Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.02.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1963 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Brauner Edwards Councilman Crosby Cistulli City Attorney Karmel Kindig City Planner Mann Moore City Engineer Mary Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date. Meeting called to order at 8:OS p.m. - Chairman Kindig presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll call. MINUTES Minutes of the regular meeting of January 28, 1963; the adjourned meet- ing of February 11, 1963, and -the study meeting of February 11, 19630 previously submitted to members of the Commission, were approved and adopted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. MERIT TANK $ BODY, INC., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION WITHDRAWN. An application for a Special Permit filed by Merit Tank $ Body, Inc., scheduled for hearing on this date, was dropped from the agenda of Con - mission business at the request of John S. Burd, Jr., attorney reeppreseAt- ing the applicant, who advised in a letter dated February 19, 1963, that the proposed lessor of the facility intended for use by Merit Tank has withdrawn his offer to enter into a lease. 2. RESUBDIYISION - Lot S. Block 1, Mills Estate No. 1. A resubdivision map prepared by Phillip G. Larson, Civil Engineer, for the owners, Continental Assurance Company, proposing to resubdivide Lot S. Block 1, Mills Estate No. 1, into two parcels - Parcel "A" having frontage on E1 Camino Real at Trousdale Drive, and Parcel "B" fronting on California Drive at Trousdale Drive, was scheduled for public hearing at this time. In reply to Commission inquiry, the City Engineer advised that the map was filed by the property owner at the request of the City. 0 The City Engineer stated that there has been a gasoline service station on the E1 Camino portion of the property for some years but the remain- ing large area, designated Parcel SB on the map was vacant. Recently, when the area was impeoved for parking lot purposes, the City i determined that there had been a change of ownership in the property.' The owner was requested to submit the map to establish a new property line between the properties. The City Planner advised that from information he has received the park- ing is not available to the general public but was: installed by the owner of a nearby commercial building as an accommodation to his tenants. The City Planner stated that the building furnishes the legal amount of off-street parking but this has been proven inadequate to meet the demand. There being no protests recorded, oral or written, a motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner Brauner and unanimously carried on roll call vote, approved the resubdivision of Lot S. Block 1, Mills Estate No. 1, in accordance with the map on file. 3. RECLASSIFICATION - Southwest 1/4 Portion MoL of Lot 1, Block 4, Burlingame Land Co., Map No. 2. (1206 Bellevue Avenue). C-2 District to R-4 District, Chairman Kindig announced that at the direction of the City Council the Commission would conduct a public hearing at this time in the matter of reclassifying the above -described portion of Lot 1, Block 4, Burlingame Land Company Map No. 2 from C-2 District (Service Business) to R-4 District (Fourth Residential, Multi -Family). The City Planner, in reply to the Chair's invitation to review circum- stances pertinent to the hearing, stated that the parcel is part of a large commercially zoned lot at the northwest corner of Bellevue Avenue and California Drive. Some years ago, the lot was divided into four . parcels, three having frontage on California Drive, the subject property fronting Bellevue. When the commercial area was established along California Drive, the zoning followed the lot lines to include the one property on Bellevue. All of the remainder of the properties on Bellevue are zoned R-4. The use in the property has been and is presently residential. The Planner stated that the property came to the attention of the City when the boundaries of the Burlingame Avenue Area Parking District were established. Because of the zoning, the property was included in the District. Councilman Crosby, in reply to the Chair's invitation to comment, ad- vised that a protest was filed by the owner. After deliberation and consultation with the Attorneys and Engineers, the City Council determined that there were inequities. The protest; was allowed and the property removed by shifting the District boundaries. Councilman Crosby stated that the Council was instructed concerning possible legal technicalities endangering the formation of the District should the commercial classification remain. There being no protests recorded, oral or written, a motion was intro- duced by Commissioner Norberg that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council reclassification of the subject property from C-2 District to R-4 District. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roil call vote. The City Attorney and the City Planner advised that the necessary legal documents, including a copy of the proposed ordinance and a resolution setting forth the recommendations of the Commission, for transmittal to the City Council, will be prepared and available for Commission action at the meeting of March 11, 1963. Chairman Kindig thereafter declared the hearing concluded. ��iw-ry63 4. BURLINGAME SHORE LAND COMPANY. High-rise apartment buildings. Chairman Kindig announced that the public hearing on the Reclassification and Variance applications of the Burlingame Shore Land Company, as re- lated to a proposed apartment complex on Bayshore Boulevard, continued from the meeting of January 28, 1963, would proceed at this time. The Chair reviewed proceedings to date and thereafter invited discussion from the floor. Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, reported that some progress has been made on engineering details. The City Engineer, in reply to the Chair, advised that a proposed storm drainage structure will meet City specifications and can be ap- proved; the sanitary sewer system presents no particular problems. A proposed perimeter water installation system, submitted by the archi- tects, appears to be satisfactory, depending upon the results of additional fire flow studies. Reference was made to a statement heard at a previous meeting that the developer would contribute a "fair and equitable share" of the cost of furnishing the additional water service essential to the project. Mr. McMillan advised that a commitment will be made when there is a firm cost figure available. A statement in the local press that the Broadway Development Association had endorsed the project was mentioned. Chairman Kindig recognized Mr. A. Kaufmann, member of.the Association, who advised that the merchants believe that the project will benefit the local shopping district and the tax structure of the City. Mrs. C. Rusch, 1384 Hillside Circle, referred to problems of traffic and safety affecting the resident school children. Commissioner Norberg mentioned that the San Mateo County Highway Develop- ment program includes a grade separation structure at Broadway to carry traffic over the railroad and California Drive to relieve existing traffic conditions. Mr. McMillan advised, in reply to inquiry from the floor, that it is the intention to complete the entire project in four to five years. The first stage to consist of utilities, the recreation area and probably three buildings. In reply to a further inquiry, Mr. McMillan indicated that there would be no legal obligation to complete the project but an obligation to the aA- tenants to install the community area. Mr. Robert Meyer, 449 Bloomfield Road and Mr. Russ Engle, 1117 Sanchez, spoke in opposition on the grounds that the applicant fails to fulfill } the legal conditions for variance grants. Commissioner Norberg questioned whether the developer intended to widen Bayshore Boulevard (Service Road). Mr. Oscar Person, President Burlingame Shore Land Company, offered to widen the street to four lanes by utilizing a 10 foot easement lying within the property and paralleling the street. The City Engineer stated that the easement carries a sanitary sewer facility. There would be no objection if the easement were located in the street right of way. Mr. Person stated that he is firmly convinced that: the project will be of tremendous value to the City. He stated that there have been a number of arguments against the location because of the proximity of the City Dump and reminded Commissioners that the City's long-range plans contemplate a recreational use of the area. There was considerable discussion concerning vehicular traffic with which the area is presently burdened. Particular reference was made to peak hour traffic along Bayshore Boulevard. Mr. McMillan advised in reply to questions concerning the widening of Broadway that the developer cannot make such a commitment. The Broadway frontage is not part of the project; there are other owners involved. Concerning the improvement of Carolan Avenue, Mr. McMillan stated that the developer would be willing to pay one-half of the cost from Broadway to Toyon Drive. The City Planner expressed the opinion that the proposed use "should almost require the street through to Oak Grove Avenue", Mr. McMillan maintained that the project would create no greater traffic burden than certain types of industrial uses, such as electronic plants, which generate tremendous peak -hour traffic. Mr. Person stated that the previous owners of the Burlingame Shore Land Company properties referred to an agreement with the City which exempted the Company from contributing to the cost of improving the street. Mr. Person stated that the developers would bear the cost of all of the fill required for Carolan Avenue. Reference was made to the variance requests for setbacks on Bayshore Boulevard and Carolan Avenue. Mr,, deWolf, project architect, stated that the variance on Carolan Avenue represents approximately 10 feet; a S foot setback is proposed, the Code requir ec 15 f ^et -4- Mr. A.G. Nestcott,.President Burlingame Suburban Protective Association, urged the Commission to deny the applications. Mr. McMillan made --the following points: The property, encompassing an area of 13.2 acres, apart from the center of the City, is entirely suitable for an integrated community develop- ment with its own recreational and community areas; The development will not be harmful nor injurious to neighboring propertic The only industrial uses which are close by are very limited in size and principally of a warehouse operation; The area has not developed in its zoning. Industrial uses are locating northerly of Broadway. Mr. McMillan stated that the owner would be faced with undue property loss if he were not permitted to develop the project. The alternative would be a light industrial use, economically not feasible. The area is not ready for immediate industrial development. The City Planner read from a prepared statement which provided in part as follows: The applicant proposes a radical change in the land -use pattern of the City, with effects ranging far from the boundaries of the land to be used; There is every indication that the City°s industrial area will continue to grow and there is no reason why the land could not be used in accordance with its classification;. The project willcreate additional traffic problems which the City will be called upon to solve. The City will be calledupon to provide for the safety of childrentravelling to and from school. Public investment in all canner of public services will be increased, off -setting the argument that the project will bring a large amount of taxes and "profit" to the City. The developer should be responsible for all of the added public improve- ments required by him or directly resulting from ;his project. The City Attorney in reply to Chairman Kindig advised that the first determination of the Commission is the matter of 'the rezoning application before a decision can be'.reached on the variances. The City Attorney recommended that should the Commission approve the rezoning, in considering the variance matters some consideration be given to.the formation of an.assessuent district for street improvements. This is for the City Council to decide but is incidental to the present hearing. On the basis that the project is in line with developments in all areas of the country and will prove an asset to the City of Burlingame Commissioner Norbert introduced a notion approving reclassification of the property from M-1 District to R-4 District. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli. The notion failed of passage on a tie vote re- corded as follows: AYE: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli, Moore, Norberg NO: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Kindig, Stivers ABSENT COMMISSIONER: Edwards The City Attorney advised that a certified statement, without recommenda- tion from the Commission, will apprise the City Council of the present proceedings. On the basis of information volunteered by Mr. McMillan that the applicant -S_ will appear before the City Council on the reclassification matter, the hearing on the variance applications was continued to the next regular meeting of the Commission, March 2S, 1963, on a motion intro- duced by Commissioner Norberg, seconded by Commissioner Cistulii and declared carried. ADJOUP.WE►VT The meeting was thereafter regularly adjourned at 10:SS p.m, to Monday, March 11, 1963, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Edward A. Moore Secretary -6-