ea��Mmwacrum+m�. 'ia➢hmn'^ F y cmyucn,�m�m urinp<I Ior�MJor e Linn . �M4manmox. umeua �s��.e v s �'��v�q�¢� � w.�. JxL�GautwMea�e�i.�naM'InuaiP+�edw.+ww�.—. �o-eetmtie[�tmmenu.ar��rt�m awaN�.nuivGrm�unert y yss4�'eeroWau��anuinowlenwnolvmrn� J11�woin-wi.ep.Vw mY�.e.�en L�udouuy.im. <�eW�en.ntl�i.pn.eafa� ro��N1eRJuaioOe�Wtuyrcwmon'�e'swb��e��N m,nurv�rec u.n��.��..�no y. b�ICNmvd.m/a�Lxl�Novn�Elspmaof utiva N.er}pv�rWimiJuni.lihviu.`� � wo ^.��mr�� o�� R�m o«M.m w,� r w.;n lSnun anarmvate�millmuen�u�pamh�rynismo JP'p�odmiiny��vu��dn.i+.aym�iaexalScomwmon rmEnLssllo�er.gprtA IewvL�mia'Ein lPl�ce�yWino�oih.r.m�ioereuvo�awu�ap.�o LLeainw�uuu R �°`m«mmibcfn2n�c�l�c� JmTenF�..4i�iqo�purwR.Meu�emp<4urn11�Fopi.«+ JRrsy�lelu¢e�Wol af4�akm�woa<a�almENl. , me�mmssu�h� m d�v ot.x�cm Jry mrc.rcic l+ou4 Storm drain pc�lluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per day! �rd �,�� a�� u�.u�q e��u�,: mm �.,.m..,w�.,.i.,v�e�u�.,,i.. �i � o. drY aM u ow+�ammo�mo�,.e�,e��'�� ' �� J Cem�N pilvi amppi��.�ido��e wq� e �ua r wbl nem�i.� . �q.,�.dofuhx�uaa�..n... xiWtiyr wil.0 W^)w��yylwlMw m�moaN�n vuumie�tream��ela��IMny'�mYmakiopus�J«i�one1� f�WvuvkY4mnp�luu wdmemya�nte �v��vpaorss�.. JN.we � mt�wposc fmcmiiqw4 nmHf.� �w n� o JUnup.uN..uo�f�a'e m�vl�.ahlemb��...�nm�� c��.�ao..a�aw��nro�.�waRwyu�o � "wu�r. myc.n� nr,mao.,a � u,. w M,a�n��.m mn,,. i.n.i a�n�c�d. m��...o�� i�twv �wa•muY.vW p �,.wura JOo�aipl�ttryN�o.�cin� ilnn.lvwmmwiivraniln ulnua.Or�ke .1ulw � Sy.Alv'1 ��alc�;e.+�eriea�ee.�a �1 uyi ri<e �a�.i.«�,�,qa .+Or� w� r wK mo„ �"n)M !Oo vpp�..-bddilva.idaCwirolJ� � - . : � � _ ° -�: � ` , j: " j: ;- • ; ;� ' : . Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our streams, IaHes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- tants such as oiI and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes arid bacteria, which threaten our water quality. Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, Ioca1 government, and the homeowner untold miIIions of doIIars a year. Nature slowly wears away Iand, but human activities such as construction increase tfie rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When we remove vegetation or otfier objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The Ioss of soil from a construction site results in Ioss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in �the Iandscape. Surface runoff and tfie mater[a1s it carries witfi it clog our culverts, fIood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys wildlife and damages recreationat areas such as Iakes and re- servoirs. � • � � As an example, road and home bui[ding in the Oakland Iu1Is above Lake Temescal fitled the Iake to such an extent that it had to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of $750,000. nTEEI? IVIOR� I1vFORIi�i?IO1V? ABAG I�as produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showrng to any interested group. Ca1I ABAG Public Affairs at (415) 841-9730. ABAG has afso published a"Manual of Standards for Sur- face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively with designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- ment control, and control of urban runof£ The manual addresses problems and solutions as they apply to California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from ABAG and is available on reference at many Ioca1 Iibraries and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. USDA Soi1 Conservation Service personnel are willing to provide more information on specific erosion problems. This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park Distrfct. nssoc�nrioH or enr aaea GOVEFu�.fENiS Hotel Claremont Berkeley, California 94705 (415) 841-9730 �` � - - - .. .. , EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 11500 Skyline Blvd. Oakland, CA 94619 531-9300 ■ - -•- - - - - � � �� - _ _=f= - _ - � -.~ -�- -� �= _.- — - • ` '— — _ . . . � . ... � ;- � `- � . � _ ;. -_ ' :� - ,r � . . . :, ♦ _. •- . � " : � : � Vegetatioa-stabilized )(�J t � Slope: Searrity f � (� ( �- ; �/� • soiI in place • minimum of �/�� erosion '� � • fewer winter clean- �r �� up problems � • protection for /� � fiouse foun- � dations / � �,��(� Ir�`/�. ��r/�. � `TIPS FOR 7gIE �iOMEO�iE� � ��` � ` :::::,'-- �;:,/ "Winterize" your property by mid-September. Don't wait until spring to put in Iandscaping. You need winter protectioa. Fina1 Iandscaping can be done Iater. Inexpensive measures installed by fall wi1l give you protection quickly that will Iast aII during the wet s2ason. Bare Slope: Headaches " and Liabiliiy ' ` ';�' • mudslide danger � • Ioss of topsoiI .•'•� . , • cIogged storm ` ` �t' • � :`�: r3.•- , •' drains, flooding :�.r, ��•;`c problems • expensive � ' ` " cIeanup ,��' �`� ° eroded or ' buried fiouse „-'� ' • foundations ' ' ' 5��,.y� r. '� • ::�� ....., ;'�:�'x .; , `;:n :;::' � . �;:,; ;� t_ � � .�; . ..,-..,:,,� : _ . Seeding of bare slopes • Hand broadcast or use a"breast seeder." A typica] yard can be done in Iess than an hour. � Give seeds a boost with fertiiizer. • Mulch if you can, witfi grass clippings and Ieaves, bark chips or straw. • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. • Check with your Iocal nuzsery for advice. ' I- �a o�e a�er�o��a you ��r�: = Dig trenches to drain surface runoff wate: away trom probiem areas sucn as steep, oare siopes. • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking the surface to Ioosen and roughen soil so it wi1l hold seeds. �R1�s�e �.SiY� a Check before storms to see that drains and ditches are not clogged by Ieaves and rubble. • CnecK aiter major storms to be sure drains are ciear and vegetation is fiolding on slopes. Repair as necessary. � Spot seed any bare areas. '� �;j ' % �_ ` :� . ' 1 � �. ,;,� � - . � . :� : �; : ,:��,,.:- - - - - �,Fg�=,,�,, . � � - � �f �.�ll�l� . , • ' : ' ��jrl�`d�'"-, Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of doI- Iars a yeac We Iose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to be spent on cleaning out sed'unent from storm drains, cfiannels , [akes and the Bay. You can protect your prop- erty and prevent future headacl�es by foIlowing these guidelines: - , __ � __ __ �EF� RE P�� DURIIITG COrTSTRUC`TIO1V � Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when the rain comes. • Examine your site carefully before buiIding. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soit types. Proper site design wi11 help you avoid expensive stabil4zation work. Preserve existirig vegeta- tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant removal to the areas under current construc- tion. (Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance and ihe value or your property, and reduce the cost of Iandscaping Iater.) � Use fencing to pzotect plants from fffi material and traffrc. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as- pfialt or porous paving blocks. • Preserve the natural contours of the Iand and disturb the earth as Iittle as possible. Limit the time in which graded areas are exposed. • Minimize the Iength and steepness of slopes by �� benching, terracing, or constructing diversion �� structures. Landscape : ;`:•::` � �� benched areas io siabilize ��e,r,� the slope and improve its appearance. - As soon as possible after grading a site, pIant vegetat:on on aIl areas that are not to be paved or otherwise covered. Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, restricting traFfic to certain routes, and paving or gravel- ing access roads and driveways. �� L�S��E� �� ST'�II.IZE T�iE SOIL Grass provides the cheapest and most ef- fective short-term ero- sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To fnd the best seed mix- tures and plants for your area, check with your Iocal nursery, the U.S. Department of Ag- riculture Soi1 Conserva- tion Service, or the University of California Cooperative Extension. Mulcbes hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi- ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy-to-obtain mulches are grass clippings, Ieaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw Straw mulch is nearly 100�/ effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood frber (tackifrers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack- ing a netting over it. Commercial applications of wood Ptbers combined with various seeds and fertilfzers (hydraulic mulcfiing) are effec- tive in stabilizing sloped areas. � . . : . .. . . .. :.. .: , : ..: .. : .. ;. Hydraulic mulching with a tackif er should - ` ; :::.: .: ` : : be done in two -.:.:::::"` - . �•..-.. : ;,;...... _ _ _ _ . . . . . .. _...,,, .._ ... SeYafBie a�yii- . , . , - - - cations: the fzrst � co��posed cf seed fe_ titizer and hal: the mulch, the seccnd composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commer- cial hydraulic muIch applicators—who also provide other oro�ton contrc�l so_rv1ces — are listed under "landscaoing" in the phone book. ... �: : �::_ {;`�4; +� :? �:::: l,'`i� }'.'',w''1` `�"' ....... . _ � ' , �_� IHats of excelsior, jute netting and plastic sheets cari be ef- fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with tfie soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Roof draiaage can be coIlected in barrels or storage con- tainers or routed into Iawns, planter boxes and gardens. Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos- quitos, too. Excessive runoff should be directed away from your house. Too much water can damage trees and make foundations unstable. ST'RiTC�iT�PiL RZT�+TO�F COIITTROL� Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have time to establish themselves. Or you may need permarient ways to transport water across your property so that it doesn't cause erosion. To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump- ing it into nearby Iots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some exam- ples of what you might use are: ptastic sheeting otor fi:ko Y��m' _ Riprap (rock [ining)—to protect channel banks from erosive wafer flow • $e�ianent trap—to stop runoff carrying sediment and trap tfie sediment �.: ::: .- . --� �-r> /. P • Storm drain oatlet protectioa—to reduce the speed of water flow- ing from a pipe onto open ground or into a ' riatural channel • Diversioa dike or perimeter dike—to divert excess water to places where it can be disposed of properly �,r� ti"'.� . F�-.,..'�' �,�."... _•�� ... - w,r�-�^ p�';';;�;n.•. '�- w ,�,. '.� _,. ^L"';i';:`,''� f."`'.�'i'::1T-�:.� '�S-'"'r.;>:;c�},";-�'::z':�.:.,...,, . �,,Y�: i::-:._:.� �:�� a�.w-�,..t. �.-;�';:�:�;:=�'�:;;'==. ^-�;;�:;-r.; :;;;��:;::::;.:.-i::::�:::: J `'�i::::..`.;`:4=`�t`::::;z:::+€z::;^_z"i',_''`e::".,w;.zv':;' %' _ —_ .. �_.. ., ..-.�'-:`.r:..:. . �-�_.� : :::=:_� __ _.F:�,:�:,�:::::;;�;`�r:._,- -. _ - Straw bale dike—to stop and detain sediment from small unprotected areas (a short-term measute) • Perimeter swafe—to divert runoff from a disturbed.area or to contain runoff within a disturbed area .:a�:i:;��;;�:; ;�.a�';�=:��;:',;':: • Grade stabilizatioa sfructure—to carry concentrated runoff down a slope jute netting Iandscaping \ hydrau&c mulch \ ''C:; ;:_:. \ ��_= I1==-111II 16�\\ - -- - -':��;� .iii�i�rli��iii.1 �.Jr.r::�.,• !, ' . , �;.: •:'. _ _ ' '¢'�;' `' '.ii�'`.�.-' - :i�":. -';::;_��::.�;, diversion dit�h _ : ...: . . .. , . : ;:;;;;}:..:; .=x,� - __ yn:; i',]• _;;:.�_-i:a:�;;;:::.'-:'"_:,��a CYL . . ._..; ..... � . . _ ,, ben ... . ' ,c:��', _ .. _ :.�F.�i 1 .'.Y .::.: :..::.. :` ' � . . . . . . . �'' /::. 1 . ' . . ; :::�� :' � .:, r�':._..'. . . . . ��!� . ��.::.. ' . . ..,.. . . , ' . ' .. 1:. ;.. . . � :..:' �' � ' . .. . . � L � ��o..... � '. . . : - — ..'�'.. '��,�1' ..p,.. . .. . ....., v "�(FIIM'"V�c��`'..`�33-G:.��//`,t5s�-^."<?��7�`4�t"r�,s�`� .�.' '. � . . .. ... .. ,o /��x � �J<5�5��`x��6�� Q..,��_.... a...C� � -��i. straw mulcfi � \ out1et protectio� sediment trap � � Conservahee RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILL�IDE AREA CONSTRUCTIOf� PERII!{IT ,4ND SPECI�LL PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Desiqn Review Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for heiqht and attached ara e for a first and second story addition to an existincLsinqle family dwellinq at 2600 Summit Drive Zoned R-1 John and Janice Gumas propertv owners APN: 027-271-110; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 11, 2010, 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 per Article 19 Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. 2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman �, , 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 �f �ho D�unr�ny �nmmj�gj�n hgl�i pn thA 11th riav nf �laniia�i �Q1Q h�i thg fnllnwin� vntP.: , .. Secretary . EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits: 2600 Summit Drive Effective January 21, 2010 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to fhe Planning Division date stamped August 28, 2009, sheets T.O, Boundary and Topographic Survey, and SP.1 through A.9; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 5, 2009 memo, the City Engineer's December 15, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 24, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 21, 2008 memo shall be met; 5. that demolition for 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 st!ch site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management D istri ct; 6. 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; 7. 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 hafnrg a Ri iil�iin� rarmit ig issi ieri� 8. 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; 9. 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; iH� F�LL�iiifliVc� LuNGiTiGivS Jt'tALL tsE fviEi uCiRiiv� i'rit BiiiLuii�� INJYtI.IIVIV ��:�� ;:3� : t� : �� BN�:��€� i :r-zr.i� ;�r� : �L i:� �� N�� E ��.�F�: EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits. 2600 Summit Drive Effective January 21, 2010 10. 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; 11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and .. 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. �J i CITY OF BURLINGAME r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM BUR�tNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �:m, �;� ;a BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �� .3'. r�;� '.. PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (050) 69C'�- www.burlingame.org `� ��= �� _ Site: 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning (ammission announces the following pu6lic hearing on MO�IDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chomhers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Appli�ation for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Speciol Permits for attached garage and building height for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 027-271-110 ""Y "vi6ri"6��^,'-'.32b 5 �� : ��. .-,.-� �.r� 1. 9., � ;;, xs;.; ,?'''�,:'`� � �� — ai � � � _ � ;3�i:a� F�am C�-'�.Lj4L a�'�'� E,�v ��;�1�� :.,' �� O�'1C� Mailed: September 18, 2004 (Please refer to ofher side) ��€� �f �c�rl�r�� reviewed prior to 50� Primrose limited fo blic hearing, :o the city ai or ing their u. '- �� A copy of the applicatiori and pfans for this pro�ect may ,u� fhe meeting at the Community Development Departmenf Road, Burlingame Cafifornia If you chailenge fhe subject application(�) m'court youu m raisina only those issues youu or someone else raised at t described in the'notice or in written corresponden:ce deliv prior to the public hearing. Property owners who-receiv.e this notice are responsible'1 tenants about th�s n�tiee =_ For additional information, please call;;(650} 558 7250 Th inr:n:_.Y nn..,.l ... �_ - ':: ._:-. .. ' _'1' VVIIIIcli l I IVICGI�GI Community Development birector _ (Pfease refer to ofher side)