Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1837 Hunt Drive - Staff Report
Received After Agenda Item #8 01.12.09 PC Meeting WESTERN PACIFIC page 1 of 2 BOUNDARY & SURVEYING P.O. BOX 2442 _ REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 RECEIVED (650) 787-1878 (650) 363-8930 fax . JAN 0 7 2009 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Ms. Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner Community Development Department Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 COMMUNICATION AFTER PREPAIMI-ION 4. OF STAFF REPORT Subiect 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 January 7,2009, 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 Amending Story Pole Plan dated 12/11/08, except as noted on the attached Plan, had story poles erected to the specified heights within 1 /2"+j-, and that the tops of the poles were within 0.5' of plumb from the story pole points, as set by this office on December 4, 2008. Respectfully submitted this 7t, day of January, 2009. Roger cl , LS 70�!" (expires December 31; 2010) - •.rr► • LE L I EXP I I. f STORY POLE AS-BUILTS DUNNING 37 HUNT DRIVE NCE iRECEIVED SURLINGAME, CA 94010 A.P.N.:025-320-040 JAN 0 7 2009 REFERENCE: SAI PLANS, REVISION #3d*j�QbAPjpMfflk PLANNING DEPT. I - -- EXISTING ONE STORY ROOF RIDGES—�` �.,-:--EXISTING ONE STORY ROOF SWALE y I I ADZ` I PROPOSED ONE 'f: STORY RIDGE----,, I i j EXISTING ONE STORY FOUNDATION (TYP) --- I$ EXISTING ONE STORY" EAVE (TYPICAL) PROPOSED ONE "-- _ Sa (TYP)- --------- I-, WESTERN PACIFIC BOUNDARY & SURVEYING P.O. BOX 2442 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 tel.: 650.787.1878 e-mail: survcleg@sbcglobal.net COMM LINICATIONRE7VEDAFTER PREPARATIOFSTAFFREPOR h� " "eb A� \NOSTOR TES NO NET - STALLED (TYP) A INDIC POLE SET (TYPICAL) PROPOSED MAXIMUM 'b"' RIDGE 4�" I I I I I I I i I i I 1 I 1 i I l I �x 1 1 I F' PROPOSED TWO STORY EAVE (TYP) SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED BY N JANIIARY AND DEPICTS THE AMILTS OF THE STORY POLES BY ME ARY 7, R d. G •_( 1 _ Received After Agenda Item #8 01.12.09 PC Meeting page 2 of 2 g' C City of Burlingame Item No. Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Action Calendar Permit, and Side Setback Variance Address: 1837 Hunt Drive Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Left Side Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Bacilia Macias, Spatial Art Inc. Property Owner: Chris and Marisol 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. History: The Planning Commission reviewed a proposed first and second story addition at 1837 Hunt Drive on April 28th, May 27th, and June 23rd, 2008 (Planning Commission meeting minutes attached). The project was denied without prejudice by a vote of 3-2-1-1 at the June 23d, 2008 action hearing. View blockage caused by the proposed addition was provided as a reason for the denial. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council, who upheld it on August 18, 2008. In October of 2008, the property owner submitted revised plans to the Planning Division. The current project proposes a larger first story addition at the rear of the structure, and a second storyaddition placed 12'-0" further back on the property than the original proposal. The project has been revised to eliminate the need for a Special Permit for the Declining Height Envelope. 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 1,094 SF to the rear of the first floor (including covered patio area), and add a new 1,138 SF second floor. With the proposed first and second story additions, the floor area will increase to 4,749 SF (0.35 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 5,495 SF (0.40 FAR). The proposed project is 746 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 20') 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 story will have a left side setback of 6'-4" where 7'-0" is required. Therefore, a Left Side Setback Variance is required. 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); 0 Variances for a Left Side Setback to the first story of 6'-4" where 7'-0" is required (CS 25.28.072, c, 1). Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive 1837 Hunt Drive Lot Area: 13,453 51- Plans date stamped: Uecember 16, 1UU6 I EXISTING j PROPOSED (TO ADDN) ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st fir): 23'-0" (to garage) 39'-9" (to porch) 15'-0" 2nd fir):.:._. n/a 72�..-3".._(to._MB) 20'_0,,...... _._..._......._ ............_...._................................................................. Side (left, 1st fir). 11 6'-4" (to LR) ... .......................................................__..............._._......... �C'-4".,(tokitcheln) 7'-0" (left, 2nd fir): i n/a 7'-8" (to MB) 7'-0" (right, 1st fir): 15'-6" (to garage) i 15'-6" (to BRTs bath) 7'-0" (right, 2nd fir): I n/a 35'-9" (to master bath) 7'-011 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Rear (1st fir): 99'-0" (to BR3) j 73'-0" (to covered patio) 15'-0" (2nd fir): n/a .................... ....._.................................................................:.._.............................................................................................................._.................1 73'-0" (to sitting room.).........................................................201-0"..... ............................................................................. .................................. .... Lot Coverage: 2,637 SF 3,768 SF 5,381 SF 20% 28% 40% Floor Area Ratio: I 2,517 SF 4,749 SF 5,495 SF 0.19 FAR I FAR..........................._...._............ _.............__.............._._._0.40 FAR .._3....... __......._...._.._.._................ ................... - .-._.........}_.................. # of bedrooms: _........ ._................_-......................................................_ ...._....._................. 4 _ ............._....._0.35 _. 5 a --- _._..._. --.._............ _...... _................ _............ ..................... .........T......................__ ... .._.__._......................... __........ ... __................ _................ _.. ....................... _........... .... ............... _..... ..... ...... ...._._......_.._..._._............ _._........._._......_. ................................. _......................... Parking: ' 2 covered ' 2 covered (20'-0" W x 22'-0" L) (no change) (20' x 20') j 1 uncovered 1 uncovered I I..... (9' x 20') i........................_._..........—............ (9' x 20') .. _.................. ............. __._.................. _..... _...... _...... Building Height: 1 _................ _......... ................................. ..........................................._.............. 20'-5" j _........... _......... ............... ........................ 29'-0" ...._................................................_... -..._.............................. 30'-0" ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1............................................................................................................................................... DH Envelope: i complies complies ..................................................................................................... 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'-4" side setback where, based on the width of the lot, a T-0" side setback is required. 3 (0.32 x 13,453 SF) + 1100 SF = 5,495 SF (0.40 FAR) a The second story sitting room (labeled "covered deck") is not considered a bedroom because it is less than T-0" wide, and the first floor study is not considered a bedroom because 50% of one wall is open to the hallway. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES Coordinator. Design Review Study Meeting (November 24, 2008): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 24, 2008, the Commission sought clarification regarding the proposed design, requested story poles, and placed the item on the Regular Action calendar when the plans have been revised as directed and story poles have been installed (November 24, Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated stamped December 18, 2008, to address the Commission's comments. In addition to responding to the Planning Commission's comments, the applicant also removed the second story rear deck, added an exterior stair to the second story sunroom, and added a folding window system to that sunroom. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; -2- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction 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). 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 December 18, 2008, Sheets A-0, 1-1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0 through A3.2, A4.0, and A5.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 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 any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 7, 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; 6. 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 -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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: 11. 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; 12. 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 13. 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 Associate Planner Bacilia Macias, Spatial Art Inc. 121 Scotts Chute Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 Chris and Marisol Dunning 1837 Hunt Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Attachments: Response letter from applicant, date -stamped December 18, 2008 November 24, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Design Review Study hearing) Letter from Selina Lim, date -stamped November 19, 2008 Photos of other houses on Hunt Drive (8 pages), date -stamped November 24, 2008 -4- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive Property owner's letter of explanation, date -stamped November 18, 2008 Designer's list of project changes, date -stamped October 29, 2008 August 18, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes (Appeal hearing) June 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Regular Action hearing) May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Regular Action hearing) April 28, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Design Review Study hearing) Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Form Photos of Adjacent Properties Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed December 30, 2008 Aerial Photo -5- December 18, 2008 DEC 1 8 2008 Honorable Planning Commission CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame City Hall PLANNING DEPT, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Response letter to comments noted on Nov. 24 Planning Commission Design Review Study Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Here is our response to the comments that were made during the Review Study: ➢ Bacilia Macias, Designer with Spatial Art Inc., clarified the roof ridge design near the stairwell windows. The ridge does exist in front of the windows in the stairway. The ridge is notched so that the views of the windows are not obscured from the front of the home. ➢ The stone rail will ca rry around the sides of the h ouse. ➢ The rear deck has been removed from the rear of the house and the se cond story sunroom has been converted into a covered patio with stairs descendi ng from the right side elevation. No changes have been made to the roof plan to accommodate this in inor design change. ➢ With the removal of the rear deck we have removed 3 of the 4 light fixtures from the second story and the one that will rem ain will be a sconce type that will wash the light down the wall. ➢ Story poles will be erected by January 5`I'. Our uphill neighbors, the Vlahoses at 1847 Hunt are no longer opposed to our project as the y feel there will be no distant view obstruction because we've moved the second story to the rear by 14 feet. ➢ Our downhill neighbor Juilette Goldman at 1827 Hunt raised a concern that our house will be seen n ear the front of her entrance gate that leads to a driveway which is almost 200 feet long.. Our story poles had been up for several months during the first planning meetings and although she was out of the country for a period of time she certainly viewed and discussed our proj ect while the poles were erected and had no objections. We are not sure why now at the I Ith hour she now has a com plaint about being able to see our hous e from her driveway. ➢ Declining height envelope variance is no longer needed because the upper floor is setback from the left side of the home Sincerely, Chris and Marisol Dunning CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes November 24, 2008 is comments: ■ =weno e. There further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Axran moved to recommend to the City Council, approZimeperiod pplication, with the following conditions. 1. The condominium p must be filed by the applicant with th as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act a the City's Subdivision Ordinanc . 2. All damaged/displaced sidew shaZieldd th new. 3. No developmental approvals are pa action. 4. All property corners shall be set in thown on the map. 5. The conditions, covenants an estrictions for the and conform to all approveerconditions and City C The motion was seconded bf Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of ■ None shall be approved by the City Attorney Chair uchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion ssed 4-0-0-3 (Co missioners Brownrigg, Lindstrom and Yie absent). This item concluded at 9:26 p.m. IX. / DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS IT- 7. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE 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) (127 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN (RESUBM/TTAL OF PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Reference staff report dated November 24, 2008, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive and Bacilia Macias, 121 Scotts Chute Court, El Sobrante; represented the applicant. ■ Noted that adjacent property owners (the Vlahos) do not oppose the revised project. ■ Asked to not require story poles. Commission comments: 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes November 24, 2008 ■ Requested clarification of location of main roof ridge in relation to the dormer on the front of the house; there are a lot of added features to make the area waterproof that may not be necessary from a design standpoint. ■ Clarify that only the stone rail will carry along the sides of the house. ■ Concern about light fixtures on rear elevation; ensure that they wash down the wall to light the balcony and not the night sky. ■ Erect story poles. Public comments: Julia Goldman, 1827 Hunt Drive and Jim Vlahos, 50 Platt Avenue, Sausalito spoke: (Goldman lives ) to the right of the applicant. Feels that the addition will be detrimental to her property values. The addition would be at her entrance gate and would confront her and her guests whenever they enter her property. Why not build out instead of up. Doesn't feel that any future buyer would be interested in her property if this project is built. Would be an injustice to her and would impact her property value. Are thankful for the applicant's efforts. Concern is that all aspects of the project will be verified during construction. Ensure adequate landscaping. Supports installing story poles. Additional applicant comments (Dunning and Macias): ■ Provided photo of Goldman's property to show relationship to his property. ■ Feels landscaping on her (Goldman's) property will mitigate any impacts. ■ The upper floor is setback further than required from the side -yard; only at the first floor is a setback Variance requested. ■ Have eliminated the encroachment into the declining height envelope. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Feels that story poles are the remaining issue; recognize that the addition is adjacent to a flag lot. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: If placed on the Consent Calendar, it would likely be pulled off the Consent calendar due to Commissioner absences from the meeting this evening. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Lindstrom and Yie absent. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:54 p.m. 12 PC Meeting 11.24.08 Agenda Item # 7 1837 Hunt Drive From: selina soo [mailto:selinasoo@msn.com] COMMUNICATION RECEIVED Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:30 PM JFTER PREPARATION To: marisoidunning@sbcglobal.net I OFSTAFFREPORT Subject: RE: 1837 Hunt Drive - Resubmitted Modified Remodeling Plans Please forward this letter to Lisa Whitman, Planning Technician of Burlingame Planning Commission Dear Ms. Whitman; I like to express my support for Marisol Dunning's modified remodeling plans. I live on 1822 Hunt Drive, Burlingame which is directly across the street from the Dunnings. I understand that the family needs the extra space for their three growing children and that was one of the main reasons for them to purchase this property. I hope their remodling plan will be approved as submitted not only for the Dunnings' personal interest; but I believe, the improvement will improve the property values of the neighborhood as well. If you need to speak with on this issue, I can be contacted at home at 650-552-9823. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Selina Lim Owner & Occupant of 1822 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA ECrti NED N0`J 1' � 2008 ';ffY OF BURLINGAME Ot_ANNING DEPT. 11 71milh '"' � ° ,t { ��•b yt' 1 �� 'W try..+' _, r�,z .� { �.I �.h l� t+` a r � '� 1 �• f `kJ 't ', � t .t - �"•'Wn.�'� � � - �r ; : ` =ate � �" jeLat ����i � � •. �e•�' e Gr t • - � �� �' �. - �i�... '��r+{�� �� � t � "+ T\+'+�1Fi�;:���,c,YT, � • t. '�•. � �"+t� :'•.f, A �.` r4 ( .may-: .� •-� P.. '�S-:4 vr AW AE t," \�d h��t� 4t -'•i 1 � .� r ) �' . F [ • � a,�;.1' r.�. � _ - ',� � � •� � ,� _' lv ! V �(-t•:1�`l�r,'r�._,{Q,{ u' , {' r• t Ii( F v -All JA t ' ;•` ' fir. F " ni 1 r.` _.< ,. i r `• ' t 1►� r a l� . i tom; ,1 , `' s^ rs mw `, � � �;4r �: 444 ' `I �� F � + L� a f �ti :,'I � y e..;�. ._?t��a •..�.._ �_ .aQ : �r,, . -ri' Y •, � S � Yj. �ba* � •A .�, Y r',i - �i y .i. 1-� '�: � : s-ty'Y r t j - ,r � ,` ji� Y p I. , '�i i';�{ J�,t `�'� M ` 1(� ,.• c - � yl � � , _ ,, . Y .yam � `h 1 r • �t_ �i fir' ► �,:• y .`� mow, � �� .. . Sir• ,^s� >w ••- L -� Ike � it ter"" :..ate" •.'�".. ,...,,,,:«., _ �, .. - •. ; ;:w,..• .+n.r.•- ,_. • C r 17,tw' .,,earl"",.?„'" Ike 0 „� Via, r. ��� ; , 1 � ��a• � � ., � � �;' t «�y � { • iKt� +e—' '—.' F '.K :'3 'P” -yi. t �,�.yy > j•.i�.2 `n a� .7 M Fs F � Ad .'.alp M p+� r' •� �.� ...s {4 � ti �. .1`c:,o- _s:� � .Ji�;;;3 i`. ">_,.a�L� .. t , �� 'E{��=, r= � - � y M ••� ;� ~s'. pit 'a; t�No,,� �.� ,� �' 4. �•� �$� R,y,` JEEP.,` YY1 £y�� _. Cyr a ay+-• • - r - T AM , 17 3 5- RECEIVED NOV 2 4 2008 ti OF BURUNGNME PLANNING DEPT- 2.4 -✓ "i November 17, 2008 RECEIVED NOV 1 8 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Honorable Planning Commission Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1837 Hunt Drive - Resubmitted Plans for a First and Second Story Addition Dear Members of the Planning Commission: My family and I along with Spatial Art, Inc. have resubmitted a modified design for a proposed first and second story addition for our residence at 1837 Hunt Drive. We feel the new modifications we've made address the concerns raised by the Commission and the City Council at the hearings held earlier this year. In a very close decision, it was perceived that the impact of the addition partially obstructed the view from the Vlahoses left side windows looking south towards Trousdale. We feel we have addressed this issue by moving the addition to the rear by an additional 12 feet. The ordinance regarding hillside construction does not state that there cannot be any obstruction of a distant view, because that would give neighbors veto power virtually over any home remodeling project in the hillside area. We feel that we have taken into consideration the concerns of the Vlahoses, made many compromises during the first set of hearings and now we have made another major compromise by shifting the addition further to the rear. The new design is nearly 45 feet away from the Vlahos's property. The roof ridge height is only 8 feet higher than the existing roof ridge. Story poles help to determine if a distant view is obstructed but they are very unsightly and do not truly tell the story of a properly constructed addition. It was suggested that we push to the rear with a single story addition. This design has no appeal to us for three reasons. First, it would take from the nice backyard that originally drew us to this property. The previous owner planted many evergreen, deciduous and fruit trees that continue to flourish. A large single story remodel would force us to remove old growth trees which would diminish the character of the property. Second, it would take away a great deal of play area space for our children. Hunt Drive near Trousdale is an extremely high traffic area and we would not want our children playing in the front of the house for fear of their safety. Third, we want to build this addition with an emphasis on "green" construction and pushing to the rear with a single story creates more impervious surfaces and less open space for replenishing ground water which contradicts our intention of building green. We also would like to remind the Commission that out of 129 notices that went out regarding our project only one household complained about our addition. To the contrary several surrounding neighbors have given us their support hoping that our project will also increase their property values and put additional tax revenue in the City's diminishing coffers. In summary, this is a thoughtful second story addition that has been designed to minimize the burden on the neighbors at 1847 Hunt and also to give our growing young family the space that we need to live comfortably in Burlingame. We ask that the Planning Commission reconsider the intent of the ordinance and apply the correct interpretation of the hillside ordinance and approve our project as presented. Sincerely, Chris and Marisol Dunning RECEIVED Lisa, OCT A 9 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Here is a list of the items that changed in this latest version of the Dunning Residence. 1. Per the recommendation of council, the master bedroom has been pushed back from the front by 12'-0". 2. More square footage has been added to the lower floor and second story addition. 3. The second story is offset from the first floor wall on the right side, this eliminates the need for the variance for the declining height envelope for the second level. 4. We are still well under our FAR maximum. 5. General characteristics of the elevations did not change from previous version. 6. Only one window faces the right side neighbor and it is obscured. The window in the sitting room is so far towards the rear that it does face the neighbor's house. Thank you and feel free to call me with any questions. Bacilia 510-223-5300 b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C# aim of Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board; and Clai of Diana Heze 5. PRESENTATI a. RECOGNITION OF VEOLAA WATER'S CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MUSI IN THE PARK CONCERT SE S P&RD Schwartz introduced Bill Toci, Burling Plant M ger, and Chuck Voltz, President, both representing Veolia West Operating Services which roven to be a great community partner with the City in renovating the Village Park preschool facil' in 9 and since 2002, has contributed $5,000 annually to allow the City's Music in the Par oncert Series continue. b. PROCLAMATIONS HONING BURLINGAME YOUMBASEBALL ASSOCIATION TEA>intr S Mayor O'Maced Coach Nuss who thanked his team members for their rtsmanship and winning the 2n Legion Area 2 Championship. Mayor O'Mahony and Coun ' oman Baylock presented pro each team member commemorating their championship. 6. a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA 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 CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and take action. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney for applicant/appellant; Thomas Nuris, attorney for neighbors at 1847 Hunt Drive; Russell McGovern, 1812 Hunt Drive; Theodore Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on the project. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Council discussion followed: some members felt that the proposed addition does not block a long distance view; others felt that the neighbor does have a long distance view; the addition can be placed at the rear of the building and be built up from there; neighbor's view is from high functioning rooms, fence could be lower (5 feet high) with landscaping added to rise above the fence; young families need more living space. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to deny the appeal without prejudice and uphold the Planning Commission's action with the finding that the present plan does obstruct the view and impinge on the quality of life of their neighbors and with the recommendation that they explore alternatives to build lower and farther back on the property and clarify what they can do with the slope easement and to consider landscaping rather than just straight fencing; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved by roll call vote, 3-2 (Deal and O'Mahony dissented). CA Anderson advised that staff will submit a resolution at the September 2°a Council meeting confirming Council's findings. 2 Burlingame City Council August 18, 2008 Approved Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting) June 23, 2008 2b. NJ,459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR AMEND NT TO C DOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR ANEW THREE-STORY HREE-UNIT RE%200 CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER APPLICANT AND ARCHIT T; AND MIKE PRROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HU (continued from Junlanning Commission Meeting) 2c. 1277 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION F9K DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE ND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLI NG HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWS1,,LING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; AND BOB AND CINQY GILSON, PROPERJY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA Commissioner Vistica moved approval of the Commissioner's comments and the findings i reports and by resolution. The motion was sec voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0- on Item 2c (Commissioner Lindstrom a ent, advised. This item concluded at 7: p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS n Co Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, th t reports, with recommended conditions in the staff ded by missioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a n Items 2a and (Commissioner Lindstrom absent); 5-0-1-1 Commissioner Au abstained). Appeal procedures were 3. 2520 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AkD HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION ERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE F ILY DWELLING (ROBERT MrJECTPLANNER: APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND LEE AND MARGIE LIVING PROPERTY OWNER)PP LISA WHITMAN (continued from June 9, 2008 Planning C mission Meetina,ZReauest to Continue by applicant) �Atinued at the request of the applicant. The matter will be re -noticed prior to appearing on a 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 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 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 — Approved 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 thatjust 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: 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 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. 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 A uran 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 P RMIT OR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR ANEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWEL G AND D ACHED GARAGE (BOB AND CINDY GILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNS ; AND CHU DES N AND ENGINEERING. DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHME Reference tall report dated June 23, 2008, with attachments. Community Develop ent Director Meeker presented th eport, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) condi ' ns were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opene a public hearing. Commission comments: None James Chu, 55 West 43rd, San Mateo, nd Bob Gilson, �0'Woodgate Court, Hillsborough; represented the applicant. ■ Met with three of the neighbors that s e at the prior hearing. ■ Spoke to Principal at Our Lady of An s; of worried about shadows in the parking lot; there is not a problem with shadow casting o e scho I yard. ■ Willing to work with neighbor at 21 Cabrillo A nue regarding landscaping and fence issue raised in letter to Commission. Public comments: Mary Ann Martin,Q,i and Sue Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Aven e; Rolando Pasquale, 2836 Hillside Drive; and Pet Lu, 1315 Cabrillo Avenue; concerned that th roject will take away more of the light from th neighboring property; it appears to be much taller; a deviation from the declining height en lope will impact the use of the garden of the neighbor'gn of the wall o ide the neighbor's dining room to improve the view; the nept having the w home's rear wall at the same location as the rear wall of thto Judith ' ourke at Our Lady of Angels, she indicated that she is obligateBoard of the project; the relevant time to assess shadow impacts is duringnths; the neighbors would not likely have a problem with a project of a similome; the project is out of character with the neighborhood; moving the homot would affect the usability of neighbor's rear yard; could the design be remiss. Additional Commission comments: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 27, 2008 7. 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. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes Public comments: May 27, 2008 ■ James Vlahos, 50 Platt Avenue, Sausalito; Theodore Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; and Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive spoke; presented a letter to 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 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. 1:41111111IM-M..e7=611lei ZI:I=0I WiTA'AILI]syd194Lyi6-1 recused himself due to a business relationship with the aunt for Item 8 (1317 Cabrillo Avenue). 8. 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZON -1 -APPLICATION F ESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE - A NE O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BOB AND CINDY GI PPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING. DESIG PROJEC NNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report da ay 27, 2008, with attachments. Commu evelopment Director Meeker briefly presented t roject description. There were no questions of staff. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008 Requested that story poles be erected and trees marked so that the Commission can ass iew it s. Front en�down eds to have story poles as does the ridge line tyi elements together, and to thcorner. There were no further comments and th-e--oublic hearinst-was closed. Commissioner Vistica moved to contin item until 2008, with direction to the applicant to erect story poles and mark trees that cheduled for removal when o'ectis constructed. The motion was seconded by Commis r Brownrigg. Chair c i called fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (CommissionerAu bsent). This m 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., APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; AND CHRIS DUNNING, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly 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: 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008 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 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. 10. N41620 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARI CES F FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGL AMILY DW LING (SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MA LOU AND DOUG ORTON PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference st report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Tec ician Whitman briefly presented the pr 'ect description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened public comment period. Nancy Scheinholz, Scheinho Associates, 1319 Howard Ave e; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Clarify proposed FAR, difference within aff report, which number is correct. ■ Roof structure; hodgepodge of roo in to not opposed to bay structure, but did she consider doing a hip roof and she oo . ■ Plans indicate wood windows ' wood tri Will the addition will be same, with simulated ortrue divided lights? ■ Supports application. T neighbor's structure a croachment supports FAR Variance, overall the FAR will decrease, d the existing condition of ne ing to exit the home to enter the family room will be eliminate . ■ Asked if the hitect considered using part of the laund oom for the family room? 0 191 •.uu .NN re were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 14 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: 7/ \ Design Review 19 Variance C566J ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit l( Special Permit (bk) ❑ Parcel Number: O2 y - 3-2- 0 - 0y-0 PROJECT ADDRESS: 18 3 7 LNr 1) re-,1VE APPLICANT project contact person Er PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name Address: Name: G2�� I' 15 D c1 lyyv , ✓1 cj -- Address: J� � bjei�� City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (Home): _ (Fax): _ (E-mail): _ ARCHITECT DESIGNS project contact personX OK to send electronic copies of documents l Name: t5 6 Gi / t M 61 of el S G/O S P"-th Ol_I cc r + i "cr Address: / .;21 S - - t- -VS G1q t+e- City/State/Zip: Phone (w): Phone (w): 6 5-4 -- --2 / % - /y 2 7 (Home): (Fax): (E-mail): L Sc,6,—ca.n K 6ti c' f663 io �.23-53ov (Home): tl i i (Fax) Ito _ 2-2_3 .- S I Oo Please mark one box with ❑x to indicate the contact person for this project. (E-mail): b rna C-ta PROJECT DESCRIPTION: lZe Z1_ i,- (q 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. (. 1 Applicant's signature:. "`'�� M C� Date: a / `' /y I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: S:\Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout DI s 4 / <��p ( 1:5 Awt�, -�k') ��4 t S--r -� 2��s yr�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org CITY OF OURL.INGAME :- V�1RI�N E,APPL10,.. ON 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. J i3e- cecu C, e- ci ivy e CDvt k r v -ive d� . �? oi' -f S e-e e r o,-,+ I Oki vet y re si el" c 't � I � h bo r 1 S ✓► o+' r10 � C ca. n i� i.,cvH � b � � ��'l`�-F•'I z, ►� b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a 6L {�a arch substantial ,.property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. NA y�''ti' i 1�I v� ► S lLd, ffu-J S n o,.. r q ro ny . �'c� w► \ f) ►� 1 h� I S`� cple ' 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. 1, B e, e CLAA SP— I cal. i 5 A-r t c-z e e,4cyx 4 -1 v`sc- YZe,t yl r-ea.r 1 v1 S I a-n-\, cy\g i AA W \.Q vvo be- VA ay-'A V- q) Y 6n V i s ii ©1� s t-v- L �-w ✓t -ib w - �� J .. A-0-A CA c r-S . 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? I ^ q �'y� �[�' 1 ►�ect�� �C� ` �j Vi� IM 1 1'I 1 VYI v U ywn vY ms s 4 5 jam, Handouts\Variance Application.2007 �...V,, L'1.Q-+ q � b v4G' � i- J � � 5 G�- ��. ��T� r� � v✓1�L WVt' V-� o 1 Vert Q /Vk'� I r •:s ,5„ • • _ ate. -�' :i`�. ` ,� _- � yt { ti r.� wr r _ Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: d 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 additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 2/28/2008 Project Comments Date: November 7, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Pianning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review, HACP, and Side Setback Variance at 1837 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-320-040 Staff Review: November 7, 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 Date: Reviewed by. Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Ef 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 Reviewed l[: - - _ Date:���p� 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 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 by: ��� :,,--2 Date: —_ , o 8J Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: 0 City Engineer 0 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 0 Chief Building Official 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 0 City Arborist ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney From: Planning Staff 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: ET Date: 02/28/2008 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION 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 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 January 12, 2009, 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, 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, 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 12`h day of January, 2009 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive Effective January 23, 2009 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2008, Sheets A-0, 1-1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0 through A3.2, A4.0, and A5.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 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 any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 7, 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; 6. 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive Effective January 23, 2009 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the 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; 12. 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 13. 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 y 4 BURLINGAME, CA 94010�� �. PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX (650)� .at; wvvw.burlingame.org s i r • y�;� Site: 1837 HUNT DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Side Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1837 HUNT DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 025-320-040 Mailed: December 30, 2008 (Please refer to other side) � 6504825 e16; . 1 V00.270 ¢cMPcjsTAGE 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) lw be o to A** A RiPOSA_ MA CT`0 o x y (j & e v :4 s •j "" 4 t HUNT. . o � D likIr TGO .;'' �� � _ i . am+ .+� `4: r ♦ doh � � + , �' i •. -ate � �. �t `�. ,