Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2614 Summit - Staff ReportCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 1982 CALL TO ORUER A regular meeting of the Planning Cor�nission, 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 Pr�esent: City Planner.Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 8, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. RECOMPdENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IP4PACT REPORT EIR-57P FOR THE PROPOSED 350 ROOM GRANADA ROYALE HOMETEL PROJECT AT 150 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 E1R to Council for review and action. Reference staff report for this item with attached resolution and �X,iiui� r"�� °iiyiii�lCdii� C`�cCt'�,5� iiitlCJd�lOiiS and Findirgs. 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 P.aiser who wished to speak on this i�em. He noted that this project will reduce or eliminate views from adjacent build-ings and wanted this point more emphatically stated; SeaBreeze office building views of the bay will be eliminated. Chm. Mink acknowledged that the F�nal EIR doe� identify and discuss the impacts on views from adjacent structures. C. Giomi moved to recommend 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. �2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BATH HOUSE AND CABANA BEFCIND THE EXISTING HOi�IE 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 svdimming pool. Reference staff Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Pa ge 2 November 22, I982 report for Item #2; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/13/82; aerial photograph; photos of the site; site drawing; "no comments" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (11/3/82), Fire Marshal (10/25/82) and City Engineer (10/29/82); letter 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. Commission discussed overall lot coverage with the proposed addition; acknowledged that the pronosal 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 requiremenis 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 unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERh�IT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2160 TROUSDALE 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 cor�struct 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 Building Inspector; "no comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (10/25/82) and City Engineer (10/29/82); October l, 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 7:4, 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 suggested 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 the 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 following conditions: (1) that overall height shall not exceed 15'-0", (2) the plate line shall not exceE,d 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 PLA�INER 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 swimming pool. The 119 SF recreational structure will contain a bathroom, shower, wet bar and closet (5' x 2.5'). The facilities are cont�ined in two free-standing structures connected by a breezeway for a total length of 24'-6". The new structures are adjacent to an existing 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 city 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 elose 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 November 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: l. 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 � +-> N o c �� cn +� y � v� �o n. � +� -a N � N ft3 s +� o� � m � �� �� c � � � a� � � � � r- s � � 6 > a� o i U � � PROJECT APPLICATION ���°'T" °� 2614 SUP1MIT DRIVE � I�EQ/-�; ASSESS�/IENT BURLINGAME �project address „a; ':. ,i ^ I - _ _. _... App?ication r�eceived ( 10/13/82 ) �'^•�°��• �� project name - if any Staff reviewjacceptance ( ) 1. APPLICANT Charl es Mahnken 344-8974 name telephone no. 2614 Summit Drive, Burlinqame CA. 94010 applicant's address: street, city, zip code Same 344-8974 contact person, if different telephone no. 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION Specia.l Perr:it ( X) Variance* O Ccndominium Perr:.it O Other *Attach letter which addresses e�ch of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SPECIAL PERMIT to construct a 119 SF recreational structure and a 71 SF cabana. A special permit is required .for any accessor_y 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 zoning (**) (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s): ( 25.60.010 ) (25.66.060-d ) 4. PROPERTY IDEMTIFICATION ( 027-271-230 ) ( 22 � � - � APN lot no. block no. ( R-1 ) ( 14,000 SF+. zoning district land area, square feet Charles Mahnken land owner's name Re�uired Date received �j�23) �no) ( - ) �) (no) ( - ) ( Kenmar Terrace � sub�ivision name 2614 Summit Drive address Burlingame, CA. 94010 city zip code Proof of o�vnershin Owner's consent to application 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Existinq single family dwellinq and pool. Required Date received (yes) (�s) (10/13/82 ) �Yes) %�) � " ) (Yes) (��) ( ° ) �Yes� ��) � u ) (other) ( " ) Site plan sho�•�ing: property lines; public sidewall<s and cur'�s; all str�ctures and improvements; paved on-site parking; landscaping. Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area by 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 � dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT PP,OPOSAL NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY Proposed construction, Below grade ( SF) Second floor ( _ SF) gross floor area First floor ( 1].9 SF) Third floor ( - SF) Project Code Project Code Pronosal Requirement Proposal Requirement Front setback n.d. - Lot coverage 18.9% '4�% max. Side setback i1.d. - Buildino height$' ("�].1 �-9 � 14' ma . Side yard 5' -0" 5' -0" P1 ate l i ne 8-0"/9' -3 ' 10' ma . Rear yarcl 31 �-6 �� 15 �-0 �� On-si te pkg.spaces n. a. - t 6 PROJECT PRCIPOSAL (continued) Full tir�e employees on site Part tir�e emoloyees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun:) Residents on property Trip ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles EXISTING after 8-5 5 PM IM 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM *Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAtdD USES Residential uses on all adjacent lots. This use conforms � o the General Plan. Required Date received (a��) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties. (�r� (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 districts $100 (X ) Other application type, fee $ () Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment � 25 () Variance/other districts $ 75 () Negative Declaration $ 25 () Condominium Permit $ 50 O EIR/City & consultant fees $ O TOTAL FEES $ 100.0� RECEIPT N0. 5H15 Received by H. Towber I hereby certi,fy under:penalty of per;jiiry t;':at the inrormation giveri herein is true and correr_t, to th;� best qf. my kn� vl edeF and bel i ef. � i '"`� 7 + Signature `,`�1.�%1✓�=� � '� v,�� r� Date +� /� � ) I ; ,fi � _ �.—�.�. _ _ " Applicant � � STFFF USE OD1LY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. _ The City of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on 11/8/ , 1982 , completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: Cateqoricallv exempt: Code Sec. 15103(e) i�i I�i WY���� CITY PLANNER 11/8/82 ure of Processino Official Title Date Signed � iJniess appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. DECLARATION OF POSTIPlG Date Posted: I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I oosted a true copy of the above Neoative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to ths Council Chambers. Executed a± Burlingame, California Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P�o 19 �V�LYP� �I. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BUP.� TNGAME f .r s--___' -_--� � STAFF REVIEW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy: date circulated reply received City Engineer ( 10/21/82 ) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) Fire Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no) memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERiV$/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOP! MEASUP.ES Concerns Mitigation Measures Do the plans meet Fire and Building code requirements? Request.comments from the Chief; Fire and Chief Building � Inspectors. � � 3. CEQA REQUIREMEMTS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject: i5 the project subject to CEQA review? Cateaorical_ly exempt. IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study cor�pleted Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed RFP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR accepted by staff Circulation to other agencies Study by P.C. Review oeriod ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination 4. APPLICATIO�J STATUS �phone Cd�� Date first received ( 10/13/82) Accepted as complete: no(X ) 4S�# to aoplicant advisin9 info. required ( ) Yes(•�ate P.C. study ( /�g��� ) Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) .�,i� Recommended date (�l/�z/� ?—i- Date staff report mailed to aoplicant ( If/ 17/�/a) Date Commission hearing (i�/ �'-/�=?� Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no) Date Council hearing ( ) Aoolication approved ( ) Denied ( ) � V � �� �� Z signe dat , �.