HomeMy WebLinkAbout852 Edgehill Drive - Staff Report� r �'� �i ' ��
�. CITY � �9�4�
�a � AGENDA
BURLINGAME I T EM a
�,�� �:; � STAFF REPORT MTG. 3-Z�-OH
,b.m D A T E
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
TO: SUBMITTED �,
MARCH 15, 1988 BY I�I ,
DATE:
CITY PLANNER APPROVED
FROM: B�'
REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON A SPECIAL PERMIT
S�B,E�T: FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL PROJECT AT 852 EDGEHILL
DRIVE. ZONED C-2
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council hold a public hearing and take action.
Conditions recommended by the Planning Commission in their action:
1. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 18, 1988 and
February 17, 1988 memos shall be met;
2. that a building permit shall not be issued for this project until
the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has
written a letter stating that the proposed lift height shown and
as dimensioned meets the requirements for Title 24 handicapped
accessibility and is considered to be safe for that use; and
3. that as built this structure shall conform to the plans submitted
to the Planning Department and date stamped February 5, 1988, and
with the limitation of a parking ratio of 1:400 and 1,600 gross
square feet of commercial space on the California Drive frontage.
Action Alternatives:
1. The City Council can uphold the Planning Commission's approval of
this special permit with two residential units accessed off
Edgehill and 1,600 SF of commercial accessed off California Drive
with conditions. This action should be taken by resolution.
This approval included about 900 SF of commercial space less than
the applicant requested. Affirmative action on the negative
declaration is considered to be a part of this action.
2. The City Council can reverse the Planning Commission and deny the
special use permit request. Council should state clearly the
reasons for their action.
3. The City Council can deny without prejudice this request for
mixed use allowing the applicant to redesign the mixed use
project. If this alternative is pursued Council �hould state
specifically what aspects of the project they would like
addressed in the redesign and in the new submittal.
.
F
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, represented by Stan Panko, architect, is requesting a
special permit in order to build two residential units and 2, 500 SF of
commercial space in a single structure on a lot with double frontage on
Edgehill and California Drive, 852 Edgehill, zoned C-2 (Code Sec.
25.36.030-1).
The two residential units are designed to all the standards of the R-2
district including providing two covered off-street parking spaces for
each unit accessed off Edgehill. The 2,500 SF of commercial space is
located above four required parking spaces accessed only off California
Drive. This area was designed with a parking ratio of 1:800, the
requirement for heavy commercial use, retail and office uses would not
be allowed. Handicapped accessibility requirements are met for the
commercial use by providing a properly dimensioned parking space and a
lift to the second floor.
The zoning code requires that residential uses meet the development
standards of the appropriate zone, R-2 in this case. The proposed
structure is 20' in height on the residential side with 5' side setbacks
and 15' front and rear setbacks as required. The rear of the structure
rises 44� from the curb at California Drive to the top of the structure;
the commercial portion of the structure rises about 25� from top of curb
on the California Drive side.
The commercial portion of this project is built property line to
property line as allowed in the C-2 zone. Parking is provided in a
below grade (dug into the hill) garage off California Drive. Adequate
space is provided so that parked cars can exit onto California Drive in
a forward direction. The rear yard open space for the residential units
is decking placed over the roof of the commercial use below.
Plannina Commission Action
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and voted 4-1
(Commissioner Shelley Graham dissenting, Commissioners Garcia and
Harrison absent) to approve the special permit with staff�s suggested
conditions for the mixed use. However, in their approval the
Commissioners reduced the commercial square footage from 2,500 SF to
1,600 SF so that, in their opinion, it better matched the parking
requirements of future�commercial uses on this site. The 2,500 SF area
was based on 1:800 SF, the parking requirement for heavy commercial uses
such as appliance repair and places of product assembly. -The Commission
felt that many of these heavy commercial uses might not be very
compatible with the residential units in the same building. Some
Commissioners felt that because of the upstairs location, limited number
of heavy commercial uses which might find this site viable and the fact
that once developed parking could not be expanded, this site was
inevitably going to become a use enforcement problem and/or a candidate
for a parking variance in the future. The 1,600 SF area was chosen
r
3
chosen because that is the area at 1:400 (retail sales) justified by the
four parking spaces designed into the project.
Commissioners� discussion also addressed the fact that all units,
residential and commercial, were designed to be rental units; that the
lift will only be available for handicapped persons, others with heavy
loads or bulky objects will have to use the stairs; the possibility of
roof leakage caused by poorly drained residential decks over the
commercial structure was discussed; generally Commissioners were not
opposed to th� mixed use but to the potential parking variance built
into this design; and there was some comment on the imposing nature of
the structure as viewed from California.
EXHIBITS:
- Monroe letter to Stan Panko, March 8, 1988, setting
- Planning Commission Minutes, February 22, 1988
- Planning Commission Staff Report, February 22, 1988
- Erbacher memo, February 17, 1988
- Notice of Council public hearing for appeal mailed
- Council Resolution
MM/s
cc: Stan Panko/Michael Kastrop, Panko Architects
Alex Ornstein & Lyud Mila Oks (property owners)
appeal hearing
(w/att.)
March 11, 1988
;�
, . - . .
. . .��,....._
�.C�.E l�Z.�� .0".E ��Z'�Z1'C.��CCxYC,E
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625
March 8, 1988
Stan Panko/Michael Kastrop
Panko Architects
700 Claremont Street - Suite 200
San Mateo, CA 94402
Gentlemen:
At the City Council meeting of March 7, 1988 the Council called
up for review your mixed residential/commercial project at 852
Edgehill Drive, zoned C-2. A public hearing will be held on
Monday, March 21, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
� � � I/�.iU� 1"" �
Marg ret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Alex Ornstein & Lyud Mila Oks (property owners)
City Clerk
• ' v
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 5
February 22, 1988
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL PROJECT
AT 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 2/22/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the project, applicant�s proposed lift to meet
handicapped accessibility requirements, staff review, Planning
staff comment, applicant�s letter, study meeting questions. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
During discussion staff noted CP and CE share a concern about
heavy service commercial use on the second floor of this project
with a 1:800 parking ratio, the second floor may not be the most
accessible for service repair type uses, if this use were changed
to retail commercial a parking variance would be required...__
Commission comment: there will be a built-in parking variance with
this project, concern about heavy commercial use on the second
floor, applicant will be back for more auto intensive uses,
proposed use is not compatible with residential.
Responding to Commission questions, staff advised this proposal
differs from the initial plan in that floor area above parking has
been increased and use has been changed so that fewer parking
spaces are required, it will be up to the city to enforce the
uses; if this site were zoned R-2 the structure could be placed
15' from California Drive; the residential portion of the project
will not be built to condominium standards and could not be
converted in future because of the small number of units; if
future tenants were to use the commercial garage space for a
business they would need a variance and use permit.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Stan Panko, architect, was
present. He advised the property owner considered retail use on
the second floor, finding a retail outlet that could fully utilize
the second floor would be difficult, it seemed that a service
oriented repair type operation which did not rely on street
traffic could use a second floor space as long as there was no
heavy equipment; he felt this would be a good use for the area; in
order to gain additional floor area, going to this use and 1:800
parking ratio made sense; property owner is aware that his choice
of tenants will be limited; since the lift will only be available
for handicapped people, equipment will have to be carried up the
stairs. Regarding Commissioner concern about decks over occupied
units, architect commented deck would have to be waterproofed,
this and drainage would be addressed in the final plans.
Concern was expressed about the design and difficulty in enforcing
the use. Commission inquired about the possibility of putting
retail space on the ground floor and parking elsewhere; architect
stated they could not get maximum grade on driveway slope,
attempting to put parking and retail space on the same floor would
�
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 6
Fel�ruary 2 2, 19 8 8
`4
not�'�work, it only makes sense to put the use on the''�second floor.
Ther� is no prospective tenant at this time, ar�hitect did not
feel `there would be a problem getting items to be'�repaired in the
seconc� floor commercial space up the stairs; a commercial elevator
is very expensive. Further comment: possi�'ility of limiting
commercial square footage to 1,600 SF, the ini��tial proposal; staff
suggeste�d if this approach were taken it .,:�be based on parking
ratio. i'�rchitect advised decks of the res;i��dential units are the
roof of the commercial space.
Alex Ornstein, property owner, addresse�d Commission: he and the
architect sp�nt a lot of time trying to:xfigure out the maximum and
best use of this property, it is compl''icated because of the slope
of the lot, the city�s parking rec�'uirements and the issue of
handicapped access to the second flo;or commercial which eliminated._._
one parking space. There being no further audience comments in
favor and none ir�,opposition, the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment s.; am in favo�c�' of mixed use, will vote for the
project since it me��ts regulati`ons, would have preferred a height
exception rather thari�:,the buil,�ling as it is designed.
.7
With the statement t�,is site is an eyesore, can understand
applicant�s desire for maximum use of his building, am not opposed
to mixed use but am oppo"�ed to a project which could require a
parking variance within a;�`''�„ew years, C. Jacobs moved for approval
of the special permit arid `�:or adoption of Commission Resolution
Approving Special Permi�s wit�i the following conditions: (1) that
the conditions of th,� City`��Engineer�s January 18, 1988 and
February 17, 1988 memps shall b�`'�, met •( 2) that a building permit
shall not be issued for this���project until the California
Occupational Safety #nd Health Admi�>�nistration has written a letter
stating that the p�oposed lift he�ght shown and as dimensioned
meets the requirements for Title 24 h.,andicapped accessibility and
is considered to b"e safe for that use,•'"x,,and (3) that as built this
structure shall conform to the plans `�submitted to the Planning
Department and ,�'date stamped February �`'��, 1988, and with the
limitation of a�parking ratio of 1:400 and�^��,600 gross square feet
of commercial s�pace on the California Drive`�frontage. Motion was
seconded by Chfn. Giomi . �;�
Comment on t�he motion: have a problem with th� project and with
the motion ;which is trying to second guess futur"� use, no matter
how it is,:�developed there will be an enforcement"�»problem, think
the appli��ant is entitled to the most cost effectiv`� structure he
can bui'd; proposal is a variance waiting to happe.n; applicant
will n ed a variance according to the motion only if it goes to
offi use; this motion is giving the applicant more options;
there is a big difference between one and four parking spaces in a
congested city. Staff noted that if part of the retail space were
used for storage that has a parking requirement also; opposed to
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 6
February 22, 1988
not work, it only makes sense to put the use on the second floor.
There is no prospective tenant at this time, architect did not
feel there would be a problem getting items to be repaired in the
second floor commercial space up the stairs; a commercial elevator
is very expensive. Further comment: possibility of limiting
commercial square footage to 1,600 SF, the initial proposal; staff
suggested if this approach were taken it be based on parking
ratio. Architect advised decks of the residential units are the
roof of the commercial space.
Alex Ornstein, property owner, addressed Commission: he and the
architect spent a lot of time trying to figure out the maximum and
best use of this property, it is complicated because of the slope
of the lot, the city�s parking requirements and the issue of
handicapped access to the second floor commercial w�ich eliminated..__
one parking space. There being no further audience comments in
favor and none in opposition, the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: am in favor of mixed use, will vote for the
project since it meets regulations, would have preferred a height
exception rather than the building as it is designed.
With the statement this site is an eyesore, can understand
applicant�s desire for maximum use of his building, am not opposed
to mixed use but am opposed to a project which could require a
parking variance within a few years, C. Jacobs moved for approval
of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution
Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that
the conditions of the City Engineer's January 18, 1988 and
February 17, 1988 memos shall be met; (2) that a building permit
shall not be issued for this project until the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration has written a letter
stating that the proposed lift height shown and as dimensioned
meets the requirements for Title 24 handicapped accessibility and
is considered to be safe for that use; and (3) that as built this
structure shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped February 5, 1988, and with the
limitation of a parking ratio of 1:400 and 1,600 gross square feet
of commercial space on the California Drive frontage. Motion was
seconded by Chm. Giomi.
Comment on the motion: have a problem with the project and with
the motion which is trying to second guess future use, no matter
how it is developed there will be an enforcement problem, think
the applicant is entitled to the most cost effective structure he
can build; proposal is a variance waiting to happen; applicant
will need a variance according to the motion only if it goes to
office use; this motion is giving the applicant more options;
there is a big difference between one and four parking spaces in a
congested city. Staff noted that if part of the retail space were
used for storage that has a parking requirement also; opposed to
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 1988
�
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL PROJECT
AT 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE. ZONED C-2
,
Reference staff report, 2/22/88, with attachmen��s�. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the project, applicant�s pro�.�ised lift to meet
handicapped accessibility requirements, staf review, Planning
staff comment, applicant�s letter, study meet' g questions. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration the public hearing.
During discussion staff noted CP and C share a concern about
heavy service commercial use on the se nd floor of this project
with a 1:800 parking ratio, the secon floor may not be the most
accessible for service repair type u s, if this use were changed
to retail commercial a parking ariance would, be required.
Commission coihment: there will be built-in parking variance with
this project, concern about hea commercial use on the second
floor, applicant will be bac for more auto intensive uses,
proposed use is not compatible ith residential.
Responding to Commission
differs from the initial
been increased and use
spaces are required, �t
uses; if this site wer
15' from California Dri
will not be built t� �
converted in future �ec
future tenants weref to
business they would,�'�need
q stions, staff advised this proposal
�l n in that floor area above parking has
i s been changed so that fewer parking
ill be up to the city to enforce the
zoned R-2 the structure could be placed
; the residential portion of the project
ndominium standards and could not be
i e of the small number of units; if
us the commercial garage space for a
� v iance and use permit.
Chm. Giomi opened,�the public h aring. Stan Panko, architect, was
present. He adv'ised the prope y owner considered retail use on
the second floor�, finding a retai outlet that could fully utilize
the second fldor would be diffic lt, it seemed that a service
oriented rep��r type operation w'ch did not rely on street
traffic coulc� use a second floor sp ce as long as there was no
heavy equipment; he felt this would be good use for the area; in
order to ga'in additional floor area, go' g to this use and 1:800
parking ra�io made sense; property owner ' aware that his choice
of tenant� will be limited; since the lift ill only be available
for hand�`capped people, equipment will have o be carried up the
stairs.J Regarding Commissioner concern about cks over occupied
units, /�architect commented deck would have to e waterproofed,
this a#�d drainage would be addressed in the final ans.
Conc,ern was �•
expressed about the design and difficulty �n enforcing
tl�e'�use. Commission inquired about the possibility �qf putting
retail space on the ground floor and parking elsewhere;°�rchitect
stated they could not get maximum grade on driveway°., slope,
attempting to put parking and retail space on the same floor would
� k
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 1988
7
the project, structure itself is too imposing and do not like
decks over office or housing units, have seen too many of them
leak and cause water problems.
Motion was approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. S.Graham voting
no, Cers Garcia and Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
_. . __...._.__._,_.�...:..___
_--•�- "`Recess 9:15 P.M. ; reconvene 9:23 P.M.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR NNIS
CLASSES ON A ROOFTOP TENNIS COURT AT 405 PRIMROS ROAD,
Refer nce staff report, 2/22/88, with attachment� CP Monroe.___
review details of this request to allow tennis classes on the
rooftop ourt and allow the lights on the court remain on until
10:00 P. . She discussed staff review, re ew of the office
building a d rooftop tennis court in 1977 applicant�s letter,
study meeti g questions. Five conditio were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. the request is denied
staff suggeste the original conditi s of approval for this
building be reco ded with the title fo future reference.
Responding to Comm'ssion questions CA advised if this request is
denied the original conditions w ld stand, there is no basis on
which to change the original onditions; CP confirmed if this
building were construct d toda 50 on-site parking spaces would be
required plus additional spac s for the tennis class use.
Chm. Giomi opened the pub c hearing. John Reed, tennis pro and
applicant, was present. His comments: tennis classes are
controlled and not nois , he s been teaching tennis classes for
a number of years, th e are w professionals in this area who
teach the general pub ic, this w ld give the city an opportunity
to have a good year ound teachin program. He presented photos
of the area taken e ery other day to support his contention there
are available par ng spaces; based o his experience in retail,
he would want pa ing spaces filled, em ty spaces limit business;
noise will be k t down to a teaching 1 el, he rarely teaches a
group of four, classes are mainly one r two; he lives five
minutes away om the site so could ride `k�is bike and save one
parking space� '�
Commission/�plicant discussion: none of the ictures submitted
were taken;.'at noon, applicant stated he did co e by the area at
11:50 A.M,�'* and never had trouble finding a pace; generally
classes w�fll be held no more than four to six hour a day, he does
not teacY�� from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. , probably uld not teach
at 7:00 A.M. but some businessmen might like a class t that hour;
during daylight savings time the lights would not be�-,needed, the
�
��
I:
, ,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 8
February 22, 1988 .
lights '"1do not spill off the court, he did not believe they ,;would
affect rlearby residential sites and the area is mostly commercial;
he does ot teach as much in winter and does not teach the month
of Decem�er. Applicant was aware of the limitation fon hours
included '`�in staff's suggested conditions, he state�he would
prefer the°,�permit to extend the hours 7:00 A.M. to 1�:00 P.M. and
if there w�re problems he would reduce them; he is�A°'familiar with
the city, h�s been in sports all his life, an e,�-partner had a
shop down th� street so he was aware of the ten��is courts on the
roof of this 'zbuilding; he had difficulty findi, �g time to use the
courts where li� previously taught so looked �found for something
close to home; '1;the high school and recreatip''n department are the
only good courts'��,in the city; his classes a�e from one-half to one
hour, two peopl��k at the most, rarely fc�ur; with a four member
class he would suc��est they carpool to the site. _ .._
Speaking in favor,.'# Alan Horn, 1325,'`Paloma Avenue, one of the
owners of the 405 �rimrose buildings commenting on the Traffic
Sgt.�s statement that'�the 300 block`of Primrose and 1400 block of
Chapin are the heaviesthimpacted in the city, he pointed out their
building is located in� the 400 block of Primrose, it is less
impacted; if the two nev� parking lots are developed by the city
there will be more availa�,�le parking; his tenants know they have
access to the tennis coui��ts but it is not written into their
leases; access to.the courts; is by the elevator and the front and
back stairs, every tenant ha���, a key to the stairs, not all have a
key to the elevator; a key foi,the stairs could be made available
to the instructor and a key for.4the elevator to be used only when
classes are being held. The or�ly change from the original 1977
conditions would be in the use`�of the tennis courts; property
owners did not go looking for this���:business, the opportunity just
presented itself. `�
Commission noted two changes in the ar,ea since the 1977 approval:
on-site parking regulations have chang�`�d and available on-street
parking has become worse. ''
Speaking in opposition, Maury Cohn, owner�``�of the property at 401
Primrose Road: when this building was app�ioved in 1977 he was
opposed to the tennis court, with this propo�al it may be used a
great deal more, concerned about tennis ball��,,which land on the
roof of 401 Primrose, there is only one drain f�om the roof which
could beco�ie clogged; he wished to go on record `�in opposition to
this app�.dication. In rebuttal, applicant comment`�;d the property
owners �S`f 405 Primrose have extended the fence on th� 401 Primrose
side to keep tennis balls in. There were no furt'�her audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Wi'th the statement she is sorry there is a tennis court which is
underused but she cannot support the application, the parking
situation is very bad, she works in the area every day and Gannot
,r
P.C. 2/22/88
Item #
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL
PROJECT AT 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE. ZONED C-2
Stan Panko, representing the property owner, is requesting a
special permit in order to build a mixed use multiple residential
and commercial building at 852 Edgehill, zoned C-2 (Code Sec. 25.
36.030-1). The residential portion of the project consists of two
2-bedroom units facing Edgehill. The residential portion of the
project will have access off Edgehill to four at-grade parking
spaces in 20' x 20� garages. The commercial portion of the
project consists of 2,500 SF of floor area above parking accessed
only from California Drive. There are four parking spaces
provided, the minimum number for service commercial use such as
machine repair shops. Any more intensive service use such as
beauty/barber shop or retail use would require more parking.
To meet the handicapped accessibility requirements the applicant
has included a 36" x 48" lift. This facility would only be
available for handicapped people to use. Because a lift rather
than an elevator is proposed the applicant needs to get approval
from both the Office of the State Architect and the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CAL-OSHA). Verbal
consent from the State Architect�s office has been given the Chief
Building Inspector. However, the applicant is awaiting a letter
from CAL-OSHA confirming that the lift as proposed will meet the
handicapped requirements for this project.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed the project plans as revised February 5,
1988. The Fire Marshal (January 26, 1988 and January 19, 1988
memos) had no comments. The Chief Building Inspector (January 26,
1988 and January 25, 1988 memos) comments on the proposed
elevator/lift and its compliance with Title 24 handicapped
requirements. These comments led to discussions with the State
Architect�s office and CAL-OSHA and the need for a letter from
CAL-OSHA determining the acceptability of this lift. A lift is
proposed in this case because it does not require a penthouse
above the top floor served. In this case a penthouse would be
located so that it blocks the main entrance to the two residential
units facing Edgehill. The problem is the subject of the Chief
Building Inspector�s second (January 25, 1988) memo.
The City Engineer (January 18, 1988 and January 25, 1988 memos)
also comments on the location of the proposed elevator penthouse
(see Chief Building Inspector above) and the size of the elevator
as it relates to Title 24 requirements. (Note: The applicant has
' � �
�
addressed the size issue by selecting a lift with a door on
opposite sides at each floor so that the handicapped person does
not have to turn around but can simply move through the lift from
one floor to the next.) These are items being reviewed by CAL-
OSHA. He notes also that doors cannot open across property lines.
Finally the City Engineer calls out the fact that in the initial
plans submitted the commercial area was 1,620 SF designated for
retail use meeting on site a parking requirement of 1:400 or five
spaces. In the January-February, 1988 revisions the commercial
space has increased to 2,500 SF supported by four parking spaces
at a parking ratio of 1:800. The 1:800 parking ratio is that
required for service commercial uses such as "repair shops,
machine shops or any shop engaged in repairing, testing,
manufacturing or processing materials or products" (Code Sec.
25.70.030-i). These uses are permitted in the C-2 zone. However,
retail and service uses of the C-1 zone also permitted in the C-2
zone would be prohibited on this site in any portion of this 2,500
SF commercial area without a substantial parking variance. The
City Engineer states in his comments policing of use consistent
with parking could be a problem, particularly since the heavy
commercial uses allowed would not be as compatible as the
retail/personal service uses with the residential uses in the same
building. Planning staff agrees with the observations on
commercial use by the City Engineer and also would point out the
second floor may not be the most accessible, therefore viable,
location for service repair type of uses.
Applicant's Letter
In their letter of September 16, 1987 the architect points out
that the commercial use on California has its own parking accessed
only from California. Moreover there is enough space within the
garage to allow a car to exit in a forward direction. The two
residential units have their own entry and vehicular access off
Edgehill. He points out that there is a 25' change in grade from
the front of this lot on Edgehill to the rear on California Drive
(90.5' in length). He feels that this project removes an
"eyesore" and replaces it with uses in character with each of the
frontages - residential on Edgehill and commercial on California.
Moreover the parking requirements of both uses are met
independently on the site.
Study Ouestions
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at study on
January 25, 1988 (Planning Commission Minutes, January 25, 1988).
Several questions were asked. The zoning code (Code Sec.
25.36.030-1) requires a special or conditional use permit for any
residential use in the C-2 zone. It goes on to state that any
residential use built must meet the district standards for that
use, e.g., front, side, rear setbacks, height, parking, etc. The
3
project as proposed includes a duplex (two units) and meets the
setback and physical standards of the R-2 zoning district.
The total height of the proposed structure as measured from the
top of curb on the California Drive frontage is 44�-3". However,
as designed, assuming the front of the lot to be on Edgehill, the
height of the building is about 20 �, well within the 30 � allowed
by the code and meeting the 20 � height allowed for lots with 25�
or more slope away from the street. The rear of the residential
structure is about 44� above the top of curb at California Drive.
This would be the case even if there were no commercial use. The
difference between this project and a single use apartment
development is that the facade of the commercial portion of the
building comes to the property line on California Drive. This
creates a 24� wall along the California frontage. It should be
noted that in the C-1 zone lot line to lot line development is
allowed. However, in the proposed project the residential uses do
meet the 15' rear setback requirement of the R-2 code since they
are 15� from the rear property line and have a deck within this
area so that residential tenants can use the 15� rear setback as
private open space.
The zoning code does not place a minimum on the number of
residents in a dwelling unit unless rooms are being rented
separately; then the limit is three persons (Code 5ec. 25.28.020-
5). The State of California has by legislation preempted the
maximum of three to six in the case of individuals who are
elderly, retarded, juveniles, disabled or recovering from
alcoholism. Day care operations of up to 12 children on site for
less than 24 hours a day are also allowed in residential zones by
state law preemption.
Plannina Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action
should be clearly stated and any supporting facts from the staff
report incorporated by reference. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the conditions of the City Engineer�s January 18, 1988
memo shall be met;
2. that a building permit shall not be issued for this project
until the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has written a letter stating that the
proposed lift height shown and as dimensioned meets the
requirements for Title 24 handicapped accessibility and is
considered to be safe for that use; and
4
3. that as built this
submitted to the
February 5, 1988.
iV w
Mar aret Mon oe �
g x
City Planner
MM/s
structure shall conform to the plans
Planning Department and date stamped
CC: Stan Panko/Michael Kastrop, Panko Architects
Alex Ornstein & Lyud Mila Oks
� PROJECT APPLICATION •c�'°���TM °� 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT �RLJNGAME iproject addre55
� pro�ect name - if any
Application received ( g/17/87 ) �"'�"'""~'
Staff review/acceptance ( 1/18/88 �
1. APPLICANT Al ex Ornstei n
name telephone �o.
Panko Ar hi e �� 7(lfl C'1 aramnp,j- Suite 200. San Mateo
applicant s address: street, city, zip code C A 9 4 4 0 2
Stan Panko or Michael Kastro� 579-5877
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Perr�it (X ) Variance* () Condominium Permit () Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SPECIAL PERMIT to construct a mixed use �ro.iect consistina of
two residential units frontinq on Edaehill Dri�re and commercial
space frontinq on California �Jrive. The residential nortion of_ _
the project will consist of two 2-bedroom units. The commercial
space will consist of 2,500 SF of seruice shop space on the
second floor with arkin on the round floor. Residential uses
in a commercia zone are conditional uses.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): (25.36.030-1) (
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
( 029-022-070 )
APN
( C-2 )
zoning district
( 12 ) ( 1
lot no. block no.
( 4,525
land area, square feet
(Burlin�ame Terrace �lo. 2
subdivision name
`Ale.x Ornstein & Lyud Mila Oks 150 ,Font__StxGet �t�iK
land owner's name ��� � address �
5an Franciseo, CA 94132
Reouired Date received city �'�i zip code
(�e� (no) ( — ) Proof of ownership
�) (�$ � ( _ ,) Owner's consent to a�plication
5. EXISTIPJG SITE CONDITIONS
Abandoned sin�le famil�� residPn.e
Ren,uired Date received
(Ye5 ) �� (.2 /.:� /8� )
�YeS) �►�) � �� )
(YeS) d�a) ( " )
(yes) (no) ( )
(otner) (9/17/87 )
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of us�`'on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
Letter
*Land use classifications are: residential (sho�v # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
(*) COMMERCIAL - 6• PROJECT PR�P�SAL (*) P,ESI�JFNTIAL
2,500 SF) Proposed consiruction, 3elova orade ( _ SP) Second floor 2�Q19SF)
9ross floor area First floor ( 2�1 h 3 SF) Third floor ( SF)
**4 pkg spaces for residential
4 pkg spaces for commercial
Pr�,lect Cod�
Pr000sal Requircros�nt
Front setback ' �5' min.
Side setback - -
Side y�rd 4' �]' Q.' /5'
R�ar yarcl I ].5' ��].5' min.
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
�ot co�er�;�e 4° . 7% 50% mdX .
e�,;i:���� hei�ht 2�' ;5' max.
La^dscaoed area - -
nn �1 tP qko.Sn,jce�. L �** � ��`* i
v
0
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
EXISTIN6 IPI 2 YEARS
after � after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full time employees on site
Part time employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
_�
� �
�_
�_
�_
IN 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent lot�, S.P. ri ht of wa across
California Drive. This use conforms to the General Plan.
Required Date received
(Y�) (na) ( - )
(J�) (no) ( - )
Location plan of adjacent properties.
Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) , no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. company vehicles at this location ( )
8. fEES Special Permit, all districts $100 (X ) Other application type, fee $ ()
Uariance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 (X)
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 (X )
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ (
TOTAL FEES $ 15�.00 RECEIPT N0. l��lg Received by �.Gandolfi
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correc� to, the best of.my knowledge and belief.
� " � � y �r �
Signature ' F k � �= � ' Date % �'
Applicant
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. Nn-�oo�
The �ity of Burlingame by P�ARGARET MOnJROE o� JANUARY 18 , 1988,
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( X ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( X ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
CITY PLANNER
Title
��� ���
Dai:e� gned
=xecuted at 3urlinoame, California on � ' �� , 19 v�
Ap�ealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
, _ , i��� i
JU T . MALFATTI, CITY CLERK, ��'' uURLINGADiE
Reasons for a Conclusion: I1litldl Study revea1ed imnroper drainage and
unstable soil conditions to be the only potential significant impacts of t e
development. Soi1s report submitted outlines con itions to mitiga e any po en ia
environmental effects of development due to drainage or soi1 con itions. s ong
repgrt�e�here �t�� ��e�-�����eUenv�er�men�a�re��m�m���,a ions o s i s
Unless ap�ealed within 10 days hereof the c�ate oosted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATIO^J OF POSTIMG Dai;e Posted: •� 9 � �/ g�
-- �
I declare under penalty of per.jiary i:nat I ar� City Clerk f the City of Burlingame and that
I oosted a true copy of the above Neqati��e Declaration a� the City Hall of said Cit,y near
the doors to iha Council Chambers.
STAFF REVI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
City Engineer
Building Inspector
Fi re Marshal
Park Department
City Attorney
date 1rc ted
`��Y
� �'�?.S%� �
�Z— Y 88 �
i " )
� — )
� _ )
reply received
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY Of STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASUP,ES
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
Concerns Mitigation Measures
Does the project comply with Request comments from the Fire
all Fire and Bui�ding Code Marshal and Chief Bui1ding
requirements? Inspector.
The commercial space on the Attach condition limiting
California side provides only commercial uses to shop uses
enough parking for shop type only and no office uses.
uses. bJill pressures to use
this space for office or
other uses create parking
problems for the cit.y?
3. CEQA REQUIREMEPITS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? S22 l�eqati ve �ecl arati on ND-400P
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 period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
4. APPLICATION STATUS a.� Date first received (9/17/87 )
Accepted as complete: no( )�tXBOf to a�pli ant advising info. required (JQ 5$] )
Yes( X) date 1/ 1 g� 8� P.C. study (1/25/88 �
Is application ready for a public hearing? l(yes) (no) Recommended date (<?/y l�' $)
ro.wj • T�.
Date staff report mailed � aopl icant ( x+('1� �8 ) Date Commission hearingi( �/� �%� �)
C � +� � G d tl ? /j;' (
Application approved (w�) Denied ( ) l�iea�--�o Council yes (no)
Date Council hearing ( �,� / / �j g ) Apolication approved ( ) Denied ( )
� ✓� N� � • ?.�`�8
signe date
��.2 .,�-�y�, ��/ pP��.� b� �� � q��
INITIAL STUDY:
The Initial Study determined that the project, as proposed, will not cause any of the
��llowing effects:
N(7 i. Contlict with adopted environmental p7ans and goals of the community where
it is located; �
J�Q 2. Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect;
/jf� 3. Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or
the habitat of :;he species;
�� 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species;
11%� 5. Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid waste
or litter control;
/V� 6 ,
i►/� 7 •
j�/� 8'
e1/D g •
/1/� 10 .
S�bstantially degrade water quality;
Contaminate a public water supply;
Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources;
Interfere substantially with ground water recharge:
Disrupt or alter an archaeological site over 200 years old, an historic
site or a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study of
the site;
�j/Q :11� Induce substantial growth or concentration of population;
�Q 12 , Ca,!se an i ncrease i n traffi c whi ch i s substanti al i n rel ati on i:o tr�e eXl S��i Pi j
traffic load and capacity of the street system;
SYO 13.
ND 14 .
/I�l� 15 .
/1/� 16 .
/�aybe l�.
��Jbe�s.
�/p 19 .
/v0 20 .
/1%D 21.
�� 22 .
�?JD 2 3 .
o�( 24.
Displace a large number of.people.
Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel
or energy;
Use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner;
Tncrease substantially the ambient no�se levels for adjoinirig areas;
Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation;
Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards;
Extend a sewer trunk line with capacit,y to serve new development;
Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants;
Disrupt or divide the physical arranyement of an established community;
Create a public health hazard or a potential public health hazard;
Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific
uses of the area; �
Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrat�ons.
■
Architects/Planners
60 East 7-hird Avenue
San Mateo, Californie 9 1�901
� 15 34� 717t'
September 16, 1987
Mrs. Margaret Monroe
City Planner
The City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Re: Mixed Use Project
852 Edgehill Drive
Burlingame, California
Dear Mrs. Monroe:
� � � � � � � �
sEP :�. r ���%
Ci i �r Ur' �Uat_?�+!r��h,x-; -
,..:.; :.
The project as submitted is a mixed use project with com mercial
(office) use on the California Drive side and residential use on
the Edgehill Drive side.
The com mercial use has its own related covered parking with entry
and exit onto California Drive. The parking garage has ample
turning space to allow a vehicle to drive forward when exiting.
The residential use consisting of just two (2) units has its own
entry and garage fronting on Edgehill Drive.
This very difficult site with a difference in grade elevation of
25' in only 90.5' of depth from California Drive to Edgehill
Drive has been an "eyesore" in Burlingame for a number of years.
The proposed project maintains the character and streetscape of
both sides of the site and provides the required on-site parking
and setback requirements for each use. We urge the Planning
Com mission to look favorably on this project.
Very truly yours,
RCH.
Prin
J � G�imbi�nger, A.I.A.
PJG/jlh
(87135)
;„ ;
�r,:,�;icy �. i ::;,;,�,, ��.!.li.
Niles S. Tanakatsubo. A.I.A.
J. Blake Mason, A./.A.
.. y �§i;.r�,it+ y6 �. ;:M,;v . . ,
�
�t `r �
� • '
� � � � . _ � - . .
_ .i
� . DATE .' � �'�UG�! 2� � / U
� � :MEMO� T0: � CITY ENGINEER
-�CHIEF BUILDING I PECTOR
``FIRE MARSHAL �
DIRECTOR OF.PARKS
FROM ' `'' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: (�S � .�- GL�E'G�, /�
_�
,
` ���c�i'f�'o ✓� p� /%%,
,
An apPlication has been received for the above
,
��Planning Commiss;ion. The application will be
'; ' ----,
at tf '
' �s�.P
�_
��oT�Cf-
project for review by the
scheduled for S�7JGl
�eir rN/� �S � meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by �a � �s /fv�
Thank you.
'lo : L.,q-,��� � G
. �M �. ��
_ . . - �,
' ', b �b►h h fL ti% -S
F=:� N
I- Z6 -��
..: , .
- �:
Y
�..
n�
: i ' •
S .
�
"rl �.'tP i.� . � . �. .
'-:l� � � ' . . � . � .
� �4�i
�-/�v�
A�
V
l
� DATE ��G`% Is I ��
-'MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING NSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
' DIRECTOR OF.PARKS
FROM:�'� '` PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: /f� O�L�yr/,1/ �
� �D � i'�Y �
�
An appl�cation has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. 7he aoplication will be scheduled for S}U
at their a�{J Z s/�� meeting. We would appreciate having
your corr�nents by �s?{/' / % / ��
Thank you.
�� �b
� � �� �
�-- �q ��
. Y ` n.�
,��.�
..� ��L
:f "
�
, � +�
,,
�' �
a} �
� �i`�7
/
��
.�Y Y, 7 k4.rl . !;'�Y?M{- `i �..� t
� ta
,i ,
i �, � ';'��_ � .
L
i ' '
�
� DATE � �'l(/AiI 2� � � �
MEMO TO � CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR� /
FIRE MARSHAL �
DIRECTOR OF.PARKS
FROM '�'"' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
, SUBJECT: (�S � �G�e`G�I� .
�
- ���/. �� �o •� � �,;�
An`ap�lication has been received for the above
� f r+;
( Y
r ��
�-/�v4
— �/f P
��ID ��C�'�'
project for review by the
Planning Commiss;ion. The application will be scheduled for S�lJGI
�� � —
, � --�
at their Gtrl{/�G� �S ��n��'' meeti ng. We
your corr�nents by �--a � �s /f�
Thank you. �G , �/ _ ��t ��
� a1 h ,r i ��� e_/'
/
' C: G� %� %r1�
�
would appreciate having
�-� � �� �
_ �, .. �
/ �9 J�J//. �/�
�/�ir�yJt�lvt L�ia� U��G CYJ �/Q �1`/!(' �� ��G//aai� �1�:.��� �.
- � � . /
' � �.�`/ � � % rt i� �f .S f� 'J' � / lo i n L�r S . G�O L i'� cf �d `�
J � �
�
y� p^ .
�j � '; �/G'd �'t !1/ t.-� >_•., �� ,� p� ,,�OG� /' 0 / yr l• �� `� �
U �
, � j
; -
;:; .
.r f
, j-: '� "
.� 4 . � � I' � .
,•'' ' _ � � , .
�" •
4.�.
� ': Y ,,'. . -
�.
�
Ga„�e�J
{ }
�i��Y���;��'', . � � ' � . ,
�ti.� _ ' ; . . . , .
�
i
��� DATE ,,�1�(/ar/i IS /�� .
- MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER - /
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR V
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM:""� ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�
SUBJECT: /,j' �G� d7 /��2'�i' GlQ
� o �2 � P��
.
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The aoplication will be scheduled for S}Z/
-- ���
at their QrXI Z,S �`/8 meeting. We would appreciate having
your corr�nents by Q�-!�(/' /�/ j� /
/ _�%-� �
Thank y0u. �(} �� �/d Y/� ��2 �f -/ '
�
: / /� , , / �� ��,�;y r� .�,
.v�. /���/ ��y �
�C h� h�, c� ,v / -s .
�
. _ . - �-�� � s //Y'o / �S'�o c� �o� � /'.o � �� i
�;, LaS �.f'�6�, � .
�� � /j ,! /
� �
���, ,�� ,k o c c S f' � �l' c� /<.?" ,� /�C /� �iti� r'/ i � y /`'/� � ; �a
•�. . lG U� �� !'� ��
�
fj'a' / �d � �
� � �'
t ,��.�-,
.'ti1 :i . . . .
�
Y
y � . . . ' � ���
k.i M 1
;i
�:'ly... _ . . .
�1'- : . :..:,, .
N`- .
i � . . .. � .. . .
4
DATE: .11nl/4�% IS I �� �
`� MEMO'T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL _
DIRECTOR OF.PARKS
FROM:�T� ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' ��
` .
SUBJECT: /,S' �L�yr/�j/ �f j`i2� G%LQQ
, o �2 -� P�i �
. �
:1 An ap�lication has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for s}T1
at tiieir Ct�?�fJ �,s /�� meeting. We would appreciate having
your corrIInents by ��-l�(/' / % / j�
x Thank you.
� �/ � /� �
� � /" �� �
i��� �
�• � ���' y
- . �c �A�
' % .. �
-' , . - � . �./�.�0� /�l�=G etif/ f� L��-Z�� /' '"_�
- /`^' / �' � � , ` '�
.. , .. i/� /G/� � ,v����j�+ �
. : � � ���e f� �����
� �. �- ��� � � � .
� �" � � ��<!
.� l..% ����/ %G� � 4
,.:: G� -
% % ��
;, �.�.;r.;,�,° 2 �f/�-G� G�� �'1"h _.__--�� �G���
� ����
�i��LL��%�v �' �� �'�1�
��� � �.
�� ���� �
, ������ _ .
- � ��� c C���� .
, � �� t,�� � .
��,�j �'��� ,� � ��
���` /"� n
�� G��d � ��6� C.c �C'G2�-�
f ,, ��� _ y�� QY ����� ���
�� � ��'� �, �`��
�, , �s � G�'�� , z
��� ��,� � ,� � - , .
� i�
€ �s�t,n ��4�' y`� � E'� �y
'i �` �
t °� � � .
�, { .
�l �, r � A f !. 1 f -: . . .
..ti
1
a � ' , : � � .. � � � '.
DATE :. . � �a�! ` 2� I �
,,
' -".MEMO TO: �. CITY ENGINEER
'_ �CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAC-
,
DIRECTOR OF.PARKS
FROM ' "" PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. SUBJECT: (�S � .� e`G�I�
, �
� r�Gc%�i�. �f� •o .�. � �, �
�
,
,
-._An-`ap�lication has been received for the above
- ���v� �L_
,.
,f-�/- vsP ��.i�o
project for review by the
� P1 a nni ng Commi ss;i on. The appl i cati on wi 11 be sc hed ul ed for .57�7/Gl
�
at their � rkj� �s � meeti ng. WE
your comments by �a � 2S /��
Thank you.
,_..� ��
,., �,6 , �
fL�i-i�i�%
J
` �
- . <�� ,; - �1�'i�7�1'//.� �'
_ .. _ __ �
%�`�Cx� �E:%�E%lI �� ' — " /
would appreciate having
l �Tis ��
�/ i`A�—��7�2:e� �s�
7� G." �
�
� ��� .�
��� �
��
, ._.
' � `� : � � ��
L �
6
�'
�t., ':
` :Sy;(��.�,�.''�'�
� ��
d ,/ {�.�Z�����...� . .
, ✓_
�
� �i; •,
F'
. .' � . i..
!� S .'
, y( .
,
� �,
. . �;. � _
���
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 12
January 25, 1988
January 18, 1988 and January 11, 1988 memos and the City
Engineer's January 18, 1988 and January 4, 1988 memos shall be
met• (2) that this bus/limousine business shall be operated 24
hour a day, seven days a week with no more tha.n 14 vehicles
store and dispatched from this site and that �o more than 19
vehic s shall be serviced on the site; (3��f� that repair or
servici g of vehicles as allowed in B-1 occup��cy shall be done at
this lo tion; all other servicing, inciden��l or heavy, shall be
done off hese premises; (4) that there��shall be no more than
three full ime employees who stay on:�he site all day and no
employees sha 1 stay on the site 24 c��secutive hours or live on
this site; (5) hat employees who dr'�ie vehicles shall park in the
space where the mpany vehicle is�tored while they are out with
the company vehicl in no case all company vehicles be parked
on the public stree or on a�'acent private property; (6) that
vehicular access to a from �his site shall be limited to Lang
Road and the access ea mer�►t"� to Beach Road at the rear of the
property, providing the a licant can document the right to use
this easement for egress;,;,-( that any change to these conditions
shall require amendmen to t's use permit prior to the changes
being instituted on t�ite; ( that this use shall be reviewed
for consistency wit �these condi 'ons in six months (July, 1988)
and each year ther after or upon- mplaint and any violation of
these conditions, hall result in i�ediate review and possible
revocation of t use permit; and ( 9) hat a power gate and wood
slats shall added to the fence, d the fence shall be
maintained b��the operator. Second C. Gar 'a.
Motion was,�"approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Ce Ellis, Harrison,
Jacobs v ing no. Appeal procedures were advise .
FROM E FLOOR '`��,,
Th re were no public comments.
Recess-10:30 P.M.; reconvene 10:40 P.M.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
6. SPECIAL PERMIT - MIXED USE PROJECT - 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE
equests: clarification of zoning requirements; what is height on
�' California Drive; number of residents allowed. Item set for
public hearing February 8, 1988 if the matter of the elevator is
resolved with staff.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1988
Mr. Lavenstein advised he owns the 33' wide egress
Jerry Deal commented further: he has seen large semis ba
large truck bays, what is so different or detrimental a;
buses; it would be an extremely rare occasion when ��
space on the site for a car to park, when a vehicle ,,�is
there is.. another parking space available; don�t be]�.ev�
will cau�e a problem, there is a problem in the,� are
should th� prospective tenant have to pay a pena�y wh�
tenants ar� not using the area properly themselve_�
11
e�sement.
�ing into
out large
�re is no
taken out
this use
now but
n present
There were nQ further audience comments and the�`public hearing was
closed. . r'
Commission dis�ussion/comment: CP explained�'that outdoor storage
is what trigge d this special permit app cation, trucking uses
are allowed in�,,he M-1 zone; she also dis ussed her rewording of
condition #6 rega ding vehicular access; t� ere was a concern about
employee parking d the incidental re air work applicant finds
necessary on site, upport the recomme dations and conditions of
staff relative to pair work, appli nt has said he cannot do
business with those onditions, woul.� only be in favor of the
application if they we e included. ��
C. Harrison moved to deri� the specyal permit application. Second
C. Jacobs. Comment on �he motion: am not concerned about this
type of business, vehicle '�,ctivity will occur throughout the day;
am concerned about the inci ent�l maintenance, vehicles being on
site much of the time and ve is�`le movement, this location is too
small, if on a large site wo`ld be in favor, the area in back
doesn�t look good now; had,�°Fs e concerns but they have been
addressed by the applicant,�with regular review and review upon
complaint this business can be coi`�trolled, there are many hotels
in the bayshore area with a need f�r this type of service; a lot
of businesses with heavy traffic impa�� could go in here without a
use permit; noted a semi on the aeria'� photograph but buses can
drive in at Lang Road and drive out at`��Beach, not as much of a
problem as semis, this is a needed busS�.,�ess service; area was
developed for a nice M-1 area, this use �is not compatible with
plans for the area; Commission does not ���eally know how the
business will work out but the applicant s'�hould be given an
opportunity to prove himself.
Motion to deny failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers.Garcia, Giomi,
H.Graham, S.Graham dissenting. '�
C. H.Graham .:moved for approval of the special permit and for
adoption of �Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with
the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal�s January 18, 1988 memo, the Chief Building Inspector�s
. ,
T0: City Planner
FROM: Planner - A. Garefalos
SUBJECT: 852 Edgehill Drive - Measurement of Height
DATE: December 21, 1987
Per Code Section 25.08.340, the height of a building is
defined as the vertical distance between average top of
curb and the highest edge of a gable, hip or shed roof or
top of parapet. This definition of height is very
straight forward for the typical lot which is relatively
level and fronts on only one street. The situation with
852 Edgehill Drive is that it fronts on two streets
(Edgehill and California) and it has a 24 percent slope,
so the height varies depending on what street is used as
the frontage and thus the basis for measurement (average
top of curb).
Per Code Section 25.36.060, all building regulations,
restrictions and limitations relating to dwelling units
in R districts apply to dwelling units in C districts.
Therefore, eventhough one structure contains both uses,
the residential portion of the project is reviewed
independently of the commercial. In the situation with
852 Edgehill, the residential and commercial uses are
designed to stand independently of each other, and in
addition, they front off of and have access from different
streets (residential fronts on Edgehill and commercial
fronts on California).
Therefore, if the commercial and residential are looked
at independently in terms of height, from Edgehill Drive
the height of the residential will be about 2v' and from
California Drive the height of the commercial will be
about 24'. However, if the commercial and residential are
looked at together, from average top of curb on California
Drive to peak of roof of residential, which is about 15 feet
back from the property line on California Drive, height will
be about 44'-3". It should be noted that if the commercial
portion of the project was removed, the residential portion
would meet the code requirements for height since from average
top of curb on Edgehill,height would only be about 24' and
the California side would be considered the rear, in which
case height would not be measured from this side.
, � ' I . I`I _ � �', gVI � ♦� _''�� �. . .,
Y ;�R' . 1 . . , . , � .
. � _. . . ,. . . j ; t ._ � ' 1
,-:w4 �� * is �,'
� .�t ` ; a ' �. . �• - ` +
. . -- ` . � A � �r � � ,.
•,; �
.
` V I ' .. r . ... ' • *y ., �
� � � - . �� ;:{.. � f , �y �"
, ' 1� � � aA• '� � � � -F �
� " x
_ ' x�
° � .� 4 '� - � � �,
1 y� '��'�a �. _ � � �t, . „i , � , i � ,t,.��,
.: � v � �� �^ t" ..
y� i .w�� „4 `�� i :,
- � '
� R � " b �
' =Y yI �r F�� j-� af ,
-�—�--'�"' �� �� '� : � t�
�`.� _ •'_ � � � � i� � � �` �+ ,z�
� � r �'1! �
. � '�, _., �'q' � � ��
� . �� � � �� �
� �. ���,d .
� �_ � � � � �� �,,�� , �� � �
� � �. � :; { � -�. � � �,. � �
� �� _ , �� t. � � �� , �. _ ,:� � : �.: _
� - , ,,,:,., �� � �� �� §
� � ,; ; ,� �, � �..,,� . . � ra,..
� � ,�i:� f' '�� .1:� ;s. -�, �.
» '��� .s }' r,o `� � � � �. �, � 't
� ���' ; s �r � !r .,. ��,i ryA i j Y �
4 j_���yr �-+'+'� i. .,l. * .� ��s+r� �. ��� I�' `t
� „+� < . :�S�s:>.> e ` * � . 4 � _; � S i. � ��r � ., � � �, ' a.- ' ._w` _� -r
$ A �f ��,. � � .. � * 1*• �?�,{,.aritb. .'�'��. ` Mi. . _
�' 4� ( ''• � '.� � •� ��S ��.' �d ~� , � .�
1 r . . . ,��
� �t-
b$ .- . 4"Y�_ � x
�� ti;R � . ' _ _., ��'. F �r� ��'� � _
, . •. � ' � � � . � � � 'A �
,�i - -,�;, . �` "-s � �� �4
r - � _ • � ,.. , _ - ' ` :..,�,� '�' �
p �p,�.`.�`�'�'^� � ._ 1�i �.. � ` ' :r 7�i�Vsj A+.'ii � -- � .
r � � � � � ,lr��: r � �
.. .. ,�: • , -. � ~� . .,
�i .. � �; �.-� . � ! . ' -
�C �1:� � ��r � � � �� � ��l�r ��� ,1.�' j `1�
.� y
�X. � _ � ' . , �. � � ' i.
i. : 1 /
, � ,�" y ,;�-� T '•1�
� �� �.�♦'I . � 4= � '
�� ux �
� .y. , � � � ` � �'j„6 (e^ � �, �t' 4� . . �`.., \ ,���.
t ,; L' � �"� ' ,� � � ; �/�'
T r �..�n. . � ,,• �� '�" �.�. V + �+
_ ;'�.�. �' � ... �` ' ..
�: � r � W M f ���� � �a. � �;/
�"�"� � � �f�� i `,� �i % _ � J �' �" �t
� "` � �.'�r �. , r�w' � ;�`� �
r
t 1pefn.' �"t � � K- ,^.� \� .
i ' �• � . - �y�. ' \�` � . �,
I ..t �
e+�. /'�4'� � ' � �J ` '!'�`S��
1� +,� . !• < I r'f��?T � r- \�� � ` �V. , , ~
� i �
� � �� O�� .r. f , � . '}'�;% � � ��� �� �,.
� .. 5b�� ' ` � i � / .�� x x
. f s �. . �'/ ���� ' � " / i�i,` �, ; � . '�x � �
bQ �a�� � . ° i "�.
( ra ';;�� '� �
� - ,� ' �o ���/ �. , �� �;:.
^�
'' - ;'�' - ! � � . - �a '. J: r� ,2,` ��i�(r��� � . . � `� '�a -:' �� • � •* k
� :i � � � Zf � � / f � r '
� t t •�� .' � r�`' � �`,. . ; & a .,��_ f ,� �
� � t �� � � � ry.
� � L � ' � �r „` �
�, ..1,
� ;r. � ..'"�.� ! ! �`� �n:,. 'i.
fi , r� R.+t�' ;� � t / �+� .'�� �� . ��,,' j ��. • �, �
�- a� i`. ._ i � .� �� �. 'h
' •� .. ` . b � ' �" � �» �' -' .s f. 1 �.�� �' )
�h� C�tt� �f ��t��i�tg�t�rt�
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
NOTICE OF HEARING
SPECIAL PERMIT
TEL�(415) 342-8931
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 8th day of February, 1988 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall councii Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a pubiic hearing on the application for a Special Permit to conduct a mixed
us� �roaect consistin� of two residential units fronting on Edgehill
Lr_ive and commercial space fronting on California Drive at 852 Edgehill,
Drive, zoned C-2.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLAN�IER
January 29, 1988
.
February 17, 1988
P.C. 2/22/88
Item #3
Ll�iJiiviUiLl�.,:'.T�.J;v riC.r.Gid�;,�
"."'! ER RREPARATION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Re:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
852 Edgehill - Revised Plan
�,�F STAF� F;ERORT
I suggest that the following conditions be placed on any approvals:
E�
2.
3.
4.
Exiting mirrors on both sides of the garage opening shall be
placed and maintained so that exiting vehicles will see
pedestrians.
All curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both Edgehill and California
Drive be replaced by the applicant.
All roof and deck area drainage be directed to the street
through curb drains.
No entrance door overhang onto City property be allowed.
Other conditions will be applied at Building Permit stage.
Sincerely,
� �
Fank C. Erbacher, P.E.
City Engineer
rtg
) t
V�.L I.G �.L.L� .V�� �.Vl-��Ll L.N�%ia a L,G
� .✓
� SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
6URLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
SPECIAL PERMIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 21st day of March, 1988 , at
the hour of 7;30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application for a Special Permit to construct a mixed use
project consisting of two residential units fronting on Edgehill Drive and commercial
space fronting on California Drive at 852 Edgehill Drive, zoned C-2.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLAPJNER
March 11, 1988
y. .,
, s;
��
.1
�
RESOLUTION NO.
!that;
I for
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERPRIT
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame
WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit
nixed residential-commercial project
at_ g52 Edaehill Drive (APN 029-022-070
i and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on said application on February 22 ,1988 , at which
time said application was approved;
WHEREAS, this matter was called up by Council and
a hearing thereon held on P1arch 21 ,198$
NOL�, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERb1INED by
this Council that said special permit is approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Er.hibit "A" attached hereto.
It is further directtd that a certifed copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of
San Mateo_
Mayor
� I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of
(Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
�.
�introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
1St day of March ,198 �, and adooted thereafter by
�� .
�'the following vote:
I
��
jAYES: COUNCIL2fEN:
I
NOES: COUNCILIIEN:
�
ABSEN;: COUNCIL^1EN:
City Clerk
�'; _
i�