HomeMy WebLinkAbout2614 Summit - Staff Report (2)� ; �
. �
I. Proiect Address: 2
II.
Amendment to December, 1982;special permit for a bath house
and cabana behind an existing house to add a 91 SF extension
to the 45 SF approved deck, place a cover over the entire deck
(136 SF), place pool equipment 3-.5� from property line where
code requires 10' and place four windows and three skylights
in an accessory structure within 10' of property line where
code requires 10' separation. The additional special permits
required for this application are windows within 10' of
property line (Code Sec. 25.60.010-i) and accessory structure
which encloses mechanical equipment (Code Sec. 25.60.010-k).
In 1982 the request was for two accessory structures each
exceeding 50 SF. The 119 SF bath house was to be built; the
71 SF lattice work cabana was already in place. The 8-1/2" x
11" plans submitted and approved with the November 22, 1982
packet showed the cabana as "covered shade", an existing "pool
house" which housed the pool pump and other mechanical
equipment, and a separate new bath house with toilet, shower,
food serving area and storeroom. Both the existing pool
equipment house and the new bath house were shown 5' from side
property line.
Subsequent to city approval in 1982 it was discovered that the
pool house (enclosing pool equipment) and bath house were
located in part on the neighbor's property and also that
completed construction did not conform to the plans approved
by the city in December, 1982. Since that time the applicant
has had a survey of the side property line; and purchased from
his neighbor and merged into his lot sufficient property to
have the entire bath house on his property including a 3.5'
side setback from property line.
The applicant is now requesting amendments to his special
permit for the bath house so he can retain the improvements
made, but not shown, in the 1982 plans. As built the bath
house structure is 235 SF and includes the pool equiprnent
enclosure. There are four windows and three skylights within
10' of side property line. The proposed deck has been
extended by 91 SF and 136 SF of covering ha� been placed over
the deck in a structure which is open on the sides. One
breezeway proposed in 1982 has been encl.osed with walls,
windows and doors. A second area decked between the proposed
bath house and pool equipment house in 1982 has�also been
covered and enclosed with walls, door and windows. This added
breezeway area is now used as a food serving area.
c
0
III. Propertv Identification:
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 027-271-230
County: San Mateo Lot No: 22 Block No: -
Subdivision: Kenmar Terrace
Lot Size: 14,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
General Plan Designation: Single family residential
IV. ExistinQ Site Conditions and Adjacent Land Uses:
Single family residence located in an area surrounded by
single family residences also on hilly terrain with larger
than typical lots. Area is zoned R-1 and designated single
family residential in the general plan.
V. CEQA Status•
Categorically exempt: CEQA C.S.
not result in increase of more
area.
VI. Project Data•
15301 (e) proposed facilities
than 50% of existing floor
Project as built: bath house as built 235 SF with 136 SF deck
and 136 SF deck covering.
Area as approved 1982: 139 SF bath house (one structure with two
rooms 66 SF and 49 SF connected by a 24
SF breezeway) and 45 SF uncovered deck.
Percent increase 69� increase in structure, 200� increase in
between approved decking, 136 SF of deck covering.
and as built:
Proposed
Front Setback:
Side Setback (corner lots)
Side Yard Setback:
Rear Yard Setback:
Declining Height:
Lot Coverage:
Building Height:
On-site Parking Spaces:
N/A
N/A
3'-6"
20'
N/A
18.6g
8.5'
N/A
Required
N/A
N/A
0'
0'
N/A
40%
14' max.
N/A
� CITY YLNrynInU UCrHnIMGryI
,��I' �.c. CITY OF . BURLINGAME !, CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAC
I BURLINGAME 1�.PPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION � gURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401(
o Type of Application:
��64oY� �°° _Special Permit variance Other � E C E I V E U
RATm JUNC6�
Project Address �� ��� �L(�vyri � �r. JUL � � 1991
-Y OF BURIINGAN
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) �NNINGOFDT
APPLICAN`P PROPERTY OWNER
rrame:�Ghar�e 4 /1/�a�Yl Ke�'1 rrame: �'��r/es /1/la�nkeh
Address : �i� l �/ ,�U rn yv� i f (�r Address : �6 / �� ,S'U � � � f ��
City/State/Zip,�j�r�ivi 4a v� e, �'� 9Yoj�City/State/Zip �jc�r��hc,Q m�, C'� 95��/�J
Telephone :( Work )(� � 6- U JO� Telephone ( Work )� �Z6 - O i0 6
(xome) 3�/�/-��'l" 7�
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:
Address:
(Home) �L���- o % 7 ��
Please indicate with an
asterisk (*) who is the
contact per,son for this
proiect.
Telephone (daytime):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ��G OF r� �'C �]<<' o•��'' � G �a G 1 �-r0 u,r P.
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE:
I hereby certify under penalty of erjury that the information given
herein is true and c rrect to $he est of my knowledge and belief.
U�. � � / / �rZ����
Applicant's Signature Date
I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the
above applicant tc� sub�it this �ppl�'`�ation.
� �� �'`'�'L /
Property Owner's Signature
'�y�����
Date
-------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY ---------
--------------------
Date Filed: Fee Receipt # �
Letter(s) to applicant advising
Date application accepted as co:
P.C. study meeting (date) � �
P.C. Action /
Appeal to Council? Yes No
Council meeting date
application incomplete: '
�lete:
P.C. publiC hearing (date)
Council Action
a(,CITY p� .� : . . - . � ._ . ... . - .
, "CITY OF BURLINGAME
euRunrnMe ' SUpPLEMENTAL` TO APPLICATION TO THE ; PLANNING COMMIS "
���P'�E�
���'�• SPECIAL PERMIT t�PPLICATIONS , �UL �,�j_ jg9j "
,.
, . .
' `- . . <': . . ;..':TV OFBURUNGAM
�N DEPT :
� In order to approve an application for a Special Permit, ���
Planning Commission is required-to make findings as defined by _
the City�s ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Please answer the
following questions as they'apply .to,your property to show how
the findings can be made for your application request. 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 of-your-application. Please write;neatly
in ink or type.
l. Explain.why the proposed use at the proposed location will
not be detrimental or injurious to property nr improvements'
in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. - -
TF� i� request car�c�rr�=_. th� lRt��-�71JeRiet"it=. ct('�CI ff�4Cli f 1 Ccct i G�is i�al-� i c!-�
u,�ere made to a:n e�:i_tir�y pc�rl F�c�u=_.e �tr•ucture compl�ted, ��ith
final ir�s��Ectic�r�, Feb 28, 1S'd4. Ti-,e mc�di�icatic+n=_. ar•E cc�nt�ir�ed
t�.�itfiin ar a.tt�.ched to the structur•e rind it is our• wish tG ha.�•,�e
tt��•_e modi � i cat i ar�� �.mFnd�d tct the c�r i� i r�ai �+erm i t.
2. Discuss how the proposed use will be located and conducted
in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
The p+�al is loc�ted tG the r•ear• �.nd �.t tF�e t�c,ttc�r�� c�-f ��te�F�
sl ope b�h i r�d our home . � perrni t vaa.s gr-�n tec! i r� 1='�? tn h�.�,�e the
paol hause cor�structed tc� me�t thE r��ed=_. Cr-�=_•t r-c�am, etci ��+
+�mi 1 y mEmbers and guFsts. ��e t'�ttdCFied tar f��rther F5:p1 a.r�.y.t i or�.
3. Discuss how the proposed project will be compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing
neighborhood and potential uses on adjoining properties in
the general vicinity. Per Code Section 25.52.020 (3), the
Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or
restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of
Title 25 (Zoning) in the operation of the use.
TF�e mad i t i c�t i c�r�s �h�h i rh �:<<er-? rna.i n i;*� cr��.de dur� i n� Cnt'i�•tt'•Ur_ # i r�r� �.__.
•� r� r=_. h ou.� r� i r� t h� u�� d.?. t z d p l:�. n=_. d r. � e�� t�1 ti, r c t� i� s f w•T f n� T h i=.
i n c 1�� d F=_. p 1�. c i n g i�,� i n d att,�=_• c� r� i-�.� e=_• t=• i� e n t =_. t r u�_ t u r�, m�. k: i n g
cnur�ter L sha.pEd, �l ac i r�g ^=.w:Y1 i ght=• i n roa�, m.�k i ng �urr�p r•���m a
�� a �- t o f + h e =_. t r u c t u r e, �i 1�. c i r� g=_.1 i d i r, g R�.� i n d ��a•t=_• •� r� d•�. d c� a r ; r�
b��eeZ�t�:��.4• 1+��r3.� I 011=_�. H d?C�': ��•F�; �.��d �_ot'•t`es�C�;-;�i riq 5»�, sCt'•eer�
u,3a=_. exter�ded, l�.t�r, a-. Fstan ir,dicates. I t��l ie4�� the
mc���i f i ca.t i c�n•= =_.hc�ul d r�a�?e r�a :��vterse eff��_t �� +t-�e =_.ur•r•n»r,di rar�
ar��., ar�d tee 1 t!-�e c;t,er�al ]-y.ppe�ran�e i=. t�enet i� i�; ,
Charles Mahnken
2b14 Summit Dr.
�urlingame, CA 9'4al�
July 25, 19�1
���E1VED
JUl 3 0 1991
C� ptANSWR' D PAME
Planning Cammissian Members
Gity at Burlingame
541 F'ark Ftaad
Burl ingame, ��t� �'4C�iCi
l�edr Rlanninq Cammisaion Members,
Sub,ject — R�quest i�q am�nd ig83 permit to allaw madificatians ta poat
f�ouse .
�r i ef f� i starY
In 1�'82 it was aur betief that the poal hause whch we planned ta
build, had a side lot set back of at least 5 ft. We based this beliEf
u�an ir�farmatian we had recei�ed fram athers. The new poal hause was
ta be built adjacent to #he existing pool equipment hou�e which ueas
t�u i 1 f i n i S'66. Af ter tt�e new paal houae wa� f�u i 1#, � surUey made by a
nei�hk�or in 1985 shawed that part of the structure was actualt;� �. few
inch�s au�r the �rapErtY 1ine.
After Years of futile negotiatian and then costly titigation we had to
purchase appraximately 3 1/2 feet af side yard area in arder ta
�,ravide clear title for bath parties and satisfy the requirements of
�ity de�,a.rtments.
Uurinq tt�e abave praceedings it came ta the city's attention that thE
paol hause �tructure had some modificatians made which were nat on thE
origina� ptan. 4Je are naw respanding ta thE ptanning departmarrt
request that the ariginal permit be amended ta allaw the
madifi�atians. An explanation of the madificati�ns are as fallaws:
1. Ftaced three skylights inta the raaf ta gi�� more ligl-�t ir�ta the
intEr•iar.
2. uutside shai��Er v�a� E1 iminated and 1pace was ir�carRarate�d inta the
vtar•age are� far lawn chair storac�e.
3. Fi�e uaindaws wErE placed in areas strawn an the plan ta either
ir�crease light in the atructure or preUent bad «eather and animals
fram enterir�p tF�E �tructure.
4. Gc�unter in wet bar area was made inta an L sr�ape to increase
sEr�.� i ng ar•�a.
`. Ir� the wet bar area, the o�est side was �nclased with a slidinG
wir�daw fc�r the fotiQ�.uing reasons:
�. etiminate wir�d fr•am blawing debri=_. inta structurE
b. tCeep anim�ls, from the c.anyan, trom enterinq the structure and
the pc�c�l ar�ea.
0
u
c. a sliding window was u�ed in the encla�ure in ardEr ta haWe
access to side af structure far weed control, watering, tree
trimming and building mainte�nance.
6. On the east side of bar area there is a non-locking doar and a
50"x4�" a�ening aba�e the caurrter tap. �, starm �uindaw i� �Et in ptace
during bad weather to 4Ceep dirt, weather, and animala aut.
The aba�e madifications werE made during cans#ruction in 1983. The
building inspectar was aware af these modificatians and did nat
rFquire� either the cantractar or us ta get any additiana�t appra�als
prior ta hi� final sign off an February 26, Y��4.=
Extensian of Deck
Abaut a year a-ft�r the paol hause was camplE#ed th� existinq deck ar�d
sunscreen co�ering was extended abaut 4 ft, o�er the lawn area. The
de�ck wa�s �lso extended 2 ft. 6 in. ta the re�r af our lot sa that rear•
of building cauld be maintained. The sunscreEr� was also extended. We
di d nGt rea.l i ae tfi�at �ve needed a permi t far th i s.
Other pQints to note.
ia. I terr�s nat i n ur� i t
Same comments by ctf�ers may haWe lead to faulty imRrEssian�. TG set
the recar�d straight there is na full ba.th or tub, na kitchen or
caakinq equi{�ment, and na heat. ThEr� is a tailat antf hand =ink in
one raam, d shower in the change r•aam, and a sink in the wet b�r.
B. Raof Design {refer ta side elev�tian E�)
Original plan from Greative Castles, receiUed bY the city Octaber 13,
19�2, appra�e� December 19�3, shaws �n#ire =_•tructure ta L�e co�ered by
an� cantinuous raof. Canfirming le#ters enctased.
We i nU i te al 1 rnember•s of the pl anr� i ng cammi =_.si ar� ta i nap�ct the paQi
hause site.
Yours truly,
EnclGvures: Two lEtters
F't-�ataqra�hs
F�
iCAVANAGH ENGINEERING
700 CAROLAN AVE. - BURLINGAME - CA. 9401Q
(415) 579-1944
8932..BR MAI3NKEN.3
5-30-91
City of I3urlingame
Planning Dept.
RE: rlahnken Pool Nouse and Cabana
2614 Summit Dr.
Dear Planners:
�ECEIVED
JUL?�1991
CI pLANNIf�R DEPTME
We understand there is some confusion about how many roofs were
proposed and do now cover the referenced pool house.
Reference the plan labeled AD-1 "Original Plan" dated 3-19-91 as
prepared by our office using the original plan dated 8-24-82.
The plan sho�as one roof over the whole pool house. The gables as
shown on the original plan were omitted on the plan and were not
constructed. The roof framing shows there is one roof and that
is the way it wa•s constructed.
Very truly yours,
KAVANAGH �NGINEERING
C��``
Charles L. Kavanagh
�
� �
✓
CIVIL DESIGN, SURVEYING, UTILITIES
0
FRANCIS & MOORE INCORPORATED
145 West 43�d Avenue
Sar. Mateo, Ca. 94403
T_icer.se �416G22
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Mahr.ken
2b14 Summit Drive
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
������ ��
JUL 3 Q 199i
CITY OF BURLING TME
�fA��(�1Ca DE�
Ir Re:Pool House
2614 Summit Drive
Per Plar.s of 8-�24*82
ApprOVed 5-�23�83
Ir. �eview of the Origiral Plar. dated SY24p82, per your
request regardir.g the roof, I fir.d that the City of
Burlirgame :Zad omitted �he two roof gables ar.d drawr ir: red
irk that the Yoof line was to be cor.tir.ued as flat, to match
the rest of the struc�ure. See Pool Side Flevatior. D page 1
of 1
If these drawir.gs had beer. giver to me as the buildir.g
contractor, my ir.terpretatior. of or.e building and or.e roof
would apply ar.d the stzucture would have beer. built as such.
All the r.otations ar.d char:ges in Red Ir.k as r:oted by the
Buildir.g ard/or Planr.ing Departments durirg �eview ar.d
approval as of 5-23�83, are ir.corporated ir. the physical
structure as I persor.ally reviewed in a walk thzough of the
pool house.
If I c.ar. be of ar.y fuYtheY assistarce please call.
Sir.cerely
! �S..C�� �
^` �
/ ��2���k
C� -- �j -- �j J
L�
FRANCIS & MOQRF INCORPORATFD
:�
:�! -_: :�� .�
_u'� ��. �:\
Warrer. Frarcis
�
� �
�ktP C�t�� af �u.r�i�t��xmQ
SAN MATEO COUNTY ' �
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CAUFORNIA94010� . TEL:(415)342-893I
December 8, 1982
Mr. Charles Mahnken
2614 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Dear Mr. Mahnken:
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to
advise the November 22, 1982 Planning Commission approval of your special
permit application became effective December 7, 1982.
This application was to a11ow construction of a bath house and cabana behind the
existing home at 2614 Sumnit Drive. The November 22, 1982 minutes of the
Planning Commission state the permit was approved with the following condition:
- tnaz consiruction shall be as shown in-plans submitted with--------------------- -
this application and conform to the Uniform Building Code as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
All site improvements and construction work will require separate application
to the Building Department.
Sincerely yours,
(�r���z���+�Q
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Chief Building Inspector •
$
Assessor's Office, Redwood City
(Lot 22, Kenmar Terrace; APN 027-271-230)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 22, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Comnission, City of Burlingame was called to.order
by Chairman Mink on Monday, November 22, 1982 at 7:37 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Harvey, Leahy, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner-Margaret Monroe;.City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of tfie November 8, I982 meeting were unanimously approved and
adopted.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimousiy approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL I�QPACT REPORT EIR-57P FOR THE PROPOSED 35Q ROOM
GRANADA ROYALE HOMETEL PROJECT AT 15� ANZA BOULEVARD
CP Monroe referred to the Response to Comments document for Draft EIR-57P and Planning
Commission Resolution No. 8-82 with Findings recommending the Final EIR to Council for
review and action. Reference staff report for this item with attached resolution and
EXiiui� n� $iyiii�iCai�� C��CCtS� F�ltlgdtlOpS and Findings.
CP Monroe and Commission discussed the effect of using underground parking to reduce the
FAR; clarified that Response to Comments to EIR-57P calls for an improvement to the
existing sewer system by the city, not an expansion to the system; reducing the height
of the hotel by one floor and/or eliminating the parking structure would eliminate the
need for a Special Permit to exceed 1.0 FAR and would reduce view obstructions; Chm.
Mink noted that Item #9 of Exhibit A"Significant Effects" should be changed to read
"increase in jobs would result in increased need for housing in San Mateo County."
The Commission acknowledged John Raiser who wished to speak on this i�em. He noted
that this project will reduce or eliminate views from adjaceni buildings and wanted this
point more emphatically stated; SeaBreeze office building views of the bay will be
eliminated. Chm. Mink acknowledged that the Final EIR does identify and discuss the
impacts on views from adjacent structures.
C. Giomi moved to recorrnnend that.Planning Commission Resolution No. 8-82 be approved
and EIR-57P be forwarded to the City-Council. Second by C. Harvey; motion approved
7-0 on roll call vote.
�. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BATH HOUSE AND CABANA BEHIND THE EXISTING HO�E AT
2614 SUMMIT DRIVE, BY CHARLES MAHNKEN
CP Monroe reviewed this a�plication to build a 119 SF recreational structure and 71 SF
cabana at,the rear of this property adjacent to the svaimming pool. Reference staff
' Pa ge 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1982
report for Item #2; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/13/82; aerial
photograph; photos of the site; si.te drawing; "no comments" memos from the Chief
Building Inspector (11/3/82), Fire Marshal (10/25/82) and City Engineer (10/29/82);
]etter from Charles Mahnken, the applicant, dated October 13, 1982; letter in support
from John and Jacqueline Moran; 2616 Summit Drive; November 8, 1982 study meeting
minutes; and site plan date stamped November.l2, 1982. CP Monroe discussed details of
the proposal; staff review; applicant's justification for his request; answers to questions
raised at the study session. Planning staff noted conversion of the proposed structures
to living space would be extremely difficult, and recommended approval with one
condition as listed in the staff report.
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Mahnken (applicants) were present. Chm. Mink opened the public
hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the hearing closed.
Corranission discussed overall lot coverage with the proposed addition; acknowledged that
the proposal preserves views and maintains the setback requirements of the code.
C. Harvey made a motion to approve the Special Permit based on the structure's compliance
with zoning requirements and minor impact on affected lots; second C. Cistulli. Chm.
Mink conditioned the motion that construction shall be as shown in plans submitted
with this application and conform to the Uniform Building Code as amended by the City
of Burlingame. Motion approved unan�mously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
3. SPECIAL PERP4IT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2160 TROIISDALE DRIVE, BY
SPAULDING CONSTRUCTION FOR MR. AND MRS. EDWARD FRANKE
CP Monroe reviewed this request for three special permits (to exceed height, plate line
and floor area) to construct a 741 SF detached garage replacing the existing garage on
this site. Reference staff report for Item #3; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 10/14/82; aerial photograph; November 3, 1982 memo from the Chief Bui7ding
Inspector; "no comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (10/25/82) and City Engineer
(10/29/82); October 1, 1982 letter from Spaulding Contruction Co., signed by Mrs. L.
Durham, 2158 Trousdale indicating "no objections" to the proposal; October 14, 1982
letter from Spaulding Construction Co. presenting the project; November 8, 1982 study
session minutes; and plans date stamped October 14, 1982. CP Monroe discussed details
of the proposal; code requirements; staff review; applicant's reasons for the request;
answers to study session questions; Planning staff observations. One condition, as
listed in the staff report, was suggesied for Commission consideration.
Edward Franke (applicant) and John Spaulding (contractor) were present. Chm. Mink opened
the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion included: clarification by C. Harvey that the overall height of
ihe proposed design could be maintained at 15'-0" (based on a 9'-6" garage door, a 14"
header and 4'-4" rise for the 4/12 roof slope); existing carport next to the present
garage should be removed if the application is approved; proposed roof line is
compatible with other nearby structures; a hip roof would reduce the visual impact
from the street. "
C. Harvey made a motion to approve the three Special Permits with the f�llowing conditions:
(1) ihat overall height shall not exceed 15'-0", (2) the plate line shall not exceed
10'-8", (3) the maximum area of the garage shall not exceed 741 SF, (4) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 3, 1982 be met; and (5)
that the existing carport in the side yard be removed.. Second by C. Graham; motion
approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
P.C. 11/22/82
Item #2
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 2614 SUMMIT DRIVE
The applicant, Charles Mahnken,. is requesting a special permit to build a 119 SF
recreational structure (maximum 50 SF) and a.71 SF cabana (all cabanas require a
special permit) at the rear of his property adjacent.to his swirrening pool. The 119 SF
recreational structure will contain a bathroom, shower, wet bar and closet (5' x 2.5').
The facili�ties are contained in two free-standing structures connected by a breezeway
for a total length of 24'-6". The new structures are adjacent to an ex�isting pool
equipment house (10'-6" x 5'). The open lattice cabana is 71 SF and located on the
other side of the pool. Posts to support the.cabana were placed in the retaining
wall when it was poured. The request is for roofing over the area to provide shade.
The application has been reviewed by ci.ty staff. All had no comment (Chief Building
Inspector, November 3, 1982; Fire Marshal, October 25, 1982; City Engineer, October 29,
1982).
The applicant submitted a letter (October 13, 1982) in support of the project. He
points out the distance and number of stairs separating the house from the pool area,
the advantages of having a toilet and shower close to the pool, the availability of
utility service close to the proposed structure and a willingness to comply with all
codes. A letter in support was also submitted from Mr. and Mrs. John Moran (November 6,
1982).
At study the Commission raised some questions regarding the project (minutes November 8,
1982). The site plan date stamped November 12, 1982 shows roof drainage ,from the new
structures to be in the direction of the side yard (and adjacent canyon). The proposed
pool house is ±52' from the neighbor's house, which is the only structure on the
neighbor's property. (A graphic dated Novemb.er 12, 1982 is attached in the packet.)
In review of this project Planning staff notes that it would be extremely difficult to
convert the pool house facilities into an additional living unit. The cabana's open
lattice roof would preclude its use for living area; and its separation from the
bathroom facilities would make it a poor candidate for conversion to living space.
Staff recommends approval of this project. Planning Commission should hold a public
hearing prior to action. The following condition should be considered:
1. that all structures conform to the UBC as amended by the City of
Burlingame.
O�� �
Marga et onroe
City Planner
�
MM/s
cc: Charles Mahnken
����;�:IVED
OCT 1 '3 1982
CITY�O,NNING DEPTME
Charles Mahnken
2614 Summit Dr.
Burlingame, CA 94010
October 13, 1982
3urlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We would like to request permission to build.a bathroom facility
near our existing pool house which is located in the back yard of
our residence.
The bathroom facility would contain the following: toilet, hand
sink, change room, shower, storage for lawn furniture and picnic
counter.
Reason for request.
Family members and guests must now walk some distance and ascend
three flights of stairs to use the toilet facilities. Having the
toilet and shower nearer the pool area would be very helpful.
Water, electric, and sewer lines are all within seven feet of the
proposed structure.
A11 codes will be adhered to. We would appreciate your approval
of this request.
Yo s truly,
(� �
� � ,,� � 2
��
�
0
�ri
'�:'
�
z�.
:�
>x:
:�
PROJECT APPLICATION
�r CEQA, ASSESSMENT
��, cirr ?
� 2614 SUMMIT DRIVE
BURLINGAFIE !project ad ress �
�y �! '� Ipro ect name - n � ��
Application received ( 10/13/82 ) � a y
�
+� ai
o �
��
�n +�
y m
V r
� �
�-+ -o
a �
� �
i +�
v�- a�
ti v
�F L
N �
v o,
��
•r i
��
�>
ai o
i U
�
Staff review7acceptance ( ) ,
1. APPLICANT Charl es. Mahnken �� - 344-8974
name telephone no.
2614 Summit Drive, Burlinaame CA 94010
applicant's address: street, city, zip code �
Same 344-8974
cortact person, if different � telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APFLICATION
Special Pem:it ( X) Variance` (. ) Condomisium Pernit O Other
'�Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Co e apter 25.54.
3. PROJELT DESCRIPTIO(V SPECIAL PERMIT to construct a 119 SF
recreational structure arid a 71 SF cabana. A special permit is
required .for an.Y accessory structure which will be used for
recreation purposes or if it is a lanai, patio shelter or similar
structure exceeding 50 SF (Sec. 25.60.010)• both structures
require a special permit. The recreational structure contains a
bathroom, shower room, wet-bar and closet. The cabana will be
open on all sides. The proposal meets all other zoninq (**)
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) �
Ref. code sectton(s): ( 25.60.010 ) (25.66.060-d )
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATIQY
� 027-271-230 � � 22 � � - � �. Kenmar Terrace �
APN 7ot no. block no. subdtvision name
( R-1 ) ( 14,000 SF+. )
zoning district land area, square feet
Charles Mahnken 2614 Summit Drive
and owner s name address
Burlin4ame, CA. 94010
Reovired Date received city zip code
[ye3) (no) ( - ) Proof of ownership
(�es) (no) ( _ ). pwner's consent to application
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Existing single family dwellinq and pool.
Required Date received
(yes) (�s) (10/13/82)
iYes) f�a) i " )
((Yes) f++a) ( �� .
(other)��g) � � �"� �
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and
� �� curbs; all structures and improvements;
� paved on-site parking; landscaping.
Floor plans of all huildings showing: gross floor area
6y type of us�`on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant),
Site cross section s) (if.relevant).
letter of exp anation
`Land use classifications are: residential (show # dw<.11ing units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PROPoSAL NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY �
Proposed construction, Below grade ( � SF) Second floor ( _ SF)
gross floor area First floor ( 119 SF) Third floor ( _ SF)
Project Code Project Code
Proposal Requirement . Proposal Requirement
Front setback Il.d. - Lot coverage 18.9% 40%�max.
Side set6ack Il.d. - Building height$� 6"�11�-J 14� Rld .
Sideyard 5'-0" 5'-0" Plate l�ine �--•��8 -0"/9'-3 10' ma .
Rearyard -6" 15�-��� On-sitepkg.spaces fl.d. -
0
�
�-
:.x
;�
�.
�� .
:�
— y�.
6. FROJECT PROPOSP.L (continued)
EXISTING IN 2 YEARS IN 5 YEARS
after � after after
. 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full tine emoloyees on site �
Part tine employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Yisitors/customers (Sat.Sun:) �
Residents on property f10 ange �
Trip ends to/from site"
Peak hour trip ends''
Trucks/service vehicles
'Show calculations on reverse side or attach separate sheet.
7. A0.JACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent lots. This use conforms
to thP General Plan
Required ' Date received
(;� (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(�es1 (no) ( n,a, ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districtr b100 (X ) Other application.type, fee $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districtr $ 40 () Project Assessment $�( )
Yariance/other districts E 75 () Negative Oeclaration $ 25 ()
Condominiun Permit £ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ (;
TOTAL FEES E 1�0.(10 RECEIPT�NO. 5HS5 Receired by H. Towber
I hereby cert fy under penalty of perlf�ry �t the information given herein is
true and corr�t.to ti� best j{f�pry kr�i�led and betief. _ .,� �
STAFF USE ONLY � T
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The Ctty of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE o� 11/8/ , 1g32 ,
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It vrill not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Lonclusion:
Cateaoricallv exempt:
Code Sec. 15103(el
7
_�KYlI�V� I�/ �Y UA/l �� CITY PLANNER 11/8/82
Sig ature of Process ng Official Tit�e Date Signed
Untess appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te posted, the detemination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTIFIG Date Posted: .
I declare under penalty of perjury that I an City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Neoative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to tha Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on ___ __ , 19_
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )No
L ELYPI H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF Bl1RLINGAME
,�.
��
`�;
:�:
�'
�.
�.
�:
�:
�
.,.�; �_..,.
STAFF REVIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF-APPLILATTON
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received memo attached
City Engineer ( 10/21/82 ) (yes) (no) (yes) (na)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
Pire Inspector ( ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
City Attomey ( _ ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERN$/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MFASURES
Concems Mitigation hkasures
Do the plans meet Fire and Request.comments from the Chief;
Building code requirements? Fire and Cha:ef Building �
Inspectors. ;
3. CEQA REQUIREMENTS .
If a Negative �eclaration has not been posted for this project:
ts the project subject to CEQA reviewZ Categorical.ly exempt.
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initia7 Study completed ( ) Study by P.C. � � � )
.. Decision to prepare EIR ( .) Review pertod ends ( )
Notices of preparation mailed ( ) Public hearing by P.C. ( )
� RFP to consultants ( ) Final EIR received by P.C. ( )
Contract awarded ( ) Certification by Council ( . )
Admin. draft EIR received ( ) Decision on project � )
Draft EIR accepted by staff ( ) Notice of Determination ( )
Circulation to other agencies ( )
- 4. APPLICATION STATUS �phone Cd�� Date first received ( 10/13/82)
Accepted as canplete: no(X ) X4Ci�lE to applicant advising info, required (
Yes(�date -'' P.C. study ( /�8/81 ;
r
- Is app7ication ready for a public hearing7 (yes) .� Recortrnended date (/i�.�z/82�-
Date staff report mailed to aoplicant ( ll/ /yl�aj Date Comnission hearing (ii/ z 2/�-
Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Counci7 (yes) (no)
Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication a proved ( ) Denied ( )
�� � l I10
signe dat
�,
't
0
,
•`�\` ` '�!'� � I I +
..; !;;� �: � l .
i �
�:x� . �� . . � i, I:
,;;,�,,
����_:\ , `\�� ;;��
. . _ .-CONSTFZUGTION :,�� ; I
; b�T��l� : _ �, :
- _ � _ . �. �
_r 3 ' v
: c
p _ - I.
. ' . " �` ' ' t���
�
Yf� -� =��0 p�T�
� 4 .� 8 0 — -- ^< < _�
e � `_�
1� r `
_ ? : -�`Y � r � _ .c
, I� -' - �t : rA
�.:ir�1�-i'�' ,� �� � �.
FIXT �� =�
x $�-3 TfP v �� ,r��'1� � :t'
S � � �� -#
, :� x
6� �`" � ` � '�< _ ?x
� ;�
� • r � I YF
i
'• • " � '- • �4• "- ; - - •.� • _ �fi.
,, s _ = �i ..', -. _... . ./ . +.
. t� �% 'F`°
�i�. �._...: ��..�v��
t :,: . -
x�
. . , - £ ' � � i I t�_�_ � " � .
.' _ �.=�T 1yT� O ' � �� c��r�- ' r, s —._'��1 _ _ _
' pr- .�•.] �[ - }- \
NZ.S _ ' _ �" ^�l �
� �. �
.9� � ; .
,t � "_ � �
5'�� ' ��. �.,
" „� Q __�`,, ; "_ { ---
. � - _ � ,� � t - :� �-.
4q �T c( ; r '�' � � -
� � s" >. • u�
��,,,:� �Z'..�f,�.�� - � �� ' _ _
E ' � �' a�, �{ �` i r t ' �7
�'�3ra _^�'dW k4 Q. Y - - " �{...���- Jv" _ .- i , F . '
� .�`' .- � .�/y�1 � "
. / Y . y T r't/�,%�� �
(0 - � . . �:.� �{F'{7 � _
x �
f �' `' �IK"("
� •T,��' , :
..-� ( � ,�5s Y t•
` - � �5� o«�� ��
�
t �" � :S . ,.1...�
t a h
. ; }� a. >.i-
'�t:i�o -'
t ::�
' 'k
S. . � .__ , ..
� 5'- O" ,'
�"6��r.�) r
e
1 ,� t�` f
. ;x
.i^ .�e..�,r�...._ , �, � _�...,i .s. � . . .
NLxi� .�.
, .
�� � � �
-m��'�-�-� . : - :
1 � •
r ; �'
4 � ` * - .
$
' �,; ': \ � ` . ::• .�..
s. �. \\\�� •. _ ' � .
: `~ � _
_ t .
,X j
t' r ,
�- <, . ; `. � ,
;>
� .� .
. �_ . ' � . � -n
r '
'.tr C� ; #�_ �
T�-
� �li�J . 4 . _
� _; i.. � . - . .
�. t�—�—� I � V , � . � 1�--- ��
� ,
�EC�lYE�i
i�: h.� r• t�__. h�i a h n I: e n
��1� �ummi t C�r.
E,��r 1 i ng�.m� . Gr� 5'�Ci 1 C�
S��t�mt�er 119 1�51
t�1r=_•. t�lc,nrc:e
C: i t:r� P l� r� r� e r
�''i t;+� C�f Buri i nqame
50 ? Pr• i mrnse ��J .
EUrl ir��a�rrse, CF; �'�7iG
C�F.xr t"ir•=_.. t"1r�nroe g
SER 1 � 1991
"OF BUR4INGAP��-
� -���,��►ru�c o��
I n r•�fFrenc� y� the Pt .�nn i r�c� E_��mrr� i=.s i c�n Put�i i c };ear• i r�� or�
�ept�m��r• t+, 1�'.''I} ThF P'Ia.�"if�k:+�i1�u •3.C� n�t g��iriq t�� aPP'=•y.l t�i�
l��'�= E v I Gry � ��U t�rd I �.ft fp ��%� c.i�rt3't? G�•�("' 1�{ Cclf I O('t .
if the deci=•ic�n =_.hc���i�J be ��,pe%�.le� G:�• �tF�ar•� t� tl-�e �it�
�_ c��� n� i i, + t-� e P�1 a h r� k� n�. , t� e c au = e r,-t t r��.; �� 1 c omm i t rr� e n t=_. . v� i•a I-�
tc� pG_•tF�or�e tt�e �c t i on ur, t i 1 h�Ir�4� �, 1'��'i ,
l`Ouf•�. fr�,� .1`c 'i
� '� , /
� � ` �
• ,�
PLEASE RETURN RECORDED
COPY T0:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BURLI.NGAME
501 PRIMROSE'ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
I
i
?`zr{3!?f ls;filj3s??i{?i
RESOLUTION NO. 31-91
RES�LUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT
AND VARIANCE
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame
that:
WHEREAS, application has been made £or a special Aermit
and variance
amendment/for an accessory structure to be used as a bath house
at_ 2614 Summit Drive: (APN 027-271-350 1; ,jpropertv owner:
Charles H. & Anne C. Mahnken, 2614 Summit Drive, Burlinqame, CA 94010);
and
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on September 9, 1991 , at which time it reviewed and
considered the staPf report and all other writte,n materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED l�y this
�and vari�nce
Planning Commission that said special permit amendment are approved.,
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.:l
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San
Ma�eo.
�-� l� � '
c�zxru�x
_ I, JERRY L. DEAL , Secretary of the Planning
Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was in�roduced and adopted at a reguiar meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 9th day-of September ,
1991 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMtiISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
I hereby certif� this to be a full,
true and correct copy of the document
it purports to be, the original of
which is on file in my office.
1. ' i�� � ��
v 1 GV 1 1�1 �--�
Marga e Monroe, City Planner
DEAL, ELLIS, GALLIGAN, KELLY
GRAHAM, JACOBS, MINK
i
.. ;
_ Rt- 1 -r-- -
r..� �
'
f '"'—`
� '.�
{h1`
TC �
HB
r �,� ��,: .
ECR ARY
��������
_. : . _. � = r ��� ��:S�i ��.
'`��. ���`� � �r� :F.�. ��
_�
fiFdi3 . - : _ s.• `'�i�
p � �� -- �.
�Caiyl -__' "_.. .... . .. ..-.
f�n '�- -_ - _
r.e��.,.-.., ,___�---�-_
i.
�r
jt n
EXHIBIT "A"
�
Conditions of approval, special permit
amendment and variance, 2614 Summit
Drive (effective September 17, 1991)
1. that the bath house/pool structure shall be built as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped.July
30, 1991, except that the windows facing the side property line
shall be removed;
2. that retroactive building permits shall be sectired for_all work
completed but not included in the October 13, 1982 plans and
corrections to current Uniform Building Code requirements and
standards shall be completed, inspected and granted an occupancy
permit within 90 days (December 9, 1991) of granting the use
permit amendment, this skiall also include corrections required in
the 1991 review;
3
:iii�,H�ltij�'h�li'�Ki3
4
that the portion of the structure enclosing the pool equipment
shall be fully soundproofed as required by the Uniform Building
Code and city pool ordinance; and
that this bath house shall never be used as a living quarters or
for sleeping purposes. '
�
�
�
�
�I
f�
�
�
_._ _� . _. _
. �
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
September 9, 1991
ssion/staff discussed number of bedrooms in the proposed project;
confirmed parking requirement for five or six bedrooms is met.
Chm�` Kelly opened the publie hearing. John Lee, architect, discussed
their� efforts to mitiqate neighbors' concerns with this design and
presented a letter in support signed by eight neighbors. Char�les
Mahnken;, 2614 Summit Drive, spoke in support: he advised appl�cants
have worked with the immediately adjacent neighbors to addre�s their
concerns about views, aesthetics and noise; tree planting��-wi11 be
added and �the house has been relocated 15' toward the��northeast
preserving ad�ditional trees and addressing possible noi�e��impacts.
There were no
was closed.
comments in opposition and the public hearing
C. Ellis found no pr�ob
is a very short dist
permit, he supported t
a site inspection indi
but would not obstruct
the hillside area cons
conditions: (1) that t
submitted to the Planning Depar�'t:
with a maximum roof ridge heigh
chimney height of elevation 344.5
be nonreflective and shall be ap�
and City Planner; (3) that �e
elevation of the roof ridge shal
the elevations shown on the`�plan
are met; ( 4) that all the��`condit
1991 memo and the Fire Marshal's
(5) that as built the s'trueture
of the Uniform Build� ng Code an
City of Burlinqame�
=ore
1 be
s app
ions
July
shall
d Uni
su`re permit request, it
lside area construction
this is a better design,
affect some close views
is moved for approval of
ution with the following
to conform to the plans
nd date stamped August 16, 1991
elevation 342.8' and a maximum
) that the roofing material shall
i.�by the Chief Building Inspector
tinal framing and roofing the
surveyed to determine that all of
roved=Yby the Planning Commission
of the�`'C,ity Engineer's April 15,
31, 1991'��memo shall be met; and
comply with�all the requirements
form Fire Cod'e, as amended by the
C. Ellis moved f�'or approval of the creek enclosure permit�b� resolution
with the foll�owing conditions: (1) that the plans for the 18=� extension
and for th�relocated existing culvert shall be reviewed b�r.,,the City
Engineer �.�and shall meet all the city's design and const,ruction
require nts; and (2) that all the newly constructed culvert sha�ll be
locate�weithin the designated drainage easement. �
�1i these motions were seconded by C. Galliqan and approved 7-0
11 call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
TO BE USED AS_A BATH HOUSE AT 2614 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 9/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required
findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
�
lem with the creek enclo
�ance; regarding the hil�
lie�,�revious application��'
cated this project wottld
dist�nt views. C. �Ell'
truetia� permit by� resol
he pro�ec�t shall ie built
._ -
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
September 9, 1991
consideration at the public hearing. If Commission determined not to
grant this request one condition was suggested.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Charles Mahnken, applicant,
discussed the permit received in 1982 to construct a bath house in the
rear third of the lot, his neighbor had no objection at that time; bath
house construction began in 1983, its location was selected because it
was in line with the pool equipment house built in 1966, plan given to
the contractor shows a red line across the top of structure indicating
a single roof; it was built while he was on vacation and some
modifications were made including enclosure of the breezeways,
modification of the food preparation area and adding three skylights;
this construction was inspected and finalized by the city in 1984. In
1986 a survey indicated the bath house was 3" to 4" on his neighbor's
property. After lengthy legal action he purchased a portion of his
naighbor's lot which gave the bath house the 3' minimum setback
required by the Building Department; he is now requesting the 1982
permit be amended to include the areas which had been modified. Other
adjacent neighbors have had no objections.
Responding to questions, applicant said his eontractor for the
structure had been his brother, Richard T. Mahnken, R. T. Construction
Co.; property line survey was done when his gardener was adding
landscaping in the front, his neighbor'disagreed about the property
line and the survey proved the neighbor right; modifications made by
his contractor were his responsibility, contractor was working for him.
Commission questioned why a licensed contractor felt he could change
approved plans to suit his convenience; applicant did not know what
occurred between the building inspector and contractor at.that time.
There were no audience comments in favor.
John Moran, 2616 Summit Drive spoke in opposition. He distributed a
packet and discussed these exhibits. He opposed the requested
amendment because the structure as it now stands could be converted to
living quarters, windows are in place, electricity and plumbing
facilities are there, he was not concerned about such a use today but
was concerned about what might occur in the future; the most effective
way to prevent a future living unit would be to reopen the breezeways;
the approved plans did not call for a s:olid continuous roof; minutes of
the November, 1982 Planning Commission meeting indicate .Commission
approved open area between the two struetures; Commission's action
tonight should limit food preparation area to the 2' x 5' original
request rather than the existing 5' and 11' area; when the pool lights
are on they light up his entire back yard; he requested removal of the
illegal windows facing his property as well as the skylights; if he
were to put in a pool in his back yard there would be five windows
looking down on his pool area and no privacy.
In 1982 there was a 5' side setback requirement, in 1991 no side yard
is required, he would request an explanation of this; the bath house
location is not in the rear 30� of the lot; he urged Planning
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
September 9, 1991
Commission reject the proposed amendment and support the 1982 decision,
the existing configuration is larger than the approved plans and has
definite conversion potential with skylights and windows. Responding
to a question, Mr. Moran discussed how he discovered the Mahnken
structure was on his property, in court Mr. Mahnken was the plaintiff;
in 1982 Mr. Moran had no objection to the two small buildings proposed,
however the structure is now 69� larger with additions and decks.
Responding to Commission questions, he stated he did approve of the
cabana on the other side of the pool; he voiced no complaints about
the pool house between 1983 and 1986 and assumed applicant had all the
necessary permits; he only complained when he discovered applicant's
structure was over his property line; in 1986 he witnessed the pool
equipment structure being razed and rebuilt without permit; the solar
was installed with a building permit but not until after the pool house
was built. Regarding interference with his privacy, assuming a pool in
his back yard, lights a� night would impact him, at present there are
trees but trees are not forever.
Mr. Mahnken spoke in rebuttal: the so-called 69% increase in size of
the structure is just the pump room when a roof was put on, nothing has
changed otherwise; he tried to work matters out with Mr. Moran, tried
to solve the problems, two years of legal action took time and he could
not respond to the City Attorney's letters; the solar was installed
first and finalized, then the pool house was built, there were
modifications made improperly; he requests approval of what is there
now. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Deal stated he had examined the drawings and believed there were
breezeways between the buildings in 1982; there was only one window
shown on the original plans, now there are several; he did not think
the building could be used as an auxiliary living structure; he was not
happy about a contractor choosing to do whatever he wanted after the
plans had been approved; a fence could be put on property line and
possibly help privacy for the neighbor but the windows are a bit too
high, a fence to code would not cover the windows; because it is a
steep lot and there is very little buildable area at the rear, he had
no problem with the pool equipment structure extending beyond the rear
third of the lot; he found nQ problem with the skylights but was
concerned with the windows along property line which would affect
privacy of the adjoining neighbor.
C. Deal moved for approval of the special permit amendment and variance
with the conditions in the staff report and an additional condition
requiring removal of windows along property line. Motion was seconded
by C. Galligan.
Comment on the motion: there are trees there now, trees are not
forever, would suggest keeping the windows until the trees go, would
like some sort of landscaping required to protect privacy; agree the
structure is not built to plans, its location would preclude a living
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
September 9, 1991
unit, think windows should be removed and one skylight; the skylights
are dark bronze, not too much light; skylights are shaded by trees in
the afternoon; support the motion, think windows could be a problem, if
Commission votes to remove the windows would suggest it be done within
a specified time, such as 90 days; Mr. Moran's presentation was
excellent, have an initial concern about the delay between construction
and complaint, three years is a long time, it raises a question about
the negative impact; with the proximity of the properties, the slope
involved and the ability to see who comes and goes, the likelihood of
conversion to a living unit is minuscule; this project was not done
without some city inspection, this could be a mitigation; it seems to
be a reasonable use except for the windows.
Conditions of the motion by C. Deal, seconded by C. Galligan follow:
(i) that the bath house/pool structure shall be built as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 30,
1991, except that the windows facing the side property line shall be
removed; (2) that retroactive building permits shall be secured for all
work completed but not included in the October 13, 1982 plans and
corrections to current Uniform Building Code requirements and standards
shall be completed, inspected and granted an occupancy permit within 90
days (December 9, 1991) of granting the use permit amendment, this
shall also include corrections required in the 1991 review; (3) that
the portion of the structure enclosing the pool equipment shall be
fully soundproofed as required by the Uniform Building Code and city
pool ordinance; and (4) that this bath house shall never be used as a
living quarters or for sleeping purposes.
Motion was approved 4-3 on roll call vote, Cers Graham, Jacobs and Mink
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:10 P.M.
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR DRIVEWAY SLOPE EXCEEDING 20%
A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1109 BAYSWATER AV�N�
�'ANFn R_d �
Reference sta eport, 9/9/91, with attachments.�.�GP Monroe reviewed
details of the r est, staff review, appl�im„carnt's letter. Three
conditions were sugge d for consideratio�� the public hearing.
CE advised staff will b requiring �con`�ractors to provide survey
elevations at the start of corrs�tru�� n on future jobs.
Chm. Kelly opened the publi�hearin Larry Doyle, civil engineer
representing the applic s, Carlo and 'na Campobello, was present.
There were no audien comments and the pu 'c hearing was closed.
C. Graham fo no objection to the request an based on the facts
and reco dation of the City Engineer, moved f approval of the
condomi� um permit amendment by resolution with the following
co�ions: (1) that the conditions of the June 5, 199 condominium
F
t �
>-�.
�
PROJECT REVIEW STAFF CHECKLIST
PROJECT ADDRESS f.-.''p„ ��� {�ic�l i' r'." i I �� APN
� � , � ;� .��.,-�, ' I,� t
� ,
DESCRIPTION: � 1� ;"" g � 6 F�'�"� 1 , I I t� �m ' l�f `,��
__ . . ��� �
,; � , .
-
� - �.
I. Project proposal/plans circulated for review by:
Date Date of
Circulated Replv Comments:
City Engineer ( ) ( ) f��~"` _
Building Official ( ) ( ) �� \'; ��� ,
',. �J = 1
Fire Marshal ( ) ( ) � �
�.
City Attorney ( } ( ) �
Park's Director ( ( )
II. Background Research:
Plannincr Files :
Buildina Files:
Other•
III. Property owner noted on application confirmed7 yes no
IV. Plans Submitted/Fees Paid:
Date Received
Site Plan ( )
Floor Plan{s) ( )
Building Elevations ( )
Site Cross section(s) ( )
Letter ( )
Supplemental Forms ( )
Fees ( )
V. How project was brought to the attention of Planning:
VI. Notes:
��/�' i
� '�� ��� �� �'. � 1 �`, �
� F i — .L� 1
.� �,e�. , t � _ ,, � /1 ,,�1
i'" � l^. s... F_. fi/
� i. .e,
�W �
,�� oa�- a�-�- ��� �a��E�. -��-3 ,3�Z ac �o�
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
phone: 342-862�'. ���c�,� M�P vn+ C��,���i
hours: 8 to l2 AM and l to 5 PM
• PLAN CHECKING COMMENTS
Job Address: �3!� t' "� � r;����� , c` Plans Submitted-Date:
�:x
Job Description: Plans Checked-Date:
Application Number: gy•
Use Zone: �_I Plans Resubmitted-Date:
,
Rechecked-Date:
Char tc.5 r,. S A,1ne C. Pha�-��kE�
Plans Apprpved By;
� �
� ti
� S,n
� �
-F�
�
N
d � f;' �
7q,r�'
;?e,og•
�
\pcform.pin
i ile No.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
�Gt% . lNd�-'�'( , being duly sworn,
�
deposes and says:
that he is a citizen of the United States , over tre age cf
18 years; that acting for the City of Burlingame on the
�day of %'� , 19�, he deposited in
the United States Post Office within San Mateo County, a
NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with
postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons
at the addresses shown, to-wit:
(See list attached hereto and made part hereof)
that said persons are the owners of said property who are
entitled to Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Ordinances of
the City of Burlingame that on said day there was regular
communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown
r
�
�
above.
� � �
p '�C
A Text Consisting of:
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 9th day of September 1991, 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.
2614 SUMMIT DRIVE - APN: 027-271-350
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A 1982 SPECIAL PERMIT AND
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A BATH HOUSE AND CABANA
BEHIND THE HOUSE AT 2614 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-7.
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 publ9c hearing.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
August 30, 1991
was mailed to the following property owners:
ZUCCA JOHN J& MARIAN A TRS
WALKER WILLIAM G& M M
JACOPI LEO A JR
JANNEY MARY H TR
MAC LEOD R B& ALLYCE
AHMED MOHAMED H& CELIA H
SUZME GARBIS & SALPI
ENGVALL WILLIAM R& DIANE D
OLROYD AIDAN D JR & LINDA C
NATLY MARY ANN TR
LING TUNG ET AL
GARIBALDI WILLIAM J& B F TRS
HUTNICK JOSEPH A& VALIJA M
MAHNKEN CHARLES H& ANNE C
MORAN JOHN P & JACQUELINE
BOZZINI GEORGE J& DOROTHY L
ZIMMERMAN BRYANT K& HARRIET B
SALEVOURIS BILLIE TR
MOUNTANOS MARK P
WEILEPP ROSEMARY W
QUIN JAMES H
TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED:
BILLIN6 FOR THIS MAILING: $47.51
21
2628 SUMMIT DR
2606 SUMMIT DR
2600 SUMMIT DR
3 BELVEDERE CT
17 ADELAIDE WY
6 BELVEDERE CT
4 BELVEDERE CT
2580 SUMMIT DR
2560 SUMMIT DR
2656 SUMMIT DR
1044 DANBURY DR
2620 SUMMIT DR
P 0 BOX 1598
2614 SUMMIT DR
2616 SUMMIT DR
2615 SUMMIT DR
75 DEL MONTE DR
20 KINDER LN
55 DEL MONTE DR
40 DEL MONTE DR
80 DEL MONTE DR
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME,
OROVILLE,
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME,
SAN JOSE
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME,
BURLINGAME,
HILLSBOROUGH,
HILLSBOROUGH,
HILLSBOROUGH,
HILLSBOROUGH,
HILLSBOROUGH,
HILLSBOROUGH,
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
cA 94010
CA 95966
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 95129
CA 94010
CA 94011
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
CA 94010
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N,
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
A.P.N.
027-271-050
027-271-100
027-271-110
027-271-120
027-271-130
027-271-180
027-271-190
027-271-270
027-271-280
027-271-290
027-271-310
027-271-320
027-271-340
027-271-350
027-271-360
027-272-020
027-272-030
027-301-030
027-301-040
027-302-030
027-302-040
C I T Y 0 F B U R L I N G A M E
MEMO T0: CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUIRED CORRECTIONS F'OR POOL HOUSE AT 2614 SUMMIT DR
You asked us to draw up a list of items which must be completed by Mr.
Mahnken.to bring the pool house in his back yard into conformance with
the approved plans (date stamped October 13, 1982):
1. The present covered deck area must be cut back; on the approved
plan it is curved and extends out only a maximum distance of
approximately 3'.
2. In the "bar" area (shown on the plans with a sink and counter) you
must remove the window facing Mr. Moran's property, remove the
door, pass-through w3ndow and portion of the counter added in the
front (facing the pool) to enclose this area.
3. Submit a new floor plan s.howing the removal of the shower closest
to the pool and expansion of the closet.
4. Submi:t a roof plan calling out the materials used and showing the
location of all skylites.
5. Show any new windows installed which must remain (e.g., in bathroom
area if required by UBC) and remove all those not on approved
plans. Windows on property line should be one hour rated.
5. UBC requires the entire wall facing Mr. Moran's property to be of
one hour construction. Also UBC does not allow openings, like a
door, across a property line.
/��. GG�:��
Helen Williams
Planner.
HW/s
9
� � � � �r��4./
„� �:r... ..�.., . <. �. _
, _ _,.. , . . . .: . ...... . :.
��1.� ��� ��” 1 °�.
I -�. �' �
� �.' �'
�;
- �.�.� � - � ___�_�_.�.._ . . __ _.__.
; �
E�
c`� ` � - ���. �
�...:., � t �
t
� : I
, �
� �.
� .,�� � �
� ,. �
��..�� �,�,�;�' � ( ' � .f
�
r.� ����; � � - .�
��' �, �. �
� ,� �� � , , � ,; .�-
.n � ��1 �. �� �
Vt �
, , � ..
� � ����� , . .
. � Pl�,,..--� .
� ��
�� �.-.
�. �
�
� � �{
...� --� �x���' � �, �.
� � ��� ���
I .--- . L .�� �, j
,, --�- � � �.' ��
i
I s'
� �1
�
�.
�s
�s �
� ��
�•,
�..,•�-� �
`
I i�i � F � F`�+.
` '; ��—k,�,. f �� i C. i�� f.,,s"'�, � `��, .?,:..,.�.,.
_ 1 �
,� .l.�.�. �`; ;..�. � ��.. s, , .
`� i � � , �..� ._..
c
�f f
� ,�Ir
:.�:.
� �
� 6 � �'S
, 1 t',� ;
,
�_ . � ,
��_
r � ,,i,�.�K
� � J1
.�
y �
�. ��
c �;
.�� �
� j !
�
� � ; �r . -;�.. �� t �h.. • � `°
, �
, � � :;
� l �'i �
j ��
�` `
—�—�—� . � � j -
� } —
t; k
`�` �rm.�..._._..__._..w .�__��.�...� �.._ ___..M __..��.
1 ��' � (� t �°-�`�
�