The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2600 Summit Drive - Staff ReportCITY O� BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 5. 3600 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 (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 10, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) All Commissioners had visited the subject property, and specifically: ■ Chair Sargent noted that he had visited 3 Belvedere Court. The neighbor showed story poles forthe deck but they did not have any substantive discussion. ■� Commissioner Terrones visited 2614 Summit Drive. The owner showed him the areas off her rear deck in regards to the view but that was the only discussion. He also visited 3 Belvedere Court but did not visit with the owner. ■ Commissioner Yie visited 3 Belvedere Court. Spoke with the owner, she showed the view of the deck ■ Commissioner Davis visited 3 Belvedere Court, saw the dog and the story poles. ■ Commissioner Bandrapalli visited 3 Belvedere Court. ,�ssociate Planner Strohmeier noted a received after item that was submitted earlier in the day by the project representative that shows a photograph looking down from the proposed deck location to the neighbors at 3 Helvedere Court. There are trees superimposed on the second photo, representing the trees that are on the revised plans that shows two new 24" box trees between the deck and the neighboring property at 3 Belvedere Court. Reference staff report dated June 24, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Mis. Strohmeier noted a typo in the staff report with the reference of 484 square feet for the lot coverage; this figure was from the previous proposal. The previous proposal had 484 square feet of deck that exceeded 30 inches above adjacent grade. The revised proposal has 406.1 square feet of deck that exceeds 30 inrches above adjacent grade. Commission questions: If they wanted to build up to dashed line that shows less than 30 inches, would they need to be here? (Strohmeier: If less than 30 inches, does not require a permit. For anything that exceeds 30 inches above adjacent grade it counts towards setbacks and lot coverage, and requires a building permit.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. David Cauchi and Jesse Geurse represented the applicant: • The story poles now indicate the rail height as well as the floor height. Gives a good depiction of what of what the neighbors would see. ■ Downhill neighbor brought up concerns. Most important was privacy issue with regard to the deck looking down into their backyard. In response, the revised plans has rotated the pop-out. The pop- out seemed to be the main issue, that could allow someone to see into the back yard. The pop-out has been moved approximately 5'-4" further away from the property line and reduced it approximately 3 feet as well to accommodate the privacy issue and get it a bit further away. � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 ■ Willing to plant 24" box trees. The photo simulation may not be the exact representation of the trees, but the view would be blocked and the privacy would be enhanced significantly with the placement of the trees in addition to the deck being reduced in size and the pop-out moved back. ■ From the other neighbor's potential view blockage from 2614 Summit, spoke to the owners of that property. The property owner is not sure what trees she is seeing from home. She would not be able to see deck unless some trees are trimmed back. The concern is with having new trees being planted and not wanting those new trees to block any views. However the new trees that would be planted would be lower than the deck. Since she can't see the deck, she would not be able to see the new trees because they would be planted below the deck. ■ The Gumases would want to have the trees planted on their property to preserve their view as best they can, so they would make sure the trees were trimmed and maintained in such a way that the privacy would be kept for their neighbor as well as providing the view they are after. ■ Have addressed and accommodated the Planning Commission's concerns, and have tried to accommodate the concerns of the neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court regarding privacy. Knows that privacy is not guaranteed, but has made that accommodation to be sensitive to the neighbor. Commission comments and questions: ■ On Sheet A-9 previously the circular bulb-out was at a lower level. Now moved over, is it now all at the lower level? Before there was a person that was a bit higher in the drawing. The new one looks like the whole thing is lower, there is not a higher section. (Geurse: On Sheet SP-2 the lower portion is the round portion of the deck. The rest of the deck is at pool deck level. We've taken the ark, reduced and pulled it back and rotated the round portion.) ■ By rotating it to left looks like it is increasing the sight line towards 3 Belvedere Court backyard. Where it was originally it is more obscured. (Geurse: The idea was to get that part away further from the property. Visibility and privacy are not always guaranteed, so the trees are a way to get privacy.) (Cauchi: Trying to get as far away from the property as we can by moving it back. If we've moved it in such a way that there is more of a view impact we could put it back where it was but also put the trees in. One way or the other, we would still want to put two or three trees in so we maintain a screen and the privacy is accommodated.) (Geurse: With regards to any sight lines from the pool deck to the neighbor, the 30" line on the drawing shows where existing guard rail is. Even if built there, there will still be a privacy issue. It can't be avoided, except for the trees.) ■ At the last meeting we encouraged rotating or pulling away from the property lines so it was not as looming over the downhill neighbor. Still think it is better to pull away from the property line as much as possible. Trees are a potentially good solution, can see what a thicket of good trees is doing now in terms of barriers between neighbors. Would want to encourage a close examination of the geometry of where trees are placed. On the site plan it looks like trees are shown spaced about 12 feet off of the property line, which puts the trees fairly far uphill. Once they get 15 or 18 feet tall they could start to block the Gumas's view and they would want to trim them back. Work with the geometry for the critical placement of the trees if that is the solution. If placed further down they could grow up a bit taller and provide a screen but not block the view for the Gumases. ■ It is an improved design, but would encourage to have as many trees as possible. ■ Anytime someone is out on the deck at a table, because the trees are not going to come up past the railing it would still be able to see or hear people over the trees. (Cauchi: If the trees are downhill, the neighbor below would not be able to see over the trees.) ■ Looking at the site section (Sheet A-8), if drawing a horizontal line from the deck to the property line, that would be the height that the trees would get cut. The height of the trees would be the same as the height of the rail. (Cauchi: Our understanding was wanting to not have a view down into the backyard. Also the neighbor's view up to the deck is substantially mitigated as well. With the tree screening we've handled the privacy issue.) Public comments: 7 CITY OF BrJRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 Cynda Bailey, 3 Belvedere Court, spoke on this item: ■ Main concerns are the privacy and being looked on. It feels much way worse with the revisions, really feels like a fish bowl now. Now can see all the way into the backyard. ■ The trees would help, but are concerned about trusting people to look after needs with follow- through. ■ Would like to specify what types of trees. Could put up small pole trees and say it meets the 24" box req u irement. ■ Doesn't understand sight line of the trees. Would expect they would trim the back at bottom of deck, not at rail since they are building a clear fence railing. If the trees are trimmed at the bottom of the deck, will we still be looked down on? ■ (Gaul: It would be good to specific tree species, so we would know a rate of growth, maximum height, canopy, evergreen versus deciduous.) ■ (Terrones: Would encourage them to talk to the City Arborist to determine the best type of tree to be planted here because if they're going to plant a tree that is going to get topped, what is the right kind of tree that you would want to do that to on a regular basis. Also better potential for getting a tree that will be fast growing with a large canopy that is going to screen views the way we are talking about and not just be sticks or lollipops. The arborist could present a list to select from.) ■ (Yie: Regarding the position of deck, the trade-off is the closeness versus the angle. Is there a preference?) ■ Would prefer that they take the original plan and push it back towards Belvedere Court. ■ Doesn't have space on property to plant trees themselves. Still wants to be pushed back from canyon. ■ (Yie: Between this configuration being proposed here versus the one they proposed before, which would you choose?) ■ If had to choose, would go back to the original. ■ Back fence to be worked on is on a very steep hill. Wondering if there is a way to make sure in writing that whoever is doing the work will not let the rocks fall down as they are doing work. (Kane: Not part of project being considered here. It is something that is controlled by other city requirements in terms of the manner of construction.) (Chair Sargent: The fence is not part of the scope of work of what we are considering here.) (Strohmeier: If a fence is built to the City's code standards it does not require a permit. The construction of a fence is often a civil matter between the property owners as long as it is in compliance with the Code requirements.) (Terrones: There will be Building Department conditions for the deck for any debris, regardless of any fence.) David Gauchi spoke for the applicant: ■ No problem with the arborist and list of trees if that is a Condition of Approval. If there needs to be approval for which types of trees, hoping that could be brought back as an FYI. ■ Debris falling down hill, the Building Department will be able to handle that matter. Doesn't believe anything would spill down into the yard in any event. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: ■ Based on the neighbor's comments, the original configuration is better. ■ I'f it's pulled back further can get two rows of trees. ■ Ifi the neighbor is OK with the deck being closer to the property line and that is what the applicant originally wanted, that would be the direction to go. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 ■ Visiting the property at 2614 Summit Drive, the issue is with other trees that are on the property. Does not think this deck or trees will intrude on her sight lines and the geometry of her best views. ■ In terms of the adjacent property at 3 Belvedere Court, the applicant is making an important point in protecting privacy. In the hills there are larger properties and people are used to privacy. Worked to try to address these issues that are not necessarily as protected by right as other issues might be. This applicant is working to make it best as best as they can but also maintaining their rights to improve their property. ■ Work with arborist to specify the type, size, and quantity of trees to best screen the deck would be a good condition to apply to the project. ■ Seems there is a lot of discretion with the trimming the trees and making sure what is shown in the rendering is actually what happens. ■ The neighbor could put trees in themselves if they wanted to change the configuration of their backyard. That would put the control totally in their hands. Can only go so far as requirements on trimming trees. ■ Don't have specific ordinances that, by right, protect privacy like this. Getting into monitoring long- term maintenance of trees is a burden we can't place on ourselves as a city and staff. However we can place conditions that say trees would be planted in an appropriately healthy condition and will include irrigation. Pick a tree that will reach the height of the railing and be able to tolerate the trimming and topping that is likely to occur. ■ Nice that the neighbors are willing to work with each other. If they like the original plan and having the right trees, it will solve both of their problems. Comrnissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: }+•�5 `� f�% 3 rv,a�y ,� 20,3 .�-�ees � �►kK+�d �,�t.ww, f..�. t,,�o �"��'Y� `�-- that the pro�ect shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped ,�a�e-1�, �A1-3-sheet� T n cp?Y Q art� /h�(Rear Elevation - North); and date stamped June 18, 2010, sheets SP.1, SP.3 through A.9 (Building Section) and Boundary and Topographic Survey; Iw�SJ°li�.��^" 6� �- l�ay /Ma�c3�— �H ysas.vds izJ 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 staf�; 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. ihat 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; �� c� S � N�� 5. 4hat 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; "f r 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. �hat 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; � �9 �� a .� �.�� v T� � � �� h $� �� t CITY OF B4J�2LVNGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 th�e 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 complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. th�t 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 F�LLOWlNG CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRI0�2 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. The rrrotion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion: ■ Approve the original scheme that was presented, received May 9, 2013. ■ Added condition that trees be planted between the two properties through consultation with the City Arborist in regards to the size, quantity, and appropriate species for the intended screening including �onsideraPion for the type of tree that can be trimmed and topped as designated for this requirement. ■ Permanent irrigation shalf be included as part of the planting of these trees. Chair �argent called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-9-0. (Commissioner DeMa�tini absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m. 10 Item No. 5 Regular Action PROJECT LOCATION 2600 Summit Drive Before Constrt�ction Under Construction City of Burlingame Item No. 5 Regular Action Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2600 Summit Drive Meeting Date: June 24, 2013 Request: Application forAmendment 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, including a new deck area off 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: 15301 Class 1(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt provided the addition 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. June 10, 2013 Regular Action Meeting: Before the scheduled meeting on June 10, 2013, the applicant submitted a request in writing that the item be continued to the June 24t" Planning Commission Meeting so that they could revise the deck design in respect to the Commissioners comments. A neighbor (2614 Summit Drive) who had come to the meeting requested to speak, so the Commission opened the public hearing and took public testimony from the neighbor. The Commission then voted to continue the item to the next Planning Commission Meeting on June 24, 2013, at the applicant's request. May 13, 2013 RegularAction Meeting: Atthe 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 permit was 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 window from the garage along the front elevation; reducing the size of several windows along each elevation; and removing Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2600 Summit Drive 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 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 June 12, 2013�: 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 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 stam ed: June 12, 2013 APPROVED PREVIOUS REVISED PROJECT PROPOSAL PROPOSAL ALLOWED/ 06/18/10 plans) ; (05/01/13 plans) (06/12/13 plans) ; REQUIRED SETBACKS ; _._.._.._ ...........................................................................................__......_........._..__.._..........._..........__................................................_............._............................__..................:................._................. . Front (1st flr): ; 131' (to formal DR) no change no change 15'-0" (2nd flr): ; 143' (to turret) no change no change 20'-0" _ ......................................................................:......_......................................................................._..............._...._..---............:..............................................._........._................................._............................................................ ; Side (left): ; 7'-0" (to garage) no change no change 7'-0" (right): ; 40'-0" no change no change 7'-6" Rear (1st flr): � 56'-5" (to FR/dining) 15'-4" (to deck) 15'-4" (to deck) 15'-0" (2nd flr): : 53'-4" (to MB) no change no change 20'-0" 2 Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2600 Summit Drive APPROVED PREVIOUS REVISED PROJECT PROPOSAL PROPOSAL ALLOWED/ (06/18/10 plans (03/21/13 plans) � (06/12/13 plans) ; REQUIRED Lot Coverage: 4,755 SF 5,239 SF 5,161.1 SF 32,937 SF 5.8% 6.3% 6.3% 40% _............_._...__ ............................_..............._......:..._..__...__.....__...............__...................................._............._..........._......._.:.........................................................................................---..................._........................................ . . ; .1............ FAR: ; 6,516 SF no change no change 8,000 SF 0.08 FAR 0.10 FAR ---...........---.._....._..........._. .........................................._._.................................._.................................._...................__..._.......................:................................................................................._.............---............_......................................_.. ; _........_.._.......___.._ .......................................................................................................................... # of bedrooms: ; 5 no change no change --- _------. ................................ _,..............._............................---.._......................_.........................._................;..................................................................................................._...... .. . , , _,.....__..._ ....................................................._......_...............................,........................................................................................ Parking: ; 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20') no change no change (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') _.........._ ......................_.........................................._;......................................._............._............_................................._............._.....:...._....................................................._.................................. ; . . ................................................................................................._..................................................................................................... Height: 33'-4" 2 no change no change 30'-0" DH Envelope: ; complies no change 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: 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 Regular Action Calendar when 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. 3 Amendment fo Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2600 Summit Drive Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). 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 12, 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 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 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 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 Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 0 Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2600 Summit Drive 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, 405 Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010, applicant and designer Attachments: Letter from applicanYs representative describing changes made to project, date stamped June 18, 2013 Photographs of revised story poles outlining proposed deck and railing, date stamped June 18, 2013 M'inutes from the June 10, 2013 Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Photographs from neighbor at 2614 Summit Drive, submitted at June 10, 2013 Meeting Letter from applicant requesting continuance of project to another meeting, date stamped June 10, 2013 Applicant's response to Planning Commissions Comments, date stamped May 29, 2013 Minutes from the May 13, 2013 Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Letter from the property 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 Application to the Planning Commission Applicant'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 ApplicanYs 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 June 12, 2013 City of Burlingame Erica Strohmeier, Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame CA 94010 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 ser�itive to privaey issues and are eager to address the concerns of the neighbors on Belvedere as well as the commission's concerns. In reviewing �l-ie project with Mr. and Mrs. Gumas, a decision was made to rotate a portion of the proposed d�ck further away from the Gumas property line by 5'-4" so that any possible view into the neighboring back yard would be mitigated. We had also reduced the size of the deck 3'-4-1/2" to the far left side curvature of the deck per plans and elevations. In addition to this change to the plans, the Gumas' are willing to plant two 24' box trees on their property to further screen any view that they may have into the neighboring back yard as well as screen this neighbor's viekv of the deck. While we are aware that there are no guarantees of privacy according to the Burlingame Neighbor Design Guidebook, we are offering these proposed changes in order to be sensitive to privacy issues that have been brought to our attention. Thank you far �his opportunity to further consider ow proposed addition. Should you ha�e additional quesiions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 415-203-5726. Sincerely, David Cauchi � +�Ci�,�� ,, � ;�. � � ,� y �° � C «--, � "�. . _.- i i� �� „n,� .�U,: :� � LvIJ s�ll"`1 UN �U�L?€�GR:EF(� ��—�L�;i�!l�i�SG i�4�/. . '�� ` - '" + j � =r- � ti ✓' � i�r��'YG�r ,, � � �: r f ^ �1�.��`.1 � yc ^ �. ` t �sK.^ky^'� n %��,�,��r��r � {��' /� �`T�� a'.�r�� `,..„�',�,/��,,' !�� s�� 4''� �� ';�/ C i';; �` / �-�` CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 10, 2013 Chair�rgent called for a voice vote o the motion to a rove. The mo "on passed 7-D�0-0. App al proce res were advi d. This item conc ed at 8:04 p.m. � � � 6. 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 (ITEM CONT/NUED FROM THE MAY 93, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ITEM HAS BEEN CONT/NUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.) This item was continued to June 24, 2013 at the applicant's request. City Attorney Kane advised that to accommodate the request for public comment, the Commission should go through the regular steps of noting ex parte contacts since the last meeting, open the public hearing, and accept the input from the member of the public who has come to speak and anyone else who is waiting to do so. After the input there can be a motion to continue the item to a date certain. The staff report does not need to be presented since the Commission will not be considering it. Chair Sargent indicated that he had ex parte communication with a neighbor. Commissioner Terrones indicated he spoke with a neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court; they pointed to the area on their property that they believe would be affected by the application. They did not discuss the merits of the project but he viewed from their property. Commissioner DeMartini indicated he spoke with the neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court. Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated he spoke with the neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he spoke with the neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court and encouraged her to work with the property owner to establish the property line. There is some discrepancy to who is trimming the tree and whose tree it is (related to view blockage). He also talked to the tapers on the subject property. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Anne Mahnken, 2614 Summit Drive, spoke on this item: ■ View goes out the back of the house and over the neighbors' property next door at 2606 Summit, and the 2600 Summit property. ■ Can't see the story poles since they are below the level of the trees. Was hoping the trees could be trimmed down so she could get the view of the airport again, like she used to have. They've been trimmed before, but it has been a couple of years since they were last trimmed. ■ Believes the trees are on 2600 Summit property, but it is hard to tell. ■ Concerned that if the deck goes out too far, it will block the view again once the trees are trimmed back. ■ The deck may be over on the side where she can't see it, but can't tell right now. ■ Thinks the big tree blocking the view is the big tree on the plan, at the corner of the house. Commission questions and comments: Your concern is if they trim the trees, you will see the deck? (Nankin: Yes, and the deck would then block the view.) 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 10, 2013 ■ We can't compel them to trim the trees, but it is something they could talk about between property owners directly. Staff can provide the contact information for the project architect. (Hurin provided) ■ (Hurin: Applicant has been instructed to show floor of the deck as well as the top of the railing with the story poles. They are working on revising the location and configuration of the deck, so the story poles will be adjusted to reflect the new design.) ■ Would it be possible for them to also indicate a 6-foot tall person too? (Hurin: We've never before requested that as part of story poles.) Chair Sargent moved to continue the application to the next Planning Commission meeting on June 24, 2013. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1207 BURL GAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC — PLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL SIGN REVIEW FOR CHAN S TO THE FA�ADE OF AN EXIST G COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KAR HESS, KATE SPADE; APP ANT; TPG ARCHITECTURE, AR HITECT; RONALD KARP, PROPE TY OWNER STAFF CONTA : RUBEN HURIN Reference staff repo ated June 10, 2013, with attachm ts. Senior Planner Hurin briefly pres ted the project description. No x parte communications were re rted and all Commissioners had vi ed the subject property. There w.e no questions of staff. C ir Sargent opened the pub' comment period. Kare ess represented the applic t. ■ B ught photos from a store th . was just completed at Santa onica Place, for reference. It ope d about three weeks ago. ■ Also otos of an interior mall store at was recently completed. Commission que ions and comments: ■ Storage area in the back, will those not be -, art of the project? (Hess: are not taking that space, it is not art of our leasable area. We � be putting a demising wall in. ■ Describe the bra cabinet? (Hess: It is a brass p' el. Our logo and signage are uted out of that panel and backed with a piece of plexiglass and en it's lit from the interior. It i light cabinet but people would on see the brass panel.) Concerned about the ale of the storefront. Sephora i reat, it's bright, but it's tall. S ilarly, the Pottery Barn/Banana Re blic stores across the street th torefronts are tall, the scale is assive. As you work your way up m this store, at the jewelers an ingalaba the awnings are do n at a 'ce scale, but here the sto ront is pushed really tall. Unde andable to want to have presence a light, but in the rendering i ooks like the doors are going to between 9 and 10 feet tall. How tall ' I they be? (Hess: 12 feet the underside of the awning. ically we'd want a minimum of 30 inc s for signage, so doors Id be about 10% feet.) ■ The doo to the office (next door to e right) and the jewelers have ' e scale, with the transoms above. T there are awnings as yo work your way up the street. ■ Could bring e awning lower and have 'ndows up high to let light into t deep recesses of the store — a typic torefront design. Or poss introduce a secondary awning an 8-foot height and still have the qla doors — it could be a rela elv thin horizontal band. 15 �, �� .. ��, �� ;rr �� j � k —' ua � . , . _ ;. ,, � � �,,, r �.. x � , „ ��— � " , .m�:� . � _ _ ____ y�� p,ri H .... _ = ; ��Mi. �,.� a� . , _. ,,.- �Sh, . ,�..� .t.f,., .�.� �,.L,,.�.,_..�. �a, �at.:..,..., u...��3:�s,.� �� f. fr °i'�;. „�;�,=,y � Yi4 �i � � I� _n o � c" � �o� � z�o � a c� _' � C � C`1 � m � � ti N �7 �` CJ C �;, � C 4� ,2'y, ., O � � O � � ti � � � 1', � � b � � . � .. �. . . ri. { w { � i F` � �" � � ' � � � p i i I 6 i[ r �!i � �i �` iia ti �� ^ ,. ��. � �r i, �l��,li S p� �� y t ri [' i � r. Y, � s ' . ��rl i'� P � " ` . � ° �� '. �� 4f` � 'I�c ' � � : Y{ p . '.: . � _, 1 � ) � �� P� : t , �� t !. y ' ,e`� y14b" _� _ �-"^' t r �� ti > i �N+'4 �� 3��'. � �' uf � '1 � � 1-W� � �Y .; �'� � — � � i. i< N � 'G l � F t� r i � r �+ _ �-a � �� . !� ..,I r �� ; c " + M„ � i � ��"� A �� "' � A J, Y X , �' � ` '"#: I ' �� R , ,1 ,. t . �,� M1. x. f ., 1. .v � , ,a� r ,• ( �cl E�. ' { � '.1�, 1 � n L � 4.�, ,.� -� $ J�� ( '� y j "u�� ... f` 1 {� �{�� 9Y ��t[f � '�� °,1 ��n ry.✓ � r"� � t�1� � �,: , N pc � r �� '�� .. �id��t�r u � � �. � Y �4�ti'� ' � � S f" 7� � � ' y� z � �� : � � r,�� i � . . , . �, �... , .�, . „z.�+ {�f � I � � � � �t t Y ti�� r� ��w, b t�� i r� � t �rt�i �,�t� � ,.' � s. �� i .t . t. � �:f% i r i.� A��'p r : � � A i i � � , �y, i�5 ? i ,t � i ,t a+ � 1 4 � Y} „� �. � � ,?.'„eA � �� . . '�,� , . r°, 4 N� j��✓ � � � �.��P �,,_� 2 � i � �';a %� a, .. , '` � . V t a �: �f �J y > ,_ 1 � r � � ti� 'ii � { F � � H d1 ? � t 14j �1 y, 4 ��i ;, � �mir � { L ,��.. 1 h`r�� r t�� 1 1,�` r � �� d �� }, r d'ty. f' ��§(f{�"q !FM" l� �� [fdi�� , i �41 o�� ryy O � 6 0 & � ° z C'j Z � o I�l cZi Z o p�� G� W I f 1 m � � � y � � �� z r ; � 1 � � � o w � � n � � � r � b � � C OlYlM(INI CA TION R ECEI VED �4FTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT Received After 06.10.13 PC Meeting Agenda Item 6 260Q Summit Drive Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 June 5, 2013 City of Burlingame attn: Erica Strohmeier , Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: Response to Planning Commission's recommendations per meeting minutes on May 13, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission, �-�� gs� r ��S��g � �e � _ � � s...� "__.� t A� ..�. .�,-� J �J �`� � ii %: � �'; ,; Lii'! QG bi�rii �i�,�::"-'.r,li�s� C�G-FWf�i�!iti� L s`v; VVe thank you for your concerns and suggestions made with regard to our application for design re�iew 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. In review of the project with Mr. and Mrs. Gumas it is request to continue our project to the next planning commission hearing due to the reasoning that we would like to reply and revise the deck design in respect to the commissioners comments. 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 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 Planning 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 Summit Drive. We too, are architecturally sensitive and very eager to address your concerns. In review of the project 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 ��f�� IAY .� � 20i3 �IN OG BURLING�M� CDD-PL:^,NlVfNG Diif, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — 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 outline 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 Belvedere 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 C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Unapproved Minutes 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. It's 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 interface 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. � CpMlli UNICATdON RECEIYED ,gFf'ER PREPARATION t?F 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/PLGStrohmeier, Erica Subject: Re: Received After - 2600 Summit Drive Connie: Thank you for forwarding this letter to us from our neighbors below. 05.13.13 Meeti ng �genda Item 7 2600 Summit Dr. _ ��3� MAY �. 3 2013 �ITY OF �URLiNGAME CDD-PLANNINC Dilf 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 insulting 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 ta 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 reeord, we no longer have dogs! 3. 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 of these people! 1of2 C(�1v_TML �'�%ICAT10;1' R� C,'f�:l1° �;�` AFTEI� PRFP,4R� "llUN QF" STAFF R FPOKT 05.13.13 Meeting Agenda Item 7 2600 Summit Dr. �4 �nr,�1 � �t�� :. M�Y 1 3 2013 ��ry o� �ua�.t�v�at�� ?t�-Pl�NII�G Di�f Firnally, uve 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 leg�l rights to build this modest deck on our property that will add value to and enhance our property far years to come. V�e 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. Unfortur?ately , I had to undergo a serious surgery last week, so I am physically incapable of attending th�is evenings meeting. We hereby appoint our architect Jesse Guerse as our official representative. Thank yo.0 for your consideration. Jolhr And Janice Gumas Owrers 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame 2 of 2 �. To: The Planning 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 we 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 property 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 lot of profanity that is completely 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 l Oft. The loss of privacy goes as wide as 12 feet. This is our kids play area which will have a trampoline and play structure. Thank You Todd Lowpensky Cinda Bailey 3 Belvedere Court, Burlingame ��l�� IAY � 3 2�1i3 ClIY OF BURLINGAt�E CDD-PWNNING DIV: � � � � ' � � ' �a :�� + � �� J :.� �r� ; � � � "., ��'�'�� . . I �� :� '�i :. +' r"�g "�,� � x.. f �`' . �: .r _, , y . ;�' iy-_9'., .,�_. �ti rr: c, � �� : f�. `< I �, � � �^ t. '3" t � ��-s � €- 'r.��e '`� ,`� , �� ! :.- n:. w,�� ,t � _ �;.- •� ' : , �� _ � . . ' � ' — i�� L � z�y�� I , 4 • ' . � .. . . , �c.� �j ' . � ,: .. � .. " �� .., �- . _ . . ' �� . . . � . ... �'4�� .y .. . ' , � , � " .. 1 i f�:. . �_ . , . , . . � . ,. . .0 3� � .�%:.... ., .. ... ,... _ . .. ' .. . . ' ^ . . . ._ . � �AY � � ZOi3 �ITY OF BUFiLINGA�� fJ-PLAt��IING [31�! Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 May 1, 2013 City of Burlingame attn: Erica Strohmeier , Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: Response to Planning Coinmission'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 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: 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 Mahnken 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 lower 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 exterior elevation and section. Thank you for this opportunity to further consider our proposed addition. Should you have additional quest' n`or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650-703-6197 Sincerely, I i' � Jesse Geurs Principal �� 1A'l �� :z 2013 �ITY OF EURLiNGA4�E �D�-Pi_F+P�i�lI�I� Qi11, 2600 Summit Drive — Photograph�s of installed story poles (April 30, 2013) 2600 Summit Drive — Photographs of installed story poles (April 30, 2013) :� :�;° . :... y�� I- �i4 a�, �i��y t,� � `Y '+ !� rs ��r �S ��A -.�� y A #�f_f .'� ._ � ,�.- � � E�`� tP � . f � �r � � t � '^'�t <' l %- t. � P 3 ;"� �p � � �. rd ;�� } � fi � g � � 3 ...'y � 1�` `': � � ,�.= _ yq. � A Y` t ;``, 4. '^ bf'� i ��• � 9 � ' �� v 1i: r_::.'�rB�I. � �.r � -� . �}��n ��.� � f` "'�T � � �� ,-�'-� 1+�1 _' _ei ii ..�`� I T'_ t_ F.� � v,�.+ � 4a? � ': ;: tP; �' -x - ,, d b', e 7� �S�• ¢ �- , r �;, x, ,ti rR �. � F"+ � � t +� �: A pv j'��'�' 't. I � k ¢. �� } � � J � �� ro„ •'S �F'�ii � '-� � � P 5 1� � V� � F �} ,. '...� �� - ar� ��+%-�-- 9,� 9 � � 0 &t.� � �1 � � ` � �� ._ � €#,;.t.y? �� `�` �+,��+= r' K��_ t �. ti +�?� T i 4��[ � . - ' `��..� 1 ^F��Z. y � �t`': �-�-'l.a,'a� �3�5 �..''34. ', } - �,..t `�.t r , f i } b� �`,7 �4 �' .,.� .r.,, _ y • � tl�� Y'' �S �'+��•'�. ��/`f ( ..' .y{., �• +�tid �# ; s f �fi % � l S .� , . . �`+ � .t' , � ' i . . .. �`5 i . - ,&.�-E�-��"�rs-�� 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 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.EVIOUSLY 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 April 8. 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier, 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 applicant: ■ 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 that 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 possible 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 that e�ends 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 overlooking 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 seems 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 defined. ■ 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.) ■ Would it be possible to visit 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 neighbor what 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 would be a view blockage, but saying that she did not know what the view impact would be. In that case it's 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 vote on the motion to place this item on the REGULAR ACTION CALENDAR when p�ans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones a,bsent). The P/anning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item conc/uded at 9:27 p. m. 21 ��.::�� To see ail the details that are visible on the screen, use the "Print" link next to the map. Submitted by nei�hbor at Design �eview Study Meeting April 8, 2013 CITY OF SURLINGAME PLANNING DEPAR"PMF,"N'f 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 c o ��,c�� APPLICATION 'I'O TFIE PL,A.7rTI'�ING COIi�I1VIISSIOI�T '�,,,�.�r, Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Pertnit Other Parce( Number: Project address: 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 APPLICANT �: Name: GEiJRSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC. Address: 405 BAYSWATER AVENiJE City/State/Zip: BURLINGAMF CA 94010 Phone (w): 650.703.6197 (}��; 650.343.30J3 t�: G50.558.9324 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: GELJ1tSE CONCFPTUAL DFSIGN, INC. Address: `�05BAYSWATERAVENUE City/State/Zip: B�-INGAMP., CA 94010 Phone (w): �50.703.6197 �h�; G50.343.30J3 � fl: G50.558.932�F P1�OPERTY OWW1oi�R JOHN GUMA.S Address: 2600 SUNIMTT DRIVE ` City/State/Zip: BLJI2LINGAME, CA 94010 Phone (w): 415�G21�7575 (h)�. �fl � Please indicate with an asterisl� * the contact person for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �W DECKEXTENSIONATEXISTINGPOOLDECKING. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I he y� r�i€�under penalty ofperjury that the information given herein is true and correct to , e`bes of my l�nowledge and belief. ; �� % r � Applicant's I know about the application to the Property owner's 0 r Date: 3/26/13 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 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Admenment to design review for new deck extension to the residence located at 2600 Sumtnit 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 and around the pool. The pool deck and coping are slated to be re- hardscaped in lightweight stone pavers. In designing we would like to extend 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 commissioners to please review and approve the added deck extension. Thank you for your attention regarding this project. Should you have additional questions or concerns, p �e do not hesitate to contact us at 650.703.6197 Sincerely, Jesse Geur e �� Principal � • � < < _� :� , _.. � ��._.��' ��a� � e ��:� � s�i' F/• p� I�'�' � �I_I�'tLE€�aC�.�.IV;� ��N�_«;s,:�;.;v°;�;e: � 3 �� .� K .�.�. �. �s �, ,. , a a, � _ � m Ab,��mm� Project Comments Date: �� From: March 25, 2013 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subje�t: 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 St�ff Review: 1) 2) 3) �) 5) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building Code, 2010 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2010 California dViechanical 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 including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1813. �lace 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.) Or� the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that rec�uire 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 Co,�y of the plans prior to performing the work. Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. Pravide fully dimensioned plans. ti 6) Provide a fully 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 __ _......----- Reviewe�y ,�l Date: 3-26-2013 �� CITY=: ,�r _ `�i: ` -�'"'=•. DATE: TO: FRQM: GITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM November 6, 2012 Pianning Commission Erica S+,rohmeier, Associate Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 SUBJECT: FYI — REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVFD DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, 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, Pianning 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 to 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 replacing some windows with French doors, and which wiil 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 elevafion; 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 the 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. If the Commission feeis 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. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue, Buriingame, CA 94010, designer. ATTACHMENTS: • Explanation letter from designer, date stamped October 23, 2012 Previous FYI memo from September 10, Planning Commission Meeting Previous explanation letterfor changes, date stamped August 24, 2012 June 28, 2010, Planning Commission RegularAction Minutes Proposed Second Level Floor Plan and originally approved and proposed stamped October 23, 2012 Building Elevations, date Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, Califomia 94010 e October 17, 2012 City of Burlingame Attn: Erica Strohmeier, Zoning Technician 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: FYI-2 for rear elevation window revision and minor alterations to the residence located at 2600 Sum�nit Road for planning and planning commission review and approval. �ear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning / Planning Commission, , TVIx and Mrs. Gumas had requested some additional alteration to the residence due interior �ssues and minor modifications to exterior due to previously approved FYI-1 �e had made all revisions in attached 11"x17" FYI-1 plans and explain the changes as �ollows: 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 FURNITLIRE PLACEMENT AND REPLACE WITA 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 VISIBLE FROM FRONT OF RESIDENCE. 5) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REDUCTION OF WINDOW HEIGHT 1N BATHROOM DUE TO PRIVACY AND ADJACENT NEIGHBORS PRIVACY. 6) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR RBMOVAL OF WINDOW IN GARAGE DUE TO FUTURE SHELVING ON 1NTERIOR. 7) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REMOVAL OF SHED ROOF EXTENSION AT TURRET TO SIMPLIFY THE DESIGN. 8) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REMOVAL OF WINDOWS EACH SIDE DUE TO INTERIOR KICTHEN CABINET CONFLICT 9) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR REMOVAL OF TRANSOMS FOR FULL HIIGHT CLEAR WINDOWS FOR BAY VIEW DUE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FYI-1 - GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS OCTOBER 17, 2012 l Oj REQUEST APPROVAL FO€2 REDUCE HEIGHT OF WINDOW DUE TO FUF2NI'TURE PLACEMENT IN MASTER BEDROOM LOUNGE. Thank you for your attention regarding this project. Should you have additional questions or� concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650.703.6197 Sincerely, Jesse Geurse Principal ; � E t��, �r '.�-l:- �y��; �• • -• CITY �F �URLINGAME Communify Development Department MEMORANDUM September 4, 2012 Planning Commission Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: September 10, 2012 SUBJECT: FYI — REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits far height and attached garage for first and second story addition to an existing single f�mily dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive was approved by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2.010 (JunL 28, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A buiiding permit was issued on May 30, 2012 and tre �roject is currently under construction. In a letter dated Augusi 24, 2012, the pr.oject architect is requesting an FYI to remove all grids �6om the windows and doors at the rear elevation and on the windows and doors towards the �ear of the left elevation and io change the size of the glass doors at the rear of the house. The desig�er submitted a letter and originaily 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 proposed revisions listed above and detailed in the designers lefter dated August 24, 2012, there are no other changes proposed to �he design of the house. Planning staff would note that because of the minor revision to the windows at the rear and left s'rde 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 am action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner c. Randy �range, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road # 203, Burlingame, CA 94010, architect. F�'TTACHM�NTS: �xplanation letter from designer, date stamped August 24, 2012 ,�une 28, 2010, Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes Originally approved and proposed rear and left side Building Elevations, date stamped August 24, 2.012 Geurse Conceptua� Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, Califomia 9401� August 22, 2012 City of Burlingame attn: Erica Strol�meier, Zoning Technician 501 Primrose Road Buriingame, CA 94010 re: FYI-1 for rear elevation window revision to the residence located at 2600 Su�nit Road for platuung and planuiiig commission review and approval. Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning / Plaiu�ing Commission, Mr and Mrs. Gumas had requested a minor alteration t� t�P residence due to the beautiful I80 plus view of the Bay, City of San Francisco and San Jose. We had demolished the residence and cleaned the site and what we saw was a georgeous view. Due to this view we would like to change the rear elevation windows and doors "ONLY" We had made all revisions in attached 11"x17" FYI-1 plans and explain the changes as falla�vs: 1) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR TE� REMOVAL OF GRIDS DUE TO SPECTACULAR VIEWS. GRIDS REMOVED DUE TO VISUAL OBSTRUCTION. TYPICAL ONLY AT REAR OF RESIDENCE. 2) REQUEST APPROVAL FOR TT-� REMOVAL OF GRIDS AND INCREASED DOOR SIZE IN WID`I`�3. Thank you for your attention regarding this project. Should you have additional questions or cancerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650.703.6197 Sincerely, Jesse Gel Pruicipal �� - _.. .� � � . '�i �� `� " � `- u�l if �.'` �':i._�;'?`IF.�t�.^I:r.,� ✓�i.,'t�`. ��`.t�i;`c��:�� _ ?(;, CiTY OF BUf�LINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 2. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILL��DE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARA.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 Development Director;dleeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Noted letters received from John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive, and Chr�s 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 of the window style, (Geurse—will be aluminum-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 substantially 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 problems resolved between the neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was ciosed. Additional Commission commenfs: ■ 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 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 staf�; 5 CITY OF BURLINGAF�IE PLANI►!lNG COMMISSIDN — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 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 Superviso�'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 recyciing containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be piaced 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 compiy with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for constructien 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 City Council on appeai; which shall remain a part of ali sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shali 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 complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires afFected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet afl 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 certificati�n of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff wili 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 CIT}' OF B�lRLINGAME PLANNING COMMlSSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discu�sron of motion: • Regard/ess of what the neighbors eventuallyagreed to; the project is nowapprovable whetherornot the neighbors approved of it. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Visfica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 7 Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung 2606 Summit Drive Burlingame, Ca , 94010 C��11VI�TIOIV RECEIi�E� �F'7�R �'REP��'df1� t1F �S�'F �EI'QR� J�tne 28, 2010 PC Meeting 06.28.10 Agenda Item #2 Planning Commission Zi�d $ill'T11711t �1'IV@ I�esign Review Board City of Burlingame Subject: Design review on a proposed new addition on Gumas's proper-ty i,n 2600 Summit Drive, Burlingame, Ca 94010 Dear Plazming Commissioners, We are the owner residents at 2606 Sununit 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, 2010, and multiple discussions with the Gumas on our concerns of the trees blocking the Ngai's window view to the corner of Belvedere and Sununit. Both the Gumas and the Ngai have agreed to a final resolution which has mutual benefits to both parties. The Ngai have agreed 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 maintain a clear window vi:ew to the bay specifically on the corner of Belvedere and Sununit. We believe this resolution can help to maintain a good neighbor relationship and we wish the Gumas the best for their new addition. Sincerely, C�� ,, � � 1,/�/L� �� `��' �`�Z� Chris & Yolanda Ngai ` � ��.�; .,�-_ - -�_� E _ ._ F E� �`-, h__ E.�.� ��i_�I\J �.. t` L��i; �I I { _� EU�,_Ii�i3r�:�nE .'I��r.i;�nl:`,�. ; - -. . ___, ,_ CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 91, 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 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. Majoriry 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 tur�et 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 appiicant. 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 Visfica moved to deny the projecf without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. 14 CITY OF B49RLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Approved Minutes January 11, 2010 D�scussion 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 fhe motion fo deny wifhout prejudice. The motion passed 6-0. Appea! proeedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:90 p.m, 15 ClTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Sepfember 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, ING., 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 number for the 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. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 28, 2009 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: ■ None. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. X. '\COMMISSIONER�' REPORTS � were no Com issioner's Reports. ��rno�c ocnno sion Communic�iions: Actions fro Regular City Co cil meeting of Sep�'ten ■ 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? 7CI1. er 21, 2009: '� ge to existing st efront entry in mater-ials for the liding doors. �e vr�il they be stor ? Chair Te�ones adjourned the meeftpg at 7:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary � 0 n 0 Project Comments Dat�: April 22, 2010 �o; � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff Subj'ect: Request for Design Review, Hiliside 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 Revi�w: N/A All previous comments still apply. R�viie�nred by: V V ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 G NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Date: 5/01/2010 Project Comments Date: To: From: November 17, 2008 [� City Engineer (650) 558-7230 tJ Chief Building OfFicial (650) 558-7260 ❑ Gity Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing singie family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-110 Staff Review: November 24, 2008 �. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary appurtenant work. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 12/15/2008 „,�.�.�....�� ,�. � � �m,: w.� �a.,�_�.,�,� �.�, _.a �,,, F_.� �, .� �,��.m,�., � Project Comments Date: To: April 22, 2010 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-723Q X Chief Building OfFicial (650) 558-7260 ❑ Recyciing Specialist (650) 558-7273 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney ❑ Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7334 From Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-110 S#aff F�eview: N/A 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) �n the plar�s specify that this project will compiy with the 2007 California Building Codes (CB�). Per the City of Burlingame's adopted Resolution, applications received after January 1, 2009 must comple#e a"GreenPoint Rated Checklist”. The GreenPoint Rated Cl�ecklist, and other information regarding the City's Green Building requirements, can be found on the City website at the following URL: http:l/www.bur{ingame.org/Index.aspx?paqe=1219 or Contact Joe McCluskey at 650-558-�273. Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. Provide fully dimensioned plans. Provide existing and proposed elevations. ;ndicate cn the plans that all work shall be conducted within the limits of the �ity's Noise Ordinance. See City of Burlinqame Ordinance Municipal Code, Section 13.�4.100 for details. �his proj�ct will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-manth period exceed fi�fty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structu,re shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2007 California Building Code for new structures. 8) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy �f the building is fo occur unti! a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 9) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, ard a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issue� until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 10)Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Note: All projects for which a building permit a�plication is received on or after January 1, 2010 must comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.enerqV.ca.qov/title24/2008standards/ for publi�ations and de�ails. 11)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 12)Show the dimensions to adjacent strucfures. 13)Rooms that can �e used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The area labeled "- Lounge" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. 14)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. 15)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 16)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 17)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9 Reviev�ed by: , �J Date: ��3�� / �-s Projec� Comments D�i�: November 17, 2008 To: � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 IvPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 o City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Froim: Planning Staff S��bject: Request for Design Reviev�v, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing singie family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-110 Stafff Revievm: November 24, 2008 1) On the plans. specify that this project will com�ly with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). �) Anyone �avt�o is doing business in the City must nave a current City of Burlingame business license. 3) Provide ;�Ily dimensioned plans. 4) Pravide exisYing and proposed elevations. 5) This project �r✓ill be considered a New Building I�ecause, according to the City of Burlingame M�anicipal code, "when additions, alterations o� repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fif�� percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structur�, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2007 California Building Cocte for new structures. 6) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescirrde�l once construction begins. A inew Certificate of Occupancy will 6e issued after tMe p�roject has been finaled. No occu�pancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate rf Occupancy has been issued. 7) S�iow tf�e distances from all exterior walls to praperty lines or to assumed property lines 8) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 9) Provid� � complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, an� a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is nssu�d foir the project. 10) Campl�r with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non- residential buildings. Go to http://www.enerqV_ca.qov/title24 for publications and details. 11) R�oms: tYtat ean be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specifiy the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings 12; Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. �onsult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 13} Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 14} Provide lightung at all �xterior landings. 15) The fireplace chimneys must terminate at least two feet higher han any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 211�. Reviewed by: % / � G'�� Date: � � � Project Comments Date To: From April 22, 2010 � City Engir�er (650) 558-7230 ~ Chief Building Official (650} 558-7260 ~ Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7334 Recycling Specialist (650} 558-7273 Fire Marshal �650) 558-7600 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2600 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-110 Staff Review: N/A 1. No tree 48" or over may be removed without permit from Parks Division (559- 7330). 2. if construction is within drip line of existing trees, a Tree Protection Plan must be in plaee to pratect trees during all phases of construction. Reviev�red by:, B Disco Date: 4/30/10 CiRBAN TQREST MAN.9CEMENT PLAN � /� V f � � ` \ L,� �� . .� .�---- ;� � �JJ+ � �t`T " �; " + '�� -� .�5 ::r�. _-.' . ... ... {pt�7E�T`E� 'R�iCii EXiST3li� ; R:E€ TO RE7ARIH. PRQI�GTIYE FE�G��6 Ti'�'f€5: 1. PROTEC�I�JE FE?7�.1�6 S2�+tLi 0E $�GHT fl�,iTi�E �LYPRtS�XL€HE FE�Ctl4[t. �. !t�]THiliG 114��E biiE pR3r�i11iE ,tR�. 5?i;�,a.L BE e�,xEn. c€�r. sr�t�. �a dTHERWdSE AISiTJ'R6E➢, ,3. GOii7RA�'fOR �F'�kEL I� E;�"T�E'�1� GJtStE viND pit01'EC�f d1LL s.XtSTING TRE�S T� RE►i�Ji�, als FEEQt1�i:'E�Y BY W{DSt�:PE FLxN. �. TRE� PSiIITEL1ELN 37t?�L B€ 3itST�1LLED 7al Aa."'G9f��,K1#C€ '{{f7}i PRDJECT dA�€i357 R'iPO�kT ` .Ei7U SiL�.LL �E FN�PECT€zl ; T�� T��1 �E�� ,�� a►� p�� `'.. . . .. 7C1 TF�€ ��EPTIOFt tJF k�tTT ��t T� ��A.'EQE i+F�RK. L'pc�rated July ZD, 2009 - 32 - 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 to Desiqn Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for chanqes to a previouslv approved first and second story addition to an existinq sinqle familv 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 24, 2013, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt provided the addition 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. 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 Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th dav of June, 2013 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. 2600 Summit Drive Effective July 5, 2013 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 12, 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 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 staf�; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope garage, which would include adding or amendment to this permit; of the basement, first or second floors, or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an 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 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; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. 2600 Summit Drive Effective July 5, 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 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. e CITY OF BURLINGAME ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �ynP,,1, BURLINGAME, CA94010 �%��P PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the follawing pu6lic hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2013 nt 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamhers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for changes to a previously approved firsf and secand story addition ta an existing single farnily dwelling, and a new deck area off the rear of the house at 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 027-271-110 (item rontinued from the /G1ay 13,1013 P/onning Commission MeetingJ Mailed: May 31, 2p13 (Please refer fo ofher sideJ � = _• - C6$V �f !�i"/Ali�c��e 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 informi�g their tenants about this notice. For a�ditional information, please call (f50) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director -_ . - �. - (Please refer to other side)