HomeMy WebLinkAbout1837 Hunt Drive - Staff Report (3)TO:
DATE
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 12, 2008
6a
AGENDA ITEM NO:
MEETING DATE: August 18, 2008
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:>
FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR
DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING AT 1837 HUNT DRIVE, LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should conduct a public hearing on the appeal of the application for Design Review,
Hillside Area Construction Permit, side setback Variance, and Special Permit for Declining Height
Envelope for a first and second story addition to a single-family dwelling at 1837 Hunt Drive, and
consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action regarding the appeal
should include specific findings supporting the Council's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of
the City Council. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. The City Council
may consider two alternatives:
deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action denying without prejudice the
application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, side setback Variance, and
Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first and second story addition; or
2. uphold the appeal, and approve the project subject to the conditions of the proposed resolution
(attached).
BACKGROUND:
Project Description:
The property at 1837 Hunt Drive is located in the Hillside Area and is currently developed with a single -
story house and attached two -car garage. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 581 SF
(including covered porch area) to the rear of the first story and add a new 1,003 SF second story to the
house. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 4,101 square feet (0.30
FAR) where 5,495 square feet (0.40 FAR) is the maximum allowed. A Variance is required for the
proposed left side setback of 6-8" where 7'-0" is required, and a Special Permit is required to encroach
into the Declining Height Envelope 17.5 SF on the left side of the proposed structure. All other Zoning
Code requirements have been met in the project design.
The project includes an attached garage which provides two covered parking spaces that meet current
code requirements for the proposed five -bedroom house. The one required uncovered parking space
(9'-0" x 20'-0") is provided in the driveway. The following permits for the project were requested:
■ Design Review for an addition to the upper level (C.S. 25.57.010);
■ Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.62.020);
CITY COUNCIL MEETING —August 18, 2008
Public Hearing — Appeal RE: 1837 Hunt Drive
■ Variance for 6'-8" left side setback to the first and second story addition where 7'-0" is required (C.S.
25.28.072); and
■ Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the Declining Height Envelope (C.S.
25.28.035c).
The Planning Commission staff report (dated June 23, 2008) is attached to this report and contains a
detailed analysis of the proposal.
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 Class 1(e)(2) - additions to existing
structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the
project in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development
permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally
sensitive, and Section 15305 Class 5(a) — setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new
parcel.
Prior Planning Commission Action:
Planning Commission Denial Without Prejudice: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission
on April 28, 2008, May 27, 2008, and June 23, 2008. At its meeting of June 23, 2008, the Planning
Commission denied without prejudice the property owner's request for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, side setback Variance, and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first
and second story addition to a single-family dwelling at 1837 Hunt Drive (see attached minutes). The
Commission denied without prejudice the applications on a vote of 3-2-1-1 (Commissioners Terrones
and Brownrigg dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi abstaining, Commissioner Lindstrom absent).
Appeal of Planning Commission's Action: On November June 30, 2008, Chris Dunning, the property
owner, appealed the Planning Commission's action (see attached letter). The reason for the appeal was
not included in the appeal letter. In an August 5, 2008 letter, the property owner's attorney, Mark Hudak,
states that the appeal is based on the Planning Commission's "unusual application of the Hillside
Construction Ordinance" and that the project "deserves a careful review by the City Council" (see
attached letter).
Attachments:
August 5, 2008 Letter from Mark Hudak (representing Chris and Marisol Dunning, property owners)
Appeal Letter from Chris Dunning, dated June 30, 2008
June 18, 2008 Letter From Thomas A. Nuris (representing the Viahos family of 1847 Hunt Drive)
June 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 23, 3008 Planning Commission Staff Report
Notice of Appeal Hearing — Mailed August 8, 2008
City Council Resolution (proposed)
2
CARR McCLELLAN
INGERSOLL THOMPSON & HORN
Professional Law Corporation
August 5, 2008
Hon. Rosalie O'Mahony
Mayor, City of Burlingame
Burlingame City Hall
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on 1837 Hunt Drive
Dear Mayor O'Mahony:
Mark D. Hudak
mhudak@carr-mcclellan.com
I represent Chris and Marisol Dunning. They own the home at 1837 Hunt Drive, where they live
with their three children (Anyssa, age 11, Jayna, age 9, and Jared, age 6).
The Dunnings have appealed the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of their
application for a second floor addition. Normally, the Commission's decisions in this kind of
matter receive great deference, but this appeal involves an unusual application of the Hillside
Construction Ordinance and deserves a careful review by the City Council.
The decision of the Planning Commission was close — three members voted against the project,
based on a perceived impact to the view from the neighboring house at 1847 Hunt. Two
members (Mssrs. Brownrigg and Terrones) supported the project. Dave Cauchi also made
comments in support of the project but, because he had missed a prior meeting and had not
listened to the tape, was unable to participate in the final vote. Commissioner Lindstrom was not
present for the vote.
Although we respect the Commission's judgment on design issues, we believe that the majority
misapplied the view protection standards in the Hillside Construction Ordinance, BMC
§25.61.060. The Dunnings' proposed addition would not block distant views of the Bay, the
airport, or even lower Burlingame. The addition would affect only the views of the top part of
trees located in other yards. If this standard is applied, it would become very difficult to build
additions to hillside residences, as there is always some impact on views and this strict
interpretation would give neighbors a virtual veto power.
P 650.342.9600
216 Park Road • Burlingame • California 94010 F 650.342.7685
www.carr-mociellan.com
Hon. Rosalie O'Mahony
August 5, 2008
Page 2
DESIGN ISSUES
The Dunnings intend to live in the home and want to preserve the back yard as a play area for
their children. Consequently, they chose to apply for a second story addition.1
The Dunnings' lot is large and would accommodate a house with an FAR of up to 5,495 SF.
They have requested a more modest addition which would bring the structures to 4,101 SF, or
.30 FAR. The proposed addition would include a master bedroom and office.
The addition has been designed to minimize the impact on the neighbors at 1847 Hunt. The
addition is moved to the far left of the house, as far away from 1847 Hunt as possible. The
windows facing in that direction are all opaque, except for one window in the master bedroom.
At the Commission's request, the plate height on the addition was reduced to eight feet. The
new roof ridge would be only eight feet higher than the existing roof ridge. The addition would
not block sunlight or cast shadows onto 1847 Hunt.
The Commission did not appear to have any serious concerns about the design of the addition
per se. The Commission voted against sending the project to an outside reviewer. Instead, the
Commissioners made comments during the design study sessions and virtually every comment
was addressed by the Dunnings and their design team. Unfortunately, any second floor addition,
however well designed, was going to have some impact on the view from the side windows of
1847 Hunt and would have caused the three Commissioners to vote against it.
VIEW ISSUES
The neighbors at 1847 Hunt, Mr. and Mrs. Vlahos, hired an attorney to oppose the project. He
wrote a letter to the Commission arguing that §25.61.060 prohibited the proposed addition
because it would block "distant views." 2 No one else has opposed the project.
The Dunnings' addition would not block the kind of distant views that the ordinance is designed
to protect. The Vlahoses do not have a view of the Bay, the airport, lower Burlingame, other city
lights, or recognizable buildings. As the enclosed photograph shows, they have a view of a
portion of trees looking south. Much of this view is already blocked by the existing roof line and
by the large trees in the yard at 1817 Hunt. Although the term "distant view" is not defined in
the ordinance, it generally has been applied to prevent the obstruction of Bay views and city
views.
Because the City allows homes to be built with relatively small side setbacks, any second floor is
likely to reduce the view of the sky and the tops of trees from side windows. The proximity of
the houses on residential lots makes this inevitable. If the ordinance is applied to preserve all
' The house to the immediate south, 1827 Hunt, is already two stories.
2 Section 25.61.060 provides: "Review by the planning commission or city council shall be based upon
the obstruction 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."
Hon. Rosalie O'Mahony
August 5, 2008
Page 3
views from side windows, as the Vlahoses argue, then most second floor additions will be
prohibited.
There is an additional consideration. As part of their upgrading of their home and landscaping,
the Dunnings plan to replace the existing dilapidated four foot fence with a standard six foot
wood fence and one foot of lattice. When they do so, most of the view from 1847 Hunt will be
lost. I have asked my clients to erect a temporary two foot extension of the fence with a foot of
lattice so that this situation can be viewed by the Council during site visits. The enclosed
photographs show the height of the fence after it is replaced.
In summary, this is a thoughtful second story addition that has been designed to minimize the
burden on the neighbors at 1847 Hunt while meeting the needs of the Dunning family. There is
no impact on the kind of views that the hillside ordinance is designed to protect. We ask that the
City Council apply the correct interpretation of the hillside ordinance and approve the project as
presented.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Hudak
MDH:os
Enclosures
cc: Council Members (w/encls.)
Clients (w/o encls.)
Planning Department (w/encls.)
04050.00001 \BGLIB 1 \1376282.1
a L
v � a � ^Y #�
�A ( I Gk
' ..aa g b •�' + fir' f4G CA51 #i dr T
t�.�
10
. A Ai x,
1* —
F
a ' Vim'.
f IN
ML
r
C
YE�'� ,t • I'1 � Y��
1 II �i a
-� -
t�-
�. \ 1 .4
77 � ,�
_ '9
I �
} � a k
� a �-{
� is
_'
f ■ �` �
E'. - _ -
.. .. ' '��
+. :? �" — -
� � �
�tr
.�:
,..
. ,,
.� ,f
bb' � __ � , ' i�
,,� �,. �.
,. .r.
,; .. �
"�,,,,'� ?� '% 'S ,mot! ��° �1:� �� f ' ��� ��
i ''� '' _ d '� ! t
�, �, a
`� � ` � �' ,�,,. s � �` �' � , � Ag 'r
� 4 hs"��. `..'�:'�I fir � � ,g, '� �gtt�}'' -, � 4;. �„ :.�i i� � 3 ���. ':
�.
�pF �r7'�it4s, ''- � �' 'rs, � •F':uE�," t �1=�.di�,l, -,' S,�- _ } _ _ '�E 4 i �- � = k �, � �
r e � Pxh ,� 3
2tJ
= � «±2 .
RECEIVED,
CI_Ey.OF SORi NG..AM
June 30, 2008
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Please schedule an appeal- hearing
for 1837 Hunt Drive to be heard
Honorable City Council at the August 18, 2008 Council
City of Burlingame meeting.
City Hall City Clerk
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Request for Hearing with City Council
ADDRESS: 1837 Hunt Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
APPLICATION: Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback
Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a
first and second story addition to single family dwelling.
Please grant us a hearing at the earliest possible time in order to consider our appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision to deny without prejudice our application to
improve our home at 1837 Hunt Drive.
Supporting documentation will be provided at a later date. If you have any
questions or need any immediate information, please feel to contact me at (650) 219-
1077.
Sincerely,
Chris Dunning
Property Owner
06/19/2008 14:10
16507565907 THOMAS A NURIS 6/23/08 P.C. Meeting
1837 Hunt Drive
Agenda Item #4
LAW OFFICES OF THOMA.S A. NUR.IS
2171 JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD., SUITE 600
DALY CITY, CA 94014
(650) 756-0225 commuNICAT1aN RECEIVED
Fax: (650) 756-5907 'AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REP
Wednesday, Tune 18, 2008
Hoi.,iorable Planning Commission
City of Burlingame VGA )FACSI1Vl()<LE TU G96-3790 ANA
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
RE: Proposed Project @ 1.837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA
Dear Members of the planning Commission:
Our office represents ' Mr. and. Mrs. Theodore Vlahos wbo reside at 1,847 Hunt Drive,
Burlingame, CA which is located next door to 1837 Hunt Drive wbi,chis the subject ofthe proposed
project before the Commission.
i am advised by my clients that they have previously appeared before this Board on two prior
occasions to express their opposition to the second story addition proposed for 1837 hunt Drive as
such an addition will negatively impact their views and light.
Mr. and Mrs. Vlahos have lived at their home since 1970 and raised their children there. For
the Vlahos family and especially Mrs. Vlahos, the most important part of their home has always
been the kitchen and. adjacent areas. This is where they basically live and spendmost of their time.
The thought of losing V111 southerly view as well as the sunshine which will be blocked by the
proposed construction of the second story addition at 1837 Hunt Drive is most disturbing.
The type of construction proposed for 1837 Hunt Drive is not consistent with the homes oil.
this block. Those who have wantedto extend their homes with additions have kept them on ground
level going into the spacious yards. By doing so, they have addressed their need for additional space
and have also respected and not encroached on the enjoyment of views and light of their neighbors.
We believe that the needs of the owners of 1837 Hunt ]Drive for more space could and should
be addressed in the same way bybuilding on the ground and not by the construction of a large second.
story addition that does not fit the character of the block and which negatively impact neighbors.
Page 1 of 2
06/19/2008 14:10 16507565907 THOMAS A NURIS PAGE 03/03
planning Commission better
]lie: 1837Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA
Page 2.
The City ofBurlin.game has recognized the special, dualities that are enjoyed by homes built
within the hillside areas of the City and have passed specific ordinances found at Chapter 25.61 of
the Municipal Code of which I am. sure you are well aware.
Specifically, Section 25.6.7.060 entitles "Review criteria" states that-...
",Review by the planning commission or city council 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. "
This ordinance has been on. the books for nearly twenty years (1989). Tt was enacted to
protect homeowners, like Mr. and Mrs. Vlahos and their, family, from having the unique views
afforded their hones from by being diminished by subsequent additions to adjacent properties.
It is not unreasonable to say that there are many areas in the City of Burlingame where one
could purchase a home and create a second story addition that would not bother anyone. Buying in
the area specifically designated by the City of Burlingame as the "bill.side area" is not one of those
areas and should be seriously considered before moving into such a neighborhood.
The owners of 1.837 Hunt Drive should -not be granted the right to take away the views ofMr.
and Mrs. Vlahos, as the ordinances of this City protecting the Vlahos family home, are very clear in
their purpose and have been a matter of public record for 20 years.
As stated above, others who have wanted to enhance the size of their homes in this area have
built out on. the ground. The owners of 1837 Hunt Drive are able to do so as well and are therefore
not denied the right to expand their home anal gain. f rather enjoyment out of more space.
Since the owners of 1837 Hunt Drive do have other options .for further expansion, it is not
at all unreasonable for this Commission to deny their present application and encourage them- to
build on the ground rather then allowing them to build up and in doing so taldng away the rights of
the Vlahos Family to their valuable and cherished views and sunlight.
TAN/s
CC: Mfr. & Mrs Vlahos
Very truly yours
f
Thomas A. Nuris
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 23, 2008
2b. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE -UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MIKE
PRESCOTT, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (continued from
June 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting)
2c. 1277 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A
NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND BOB AND CINDY GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA
WHITMAN
Commissioner Vistica moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 on Items 2a and 2b (Commissioner Lindstrom absent); 5-0-1-1
on Item 2c (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Auran abstained). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 2520 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND LEE AND MARGIE LIVINGSTON, PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN (continued from June 9, 2008 Planning Commission
Meeting — Request to Continue by applicant)
Continued at the request of the applicant. The matter will be re -noticed prior to appearing on a future
agenda.
4. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING
HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIAL ART, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CHRIS DUNNING,
PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated June 23, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. He indicated that he would participate in the discussion of the
item, but would abstain from voting, since he had not participated in the prior discussion regarding the item.
Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive; represented the applicant.
Have considered all neighbors in the project design; and have taken their input into consideration.
Described changes made to plans; have incorporated all of the Commission's recommendations.
Provided photos of homes in the area.
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 23, 2008
Commission comments:
■ Asked if the applicant has visited the neighboring property to observe the views (Applicant — no
significant views are impacted).
■ Not convinced regarding the detailing of the rail on the rear deck; most in the area don't move into
the "commercial" character (Applicant — willing to re -design rail as an FYI if required).
■ Match the character of the rear column with the design of the front column.
■ Concerned regarding view blockage from the neighbor's (1847 Hunt Drive) kitchen window.
Public comments:
Thomas Nuris, 2171 Junipero Serra Boulevard, Daly City; represented Mr. and Mrs. Theodore
Vlahos , 1847 Hunt Drive; the kitchen view blockage is significant, the space is used the majority of
the time. Believe that the design should be revised to eliminate the view impact. Moving the
addition into the rear yard would impact the applicant's use of yard space, but should be balanced
with impacts upon the neighbor's view. Extend the addition at ground level without impacting views
of neighbor.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Believe that view blockage from the kitchen is substantial; quality of life in neighbor's house will be
impacted.
■ The pattern within the block is single -story homes.
■ Breakfast room and den views are also affected.
■ Reasonable addition, but there is view blockage; wouldn't want to set a precedent by allowing view
blockage in this instance; there are other alternatives to expand the residence.
■ Massing hasn't changed too much with modifications that have been made; sense was that the
prominent views were to the southwest; were hopeful that the designers would shift the massing
somewhat; concern about views wasn't a prominent a discussion point during the initial discussions.
■ Applicant has worked to modify the design as directed; can be supported, though there are some
view impacts.
■ The two-story design is appropriate for the site; the ordinance that makes the hillside area valuable
emphasizes distant views; views of trees and sky have not been deemed significant in the past. If
the regulations are used injudiciously, could become problematic; be mindful that just blocking light
does not count as a valuable view.
■ Preservation of back -yard space is important over view space.
■ Blockage of air and sunlight do not reach level of being substantial from a view blockage standpoint.
■ Distant view of trees is significant; the proposal creates a significant view blockage.
Commissioner Auran moved to deny the application without prejudice.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
Appreciates the applicant's willingness to work through the issues, but there are alternatives for an
addition that will not impact the neighbor's view. View impact is significant.
Design of house was intentional, promoted views from the property while blocking neighbor's views.
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 23, 2008
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the application without prejudice. The motion
passed 3-2-1- 1 (Commissioners Terrones and Brownrigg dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi abstaining,
Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m.
Commissioner Auran recused himself from participation on Agenda Item 5 due to a business
relationship with the applicant.
5. 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (BOB AND CINDY GILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND CHU
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated June 23, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
None
James Chu, 55 West43rd, San Mateo, and Bob Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court, Hillsborough; represented the
applicant.
Met with three of the neighbors that spoke at the prior hearing.
Spoke to Principal at Our Lady of Angels; not worried about shadows in the parking lot; there is not
a problem with shadow casting on the school yard.
Willing to work with neighbor at 1321 Cabrillo Avenue regarding landscaping and fence issue raised
in letter to Commission.
Public comments:
Mary Ann Martinez and Sue Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Avenue; Rolando Pasquale, 2836 Hillside
Drive; and Peter Lu, 1315 Cabrillo Avenue; concerned that the project will take away more of the
light from the neighboring property; it appears to be much taller; the deviation from the declining
height envelope will impact the use of the garden of the neighbor's home; revise the design of the
wall outside the neighbor's dining room to improve the view; the neighbor is willing to accept having
the new home's rear wall at the same location as the rear wall of the existing home; spoke to Judith
O'Rourke at Our Lady of Angels, she indicated that she is obligated to inform the School Board of
the project; the relevant time to assess shadow impacts is during the fall and winter months; the
neighbors would not likely have a problem with a project of a similar size to the existing home; the
project is out of character with the neighborhood; moving the home back further on the lot would
affect the usability of neighbor's rear yard; could the design be revised to reduce the mass.
Additional Commission comments:
Would neighbor prefer the placement of the home closer to the street, or moved away to the rear by
4-feet; it will not likely impact the neighbor's garden (James Chu — the rear of the proposed home
and the neighbor's home are nearly equivalent; clarified that the maximum height of the structure is
25 Y2 feet, roughly 8-inches taller than the neighboring home to the left).
5
Item #
Action Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
1837 Hunt Drive
City of Burlingame Item No.
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,
Action Calendar
Special Permit and Side Setback Variance
Address: 1837 Hunt Drive Meeting Date: June 23, 2008
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for Declining Height
Envelope, and Side Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Basilia Macias, Spatial Art Inc.
Property Owner: Chris Dunning
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 025-320-040
Lot Area: 13,453 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 Class 1(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square
feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum
development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located in not environmentally
sensitive.
Project Description: The existing one-story house with an attached two -car garage (20' wide x 22' deep, clear
interior dimensions) contains 2,517 SF (0.19 FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms. The applicant is
proposing to add approximately 581 SF to the rear of the first floor (including covered porch area), and add a
new 1,003 SF second floor. With the proposed first and second story additions, the floor area will increase to
4,101 SF (0.31 FAR) where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 5,495 SF (0.40 FAR). The proposed project
is 1,394 SF below the maximum allowable FAR.
With the addition, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from four to five (the upstairs office counts as a
potential bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing
attached two -car garage (20' x 22') complies with current code dimensions, and the required uncovered parking
space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway.
The proposed addition on the first and second stories will have a left side setback of 6'-8" where 7'-0" is required.
Therefore, a Left Side Setback Variance is required. Additionally, the addition will encroach 17.5 SF into the
Declining Height Envelope along the left side, requiring a Special Permit. All other Zoning Code requirements
have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010);
■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for a proposed addition in the hillside area (CS 25.62.020);
■ Special Permit for encroachment into the Declining Height Envelope along the left side (0'-10" x 21'-0" _
17.5 SF) of the second story (C.S. 25.28.035, c); and
■ Variance for a Left Side Setback of 6'-8" where 7'-0" is required (CS 25.28.072, c, 1).
1837 Hunt Drive
Lot Area: 13,453 SF
Plans date stamned: June 12. 2008
I EXISTING
PROPOSED TO ADDN
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
,
I.
I.............
-1---
.... _................ _._-_.._........
........... _... ---- ............... ----
Front (1st fir):
23'-0" (to garage)'
! (no change)
15'-0"
(2nd flr):
n/a
i
( 55'-0" (to MB deck)
20'-0"
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive
EXISTING
PROPOSED TO ADDN
I ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Side (left, 1sf fir):
6'-8" (to LR)
I 6'-8"(to nook) z
7'-0"
(left, 2nd fir):
n/a
6'-8". (to MB) 2
I 7'-0"
(right, 1st fir):
15-6" (to garage)
15'-6" (to bath 3)
i 7'-0"
(right, 2nd fir):
( n/a
35'-6" (to stair)
I 7'-0"
Rear (1st fir):
99'-0" (to BR3)
88'-0" (to right rear bath)
15'-0"
(2nd fir):
n/a
85'-0" (to MB deck)
20'-0"
Lot Coverage:
; 2,637 SF
3,279 SF
5,381 SF
20%
24%
40%
Floor Area Ratio:
2,517 SF
4,101 SF
5,495 SF
_..-----------_ _..-.._......I._......--
0.19 FAR
...--- ........._..._.._-....__.... --........._.__......._1....
0.30 FAR
.._......_.._........ -- - --- --- ----_ --
s
0.40 FAR
- ._...._......--------........._.. ---- -
# of bedrooms:
4
5
- —�--
---
_.._.__..._._.._.._...._......... _....__... - ----.—...
Parking:
_._. --- ----- ---._
2 covered
--- —
2 covered
(20'-0" W x 22'-0" L) I
(no change)
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1
(9' x 20')
Building Height:
20'-5" j
29'-0"
30'-0"
._......_._................_.__._.............--......---.._......_._._....__._..—
DH Envelope: I
------- ---- ....
complies 1
17.5 SF 4
CS 25.28.075
Front setback to the garage is an existing nonconforming condition, a new two -car garage door requires a 35' front setback.
2 A side setback Variance is required for a 6'-8" side setback where, based on the width of the lot, a 7'-0" side setback is
required.
3 (0.32 x 13,453 SF) + 1100 SF = 5,495 SF (0.40 FAR)
4 The proposed project encroaches 17.5 SF into the DHE on the left side of the structure (0'-10" x 21'-0" = 17.5 SF)
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES
Coordinator. Please note that the neighbors at 1847 Hunt Drive submitted a comment letter on May 12, 2008
that includes their contact information and an invitation to Planning Commissioner's to view the story poles from
their property. Also note that the story poles have been adjusted since the last Planning Commission meeting to
show the reduction in the master bedroom addition.
Regular Action Meeting (May 27, 2008): At the Planning Commission Regular Action meeting on May 27,
2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions concerning the design and details of the
proposed addition and voted to continue the item until their comments could be addressed (May 27, 2008
Planning Commission meeting minutes). The applicant provided a response letter, date -stamped June 11,
2008, and revised plans, date -stamped June 12, 2008, addressing the Commission's comments.
Design Review Study Meeting (April 28, 2008): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on
April 28, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions concerning the materials, massing, and
design of the proposed addition and voted to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when the plans have
been revised as directed and story poles have been installed (April 28, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes).
The designer submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated stamped May 14, 2008, to address the
changes requested by the Commission.
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:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
-2-
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a hillside area construction permit by the
Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction 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).
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.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
June 12, 2008, sheets A-0, 1-1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2, A4.0 and A5.0, and that any
changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an
amendment to this permit;
-3-
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 21, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's February
28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February
28, 2008 memo shall be met;
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side setback Variance, as
well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. 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;
11. 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 Department; and
12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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.
Lisa Whitman
Zoning Technician
-4-
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive
Bacilia Macias
c/o Spatial Art Inc.
121 Scotts Chute Court
El Sobrante, CA 94803
Attarhments-
Applicant's Response to Commission's May 27, 2008 comments date -stamped June 11, 2008
May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Regular Action hearing)
Letter from Theodore Vlahos date -stamped May 12, 2008
Letter from Jim Vlahos date -stamped May 12, 2008
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments date -stamped May 12, 2008
Applicant's bulleted list of project revisions date -stamped May 21, 2008
April 28, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Design Review Study hearing)
Letter from Theodore Vlahos date -stamped May 12, 2008
Story Pole Certification Letter from Roger C. Clegg, date -stamped May 21, 2008
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Form
Variance Application Form
Photos of Adjacent Properties
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 13, 2008
Aerial Photo
-5-
■ I
c .
spbtlol art, inc
5141 Hilltop Dr. EL Sobrante, Ca 94803
Ph: (510) 669-1001 Fax: (510) 223-5100
E-mail: melheck_2000@yahoo.com
June 5, 2008
Lisa Whitman and Planning Commission
Community Development Department -Planning Division
2nd Floor 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Site: 1837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA
Subj: Response to Planning Commission meeting comments.
Item #.
I . On the right elevations the windows in the staircase have been shrunk and obscured class will be used.
2. The outermost lights on the rear deck have been removed.
3. The rear deck has been brought in on both sides 2'-0". We did want to maintain the exit from the
office.
4. The master bedroom has been reduced and the front deck has been removed.
5. After reviewing the rear deck design the ornamental railing in such a large area seemed to busy and
would defeat the purpose of down playing the deck. The posts for the rail are wood since we felt the
metal post and frame would feel too commercial. The wood railing plays well with the existing wood
trellis.
6. The shed roof under the rear deck has been removed.
7. The hip details on the side elevations.
8. The fascia has been changed to lx8, typical.
9. Regarding the placement of the addition, we took great care in placing this addition and made many
efforts to examine a first floor and/or split level addition, but as Mr. Dunning explained the loss of
greenscape (pervious ground cover) would destroy the rear yard that the previous owner had obviously
taken great care in creating.
We appreciate the comments of the Commission and as we mentioned to the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs.
Vlahos, that the concerns they have do not fall on deaf ears and we have addressed all the modifications
presented to us by the Commission.
Please feel free to contact me with any other questions.
Sincerely,
Bacilia Macias
Spatial Art, Inc.
510-223-5300
PLANNING LETTER#3
Page 1 of 1
6/11/2009
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008
�. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIAL ART, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER: AND CHRIS DUNNING PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated May 28, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
None
Bacilia Macias and Melanie Heck, 5141 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante; represented the applicant.
Described changes made to plans.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Visited uphill neighbor and observed that views are reasonably protected, but concerned about
privacy of neighbor; would suggest that windows on right elevation near stairwell be clerestory/glass
block to preserve neighbor's privacy, also could install skylights for added light.
■ Suggested that only two lights be provided on the deck; remove the two outermost lights.
■ Consider bringing in the upper balcony by a few feet on both sides to bring it further away from the
neighbors.
■ Location of the addition is well considered; but some concern about view blockage from neighbor's
kitchen; why wasn't a split-level considered (applicant: there are many trees that a good lawn area
that the homeowner wishes to retain for children's play area).
■ Asked about the size of some of the rooms on the second -floor, particularly the master bedroom
with its 21-foot depth blocks the kitchen view; could be pulled back a few feet to reduce view
impacts.
■ Concerns regarding the deck off of the master bedroom creating more outdoor living space that will
impact the neighbor; consider eliminating the front deck or bringing the balcony by a few feet on
both sides to bring it further away from the neighbors.
■ Like the idea of minimizing the impact of the deck rails, but feels an ornamental treatment for the
rear deck may be more appropriate than what is shown on the plan.
■ Concern regarding the construction details of the balcony; would be tough to build; determine if it is
feasible before construction.
■ Roof overhang at second floor on left side elevation; appears to be hipped back; go ahead and let it
engage the roof directly, without using a hip design.
■ Detail on Sheet A5, fascia dimension needs to be clarified; suggest a smaller size fascia.
Public comments:
James Vlahos, 50 Platt Avenue, Sausalito; Theodore Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; and Chris Dunning,
1837 Hunt Drive spoke; presented a letterto the Commission; concerned about mass and bulk and
propensity for increasing the home size of all homes on the block; encouraged by comments
regarding minimizing the mass of the proposed addition in order to preserve views. The existing
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008
house is too small to accommodate the applicant's family; pushing the addition further back would
detract from the usability of the yard; designers will take into account the suggestions made at this
evening's hearing. Next door neighbor on downhill side, has a two-story house; there is a precedent
for two-story homes in the area.
Further Commission comments:
Asked if the applicant realized that the entire house, with the exception of the garage, will be
completely demolished to achieve the changes.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant, as outlined in the
discussion.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
■ Asked for uphill neighbor's contact telephone numbers for Commission to make arrangements for
site visit.
■ The second floor plan appears to be very inefficient, there could be a better design; though the
addition is relatively modest; doesn't significantly impact views.
■ Also look at any possibilities to move mass of second story addition away from neighbor.
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). This item concluded at 9:14 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
Commissioner Auran recused himself due to a business relationship with the applicant for Item 8 (1317
Cabrillo Avenue).
8. 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (BOB AND CINDY GILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND CHU
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated May 27, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Bob Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court, Hillsborough and James Chu, 55 West 43`d Street, San Mateo;
represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Clarified that the ridgeline will be at nearly 30-feet; it is a lot of mass; concern about being so close
to the maximum height; could the height be reduced.
Complimented the porch design.
13
Respectful members of the Planning Commission,
My name is Theodore Vlahos. My wife and I live at 1847 Hunt Drive, which is
north of the applicant's house. Almost 40 years ago my family and I drove through Hunt
Dr. in Burlingame and fell in love with the houses on this block. The houses are all low
with views, plenty of sunlight, and big back yards. Now comes the applicant and wants to
change the aesthetics of the houses with a big box addition. The addition in my opinion is
not to the best of the neighborhood because the second story will stick out like a sore
thumb. The applicant is blessed with a big back yard, and it will be to the neighborhood
interest if they build in the ground floor instead of adding a second floor, which is very
big for any block.
Wise members of the commission, I urge you to vote against this plan and if this
is an inducement- Thank you in advance.
Sin rely,
Theodore Vlahos
RECEIVED
MAY 2 7 2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Members of the committee,
On behalf of my parents, Theodore and Patricia Vlahos, we have always
considered ourselves to be good neighbors and hope the applicants will be happy
in their new home. Unfortunately, we must ask the applicants to revise their
submitted plans. It is our contention that the proposed addition is not congruent
with the original designers plans for Hunt Drive. The mass and bulk does not
interface with the adjoining properties, nor are side and spatial qualities
preserved.
We respectfully submit that the view ordinance be enforced and our
southerly views will be preserved.
S' e ly,
J m ahos
REC I V
MAY 2 7 2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT..
-
5141 Hilltop Dr. EL Sobrante, Ca 94803
Ph: (510) 669-1001 Fax: (510) 223-5100
E-mail: melheck_2000@yahoo.com
May 12, 2008
Lisa Whitman and Planning Commission
Community Development Department -Planning Division
2nd Floor 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Site: 1837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA
Subj: Response to Planning Commission meeting comments.
Item #.
1. After consideration the design no longer includes the slate veneer, but will have a wainscot of
porcelain file with a rough raised finish. It will be of the same scale as the brick and will be a running
bond. The decision to not wrap it around the entire structure was based on the surrounding neighbors
which do not have the brick wainscot on rear. But because we appreciate the commissions comments
concerning articulation we felt that continuing the stone chair rail around the entire structure was
beneficial to the elevations.
2. The rear elevation has been modified and the first story railing has been removed to avoid the stacked
deck appearance. The railing on the second floor has also be changed and now longer has the vertical
pickets. On the plans the modified rail is shown and a photo of the product is included in the plans.
3. Both left and right side elevations were modified to address the issues of scale and articulation.
Eventhough the right side neighbor was incorrect regarding the "blank wall' that would be facing her
property we took steps to improve that elevation as well.
4. Steps. were taken to lessen the massing of the addition for example bringing down the plate height on
the second floor 1 foot. The recessing a portion of the second floor on the left side so as minimize
the length of 2-story wall.
5. All windows will be replaced and metal clad windows will be used.
6. All trim including the belly band will be wood.
Regarding Mr. and Mrs Vlahos comments we have made great efforts to minimize the impact on there
property. The second story wall that is the closest to there property is over 40 feet away from their home.
The story poles will be installed before the next commission meeting . The first floor plate height was
raised to provide more volume in the existing rooms below the addition, but we have lowered the second
story plate height.
Mr. and Mrs. Dunning have been very considerate in minimizing the extent of their addition and love the
property they have but with a growing family space becomes an issue. We look forward to the
commissions input once they have seen the projects story poles and the impact on the neighbors view and
we welcome their suggestions.
Please feel free to contact me with any other questions.
Sincerely,
Bacilia Macias
Spatial Art, Inc.
510-223-5300
PLANNING LETTER#2
Page 1 of 1
5/12/2008
NNW
ion I
S fd _ff hC
5141 Hilltop Dr. EL Sobrante, Ca 94803
Ph: (510) 669-1001 Fax: (510) 223-5100
E-mail: melheck_2000@yahoo.com
May 20, 2008
Lisa Whitman and The Planning Commission
Community Development Department -Planning Division
2nd Floor 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Site: 1837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA
Subject: Comprehensive Responses to the April 28th 2008 Planning Meeting
❖ Arguments in favor of second story addition plan for 1837 Hunt Drive:
➢ Design and location of the second story addition took into consideration the best placement for
massing with regards to the adjacent neighbors and for the neighborhood's architectural
integrity.
➢ Proposed addition does not block or obscure any sunlight at any time during the day, including
the winter when the sun is lower in the sky.
➢ No substantial view is being blocked. Uphill neighbor's view from kitchen is of 1837 Hunt's roof,
backyard, the sky, and distant trees. The second story addition does little if anything to diminish
the existing condition. Kitchen views to the south-east are unchanged.
➢ Addition is approximately forty (40) feet from 1847 Hunt Drive (uphill neighbor).
➢ Second story plate height was lowered by one (1) foot to minimize second story massing.
➢ Right side elevation has more architectural elements.
➢ Windows on right side elevation viewed from uphill neighbor's kitchen are primarily stairwell
windows so there are no privacy issues.
➢ Next door neighbor at 1827 Hunt (downhill side) has a two story, seven bedroom house.
❖ Architectural revisions and additional detail added to the design since April 28th
Planning Meeting:
➢ Windows - All changed from Anderson 400 Vinyl Clad to Pella Aluminum Clad.
➢ Front Elevation:
■ Master Bathroom/Stairwell Windows - dormer added to provide additional architectural
element.
■ Wainscot Fagade - Changed from 12 inch slate to porcelain raised tile with a tailored pattern.
Pattern continues around the side of the house to a logical stop. Stone chair rail continues
to encircle the rest of the house.
• Front column detail - Base with porcelain raised tile with a tailored pattern.
■ Front door detail - Change from (2) 30 inch wood doors with 12 inch sidelites to (2) three foot
wood doors with glass panel and iron detailing.
■ Second story Master Bedroom French doors -changed from (2) 36 inch double panel vinyl
slider to (3) - 30 inch French Panel doors.
■ Balcony railing changed to decorative iron railing.
■ Front lighting elements added to elevation 1" and 2"d story
■ Plate height dropped 1 foot on second story
➢ Left Side Elevation
■ Recessed a portion of the second floor to minimize the length of the two story wall
■ Modified second floor massing to address issues of scale and articulation
• Second floor master bedroom windows resized
• Stucco band changed to wood belly band
■ Stone Chair Rail added along with wrapped wainscot
■ 3 inch foam trim with stucco finish changed to 4 inch wood trim
➢ Rear Elevation
■ Lower deck modification - railing removed and structure rounded
• Bay window added to rear bedroom
■ Family room slider changed to aluminum clad sliding glass doors
■ Kitchen slider changed to two panel aluminum clad French doors
■ Columns eliminated since second story addition was pushed forward
• Wood railing on upper deck changed to redwood rail with stainless steel 5132" diameter
cables
• Sitting room changed from double vinyl slider to two panel aluminum clad French doors
■ Decorate lighting added to lower and upper levels
➢ Right Side Elevation
Lower bedroo„ss' bathroom,, windows slightly relocated to provide balance and greater
distance from shower
Modified second floor massing to address issues of scale and articulation
■ Window added to stairwell wall for balance and aesthetics
■ Stone Chair Rail added along with wrapped wainscot
We hope our comprehensive responses, the additional details, and the enhanced design can assist the City
of Burlingame Planning Commission to approve this project.
Sincerely,
Bacilia Macias Chris Dunning
Spatial Art, Inc. Property Owner
510-223-5300 650-219-1077
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
Additional Commission comments:
Asked if the applicant proposes trimming the trees.
Prepared not to get too involved in tree removal issues. Would like some clarification on which trees
are to be removed. Plans call for removal of at least four trees. Two trees in the rear have
branches protruding over property. In front yard, the removal of the two black Acacias and
Eucalyptus trees has an active permit. There are two trees to be removed within rear.
Would like to see story poles. Could also tape the trees that are to be removed in order to best
address view impacts.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Leo Redmond, 2711 Martinez Drive; and Gill Yee, 2707 Martinez
Drive; Black Acacia are on list of trees that the City Arborist would like to have removed. Once
pruned, the tree will grow more and more and will require more frequent pruning. There is a wayfor
reasonable people to work out the issues. The trees were encroaching upon the property at 2711
Martinez Drive, and the property owner had them trimmed by an arborist. The owner of the
neighboring property has worked for years with the applicant to have trees trimmed and the distant
Bay views restored. The trees are a problem in the front and rear of the property. The neighbor at
2711 Martinez Drive initiated mediation and made a generous offer with regards to the fence.
Rescinded his offer due to lack of cooperation of applicant. They have done nothing to restore the
view. Have endured a patchwork of materials on the roof of the Yee's house. Has diminished the
value of 2711 Martinez Drive. The applicant is requesting special treatment on the part of the City.
The applicant has not made any attempt to show the plans to the neighbor. Without a firm
commitment to address the issues raised, the neighbor at 2711 Martinez Drive will not support the
project. Requested installation of story poles; the project will have an impact upon the distant Bay
views and the airport. Not opposed to completion of remodel.
Further Commission comments:
Requested that story poles be erected and trees marked so that the Commission can assess view
impacts.
Front entry element needs to have story poles as does the ridge line tying the elements together,
and to the down slope corner.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item until May 12, 2008, with direction to the applicant to erect
storypoles and mark trees that are scheduled for removal when the project is constructed. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (CommissionerAuran absent). This
item concluded at 9:09 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIAL ART, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND CHRIS DUNNING PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman brieflN
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Melanie Heck and Basilia Macias; 5141 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante and Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive;
represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Questioned the decision to keep slate veneer on front, but not continue it around the structure.
■ The neighborhood has a preponderance of brick veneer; will not serve the intended purpose unless
carried through. Also concerned about the size of the twelve inch squares.
■ The rear elevation appears to have balconies on top of balconies. No details on posts supporting
the decks, may intend to provide detail, but not shown. Reference the design guidelines to look for
ways to refine scale and design.
■ Main concern is broad left side elevation, two-story wall, not consistent with the style of the house.
The addition looks stacked on top of the house. Provide more articulation.
■ Right elevation contains a lot of stucco and no articulation or detail.
■ Massing looks layered.
■ Shift addition over and center door.
■ Concerned about use of vinyl windows.
■ Clarify that wood trim, not stucco foam trim, will be provided.
Public comments:
■ Patricia and Paul Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; would like the addition to not be too high, want home to
blend with neighborhood and retain views.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Usually insist on story poles. Are their distant views from her house?
■ Noted that there is space to lower the plate heights to reduce view impacts.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar, with direction to
the applicant to install story poles.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
■ Commissioner Vistica noted that he wouldn't support motion, the design should likely go through a
design reviewer since applicant has not worked in the City.
Chair Cauchi called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when story
poles have been erected and plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-2-
1 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom dissenting, Commissioner Auran absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:33 p.m.
`s]
Theodore Vlahos
1847 Hunt Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-692-4457
Planning Commission MAY s_ ::' 2008
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Drive -m °^ Eu; fl"IN. AI'A=
PLANNING DEPT,
Burlingame CA 94010
Subject: 1837 Hunt Drive, April 28, 2008 Public Hearing Notice Follow Up
Dear Planning Commission:
On Monday April 28, 2008 a public hearing was held in regards to an application for design review,
side setback variance and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story
addition to a single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt Drive. My wife Patricia Vlahos as well as my
grandson Paul Vlahos attended the hearing to communicate our position on the proposed addition to
1837 Hunt Drive.
Our residence is at 1847 Hunt Drive, directly next door and approximately 20 feet north of 1837
Hunt Drive. We have lived at 1847 Hunt drive for over 35 years. One of the key factors of our
decision to purchase our home was the beautiful view from the entire left side of our home and the
abundant natural sunlight thru-out the day.. Our primary living space ( kitchen , dining room and
living room currently have a expansive view to the south ( looking over the current roof line of
1837 Hunt Drive)
We have always viewed ourselves as good neighbors and in no way do we want to change that.
However based on what we have learned in regards to the proposed addition to 1837 Hunt, we now
feel that we do need to ensure our position is clearly understood. .
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the hearing. At the hearing my wife felt that she was not able
to effectively communicate our position due to nervousness and incomplete information regarding
the scope of the project. After seeing the plans the addition is considerably more that what we
thought and would now like to go on record as objecting to the plans as they currently exist. The
reason for our objection is that the addition will dramatically eliminate the view we currently enjoy
on a daily basis as well as dramatically reduce the natural sunlight. These two factors are the
primary reasons for our concern; a third reason is the impact the addition could have on our
property values in the event we need to sell the home sometime in the future as we age.
Lastly, a final concern we have is the design integrity of our neighborhood being compromised by
addition upon addition on single story houses. We would like to invite members of the planning
commission to our home to see the current view, natural sunlight, and get a better sense for what
we feel would be compromised should current plans be approved.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Theodore Vlahos
WESTERN PACIFIC
BOUNDARY & SURVEYING
P.O. BOX 2442
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064
(650) 787-1878
(650) 363-8930 fax
survcle�asbcglobal.net
Ms. Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Subject Property:
Lot 4 Block 49, Book 59 of Recorded Subdivision Maps, at Page 22 filed in the Office
of the San Mateo County Recorder on December 9, 1963; A.P.N.: 025-320-040;
Commonly known as: Christopher Dunning Residence, 1837 Hunt Drive,
Burlingame, CA
This letter certifies that on May 20, 2008, I, Roger J. Clegg, LS 7055, personally
checked the story poles erected on the subject property and found that all locations,
as shown on the approved Story Pole Plan dated 5/15/08, had story poles erected to
the specified heights within 1 "+/-, and that the tops of the poles were within 20 of
plumb from the story pole points, as set by this office on May 15, 2008.
Respectfully submitted, this 21 st day of May, 2008.
Roger J. Cle , LS (55
(expires Decemb 1, 2008)
Westem Pacific Boundary &Surveying
Rogor,kj),j Cl,7iqg - [.2 7D55
(650) 787-1878 P.O. Box 2442
(65OL) 363-8930 (Fax) Redwood City. CA 94064
e-mail: survclqg@sbcglobol.r)ct
Over 35 years of personal experience & service
Third generation mid -peninsula surveyor (1918 — present)
FL_ 1 11
Q
G 6;
Sheet 0"
Date
Date
cz
/A.) e
94, f 1-4
N'V I V
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Typ of application: / \
Design Review C9 Variance C566J ❑ Other:
❑ Conditional Use Permit 11 Special Permit (bk) ❑ Parcel Number: 02 y — S-2-0 — 0 -D
PROJECT ADDRESS: 18 3 7 iAUNT 1) fZ-AvE_:
APPLICANT project contact person Q
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(Home):
(Fax):
—i E-mail):
mARCHITECT(Q:E:S:1G1NEK project contact personX
OK to send electronic copies of documents C�
Name: "c1cfa`ciS
t i rv�
Address: i .=Z i S c t is Ch "fe—
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w): _
(Home): tl
(Fax)
m
Flo - ?2-3 .— SI0C)
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: �21� j' I S ID',tty v� ►1Cj --
Address: (u `` t"�S-r
City/State/Zip-
Phone (w): % S-0 -- 2 l q — 102 1
(Home):
(Fax): _
(E-mail):
Please mark one box
With ❑X
to indicate
the contact person
for this project.
(E-mail): mu C,a S _ Ste. G S%c: c�IUh fll�t'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: IZe eL
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature:�'� Date: ' y J
am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
',ommission.
Property owner's signature: —� Date:
Date submitted:
S:\Handouts\PC.Applicatop 2007.Fiendout
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.org
l� CITY C
BUF{L�INGAME
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 l
Zi�,1
E.�,'✓V'L�)
`�( �,([) 1 � SLG� (�L�.C.Lil 1. � � I�i�'✓�:. � Yam-- �'CJ � Y �.ii� �j {�+1.� � 1 �-` }'Wti'��'
('►2"'1`�' �t` C1%� l (" . lQ_ VV-A e� VI LO Vaj�- iT�) h't'7 �+ C�i
LI irL� �' lo i k � �l - S o---% is ��5 i G+-� .[mot pv— O Kr
2. JJ 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.
_(1 y ter' Y A� A V\ � 0 t 5 h,. V I� 5 i 1 �� �-� v L ac :� V0 f
r-P, * co l V 1)
O M 014-C4 -Ie-� I vrls S; ,'rk
�t �c tU-,k) rCOA Q t v�%> L.ti,J �cm 5 r S vc
�Vc� y s2-0 `
� +�'►� .� ►alL �" �,ri vim;
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guade ines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
S-,o V' vw , v �.00, (}
Sti j vvv� w1 i G S i�%�iit--�-- VJ GvJ �e c�-L v �`� `-`- J
�1 d � C� L1✓v�..� � l/�T71�� c'�1 C7 V`-1'- s iC� � � ��'i V'`� ..
4. Explain how the removal ofany y tees 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.
�►rU �� i S`�"cm�'� '�'t'�S cam? I�sz:�l'�
SPEUERMIRM
C u r
to C) V-) )P) +a*--",
tAl
1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
20ii�-?
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
C � � a y � ` � �Jt� Cc-cL+S C C� �'�"�. C:�vt•� i c� c.•t �ct;�' f pyPl
JE.r �L S�,t�ti"P
p .� -I-t� cx. d� . .�-f- fi � S �p e r a:-+- i � ►� lac+ V�,n ✓►'l y �� 5� cl�� c:.';'. iti,tid
1,I,2•i eAh bey i- 1 S n of- n o r -a Vl 6 LJ
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a cC ha�rc�
substantial ,.property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial of the application. ,
N/1 1 i�v► i 1 j V� t S ice-'., 4 v k-0- +V1 S � tic VVI c ►n^ E + -jam cq v-0 u�
ti(i 2Ll 5 Cq f3 �t I� ►ry t v l ►'lit - Ga Y✓l & ✓tY-c Al
�._
Vha k-t.M y - 2- x -le-v► a ►� c� . m C;a� I"5 i- vl� cj t'- e5 i c� rl c Yl Z) -�i e ILb .
C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
e— C
,k j 5 Q-0
v,s c�tf 1;.� vrs hWrve yl
Y-e.eA-r 4 nS I
►`cLc W Ivy f be- ck. J Z Y-
r
v i• s 1.,t 01 STV- uk ✓ra i w► j 5k �, .
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity? ,
4 q re-ec " kC.l't e Vi� � (DWI Y) 1 Wj c,�
1 yvn 4
-,>t✓ Lm-\.J s-%��r� ti �s b��v� 5:✓k �s� �iL -F►�c
Handouts\Variance Application.2007
,OSi rlC-
Project Comments
Date: February 21, 2008
To: ml City Engineer
(650) 558- 7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558- 7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance for first and
second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt
Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-320-040
Staff Review: February 25, 2008
1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the
City storm drain system.
2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary
appurtenant work.
3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additicna! infcrmafion.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 2/28/2008
Project Comments
Date: February 21, 2008
To: ❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance for first and
second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt
Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-320-040
Staff Review: February 25, 2008
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building
Codes (CBC).
2) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
3) Provide existing and proposed elevations.
4) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of
Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any
twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an
existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building
or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new
buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2007 California
Building Code for new structures.
5) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of
Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate
of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No
occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy
has been issued.
6) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed
property lines
7) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be
demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not
be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project.
8) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise
residential / non-residential buildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for
publications and details.
9) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or
door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of
all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The area labeled
"Office" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must
comply with this requirement.
10)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at
any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the
Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in
height.
11)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
12)Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
13)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of
the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9
14)NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that
specifically address items 1 and 9 must be re -submitted before this project
can move forward for Plannin Commission action.
Reviewed b ��� Date:,,-/-, 1o2,4L,!�,
Project Comments
Date: February 21, 2008
To: ❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
Pf Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance for first and
second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt
Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-320-040
Staff Review: February 25, 2008
If
Reviewed --- Date: Z����
Project Comments
Date: February 21, 2008
To: ❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
IV/Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance for first and
second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt
Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-320-040
Staff Review: February 25, 2008
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly —
Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building
Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split
between domestic and fire protection lines.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Reviewed b ��� Date:
Y: -.,-- - 0 8,
Project Comments
Date: February 21, 2008
To: 0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
0 City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
0
Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
0
Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
✓
NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0
City Attorney
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance for first and
second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt
Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-320-040
Staff Review: February 25, 2008
1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not
limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases
of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate
stormwater BMPs as Project Notes.
2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging
and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times.
3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls as necessary.
a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls
continuously until permanent erosion control have been established;
b. Address method(s) for diverting on -site runoff around exposed areas and
diverting off -site runoff arount the site;
c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on -site.
4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following:
a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control
measures, including inspection frequency;
b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of
vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material.
Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for
your review at the Community Development and Engineering departments. Distribute to
all project proponents.
For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
Reviewed by: Date: 02/28/2008
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT, AND SETBACK VARIANCE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Special Permit and Setback Variance for a
first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1,
Dunning Family Trust property owner, APN: 025-320-040;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
June 23, 2008, 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 will have a significant effect on
the environment, and categorical exemption per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class
1(e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not
result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all
public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development
permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located in not
environmentally sensitive.
2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Setback
Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Findings for such Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit, and
Setback Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said
meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
1, , 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 23rd day of June, 2008 by
the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit, Special Permit, and Setback Variance
1837 Hunt Drive
Effective July 4, 2008
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped June 12, 2008, sheets A-0, 1-1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2,
A4.0 and A5.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or
floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 21, 2008 memo, the City
Engineer's February 28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2008 memo, and
the NPDES Coordinator's February 28, 2008 memo shall be met;
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side
setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become
void;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
5. 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), moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to Planning Commission review;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit, Special Permit, and Setback Variance
1837 Hunt Drive
Effective July 4, 2008
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. 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;
11. 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
Department; and
12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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
t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010".�°
., PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 6 rT9�
www.burlingame.org -� M
s
Site: 1837 HUNT DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining
Height Envelope for a first and second story addition to a
single family dwelling at 1837 HUNT DRIVE zoned R-1.
APN 025-320-040
Mailed: June 13, 2008
(Please refer to other side)
rahH16504325
00.2� 0
�ia;jgh FFrotn 94010
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Cif of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
y�
R'l
-q� d�
a ;7c r
Sa
os
MPAI
1 016,
ell
831
\ 7
r •
' y o
i• �a�� �' / > °t,�''� it ° q s0'�' �.fii....y �„ +'"""z+�'� `=,�,,,�,�.
,
i
USD
TRH
z
1 .
,1
NU
s
miyo,l+ f _ - r
Y
,P,o
ATWAT RJR _
f �� � / � c Y .. 1 6 � - _:r 's '� F�.� a 3Qp1 t, ` � .• d�+� �'�.r; z �_,z�.
Ilk
1837 Hunt Drive
ram, t { �. d `\� ^.4 `\ -^c ��9 _ � t k ` •' �' }S 1'. ._
Te i �( 4.
Ir. h3 � �'!'. jam... ''•i E� I
.:�►�. �.< �1 °'� 1 t l- - � - :'-'fie
r
- xi -'�'i, ... it ,a1 ,i\ i,4 .'.J =.4,ra.. `.'�. r4 ��. .m , ���1� •-F� 1 �_
Ilk
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) i 8
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1837 HUNT DRIVE t- ' -
The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following
public hearing on Monday, August 18, 2008 at 7:00 P.M.
in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA:
Appeal of Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of an
Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,
Side Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height
Envelope for a first and second story addition to a single family
dwelling at 1837 HUNT DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 025-320-040
Mailed: August 8, 2008
(Please refer to other side)
n
10270
Mailed rem „4i iu
US POSTAGE
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, UPHOLDING THE
APPEAL OF CHRIS DUNNING AND REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE
23, 2008, DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,
HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION AT 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE
RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT:
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2008, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice an
application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance, and
Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first and second story addition to a single-
family residence located at 1837 Hunt Drive (APN: 025-320-040), and owned by the Dunning
Family Trust, 1837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, California; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's June 23, 2008 denial without prejudice was
appealed by Chris Dunning, and the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal on
August 18, 2008; upholding the appeal and reversing the Planning Commission's denial without
prejudice.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:
The City Council hereby upholds the appeal and reverses the Planning Commission's
June 23, 2008 denial without prejudice of the application for Design Review, Hillside
Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance, and Special Permit for Declining
Height Envelope, based upon the Council's finding that the proposed project will not
obstruct the existing distant views from nearby properties. Additional findings for the
City Council's action are as set forth in the minutes and recording of the City Council
meeting of June 23, 2008.
2. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is
no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and categorical exemption per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class
1(e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not
result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all
public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development
permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located in not
environmentally sensitive.
3. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance, and
Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side
Setback Variance, and Special Permit are set forth in the minutes and recording of said
meeting.
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No.
City Council Agenda — August 18, 2008
APPEAL —1837 Hunt Drive
4. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Mayor
I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregointy
resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18`
day of August, 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
2
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No.
City Council Agenda — August 18, 2008
APPEAL — 1837 Hunt Drive
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped June 12, 2008, sheets A-0, L1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2,
A4.0 and A5.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or
floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 21, 2008 memo, the City
Engineer's February 28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2008 memo, and
the NPDES Coordinator's February 28, 2008 memo shall be met;
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side
setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become
void;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
5. 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), moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to Planning Commission review;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
3
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No.
City Council Agenda — August 18, 2008
APPEAL —1837 Hunt Drive
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. 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;
11. 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
Department; and
12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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.
4
I II III
�I
B � "