The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2752 Summit Dr - Staff Report (2)Item No. 8a Regular Action Item '-�`f�. � . a�,� �4�� .`��-�i.-Y� Y�,� ��-4.. � � —_ � �� ~�g -� ��. i'� �":, « � <:z ( � ,r _ .�.�._ ��-,,,� � -� = a -:,�- � � -as ' �R r::: �� 4� il _ '�.. �._ ",� �'��'�' - _ :� d�� _ - . - - _ , �-_ � ;, _ _�� -_ ' � PROJECT LOCATION 2752 Summit Drive City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit, and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2752 Summit Drive Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Meeting Date: July 12, 2021 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Michael Kuperman Designer: Stepan Berlov General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-221-210 Lot Area: 12,505 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Projec� Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage and build a new, two-story single family dwelling and attach�d garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 5,020 SF (0.40 FAR) where 5,102 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The subject property is Iocated in the Hillside Area and Code Section 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing structure shall be constructed within �he affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. In addition, it states that review by the Planning Commission shall be based upon the obstruction by the 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. The new single family dwelling will contain five bedrooms. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the attached garage (23'-10" x 22'-11" clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is �n compliance with off-street parking requirements. On lots that slope downward more than 25%, the maximum building height is 20 feet above average top of curb. The s�bject property slopes downward along the left side by 26.3% and slopes downward along the right side by appraximately 25%. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for the second floor to extend beyond the declining height envelope (DHE) along both sides of the house. The second floor encroaches into the DHE along the right side by 101 SF (5'-7" x 18') and along the left side by 285 SF (5'-7" x 51'). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(1) and C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(6)); ■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling (C.S. 25.61.020); ■ Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)); and ■ Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right and left sides of the house (C.S. 25.26.035 (�))� Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit 2752 Summit Drive 2752 Summit Drive Lot Area: 12,505 SF Plans date stam ed: June 30, 2021 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL i REVISED PROPOSAL ; ALLOWED/REQUIRED 3/12/21 6/30/21 SETBACKS _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ . Front (1st flr): 32'-1" 32'-5° ' 32'-1" (block average) (2nd flr): 32'-1" 32'-5° 32'-1" (block average) _. _. _ __ - _ __ Side (left): 8�-6" 8'-6" 7'-0" (right): 9''3" 8'-7" 7'-0�� __ _ _ _. _ _ __ _.. _ __ Rear (1st flr): 50'-5° 50'-5" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 60'-5° 55'-6" 20'-0" _ . _. ... _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ Lot Coverage: 3,550�SF 3,070�SF 5,002� SF 28.4 /0 24.6 /0 40 /o __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FAR: 4,703 SF 5,020 SF 5,102 SF' 0.38 FAR 0.40 FAR 0.41 FAR _ _ _. _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ # of bedrooms: 5 5 ' --- __ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ 2 covered 2 covered (23'-10" x 22'-11 ° clear ' i23'-10" x 22'-11" clear 2 covered Off-Street Parking: interior) interior) (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') _.. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Building Height: 14'-11" 12'-11° ' 20'-0" __ _ _.. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ __. DH Envelope: encroachment along encroachment along Special Permit both sides both sides (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)) ' (0.32 x 12,505 SF) + 1,100 SF = 5,102 SF (0.41 FAR) ' Special Permit required for declining height envelope along the right and left sides of the house. Surr�mary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood • Doors: aluminum clad wood, bronze framed garage door with glass lights • Siding: wood, stucco, and stone • Roof: metal roof • Other: aluminum rainscreen metal panels, metal fence and gates, metal railing, Please also see attachments for examples of proposed exterior materials. Sta�F Comments: None. This space intentionally left blank. 2 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit 2752 Summit Drive Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on March 22, 2021, the Commission noted several concerns with the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached March 22, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes). Summary of the Commission's main concerns and comments: ■ Proposed project does not look residential, focus on character of the building; ■ Graphically difficult to see materials, clear up elevations and provide a 3-D rendering; ■ Materials not being used to define modern style; ■ Add more landscaping to the front of the property and at the rear and sides of the house; and ■ Story poles required to see what final massing will be like. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped June 30, 2021, to address the Planning Commission's comments and concerns. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. As noted above, the Commission directed that story poles be installed in order to review the massing. Story poles were installed as directed (see attached story pole certification and story pole plan). Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the project designer and property owner to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project, and reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, dated June 24, 2021, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that "the proposed modern style project fits in the ranch style neighborhood of low slung roofs because they both share a horizontal expression and present a low profile to the street." Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer recommends approval of the project as proposed. 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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the new house (featuring a variety of materials metal panels, stucco and wood siding, aluminum wood clad doors, and aluminum wood clad windows) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; that the proposed materials provides visual interest on all elevations and the architectural elements of the modern style structure compliments the neighborhood; and that the proposed project includes an attached garage, which is consistent with the garage patterns within the neighborhood. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria 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). 3 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permrt, and Special Permit 2752 Summit Drive Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: That the site is located on a sloping lot, which slopes downward from front to rear by more than forty feet, with the bulk of the second story addition towards the rear of the property and with mature trees along the rear property line and proposed landscaping along both side property lines screening the subject property, and that the front elevation interfacing with the street stili appears as a single story, the surrounding properties will not be impacted by the proposed new construction; that the two-story portion of house is located along the lowest portion of the site therefore would minimize any impacts on long distant views. For these reasons, the project does not obstruct distant views from habitable areas with nearby dwelling units and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with hillside area construction permit criteria. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Findings for Design Review and Special Permit (attached garage): That the proposed attached garage is consistent with the garage pattern in the neighborhood which consists of attached garages and that the proposed design of the garage is integrated well into the proposed structure and is not visible from the street (garage door faces side property line). For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the design review and special permit criteria listed above. Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): That because of the downward slope of the lot from front to the rear of the property by more than 25%, the point of departure for the declining height envelope along both sides of the house is 19 feet below the first story finished floor of the house which causes the declining height envelope to extend into the house at a lower elevation, and that the encroachment is consistent with the design. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria. 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 30, 2021, sheets A0.0 through A6.2, L1.2, L1.4, and L1.5 through L1.9; 2. that the existing pine tree at the rear, right side of the lot shall remain and shall be protected during construction; 3. 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 staffl; � Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit 2752 Summit Drive 4. 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; 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 for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, 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 applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. 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; 14. 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 15. 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. 5 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit 2752 Summit Drive 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Michael Kuperman, applicant and property owner Attachments: March 22, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated June 24, 2021 Proposed Exterior Materiais Story Pole Plan, dated June 1, 2021 Story Pole Certification, dated July 2, 2021 Letters of Concern Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application for attached garage Special Permit Application for encroachment into the declining height envelope Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed July 2, 2021 Area Map 0 CITY .r � ' �11 -` kT �k�,.ae:T � e Monday, March 22, 2021 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online d. 2752 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage. (Michael Kuperman, applicant and property owner; Stepan Berlov, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 2752 Summit Dr - Staff Report City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 2752 Summit Dr - Attachments 2752 Summit Dr - Plans All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had a conversation with the owner discussing the view and the hillside area construction permit. P/anning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the statf report. Questions of staff. > Can you clarify how the declining height envelope applies on the sides as you go down the slope? (Hurin: On these downward sloping lots, we have to figure out the point of departure where the declining height enve/oper starts at grade. That's detem�ined by the average of the front and rear property corners. So what happens on these downward sfoping lots is that the dec/ining height envelope gets pushed down because the average slope for the point of departure is going to be a lot /ower than the finished floor of the house. You'll see that often on these downward s/oping lots. On upward sloping lots, the reverse occurs and it's way up high. Usually those houses have no problem comp/ying with a declining height envelope.) It's hard to say how many exceptions or how often this happens because we haven't seen this happen much. It seems like the declining height envelope probab/y doesn't apply well in this situation. (Hurin. For these types situations, you can make the hardship findings and set aside the design of the project. In terms of the mass and bulk, on the s/oping lots, you can certain/y make findings that there's a hardship on the property given the extreme slope on the lot.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Stepan Berlov, represented the applicant with property owner Michael Kuperman. Commission Questions/Comments: > 1 get it that you're on a sloping lot, 6ut on your site plan it appears thaf a large majority of your front yard is paved. 1 can see that you have your trench drains, but in a heavy downpour and a few leaves, those can get clogged up. You may have drainage problems. But more than that, it has to do with the overall appearance from the street. Have you thought about adding some more landscaping in the front? (Ber/ov. The project consists of a new house on an existing lot. This lot is a little bit chal/enging. There is an existing driveway that leads down to the ground floor. Our intention is to dish�rb the existing areas as little as possible. We are trying to bring up the main entrance up to the street level, so it would be easily accessible for peop/e to see and to communicate. Currently, you have to walk down the steep stairs, City of Burlingame page � Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 which at night is quite dangerous and with kids they're concerned that something may happen. lt's also not very useabfe for walking traffic. We do plan to add more landscaping in the front right where the main entrance is. There will be a large tree and some grass planted. You can see it on the bottom side. We will add landscaping along the side of the house where it is sloping down on both sides. There will be a large amount of p/anters and landscaped trees in the areas between the driveway and the stairs leading down to the /ower level as well.) It looks like there is going to be a lot of paving in the front, but I'l/ let the other Commissioners make their comments. > The elevation drawings are a little difficult to read because everything is shaded and in color. Looking at the renderings on the cover sheet and trying to translate ihat to the exterior elevations. it /ooks like some stone materia/ is appfied around the entry but in vertical strips. Both on the upper entry off the main courtyard and the lower entry off the garage courtyard, there are stones flanking at both entries. On the renderings, the stone is on the whole facade on that /ower portion. Is it correct that what we're seeing along grid line E is the stone facade just on the front? Does rt not turn on the elevation where those French doors are up on that second floor? (Berlov: On the second floor, the stone turns around the corner and it dies at the corner where the patio is, it goes along the side of that line where the French doors are. There is stone down below it at the lower /eve/ which also turns the corner and goes down along the side of the steps.) Going back up to the second f/oor where you described the French doors, does the stone continue from grid line E as what we are seeing on grid line D? Or is it just on the front facade? (Berlov: IYs just on the front facade.) !s it a veneer of stone? (Berlov: That's correct, buf we do have a stone veneer that goes where the garage entrance is and up to the main floor.) > There isn't much stone to the left of the bay element that is on that second floor behveen grid lines K and G, but on the rendering that bay is pushed towards the back a little bit with more stone to the left of it. (Berlov: 1'm sorry. The rendering on the cover page has a little bit more stone. It wasn't updated, but we are just going to have a similar element like the /ower entry door for more consistency with the project.) > Did you review the proposed p/ans with your uphill neighbors? 1 can see there are disfant views of the bay from that neighborhood, but ! couldn't tell if your proposed structure could possibly block any views from any neighbors. (Kuperman: 1 drdn't have a chance, 1 don't see him too often. But I can tell you that there are trees that block the windows on his property and his windows are facing northeast where my house is just north. So he doesn't /ook towards my house. His house rs pivoted towards a different direction.) Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > I'm struggling with this a little bit. It feel non-residential in different p/aces. The rear elevation feels very much like a motel and at least one side elevation feels like a school building. There is site lighting everywhere and there is building lighting on a/1 facades. That probably is one of the reasons it feels vaguely non-residential. IYs lacking rn charm. Part of that may be the way it's rendered. IYs a little hard to tell whether it might feel different if it were rendered differently. 1 like modern architecture, but this is verging on charm-less architecture. If fee/s like it needs to go to a design review consu/tant. I'll hear what other Commissioners have to say about it. > The renderings on the front show a potentially nice design there; a larger rendering would be helpful. There's a lot of surface area that you're trying to cover. The elevations/sections are helpful from seeing how it goes down the hill, but graphically very difficult to see where materials are coming and going to see the charm on it. 1 would highly recommend that the elevations attempt to real/y describe the materials instead of the heights. 1'm high/y distracted by all the white boxes with heights and al/ the lines for sections and such. It makes it hard to see what is going on underneath. There's a graphicness to this that could help quite a bit in being able to show us better what is here. To me, it doesn't look unapprovable. i like the modern feel of it, but it's difficult to see the character without really clearing up the elevations a bit City of Burlingame paye y Planniincy Commission Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 more. > ! agree with my fellow Commissioner. I would a/so agree that the modernist architecture isn't the issue, but to me, it doesn't look residential. Even with the nicer renderings that are on the cover sheet, it looks like the entrance to a doctor's office. In terms of how the materials are applied, the materia/s aren't being used to define the parts and pieces of the modernist boxes. They're used as veneers to dress things up and give an appearance of something better than a stucco box at entries and other areas. The way the stone is applied in the renderings, the stone starts to define extents of planes and portions of the boxes that are being broken down. Then when we get to the actua/ e/evations that we're berng asked to approve, the stone is applied as pillars on either side of entries and faces on wainscot, on other portions of the wall around the garage door, and not really defining the elements of the architecture. This is a good candidate for design review consulting. > We do often consider Special Permits for declining height envelope as approvable in context like these when rYs a downward sloping lot. However, when you look at the left side elevation, it's not making any effort rea/ly to address the declining height enve/ope. IYs a flat box that has some steps down in the back a litt/e bit, but nothing to the side. IYs a flat box with some horizontal trims on it which isn't defining the modernist architecture. It's just breaking down the floor lines. So, in visiting the site, other properties in the area kind of nestle into their site a little bit more and drop below the street level and are unobtrusive. This one with a flat roof jumps up both front to back and side to side and presents a large mass. It should go to the design review consultant and before this comes back; story poles should be erected so we and the neighbors can get a better look at what the fina/ massing is going to look like. > I agree with my fellow Commissioners about erecting story po/es and that this should go to a design review consultant. > The first thought I had about this project was the hillside area construction permit and whether we can make the findings for that. It definitely needs story poles. 1'm a little surprised that we haven't heard anything from neighbors yet because normally in hillside areas like this, if there's a hint of obstructed view, neighbors are very clear about their concerns and we haven't heard that in this case. But iYs conceivable fo me that with the program thaYs being proposed, we won't be able to make the findings for a hillside area construction permit. Once the story poles go up, the whole program might need to be revised or reconsidered even if it does go to the design review consultant. > I agree with my fellow Commissioners. We've seen in past situations with projects in the hillside area construction permit zone, where seeming/y there isn't concern for distant views or nearby views, but once those story po/es go up, it becomes apparent to neighbors in the area where they can see where their view may be b/ocked. So 1 agree we shou/d request story poles be erected for this project. I too feel we should visit a design review consu/tant on this project. > Should we put story poles up first? Can you do that before they go to a design review consu/tant? Or do you have to base it on what is going to be the project, so can you not do that? What comes first? > I was going to make the exact same point that my fellow Commissioner was making, except I was going to suggest that you be very sure that thrs is what you wanted to build before you spend the time and money putting up story poles. I wou/d say get your design in place before you put up story poles. > If we're going to send this to a design review consultant, 1 wouldn't fee/ comfortable asking them to go to the expense of puttrng up the sfory poles until they have a design that they're prepared to brrng back before us. The story poles should reflect whatever that design would be. > Hurin: It's somewhat difficult to decide which comes first. But as the Commissioners have pointed out, it may make more sense to go through the design review consulting process first. Once the mass and bulk and details are established, then you can put up the story poles. They can also insta/l temporary story poles that aren't necessarily certrfied, to give the neighbors an idea of how ta/l the proposed structure is compared to what is there now. > 1 just wanted to fo/low up on the landscape question. There is a lot of opportunity for this, whether iYs brought back to us, for more /andscaping while meeting the needs of the applicant in terms of access . You can have a very generous entrance and walkway and still have an opportunity for a lot more green than shown now. > There's a lot of information on here that we don't need at thrs point in our process to evaluate the design. Everyone will be better served if the focus were on representing the character of the building instead of the technical side of the buildrng, the size of the windows, the window and the door types and all City of Burlingame Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 that stuff. It will be easier to make a decision looking at that kind of information than what's going on here. > This rs a great candidate for more three-dimensiona/ study. There's a lot going on here. If we had better axons looking down the hill, it wou/d make our job easier. It's not making this difficult for the applicant and not al/ow them to have a design that they appreciate, but it is about making it easier for us to give said guidance to be able to move the project forward. The more they can make that for us graphical/y, the easier this will move forward. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the appiication to a design review consultant and directed that story poles be installed prior to returning to the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7- Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid City of Budingame Page 4 DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS CITY OF BURLINGAME June 24, 2021 City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Address: 2752 Summit Drive Applicant and Property Owner: Michael Kuperman Designer: Stepan Berlov Planner: Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Dear Planning Commissioners, I have received and reviewed the original plans submitted by Stepan Berlov to the Planning Commission for 2752 Summit Drive. I listened to the Planning Commission's comments in the meeting video from the March 22, 2021, Study Session. I met with the Planner, Designer and Owner on zoom to discuss the Planning Commission's comments in addition to providing feedback on subsequent iterations by email. The design submitted reflects the following changes in response to Planning Commission feedback: REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL DESIGN • Overall building height brought down two feet from 14'-10-3/4" to 12'-10-3/4". • Took inspiration from FLW Falling Water. Changed butterfly and shed roof forms to horizonal, stacked elements. Lower level clad in stone to ground the house and create plie�th for two-stories above (from rear) to speak more to residential massing. • Added landscaped entry path to front door at street level. Revisited massing and overhang at front door to suggest more residential scale. Relocated trash enclosure away from entry to further improve entry sequence. • Organized windows and doors to more graphically compose the elevations. • Reduced amount of decorative sconces on building. Added more indirect lighting like step lights, etc. to be considerate of neighbors. • Added axonometric renderings and material image key to better explain proposed application of mateeials and massing. Note: Dark bronze metal and white stucco are not represented accurately on the pers�ective renderings. Page 1 DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood This project is in the Burlingame Hills comprised of single-family ranch style residences in a woodsy, hillside setting. The proposed modern style project fits in the ranch style neighborhood of low slung roofs because they both share a horizontal expression and present a low profile to the street. The majority of homes in the Burlingame Hills have either stucco or wood siding with wood trim and wood detailing. Stone or brick at the base of the house is also a common feature. The proposed residence incorporates similar finishes to those listed above. 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood This neighborhood has mostly attached garages, as does this current and proposed residence. No change is proposed to the existing driveway and curb cut location. 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure The proposed three-story massing is mostly hidden from the street due to the downslope lot. The visible upper entry sequence creates scale appropriate to the residential neighborhood. Horizontal roof forms, banding and a mix of materials break up the mass. The detailing and material application is consistent with high-end modern residential design. Story poles will be provided to verify if the overall massing has any impact on neighboring houses and/or views. 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties This residence is located on Summit between Burlingview and EI Prado. The proposed house is pulled back from the shared side property lines side yards more than the seven foot required. Due to the downslope lot, there is justification and precedence for the DHE exception to be allowed. Story poles will be provlded to verify if the overall structure has any impact on neighboring houses and/or views. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Extensive landscaping is proposed to soften the architecture and create screening between neighbors. Page 2 SUMMARY It is rny opinion that the new design has come a long way to address the Planning Commission's comments towards meeting the requirements of the design guidelines. It should be noted that the applicant has gone to extensive effort to create the landscaped entry to the front door given that the path is on a"bridge" structure above natural grade. It would be helpful for the Planning Commission to review the story poles and determine if any further revisions to the massing and design are required. Sincerely, Jea�ne Davis Page 3 TYPICAL ROOF CAPPING SHOWN IN RED PROPOSED COLOR TO BE DARK BRONZE ANODIZED (SEE ABOVE) �( � �. -- - ��'". ,_ F� •_ -- P � �`� , , I TYPICAL ALUMINUM METAL COLOR FOR DOOR / WINDOW FRAMES, METAL CLAD PANELS, FASCIA AND SOFFITS. TYPICAL ANDERSEN "E" SERIES WINDOWS AND DOORS. ANODIZED ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD IN DARK BRONZE FINISH WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES � :� � � �;. 1� 1� Ca_1 � I��',�NZ�] �3 I�I l► L�3 - - - -- - - -- ; _ ` TYPICAL NATURAL STONE VENEER AND CAP ALUMINUM CLAD PANELS FOR FASCIA, WALL AND SOFFITS SHOWN IN BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD PANELS FOR WALL, FASCIA AND SOFFITS (SHOWN IN BLACK) PROPOSED COLOR TO BE DARK BRONZE ANODIZED TO MATCH DOORS MAXIMUM PANEL LENGTH 12'-0". d ��;�� Y� . r .� �: . 4'" : �� . k" . .:� :c� ,� �.� '_ �� _ 7 �., � � - -k�.=�_ _ _ �� - _ �: '`.� ,4 s:� {,.` __ ��- ; �._ - _ ; _ ':�c_-� � ,�`_ � t.. .� �` ��-=:� . _ . ._�_'� ,�r �� ' ,. a # _ -� s —(Available) Aluminum Coping (Pt.# AL35), Color and Thickness to Match Paneis, with 12" Long Aluminum Butt Plate (Pt.# AL36) Centered at Coping Reveal, � Attached with Neoprene Washered Fasteners 12" � �, O.C. or per Engineering � (Available) Continuous Aluminum Coping Clip, Thickness to Match Coping, (Pt.# AL3i ), Attached with Fasteners � 2" O.C. or per Engineering � c - - - - - - - -- .- m d '� C (V � a C O � C N � � N C (6 d -— NorthClad Aluminum Panel per A/DET Section - Top of Panel at System: AL Stacking with Inboard Insulation NorthClad Aluminum Panel per AlDET c 0 N c � WRB Detailing not by NorthCiad � � a� c m a NorthClad Aluminum Panel per A/DET y�� Panel Dim I� 1�, Sectior - Panels at Wall io Soffit Transition _ �. � ;% System: AL Stacking with Inboard Insulation \�,; 'v WRB Detailing not by NorthCiad ;�"� � NorthClad Aluminum Panel per A/DET � —(Required) Aluminum Starter (Pt.# AL21) Color and � Thickness to Match Panels, Attached with the Same Parameters as Other Panel Attachment � \ .,.\ (Available) Aluminum Base Flashing (Pt.# AL44), Color and Thickness to Match Panels, Attached at 24" O.C. (Available) Afuminum Flashing (Pt.# AL23), Color and Thickness to Match Panels, Attached at 24" O.C. Window System and Sealant not by NorthClad C O N C � E 0 � m a H,� ' Section - Bottom o` Panel at Window Head � System: AL Stacking with Inboard Insulation �I ! KUPERMAN RESIDENCE REMODEL � � � �` 463.50 t.o. pole 2752 SUMMIT DR., � \ �� 463.50 t.o. pole 463.50 BURLINGAME CA 94010 I - � � �� j , N - �' `,° � �V N 06.01.2021 50 _ 6j,2„ 451.50 t.o. pole _^ � � � STORY POLES A22.28 �� 55' - N `ti - _ � 451.50 73, 4 13/32" — w -- � a� `n � 9 27/32" �3' - 4 1/4" ;� � � a �` � �� N � ^ safety net at ��` 67'- � - � � —451.5 57' ' � 13/32" � - N �v I , � � r0 7/32" '- N 465.50 t.o. ole � 463.50 t.o. po _. P__ � __ _ 83' - 8 1/16" 75� - 9 7/32" — - i �_"" \,"' / 85' - 8 3/32^— __ 465.50 t.o. pole� % ' —45-1.50�- � _ . 87� - 7 15/32" � 465.50 t.b. pole � T 465.50 t.o. pole r,.= i + � 465.50 t.o. ole � �' 465.50 t.o. pole I 465.50 t.o. pole 61 _ 3 ��32" 463.50 t.o.pole safety net 465.50 t.o.pole � i at 465.5 1 71'- 2 7�2„ — — / N � i 87' - � N 10' - 2 1/2" T � I 3 1�8^ � safe net at 463.5 � "' � �1` - 2 1 /2" � � � � / / � � � � r � safety net � �safety net _ 465.50 t.o. pole ' at 451.5 - at 463.5 0 465.50 t.o. pole. _�`� 65' - q ��16„ � � � 465.50 t.o. pole � I � � / - 60' - 463.50 t.o. pole " � N g^ � safety net safety net at /�� at 463.5 463.5- ' ' �n � -- -----�----- ' � I i I � 451.50 - `T 463.50 t.o. pole c� +--- u� 51' - 2 1/2" , — — — — — — — = —00 — — — — — — — ' 4' - 10 1 /2" _ ,� N Stor Poles � 1 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" CITY OF BURLINGAME Ciry Hall - 501 Primrose Road @urlingame, Califerni� 94p103997 Date: Project Address: Assessor's Parcel No. Owner's Name: COMMUNITY DEVEIOPMENT DEPARTMENT BVRLINC�AME Planning Division PH:(650)558-7250 FAX:(650)696-3790 � —� -„�� . z�z .27�Z .sv�y��r �R1vC �3v2�in��A�E,CR � C�7 Kur�c R � � N __— This is to certify that on .1 v �y Z, ZGL l (date), the story poles located on the above- referenced site were instalied or inspected by the undersigned, and found to be in conformance with the design, height, and location shown on the plans, elevations, and the attached story pole plan. "S{¢pl..a_� L�e� � o� D�Si�Ke/' "¢�S"_S` �AX For additional information, please contact me at C�� w31- � 5 y(' (phone no.) ��`�� - Signature �ObP.� P �j /�iJ Md .✓ _ Name (printed or typed) �a-�c�' ��v��o�, !/� Titte � � Y. Register online for the Ciry of Burlingame list serve at www.burlfnaame.or9 :9 From: faith Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 11:50:52 AM To: ameliak@burlingame.or� <ameliak@burlingame.or�> Subject: New construction at 2752 Summit Drive Re: 2752 Summit Drive. Burlingame, Ca new construction project To: Planning Commission and whom it may concern: Please consider my concerns and attached photographs in your review of the construction project at 2752 Summit Drive. I am tl�e next door neighbor at 2756 Summit Drive. I first learned of this proposed construction when [ received a notice from the Planning Department about the review to be held at the virtual meeting. After the story poles were installed yesterday, I see that the impact of the new construction will be much bigger than I had previously thought, at the time when the owner and his architect made their presentation at the tneeting. The Planning Departmei�t has assured me that it is not too late to submit my concerns for consideration. I have enjoyed my views as owner and resident at 2756 Summit Drive for 40+ years. With the new construction, from view of trees, sky, open space, and distant view of the Airport, Bay, and East Bay hills, I will instead have a direct and close-up view of the neighbor's new house. I will not have even a glimpse of what I've enjoyed all these years. This view, as shown in the attached photographs, taken from my upper deck, is a view when one looks toward the east, above the residences built further down on Summit Drive. The deck is at the back of the house and faces the canyon. However, looking from the side of this deck, the present view will be lost, and the new building next door will be very visible above the mature shrubs and trees between our houses, planted by the original owners of our properties. I hope I have clearly stated my concerns with attached photographs. I appreciate your consideration and attention to my concerns. Thank you very much. Faith Chan 2756 Summit Drive (650)619-4658 � �� ' �� ,`,�M1 ._� �� , .� ��._� ��_ - ��, , � �,�-��. �� ,��: r.� �._�.. . : � _, , , �� . ; � �,� - . �-kt — - � . �-c 2 �� 4 �--�_ \ � , 4 � � •� a �� .t-, 1'i� "'' ' ' .'? ; =�." '� � � "� i "' ; ` v�` z -- �� r ': � :'i ..: f t - _ -�� - � �� t . i �� V s' `i�" �i �1 �� l�-- _ ' _ _- �= _ _ - - ,:�ti� - - - __ ��' . . .. ..�-L .. . � � �1¢� j. - � -, : �':..- :��:: ..c .� . ! } �?_ ... �� _s^�' �,�'�c- � . _� ,. ..� .. � ._ � . _ ��. .. �� r�<< ._ ►1 l , :� � �t a�� y �� , -.� �i� •=:� � � . �� , F a _-�} YS';..�1 . i-� . . , J � S � -�"' . _ _ . . 1 _ A . . . L f` ., .i � .. . f ''F ±�V��1'*�'� ' , ,;� r • 4� Ity . �� R � ., _: �..,.d� !.''��__ �s.. :. �3�: � � '.fi� (.. ,.�'� � yn N , // . � :e � � t � �' � �#r � �k� ��r �l -., _ � � ��:,�� : �"� I� , - _ - � �, � y� ��-�: ��; �- � �_ ,�r .�k�� '" � _�;y��-_ � _ _y - �C`r��} R�� y �- � � '� �,- �'�; it��`= ,. � _� "F�'.�I�_ ( �Ki 7l+:,.,. ., . : . ��v ��-. r �`. ` £'�'`` C - . _�� .� ';'� ! :� . � � .. �`•' y � F .� . :x�l� �'�� : �' �� . � � � =f � �� $ `� �=: ' � z . �,� t �, . �,� � F � � �-�?�. � _ ' t' '+mi1 . � � � 1, .:;,��.� �� - �? r 1-�: < . �� -_ - _ _ . . -. � .} � -.f�� -�°' S � .� �, ' _� � ��, _ a � ,� from: Loretta Chuck (mailto:lorettavchuck@�mail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 1:02 PM To: Burlingame Planning Dept <plannin�dept@burlin�ame.or�> Subject: Neighbor Input Project Site 2752 Summit Drive Dear Amelia or Burlingame Planning Committee, As the long-time homeowner and resident at 2748 Summit Drive, I am writin� to express my serious concerns on the proposed project of my next door neighbor at 2752 Summit Dcive. My house is situated downhill and I will be most affected if this project is approved. The poles were installed just last week so now I am able to better assess its impact. I will be losing sunlight and unobstructed views from two bedroom windows on the side of the house facing the property. I object to the height of the proposed project as represented by the poles. The roofline of the new house will be an entire story above my roofline since my house is located at the bottom of a steep driveway, not visible at street level. I also believe the new house will not add to the neighborhood given its large size, increased from about �3000 to 5000 square feet. The new house will be a three story house on a street of mostly single story ranch style homes with a basement space. I am attaching some photos taken from my bedroom window to help you appreciate my concerns. Thank you for your attention to my concerns as a next door neighbor in your deliberations in the approval process. [t is iny hope that you would visit the property and seriously address the negative impact this project will have on my quality of living in this neighborhood. Sincerely, Loretta Chuck 2748 Summit Drive � L-��'�"._ -_��, _- � ,. -- -_---� �,. --- �--_ � .-�, �.. . '.:. - --- _.. �_ - -: t�'--- � �'� - - �� _ � _6 -�'� a-•.=�.�>� — -r:� �4= ''_ . ,- �-�-.� � �-_- �*� c�-=_ . _.. - " . - . `'+x".-�w.... � ~ - . _ . . a'4�-y-,. .�,� ' -, . ,. y� _ ' '" ' _ �. . _ �' +._�+ � . _. - .+ �'w n� ; " . � � • � - �_ � � I i . "t( , i r� _ j . e. � � �.� �' �� ;� ��f `� � � h � .I `� ;. ��. � , �-h � y a 7. qF . . _ . � �-�_ 9 n - e�ti � - - �� • _ - � - � . . ,�j � . � . - . - �fi. ' : Fy "� �: _ � • � � � * �. " `'� ��' � _ �� _+` - � � = � �� ..�.£- � Y -�t � � � _3 _ - _ � �.. s�- �, :7- - _ � � � y 'e - : `, u � �� - ��- � . � � F �. - ,. �:.^ g . . � � i, . ;-�� '��'� -_� �� i �j �� ,i i �� `'�` ^ a.� � . ,� - . � � � �� _' µ � _ ` _ � ' ' �� _ ,� , - '_ ' „z f'� "_ :� - �': � ,aj - _ � 'll ^.i �� - - � . ._ 4 Y{ ' . �s --<- ` - - . � � � � � �-� tr` � - � � 3 �4' - � _ - - — - - � �, :: 4_.�.��: �� _ �'�"�� ''.'3 � � } * -;� '� � u� � "� ;� i�. • ,. _ ' ' ��? ak... i�„ _� �.' � • .� u _ � '� ,ys 4 j v' . j s` . -. , j� y �� -�. . : . "-_'e •�� . '?5ri� r }•.'. t� .S � - i " Y'�� s - . . .- � .. ' 6:.1 ' . 4 a,.e . t . '+�. �. 1 �) � _ • � � . _ �°'� `� � � "'.�_ _ �.7 � t :.i _ ` �' � � �f�� !�� - �- - . - � r s .�`�� :: ' �" � :�� r '� : i .� � �� ' } .tT -. � � � y � � '� � � : � ��y ..BURLING4ME — -1r z O � ¢ � a O � z F v w � O � a PLANNING APPLICATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997 TEL: 650.558.7250 � FAX: 650.696.3790 � E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT@BURLINGAME.ORG �I k� e�.►m. � PROPERTY OWNER NAME APPLICANT? �ris- �b`7- 32 0 PHONE �.�-�._ C?�c�(D✓ ARCHI ECT�ER � APPLICANT7 �1S-29`l- 1��9 PHONE Z 0 H a � � O � Z H z Q U � a a Q BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSE # ADDRESS E-MAIL � .2 *FOR PROJECT REFUNDS' - Please provide an address to which to all refund checks will be mailed to: ' ' I � U� w �2J� � �CL-� r� n �� v�, '�t � � NAME ADDRESS L� L� � 1 � a x � � � Z � O � O � > 0 � � C ��I` I� �i�iyc�. I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 12 . 28. ZDZO APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE (IF DIFFERENT FROM PROPERTY OWNERI DATE I AM AWARE OF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO THE PLAN ING COMMISSION/DIVISION. �- i2. z$. 2oz0 �OPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE AUTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS I HEREBY GRANT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THE AUTHORITY TO REPRODUCE UPON REQUEST AND/OR POST PIANS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAWST THE CITY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO SUCH ACTION �� INITIALS OF ARCHITECTIDESIGNERI APPLICATION TYPE � ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) �DESIGN REVIEW (DSR) � HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ❑ MINOR MODIFICATION � J Z O W N � � � � cn ❑ VARIANCE (VAR) ❑ WIRELESS ❑ FENCE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: �. ;,._ . � _ . � SPECIAL PERMIT (SP) q�� C I/�,( ('� (� G�� ,Q/ DATE RECENED: J 6 � � T T C � m O z r � 2`?52 cSu,M�►� OR. P�t�l��ao�w�� 02`1=221-21D PROJECT ADDRESS �� ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #(APN) ZONING City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 555-7250 • F(650) 6963790 • www.burlinoame.orq CITV "r : 11 :�" � CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. All adjacent neighborhood properties have attached garage. Proposed attached garage will be consistent with surrounding properties. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. Proposed House and attached garage consistent with exterior finish materials in surrounding area. Floor elevation and roof lines at or below of neighboring properties. The house designed to incorporates front and side declining setbacks as well. 3 How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? Proposed attached garage setback from the front of the property per adopted city guidelines. The house designed to incorporates front and side declining setbacks as well. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. There will be no tree removal with exception of small brush vegetation. Proposed building within the existing foot print. �i See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM Ciry of Burlingame Plarming Deparllnent �O1 Primrose Road P(650) 5�8-7250 P(650) C96-3790 www.burlin =�une.org �� CITY 0� ;� � � BURIINGAME ;,, CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECTAL PERMIT APPLICATION� " �� -. , 021 ; r.�arn� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assistthe Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please rype or �vrite neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form fo� assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mnss, scale an�! dominant structural chnrncteristics of the new construction or a�tdition are eonsistent witlz the existing structirre's design and with the existrng street �md neighborhoo�! Proposed house located on a site with a sloap in excess of 25%. Due to the site constrains it is a hardship to comply with a Declined Envelope Requiements. Most of the neighborhood houses build to spend several levels down in a steped manner. Proposed house will not differ from pre existing surrounding structures. 2. E.tplain how the variet�� of roof line, fircade, exterior finish matei�inls nnd eler�rtiorrs of' the proposed new strcrcture or nddition «re consistent with tl�e e_risting structure, street and neighborhno�l Proposed house will be below allowed height for the property, all exterior finishes are consistant with surrounding properties. Proposed house will be beneficial, since it will provide direct access from the street and designed based on Universal Design Principals and to be accessible from the street level. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? Proposed house front setback, side setback, rear setback in compliance with design guidlines. The top of the house below allowable height for the area. New house within the main requirements from the Design Guidlines with exception to DEH. 4. Explain how tlze removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or adrlitiort is necessary nnd is consistent with tlie city's reforestatinn requirements. What niitigution is proposed for the removal of �ny trees? E.tpinin wl�y this ntitigation is appropriate. The house designed to be within an existing house envelope to protect existing trees to the maximum extend. SP6CPGRM.I�R�1 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for an attached qaraqe and Declininq Heiqht Envelope for new, two-story single-family dwelling and attached qaraqe at 2752 Summit Drive. Zoned R-1, Michael Kuperman, propertv owner, APN: 027-221-210; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 12, 2021, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and ail other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review, Special Permit, and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Special Permit, 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. Chairperson 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 12th dav of July, 2021 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2752 Summit Drive Effective July 22, 2021 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 30, 2021, sheets A0.0 through A6.2, L1.2, L1.4, and L1.5 through L1.9; 2. that the existing pine tree at the rear right side of the lot remain and shall be protected during construction; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Pianning staf�; 4. 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; 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 for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2752 Summit Drive Effective July 22, 2021 Page 2 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 applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. 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; 14. 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 15. 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. ��CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAf�� 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �,,,�,_ BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ��' PH:(650)558-7250 www.burlingame.org Project Site: 2752 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 The City of Burlingame Plonning Cammissian announces the following virtual publit hearing via Zoom on Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. You may oc�ess the meeting online at www.zoom.us(�oin or by phone at (6b9) 900-9128: Meeting ID: 921 0368 6084 Passcode: 78342i Description: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Spetial Permits for an aitached garage and Declining Height Envelape for o new, iwo-story single famity dwelling. Members of the puhlic may provide written comments 6y email to: publiccomment�a burlingame.org. Mailed: July 2, 2011 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Cifv of Burlinqame - Public Hearinp Notice If you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to plannin�deptC�burlin�ame.orr� or call (650) 558-7250. Individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to partitipate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at plannin�dept(a)burlingame.or� or (650j 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting, If you challenge the subject applicatlon(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 informing their tenants about this notice. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development Director (Pleose refer to other sideJ _ � m � ' M �� , � o .Ni � � �� *� � ��N ¢ � ..ptn P - + rt c - � N�'3 �� ' ��, V ta � �-� N rt ♦� 'gs�i � 9s �. ��! �� _ - � � # � 4 g i �D '� 4S O , _ B � . , . . ��,� 1 ' _ _ ..�-. - � -. � D �� ' , Lt'` �� ' •��+`., -- ��a `` :J �` ��.�� ,�. � ��` � ♦ � i � �S `� � �� & `. � � •s j 3 i: ��'� �� F o �� - C � i� � �d � b � �� 's �� C� 4'�9 �� :. nu � �� , � � �� ` [�� F�b� � �� _ � �.I. - ♦ �9�� ` '.�,�' ��' �cjyf� .- � � . �i 6��4 �� " �.,; . � �� ,! 1, a4�� b� ,� ♦ •� L�r�, c� � , �� `� � +` �� f-7� U . � g� � �y�`' • S') � � �� , ,, � �c��+r .. �. C�t3�� , " " t � �bp� � � � s � � �� .�,��! v� � d � a�J "�j p p C,� �� , pC��, � �� o � E�