HomeMy WebLinkAbout113 Anita Road - Staff Report. }
t
��`�.
J
P.C. 4/11/88
Item #
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SIX
UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 113 ANITA ROAD, ZONED R-3
Vincent Lee, property owner and applicant, is requesting a
condominium permit and side setback variance (7� required, 4�-6"
provided) in order to build six, two bedroom residential units at
113 Anita Road, zoned R-3 (Code Sec. 25.66.050). The side setback
variance is required at the third floor level where the building
should be set back 7' from property line, but a required fire exit
balcony extends into the side yard 2�-6" about 20' above grade.
The typical residential unit in this building is 925 SF with a 77
SF private balcony (75 SF required) and 1,000 SF of common open
space at the rear of the lot meeting the condominium requirements.
The project complies with other zoning requirements.
History of Application
This project was originally submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission in January, 1986. Subsequently the then owner
requested an extension of the condominium and variance approval for
one year. The extension expired before the now owner could get the
construction plans approved for a building permit. Plan check was
delayed some by poor communication about whether the plans were to
be checked for construction as an apartment or a condominium. When
it was clarified that the project was to be a condominium it was
too late to revise the plans, resubmit them and pick up a building
permit before the variance expired.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed the present resubmittal. The Chief
Building Inspector (March 8, 1988 memo) had no comments. The Fire
Marshal (March 8, 1988 memo) notes that the structure would be
required to have an approved fire sprinkler and alarm system
monitored by an approved central station. The City Engineer (March
10, 1988 memo) notes all previous conditions (November 4, 1985
memo) apply and that additional information has been requested by
the Building Department and a building permit cannot be issued
until it is provided. Planning would note that the conditions of
the previous approval should be required as a part of this
resubmitted application. It should be noted that Condition #4
addresses placement of a rolling security gate and intercom system
which are not included in the new proposal. Therefore this
condition should be replaced with a condition removing the gate and
intercom system.
2
Applicant�s Letter
In his letter of February 17, 1988 Vincent Lee states that he
bought the property in April, 1987 and was not aware that the
approvals were only good until January, 1988. Since April he has
been trying to get a building permit, his last problem relates to
how the water meters are installed. He would like another year in
which to develop the project.
Findinas for a Variance
The Planning Commission must find that the following conditions
exist on the property in order to grant a variance (Code Sec.
25.54.020 a-d):
(a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property or class of uses in the district,
so that a denial of the application would result in undue
property loss;
(b) that such variance would be necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the
property involved;
(c) that the granting of such variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
injurious to the property or improvements of other property
owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or
improvements; and
(d) that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect
the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Study Questions
The Planning Commission reviewed this item at study on March 28,
1988 (Planning Commission Minutes, March 28, 1988). Several
questions were asked. Regarding Larry Nelson�s comments on water
service, the issue was the number of ineters allowed. The applicant
may have one meter for the building; however, behind this meter
each unit may have its own meter, read by the individuals, in order
to divide up the water usage. The submitted plans could not be
approved until the meters were rearranged to provide for the master
meter which is the one meter read by the city. Apparently the
applicant has now stated that this has been corrected on the
construction plans (Planner�s memo, March 29, 1988).
The plans do not include a security gate; therefore it is assumed
one will not be installed as a part of this project. The maximum
height of a property line wall or fence or combination wall and
fence is 6' from existing grade.
0
3
Plannina Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action on the condominium permit should be taken by resolution.
Findings should be made for the variance. The following conditions
should be considered at the public hearing:
1. that the conditions of the Planning Commission�s action on
this project on January 13, 1986 shall be met;
2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal�s March 8, 1988 memo
and the City Engineer�s March 10, 1988 memo shall be met;
3. that the project shall not include a remote controlled
sliding security gate across the driveway or intercom system
from the outside of the gate to individual units;
4. that no property line fence or wall and fence combination
shall exceed the height of 6' from grade; and
5. that this permit and variance approval shall be valid for
one year or until a building permit is issued and the
project executed.
�'J� ��
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
NiM/ s
cc: Vincent Lee (applicant)
Vincent & Susan Lee (property owners)
PROJECT APPLICATION
Fr CEQA ASSESSMENT
Application received ( 3-2-88
` CITY
,�,A O,a
BURLINGAME project ad ress
���p����,��� project name - if any
Staff review/acceptance ( ) Res: 573-5581
1. APPLICANT Vincent Lee Bus: 345-7857
name telephone no.
170 Port Royal, Foster City, CA 94404
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Vincent Lee
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Perr.^,it ( ) Variance* (g ) Ccnc+ominium Pernit ( g) Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION VARIANCE AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT for six 2-bedroom
units. A VARIANCE is required to allow a required exit (stair and balcon
to extend 2- into a require - si e yar at t e t ir oor eve .
The typical unit has 962 SF in floor area and a 77 SF private balcony
(75 SF required). ±1,000 SF of general open space is provided in the rear
yard area (600 SF required). The pro_ject complies with zoning
requirements for height and lot coverage. This project was approved by
the Planning Commission on January 13, 1986. However, a building permit
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) was never issued and
the Planning approval
Ref. code section(s): ( Chap 26.30 )�PC Res 5-80 � expired.
a. PROPERTY IDE�ITIFICATION � �� �S���J��
+ptn. Lot 4
( 029-235-130 ) � 3/ ) ( 20 ) ( Lyon & Hoag )
APN lat no. block no. subdivision name
( R-3 ) ( 7,875 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Vincent & Susan Lee 33 W. 37th Avenue
land owner's name address
San Mateo, CA 94403
Reauire�! Oate received city zip code
�yas� (no) ( ) Proof of ownershi� (co�firmed per call to
�yes� (nol ( ) Owner's consent to application assessor�s office
5. EXISTIPJG SITE CONDITIONS 3�22�88�
Vacant lot; two sin�le family dwellings whicti existed on this
propert� have been removed.
Re�uired Date received
(yes) (�►e� ( 3_2_gg ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall;s and
c�+rbs; all str�ctures and improvements;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
(yes) (+�e} ( �� ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by tyoe of usc�`on each floor plan.
(yes) (�s� ( " ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
(yes) _(�.w) ( " ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
(other) ( 2_��_�r� ) Letter of Ex�lanation
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PRnp�cp,�
Proposed consiruction,
�ross floor area
3elow orade ( -- SF) Second floor ( 3,559 SF)
First floor (2,413 SF) Third floor ( 3 763 S`�
Pro,ject Cor�n
Pro�osal Requi r�m:�nt
Front setback 15' 15'
Side setback , �
Si de yard __ __
o�ar yarci ' 2� � 2� �
�
�rroject Code
Proposal Requirement
Lot covera;�e 50%
�'uil�l;n� hei�ht 2$.9' S.P. ove 35
Lardscaped area .C.Res 80
n� ;i te nko.sn,jce� 12 12 '
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
Full tir�e employees on site
Part time emnloyees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
EXISTING
after
8-5 5 PM
6 fa ilies
IM 2 YEARS
� after
8-5 5 PM
IP! 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Multi—unit residences to the no th ea t and o th; co�mercial
and residential uses to the west; this use conforms to the
general plan.
Required Date received
��ss� (no) ( ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
�q� (no) ( ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. company vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES
Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 (X )
Variance/other districts $ 75 ( g) Neoative Declaration $ 25 (g)
Condominium Permit $ 50 ( g) EIR/City & consultant fees S (
TOTAL FEES $ 175.00 RECEIPT N0. 0387 Received by L.G.
I herehy certif under penalty of perjur that the information given herein is
true and c t to the best of my ow d d belief.
Signature Date ,3 �—V �/
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environr�ental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
See NH-�85P _ __ __.
r���� - �ti�y���,
Signa re of Processinq Official Title
19 ,
Daie Signed
Unless �ppealed within 10 days hereof the c�ate nosted, the deterr.iination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTI!`!G Dat:e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury chat 1 ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I�osted a true copy of the above Neg�ti��e Declarat,ion ai, the City Hall of said City near
the doors to il�� Council Chanber•s.
�xecuted at ;urlinoame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
19
JUDITH A. MALFATTI, CITY CLERK, CITI f'� SURLINGAPiE
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-3�5P
.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-385P
rne c;ty of Burlingame by ��ARGARET P�OI�JROE o� December 30 , 1985,
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environr�ental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclus;o�: The development Of th1S S1tE Wltil S1X
condominium units is consistent v�ith the qeneral plan densities
for the area. Further� the project will not create any adverse
envir�nmental impacts on ad�acent sites or traffic patterns, nor
�_ai_r or water qual it�.
�u���� � CITY PLANP�ER ��., �� �
Si�na re o� t. . _ �
y ocessing �icial iitle Daie Signed
Unless appealed wiihin 10 days hereof tne c+�te posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATIQ'•l OF POSTI^IG Dai:e Posted: /�.— 30 �-8 S
I declare under penalty of per.jury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Neoati��e Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th•� Council Chambers. ��
txecuted at 3url ingame, Cal i forni a on �i('_� ��% , 19 � 5
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
, _.. ��/�y��, A ,
� c �/ i
JU . L , ITY CLERK, CIT F uURIINGAh1E
STAFF REUI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer ( 3-4-88 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( �� ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( ) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
Concerns Mitigation Measures
Will the proposal meet all Request comments from the
Fire and Building Code Fire Marshal and Chief
requirements? Building Inspector.
Does the project comply with Request comments from the
the requirements of the City Engineer.
City Engineer?
3. CEQA REQUIREP4EMTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review?
See ND-385P
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comoleted
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
RFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR acce�ted 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. APPLICATIOPJ STATUS Date first received ( 3_2_$g )
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to applicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 3-28-88 )
Is application ready for a public hearing? yes (no) Recommended date ( )
Date staff report mailed �,b aoplicant ( �f%�l �'� ) Date Corrmission hearing (�f-�/� �$ )
Application approved (� ) Denied ( )� � Appeal to Council (yes) no)
Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication approved ( ) Denied ( )
�
�,p� � ��.�'1 �'eC 3 � 2�•a
signed date
/
_ �' Js:f� �-%��� �"",'��.
���_ �T' f ` ^ / '
/�� �,� �---�� -�-�._��
,
� ��
- --�� `"� ���� ' :�G�
�.- �
�_-� _ _ , z _.:, " J _ -.. �. ��,( ; �� •
� � ,
� l %� .
i `�-� -� l>2��/ �
!"
%
�;' % 1 ; � ' -�- ,.� . �.� �.r?�.' 7/1,.�(
�„� i �-�4?--7 �� •�_�, •�
� �✓"����+ � �L �-�' i%' ��'-4' �'�-� �( �"�
' � �
, �
�`- �-� � Y?
L' '/�, ,� -- . '_�" ,, .� .� �� � , �� y ^,; ,Ltt� . -�-,-�S.y �..
� � � 1 ,
''r `�----z'V^� �i; � = /�� /1 � i � -�.% /�'� y �' L �2�=-! � y� � j �- % v� - _.� -> -2---i� ��
T // �� / / -' j �-i
* I /
� i / /, r<__y.� -� � -rz�( ,/
���' 7' ���� �t �ti � �' t �_�� ' / ( n �i
—�'J �-c7' ,�C �-'-� ,-'s� ` "/� "'�--•_-c- t C. •�1- �1,�,-�
( �-���- _ ��::Z. ��" �� � �? ^ �; _�
, : �
I� �-�� �.�,-��
r � y_"'. � `' '"''r/ -� �� ,%1'!'-�--�7� �.`---'-�!'� `��- "1 � ; /'�� V'�""�� .. ',
�1 ( C l
� G // � ��, / '
.,��j �/ � - •-2� .�"���' !�'� .� ���'�'� � �
� � � � .�(,'�i' '^ %i� ✓
�� �� � '�" �� � _ � �/ � -�` ��,�.,(�
� -` -Y% . ---x. -o' i�..,��i}%��\ � �' /�/ ���.�1 ,�/ (7
.� �� � � /,�_ _ � � � � `-�, � _ ��� �
.� / J/
� 6/ � /�� / , /q
'y'i'^�, , � '.'.� � Y � .��.-). �--�f..-_�i� yl �L,L_--�-"�Zj �"��'( J
� ��" (�/ // � �
-��'v . ✓���/- - r �-�-- .
` ��--� -,, :' -�.�, � �-,-�-z--� �� ' -�---�.,2,t � --� -�--r -� t;� l i,
_�, ��� ,�� � /., � � . ��-� �- � �
r �� � � ' c�-�
� "� -2--�Vi f�--�_2- "� -��-C_ �,/�
� ,!- ,y"� Y�'L � � � � � � y - -7 . ,. , , . / - . . . . +�� 0 ii L � G �-/
(� / � '> > �-�' � / �
� -
�' ��',�_ —� �j , � - �=` � T -�.- } �-� - Ga `i�' �� 7' � 1 %--)- ;/ ^�'',�� " _—� � �-n!v'3��, � "" �
� ' (i� �� �,.
^ „ � n
� ��/c�`-�, � _�''�_��, --����-�; ---=�� �"� � �� -; -�. �� ��. �
, % ;, �
.�: - — /� _ � 1 _ ��
�.�.y,�,:�-� � �j C/ l C����. , z� ✓ ._ -�,`
P L�/ �
�'-� �" ��
�
r ����-�.�� .-�-u--�-�� • �,.�,��
�(�'-L/- �'
�� . �' -+i i:; ��� iu.i'-�-•,...._._ �
, .,n • .s=i�
,�.; {
�
assi e � ��� ; ;.'� ;;
'lli' . .. _ Ff4�1
'� `1 �'-�. . J u',- ... �,..^.�J .�I__. `. J.�.�. (....�..� �i
♦
v
DATE : 9��
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPErTO,�
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PArtKS
FP.OM: PLANNING DEPART"1ENT
SUBJECT:
An application has been received For the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S�
at t{ieir �
� %1�'� � meeting. We would appreciate having
your comn,ents by /�1G�c / j9�� 1_ �'. /$�
r J
Thank you. TO �, �/G� h H�••-'ry ����
/ � .
� ,r� � /�
�i�'GvH • Vu� � �r.-�/ /"/�vl.�la...�
/
ll C?D����'�'
�
r
� ��
�
�*
,
�
DATE : 57��
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEEP.
CHIEF BUILDING I ECT�R
FIRE MARSHAL
D:RECTOR OF P RKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S�/O
at their f r/� � meeting. We would appreciate having
your commAn;.s by /��cc7� f,v 9��
�---�r—
�
Thank you.
�, -� �$- 88
� pr,�N►�,`
��, . ,�, r�.
U4 �� 4. -� c� � f-f�r✓� ,�✓ /-� ��v s P N�� o
R. tF�t �.!
�R'r` N}� S ys �h
C'E�4L STq-n��i .
h��� � rfli�jo ��i %t� A•PPrLo v�
0
MEMO
TO: PLANNING
FROM: ENGINEERING
DATE: MARCH 10, 1988
RE: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT PLANS -
6-UNIT DEVELOPMENT - 113 ANITA ROAD - P.M. 85-7
Attached is a copy of my November 4, 1985 memo regarding this map and
permit. Al1 conditions still apply and should be attached to permit
approvals.
In review of the final Building plans, it is apparent that the
detailed information requested has not yet been provided and unless
provided, will not allow issuance of the Building Permit.
. �
�
Frank C. Erbacher
dj
Attachment
r�
��
5
I�iu� �-- i985
MEMO
TO
FROM:
n�V i�� �l+f
i ' ' r¢ ir'1"� .
, Planning Department
,
Department of Public Works - Engr. Div.
November 4, 1985
Re: Tentative Condominium Map and Condominium
Permit Plans - 6-Unit Development
113 Anita Road - P. M. 85-7
Indicate where a trash enclosure may be installed behind the front
setbacks.
Show locations of adjacent property's driveways.
6. All utilities shall be installed underground, including any trans-
formers proposed on-site.
7. Indicate lot lines on parking layout. Appears that proposed fencing
restricts parking back out distance by probably four inches or so.
8. A detailed survey plat., to the detail of a record map,is required
showing the basis of all corner sets. City Engineer review and
approval is required.
''� ��
� �' i
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
I havt the following comments on this study item:
1. Drainage patterns of adjacent properties need be determined. Ex-
isting drainage patterns cannot be blocked. How are all roof and
paving drainage to get to street?
2. Site plan grades on Burlingame datum must be shown. Show adjacen�t
site elevaticns on site plans and show complete prcposed final
site elevaiions.
3. New curb, gutter and sidewalk, designed by applicant's Engineer, to
be installed by the applicant, complete with any required paving.
Applicant's Civil E�igineer to design curb, gutter and sidewalk grades
based on survey information at least 100 feet past property line.
4
mg
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 28, 1988
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, March 28, 1988
at 7:31 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs
Commissioner Ellis
Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer;
Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 14, 1988 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Item #10 withdrawn.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
Study items were taken first.
9. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A 6 UNIT RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT - 113 ANITA ROAD. ZONED R-3
Requests: clarify the statement in applicant's February 17, 1988
letter, ". .. if Mr. Larry Nelson would not shut it down ...";
will there be a security gate; height of fence on the wall,
maximum height allowed. Item set for public hearing April 11,
1988.
10. PARKING VARIANCE - 20/20 RECYCLE CENTERS - 1825 EL CAMINO
REAL
Item withdrawn.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT - TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE - 224 PRIMROSE ROAD
Requests: how will the deli be advertised; reevaluate number of
customers weekdays and Sundays. Item set for public hearing
April 11, 1988.
12. NEGATIVE DECLAR.ATION/SPECIAL PERMIT - USE OF EXISTING
SCHOOL FACILITIES - 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE
Requests: status of sale of the site; information on parking
layout; ownership of visitor parking area, will there be an
arrangement with this owner; how often will the amphitheater be
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
March 28, 1988
used, by how many people; where will participants park, will
there be an overlap with use by the on-site nursery school; will
sight lines be O.K. with widening of the driveway; can anything
be done about cleaning up the amphitheater. Item set for public
hearing April 11, 1988.
DETERMINATION
1. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON CITY PLANNER'S INTERPRETATION
OF CODE SEC. 25.42.030-h REGARDING RESTAURANTS IN THE M-1
ZONING DISTRICT
Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
discussed the request of Robert M. Blunk, architect that
Commission review the intent of the conditional uses requiring
special permits in the M-1 zone as they relate to large,
freestanding restaurants. She noted his position is that CS
25.42.030-h addresses specific criteria for small pedestrian
oriented eating establishments, he felt larger freestanding
restaurants would be addressed under CS 25.42.030-g
establishments for goods and services at retail and perhaps CS
25.42.030-i retail sales of alcoholic beverages. It was the City
Planner's position that the code is unclear and CS 25.42.030-h
could be interpreted that large freestanding restaurants are
prohibited.
Commission comment: Gulliver's restaurant, also in M-1, was
constructed prior to the code section 25.42.030-h establishing
limitations on retail food establishments in M-1; Commission has
always been concerned about protecting the M-1 zone and retaining
wholesale in this district; delis were approved by special permit
for the use of people working in the area; if it is determined
that any type of restaurant in M-1 is a conditional use, think
the code should be studied and revised for clarity; have
understood that small coffee shops were allowed in M-1 to cut
down on traffic in the. area, with no advertising, discreetly
available to employees in the area, and should be separated by a
certain number of feet.
CA stated Commission is being asked to determine if CS 25.42.030-
g or -i allows large, freestanding restaurants in the M-1 zone;
the restrictions in CS 25.42.030-h were adopted to limit
restaurants in this zone. Further Commission comment: have
understood it was never intended to allow a large full scale
restaurant in this district; concur with this statement, the
limitations on restaurants were intended to regulate small
restaurants, preserving the M-1 area; we have been protective of
M-1, perhaps there could be an overlay zone. CA commented the
issue this evening is what is the meaning of the language in the
code.
T0: City Planner
FROM: Planner
SUBJECT: 113 Anita - Planning Commission Study Meeting Questions
DATE: March 29, 1988
In his letter of February 17, 1988, Mr. Vincent Lee refers to some
problems he has had in getting the building plans for the project
approved by Larry Nelson in the Water Department. Apparently the
plans submitted showed individual water meters for each of the units,
whereas City policy is that there be only one water meter allowed
per building. The project could no be issued a building permit until
the plans were corrected to meet City requirements. Mr. Lee has
informed me that Larry Nelson has approved the latest set of building
plans submitted.
.�' �
. . <=
CITY
IRLINGAME
C�.�.e C�x.�� .a.� �a��,�rC.��rxYC.e
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010
January 7, 1987
William L. Nagle, Esq.
Nagle, Krug & Winters
345 Lorton �lvenue - Suite 204
Burlinga.me, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Nagle:
"� � c.� 1.�e,,�
�HS� 7a7S�
�. �, . a3�X � yC7
��ti� � � yt�� (a
TEL:(415) 342-8931
W2 wish to advise there was no appeal to or suspension by the City
Council of the Planning Commission's approval of your request for a one
year extension of the January 21, 1986 Condominium Permit for six units
at 113 �.nita Road. The December 8, 1986 minutes of the Planning
Commission state a one year extension was granted to Janua.ry 21, 1988.
Sincerely yours,
� �a�^� � �'� ��
�
Marqaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Chief Building Inspector
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
December 8, 1986
Toyota signage request; readerboard sign was not included in the
signage square footage.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, applicant
distributed a sheet which he said indicated approved signage at 1007
Rollins/1008 Carolan on October 25, 1982 (866 SF), He discussed
acquiring the Toyota dealership in January, 1986 and his problems with
relocating the various dealerships. He stated his request is actually
less than the existing signage; sign #5 of the 1982 approval (wall
sign) was never installed. He than commented on staff's summary table
of his present request, indicating some changes he felt should be made;
noted this is a deep lot with narrow frontage which is penalized by the
sign code and the net effect of this sign request is to reduce the
overall signage. Applicant commented further on the diversity of his
business on this site, the need to inform customers, the need to be
seen from Bayshore Highway, potential increase in sales tax to the city
by relocating the Toyota 3ealership and comparison with other auto
dealers' signage. Responding to Commissioner question, he did not know
how the pole sign approved at 35' became 45'.
Commission requested clarification of the readerboard sign and if it
were currently legal, inquired about legality of painted window signs
and expressed a desire for a revised summary of this request.
C.S.Graham moved to continue this item and the public hearing to the
meeting of January 12, 1987, seconded by C. Garcia; motion approved
unanimously on voice vote.
3. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE JANUARY 21,
PERMIT FOR SIX UNITS AT 113 �NITA RO�D
Reference staff report, 12/8/86, with attachment. CP
this request for extension and conditions of approv3l
condominium. There has been no change to the property
condominium qermit was approved.
1986 CONDOMINIUM
Monroe discussed
for the six unit
since the
C. Jacobs moved to grant a�ne year extension of the condominium permit
to January 21, 1988. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0-1
roll call vote, C.S.Graham abstaining.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
4. SPECIAL PERMIT - VOCATION�L TRAINING CENTER - 1308 BAYSHORE HWY.
Requests: where are nightclubs located; how many offices in the Hyatt
building are vacant at this time. Item set for public hearing January
12, 1987.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT - TRAINING SESSIONS - 1501 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
�
Item set for public hearing January 12, 1987.
�
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
December 8, 1986
�
�
6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1731 �DRI�N ROAD
Requests: is this the old Little League field; potential for dividing
properties in this area (how many could be divided); does city have a
policy on dividing properties in this manner where they share a common
driveway. Item set for public hearing January 12, 1987.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its December l, 1986 regular
meeting and December 5, 1986 special meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary
0
P.C. 12/8/86
Item # 3
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE JANUARY 21, 1986
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR SIX UNITS AT 113 ANITA ROAD
A letter has been received from the applicants requesting a one year
extension of the Condominium Permit for six units at this location.
The permit was granted with the following conditions:
l. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the
Chief Building Inspector's September 3, 1985 memo and the City
Engineer's November 4, 1985 memo shall be met;
2. that the project as built sh�ll be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 25,
1985;
3. that the guest parking space designated on the plans shall be
permanently set aside for guests and shall be identified as
available for guests only; and
4. that a rolling security gate be placed at least 8' behind the
property line with intercom system on the outside which connects to
each unit to assure guest parking is accessible.
If granted by the Planning Commission, the permit would therefore
expire on January 21, 1988. The tentative map for this project will
also expire at that time.
�IiG� �, � .s sR-�.-�—�
Helen Williams
Planner
HW/s
cc: William Nagle
WILLIAM L. NAGLE
JOHN 5. KRUG
DANIEL W. WINTERS
MICHAE� R. DEEMS
BONNIE L. GROVE
November 6, 1986
RE��IV�p
nurlingame Planning Commission
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road
Burlingama, CA 94010
LAW OFFICES
NAGLE, KRUG & WINTERS
345 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 204
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-4116
(415) 579 - 1422
Re: 113 Anita Road, Burlingame
Ladies and Gentlemen:
�'�'! � a �986
���
Triangle Enterprises, the owners of a condo-
minium project at 113 Anita Road, Burlingame,
hereby apply for a one-year extension to obtain a
building permit.
The original plans for this project were
approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting
on January 13, 1986.
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and
cooperation.
Very truly yours,
� �
��-� -�. "� s��`.
r
William L. Nagle
WLN:sw
� A
January 21, 1986
� CITY
�� �� .
I
BURLINGAME
hc -.: ��� ` � oe ;
I `D q,�s — � ;
�' ���Tro JVNC6/
L�r.� �� z�� cr�' �l`- LC�'.�.�ti.��� t r.�'
SAN MATEO COUNTY
GiTY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CAUFORNIA 9q010
Mr. william t�agle
Triangle Enterprises
Post Off_ice Box 1513
Burlingame, CA 94011
Dear Mr. Nagle:
A. ^ �. ..
TEL:1415) 3a2-H93i
Since th2re was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the
January 13, 1985 Planning Commission approval of yosr condominium
per�nit and variance application became effective January 21, 1986.
T?�is application was to allow construction of a 6-unit residential
condominium and to allow a third Floor exit balcony to extend 2'-6"
into thA requir�3 side yard area at 113 Anit3 Road. The January 13,
1986 minutas of the Planning Commission state your application was
apooroved with the followinq conditions:
l. that the conditions ot the rire Marshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the
Chief isuilding Inspector's September 3, 1985 memo and the City
Engin�er's Nov�mber 4, 1985 memo shall be met;
2. that the �roject as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planninq Department and date stamped July 25,
1985;
3. that the quest parking space designated on the plans shall be
permanently set aside For guests and shatl be identified as
available for guests only; and
4. that a rollinq security qate be �laced at least 8' behind the
property lin� with intercom system on the outside which_connects to
each unit to assur� guest �arking is a�cessible.
All site improvements and construction work will require separate
�pplication to the Buildinq Der.�artment.
Sincerely yours,
�, I ( � I
� C�' ��� ,�,;� i � � �, '�
Marga et Monroe
City Planner
^��/ s
Att.
cc; Chief Buil3ing Inso�ctor (w/att.)
cc: Assessor's Office, Redwood
City (Lot 3& Ptn. Lot 4,
31ock 20, Lyon & Hoag Sub.;
APN 029-235-130)
CITY
iRLIN
January 21, 1986
Mr. �iilliam Nagle
Triangle Enterprises
Post Office Box 1513
Burlingame, CA 94011
Dear. Mr. Nagle:
JVtiC
��' I�.r- C�z�� �F 11- Lt��ia�tx�az rc��
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL-SOI PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010
�.� " �
TEL:(415) 342-f3931
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the
January 13, 1985 Planning C�mmission approval of your condominium
permit and variance application became effective January 21, 1986.
T!�is application was to allow construction of a 6-unit residential
condominium and to allow a third Eloor exit balcony to extend 2'-6"
into the require3 side yard area at 113 Anita Road. The January 13,
1986 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was
apoproved wi.th the follow.inq conditi�ns:
l. that the conditions of the Fi.re �larshal's August 13, 1985 �emo, the
Chief Building Inspector's September 3, 1985 memo and the City
Engineer's vovember 4, 1985 memo shall be met;
2. that the r�.roject as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 25,
1985;
3. that the quest parkinq space designated on the plans shall be
permanently set aside for guests and sha11 be identifie3 as
available for guests only; and
4. that a rolling security gate be placed �t least 8' behind the
property line with intercom system on the outside which connects to
each unit to assur� guest parkinq is acc�ssible.
All site improvements and construction work will require separate
appl.ic.ation to the F3ui1_dinq Der�artment.
Sincerely yours,
i � �/^rTM�. i i i
� (,r �. � �,�� f ,,� �,,� �, ��
Marga�et Monroe
City Planner
��/s
Att.
cc; Chief F3uil3ing Inspe�tor (w/att.>
cc: Assessor's Office, Redwood
City (Lot 3& Ptn. Lot 4,
Block 20, Lyon & Hoag Sub.;
APN 029-235-130)
August 13, 1985
'IC�: Helen `�'ow�er
. Planner
F�`�' EOb �zy, Fire Marshal
SL�TECT; 113 : nita
I have revietvec� the plans Sub�tted for this permit and have the foll
��-nts :
owin5
1• The buii�Q �St have a co
instal�� t�.Y-oughout. �lete sprin}cler and fire alarm system
c�nt--'"�l station. This system must be r�nitored b,�
_ an a�proved
Z_.� �..,.� _ , .
�
.-..� __
�_�� '
F3ob Barr��
DATE : _ � ���.� � I� � � � � � �U
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER S�� � ��8�
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR ���RUNGA�
FIRE MARSHAL �'����•
DIRECTOR OF PARKS �,/�,.,,5 ,;, �,�,�nH, �
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMEMT � ��f)
SUBJECT: /�G�.i�/ ��� f .�/ /
`"�" �G `�"l,Y G�ts� r C��y�y�N/l,ui!
�a �� �t /� 3 �x �
� �� occd -- �.a,�rcc
P��,� a'"d C��.a�,n,�.,
An application has been received for the above project for revie,�� b
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �.�� the
at their ��Z6��� y
meeting, We would appreciate having
your conmients by ��jy���s-
�•'-;.s
Thank you. �C � � i • � ;I
�� %d r n � .` , /;;
/ %�
��C�it.e � l��tt (��!/�. �/ f//.S/C•�t
/
He 1 en Towb er C"� C' - ' T��(
Planner //J � n � �
`',_)' '
' �f � %
4 ��
S� / �:.i _.S��L' =it � rF'E'-..�-j'��-,,�';,,� ..:_ , � � _�`��_d 1�,.� j-
� �1 � ` �f`
dtt. ' �� C`-�--+S�dfR'"--�✓d� 9 /�-- '' /
� � ` /� �
�' ��i�; �,I'/��,� �,, f�c� i/'�-� cl J C /-��p �{�� L�G/! �S//t"uC�a.�
/ /
// �'G<< /� � � f ,:.
I
� ,
% �
;`- � ' ,
; � .l�
: � :' . �� � `�;-' :� �'
�
�� %/ . ; � ^ � ,
, �
��'{-C��- ` � ��{,,,�,-G:��yrt/
.%
1T �� Gt � 1;�
i.{�j'�i 'I. •- j��i7
MEMO
�� � .,M1�I+�INIMC DE9T��
T0: Planning Department
FROM: Department of Public Works - Engr. Div.
November 4, 1985
Re: Tentative Condominium Map and Condominium
Permit Plans - 6-Unit Development
113 Anita Road - P. M. 85-7
I have the following comments on this study item:
1. Dr•ainage patterns of adjacent properties need be determined. Ex-
isting drainage patterns cannot be blocked. How are all roof and
paving drainage to get to street?
2. Site plan grades on Bur-lingame datum must be shown. Sho�,v adjacer�t
site elevations on site plans and show complete proposed final
site elevations.
3. New curb, gutter and sidewalk, designed by applicant's �ngineer, to
be installed by the applicant, complete with any required paving.
Applicant's Civil Engin�er to design curb, gutter and sidewalk grades
based on survey information at least 100 feet past property line.
4. Indicate where a trash enclosure may be installed behind ihe front
setbacks.
5. Show locations of adjacent property's driveways.
6. Al1 utilities shall be installed underground, including any trans-
formers proposed on-site.
7. Indicate lot lines on parking layout. Appears that proposed fencing
restricts parking back out distance by probably four inches or so.
8. A detailed survey plat , to the detail of a record map,is required
showing the basis of all corner sets. City Engineer review and
approval is required.
;'
�� /
, �
�
, /'
� '�_�'� � i�-T,-c� __
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
mg
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
January 13, 1986
C. Jacobs stated she did not find the legal requirements for variance
approval h,ad been satisfied, this is a very large addition�,:-�r� she
could not find the loft necessary for the preservation�bf the property
rights'of the owners. C. Jacobs moved to deny this varianc� request.
S ond C. Giomi; motion approved on a'5-1 roll'call vote, C. Graham
issentinq with_�� 'statement he did n��eel a variance was required,
C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
�4. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THIRD FLOOR EXIT BALCONY FOR A PROPOSED 6-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM TO EXTEND 2'-5" INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AREA,
PROPERTY AT 113 AiVITA ROAD
�. CONDOMINIUM PERMIr TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTIOV OF A 6-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM A'I' 113 ANITA ROAD
Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff rsvi�w, applicant's letter, stu3y meetinq
questions. I'hree conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. William Nagle, Trianqle
Enterprises (applicant) was present. He commented that garage doors
would be a maintenance problem as well as noisy, he would prefer a
security gate. Commission comment: would like some sort of secured
parking; possibility of a single guest oarking space in the front
outside the security gate. Aoplicant thought this might reduce
landscaping; if density of the structure were reduced a variance for
the third floor exit woul3 sti11 be required, it is the width of the
lot which dictates the side yard requirement; a more narrow building
would not be a practical development.
Joe Harvey, 2205 Adeline Drive commente3 on the project: he understood
Commission's concern about secured parkinq and guest parking; number
of units is determined by parking provided; a rolling gate for security
is a concept that has been used in some developments in the city and
could be used here, it would provide a secured parking area; the
difficulty is in allowing guests to park in the secured area, generally
the property owner can open the gate for a guest; the noise factor of
overhead garage doors in multi-family frame structures is a real
problem. Responding to Commissioner question, Mr. Harvey advised an
intercom system could be installed with push button in each condominium
unit; a gate across the front, back from the sidewalk, could give the
appearance of an attractive picket fence and would not swing over the
sidewalk. Commissioner comment: would want the car to be off the
street. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this narrow lot
with fire exiting requirements at the third floor level, that the lot
is zoned R-3 and the variance is necessary for the property right of
the ownars to build units appropriate to the zone, that it would be an
improvement of the site, that it would not be detrimental to the
neighbors and would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
January 13, 198fi
plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance request
with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's
September 3, 1985 memo and the City Engineer's November 4, 19$5 memo
shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall be consis�ent with
the plans submittred to the Planning Denartment and date stamned July
25, 1985; (3) that the guest parking space designated on the plans
shall be permanently set aside for guests and shall be identified as
available for guests only; and (4) that a rolling security qate be
placed at least 8' behind the property line with interc ro system on the
outside which connects to each unit to assure quest pa ing is
acc`ssible. Second C. Graham.
Staff assured Commission if guest parking occurred � front of the
building and lan3scaoing were decr�ased the propert'y owner would be
required to come back to Commission for a variance�`to landscape
requirements. Comment on the motion: few 6-unit condominium nrojects
have been approve3 on 50' lots; difficult to find exceptional
circumstances e�ist, concern about allowinq six units on this narrow
lot; find exceptional circumstances in that the project meets all
zoning code r?quirements and condominium guidelines, the variance is
only for safety ourposes, if density were reduced there would still be
the same request for variance; if proo�rty.owner is required to reduce
the density it would deprive him of the o�portunity to enjoy his
prop�rty to th� extent permitted by law. A further comment: think an
architect could design a project on this lot without requiring a
variance.
'rhe variance was aoproved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting,
C. Schwalm absent. Aopeal procedures were advised.
C. Graham moved for approval of the condominium permit and Commission
Resolution Approving Condominium Permits. Second C. Giomi; motion
approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures
were advised.
6. TENTATIVE P,1vD FINAL PARCEL MAPS AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
MAP FOR A 6 UNIT PROJECT AT 113 ANITA ROAD
Reference CE's January 7, 1986 memo. CE Erbacher advised these maps
are complete and may be recommended to Council. C. Giomi moved that
the tentative:�nd final parcel maps and tentative condominium map be
recommended ,�o City Council for approval. Second C. Graham; motion
approved on unanimous voice vote.
� AMENDMENT OF 4/23/84 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR 12 UNITS AT
1�Q�S Ff�{3R-F-���iIIIA AVEiVUE '1'0 ALLOW INSTALLATION OF A SECURITY GA'I'E
WHICH WILL ENCLOSE 'I'HE GUEST PARKIiQG SPACE �
Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. ...CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter`. Two
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986
plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance request
with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's
September 3, 1985 memo and the City Enqineer's November 4, 1985 memo
shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall be consistent with
the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July
25, 1985; (3) that the guest parking space designated on the plans
shall be permanently set aside for guests and shall be identified as
available for guests only; and (4) that a rolling security gate be
placed at least 8' behind the property line with intercom system on the
outside which connects to each unit to assure guest parking is
acc2ssible. Second C. Graham.
Staff assured Commission if guest parking occurred in front of the
building and landscaoing were decr?ased the pronerty owner would be
required to come back to Commission for a variance to landscape
requirements. Comment on the motion: few 6-unit con3ominium projects
have been approved on 50' lots; difficult to find exceptional
circumstances e�ist, concern about allowinq six units on this narrow
lot; find exceptional circumstances in that the project meets all
zoning code requirements and condominium guidelines, the variance is
only for safety ourposes, if density were reduced there would still be
the same request for variance; if prooerty owner is required to reduce
the density it would deprive him of the opportunity to enjoy his
prop�rty to th� extent permitted by law. A further comment: think an
architect could design a project on this lot without requiring a
variance.
The variance was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting,
C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedur�s were advised.
C. Graham moved for approval of the condominium permit and Commission
Resolution Approving Condominium Permits. Second C. Giomi; motion
approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures
were advised.
I 6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAPS AND TE�TATIVE CONDOMINIUM
�— MAP FOR A 6 UNIT PROJECT AT 113 ANITA ROAD
Reference CE's January 7, 1986 memo. CE Erbacher advised these maps
are complete and may be recommended to Council. C. Giomi moved that
the tentative and final parcel maps and tentative condominium map be
recommended to City Council for approval. Second C. Graham; motion
approved on unanimous voice vote.
7. AMENDMENT OF 4/23/84 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR 12 UNITS AT
1508 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE TO AL�OW INSTALLATION OF A SECURITY GATE
WHICH WILL ENCLOSE THE GUES� PARKING SPACE �
Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attac s. CP Monroe reviewed
detai�s of the request, staff review,�ap� icant's letter. Two
c�r��itions were suggested for �L��s-�-d'eration at the public hearing.
.
Burlinqame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
January 13, 1986
C. Jacobs stated she did not find the legal requirements for variance
approval ha3 been satisfied, this is a very large addition and she
could not find the loft necessary for the preservation of the z�roperty
rights of the owners. C. Jacobs moved to deny this variance request.
Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham
dissentinq with the statement he did not feel a variance was required,
C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. VARIANCE TO ALLOw A THIRD FLOOR EXIT BALCONY FOR A PROPOSED 6-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM TO EXTEND 2'-6" INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AREA,
PROPERTY AT 113 AiVITA ROAD
5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRJC'I'ION OF A 6-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM A'I' 113 ANITA ROAD
Reference staff report,.1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff r�vi�w, applicant's letter, study meetinq
questions. rhree conditions wer� suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. William Nagl�, Triangle
Enterprises (applicant) was present. He commented that qarage doors
would be a maintenance problem as well as noisy, he would prefer a
security �ate. Commission comment: would like some sort of secured
parking; possibility of a single guest parking space in the front
outside the security gate. Applicant thought this might reduce
landscaping; if density of the structure were reduced a variance for
the third floor exit woul3 still be r'quired, it is the width of the
lot which dictates the side yard requirement; a more narrow building
would not be a practical development.
Joe Harvey, 2205 Adeline Drive commente3 on the project: he understood
Commission's concern about secured parkinq and guest parking; number
of units is determined by parking provided; a rolling gate for security
is a concept that has been used in some developments in the city and
could be used here, it would provide a secured parking area; the
difficulty is in allowinq guests to psr;� in the secured area, generally
the property owner can open the gate for a guest; the noise factor of
overhead garage doors in multi-family frame structures is a real
problem. Responding to Commissioner question, Mr. Harvey advised an
intercom system could be installed with push button in each condominium
unit; a gate across the front, back from the sidewalk, could give the
appearance of an attractive picket fence and would not swing over the
sidewalk. Commissioner comment: would want the car to be off the
street. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing
was cl�ed .
C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this narrow lot
with fire exiting requirements at the third floor level, that the lot
is zoned R-3 and the variance is necessary for the property riqht of
the owners to build units appropriate to the zone, that it would be an
improvement of the site, that it would not be detrimental to the
neighbors and would not adv�rsely affect the comprehensive zoning
P.C. 1/13/86
Item # 4 & #5
MEl�iO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CI'I'Y PLANNER
SIJBJECT: VARIANC� TO SIDE YARD SETBACK AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A
6 UNIT RESIDEN'rIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 113 ANITA ROAD, ZONED R-3
Triangle Enterprises, represented by William Nagle, is requesting a
2'-6" variance to a required 7' side yard setback and a condominium
permit for a 6 unit residential condominium at 113 Anita Road. The
variance is required because the exit (stair and balcony) required by
the Fire Department from the third floor extends 2'-6" into the
required 7' side yard 20' above grade at the third floor. The typical
unit has 962 SF and a private open balcony of 77 SF, 1,000 SF of common
open space is provided at the rear of the lot. The proposed project
meets all other requirements of the zoning and condominium ordinance.
City Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The Fire Marshal (August 13,
1985 memo) notes that the building must include a fire sprinkler and
alarm system. The Chief Building Inspector (September 3, 1985 memo)
comments one hour construction is required throughout the building.
The City Engineer (November 4, 1985 memo) reviews items which he will
need to see addressed on the final plans, but which will not affect the
footprint of the building. The City Attorney has reviewed the CC&Rs.
Applicant's Letter
In his letter of December 24, 1985 William Nagle discusses the reasons
for the variance request. He notes that the standard width of lot
(50') in Burlingame is narrow for a multiple unit project; and because
his lot is 2-1/2' wider th�n standard he is required to have an
additional foot in the side yard on each side. He states that the
great majority of the building is 8' from the side property line (7'
setback required) but the fire exit 20' above grade does extend into
the required side yard 2'-6". The second exit (balcony and stairs) is
required for safety. The third floor balcony and stair do not obstruct
access for fire fighting. Because the third floor exit from the
building is on the north side of the building it does not obstruct air
or liqht into the building on the adjacent property. He concludes by
pointing out that in his opinion the width of the lots in this area is
such that a variance is necessary if they are to be developed to the
densities allowed under the R-3 zoning.
Commission Study Questions
At study the Commission asked a number of questions (Planning
Commission Minutes, December 9, 1985). Mr. Nagle submitted a letter
(December 24, 1985) addressing the reason for the variance request and
the legal findings as he saw them.
-2-
The plans (revised November 20, 1984) show a designated guest parking
space, last stall to the rear of the building. The plans do not show
garage doors or gates to secure the parking areas.
Variance Findinas
The zoning code requires that the Planning Commission make the
following findings in order to grant a variance request (Code Sec.
25.54.020 a-d>:
a. that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property or class of uses in the district,
so that a denial of the application would result in undue
property loss;
b. that such variance would be necessary for the preservation
an3 enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the
property involved;
c. that the granting of such variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
injurious to the property or improvements of other property
owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or
improvements; and
d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Planninq 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. The following conditions should be
considered at the public hearing:
l. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the
Chief Building Inspector's September 3, 1985 memo and the City
Engineer's November 4, 1985 shall be met;
2. that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 25,
1985; and
3. that the guest parking space designated on the plans shall be
permanently set aside for guests, shall be identified as available
for guests only and shall not be enclosed by a security gate or
garage door.
I
�G" ��-(.� �
l�iargaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s cc: William Nagle, Triangle Enterprises
PROJECT APPLICATION <��"T" °� 113 A�IITA ROAD
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLJNGAME project address
Application received � 2/1/85 ���^•��w-••��� Project name - if any
Staff review/acceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Tri angl e Enterpri ses
name telephone no.
P. 0. Box 1513, Burlingame, CA 94011
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
_ bJilliam Nagle, 345 Lorton #204, Burlingame, 579-1422
contact person, if different CA 9 40 1 0 telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Specia.l Per�it () Variance* (X ) Ccndomi�ium Pernit ( X) Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
s. PROJECT DESCRIPTION VARIANCE and CONDOMINIUM PERMIT for six 2-bedroom
units. A VARIANCE is required to allow a required exit (stair and
bs�LcQny) to extend 2'-6" into a required 7'-0" side yard at the
third floor level. The typical unit has 962 SF in floor area and a
77 SF rivate balcon 75 SF re uired .±1,000 SF of qeneral open
space is provided in the rear yard area (600 SF is required . The
pro,7ect complies with zoninq requirements for height and lot
coveraae.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): (Cha►�.26.30 ) (PC Res.5-80 )
4. PROPERTY IDE�ITIFICATION +ptn.Lot 4
( 029-235-130 ) ( 3� ) ( 20 ) ( L�ron & Hoag
APN lot no. block no. sub ivision name
( R-3 ) ( 7,875 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Triangle Enterprises Post Office Box 1513
land owner's name �ur�ingame, �a 94011
Reauired Date received city zip code
(yes) �n� ( 2/1/�35 ) Proof of ownershio
�,g�) (no) ( — ) Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Two sinqle familv dwellin4s, to be removed
Required Date received
(yes) �rro) ( 2/1/85 )
(Ye5) �) ( �� )
u
(other) �� ( 2/4/85 )
MISSING
Site plan sho�•�ing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all str4ctures and improvements;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showina: gross floor area
by tyoe of us� on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section s) (if relevant).
]etter of exq anation
CC&R's
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PR�POSAL
Proposed consi:ruction,
gross floor area
�elov� orade ( — SF) Second floor ( 3,559 SF)
First floor ( 2,413 sF) rn;rd floor ( 3,763 s�)
Pro.ject Co�n
Pro�osal R�Qui r�r�ent
Front setback 15' 15'
Side setback 6� 6'
Side yard — —
Rear yaru 2� � 2� �
Project Code
Pr•eoosal Requirement
�ot coveraae 50°� 50% �1dX
F:uild�n� heic�ht 28,9� SP over 35'
Landscaoed area � P. C.{�2S .-80
On�,ite pkg.spaces 1 2 1 2
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) PROPOSED �
%�E�(��f�D�(� IM 2 YEARS I�! 5 YEARS
after ' after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full tine employees on site
Part tir�e employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Tri� ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
-�
�
�
• �
_
�_
�_
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
�1ulti-unit residences to the north, east and south; commercial
and residential uses to the west; this use conforms to the
general plan.
Required Date received
(yes) (no) ( ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(yes) (no) ( ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firr.is ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee 5 ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 (X )
Variance/other districts $ 75 (X ) ?leoative Declaration S 25 (n )
Condominium Permit $ 50 ( x) EIR City & consultant fee ()
TOTAL FEES 5 1 RECEIPT N0. Received by
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and cor,��t t,p,#� hact ,��y�ec�ge,and belief.
�l1�1,� �Pl'r
SignatureBY� � �! � - •� l` Date Feb. l, 1985
� pplicant �-
STF,FF USE OMLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-385P
Tne c;ty of Burlingame by h+ARaARET MO�SROE �„ December 30 , 1985,
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a conct�5;o�: The devel opment 0'� th'1 S S 1 t2 W1 th S'1 X
�ondominium units is consistent with the eneral plan densities
for the area. Further, the pro'ect will not create any adverse
environmental impacts on ad.iacent sites or traffic patterns, nor
Qn air or water auality.
�� CITY PLAN�JER �-..�.. �c'� 1
Signa re of rocessing ficial Title Dai:e Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the c+�te posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTI^IG Dat:e Posted: /? -__3[) -,� :�
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Ne�a.ti��e Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th�� Council Chambers. ��
Executed at 3urlingame, California on /t ��i(', ` �� , 19 �-�
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
r r/� � �� ( C � ,��L L
JU . M�� ERK CIT` � uURLIP�GAh1E
� ,CTYCL , y,
i�
STAFF REUIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIOfJ
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer ( 3/8/�35 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( " ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( _ ) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOP! MEASUP.ES
Concerns
4di11 the proposal
Fire and Building
requirements?
meet all
Code
Does the project
the requirements
City Engineer?
comply with
of the
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
Mitioation Measures
Request comments from the Fire
�9arshal and Chief Building
Inspector.
2equest comments from the
City Engineer.
3. CEQA REQUIREP�EPITS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject:
Is the project subject to CEQA review?
IF APd 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
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
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
�
c
i
�
�
�
�
4. APPLICATIOPJ STATUS Date first received ( 2�1�$5 ��/
Accepted as complete: no( X) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( 2� 2 2/ $ 5�Y��
Yes( ) date P.C. study (i x y g¢)
Is application ready for a �ublic hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date (��/ ��8` )
Date staff report mailed to aoplicant (/%��k`�v ) Date Commission hearing (f// 3/�O
Application approved (,� ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) r(no) J
Date Council hearing ( ) A�olication aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
���j' Ibp IZ• ��3�
signed date
WILLIAM L. NAGLE
JOHN S. KRUG
MICHAELI.MAHAFFEY
LAW OFFICES
NAGLE & KRUG
345 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 204
BURLINGAME,CAUFORNIA 94010-4116
(415) 579-1422
December 24, 1985
City Hall
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame Planning Commission
Attention: Margaret Monroe, City Planner
R��r�����
i�k� ��i l�85
' � �: :;-,;: ::=
Re: Apartment Building/Condominium Approval
113 Anita Road, Burlingame
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Triangle Enterprises is a partnership of three residents
of the City of Burlingame. Each of us has been raised in
this area and attended high school here. Each of us has
taken great pride in purchasing and restoring older homes.
We respectfully request a minimal variance in order to
construct a six-unit project at 113 Anita Road which is in an
R-3 zone. Considerable time, effort, and money have been
spent in designing, engineering and planning four two-bedroom
and two one-bedroom units each with one and one-half baths.
We believe this project will be a fine addition to the local
area and to the community at large.
Triangle Enterprises respectfully requests a minimal
variance in order to construct this six-unit proj ect at 113
Anita Road. As you are well aware, a majority of the R-3
zoned lots in our community are extremely narrow lots of
approximately 50 feet. These lots create rather extra-
ordinary circumstances in trying to plan for multiple use
dwellings pursuant to the right granted by the zoning in the
area. Actually, we are fortunate with the subject lot
because it has an additional two and one-half feet in width
and is 52 1/2 feet wide. According to local ordinances, a 50
foot wide building would require a six foot setback.
However, because we have an additional two and one-half feet,
the setback for the subject building is seven feet.
A variance is requested on this project because a small
portion of the building protrudes into the side setback. The
actual footprint of the building (as well as the bulk of the
building) is eight feet from the property line and well
0
Burlingame Planning Commission
Page 2
within the seven foot required setback. However, a fire
escape is required as a second exit from the building. This
is detailed in the plan on the third floor. Its height above
the ground is approximately 20 feet. Unfortunately, it does
protrude slightly into the side setback on the north side of
the building.
This second exit is required for safety purposes and is
the only reason that the project needs a variance. It does
not interfere with any access to fire equipment. It is on
the north side of the building and therefore does not affect
sunlight to the adjacent property.
It is respectfully submitted that the Commission make
those findings necessary to permit the granting of this
variance request. If the property is to be developed
pursuant to the R-3 zoning (condo or apartments), the only
feasible and reasonable way to develop the property is to
grant such a variance because of the unusual, and extra-
ordinary, size of the lots in this zoning area, such as the
one before the Commission.
Further, it is respectfully submitted that the only
reason a variance is required is for safety reasons stemming
from the second exit requirement. Al1 other requirements of
the City have been met, including the density requirement
involving parking. All things considered, we respectfully
submit that the intrusion of the fire escape into the side
setback is negligible and de minimis, and that a denial of
the request for variance would result in a substantial
hardship for the owners of Triangle Enterprises, as well as
constitute a substantial interference with their property
rights.
If you have any questions, I will do my best to answer
them at the public hearing of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
TRIANGLE ENTERPRISES
�
��l� �
By ..-o_ �
Will am L. Nagle ,
WLN:sw
August 13, 1985
T0: Helen Towber, Planner
FROM: Bob Barry, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: 113 Anita
I have reviewed the plans submitted for this permit and have the following
conxnents :
l. The building must have a complete sprinkler and fire alarm system
installed throughout. This system must be monitored by an approved
central station.
'i�_ :',
:.. :.
•.u�
DATE: �/�/�,r RECEIV�n
SEP 3- 1985
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR �r��i '�T�
FROM:
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS �,/u.ns :h ���cH,,.i� ,Qe�f�
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: /��i� /la,,,,f � �1G 57X �*-u+� ��u�C�yyiu�
,�-rpd� a.t //3 �/r�u ,�Qo�� -- �ayia.acG �r,�rd C��,��ii�r�,
P.��,�.
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for .ST�1> j�
at their_��Z6��� meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by �//y'��S
Thank you. �`0 ,' �� „N,w� Q�/'
+ ,�I v/Si o�^
��a,� , f� u�'� ���
► ,��'
Helen Towber
�� - /%3 �4n�r�
Planner �� ' .�
$�
att.
� i_�=—
,rr. �L�'.aw � ----
� d �
% ` � u �� �
�' ��ti�/ /� �
�
���� � � � �
�
y� � � ��
��'/� � �uC(,�"�
/-/'% Kr� S
�
� ' ,-c.
����a
,,� ,
��twCf �
��
�
�� _d '��'°°'�
�� �
;, ^ 3,
,..�•,
BOARD OF DIRECTOHS
International Conference of Building Officials
5360 SOUTH �'ORKMAN MILL ROAD • WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 9061� i
December 5, 1985
PRESIDENT
DAVID A. BASSETT, P.E.
BUILDING SAFETY DIRECTOR
MEDFORD,OFEGON
FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT
MARK R. RODMAN
DIRECTOR, BUILDING SEFVICES
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT
CHARLESCLAWSON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ARI.INGTON,TEXAS
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
JOHN E. MAULDING, P.E.
BUILDING OFFICIAL
LANCASTER. CALIFORNIA
BOB FOWLER, A.I.A., P.E.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING INSPECTION
ALBILENE, TEXAS
PHILLIP M. HERRINGTON
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
BUILDING AND SAFETY
RENO.NEVADA
DOUGLAS E. HOOD
BUILDING OFFICIAL
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
PARKER, ARIZONA
SOL J. JACOBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF iNSPECTIONS
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA
JAMESL.MANSON
DIRECTOR, DEPAATMENT OF
BUILDING AND SAFETV
COUNTY OF SPOKANE
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
MICHAEL J. NOLTE
BUILDING OFFICIAL
CRESWELL. OREGON
WILLIAM E. SCHLECHT
BUIIDING OFFICIAL
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
HILLSBORO.OREGON
JAMES R. SINGLETON
BUILDING SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR
TUCSON, AFIZONA
BREN7SNYDER
BUILDING OFFICIAL
PACIFICA, CAIIFORNIA
RONALD R. TREMBLAY
BUILDING OFFICIAL
ASSARIA, KANSAS
STANLEY WHEELER
BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
LIVERMOFE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Pete 1<riner
Chief Building Inspector
City of Burlingame
San Mateo County
City Hall
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
..._.� _ i�_ ;C :-I ,���: ";"
` �,� ; !C �;(, C Ii 14( ,�C�, �!� .'+ ,
4 :�; _�
iL.t �� . ..
�� ., .
! _: ;.i � _. � .. .. �. ' .
r;��� �.�� � " -. �'► -
OFfICES OF
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
JAMES E. BIMR, P.E.
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
DONALD R. WATSON, P.E.
Subject: Number of Exits Required from Three Story Buildings
Section 3303(a)
Exterior Exit Balconies and Dead End Corridors
Section 3305(a) and 3305(e)
1982 Uniform Building Code
Dear Mr. Kriner:
In the absence of Mr. Frank Drake who is away from the office due to
business engagements, your letter dated November 18, 1985, is being answered
by the undersigned.
The plans of a three story building enclosed with your letter have been
reviewed and we find that an additional stairway at the location which
you have indicated in red on sheet 3 of the plans is not required.
Section 3303(a) states that occupants on floors above the second story
shall have access to not less than two separate exits from the floor. The
information on sheet 3 of the plans shows that each of the condominium
units has an interior stairway as one exit and access to an exterior exit
balcony as the other exit. Once having stepped onto the balcony the occupants
are not required to proceed in two directions to stairs from the balcony
since the balcony only serves as a means of access to a second exit. Accordingly,
the dead end provisions of Section 3305(e) are not applicable in this case.
'�Ve are returning your plans enclosed herewith.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
EUGENE J. ZELLER, P.E.
SUPERIN1nENDSAFOYOUILDING TJK•amg
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA Enclosure
Sincerely,
�
� T. . Koyamatsu, P.E.
ief Plan Check Engineer
• (213) E�99-0541
Regional Offices: 6; 38 �.bb'. To�ti�er Drive • hanca�Cit�. �'�1i«ouri 6-;171 •(816) �-}1-Z?-�l
1 Z:i05 6c�llevuc°-Redmond Ro id. Suite 208 • Bellevue, �1'ashinc,tc�r. 98Q05 •:206) 451-9541
603 \1�est 1 3th $treet, Suitc� ?-F • �uttin, T�k;�� .'H-(�; • '712'� 4?9-�t2-R
�i �'. �i �. � � �'. �
['!UU � - I�Bh
MEMO Gri�i�`E�P'i November 4, 1985
�
T0: Planning Department
FROM: Department of Public Works - Engr. Div.
Re: Tentative Condominium Map and Condominium
Permit Plans - 6-Unit Development
113 Anita Road - P. M. 85-7
I have the following comments on this study item:
1. Drainage patterns of adjacent properties need be determined. Ex-
isting drainage patterns cannot be blocked. How are all roof and
paving drainage to get to street?
2. Site plan grades on Burlingame datum must be shown. Show adjacernt
site elevations on site plans and show complete proposed final
site elevations.
3. New curb, gutter and sidewalk, designed by applicant's Engineer, to
be installed by the applicant, complete with any required paving.
Applicant's Civil Engineer to design curb, gutter and sidewalk grades
based on survey information at least 100 feet past property line.
4. Indicate where a trash enclosure may be installed behind the front
setbacks.
5. Show locations of adjacent property's driveways.
6. All utilities shall be installed underground, including any trans-
formers proposed on-site.
7. Indicate lot lines on parking layout. Appears that proposed fencing
restricts parking back out distance by probably four inches or so.
8. A detailed survey plat , to the detail of a record map,is required
showing the basis of all corner sets. City Engineer review and
approval is required.
� i -
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
mg
Paqe 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1985
why the rail instead of solid wall; ceiling height on upper level and
lower level; letter from applicant addressing the legal requirements
for variance approval. Item set for hearing January 13, 1986.
8. SIGN EXCEPTION - IBIS HOTEL - 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Requests: is Sign C above parapet and a roof sign; height from ground
of 5ign D; clarify text of Sign F; include pictur�s referred to in the
text; include signage chart for all signage in the area. Item set for
hearing January 13, 1986.
`) 9. CONDOMINIUM PERMI'r AND VARIANCE - 113 ANITA ROAD
�_
Requests: letter ad3ressing the legal requirements for variance
approval; is there designated quest oarking and a gate; review CC&Rs
prior to public hearing. Item set for hearing January 13, 198b.
PLANNER REPORT
- CP Monroe r�viewe3 Council actions at its December 2, 1985 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting a3journed at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary
BU I
o°
\44 .4
""wno,.lur.c °�
�.hr C�itu IIf �Ltrlii�t��mr
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNiq 9ap10 TEL:;alS) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 13th dav of January 1986 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application to allow a six unit residential condominium
�roiect_�t 113 Anita Road zon d R-3
0
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 PLANNER
January 3, 1936
r , i
RESOLUTIOid 2J0.
RESOLUTION APPROVIYdG CONDOMIi1IUM PERPIITS
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Burlingame that;
WHEREAS, application has been made for a '
'Condominium Permit for d S1X U111t residential prolect
; �
�at 113 Anita Road (APN 029-235-130 �,
and
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on '
said application on January 13 , 19g6
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and .
DETERMINED by the Planning Commission that said Condominium Permit
is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of
this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County
of San Mateo.
A. M. Garcia
Chairman
2/4/85
I. ROBERT J. LEAHY, Secretary of the Planning
Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced and adoDted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of
Janua� _,1986 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMTIISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABS�iQT: CODIMISSIONERS:
Robert J. Lea y
Secretary
Please return to:
Planning Dept.
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
���C� `i� ��
FEB 7 - 1986
pTY OF BURLINGAWtE
PLJINNING DEPT.
�
��
��.
��
���
RESOLUTIO.� .d0. Z-8F
RESOLVED by the Planning Com,-nission of the City
I hereby certify this to be a
full, true and c�orrect copy
of the document it purpbrts
to be� the original of which is
on file in r�� ;d�fi e.
Date : �-�� -- �-�. . �[ . �o
, ` �
� 4 'I Y
Margaret Mo rc�e�;-,�i�t,y,�Planner
2/4/35
of Burlingame that;
wF-;EREAS, application has been made for a �
' Condominium Permit for d S 1 X Ufl l t res i denti al pY'0 j eCt � T
.�
I�
; �
'at 113 Anita Road (APN 029-235-130 ' ~
�; ,�
-�
and ; ,'�
wHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on '
said application on January 13 , 198(
NOW, THEREFORE, it is herebp RESOLVED and ,
DETERMINED by the Planning Commission that said Condominium Permit
is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in E:chibit "A"
attacned hereto. '
Zt is further directed that a certifiea copY� of
this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County
of San :4ateo.
� � 6' ��-' �'GC_.
� A. ��1. Sarc�a ----
Chairman
I. ROBERT J. LEAHY, Secretar}� of the Planning
Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifv that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced and a,a.00ted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of
January _,1986 , by tne following vote:
AYES:
�IOES
ABSE��T:
�hnil���'+
-;E�C�f�G�� AT R�i]U� tiT OF
� ��
� '
J,�,'r� �U � 56 i'f`i ' �D �
t�€AR`�'i;� �. ,��i%i: F't;�� RD�R
S�r; i`�AlE:O�COt;4lY
QFFlCIf.L P,ECQnDS
RESOLUTION APPROVItdG CONDOMIIdIUS7 PERf1ZTS
co��zsszo.a�Rs: GARCIA,GIOMI,GRAHAM,JACOBS,LEAHY,
co�i�irssio:aeRs: NONE TAYLOR
CO�LMISSIONERS: SC�{WALr•�
'-'� �'�' ,� �: .
�/�- c�E � ��.
Rober-t�'J. Lea y�'
Secretary ,/
0
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval, Condominium
Permit and Variance, 113 Anita Road
(effective January 21, 1986)
Property owner:
Triangle Enterprises
Post Office Box 1513
Burlingame, CA 94011
1. that the conditions of the Fire �larshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the
Chief Building Inspector's September 3, 1985 memo and the City
Engineer's November 4, 1985 memo shall be met;
2. that the oroject as built shall be consistent with the plans m
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 25, �
1985;
N
1�+
3. that the uest arkin soace desi nated on the �
q P g g plans shall be ,A
permanently set aside For guests and shall be i3entified as GD
available for guests only; and
4. that a rolling security gate be placed 3t least �' behind the
property line with intercom system on the outside which connects to
each unit to assur� guest parking is accessible.
. ,
�
RESOLUTION :10. Z-S6
RESOLUTION APPROVIidG CONDOMIIdIUM PERI�IITS
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
2/4/85
of Burlingame that;
WHEREAS, application has been made for a
;Condominium Permit for d S1X Utllt residential prolect '
—�
i I
'at 113 Anita Road (APN 029-235-130 �;
a„a
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on
said application on January 13 , 19g6
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and .
DETERMINED by the Planninq Commission that said Condominium Permit
is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. '
It is further directed that a certified cops of
this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County
of San �'�ateo.
, , / ��--
` A. �i. Gdrela
Chairman
I, ROBERT J. LEAHY, Secretar}� of the Planning
Commission of the City of Burlinyame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing P.esolution was introduced and a3o�ted at a regular
meeting of the Planniny Commission held on the 13th day of
�dT1Ud1"y _,1986 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMIIISSIONERS: GARCIA,GIOMI,GRAHAM,JACOBS,LEAHY,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE TAYLOR
ABSE��T; COPLMISSIONERS: SCHWALP•�
, �, � �
,..r'<'Z[tt ��. �L%a=�it
Rober J. Lea��
Secretary ,�
w . �
�
�
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval, Condominium
Permit and Variance, 113 Anita Road
(effective January 21, 1986)
Property owner:
Triangle Enterprises
Post Office Box 1513
Burlingame, CA 94011
1. that the conditions of the Fire �larshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the
Chief r3uildinq Inspector's September 3, 1985 memo and the City
Engineer's November 4, 1985 memo shall be met;
2. that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planninq Department and date stamped July 25,
1985;
3. that the guest parking space designated on the plans shall be
permanently set aside For guests and shall be i3entifie3 as
available for guests only; and
4. that a rolling security gate be placed at least 8' behind the
property line with intercom system on the outside which connects to
each unit to assure guest parking is accessible.
, • •
WILLIAM �. NAGLE
JOHN S. KRUG
Burlingame
City Hall,
Burlingame,
F� B 4 - 1985
LAW OFFICES
NAGLE & KRUG
345 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 204
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 -4116
(415) 579-1422
Mt r � �E 11� f� �
February 4, 1985
Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
CA 94010
c�Tr�e�u�c�
Attention: Margaret Monroe, City Planner
Re: Apartment Building/Condominium Approval
113 Anita Road, Burlingame
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Triangle Enterprises is a partnership which owns the
property commonly known at 113 Anita Road, Burlingame. The
only partners of Trianqle Enterprises are Nan and Bill Nagle,
Terry and Don Lembi, and Pat Kelley. As you know, we are
all residents of the City of Burlingame. Don, Terry and I
grew up in Burlingame and attended Burlingame High School.
After our formal education was completed, we returned to
Burlingame to raise our families. We have practiced good
citizenship by taking an active role in our community well
being. Both Don and I have taken an active role in our
children's activities. In addition, Don is a member of the
Park and Recreation Commission, and I am a member of the
Library Commission/Board of Trustees.
All of the partners of Triangle Enterprises have been
raised in this area; all reside in Burlingame; and all have
taken great pride in purchasing and restoring older homes.
The property that we purchased at 113 Anita Road is zoned
R-3. We would like to build six two-bedroom, one and one-half
bath units. We have spent considerable time and effort in
designing and planning these units, and believe they will be
a fine addition to the local area and community at large.
Initially, we contemplated building an apartment building.
We were advised that this would be the first apartment build-
ing in Burlingame in a number of years. As we developed our
plans, we realized that we were building the plans to condo-
minium specifications. We also realized that if we did not
apply for a condominium permit at the initial stages, any
subsequent purchaser would be precluded from converting these
units to condominiums.
,�.
Burlingame Planning Commission
Page 2
Accordingly, we decided to apply for a condominium permit.
Our plan is not to sell the units as condominiums. Rather, it
is to rent them as apartments. However, it makes good business
sense to have these units qualified as condominiums in order to
preserve as many options as possible for the property. For
example, owning condominiums would provide us with greater
rights than owning apartments in the event of rent control
legislation or initiative.
Title 25 covers zoning. Pursuant to Title 25, Section 25.66
in R-3 zoning the developer is permitted 50 percent lot coverage.
The subject lot is 52 feet, 6 inches by 150 feet or 7,875 square
feet. The project meets the lot coverage criteria.
Pursuant to Resolution 5-80 of the Planning Department
dated December 8, 1980, Chapter 26.30 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code requires that a condominium new construction
permit be obtained before issuance of any buildinq permit for
a condominium project. Further, pursuant to this Resolution,
condominium permits are to be evaluated and processed pursuant
to the procedural requirements set forth for conditional use
permits in Title 25 of said code. Chapter 26.30 of said code
establishes the standards and minimum requirements.
Resolution 7-79 of the Burlingame Planning Commission
adopted December 10, 1979, establishes open space standards
for residential condominiums. Pursuant to this Resolution
(2)(b) private open space for each unit shall be at least 75
square feet and may include decks and balconeys when designated
for outdoor use. This requirement has been met and exceeded
in the subject plans.
Pursuant to this same resolution (2)(c) qeneral space
open space is defined as follows:
In addition to private open space, open space
accessible to or enjoyed by all project residents
shall be provided at not less than 100 square feet
per unit.
Such general areas shall be designated for
passive or active use, and include landscaping or
paving, provided such paving does not exceed 50
percent of the required area. Also such areas
shall be at or within six feet of established
grades; rooftop areas shall not qualify as general
open space.
Burlingame Planning Commission
Page 3
In this project, general open space must be at least 600
square feet pursuant to this resolution. General open space
includes landscaped areas. The project plans meet and
exceed the general open space requirement of the resolution.
We submit this project to the Planning Commission and
respectfully request a condominium new construction permit.
If any members of the Planning Commission or staff have any
questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned at
any time.
Respectfully submitted,
TRIANGLE ENTERPRISES
��
_ � � ��
B y -!�� 1
Willi m L. Naqle
WLN:sw
�kte C�it� �f �u�Iirt��tme
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
�: �► �►� �►��u ► u ' :u
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the llth dav of April, 1988 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application for six 2 bedroom condominium units which will have
a ct�ir anci h�lrnnv PxtPndina 2'-6" into a required 7'-0" side yard setback, at
113 Anit� R�ad, 7onPd R-3
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��ER
�': •i:
•.! . � �
� '
I' RESOLUTION N0.
i
I! RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDOMINIUM PERMITS
i,
Ij RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame
I
i•
i that:
IWHEREAS, application has been made for a condominium permit for
ja 6-unit residential condominium
! at 113 Anita Road (qpN 029-235-130 �, ��
, --- —
and
� WHEREAS, this Cornmission heid a public hearing on said
appl ication on Apri 1 I Z , 198 8
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this
Planning Commission that said condominium permit is approved, subject to
' the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
i,
i It is further direr_ted that a certified copy of this resolution
�' be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo.
NANNETTE M. GIOMI
CHAIRMAN
I, HARRY S. GRA7AM, Secretary of the Planning Commission �I
of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution ,
was introduced and adopted at a regulzr meeting of the Planning Commission I
�
; ne�d or, tnE llth day of__ Apri 1 , i9s 8 , h.v I
the following vote: �
I
AYES: COP��MISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS i
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS �
�
� I
HARRY S. GRAHAM
SECRETARY I
C hP C�tt� �f �u.rltrt�ttxnP
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
�: �► �►� �►��u ► u ' :u
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the llth day of April, 1988 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application for six 2 bedroom condominium units which will have
a ctair ar,r1 h�l�nnv PxtPndin� 2'-6" into a required 7'-0" side yard setback at
LL3 Anita Rn�d_ 7onPri R-�
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�JER
:': •::
�hr C�t�� IIf �u�itrt��trrtP
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:!415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 13th day of Januarv, 1986 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application to allow a six unit residential condominium
nr_o.iect at 113 Anita Road, zoned R-3
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 PLANNER
January 3, 1986