HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1962.07.231
'ITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulli
Edwards
Kindig
Moore
Norberg
Stivers
CALL, TO ORDER
A regular monthl
called to order
presiding.
_ 801-L CALL
The Secretary's
MTN�T
July 23, 1962
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT . OTHERS PRESENT
None Councilman Crosby
City Attorney Karmei
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
Councilman Martin
r meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was
)n the above date at 8:00 p.m. a Vice -Chairman Kindig
11 call recorded the above members present.
'Minutes of the r gular meeting of June 25 and the study meeting of
July 9, 1962, pr viously submitted to members of the Commission, were
approved and ado tedo
Chairman Kindig #nnounced public hearings to be held, pursuant to pub-
lished notice, a follows:
1. VARIANCE a Stephen Sacco Requesting Apartment Use Of Duplex
4operty, 1142 Capuchino Avenue.
An application f led by Stephen Sacco requested a variance to permit
an apartment bui ding to be constructed in an R-2 (Second Residential)
Diatricto The p operty was described as Lot 25, Block 4, Easton
Addition, 1142 C puchino Avenue.
A plot plan, and a communication from the applicant dated July 3.1962,
requesting favorable consideration, accompanied the application.
The City Planner in response to Chairman Kindig°s request to review
circumstances pertinent to the existing zoning, stated that at the time
all of the other streets between Broadway and Carmelita Avenue, from
E1 Camino to California Drive, were changed from second residential to
third residential the Commission felt that there were valid reasons
for not reclassi wing the properties on Capuchino Avenue. Some of the
homes were badly neglected but many were in reasonably sound condition,
The street is narrow and traffic difficult. The Commission took the
position that tho block could not accommodate a straight rezoning to
R-3 with the re ultant density of population and agreed to consider
efforts at reds elopment on an individual basis. Three variances have
been approved for one 6-unit apartment building and two 5-unit build-
ings.
Chairman Kindig recognized Mr. Sacco who advised that the small cot-
tage at the reai of the lot will be demolished. It is intended to con-
struct a five u it building, conforming to the plot plan on file, con-
sisting of four 1-bedroom units and one larger unit which he will oc-
cupy.
The Chair invited comments from the floor. There were none.
Commissioners r viewed the plot plan with Mr. Sacco, with particular
reference to th parking plan.
Upon inquiry by the Chair, the City Engineer advised that there were
no problems involving utilities or public improvements; the City
Planner advised that the plot plan submitted by the applicant complies
with applicable ordinances.
There being no protests recorded, oral or written, a motion was there-
upon introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner
Brauner, approving the variance as requested, the building to conform
to the plan submitted. Motion carried unanimously on roll call vote.
The applicant wak advised that the variance would become effective on
August 7, 4 962, rovided there was no appeal.
' The hearing was thereafter declared cancluded.
2. RESUBDIVISION - Lot 26, Block 19, Ray Park Subdivision.
A resubdivision map, prepared by Wilset-, Ham & Blair, Engineers, and
filed with the C ty Engineer by Mr. and Mrs. Harry S. Dunn, proposed
to divide Lot 26 Block 19, Ray Park Subdivision into two parcels
having frontages on Davis Drive.
The applicants w
Mrs. Dunn explai
Hayward Court is
chased the prope
two lots to make
has had expert a
the propetty can
the neighborhood
The City Enginee:
is presently slij
proposes to divi+
to contain 10,S6,
on Davis Drive; 1
frontage of 50.31
re in attendance and, upon recognition by the Chair,
ed that their present residence in Ray Park on
too large for their im_eediate needs. They have pur-
ty on Davis Drive with the intention of dividing into
two building sites. Mrs. Dunn mentioned that she
vice on building and landscaping and is confident that
be developed to confora to the general character of
, in reply to Chairman Kindig, advised that the lot
htly under 20,000 squaro feet in area. The applicant
e into two approximatell, equal parcels; Parcel "A"
.82 Mol. square feet, hatring a frontage of 57.13 feet
arcel "B",.9,391.52 MoL square feet, having a street
feet.
.2-
I
The City Enginee
requirements for
problems-relativ
Chairman Kindig
Office of the Ci
natures of 20 pr
Ray Drive.
Communications w
Arthur M. Bishop
grounds that the
as one lot and h
properties at co
their investment
ing sites for tw
homes; the value
reported that he has found that both lots meet Code
width and area. Ile stated also that there are no
to public utilities,
cknowledoed a "Petition Of Protest". filed in the
y Clerk under date of July 23, 1962, bearing the sig-
testants in the area of Valdivia Way, Davis Drive and
re read from David E. Burke, 2306 Davis Drive, and
2401 Valdivia Way, opposing the application on the
lot was represented on the recorded subdivision, map
me owners in the neighborhood have improved their
siderable expense and effort on the assumption that
would be protected; the lot will not provide build -
homes which will be in keeping with surrounding
of surrounding properties will be lowered.
The City Enginee , in response to the Chair, explained that the 10 foot
drainage easement on Lot 26 is some distance from the actual creek bed.
This portion of the easement serves no purposes of drainage in the
present location The applicants have indicated their intention to
petition the city to abandon the easement,
Chairman Kindig �nvited comments from the floor,
Mr, Roy D. Oplin er, 2301 Davis Drive, owner of Lot 2S, adjoining the
subject property to the north, protested abandonment of any portion of
the easement,
,,Mr, Arthur Morgan, 2337 Ray Drive, declared that -it would be impossible
to build two str ctures without disturbing a large oak tree at the
rear of his prop rty, which has been preserved for reasons of privacy
and landscaping.
Chairman Kindig -ecognized Mrs. Dunn who stated that the two houses
will be designed to adapt to the natural features of the lot. In re-
ply to the Chair's inquiry, Mrs. Dunn advised that some grading will be
required but no Fill.
Mr. Lloyd De Mar ini, 2320 Valdivia Way, filed with the Chairman a
communication fr m Victor E-. Schwartz, 232S Ray Drive.
Mr. De Martini a vised that his home is immediately adjacent to the
subject lot. ie stated that all of the lots in the area are quite
large and have b en extensively landscaped and maintained as single-
family propertie , Ile stated that it would not be possible to build
two homes on the one property which would conform to the neighborhood
pattern. He sta ed that the resubdivision will be unfair not only to
his own investme t but to his neighbors as well.
Commissioners St vers and Edwards stated that they had not had an op-
portunity to vis t the location and, in view of the strong feelings
of opposition in icared by the neighbors, Commissioner Edwards intro-
duced a motion t continue the hearing to a future meeting to permit a
personal inspect on by all members of the Commission. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Stivers,
-3-
0
On the question the Chair requested the City Engineer and the City
Planner to Comm nt concerning restrictions applicable to the resub-
division.
The City Engine r advised that both lots will meet street frontage
requirements. he City Planner stated that the lot area requirement
in Ray Park is 000 square feet; each of the proposed lots will ex-
ceed this minim m.
The communication of Victor E. Schwartz was read protesting that the
resubdivision r presented a lowering of restrictions in the Ray Park
area.
The City Attorney, in response to Commission inquiry, defined the
scope of Commission deliberations in the matter of lot resubdivisions.
He advised that the sole concern of the Commission is whether or not
the application meets all of the requirements of applicable ordinances.
He stated "this is not an area where there is any discretion; this is
not like a variance. The Planning Commission looks to see if all of
the conditions of the ordinance are met; if the conditions are there,
then there i.s no king to do but grant the application".
In further comme t, the City Attorney described a situation some years
ago when the Citr of Burlingame, upon denial of a resubdivision appli-
cation, was takei to court and was ordered to permit the resubdivision
without delay. k second incident was related pertaining to a court
action involving a resubdivision in Southern California where the
District Court oF Appeals ordered approval of a resubdivision which
had been denied y the City Council of the City of Newport Beach.
There were furth r comments from the floor: Mr. Arthur Morgan
questioned the p ocedure of notifying neighboring property owners of
the hearing inas uch as the arguments of the protestants would appear
to be of little alue. The City Attorney replied in detail, inter-
preting the prov-sions of the ordinance code pertaining to hearing
before the Commi sion and public notification thereof.
Further objectio s to the application were heard from Allen B.Beaumont,
2504 Hayward.Dri e; Mrs. James Murrile, 2333 Ray Drive; Mr. K.Opey,
2228 Davis Drive
The motion above stated to continue the hearing to another meeting
was thereafter d clared defeated on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIO ERS: Edwards,.Stivers
NOES: COMMISSIO ERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Kindig, Moore, Norberg
ABSENT COMMISSIO ERS: None
In further discu sion, comments were -heard from the floor that approval
in the present i stance would establish a precedent for future resub-
division applica ions in the Ray Park area.
The City Planner in reply to the Chair, stated that he had inspected
the property and was satisfied that to resubdivision will not affect
the established of design of the district.
-4-
A motion was int�ioduced by Commissioner Brauner to approve the resub-
division in a dance with the map on file with the City Engineer.
Motion seconded y Commissioner Norberg and declared carried on the
following roll c 11 vote:
AYES: COMMISSI ERS: Brauner, Kindig, Moore' Norberg
NOES: COMMISSIO ERS: Edwards, Stivers
ABSTAIN COMMISSI NERS: Cistulli
ABSENT COMMISSIO ERS: None
;heChair announced that the Code does not provide a procedure for an
appeal in a resu division action. However, in any event, an appeal
must be filed with the City Council prior to its next meeting on
August 6, 1962.
The hearing was thereafter declared.concluded.
In brief comment the City Planner, in reply to the Chair, stated that
if the residents of Ray Park feel that the 7000 square foot limitation
is not valid its their privilege to petition the Planning Commission'
to study the are'to determine whether the lot sizes should be increased.
RECESS
The Chair declared a brief recess at 9:40 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was ailed to order at 9:50 p.m.
3, SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: (1) Variance For Apartment Construction;
(-2-)—Tentat ve Map Proposed 12 Story High -Rise Apartment Site"
Chairman Kindig
time on an app
1345 Howard Aven
ing in the upper
A communication
the tentative ma
ly. In a second
vised that the B
with an extensiv
have been submit,
Commission.
The communicatio
ingress and egre
proposed use.*
nnounced that a public hearing would be held at this
ication filed by Skyline Development Company,
e, to permit construction of a 12 story apartment build -
Mills Estate at Skyline Boulevard and Trousdale Drive.
rom the applicant, dated July 9, 1962, requested that
and the variance application be considered concurrent -
communication, under the same date, the applicant ad-
rlingame development has been planned in conjunction
apartment complex along Skyline Boulevard. Plans
ed to and approved by the City of Millbrae Planning
The City Planner,
and procedures in
of 3.624 acres of
works and improve,
tative and final
and then the City
described physical features of location, topography,
facilities, which make the site desirable for the
in response to the Chair, reviewed the applications
►olved: The applicant is proposing a '-.- subdivision
vacant, unimproved land requiring all of the public
cents under the city's subdivision ordinance. Ten-
iaps must be approved; first, by the Planning Commission
Council.
-5-
The variance application proposes multiple dwelling use of first -resi-
dential property, and a building height exceeding the limitations of
both R-3 and R-4 zones.
The City Planner stated that the two proposals are dependent upon
each other sinc the map as drawn indicates a single development, in
accordance with the variance application. Should the variance not
be approved, tho map then could not be considered a valid map.
The Chair recog .zed Dr. Allan Hedden, property owner, and the developer,
Mr. John Cockcr £t.
A scaled model of the project, including Millbrae, was placed on dis-
play.
Mr. Cockcroft mentioned that the building will be 12 stories high, con-
sisting of 134 units, with a land coverage of approximately 7.5%.
Among other statistics, parking was described as 1-1/4 spaces to each
unit, with guestj parking at 1/2 to 1.
Mr. Cockcroft stated that the site is approximately 100 feet above the
proposed grade at the corner of Murchison and Trousdale Drives and
about 20 feet above the proposed grade of the future Junipero Serra
Freeway.
Chairman Kindig invited comments from those in favor of the applica-
tion. There being none, opponents were invited to speak.
Mr. Harry K. Woolf, 1825 Ashton Avenue, speaking as a representative
of the Mills Estate Home Owners' Association, protested that the struc-
ture was entirely out of character in the Burlingame section of Mills
Estate. He stated that property owners are concerned that the con-
centration of population and resultant traffic will create a severe
burden upon the facilities of the area. It is their desire that the
land be developed for single family use, as proposed in the original
subdivision plans.
Mr, A.G. Westcot , 843 Walnut Avenue, President, Suburban Protective
Association, protested that a high rise building in an R-1 zone
will work a hardship on neighboring properties; not only will exist-
ing owners be pe alized, but also those who have invested there on
the assumption that the existing zoning will be protected. He main-
tained that the city will be burdened by problems of furnishing _
adequate public services and utilities.
Mr. Westcott maintained that the applicants are unable to meet the re-
quirements necessary for a variance grant.
Mr. Fred W. Lehman, 333 Occidental Avenue, representing the Burlingame
Park Improvement Club expressed concurrence with the remarks.of the
previous speakers and urged members of the Commission to deny the appli-
cation.
Mr. E.L. Beggs,
Mr. E.L. Pierce,
in opposition, u
609 Martinez Drive; Mr. W.J. Armanino, 2605 Martinez;
1813 Loyola Drive; Mr. J.C. Bauer, 2 Rio Court, spoke
ntioning the following points: (a) A variance in
-6-
the present inslance could lead to other applications to locate high-
rise apartments closer to the existing single family residences;
(b) There is a cuestion that the city's fire fighting equipment is
adequate to pro ect the building; (c) The site could be very well
develops for "view homes".
The City Engineer was questioned concerning public utilities. The
Commission was advised that in all subdivisions, the subdivider is re-
quired to install water and sewer mains to the city's specifications.
If the variance were to be granted, there would be many questions to.
be resolved, including additional water storage tanks.
Referring'to the matter of fire protection, Mr. Cockcroft stated that
the building will be no higher than the Peninsula Hospital.
Mr. Cockcroft acknowledged the responsibilities of the subdivider for
installation of public utilities.
The City Plannerl, at the request of the Commission, read from
Division 8, Section 1944, of the Ordinance Code, wherein the four con-
ditions necessa for variance grants are defined.
Mr. Cockcroft referred to the model and described street patterns and
traffic flow. He mentioned that the site will be surrounded on two
sides by what will eventually be a major thoroughfare. Ingress and
egress ramps and restrictions of traffic flow will isolate the site
thereby decreasing its value for single family use. Mrs Cockcroft
stated that the roposed development and the accessory features will
act as a buffer one between the freeway and existing residences.
,In further comma t, Mr. Cockcroft stated that there is no attempt
being made to in'ect a high-rise building into a developed area; the
property will ha a direct access to the freeway which will facilitate
traffic; there w'll be a minimum of grading and far less dirt haul-
ing than if the roperty were to be leveled for home sites.
Objections were ade from the floor that Trousdale Drive will bear
the brunt of the traffic, not only from the proposed building but
from Millbrae as well.
Mr. Shelley, the
raised by previo
statistics indic
from single fami
land because of
usual R-1 lot; t
high-rise buildi
the proximity to
is the concept o
Following some f
opinion that the
ship as defined
motion to deny t
and declared car
engineer for the applicant, referred to objections
is speakers, relative to public services, and cited
.ting a lesser number of school -age children than°
y homes. He stated that REnld be less crowding of the
he low percentage of land coverage, as compared to the
.e incidence of fire hazard is extremely low in a
ig, in comparison with smaller buildings. Because of
the similar construction in the City of Millbrae, there
a planned-7 unit development.
irther discussion, Commissioner Brauner expressed the
applicant has failed to meet the standards of hard-
,y the Ordinance Code and thereafter introduced a
,e variance. Motion seconded by Commissioner Edwards
-ied on a unanimous roll call vote.
-7-
X
I 1
The applicant was advised of his right of appeal to the City Council.,
Mr. Cockcroft t ercupon informed members of the Commission of the with-
drawal of the t ntative subdivision map.
The hearing was declared concluded,
4. TENTAT_IVE AS P o Armsby Estate Subdivision.
Chairman Kindig announced that the Commission would consider at this
time a tentative nap of the Armsby Estate Subdivision, a residential
development of 7 lots at the end of Roosevelt Avenue, on the Burlingame-
Iiilisborough city limits line.
The City Planne
vised that thre
(1) A tentative
City Council on
a portion of th
portion for ann
the lot sizes a
tions and will
Prints of the t
representing th
in reply to the Chair's invitation to comment, ad -
separate paeposals are before the Commission:
nap of the new subdivision.; (2) A recommendation to the
the owners' request to annex to the City of Burlingame
Armsby Estate and to detach a small triangular
Kation to the Town of Hillsborough; (3) Approval of
shown on the map, which do not meet existing limita-
�quire an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
tative map were presented. Carl E. Kirker, engineer
owners, was in attendance.
The Commission was advised that a portion of the Armsby Estate lies
within the city limits of Burlingame, which will be developed along
} with the area proposed to be annexed. Roosevelt Avenue will be con-
tinued by the addition of a turnaround; Carmelita Avenue will be ex-
tended into Hillsborough.
The City Planner advised that the subdivider proposes an area of
7000 square feet per lot for that portion to be annexed from Hillsborough.
This is less than the present limitation of 10,000 square feet, which
assumed all future residential annexations from the hills area.
In the present subdivision there are no problems of hillside develops
menV; the adjoining properties in Burlingame are in an area of 5000 ft
lots.
The City Engineer advised that he has met with the project engineer
who has been in rmed of the city's specifications for public improve-
ments.
The City Planner mentioned that some of the residentsAW* properties
in Burlingame adjoin the Armsby Estate, have made a special effort to
landscape along the chain link fence which divides the properties.
They are hopeful that the fence will not be disturbed.
tit. Murray of the real estate firm of H.Kent Atwater, speaking for the
developers, stat d that he was confident of their desire to cooperate
with neighboring owners.
There being no further comments, a motion was introduced by
Commissioner Moo toapprove the Tentative Map of the Armsby Estate Sub-
division, as filed in the office of the City Engineer, and recommend-
ing its acceptance by the City Council, conditional upon annexation
-8-
of the property to the City of Burlingame. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roll call voted
A motion, introduced by Commissioner Brauner, recommended to the
City Council approval of the annexation to Burlingame of a portion
of the Armsby Estate, and the annexation to Hillsborough of the
small triangular parcel, all as designated on the Tentative Map.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried
on roll call vote.
On a motion int
missioner Cistu
a public hearin
the matter'of a
section D, prov
NEW BUSINESS
1. Election Of
Chairman Kindig
Commission offi
to be in order.
CHAIRMAN
VICE CHAIRN
SECRETARY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was
oduced by Commissioner Edwards, seconded by Com-
li, the Commission unanimously agreed to conduct
at its next regular meeting',, August 27, 1962, in
ending the Ordinance Code, Section 1926, sub -
ding for "Lot Limitations And Lot Requirements".
ficers.
announced that this was the time scheduled to elect
ers for the term 1962-1963, and declared nominations
On a motion by Commissioner Cistulli, and
regularly seconded, Everett K. Kindig was nominated
for the office of Chairman, and thereafter elected
on a unanimous ballot.
On a motion by Commissioner Moore, and
regularly seconded, John J. Bruuner was nominated
for the office of Vice Chairman, and thereafter
elected on a unanimous ballot.
On a motion by Commissioner Norberg, and regularly
seconded, Edward A. Moore was nominated for the
office of Secretary, and thereafter elected on a
unanimous ballot.
egularly adjourned at ll:55 p.m.
-9-
Respectfully submitted,
D.A. Stivers, Secretary