The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2752 Summit Dr - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit, and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2752 Summit Drive Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Meeting Date: October 25, 2021 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit for attached garage 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. History: An application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2752 Summit Drive was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission on July 12, 2021. Please refer to the attached Study and Regular Action meeting minutes for more detailed information and reasons the project was denied without prejudice (July 12, 2021 and March 22, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The applicant has resubmitted the proposed project to address the concerns and suggestions previously expressed by the Commission. Because substantial changes were made to both the design and siting of the buildings, the application was brought to the Commission as a Design Review study item on September 27, 2021. Project 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 attached garage. The proposed house and garage would have a total floor area of 4,796 SF (0.38 FAR) where 5,102 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The subject property is located 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 the 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 would contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces would be provided in the attached garage (21'-11" x 22'-11" clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') would be provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ 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); and ■ Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)). Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit 2752 Summit Drive 2752 Summit Drive Lot Area: 12,505 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 16 and October 4, 2021 PREVIOUSLY DENIED pROPOSED ; ALLOWED/REQUIRED 6/30/21 PLANS SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 32'-5" 33'-0" 32'-1 "(block average) (2nd flr): 32'-5" n/a : 32'-1" (block average) _....... _...... _....... _._...._. _ . ...... : _. ... __ ._.. i . .. _.... . . . ___ Side (left): 8�-6" 8'-6" 7'-0" (right): g,_�„ $,_�„ �,_�„ Rear (1st flr): 50'-5" 50'-5" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 55'-6" 49'-2" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 3,070�SF 2,938�SF 5,002� SF 24.6 /0 23.5 /0 40 /o FAR: 5,020 SF 4,796 SF 5,102 SF' 0.40 FAR 0.38 FAR 0.41 FAR ; _. __ .._.. _.... _ . _..— --- --. . ..., . .. .. „ _... # of hedrooms: 5 4 --- _..._ _ _.__.__ _.... _ . _.._.. ----_. _. ._...... 2 covered 2 covered 1 covered (23'-10" x 22'-11 ' clear (21'-11" x 22'-11" clear (10' x 20') Off-Street Parking: interior) interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Building Height: 12'-11" 2'-8" z 20'-0" DH Envelope: encroachment along both : complies C.S. 25.26.035 sides ' (0.32 x 12,505 SF) + 1,100 SF = 5,102 SF (0.41 FAR) 2 House is located on downward slope, much of which is below the top of curb level. 3 Special Permit required for declining height envelope along the right and left sides of the house. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum ciad wood with true divided lites • Doors: aluminum clad wood, bronze framed garage door with glass lights • Siding: wood, stone veneer, metai panels • Roof.• metal roof Please also see attachments for examples of proposed exterior materials. Staff Comments: Sheet A1.1 of the plans was revised to address project comments from the Engineering and Fire Divisions. No changes were made to the architectural design of the building. 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 September 27, 2021, the Commission liked the revisions made to the project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when ali information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached September 27, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes). Summary of the Commission's comments: • Revisions are nicely done, project nestles in to site very similar to existing structure. • Vastly improved, in favor of project in terms of Design Review and can make findings for attached garage. • Appreciate size reduction and materials and effort gone in to come to a solution. • Story poles required for Hillside Area Construction Permit. As noted above, the Commission directed that story poles be installed in order to review potential view blockage. Story poles were installed as directed (see attached story pole certification and story pole plan). 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 clad wood doors, and aluminum clad wood windows with true divided lites) 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). Suggesfed 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 new house nestled in with a similar footprint and envelope as the existing house and with mature trees along the rear property line and proposed landscaping along both side property lines screening the subject property; that the front elevation interface with the street still appears as a single-story house and therefore the surrounding properties will not be impacted by the proposed new construction; and 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. 3 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit 2752 Summit Drive 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 forDesign 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. 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 September 16, 2021, sheets A0.0 through A6.2, L1.2, L1.4, and L1.5 through L1.9 and revised sheet A1.1, date stamped October 4, 2021; 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 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; 4 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Specral Permit 2752 Summit Drive 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 Buriingame; 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. 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Pianner c. Michael Kuperman, applicant and property owner 5 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit 2752 Summit Drive Attachments: September 27, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes Story Pole Plan, dated September 13, 2021 Story Pole Certification, dated October 15, 2021 Neighbor Letter of Support, dated September 26, 2021 July 12, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application for attached garage Proposed Exterior Materials Neighbor Letter of Support, dated September 22, 2021 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed October 15, 2021 Area Map � � CITY �� "5 ; , o� !� e C O*� City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, September 27, 2021 7:00 PM Online c. 2752 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit for an attached garage 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 2752 Summit Dr - Attachments 2752 Summit Dr - Plans All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokohakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Michael Kuperman, property owner and Stepan Berlov, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Dr. Dennis Ngai. 1'm a neighbor. I love walking on Summit Drive and climbing up the hill to see the wonderful view of the beautiful houses. How tall is the house? Is it going to block the view when we're wa/king up the hill? I just want to make sure we can still enjoy the view when walking up the hill. A/so, I want to know how long the construction wil/ be because my days off are during weekdays. I want to know how much time I'm going to lose listening to the hammering and the bulldozing. My parents had the same prob/em in Mil/brae and it was two years of listening to hammering; I couldn't relax and it was horrible for me. / hope the house doesn't block the wonderfu/ valley view we have. (Chair Schmid. I'm not sure that we can respond to that at this point. But if you want to contact the P/anning Division, they can give you a bit more information about hours and the construction rules that are applicable.) Chair Schmid closed the pub/ic hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > The revisions are nicely done. The project nest/es into the site very similar/y to the existing structure . This is vasily improved over what we saw previously. I'm in favor of the project rn terms of design review considerations. > I can make the findings ultimately for the attached garage because there is precedence in the neighborhood. It would be almost impossib/e to have a detached garage down a sloping driveway and rear yard. > The only issue is the Hillside Area Construction Pe�mit. I would like to have the story poles erected to understand how much of the house pokes up above the existing, whether it is be/ow or at the height of the existing structure, so the neighbor can see the view issues. > It's important we do our due diligence and require that story po/es be instal/ed, although we've been told that iYs the same height or lower but higher in a coup/e of spots. lt would be nice fo� everyone to see City of Burlingame Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2021 where that is and how that actually works. > In looking at this new design, I can appreciate the size reduction, the materials and the effort that has gone into this conversation to come to this solution, and can appreciate all the effort that was put into it. It looks like it will largely fit into the same box, but it's a good due diligence for the neighborhood to be ab/e to know that as well, so that the public sees it, not just those of us who can read the print. So / think that's a good idea to install story poles. l'd like to see the project move forward and I agree with the findings on the special perrnrt for the attached garage. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Schimd, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6- Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios Absent: 1 - Comaroto CityofBurlingame paye p I_~- _ ' `� ' � —, ; '_j� ; � � � - ___ � asz.z� s t.o. po�e a � � safety net at , 48' - s o asz2s � 73' - 4.. �� --- � � � 440.00 t.o. ole I g7. 8„_— �4 . t.o. poe �� 50' - i n" 1 45225t.o. A53J5 . .ot � _ � KUPERMAN RESIDENCE REMODEL 2752 SUMMIT DR., BURLINGAME CA 94010 09.13.2021 STORY POLES A22.28 � _ '_ �g�, 2„ �;— — �_safety net at 21. �., �455.25 t.o. pole� � �.75 j' . ' 89'_ �.. � � • � I I 453J5 t.o. ale �j 45525t.o. ole .`?�;�.� i � � 45525 t.o. pole 452.25 t.o. pole �� 61 �. 3�. �452.25 t.o.pole �safety net I 455.25 t.o. pole .i� � az assz�1 � �r_z„ -- — �-�----- / ' sr_ �., � i 173'_�� / f � � _f: r safety net � � safeiy net � _ �� -� � so, _ at aao.� ---� � at as2.zs �� _� � 5„ � � �c � � � I I 45225 t.o. pole safet net � �- Y f� � at 4522rr— i -----------�-- P— i � 440.00 452.25 t.o. ole � ' --- — — — — — � — - - - —� — — — — — — — — — 1 5'-0 �1(N) Story Poles � � SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Prirt�cose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 Date: Project Address: Assessor's Parcel No.: Owner's Name: 10/15/21 CITY �� : �( � _-a"t � ��•�� ., II�-' / 2752 Summit Drive 027-221-210 Michael Kuperman COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 This is to certify that on 10/15/21 (date), the story poles located on the above- referenced site were installed 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. For additional information, please contact me at 650-593-8580 '.^`]` Signature Daniel G. MacLeod Name (printed or typed) Principal Surveyor Title (phone no.) /�� 1AND 5�� \�� G. Ma��ec �r�o � oe�' oa 1, � fVo.5304 � c1�j; �s Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.burlinuame.orq �� 09.27.21 PC Meeting Item 9c 2752 Summit Drive Page 1 of 1 From: Loretta Chuck [mailto:lorettaychuck@gmail.comj Sent: Sunday, September 26, 20214:53 PM To: Michael Kuperman <mishasfca@gmail.com> Cc: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi <ameliak@burlingame.org> Subject: Re: Letter of Support Hi Amelia, �( 7_11_liZ�� \�i'�'. i17U_A� IZ�C7:11 ";�:T) 1 /-TLIZ PREPAR,9TIU,�� ' ti7�.IFFREPORT �ECEIVED og 2� 202� CITY OF BUR�INGAME CDD — PLANP�IING DIV Please forward my email to the planning commission with regard to the pending project at 2752 Summit Drive. Mr. Kuperman has reviewed his new plans which shows a height reduction in the revised project plans. My only concern is the possible effects of the foundation work with drilling on the project which may adversely affect the foundation of my property next door at 2748 Summit Dc. I have brought this concern to Mr. Kuperman and he has addressed this with the Enaineerin� Finn and has offered to conduct an analysis of my property prior to the excavation of Ilis house and tlle foundation work to be done. I appreciate Mr. Kuperman's efforts to inform me of the current proposed plans and to addcess any concerns I have regarding the project. Thank you, Loretta Chuck CITY � �i r � �. r ;7 ��,.a.'.,. City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, July 12, 2021 6:00 PM Online a. 2752 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - 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. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Kuperman, applicant and property owner; Stepan Berlov, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 2752 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2752 Summit Dr - Attachments 2752 Summit Dr - Plans All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gau/ noted that he was able to visrt the house of the uphill neighbor at 2756 Summit Drive. Commrssioner Terrones noted that he visited with the same neighbor to review the story poles from her property. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. Michael Kuperman and Stepan Berlov, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Loretta Chuck, 2748 Summit Drive: 1 sent an email regarding this project. 1'm the homeowner and resident at the house just down the hill and next door to this property. My main concern is that the views from my window are blocked very significantly because of the height of the building. That's how it impacts me. 1 think it's out of proportion in this neighborhood. 1 have a two-story ranch home with a steep driveway. This proposed house is just a humongous structure. I thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns and 1 am strongly opposed to this structure as it is proposed. 1 hope that it can be redesigned to lower the height. If they built it the way it is, it would be three stones of full height ceilings and that just doesn't work for me. I included three photos from my bedroom window and it shows the structure next door. 1'm wondering whether any of the Commissroners received the email with the attachments, I want to make sure they have been received and reviewed. The Commissioners who visited my neighbor at 2756 Summit Drive were going to come down to my property, but unfortunately no one ever came. 1 was wondering if someone came on to my property, walked down my long driveway and looked from my side yard to view the property? Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > The design has come a long way from where it started. The Burlingame hills is a good location for a City of Burlingame pa9e � Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 12, 2021 modern home because it typically incorporates a flat roof, which is going to help address the view issues that have been brought up and that may come up in the future. I viewed the story poles from the bottom of Ms. Chuck's driveway and from the side of the house. 1 do agree that the house is pretty overbearing on that side, especia/ly because it is so much further up fhe hill and thaYs where I'm having a prob/em with the deciining height envelope exception. On the othe� neighbor's side, there is a distant view blockage from the exterior deck. Views are usually considered from the living space, but this deck fo me would count as living space because iYs inc/uded in the floor area ratio and lot coverage. Having trouble with the mass, the view blockage and the declining height envelope. Suggests that the applicant bring the height of the building down 6y simply lowering the plate heights on a/l three floors. Understand the issue with the location of the power pole, but there's a possibility of doing a detached ADU that would not be part of the structure, so you might be able to propose a structure a litt/e bit further down the hill. > Having difficulties with the findings for mass and bulk of the structure and interface of the proposed structures with structures on adjacent properties. 1 visited the adjacent house and looked at the uphill house and the views from an exterior viewing deck. It's the prime location where you have any views that look out to the bay which are the types of views that we typically consider when we've /ooked at projects in the hillside area. Many of the houses up in the hil/side area have viewing decks on the backside of their house and that's prime living space. Having a hard time with the mass of the structure in terms of how drastically different it is from nearby structures. Suggest revisiting the p/ate heights and bringing the overal/ height of the house down substantially. In regards to Ms. Chuck's property on the lower side, any house thaYs another level above what it is now is going to have impact on that downhill property. Views of the sky, access to or preventing any sort of shading is typrcally a consideration we can't make. Peop/e have a right to add on to their house if they're not exceeding the height limitafions, so we have to make some considerations. But the height of this structure could be reduced substantially by some methods and not have as much of an impact on the adjacent neighdors. > Going back to the comment about the ADU potentially being detached. There may be difficulty in crossing the publrc utility easement and adding an ADU at the back of the property. Not sure if that was explored or if that is feasibfe. The structure is tall, especiafly on the backside where it looks like it could 6e a multi-unit apartment building in the sense that it's very rectilinear, narrow in form and shoots straight up. ThaYs where 1'm having trouble with the declining height envelope. IYs an open plan with generously sized spaces. On the main floor, it seems that there wou/d be an opportunity to meet the declining height envelope and avoid requesting a declining height envelope variance. Each of the floors are very tall. Although 1 appreciate the ent�ance from the street level to go into the main floor, you would also have to acknowledge and recognize that this is a sloping lot and iYs desirable, but this may be affecting other neighbors in the area. You could benefit from reducing the height of the structure overa/l and sinking it down a little bit lower. Many homes in that neighborhood are nestled into the downward slope of the hillside and this one is perched on top. In term of massing, it doesn't reflect the neighborhood. > The house is just too big for that site and does not fit the neighborhood in terms of mass and bulk. Architecturally, if we're going to do a modern house, this is the best place for it. > Can't make the findings for the massing. it is inconsistent with the surrounding structures. > In terms of the mass iYs like an apartment building, but the architecture has come a long way. IYs much more residential and the use of materials are much more in line with articulating the massing, and giving the house a more residential feel. With a/l of that said, the real rssue is the massing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Acting Chair Larios, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5- Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios Absent: 2- Loftis, and Schmid CityofBurlengame paye y � CITY � ; /1 � � �° ,.e. City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, March 22, 2021 7:00 PM 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 Reqort 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. Plannrng Manager Hurin provided an oveiview of the staff report. Questions of staff: > Can you clanfy 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 enveloper starts at grade. That's determined by the average of the front and rear property corners. So what happens on these downward sloping lots is that the declining height envelope gets pushed down because the average slope for the point of departure is going to be a lot lower than the finished floor of the house. You'll see that often on these downward sloping lots. On upward sloping lots, the reverse occurs and iYs way up high. Usually those houses have no prob/em complying 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 probably 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 sloping /ots, you can certarnly 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, but on your site plan it appears that a large majority of your front yard is paved. I 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 pro6lems. 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? (Berlov: The project consists of a new house on an existing lot. This lot is a little bit challenging. There is an existing driveway that leads down to the ground floor. Our intention is to disturb 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 accessib/e for people to see and to communicate. Currently, you have to walk down the steep stairs, City of Burlingame Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 which at night is quite dangerous and with kids they're concerned that something may happen. It's also not very useable for walking traffic. We do plan to add more /andscaping 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 s/oping down on both sides. There will be a large amounf of planters and landscaped trees in the areas between the driveway and the stairs leading down to the lower level as well.) It looks like there is going to be a lot of paving in the front, but I'll let the other Commissioners make their comments. > The elevation drawings are a Irttle difficult to read because everything is shaded and in color. Looking at the rendenngs on the cover sheet and trying to translate that to the exterior elevations, it looks like some stone material is applied around the entry but in vertica/ 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 lower portion. Is it correct that what we're seeing along grid line E is the stone facade just on the front? Does it 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 /ine where the French doors are. There is stone down below it at the lower leve/ which also turns the corner and goes down a/ong 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 fhe front facade7 (Berlov: It's just on the front facade.) Is it a veneer of stone? (Berlov: ThaYs correct, but 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 e/ement that is on that second f/oor between 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: I'm sorry. The rendenng 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 plans with your uphill neighbors7 I can see there are distant views of the bay from that neighborhood, but 1 couldn't te/l if your proposed structure cou/d possibly block any views from any neighbors. (Kuperman: I didn't have a chance, I don't see him too often. But 1 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 look towards my house. His house is pivoted towards a different direction.) Pubiic 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 /ike a motel and at least one side elevation feels like a school bui/ding. There is site lighting everywhere and there is building lighting on all facades. That probably is one of the reasons it fee/s vaguely non-residential. IYs lacking in charm. Part of that may be the way it's rendered. It's a little hard to tell whether it might feel difierent if it were rendered differently. 1 like modern architecture, but this is verging on charm-less architecture. It feels /ike it needs to go to a design review consultant. 1'l/ hear what other Commissioners have to say about it. > The renderings on the front show a potentially nice design there; a larger rendering wou/d be he/pful. 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. I would highly recommend that the elevations attempt to really describe the materials instead of the heights. I'm highly distracted by all the white boxes with heights and all the /ines for sections and such. It makes it hard to see whaf 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. 1 like the modern feel of it, but iYs difficult to see the character without really clearing up the elevations a bit City oiBurlingame Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 more. > I agree with my fellow Commissioner. I would also 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 ferms of how the materials are applied, the materials 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 app/ied 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 actual elevations that we're being 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 heighf envelope as approvable in context like these when it's a downward sloping lot. However, when you look at the left side elevation, iYs not making any effort really to address the declining height enve/ope. It's a flat box that has some steps down in the back a/ittle bit, but nothing to the side. IYs a flat box with some horizontal trims on it which isn't defining the modernist architecture. IYs 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 leve/ and are unobtrusive. This one with a flat roof jumps up both front to back and side to srde and presents a/arge mass. It should go to the design review consultant and before this comes back, story po/es should be erected so we and the neighbors can get a better look at what the final massing is going to look like. > I agree with my fellow Commissioners about erecting story poles and that this should go to a design review consultant. > The first thoughf 1 had about this project was the hillside area construction permit and whether we can make the findings for that. It definitely needs story poles. I'm a little surprised that we haven't heard anything from neighbors yet because normal/y 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 it's conceivable to me that with the program thaYs being proposed; we won't be abfe to make the findings for a hillside area construction permit. Once the story poles go up, the who/e program might need to be revised or reconsidered even if it does go to the design review consultant. > 1 agree with my fellow Commissioners. We've seen in past situations with projects in the hillside area construction permit zone, where seemingly 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 6locked. So 1 agree we should request story poles be erected for this project. 1 too feel we should visit a design review consultant on this project. > Should we put story poles up first? Can you do that before they go to a desrgn 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 first7 > I was going to make the exact same point that my fel/ow Commissioner was making, except I was going to suggest that you be very sure that this is what you wanted to build before you spend the time and money putting up story po/es. 1 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, I wouldn't fee/ comfortable asking them to go to the expense of putting up the story po/es until they have a design that they're prepared to bring back before us. The story poles should reflect whatever that design would be. > Hurin: It's somewhat difficult to decide which comes firsf. 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 po/es that aren't necessanly certified, to give the neighbors an idea of how tall the proposed structure is compared to what is there now. > I just wanted to follow 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 enfrance and wa/kway 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 this 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 building, the size of the windows, the window and the door types and al! Cify of BuAingame Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 that stuff. It wil/ be easier to make a decisron /ooking at that kind of information than whaYs going on here. > This is a great candidate for more three-dimensional study. There's a/ot going on here. If we had better axons looking down the hill, it would make our job easier. It's not making this ditficult for the applicant and not allow 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 fonvard. The more they can make that for us graphically, the easier this will move forward. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application 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 Cify of Burlingame Page 4 City of Buriingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • w�,vw.burlinqame.orq C T '�a ! 1 a 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. � Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing strucfure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. All adjacent neighborhood properties have attached garages. Proposed attached garage will be consistent with surrounding properties. Furthermore all concepts from design review and comments from previous planning suggestions are incorporated. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of fhe 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 the surrounding area. Floor elevation and roof lines at or below of neighboring properties. The house is designed to incorporate front and side declining setbacks as well all comments from previous planning commission and design review. 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 is designed to incorporate front and side declining setbacks as well. Furthermore the concepts from design review and previous planning feedback is incorporated including removal of ADU from the main structure. 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. � See over for expfanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM TYPICAL ROOF CAPPING SHOWN IN RED PROPOSED COLOR TO BE DARK BRONZE ANODIZED (SEE ABOVE) ��E��✓��;.� SEP 1 Ei iD[i CITY Or B�'�LI�JGAft�E CD(�-PLA�lf�1NG DIV. TYPICAL ALUMIINUM 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 r _ � �� .� „ -�� ,* - � . � `�-�� - �'•-.� - - - � �",!,-�--a�."__"' _ - ' ' - -_ �� -- �� ,�� _-...��. � - - ` ; Z- � '` • � ; � � . � _.,r-- —�`�` � �� -�� y. _ T��---'-•-�-! � �.., _ ,�� i ` -- . i . � . ��-------- � .- �� _'"�„`"_'=-�..�, i, .�.s _ _ _:�t�� =t--`�.,. "'_" �`�1� ,-.--.-....� �.:. _ � ; -,�-�"-' - , i _ ,e;-�•� . �•+,-'--� � . - .� . �. r ��-•^i�_� i�. i �._L�-f�av�'': _. �� - �j . ., :.a�-_:- �__ � - -- '�-�"'��'�-_--y'J� ' i _ — TYPICAL IPE WOOD SIDING I� .. � \ 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". �. +� �� r. .- �� I�cr�— s � �C� _" /�L '�: R i F+�.:� �' �� _ ��;-'�-- - �„Ri. t •. p'.41r' — � .. jF+•� , _ � �--;��►,�'"s- o ;;�. ',� , ' � .�.-- " �.�"•"" � �` ' '� �"��;'� aS. � ° 'r� ,,� ;� -.t :3r ' ' �.^�'.r+�.: . . .._.r ._,a : ..�=' + ��._ � '_,. � =. .v,� �-�� R _ ' _ � y �� ,._. � - }�• • 'M1�� .� . ::. �`.� :.s.1�=. . .. t�'r (Available) Aluminum Coping (Pt # AL35), Color and Thickness to Match Paneis, with �2" Long Aluminum Butt Plate (Pt.# AL36) Centered at Coping Reveal, � Attached with Neoprene Washered Fasteners 12" � �; O,C. or per Engineering (Availabie) Continuous Aluminum Coping Clip: Thickness to Match Coping, (Pt # AL37), Attached with Fasteners 12" O.C. or per Engineering _� � C -T � a -a � CV � a C O N C � E 0 m C @ a NorthClad Aluminum Panel per A/DET �� . ' , Section - Top of Panel at Coping j � �: System: AL Stacking with Inboard Insulation NorthClad Aluminum Panel per A/DET c 0 � c � WRB Detailing not by NorthClad � � � � m a NorthClad Aluminum Panel per A/DET jZ�� Panel Dim Section - Pane!s at Wall to Soffit Transition System: AL Stacking with Inboard Insulation � 0 N C N � � — WRB Detailing not by NorthClad @ a �: 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 c �, —(Available) Aluminum Base Flashing (Pt.# AL44), Color and Thickness to Match Panels. Attached at 24" O.C. �' �(Available) Aluminum Flashing (Pt.# AL23), Color and Thickness to Match Panels, Attached at 24" O.C. �� — Window System and Sealant not by NorthClad /^\� Section - Bottom of Panel at Window Head ;� H 1 i System: AL Stacking with Inboard Insulation From: faith [mailto:faith94010@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 3:39 PM To: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi <ameliak@burlingame.org> Subject: 2752 Summit Drive new residence constrution Planning Department, Burlingame To Whom It May Concern: Re: construction of new house at 2752 Summit Drive, Burlingame Michael Kuperman, my neighbor and owner of the property at 2752 Summit Drive next door, has shown me his revised plan for the construction of his new residence. With the proposed lower height that is close to the present roof height of the present house, the new house should not block my view. Thank you for your consideration in the review of the proposed construction at 2752 Summit Drive. Respectfully, Faith Chan, owner 2756 Summit Drive RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, 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 Permit for an attached qaraqe for new, two- story sinqle-familv dwellinq and attached garaqe 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 October 25, 2021, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 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 wili 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 Hiliside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Special Permit, and Hiliside 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 25th dav of October. 2021 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Speciai Permit, and Hillside Area Gonstruction Permit 2752 Summit Drive Effective November 4, 2021 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 16, 2021, sheets A0.0 through A6.2, L1.2, L1.4, and L1.5 through L1.9 and revised sheet A1.1, date stamped October 4, 2021; 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 Planning staffl; 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 shail 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 ail sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with ail conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a 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 November 4, 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 shouid 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. CITY Of BURLINGAME �`� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME,CA94010 PH:(650)558-7250 www.hur�ingame.org Project Site: 2752 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 The City of Burlingame Planning Cammission announces the following virtual pu6tic hearing via Zoom on Monday, Octo6er 25, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. You may access ihe meeting online ai www.zoom.us��oin or by phone at (346) 248-7799: Meeting ID: 852 620918b6 Passcode: 872338 Description: Applicotion for Design Review, Hillside Area fonsiruction Permii, and Special Permit for an atiached garage for a new, two-sfary single family dwelling and atlached garage. Members of ihe public may provide written comments by email to: pu6liccamment(c�6urlingame.org. Mailed: Ociober 15, 2021 (Pleose refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlinaame - Public Hearina Notice If you have �ny questions a6out this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to planninedeptCa�burlineame.ore or call (650) 558-7250. Individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeHng, 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, shouid contact the Planning Division at planninedeot(c�burlineame ore or (650) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting. If you challenge the subject appliration(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 (Plense refer io other side) 2752 Sumrnit Drive 300' noticing APN #: 027-221-210 I' :�'S �-�: �': � - �a: � , `t'.. A � �� .� q'�� r�;�� 93�''l�� u , � ��,,,•�•��''1 �2`U'�� ••'••► 1 ��i ffi�9 ! `-" cn �� f��4 f �6 c� � � 9 � � ,r. , e.:� _ _.�!-_ _ � U:. ! 3�1 ts'J _. t v�� ;" ,,� - t3 � `-'y�� ;� .tk'� c,;f� �J �¢ F .� *� � *�►.. `,;� ��, �� p� � �_ �� ' / `:t, , gaF � �� b,� :��:'.; : ,,; 7 a'`�i��, � � �,. c r �` ♦� C�`; p Q �,�, � ,�, • fiit � ��`` ;; . �e� � er - . , � �' �`1ct�, �; I ".,� 't� �„� - �J �►�� , �� r^r"' ��t r. 1� ',;.� 4 a� � s.. '- c�;` ;;�� 43 -a , ,�" � �:,.� s' p p t.F � � ��ij'1 �� '�:� � � (�.��. `•� ` a'J / ��. '`, .` � � � ;�` �� U ,,�I '� ��" � � Qd �� ", �. ��$� � � �� s,�� ,��. r � , _ _.� --,�,'�'" � ;� �� ''' r - o�� L� � -� �,�• . .►' `' .� � � s � •�� I/ i r • �,w:' �' s i'`' �,� ,r',• �y�� . 9� �, �_, ..