Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1961.10.30COfi14ISSI ONERS Brauner Cistulli Diederichsen Kindig Moore Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER A regular mee called to ord Chairman Died ROLL CALL TY OR BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION October 30, 1961 ESENT C:OTVISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Iona City Attorney Karmel City Engineer Marr Plan. Cons. Mann Councilman Lorenz Counoilman Martin g of the Burlingame City Planning Commission was at 8:00 p.m. on the above date - chsen presiding.. A roll call by the Secretary recorded the above members of the Com- mission presen . MINUTES PREVIOUS The minutes of the regular meeting of September 25, 1961, submitted previously to ri embers of the Commission, were approved and adopted. The minutes of the study meeting of October 9, 1961, submitted pre- viously to mem ers of the Commissions were corrected to record that Vice -Chairman Kindig presided on that date. HEARINGS Public hearings, pursuant to published notice, were conducted as follows: 1. VARIANCE: plea construction, 934 Paloma Avenue. handler M. Sprague, applicant. (Continued Upon determinat on by the Chair that the applicants Chandler M. Sprague, was not in atte dance, nor represented$ the public hearing scheduled to be held on t is date on a request for a variance to permit construc- tion of a secon dwelling on property at 934 Paloma Avenue was con- tinued to ;hg,nox: regular meeting of the Commission, on a mothn in- troduced bsioner Kindig, seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously ca ied. (When rir. Sprag a appeared later, he was advised of the Commission action and was request d to return to the meeting to be held on November 27, 1961L .f 2. VARIANCE: _,-ior to the hearin Chair and advised t his association wit to food markets, he application. 1/3 4/ Barrett Construction Company To Include R-4 Property In Commercial Development. (Denied) on this application, Commissioner Kindig addressed the at due to a possible conflict of interest, arising from , a firm engaged in producing and distributing a commodity would not participate in the discussion nor vote on the An application submitted by Barrett Construction Company requesting a variance to permit construction of a market and off-street parking on property which is partially zoned R-4 was scheduled for public hearing at this time. The application described said R-4 property as portion of Lot 100 Block 10, Bur ingame Land Company Map No. 2, located on the easterly aide of El Camino Real between Chapin Avenue and Bellevue Avenue. A communicati n dated October 9, 1961, from the applicant advised that the R-4 ot, fronting on El Camino Real, and the adjoining com- mercially zo d lots, with frontages on El Camino and Chapin Avenue, are proposed o be improved as one parcel.- It is felt that the lots will. not pe t separate connereial and residential developments "because of the limited area when the commercial is separated from the residents ", and because of off-street parking which will be re- quired of any development. The Chair recognized Rex Dattisman of Barrett Construction Company who submitted a plot plan and perspective of the building and advised that after the discussion at the study meeting, the project was completely redesigned to place the building in the best possible location on the property with the driveways away from -El Camino. He stated that entrance and xit will be on Chapin Avenue, approximately 100 feet from the intersect on of El Camino and Chapin Avenue. The City Engi eer, in reply to the Chains invitation to comment, stated that h had not seen the plans; however, entrance and exit driveways, as described by Per. Dattisman, would appear to be of suf- ficient dista#ce from the corner and should not interfere with traffic flog at the EX Camino intersection. Hre Dattisman stated further that the property has an area of approx- imately 47,OOC square feet. The building will be approximately 14,000 square feet; there will be 83 off-street parking spaces. The Planning Consultant, in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that the parking w 1 satisfy legal requirements, including the possible loss of space along the El Camino frontage should this area be taken for highway p poses. Cbmmissioner Norberg expressed the opinion that the application did not fulfill the conditions necessary to a variance grant and questioned particularly the existence of a state of hardship. Mr. Dattisman replied that the owners have attempted for several months to determine t e highest and best use of the property. Apartments have been considers ; banking and insurance companies have been solicited -2- without suce developed pr In further c advantageous The two comb proposal app sound. Chairman Fix. placation* There being; Cyrus J. McMii owners of an o property, stat inasmuch as th present hearin loading area w specific locat. . He stated that the mere ownership of a large un- rty for any length of time creates a hardship. ent, Mr. Dattisman stated that the R-4 lot cannot be developed; the commercial area, of itself, is shallow. d will permit an attractive development and the present s to be the only project which will prove economically en invited comments from those in favor of the ap- , opponents were invited to spear. an, attorney representing the Kingsway Corporation, fice building immediately to the east of the subject d that he was not prepared to make specific objections re had been no plans or drawings available prior to the He referred to a statement by Mr. Dattisman that the uld be at the rear of the property and questioned the on. Mr. McMillan s ated that he felt that the hearing should be continued to another tiro , in fairness to property owners in the area, to per- mit them an op ortunity to examine the plot plan and perspective. John Cockcroft representing the owners of the property immediately to the north, roe led that in 1958 he, and others who were interested with him, appeared efore the Commission with a proposal to use the subject property, as w 11 as the adjoining residential properties to -the north, owned by the C ckcroft family, as the site of a commercial enterprise similar to the proposed in the present application. He stated that at the time th re was considerable opposition. Residents and merchants alike appeared at the public hearings to register their protests.. The Planning Commi sion and City Council both denied the application and took the posit on that the properties could be and should be developed to a higher us . Mr. Cockcroft s,tated that since that time he and his associates have undertaken to construct a major apartment building on the land which they own, involving a very great financial investment. This decision was reached in cooperation with the expressed desires of the people and the official bodies of the City that the land be used for resi- dential purpos s and in anticipation of an.attrtetive and compatible use of the adj fining commercial properties. Mr. Cockcroft 4tated that there is no objection to the residential lot, which adjoins eir property, becoming a part of an.office building, bank or simile professional type of commercial development. Robert Fefvem, owner of property at 527 Amer Road, spoke briefly in opposition to he market and stated that an office building or similar operation would be more desirable* The Chair invil and requested J Upon reviewing d examination of the plot plan and building perspective rther comments. the exhibits, Mr. McMillan, in behalf of the Kingsway -3- Corporation, entered a definite objection to the application. He stated that the El Camino frontage will be unattractive. On the Kings - way side, no provision has been made for landscaping and trucks travel- ing to and fr m the loading area will pass -quite close to the Kingsway building. Mr. Cockcroft expressed the opinion that the building site was "far from the idea location" and repeated that the use was strongly opposed by he and his associates, particularly in view of the position pre- viously taken by the city. The Planning, Consultant, in response to the Chair's invitation, stated that he had n t seem the plan, therefore, had formed no opinions as to the proposed arrangement. He stated that there were some remarks which could be.made from a planning basis. In so far as the matter of hard- ship, there a e many types of hardship to be considered. Beyond the hardship o6 a particular property, there may be hardships within the city, A proposal co be appraised on the basis of the needs of the community. The Planning onsultant expressed the opinion that in the present in - it stance it wou d appear that the hardship is economic to the owner rather than a hardsh related to planning. He recognized the possibility that the comme vial lots may be developed to any use which will meet zoning regulations. Office buildings., professional buildings, and the like, which b ng new residents and add soundness to a commercial dis- trict, represe t the proper use of the land. The Planning C so concluded with the suggestion "that it would be wise for the p ose of the dity to withhold the variances a market would not be ii the best interests of the.dity in this location". Commissioner S ivers expressed concurrence with the remarks of the Planning C nsultant and stated that he felt very strongly that the. use was not p per for the location. Commissioner C stulli stated that he felt that the property in its present Condit on was an eyesore and detrimental to neighboring properties He stated that from personal knowledge of the organization which will operate the market, he was prepared to state that a successful and at- tractive development will resift. Commissioner N rberg stated that the Planning Commission denied a pre- vious applicat on on the basis that a market was not a proper use of the property. He stated that he personally felt !;hat the same situation exists in the resent application. There wax a br of period of discussion concerning the possibilities of commercial use which would be permitted under existing zoning regu- lations, duri which a representative of the applicants maintained that in any develop ent the R-4 lot would be required to be used for parking. There being no further comments, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to gr t the variance as requested. The motion was lost due to lack of a s cond. A motion was thereupon introduced by Commissioner Norberg to deny the variance as requested. Motion seconded by Commissioner Stivers and -4- declared carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: C014MI3 IONERS: Brauner, Diederichsen, Moore, Norberg,, Stivers NOES: C01101IS LONERS: Cistulli ABSTAIN COMMI SIONERS: Kindig The applicant The hearing w 3. PROPOSED A and Sect advised of his right of appeal to the City Council, thereafter declared concluded. MENTS TO ORDINANCE CODE: Section 1903 (Definitions) 1926 (Regulations For R-•1 Districts, First Residential Chairman Diode ichsen announced that this was the time and place schedules to conduct a blic hearing in the matter of amending the C1 of Burlingame Ordinance Code - Article Xp Part 50, Section 1903 'Definition' and Section 19 6 "Regulations For R-1 Districts (First Residential)". The Planning C nsultant, in response to the Chair's invitation to re- view circumst ces pertinent to the proposed amendments, advised that over a period f several months the Commission has been reviewing in- dividual secti ns of the Zoning Article. New definitions have been written, some 3ections have been rewritten or deleted. The amendments before the Co ssion include such changes. In addition, due to the recent intersafelters. In fallout shelters, the amendments provide for and' regulate such Following a cj0do, lete review of the amendments, and there being no pro- tests receiveral or written, C mmisaioner Norberg introduced and moved adoptiof RESOLUTION NO. 11-61� "RECOMMENDING THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN DEFINONS TO SECTION 1903 OE THE BURLINGAME ORDINANCE CODE AND THE AMENDT OF OTHERS OF SUCH DEFINITIONS AND THE Ar4ENDMENT OF SAID SECTI1903 BY ORDINANCE TO EFFECT SUCH ADDITIONS AND AMENDMENTS."tion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roall vote. Commissioner C stul.li introduced and moved adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 6l "RECOMMENDING AT4ENDMENT OF SECTION 1926 OF THE ORDINA CEDE 0 THE CITY OF BU NGAI E REGULATING IE RMISSIVE USES AND PROVIDING FOR BUILDING REGU TIONS, LOT LIMITATIONS, LOT REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN R - 1 (FIRST RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICTS BY EXPANDING THE LISTS OF PERMI ED, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES AND BY PROVIDING FOR THE REGULA ION OF FALLOUT AND PROTECTIVE SHELTERS." Motion seconde by Commissioner Norberg and unanimously carried on roll call vote, The hearing wao thereafter declared concluded. ra-5991 1. New Driveway Proposed s, Hillside Dri Earl M. Dilley and Sterling Edwards have presented a redesign of the driveway to service both properties. When the drawings have been checked and agreements prepared, the matter will be brought to the Com- mission for recoi-maendation and transmittal to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT a meeting was regularly adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully su . tted, D.A. Stivers, Secretary.