HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.05.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulli
Edwards
Kindig
Moore
Norberg
Stivers
CALL TO ORDER
May 27, 1963
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None City Attorney Karmel
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
Councilman Crosby
Councilman Martin
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order
on the above date at 8:05 p.m. - Chairman Kindig presiding.
Chairman Kindig announced that word has been received of the passing in
death of Lester B. Morgan, Councilman, and former mayor of the City of
Burlingame.
,ROLL CALL
The Secretary's roll call recorded all members present.
MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 22, regular adjourned meeting of
April 30, regular adjourned meeting of May 13 and study meeting of
May 13, 1963, previously submitted to members of the Commission, were
approved and adopted.
HEARINGS
Public hearings scheduled for this date were conducted as follows:
1. SPECIAL PERMIT. Victor E. Grover. Day nursery, Lot K, Blk. 5,
Burlingame Land Company, Map No. 2.
A hearing on an application filed by Victor E. Grover for a special permit
to operate a day nursery and child care center at 525 California Drive,
continued from the meeting of May 13, 1963, was delayed until 9:00 o'clock,
p.m., when it was determined that the applicant was not in attendance.
2. VARIANCE Burlingame Investment Company. Commercial building in
Third Residential District. Por. Lots SA and SB, Block 3,
Town of Burlingame Subdivision.
An application filed by Burlingame Investment Company for a variance to
permit construction of a one-story office building on third residential
property at 1321 Bayswater Avenue was continued from the meeting of
April 22 to the present time to permit the applicant to file a revised
plan.
former Single-family residence, converted to commercial use by variance,
ccupies the property.
A communication dated April 2, 1963, from Pringle Construction, repre=
senting the applicant, submitted as follows: The subject property is
difficult to develop due to the triangular shape and setback requirements
on E1 Camino and Bayswater Avenue; the site is impractical for apartment
use because of the irregular shape; the location is better suited for
commercial use because of existing commercial uses on the street. There
is a beauty shop immediately adjacent, an office building diagonally .
across Bayswater and Primrose, and a church and school across Bayswater
Avenue.
Chairman Kindig recognized Douglas Pringle, who advised that the parking
plan presently before the Commission includes revisions suggested at the
April 22nd meeting.
In reply to the Chair's inquiry, there were no comments from the floor
either favoring or protesting.
The parking plan submitted by Mr. Pringle was reviewed at length and the
following points raised: (a) A proposed vehicle exit to El Camino Real
should.be eliminated; (b) The main entrance to the building off E1 Camino
could lead to illegal stopping and/or parking on that. street; (c) On -site
parking, as proposed, is not properly arranged to provide safe and efficient
vehicle ingress and egress.
'Mr. Pringle, in reply to the Chair, agreed to eliminate the exit on
E1 Camino Real; stated as a matter of personal preference that he would
prefer to have an El Camino address and requested the: building entrance
remain as proposed; explained that there will be five separate suites
in the building requiring 5-1/2 off-street parking spaces under code. The
plan, including the spaces entering E1 Camino, proposes a total of eight
spaces.
The City Planner suggested a compromise may be possible on the question
of the building entrance if Mr. Pringle were agreeable to placing an
ornamental fence across the El Camino frontage to prohibit actual access
at this location. An E1 Camino address would be possible but pedestrian
access could be off Bayswater. •
The City Planner suggested further that some additional excavating into
the rear yard might provide increased parking.
Following further discussion during which Commissioners indicated that
the commercial use of itself was not objectionable, a motion was intro-
duced by Commissioner Norberg approving the variance in principal to
permit construction of a one-story office building, subject to modifications
in the plans as follows: revised parking arrangement; removal of vehicle
exit from E1 Camino; ornamental fence to be installed on E1 Camino boundary
to prevent pedestrian traffic into building at that frontage; plans to be
eturned to the Commission for final approval. Motion seconded by
.:ommissioner Moore and unanimously carried.
Mr. Pringle was requested to meet with the City Planner to prepare revised
plans to be submitted for Commission review at the study meeting of June 10.
2 -
3. RESUBDIVISION. Parcel B, Lot 2, Riock 2. Millsdale Industrial Park,
ll Unit No. 1.
JA resubdivision map of the above -described property, prepared by Wilsey,
Y
Ham and Blair, for the owners, Adolph Blaich, Incorporated, proposed to
reduce the area of said Parcel B by establishing a new parcel, to be
designated "E", at the northerly end of the property.
Richard Lavenstein, representing the applicant, advised that the owner
occupies an existing one-story building. The proposed new parcel is
vacant land which the owner desires to sell. The City Engineer, in reply
to the Chair, advised that the tracings were examined and found to be in
order. The City Planner stated that the resubdivision will not interfere
with the present building nor reduce existing off-street parking.
There being no protests recorded, oral or written, a motion introduced by
Commissioner Cistulli to approve the resubdivision in accordance with the
map on file, was seconded by Commissioner Edwards and unanimously carried
on roll call vote.
4. RESUBDIVISION. Lots 5 through northerly 1/2 of 10, Block 2.
5. RESUBDIVISION. Southerly 1/2 of Lot 10 through Lot 14, Block 2.
East Millsdale Industrial Park 'Unit No. 1.
Items No. 4 and No. 5 on the agenda were considered jointly by the Commission
at the suggestion of the City Engineer, who advised that the properties are
under one ownership, are contiguous and properly should have been submitted
as one application.
Mr. Robert Ryan, one of the property owners, advised that interior lot
lines from Lot 5 through Lot 7 will be deleted to establish one parcel,
to be designated "B", having frontage of 180 feet on Mitten Road. Lot 8
through the northerly one-half of Lot 10 will be combined into one parcel,
to be designated "A", with frontage of 150 feet on Mitten Road. The parcels
will be developed separately for commercial/industrial uses.
Mr. Ryan stated that the balance of the property from the southerly one-
half of Lot 10 through Lot 14 will become a single parcel, by deletion
of interior lot lines, having frontage of 310 feet on Mitten Road- this
area to provide off-street parking for the building occupied by Western
,Electric Company.
In reply to the City Engineer's inquiry to Mr. Ryan concerning a division
of Lot 10, Mr. Ryan confirmed that a proposed new lot line will divide
Lot 10 into two parcels. Mr. Ryan agreed to the City Engiree�gs request
concerning placement of corner hubs.
There being no protests recorded, oral or written, and the City Engineer
and City Planner indicating that the applications were acceptable, the
.following motions were introduced by Commissioner Cistulli:
1. Approving the resubdivision of Lots 5 through the northerly
one-half of Lot 10, East Millsdale Industrial Park Unit No. 1,
according to the map on file with the City Engineer, conditional
upon placement of corner hubs in the field at the two corners of
the lot line dividing Lot 10, said corner huos 'to be ueli-oeated upon
the tracings. Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously
carried.
• 3 -
2. Approving the resubdivision of the southerly one-half of
Lot 10 through Lot 14, Block 2, East Mills Industrial Park Unit
! No. 1, according to the.map on file with the City Engineer, with the
same conditions pertaining to establishment of corner hubs, as
described in the motion immediately preceding. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Brauner and unanimously carried on roll call vote.
6. RESUBDIVISION. Lots 10 and 11, Block 6, East Millsdale Industrial
Park, Unit No. 2.
A map prepared by W. T. Black, Civil Engineer, for Batton & Company, owners,
proposed to resubdivide the above -described properties by deleting the
common lot line between the two lots, thereby establishing one large parcel
having frontage of 175 feet on Mahler Road.
W. F. Batton, owner, advised that a proposed new building - combining
office and warehouse facilities - will occupy most of Lot 10; Lot 11
will provide on -site parking. By erasing the common lot line, the two
lots will become a single property.
The City Planner advised that the map was filed at the request of the City
when it was discovered in checking the owner's building plans that the "
building would be on one property and the parking on another.
Tracings submitted to the City Engineer were examined and found to be
in order. There being no protests recorded, oral or written, a motion
was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to approve the resubdivision in
)accordance with the map on file with the City Engineer. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Edwards and unanimously carried on roll call vote.
7. RESUBDIVISION. Portion of Sections 11 and 12, Township 4 South,
Range_ 5 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
A resubdivision map of the above -described tidelands,, prepared by Wilsey,
Ham and Blair, Engineers, for the owners, Millwood Development Company
No. 2 and Texo Realty Company and filed with the City Engineer was sub-
mitted for formal consideration at this time.
Mr. Paino of Coldwell Banker Company, representing the applicant, advised
that there are approximately 20 acres involved - Texo Realty Company
owning one-half in fee and .Millwood Development one-half in fee.
Air. Paino stated that the owners have decided to separate their holdings
and to physically divide the property into two parcels as delineated on the
resubdivision map.
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, stated that this is unsubdivided
acreage with no public improvements of any kind in existence. The
owners are aware "that the city will resist any attempt to make use of
the property until the land is properly subdivided and the improvements
installed."
The City Engineer advised that a permit has been issued for some filling;
installation of street improvements, on the easterly side of Bayshore
Highway, is a matter of concern and will be watched closely.
- 4 -
The Commission was advised that there will be other similar situations
and the City Attorney, City Engineer and City Planner are cooperating to
try to find ways and means of preventing a developer from securing a
building permit before land is properly subdivided.
There being no protests recorded, oral or written, a motion was introduced
by Commissioner Edwards approving the resubdivision of tideland holdings
of Millwood Development Company No. 2 and Texo Realty Company, in accordance
with the map dated May 21, 1963, on file with the City Engineer. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried.
(Item No. 1 on agenda)
SPECIAL PERMIT - Victor E. Grover. Day nursery, 52.5 California Drive.
The regular order of business was interrupted temporarily while Chairman
Kindig inquired to determine if Victor E. Grover, applicant for a permit
as described above, was in attendance.
Upon determination that
motion was introduced by
special permit for a day
seconded by Commissioner
vote.
RECESS:
Mr. Grover was not present, nor represented, a
Commission Edwards to deny the request for a
nursery at 52S California Drive. Motion
Cistulli and carried unanimously on roll call
;Chairman Kindig declared a recess at 9:20 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 9:27 p.m.
8. VARIANCE TO RESUBDIVIDE PARCEL B. LOT 8, BURLINGAME MANOR NO. 2.
northerly of LaMesa Drive. Gordon R. Strocher, applicant.
A resubdivision map prepared by Howard G. Hickey, Civil Engineer, for the
owner/applicant, Gordon R. Strocher, proposing to divide the above -
described Parcel B into four new parcels - three of which will not meet
lot frontage requirements, having been reviewed at the study meeting of
May 13, was submitted for formal consideration at this time.
A letter from Mr. Strocher, dated May 13, 1963, advised that for the
past two years attempts have been made without success for a mutual plan
of development with adjoining property owners. The land extends some
distance into the canyon but Parcel B. in excess of 105,000 square feet
in area, offers a number of good building sites. The present proposal
attempts to use the land to the best advantage.
A letter dated May 27, 1963, from Reginald E. Moorby, Chief of the Fire
Department, stated that the private roadway - proposed by Mr. Strocher
to serve the three lots not having street frontage - is not of normal
street standard but will accommodate fire apparatus. The Fire Chief
recommended a 6 inch water line, to replace an existing 4" line, to
adequately serve fire equipment; also, a hydrant with two 2-1/2" outlets
installed at the turn -around.
- 5
Mr. Strocher and the project engineer, Howard Hickey, were in attendance.
)Mr. Strocher advised that his home at 1506 LaMesa Drive is located on
`Parcel "A" on the. map, which parcel is not a part of the present resuh-
division.
In reply to the Chair's request for comment from the: floor, Earl M. Dilley,
owner of property abutting the northeasterly property line of the Strocher
property, suggested that the turn -around on the two properties be joined to
provide a through driveway.
The City Planner expressed the opinion that such an arrangement would have
,the effect of creating- a street 18 feet wide, between the two properties,
which could give rise to any number of problems. It was the Planner's
suggestion that roadways not be combined.
The City Engineer, in reply to Commission inquiry concerning the scope
of grading to provide building sites, stated that Mr. Strocher has not
submitted a rough grading plan. However, improvement. -plans will be
thoroughly examined as building permit applications are filed.
The City Engineer described water service installations and provisions
for drainage, to be constructed to city specifications. tie advised that
there is a sewage system in place but location of sewage laterals will be
discussed when the individual lots are developed.
During a discussion concerning the city's position with respect to the
;roadway easement, the City Attorney stated that a grant of easement for
'ingress and egress must be submitted by the property owner to the city
for final acceptance by the City Council.
Mr. Strocher advised that it will be some time before all of the pre-
liminaries are completed and the property ready for building. He stated
that he will comply with the requirements of the Fire Chief and the City
Engineer; will construct the road to a width of 18 feet and submit
documents described by the City Attorney pertaining to the roadway
easement.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Edwards approved in principal the
resubdivision as proposed; the map to be returned to the Planning
Commission for final signature within one year from date, during which
time the applicant will install the private road, all required water
services and hydrant and offer a non-exclusive easement on the road to
the City Council. Tie variance pertaining to lot frontage requirements
will become effective upon installation of the improvements and acceptance
of the offer of easement by the City Council. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Cistulli and declared carried unanimously on roll call vote.
9. VARIANCE. Harry J. Hardy. Duplex dwelling - first residential
district. Lot 21, Block 32, Lyon $ Hoag Subdivision.
Chairman Kindig announced that this was the time and place scheduled to
conduct a public hearing on the application of Harry J. Hardy to alter
a single family residence at 518 Bayswater Avenue to duplex use.
Chairman Kindig recognized Mr. Hardy who filed a statement dated
May''?; 1>63, advising that at least 90% of the residents within the
5Q0 feet radius of the subject property were contacted. Of these,
three persons voiced objection to the variance.
A .
A petition filed by Mr. Hardy entitled "I would prefer to have section
)from Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue zoned to Duplex zoning" was
signed by 34 persons.
A petition bearing 51 signatures indicating no objection to the variance
application was filed by Mr. Hardy.
In addressing members of the Commission, Mr. Hardy :stated that it would
appear quite evident from the number of signatures on the petitions
that there were many property owners in the area in favor of a change
from the existing first residential zoning.
Chairman Kindig invited comments from the floor.
Mr. and Mrs. G. Winstead, 126 Clarendon Road, protested that duplex zoning
in the area would not provide the highest use of the; properties.
Mr. Winstead stated that any change in zoning should be to apartment.
He expressed objection to the variance application as "spot zoning".
Angelo Dellacasa, 141 Victoria Road, protested that approval of the
present application would grant a special favor to Mr. Hardy, which has
been denied to other property owners in the area.
Mr. Hardy advised that he purchased the property with the intention of
remodeling and modernizing but did not intend to change the use from
single-family. However, since there is a zoning study underway, which may
lead to some zoning changes in the easterly section of the city, he decided
,to request permission to alter to duplex. He statedthat there is ample
floor area and the conversion can be made with very little additional work.
Mr. Hardy stated that he is reluctant to finish the project for single-
family use, under present conditions.
In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Brauner, who advised that he had
visited the property, Mr. Hardy stated that there are painters at work but
all construction work has been halted.
The City Planner, at the request of the Chair, read Code provisions per-
taining to variance grants and the four conditions necessary therefor.
The City Planner stated further that the land use survey of the area from
Humboldt Road to the railroad tracks and Peninsula Avenue to Burlingame
Avenue is under Way and material should be available for the Commission
by October, 1963.
Chairman Kindig advised Mr. Hardy that it is his privilege to continue with
the present hearing or postpone until a report is received from the City
Planner.
Upon Mr. Hardy's statement that he would prefer not to proceed at the present
time, the hearing was continued to the meeting of October 28, 1963.
.0. SPECIAL PERMIT - Pacific Gas $ Electric Company. Public Utility
Electric Substation - Lot 17, Block 17, Supplementary
Map to Map No. 1 of the Town of Burlingame;
Lots 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D3, 4-A and 5-A, Block 17 "Lyon
and Hoag Subdivision of the Town of Burlingame.
7
A Special Permit application, filed by Pacific Gas $ Electric Company,
)proposed construction and maintenance of a public utility electric
sub -station on property zoned C-2 (Commercial -Service Trades) having
frontages on Myrtle Road and East Lane, between Howard Avenue and
Burlingame Avenue.
A letter dated May 10, 1963 from the applicat, signed by K. W. VanGundy,
District Manager, advised that the continued growth of the Burlingame
area requires additional sub -station capacity to provide adequate public
utility service.
A letter dated April 21, 1963, from Paul A. Schumann, owner of the
property at 216 Myrtle Road requested that the sub -station be contained in
an enclosed building (as is frequently done in metropolitan areas); that
the remainder of the property be landscaped and maintained.
A letter dated May 27, 1963, from Nicholas A. Crisafi, owner of an
apartment building on Myrtle Road, protested that the proposed con-
struction'Would be an eyesore in an area that is starting to improve
itself with new buildings and refurbishing of older properties".
Richard Alves, representing the applicant, submitted a colored planting
schedule and a site plan.
Leo Meyer, owner of four lots in the same block as the proposed use,
requested information concerning the operation. He stated that he has
improved and maintained his properties and would be opposed to anything
that would prove an eyesore or create a nuisance in the neighborhood.
Mr. Alves explained mechanics of the operation and the physical layout
of the plant. fie stated that there would be one concrete block building,
9 feet to 12 feet high; transformers approximately 12 feet high; poles
ranging from 18 feet to 25 feet in height; a cyclone fence enclosing the
property and a 10 foot planting area outside the fence on East Lane and
Myrtle Road frontages.
The Commission was advised that there is no zoning criteria for locating
substations. They are located throughout 38 counties in the State in all
types of zoning. Mr. Alves stated that there has never been criticism nor
complaint that the operations were a deterrent to property values nor
development.
In reply to an inquiry from the floor from L. L. Horner, owner of an
apartment building at 230 Myrtle Road concerning possible interference
with radio and television -reception, Mr. Kerzer, of the engineering staff
of Pacific Gas $ Electric Company, advised that there is no reason for
concern over such interference. Mr. Herzer described lines of identical
voltage as proposed here which are presently located through the center
of the City of San Mateo.
F. Altieri, owner of income property at 260 East Lane, stated that he
would prefer some other type of development.
The City Engineer stated that there is a definite need for the installation
and projects presently in the planning stage for improvement of California
Drive emphasize the desirability of a substation approximately in the
proposed location.
- 8 -
I
The City Planner, in concurring with the remarks of the City Engineer
)stated it is understandable that neighboring owners will object to putlic
utility installations but such installations must be accepted as essential
to the city's growth and expansion.
fie expressed the opinion that the proposed location in a Cm2 Zone is acb
ceptable and should work out very well if the landscaping is properly
treated.
In further comment, the City Planner mentioned that it was his understanding
that the plant would not be built nor put into use for some time. Perhaps
the vacant portion of the property could be cleared and landscaped immed-
iately. The City Planner suggested further that in addition to the plant-
ings on Myrtle Road and East Lane, that the two side boundaries be planted.
Mr.- Alves advised that engineering studies indicate construction to commence
in 196S and the station to start operation in 1966. He agreai that a hedge
would be planted on each side, inside the fence. He: indicated that there
would be.no objection to planting and fencing before actual construction
commences.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli approved the permit for the
requested use, conditional upon a 10 foot planting area to be maintained
outside the cyclone fence on the Myrtle Road and East Lane frontages;
landscaping to conform with planting schedule filed as part of the appli-
cation; a hedge to be planted inside the fence on both side boundaries;
vacant portion of the property to be landscaped and fenced within one
,'year from date. Motion seconded by Commissioner Nor -berg and carried on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Kindig, Moore, Norberg,Stivers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Edwards
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None
The applicant was advised that the permit would become effective June 4,1963,
provided there was no appeal._
The hearing was declared concluded.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. Trousdale Construction Company request to continue office use-
2S00 Trousdale Drive.
A communication from Trousdale Construction Company, under date of
May 2, 1963, advised that development operations in -the Mills Estate will
continue for some years prior to completion and requested a permit to con-
tinue to occupy the premises at 2500 Trousdale Drive as a tract sales office
for an additional twelve month period.
The City Planner advised that the property is in a first residential area
but the use is permissible upon approval of the Planning Commission.
He stated that the property has been well maintained and to his knowledge
there have beengeomplaints since conditions for the operation were set
by the Commission in May, 1955.
Carl Snyder, representing the applicant, stated that there are possibly
300 parcels still to be processed and in his opinion the operation will
conclude by the end of 1964.
-9-
There being no protests recorded, oral or written, a motion was
introduced by Commissioner Edwards, seconded by Commissioner Cistulli
!and unanimously carried approving the permit as requested, for the
period May 13, 1963 to May 13, 1964, subject to conditions stipulated
by the Commission under date of May 26, 1958.
RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution No. 2-63: "A Resolution of Policy on Waterfront
Development", was introduced for passage on motion of Commissioner
Edwards, seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on
roll call vote.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:50 p.m., in respect to the
memory of Councilman, and former Mayor of the City of Burlingame,
Lester B. Morgan, who passed in death on this date.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward A. Moore,, Secretary