HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.01.14CITY OF BURLINCAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulli
Edwards
Kindig
Moore
Norberg
Stivers
CALL TO ORDER
January 14, 1963
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None Councilman Crosby
City Attorney Karmel
Mayor Lorenz
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
An adjourned regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission,
from, December 10, 1962, was called to order on the above date at
8:00 p.m. m Chairman Kindig presiding.
ROLL CALL
The Secretary's roll call recorded all members present.
MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting of December 10, 1962, previously submitted to
members, were approved and adopted,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Kindig announced that three applications were scheduled for
public hearing at this time. The first, continued from the meeting
of December 10, 1962, concerns a resubdivision of industrial property:
to RESUBDIVISION d Lots 8 and 9, Block 3, East Millsdale Industrial
Park, Unit No. 1. (Mitten Road).
The Chair recognized Robert Ryan, owner and applicant, who advised
that the resubdivision proposes to delete the common lot line between
the two lots to establish one large parcel to accommodate a new
office building.
Mr. Ryan stated that the map has been prepared at the request of
the Office of the City Engineer since the building; as proposed will
cross the common lot line and occupy a portion of both lots.
The City Engineer and the City Planner, in reply to Commission in-
quiry, advised that the application is in order and complies with
Code requirements.
Reference was made to a "proposed 23 foot ingress and egress easement
to Lot 7", shown on the map, which the City Engineer described as
a private easement, negotiated between the owners to serve Lot 7
and the new Lot 8, and of no interest to the City in considering
the resubdivision application.
There were no protests recorded, oral or written. On a motion in-
troduced by Commissioner Stivers and seconded by Commissioner Norberg,
the resubdivision of Lots 8 and 9. Block 3, East Millsdale Industrial
Park, Unit No, 1, in accordance with the map on file with the City
Engineer, was unanimously approved.
2. RESUBDIVISION o Lot 7, Creekside Subdivision and Lot 12A, Block 55,
Easton Addition No. S.
A resubdivision map prepared by Toward G. Hickey, Civil Engineer, filed
in the Office of the City Engineer, proposed to transfer a small tri-
angular section of Lot 12A � being the northwesterly resubdivided por"
tion of Lot 12), Block 55, Easton Addition No. S, to Lot 7, Creekside
Subdivision.
Air. P.J. Mumah, owner of Lot 7, advised that the resubdivision will add
an angular strip of approximately 141 square feet to Lot 7 and pro-
vide the extra area needed for building setback purposes.
The City Engineer and the City Planner, in reply to the Commission, ad-
vised that the resubdivision is in order.
The City, Planner commented further that building sites have been diffi-
cult throughout the subdivision, including the subject property. There
has been a common problem of accommodating to the creek and to irregu-
lar lot patterns.
There being no protests recorded, oral or written, a motion was intro-
duced by Commissioner Moore approving the resubdivision in accordance
with the map on file with the City Engineer. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roll call vote.
3. VARIANCE - Underground Parking In Side Setback. Adrian VanPoppel.
An application filed by Robert Sherman, architect„ for Adrian VanPoppel,
owner/applicant, requested a variance to permit a portion of three
parking spaces to extend into the side setback below ground level along
the rear thirty (30) feet of an apartment building to be constructed
on Lot l3, Mills Garden Court Subdivision (2000 Trousdale Drive).
A letter dated December 12, 1962, from Air. Sherman advised that the
parking level in the particular location --is sufficiently below grade
to permit the side yard grade elevation to be carried uninterrupted
across the top of the parking space. The communication referred to a
recent amendment to the Ordinance Code which permits underground set-
back parking.
The communication further advised that it would be possible to obtain
the required parking without the encroachment but this would entail
elimination of extra features which are proposed for the comfort of
the occupants of the building.
-2-
Upon inquiry by the Chair, it was determined that the applicant was
not in attendance nor represented.
There followed a period of discussion during which the following
points were made:
Chairman Kindig .announced for the information of those in attendance
that the applicant is proceeding under the provisions of the Code
which were in effect prior to the amendments recently adopted by
the City Council. The building plans were on file with the City's
Building Department before the deadline date fixed by the City
Council (Resolution No. 62-62, adopted October 1, 1962).
The City Planner advised that since the applicant first appeared be-
fore the Commission at the study meeting of December 10, 19620
another problem has arisen. It has been determined that the architect's
plans indicate a lot coverage of approximately 66%, as opposed to the
legal maximum of 60%.
The City Planner stated that to his knowledge the architect is not
aware of the discrepancy.
It was determined by the Chair that persons in attendance were inter-
ested in the application and desired to be heard.
The City Attorney advised that the Commission alt its discretion may
conduct a partial hearing on the application on file, to permit
those in attendance to be heard, the hearing then to be continued
to another date.
The City Attorney noted that the question of lot coverage is not a
part of the formal application, has not been studied nor noticed,
thereby precluding any action in the matter at this time.
In reply to the Chair's reference to the deadline date for starting
construction, a matter of concern in the present application, the
City Planner advised that after January 31, 1963, the applicant will
not be issued a building permit fox, the present set of plans.
Chairman Kindig recognized Harry K. Wolff, Jr., President Mills Estate
Home Owners' Association, who spoke in opposition to the variance.
Adrian Van Poppel, applicant, and Robert Sherman, architect, appeared.
Mr. Sherman, upon recognition by the Chair, advised that a variance
is requested to permit three parking spaces to project into the side
setback below ground. Mr. Sherman stated that to overcome any ob-
jection, it is proposed that the roof of the underground parking area
will be landscaped and treated as an outdoor patio.
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, informed Mr. Sherman concern-
ing lot coverage computations made by his office and verified by the
City's Engineering Department, indicating an excess of 6% over the
legal maximum of 601.
Mr. Sherman was advised concerning procedural requirements which pro-
hibit consideration of the lot coverage variations in the present-
-3-
hearing.
In replying to the Chair's invitation for comment from the floor,
objections to the variance were expressed by Mr. C.A. Hazeltine,
representing the Ogden Arms Association, owners of the condominium
apartment building at 1821 Ogden Drive; Mrs. Ancella B. Grassis,
owner of an apartment building at 1815 Ogden Drive; Air. C.A. Shepard,
resident, 1821 Ogden Drive.
The speakers maintained that the area is overcrowded with apartment
buildings; parking and traffic create a serious problem. A common
access easement provided to the properties in the block does not
now adequately carry the traffic. The Commission was requested to
aid in relieving the situation somewhat by rejecting any proposal
to vary the zoning laws.
Mr. Sherman, in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that a three
story, 33 unit building is proposed. He stated that the lot is ire--
-regular in shape, creating problems in designing; the building to
adapt to the lot.
Air. Van Poppel, referred to the access easement described by previous
speakers and stated that in his opinion the three parking spaces
which require the variance, compared with thehundreds of units in
the area, will not seriously enlarge the existing traffic problem.
The City Planner expressed the opinion that the property can readily
accommodate 30 units. He stated that he has had discussions with
Mr.: Sherman on the possibility of revising the plans to eliminate
the excess of three units which create the problem.
Following a brief discussion concerning the property and further re-
view of the plans submitted by the architect, a motion was introduced
by Commissioner Edwards to deny the variance as .requested. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and carried unanimously on roll
call vote.
The applicant was advised of his right of appeal to the City Council.
The hearing was thereafter declared concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:SO p.m., to be followed
by the study meeting regularly scheduled for this date.
STUDY MEETING
Following a recess, Chairman Kindig called the study meeting to
order at 9:10 p.m.
to VARIANCE - Carl E. Kirker. Lot Sizes. Armsby Court Subdivision.
An application filed by Carl E. Kirker, Consulting Civil Engineers,
requested.a variance to permit the newly annexed Armsby Court Sub -
Division to be divided into lots having an area less than 10,000
square feet each.
-4-
A communication from the. applicant dated December 13, 1962, re-
ferred to the small parcel of land recently detached from the Town
of Hillsborough and annexed to the City of Burlingame, to be
subdivided along with additional land under the: same ownership with-
in the Burlingame city limits, at the westerly extension of
Roosevelt Avenue.
The communication advised that the owners propose to divide into
lots having 7000 square feet (plus) each. The communication men-
tioned that the present limitation appears to be directed to hill-
side subdivisions where smaller lots could present a problem.
Also, it was noted that existing properties adjacent to the pro-
posed subdivision are in a 5000 square foot area.
In a brief period of discussion, Commissioners agreed that the
present lot limitation of 10,000 square feet anticipated residential
annexations from the hills areas where terrain and development are
difficult. These are not matters of concern in the present sub-
division.
Louis Arata, Engineer, representing the applicant, submitted the
proposed Final Map of the entire subdivision and two smaller maps
indicating the lots to which the variance applies. It was noted
that of the seven lots in the subdivision_, three were in the City
of Burlingame and not a port of the annexation. These, therefore,
are not a part of the variance action.
The application was scheduled for public hearing at the regular
meeting of January 28, 1963. The Final Map of Armsby Court Sub-
division was scheduled for formal consideration on the same date.
2. GEORGE S. NOLTE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.:
New Tentative Map. Mills Estate No. 19.
James Roemer, Engineer, representing George S. Nolte, and A.L.Shapro,
Vice President, Eichler Homes, Inc., were in attendance.
The Tentative Map of the subdivision was submitted. The Commission
was advised:
1. A ten foot pedestrian wall_ray to the park site for the
residents in Burlingame Manor extends from Margarita Avenue to
the cul-de-sac at Escalante Drive.
2. The tree area along Skyline Boulevard remains. There will
be ten lots fronting Skyline with the row of trees separating
the properties from the highway. Access points will be pro-
vided as on the previous map.
3. An access off Arguello to the nature park is included in the
present map. The developers believe that a tremendous amount
of fill will be required to create a lot here. It has been
decided to release this to the City to be used for access to
the canyon.
4. The proposed City park is larger by an acre or so.
Mr. Roemer advised that there are approximatel�� 94 acres in the
subdivision, contemplating 292 single family lots. The minimum
lot to be 7500 square feet; the Code minimum is 7000.
-5-
The City Engineer advised that from a general overall review, the
plan is more favorable than previously proposed.
The Commission was advised that there will not be houses fronting
Trousdale Drive since this will be the location of on and off
service roads to the proposed Juniper. Serra Freeway. It is the
intention to discourage pedestrian traffic in the area; there will
be no sidewalks along Trousdale.
The suggestion was made that the developers retain ownership of a
strip one foot or more in width in order that there would be some
intervening private property between the lots and the street it-
self. This would prevent an owner from facing his house on
Trousdale Drive. Access over the strip would be trespassing.
Mr. Roemer advised that all of the grading in the subdivision will
be completed in one operation.
In a discussion concerning rough grading of the park site by the
developer at the same time that the remainder of the area is
graded, Mr. Sha.pro indicated that the owners would be agreeable.
There was discussion concerning a fire. -.-.house site. It was re-
called on the original map one of the lots bordering the park was
selected. There were questions raised on the advisability of
selecting another location away from the park.
The City Planner suggested that in addition to a firehouse, there
will be a need for a storage building for park -materials and
equipment, also lavatory facilities. Perhaps it can be arranged
that all of these will beincluded in one building.
The Tentative Map was scheduled for formal consideration at the
regular meeting of January 28, 1963.
3. VARIANCE - John Conway. Height and setback variances.
Bellevue Avenue and Almer Road.
An application filed by John Conway, 112 Skycre.st Center, San Bruno,
requested variances to permit an apartment building eight stories
in height, and lesser side and rear setbacks, on fourth residential
property at 1439 Bellevue Avenue and S02 Almer Road.
The application form included the information that the properties
are now occupied by frame dwellings used for multi -family purposes.
A statement of justification accompanying the application, referred
to Section 1929 of the Code limiting building height in R-4 Dis-
tricts to six stories or 75 feet in height. The proposed building
will not exceed 75 feet but will contain eight :stories above grade.
A set of drawings accompanied the application.
-6-
Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, advised
that the problems of variances on the setbacks arise because of
the irregular shape of the lot. The building has been designed
; ) so that the average setback is far in excess of the Code.
Mr. McMillan advised that four setback variances are involved:
At three points, the setbacks will vary two feet; at the smoke
tower at the rear, the variance is four feet.
The Commission was advised that 141 parking spaces have been proi4
vided for 94 units.
Attention was called to one parking space in the front setback,
which the applicant agreed to remove,
Commissioner Norberg objected to the setback variances and expressed
the opinion that the building should be redesigned to meet Code re-
quirements.
Mr. McMillan advised that there is less than 45% lot coverage. The
building has been designed to preserve part of the existing land-
scaping and to provide as much open space as possible.
Reference was made to the property immediately adjacent to the
east which is improved with a multiple family building approximately
65 feet in height,
The Commission was reminded that the previous owner of the subject
property had been granted a variance to construct an eight story,
85 foot apartment,
After a review of the plans, the application was scheduled for pub-
lic hearing at the regular meeting of January 28, 1963.
i /f43
4. BURLINGAME SHORE LAND COMPANY. '
APPLICATIONS: Reclassification. M01 (Light Industrial) to
R-4 (Fourth Residential).
VAtIaNceso (a) To exceed height limitation
R-4 District;
(b) More than one structure on
residential property.
(c) More open parking spaces than
legal.
(d) Setbacks Bayshore Boulevard and
Carolan Avenue (proposed).
PROJECT: Ten 12-story apartment buildings, plus a penthouse
story on each building. (Total height proposed:
13 stories).
LOCATION: 13.2 acres lying between Bayshore Boulevard,
Carolan Avenue (proposed), and southerly of
Industrial Way (proposed).
Oscar Person, President, Burlingame Shore Land Company;
Cyrus J. McMillan, applicant's attorney; E,H6 deWolfe, architect,
-7-
and a group of engineering consultants were in attendance.
A model to scale of the entire project, including a proposed future
office building was placed on display.
Mr. McMillan, referring to the model, designated recreational areas
and parking sites, and located the boundary streets, Bayshore
Boulevard, Industrial Way (proposed) and Carolan Avenue (proposed).
The Commission was advised that the entire property consists of
13.2 acres.
A preliminary plan of engineering.details, including proposed drain-
age, sanitary sewer systems and street layout bras shown, The Com-
mission was advised that the details have not as yet been verified
by the City Engineer. Mention was made that fire protection facili-
ties possibly will require further investigation.
Mr. deWolfe exhibited a parking conception of three levels, indicat-
ing covered parking on the lower level; upper and ground levels,
open parking. The Commission was advised that open parking will
exceed Code limitations.
Questions were raised concerning setbacks on Ca:rolan Avenue (pro-
posed), which appear to be below Code.
Placement of trees and planting were described and decorative screen-
ing of open parking.
A number of drawings were exhibited of views of the project from
various locations.
There was discussion concerning the possible effect on the project
in the event of reconstruction of the Broadway overpass, as con-
templated in the City -County Highway Construction Program.
Gordon Tillson, Wilsey Ham and Blair, advised that from his knowledge
of the program, possibly one small corner of the property could be
involved.
Mr. deWolfe advised that the development will start from the Broad-
way boundary; landscaping, central recreation area, utilities will
be included in the first phase. Buildings will rise over a period
of probably five years.
Communications from George White, Superintendent, Burlingame Ele-
mentary School District, dated December 12 and December 14, 1962,
indicated that existing school facilities will accomodate the school -
age population, based on statistics supplied by the developer. The
second communication cautioned concerning the heavy concentration
of traffic in the area as a potential hazard to children traveling
to and from school.
Statistics were mentioned by the City Planner concerning traffic in
and out of the property, suggesting a heavy traffic burden in the
area.
-8-
Mr. Person stated that the project will be of great benefit to the
City's revenue structure, in addition to benefiting local merchants
and shopping centers.
Following some further discussion, the public hearing was scheduled
for the meeting of January 28, 1963. The City Engineer and the
roject engineer were requested to confer prior to that date.
ADJOURNMENT
At the suggestion of the City Planner, Commissioners agreed to hold
a special study meeting for the purpose of reviewing Capital Improve-
mentp projects, and other matters not considered at this present meet-
ing.
The meeting was thereafter regularly adjourned at 11:30 p.m., to
January 22, 1963.
Respectfully submitted
Edward A. Moore, Secretary
-9-