The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2606 Summit Drive - Staff Report� fi'� TO: DATE: �a�,c�Tr o� � - �!r��' . �� • . - BURLINGAME - ' . � �4 A�ENo� �� STAFF REPORT MT� « g-3-92 "^� DATE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED �/��y;�. B Y _ _ Y IIN +�C � �Y� �� JULY 23, 1992 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPEAL OF PLANNING SUB�E�T: AND HILLSIDE AREA 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE, RECOMMENDATION• APPROVED 6Y COMMISSION DECISION ON A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR,A DECK EXTENSION AT ZONED R-1 City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution. The reason for any action should be clearly stated for the record. (Action alternatives and required findings for a variance and hillside area construction permit are attached at the end of the staff report.) Conditions considered by the Planning Commission:. 1. that the deck as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the , Planning Department and date stamped July 8, 1992 Sheet C-1 and June 4, 1992 Sheets SK-1 and SK-2; 2. that the highest point on the new deck shall not exceed elevation 387.70' and that the beams and joists s�all be surveyed to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final inspection is called for and the decking material �s attached; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 8, 1992 (stairs from the house requires a landing at the door; and the pool requires a safety enclosure approved by the Building Department) shall be met; � 4. 5. that the pump and any other pool equipment located on the property line shall be enclosed in a soundproof structure; and that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as� amended by .the City of Burlingame. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on July 13, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearinq and voted 7-0 to deny without prejudice this request for a 585 SF addition to an existing 125 SF poolside deck extending to 1' from the rear property line (15' setback required). In their discussion the Planning Commissioners noted it was unfortunate that the applicant and the neighbor to the rear had not had a chance to talk before the meeting, because the neighboring property to the rear of the applicant's lot is so � f� 2 big and the applicant's lot relatively small, the deck does not give the impression of being close to the property line; the deck is considerably higher than the adjacent grade and gives the impression of looming over the lot to the rear; it's all right to rebuild the part of the deck that is there in the rear setback, but any extension should .meet setback requirements; there is room to repair the existing deck. Denial without prejudice was pursued so that the applicant could discuss the project with the neighbor and submit redesigned plans to the Planning Commission if they wished to rebuild the existing deck or modify this proposal. The applicant chose to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council without further review. The administrator of the Estate of William Walker and Kavanagh Engineering are requesting a permit to build a 585 SF addition to a 125 SF existing deck 2' to 13' above grade in the rear yard of the house at 2606 Summit Drive, zoned R-1. The existing deck and the new deck both extend into the rear setback 1' from property line (15' rear setback requ-ired). In their letter of July 8, 1992 the applicant revised the plans by cutting the deck back 16 SF around an existing mature oak tree in order to respond to a concern of the adjacent neighbor along the side property line. Since the existing deck needs to be rebuilt along with the proposed extension the total deck area with.adjustment for the oak tree would be 709 SF. Along with the request for the appeal the applicant submitted another letter (July 17, 1992) stating he feels the application was unreasonably denied. He notes that the house is being sold to pay the inheritance taxes which are late. He has been given an extension to the taxes to October. The improvements are needed to make the house more marketable. The property is long and narrow with a small level area where the swimming pool is located and a 5' wide deck next to the pool. The ground slopes steeply away from the existing deck and is unusable without extending the deck. The existing usable yard around the pool is no less than 10' wide and in some places only 4' wide. He feels as it is the property would be unusable for families. When built there was an expansive view of the Bay Area from the deck. Since trees have grown up and blocked the view. The extension of the deck would allow this property to recapture some of these views. The property owner to the rear has denied their request to trim some of these trees. The property owner to the rear is not interested in selling them some of the property along their rear property line. The extension of the deck to the west would have a small impact on the neighbor on that side since it uses only a small portion of this side of the lot. The neighbor to the rear's lot is very big and the house is located near the street, removed from the deck. 3 EXHIBITS• - Action Alternatives, Hillside Area Construction Permit Findings, Variance Findings - Monroe letter to Charles Kavanagh, July 21, 1992, setting appeal hearing - Susan E. Horn letter to City Council, July 16, 1992, requesting appeal - John R. Goldberg, Administrator of the Estate of William G. Walker, letter to Burlingame City Council, July 17, 1992 - Planning Commission Minutes, July 13, 1992 - Planning Staff inemo for July 13, 1992 meeting - Charles Kavanagh letter to Jane Gomery, July 8, 1992, amending application - Planning Commission Staff Report, July 13, 1992, with attachments - Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed July 24, 1992 - Council Resolution - Project Plans MM/s cc: Charles Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering John Goldberg, Administrator of Estate of William Walker Susan E. Horn, Henry Horn & Sons, Inc. t ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City Council may If the action i construction pern Council must mak Findings must b request. Actions majority of the hearing must agre vote in favor of an applicant�s request.. � a variance, use permit, hillside area it, fence exception or sign exception, the � the findings as required by the code. � particular to the:,given property and on use permits should,be by resolution. A Council members seated during the public � in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. � City Council may deny an applicant�s �equest. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same. as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would Yike additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant ar�d Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council 'should. also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. HILLSiDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FINDINGS Code Sec. 25.61.060: Review by the planning commission or city council shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. VARIANCE FINDINGS (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; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible.with the aesthetics, mass; bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. ��.� �z�� zz�.��.� ;;�.�.,�_-- CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 July 21, 1992 Mr. Charles Kavanagh Kavanagh Engineering 708 Carolan Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Kavanagh: At the City Council meeting of July 20, 1992 the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 2606 Summit Drive, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on Monday, August 3, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, ��cu�--�-, �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: John Goldberg, Administrator, Estate of William Walker Susan E. Horn, Henry Horn & Sons, Inc. City Clerk 0 � July 16, 1992 I�l�TRY �IORN � S ONS, INC . `Phe Primrose Court Building 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, THIRD FLOOH Bi 11iLINGAME, CAI,IFOP.NIA 94010-4046 •(415) 348-1051 Burlingame City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 0 �� ! 1 �� 1992 CITY O� 8t1RLit�GAI�I� �'��W� D�PT. Re: Appeal of Planning CozraRission Action Denying Rear Setback Uariance and Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2606 Sturunit Drive; APN 027-271-100 July 13, 1992 Action Item #10 Honorable Council M�rs: As realtor for the Estate of William Walker, owner of 2606 Stmanit Drive, I wish to hereby appeal the Planning Conanission's action of July 13, 1992 denying a Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2606 Sisnmit Drive. Respectfully yours, �t�%' " � Susan E. Horn Henry Horn & Sons Incorporated CC: Mr. John Goldberg, Administrator of the Estate of William Walker Mr. Leo A. Jacopi, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Charles H. Mahnken Mr. and Mrs. John P. Moran Rh�r11. ES'17\PG SEAVICL�S ° PROPER7'Y A�ir�vAGLMENT • iA.�\� T3ROKERAGE �ECEIVE� JU�. 17 i992 �tlIANNING �DEP M� Burlingame City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, C'A 94010 � � ��E�� J U L t 71952 �R'Y O 1tJ� � July 17, 1992 � n � I V � John R. Goldberg Administrator of the Estate of William G. Walker 133 Starview Way San F`rancisco, CA 94131 Re: Appeal of Planning Conanission Action Denying Variance and Hillside Area Construction Perniit at 2606 S�unit Drive APN: 027-271-100 ,7uly 13, 1992 Action Item #10 Honorable Council Members: 'I`he Estate of William G. Walker requests that the Council consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's action which denied our request to �tend an �isting deck by ten feet. The Estate believes that its project meets all applicable conditions and that the application uras unreasonably denied. The subject property entered probate at the height of a declining real estate market and the Estate is required to liquidate this asset in order to pay inheritance t�es. The Estate has been granted one �tension to pay those t�es, but that �tension is due to �pire in October. It is unkown whether or not an additional extension would be granted. The property is not marketable in its present condition and carrying costs place an additional financial hardship on the Estate. The property suffers from years of deferred maintenance, particularly in the rear yard. The existing wood planking, pool house and fencing are rotted and in need of replacement. The concrete decking surrounding the pool is badly cracked and has settled several inches in some places. Portions of the deck have already been removed in order for engineers to prepare plans. The question on appeal is whether or not the Estate will be allowed to extend the PXjsting deck by an additional ten feet on the western side when it is rebuilt. The property is long and narrow with a rear yard that consists of a very small level area with a pool and an existing five f_oot deck. The ground then slopes down and away at a very steep slope. A large portion of the property is thus made unuseable without an above ground deck. The useable backyard is now less than ten feet wide in most places and, at the edges of the pool, only about four feet wide. Additional deck space is required to fully enjoy the pool and to provide a safe play area. As it exists, ti� property would be wholly unsuitable for families. When initially constructed, the �isting deck had an �pansive view of the Bay and San Francisco. Trees now obstruct that view and the propsed deck extension would allow a portion of the view to be recaptured around those trees. Mr. Jacopi, the owner of the property lying north and east of the Estate's parcel, has denied our request to allow us to trim those trees. Page 1 of 2 Pages Planning C�issioner Beal asked if we could purchase a portion of Mr. Jacopi's prop- erty to eliminate the need for a rear setback variance. We've spoken with Mr. Jacopi and this does not appear to be a viable option. The proposed deck is not detr�rnental to property or improvements in the vicinity. The deck extension would make use of a small portion of the twenty-five to thirty feet of property along the west side that is currently unuseable. The neighbors along the west side of the property spoke in favor of this modest extension at the Planning Co�i_ssion meeting. The back property line is not against a back neighbor. Mr Jacopi's lot is very large and wraps around the rear of the site with the house located up near the street. (See Assessor's Map SK-4 and aerial view.) 'I`he realtor for the Estate notified all concerned individuals by letter on June fifth. Those letters included sketches and/or plans. We invited co�¢nents and concerns. We made alterations to our plans based upon those concerns brought to our attention. Parties were again notififed by the City Planner in a letter of July third and Mr. Jacopi was reminded of our project by our realtor in a further communication on July seventh. The project is entirely compatible with other properties in the area. The proposed deck extension is a rather small change in the mass and bulk of the �isting site. Many neighboring lots have decks of a much larger mass and size that are above ground or that are supported by a retaining wall. The Estate regrets that it must impose upon the Council's valuable time. Unfortu- nately, Mr. Jacopi, the neighbor to the East, first raised his objection to the project at the Planning Co�n.ission meeting. Mr. Jacopi stated he had been on vacation and had not yet had an opportunity to review the plans and determine the project's �mpact on his property. We believe there is none. We hope that prior to the Council taking action, Mr. Jacopi will have an opportunity to review the plans and allow us to respond to any concerns he may have. We hope that once fully informed, Mr. Jacopi will believe, as do we, that this is a very modest proposal that will enhance the value of the site and surrounding properties. The Estate is grateful to the Council for this opportunity to present its appeal. Very truly yours, ,� ,�' C'o hn R. Goldberg 1ldministrator of the Estate of William G. Walker �closures: Assessor's Map SK-4 Aerial View Page 2 of 2 Pages � � —, � 5S� SS c�� .S o , aa Zoo �.� ��a� Z 7 P�, 27 FEET 4 7? ; 7'IJ �ti O'� ,�'.: _' _ !S� 7s._'-_' ___.-_. '�� 1PPRax,(E� ,^. .- � ��5� --�,3, � } �' ~^j9^' <��/.� i / 1 � ' . o.r '".. � � j� � PARCEL 23 - C j?'- . � �� ;'�, �, PARCEL 23-8 � ��o2�5 T,� 30 ��oPosED � �_ ;, D E C K - Pr7RC.�L 23-A �, PAR. 22-A -- �� ; ', 2 7 I � . -o � :��- �� U11 ) /0 � � TPZ�ES , , �'�� i /�RPPR�X, � ,� (E) f�a�5 . � � � --� ..... � �_ � i _ i � I �. �l. � ' . I I �� . �' PTN. PAR. 2/-A n�� 33 �3 i ./0 � � 2(n � 2Cci ,. .," -+ �-- —� i> - 32 � � _ __ _ Z(°46 � _ 2� ';. �2o i� � 5 ...�T Z r ,�?M� z �R• . o' a V �-1 � E' 4 j , „ , _ , ;^ � ; ,'. �. ,,.��' , ,� � '- .,'.'y; ;,V ;:: o �'� 3 .,,,''` l-('f O �U�� j � ,;�'� vi��\s�.� "� � 5 a�' ��'' :; ;f �: �l � 272 �''i'o�1 E ,a �.9 �� 32 1 - zP1�� p'� . 9-g�'.9' :3:�n� ti3 � ~ >5 �q,S � szJ �b �%iC za;' j,� �`�q'. �e �, 3 � y.,� 8 , �� ,� � 9 �� 5� zs �, � � .LJ� 4= 't„ � - .. /3 � �`:=, c^ _ �4 °� (za1 T, ^, ;, � �,.' , tiJ� :;- ��.,.�, �;� � ., ''' � n I, . , R� � ,,�J�O� 0E� �Q ��' .' � �� .� =� 2 _ �� o ::; Q o . _ z� ,l�I,, 4 �zOn Y7 � `�� ` ` _._ -�d D3_ ,(�(� , —___`,�7.:5� 4 _.__—"_.'___—._-� � \ ,:i ^h`��\ J'✓ \� \\ .. �O —_- _ .. �p _� a � g � �!�G�.- .�..�,: ��-f "� wfl �--K �2 .� STd)`l-E 2�P��o SvMM[T ��•, �`� 2B i\`u � � r �, v � � 1 �161� 1� E KAVANAGH ENGItdEERING p� p 709 CAROLAN AVE. PH. 415-579-1944 � � � � � � � p.d' � � L� � BURLWGAME, CA 94010-2771 � � �-� � � � �� N9 C .. � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 3 July 13, 1992 10. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO BUILD A DECK AT THE REAR OF 2606 SUNIIKIT DRIVE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, study meeting questions, required findings, letter and revised plans received from the applicant after preparation of the staff report. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised width of the lot at the street was about 61'. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. John Goldberg, Administrator of the Estate of William Walker, was present. He advised this property has been on the market for about a year, they reduced the price and still had no offers; they are trying to improve the property so they will be able to sell it, this proposal would not have an adverse impact on the neighbors. He requested the CBI's condition that the new stairs require a landing be eliminated, it could be a hazard for people walking in the pool area because they would be too close to the pool, the existing stairs will be used, no change is proposed to the existing condition; they will not replace all concrete on the property, just the rear area wfiere it is broken. Charles Kavanagh, civil engineer for the project, was also present. He noted the existing 17' wide steps leading to a sliding glass door, there is no proposed change to this door or the steps; they will replace decking around the pool and improve drainage; fence is also in bad condition, they propose to support the new fence on a concrete curb so it will be more stable and last longer; the pool pump house will be in the same location it is now, its size will be reduced, some of the pipes will have to be replaced as the deck and concrete is taken up; there is not much space to move the pump house away from the property line. A Commissioner noted one of the major problems with this project is that it is built on the rear property line, he asked if applicant had considered approaching the owner of Lot 11 to negotiate purchase of some of that property which might include trees. Mr. Goldberg stated he had not, Mr. Jacopi (2600 Summit) owns the property behind the fence, trees have grown up in that area and eliminated the view, they have asked permission to trim the trees but have had no response. The following members of the audience spoke in favor. Charles Mahnken, 2614 Summit Drive: he owns the property next to this site on the side where they will be building the deck and felt the proposal with modifications proposed to protect the oak tree was reasonable; it will impact his view minimally; applicant has been trying to work with people in the area; Mr. Mahnken had no objection to the project as planned with the modification and finishing/staining of the deck. Bert Horn, real estate agent: has been trying to help the applicant sell Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 13, 1992 this property, the immediate problem is deterioration of the deck around the swimming pool and the fencing, he commented that the applicant is trying to make this a saleable property, the house had a beautiful view, neighbor is unaooperative and purchasing additional property is not feasible. Leo Jacopi, 2600 Summit Drive (owner of Lot 11)','stated he objected to granting any variance until he could find out all impacts on his property. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: am sorry applicant and Mr. Jacopi have not had an opportunity to speak to each other about this project, the plans are posted on the wall of the Council Chamber this evening; because Lot 11, Mr. Jacopi's lot, is so large while Lot l0 is significantly smaller, although the pool is almost at property line it does not give the impression of being at property line, think that is some mitigation; Lot 11 is a very large parcel, but even though Mr. Jacopi is not using that part of his property he still owns it, the deck is considerably higher above grade and will loom over his property; could agree to leaving what is existing, the pool and existing deck, but any extension of the deck should meet setback requirements; concur with these statements, the property needs a lot of work but just extending the deck will not sell the property, believe a complete package for improvement of the property would be better than a piecemeal effort. In view of the impact on Lot 11 and the fact that there is room to repair what is there now, C. Jacobs moved for denial of this application, seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: if applicant had an opportunity to speak to the owner of Lot 11 perhaps they could reach a mutually agreeable solution. C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny the application witliout prejudice, accepted by the seconder, C. Kelly. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A �XTENSION OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND BASEMENT AT 1512 ALTURA�S�'DRIVE, �nll�.Fn R_i ��". Reference sta`� report, 7/13/92, with t�achments. CP Monroe summarized the re st, staff review, stu�l�meeting questions, required findings. Three con•�'tions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP e�la�. ed ap,p=�icant's discussions with the Planninq and Building Departments,�nsion of the existing deck with railing and relocation of elect-r=�' al s��ice. , Chm. Mink open�e,��he public hearing. C. elly advised he would abstain from discu�s�on and voting. Mike Stallin applicant, was present. He advi� �"`�d that nothing that had been done wi regard to the new deck or =e%ctrical service had been done with an a�'`�tempt to avoid city ' � ' ��I�UNi�ATiQ� RE�;Ed�t�p Afi'�R f'��PARAT1Q1� -_..._ �}f ST��"�;R„£€��T PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 MEETING ITEM #10 - 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE, REAR SETBACR VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRIICTION PERMIT Revisions to conditions based on new set of plans submitted July 8, 1992 after preparation of the packet. The revised plans show a new pump house on the property line to replace the existing pump house. Also the deck has been reduced in size by about 16 SF around the oak tree in response to comments from the neighbor at 2614 Summit Drive. The lot coverage has been reduced from 36% to 34% with the reduced deck, under the maximum 40% allowed by code. Revised Condition #1 1. that the deck as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 8, 1992 Sheet C-1 and June 4, 1992 Sheets SK-1 and SK-2; 5 �AV�4i�AC�H ENC�IF�EERINC7 708 CAROLAN A1/E. - BLiiiLlNGP.ME - CA 94010 (415) 579-1944 FAX: (415) 579-1960 9216 BR WALK.7 '�� -�,3 a �. F ��-� �,3 � s�a. 7-8-R2 ' ��F�Ii�IG��1�1U ��I�Et� ,l�;L "- � � Jane Gomery �.:�, C1T1` Or s��-I��HM� Planning Dept. `p��j��{ ¢�p�!?ATIC�� P��,INGDE�'� City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. ;��j��p(}��' Burlingame, Ca. 94010 4��""`. - J RE: The Estate of William Walker REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND 2606 Summit Dr. HILLSIDE AREA CONST. PERMIT Burlingame Dear Jane: Attached are 10 copies of our Sht. C-1 "Backyard Improvements" dated 7-8-92. Reference our previous submittal dated 6-2-R2. Revisions s.ince that submittal are summarized as follo�as: 1. ADDED PUMP HOUSE DETAIL. This sho�vs the proposed 1-hour fire wall along the property and the sound insulation. 2. AREA SUMMARY. Corrected the area of the proposed deck from 585 square feet (SF) to 354 SF and added the area of the pump house. Coverage is now 34%. 3. SECTIONS AT LOWER LEFT. These sections sho�a the existing and proposed piers as numbered an the plan along with the proposed bracing. 4. PROPOSED DECK. This has been reduced by 16 SF by trimming the area near the existing oak tree. This was done in response to a comment from the neighbor at 2614 Summit Dr. (Mahnken) and to lessen the impact on his vie�a. It also gives more room for the oak tree. _ We will be at the planning commission meeting Monday, 7-13-92, to further explain the plan if necessary. Very truly yours, KAVANAGH ENGINEERING � �� Charles L. Kavanagh cc: John Goldberg Sue Horn CIVIL DESIGN, SURVEYING, UTlLITlES i� _ � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.C. 7/13/92 Item #10 Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2606 Summit Drive Meetinq Date: 7/13/92 Request: Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit to build a deck at the rear of 2606 Summit Drive. Applicant: Estate of William Walker, and Kavanagh Engineering Assessor's Parcel: 027-271-100 Lot Dimensions and Area: 10,363 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoninq: R-1 Adjacent Development: Sinqle Family Residential CEQA Status: Exempt; Sec. 15301 Class 1(e) Existing Facilities, Minor additions to structures Summary: Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new deck 585 SF located one foot from the rear property line where the code requires 15'-0" (C.S. 25.28.072). A Hillside Area Construction Permit is required for all additions or modifications to structures in the hillside area (C.S. 25.61). This deck is over 30" tall and qualifies as a structure for lot coverage and setback requirements (C.S. 25.08.425 and C.S. 25.28.072 2a). The new deck (585 SF) will be added to an existing deck (125 SF) located to the west of the pool (710 SF Total). A new pump house will replace the existing pump house located on the east property line. This pump house will require sound proofing since it is located within 10' of the side property line. Also the pool will require a enclosing security fence and gates that meet C.S. 23.01 and Uniform Building Code requirements. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Front Setback: side Setback: (east side) Side Setbackr (west side) Rear Setback: Deck Heighto Lot Coveraqea PROPOSED no change 24'-0" 14'-0" 1'-0" 2' to 13' 36% EXISTING 15'-0" 4'-6" 16'-0" 1'-0" 2' to 5' 30.5� REQUIRED 15' or Avg. 7'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0" NA 40% max. Meets all other zoning code requirements. CITY OF B URLINGAME Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit Paqe Two Study Meeting Questions: At the June 22, 1992 Planning Commission study meeting the commission asked a number of questions of the applicant and staff. The applicant has responded with a letter of June 29, 1992. The commission asked what portion of the deck is over 30" in height from existing grade. The applicant has responded that essentially all of the wood deck, existing and proposed is over 30" in height. The commission asked about views from the adjacent sites. The applicant has referred to sketches SK-1 and SK-2 on the June 9, 1992 submittal for views from adjacent neighbors; and suggests that the view impact can be seen from a visit to the site. The deck improvements are proposed to create a backyard area for prospective buyers for the now vacant house. No one lives at the site at the current time. It is being upgraded to enhance the sale of the residence. This lot is part of the 'Belvedere Heights' subdivision in Burlingame with the final map filed in July, 1960. The lot as a building site was never in the county. The house and swimming pool received building permits in May, 1969. It was designed and built without requiring any variances or special permits. At that time a deck over 30" in heiqht was not considered a structure for setbacks and lot coverage so the existing portion of the deck conformed to code requirements at that time. The 30" height requirement for calculatinq all structures was approved by the City Council in May, 19920 Required Findinqs for a 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 Findinqs for a 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 preserva- tion 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; CITY OF B URLINGAME Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit Page Three Required Findinqs for a Variance: (continued) (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the followinq condition should be considered: Conditionse 1. that the deck as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 4, 1992 Sheet C-1 and SK-1 and SK-2; 2. that the highest point .on the new deck shall not exceed elevation 387.70' and that the beams and joists shall be surveyed to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final inspection is called for and the decking material is attached; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 8, 1992 (stairs from the house requires a landing at the door; and the pool requires a safety enclosure approved by the Building Department) shall be met; 4. that the pump and any other pool equipment located on the property line shall be enclosed in a soundproof structure; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Jane Gomery Planner cc: Charles Kavanagh John Goldberg, Administrator for estate of William Walker CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2606 Summit Drive Meeting Date: 6/22/92 Request: Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit to build a deck at the rear of 2606 Summit Drive. Applicant: Estate of William Walker, and Kavanagh Engineering Assessor's Parcel: 027-271-100 Lot Dimensions and Area: 10,363 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoninq: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Exempt; Sec. 15301 Class 1(e) Summary: Rear Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new deck 585 SF located one foot from the rear property line where the code requires 15'-0" (C.S. 25.28.072). A Hillside Area Construction Permit is required for all additions or modifications to structures in the hillside area (C.S. 25.61). This deck is over 30" tall and qualifies as a structure for lot coverage and setback requirements (C.S. 25.08.425 and C.S. 25.28.072 2a). The new deck (585 SF) will be added to an existing deck (125 SF) located to the west of the pool (710 SF Total)e A new pump house will replace the existing pump house located on the east property line. This pump house will require sound proofinq since it is located within 10' of the side property line. Also the pool will require a enclosing security fence and gates that meet C.S. 23.01 and Uniform Building Code requirements. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Front Setback: Side Setback: (east side) Side Setback: (west side) Rear Setback: Deck Height: Lot Coveraqe: PROPOSED no change 24'-0" 14'-0" 1'-0" 2' to 13' 36% EXISTING 15'-0" 4'-6" 16'-0" 1'-0" 2' to 50 30.5% REQUIRED 15' or Avg. 7'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0" NA 40% max. Meets all other zoning code requirements. iCAVA�iA�a1-i Ef�IGINE�Fi11VG �C��VE 708 CAROLAN A�415) 579-1g44AME - CA. 94010 �� en� 77 � z��p P/`�. ��%:�� C�n` O� r3URLII�GAME Ht�{V�lfNC ��pT. � -- �- --- -� Z ,; � - _. / � � �, r/.� . � _ ; � , � � � � � I�, �►• . ' , � i7 �� -�-a"i , ��-2. �-�-•-ti l/ ` � . Co -' z. � .`.�`� Z -r`-t . � , A �� -� �• � � /� _ ' / � ^ ��Q- 4 / ♦ ' � �• +- �� CIVIL DESIGN, SURVEYING, UTILITIES w;.¢ � �� CITY OF BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLI�NNING COMMISSION Planning Depaztment 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Type of Application: /f/LLSI AE D�'VE� ��'M� Special Permit _Variance _Other Project Address 2, �p ��p �cl/1�/!�'� � ��` �� Assessor � s Parcel Number ( s) 4 Z. 7— Z. %%" % d d ri��<< �:� �g�� APPLICANT Name: iG4V uf}c4� 6 a/ Address: �08 Cd�RoLRI�! RVE. City/State gv�-%��q�mP. �. zip: �¢a/6 �— � 10 PROPERTY OWNER ��u�LIIVGAM� Name: F si�aTe �F ld�n►�. 4J�(I�.�,i�� Address:l�p Jd�i) �o/��er9 �M/!!. City/State 133 STarvi�� e�Y zip= Sr�n �!'dlI cis�� d.9413 ( Telephone: (Work) _�7g — f } 4-'� Telephone (Home) 347^ 4 i8.g Architect/Desianer: En�:n PPr / , � .. Name : �%S a DP�Ica n� Address: (work��/,� .�'.�'.3 -9 / 3Co (xome) 824'�S7/ Telephone (daytime): Please indicate with an asterisk (*) who contact person is for project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION � �c� e �c`�1""2 n c� i `i' � 0 � � �'e��ns7`r��`7" Pooi_ �ro_�Se � 6��a�r�i -�'enci � AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. �•'� � ��L-9-L. Applicant�s Signa ure Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. � � � ��.�Y—' � � j�� L Pr�operty Owner's Signature Dat'e xxxxxxxxxxx�xxxxxx xxxxxxxOFFICE USE ONLYxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Filed: Fee Receipt # Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: P . C . study meeti � ( date ) � r � � — �'2P. C . public hearing P.C. Action �C=/1/�/t=/�� %JiiHc�U; ��(� ./[/�f�'L Appeal to Council? es No (date)�� Council meeting date _�_ cj Council Action �-�0/��0 �/� y`f �� ' o rr/ �! i! a icd �' e KAVANAGH ENGINEERING 708 CAROLAN AVE. - BURLINGAME - CA. 94010 (415) 599-1944 9216 BR WALKER.4 6-10-92 Jane Gomery Planning Dept. City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, Ca. 94010 RE: The Estate of Tr]illiam Walker 2606 Summit Dr. Burlingame Dear Ms Gomery: ,,. �... . i =� tl �` �'�.�i�: � ;�� g9?.. CITY (3� �3Ui�Lit�GAME PI.ANf�6�4G aEPT. VR�21R�cF F�R ��?ft. S�T��-c1� Reference our submittal 6-2-92 for a Hillside Construction Permit. We understand that in order to build the 10 foot extension to the deck as proposed we need a variattce for rear setback. The normal rear setback for any structure over 2.5 feet high is 15 feet. The proposed deck is between 12 and 2.5 feet high and is proposed to go approximately 1 foot inside the property line. Attached are: 1 � 3. VARIANCE APPLICATION, dated 6-10-92. Sketch SK-4 "Assessor's Map", dated 6-10-92. Calc-2,1 "Lot Coverage", dated 6-10-92, showing proposed lot coverage at 34%, being less than the maximum allowed of 40%. We understand this will go for Study Session on 6-22-92 and for Action on 7-13-92. Very truly yours, KAVANAGH ENGI�TEERT�G � `. V • � Charles L. Kavanagh cc: w attach John Goldberg Sue Horn CIVIL DESIGN, SURVEYING, UTILITIES �r� c�rr ot � CITY OF BURLINGAME suRunc,an+e ' SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION E'OR � - --- - — — - - ��`�,,. ' . W A_L_K E R E S TA_T_E__ __ V�,RIANCE APPLICATIONS � R E A R S E T B A C K'� 2606 SUMMIT DR. � � a w ;� � � � � �l c � � 1 � � � z °' �r �� W s{ N Z O �a� zw WQU t=7 a W J � aoQ z¢� �U-� a�� Y�m In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section �5.54.020 a-d). Please answer the following questions as they apgly to your property and application request to show how the findings can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review �f your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. The property is rather long and narrow and has a long, narrow house on it, leaving little room for a backyard. The backyard consists of a small level area with a pool and existing 5 feet wide wooden deck; then the ground slopes down and away at a rather steep slope of approx. 70%, making it unusable without an above ground deck. See plan Sht.C�� b. Explain why the application request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. NEED FOR ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. The usable backyard is now less than 10 feet wide in most �laces and at the edges of the pool only about 4 feet wide. Additional deck area is needed to fully enioy the pool and provide some safe play area. When originally constructed, the existing deck area had a long range view of the bay and San Francisco. Now trees block the view. The proposed deck extension would allow views around the trees. e c. Explain why the granting detrimental or injurious vicinity and will not be safety, general welfare of the application will not be to property or improvements in the detrimental to the public health, or convenience. NOT DETRIMENTAL. The back property line is not against a back neighbor. See the attached sketch SK-4 "Assessor's Map". The right side neighbor's property is a very large lot, approx. �.9 acres and wraps around to the rear of the site with the house located up near the street. There is about 150 feet from the back line to the next property line. The proposed deck will be engineered to meet building code.(earthquake) requirements. d. Discuss how the proposed use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. COMPATIBLE. The lots in the area are generally larger than the site, again see SK-4. Hillsborough is across Summit Drive. opposite the site. Many of the adjacent lots have pools with decks either above ground �r supported with retaining walls. The proposed deck extension is a rather small change in the mass �and bulk of the existing site. ; � � , �\ � SS;� �, 5 0� :� � D �Oa 2a0 /3 �yaC�bs �'� P �, ..'�� -------�------i--- --- ; �s FEET yo�� 1� .4 7? �; �.10 _' - ��jo ,� _ �o'/°`-�___'___'_- Is_''. _'__-_ c,�y �a G.7a � � ___ _ �: ,� � 1� - / ' � r,l? gp. , ; %� �PpR,aX,(E} � ,1P:1 43�;�= �j� .�3 �po . � � G. , ( L�(15,� ..-�.,,.� / / \} '�r� /� �5 b,5 . H"B -: ' � � / ' � f` I r � � sQ- `� / o.�.''^\ �Fo : / >�' �zJ ` r,^. f i� � PAkCEL 23-C ?w' �. -' t 99 . /�. i C �� `.9 .� !zp' . ,�� . ` //- � �\ C.� � 'Oq �' . �'.� ,, , P� O P C� 5� C� 4��:' 8 ;� -... _.... ._ __ - ��' o, �� .� J ,� � . r''.�Dyo / . �\ � . � _ G� � C_.K --- �� aa,. � �� . . '"+ , p' �\\`, /� e: - /4 PAl�GEL Z3-B '' �'� 9 \ � / ' 2 7 I � ��' < <5 ` � O ;� ^� ,9 i ,,;� _ .�;;g a3 ``�1 � ,y �� \ ,:r ` , � . . , �- �� i � � I3 ^ �- �� a,, P,�RCFL 23-A � �%��.ES j� T? i261 . � o �',�� ^ �. � � � �� iPPR�K. �, �, s�. °� ' �� c 2 x,�., � � (�) ffoug ° _. ,;° �,� ,, � '��.;`' '' 2 „�. ,� � �z L , ... �,� ...... j � I � . ' ''� / /7 w r�� PAR. 22-A 'o,- -- _ I ir I 1 1�c�' ,�9 J` ,3� �� ( � � I , 1,, � ^V? �. - :t; I ' // ( � 0,, . ./�� z3 I �'��;� R ,`�; �.�,::•,. �� , PTN. PAR. 2/-A 336 2CnI � . JO a � fp` /B �. �'�titi �` 2�' '��, = z6o6 � �-- —� � aY1,J�`'` �;' . �> �, - . /� 3Z � _ -' = - - ' ti9 � \ •- . � G�6 ��' v" ,a�' „� � .s c2.�^5 n . 7, Zo `° °� 5 U M r�t f "t" z ' � - �� . � .,�:� 2�° r �� 6;R tv� � ,� ;. �' ,s� M�a° ,;,''' ;s •'' 4�'��,�3? �,` T,: � � �, �' /4 ' "� i6 �i i j J 'N �,i.?_ . .� . , ; �� , , d� � �1 `�1' . ,� ,� \ . '��p c '� �( � � U� � ` ,`;' ' ,' ';�; :;. . 3 ,, �: •�G � d . �' ^ I�' � �.•.. � �'( G � �J. �' o g- J��' .,�,"(° 5� ��% ; _ .��; 2 _ � 4� \�3.� ��L / t >� �r, i 272 � `-1v � i � `� 3 27 "� G ' `� �� . rJl r, tiT �zO\ ��j 9' p��<� _—_._ ��.. � �O `� �( �� . ", � t .-_- 3 SG7.i5 }V• .__—_____'__'_�\ \. <5 ��J �o� ?° �� ZB . . � . m . �� \ �A r O � �e :� . . \,` �.. � '� />� . . -- -�------ .__. . . _ . . _. � �. � —�-- ,. _ ,. _....--- --- - ----. ..-------- (P _/ a ^ g � ��w��:�w�LK ER � 5`r�-2TE � c� R�. g ��;�� 2�Q � C� S_c1 s✓3 � ET D�'�, .. . KAVANAGH ENGItdEERING d 708 CAROLAN AVE. PH. 415-579-1944 A S S E S S O R' S M A P S K� T BURLINGAME, CA 94010-2711 �a' � � r°- � ,� W . _ °1.5 �n 1 ��o�S� � oZ �� .� � , _ �. . ,, ' �J.. % u C �' . . . . ' -. . ' . . . . ' p � ' HOUSE R � • - . . 9. _ _ �.- e�;' �i -- �—�-.r.--3, 3� . �`Y a � � ' a.s � l I � �•' � `�-�� (I�LP- ,\� o � Q�"_ _ �SC . `� :`�.T ' '' g9�:�'� �%I. . ' DN . .I. ' I . _ �_ ; $1 �_ _ y%;' . . .. G � j � j 3 '� C/,: �.I . . �'' � � . PIA � Z�� 3�9 h LP' I �� :r I �n � '~ � � ' Fv y I , v _ � DN � 21-IOLES ;O . � _ � �4� � /% /// ' �,`J_-/'v" �'^� o� : (' � � � ., u G T OLL S 26' 6' ' E 172.05' �' WOOD FENGE 1"�� 26' 57' E 172.007 y ' _ .._ . _ �g �� # �. y�,�� GRAVE�WALKWAY �e� e � ,��$' %Z �'a�� 8 - u 3 � / / � . . i i i//�v �C�G- �CG¢�i oyG O _ I � ' I� a� _ GRAVEL AREA , - 1 �I ' � � ��9S pj� N / 0�' / � / D5G � . ' (� }(p tE) HOUSE (WALKERI \Cn� �' � I��n R4= �� % �'� . " % �/ (o � . �,; LOT `2 ' �ti `;�. �, . _ _ CIl � ' j �qRq�E � . . . .,� . Z J,Q� � I � � 'o � -r� I ' _ : B` ' PIA •ca, �• �• v i o " . � - �co 'c � � . . ' . . . 2� s � L}., �� .,'\\ OyP ��`Q� �9T o . - I .I . , ' �ph � " . . -,. . . i /ii- / ' � ' 3 . +� �'. ' �� . : � FP. � � � . . . .�. � . a� . . � . . , e� � . � yv �. � . _ - �• ii . � m - .�� `N i 0 a9,d . , �r 3� � I . I . ' . ��' � I PIA � P/A " � �. PIA / ' i � � � 6> . P�q 389.09 '. . . _ � � .. , ,' �\ ✓i oN 389' S4 � i � �F 3%ga �`. . i � . ' I �' � I I � . � � � I . . , '. , � . . . - m / PkIJAIL WOOD:PL�NKING ��3--, - i-- -_- ---- . . , . . . . . . t�. , . . � I' �g. r ' •�\PiPES c� woao FEucE � `'0 .I � . I CONC.� WALKWA F� �I . I . � � 3g8 r3 .� � I 38� NP\� � � � ' �� - ' � I . Y . i QY �. . . . . . . I. � . . _` � T � � e�w g�' . � �. . • . I I . . 3 • I � I . '. . .I °N , � . . PIA m�v . . . _- !.� /�Q� � _ � .�. �. a ' v' y\ �U•_1' L'[�� (e�WOODFEAIG .. �R . �e��.. . . 4J " WM � � E P/A 2 � ,c�p� PIA �.'O v � ` �' R �5�, - � �`�.. �y �' WOO� FENCE � -� 79• / RE7 WALL �3� 9 — PZO .98S.A0 �, Z I �I� ,BO '�� DOG RUN 3� "��a�� PIA s2 '. � �� Z ,��h Z. .�. � p,"iy . 3a 3��?9 2� .. 1 � � � � �� — 3 �° }�P 3'IS� �, WpOD fENGE 3� �. �� - 3�'�� 388.97 ;' . � 4' �� .�Ca REA _, N� ��3�. �'�� ' � FND I' I.P., 2� EA 0.46, - ' $- �.�...� �, o N v S 43° �4� _ . . ' � . . 3� w� FE�� /. �O IS��7 � ��7R�L �o`T = 10 .3�3 S � �4� Ce WO00 FENGE � � . � . ' �P g \ 4aq � Q- ! �� . bl � lE1 . '�—N 32�E J D Ec!< ove R� z se' '7' � zs �� o U. � 3 4�c HOUSE -_ _�s -�� 5 L C��--� . � � ��/ �/�� X�3'7 �" - 3 7d KAVANAGH ENGINEERING IMANNKENI _ ( �— �O�-L� ClJ1 P�a L h[fE �} K/ ^J 708 CAFOLAN AVE. PH. 415-579-1944 / Qy% ' � L� r C� V�� ' f J "T GP L BURIINGAME. CA 9C010.2]11 gZ I l�� /l I\ / � (j �oV��A6E 3. SCn.o w��?2 —_ '� �: � 33� _ io . 2�5Z Ll%!6 � PRR z3Jq �� -- 1 oRKs �` / — 33s o u o 4 PM 7 �� ._ �- �r CH s� T BE — i�-3o- 5 6 Conls'J'RucTED) � — -_ 33 _ -� � _.,.�_.�... / - — -- ` / 33'f � 3(n� — _- � / 3 i � � i ' � / / ' �._ z.� _ _- � � _ - '� � -i � i � , S3 �. �/ >_ �-j w , � . : ., , . � `� / S R3 6 -. a21I DEck -` ---_ / � � �6O 3�° 5 ��I� o� I -7j :�, 3(,p,p . p 31v5 � i3� ,�,_`;� � 'r�l � 1'� 3 �-3.Co `X� � \�� q �,, �4�. w � ( \ l \ � � '� � � '� .<<r.� a Gr �, c' - � ;.,, � y� ` � .! � , � � . ' � ` / \ .`.- 0�.� G�-. % ,� O �' 1 P O � - . iv ` , � � i ` \6' � \ ` � L I � / ��S f0oO0 ��D. .- . �..� Cl � k� �. � �� ^ �f �?�p'3��" �I' / -- �t3 2 / aoL /-// , �� , z �d z' Ta � i�_�� ;° ��:� �� P . � ,� - , s �___- a -----_,____RY D�� 3:� ,��i Q � � ,_ K .. . ,� / 5T ST� �� 3 ;k �i � '1 /o' � `,E��'DEG � `/ � T r}, � �-g� `�G F \ �� / \ , " . So z620 � 3�6��6 + U� f� � / -_ 3-t3 ;�� . 3��,A�,vF _ , � l 6/�Rl6��p� t k� '� t,�<':/_ _. -` �wa z!�/6 � 2�d z�a �/ �',��; �x _' ro� s �l h ;j ,C' �`fl oRR � ` i T �'/ c� �8S ��cK ' �` �-� .;,� N �` N / �� ' 73.7 �Y � v .\ A � , / J . V `b / r � /X� x ``,� l� l � � U t ;/ � %�� M �. � ,� �_ T �R , `�9y�� Y '�M '`��•��l� � ��• ��J� \� �' � �, ��T �3TY G?� �t,1F11 Ef�IGl�M� `�-3 -c� '2 �'i.AfVi4dP�1Q C��' � _ , , �. � ` 26°6 �s 63 6 4. 7% �� -z ��z �� -�� , � <�� KAVANAGH ENGINEERING W A L K E R E S T A T�E �\ — ]OB CAflOLAN AVE. PH. 415.579-1494 � � • BURLINGAME,CA �0,0-2,,, gZl�C gR 2606 SUMMIT DR PROPOSED DECK ADDITION� --�-�- - �-� � -�� -�R �� VIEW DIAGRAM PLAN SK-1 I 0 � � frl�Rlef�LDji � 36 0-- — gr-- i � 8 Mo��N �-- - -� ---- - _ � --____ -- - ---- � — - - - a �, � I � _ _ ___ Q.i1 ____ _----- _ -- �—._ .�° PR/ b�'C _�-�- - - _ _ �.� 01 5 � I � � -----� M�f��!lcEN�/ __ _ . ... _._ ._ _ _ . __ __.,_._.�_. _ _- - - - -- ----- . __ �.�� _ . . . _ _. — __ _ r � Ff'ou5E - I_ _.�Lo�u7ERJ---�-� �-� T- J 6RZEEoi � B�Y�No � �'F �� ` ^ - Ppo`_ - � M-A�1N SECTION sk-z y a v �"= Z o' (E) 3� P l 1�l E �"'� ,��; �` �' : �y �'�; <.�i.!d�6 � %�. ��2 �l7lo pF !3l�RLI(�f�p��l� �'��liVll�riVG L �pT f�(RI-EN� -- - ) ,r � .Q- TR��S . 3�0 I t, � i �� . CP� CE) FENc� ; /,:� DECK � DEcK � �r� I � - - ' t �i �� ' � 3Go _�__�1-A 8-�1-�E �--U P P E R__ _S E C T I o�I . hl � V I "- Z,o , �-z�.�z �� KAVANAGH ENGINEERING.' 708 CAROLAN AVE. PH. 915-579-19Yd / Z 6 O 6 S U M M I T D R -BURIINGAME, CA 99010-2711 �' Z . � (O B � w�LJcElZ WALKER ESTATE PROPOSED DECK ADDITION . 64.7% VIEW SECTIONS SK-� � KAVANAGH ENGINEERING 708 CARQLAN AVE. , BURLINGAME - CA. 94010 (415) 579-1944 9216 BA ti,1ALKER.3 6-2-92 �� Jane Gomery ��@�� Planning Dept. °~t�i��J City of Burlingame � �j 199 501 Primrose Rd. COTYO�. � 2 Burlingame, Ca. 94010 P,�/U��URCpN� RE: The Estate of William Walker ��r�� 2606 Summit Dr. Burlingame Dear Ms Gomery: Attached is a copy of the Application for a I?illside Bevelopment Permit. We are sending the original to the o�aner/Administrator for his signature and will return it to you when signed. Attached are 4 copies of each: l. Plan Sht. C-2 "Deck Improvements" dated 6-2-92. 2. Sketches datec� 6-2-92: � SK-1 "View Diagram Plan" 4�� 1�^�� SK-2 "View Sections" The proposed deck addition is far to the right of the nearest existing houses which have views aut over the canyon and northerly to San Francisco Airport. The proposed deck is 55 feet fro� the nearest house and is in essentially the same location as an existing deck, resulting in liitle change to existing vie�vs. Very truly yours, KAVANAGH EI�TGINEERITIG � � Charles . Kavanagh cc: John Goldberg w 1 copy SK-1 and Slz-2 Sue Horn ea 4 copies SK-1 ar_d SK-2 CIVIL DESIGN, SURVEYING, UTILITIES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, June 22, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the June 8, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved with the notation that Item 12, 1420 Burlingame Avenue, was continued until the parking study was complete, the item will be renoticed. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO BUILD A DECK AT THE REAR OF 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE ZONED R-1 Requests: on a sloping site like this how can one tell when a deck is over 30'� from grade on a site visit; deck needs to be viewed from adjacent site; since an estate is involved what is the purpose of making this improvement, more saleable, is someone living there now; when originally developed this property was in the county and then annexed to the city, is the development now inconsistent with city regulations because of the requirements when it was built; did the property require any variances or permits when it was developed. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1992. 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO BUILD AN EXTENSION OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND BASEMENT AT 1512 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: how can one tell what is going on in the basement since no room sizes or dimensions are provided; are the stairs shown the only access from the floor above, is there other access to this area; provide dimensions and ceiling heights for the unfinished space; dimensions for enclosed area in application and on plans are not consistent, what is the correct size; other than the house already being there, what is unusual about this property; applicant addresses findings for a variance but not findings for view impact, please submit ��v�� i�E��i�� 708 CAROLAN AVE. — BURLINGAME — CA 94010 (415) 579-1944 FAX: (415) 579-1960 9216 BR WALK.6 6-29-92 Jane Gomery Planning Dept. City of �urlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, Ca. 94010 RE: The Estate of William Walker 2606 Summit Dr. Burlingas�e Dear Jane: � �� t � � . . , d , (�� C��i° �°Y' t�.ek.d��.;E�•`C:;;1�a� ��4[VRE6i�G D�� REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONST. PERMIT Today we received a fax from you urith the questions brought up at the June 22, 1992 Planning Commission study session. Our responses are as follows: 1. WHERE IS DECK OVER 30" HIGH? The existing deck is at EL 387.7. The new deck will be at the same height. The existing concrete d.eck is to be reconstructed at this elevation also. The ground iust below the existing concrete deck is at about EL 85.2, or about 2.5' (30'°) belo�o the top of the deck. Essentially all of the wood deck, existing and proposed is then over 30" high. 2. VIEW FROM ADJACENT SIlES? Reference our submittal 6-9-92 for the Hillside Area Construction Permit and the sketches (SK-1 and SK-2) attached thereto. The view impact will also be quite clear for the commissioners as they visit the site. 3. PURPOSE OF DECK IMPROVEMENTS? The estate is trying to fix up and sell the house. No one lives there now. Several prospective buyers have commented on the lack of a back yard. The deck improvements wi11 definitely help in this regard. The house is also to be painted and cleaned up. 4. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. This lot is part of "Bel.vedere Heights", a subdivision in Burlingame. The final map for that subdivision was filed 7-15-60. The lot, as a building site, never was in the county. GJe assume the original construction of the house and pool was done in the early 60's. As far as we know, it required no variances. At that time the height of a deck could be 5' high without being considered a structure and pools could be 5' from back property lines. The existing wood deck is about 4.5' high. On 5-18-92, the city changed the height of a structure from 5' to 2.5' (30"). Very truly yours, KAVANAGH ENGINEERING L • �. Charl�es L. Kavana h g cc: John Goldberg Sue Horn CIVIL DESIGN, SURVEYING, UTILITIES 4 ROUTING FORM DATE: � TO: CTTY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL -G FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN � I_•Ii �. �/1 REQUEST FOR � AT . � �-. . SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: � � THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah �o : j�(f�v�Ni 6 �,�N1 � �� /�zJ��-L �b r � � • �f�G�-i�.,rr_ Date of Comments � � / �) � �� -- � v �� ;'� i3 r '� . �-- ✓ ��2�-d-� " " Gn�s� ��7J �-- t � �%/� 'Y� . �, ��i �� T' L%� r , ;G� 0 � ; � � � �'� "`� ^ , �� '' , _ � � � , . � x ^ �F >. _ .. ,'K`'� -, �r 2 ; � � ; _ 1� � ' _ � .� � �� - c- � p� _ _ . .. . ' - t a�` � _ . _� � . . �� - ,,. � 6 - - ._ �. . -', _ � ._' - '`� .� . � � - . . r - . . ;.°' a _ ��c� .� . . . .. . . . . � _ � �.. ,5- - - � � . ... �t� � _- � s- :ia _ _ - - - . . . } o� � _. .,. _ � - . �.. �a� '�'+ �`i< . .+:'tl��f... uT ''.:,5 . 5. �.:.... ZL� � O Z� l4 Z � "�uMMl1's 6°� .' � � 6a� � 9 • � , z5a0 � 41�l.5 �3oc��ut� �t `�� . � �� a - �; . 6� � u�--�d zy�v ,f '"F u �� ` ♦ � . � ,�.nr,.' k �. . . ,..�_�:, �;. � ��V �� v s �• � : .`� � A � �", �- �, � .��. � 0 � �� °� i � � o �. � � � � CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 13th day of Julv. 1992, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE APN: 027-271-100 APPLICATION FOR A REAlt SETBACR VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO BUILD A DECIC AT THE REAR OF 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE� ZONED R-l. 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. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER July 3, 1992 + . ' P� CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 3rd dav of Auqust, 1992 , at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE APN 027-271-100 APPLICATION FOR A REAR SETBACR VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO BUILD A DECR AT THE REAR OF 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 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. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER JULY 24, 1992