HomeMy WebLinkAbout1233 Bellevue Avenue - Staff ReportP.C. 4/23/84
Item #5
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM PERP1IT FOR A NINE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
AT 1233 BELLEVUE AVENUE
Ted Farley, representing Asia Peninsula Properties, is requesting a condominium permit
to build a nine unit residential condominium at 1233 Bellevue Avenue. The proposed
project meets all condominium ordinance and zoning ordinance requirements. All
parking is below grade and secured. No guest parking is designated on the plans.
City staff have reviewed the application. The Chief Building Inspector (April 16,
1984) had no comments. The Fire Marshal (April 2, 1984 memo) notes that the building
will have to be protected by automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems both af which
shall be connected to the central station; and a second means of egress shall be
provided sleeping units on the second floor. The City Engineer (April 9, 1984 memo)
comments on drainage, trash room, undergrounding utilities, property survey, shoring
plan, separation of sewer and water trenches, replacement of curb, gutter and sidewalk,
and height of driveway to protect the garage from flooding. The Director of Parks
(March 29, 1984 memo) notes correction of species of street tree and requirement to
have final landscape and irrigation plans approved by the Parks Department prior to
receiving a building permit. The City Attorney reviewed the CC&R's when submitted
for the previous project on the site. He had no comments.
The applicant's designer submitted a letter (April 13, 1984) addressing concerns
expressed by Commission at study. He points out that there are two units on the
third floor, both called penthouses. Each of these units has their own elevator.
The call button for the garage door will be placed at the top of the driveway.
Finally, the front setback is 28'-3" and the dimension shown on the site plan
(Sheet 1) is in error.
At study the Commission had three questions (Planning Commission minutes, April 9,
1984). They have been addressed by Jerry Deal's letter. However, the issue of
guest parking related to the garage gate call button may need some additional
discussion. None of the required parking spaces shown on the plan are designated
for guest use. If any are to be so designated, then access to them needs to be
prohibited; thus the call button. Placement of the call button becomes an issue
since the gate is placed at the bottom of the driveway ramp. If the button were on
the ramp,then if no one were home the visitor or deliveryman would have to back
out of the ramp and across the sidewalk. If the button is at the top of the ramp,
the sidewalk will be blocked while the guests await word that they can enter°. It
is past policy of the Commission to look at on-street parking availability when
determining whether to require applicants to provide guest parking. In this case
the on-str2et parking is limited to two hours because of the demand created by the
adjacent business area, library and city hall.
This is the second proposal the applicant has submitted on this property within the
last year. The previous proposal was for a condominium with 13 residential units.
This proposal exceeded a number of city requirements (height and setback). The
Council denied that application without prejudice. Subsequently the applicant
redesigned and submitted this proposal.
. y
-2-
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. At the public hearing they
should consider the following conditions:
1. that the project be built consistent with the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped March 14, 1984 with the
correction to the front setback on the site plan of 28'-3";
2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of April 2, 1984, the
City Engineer's memo of April 9, 1984 and the Director of Parks' memo
of March 29, 1984 be met; and
3. that two of the on-site parking spaces provided be designated for
guest parking and that a call button system be installed at the top
of the driveway for guests to notify owners of their presence.
��r���n�.
ar aret Monroe
City Planner
P�IM/ s
cc: Asia Peninsula Properties
Ted Farley
Jerry Deal
, •' ��
�
�
�
.�
�
�v
� s
��
r- cn
.�
��
a� � �-.
i � -O
N
� +� s
N •� •�
� �
o � o-
o a�
6l � i
�
��
-o 0
���
-a v� �--
>oo
o��o
i N I�
Q
O••
LL �I-� �
cn �
O •�—
O N �
li7 r-i r�S
.-i U
� .. �
a� -a
• U �
� � �
N aJ
� �
¢ �
� U
�v�
� ��
� o +�
• • o a�
c � a� <n
z � +.�
H O rt5 +-�
�- E > �
¢ E•r-o
U O i �
t/� U d L.L
0
Q�c�M
J
�c
PROJECT APPLICATION
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT
Application received ( 3/14/84
Staff review/acceptance (
��� ��TY o.�
1233 BELLEVUE AVENUE _ _
BURLINGAME project address �� � - � -
� � ' � project name - if any
� 'b,..�
)
1. APPLICANT ASId P2YllilSU�d Pl"Op21"t1eS
name telephone no.
103 Bartol Street, San Francisco, CA 94133
applicant's address: street, city, zip code (9].( 587_6387
Ted Farley, P.O.Box 2503, Truckee;CA.95734 i415
contact person, if different te9ep one no:
(Jerry Deal, 1228 Paloma Ave., Burlingame-----------343-6014
2. TYPE OF APPLI�ATION
Special Pe�r.:ii: () Variance* () Ccndominium Perni� (X ) Oth�r
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. �
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONDOMINIUM PERMIT to construct a 9 unit condominium.
The t�o-bedroom units ranqe from 1497 SF to 1812 SF in area, with
one 3475.SF penthouse unit. Private patios and decks provide
private open s�ace and common area is providPd b�i mPans nf a
1,150 SF open area. Parking for 20 cars is provided beneath the
building in a secured garage. Curbside quest parki.nq i.s proposed.
Zoning requirements for lot coveraqe, setbacks and landscapinq
are met by the proposed desiqn.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( Chap.26.30 )(PC Res.5-80 )
4. PROPERTY IDEPITIFICATION
( 029-151-050 ) ( G ) ( 3 ) ( Burlingame Land Co. �
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
( R-4 ) ( 12,425 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Lou Bohart, TR., et al 1915 Carmelita Avenue
land owner's name BUY'�iSngame, CA 94010
Reauired Date received city zip code
(yes) (�) ( g�17�83) Proof of ownershi�
(��s) (no) ( - ) Owner's conserit to application
5. EXISTIP7G SITE CONDITIONS
EX1Stlnq dpdi"tm2
Required Date received
(yes) (no) ( 3/14/84) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all structures and improvenents;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
(yes) (no) ( " ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by tyae of us� on each floor plan.
(yes) (no) ( ) -Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
n
(yes) (no) ( " ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant}.
(otner) (&/29/83 ) Covenants, Condition� & RP�tr;ctions
*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.�IPOSAL
Proposed censCruction, 8elow orade
gross floor area First floor
Pro.ject Code
Pr000sal Requirement
Front setback 28' -3" 26' -6"
Si de setback Il . d. -
side yard 6.5' -12 6' -8'
Rear yard 2� � -5 �� 2� �
( 10,800 SF) second floor ( 5,627 sF)
((�190 SF) Third floor ( 5�270 S`)
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
Lot coverage 5�� 50% max.
P,uildinn height 34'-9" SP over 5'
Landscaoed area 33% PC ReS . -80*
On-site okg.spaces 20 1 8
� � . Y
� �,
�r' • ,
SEE AERIAL PHOTO
a
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (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
EXISTi�G IP! 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS
after after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAfJD USES
Multinle unit structures to the north and east; sinqle famil
dwelling to the west; commercial and residential uses to the
south; this proposal conforms to the General Plan.
Required Date received
(yes) �r� (8/30/83 ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(y�s� (no) ( _ ) 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 (`) Other application type, fee $ (. )
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 (X )
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 a)
Condominium Permit $ 50 (X ) EIR/City & ccnsultant fees $ (- )
TOTAL FEES $_ 100.00 RECEIPT N0. 0223 Received by A.Sprague
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature
can
Date /� � � "'��
STAFF USE OI�`"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed nroject and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
19
Reasons for a Conclusion:
See ND-346P
1 �
,
V ��i,i�Ai � � � '(`3� C LZIn `�� �U Z� i �g3
Sign�'ture of Processing Official 7�itle Daie Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te oosted, the determination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTI�lG 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 a.h�v2 Neoative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th� Council Charbers.
Executed at 6urlingame, California on
Apnealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
19
EVELYP� H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
i '.v
STAFF REVIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIOfJ
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy:
date circulated reoly received
City Engineer ( 3/15/84 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (na)
Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( - ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no)
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (na)
(yes) (no)
2. SUP4MARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOP! MEASUP.ES
Concerns Mitioation Measures
Do the plans comply with all Request comments from the Fire
Fire and Building Code require- Marshal and Chief Building
ments? I.nspector..
,.
Do the plans comply with all Request comments from. the
Engineering requirements of City Engineer.
P.C. Res. 5-80?
3. CEQA REQUIREP4EPlTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA reviet��? YeS. S22 �1D-346P.
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comnleted
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. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 3/14/84)
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( ""���� )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( �yy�Qcf )
�
Is application ready for a public hearing (yes) (no) Recommended date (�������
Date staff reoort mailed to pplicant (l.�. �'�. Date Commission hearing (r�fa'a
��
Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no)
Date Council hearing ( ) Aoolication aporoved ( ) Denied
.�iJ ' .�c�� �' •
- . -. ..
�
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
RETIREMENT - COMMISSIONER CISTULLI
Page 6
April 9, 1984
At this point in the meeting (9:40 P.M.) Chm. Graham announced a recess to honor
retiring Commissioner Frank Cistulli. He recognized in the audience Mayor Irving
Amstrup, Councilman David Martin, Councilwoman Gloria Barton, former Planning
Commissioner Joseph Harvey, City Manager Dennis Argyres and Planner Helen Towber.
Secy. Giomi presented Mr. Cistulli with framed Planning Commission and City Council
resolutions of commendation. She read Commission resolution and Mayor Amstrup
expressed Council's appreciation for Mr. Cistulli's long service to the city.
Mr. Cistulli introduced his wife and daughter who were in the audience, thanked
Council for appointing and reappointing him to the Commission and expressed his
pleasure in working for the city and watching it grow. Al1 present adjourned to
the City Hall lobby for champagne and cake -
The meeting reconvened at 10:10 P.M.; Ruth Jacobs, newly appointed Commissioner, was
seated.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - SPORTS THERAPY CLINIC - 888 HINCKLEY ROAD
Requests: percentage of patients from the area; type of injuries treated; is part time
employee a licensed therapist; number of businesses in the building and number of
employees; type of advertising to be used. Item set for hearing April 23, 1984.
�8. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 1233 BELLEVUE AVENUE
Requests: description of the third floor units; location of call button for the security
gate; clarify front setback measurement. Item set for hearing April 23, 1984.
�9 TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE ABOVE
�
Set for hearing April 23, 1984.
10. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 1508 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE
11. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Requests: clarify front setback measurement. Items set for hearing April 23, 1984.
12. CONDOt�IINIUM PERMIT - 1119 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
"13. VARIANCE FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT
14. TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Requests: letter addressing the four legal requirements for variance approval;
distance of structural overhang above driveway; will the rear yard be fenced.
Items set for hearing April 23, 1984.
15. PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LAND AT 2840 CANYON ROAD
Set for hearing April 23, 1984.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1984
safety hazards; streets in this residential area are very narrow, with cars parked
on either side these streets become one way; visibility of traffic on Carolan is
blocked; think city should monitor the area, it's dangerous; suggest paint the curbs
red to keep cars from parking up to the corner; can't enjoy our yard any more,
burglar once gained entry to property on Toyon through Mike Harvey's property;
requirements for fencing have never been met by the applicant; applicant's business
may be providing tax revenue to the city but property values on Toyon have declined;
applicant's proposal should be tabled until city takes action to alleviate the
problems; if applicant did not fulfill previous parking requirements, how will this
amendment help the traffic which now exists on Toyon, think off-site parking should
not be allowed; if applicant has 300 employees and provides only 40 parking spaces,
as proposed, where do the 260 other people park; would like to see businesses in the
area provide enough on-site parking for thelr employees, perhaps this would keep
congestion down; why not lease property from Southern Pacific. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment and discussion with applicant: business has a total of 300 employees,
not all on site, 180 full time and 120 part time, two shifts, some work on weekends;
employees have been told not to park on Toyon; a maximum of 15 spaces was all that
Northpark would lease to this business; have researched possibility of parking on
Southern Pacific property, after 7-8 years still not successful; applicant requested
two hour parking on Carolan so that customers would be able to park near the retail
location; manufacturers want service facilities closer to sales location, applicant
has tried to buy more property but land available is limited; Bekins building proposal
won't help much with the present problem; applicant is clearly in violation of his
special permit, feel he should provide parking for employees on site but this
proposal may be the best temporary solution; would not like to see off-site parking
become common in the city; think a long range permanent solution should be looked at;
there will always be conflicts between residential and commercial, would like to see
the shuttle proposal given a chance; regarding using Southern Pacific land, would be
costly to develop, drainage needs to be improved; there seem to be three alternatives -
one, revoke special permit; two, ignore comments in opposition and leave the situation
as it is; three, grant the application for amendment; feel granting this request is
a better solution than the present condition.
C. Taylor moved that this special permit amendment be approved subject to the five
conditions in the staff report; second C. Cistulli. C. Giomi requested "and Saturday"
be added to Condition #2; C. Taylor amended his motion, C. Cistulli amended his second.
Motion approved on a 6-1 roll ca11 vote, C. Leahy dissenting, with the following
conditions: (1) that Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the April 28, 1979 use permit be
met; (2) that 15 parking spaces be provided during the weekday and Saturday in the
Northpark Apartments visitor parking area for Mike Harvey employees; (3) that 25
�parking spaces striped and designated for employee parking be provided in the
automobile storage lot next to 220 East Lane; (4) that a continuous shuttle service
from 7:30 A.P1. to 9:30 A.M. and 3:30 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. be provided for employees
and patrons from the East Lane site to the Rollins Road site by way of Burlingame
Railroad station each weekday; and (5) that this entire parking program be instituted
within 30 days (May 7, 1984) and the permit as amended be reviewed in six months
(October 7, 1984) for compliance. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 824 COWAN ROAD,
BY JAMES S. TENNANT REPRESENTING HOLIDAY-PAYCESS RENT-A-CAR
Item withdrawn.
DATE:
3 ' /� ��
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
,�C�IEF BUILDIN� INSPECT�R ��=G� � ����G��-� �,�`•�
FIRE MARSHAL af
DIRECTOR OF PARKS �1.�.-�- �' P�� �. �
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: !�i
� lt�f G�rx�o�-.., �y � ��'
��l � /��G//Gr.� GG/����
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ST�1> /
at their �- 9-�� meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by � � 3� -��
Thank you.
Helen Towber
Planner
�(J�l / /C'l� hI�J ��c,/"cl°����y�
� �a
� /� _ T
�� L1 ls�l �c !.� ;:! �� s rf � .�s 11 d 6' !'c� Y�
� /�� � G/
S, T"�i� ,��r�!-�1 v�� .��'v''f S�,�E� �: %��' /1/c� �a�.�zc�,.lf'
dtt. ,/\G( � �GCI+,�� �,h� �' /'��,p �LC��/i�✓! �
� 1
��il��..ell
� � � �"Z
�
�
, , � ., '
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BURI,INGAME FIRE DEPARTMENT
Meg Monroe, Ci�ty Planner
Malcolm Towns, Fire Marshal
1233 Bellevue (� unit condo)
��������
f, ���
lt�� �,
CI IANNIMG DEP3M�
I have rEviewed the plans submitted for this project and
have the following requirements:
l. The entire complex to be protected by an automatic
sprinkler system.
2. A fully complying fire alarm system to be installed.
3. Items one (1) an3 two (2) above to be connected to
an approved centzal system.
4. The sleeping units on the second floor must have
fire escapes as a second means of egress.
fa�d� t�_
Malcolm Towns
- ,-
����d��� April 9, 1984
MEMO
T0: Planning Department
i � � r..;
_, :
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNlMG DEPT.
FROM: Department of Public Works - Engr. Division
Re: Condominium Permit Plans for Condominium
1233 Bellevue Avenue
The following should be attached as conditions of approval:
1. Building Permit plans must indicate direction drainage of adjacent sites.
Of particular concern is the property to the rear. Drainage troughs will
need to be sized to carry whatever flow is expected through this site.
2. Al1 roof and onsite storm drainage shall be taken to street by gravity.
3. A trash room or area must be provided.
4. All utilities to be installed underground to this site.
5. A complete property survey establishing the actual property boundary and
its basis, shall be submitted for City approval prior to any construction
permit issuance on this site.
6. A detailed shoring plan meeting OSHA requirements will be required before
issuance of permits for any construction on this site to confirm that this
project may be constructed as proposed.
7. Sewer line and water line may not be in same trench; separate by 10'.
Show sewer lateral clean out in sidealk area near curb and angle at 45° to
main per City Standard. Existing laterals shall be closed at main.
8. The applicant's Civil Engineer shall design to City approval, the grades of
the new curb, gutter and sidewalk prior to start of building excavation to
confirm both driveway design and building slab elevations. Applicant to in-
stall the new curb, gutter and sidewalk or pay.for same in the City's street
rehabilitation project currently under design.
9. The driveway high point shal] be 12" above flow line of gutter at all loc-
ations. A licensed land surveyor or engineer shall stake the driveway at
time of construction.
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
FCE:mg
., �
DATE: d� " /� ��
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR ��y � P�� �G� ,�,�`�
FIRE MARSHAL �
DIRECTOR OF PARKS �,ola.u-o- /M' P�� �i. )
/ /
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
0
� �r� �u��l�r iGsa�- ��
/� 3 ��e-� �-�K-�-
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ST�'1> /
at their `� 9-�� meeting. We would appreciate having
your. comments by 3 ' $-D ���
Thank you.
3 - Z- `' - ��-t
� �ti� �
�
L � �Sco�.� O'' �� (r'YG �..�! o ti
� e � �-� �� /�-�.�-� ����.
�P � �
i s s�-�i,c � �� ��°�% � e v'.�-, ��
Helen Towber P �pNS
Planner �
j� f d r
s/ �
att.
C� �� � f-[� e �%s � 0..S `/� q Ie `
� r
�
' -� \� ! p� [�L� �a n.,. J �c �- /
C
�# i -
Cit�T Ot' Bt,L7"'11.no�.me
�roject; 9 unit condominiwn for 1233 �ellevu.e, �zrli���,rae Ca.
Follouving are the responses �'or those c�1uestions posed by
by planning commissior_ t�hich need clarification.
l. Descr•i�t�on fo the thir iloor uses; are both un.its on the
third floor penthouses?
The third floor consists o� tvro units each �,hrith their ov+m
private elevator.
2. t�Ihere is the call button fo r the security gate to be loeatea?
The call �utton �rJi11 be located at the -Lop of the clrizreti�ray
e_ntrance .
3. Verify° �vhich fron.t setback meas�u.rement is car:�e��9 �our plans
are not consistent tifi-ith the site plan.
Ti�e site plan is in error and tihe setback measurement i�
28"_3„' �,s zlotee� on sh�e-� ,�3•
S.incere y ^
J�
Jerry I,. �eal
� ` h�{s � } �F � _ ,� � � � r , � � � F '
I r
V ' �� ^� �`k; � �� z`� `� , �; f . .
�
a � % �.� �, � a � � -` .; ;� �'+�' . �. �£ ��'"£` �,.
�� �: � �" �. _- ���'� �pq � � r �;'°'�r ' � i�`�i-�`�.
. � . .��� . "ro z, � x sa` s
. . _.- . ;�g'p`
s
. . . _ - �� t� � �. c% .
, * �4.� �
° ��.r� r ��A .�
� � i
. 4� � E �;�� � Pt- �`y� ' 9 t :. � � �� A � ���- .
: :� � 9 $' `✓ FP'� .��y�+ ': l� 2 G�.
� : � -� ... .�,, ,, 1� � >� �v�r u_ n � �,� �' � � ��.�Y
?x.r.t''�'" � . � `Ps�, G 8 � ii ' , � '' � �.' �' c��� r.^�'�'" �-��i` �
€
� .�e '�r� X as ��� ��
_; � : . s '�j'� �, �� ��:}� �lr-
� � ��
� - �:' � � . � . � �" - � ' ,
;s ' ' . .d n.„ .
_ "�x4: � �� K '
r '
- *.�°� T . k .., - ..' i�� xf(�:
�� � � � �� � � � {c:
�
� � �' �
� � � $ � .� � � � �
1` ae
�y�"} r�' � y'��Y���i ,,� �� � � a.` � � �* �t a��,`* �� � ���
i : _ F�.
s�-�.g �`V v � # � k � `�^ � �„`� . � �: ,
�� � ' � � � �,. �a �`r � �s� k � � ��'x� �,
� �
- �� "w�� � 't€.�' �,��c`� � �' .
. � . � -�� � _ � , . � r _ �
� � � .. . ; � r . �.
1 �" � p
� w � � �R' � a�
R � �� �� � fi � _ �. ��M�� �YA �3^ 1 S^(b � E
'�� � ' �l� � ' y � �
��;. l9 _ �'� � 2�� , s
��, � �;" �� QO ��. �, � �
� �"' c �
. ti
��' ' _ �IT`f -_ �.� �� ,,L4�� � ' p
y; _, ' , y ��
� ��� HR�-!� ���. ��" < <. �`� `� �
. ' '� ` `` \,��%� '�h
.� � � r.: r� �
t.
� _. u, `I t w d� a-
"�'r � ' i . )�.y� . _ \ �. � .
�vk�' ��u � - '�' / `�"'� K " .
�� '§ �'*Fi .d�E`� � . :. �!} £ � � _ � $" —i...
i�' �'i-.. � � �f4 X{ : . .
: �"
�*M i
�' . . . . - �� Y ; � �� .. .. Y iYri �.,,
���_. � � . . }_ r � � .
� .y: `�` ei �'�, _ �"�, _�9
.;�}�� � � � . � k � . ' � .
,.4.Y. � ' . � � � . - . ,' � °�,-�- . � ; �.
.' �
,,
�� a�� - ������� � . � ��
.
�
_ ,� � ,- �" ��
M , •.
;
,���,_ � � _
, �
K �.,, �� ���y
�,:� � ;
�'' - , � 3 ,� � ,v
a'�s � ,K �.-.. �,,s"'«- �.�,_ - � `,.-- -p�r'�'`�� � � g-, -� .
`�� t _ -.sz"':.. . ! � . ,i d ,� d�, � .
�'L� a � � �+ �. - _ ._.y : . `; �� ��-'; .
. y
� +` ..,. �. ��� �- � 3 _ 3` 7r,� i,� ��� �'l i�.�'��,f � °`�:: �`� .. � .�. s:
� �� � � �� �o ` i,: , ' ��" � �� � �� �,� � .
�
��� � �-t '�� - � � ' '� �� � �' �
�� � � �, E'F" 6 j "�
�"� �� � � F "a � �" . �' '' �>.
f� �� � , . � � ,F � �}iY` . ��: �
y ' `�ey�" �� \\�� '� "` � � �.,'".] 3""
����, \',� - � �� / � �{ � �j� �„� �`� „ � +d,",
� F
'� '";'t .. � \ \ � #�`3� _.� �, ��� :: � � 3 ..� � S ,`;�
/""�? � k �� .�' � {,� �.. 'C� �� � t` � :� ` n"_ . ,
� � � ,�' �a ,�, ���. �^--�,�; �'�. � �� '�,,,.
h � /�� �� � � � `�� ' �s � �` �' " � .�:
f! � �� s� A} o ,�`,a,,• -� •;' ��. 1;��''�r ; �
^ '�' ... '.'.
. l �. _ ' , Y _ 'c i,i, f, , , et;� '
.. . �� �� o�� � t . . '�
.. W` - .! i'; � � ..)
� y�. '- . : � _ & . Xf�Up � _ �
�` : h � 4'P � , �a 1 1�� �-.
``'� n'� �, .. � ��� a �,+� vie`,1�q �.� `� �.fi�-''�� , . ��; ,.�- �� � �' � r � � � - a�' �
�.,sE-�.r: , ,gz"�.s5� r �^ � �t'_'.�f.#�.� r,i i�-„" ��,..�, � . ���
��„ \ J'� �. �°"'� . � �
l
,p �,- � y „�,�•�t �-' �" � .✓� ` 'F
1'�.' � �- Y �'� � f .� . � �,�G��'i p y . �� 4 A' �, � _�' �s�' �,Gt
� �� �� �,.r.`.�, K'' ��a� �� �
f, � �
�� � � K � � ... �� ...
�- ,�✓�. � . �.�. F-- .x �i � "� 'r ;� �C"e 'vw* �'.
�hl ./ f p�f� � � � � � .� �� ,�.�; ��.
x / - !""f'" �.'�'-�.i �- s �� "� � ., e '§.
-� "+t;� ��5�� � ."� � {r ,�,',�- '. ° � o {� "- �''° ��
� a3 '� � � � :�, . � r%'�
� � *"^ ; -. ` � :. g+ ,rf �� .. •,
� � p�u � " � � °` �. , 4F �. � �` �,�%� � �G �• �,� v` ,
a�= �,� �
�s.`u �,m '�_ ��, `� < .�.�'+�'t ��, ��� �� � �' � `�.;
^�T �s T -t � , p,+ ' �" ��, a : ti '�
� �._ „�. � � P'"� ". .,p � � r � 'E
�., 3 t�� f � R: �"-.. i pV� ,, � �" � "_ \ '
a ,,' � '� b,,�,� r � �
' Y`5 . n , r - � , , . _ ��. '' _ . � � . . . .� _� <. � `�'�.�:'ae�i"s. _ � � , ' �i,,.
��� C�t�� �f ��li�t��x��
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HA�L- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:l415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT A�VD TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 23rd day of April, 1984 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application to construct a 3-story nine unit condominium
at 1233 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4, by Jerry Deal for Ted Farley and Asia Peninsula
Properties.
�
At the time of the hearing all persons interested wi11 be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANPIER
April 13, 1984
*
AGENDA MEMO
T0: Planning Dept.
FROM: Engineering
����4�1 ��
��� �� ���
...,,,
� ;r«: ,��:e;
z.. : .
April 17, 1984.
Re: Condominium Permit for
- 1233 Bellevue -
- Placement of Security
Call Button for Vehicles
Parking Area.
Gate and Proposed
Entering Underground
If the Commission desires guest access and a security gate system, the call
button should be located at the top of the driveway area and not down the
driveway area. This preference is really a choice of the lesser of two
undesirable locations. At the top of the driveway area a portion of the
sidewalk will be blocked by persons using the call button. Since the number
of vehicles expected to use the underground parking is sma11 this is not
a major concern.
Use of a call button located lower in the driveway area is much less
desirable since it would require the vehicles to backup the driveway and
into the sidewalk area.
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
FCE/ln
J �-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
April 23, 1984
Commission discussion: the 352 SF clinic would be located upstairs, a total of
18 steps with no handicapped access; applicant advised 95-99% of patients would be
able to negotiate the stairs, it was hoped an 8' x 10' massage area on the first
floor could be utilized for the small percentage of those who could not climb the
stairs; if first floor area is to be used conditions should be amended to clarify
_ this; applicant will treat patients of any age; Kenn Edwards stated the club is
primarily an adult athletic club, membership only to those over 16, children are
allowed if accompanied by an adult.
C. Jacobs moved to approve this special permit amendment with the following conditions:
(1) that the physical therapy clinic operated on the site be limited to three
employees and a daily patient load of no more than 20 weekdays (Monday through Friday)
from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; (2) that the business be operated as described in Stan
Conte's letters dated March 14, 1984, March 28, 1984 and April 16, 1984; (3) that an
8' x 10' massage room area on the first floor also be used by this business; (4) that
the conditions of the City En�ineer's memo of April 9, 1984 be met; and (5) that
this entire use permit be reviewed in six months (October, 1984) and again specifically
for traffic and parking impact in April, 1985 and October, 1985. Second C. Schwalm.
During comment on the motion CP advised staff will make spot traffic/parking checks
at the time the permit is up for review. Motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NINE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1233 BELLEVUE
AVENUE, ZONED R-4, BY JERRY DEAL FOR TED FARLEY AND ASIA PENINSULA PROPERTIES
CP Monroe reviewed this proposal to construct a nine unit condominium. Reference staff
report, 4/23/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 3/14/84; study meeting
minutes, April 9, 1984; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (4/16/84), Fire Marshal
(4/2/84), City Engineer (4/9/84) and Director of Parks (3/29/84); letter from Jerry
Deal, 4/13/84; aerial photograph; Not�ce of Hearing mailed April 13, 1984; memo from
the City Engineer dated April 17, 1984; and plans date stamped March 14, 1984. CP
discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's response to study meeting
requests, Planning staff comment. Three conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Ted Farley, developer and Jerry Deal, designer
were present. Mr. Farley expressed concern about the call button and providing
guest parking in the garage; he noted there was a public parking lot only 50-60 feet
away from the site; if off-street parking is provided in front of the main gate in
the garage vandalism is encouraged. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Discussion: CE added a lOth condition to those in his memo of April 9, 1984, "that
sump pump drainage be placed directly into the city storm drain system as approved
by the City Engineer."
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this condominium permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the project be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped March 14, 1984 with the correction to the front setback
on the si:te plan of 28'-3"; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of
April 2, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of April 9, 1984 as amended, "that sump pump
drainage be placed directly into the city storm drain system as approved by the
City Engineer", and the Director of Parks' memo of March 29, 1984 be met; and (3)
that two of the on-site parking spaces provided be designated for guest parking and
that a call button system be installed at the top of the driveway for guests to
notify owners of their presence. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 7-0 roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
0
.� L
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
April 23, 1984
3. FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE PARCELS AT 1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ALAMO RENT-A-CAR;
BY JAMES F. CARROCL & ASSOCIATES
Reference CE Erbacher's agenda memo of April 3, 1984 with attached map and Notice of
Hearing mailed April 13, 1984. CE advised this map was required as a condition of
- approval for Alamo's special permit granted in July, 1983; map conforms to the
conditions of approval and may be forwarded to Courcil. One condition was suggested
in agenda memo.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Mr. Geraldi, The Fisherman Restaurant, stated
he wished to retain the easement through the subjec� �ot and keep Burlway Road open.
Staff advised this is of record. There were no further audience comments and the
hearing was closed.
C. Giomi moved that this final map be recommended to City Council for approval with
one condition as listed in the City Engineer's agenda memo dated April 3, 1984.
Second C. Garcia. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting
{voted against the original application for the use, it is bad planning, and will
vote no now).
4. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A SPORTS THERAPY CLINIC TO OPERATE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE BURLINGAME ATHLETIC CLUB AT 888 HINCKLEY ROAD, IN THE
M-1 DISTRICT, BY STAN CONTE. CLINIC DIRECTOR
CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate a sports therapy clinic on the Burlingame
Athletic Club premises. Reference staff report, 4/23/84; Project Application & CEQA
Assessment received 3/14/84; applicant's project description (March 14, 1984) and
parking availability survey (March 28, 1984); staff review: Fire Marshal (3/15/84),
Chief Building Inspector (4/16/84) and City Engineer (4/9/84); April 9, 1984 study
meeting minutes; Towber letter to applicant, April 10, 1984 and applicant's response
dated April 16, 1984; applicant's letter of April 16, 1984; aerial photograph;
Notice of Hearing mailed April 13, 1984; plans date stamped March 14, 1984; and
staff report and Project Application for a swimming pool addition (special permit
amendment) at Burlingame Athletic Club (1/23/84). CP discussed details of the
request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions, Planning staff
comment. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Stan Conte, applicant, discussed his desire
to open a sports therapy clinic in the mid-peninsula area, history of his career as
a licensed physical therapist, his search for a location with an atmosphere of health
rather than illness, at proposed site could utilize Burlingame Athletic Club equipment,
would treat athletic and industrial injuries and operate by medical referral only;
traffic survey indicated peak use of the club was after 5:00 P.M., do not feel this
business would impact the area from 8-5:00 P.M., patients would be spaced throughout
the day; even if the swimming pool were put in believe there will be ample parking
from 8-5:00 P.M.
Diane Prosser, representing Mills Memorial Hospital, a partner in this venture, spoke
of the need for this type of business in a healthy environment; the proposed location
at the athletic club in an industrial area will provide the type of atmosphere
required by these particular patients; there is community need for this clinic.
Kenn Edwards, president, Burlingame Athletic Club, advised the club has not yet
completed a study of the financial feasibility of putting in a swimming pool (approved
by Commission in January 1984) and does not expect to reach a decision by the end of
the year; happy to have this clinic located at the club. There were no further
audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 1984
,_'1 6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NINE UNIT DEVELOPP•1ENT AT 1233 BELLEVUE AVENUE
1`_
CE Erbacher found the map complete and recommended it be forwarded to Council for
approval. Reference CE's agenda memo dated April 17, 1984.
_ C. Giomi moved that this tentative condominium map be forwarded to Council for
approval. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on voice vote.
�
7
Taylor was excused at 8:50 P.M.
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT
1508 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY ROBERT ONORATO FOR TIM BROSNAN
CP Monroe reviewed this proposal for a two story 12 unit condominium. Reference staff
report, 4/23/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 2/15/84; Negative
Declaration ND-356P posted April 11, 1984; staff comment: City Engineer (4/3/84),
Fire Marshal (3/26/84) and Director of Parks (3/22/84); average setback detail date
stamped March 16, 1984; study meeting minutes, April 9, 1984; aerial photograph;
Notice of Hearing mailed April 13, 1984; and plans date stamped March 16, 1984.
CP discussed details of the request, staff review, clarification of front setback
measurement. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: CE noted a correction in his April 3, 1984 memo: next to last line should
read "shoring" plan rather than "showing" plan; Commission guest parking policy;
common open area provided.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robert Onorato, architect representing Tim
Brosnan, applicant commented on Fire Department requirement for provision of fire
escapes from each sleeping room on the second floor; design includes two means of
egress from each unit on the second floor, have verbal confirmation that Fire Marshal
finds this acceptable. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: no security gate is proposed and no guest parking designated
on the plans, if a security gate were put in guest parking would need to be designated
and a call button installed; would be best to install conduit for call button system
at the time of construction.
C. Giomi moved for approval of this condominium permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the project be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped March 16, 1984; (2) that all the conditions of the City
Engineer's memo of April 3, 1984, Fire Marshal's memo of March 26, 1984 and Director
of Parks' memo of P�arch 22, 1984 be met; and (3) that at such time as a security
gate is installed guest parking be designated and a security call button system be
installed.
Comment on the motion: method of assigning parking spaces on the final map, need to
be more definitive with condition #3 and require installation of conduit at the time
of construction; Commission's desire to require some designated guest parking in
impacted residential areas; concern that designated guest spaces are taken from the
code requirement for the project, not surplus spaces.
C. Giomi amended Condition #3 to read: that one guest parking space be designated
and conduit for the future call button be installed at the time of construction for
use if needed. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
April 23, 1984
8. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 12 UNIT DEVECOPMENT AT 1508 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE
Reference CE Erbacher's agenda memo dated April 17, 1984. CE advised the map is
complete and may be forwarded to Council for approval.
- C. Garcia moved that this tentative condominium map be forwarded to City Council
for approval. Second C. Giomi; moiion approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Taylor absent.
9. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1119 CHULA VISTA
AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY-ROBERT ONORATO FOR MICHAEL GIANNI
10. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT �
CP Monroe reviewed this request for construction of a two story three unit residential
condominium. Reference staff report, 4/23/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 2/15/34; Negative Declaration ND-357P posted April 11, 1984; staff comments:
City Engineer (3/27/84), Chief Building Inspector (4/16/84), Fire Marshal (3/19/84)
and Director of Parks (2/27/84); April 12, 1984 letter from Michael Gianni, applicant;
front setback detail, Onorato, date stamped March 20, 1984; study meeting minutes,
April 9, 1984; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed April 13, 1984; and plans
date stamped March 14, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review,
study meeting requests, applicant's justification for front setback variance. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
It was determined the house with the 19' front setback which affected average setback
was also zoned R-3, if developed sometime in the future an average setback of 15'-7"
would be required.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robert Onorato, architect representing Michael
Gianni, applicant advised the house with the 19' front setback is approximately 60 years
old, redevelopment could be expected within 10 years; this setback is not representative
of setbacks on the street. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs found that there were exceptional circumstances in the older home at
1117 Chula Vista, it is not representative of the average setback on the street; that
the variance is needed to use the project site properly; that it will not be detrimental
to the neighborhood, the zoning of the city or the general plan. C. Jacobs moved for
approval of the variance and the condominium permit applications with the following
conditions: (1) that the project be built consistent with the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped March 14, 1984; (2) that the conditions of
the City Engineer`s memo of March 27, 1984, the Chief Building Inspector's memo of
April 16, 1984, the Fire Marshal's memo of March 19, 1984 and the Director of Parks'
memo of February 27, 1984 be met; and (3) that a six foot wooden fence be built along
all property lines, except the front, as shown on the March 14, 1984 plans. Second
C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: parking heavily impacted in this area; p�ssibility
of requiring one designated guest parking space; would not want to designate code
required parking. Staff was requested to schedule Commission review of its guest
parking policy at a future study meeting.
Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent, C. Graham voting no (this
is impacted area and think there should be designated guest parking). Appeal procedures
were advised.
11. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE UNIT PROJECT AT 1119 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
Reference CE Erbacher's agenda memo, April 17, 1984. CE found the map complete and
ready to forward to Council for approval.
0