Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1837 Hunt Drive - Staff Report (5)Item No. City of Burlingame Action Calendar Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Side Setback Variance Address: 1837 Hunt Drive Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, ai-id 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 permissitile 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 1,036 SF second floor. With the proposed first and second story additions, the floor area will increase to 4,134 SF (0.31 FAR) where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 5,495 SF (0.40 FAR). The proposed project is 1,361 SF below the maximum allowable FAR. With the addition, the 'slumber 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). 18.37 Hunt Drive Lot Area: 13,453 SF Plans date stam ed: May 14, 2008 i I EXISTING PROPOSED (TO ADDN) ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st fir): 23'-0" (to garage) (no change) 15 - (2nd fir): n!a _ 55 - .....(to MB...deck)................_._..........._...._............_........._............ �..... Design Review, Hillside Ai -ea Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 9837 Hunt Drive PROPOSED TO ADDN 6' 8" (tti'nbok) `2 ALLOWED/REQUIRED 11 7 -0 EXISTING Side (left, 1st flr): 6'-8" (to LR) (left, 2nd flrl: n/a t',S" (to MB) 2 T-0" (right, 1st fir): 15'-6" (to garage) 15'-6" (to bath 3) 7'-0" (right, 2nd flr): .......... _..,.,..,......................._....._..._........._........{.._........._......._......_...._...._....................................... 35'-6" to stair} 7'-0" _.................._...............1�..._1�._...._......_............_.......__....... Rear 1st flr) • ............. .....n/a......................................... 99'-0" (to BR3) 88'-0" (to right rear bath) (2nd flr) n/a 85'-0" (to MB deck) 20'-0" __. ....... Lot Coverage. 2,637° SF 3,279 4SF 5,381 SF 40% 20 /° -_..._..___._...__...._... ......................Flo..........................................................._..........__......_......._................_........._......__._........___-....._.._-_.__.......__.....__.._..._..._......_... Floor Area Ratib: 2,517 SF 4,134 SF 0.31 FAR 5,495 SF 0.40 FAR s 0.19 FAR _...... --..._.._ .. .... ....... .............._.......... ... _..... ............. .............. # of bedrooms: ... ..._....,.,........,,............_................ __............... .......................... 4 5 ..... ...... .......... _................ -....... .......... _....... . --- ................. ........... ...._ Parking: ...... -_..._................ ........................._......._......._....... ....................... ...... 2 covered (20'-0" W x 22'-0" L) ........... _..... ._..._....._.........._ (no change) 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered {.9 x 20. 0') (9' x 20'). ._.__.. Building Height. ........,-............................................................._..............._.........................._............._...._._.._.........__..........._..._...........__...._.....,.....__..__._....__................._..._.....__._..__...__.._......_........__.._.......__...... 20'-5" 29' 0" 30'-0" _ _......... _............. .._ .._.............._................... ._.... _...... .... _. _ CS 25.28 075 DH Envelope:com lies, Front setback to the g,�rage is an existing nonconforming condition, anew two -car garage door requu es a ��•��� 2 A side setback Variance is required for a 6'-8" side setback where, based on the width of the lot, a 7-0 required. 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 Mote 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. Design Review Studer Meeting: 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 RegularAction calendarwhen 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. Listed below are the Commission's suggestions and responses by the applicant. 1. Questioned the decision to keep slate veneer on front, but not continue it around the structure. Will not serve the int6nded purpose unless carried through. Also concerned about the size of the twelve - inch squares. • The designer is proposing a stone chair rail be carried across all four elevations, and is proposing a porcelain tile with a rough raised finish on the front elevation instead of the slate veneer. The porcelain tile will be the same scale as brick, and not the 12" tiles as originally proposed (response letters dated May 12 and May 21, 2008 and revised elevations, Sheets A3.1 and A3.2, dated May 14, 2008). 2. The rear elevation appears to have balconies on top of balconies. Add details on the posts supporting the decks. Reference design guidelines to look for ways to refine scale and design. -2- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 9837 Hunt Drive • The designer removed the railing from the first story deck at the rear to eliminate the appearance of stacked balconies. Additionally, dimensions of posts were added to the elevations, and a detail of the rear deck railing is provided (response letters dated May 12 and May 21, 2008, and revised side and rear elevations, Sheets AV and A3.2, and Details, Sheet A5.0). 3. Concerned with broad left side elevation; two-story wall and not consistent with the style of the house. Right elevation contains a lot of stucco and lacks articulation and detail. Massing looks layered. Add morh articulation to the right and left elevations. • The designer h,is stepped back the office IV' to add articulation to the left elevation, added a slight pop - out at the master bath and stairs to the front elevation, and added windows to the right elevation. Additionally, a stone chair rail was added to the first story around the entire structure (response letters dated May 12 alnd May 21, 2008, and revised elevations, Sheets A3.1 and A3.2, date -stamped May 14, 2008). 4. Concerned about the use of vinyl windows. Clarify that wood trim, not stucco foam trim, will be provided. The designer is proposing metal clad wood windows and wood trim throughout (response letters dated May 12 and May 21, 2008 and Details, Sheet A5.0, figure 6, dated May 14, 2008). 5. Noted that there is space to lower the plate heights to reduce view impacts. esponsletters • The designer reduced the plate height revised elevations, Sheets A3.1tory by onfoot and A3 2edated rMay 14e2008}. dated May 12 and May 21, 2008 and re 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 df the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 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. Emphasi,, 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 rnass, 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 i-oof 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 -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive (d) removal of any gees 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 fot 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, andi consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's theaffirmed record. resolAt the (on of the Planning public hearing the Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly fore following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 12, 2008, sheets A-0, 1-1.0, and A1.0 through 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 mere 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 du ;ts, 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 -4- Design Review, Hillside A', -ea Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 9837 Hunt Drive 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 INSPECTION'S 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 C. Bacilia Macias c/o Spatial Art Inc. 121 Scotts Chute Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 Attachments: Applicant's Response! to Commission's comments date -stamped May 12, 2008 Applicant's bulleted list of project revisions date -stamped May 21, 2008 Minutes from Study/Design Review Study Meeting Letter from Theodore Vlahos date -stamped May 12, 2008 StIDry 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 Commissioh Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Heai-ing — Mailed May 16, 2008 Aerial Photo -5- 3 5141 Hilltop Dr, EL Sohrante, 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 2"d Floor 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 1837 Hunt ]brave, Burlingame, CA Subj: Response to Planning Commission meeting comments. Item #. I. After consideration the design no longer includes the slate veneer, but will have a wainscot of porcelain tile 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. Evemthough 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. Stej:)s- 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 fbel free to contact me with any other questions. Sincerely, Bacilia Macias Spatial Art, Inc. 510-223-5300 PLANNING LETTER#2 Page I of 1 5/12/2008 o AI spoff6i C 5141 Hilltop Dr. EL Sobrahte, Ca 94803 Ph: (510) 669-1001 Fax: (510) 223-5100 E-mail: melheck_2000@y9hoo.com May 20, 2008 Lisa Whitman and Th'a 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 •a� Arguments in favor of second story addition plan for 1837 Hunt Drive: MA"1Y` :� t 201)'4 ➢ Design and Ibcation of the second story addition took into consideration the best placement for massing witty regards to the adjacent neighbors and for the neighborhood's architectural integrity. ➢ Proposed addition does not block or obscure any sunlight at anytime 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 ajJproximately 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 (down hill 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 file with a tailored pattern. ■ Front door detail - Change from (2) 30 inch wood doors with 92 inch sidelites to {i�,t rep fo9J f1 wood doors with glass panel and iron detailing. i;l'"01gilljillydGArviF ■ Second :story Master Bedroom French doors -changed from (2) 36 inch double papaNW slider to (3) - 30 inch French Panel doors. ■ Balcony railing changed to decorative iron railing. ■ Front lighting elements added to elevation Is'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 rafting 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 bedrooms' 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 comprehiensive 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 BURLINGAM>-- 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 Giorw, 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 brive, 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 entr/ 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 applicantto erect story poles and mark trees that are scheduled for removal when the project is constructed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called for a 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 BURLINGAMI= PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008 Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly presented the pr'aject 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 corments: ■ 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 theft 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 Brbwnrigg 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 moi`ion: • Commissi.':)ner 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 for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action 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. 13 Theodore Vlahos 1847 Hunt Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 650-692-4457 Planning Commission City of Burlingame: 501 Primrose Drive Burlingame CA 940.10 Subject: 1837 Huns: Drive, April 28, 2008 Public Hearing Notice Follow Up Dear Planning Commission: RECEIVED MAY j '/f 2008 CITt OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, 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 halve 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 vv 's 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 prdject. After seeing the plans the addition is considerably more that what we thought and would :how 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, /, D Theodore Vlahos WESTERN PACIFIC BOUNDARY & SURVEYING P.O. BOX 2442 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 (650) 787-1878 (650) 363-8930 fax survclegkshc�lobal.net Ms. Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner Community Development Department Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 MAY 2, , 2008 ('11"'OF1!URLINt ANIF ri.ftr1NING UEF"r. Subject Property: Lot 4 Block 4.9, 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 21st day of May, 2008. Roger J. Cle , LS 5 (expires Dec;emb 1, 2008) Western pacific', Boundary & Surveying Roger John Clegg * LS 7055 (650) 787-1878 P.O. Box 2442 (650) 363-8930 (I'M-fnall: O Redwood CRY, CA 94064 9survcsbcglobal.nel over 35 years of rersonal experience & service Third generation mid-I)eninsda SUfveYOr (1918 - Prese"t) '74- rfi 0 -- -TWIA J iAA\/ 004A ......... .. 1- -1- Sheet 37 ;It - Date Date 12ft) AJ-r< MM A P44, F4- 4 r -v 7 1- 1" r4- I A to 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 ;FE)esign of application: / \ Review f5 Variance �`�6J ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit I� Special Permit (btl � ❑ Parcel Number: 02°5 — 3zo —o4-O PROJECT ADDRESS:_ l 6 3 7 A4L) 1) R-1 V EE_ APPLICANT project contact person H" OK to send dlectronic copies of documents ❑ Name Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): _ (Home): (Fax): PROPERTY OWNER project contact person O OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: G21 V I S t,1 l�fyv i h Address: L J� qWr City/State/Zip: as Phone (w): S'O -- I q l U % % (Home): (Fax): (E-mail): (E-mail): ARCHITECT(DESIGNEii� project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents n� Name: 13 c, c-1 1 1 cA,- M Gt C 4 61 S C/4) !�peL-+Ia— I eA- V+ 1 rc, Address: / —Z) S t tS Ct (A+e_ C* City/State/Zip: Phone (w): _ (Home): �v {Fax): 'S 1 10 :.�. Z [E Please mark one box with 191 to indicate the contact person for this project. (E-mail): ►_yta C,4L c� S - S �` G <_— ,c� f<v �'`� N��' pp e LR r 2 { j) S V, ct PROJECT DESCRIPTION:/� V roc 1-0 1' n 6\1 a ► -Vt t ln,� � 1� (� 1 i ✓1 j 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. 06 Date: Applicant's signature, , R I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this appi't11' 1�1.11 IL 9 Commission. Property owner's signatures � W�-�r Date: FF Fin%fi(l`k Date submitted: - S:1Handoutsl t p (I100 F; I h a City of Burlingame Planning Department 50l Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www burlinsame.ora 0 2008 `rhe Planning Commi.5sion 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. 'Defer 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. JIAI` YVA � ` 6LY- 40 ---W-e kII ck, -1w r, S I �,n.� liv�y►�- l�►�,�,c�t,�t 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. ri C>Y YVI a.r � � S �, s r 1 lie S tv -0-A, i 00 1 10 r) I�e- VOC� `tiy.&.z .- v �pv� f �i Gi E�1✓l lm Q 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? - j,, _� wU+ w>< G S tti c�� `,,, �� � y-� �.c .� \ V Sedfi ��1 f .'-I>�,-,,, n r 1`e' Y1 cS �.ti1 C � i I/VV VV,-Q.�J C�✓1 G i,t {r' S IC�.xL ►� 1� .�1' 11i`� r 1 Q to fit' L �o 4. Explain how the removal of antrees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the cty's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. SPECPERM.FRM ram,. e �, ex, 0>4 ,��,, Lys VVkA k � vv loo re-, S J 13 `�' w kZ4 aip,��N AM> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org 2003 N(23 ME )F-F r The Planning C&.1mission 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 rrFaking 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 Me exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties es in this area. �I S ; J� r'A / F)c�cc��e -ilf�z C�On f 6) �� ► esr>I 6, - �? `� �v l-De+ Vim+ 0,14 �- SeP txd, .. � h bo r t S >1 Q� n ©►� Cc�. v� '� C,uv1n r b � oyment of a Ix b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservati Loss or oand f nnecessary ha substantial .property right and what unreasonable property Y hardship might result form the denial of the application. _ JV 0w tit U M&,VC e, -41,1 iS �tio V►1 W`e n � ()� �"1�.. le�"�i� �✓;IGcQ' �� ro{ r' t 5 A 1 3 �� ` ,nD-1 i C. A-b�- J 1 cue 0 ✓+ 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. 4 +,-Q— c L LU,I , h i 0-,-v Ina - �r� vwY Cl- t 17�1� �- 1` �""_T� 1 - , �1 1 ,,A V I S 4L ra� �7 Vj S t V l/l (� i'1,�> ✓� n Ol p' \ ._ i/t�-1 �1 C -Jr d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and charactO-r of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity, -�L• e.... r.�c�a� � kkAT'- -Vo ,nn 1nro,n� e_ � `a'�^� vYt SS C4 r�wL- �� ! 5 j0 HandoutslVariance Application2007 t,VA� wlz w"t &k n 1, 4- '-TT AA^ vnr,o Project Comments --J Date: February 21, 2008 To: Y 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 stori-n drain system. 2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary appurtenant work. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 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 (C:BC). 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 ("ode 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. Date:,-, Reviewed br-f- "�r � Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 1° 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 ..-----'------,4Z - Reviewed by: - _ Date: .f l 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 U/ 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 — Schbrnatic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Pla6s prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split betvreen domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall cleanly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by:. /� Date: e 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 propon('nts. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727."i^� .. ,, Reviewed by: Date: 02l28l2008 �. 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 May 27, 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 envirdnment, 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 I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27'h day of May, 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 June 7, 2008 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 12, 2008, sheets A-0, 1-1.0, and A1.0 through 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 NPDE:S 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. Complian�--e 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 June 7, 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 sh(':)uld 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ' > BUR LINGAME, CA 94010 �. _ PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) wvvw.burlingame.org Site- 1837 HUNT DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: 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 zoned R-1. APN 025-320-040 Mailed: May 1 b, 2008 (Please refer to other side) 0161A16504325 00.270- Mailed From 94010 [JS 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) R-1 41� 0 1837" V.0 R DR ATVVATE 1837 Hunt Drive N