HomeMy WebLinkAbout1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue - Staff Report (5)Item # 9 0
Design Review Study
k. City of Burlingame
Scoping Session for Environmental Review For Condominium Permit, Tentative
Map, Conditional Use Permit for Two Building and Height, and a Front Landscape
Variance for a New 1 S-Unit Condominium Project at 1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue
Address: 1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue Meeting Date: 2/24/02
Request: Environmental review of condominium permit, tentative map, conditional use permit for two buildings
on one lot and for height, and a front landscape variance for a new 15-unit condominium building with one, three-
story building and one, four-story building at 1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4.
Applicant/Architect: Dale Meyer, AIA, Dale Meyer Associates APN: 029-121-040 & 029-121-050
Property Owner: Bellevue Associates, LLC c/o Litke Properties
Lot Area: 24, 637 SF (0.56 acres)
General Plan: High density residential use Zoning: R-4
Adjacent Development: Multi -family residential
Current Use: Multi -family residential dwelling units, two separate lots with a total of 18-units in five structures
Proposed Use: 15-unit condominium development, in two separate buildings, one three-story and one four-story
building
Allowable Use: Residential dwelling units
Environmental Scoping: As apart of preparing the initial study for the environmental document for this project,
staff is requesting that the Planning Commission comment on any potential environmental effects which you feel
should be investigated. The only potential environmental effects identified by staff at this time is the impact of
construction and the proposed use on Ralston Creek, which runs through this site. Part of the creek on this site is
open and part of it is culverted.
The comments provided by the Commission will be incorporated into the initial study for the project. The standard
list of items investigated in an initial study is attached for reference.
Project Summary: The applicant, Dale Meyer, is proposing to construct anew 15-unit condominium project with
two buildings, one three-story and one four-story building at 1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4. The site
now consists of two lots which contain a total of 18 rental units, in five structures. The project requires approval of;
an environmental review; condominium permit; a conditional use permit for residential units in two buildings on
one lot where the R-4 district allows residential units in only one building on any one lot; a conditional use permit
for height exceeding 35 feet; a variance for front setback landscaping; and a tentative condominium map to merge
the two lots and create the parcel for the condominium project.
Twelve of the fifteen units are in one structure, four stories tall facing Bellevue Avenue. The three remaining traits
are located on the other side of Ralston Creek in the second building at the rear of the lot that would be three -stories
tall. Ralston Creek runs through the site. There are six 4-bedrooms units proposed (family room is considered a
bedroom), five 2-bedrooms units, and four 3-bedroom units proposed. A total of 35 parking spaces are required.
The project proposes a total of 41 covered parking spaces to be allocated in a two-story, below grade garage located
in the front building. Thirty-five spaces will be reserved for tenants, with 6 guest parking spaces. Three of the six
1
Scoping for Environmental Review
1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue
guest spaces do not meet the maneuvering criteria, of a minimum of 3 maneuvers to exit a parking space. They
require 4 to 6 maneuvers. The applicant proposes a circular driveway at the front, with a driveway directly down into
the garage as well. The height proposed for building one (front building) is 4 V-11" as measured from the top of curb
along Belleveue, where 35 feet is the maximum height allowed without a conditional use permit. There is a
mechanical room that is that is 5'-6" above the height of the fourth floor, however this is not counted toward the
overall building height since it is less than 5% of the roof area. The proposed height for building two, on the other
side of the creek, is 33'-9", and complies with the 35 foot height limit. A total lot coverage of 49.2% is proposed
where 50% is the maximum allowed. The applicant proposes a stucco exterior finish with a slate mansard roof at
the front, with wrought iron balcony and railings.
The project requires a front landscape variance because not more than 40% of the front setback shall be paved,
or 60% (1,299 SF) shall be landscaped, where 40.5% (877.6 SF) of front setback is proposed to be landscaped.
Because of the circular driveway design at the front, this requirement can not be met. The project meets the
average front setback of 17'6" and the rear setback requirements with a 20' rear setback on all three floors.
Both side setback requirements are met.
There is 2,205 SF of common open space proposed at the rear site, where 1,500 SF is required. The common
usable open space is located at the rear of the property and includes the creek, which can be admired from this
space. The 75 SF per unit ofprivate open space required is met, with each unit exceeding this requirement with
private open space ranging from 83 SF to 322 SF.
The proposal requires the following approvals:
• Environmental review;
• Condominium permit;
• Tentative map;
• Conditional use permit for two buildings on one lot;
• Conditional use permit for height exceeding 35 feet; and
• Front setback landscaping variance.
PROPOSED
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front Setback: First:
16'
17'6" (block average)
Building #1 Second:
16'
same as above
Third:
22'
same as above
Fourth:
33'-6"
same as above
Front Setback: First:
N/A
N/A
Building 42 Second:
Third:
Side Setback (L): First:
15'
7'
Building #1 Second:
15'
8'
Third:
15'
9'
Fourth:
39'
10,
2
Scoping for Environmental Review
1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue
Side Setback (L): First:
91
7'
Building #2 Second:
91
8'
Third:
91
9'
Side Setback (R): First:
14'
7'
Building #1 Second:
9'
8'
Third:
9'
g>
Fourth:
25'
10,
Side Setback (R): First:
46'6"
7'
Building #2 Second:
46'6"
8'
Third:
46'6"
9'
Rear Setback: First:
27'
15'
Building #1 Second:
27'
15'
Third:
27'
20'
Fourth:
86'
20'
Rear Setback: First:
20'
15'
Building #2 Second:
20'
15'
Third:
20'
20'
Number of Buildings:
21
1
Lot Coverage:
49.2%
50%
(12,139 SF)
(12,319 SF)
Height:
Building #1
2
41'-1111
35'
Building #2
33'-9"
Parking:
38 code complying covered
35 spaces
(35 tenant+6 guest-- 41 total)
80% covered
3 do not meet maneuvering
requirements
Guest Parking:
6 stalls
1 stall
Total On -Site Parking:
41 spaces
33 spaces
Front Setback Landscaping:
p g�
40.5% (877.6 SF)'
60% (1,299 SF)
Private Open Space:
83 SF — 322 SF
75 SF/unit
Common Open space:
2,205 SF
1,500 SF
1 Conditional use permit required for two buildings on one lot
2 Conditional use permit for 41'-11" building height for building #1 where 35 feet is the maximum allowed.
3 Front setback landscaping variance required for 40.5% front setback landscaping where 60% is required.
Staff Comments: See attached.
R?
Scoping for Environmental Review
1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the proposed project and the areas of
potentially significant environmental effects identified by staff. The Commission should add any additional effects
of the project which you anticipate maybe potentially significant to the environment. The areas of investigation for
environmental evaluation as defined by CEQA are listed on the attached sheet for your reference.
Catherine Barber
Planner
c. Dale Meyer Associates, AIA
rd
EN'k-rlhONMENTAL FACTORS LIST FROM CEQA:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,
but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a
net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or
off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
-1-
c) ' R esult'in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
-2-
g). ' i-npair`implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
'h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
-3-
• ' might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture.
and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 I'MIROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F (650) 696-3790
l% CITT G
0URL1NGpME
�t
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section
25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision
as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of
this form for assistance with these questions.
I. Explain why theproposeduse at theproposed location will not be detriniental or injurious toproperty
or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
•ice
2. How will theproposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance?
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the
existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
CUP.FRM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
The proposed structures will be surrounded by lush landscape with soft lighting for
walkways and patios. Ralston creek which runs through the property will be kept
exposed and displayed as a landscaping feature to enhance the environment of this
property. In addition, the larger of the two buildings is set back from the side
property lines more than is required by the zoning code, therefore there will be more
opportunities for landscaping and walkways between the property line and the
proposed structure.
Public health: Measures are being taken to ensure this property will receive more
than adequate sanitation service in regular intervals to ensure a clean, sanitary
environment. Sanitation disposal and recycling are being coordinated with a private
sanitation company, the civil engineer is providing site drainage to the street, and all
precautions will be taken to prevent situations which will encourage the spread of
pests or disease.
Public safety: Fire alarm systems and sprinklers will be installed to protect the
residents and neighboring properties in case of a fire. The target clientele for this
project will be older, more mature homeowners whose families do not live with them
any longer and they are seeking a smaller, more manageable version of their former
home with the same peace and quiet. With the target clientele there will not be any
obtrusive noises or unruly gatherings expected to take place in and around this
property. There will be no hazardous or flammable materials being stored on site or
any dangerous activities being performed.
General welfare: The proposed development is a three-story, 14-unit condominium
within two buildings. This will provide residences for older residents who will either
live by themselves or with one or two of their family members. This project will
serve as an environment for these people to live in with other people of similar
interests and background who will be nearby to assist if the situation arises.
Convenience: There will be two levels of underground parking provided for this
development. The amount of parking provided for the residents is more than required
by code with an adequate amount of guest parking. A circular driveway is proposed
in the front yard of the building for deliveries and the convenience of dropping off
passengers.
2. The existing zoning and use is R4 multi -family. The proposed zoning and use will
remain the same. There are five existing 1 and 2-story buildings on the property and
the proposed project will consist of two 3-story buildings. The proposed buildings
are designed to provide a tasteful and welcoming presence in the neighborhood.
3. The proposed condominium project will integrate well if not improve the aesthetics of
the existing neighborhood of multi -family and condominium structures. The
proposed structures are designed using French architectural elements and details and
will be carried through to the interior.
Conditional Use Permit
Page 2 of 2
The surrounding condominiums are all three stories in height similar to the proposed
structures. The proposed structures are within the required setbacks and the
remaining spaces on the site will be landscaped to screen the buildings from each
other as well as to provide screening for the residents of the proposed project. The
larger of the two buildings is pushed back from the side setbacks on both sides which
creates a greater separation from the surrounding buildings.
The use of the proposed structures will remain the same as the existing structures.
The structures will not change the character of the neighborhood in terms of parking
and traffic because two levels of underground parking will be provided with adequate
guest parking. A circular driveway is also proposed to move the incoming traffic to
the proposed structure off the street and on to the property thereby alleviating traffic
congestion.
Other uses within the vicinity are also multi -family and therefore, the proposed use is
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
suRUN�aMe
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
W14'41
'BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
&'1445 Bellevue Ave.
Environmental scoping for an application for environmental
review, conditional use permits for two buildings on one lot
and for height, front setback landscape variance and
condominium permit for one three-story and one four-story
condominium building with a total of 15 residential
condominiums at: 1441 & 1445 Bellevue Ave., zoned R-4.
(APN: 029-121-050 & 029-121-040).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on Monday, February 24, 2003 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: February 14, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
A copy of the ap
to the meeting .
Burlingame, Cad
CITY OF B URLINGAME:,
iman ans rage ay be reviewed prior
la I park entl �1 Primrose Road,
ma
If you chal ge tt ae
be limited to
raising onl hos sues e re'!dajblic hearing,