The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2600 Summit Drive - Staff ReportItem No. Regular Action PROJECT LOCATION 2600 Summit Drive City of Burlingame Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits Item No Regular Action Address: 2600 Summit Drive Meeting Date: June 28, 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 for a first and second story addition at 2600 Summit Drive, Zoned R-1 (see attached April 13, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission had concerns with view blockage issues caused by the addition 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 (see attached September 29, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes). 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. On January 11, 2010 the Planning Commission discussed the project and the story poles, and voted to deny the project without prejudice due to view blockage issues, stating that if there is some form of compromise that can be worked out, it should be considered bythe Commission (see attached January 11, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes). On April 20, 2010, the project designer and property owners submitted a revised proposal to the Planning Division that included the lowering of the turret feature by 5'-0" and shifting the turret to the left 4'-8" (from the previous proposal). Planning Staff would note that new story poles were installed for the revised turret, but that those story poles have not been surveyed by a licensed surveyor. Project Description: 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 6,516 SF (0.08 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 8,000 SF (0.10 FAR). The proposed project is 1,484 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' clear interior dimensions) 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, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 2600 Summit Drive • Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010, a, 5); ■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020); • Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.28.035, a); and ■ Special Permit for building height between 30' and 36' (33'-4" proposed) (C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1). 2600 Summif Drive Lot Size: 82,342 SF Plans date stamped: June 18, 2010 PREVIOUS REVISED ALLOWED/ EXISTING PROPOSAL PROPOSAL REQUIRED 08/28/09 lans 06/18/10 lans SETBACKS ; Fronf (1st flr): : 117' (to BR1) ; 131' (to formal DR) ; no change 15'-0" (2nd flr): ; 141' (to MB) 139' (to turret) 143' (to turret) 20'-0" Side (left): � 16'-0" (to garage) ; 7'-0" (to garage) 7'-0" (to garage) 7'-0" (right): 43'-0" (to BR2) 40'-0" no change 7'-6" Rear (1st flr): ' 46'-8" (to BR3) 56'-5" (to FR/dining) ; no change 15'-0" (2nd flr): ' 55'-5" (to MB) ; 53'-4" (to MB) 20'-0" Lot Coverage: � 3,191 SF 4,797.5 SF 4,755 SF 32,937 SF 3.9°/a 5.8% 5.8% 40% ; ....,...__...-------- ----- -----._ .........................._.__...._......,_-----.....__.._....._.........___........__......._..........._.,..........,.._ FAR: ; 3,997 SF 6,642 SF 6,516 SF 8,000 SF' 0.05 FAR 0.08 FAR 0.08 FAR 0.10 FAR # ofbedrooms: 5 5 no change --- Parking: ; 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') no change (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') - — ---.:_......._..._........._._......_........_......._......._.._ ............._.__..............,...__......_..._......._.........................._......................_........._.....__.............<...__..........._.......__........_......---.....__.....---------- Heighf: 28'-10" 33'-4" 2 no change 30'-0" DH Envelope: ; complies complies no change CS 25.28.075 ' The maximum single-family residential house size shall be 8,000 gross square feet, including accessory structures (CS 25.28.070 e). 2 Special Permit for a structure between 30' and 36' as measured from average top of curb (33'-4" proposed) (CS 25.28.060 a, 1). Staff Comments: See attached original and revised memos from the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, Parks Supervisor, Fire Marshal and NPDES Coordinator. 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; -2- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permif and Special Permits 2600 Summit Drive 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for Hiliside 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 June 18, 2010, sheets T.0 through A.9 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 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 April 23, 2010 and February 5, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 1, 2010 and December 15, 2008 memos, the Parks Supervisor's April 30, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 26, 2010 and November 24, 2008 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 26, 2010 and November 21, 2008 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 2600 Summit Drive Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. 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 Associate Planner c. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer, 405 Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 John and Janice Gumas, property owners, 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 Attachments: Letter from the property owners, date stamped June 21, 2010 Letters between the property owners and the neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive, date stamped June 21, 2010 Diagram of changes and a photograph from the property owners, date stamped June 21, 2010 Response letter from the project designer, date stamped April 20, 2010 Minutes from the January 11, 2010, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Photographs of story poles from neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive, Date stamped January 11, 2010 Response letter from the project designer, date stamped December 23, 2009 Story pole certification letter from Dunbar and Craig Licensed Land Surveyors, date stamped December 9, 2009 Copy of the approved story pole plan, date stamped October 13, 2009 Minutes from the September 28, 2009, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Photos of the subject property, submitted by Commissioner Auran at the September 28, 2009 Design Review � Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 2600 Summit Drive Study Meeting Response letter from the project designer, date stamped August 28, 2009 Minutes from the April 13, 2009, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Letter and photos from neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive, date stamped April 13, 2009 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Forms Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 18, 2010 Aerial Photo �� John & Janice Gumas 2600 Summit Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 June 21, 2010 Erica Strohmeier Associate Planner Community Development Department - Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Erica: It was good speaking with you on the phone to discuss the addition to our home and the very difficult approval process that we have been going through for almost a full year now. Hopefully the details outlined within this letter will help you and the Comrnissioners better understand the numerous changes and adjustments we have already made, all within a neighborly, good-will effort to try to sarisfy all of our neighbors (Chris and Yolanda Ngai) concerns. We feel that with each change and adjustment that we have made to our design, our neighbors have introduced a new demand from us. We are nov� at a point, where our neighbors (Chris and Yolanda Ngai) are demanding changes that have nothing to do with our proposed design and its perceived impact on their view. We hope that the Commissioners can see through this unreasonable disregard to engage in a good faith, good-neighbor compromise. To better help the Commissioners understand the general tuneline and process, the following are the key milestones during our attempt to get our remodel approved over the past year. 1. Gumas submits original design for Commission approval. Our neighbors (Chris and Yolanda Ngai) object to the second story addition stating that it may block the sun to their pool area. Even though the design is well within our legal right and does not block the sun to the Ngai's pool or their view in any way, Gumas makes a"good neighbor" signif'icant change to the design by moving the foundation back up to 20 feet from the property line and pulling back the roofline signif'icantly. Story poles were built and surveyed. All of the Commissioners should have visited the property at this time and witnessed how this was never an issue for the Ngai's. These changes are outlined within our re-submitted plans. ��:��a4 �: JU�1 � � 201Q yl I ( OF �Jr�LINC�,�,MF. ?1 r?!�Ij�liN(.� ��;�T 2. Gumas resubmits to Commission for approval (2°d time). This time, our same neighbors (The Ngai's) now object to the turret section of the design. The Commissioners request that Gumas again redesigns the plans and cut back the size of the turret secrion, thus eliminaring any potential view blockage. Tlus change was completed by Gumas. It was assumed by us that a11 of the Commissioners came to the property and witnessed any potential view blockage for themselves before making this recommendation. 3. After redesigning a11 of the issues outlined in parts 1 and 2, the Ngai's now have introduced a third objection. The Ngai's are now demanding that we trim back trees that they feel are blocking light to their home. We are not willing to do this because these trees blocks the only privacy we have from the Ngai's large two story addition that is only five feet from our property line and runs for almost 80 feet. Our issue is that this new objection has nothing to do with our proposed design and should not be part of this approval process. We feel that we have made significant changes to our plans and have done everything that a reasonable neighbar could do to accommodate any concerns of our neighbors, the Ngai's. We hope that the Commission will see through the Ngai's unreasonable attempts to manipulate this situation in order to gain other concessions that have nothing to do with our proposed remodel. With this said, we are willing to a11ow the Ngai's access to trim the top of the large oak tree (on the Belvedere Court side of our property) that currently blocks the main view from their upstairs area, if we are allowed to proceed with our addirion. The trimming of this tree will significantly enhance their main view of the bay and airport. We hope that our past efforts and good-neighbor attempts to compromise show the Commission that we have done everything possible and that our project deserves immediate approval. Thank you. � , � 'wZ J hn d Janic � G as Enclosures: 1. Letter from Ngai to Gumas 2. Response letter from Gumas to Ngai 3. Letter from Ngai to Gumas 4. Response from Gumas to Ngai. 5. Letter from Gumas to Ngai offering a final compromise. �� `i�i�! � � iC�,_'. �171' Or BU�si_ir:.. �LAhl11i�)a c}c'' 6 -� ��l�� `( � ` ��(i�(A i�`i S U �jrilV�� l✓ Chris & Yolanda Ngai 2606 Swnuiit Dr. Burlingame, CA 94410 April 6, 2010 John & Janus Gumas 2600 Summit Dr. Burlingatne, CA 94410 Deaz John & Janus: Per our last meeting on March 26 at our house with Jesse, your architect and Janus, Jesse has e�lained to us the altered design of the staircase which resulted in a struciure with reduced height and therefore is no# as obstructing as before. However, it is still a obstruction of our only view of the airport runway. Janus and Jesse inspected the view from our second storey, both from our bedroom and from the loft. VJe have atl concluded tha.t with tr'� �ng and thinning of your trees at the corner of Suminit and Belvedere, it will open up our view towards ttte San Mateo Bridge. Janus and Jesse also inspected the old master bedroom on the ground floor, which has become so dark as a result of layers of overgrown trees and hedges beiween our properties. It would be necessary to trim and thin out all those trees in order to give that room the light it used to receive years ago while still maintaining the privacy of your residence_ Since Jahn was not at the meeting and a few weeks has passed, we have not heard from you about any progress aetting a mutual agreement on how to keep your trees at some specific height, not just cut once, but keep it anaintained. We would like to have the agreement in writing and recorded at the city and county. Please let us l�ow your feedback or we can meet again in case John wants to take a look at the perspective that he would not othenvise l�ow. We will try our best to work with you to come up with a acceptable solution which will benefit both families. S' cerely, .,. �,,;� � I �.e�si��k�'�l � �.. � .r C}iris & Yolanda Ngai �� . � � n-:,. �� , JUN 2 � 20i� CITY OF BURL1iJUAtiiE 91 AN�lit�� t?�pT, John & Janice Gumas 2600 Summit Drive Burlingame, Ca 94010 650-340-8�184 April 10, 2010 Yolanda and Chris Ngai 2610 Summit Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Chris and Yolanda: [�� C�ti�S �--��y��y�� l�qG�ss j U Thank you for your letter dated April 6, 2010. Unfortunately, we do not agree with your exaggerated assessment that our newly revised design "is still a obstruction of our only view of the airport runway". As you know, Janice and our architect, Jesse Geurse were allowed access into your home recently to see the proposed impact for ourselves. We believe there is no obstruction to your view from your main family room or from the rear window from your rear bedroom. While we were there, we took our own photographs that show the actual siivation and we believe those photos show a much different situation than you are suggesfing. This is now our third alteration to our plans. We feel that we have done everything possible and have expended an extraordinary amount of money to make this work for the both of us. We feel we have now created a design that does not impact your view or lifestyle, and is a very reasonable attempt to be a good neighbor. We certainly hope that you are not exaggerating this situarion in an effort to enhance your negotiating position. Per your request for multiple concessions on our part, we are happy to allow you access to trim the large Oak tree that significanfly obstructs your view on the opposite site of the addirion. However we feel that your newly introduced request to also thin the hedges between our properties does not affect your view and therefore is not relevant to the approval of this project. This issue is all about your potentiai obstrucrion of your views and is not about thinning hedges. These hedges provide us with the only privacy we have from your huge two-story addition that looks into our bedrooms and living areas. Privacy for us is extremely important to our lifestyle and we hope to can respect this. We feel that being a good neighbor is about being honest, not exaggerating the facts iir personal gain and negotiating in good faith. We feel that through our original design modif cations and subsequent design alterations, we have more than adequately addressed all of your potenriai view concerns. And by allowing you to trim the large Oak tree on the other side of our property, we will have significantly enhanced your overall view and completely satisfied any legirimate concerns you may have with our project. We do plan on moving forward to the Planning Comrnission with our latest alteration. We certainly hope that we can come to a mutual agreement so we do not have to have the Planning Commission make the final decision, since we believe this may create long term animosity between us. ��a��° �� Lo 'n forw to hearin b ck fromyouu soon. � ,� �_ '� � ' w, Jo t1 ani mas � J U N 2� 2 O 10 �� ,ITY OF BURi WG�.ME ?LAlvNIhG �EPF. Chris & Yolanda Ngai 2606 Summit Dr. Burlingame, CA 94010 April 30, 2010 John & Janus Gumas 2600 Sttmmit Dr. Burlingame, CA 34010 Dear John & Janus: ; {,, t �: �, �� ,..___...___._ ___,.. .. r� t � �.��C,� ��5 q ��• ;.. "_e,� ' ��3 P c.��v �v� � ._�_. ��.r�� ,^ � ;.,�.� ;�_� € ' �� ` f �_ c�c ; t�1 � It has been over a month since Janus and Jessie's last visit to our house. We have since sent you a letter early April. Yolanda then called a couple weeks ago and talked to Janus to check with the progress. We ha�e made multiple requests throughout the years and last made �. request to have a written agreemen# on the subject of a11 the height of your trees impacting our view towards the bay and the density of your trees along our fence darkening our rooms. This agreement would be crucial to maintain our relationship as neighbor. Please give us yaur feedback within a week or it will leave us no choice but to consult our attomey for future action to take care of this problem. I believe we have already e�austed ali our attempts to communicate wi� you to correct the problem that your tree aze blocking our views. Sincer,ely, � � "� ; �}-�{4J�., � ; �_�� l i . J CIll'iS cpL �01221C12 Ng�l . ?1=l ��-t� - j�r;' � v: � ��t��`� �'�.�k.�2_- � � . JUP� � � 201Q t�ITY QF BURLIt�GAMF P�4[vNi�+G [�EPT. John & Janice Gumas 2600 Summit Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 650-340-8484 May 4, 2010 Yolanda and Chris Ngai 2610 Summit Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Chris and Yolanda: � I ��-.!-t,,{ � Li '�� ti� � �� ,�v /��c� ; 5 �-�-�-'�� r� We received your letter yesterday outlining your mean-spirited threat of legal action. All we can say is how sad we are that you have decided to take this route. Although we are extremely disappointed with your un-neighborly threat, we are confident in our legal position and confident that you have no legal right to make us cut down any trees — or keep us from planring new ones for that matter. These matters are best solved when neighbors have a good relationship and open communicarions with each other so they can come to a mutually acceptable compromise. Making shallow legal threats like this only fuels the fire and makes matters worst. As you know, we had agreed to meet this Thursday, May 6th to discuss this matter in detail. The irony of your poorly timed legal threat is that we were very willing to work with you to trim the trees we discussed. But now that you have threatened us with this legal action, we have no cfloice but to rescind our offer to work together for a mutually beneiicial compromise. We are so sorry that you have chosen this combative road. We plan to continue to focus our efforts on our remodel. If you decide that you would like to discuss the landscape issue in a neighborly fashion, please give us a call. ��, �� ,�. � /,, John and ice Gumas if y, �q � _`x �� .iUN 2 1 20i0 C',�TY OF BURLINGAME ��ar�rait�G DE�T. I / L�^ � _(� '�j�' `L�S John & Janice �'rumas 2600 Summit Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 650-340-8484 C��S, � , i G(�;��-�t. �,.�� ,- i r�� ;. June 21, 2010 Yolanda and Chris Ngai 2610 Summit Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Chris and Yolanda: _i � C.�; � � ��Z � ' � vv� � � � , r � `.t� ' ' 1'J a1� ` 51 V I hope this letter finds you all well. We have decided to move forward with our remodel project and plan to be on the agenda at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. We are very confident that with the numerous changes and adjustments that we have already made to our design, that it will be passed by the Commission. But before we go in front of the Planning Commission for their approval, we are reaching out to you in one last attempt to come to a neighborly compromise. As we see it, we have already made numerous compromises in an effort to minimize any impact our project may have on you. They are as follows: We have significantly �ulled back the original design of our garage and upstairs bedroom addition that originally ran parallel to our shared property line from the legally allowed 7 feet to a newly designed diagonal that moves the foundation back as much as 20 feet off the properiy line. - We have also pulled back the roof secrion of this portion of the remodel si�candy to create even further open area between our properties. - We have significanfly reduced the size of the turret section and pulled it back to accommodate your concem about view blockage. We believe that we have made these significant changes to our plans in an effort to be good neighbors and to move our project to the next phase. So with this letter, we are making one last attempt to come to a neighborly agreement. We are proposing that with your agreement of our revised plans before the June 28`� Planning Commission meeting, we will allow you access to trim the top of the large oak tree (on the Bellevedere side of our property) that currenfly blocks your main view of the airport and the Bay. Allowing you access to trim this tree will significandy enhance your main view from the upstairs secrion of your home. Please understand that without an agreement before the June 28�' Planning Meeting, our offer to allow access to trim the tree described wili no longer be in effect. We hope to hear from you before the meering and that we can move forward with an agreement that works for us both. Thank you. . � �� J and ce G �J ��_�`-�:... JUN � � 201C ��Tv oF SUP�i�IC��,�;�. ?I_A(�lNING �c?"' I i }�-- I�I I�� ' �/h/ I _ . I ' �. ,Qjj�,, �� NCV�'W�¢@iC N'.'{Vf1AMBA �}!P,{VLAMI� �',5`�1, �I � �l �� II �4 � � .. � � �� I � rxace�csno w:Wut¢mc _�_,_,_ 11,, ._._._,_._._._._._,_._. i ,_._ ��I �� — m o � � R . � � b�.zroriusfuvicemsreax � � � },__._i s_, �a��t —•--� 1 � � n 1 , _� �� r � GUN.�iS RE�II��tCE 1 .� � � �--�o i i � � � � PJ(IS1'II�IGTW05TORY �' , ` i / � � � �� — i� RPSIDENCE '',, � ,�� •�e ,T. � � � � 2800SUMI�IITDRIVE I\ j f M� , , , , �mr�/ � � s tl BU1tI1NGAMP,CA 94010 —OO ' ' "°"� , . �, i �, B ��_�__� � � \ ,` �. ,.`�� % 11 , wxw � �]....,.... � + emn.�ssx� -�-�-�-�-�- i -� - - - - - �i- e I �i� I � __ ��—�— I�i—�.. J /� � j�/l�� j 5 - .. / ' `l �� ro � �:� � I �� & ' 4i u 4�� // i c•wtanar.L_, ` \ 1 � I 9 1 � �� i\ 1 �_v �_�_a �� : , q �+�..,,o "' .Y _._,.. ...._:...__._.;�' � \'� � ��Y I ti � / � , � // /i // ,/,i q `� � � � , a / . �� _ , . .. � \ I � i � � 1 Y+'CI+9hA9Y i � � � ' o : %�/ %�� fii � ' a n ya K �5�� n�w,�ra�x ,� \ —t � /�� "� , � �,..�„ ,, i � � , r � � \ -_n .}- // % �� a � r�,v� � QY�a�I � B j// j � , �� • �\ '`---- � � /�i � � / �` � Z � �'�� \ \ 4d��'i�'� — -� rxcai sne '// �// , ; � � � �'."� i ii�o j j//'%// !, � ' �� •�� \ �a� �. �' .'� � � % � � � : i � e ) i �-� a P �"� ,�,� �OZ� sss� i �nr� a I ,�'s�"� , / „ � i � � (� \ _ _ � � '%`%��;'% � ��f� !� �! �. � �cn.�uvs /", \ �( \ U� � _ r%�.�� , ,�, ,� �� Y� � " � �� 'r ; � � , �i , �, ,�/�� .�— ._.��\_� �� ,V �/ ��'�� ! �� `d i� � � S� �j' �q e�x_�c��r�r�a�m�� \�� ! � � � ��1., �� r�ccrnccu� � `� /> ,� ca / � C`�� ` � \ �s � � \+ �i � /i\ J ,. , ��' �� C � �. i�<� � �ti.¢ .— `'� � �� '��y . d � _ ' � ,... ' '°,��,� � I� � � � . � . , �. i ' ? �` - .,, , ; �, , � ��,,��, �„� �� .r , . C', I ��/ ' �wsum. � �N./ , ' AY . . ,, LPaYAY _ I � / �,...� ��\ .� ... U � � � �� O � � � � � � /�- IXBR0.7( f . CW�C7 � � 7 ' / A�� / �// / '. A u�a, � +/`� / F�� r F-ax " "� ��..�. V� �a 6,J',5 8.Y / / �' ��J� � ., � � EX`NL �/ � ' � ' "lAJ � Q1RB IXONP � / / �U C) N `^'i,+nb � P�/� � ' � `�� .- �-+ � � � �, �� `� �� ,� i �.'' �;'� i � 'C�� /l� 4 � S �',�� ,�. � ��s�, �� -�;� ��.��.. �,�� . . . _, Photo #1 - This photo wras taken from their u�pstairs family room and represents the main view they have from their horme. As you can see, the angle of their house points taward the driveway of our home. Our proposed additiom is on the opposite side of their main view, so it does not effect their mair view in any way. �4s you can see, the large oak tree in the ph�to (located on the Belvedere side of our propertry) is iru the center of thei� view. In exchange for their approval, we are (and ha�e been from day one) �r✓illing to allow them access to trim the top of this tree - as long as they secure fhe proper permits art�d the work is performed by a licensed firm. Photo #2 This photo was t�ken frorrj the Ngai's back bedroom and is not the main view from their house. Please note tha�t this photo was purposely taken at an angle that does not face forward to the window or main view, but taken at an angle that faces to the extreme lef4. llt is only from this extreme left fiacing angle Ehat the story poles come intc view from the window, still not blocking their view. V�hen one factors in the existing blockage ifrom the foliage, as well as the extreme angle one mGst engage fo see the story poles, we believe that the story poles do not obstruct the view from this back window in any way. Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Tel: 650.703.6197 April 19, 2010 City of Burlingame attn: Erika Strohmeier, Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: Response to Planning Commission's comments per meeting minutes On January 11, 2010 Planning Cominission Meeting Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Plamiing 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 ]ocated at 2600 Su�nmit Drive. We too, are architecturally sensitive and very eager to address your concerns and well as the neighbors. We had revised the plans in accardance to your comments in conjunction wifli our meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Ngai. Please contact Chris or Yolanda at (650) 342-9088. 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•"Noted that the architect and applicant had not visited the neighbor at 2606 Summit Drive, since the installation of the story poles whose, view of the East-Bay hills will be blocked by the addition. (Geurse — did not visit the site, and had not seen the photos. Gumas — the Commission previously allowed the Ngai's to build the addition that has a window that is now blocked by the proposed addition; the photos are not accurate. That addition is now preventing him from constructing an addition." a) Response: Mrs. Gumas and I had met with Mr. and Mrs. Ngai on March 27, 2410 to discuss the re-design of the turret and revised story poles at the hirret location. 2• "Confirmed� that from the main window of the Ngai's bedroom, the view is blocked by the turret; was a concern previously. Believe the aesthetics of the design are good, and that the turret is a beautiful element of the design, but the turret addition blocks the view of the East-Bay hills and of the airport. The turret is only a circulation space." a) Response: GCD, Inc. had re-designed the turret as follows: 1) The entire turret had been dropped 5'-0" below the previous design as to reduce bay view blockage. 2) The ridge is uow a continuous run. 3) The entire tiirret had been shifted to the left 4'-8" as to reduce bay view blockage. {- - �';. _.n ._ .� �';°� � �a 2c ic� �;T`r ct= �v; ;, !�';�::r,:';:� n��,-a��,.!iv�..., ,. GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS APRIL 19, 2010 4) The interior staircase was flip flop to allow this design to work with significaut reduction of space. 5) Please see plans and exterior elevations for all modifications. 3• "The neighbor would like to sit down with the applicant and work out the problem." a) Response: Mrs. Gumas and I had inet with Mr. and Mrs. Ngai on March 27, 2010 to discuss the re-design of the turret aud revised story poles at the turret location. I had sat down with Chris and Yolanda and explained how we came about with the new re-design. It appeared that the understood and with ininimal view blockage they seemed pleased with the overall design of the turret. We had then walked up stairs to review the revised stoiy poles through flie second story window. All were pleased to see that the revised hirret design and very little view blockage of the bay and the airport. It was our opinion that the overall meeting was sttccessful. 4• "Large trees on the property at 2600 Summit Drive block the view to the south from the Ngai's property,� maybe applicant could open up southern view to allow other options with the neighbors. " a) Response: All tree visibility issues had been discussed witl� Mr. and Mrs. Gumas and the Ngai's. We undeistand the issue at l�aud and will discuss a reinedy further. In response to public comments: 5• "Regrets that the neighbors are having the problems with the addition, but quality of life is important; asking for a design that will not obstruct views; willing to work with the applicant. " a) As stated in comment 4 above. We hope that our re-design was satisfactory. In response to additional coinmission comments: 6• "Asked what latitude the Commission has with respect to blocking even a portion of a view. (Guinan — the intent of the ordinance will be met by substantially preserving protected views.)" a) Response: Acknowledged Thank you for this opportunity to fiirther consider our proposed addition. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650-703-6197 Sincerely, Jesse Geurse Principal --- -:, � -.� �� , � C9 �E i�; �!� cr a��° ;�:..,.�..� z CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes January 11, 2090 4. 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 January 11, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue and John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive; represented the applicant. ■ Majority of the garage has been redesigned, and the roof height has been lowered in order to address the concerns of the neighbors. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the architect and applicant had not visited the neighbor at 2606 Summit Drive, since the installation of the story poles whose, view of the East-Bay hills will be blocked by the addition. (Geurse — did not visit the site, and had not seen the photos. Gumas — the Commission previously allowed the Ngai's to build the addition that has a window that is now blocked by the proposed addition; the photos are not accurate. That addition is now preventing him from constructing an addition.) ■ Confirmed that from the main window of the Ngai's bedroom, the view is blocked by the turret; was a concern previously. Believe the aesthetics of the design are good, and that the turret is a beautiful element of the design, but the turret addition blocks the view of the East-Bay hills and of the airport. The turret is only a circulation space. ■ The neighbor would like to sit down with the applicant and work out the problem. ■ Large trees on the property at 2600 Summit Drive block the view to the south from the Ngai's property; maybe applicant could open up southern view to allow other options with the neighbors. Public comments: Chris Ngai, 2606 Summit Drive; ■ Regrets that the neighbors are having the problems with the addition, but quality of life is important; asking for a design that will not obstruct views; willing to work with the applicant. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Asked what latitude the Commission has with respect to blocking even a portion of a view. (Guinan — the intent of the ordinance will be met by substantially preserving protected views.) Commissioner Vistica moved to deny the projecf without prejudice. The mofion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. 14 CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes January 19, 2010 Discussion of motion: If there is some form of compromise that can be worked out, should be considered by the Commission. Applicant assumed the view to the south was the more important view; emphasizes to meet with the neighbors to review impacts. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded af 9:10 p.m. 15 Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung 2606 Suminit Drive Burlingame, Ca , 94010 Addenduxn # 1 Jan 9, 2010 Subject: I)esign review on a proposed new addation on Gu�as's groperty on 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame, Ca 94010 After the story posts are up on the house, it show the new addition will eliminate our bedroom window view to the airport runway and to the bay. This is the only view to the airport runway with moving objects from our house. : _� � ` �� ...�. ,; .� . , �, !r ? � � � F- r "�`� �<� �� f` �.� �b� a � a� o � � fn n. � c � �� 3 � � � o �� <' vr' � � o� � � � c� 0 � :� � � 0 �� Window view from our dinnin.g room Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 December 23, 2009 City of Burlingame attn: Erika Strohmeier, Planner 501 Pririuose 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 Cl�ris 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 on 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 of poteiztial impacts after story poles are installed. " a) Response: Story poles have been installed and await your review and comments. 3•`Regarding the turret at the entry; it is a prominent piece in the side elevation facing neighboJ�; is dedicated to circulatiofa. If there remains an issue with the height, peYhaps there is another alteriaative for treatment in this area. " a) Response: In review of the story poles for this area it is our opinion that it will have minimal impact from adj acent 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. p�� € t a ;. � � � � �__ , �. DE� ` � 2009 �,,i�` oF Bt��s� �i�:G�.M�= e"-l1a`;�'it�iG f�EPT. GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS DECEMBER 23, 2009 4• "Requested phone number for the applicant and neighboring property ow�2er at 2606 Sun�nzit 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 department for Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung number. In response to public comments: 5•`Have reviewed the revised plans; the architectural plans to difficult to read ". a) Response: John and Janice 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�'��n ofstorypoles. " a) Response: Story poles in place for review. 7• `Desire trees between the properties to be cleaned ur� 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 tha�a the ridgeline should be shown by the storYl7oles; perhaps ora�2ge mesh coulcl be installed as well better illustrate potential impacts, " a) Response: Story poles have been erected with o.range mesh for the commission review. 9• "Ticrret area also needs to be outlined. " a) Response: Story poles have been erected to outlin.e the Turret. 10• "Story poles need to show an accurate outline of tlte building cha72ges. " a) Response: Story poles erected show the most r.ecent 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 hesit��te to contact us at 650-703-6197 Sincerely, Jesse Geurse Principal D E �. �� ZG�� 'iT" O� RL?�' iivt�tl�� _ i..�.:,vi��li-`.. :-;LeT, . 2 � I�UI�'�3�i_�. �,��d ��I�'.3 �.,iCF,ItiT��I� �.�.1`�� UR.�I�'�C):R � A GALIFORNIA COItPORATIQN 1180 Goleman Avenue, San Jose, CA 93110 1011 Cedar St., 5anfa:Cruz, CA 95060 e (831� 425-7533 FAX ($31) 426-9182 EMAII,: curt e�t�tanbnrandcraig.com December 9, 2009 City of Burlingame 501 Prirnrose Road Burlirigame, GA:94010-3997 Re: 2600 Sumxnit Drive, Burlingame To the City of Burlingame: File No, 09166 San�Mateo Co. APN 027=271-110 This let#er is to'confirtn in writing: that on December $, 2009 Dunbar & Craig Land Surveys performed a story'pole verification site visit. We have deters�ined thatthe contractor 1�s built the story poles in substantial conformance'both harizontally and vertieally with the story pole plan produeedby Getixrse Conceptual Designs, Inc. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ^--.. \ �.�—F- ---�--�...s�-.-___ Dunbar and Craig Land Surveys Curt G. Dunbar, Presidenf PLS 56i5, Exp 09-30-10 G. i�; j ;� :,:�;� � :�r}. � ��, 2�� _ - ��'� z��_ �Jtti. �� .: %��9 ci�� o.;= _�,� . ._ ..= �i�.;��i!; <G �_: , . ��_�� •—•---�—�—�—•—•—•—•—•—•—•— +25'-8" A.FF. / / I I �/ � I i I � � % � , I , / I I � i I i I I I � 0----- ---�--------L-----------�- -�-- ------� -- � r— I I ' / I I i / i ' � i� i -----'—� --------- ---� I � �n. i I i i i � i � i r—_ __-- _ T � i i qi � i o-- - ------------ ----- ----- � � - ��, , _ _ � ; ; � 1- ; , ; � � � � �� , , � ' � � �' � � � i i � � � � � \ \ + i Y I I I � i i �i I i i� i -----J j � i i � i i \ �._.—. I _�� I ._�_> � i ' — — —"�"— — � —. � I i � I I \ \ �r I � I � � j � �� I � W � I � � � i � -- --� I ' � � � I a� -- ----- � —��:��' �� i • �� .—.—._. <—._.—� .—.—.i. ._. � � �i � i \ / � � � �i /'�� f°°°°'a'°• •�°-°"-n°> `1i �_______—_—_____}2J�-9�.A�F.___ ii I � / 1----- � �\` �i i� i � � � �' _'.o�o �3 —_ _ _ ' L0..L6Li�l�l ISI� i _ r—_—_—_ �y��...� - ..�� —_ '\ I ��\` s ' � � ---- --- ar � -�-=-"'� I I � i \�\ �i /�.\ ��'-----'"�� PA`/E� AP.F � I I �I j ; �� g; i� '�._._._._._._._._._._. �«' ._._.�� .�. � i �I ,M��, I � �� +18'.8'APP. � j j �; W ��--� ORANGECONST. MFSIi — � '- ------------' I I I � ; '�._._._._._._._._.__._._._._._._._._��'��-�� j�� . _ � I +18'$ APl! I � � � - �" — .� _._._._._._._._._._.S1�OPOi'EP►VE=1�'� I �._._._._i_._. ._._._ —•�'I i +18'-5'AFP.� � � j I � OFPIIC�iBRFAR=Ef _. I /� �•`�- ._._._ .��. '. _._._.�._PIiC_._._._._�24'Ai'F�.� � Y— � � +SlO'.3' APP. I �� i p�p ��p i� � —.— _ --al.� T. _._.—.—._._._._.—. �OFN�.a..=L,�iZAFP�� , � , +5�.'Y.�' APP. �OODb'Lt+ll!Sfi � L � — — — �„—� � � �� -- I ORA�GEOONSt�i � �1 i i o--------- ' ------------------------ � ._.—.—.—.—._.—._._.��Ee�l�_�'i�a�� \ •� t�0".6' l�1pP \ �: �� .—._._._.—.—.—.—._._.��1�=�'i�.r'i.l�� '� �yy� t�� ypP� .�,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_._._l+v+��l�=��i'i��+�.�] +�r�a� arr.� ROOF FIAN • 1' J ' 1��: ti . .� . .:J: .H�:If� i1J:'�UJ i� 'I I�` ' •�.I I;IJ-'r�: . • ...;��:' �: :1 ' • � : ' i .'�:: • � I.�: •" I' I� �' •�. . . ��r •�' r � : � r :, I I �� ': — — AJ'�S ��,,�� r �;1 ()CT � � Z009 GITY OE BURLIfVGA�1H� P�.tiNNING ��T. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes September 28, 2009 VIII. EGULAR A "TION 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 story 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 numberforthe applicant and neighboring property owner at 2606 Summit Drive. Public comments: Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung, 2606 Summit Drive; spoke: Have reviewed the revised plans; the architectural plans are difficult to read. 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. ■ Story poles need to show an accurate outline of the building changes. Commissioner Terrones moved to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. K3 � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — 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 Comri�issioner's Reports. �i T:T�7i7�i ion Communic�#ions: • iv�ne. Actions fro�egular City Co�il meeting of S • None. FYI: 1462 Bur game Avenue — view of mia�or ch Burlingame Aven Commercial Are Subarea A: • Schedule as a action item. ■ Provide more in rmation regarding e � Why are the slidin doors needed? �Are shopping carts ecessary; if so, wh ■ Why is the alcove be g eliminated? 1./1 er 21, 2009: '. ge to existing st efront entry in mate�ials forthe liding doors. vl�il they be Chair Te�ones adjourned the mee�g at 7:39 p.m. � � Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary � n ,.r / �% , � ,,: ,,�=' �,,--� ,-�,� . .. . . ; � , � �� , �o ;; _ ,, � SFP f � � � � ', � .. - � y s �a� � � ,+. � CIT � O C��4�G I � � � 4. � �.`i�,�i.� / �i�. �r� ,� s i : j P _. � �" � �� ra '�� ,� ` f � �a� y ` . ' ��a,� � �� r � � �Ka r �,� �., �� , � �� y u � � / � �a, �� t t 1 1 i i � �'E�" � reffi�� 17t�� 1 � ��i+ " � �� . , € r. rl w, �- u � ^i h � � � � � � t ��Y"�� t�`J`�� i1� 9°5� ,v� . i ,�� . � � '; � " � yl k tl y \ � � l �� c�'�' �, �'�� t�, � A:' � ; y ' �.. � h; 6� �' A ; n / c �� sr � x oi �� Sf. y 1:. . S i�, f k A 1'� \ �, At y . � � � � � i :�. \ h 4��" � , k+ � V ! �.• Y xi 9 , F�r � 1 -t �� ' " � t r'N � 4 � l i � .. W�� '�'� ? _ �,y v i,� .. �v . �a ti r 6 � 'R M f � «�t � 1 � „ � � � r' 7 a' i�� d ��`ns � � „�� ' . Ga —, ��,� F�S��¢,�^6 � all � )k�"�r r � ui, "��'' i',� n�f �. }�"`�"g�` � �i � � y� 4 S� �`�-�a r ta u r � n � � n� 5 H t� �. � ,� �, t,�y,� �t�� ia �' IM �4 � U'4 �� d � I��'tS �,. � ..�� `� ��.,�'�� t � '�� t . '" ,+ v r C�` 1 tp,'� r a a � � h � } � � � �� '� � _ t�'A1.�11+�b$ C ,4"' %t hl °� i� k $ id� � Y ��2 '� f Y d. � � � 7 r ' � 4+�° r,�"a. Y� v 's" , 't i +� � �?�"�'.� a �r �� +,e h �, � +.,� y�, �di� . ,p � � �td y };n � � E Wi� �. 4� ��#�d' � � c� :� t R �y � a�' i� (�etk, � f .. 3 �� S� d�r ��o�.,�^� � a d �p "' �q a , r } � Y � � � M�' ,,b � � �' ,y�,y la��) � ��h �" �k'�.�Pt r � C, �^., ��Nqr b R%',�'i,'f ,' X,j,r � F � v� 7� ��rcrvq � l�n P� ntv �a�,.t� �,. uym. . � "4 �,iu��,�,"��' � a�r,�,��iTs'u � ��, ' a��5' 1 �� 3�+,�'" �°�„ ""+i.' � �^� A i� �tw . .: � aC �*u�"� ,�. ,�, � �, � 4 t '�r} s'� � , ° . � � � � . i �� j� �a s ti� ��"�'^`�, � � � � „ ... �.-� , . 4�;"'.�� Yn�Ru\�P�1Wf p� ` �, d �� :a+ 5y�b �li�� $ � 5�' i ''S�+� `�J A � , i �r `�',�� i""d, 1� � L � �:'u. a ��, d r �t � n � �„Y .�r��{%°'�Fiw�,�,,a ny�� Jl��j�9 �,� �°rA�� V i � �kr i� w°7m{�� A . P '��' %`'�� , �" �i� chR�,7�.' r �+�� ,,}��*„�'�,i�+� ''`��' �f � °� �r ': �.�"' �,��.�k�;� ��;.; 7�� "N�� t Y� � � ItA�S:E�.d�e_.��t,...C1v"�..,.�.n.,.ro �,:Y�r�a� .nt`�. d ..,�',� e4..�_ �'.w.n .r7 ��,k,�+.4o a,��n ��. d u. .. �, °&N,��d� � M�;�,��`)ti� ��ita�i � tt n �s ��` �', ,. _ J�� t � � �� n ' � r � ' �t � u t�e , �1� �. �� . t�l. X 7 . ry � ^1 . h � �,r �.�i ��( 3� � �� :. � `�1 � � �E ' � ,��i r � h �` � �5 � 2rI � }�i �� +��' i��ri t�y .,��t � �� t � � , ,�, , . s � � �� 7 ��.�.. � �,;�+ � ( a "�� ,.�ti,� � k ,.? .�Ar�� ' z�� .s.� ,�,�� ,a��:3�� .�. ��„ � . � . �rr�. o , . - . . . rrnn�i�� es,,�. . . . . . . . . ' �`�� i . . . . � . .. . � . . . . . . 1 c ._ '�� i r . . � { . . �-%� i'�i'— %o : l ,,` ; , ,;;. � j�4 � . .: // I %��. %I _ � ./ (f� /. !/ �. , ' (�� /�/ / v� . i '� � .. , : .,. . f 'y� '/i � �, � � _ � � �� _ , � /'� f ' t! i i << ' i; _ L �) �.1 `� ' ; � � " �`,: %� Cii o�-�� ni ,. = , �t � � r�z.,.;�.ird�; � , „ _ � ,,-- � , . �� , �� I �.: I � ,. rz e� i I � r �` ,�r. -� � �M�,,.� � \ G Uy I 3 "� � � � .'�� f i � . ��; . y� M I � . . . ' i.; .'1 . � i .. . '41'.J . . . . , � , . d . . . . . r . � t.e�.. f .. .. %1. \ . . .. . . . . ., . , . .�. . . . ,,,� y, / v � 5 P f `�1�'yfifi�"-� ' �. � ��X i I;, � !` �' [ � ' a ' � � F � il ' vu� i � t� � 1 . 1, ; t � � ��jh � f ��`Y � .�t � � !o � ) r� n _ . � � � I r '�' r � �� '� � � � � `� � �'' �,��.� � � � �� ;l� jr,. .. ' y�i _ � •� ��'y � ��u ''�,� � _ t � Y i I`� t 1i r, t z 4 � :�r r� 4t �� .. s �{ r ,(' a ✓' � r itl _ u Y $ � t ',' x�a� e , ; � {,� � � . „ �r � ,-� � � , ' ., "� � , � ._., ; � �� . i r � T � y� �� i � , � � � � . , , n ��il � , �. i ` r �� : a �f i �'a8r�� i .� i F �i t� 'si C�R , i �� 5a ` :> `a ' � ..i�� ` �'. � � � �� " � � a �'� a� � b '�"„ � � �' � i : '� f . �'�� V �'�'� 2 � 4d u r � ,� �f '� � : i � � ,�i �. &f �� f - r �+'� d ` . � � s �. ' � i � � � tr :. M � ( i,� i w i° , � i. , 5'v +" ; I I fl�1t 7�� ' r' �'"�', v'Sy�'�tk��urhl�'�' r: ,Yr a 7��(, �� r r �� y �� +� t,�s'' w�� a r;d`r� � � �, �k if �� yr t �: �{.��„�a�' �ty�7a ':� �,� _ r4 � F.�, ' �� : � .��'4 y� ai7 v y � � ��'�1��z id `i[�d��;t�^I fy '.4 i r,�� -t�t�`�s �'C A�'�`fn � al�.� ��is�p,��h £��y t 5 � KTM � ,y�� t� ...,, j 'K,�": �'� �.�f� ± �,��' � � �� '� r n y �+`��r4�"�t>Ya�3'�y� � ,.u, sd�. �r . � ,. . .., ..,e _.,, , . � ,u .. r , . . . _ � :��'?�r n�mG�' . irs:',V �',_,�, . , , ukZiF �� a.�. > .'d,a... �, . ,.. .v�...'�.,�3�,.r,nir-�"Ys'YF`,...-'�. ,�� Cr N � ��' "`';s°� `�� ^ �iLy;�`� � �� Yi; n i � : - '� " � �,a S ry :. �'s . . , . � �W..: � . . S t� ,, f" wk,� 3 i'` y . . � 3 d„�, Ya 1� . . . . S �f ��, t':!r. � i ,, �.(y. ` ,; , �, \� �_ .. ....__--.,._. �,�"'°�" � � � f -+�.. '�`�5lj � "� t ��n i 1' M1 V� , . . _.. �C.�.l� � . ?y>•.,., � .,,�I'. F. � �, r �_ ' ; 1 ( 1 A� : � �� ,Vk 1 ( . . _�r. . .�� .( 9n t�;` � ` � S� d , � : �,� � �� ri , r.,;ii.J : � � t � � ��1 . I� .. .. , � .� . . e� 1 �'N�{ ! � _— _ a� l� ! +k �+� .'� f _ . tX� it w� l'� ��, r "� ��i�� ';i Pr J �2�.ti �, � , )) i �� . . 1 ft � rv{ '� 4`/ . I� � I 1� � ) s��A 4 a � � ` 7 +�, i Y YF�P �p ry I WY � ,� l � �4 � � �. ..... ..� �', `�� t ��al�iyt,�(� � 9 � 1 'MR�(6 ,; ? G ` � ' - R i � ! .� . ,"`,.=F. n ...s�,r_ ,. ... 6.:Cr sr.N..n..t.:� I�� ..� ..L`u.�, ' r� .. . � . � � � . . ... :,,a (' \\ . . . . . f I' ��;� ��IE1�� e' � ��.� � � � � � � �;:t t. ' � �� „i�r �i_,,'�,�. i� '�,� _ �. � � ,. cr . .�.; `,.,., �, , . : , , ._. , ,. , r . _ _ ,.:,, ..� , - , _._ ..., , �� _, t .,: ' ., ....._.... 4 �. �" . ..._ � __ 1 � IY . � .. ..._ __._, . _ - f.'�� ,' i ; : . .. � _.. { . � f� s .. .. . . . . . ; r ��r 1`_ , __ . � , r� . r ,, :� - .. � � 7 I � �� p �` r L w .d. � �� P t C � _ � �� A � � � !'1 '� 5 �� t�, � ! 1 m .� ��I � �ll ..� � . . _ . � � � .'I 1 .. 1 >...�:. ..' -- � � ; i�.- i � , � 1 i �� i„ i i � � ` " �i , � � .' . �� ' � . ,. . . o, �, - � � :,,:.�* � { II �k�'7�F'i�� , t � � � �._.�. �. ,�,� } � 1 .. i. � -, �' - y' - �P.,i . �'i�'' "�,f �t .. ,��4 ��r .�i . ti��iF i .`I �� ) j L 4�� '�� 1 $ .� � � I � i � � 1{� � ! ��z��4� a � l�^�v a �' W�tr � �' i��+[ ��t�it��J�" q: ,., Yi� } � � �� t�" � �' if ��' j '� � — ti ' � z � ; � '.�� '� , � � � � � � � t � ` � � ; c� r� �'�x �� '� '� [_ " } �� 5 �; � �i.� � i �- .� � 'i� w�::.� � �t�, ...v,�...e� � n ��'r�E fo '�g .a a�ld'�}. . ! t�+Yn � r I a y{x�p�� . .- ! � . . � } .7 � � � �;� � f _,� � � �.,Nn � �,� > � � . , � � �_ , : �� , _ r:�` � F � � � , —...__._ r � .�.� �� e�r��r�� ,. � Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 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 far your concerns and suggestions made with regard to our application far design review for the proposed addition to the residence located at 2600 Summit Drive. We too, are architecturally 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 left elevation; looks like it is on stilts; encourage installing stone on the lower walls to make it look Zike a foundation supporting structure. a) Response: Due to the re-design as well as the location GCD,Inc. and the client agreed that the proposed re-design works well in context of the site. Currently there is no visual aesthetics at this area of the house. 4• "Clarified 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 meets City of Burlingame clear garage area space. See attached plans for revised design to minimize visual impact to neighbors. ,�UG �F �= �nr,� _.� � �;; IY �lr i� �i; <Lii�l :i;; .':,. E7 r..^. i - - a � ° 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. GCD, 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 neighbars 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 look at taking away mass of bedroom no.4 from over the garage, placing it over the family room and sh�ing 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 existingfront 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 opportunity to further consider our proposed addition. Should you ha�e additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650-703-6197 Sincerely, Jesse Geu: Principal i�UG ;� �� C�� ; z CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Apri113, 2009 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 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 story 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 instaliing 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 the mass of Bedroom #4 from over the garage, placing it over the family room and shifting the master bedroom forward? ■ On the existing front elevation; is there habitable space above the garage? (Geurse — the master 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. ■ Will block view of airport runways. ■ Like the design; the story poles will show the impact. ■ When was the street sign placed in front of the property; considering the state of the postal service; a lot of times the cards are received late. (Brooks — noted that notices are mailed out 10-days in advance and the project site is posted at the same time.) 10 CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 13, 2009 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. CommissionerAuran made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. Additional Commission comments: Story po/es shall be erected. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called fora vote on the motion to place this item on fhe 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 Ngai and Yolanda Leung 2606 Siunniit Drive Burlingame, Ca , 94010 _....___,. COMMUNICATIQN.RECEIYED 1fFTER PREPAR�ITION' �F S?'AFF REPQRT �� April 12, 2009 Received After �Pj� �� 2009 04.13.09 Planning Commission Mtg. Agenda Item 6- 2600 Summit Drive �ITY0=8L�RLIi�lGR�vl� Design Review Board R�f,j�,lj.{�h�r Q_pT, City of Burlingame Subject: Design review on a proposed new addition on Gumas's property on 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame, Ca 94010 Dear Sirs: We are the owner residents at 2606 Sumiuit Drive and immediate neighbor to the left of the 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 feet 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 door 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, further restricting our access to and enjoyment of light in our breakfast area not to mention casting a very large shadow over our property. We believe this proposed two story structure is unreasonably and intrusively large, resulting in excessive infringement into our property rights. The window(s) of the room above the garage will have a close and direct view of our swimming pool, fiirther infringing upon our rights to privacy as property owners. It goes without saying that these infringements, aside from affecting our quality of life, causing unnecessary stress upon our entire household, will also undoubtedly translate into a substantial decline in our property value, adversely impacting on our retirement planning. page 1 of 4 0 Keeping in mind our grave concerns as immediate neighbor to the subject property, we suggest that any newly erected garage addition should stand no less than 15 feet from our mutual property 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 praperty 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 elimmate 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 conforxnance 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 minimize 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, �',� ,�� . � �-��.�� Chris & Yolanda Ng ' � page 2 of 4 Existing view from our dinning room Existing view from our breakfast area -- � �- - - - — � ��-. - �_—. -- - - :- _ - �- s �� . _ � :. -- = �� =�� _ �`'--�- �`� , - --�„ ti �. — � - .� �` '�� ____ - __ .Y�J-�— _ _ Existing view to the airport and the bay from 2nd floor bedroom page 3 of 4 View after Gumas Property proposed new additions i _ '� �. ., � Y��' � -_ B �.. ' . : �—� � � �� ' � , � t � � � � ' I j3 I ' ic . � ' _ :: � • �� _:3 �__ - _ � .� 1 —.. — _.,_— _— �. . __ _ _�_; "�.:_— _ — _ _ � �� . . - - � _ . . . . � — �:,: l : s' "��; � ` � -�'.} . . (� page 4 of 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 A�� CITY OT HUPoJNQAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 4�� Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other ParceI Number: Project address: 2G00 SUMMIT DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 � Z�� Z� I• �� APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER � — � � Name: GEiJRSE CONCEPNAL DESIGN, INC. Address: 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE City/State/Zip: BLTRLINGAMF,CA940I0 Phone (w): G50.703.6197 (h�: G50343.3093 � fl: G50.558.9324 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC. Address: 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE C ity/State/Zip: BLJRLINGAN�, CA 94010 Phone (w): G50.703.GI97 �h�. G50.343.30J3 G50558.9324 Name: JOHN GUMAS Address: 2G00 SUMMIT DRIVE City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Phone (w): 415-G21�7575 (h): �fl � Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �STANDSECONDSTORYADDITION AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE��,��y certifyy�der penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and cor ct to the b st of r�y k}�owledge and belief. ApplicanYs . Date: 11/17/08 I know about the application to the Property owner's ..� authorize the above applicant to submit this '.1 ( � Date: II/IZ/08 �i� � �� Pcn�� :_ �' 2008 rE�rr aF ��r��ir�cn�nE t lAN�IiNG E7El�T. , ; � �,� °� �', ::; �,"� �`'� �. ��, �i V',,,-„^, �'��F`� � � ; . � ; S C`�, ` �( �� f�,��/ u� n � � Q<<�'{, �Y�� v�� .�iv�� j � �f��`� , ' ��f'\ �, �C �`;; 1 U ; i � � �; � ,� , � , , ��•�� ; ��,-- �:: ;t�� -, � s�,� � ;� ,� � t.� �j1�`�rf �y�Y��`� � � Q��/ �-�'�/� �� Ol � � �`�� U�' �� }�. ( � �i L,Ln u' �iiy of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(6>0) 696-3790 �vww.burlinsame.orQ � �--1�`� � r'= ,. Explain why the blend of muss, scale and dominantstructural 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 h�s vert� little visibilitt� from th� street level. The over�ll redesign of the the residence �nd it's roof was thought out veri� care{ulli� �s to not cre�te a large looking addition but y�t to collal�arate the single storL� into � unified second ston� aciclition b�� bringing clown the roo{ e�ves to � st�ggered �l�vation clesign. The exterior sti�le lends itself to roof design's �nd overall {�c�c�e. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new strueture or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. !�s mentioned before the majoriti� of the residence's on the block are completly cIi{�ernnt in architectural �esthetics. The proposed project has ven� little visibiliti� from the street level. The style of the residence allowed us to create a blending of masses to integr�te the e�sting single storL� �ddition into a s�concl stori� resiclence with minim�l imp�ct to ru�ss �nd bulk. f�ll ext�rior in�teri�ls were used to cre�te � cohesive over�ll prance of the house with natural aesthetics. 3. How will the proposed project be consisfent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The entire project is consistent with �11 of Burling�me's regul�tions with th� exception o{ the height of the roof ridge at the �ddition which w�s rec�iired to be t�lcen from the avera�e top o{ curb. The aver�ge top� of curb w�s determined upon a steep incline which creates an a`J'-I" increase over the 30'-0° limitation. The actual ridge height from existin$ paving is 28'-2" wh��h is a tt�pical seconcl storL� construction. Tlie existing site is situatecl upon a level gr�dccl site with the rear yortion dropping o{f drain�tic�11L�. Please review this project on existing site con{igur�tion �s well as existing contours. 4. F�zplain how the removal of any trees located within thefoofprint 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. PROPOSED RIDGE HEIGI�T �� IYY � � � 6URLJNGAME �`�.�.e'�., CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION � u° 2C0� �9ri�il�, _;�?� rL�L„`_..,_ ;i�1P:�,�;C' ,,{_,,. 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. No tree's to be removed due to the new loc�tion of tlie �tt�ched g�r�ge. SPECPERM.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.ore„ �; �� _ ' � � __ � _—. � .. �._.�u� PROPOSED ATTACHED r�, IYY , � � HURl1NGAME � ,�� CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION �:' � � 2�r� o, �., �:.�,.:,;,.�,�;;;� �n�Fi��i�\i��, _.��--. 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 dominant structural characferistics 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 of the �tt�ched garage is locat�d in a better vicinitL� due to the reason that the garage cloors will not {ace the acljacent re�r resiclence ancl actual works better in relationship to tlie existing clrivewaL� ancl proposecl aciclition to the resiclence. The mass ancl bulk of the garage in our opinion woulcl not impecle uyon neig�ors clue to the location on site. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new strucfure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, sireet and neighborhood. The majoritL� of the rnsidence's on the block are completly differ�nt in architectur�l aesthetics. The proposecl project h�s ven� littl� visibility from th� street level. T7ae overall rcdesign o{ tlie the resiclenrn ancl it�s roo{ was thought out veri� care{ulli� as to not create a large looking aciclition but i�et to coIlaborate the single ston� into a tmifiecl seconcl ston� addition bi� bringing down the roof �aves to a to a staggered elevation design. The ext�rior sti�le lends itself to roof design's and overall facacle clesign. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (CS. 25.57)? As mentioned before the m�joritL� of the residence's on the lilock �re completlL� different in architectural aesth�tics. The proposed project has verL� little visibilitL� {rom t�e street level. The stL�le o{ the resid�nc� allowed us to create a blending of masses to integr�te the existing single stori� addition into a scconcl stori� residenc� with minimal impact to mass and bnik The location of the gar�ge has a clirect rel�tion to the existing clriveway. Tlze garage comylies to all Citi� regt�lations. 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 reguirements. What mit�gation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No tree's to l�e removed due to the new location of the attached g�rag�. SPECPERM.FRM EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits. 2600 Summit Drive Effective July 8, 2010 1. that the project shall be buiit as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 18, 2010, sheets T.0 through A.9 and Boundary and Topographic S u rvey; 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 April 23, 2010 and February 5, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 1, 2010 and December 15, 2008 memos, the Parks Supervisor's April 30, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 26, 2010 and November 24, 2008 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 26, 2010 and November 21, 2008 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hiliside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits. 2600 Summit Drive Effective July 8, 2010 Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professionai, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. 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. o CI7Y OF BURLINGAME { COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM€NT BURLINGANIE �'"'' '�`�'�"�'��`=�'�' . , 501 PRIMROSE ROAD : �' � � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 � �' � � � _ "' 'i PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 69h��79� `-`n � - - www.burlingame.org �- �� _ ' F�,�'�_'�;�_`?�=�'•'e�: - 4 � 'a �� :. B 3 � � A . . �_ �a '3� �+-�' ~ Site: 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE � ��s � The City of Burlingame Planning Cammission announces the following pu6lic hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamhers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Appli�ation for Design Raview, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for attached garage and 6uilding height for a first and second story additian ta a- single family dwelling at 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE zoned R-1. 027-271-110 Mailed: June 18, 2010 • (Please refer to other side) A copy of the appli the meeting at the Road, Burlingame; G�i�r��n5: u�4 � �� r�; � � — ealaifct33'�'fa�iE �J'��ius 4�a-`�.��. ��iJ n�^.va.,. _ - � - - ��_� �t � = �i: =� e reviewed prior to at 501 Primrose If you challenge the:subject application(s) in co;urt, you rnay be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in writfen. correspori.d.ence deli�eced'to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owner� __ _, _ _ � _ tenants about th For additional i William Meeker Community Develo (Please refer to other side) ,e..: =' )irector �e are respon their _ � —♦ =�� 0