The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2614 Summit Drive - Approval Letter (2)City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June ll, 2001 California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 8. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE — ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS NGAI AND YOLANDA YEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Johnny Darosa, designer and applicant, was present to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the project has improved; the construction materials are more consistent; the cement block has been eliminated from the design; the entrance design issue has been resolved. Acting Chair Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the proj ect shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 8, 2001, sheets 1 through 5, and sheet T-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the December 18, 2000, memos from the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Dreiling, L,uzuriaga and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.me 9. 1433 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (WING M. TAM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JASON CHAN, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Wing Tam, owner and applicant, was present to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there have been great improvements to this project; nice design. C� Item # �� Action Calendar PROJECT LOCATION 2606 Summit Drive City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit For a First and Second Story Addition Item # � Action Calendar Address: 2606 Summit Drive Meeting Date: 06/11/O1 Request: Design review and hillside area construction pernut for a first and second story addition at 2606 Sununit Drive, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040) Property Owner: Yolanda Leung and Chris Ngai APN: 027-271-100 Applicant/Designer: Darosa & Associates Lot Area: 10,363 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Date Submitted: December 5, 2000 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary-Current Proposal (plans date stamped May 8, 2001): The applicant is requesting design review and a hillside area construction permit for first and second-story addition at 2606 Summit Drive, zoned R-1. The existing one-story house now contains 3,080 SF of floor area (030 FAR), and has four bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a new foyer that would add 53 SF to the first floor. The proposed 1,000 square foot second floor addition would add a master bedroom (with a walk-in closet) and bathroom, and an office. There is an existing attached 2-car garage which measures 29'-6" x 20' interior dimensions. The existing fourth bedroom on the ground floor would be converted to a den and is not considered a bedroom since it is open to the stairs that lead to the new second floor. The office on the proposed second floor is not defined as a bedroom since it is located on the landing at the top of the stairs, and one must pass through this room to get to the master bedroom. The addition would increase the floor area of the structure by 1,053 SF, for a total floor area of 4,133 SF (0.39 FAR) where 4,416 SF (0.43 FAR) is the maximum floor area ratio allowed. March 26, 2001 Regular Action Meeting: This proj ect was initially reviewed by the Plamzing Commission at the January 8, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting where the Planning Commission gave the applicant direction to make several changes to the plans (see details below). The applicant came back to the Commission on the March 26, 2001 regular action calendar with revised plans date stamped February 28, 2001. The Commission stated that the direction given to the applicant at the January 8, 2001 was not fruitful and referred the project to a design reviewer. The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns at that meeting: • repeat eave detail; • fascia shown on dormers at front elevations needs to be shown on other elevations; • windows on south elevation that are shown crashing into the roofline; • stucco wall on the west elevation stands out as different and massive; • arched entryway does not blend with the existing architecture; • windows on the second floor of the east elevation do not match the existing square windows on the first floor; and • existing architectural elements of planes and voids created with cement blocks punctuated by siding and stucco should be engaged on the second floor. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped May 8, 2001, which were reviewed by the design reviewer (see Design Review section and design reviewer's memo dated May 16, 2001, for an analysis of the revised project). The following revisions were made to the plans: • kick-out of stairs to second floor at the right front dormer has been eliminated so front wall is straight; • horizontal siding at front removed; • windows on second floor match existing i�rst floor windows; Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review 2606 Summit Drive • second floor shifted over 2'-0" toward the right creating a 2'-0" setback from both the left and right side first floor walls; • concrete block removed and replaced with stucco and wood fascia trim on all elevations; and • front entrance has been simplified with arch removed. Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (May 8, 2001 plans): The design reviewer's May 16, 2001 memo is attached. He notes that now the second floor is setback 2'-0" on both sides of the existing structure, thereby reducing the mass and breaking-up the two story wall that was originally proposed along the left side elevation. The triangular corner where the stairs kicked out on the second floor over the garage has been eliminated, thus solving the roof problem, and the entrance on the left elevation has been simplified to be more harmonious with the rest of the structure. The window design and sizes have been revised to be consistent with the existing windows. The three new trees to be planted along the right side, where there are existing trees, will mitigate the impact on the adjacent structures. The design reviewer notes that with the entire house, both existing and new, now stucco it has a more homogeneous overall appearance, and recommends approval of the project. CURRENT PREVIOUS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL EXISTING (12/05/00) �LOWED/ (OS/8/Ol) (02/28/Ol) �Q=D SETBACKS 15'-0" Front: Ist flr No change No change 15'-0" or block No change N/A g 2nd flr No change No change 34, avera e 20'-0" Side (left): No change No change No change 22�-�� 7'-0" Side (right): No change No change No change �5�-�� 7'-0" Rear: Istflr No change No change No change 36'-6" 15'-0" 2ndflr No change No change gs� N/A 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: No change 30.3% No change 29'8% 40% (3,145.5 SF) (3,093 SF) (4,145.2 SF) FAR: 4,133 SF/ 4,178.5 SF/ 4,126 SF/ 3,080 SF/ 4,416 SF/ 0.39 FAR 0.40`FAR 0.40 FAR 0.30 FAR 0.43 FAR PAIZKING: No change No change No change 2 covered 1 covered (29�-6�� X Zo°-o°�> �lo°-o�� X Zo°-o��) + 2 uncovered + 1 uncovered HEIGHT: No change No change 25'-4" 16'-11" 2'/2 stories 30' whichever is less DHEIWELOPE: Meets Meets Meets N/A See code requirements requirements requirements " existing nonconforming condition This project meets all zoning code requirements. �� Hillsiide Area Construction Permit and Design Review 2606 Summit Drive Staff Comments: See attached. January 8, 2001 Design Review 5tudy Meeting: At the initial Design Review study meeting for 2606 Suiruiiit Drive on January 8, 2001 the Plaiming Commission expressed the following concerns: • large massing of the left side, two-story wall; • suggested revisiting the alterations on the front of the building (garage), and relating them better to the existing building style; • they asked about the rational of covering the concrete block construction on the sides of the garage with wood accents; • confirm that the roof plan and stair arrangement are accurately depicted on the drawings; • verify the length of the addition on both the east and west-side elevations and make dimensions consistent with the floor plans; • consider adding a trellis or other defining element to demarcate the building entrance located along the west-side of the house; and • consider relocating the windows along the east-side property line to address privacy concerns expressed by the neighbors. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped February 28, 2001, which the Planning Commission did not feel addressed the concerns expressed above, and referred the project to a design reviewer. See section on page 1, March 26, 2001 Regular Action Meeting for review of resubmittal. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a hillside area construction pernut 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). Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows: 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. Planning Commission Action: The Pluuiing Commission should hold a public Hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Plamviig Department date stamped May 8, 2001, sheets 1 through 5, and sheet T-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building 3 Hillsicle Area Construction Permit and Design Review 2606 Summit Drive shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving ar changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditiorLs of the December 18, 2000, memos from the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer shall be met; and 4. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Keylon Planner c: Darosa & Associates, architect/designer � .� : ,.3 � w t e �2� : GUMBINGEI� ASSOCIATES - = 60 East Third Avenue, Suite 300, Scn Mateo, C4 94401 Fax: (650) 579-1402 • TEL (650) 579-0995 E-MaiC Gumbassoc@GumbingerAssociates,com AI�CHITECTS 98121.43/2.7 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 16, 2001 TO: Catherine Keylon, Planner City of Burlingame FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA�. RE: 2606 Summit Drive Burlingame REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED May 8, 2001 (Received May 14, 2001) GENERAL Sent Via Facsimile 342-8386 The Design Reviewer together with the staff planner met with the applicant's architect to review the design issues raised by the Planning Commission. The proposed second story addition has been set back 2'-0" on each side of the existing structure to reduce the mass and breakup the two story wall. The triangular corner of the second story over the garage has been eliminated thus solving the roof problem. The new side entrance treatment has been simplified and is now harmonious with the remainder of the structure. The window design and sizes are now consistent with the existing windows. The entire house, both existing and new, is now stucco making a more homogeneous overall appearance. DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTiJRAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The immediate neighborhood has both one and two story houses of divergent architectural styles. The architectural style of the proposed addition is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBOR�IOOD. The existing attached garage is appropriate to the neighborhood. 3. ARCHITECTDRAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN The architectural style of the proposed addition is consistent with the overall design of the structure. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE. The existing mature landscaping and trees on both sides of the existing structure and the additional new trees to be planted will mitigate the impact on the adjacent structures. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The proposed landscaping is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for the praposed addition. Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA Presldent & CEO Noemi K. Avram, AIA Associate City,c+f Bu Jingame P1aruling Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 �. This item ended at 10:45 p.m. 9. FLOOR AREA RATIO BASEMENT ORDINANCE — EXPANSION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO TO INCLUDE SOME BASEMENT AREAS 1N SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the summary of the proposed provisions to extend FAR to basement areas in single family houses in the R-1 district and noted how past Planning Commission revisions had been incorporated. Commission asked if open stair wells or light wells would be counted in FAR. Staff responded no, only if they were enclosed or covered would they be counted. CP noted comments in two letters from the public Mr. and Mrs. Hubner and Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comtnissioners corrunents: subcommittee did a good job drafting this ordinance and closing a loop hole in the ordinance, an example of which was on tonight's agenda, good reason to approve these changes. C. Osterling moved to recommend these regulations to extend the floor area ratio to some basement areas to City Council for adoption. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable, but will be forwarded to the City Council. The item ended at 10:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE ARRA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS NGAI AND YOLANDA LEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Johnny Darosa, 1299 Old Bayshore Highway, designer represented the project. He noted that he would answer any questions. Commissioners asked: difficult to tell on plans what is new and what is existing, are all the windows on the first floor and the gable window existing; the detail on the garage does not seem to match that of the house; do not understand why you want to cover up the concrete block construction with wood accents; the west elevation looks like a large wall, can this mass be broken up, can similar window detail to what exists be used; the front of the house where the stair kicks out is not represented correctly on the plans, it doesn't seem to work with the roof line, needs correction; would like the front (garage) to tie to the rest of the house; feel that he location of the mass of this addition is good; concemed about the treatment on the sides of the garage, the stucco coins, does not fit the rest of the house; feels like the angle tilt on the addition is awkward, explain; there appears to be a problem with the plans, the two sides of the second story rectangle scale with different lengths, something is wrong, 2 feet is missing from the elevation, this could have a dramatic effect since the building is too tall now; clay tile on roof should be flat; could you 13 ' Lity o`Bu.:lingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 1001 � �, build on the soft modern aesthetic of the house by adding a trellis to demarcate the entrance, use color to differentiate the design, use wood or composition shingle on the roof. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor: Leonard Borriso, 2600 Summit Drive spoke. He submitted pictures showing how this house faces into many of the rooms of his house (kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom, garage), the trees provide some privacy now, but not for a second story addition; would the view ordinance preclude them adding a second story at 2600 later because it would affect the view from the then existing second story on this house. CA noted that it depends upon the construction history and the proportion of the view blocked by the most recent addition. Commission noted plans show small trees on properiy line, could add more to screen addition, neighbors could also plant trees on their property, some shrubs grow as tall as 25 feet, these would be effective as well, could be a condition of approval. Proposed design needs to consider neighbor. CA noted process is not intended to create entitlements for those who go first. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Osterling noted that the changes discussed are sufficiently minor that this item can be put on the consent calendar with the direction that to address the neighbors concerns vegetative screening be added for the second floor addition and moved accordingly. C. Bojues seconded the motion noting that a condition should be added to clarify that the neighbor retains the right to add a second story. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Comment on the motion: the motion would work if commission was simply accepting the existing architecture, but in this case substantial work needs to be done to the front of the building and the second story wall along the side is also an issue; the neighbor does not have an absolute right to have their privacy protected, but sensitivity to the view is important, this is not a massive addition, it is placed at the center of the house. This appears to be a good candidate for design review, commission has given explicit direction, would prefer not to have on consent; direction would include manipulation of the windows on the property line to address privacy, will affect layout; given clear direction, architect agrees with changes if he executes them OK it could still be on action. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this on the consent calendar when it returns with direction to staff to also hold a space on the action calendar for this item for that meeting. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent)vote. The Planning Commissions action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:30 p.m. 11. 725 FARRINGDON LANE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT KLTEHNE, SUIIIZEZ- KUEHNE ARCHITECTLTRE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND ANNE GOYETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. The project was represented by the property owners Anne and Mark Goyette. They noted in their comments that this is presently a 2 bedroom house and they have three children, they took a previous design to a design reviewer a year ago and ultimately ended up with a new architect and redesigned project; they have spoken to their neighbors and all support, one wrote a letter; the design was devised to save the existing landscaping especially the large Magnolia in the rear yard. Commissioners asked how the height proposed compared to the adjacent 14 , Ci y o,fbu�•lingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 1B. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION�: = N REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHE ='' � GE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAMIN AND N�,1�-..: °`"� FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEB� & COMPANY, ARCHITECT) (ITEM !'VIHTTTATTTTT\ ... 1C. 1532 VANCOWER AVENUE — SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLII�I ADDITION (ROBERT ALLEN ; C. Bojues moved comments and the and by resolution Item lA at 16 voice vote._ f p.m. R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND �T ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY S, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK E1ND �pro , ;tT�e consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners '� r each in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports �e mohon was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; estmoor Road passed 7-0. Item 1C at 1532 Vancouver Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 ;hran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:09 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW t�ND HILLSIDE ARF•A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS ° NGAI AND YOLANDA YEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTI (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 12 2001 MEETINGI Reference staff report, 3.26.01, with attachments. Planner Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Johnny Darosa, applicant and architect, was present to answer questions. Commission asked: what changes were made to the proposed house in response to the Commission's comments at the study meeting? The applicant noted that all of the windows at the east elevation were reduced in size, siding had been added to the front entrance to match the existing siding, windows were added to the west elevation and the roof material was changed. Conunission commented: is there a discrepancy on the plans, on the second floor, left side of the east elevation, the wall is shown to be 2'-0" high, but on the south elevation this same wall is 7'-0" high. The entrance is out of context; archway of entrance does not blend with any other element of the house. The windows on the east elevation appear to look directly into the neighbor's yard; only reducing them in size does not improve privacy, did applicant look into relocating the windows?; large landscaping at the east elevation would help to screen the addition and insure privacy; please clarify which trees are existing on the east elevation, their approximate. size and which trees are proposed. On the south elevation on the right side, the windows appear to crash into the roof line below, this will be difficult or impossible to build. There is no architectural consistency to the house; original design is modern looking and the proposed alterations have tacked on many traditional details that are not appropriate; the original house has elements of wood siding, cement blocks and stucco, these materials and pattern of use are not echoed io the second floor; sudden change of materials at the corner of the second floor looks odd, as if materials suddenly ran out and so the addition does not blend with the existing house. 2 ' City cf Burlingame Planning Commission, Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 There were no further comments from the audience. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: the direction given at the study meeting does not appear to have been fruitful. The drawings need to be cleaned up and made consistent, needs to make sure fascia shown on dormers at front elevation is shown on other elevations, wall on the east elevation must be drawn correctly and match what is shown on south elevation, the windows on the south elevation that are shown crashing into the roof line need to be revised; redesign the front entry to blend with the existing architectural materials and clean lines of architecture in original house. C. Deal moved to refer the project to a design review consultant. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Further Commission discussion: this project is improving in summary for the design reviewer the applicant needs to address the following issues: repeat the eave detail; the stucco wall on the west elevation stands out as different and massive; the arched entryway does not blend with the existing architecture; windows on the second floor of the east elevation do not match the existing square windows on the first floor; the existing house has architecture of planes and voids, created with the cement blocks punctuated by siding and stucco, these elements need to be engaged on the second floor. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. 3. 2812 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT 1N ORDER TO PROVIDE A DRNEWAY TURN-AROUND (BASIL N. MUFARREH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED TO APRIL 9, 2001 MEETING) At the applicant's request this item was continued to the April 9, 2001, meeting to the regular action calendar. 4. 1447 BURLINGAME AVENUE — ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A— APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT (IQBAL SERANG, ARCHITECT; ELIO D. URZO, APPLICANT; BANK OF 11MERICA NT SA ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.26.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Iqbal Serang, architect, was present to answer questions. Commission asked if the signage shown on the plans was within the maximum allowed by code? Staff noted that no signage is addressed in this application, the applicant will have to make a separate application for signage. The architect indicated that he understood this clarification. There were no further comments. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Commission is satisfied with the responses submitted by the applicant � V CIT �,BURLJNCAMi CITY OF BURLINGAME ��, � J APPLICATION TO TIi� PLANNING CONIlVIISSION �',_,,.—i Type of Ap�lication:_Special Permit_Variance Other Project Address: �b D � �uw�ra�i'1� �J7► . l3cuf��%'�a.. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): ��' 7- �-I�- � c� APPLICANT Name: ��fliZrS IVCr,�J �' `�oC�N�A �7�tN F Address: Z6 0 6 `�a,m�+�' 7`D1Z, City/State/Zip: r3v�iz��r��.y,�;�� C� ��o(o Phone (w): �-1 S- 3 3L- 3�Zy (h): 6s7�- ?s'�F�- �z�-S PROPERTY OWNER Name: ��P.�s l��l � �/a[��- L�� Address: zb�'� �'��? rR• City/State/Zip: 3 $A� 1 � � !�n � � G�t �! �� Phone (w): �� -��' (h): 6 so- sy� Z- � d�b fax: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER �¢}Ras� � ./}sSociA7�s 'I'� Please indicate with an asterisk * the Address: /299 BAiStfoR� kl�y -(��aS �ity/State/Zip: $ � 2 +-rN �,�m� �}- � � r7 � � Phone (w): ��- 3�7- o�oz (h): f�:_ ��- 3�F�-�� contact person for this application. FROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��.ov, ��,�� v o��:�t� � �a� i o�- t1 wi Si� S AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATITRE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to tr►e best ot my knowiedge anci beiiet. - ' / �2� J ��y� � App 'cant' Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above apFlicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. /.��,;�� 0�� RECEIVED Property O�wner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -----------------------�-�- =-�--��90-- Date Filed: � 2 �S � 00 Fee: �� i,� , �D CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE.�REA 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 design review and a hillside area construction permit for a first and second floor addition at 2606 Suminit Drive, zoned R-1, Chris Ngai and Yoland Leung, property owners, APN• 027-271-100; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Plamiing Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 11, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testir�ony 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. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and hillside area conshuction permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such hillside area construction permit and design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. ACTING CHAIIZNIAN I, Joseph Bojues, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduoed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the l lth day of June, 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMIVIISSIONERS: ABSENT: COIvIlVIISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and hillside area construction permit. 2606 Summit Drive effective June 18, 2001 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 28, 2001, sheets 1 through 5, and sheet T-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the %rst or second floors, which would include ' adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the December 18, 2000, memos from the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. ��F, c�rr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ��=- BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �' TEL: (650) 558-7250 2606.SUMMIT DRIVE Application for design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and P U B LIC H EA RIN G second story addition at 2606 Summit Drive, zoned R-l. (APN: 027-271-100) N OTIC E Tlse City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MondaY, June 11, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed June l, 2001 j (Please refer to other sicle) A copy of the a to the meeting Burlingame, Ca] If you challerige raising only tho; described in �the at or prior to the Property owtiei•s tenants aboift th 558-7250.'Ihan� �; � Margaret Monro Ciry Planner � CI7'Y OF B URLINGAME ranei.glans for ihis;gro�ec,t:may be reviewed prior Platininb Depariment at 501 Primrose Road, �;d be limited to blic heanng, d to the city �� _ _ �u ming their call (650) � � �`�. � � (Please r-efer to otlzer side) � k, � �J 4,;�`�` �., ,� f- I,�� / � � � ^�� `bO �O �� OEL MON'�"� � S y�'�, �'6 �� 6 o�✓ � _ � � i r � p O � O j � s PRIV E � ��ti 0 ` ' y�< �s 8°'� °4 ` �� : . 3 QF� ��b �' ER� COt,t RT , u `w ��,.� � �� '�� . . � .. 3;'�z,v.. 1, i _;�" � 4` Frf ` w�:` ��+,��li�9s�"'v ` � e..r- 2�OC Sur��+�'" DR�vL . , - �:. �