Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1962.02.26COPIIIS STONERS Brauner Cistulli Diederichsen Moore Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting to order on the at Chairman Diedericr OLL CALL The Secretary's Commissioner MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 26, 1962 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Kindig City Attorney Karmel Councilman Lorenz City Planner Mann City Engineer Marr Councilman Martin f the Burlingame City Planning Commission was called ve date at 8:00 p::m. - en presiding. call recorded the above members present° absent because of illness in his family, was excused. Minutes of the reg lar meeting of January 22, 1962, and the study meeting of February 15, 1962, previously submitted to members of the Commission were approved and adopt d. Minutes of the joint meeting of February 150 1962, of the Planning Comma lion and representatives of the study committee of the Burlingame Central Parking District were corrected on page 3 to read "An estimated $900. to $2300. to a high of $2700. per parking spaoe..........." and thereafter apn ved and adopted. HEARINGS Public hearings, p r9i2ant to published notice, were conducted as follows: 1. RESUBDIVISION Lots 1 and 20, Block 2, East Millsdale Industrial Park No. 1, Bayshore Highway and Cowan Road. (continued front meeting of Janu 22 1962). An application fil d by Joseph Gurka, owner, proposing a resubdivision of `'ots 1 and 2, Bloc 2, East Millsdale Industrial Park No. 1, continued from he meeting of J ary 22, 1962, to permit the owner to modify his original proposal, was cont ied to the meeting of March 26, 1962, upon advice from the City Engineer at a revised map was not on file. An application fi a rear yard fence legal maximum hex A communication fr purpose of the inc and swimming pool cabana -trellis str the present fence. RIANCE APPROVED. ROSS PUTTER, 1519 FOREST VIEW AVENUE. d by Mr. Ross E. Butler, requested a variance to permit n property at 1519 Forest View Avenue to exceed the t of 6 teeto the applicant dated February 5, 19621, advised that the a.sed height was to screen the rear yard recreation area om the neighboring property and to hide an unattractive ture on the neighboring property which extends above Drawings prepared y the applicant illustrated the location of the fence in relation to improvements on the adjacent property. Reference was made to Section 1978 of the Ordinance Code "Variances From Permitted Heights" providing for a variance grant by the Planning Commission where there is proof that the six foot limitation imposes a hardship. The Chair recogniz d Mr. Butler who offered two additional sketches of his property, not prev ously submitted. Mr. Butler stated that he wished to correct any misund rstanding which might have arisen after the discussion at the study meeti . Work on the fence has not been completed. The board height will not be determined until the variance petition has been processed. a .''Mr. Butler explainad that the lot pattern is such that his rear property, line borders the side boundary of the neighborts lot. The City Building Enspectors in reply to Chairman Diederichsen, reported tha* an inspection was made of the two properties. The following conditions exist: Mr. Butler has corAructed approximately 25 feet of fencing along his rear property line which extends to a height of seven feet; an additional section, 16 feet long, is eight feet high. These are illegal heights. The remainder of the rear fence, enclosing the heaters and pumps for the swim- ming pool, is leg . The pool appurtenances are properly situated. On the adjacent p party, the cabana, built several years ago, is not proper- ly located on the ot; the fence is part of the framework. Under present laws, it is an ill gal structure. The Chair invited comments from the floor. Mr. Steve Castro, 50 Walnut Avenue, identified himself as the neighboring property owner dir ctly affected by the fence which Mr. Butler plans to_. construct. Mr. Ca tro stated that the cabana -trellis, to which Mr. Butler has objected, was uilt approximately 18'years ago, when the property now occupied by Mr. Bu ler was vacant land. Mr. Castro stated To stated that he once, which he h, ;hat the swimming pool motor Intends to remove the cabana )es will minimize the noise. -2- creates a noise nuisance. and build a new "Lucite" 1n reply to Commis build to eight fee neighbor's house o the extra height i Mr. Castro express Commissioners Cis Butler property. Commissioner Cis feet would serve Mr. Butler stated would be preferab the variance. on inquiry, Mr. Butler stated that he proposes to in the section where the windows on the side of the rlook the swimming pool. He stated that he feels necessary to his privacyo strong opposition to Mr. Butlers statements. , Moore and Stivers advised that they had visited the li questioned whether Mr. Butler would concede that seven s purpose. ,at eight feet in the section by the neighbor's window but that he would accept seven feet rather than forego Mr. Butler describ d a situation whereby there are two residences on the neighboring proper y. The second dwelling, built in 1958, is two stories. He stated that thi creates a hardship upon his property and the increased fence height is ne essary to his privacy. Mr. Castro, in rep )a height of seven A motion was intro applicant for cons line to a height o height of six feet carried on roll ca The hearing was de 3, VARIANCE AND R Chairman Diederic on a variance app owner of two lots and Burlingame Av Burlingame Avenue Avenue, is R-1. The applicant property for A variance or to Commission inquiry, stated that he would yield to to aced by Commissioner Moore approving a variance to the ruction of 32 feet of fencing along the rear property seven feet; the remaining footage not to exceed a Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and unanimously I vote of members presents lared concluded. William Danielson`235 El Camino Real. an announced that a hearing would be held at this time cation filed by William Danielson, 235 E1 Camino Real, t the southwest corner of the intersection of El Camino ue. The corner lot with frontages on E1 Camino and a zoned R-3; the interior lot, fronting on Burlingame es that the two lots shall be combined into a single at house use. sification would be necessary to make the use possible. The properties wer described as Lots 1 and 4.s Block 3, Map No. 2, Burlin- game Park Subdivis on. communication da ed February 7, 1962, from Stan W. Gates & Associates, representing the applicants offered the following to justify the variance request: The corner lot is restricted in buildable area by the 20 foot setback required ot all E1 Camino frontages, and the 15 foot setback -3- 1\ which must be m lot, there will structure, to t: surrounding pro, from E1 Camino The Chair recogn which he advised Mr. Gates stated in all areas. An artist's In reviewing the measurements for that there must dential unit. Mr. Gates stated Ing could not be stated "the numb of units". The Chair invite, J. Ed McClellan, mittee, reminded securing signatu; authorize , the ' fo; parking in the d ntained on Burlingame Avenue. By including the R-1 a sufficient area to build an attractive substantial advantage not only of the subject properties but the rties as well. Ingress and egress will be removed Burlingame Avenue. zed Mr. Gates who submitted a set of tentative plans, were those previously submitted at the study meeting. that the plans were corrected to provide legal sebbaoks of the proposed building was submitted. ans, Commissioners pointed out to Mr. Gates that e tenantst parking were not correct. He was advised one 10 foot by 20 foot parking space for each real - at 31 units were contemplated. If the required park- ovided, the number of units would be reduced. He of cars that we can park will determine the number comments from the floor. airman of the Central Burlingame Parking Study Com- mmissioners that the Committee is in the process of of property owners to petition the City Council to tion of a parking district to provide off-street town shopping area. Mr. McClellan sta ed that the lots involved in the present application have been selectel by the engineers to provide all -day parking for merch- ants and employee on the westerly side of Burlingame Avenue, in the block nearest toKI Camino. Mr. McClellan advised that the engineers consider the lots the best for the purpose, Speaking in beh the variance, W property owner* until there has petition. Mr. James Wilson, cation, which he Mr. Wilson advise lot. Mr. Stanley Reyno the appeal of the this time. The Chair invited of the Committee, Mr. McClellan voiced opposition to h he described as a special privilege sought by the e requested the Commission to deny or withhold action an a determination by the City Council on the parking 1509 Burlingame Avenue, spoke in favor of the appli- tated would permit the highest use of the property, that his home is immediately adjacent to the R-1 .ds, 275 Primrose Road, urged the Commission to heed Parking Committee that the variance not be granted at comments from members of the Commission. _4® 11 ommissioner Bra procedure since to place a morat proposed for par be requested to w stated that there would appear to be a question of Committee, in effect, was requesting the Commission ,um on variance applications dealing with properties g lot purposes. It was noted that the Commission will raider more than one such application. The City Attorney Istated that it must be reco$gnized that the Planning Com- mission should ac on each application on its own merit; a position of moratorium does al t necessarily ensue where an application would be denied or continued. Le al aspects of the variance application were compared to the application f r a permit for a use clearly defined in the Ordinance. The City Attorney stated that an applicant for a variance does not stand before the Commis ion having any rights except the right to be heard. The City Attorney' 1. There is a par has tried to meet expenditure in exc has necessarily le the Committee with pletion of the stu pledged to pay 40% sented. These are District. e Gates stated t cntrated efforts plan. However, pr District will beco uggested that the Commission consider as follows: :ing problem in the City of Burlingame; 2. The City his problem; 3. The present program contemplates an as of one and one-half million dollars; 4. There n a long period of study, which has been pursued by the assistance of members of the City staff. Upon com- .y and presentation of the petition, the City Council of the costs of the District, as the plans were pre - all indications of quasi -official conditions of the t from personal experience he was aware of the con - the Committee to secure endorsement of the parking ress has been slow and there is no assurance that the a legal entity. The Planning Consu tent referred to a discussion at the last study meet- ing wherein a Bugg stion was made that if the variance were approved the applicant should b required to widen Burlingame Avenue for the width of his property. The street is narrow and inadequate to carry the present traffic load. The proposed apartment house would seriously complicate the existing situa ion. The Planning Consu tant reaffirmed his position that the costs of the widening should bethe responsibility of the property owner. The City Engineer dlcated that the street could be widened approximately five feet at a Pig a not to exceed $1000.00, He agreed that the city should not be expec ed to bear any portion of the cost. Commissioner Norber stated that the location is perhaps one of the most prominent in the ci y. An attractive apartment building would be highly acceptable, and fro the standpoint of planning, a better use in the neighborhood than tie proposed parking lot. -5- /ommissioner Norbe ation unanimously side of E1 Camino rg reported that the Burlingame Park Improvement Associ- opposes the use of any of the properties on the west for parking lot purposes. Mr. Gates, in rep y to tho ftairkwagreed to the widening of Burlingame Avenue and stated that the/ -ill be drawn to meet Code requirements. Commissioner Moortated that the Commission should withhold action until a final set of Pla1ns were available. Commissioner Bra r introduced a motion to approve the variance conditional upon the following: The building to conform in general to the sketch sub- mitted by the appl cant; final building plans to comply with all require- ments of the Code d to be subject to acceptance by appropriate members of the city staff; Bu lingame Avenue to be widened to city specifications for a section of appro imately 100 feet in front of the proposed building; the cost of said w dening to be the responsibility of the property owner. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared carried on the follow- ing roll call vote AYES: COMMIS IONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Moore,.Norberg,Stivers NOES: COMMIS LONERS: Diederichsen ABSENT COMMIS IONERS: Kindig The Chair announcO that the variance would become effective on March 6,1962, irovided there was no appeal. The hearing was th reafter declared concluded. OUR LADY OF AN ELS PARISH. VARIANCE AND USE PERMIT., The Chair announce that a hearing would be held at this time on an appli- cation filed by Th Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco in behalf of Our Lady Of Ang is Parish, Burlingame*. The application re uested a variance for a 10 foot setback on Cabrillo Avenue, in lieu of the established 15 feet; and a use permit for additional school buildings. A communication f Fred T. Houweling, architect, advised that two new buildings are wont mplated; one, a multi -purpose gymnasium/auditorium; the other building to house classrooms, dressing rooms and nurse's quarters. The communication Inadequate and ove Avenue will work a school purposes. An architect's Chairman Die .rs. A.J. Basso, 1 posed auditorium. be demolished and Avenue. dvised that the present school yard and play area are -crowded. Maintaining the 15 foot setback on Cabrillo hardship by taking space which is badly needed for accompanied the application. invited those in attendance to examine the drawings. Cortez Avenue, questioned the location of the pro- . Houweling stated that the existing auditorium will laced by a new building with entrances on Cabrillo -6- )1r. W.C. Keil, 1 back variances o none were contem )5 Cortez Avenue, gaestioned whether there would be set - the Cortez Avenue frontage. Mr. Houweling advised that .ated. The Planning Consultant expressed the opinion that the lesser setback would appear to be Justified. "On -grounds" play area for the children and park- ing, as indicated on the drawing, would certainly be of advantage to the church properties and the neighborhood as well. Mention was made traffic congestio The Planning Cons Its facilities bu parking. The sug possible, the chu the parking area. There being no pr by Commissioner C quested, with the quarters shall ma at the new constr Motion seconded b call vote. the discussion at the last study meeting concerning generated by the activities of the church and school. tent stated that over the years the church has expanded there has been no effort made to provide off-street stion was made that as soon as it becomes financially h acquire properties for the sole purpose of enlarging tests received, oral or written, a motion was introduced stulli approving the variance and the use permit as re - exception that the small building housing the nurse's . ntain a 15 foot setback on Cabrillo Avenue; landscaping ction to conform to the existing planting pattern4 Commissioner Norberg and unanimously carried on roll ,he Chair announc d that the variance would become effective on March 6,1962, provided there wa no appeal. The hearing was t4ereafter declared concluded. RECESS At 10:10 p.m. the Chair announced a brief period of recess. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Diederic son called the meeting to order at 10:25 p.m. 5. BARRETT CONS CTION COMPANY VARIANCE DENIED. EL CAMINO AND CAAPIN AVE. Chairman Diederich1son announced that the Commission would consider the re- quest of Barrett nstruction Company for a variance to construct a food market and off-str et parking on property partially zoned R-4. Located at the northeast corn r of E1 Camino and Chapin Avenue, there is a frontage of approximately 2 3 feet on Chapin Avenue and 193 feet on the E1 Camino. The Chair stated that the applicant appeared before the Commission in October, 1961, at which time the variance was denied. There was an ap- peal to the City Council and the applicant proposed certain changes in his plan. The applica ion was returned to the Planning Commission, by the City Council, for Cher consideration. rtobert Samuels, a hitect, was in attendance to represent the applicant. -7- Drawings were the proposed Mr. Samuels deso out that the par owners maintain dential with the d to illustrate the applied zoning and the layout of pment. ed the boundaries of the R-4 properties. It was pointed s cannot be economically developed of themselves. The t the highest use will be obtained by combining the resi- mme rcial zoning. The building, parUlng and service areas were explained at length. Off- street parking has been planned well within the ordinance requirements. There will not be a free-standing sign; identification will be on the roof of the building. Mr. Samuels state that every effort has been made to eliminate the features which were found to be objectionable at the time of the first presentation. The variance will permit the building to be located toward the rear, away from the E1 Caminc and Chapin Avenue frontages. Chairman Diederiabsen invited comments from the floor. Mr, John Cockcroft, representing owners of the property immediately to the north of the subject property, questioned whether the applicant is able to meet the four requisites for a variance grant. Ir. Cockcroft stat hearing before the be made on this oc ship; conditions a when the city re je location on the ba Camino to serve th Mr. Cockcroft call struction on the p stated that there which would create nature of the use bordering both aid Mr. Rex Dattisman, that the owners ha locate tenants or a number of banks location, Mr. Dattisman stat property to meet t economically feast Cyrus J. McMillan, )roperty at 315 El the property is on serves a better us opinion that eithe acceptable. d that his position was unchanged from the time of the Commission several months ago. The same objections would anion. There does not appear to be a condition of hard- ,e similar to those which existed a,number of years ago ted a proposal for a similar type of use in the an is that there are sufficient food markets on the HI city; the property should be developed to a higher use. d attention to the luxury apartment building under oon- operty immediately adjacent to the subject property, and re any number of objectionable features about the market a nuisance to tenants in the apartments. The very as not compatible with the higher type of developments a of the property. representing the Barrett Construction Company, stated e tried without success over the past three years to urchasers. As recently as the last three to four weeks ere approached, none of which were interested in the d that the Barrett people are at a loss to develop the a conditions of the city. He stated that it is not le to develop the R-4 properties separately* attorney, stated that he was representing the owner of Camino Real, who opposes the variance on the basis that of the choice locations in the downtown area and de - than a food market. Mr. McMillan expressed a personal a high-rise apartment or an office building would be -A- Mr. Chicarilla, of the market,me, are situated in stated that they to accommodate t Lssociated with the Brentwood Holding Company, operators itioned several locations in the Bay Area where markets ;he center of or adjacent to apartment buildings. He are a necessary part of the community and can be designed > neighboring properties, In a period of scussion concerning provisions of the Ordinance Code for variance grants, mention.was made that the hardship in the present instance would appear to a the applicant's inability to propose a development which the city will ac apt as the highest use of the land. At the time of pur- chase, the owns were aware of- the divided zoning. Commissioner Nor erg stated that some months ago the Commission heard the applicant propos a similar plan which was denied on the basis that the use was not acce table. The present plan does not appear to offer any stronger incenti a for approval. A motion was the supon introduced by Commissioner Norberg that the variance be denied. Motion seconded by Commissioner Stivers and declared carried on the following roll call vote: .AYES: C01 SSIONERS: Diederichsen, Brauner, Moore, Norberg, Stivers NOES: CO SSIONERS: Cistulli ABSENT CO, SSIONERS: Kindig )The applicant w advised of his right of appeal to the City Council. The hearing was eclared concluded. 6. VARIANCE ANDIRESUBDIVISION. NICHOUS A. CRISAFI, 220-240 EL CAMINO REAL. -- I An application f led by Nicholas Crisafi was scheduled for public hearing at this time. The pplicant requested a variance to build an apartment build- ing in excess of the legal height limit in an R-3 District. The properties w re described as portion of Lot 9 and Lot 10A, Block 1, Town of Burlingame Subdivision. Mr. Crisafi was in attendance and upon recognition by the Chair, stated that he owns the two properties on the easterly side of E1 Camino between Burlingame and H and Avenues. There is an apartment building on each lot. It is prop sed to remove the existing structures, combine the properties and b Id one large apartment house. Mr. Crisafi sta to exceed by 10 change, he is o Mr. Crisaft stat ly upon approval selected by the assurance that t resent a sizeabl if the project i that he is requesting a variance to permit the building t the existing height limitation of 55 feet. In ex- Ing 10% less land coverage than the city requires. d that he is prepared to proceed with the project immediate - of the variance. He advised that the properties have been larking Committee for parking lot purposes. There is no s District will become a legal entity. The properties rep - financial investment which will be seriously jeopardized delayed or denied. -9- ,.1 1 Mr. Crisafi expre valued for the Du Chairman Die J. Ed McClellan, voiced strong op the properties a land available a Mr. McClellan -qua the variance.gran the plans for the interest in the p Mr. Crisafi state abeyance for an i Parking District, sed the opinion that the properties were too highly poses of the parking district. on invited comments from the floor. hairman of the Central Burlingame Parking Study Committee, siton'to the variance. The Commission was advised that esdenbi&ll w the parking plan. There is no substitute tioned the existence of a condition of hardship to justify . Mrr McClellan stated that Mr. Crisafi has proceeded with apartment building having full knowledge of the Committee's operties. that he should not be requested to hold his property in efinite period for the reason that the city may form a In a period of discussion concerning plans submitted by Mr. Crisafi, Commissioners noted that theparking area was not adequate. Mr. Crisafi stated that he was aware that changes would be necessary and the plans would be corrected to meet all of the city's requirements. M1r. Crisafi called attention to a 20 foot driveway along one side of the building and stated that he would be willing to grant a right of way in the driveway to provide access to the parking which the District plans directly behind the buildingi Robert Simpson, Kent Atwater, Stanley Reynolds, J.M. Shea, local merchants, spoke in behalf of the parking plan and urged that the variance be denied. Mrs. Irene Palermo tain, 1421 Chapin Avenue, protested that her property is directly affected y the parking program but she has had no official notifi- cation from the B king Committee. Following a perio of discussion, Commissioners suggested to the applicant that ways and me be explored to reach;an amicable solution with repre- sentatives of the Barking Committee. Mr. Crisafi indicated his willingness to meet with Mr. cClellan',whenever convenient. The Planning Consultant was requested by a Commission to participate. A motion was intr aced by Commissioner Brsuner to continue the hearing to the next regular mooting to permit the applicant to meet with Mr. McClellan. Motion seconded b Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried. Mr. Crisafi was bring them to C The hearing was sted to make the necessary revisions in his plans to reafter declared continued to the meeting of March 26,1962. -10- i / COMMUNICATIONS 1. F.D. Granted Six Months Extension Of Us A communication from F.D. Sperry Company, dated February 1, 1962, requested permission to continue to operate at 14M North Carolan Avenue until some time in June or July when a new location in San Mateo will be ready for oc- cupancy. There being no pr tests heard, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Brauner to approve the continued use of the property to June, 1962, the applicant to be notified of his responsibility to remove all materials and equipment. Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:1s A.M. Respectfully submitted, D.A. Stivers, Secretary -11-