The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1080 Carolan Avenue - Staff Report• ir�` � w t . � U'� � P.C. 10/22/84 Item #2 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT; VARIANCE TO PARKING DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS AT NORTHPARK APARTMENTS, 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE Richard Coxall, CNR Associates, Inc., representing the owners of Northpark Apartments, is requesting a variance to alter the dimensions of 48, 9' X 20' parking stalls to 8' X 17' so that 54 parking stalls will fit into the same area (Code Sec. 25.70.020-a1). This variance to parking dimension requirements would increase the amount of parking on site by six spaces. The applicant also wishes to remove four parking spaces in the underground garage below Building B to build a 1,170 SF inaintenance facility/storage room. Recently the applicant made a request for a six space parking variance in order to build a 1,980 SF inaintenance facility/storeroom on six parking spaces in the underground garage below Building B. On August 13, 1984 this request was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission. In the minutes of the August 13, 1984 meeting the Commission discussed that the alternatives to the proposed project had not been adequately explored. They would like the six spaces lost replaced, the area has impacted parking, and a maintenance facility at grade would not greatly affect the aesthetics of the site (Planning Commission minutes August 13, 1984). City staff have reviewed the project. The Fire Marshal (September 1984 memo) had no objection to the parking proposal but had some concern that the maintenance facility should meet the requirements the Uniform Fire Code. The Chief Building Inspector (September 19, 1984 memo) notes that the building will have to be built to meet Type V, one hour fire resistive standards. The City Engineer (October 1, 1984 memo) notes that the addition of compact stalls should not have a significant effect on parking so long as they are more evenly distributed throughout the site than currently shown. 20 , of The applicant submitted two letters (September 21, 1984 and August 30, 1984) in support of the project. The first letter addresses the fact that they intend to replace the six parking spaces lost by placing the maintenance facility underground, by restriping some of the parking areas at grade creating parking stalls 8' X 17'. In total only 7� of the on-site parking would be affected. A survey of the site showed no way to provide additional parking area without eliminating landscaping and mature trees. They also prepared a parking survey (referred to below). The second letter reviews the factors which they suggest would justify a variance in this case. These items include the necessity for a residential complex of this size to have a maintenance facility. To locate this facility any place at grade will detract from and reduce the landscaping and/or parking. Thus locating this facility below r, � � ♦ , -2- grade affects the parking but not the landscaping. Because of the size of the complex, it is essential that the maintenance facility be located on the project site; and the property owner has the right to locate the facility where it will best serve his tenants. Placing the maintenance facility below grade presents no hazard to the tenants and does not detract visually from the complex. The six spaces lost will be replaced at grade by restriping to smaller spaces some of the unassigned parking areas. There are no areas of the zoning code where granting this variance will have an adverse effect. The Planning Commission had a number of questions at study (Planning Commission minutes October 9, 1984): - Parking survey The applicant requested his security guard to count vacant parking spaces between 1:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. from August 29 to September 4, 1984 (Coxall letter of September l, 1984). This survey showed that during this early morning hour there were 58 to 74 parking spaces vacant on site each day. The largest number of these spaces, 30-33, appeared to be located in the area between Building 8 and Miller Chevrolet at the rear of the site. - Clarification of request The zoning code does not allow compact parking for residential development as a matter of right as in the case with commercial development (20� after the first 20 spaces) (Code Sec. 25.70.030-1). However, the code does provide for a variance to parking dimension requirements in a residential district (Code Sec. 25.70.030-a). Thus the Commission cou13 allow smaller sized parking spaces simply by allowing a variance to the standard stall dimension. Technically the Commission could grant as large or as small a variance to stall size dimensions as they felt appropriate affecting as many or as few spaces as seemed workable. In this case 7$ of the on-site spaces would be affected. This would be 20% of the unassigned parking which is all the at-grade parking. The placement of the maintenance facility would reduce the available assigned parking below Building B by four standard stalls. No compact stalls would be provided below grade. - Fire separation If approved, before a building permit is issued for the maintenance facility, all Fire Code requirements including separation from living areas shall be met. In addition the maintenance facility will be inspected annually by the Fire Department to ensure that only appropriate items are safety stored in it. : � - r 4 • � -3- The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. At the hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of September 19, 1984 and the City Engineer's memo of October l, 1984 be met; 2. that the maintenance facility as built be placed under Building B and conform to the alternate one wall position shown in the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 5, 1984 so that no more than four parking stalls would be removed; and 3. that the final plans shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame before any building permit is issued. NI +" 11d J� Marg ret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Richard Coxall, CNR Associates Northpark Properties, et al " � - :. � .; v� i U (n •r f� r � Q r Q" � t� � O S- i-� i U O N � N O +� a� z -v U U aJ � � • �..> Q a� � O N U.E � U N N i N � •� a� � ��oa LC) i r a� a a� Rs m� � •� c +� v� � +� •r •r � � � � N � '� O �� •r o\ i- � ln s.. � o +-� v a�- � �n � � � . N cn � N N U U U Q?•r (� �c�� .. Q.� 3 y � i N � � S- 'p M > o�a�� •r- c ,--� � +� +� •r 1� Q N � v= Q •r � Vl d--� '� S. N � N (O LT N U CJ N � +� !C{ �. � N •r r Q•r C}� S.. Y f� tn � = N S- a' 3 �o c� rn a� � a •� � � -o v� 3 +� +-� �C N O� S- i O N N � �CS •r f0 •r i O O r� 3}� 'p {� N r r Q •� � cn .E.7 'p (O •r � N N (v •r Z3 +� X � N N I� � c0 cn W r U C� �� N +-� a- O- �� tp C L N N -I, � N � a--� O •r Q N U O� Q1 3 � N N r C C N di �. 'n �F- •r •r "a U� �O �CY N �O •r � d' � S- i-� C]. > S.. � 00 t0 t� U V7 O � •\Q..a i. O�Q� � N \d'l0 d--� � M t� S.. 01 tn •r � (� (n •r • � �G "� 01 � Vl fCS (C o s- a� ,-+ a� a� a� U r6 +-> t � +� � i. C1 U C+> L C� t0 N � �--� �LS r0 � L S.. � U� N 3 C+� O� •r U U O N • 4- O r �� +� � � U Q rtf � U N O �n cn � � � N E U��+� Q� N •r7 •r U U � +� � O+� N c6 �6 QJ •• � C L (O QQ� J•r•r Q rtf � N N� N� E N� �7-�NLn U O �r+� UI�CY �I�LL t N I� CJ C O N N F-- +-� •�� rts � ¢ o v� �oo S- N i�I--� I� l0 C.'3 • Q. �•r F— �-I Ln Z N U� N U r--� �--� �-. r� a� �a � cn w Ydl� QQ.1 �''� d' � I— N L r O�� ¢ c� a a �c I i� -K PROJECT APPLICATION �r CEQA ASSESSMENT Application received ( 9/ 5 8 4 Staff review/acceptance ( 9�2��$4 •c��' `�TM °� 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE BURLINGAME project address � {�ORTHPARK APARTMENTS ��e'W�.,•�� pro,7ect name - if any � i. APPLICANT CNR Associates, Inc. 345-2101 name telephone no. 2p�0 Pioneer Court, #2, San Mateo, CA 94403 applicant s address: street, city, zip code Richard Coxall 345-2101 contact person, if different telephone no. 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION Specia.l Perriit () Variance* ( X) Condominium Permit () Other *Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. VARIANCE to,parking 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION dir�ens�c�ns to allow the use of compact sized stalls on a residential site in order to recoup four parking stalls lost bv the relocation of the building maintenance facilities for the Northpark Apartments The maintenance facility is to be relocated from a privately owned buildin� on the site to an 1170 SF area beneath one of the a�artment buildings and will eliminate four stalls in the �rocess accordinq to the present floor plan. The applicant pr�nntPc o r�tripQ an �nassig.C]ed arki q area for 48 cars, (*) 9 (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s): ( 25.70.030 ) ( 4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Ptn.Parcel 1, Parcel Map Vol. 13�18 ( 026-231-280 ) ( ) ( ) ( � APN lot no. block no. subdivision name ( R-4 ) ( 489,309 ) ZNnin district land area. s uare feet or�hpark Pro erties et a� ��.�riedkin-�Pr Pr Assnci�tes 300 Grand Avenue land own?r's name address Oakland, CA 94610 Reouired Date received city zip code (g�) (no) ( - ) Proof of ownership (yes) (��) ( ) Owner's consent to a�plication 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Existinq 510 unit apartment complex with on-site parking for 772 cars. Required Date received (yes) (rr� (�/5/84 ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and curbs; all structures and improvements; paved on-site parking; landscaping. (�es) �n0� ( - ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area by type of us�`on each floor plan. (3�t�) �n Q� ( ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant). � �� (no) ( ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant). �'other) ( 9�5�g4 ) 1Ptter nf axnlanatinn; n�rT ki'nT S}�CP and apartment unit survey; aq rking survev *Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT PP,�POSAL Propased construction, gross floor area Below grade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF) First floor ( 1170* SF) Third floor ( - SF) Pro,ject Code Pr000sal Requirement Front setback Side setback n 0 Ci1d Side yard Rear yard Project Code Proposal Requirement Lot coveraqe Ruild?n� height n 0 Landscaoed area On-�site pkg.spaces 77�** 772** • ' � ` 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) Full time employees on site Part ti�e emoloyees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Trip ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles *Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES Auto-related uses to the east and west; Bayshore Freeway and restaurant to the north; S. .R.R_ tra kG to the south Required Date received (�ees� (no) ( — ) Location plan of adjacent properties. �qes) (no) ( — ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. firms ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. comoany vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee $ () Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 ) Project Assessment $ 25 ( X) Variance/other districts $ 75 �) Negative Declaration $ 25 ( X) Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ () TOTAL FEES $ 125. 00 RECEIPT N0. 5092 Received byH. ToWber I hereby certify under true and correct to � Signature /y � of perjury that the information given herein is �t my wledge and belief. _. ?. n.+,. �if -�-/- V</ STAFF USE ONLY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. 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 Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: 19 , Categorically exem t: Reference Existing Faci ities, Code Sec. 15301. �1� , � � �o- � Sig ature of Processino Official Title Daze Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te posted, the deternination shall be final. DECLARATION OF POSTIMG Dai:e Posted: I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk o�f the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Nega.ti�re Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to th� Council Chambers. Executed at Qurlingame, California on Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P�o 19 JUD�. M1�TTI, CITY CLERK, CITY �F oURLINGAhtE EXISTING IN 2 YEARS IN 5 YEARS after � after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM � � � . �� STAFF REVIEW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply received City Engineer ( 9/17/84 ) (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 0 memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Concerns Mitigation Measures Do the plans comply with all Request comments from the Fire and Building Code require- Fire Marshal and Chief Bldg. ments? Inspector. Will adequate parking area Request a parking survey; be provided after the review site and future possible addition? leasing of ,parking spaces to adjacent office building. Does the applicant satisfy the Review applicant's 9/5/34� four legal requirements of letter; make findings. Code Sec. 25.54.020 for the granting of a variance? 3. CEQA REQUIREMEPITS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: Is the project subject to CEQA review? NO Cateqori ca11 y exempt. 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. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received (9/ 5/ 8 4 ) Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to applicant advising info. required (9 / 2 0/ 84 ) Yes( X) date_�/��84 P.C. study (10/9/84 ) Is application ready for a public hearing? yes) (�ss) Recommended date (/D�22/�c�) Date staff report mailed to applicant (�o �7 $r1�) Date Corrmission hearing (/o/.'��g� Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) � Appeal to Council (yes) (no) Date Council hearing ( ) Application aporoved ( ) Denied ( ) '�i�i/i.i� ,�� -.-. .. � , , idORTH PARK APARTMENTS Existing Parking Summary Covered spaces 510 �xterior spaces 262 Total: 772 Apartment Units 2 bedroom units 120 1 bedroom units 240 studios 150 .r �;,, 'i'hirty (30) spac�s leuacc� to �Kike Harvey Oldsmoi�i�e �J��,�:�*^.e use ,,,,i.,� Ten (10) spaces leased �to �handler Building (Daytime use only) R�CEIVE� s � P 5 - 1984 CITY OF BURLINOAME PUWNING pEPT. t, , Statement of Materials stored at the Northpark Maintainence shop We examined the contents of the above maintainence shop and are pleased to report as follows. The bulk of the contents comprises of benches and storage shel- ves used to stock spare parts and supplies for regular main- tainence of the 510 apartments on the complex. Typical of these items are: appliance parts light bulbs paper towels window screens lumber cleaning supplies tools carpet cleaners and shampoo The only hazardous materials noted were paint and miscellaneous chemicals as follows: Paint 30 gals ± 10 gals thinner 3 gals. acetone 1 gal. alcohol , 20-30 spray cans No work involving welding or naked flame is carried out in the maintainence shop and the area is mainly used tor storage rather than a workshop. ��r�f V�� -� S � P 5 - 1984 CITY OF BURLINGAAIE PI_�J�IAINrG OEP7. r-- - � I I I , � 1 i ; - -� � -- - - -... --- - - -- ---- -- - , �-►-- ---------- �� ------ --------- rA + A i i I �5 � i _ L/ �E aF suve e vE�c - - - �-/-� - - - - -. _.E��i� Rai io _ _ --------�-I ; �.�e,-,�.,Ts - s,o � Ilwtcu� siwcr"s - �'!j � cwi.cf� aacR.Ny uwc �s - s a. o �_. \�C�� s/WCGs .:os- _ .t I i �-------------- - - �, 9GL SS STGPS I � q�TE.�'.�/R/F_ � NA'.[ f03. :•�+�.' � I ` / � . . � r — ` — —�V � .� � � � _ _ ' ' _ � � ' � � � � � � �� _ — _ _ _ _ � ' � � , � � � � , �� , ;��i i� � ��'snE�:l a � � 1e�1y �.�e3 --� � ' �-_-_---_=_�---_-_---� ''/ -=--I-- __-_-=__�-_-,� _R- ;-- 1- J.L='3�Y3�� 2 Y`MA4 fti: IOI✓ �p � "I � � i r' � � �? �� Cd�'iPcic B.�OCR � �� , ��oTr i rt _/1�.f,e� Me.�_-5- �KEr�H��/.i+�t / r.Cl rc rr �fi�f' N� r,/ HM'Nri9h'J�T/C�: F.9cr�.r✓ �-�C- a' R�CEIW�D CI�:t a f-.: w�::�:�.�::�, iC1C. SEP 5� i98� S€;.a.v /}-� � Sc�e ov1ER� �� \� ,.__Zr� r,e�s , 'I i.e- s., r :.vs � 2 co.Eh � s� `I I� . {►! r1✓h4: li.1/l�N/( I �. �<<'� fN$ �� S✓•�pC�E L�Di..•G> �I fl 4ar..�Fc� i.::., � !; t.Jt= ivc 7 L`�tc icv: ' I� I � II li �; �� I. II I; IH: �T� -�`�-�=•--<=•=--��: �-1 � . �� \ ' \ �\ �, � � . . • • \\ \ \� \ �' \' �♦ • \ � • � � ` �tN6 On'4RA0� �� -�J= .�S _�. CITY OF BURIiNGAME PLMINING DErT. ; CNR Associates, inc. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING 2040 Pioneer Ct., San Mateo, CA 94403 September 21, 1984 � � � � � � � � S t P 21 198� Burlingame, Ca 94010 Re: Northpark Variance Ms Helen Towber ��,y�. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Dept �f ^�� 501 Primrose Dear :�Is Towber, (415) 345-2101 In response to the Planning Commissions suggestion that the 6 parking spaces lost by the relocation of the maintainence shop be recovered elsewhere on the site, we are proposing to re- stripe certain areas to include compact spaces as permitted by the City of Burlingame on commercial properties. This will recover the lost spaces easily, and not exceed the 20% allowance for compact spaces. In considering the gaining of additional parking spaces, we examin- ed the entire site with a view to finding new and additional spots but without narrowing fire lanes and drive aisles this was not possible. Additional spaces may also be found in landscaped areas, but this would mean a loss of xnature trees and shrubs, which we do not consider desirable. As part of our submission, we also carried out a parking study, ( the results of which are attached) which indicates that there is adequate parking within the �ite. Sincerely Yours, i� ti Richard W. Coxall General Contractor's License #438470 4 � CNR Associates, Inc. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING 2040 Pioneer Ct., San Mateo, CA 94403 (415) 345•2101 August 30, 1984 City of Burlingame Planning Department City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 � ��i �G�'W �� S�� 5 "' i�� TM �'FVNING pEPTME Re: Revision to Proposal for Relocation of *�aintenance Facilities at the Northpark Apartments, Carolan Avenue, Burlingame, CA Gentlemen: Further to the August 13, 1984 Planning Commission Denial withou-t prejudice of our application for a parking variance at the above property to accomodate a relocated maintenace facility, we herewith submit a revision to our proposal, with parking plan attachment. The existing maintenance facility has been located in the Chandler Insurance Building which stands on property leased from the Northpark apartment complex for the past 10± years. The above building is now for sale, and the lease will be terminated on the maintenace shop area, necessitating a relo- cation of the facility. We hereby made application for this variace based on conditions A, B, C& D of Sec. 25.54.020 of the City of Burlin- game building code with the following comments. Sec. A The present maintenance facility is an absolute necessity to adequately provide service to the 510 apartments at the complex. Examination of the previ.ously submitted site plan will show that to locate a new structure for the maintenance shop on the property will detract and deduct from the existing landscaping and/or parking no matter where located. For this reason, it is felt that by locating the shop in the basement parking area the aesthetic value of existing mature landscaping will not be lost. General Contractor's Llcense #438470 ' S 4 -2- Sec. B In a complex of this nance facility be located is the right of the owner best to provide the most Sec. C size it is essential that the mainte- on the property, and we believe it to locate his facility as he thinks efficient service to his tenants. Location of the facility in the basement parking area provides no hazards to residents, and does not detract visually �rom the complex. 5ince the six parking spaces will be lost by relocating the maintenance facility into the garage, we propose recouping the six lost spaces by restriping (48) unassigned, standard sized parking spaces, to compact sized parking spaces (see attachment of parking plan, with proposed changes marked in red.). We feel that the resulting 54 compact spaces, (70 of the total 772 spaces), will not adversely affect the parking situation, or conflict with the intent of the parking code requirements at the time of construction. Sec. D After examination of the City Comprehensive Zoning Plan, we cannot find any ar_:as where the granting of this variance will have an «dverse effect. Should you require any further details or information, please contact iCon Ross or the undersigned. Yours sincerely, _- R. W. Coxall Enc. / M� (- -- - -- - -- -- - --- = - "s- -- - - ------ - - -- ---- -- - � �"�------------- -------- i= ------------- ' �A i� ----------�A- - - - - '}�� I ' I I ! 1 ig , i � I � � _ t�E aF sc�vc o✓E.( � - _. _ f. " _. _ _ - _. - E�_C�iN(� RAT/O ._ ------� �MRi ^Ao+✓TS - S�O � Awcc...1� stixcs - �'!3 � cwr� sw.e�,�•y cswr es - s a. o ,T�C � sA4c�s .cos:' _ � I i '---------- -- - - - ; I / ,y�r� N�o-r.G 'i uau Fos.-r,+v ---j/ ----==-- ---��:-r - `-__�-_ --�_ � � a — -O— � — , � � � �, 1�7�e_€3c � �€�j*Z��k.:I �- 1 � I I �n�X'�N �� / —_ _. _'_— — — _ � _ — — — _. � \/ —' —.. I _' _ . — _ ._ — __ __ _. _� I 1 � _R`,\ —, -� . — : � _. � _ � - —.I �!a'� / FT€ �2 wt�w4 fC�.: io.�[_ �FS' I 'Y, — � I O O C> � �l.WC� , �. � ScAa o�AER �.. �- �� '-ZM, f� S 'I � • 2 4o.E.f S'f,� ' ii<"` 2.1 r.'�.vs pe y+yHc._ �..A��roi< i, '�� w i s.� �axs rit • i��+4�SaE t.�n.•C> ii ii lxr..i/+�: �.v:.• ` � i� S.Jr- ivc 7Eu(icv� ' ii li i� I, I� ( �fl: \. . . . _ —��—z-�--c-�._'T: T�-1 \ \ �� \ � � \ \ � \ � � ' ` ,\ \ \ .\ �, � \\ \ ,\ \ \'• \ ,\ .\ ` ` . . , � � , , . � . • ��', \ �. �'OR rM�/iRic _ _ �.� ; Mt.�.: S_. `/cEuMi�/�9+� � ,t.CtrcN F?�+f' Nc r✓ M�l�'^��^',/�vG�: F.vc�ur✓ i .9-e� RECEIV�D Ch�. f�w:��:;�: ��, ir�c. SEP 5- �98� � � �tJR!-�NGAME PL�WNING DEt'i S Ec i OrV /� -� Is.frC O� 4RAoc SG='_�_ �__�. •� �. . '� DATE : ��1�7 MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR ,.�FIkE MARSHAL - FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT S U B J E C T:�iW P�itiy � :��i � Ceo � G��iCoxl !c fi��is �'sc�t-G�� a-ces� G�-� a :�.1 " a.��- a.�.� �s � �a-e:c �os� � �a,t,lu�• s�-�r �j ks�� ' a.-�. � �� `�f �� 'r-� �� . ��u �� u.�.f' Sfzt-�lt �C. �.0 � Y� 2 - l�isy5�'� �'�'• ) a lication has � een received for e above ro'ect for review b the An pp P J Y Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for lT�a y at their /�9 �8� meeting. We would appreciate having your comments by ��Z( �(�� Thank you. Helen Towber Planner S� att. � I 20 — 1-�� S ��rJ (' ��7� 1-�1�5 �C� � � C-� �c p�-� S �� 't� �..,, ��-�-►� C,� V' �r� t��-�, � �N'e_ � Dc� �� S� �� or��erN-� Ov�r �-� �� Gt l..l� � (Yl �-i N � c� rlTr � -�, „ , � � DATE: ��7 ,� MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER �EF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: �i�b PQit%i�9� %�� Q%�� !� fscA.�ii �icascG� ]R.�� D /i 7/�G �C2� �i �L /C� � Gtc� a�+�C � lRCG �Q�"p �'fC �oa.Ll��. sr�'�r �j ks�� -�. � v� �'� ,5"y� ;�° ''.r�- �� . �.�u� ae� 5,�-�tlr a� ;�k•C �.,, Y�a 2- l��s�� "r' ) An a lication has�been rece�ved for e above roject for review b the PR P Y Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �a y at their l_d�9 �8f ineeting. We would appreciate having your comments by ��26�(�� Thank you. / �� %�/ yi H, n /�-'� c� fC �i�Crt/ � � � � �/,i� Slo H �/Pd J1� . �u G' �d/ n � 9� /�-�� Helen Towber �� ; � Planner %�1di� ��dn�L ��'/i � _ S, �� /�i� d �%, � a ,�S �.� .► � ,� �o �� /`�� u � �� y att. ��//% /� . �� /d/Sio�•UJa i.l.(iY �Cc' 9u irc'd v) rt y L�a ns �r.�G <a� �- .t� L o� T�� /- h��-� ��,� � i�� s�s �� r c, � ' ` \ �z` , ` • r DATE: �� ,. MEMO T0: ✓fsYf� ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: %aib P�i%ii�q :��/1�%�Ceo 7O G��i�o'XJ !c l�eR�it{�iel�sc.G��r � �r-c�s� Gh a ir.� " ��- a.,.P �s-� !au �os� � ��it,�u�}/ S'�,l � Ks7��v�' G�..,,�. �vs0 v� �/%+�f �y� �� tir� s��r-e�o . ��tu �� oae.f' Sfzt- lt QitL �r�C t.i, �t 2�l�isr`y'•G'�'• ) An a lication has b een received for ti�ve ro'ect for review b the PP P J Y Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for 57u0 y at their /�9 �8� meeting. We would appreciate having yo ur c ommen ts by ��26 �� Thank you. Helen Towber � - Planner �� " ��.�:rl� �P � %'�'�� _ . / s/ �,�l�%', ` Lc/�y i��E'/'/�p att. � � r e��i�Lt. J � �� r/� �� "' //�dL� �Gu�i�v�' ��c�� ° � �`��,�,��-�7 �' C � �L � � � �� - ;� ��e �/'� �� ,C'1� e ��c77zy. � �GGI�S -� C�.�"� ''�,� << � �` � � /�:�/ ` S �i'��` � ��'-�� -, .. - �� . " � `o .��r� <''�" � L� ��s /�� /'G�� Ll • // `�S � / '',fi; ' / / , .S'!T{��, 7^GC�-��/s /,?�1��(v'1! c'�i�>/'% a6 � �!�?1 .r----- �� / �� C� � , �L i � �� + J,r� G-,�i�E�'� / _ , % � � � r - "'/ t �% _ t�[:_.,_.- �� A�l��i�� SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, GALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 34z-8931 August 23, 1984 Mr. Richard Coxall CNR Associates, Inc. 2040 Pioneer Court - #2 San Mateo, CA 94403 Dear Mr. Coxall: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the August 13, 1984 Planning Commission denial without prejudice of your application for a parking variance became effective August 21, 1984. This application was to allow relocation of a maintenance storage area at 1080 Carolan Avenue. Denial without prejudice would allow you to resubmit a revised project to the Planning Commission without waiting a year and paying another fee. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting are ' attached so that you can address their concerns in your revisions. Please call me or Helen Towber if we can be of any assistance while you are revising the project. Sincerely, �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s att. cc: Chief Building Inspector Northpark Properties, et al -.� .� : Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 13, 1984 It was determined all property owners within 300 feet of the site received a notice of hearing; Fire Marshal advised all schools in leased school premises participate in fire drills._ Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicants were present.r.--There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed:"� Commission discussion: provisions for saf��y and emergency medical care for the children. ........�,�":'�... C. Jacobs moved for approval of this speci.al permit with the following conditions: (1) that:_-the Montessori School shall. be operated as described in Lynette Muhic and Leslie Kappeler's letter of June 26, 198 4; ( 2) tha-��the special use permit shall be reviewed in June of 1985; and-�'(3) that the Montessori School participate in all fire drill��at this facility. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on unanimous roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. ��-.�.. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF EXISTING MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, BY CNR ASSOCIATES, INC. WITH NORTHPARK PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for a six space parking variance in order to relocate an enclosed maintenance/storage area into an underground parking area at the Northpark Apartments. Reference staff report, 8/13/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/15/84; staff review: Fire Marshal (6/24/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/25/84), City Engineer (7/2/84); R. W. Coxall, CNR Associates letter, June 13, 1984; study meeting minutes, July 23, 1984; Planner memos, 8/1/84 and 7/27/84; R. W. Coxall letter, August l, 1984, with attachments; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed August 3, 1984; and plans date stamped June 15, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter and justification for variance, study meeting questions as addressed in the staff report, Planning staff comment. �ao conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: number of leased parking spaces on the Northpark site; Velvet Turtle parking garage is on property owned by Velvet Turtle, Northpark has exclusive right to the tennis courts on top of that building; parking spaces at the present maintenance facility are considered to be off-site and not counted in meeting the parking requirement for Northpark; impacted on-street parking situation, complaints received about impacted on-site parking in the evening; parking requirements at the time Northpark was constructed and present parking requirements. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Richard Coxall, applicant, advised Northpark would be willing to terminate the agreement with Mike Harvey for leased parking spaces if desired. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: 10 space sublease to Chandler will continue, daytime use only up until 5:00 P.M., after which it becomes guest parking; were the six spaces on the north side of the Chandler building included in the original count; condominium application was never completed, hearing notices are sent only to property owners, tenants of Northpark were not noticed; spaces in the complex are � Y , . , 1 ! • ► Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 13, 1984 assigned as conveniently as possible and are of standard size; possibility of restriping for compacts, applicant could then meet code at the time of construction but would not meet current code requirements; there is large landscaped area, adding a maintenance facility would not greatly affect aesthetics of the complex; city should have required the maintenance building originally owned by Northpark to be permanently tied to Northpark; difficult to make findings in support of this variance; alternatives have not been explored, do not feel this is the only solution for the applicant; city has a problem with impacted parking in apartment zones, how can Commission allow this variance when it has denied many others; would like the six spaces which would be lost to be replaced; why not put the maintenance building somewhere else rather than underground. C. Giomi moved to Second C. Garcia; Appeal procedures deny this parking variance without prejudice. motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. were advised. 5. RENEWAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCK STORAGE AT 1645 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY STAR EXCAVATION WITH HIRAM WALKER & SONS, INC. CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report, 8/13/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/27/84; Diana Miley, Star Excavation letter, June 27, 1984; J. Roberts, Hiram Walker & Sons letter, June 20, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (7/2/84>, City Engineer (7/2/84), Chief Building Inspector (7/13/84); study meeting minutes, July 23, 1984; Planner memos, 7/26/84 and 8/1/84; staff report, 7/11/83; City Planner lett�r of action, July 20, 1983; Planning Commission minutes, July 11, 1983; site plan; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed August 3, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, the original use permit, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questi�ons addressed in staff report. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicant was present. There were no a�udience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion/concerns:�site inspection revealed a few apparently unused vehicles and a demolished truck on the site; concern was expressed about this yard becoming a junk yard; applicant advised trucks on the lot are those used every day; Commission questioned who would monitor compliance with the conditions of the application. Further comment: am not concerned as long as there are no more than 10 trucks on the site, construction trucks generally look in worse operating condition than they are; would ask that Commission consider this is a substantially different request, applicant would like a long te.rm lease, this business would become another use on this property, should consider long term implications; strongly urge a condition be placed on the application that the yard be paved. C. Taylor moved for approval of this special permit renewal with the following conditions: (1) that the storage area be enclosed by a well maintained chain link fence with redwood slats inserted and a rolling .' ► � ' � CNR Associates, Inc. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING 2040 Pioneer Ct., San Mateo, CA 94403 (415� 345•2101 RECI�IV'�� September :1, 1984 S E P 21 1984 Ms Helen Towber � � �:14 City of Burlingame Planning Dept. 501 Primrose Burlingame, Ca 94010 Re: Variance for Northpark Maintainence shop re-location. Dear Ms Towber, Further to our re-application for the above variance, we have conducted a parking study to determine the actual situation regarding the parking needs at the above project. The parking count was taken from 08-29-84 to 09-4-84 and 09- 10-84 to 09-16-84 by security staff. The results are tabulated on the attached sheets, and if we can be of any further assistance please contact the under- signed. Sincerely Yours, - -- ] Gi - Richard W. Coxall General Contractor's License #438470 . • . ' `. • . � ��i �' � ��% SEP 21 198� � P �i�� Date 08-29-84 Wed VACANT PARKING SPACE SUMMARY 08-30-84 Thurs 08-31-84 Fri 09-01-84 Sat 09-02-84 Sun �9-03-84 Mon 09-04-84 Tues 09-10 84 Mon J9-11-84 Tues 09-12-84 Wed 09-13-84 Thurs 09-14-84 Fri Vacant Spaces 58 �0 65 65 65 66 58 60 59 74 .. 63 Figures obtained from NorthPark Management indicate that approximately 12 to 15 persons in the com�lex have night jobs. i A "'�. � • Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1984 can be seen from the freeway but because of its height it is not visible af ter exiting the freeway; Ramada would like a sign on the portico facing the intersection; he was not aware that the two Summerfield's wall signs were installed without a permit; the basic hardship is the need for identification of Ramada's lobby. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: would prefer a smaller lobby sign, this site has excessive signage; Mr. Uman advised Ramada had not discussed with him any type of signage other than the present proposal for identification purposes; feel the sign should be directional rather than advertising; for non-local people the pole sign visible from the freeway directs them to turn off but they could become disoriented after turning off if not familiar with the area; think there is a need for additional signage; agree additional signage is necessary but would hesitate to grant this advertising sign; would suggest resubmittal of a sign package within the existing square fo�tage including a directional sign; Ramada has been on the site for many years, are they just now finding a hardship; at one time restaurant signage had Ramada in its name; think the sign is necessary, once you get to this hotel you don't know where you are; feel approval would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; cannot find exceptional circumstances relating to this property, the hardship is poor placement of existing signage; would have no objection to this siqn if they would also reduce the pole sign or r�move it, the existing sign program is so bad would not want to add to it without g�tting an aesthetic improvement. C. Taylor moved that this application in its present form be rejected. Second C. Jacobs; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, C�rs Leahy and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advis2d. ITEMS FOR STUDY 2. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A GROUND SIGN AT 1881 ROLLINS ROAD, BY JULIE DEKELAITA WI`I'H S. J. AMOROSO PROPER'I'IES Requests: intention of the code regarding siqnage for coffee shops in the M-1 District; evidence of property owner's consent to the application; a summary of the pr�vious application including Planning Commission minutes. Item set for hearing October 22, 1984. 3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF COMPACT PARKING STALLS ON A RESIDENTIAL SITE TO RECOUP FOUR SPACES LOST BY THE RELOCATION OF AN APARTMEL�T MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, BY CNR ASSOCIATES FOR NORTHPARK PROPERTIES Requests: hours during which the parking survey was taken; clarification of Commission action, a variance from dimensional requirements; does ceiling of the garage meet Fire Cor3e standards. Item set for hearing October 22, 1984. •.. _.y J� : CITY OF' BURLINGAME PL�,NVING COMMISSION OCTOBEx 9, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular called to 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was order by Chairman Graham on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the September 24, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEM FOR ACTION 1. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A WALL SIGN AT THE RAMADA INN, 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY WHERE PRESENT SIGIQAGE ALREADY EXCEEDS THE LIMITS OF 'I'HE_SIGN CODE, BY HEA'rH & CO. FOR RAMADA CP Monro� revi�wed this request to add an $9 SF wall sign on the primary frontage. Reference staff report, 10/9/84; study meeting minutes, 9/24/84; Sign Permit filed 8%24/84; Sign �xception filed 8/24/84; photographs of the sit� date stamped 8/24/84; letter from William M. Birdsall, R�mada Inns, Inc., Phoenix, 9/25/84; staff review: City Engineer (9/6/84), Fire Marshal (9/5/84), Chief Building Inspector (9/12/84); aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed 9/28/84; and plans date stamped August 24, 1984. CP discussed details of the request; staff revizw; applicant's justification for the request; letter from William M. Birdsall, Ramada Inns (it was noted this portico signage would be permanent since expansion of the Ramada Inn is not going forward); existing signage; code requirements for a sign exception; survey of signage for hotels in the imme�iate area. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: si�nage at Days Inn, 777 Airport Boulevard, complies with the current Sign Code; Sign Co3e was revised in 1977; Ramada's present request would include the two Summerfield's wall siqns for which there is no record of a sign exception application. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicant's representative, David iJman, Heath & Co. noted a change in this company's address, they have moved from Fremont to Hayward. His comments: Ramada pole sign � � �-.y.wsr.;.- �hP C�t�� af �u��trt��tmQ SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 22nd day of October, 1984 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the application to allow the use of compact parking stalls on a residential site to recoup four spaces lost by the relocation of an a artment maintenance ac� ity at 1 aro an venue, zone R-4; by CNR ssociates (applicant) for Northpark Properties (property owner) 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 October 12, 1984 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular called to 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was order by Chairman Graham on Monday, October 22, 1984 at Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Commissioner Jacobs (excused> Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the October 9, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with the following changes: Item #2 to be heard first; wording of this item, first line, to read: "Variance to parking dimension requirements ..." ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. VARIAIVCE TO PARKING DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS AT NORTHPARK APARTMENTS, 1080 CAROLP,N AVENUE, BY CNR ASSOCIATES FOR NORTHPARK PROPERTIES CP Monroe reviewed this request for a variance to parking dimension requirements on a residential site in order to recoup four spaces lost by the relocation of the maintenance facility. Reference staff report, 10/22/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 9/5/84; existing parking/apartment units summary, 9/5/84; statement of materials stored at the maintenance facility, 9/5/84; preliminary sketch, new maintenance facility, date stamped 9/5/84; letters from Richard Coxall, September 21 and August 30, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (9/20/84), Chief Building Inspector (9/19/84), City Engin�er (10/1/84); Monroe letter of action on a previous application which was denied without prejudice, 8/23/84; Planning Commission minutes, 8/13/84; Coxall letter to Towber, 9/1/84, with attached vacant parking space summary; study meeting minutes, 10/9/84; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed 10/12/84; and plans date stamped 9/5/84. CP discussed details of the request, previous application, staff review, applicant's letters and justification for variance, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: CE's requirement that the compact stalls be distributed more evenly on site. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Richard Coxall, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was close3. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1984 Discussion: desirability of distributing compact stalls throughout the complex; parking stall sizes and CE's concern that larger cars would use two spaces if the compact spaces were not distributed around the site; applicant advised he had no problem with the suggested ' conditions, spaces could be assigned to tenants, they are currently unassigned. C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the need for an on-site maintenance facility for this large complex, that if it were put elsewhere on site existing landscaping would have to be removed, that this is a single site and would not affect any other site in the city and that it would not affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Giomi moved for approval of this variance to parking standards with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of September 19, 1984 and the City Engineer's memo of October 1, 1984 be met; (2) that the maintenance facility as built be placed under Building B and conform to the alternate one wall position shown in the plans submitted to the Planninq Department and date stamped September 5, 1984 so that no more than four parking stalls would be removed; (3) that the final plans shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame before any building permit is issued; and (4) that the substandard stalls be marked "small cars only". Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: would not want approval of this application to set a precedent for allowing compact parking in residential areas. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. l. SIGN EXCEP'I'ION TO ALLOW A GROUND SIGN AT 1881 ROLLINS ROAD WHICH CAUSES TOTAL SIGNAGE TO EXCEED PERI�IITTED LIMITS, BY JULIE DEKELAITA WITH S. J. AMOROSO PROPERTIES CP Monroe reviewed this request to raise the height of the large directory sign for the three businesses located at 1881 Rollins Road from 5' to 9'. Reference staff report, 10/22/84; Sign Permit application filed 9/12/84; Sign Exception application filed 9/12/84; sign drawing date stamped 9/12/84; site drawing, 1873-1881 Rollins, indicating placement of signage; staff review: City Engineer (9/24/84 and 5/16/84), Fire Marshal (9/20/84), Chief Building Inspector (9/19/84); letters in support from Maurice Rosen, House of Stools 'N Bars, 1881 Rollins and Lawrence J. Lombard, Barker Industrial and Foundry Supply, 1881 Rollins; photographs of the site; material documenting the history of signage/signage requests on this site: Commission minutes (6/11/84 and 5/29/84), staff report (6/11/84), Commission minutes (12/14/81), staff report (12/14/81), letter of action to The Magic Press Corporation (12/22/81), site drawing date stamped 11/13/81, Sign Permit application filed 11/13/81, and Commission minutes (4/12/76, 4/26/76); study meeting minutes, 10/9/84; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed 10/12/84; letter in opposition from Roger C. Weiner, The Magic Press Corporation (10/ 12/84); letter (10/1/84) from Gilbert J. Amoroso, property owner,