Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.09.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 1963 COMISSIONERS PRESENT COMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Brauner Edwards Bldg. Inspector Cistulli Calwell Kindig Councilman George Moore City Attorney Karmel Norberg City t. Ass' y Engineer Stivers Rebarchik CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m. 4 Chairman Brauner presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members answered the secretary's roll call. Commissioner Edwards, absent from the city on business, was excused, MINUTES Commissioner Edwards, in a letter directed to Chairman Brauner under date ,of September 17, 1963, stated that the second to the last paragraph on :page 7 (Item 13) of the minutes of August 26, 1963, was in error, that a hearing was not held for a rezoning or resubdivision as stated in said minutes. Following individual comments from members of the Commission on the point raised by Commissioner Edwards, and an opinion from the City Attorney that the minutes as prepared were correct, on a motion introduced by Commissioner Norberg, seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of August 26, 1963, were approved as sub- mitted. The minutes of the study meeting of September 10, 1963, were approved as submitted on a motion introduced by Commissioner Norberg, seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried. COtN ICAT TONS 1. , APHA D COMPANY TRAC OFFI E ALND CORPORAMN YAR-k. MILLS ESTATE 119, A letter dated September 6, 1963, from Alpha Land Company, 2395 DeLa Cruz Boulevard, Santa Clara, requested permission to locate a tract office and corporation yard on Lot 20, Block 4S, Hills Estate Subdivision No. 19 (corner of Rivera and Sebastian Drives) for the period of construction of homes in Units No. 1 and No. 2 of the subdivision. ,,The communication stated that the lot will be fenced; a house trailer will serve as an affice and two or three temporary structures will be moved in by sub -contractors. It is estimated that the lot will be used for a period not to exceed 18 months, at which time the equipment will be re- moved and a dwelling built on the lot. A "Typical Fence Detail" accompanied.the communication. Chairman Brauner recognized John L. Griffin, representing Alpha Land Company, who advised that a redwood lath fence 1/2" x 2" x 6 feet will enclose the entire yard. There will be a small sign with the company name for identification purposes only. Commissioner Norberg suggested that a well -maintained planted area be- tween the sidewalk and fence would improve the appearance and please neighboring,property owners. Mr. Griffin advised that a row of junipers could be planted. In reply to an inquiry from the City Building Inspector, Mr. Griffin stated that the entrance will be off Rivera Drive. There were no protests recorded, oral or written, and on a motion intro- duced by Commissioner Cistulli and seconded by Commissioner Norberg, permission was granted Alpha Land Company for the tract office and cor- poration yard in accordance with their letter of September 6, 19630 for a period not to exceed 18 months; a planted area to be maintained between the fence and sidewalk as agreed by Mr. Griffin; an identification sign to conform to the provisions of the sign ordinance may be displayed; entrance to the property to be located on Rivera Drive. The motion was unanimously carried on roll call vote. HEARINGS J. RESUBDIVISION m Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, East Millsdale Industrial Park Unit No. 2. (Bayshore Highway & Stanton Road). A public hearing was scheduled for this date on the application of Stanford Gluck, owner, to resubdivide the above -described properties. A memo from the City Engineer (on vacation) dated September 20, 1963, to the Planning Commission, advised that the map will require several corrections. The City Engineer stated further that the applicant will be unable to attend the meeting of September 23 and recommended that the hearing be continued to the following meeting. There were no protests heard from those in attendance. On a motion introduced by Commissioner Kindig and seconded by Commissioner Norberg, Commissioners concurred in the recommendation of the City Engineer and continued the hearing to October 14, 1963. 2. RESUBDIVISION o Lots 70 8 and 9. Block 6, East Millsdale Industrial ..Park Unit No. 2. (Mahler Road). A resubdivision map filed by the owners, Old Bayshore Investment and East Millsdale Investment, proposing to delete interior lot lines of the above -described properties to create two large parcels for industrial development„ was reviewed at the study meeting of September 10 and ..scheduled for formal consideration at this time. •'Mr. Robert Ryan, one of the owners, was in attendance and advised that a portion of Lot 7, combined with portions of Lots 8 and 9, will form the parcel designated "A", having frontage on Mahler Road. The remaining portions of the lots, with Lot 6, will create Parcel "B", also with frontage on Mahler Road. -2- f A memo from the City Engineer dated September 20, 1963, addressed to the Planning Commission, advised that the map was checked and found to be �l correct in all respects and recommended approval. There were no protests recorded, oral or written. On a motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner Kindig and unanimously carried the resubdivision of Lots 70 8 and 9. Block 6, East Millsdale Industrial Park, Unit No. 2, was unanimously approved on roll call vote. 3. FINAL MAP m Mills Estate No. 21. The final map of Mills Estate No. 21, a residential subdivision of seven lots on Hunt Drive between Trousdale Drive and Frontera Way, reviewed at the study meeting of September 10, was before the Commission at this time for formal consideration. A memo from the City Engineer to the Planning Commission, dated September 209 1963, advised that details and computations were checked and recom- mended approval of the map. The memo stated further that the tracings were not ready at this time for signature but would be submitted to the Commission when available. Mr. E.M. DeRenzo, engineer with Wilsey, Ham and Blair, representing the proponents of the map, advised that a legal technicality has arisen in ownership and at present title is held in escrow. It is expected that the title will be cleared very shortly. The City Attorney, in reply to inquiry, advised that the Commission need not concern itself with legal ownership but may properly approve the map if it finds that all code requirements have been meta When the map is before the City Council for final acceptance, a final map report from the title company will name those in whom title is vested. In the absence of such a report, there is no action taken by the City Council. A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli and seconded by Commissioner Kindig approving the final map of Mills Estate No. 21 was unanimously carried on roll call vote. .4. VARIANCE o William E. Jenkins. Apartment building in R-1 Zone. An application filed by William E. Jenkins, 2111 Roosevelt Avenue, requested a variance to construct a five unit garden -type apartment building on a first residential lot at 1511 Newlands Avenue (Lot 80 Burlingame Heights Subdivision). The application form recited as follows: Improvements existing: Two car garage; small rental unit, plus 20 x 25 storage unit and unused swimming pool* A set of front elevations and first and second story floor plans accompanied the application. A communication from the applicant dated August 12, 1963, advised that in applying for the variance from R-1 to R-3 it is felt that the property is not conducive to single dwelling construction. A communication dated August 26, 1963, from Lorenz H. Hansen, 1540 Newlands Avenue, protested the variance as spot zoning and requested the Commission to deny. 030 Chairman Brauner recognized Mr. Jenkins who advised that the subject property is two lots removed from El Camino Real. Between El Camino and the property, there is a five unit apartment house built several years sago; on the other side, a building which was used as a studio for art 'classes for many years. Mr. Jenkins stated that on the opposite side of the street, there are four twos -family dwellings, two of which are conversions, and two lots each with two separate residences. Mr. Jenkins stated that - a well -designed new building will not only improve his property but benefit the neighborhood as a whole. A land use study prepared by the City Planner, including both sides of Newlands Avenue from El Camino Real to Crescent Avenue, was placed on dis- play. The survey covered a total of 26 lots, including two on E1 Camino zoned R-3. Of the 24 lots in the R-1 District on Newlands Avenue, 17 are single- family in use; six, duplex; and one apartment. The Planner rated the con- dition of the properties as "good", "fair" and "poor". The City Building Inspector, in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that to his knowledge there have been no variances granted for the duplex buildings nor the apartment. Chairman Brauner reported that he personally visited the neighborhood. 4n reply to the Chairs invitation, the following persons spoke in favor of the variance: Mr. C. Finlof, 1520 Newlands Avenue; Mrs. Bertha Olson, 1521 Newlands Avenue; Mrs. Maxine Anderson., 1S14 Newlands Avenue. In protest: Mr. Louis S. Moose, 1S48 Newlands Avenue. In reply to Commission inquiry, Newlands Avenue was described as 60 feet right-of-way and 36 feet curb to curb. Following a period of disucssion, Chairman Brauner advised Mr. Jenkins that it was the feeling of the Commission that it might be desirable to continue the hearing to the next meeting to permit further study of the neighborhood. In addition, the City Planner would be in attendance to comment on the land use study. Mr. Jenkins agreed. The hearing was thereafter continued to the meeting of October 14, 1963, Commissioner Norberg questioned whether, if the present application were to be granted, the Commission would establish a precedent whereby other owners on the street would expect equal consideration. In reply, the City Attorney noted that a variance grant contemplates a condition of hardship. Should the Commission determine that there is a condition of hardship, it could become difficult not to find that there is a similar hardship on the same evidence that an adjoining owner, or property owners across the street, might produce. S. SPECIAL PERMIT e Tidelands Development Company. Drive-in theatre. An application filed by Tidelands Development Company, signed by -4- David H. Keyston, General Partner, requested a special permit to con- struct and operate a drive-in theatre facility. A communication from the applicant dated September 6, 1963, described the location as a portion of a 44 acre parcel zoned M41, presently under development east of the Bayshore Freeway, adjacent to the Peninsula Avenue overpass, A memo from the City Planner to the Commission dated September 13,1963, advised that Police Chief Lollin offers no objection from a police standpoint to the proposed use. The memo advised that Chief Lollin discussed the matter with police departments in nearby cities where such theatres are in existence. It was the concensus that no unusual or other than ordinary police surveillance is required. Instances of rowdyism or more severe police violations are rare. A memo from the City Engineer to the Commission dated September 20,1963, advised that his office is continuing to work with the developer on the problem of planning utilities to accommodate the entire area, Also, Fire Chief Moorby has an interest in the development. Inasmuch as problems have not been resolved to the present time, it was the recommendation of the City Engineer that if the Commission should ap- prove a permit it be conditional upon the owners providing at their expense all necessary facilities, both in -tract and off-tract,to provide for the utilities. A plan of the theatre layout prepared by Vincent G. Raney, Architect, was submitted, and a model to scale of the entire development, includ- ing industrial buildings, was displayed, Mr. Cyrus J. McMillan, Attorney, representing the applicants, advised that since the study meeting of September 10, 1963, when the appli- cation was first before the Commission, a tentative plan for providing the utilities has been submitted to the Department of Public Works. Mr, McMillan requested the Commission to approve the use permit sub- ject to installation of all facilities, in -tract and off -tract, to the specifications of the City Engineer, Mr, McMillan explained that approval will enable the applicant to pro- ceed to fill the land. Approximately 1S acres will be set aside for the theatre, The Bayshore Freeway frontage will be developed for industrial use. Mr. McMillan stated that the applicants intend to contract with an established theatre operator to build and operate the facility, Air. Vincent G. Raney, Architect, referred to the model showing location of the industrial buildings and the theatre layout and described the project in detail. Mr. Raney located entrance and exit lanes, location of theatre screens and advised that 1500 parking stalls will be pro- vided. Mr. Raney stated that entrance will be by way of Peninsula Avenue overpass thence along the roadway which passes the Peninsula Humane Society building. A statement dated September 11, 1963, was read by Mr. McMillan from _5= W,L, Faulstich, Chief of Police, Redwood City, to the effect that the Redwood City Drive-in theatre "has been no police problem to the Redwood City Police Department". At the request of Chairman Brauner, Mr. McMillan agreed to furnish a photostatic copy of the statement for the Commission's files. Commissioner Moore referred to the extensive area involved and the proposed industrial development and questioned whether the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would apply requiring subdivision maps to be filed with details of street layout and public utilities. The City Attorney replied that this should not be required so long as title remains with the Keystons. However, in the event of a sale there would.be a subdivision problem. The City Attorney suggested that, in any event, it would be proper for the Commission to request submission of a map as to the streets to be dedicated to the city. Mr. McMillan advised that before any of the industrial portion was developed, a street layout with utilities would be submitted. The City Attorney noted that the applicants are requesting the Com- mission to approve a permit conditional upon the performance of certain public improvements. The City Attorney advised the Commission that the use may be approved but the Commission should specify conditions to be met before the permit will issue. It was the recommendation of the City Attorney that if the Commission agrees that the use is proper all of the engineering details and fire safety requirements should be worked out with the engineering and fire departments then the plans returned to the Planning Commission for final approval. Mr. David Keyston advised that engineering details have been held up awaiting the decision of the Commission on the use permit. Approval will"permit the dredging operation to proceed immediately and pro- vide revenue to expedite the development of the remainder of the area. Mr. Keyston stated that if the use permit should not be approved, it would be useless to spend the time and money preparing detailed engineering plans. The Chair invited comments from the floor in favor or opposed. There were none, Upon advice from the City Attorney that the use may be approved in principle, a motion introduced by Commissioner Norberg approved the theatre facility as a proper use - the permit to be withheld pending final approval by the Commission of all details pertaining to engineer- ing and fire safety requirements. Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore. Commissioner Stivers, on the question, protested that the use is not compatible with the concept of proper planning for the City of Bur- lingame. The motion was thereafter declared carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Kindig, Moore, Norberg NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Stivers ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Edwards Mr. McMillan agreed to furnish a photograph of the scaled model for the Commission's files. -6- RECESS e The Chair announced a recess at 9:40 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:50 p.m. HEARINGS (cunt.). 6. "RIANC o Lewis Weil, 1637 Coronado Way. To exceed lot coverage. A"hearing scheduled for this date on the application of Lewis Weil was continued for one month to the meeting of October 28, 1963, upon written request from the applicant who advised that he was not prepared to submit final plans at this time. 7. APPLICATION OF JOSEPH M. PETERSON RE: How, 1209 Howard Avenue. An application filed by Joseph M. Peterson requested a permit for hotel construction at 1209 Howard Avenue a C-1 District. (Por. Lots 10 & 11, Block 7, Town ­of Burlingame Subdivision). The application form recited as follows: Special Permit Applied For: "Permit to construct SS room hotel. Applicant intends to use the off- street parking provided by the parking district and to make no pro- vision for on -site parking". Improvements Existing: Frame structure used for off -sale liquor business. A statement accompanying the application advised that it is the con- tention of the applicant that the hotel would be a commercial use within the yrovisions of the ordinance code, Section 1971.2f (25.70.030f and therefore exempt from parking requirements under Section 1971.3 (25.70.040). The statement advised that the off-street parking district provides Lot "F" fronting on Park Road. The developer, Mr. E.A. Maas, within the past four years has constructed similar hotel buildings and experience has indicated that it is not necessary to provide on -site parking facilities. The tenants will largely be persons employed in the commercial area and many of them will not own automobiles. Those with automobiles would need parking mainly after the close of normal business so that the off-street parking provided would meet the need. The statement stated fultther that similar constructions in San Jose and Palo Alto have been successful and have been permitted by the respective cities without requirement of on -site parking. Photographs of three of the existing hotels accompanied the application. Mr. Cyrus J. McMillan, Attorney, representing the applicant, advised that the question of land use is not involved. The hotel is a proper use in the C-1 District. The problem has to do with the inclusion of the property within the off-street parking district and an assessment against the property of $4000.00. It is the -contention of the appli- cant that the property is a commercial use as defined in the ordinance _7- and entitled to exemption from the requirements for providing its own parking. However, the code does not specifically name "hotel" as an exempted use. An architectural rendering of the proposed structure was displayed. Mr. McMillan recalled that at the study meeting of September 10 the Commission requested a survey to be made of the other hotels owned by Mr. Maas to determine the percentage of tenants who own auto- mobiles. Mr. McMi2lmasubmitted for filing "Parking Summary" of four hotels; three in San Jose and one in Palo Alto. Statistics were listed as to number of rooms per hotel, number of cars per hotel and ratio of cars to roomso Mr. McMillan stated that all of the hotels are in close proximity to public off-street parking lots. In the present situation, the land touches at the corner a relatively large parking lot which the district will install on Park Road. Mr. McMillan advised that Mr. Maas was in attendance, also Mr. Peterson, present owner of the property. In reply to a series of inquiries from members of the Commission con- cerning the potential burden which tenant parking would place upon the public parking lot, Mr. McMillan advised that experience has shown that persons in the hotels who own cars oidinarily drive away from the city to their work. Those who are employed locally, do not own cars. Mr. McMillan stated further that it is his understanding that the pro- posed Lot "F" has been designed principally to accommodate employee parking rather than shoppers parking. Mr. McMillan agreed that it could be possible that there would be some all -day tenant parking. Mr. McMillan mentioned that a two or three story office building could be built on the property without providing any on -site parking. The City Attorney stated that the code requires off-street parking to be furnished by commercial uses, either on the same or contiguous property according to a formula set forth in code section 25.70.030(f). Any person who proposes'a commercial building for any of the uses set forth in the section must furnish parking. The City Attorney advised that there are similar requirements in the code for furnishing parking for apartments, apartment hotels, lodging houses, rooming houses, motels and hotels. No person may build a structure for any of these uses, which are residential, as distinct from commercial uses, unless off-streetar(ing is furnished as re- quired by sections 2S.70.030(a), (b), (c , d). The City Attorney continued - in either commercial or multi -residential -.use, off-street parking must be provided. There is only one exception: Where the property is.subject to assessment for the off-street park- ing district, and where it has not claimed a credit for parking spaces already furnished on the property, and where thee is one of the commercial or industrial uses which are designated in section (f). None of the uses in section (f) are residential. -8- The City Attorney advised that this type of provision is not new to the code. It came into the code before the other parking district that was defeated in the courts was formed. When the present parking district was being put together the provision for the exemption for furnishing spaces and for the credit for spaces already furnished was prepared by the parking district attorneys and after discussion among the parking district committee it was agreed that no residential use should have any exemption from the requirement to furnish parking spaces off street. Otherwise, there could be a three story apart- ment building without parking requirements. The City Attorney stated that residential uses with exemptions were discussed and expressly excluded. A hotel is a commercial use but it is not one of the exempted commercial uses. If the hotel is exempt, then so is an apartment hotel, motel, etc,, The City Attorney thereupon expressed the opinion that the only possibility open to the applicant would be to ask for a variance from the required off-street parking. The City Attorney advised that the special permit before the Commission may be amended on its face o the applicant to show thereon the variance for which he is applying. The City Attorney stated that notices of hearing for variance must be mailed to property owners, as required by ordinance. In a discussion which followed reference was made to an ordinance recently adopted by the City Council which creates a Parking Commission charged with the duty of advising the City Council in all aspects of parking, both on -street and off-street. It was suggested that per- haps the members of the Parking Commission might be invited to meet with the Planning Commission to express their views on a parking variano Councilman George, in attendance advised that the Council will meet just once during the month of October, because of the League of Ca4ifornia Cities Conference. It will possibly be November before the Parking Commission will be formally organized. Mr. McMillan, in reply to Chairman Brauner°s request to comment on a continuance to a date in November, advised that his clients were agree- able and that an amended application would be filed. The matter was thereafter declared continued to the meeting of November 2S, 1963, for the purpose of considering the applicants reques for a variance from parking requirements. NEW BUSINESS la Ei cbbr Homes; Inc. Tract Sales Office. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Cistulli concerning the sales office of Eichler Homes, Inc., in the Mills Estate, the City Building Infector advised that Mr. ghapro, Vice President of Eichler Homes, has been informed concerning code provisions for tract sales offices.. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Brauner acknowledged Councilman George and Mrs. George in attendance. The meeting was adjourned at. 10:30 p.m. to Monday, October 1401963. Respectfully submitted,; Edward A. Moore, Secretary.