The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2600 Summit Drive - Staff Report (2)item No. 6 Regular Action PROJECT LOCATION 2600 Summit Dri�e Before Construction Under Construction City of Burlingame Item No. 6 Regular Action Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2600 Summit Drive Meeting Date: June 10, 2013 Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review and Hiliside Area Censtruction Permit for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, including a new deck area o.ff the rear of the house. Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design Inc. Property Owner: John Gumas General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-014-100 Lot Area: 82,342 SF 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: 15_301 Class 1(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt provided the additior will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF provided all public services and facilities are available and that the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. May 13, 2013 Regular Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission RegularAction meeting on May 13, 2013, the Commission had several questions and comments regarding the installed story poles and the placement of the proposed deck, and had a discussion with the next door neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court to understand their objections to the project. It voted to continue the item so that all Commissioners could visit the neighboring property at 3 Belvedere Court (May 13, 2013, Planning Commission Minutes). On May 14, 2013, Planning Staff e-mailed all Planning Commissioners the contact info for the designer of the project at 2600 Summit Drive, the contact info for the property owner of 2600 Summit Drive and the contact info for the neighbors at 3 Belvedere Court. The applicant submitted a response letter on May 29, 2013, to address the Planning Commission's comments. Please refer to the copy of the May 13, 2013, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of all Planning Commission questions and comments. Project Background: An application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for height and attached garage for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive was approved by the Planning Commission on .June 28, 2010 (June 28, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permitwas issued on May 30, 2012, and construction is now underway. On September 10, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved an FYI for 2600 Summit Drive, that included removing all grids from the windows and doors at the rear elevation and on the windows and doors towards the rear of the left elevation and to change the size of the glass doors at the rear of the house (September 10, 2012, FYI memo attached). On November 13, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a second FYI for 2600 Summit Drive. That FYI approval included: adding an uncovered balcony off the second floor Master bedroom towards the rear corner of the house, which included replacing some windows with French doors, and which enlarged the approved lot coverage and floor area ratio by 70.1 SF (6,586 SF, 0.08 FAR proposed); removing a windowfrom the garage along the front elevation; reducing the size of several windows along each elevation; and removing the shed roof extension from the turret ofF the formal dining room (November 13, 2012, FYI memo attached). Proposed Revisions: The applicant is now requesting an Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new proposed deck addition off the rear of the house that will be greater than 30" above adjacent grade and will therefore count towards the proposed setback and lot coverage calculations. The portions of the proposed deck addition that will exceed 30" from adjacent grade will be set back a minimum of 15'-4" from the rear property line and will add 484 SF to the overall lot coverage on the property (6.3% lot � Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2600 Summif Drive coverage proposed, where 5.8% lot coverage was originally approved). The overall height of the proposed deck addition will range from at grade to over 10' above adjacent grade in certain locations due to the slope on the lot. Please refer to the attached letter and revised plans submitted by the applicant, dated May 1', 2013, for an explanation of the proposed new deck addition. Summary (based on plans submitted May 1, 2013): This large and oddly-shaped lot is located at the corner of Summit Drive and Belvedere-�ourt in the Hiliside 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 haliway, master bath and cl�sets, and an additionai 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 was approved for the following applications on June 28, 2010: ■ 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. 25.26.035, a); and ■ Special Permit for building height between 30' and 36' (33'-4" proposed) (C.S. 25.26.060, a, 1). 2600 Summit Drive Lot Size: 82,342 SF Plans date stamped: Ma 1, 2013 and June 18, 2010 PREVIOUS APPROVAL � REVISED PROPOSAL ALLOWED/ (06/18/10 plans) (03/21/13 plans) REQUIRED SETBACKS : Front (1st f/r): � 131' (to formal DR) no change 15'-0" (2nd flr): � 143' (to turret) no change 20'-0" Side (left): � 7'-0" (to garage) no change 7'-0" (right): ; 40'-0" no change 7'-6" Rear (1st flr): � 56'-5" (to FR/dining) 15'-4" (to deck) 15'-0" (2nd flr): 53'-4" (to MB) no change 20'-0" Loi Coverage: � 4,755 SF 5,239 SF 32,937 SF 5.8% 6.3% 40% FAR: ' 6,516 SF no change 8,000 SF' 0.08 FAR 0.10 FAR � Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2600 Summit Drive 4 ; PREVIOUS APPROVAL REVISED PROPOSAL ALLOWED/ (06/18/10 lans 03/21/13 lans) � REQUIRED # ofbedrooms: : 5 no change --- Parking: ; 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20') no change (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered � (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: ; 33'-4" 2 no change 30'-0" DH Envelope: ' 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 25.26.070 e). z Special Permit for a structure between 30' and 36' as measured from average top of curb (33'-4" proposed) (CS 25.26.060 a, 1) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2010. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that because of the size and location of the proposed new deck addition, it was determined that the project would be brought forward to the Planning Commission as a study item and not directly as a RegularAction Item. See attached memo from the Chief Building Official dated March 25, 2013 and original project memos from the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, Parks Supervisor, Fire Marshal and NPDES Coordinator. April 8, 2013 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 8, 2013, the Commission had several questions and comments regarding notes on the plans, the placement of the deck with respect to the adjacent downhill property and the need for some sort of story poles. It voted to place the item on the RegularAction Calendarwhen the plans have been revised as directed and story poles have been installed (April 8, 2013, Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted photographs that show the story poles that were installed to outline the proposed new deck addition on April 30, 2013 and revised plans and a response letter on May 1, 2013, to address the Planning Commission's questions and comments. The revised plans show the location of the footprint of the adjacent house at 3 Belvedere Court in comparison to the placement of the proposed new deck addition. Please refer to the copy of the April 8, 2013, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission questions and comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. InterFace of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 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 ofthe 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). �3 Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2600 Summit Drive 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 fhe public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 1, 2013, sheets T.O, SP.2, A.8 and A.9 (Rear Elevation - North); and date stamped June 18, 2010, sheets SP.1, SP.3 through A.9 (Building Section) and Boundary and Topographic Surve�r; 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 Pianning 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 March 26, 2013, 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 removai 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 shali 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 pians 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 CJniform 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 0 Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Consfruction Permit 2600 Summit Drive 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 accordin� to the approved Planning and Building plans. Erica Strohmeier Associate Planner c. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010, applicant and designer Attachments: ApplicanYs response to Planning Commissions Comments, date stamped May 29, 2013 Minutes from the May 13, 2013 Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Letter from the ptoperty owner in response to a letter from the neighbor, date stamped May 13, 2013 Letter from the neighbors at 3 Belvedere Court in objection to the project, date stamped May 13, 2013 Applicant's response to Planning Commissions Comments, date stamped May 1, 2013 Photographs of installed story poles, submitted by applicant on April 30, 2013 Minutes from the April 8, 2013 Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Diagram of properties, submitted by neighbor at Design Review Study meeting on April 8, 2013 Appiication to the Planning Commission Appiicant's Explanation Letter, date stamped March 21, 2013 Chief Building Official comments, dated March 26, 2013 Copy of FYI memo from November 13, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Applicant's letter of explanation for FYI #2, date stamped October 23, 2012 Copy of FYI memo from September 10, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Applicant's letter of explanation for FYI #1, date stamped August 24, 2012 Minutes from the June 28, 2010, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Letter from neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive in support of original project, date stamped June 28, 2010 Minutes from the January 11, 2010, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Minutes from the September 28, 2009, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Staff Comments (from previously approved project) Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 31, 2013 Aerial Photo 5 Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 May 29, 2013 City of Burlingame attn: Erica Strohmeier , Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: Response to Plamiing Commission's recommendations per meeting minutes on May 13, 2013 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 rear deck extension to the residence located at 2600 Sununit Drive. We too, are architecturally sensitive and very eager to address your concerns. In review of the proj ect with Mr. and Mrs. Gumas it is our intention to keep the design as submitted until the commissioners review the story poles from lower adjacent owners property. It is our understanding that the commissioners will give feed back from their visit as to wheter it is a privacy issue or not. 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, Jesse Geurse Principal �� '��' ' � �0i3 Clil' OF l�URLII��GA,�,n,c CDD-PL�t�NIidG �f�� CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANNING COMM/SSION — Unapproved Minutes May 13, 2013 7. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND A NEW DECK AREA OFF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN GUMAS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Sargent disclosed that he met with owner at 3 Belvedere. Commissioner Terrones listened to the recording for the April DR study meeting. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Jessie Geurse represented the applicant. ■ Requested story poles, built them. ■ Received letter from neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court regarding objections to the deck. The property owner submitted a rebuttal. ■ Visited site today to get a better grasp of issues from adjacent neighbor. Had previously reached out to neighboring owners to see if there were any concerns, did not hear until today. Commission comments: ■ Are the windows in the upper right hand corner Master Bedroom windows? (For Gumas residence) (Geurse: There was always a Master Bedroom facing that side of the house.) Was there always a deck on the second floor too? (Geurse: Yes.) ■ Does the heavy outline on the site plan outiine the house or the deck? (Geurse: Outline of house. There are construction constraints with the issue of the easement.) ■ This is a large lot. Did they look at other options for expanding the deck? (Geurse: There are oak trees in the way, and the easement. It is a fantastic view, trying to gain as much of the view as possible. ■ Understandable why trying to capture the view. ■ Seems like there are places where the deck can go without going right to the setback. ■ Is there an issue with tree? (Geurse: It is a baby tree, the tree trimming was done by the gardener. The tree belongs to the Gumases.) ■ Are the windows vinyl? (Geurse: No, they are aluminum clad.) Public comments: Cinda Bailey, 3 Beivedere Court, spoke regarding this item: ■ Husband was at last meeting and it looked like a deck. When orange plastic came up it was a massive shock. ■ Spends a lot of time in play area, spent a lot of money to create a flat area. It will be fully exposed to the owners of 2600 Summit Drive. ■ Would like to ask to push the deck back a little. ■ Argue over whose property the tree is on. ■ On the paper the deck does not look bad, but in person it has much more of an impact. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSIDN — Unapproved Minufes May 13, 2013 Commission comments: ■ What does the orange mesh show? (Geurse: Indicates main deck level. Majority of dropped deck will be lower by 18 inches.) ■ Do the owners of 2600 Summit know what is being planned in the back yard of 3 Belvedre? (Bailey: Under construction. Play equipment in front not yet installed.) ■ Is there any reason why the recessed area where the circle steps down could be rotated towards easement? It would still be a hugely substantive deck. The area is massive. Fully recognize that there is a constraint with the easement. ■ Would like to superimpose the 3 Belvedere site plan onto the proposed 2600 Summit site plan. Show with different uses. ■ (Geurse — From below can see deck is pushed back rather far into the shrubs and trees. Could also add screening trees in conjunction with rotating.) ■ The view is spectacular, but when deck is used it will be very imposing. ■ The Commission looks very closely at view protection issues. IYs a thin line with protecting privacy issues. Issues of compromise, harder with privacy. Not familiar with any law that about protecting privacy. (Kane: Design review issue of intertace with property.) Anne Menken, 2614 Summit, spoke regarding this item: ■ Trees between properties are currently blocking her view. If there are more trees, will then block her view so does not want to have requirement that more trees be planted. Wants to have her view back to the airport. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to continue. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Should be continued so commissioners can visit the neighboring property. Would the continuance allow the applicant to revise the plans? (Kane: Continue to a date uncertain to allow revisions.) Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. This item concluded at 9:29 p.m. 16 CD�l1h1 UNICAT101U RECEI UED AF'lER PREPAI2ATION OF STAFF REPORT From: John Gumas [mailto:jgumas@gumas.com] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 2:31 PM To: CD/PLG-Rihm, Connie Cc: <jgeurse@sbcglobal.net>; CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica �bject: Re: Received After - 2600 Summit Drive Connie: Thank you for forwardii �g this letter to us from our neighbors below. 05.13.13 Meeting Agenda Item 7 2600 Summit Dr. _ � = _� �4AY�32013 �ITY OF BURLfNGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV I am not sure of the process, but given that the hearing is just a couple of hours away I thought I needed to respond to these ridiculous allegations in writing right away. I hope that my note can be read to the planning commission this evening. After reading the long and dramatic note from the Lopenski's, all we can say is that everything they have outlined is not only insuiting to my family, but completely false and without any proof. I also believe that this nothing but a retaliatory letter based on our challenge of their recent addition project. I would like to address each of their"allegations individually to so the commission of their pointless nature: 1. Their statement that new bedroom windows now look out onto their property is not correct. Our new home has not changed its scope on the side they are referring to. Our house has always had a bedroom window and outside deck in that exact direction and location. So to say that their privacy is now being adversely effected is inaccurate and false. You can see this in the original drawings of the house for proof. 2. We were never able to see into their home - and we still can't see into their home at the degree that they are describing, so this statement is both false and a complete overreaction. As you can see if you visited our property, they have very few windows facing us and they are being blocked by trees. Our proposed deck would not change this at all. 3. Regarding looking out over their "young kids" playing area. Again this is a dramatic over reaction. We can barely see this area and this view has not changed in the 15 years we have owned the house. As you can see, it is well hidden behind trees and again this is a dramatic overreaction. 4. Regarding our dog barking. We have not lived in the house for over a year, so how can they even say this. And for the record, we no longer have dogs! 5. Regarding our kids swearing. Now I hope that the commission sees right through this terrible and insulting comment to see what they are really trying to do. Our kids are not like that, nor would we ever tolerate this behavior. We have three kids, one is off to college, and the second will be going to college in September. But this comment is particularly upsetting and shows the true colors and motives ofthese people! 1of2 COAI;i�1G.`%IC.1T10iV 1zL-'C'L-,'Il+`/�� APT�R PREP.yRf11Yi>�V QF ST<4FF h�;POIZ "l 05.13.13 Meeting Agenda Item 7 2600 Summit Dr. .. ._.� �,� �,�. � �� '��i/�Y 1 � Z013 GITY OF BUR�fiVGRME cQ�-��a��iN� Qi� Finally, we have already designed and put this deck well behind our property lines. It does not infringe on their views, we have followed all of the rules and regulations and we believe we are well within our legal rights to build this modest deck on our property that will add value to and enhance our property for years to come. We hope that the commission will see that this attempt by the Lopinsky's as nothing more than a retaliation filled with exaggerations and untruths, and a bad neighbor attempt to keep us from building a legal deck on our property that confirms with all laws and regulations. Unfortunately, I had to undergo a serious surgery last week, so I am physically incapable of attending this evenings meeting. We hereby appoint our architect Jesse Guerse as our official representative. Thank you for your consideration. John And Janice Gumas Owners 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame 2 0€ 2 To: The Plaiuung Commission This is in regards to the deck that the owners of 2600 Summit Drive are proposing to build. We live just below the Gumas's on Belvedere Court. Our home has, until their recent addition, been a completely private space and it is one of the things �ue love most about it. Their massive remodel has already encroached upon on our privacy (their new upstairs with giant windows now has an open view of our outdoor dining table). The addition of this deck sitting above our properiy will encroach upon our privacy even more for the below reasons: -The proposed deck is directly looking out over our (young kids) play area we just built -One of their dogs is left out during the day and if it sees us it barks constantly -Teenaged kids live there and they use lat of profanity that is completel� inappropriate for my kids, my grandma or frankly even myself to have to listen to. Now we can close their bedroom windows, outside there will be no getting away from it if they are right on top of us. -The deck is a tiny bit visible from the large window (that we put in for the view of the canyon) in our brand new addition so people on the proposed deck would be able to see into our room. Not by a lot but again, the privacy is invaded. -If they have their gardener cut down our tree again it will be an even larger impact -Our general privacy will be taken away even more than it already has been Todd Lowpensky looked at the plans before the last meeting then left as he did not see that a deck would be a problem. When the orange story poles went up it showed how the new deck would impact us-which was shocking. This property already has a massive front and backyard. We would ask that they not encroach upon us any further. Extending the deck into the canyon and towards our backyard will destroy our privacy-and theirs. We ask that they move the deck boundaries 10 feet in-toward Belvedere Court and ten feet more toward their house from where it is proposed. PLEASE SEE THE PICTURE ON THE NEXT PAGE. The distance from where I'm standing to the steps is SOft. The fence to the house is around lOft. The loss of privacy goes as wide as 12 feet. This is our kids play area which will ha�e a trampoline and play structure. Thank You Todd Lowpensky Cinda Bailey 3 Belvedere Court, Burlingame ��8�� 1q�1Y $ 3 2�iu CiTY OF BURLiNGRNiE GDD-PLANNING DIV, 0 v -,G- �r� �� }�� -„�� .��,�� `�� ' ;I' � � r- �� -:��t�'��, � ��"� '� r � � .'.:- � .- �.....5. � , _ . ?� . . . . - ''� '� _ . `� �� *� _ _ �;� ;�� _ ` ._. . ,_, � .. :� �� AY � � Z013 GI1Y OF BUR.LIR�GRI�iE CDD-PLA�C�lrsG GI t Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 May i, 2013 City of Burlingame attn: Erica Strotuneier , Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: Response to Planning Commission's recommendations per meeting minutes on April 8, 2013 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 rear deck extension 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 fmd the revised project acceptabie 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: Deck story poles have been installed for visual impact. 2• "Neighbor concern about deck" a) Response: Deck story poles have been installed and a call has been made to Anne Mahnlcen for a site visit. Mr. John Gumas had.also demonstrated to Anne that the deck would not be visible due to vegetation and trees. We had also placed a call to lower neighbor that would be most impacted by deck extension. 3• "Plotting of Zower neighbor residence on plans" a) Response: Location of lower neighbor below the Gumas residence has been located on site plan to demonstrate location of house in accordance to proposed deck. We had also shown the location of the house on ea�terior elevation and section. Thank you for this opporiunity to further consider our proposed addition. Should you ha�e additional quest� or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650-703-6197 Sincerely, Jesse Principal � � �� ;�,�Y �- �� ZOi3 c;�TY OF EURLI�GAPiiE GDD-FLAi.lC�IIVG t�l\�. 2600 Summit Drive — Photographs of installed story poles (April 30, 2013) 2600 Summit Drive — Photographs of installed story poles (April 30, 2013) � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes April S, 2093 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PR,EVIOUS�Y APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND A NEW DECK AREA OFF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (JESSE GEU�SE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN GUMAS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 8. 2013, with attachme^+s. Associate Pianner Strohr;eier, briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: ■ none Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, Burlingame, represented the applicant: ■ The purpose of the deck is not only to gather more space off the pool, but also replace existing guardrails that are deteriorating at the back of the residence. ■ We've designed the deck extension that curves away from the adjacent neighbor down below. ■ Reason for the design orientation of the deck is a public utility easement, so our area for expanding the existing pool deck is very limited. Designed for minimal impact on the neighbor down below. Questions of appiicant: ■ It says it's 30 feet above natural grade on the site plan, but then on the section and elevation it doesn't look like it's anything close to that. (Geurse: No, it should be 30 inches.) ■ Does the deck step down? (Geurse: Yes, it steps down 18 inches lower.) ■ Can you clarify the trees? It looks like there are some oak trees on the survey. (Geurse: The survey is a difFerent orientation than the site plan. The survey is on the site plan. The other vegetation below deck is vast area of trees, brushes.) ■ Does the shaded area on the plans indicate the area of new deck? (Geurse: All the shaded area is new deck. It distinguishes the area that would be 30 inches above grade and outward. There is a dashed/hidden line, and beyond tliat would be anything above 30 inches over natural grade.) ■ In the proposed revision it says there will be added 484 square feet to the overall lot coverage, but the deck shows 1,305 square feet. The difference is the area that is not 30 inches above grade? (Geurse: yes) Commission comments: ■ Curious how this is going to impact the property below, because I know there was some discussion when they were doing an addition as well. Would it be possibie to see the footprint or a portion of the adjacent house on the site plan so we can get a better idea of how these two interFace? (Strohmeier: Yes, we have plans for that house that you can use for that purpose.) ■ Looks like house next door has a deck fhat extends out pretty far too, as a plane of reference. (Guerse: We could show that also. The idea of curving the deck was to get the majority of that deck to sway away, and also the view overlool�ing the city.) 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 � Public comments: Anne Menken, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item: ■ Concerned project might block view. They are above, we are down low. We look out on a view of a hilL ■ Can't read plan, can't tell where it is going. (Submitted exhibit to the Commission). Diagonal lines show the views. Additional Commission comments: ■ It see„�s like something that would be very easy to stake out. Story poles would not need to be very high because it's not a roof ridge that is being ciefined. ■ A story pole could show a height of a rail, and potentially where someone could be standing. ■ (Strohmeier: For a railing in a hillside area you have requested story poles.) ■ Wouid it be possible to vis;+ the property and get a sense of what they are doing? ■ The contractor could spray a board and put it where the deck would be to give the neighbor a sense of whether she would be able to see it. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ If we request story poles do they need to be surveyed? (Strohmeier: Only if you request that) Chair Gaul re-opened the public comment period. ■ Is there a way to explain to the neighborwhat the impacts might be? (Geurse: Yes, can place some 4 x 4s, stakes in a perimeter measured. Could have it surveyed so we know exactly where to show the arch and throw in some stakes, paint them orange, 10 feet on center. � ■ It does not have to be certified by a surveyor. Go for the most extreme points. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Don't understand what the big deal is with the story poles, if they're not surveyed. With the story poles it's black and white. It's not that big a deal to do. ■ Looking to save them some money and time and keep the project moving. ■ Wants to make sure the neighbor is able to see it clearly. ■ Either way this is going to be coming back to us. This is a design review study. ■ There will be another hearing, so if there is an issue then we can call for story poles. ■ We can do site visits ourselves. ■ The neighbor came not saying that there wouid be a view blockage, but saying that she did not know what the view impactwould be. In that case iYs just a clarification, and then if there is an issue we can take it to the next step. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion: 20 � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 None.. Chair Gaul called for a vate on the motion to place this item on the REGULAR ACTION CALENDAR when pfans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Plan.ning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p. m. 21 =`'� z- � ��,�� To see ail the details that are visible on the screen, use the "PrinY' link next to the map. b Y� � �t ��t J�y� �� _r:�,-- Submitted by neighbor at ------------ Design Review Study Meeting April 8, 2013 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMEN'I' SO l PIUMROSE ROAD P(65D) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 TY � ��-�nw+�±E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION "�,.�_�' Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: 2600 SLTNII�IIT DRIV.0 BURLINGAI��., CA. �J4010 � C�i AF�LICANT GEURSE CONCEPT`JAL DESIGN, INC. Address: �405BAYSWAT`ERAVENiJE City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME,CA99010 Phone (w); G50.703.6197 650.343.3093 650.558.9324 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: GEURSE CONCEPT[JAL DESIGN, INC. Address: `�05BAYSWATERAVENUE City/State/Zip: B�-INGAMF, CA 94010 Phone (w); G50.703.G197 �h�; 650343.3093 ��; 650.558.9324 �t#i�nder penalty of perjury that the information of my nowledge and belief. � PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �W DECK EXTENSION AT EXISTING POOL DECKII�IG. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I given herein is true and correct to r` Applicant's signature: � I know about the proposed pplic application to the Plannin Co� Praperty owner's signatur .=� PROPERTY OWNER Name: JOHN GUMAS Address: 2600 SiJNINITT DRIVE ' City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME,CA94010 Phone (w): 415�G2I.-7575 �h)�. Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. f Date: 3/2G/13 authorize the above applicant to submit this Date: 3�2G/13 PCAPP.FRM Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 March 20, 2013 City of Burlingame Attn: Erica Strohmeier, Zoning Technician 501 Prixnrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Admenment to design review for new deck extension to the residence located at 2600 Siunmit Road for planning and planning commission review and approval. Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning / Planning Commission, Please find enclosed a proposed new deck extension as an amendment to design review for the above mentioned project that is still under construction. We are looking for approval for the deck extension for the reason that we will be landscaping and hardscaping the rear yard area ancl around the pool. The pool deck and coping are slated to be re- hardscaped in lightweight stone pavers. In designing we would like to ea�tend the rear pool deck outward for larger surface area for the enjoyment of the pool surrounding. The deck would also be surfaced with lightweight stone pavers to match the new pool hardscape. We asked the coimnissioners to please review and approve the added deck e�ension. Thank you for your attention regarding this proj ect. Should you have additional questions or concerns, pl�a�e do not hesitate to contact us at 650.703.6197 Sincerely, Jesse Geur e �f Principal j�//� . � � � 4 '" � _" _�....0 � ti: 4�.-- `+�=R f��li-�� 1 l € r. „ L'J':i i•ij}'`. ' , ' oj_ir:;._i�vUt}��fk � �n� — � _J ��^bii�ti: ��.ti. �� r ,b ��,m�, , .� �� .� �.�r�, .,� , .� ...,�4 _ �. �. ��.�-,��,,,..,�.� � Project Comments � Date: March 25, 2013 To: � Engineerinr� Division 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600 x Building Division � Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 � Parks Div�sion � City Attorney (65Uj 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review Amendment and Hillside Area Construction Permit for changes to an approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, including a new deck area off the rear of the house at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-110 Staff Review: 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building Code, 2010 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2010 California Mechanical Code, 2010 California Electrical Code, and 2010 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856-2010. Note: If the Planning Commission has approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2010 then the building permit application for that project may use the provisions found in the 2007 California Building Codes inciuding all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1813. 2) Place the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) 3) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 4) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business liicense. 5) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 6) Provide a fuily dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on-site parking. 7) Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 8) 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. 9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 10)Provide lighting at all exterior landings 11)Provide complete details on the plans that show compliance with the swimming pool barrier requirements. 2010 CBC §3109 _,_......._:_- - --.�.�. �_.._----- ( Reviewec�� C`�� Date: 3-26-2013 u F, CIFY '`r : s� 1 ��c DATE � FRONd CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM November 6, 2012 Planning Commission Erica S�rohmeier, Associate Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 SUBJECT: FYI — REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROV-�G- DESlGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2600 SUMMIT DRNE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review, Hiliside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for height and attached garage for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive was approved by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2010 (June 28, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). On September 10, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved an FYI for 2600 Summit Drive, that included removing all grids from the windows and doors at the rear elevation and on the windows and doors towards the rear of the left elevation and ta change the size of the glass doors at the rear of the house (September 10, 2012, FYI memo attached). A building permit was issued on May 30, 2012 and the project is currently under construction. In a letter dated October 17, 2012, the project designer is requesting an FYI to: add an uncovered balcony off the second floor Master bedroom towards the rear corner of the house, which includes repiacing some windows with French doors, and which will enlarge the approved lot coverage and floor area ratio by 70.1 SF (6,586 SF, 0.08 FAR proposed); remove a window from the garage along the front elevation; reduce the size of several windows along each elevation; and remove the shed roof extension from the turret off the formal dining room. The designer submitted a letter and originally approved and proposed building elevation drawings, date stamped October 23, 2012, to explain the proposed changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than fhe proposed revisions listed above and detailed in the designers letter date stamped October 23, 2012, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. Planning staff would note that because of the minor revisions proposed to the house, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. ff the Commission feels the�e is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or pubiic hearing with direction to the applicant. Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner c. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue, Buriingame, CA 94010, designer. ATTACFIMENTS: � Explanation lefter from designer, date stainped October 23, 2012 Previous FYI memo from September 10, Planning Commission Meeting Previous expfanation letterfor changes, date stamped August 24, 2012 June 28, 2010, Planning Commission RegularAction Minutes Proposed Second Level Fioor Plan and originally approved and proposed Building Elevations, date stamped October 23, 2012 �eurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 - October 17, 2012 City of Burlingame Attn: Erica Strohmeier, Zoning Technician 501 Pri_mrose Road Burlingame,—CA 9401-0 re: FYI-2 for rear elevation window revision and minor alterations to the residence located at 2600 Stuumit Road for nla�uiing and plaiuuug commission review and approval. Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Plauving / Plaimiug Commission, Mr and Mrs. Gumas had requested some additional alteration to the residence due interior issues and minor modifications to e�terior due to previously approved FYI-1 We had made all revisions in attached 11"xl7" FYI-1 plans and explain the changes as follows: 1) REQUEST APPROVAL TO REMOVE WINDOW AND REPLACE WITH FRENCH DOOR FOR ACCESS TO NEW BALCONY FOR BAY VIEW FROM MASTER BEDROOM. 2) REQUEST APPROVAL TO REMOVE FRENCH DOORS AND BALCONY DUE TO FURNITURE PLACEMENT AND REPLACE WITH WINDOWS 3) REQUEST APPROVAL REDUCED SIZE OF WINDOW IN CLOSET DUE TO CLOSET DESIGN. 4) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REMOVAL OF GRIDS DUE TO BAY VIEW. WINDOWS NOT VISTBLE FROM FRONT OF RESIDENCE. 5) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REDUCTION OF VTINDOW HEIGHT IN BATHROOM DUE TO PRNACY AND ADJACENT NEIGHBORS PRIVACY. 6) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR RBMOVAL OF WINDOW 1N GARAGE DUE TO FUT'URE SHELVING ON INTERIOR 7) . REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REMOVAL OF SHED ROOF EXTENSION AT TLTRRET TO SIMPLIFY Tf-IE DESIGN. 8) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REMOVAL OF WINDOWS EACH SIDE DUE TO IN'1�ERIOR KIC.THEN CABINET CONFLICT 9) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REMOVAL OF TRANSOMS FOR FULL HEIGHT CLEAR WINDOWS FOR BAY VIEW DUE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FYI-1 - . - GEUR�E CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS OCTOBER 17, 2012 lOj REQUEST APPROVAL FO� REDUCE HEIGHT OF WINDOW DUE TO FURNITURE PLACEMENT IN MASTER BEDROOM LOUNGE. Thank you for your attention regarding this proj ect. Should you have additional questions or cancerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650.703.6197 Sineerely, Jesse Gsurs� Principal 2 a� cirr .c, ' �1 . .�'�':'_ �• � -• CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM September 4, 2012 Planning Commission Erica Sfrohmeier, Associate Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: September 10, 2012 SUBJECT: FYI — REQUES�ED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2600 SUMMITDRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for height and attached garage for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive was approved by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2010 (June 28, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes aftached). A building permit was issued on May 30, 2012 and the �roject is currently under construction, In a letter dated August 24, 2012, the pr.oject architect is requesting an FYI to remove all grids from the windows and doors at the rear elevation and on the.windows and doors towards the rear of the left elevation and io change the size of the glass doors at the rear of the house. The designer submitted a letter and originally approved and proposed rear and left side elevation drawings, date stamped August 24, 2012, to explain the proposed changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the praposed revisions listed abave and detailed in the designers letter dated August 24, 2012, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. Planning staff would note that because of the minor revision to the windows at the rear and left side of the house, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. .If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road # 203, Burlingame, CA 94010, architect. ATTACHMENTS: Explanation letter from designer, date stamped August 24, 2012 June 28, 2010, Plan.ning Commission Regular Action Minutes Originally approved and propased rear and left side Building Elevations, date stamped August 24, 2012 Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, Califomia 94010 Aug-ust 22, 2012 City of Burlingame attn: Erica Strohmeier, Zoning Technician 501 Primrose Road BurLingame, Cr� 94010 re: FYI-1 for rear elevation window revision to the residence located at 2600 �iu7unit Road for pl�viilg and planning commission review and approval. Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning / Plauning Commission, Mr and Mrs. Gumas had requested a minor alteration t� t�e residence due to the beautiful 180 plus view of the Bay, City of San Francisco and San Jose. We had demolisbed the residence and cleaned the site and what we saw was a georgeous view. Due to this view we would like to change ihe rear elevation windows and doors "ONLY" We had made all revisions in attached 11"x17" FYI-1 plans and explain the changes as follows: 1) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE REMOVAL OF GRIDS DUE TO SPECTACULAR VIEWS. GRIDS REMOVED DUE TO VISUAL OBSTRUCTION. TYPICAL ONLY AT REAR OF RESIDENCE. 2) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR'THE REMOVAL OF GRIDS AND INCREASED DOOR SIZE IN WIDT'H. Thank you for your attention regarding this proj ect. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650.703.6197 Sincerely, Jesse Gel Principal �' - _� _ _� f"�� f' _ ��_. �i! 1`fJ' L;i..'; �; ��`'�:'.sr.r- C�;u-rf �[4•!`,!i's,,'��. ;'!�:. GfTY OF BUf�LINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 2. 2600 SUMMIT DRNE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLS�DE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARP,GE 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 June 28, 2010, with attachments. Community Developmenf Director;Jleeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested far consideration. Noted letters received from John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive,,and Chrs Ngai and Yolanda Leung, 2606 Summit Drive indicating that a compromise has been reached regarding the project design. Chair Terrones �pened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 40.5 Bayswater Avenue represented the applicant: Have redesigned the project +o the satisfaction of the neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive. Commission comments: ■ Have done a wonderful job on the redesign of the structure; will be a nice look;ng �tructure. ■ Requested clarification ofthewindowstyle. (Geurse—will bealuminum-clad exterior, wood interior.) ■ Glad that the neighbors have come to a resolution regarding the trees. - The view issue was the primary concern of the Planning Commission; modifications to the design have substarifially reduced any view impacts. Public comments: Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung, 2606 Summit Drive; John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive; spoke: ■ Agree that the view blockage has been'minimized. ■ Have also received permission from the property owner to trim trees in order to preserve views to the Bay. ■ Happy with the Commission's desire to have probfems resolved between the neighbors. There were no further comments and the pubfic hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Glad an agreement has been reached between the neighbors, but doesn't like to see the project held hostage to achieve a desired end. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 1 S, 2010, sheets T.0 through A.9 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exteriorfinishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materiafs shalf be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minufes June 28, 20�0 3. that any changes fo 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 Buifding Offcial's April 23, 2010 and February 5, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 1, 2010 and December 15, 2008 memos, the Parks Supervisor'sApril 30, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 26, 2010 and November 24, 2008 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 26, 2010 anci November 21, 2008 memos shall be rrret; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private proper[y, if feasible, as determined by the Community Deveiopment Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing �#ructures and any�rading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building perrrii"t has been issued and such site work shall be required to compfy with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for constructicn of fhe project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or Ciry Council on appeal; which shail remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approvai 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 shafl be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from fhe street; and that these venting detaifs 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 FOLLOWENG CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUfLDING WSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED tN EACH CONDITION 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residentiai designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shawn in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architecturaf certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shalf 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, Pfanning 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. 6 CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMMlSSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2090 , Tl�e motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: Regardless of what the neighbors eventually agreed to; the project is now approvable whetherornot the neigftbors approved ofit. Charr Terrones called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 7 Chris Ngai and �olanda Leung 2606 Suminit Drive Burlingame, Ca , 94010 �A�UNI�TIfII� RECEIi�Fd�D Q ES�iFFP1�P0 � June 28, 2010 PC Meeting 06.28.10 Agenda Item #2 Planning commission 2600 S�Ummit Dri�e Design Review Board City of Burlingame �ubjeci: Design review on a proposed new addition on Gumas's proper-?y i,n 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame, Ca 94010 Dear Plannuig Commissioners, We are the owner residents at 2606 Siwunit Drive and immediate neighbor to the left of the subj ect Gumas property. After reviewing the design of the Gumas' latest proposed addition dated June 18, 2Q10, and multiple discussions with the Gumas on our concerns of the trees blocking the Ngai's window view to the comer of Belvedere and Swnmit. Both the Gumas and the Ngai have agreed to a final resolution which has mutual benefits to both parties. The Ngai have agr�ed to approve the latest new addition design dated June 18,2010 and the Gumas have agreed to give permission to the Ngai to trim the tree tops to mainta�n a clear wiudow view to the bay specifically on the corner of Belvedere and Swnmit. We believe this resolution can help to maintain a good neighbor relationship and we wish the Gumas the besi for their new addition. Sincerely, � � � '�� '`-'�� t� a/�G� �� Chris & YolandaNgai r�x � :�c _ __, �. r-��R; 'm�l,;�_s`: � E_� ? � � - �� i�,r;�t� � �.�.� �, �. �o,� �:I I � �= uU:i_��,.:..., . nj�`��,!`�'�`,'�-- . CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 9�, 2010 4. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZO.NED 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 PlannerStrohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Tweive (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearsng. 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 hilis will be blocked by the addition. . (Geurse — did not visit the site, and had not seen the photos. Gumas — the Commission previousiy 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 hilis and of the airport. The tur�et is oniy 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 aliow other options with the neighbors. Public comments: Chris Ngai, 2606 Summit Drive; ■ Regrets thatthe neighbors are having the problems with the addition, but qualiry 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 Vistrca moved fo deny the project withouf prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010 Discussion of motion: ■ If there is some form of compromise that can be worked out, should be considered by the Commission. ■ Applicanf assumed the view to the south was fhe more importanf view; emphasizes to meet with fhe neighbors to review impacts. Chair Terrones called for- a voice vote on the motion fo deny wifhout prejudice. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minufes Sepfember 28, 2009 VIII. EGULAR A TION ITE Th e were no R ular Actio tems for r iew. lX. 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, ING., APP�ICANT 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 hea.ring. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue and John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive; represented the applicant. ■ Plan was reviewed with the Ngais (owners of the properly at.2606 Summit Drive). Commission commenfs: • Was the garage pushed further back on the lot? (Geurse — revised the upper level addition to push it cfoser 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 potenfial 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 fhis area. ■ Requested phone number forthe appiicant and neighboring property owner at 2606 Summit Drive. Public comments: Chris IVgai 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. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNWG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes X. XI � September 28, 2009 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Tne motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Comrnissioner Li�dstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. COMMISSIONER�' REPORTS � �l: i • Schedule as a action item. ■ Provide more in rmation regarding � Why are fhe slidin doors needed? �, Are shopping carts ecessary; if so, �■ � Why is the alcove be g eliminated? were ^� Gom issioner's Reports. :TOR'S REPOR sion Communic�tions: e. �4ctions fro Regular City Co cil meeting of Se� ■ None. FYI: 1462 Bur game Avenue — view of mie�or Burlingame Aven Commercial Are Subarea A: mber 21, 2009: '. � ha ge to existing st efront entry in materials for the liding doors. �e v�Fil they be stor ? Ghair TeY�ones adjourned the meetl�g at 7:39 p.m. Respectfully submiited, Sandra Yie, Secretary � � � Project Comments Date: April 22, 2010 To: r� City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building OfFicial (650) 558-7260 ❑ Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7334 From; Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 G NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subjecf: 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: N/A All previous comments still appiy. Reviewed by: V V Date: 5/01/2010 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Amendment fo Desiqn Re��iew and Hillside Area Construction Permit for chanqes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existinq sinqie family dwellinq includinq a new deck area off the rear of the house at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, John Gumas, propertV owner, APN: 027-271-110; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 10, 2013, at which time it reviewed an.d considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environmenf, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt provided the addition will not resulf in an increase of more than 10,000 SF provided all public services and facilities are available and that the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. 2. Said Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in. Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Buriingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th dav of June, 2013 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review and Hiliside Area Construction Permit. 2600 Summit Drive EfFective June 21, 2013 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 1, 2013, sheets T.O, SP.2, P„8 and A.9 (Rear Elevation - North); and date stamped June 18, 2010, sheets SP.1, SP.3 through A.9 (Building. Section) 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 arien�ment io be determined by Planning staf�; 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 March 26, 2013, April 23, 2010 and February 5, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 1, 2010 and December 15, 2008 memos, the Parks Supervisor's Aprii 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 shali 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 buiiding permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to compiy 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. Compfiance with ail 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 Buiiding permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full. demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. 2600 Summit Drive Effective June 21, 2013 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 provid.e an architectural certificafion 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 Buiiding 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 architecturai details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME � c '� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ��,..,�, ~, BURLINGAME, CA94010 c; PH: (650) 558-7250 e FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE ihe City of Burlingame Plonning [ommission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2013 nt 7:00 F.M. in the City Hall Council Chom6ers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Applicotion for Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Constru�tion Permit for changes fo n previously opproved first ond second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, and a new deck area off the rear of the house at 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 027•271-110 �item continued from the Moy 13, 2013 P/onning Commission MeetingJ Mailed: Mny 31, 2013 (Please refer to other sideJ P:1�L1� HEAI�fIVG ��E Citj/ Of �Uilir].C►�a17]G' A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for in.iormi�g their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PIJ�LIC I�iE�R1iVG NO'iICE (Please refer to other side)