HomeMy WebLinkAbout1244 Bellevue Avenue - Staff Report�
P.C. 11/24/80
Items No. 8 & 9
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: BELLEVUE PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, 1244 BELLEVUE AVENUE
The attached Project Assessment describes the 7 unit condominium project filed by
Theodore E. Farley. The architectural plans prepared by Mattson and Mattson AIBD,
date stamped November 4, 1980, show the garage level, typical floor plans, elevations
and cross sections; additional engineering detail is shown on the supplemental plans
date stamped November 18. Landscaping is shown on the two sheets prepared by Wilson &
van Deinse, ASLA.
Two permits are required by this project:
- a Condominium Permit; and
- a Special Permit to allow the parapet height to exceed 35' (36' is proposed).
The 36' height is required to allow a large (2,396 SF) penthouse at the fourth floor
level. If the maximum height were limited to 35', the first floor slab could be lowered
12"; however, this would increase both on-site drainage problems and the slope of the
basement driveway. Given the unusual proportions of this lot, two frontages, substantial
adjacent open space with the several roads that intersect in the area between City Hall
and the Main Library, staff has no objection to the approval of this additional height.
It should be noted that the 36' height will only be apparent along Douglas Avenue (the
balcony line on Bellevue Avenue will be approximately 30'-6"). Maximum hei'ght in the
R-4 District is limited to 75'.
With reference to the Condominium Permit, the proposed design meets all zoning ordinance
requirements (with the exception of the 36' height). It is also generally consistent
with the open space standards specified in Commission Resolution No. 7-79. The
engineering requirements of Resolution No. 16-75 have been discussed with the applicant
and a commitment obtained that the working drawings to be filed for a building permit
will provide the necessary detail. The November 20, 1980 memo from the City Engineer
confirms his department's agreement with the present project.
A memo from the Park Director advises that the landscape plans have been reviewed and
approved, with the condition that "all planted areas are to be provided with sprinkler
irrigation. Coverage of all planted areas must be approved by Park Department,
Installation to be in conformance with all city, county health department and state
standard specifications".
Given the above comments, and the project's conformance with the City's condominium guide-
lines, staff recommends that this application for a condominium permit be approved.
Recoiranended conditions for Commission review at the public hearing are:
l. that the final working drawings for Bellevue Place be consistent with
the plans filed with this application;
2. that the conditions recommended by the November 11, 1980 memo from the
Chief Building Inspector and November 20, 1980 memo from the City Engineer
be met by the final plans; and
-z-
3. that the final landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the
Park Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
JRY/s
11/20/80
.��. �. �
John R. Y st
City Planner
cc: Theodore E. Farley
_.. ,...
- � . :__ __.. __ _ _ --- __ _ _ _ _. . _.. - __ _ _ ..__ - _ . _ �
� -a
,
������� ����������a� ,�� `Y��
;` � 1244 BELLEVUE AVENUE
� ���� � ttitt'I , . ar .. '^�.�-, uuui�C.�i� .
������������ '�`�, r~yJBELLEVUE PLACE
�����
�`��'�'�"t°� project name - if any
Appl i cati on r2cei ved f 10/ 17/80 ) �`_�"'�`"`r
5tafif review/acceptance (11/4/80 )
i. APPLICANT Theodore E. Farle ` 343-6839
name telephone no.
1915 Carmelita Avenue, Burlingame, CA. 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Walt Mattson 369-2901
contact person, if different telephone no.
2e TYPE OF APPLICATIOM �
� Speci�l Pe�r�it ( X) Variance* O Conc�omi�i4m Permit ( X) Other
, -' �Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
I
g i 3� PROJEC7 DESCRIPTION CONDOMINIUM PERMIT to construct a 7 unit four story project.
Unit sizes r':ange from 984 SF for a 1 bedroom unit to 1645 SF for a 2 bedroom unit, and 2396 SF
for the penthouse suite. Private balconies add 75-106 SF+ of open space to units at the second
and third floor lev�ls; the two qround floor units have 300 SF+ patios, while the penthouse has
a 925 SF ro�f deck. There are 14 parking spaces below the building in a full basement that
extends out�to within 3" of the Douqlas Avenue property line and within 2'-5' of the Bellevue
Avenue p'roperty line_.Ja SPECIAL PERMIT is required to allow the parapet height to exceed 35'
(36' is pro�osed). Zonin.-ri ordinance requirements for lot coverage, setbacks, yards and off-street
`'� j (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)pdr ing dY'e me ��y �t�e �
� ; proposed design.
z � - Refm code section(s): ( Chap.26.30 )(PC Res. 16-75 )
.� �
,� v , 4a PROPERTY TDENTTFICATION �of Lot 5
s. �
o•� ( 029-133-010` )(portion) ( 4 i( Burl�ingame Land Company )
�� � A PN lot no. block no. subdivision name
:_ N-�.... -: _.....1 (.. R-4 ) ( 8,655 SF )
I
� �- � � zoning district land area, square feet
v cn - , _ _ _
o� Theodore E. Farley Post Office B'ox 345
. � ^ land owner's name address
-- N-a . � Burl inqame, CA. 94010
� v-°�' • Required Da�e received. city " zip code
>
- a� �- �� ' . - (3�� (no) ( - ) Proof of o�vnership
"'— "' � (yes) _(� ( 10/17/80 ) Owner's consent to application
� ',
`: � � s.
_ m � � I �p �XISTING SITE CONDITIONS
"� N:o � 01der single family home (converted to apartments) on a triangular shaped
� o;� lot with a double frontage (107' on Douglas Avenue and 74' on Bellevue
�or
� "�' Avenue
O \ N �
, �L1 ' ' Required Date received
cn �- ,
�'o'v�`i I (yes) ��k ( 11/4/80 ) Site plan showing: property 7ines; public sidewalks and
'Q`; o j curbs; ali str�ctures and improvements;
• ��� j paved on�site parkino; landscaping.
�� �; � (yes) �a�k ( 11/4/80 ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
� � � by type of us�`on each floor plan.
� Q Q � Qyesj ��k ( 11/4/80 ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
� N N ; (yes) �r�k ( 11/4/80 ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
U � �
(other) �10/17/80 � Covenants, conditions and restrictions
� N:N
••� o o (10/18/80) Letter from Kenneth D. Meyer, Mayne Tree Expert
z°vi a�,— *Land use classifications are: residential (sho�N # dwelling units);�o�{a'nic�'use;nretail
�.,� �" � i sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/reoair shop; warehousinga other (to be described).
.¢�>a�
c� o•� � 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL
cns.s� j
z"�`� i Proposed construction, Below grade ( 4,727 SF) Second floor ( 3,772 SF)
��; N M gross floor area Fi rst floor ( 3,689 SF�ouY'th d�lopY' � 2'9�3 SF� )
Douglas Ave:; setback
Bel l evue Ave. seioacic
Side yard
Rear yard
Pro,7ect Code ro�ect
Proposal Requirement Proposal
15' � 15' 1 Lot coverage 43%
15' � 5' � �uiidiny neigni 36'
g� g� L�ndscaped area 33%
n.d. - On-site pkg s paces 14
�o e
equirement
601
P over 35'
�s .'�7-79*
14
» � i
6. PROJECT PRDPOSAL (continued)
EXISTING
. after
8-5 5 PM
Full tir�e employees on site
Part time 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
��
��
aa
ae
��
��
��
6
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 O Project Assessment $ 25 ( X)
Variance/other districts $ 75 O Negative Declaration $ 25 ( X)
Condominium Permit $ 50 ( X) EIR/City & consultant fees $ O
TOTAL FEES $ 200.00 RECEIPT N0, 1662 Received by H. Towber
I hereby certify under nenalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and cor�rect to the best of my knowledg,e and belief.
Required Date received
An air photo will
-be provided;for �Yes) tm�� ( - ) Location plan of acijacent properties.
the pUb1iC hedring.�3�= (no) ( - ) Other tenants/firms on property:
The resent buildin �o. firms ( ) na. employees ( )
p 9 floor area occupied ( SF office space)
` will be demolished. ( SF other)
noe employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
`��: no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 { X) Other application type, fee $ O
I
-- - -- -- _ �
. �
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach separate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
City Hall to the west, Publi� Library and parking lot to the south, dental
offices and older homes to the north. Apartments and condominiums to
Sionature
can
IP7 2 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
0 0
7 fami ies
18± 20±
12± 12±
0 0
te� —/Z — � �i
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATIO� F;,e No. ND-267P
The City of Burlingame by John R. YOst on NOVembeY' 6 , 19 80,
comp7eted a review of the proposed oroject and determined that:
( X ) It tvill not have a significant effect on the environmento
( j Na Environmental Impact Report is requirede
Reasons for a Conclusion: The 7 unit building has been designed to meet all zoning
ordinance requirements (except for the proposed 36' parapet height). The special
enqineerinq requirements specified by P.C. Res. 16-75 for condominiums will also
be satisfied prior to approval of a Buildinq Permit. The proposed classification
of this roject as a"condominium" (rather than an apartment) will.not result in
������e �r�v�r��r���T ��f�ec�s�.9eneration, utility consumption or ot er possi y
�. � CITY PLANNER November 6, 1980
Signature of Pro ess ng Official Title Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date post d, the determination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTIMG Date Posted: / �0
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of B rlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to the Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, Califo 'ia on �j �.ti�� // , 19��D
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )No �
�J. 7��
, CITY CLERK, CITY OF 6
.
IPl 5 YEARS
after
R-F �, PM
<- '- r . _. __ _ _ _ _ _ _
�
0
:,.�.
����� �������
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project p,roposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received memo attached
City Engineer i 11J6/80 ) (yes) �c�) (yes) �ff�k
i Building Inspector ( 11/6/80 ) (yes) =��k (yes) ���
Fire Inspector ( 11/6/80 ) (#'��) (no) (��) (no)
Park Department i 11/6/80 ) (:y.es) _� � (yes) ��rp
City Attorney ( _ ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
2, SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOPJ MEASURES
Concerns Mitigation Measures
I
i
3. CEQA REQUIREMEPITS
If a Negative Declaration has no� been posted for this project:
. Is the project subject to CEQA review? See Negative Declaration ND=267P
Does the project meet the engineer- Request report from City Engineer.
ing requirements of P.C.Res. 16-75?
Does the design comply with Fire Request report from Chief Fire
Department requirements? � � Inspector.
Are the landscape plans adequate? Request report from Park Director.
The underground garage will require Review October 24 letter from Mayne
excavation to within 8' of several Tree Company; make findings.
large street trees. Will this
endanger these tre�s?
There is no surface level guest Require the basement garage be kept
parking. open for guest use.
Ts the requested 36' parapet height Examine the proposed elevati,ons and
reasonable, given the corner compare with the adjacent properties.
location?
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed ( ➢ Study by P.Ce i )
/ Decision to prepare EIR ( ) Review period ends ( )
Notices of preparation mailed ( ) Public hearing by P.C. ( )
RFP to consultants ( j 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 Date first received ( 10/17/80 )
Accepted as complete: no(X ) Cd��6 �� ap licant advising info. required ( 10/26/80 )
Yes(X ) date 11/4/�0 P.C. study ( 11/10/80 )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) (�� Recommended date ( 11/24/ 80 )
Date staff report mailed �to applicant ( 11/21/80) Date Commission hearing ( 11/24/80 �
Application approved (i/ ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no)�\�
Date Counci1 hearing ( ) Application a proved ( ) Denied ( )
�, � 11/20/80
� sigqed date
�_._
:,fi '
j i _:T
��a:
t'
� � �P � . .
1
i�" t d� ^.A � r�p� ��
K �
� Y� ��' �� �
Zi�� �
�'�
"� ^, �� :� s`;
� �
� �<w
�. .
y-.
�,�., `i ;. �.� ;
-4{ �' ��
� 3" � 4
e,
�` '� n¢27� f �s".,��'+u
s
i ' � t
� y .
x� �`�l,
.. '",:J` . S
a
�s'� ... ¢�}f ._ . �
e.ie`
A t�tsr`��2x,��`. � � I s� ._.-a..
�`r �a;} �u�.. � �?� y,..
� � X:
w ' �,
- � F�s � ' :�
' , �.
�u ; Ry
; i '�k L . y :'.
�� � �� _ . .` 7�"'
�t �� r��
� i� � a � � 7't �
� i`n�`4 "�,i �'�' � �` x�-�
. ��,_ " ,, . .i
-o a �� i
t � �� '' ,�,`� r
; � t
�
+ x �' '#A�..
-�t 1
�'. fi�1��_
�Yj
7^
�� Yi 4.
.�1 � �:
��
' �� i�^•�. _
^t
,�
�Y� i? .;"'.� -a.� � v- . .
� r ��,
. �} .�. �.. � T'
� �.
� i:
" :�.. _ :�'���,9Y
s M".,
: �� �� � � "..�
k��.. ,��, ..��
r."�7, `i� ,� , '
;Y4� . . . � _ .
=�sM
:� �
� =i
� � � -,s
'� 'a-t 4y � . ��j�'
F ., '4 Yt,-F'
't ��"�` ry- �F ` ` ;�" s`'` � , �� � S � _
.. � �'� �.� " a.�!
� ��' �� . � � �`a' � �`"'; �' '��' �` ` � �' ..4 -
}3�'r. . z� � '.d'�F54 ,� �,� �' �f � .. C^,�. .
vfi�, „`���� � ���,:�, l�'�3" � ��" �i� =.
�� ���" }. �:
\ �ip .
� � '��s.
t�� p i h .a. .. ' ��'`_'�.
� �u.a . " . . . , . 1:- � � a��"2<`Y
}Y ��fi ,3� 'k�
� �� w �
t ,. � ��„
� �
k ���'_.
A�:
� £ 1
.4TF': . k�?
. ?
y�
-i � �
� � E. .. �'�- J .
< � ��'
� � r ,� �
5 � �
iy„
b Q�
��� �
.Y ' S (,
,t` 1:
�i..
� � � -s:
" � ;_, '��'' �
•� 3
��:
MEMO
To:
From:
- 11/20/80
J. Yost, Planning Dept.
Engineering Division
�_�:�������� �
I'� �l� � � ��$(�
CtTY OF. 6JidLlNGAME
PiA[ViVi[�u acP�.
Re: Condominium Permit for 1244 Bellevue Ave.
7-Unit Condominium Projec�t
Staff has reviewed the subject plans. Upon receipt of construction drawings, the
following will be required:
1. The proposed top of basement slab two feet from the Douglas Avenue sidewalk
is from four inches to ten inches a6ove the adjacent walk. Special planting
details and walls will 6e required to keep any soil and plantings contained
so that there is not a steep slope next to the sidewalk.
2. An inlet and drain pipe need to be installed at northerly corner on
Douglas Avenue.
3. Retaining structure appears to be necessary for site grades and drainage shown at
the adjacent properties.
Should the Commission approve this Permit, the following conditions should be at-
tached:
1. Replace any damaged or displaced curb, gutter and ���al�; fronting the site.
2. Install State Standard handicapped ramps at botl� cr�osswalks. This includes
relocation of crosswalks and relocating or resetting utility box to grade
as necessarye
3. All site roof leaders and paved areas shall be collected and placed into
street gutter through. approved curb openings.
4. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, all landscaping and site im-
provement plans must be approved by the Park and the Public Works Depart-
ments.
i
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
FCE:mg
a
�
INTER-OFFICE MEMO :"� � � �; � "�� � November 11 , 1 980
To: John Yost, City Planner $�Q� ��'����
From: Building Division°��, �����
�
Re: 1244 Bellevue Avenue,, Condominium
Should the application be approved, the Building Division would like to inform
the applicant that the following shall be required.
1, Obtain seperate Building Permit for Demolition of existing Building.
2, Comply with Chapter 26,30 of the City of Burlingame Minicipal Code,
(Condominium Subdivisions).
3. Two complete sets of plans must �e submitted for plan check, upon
approval of plans all required permits be obtained before beginning
construction.
4, Meet the requirements of the State of California Energy Commission.
5, Submit copy of Soils Report, performed by State of Galifornia License
Soi1s Engineer.
6, Submit copy of Lot Survey.
Copy of Lot Survey be submitted to Building Department for record.
_ � �
Pete Kriner
Chief Building Inspector
PK/rl h
CC: Frank Erbacher
City Engineer
f ��� ��/ � ,-a� y:.:; f
' -.�lt%._'� �
�• � ��,•, __ � �r--,...... !'._•:- -"'t-� i Sic' • ,±?,i.
� . !f J `--- !"�hi P�T F`r��.{�;'�!i...:r
� .:���/; ` "r'� �:fill.Pv"�"J'�-'""�.F{T-
/
f II � �= u>-��rsru�� s�.i.
L'
�-z,- ;�.i..t_.
—..,,. v��tF�-*a�� ��r; �
r,=...i�F�Ts (c�jzri' �x,
. 4 j I S Lse.L.; Zj g G�l...
-Y,p., t �/ I G.�v_..�
aL.L�
�� l �` � �.� y I
- . • — � � •s� . '
�
. ET E� �� E 9f � C.�
i���r� � � iSv.,�'�
C�T� �� ���������?���
��`i��`i.� �,�- l �aa�:�� �—�
fY j-' : F.'�'- r# F-r r� F i'� ::.J
�. � i . 4 f .�.`
f,`� F�:.: y �� � E..1 ::i ��' ` .:�.. � �:��: � z.:J-i
���������
6i ��E� ��S �:� ��.�� �
����@`� �3 p� : � �
���. ���-�;�� �r���� ��
� �� ��������� ��a�� g
�o &" Y'^�F [S,� � kwS' 4�. g Ya:�, i Y,i°"�' b' �g �-" "`-� � � G
�. ��S � �'.��' � � � B, B�. � �-#�9r��� �
�� Pp��.4� �` f�� ���'�5�€-�
�-
Q
�'� ��`�-� � i �' a`° e � �� ��� ���b e ��� �
� �� �y� ��'������.����' 3�-`��'`a� �
�;�iry- ��r�� � � � ��'� p¢-'� c�. t sa��'��, f���`�`� �
�� ��{i� �Ii�fVL'6C ����6-�Y�:d��8�4
� �g�� �� ' A�� �
- <.'"`�,��
+��'oa �i �'����'��? �
d
�
�
�
�
� �� i
� ���I
• � � �
� ��
� �"�
� �
��
�'`3" �
�
�
� ��
�
�
�
�
r
' � P �,du.�i" I ��
.�:
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
'� ��p
� A g
Nd
� �,�
� ��
� �
E� .
� t{@
�
� �
�
� �
� �
� �
� �
�AT� (�i ��{�
3CAL[ ���T li�O��
aRk�a� � J �
,co�
SkL�T
���
4F � SHEETS
.. . . yd� . � . .
I!iliifilil�i;ill;J
' ' ' �,R
. ,� ;"'';;
KENNETH D. NiEYER, PRESioEN7
STATE FORESTEA'S LiCEiJSc NO. 444
HORTICULTURE WSTRUCTOA, C.S.M.
i : a
a"��;a��sP� �;,.
�-sG i,� �����`
:i:��, �}� P�U��'���a�`i'i}t�t�.
�'d.�NN9�S� �EP�'�
STATE CONTRACTOAS, PEST CONTFOL OPERATORS, PEST GONTROL ADVISORS LICENSeS
�'�'�?'�: 1�C� A 3T�G��
19_� i.����-� L� Avenue
. �t`d�1iF8�y°�7ii�d-.6i'a 7".*o�V
L`�a.'�,`. .:9.�'.�---a .�.�ae��
;'`' CONSUl7
...,,.._ .:7P.EE':C.
! SHRUB�,SQRAYINi
1204 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010
P. O. BOX 522, SAN� MATEO, CA 94401 � .
TELEPHONE NO.: (415) 3443860
October 24, 1a80 --
�
On a�:�_s�ae,r, Oc��ber 23, 1.980 I znspected five street trees at Douglas
a:z� �.��by�ae n{�Qi2Li8, Burlingame. A seven unit condominium, 4vith below
CAc�uru pG�a�i:�g :s proposed for this si-te. This report attempts to
ic���s�. i� �_:�� ���c-c this development will have on these existing �rees.
=.� f��r� ;,��e� in�:a�i� three sycamore�(Platanus ori�ntalis) on Douglas
�����_;� -�: k�.�� �L��P�t�ums (Liquidamt3ar styraca.Plua) on Bellevue Avenue.
?�9-�8u�an���s h�� M��n �a�larded in the past �aut left ta grow fulZ some
,��_a.:.�g�� `���;s��!�;�ne?y9 some heaxt rot exis�ts at the side of the
U��=,��� ��"s€� ����s� �s liquidambars have been permitted to grr,w
�;��,�.�ai'=:�� �: �_i�T s�zmmam� of the �rees and their condition is as
� '� � i��� <
— �m..!�'��1� i r��.
'�,`� y��-va��i��a�� svcamoreo 18.3 inches in diameter (,Ds Be H. 1. Tree
-+�-����m���:.��1 �u� �� competi�i�n fram a Bailey acacia on �the
;��.��;. L�, Se�¢�°ai I��ge cu-�s were made to the trank aboUt 8 fe�t
;�.�us :�:�ci�ding on� reeent cu�t that measures about 6 x 10 a.nches.
. ����.s has �3v�n �ihs sidevaalk s�de a"f2at" laok, w�hich wiJ.l be
�y��?��-u2�t�d wh�n the acacia is xemoved. Hovrever, wi�th �time this
�z;�3�,'.�� ^yTrJ'lf ].:'1.
�a �?uu3e sYcamo�et 1403 inches in diameter (D. B. H. ). This tree is
aas� assymetricalo Since there is extensive hear-t rot at tha areas
ei �=;e �ast �ol�.arding, the tree should be main�tained as a small tree.
3�. f�e�� :�fns�e�ly sycamore, 13.7 inches in diametex (D, B. H. ), This
�cr�e �s healthy and well shaped.
4� �Ies�c westerly sweetgum, 11.0 inches in diameter (Da B. H. }a Tree
is hsaithy wi-th no scars.
.. �.�. r,r
„ .
m 2 �
MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY, INC.
T�O: �lie 8@U F'��y�)%
Fro�: Kenne�th Dm Mey�r, Pr�€��si�naZ �ore�°�er
5� Eas�e��y swe�tgtam� 6a8 in�h�� i� di�met�� �Dm �� Fi� ). 'Tree is
heal��y wi�h r�� ��a��,
All fa.�e `�ree� a�e g�ot�ing ira a 4�2� ���� �zd� plara�iz�g ����.p l���t�r�
�n th� s�i�°e��side of � fi�� fo��t wide ��d�walkm Zh� underg��a�sd �.rking
�ai�� ��m� t� 2 fe�� fr�r� �h� �ad�walk, Bsu� w��h ��ea�a�io� f�r �he wralY�
�.� �ar� be a�s�m�d a��t vua1� be mad� a�p t� or raea� �fie sid�w��km �i�
large�t ���� i� 18a3 iracta�s a.n diame��r �a�d w��a�d requi�� a b�x 15 f�;�°�
it� d�.am�ter $� m��eo 0� th�� p�i�,cip��� i� can b� a���am�d �ha� e��es if .
�h� �e�t webe mad� �� th� �i,d�walk, �h�re ����� b� n� imp��t oaa �ha�� �s��
whi�h f� `7 �r r���� fee� f�°�m tF�� propa��d �x�a�atf�ra. Like�ri��9 3� �ara
be ����am�d �Ya�� �he oth�� f��r t�e�� snra.�.l �� fr�e �f an� �r�bl��� ix�m
this de���opv��t�t�
I did no�t i����c� t�a� ��h�r ie���s o� �Ehe si�e wa���h ira��asde� s��era�. pa�m��
a�acias and a mag�o�ia« �'kz��� a�� no� City �reesa H�w��r�x°� �f y�u w�.sh,
� wou�d �� pi�a��d �o mak� ar� ir�sp���ion araci ��po� tg y�aa �ra '�heir c�nd2��i�n
and car�0
KBM s�agp�
Ene� s S`tatem�re�
, _
C� ���
Va1 �
o�C �'' I tJ� S S� ,.
��t � �
c;� ^��, r
d �� a
� u ���
�S � ;;�> ;;
LBC��i�� ,
cAj, No. 44•4 �- ��
-9�.F oF �A�-�����+
Y�a��� v�� ��lY�
K��ne`th Dm M���r
� ��`` � �
_ _,.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
�
Page 6
November 24, 1980
CP reviewed issues raised by this application, possible fi�ndings and parking requirements
for medical buildings. Staff believed the medical clinic would provide a needed service
to local firms in the industrial area, but felt the site would be inappropriate for the -
size and character of the proposed clinic. Denial was recommended; if approved, six
conditions were suggested as listed in the staff report.
Robert Christensen, administrative medical director of Industr-ial Medical Services was
present. he discussed issues raised in the staff report, responses his firm had
received about this proposal from the industrial community, and physical limitations
of the site, particularly with regard to parking. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing.
There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion and concerns: license
required for this type of business; the operatian of •the clinic;.number of patients
expected; is this the most appropriate location for such a clinic?; concern about
the lack nf adequate parking.
C. Jacobs moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Graham; motion to d�ny approved
unanimously on roTl call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
`� 8. CONDOMINIUM PERh9IT FOR BELLEI�UE PLACE, A 7 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1244 BELLEVUE
�. AVENUE; BY THEODORE E. FARLEY
' 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE FOUR STORY BELLEVUE PLAGE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO HAVE
� A 36` MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT � ___
CP Yost revievaed this application to construct a 7 unit, four story condominium project.
Reference staff report dated ll/20/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted
by staff 11/4/80; aerial photograph of the site; 11/20/EO memo from the City Engineer;
November 11, 1980 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; notation from the Park
Director on copy of the plans; October 24, 1980 letter to Ted Farley from Kenneth D.
Meyer, Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.; and plans date stamped November 4 and November 18,
1980: CP reviewed permits required, code regulations and staff comments. Staff
recommended approval of the condominium permit and special permit with three conditions
as lis-ted in the sta.ff report. �
Ted Farley, the applicant, was present and discussed his plans for this condominium,
particularly the unusual lot, additioral height requested and on-site drainage. He
noted his attempt to retain the City street trees. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing.
Carrol7 Schmitz, 1237 Bellevue Avenue noted this pi�operty was in a key area of
Burlingame and asked that Commission protect the quaTity of the City by requiring a
high grade projeci. (Later in the meeting he was adviscd that the applicant had
exceeded the City's requirements with a.fine design for a difficult l�t, maintaining
trees and open space.)
Discussion: height of i.he building along Douglas and Bellevue; code regulations for
underground garages; maintaining and/or protecting street trees; unusual configuration
of the lot. There was consensus the project would enhance the area.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the condominium permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the final working drawings for Bellevue Place be consistent with the plans
filed with this application; (2) that the conditions recommended by the November 11,
1980 memo from the City Engineer be met by the.final plans; and (3) that the final
landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the Park Director prior to the issuance
of.a building permit. Second C. Harvey; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the special permit to allow this project to have
a 36' maximum roof height. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
0
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
CP�discussed this site in relation to
code requirements, vehicle circulation
had no objection to approval with five
and employees.
• � �
Page 5
November 24, 1980
the Burlingame Avenue Off-Street Parking District,
and issues raised by the application. Staff
conditions as listed in the staff report. _
Secretary Harvey read letter dated November 21, 1980 from Thomas A. Gallagher, Jr.,
property manager for the Thomas A. Gallagher, Sr. Trust, owner of property at 1348-1350
Burlingame Avenue, cautioning that any approval of this application should be subject
to the applicant providing sufficient off-street parking to accommodate its customers
Roger Nye, president and chief executive officer of Pacific Union Bank was present. He
discussed his company's operations; their p7ans for upgrading this site; park.ing and
landscaping provisions; market studies. of retail sales and banking in Burlingame; and
his hopes to offer an independent banking service to the City. He agreed to change the
plans for a metal roof as requested by the �ire Department. Chm. Sine opened the public
hearing. Frieda Freund, 1230 Donnelly Avenue, expressed concern abou� traffic congestion
and parking problems, particularly in re7ation to her business on Donnelly Avenue.
Peter Ebner, 261 Park Road, speaking as a Burlingame businessman, felt the banking
needs of the community were being satisfactorily met at present and that the City was
in need of more retail and service establishments as opposed to banks. There were no
further audience comments and the publ�c hearing was closed.
Discussion an.d concerns; customer and employee parking; Pacific Union Bank's application
to the State Banking Department, and findings in this regard; number of expected
customers; °does the City need another bank?"; "in tliis location?"; population of
nearby cities and number of banks and savings and loans in each; benefits/disadvantages
of.a small independent bank; difficulty in making a judgmeni on this use at this
location wi-�hout more specific guidelines; "some other use might be more detrimental
at this location".
Following further discussion, C. Mink foun.d that this is not an.objectionable proposal;
that it is in the proper zone for this type of business; that it is providing a great
deal of its own parking and improving the site with landscaping. C. Mink then moved
for-approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the permit
be approved to the Pacific Union Bank and Trust Company and be nontransferable; (2) that
the operation of this bank be consistent with the October 17 and November 13, 1980
letters from Roger Nye; (3) that the proposed remodeling be done with a Building Permii
and conform to the plans filed with this application; (4) that the temporary banking unit
be consistent with the November 7, 1980 plans filed by Bank Planning Associates, such
unit to be removed by August 31, 198I; and (5) that the conditions recommended by the
City Engineer in his November 12, 1980 memo,by the Chief Building Inspector in his
November 11, 1980 memo, by the Chief Fire Inspector in his November 18, 1980 memo and
by the Park Director in his Govember 5, 1980 memo all be completed to the satisfaction
of the respective departments. Second C. Cistu7li; mation approved 5-2 on roll call
vote, Cers Graham and Narvey dissenting. Rppeal procedures were advised.
7o SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A MEDICAL CLINIC IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 839 HIMCKLEY ROAD,
BY TERRY SMITH OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL SERVICES
CP Yost reviewed this application to allow a medicaT clinic in the M-1 District.
Reference staff report dated 11/18/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted
by staff 10/31/80; aerial photograph of the site; October i3, 1980 letter from Terry
Smith, Executive Director, Industrial Medical Services; brachure describing the
clinic's services; two Ietters dated November 7, 1980 from Robert L. Christensen,
Administrative Medical Director, Industrial Medical Services; Data Sheet for Parking
Situation dated November 7, 1980; November 12, 1980 letter.from Robert L. Christensen;
11/19/80. memo from the City Engineer; and plans date stamped October 14, 1980.
_ � '
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1980
� 10. TENTATFVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOP. 7 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1244 BELLEWE AVENUE
E!
In his 11/ZO/80 memo City Engineer Erbacher recommended approval of this condominium
subdivision map. C. Jacobs moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of
the tentative subdivision map. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote.
11. REVOCATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED MAY 14; 1979 TO ALL04�! MUNKDALE BROS., INC.
TO USE 3.4 ACRES UNDER THE PG&E LIPIES BEHIND 1576-170Q ROLLINS ROAD TO STORE CARS,
RECREATION VEHICLES AND BOATS (AMENDED h4ARCH 10, 1980 TO STORE AND GROW PLANT
MATERIALS)
CE Erbacher reviewed this item, noting noncompliance with the conditions of �he special
permit and Public �!orks Department concern about the required drainage improvements.
Staff recommended the special permit be revoked unless the applicant establishes in
writing thai all improvements will be completed within 30 days. Reference staff inemo
dated November 20, 1980 from the City Engineer; March 10, 1980 Planning Commission
minutes; City Planner's staff report for the March 10, 1980 meeting; May 14, 1979
Planning Commission minutes; May ll, 1979 memo to the Commission from the Director of
Public Works; site drawing; November 11, 1980 Revocation Notrce from the City Planner
to Steve Munl<dale, r1unkdale Bros., Inc.; November 3, 19�0 letter to Steve Munkdale
from ihe City Engineer; October 7, 1980 letter from the Director of Public 4dorks to
Munkdale Bros., Inc.; January Il, 1980 letter from the Traffic/Civil Engineer to
P�unkdale Bros.; and aerial photograph of 1616 Rollins Raad.
Steve Munkdale was present and discussed the as-built drawings requested by Engineering,
drainage conditions at the site and new drawings presently being prepared by touis Arata.
He noted wa�er problems in the area and felt Munkdale's attempts to relieve these had
been adequate. After further discussion Mr. P�iunkdale asked for an extension of time to
complete the information requested by the CE. Mr. Erbacher and Commission concurred in
continuing this item to the meeting of December 8, 1980.
APPLICATIONS FOR STUDY
The folloi�ri:ng applications were set for public hearing December 8, 1980.
12. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6,575 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199 BROADWAY WITH 8 ON-SITE
PARkING SPACES (RATHER THAN THE RE.QUIRED 17 SPACES); BY GARBIS S. BEZDJIAPd
13. CONDOP9INIUM PERMIT �0 CONSTRUCT A 4 UNIT PROJECT AT 1119 CHULA VIS1'A AVENUE; BY
BARRY G. SMITH OF D. L. WALKEP. CONSTRUCTION
14. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIO�! MAP FOR THE ABOVE
15. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 UNIT PROJECT AT 1277 EL CAPIINO REAL; BY
WILLIAM HEIJN FOR Ml�NUCHEHR DAI-JAVAD
16. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION P1AP FOR THE ABOVE
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:18 P.M, in memory of Jules L. "Boots" Francard.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph E. Harvey
Secretary