HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.10.26CITY OF BURLINCAME PLANNING CMIMISSION
October 26, 1964
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Brauner None City Attorney Karmel
Cistulli City Planner Mann
Edwards City Engineer Riarr
Kindig Councilman Diederichsen
Norberg
Pierce
Stivers
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the
above date. Meeting; called to, order at 8:00 p,,m. a Chairman Cistulli
presiding.
ROLL CALL
The Secretary's Roll Call recorded all members present.
_MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of September 28, 1964, previously submitted
to members, were approved and adopted following a correction on page
five changing paragraph nine to read "......although not meeting land
area requirements, the lot is legal, having existed prior to adoption
of the present code.�.e".
The minutes of the meeting; of October 7, 1964, previously submitted to
members, were approved and adopted.
PLANS APPROVED FOR TAIT AUCTION STUDIO BUILDINC 1209 HOWARD AVENIIE.
A variance in principle to Air. Carl Tait, in July, 1964, to operate an
auction studio on property classified C-1 at 1209 Howard Avenue,
required submittal of preliminary building plans and elevations for
Commission approval.
Drawings prepared by W.A. Whifler and V. Howell, architects, who were
in attendance, were examined by Commissioners and found to be satis-
factory,
The City Planner pointed out that the property is assessed within the
Burlingame Avenue Off -Street Parking; District, therefore, exempt
from on -site parking requirements.
There being; no unfavorable comments heard, a motion introduced by
Commissioner Brauner approved the variance for the use of the property,
the building design to conform to drawings submitted. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Norberg; and declared carried unanimously on roll call
vote.
One copy of the plans, signed by the Commission Chairman and Secretary,
were directed to be filed with the variance application in the Office
of the City Clerk.
iiEARINCS
1. RL•CLASSIFICATION LYON AND HOAC SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED
Chairman Cistulli announced that a public hearing in the matter of
reclassifying certain properties in the Lyon and Hoag Subdivision
was continued from the meeting of September 28 to the present time
for a.report and recommendation from the City Engineer on water and
sewer installations for the area, with the understanding that there
would be a futther continuance should the City Engineer so request.
Upon advice from the City Engineer that the study is underway and
the material will be available for the next regular meeting, a
motion was introduced by Commissioner Edwards to continue the hearing
to the meeting of November -2S-1,, 1964. "lotion seconded by Commissioner
Kindig and unanimously carried_-'._3
2. SMALL ANIMAL OUT -PATIENT CLINIC APPROVED. BURLINCAMF. PLAZA.
Chairman Cistulli announced that the Commission would consider at
this time a request from C.E. Frey D.V.M. to operate a small animal
out -patient clinic in the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center, Pulls
Estate, a use not specifically named in the city's zoning article.
The property is zoned C-1 (Commercial -Retail Trades).
A letter dated October S, 1964, from Dr. Frey explained that the out-
patient type of veterinary practice is a fairly new concept offering
routine veterinary medicine such as vaccinations, examinations and
treatments, with hospitalization limited to accident cases and emer-
gencies.
The communication described two methods of operating an out -patient
clinic:
1. Minimum hospitalization which could be handled with a maximum of
twelve kennels;
2. No hospitalization, except in extreme emergency, with arrangements
made for hospitalization elsewhere.
The communication stated that the small clinic does not compare in
size nor services offered with the veterinary hospital specializing
in professional services, hospitalization, grooming, bathing and board-
ing.
A copy of a letter reprinted in "Modern Veterinary Practice" April 1S,
1964, from Air. barren F. Beck, Planning Director, Ontario, California,
entitled "Solving Problems m A Planning Director Comments on
Veterinary Hospital Zoning's accompaniedthe communication.
A letter dated October 12, 1964, from Dr. Frey to the City Planner
listed three existing similar clinics in the Bay Area located in
shopping centers.
Upon recognition by the Chair, photographs of the interior of a clinic
in San Rafael were submitted by Dr. Frey.
In reply to Chairman Cistulli, the City Planner stated that apparently
sanitation need not be a cause for concern since the facilities me
subject to State licensing and inspection, Ile mentioned the possibility
of a noise nuisance,which could he controlled perhaps by use of sound-
proofing in the building and prohibiting holding animals overnight on
the premises. 020
The City Planner mentioned that there are dog -kennel types of businesses
and pet stores, where animals are boarded,presently existing in the city,
It was his opinion that no real problems should a -rise from fir. Frey's
operation.
Dr. Frey informed the Commission that it was not his intention to
shelter animals overnight except in cases of extreme emergency.
In reply to Chairman Cistulli's request for comment from the audience,
Mr. David Coen, 1S06 Los Altos Drive, stated that there is a need for
the service in the community.
x1r, Lee E. Solomon, attorney, spoke for a Dr. Ryan who proposes in the
future to establish a similar facility.
Mr. James Oswald, owner of the property, stated that the lease which
will be negotiated with Dr. Frey provides for cancellation if there are
complaints from other tenants in the shopping center since neither he
nor his associates intend to jeopardize their investment by permitting
an objectionable business to locate there, lie informed the Commission
that he was very favorably impressed with the clinic he visited with
Dr. Frey in San Rafael,,
The City Planner pointed out that the Commission actually is not hold-
ing a public hearing on a formal application but rather recommending a
policy to the City Council since the code does not mention the particu-
lar use. Ile stated that the Commission is proceeding at this time under
the "Ambiguity of Use" Section of C-1 District Regulations, *erein a
determination must be made whether or not the use shall be classified
C-1 and recommended accordingly to the City Council.
In a period of Commission discussion, several members indicated that
they were reluctant to consider a general policy for all C-1 zoning
without additional material and study.
In reply to a comment from Commissioner Brauner concerning a use permit
to Dr. Frey with specific conditions attached on the basis of facts
presented and the particular location involved, the City Planner
stated that the Commission may proceed on the premise that the use is
similar in character to a pet shop, which is a permitted use in C-1
Districts.
There were no objections raised by the Commissioners nor the audience
to the suggested procedure.
A motion thereafter introduced by Commissioner Edwards approved a use
permit to Dr. Frey for a small animal outpatient clinic in the
Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center, subject to the premises being sound-
proofed to the satisfaction of the City Building Inspector; no animal
to remain on the premises between 12 ;lidnight and 6 A.M. except in an
emergency with a veterinarian in attendance. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Pierce and declared carried unanimously on roll call vote.
The City Planner was requested to prepare material. providing for a
zoning classification for the particular type of use for the November
study meeting.
3. PALO CORPORATION REQUEST FOR 11EIGHT VARIANCE. (CONTINUED).
Chairman Cistulli announced that this was the time and place scheduled
3-
to conduct a public hearing; on an application filed by Harry Lehrfeld
for Palo Corporation for a variance to permit construction of an
apartment building 15 stories, 153 feet in height, and in excess of
code provisions limiting construction to 6 stories or 75 feet in height,
located at the northwesterly corner of Bellevue Avenue and Primrose
Road, designated Lots C, D. and 1, Block 90 Burlingame Land Company
Subdivision, zoned R-4.
A letter of justification accompanying the application, bearing the
signature of Edward E{. dellolf, project architect, submitted that:
Because of the high land value, development of the property without
regard to the proper number of rental units or the amount of rental
area would be economically a bad risk; low-cost units of improvement
to the land, out of ratio to land value, would produce a total project
cost feasible for only a short duration, resulting in a bad investment
and disfigurement of the neighborhood; it is necessary to gain more
building height with less land coverage and provide more air space than
the present code would interpolate into the present setback to height
ratio for proper use of the land.
The letter stated that building placement will create an intervening
space of 200 feet to the adjoining 3-1/2 story apartment building, a
230 foot distance to the city library and 120 feet to any possible
building on the east.
A communication dated October 12, 1964, from Mr. and Mrs. W.C. Livingston,
1113 Rosedale Avenue, in opposition to the variance was read.
Chairman Cistulli recognized 'sir. William Flebard, representing Mayo,
dellolf and Associates, architects, who spoke for the applicants.
Mr. 1{ebard placed on display a scaled model to illustrate the "mass
permitted by code", in opposition to the improvement proposed.
In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Kindig, �.Ir. [iebard informed the
Commission that lot coverage is proposed at 24%. The City Planner stated
that since the property is on a corner, code coverage would be 60%..
In reply to Commissioner Norberg's comment that the question of density
is important, the City !Tanner informed the Commission that figuring
on the assumption that the property was used according; to present code,
where a density of six stories is established,it could be established
whether or not the proposed building would have a greater density than
permitted.
The City Planner informed the Commission that he had not seen the plans
before the present time, therefore, had not had an opportunity to
check coverage or any other details; he stated that it was his under-
standing that the only variance is in the height, all other requirements
are legal.
The City Engineer, in reply to
a fire flow problem in the area
completed fire flow tests. The
definitely that there will be a
Road, there will be difficulty
installations are satisfactory.
-4-
Chairman Cistulli, stated that there is
but as yet the Fire Department has not
City Engineer staged that it is known
deficiency in the mains on Primrose
on Floribunda Avenue; Bellevue Avenue
The City Engineer stated that should the variance be approved
Presumably the cost of any new utility installations required to
service the building would be borne by the property owner.
Chairman Cistulli invited comments from those in -the audience in favor
of the variance. There were no speakers.
Those opposed were invited to speak.
Mr. L.F. Davidson, 1539 Los Altos Drive, expressed the opinion that
the proposed structure would not be suitable in the City of Burlingame.
In reply to an inquiry from Mr. C.W. Kosack, 1547 Los Altos Drive, the
City Planner stated that the 8 story Cockcroft Towers is presently the
tallest apartment building in the city,
Mr. W.J. Johnson, 1439 Floribunda Avenue, stated that he would prefer
an 8 or 10 story building for the reason that the proposed building is
too tall for the location, the area is small and -the streets not adequate
to carry the traffic burden which the project will generate.
Mr. H.C. Beede, 3127 Margarita Avenue, protested that approval of the
variance would establish a precedent for other high-rise apartment
buildings, gradually changing the character of the city from a residential
community to a metropolis.
Mr. iiebard, the architect, stated that a single tall building on com-
bined parcels of land will create a greater open space impression that
if the property were to be developed under present code provisions of
setbacks and height.
The City Planner informed the Commission that the drawings submitted
were not entirely satisfactory, requiring considerable checking and
verification, also, areas to be explored concerned density, garage
facilities, public utilities, street widths, traffic flow.
Commissioner horberg stated that with a density comparison of what is
permitted by code and what the applicants propose the Commission would be
in position to determine whether 15 stories is excessive.
A suggestion from Commissioner Kindig that the hearing be continued to
the next regular meeting with the understanding that all pertinent
information and details shall be submitted prior to the next Commission
study meeting, was concurred in by Commissioners.
On a motion introduced thereafter by Commissioner Edwards and seconded
by Commissioner Kindig and unanimously carried the: hearing was declared
continued to the meeting of November 23.
RECESS:
The Chair declared a recess at 9:35 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cistulli at 9:50 p.m.
_5_
HEARINGS (cost„).
4. ALPHA LAND COMPANY RKLASSIFICATION APPLICATION DENIED.,
Chairman Cistulli announced that this was the time and place scheduled
to conduct a public hearing on the application of Alpha Land Company,
2395 De La Cruz Boulevard, Santa Clara, to reclassify from R-1 (Single
Family) District to R-2 (Duplex Dwelling) District the following
described real property:
13 residential lots fronting on Skyline Boulevard, lying
between Margarita Avenue and Trousdale Drive, more
particularly described as Lot 51 and Lots S3 through S7.
Block 39, and Lots 36 through 42, Block 43, Mills Estate
No. 2S, which map was filed in the office of the Recorder
of the County of San Mateo, State of California on
February 3, 1964, in Book S9 of naps at pages 40 and 41.
A communication from the applicant dated October 6, 1964, bearing
the signature of Peter S. Ingber, Vice -President, stated that as the
owner of 183 lots adjacent to the 13 lots which are the subject of
the application, Alpha Land Company believes that the requested
reclassification will be compatible with the type of homes now being
constructed; further, a duplex zone will provide an attractive buffer
zoning between the residential areas and Skyline Boulevard.
Communications were read from Mrs. Cuy G. Cummings, 3105 Margarita Avenue,
dated October 26, 1964, and Albert E. Stein, 1S54 Los Altos Drive,
dated October 20, 1964, in opposition to the requested rezoning.
Chairman Cistulli recognized Mr. Peter Ingber, representing the appli-
cant, who used the blackboard to sketch roughly the location of the
lots, which were acquired when Alpha Land Company purchased the last
of the holdings of Eichler Homes, Inc., in the Mills Estate.
Referring to the changes which will take place in the area when Sky-
line Boulevard will cease to be a part of the State highway system and
will become a "feeder" street, Mr. Ingber stated that the location is
not conducive to single-family construction as home owners are not
attracted to homes on a frontage road. He stated that experience has
shown that duplex dwellings will create a compatible transition be-
tween tesidential areas and the highway.
Mr. Ingber informed the Commission that if the rezoning were not ap-
proved Alpha Land Company will be faced with the situation of building
less expensive homes, whereas a duplex dwelling takes on an economic
aspect of a very expensive home, compatible with the existing houses
in Burlingame Manor and the homes in the Mills Estate.
Mr. Ingber posted an architects rendering of the exterior design of
the proposed buildings.
Chairman Cistulli invited comments from the floor„
Mr. H.C. Beede, 312S Margarita Avenue, requested :specific details on
the size and frontage of the structure proposed to be constructed
facing Margarita Avenue, which biro Ingber furnished.
-6-
Mr. C.M. Kosack, 1547 Los Altos Drive, questioned the inclusion of
the corner lots on Skyline at Margarita and Rivera in the request for
rezoning since their driveways face the two streets - not Skyline
Boulevard.
Mr. Ingber replied that because the lots abut the Skyline they are
considered less desirable for single-family living.
In reply to his inquiry concerning the tree strip, Mr. J.E. Ryan,
1535 Los Altos Drive, was advised by the City Planner that the lots
.have no frontage as such on Skyline Boulevard; there is a 40 foot wide
intervening strip which is owned by the city.
Mr. R.P. Quay, 3127 Margarita Avenue; Ifr. J.R. Horack, 1SS6 Los Montes
Drive; Mr. and Mrs. J. Ludt, 1550 Los Altos Drive; Mr. D.A. Nolan,
1559 Los Montes Drive; Mr. L.S. Davis, 1551 Los Altos Drive;
Mr. H.K. Sherfy, 1563 Los Montes Drive; Mr. C. Mink, 1541 Los Montes
Drive, objected to any change in the single-family zoning.
Mr. John C. Bauer, 02 Rio Court, President, Burlingame Mills Estate
Improvement Association, stated that the Association has taken the
position that it would not be objectionable if the lot on Margarita
Avenue and the two lots on Rivera Drive remained R-1, the other 10
lots classified R-2.
Mr. Albert E. Stein, 1SS4 Los Altos Drive, questioned the reason for
the lack of connecting streets between Burlingame Manor and the Mills
Estate.
The City Planner related facts pertinent to the street pattern in the
area, pointing out that, when it was expected that Junipero Serra
Freeway would lie on the present Skyline right-of-way, the city would
have been forced to use one of the three Manor streets to connect the
subdivisions. When it was decided that the Freeway would turn to the
west, Skyline would serve as a connecting street.
The City Planner, in reviewing the points raised by Mr. Ingoer, noted
that there is an economic interest involved since the applicants
feel that more desirable properties would result :if duplex dwellings
were built rather than single-family.
Referring to the traffic situation, the City Planner stated that from
knowledge which he has :of the eventual traffic pattern in the area,
Trousdale Drive will carry far more traffic than -the future Skyline
will carry when completed„ He pointed out that Trousdale is developed
with very attractive single-family homes from the lower area to the
top of the hill.
Referring to the design pattern of the area under discussion, the
City Planner pointed out that the 40 foot strip which is owned by the
city was accomplished for the purpose of preserving the trees; a lot
pattern was worked out to make the lots usable
The City Planner stated that it is his opinion that the lots can be
developed in a most attractive manner for single-family living; he
stated that he is not convinced that the lots would not have the same
value in single-family development as they would :in duplex,. It was
the recommendation of.the City Planner that the zoning not be changed.
-7-
Commissioner Pierce advised of his intention to abstain from voting
on the application due to his interest in purchasing a home from
Alpha Land Company. He stated that he is not considering one of the
lots under discussion and believes that lair. Ingber has made a
legitimate point that these are not desirable single-family sites.
!sir. Ingber stated that the 10 lots facing Skyline Boulevard with
their driveways entering from Skyline are less desirable to people
interested in purchasing or building single-family residences. Fie
pointed out that of all of the homes that abut Skyline Boulevard in
the City of Burlingame there is but one which faces on Skyline.
Mr. Ingber stated that Alpha Land Company is requesting the same
treatment accorded other property owners who built or developed on
the Skyline. tie stated that if Alpha Land is not permitted to build
or turn away from Skyline it would be preferable to build duplex
buildings which carry a larger economic value compatible with the homes
presently under construction.
Mr. Ingber stated that of the 13 lots requested to be reclassified
four are view lots - the balance are not.
Commissioners were invited to comment.
Commissioner Brauner expressed the opinion that Mr,, Ingber presented
a reasonably good case for the reclassification; his comments con-
cerning land value undoubtedly were based on expert knowledge and
should be entitled to some consideration„ Commissioner Brauner
stated, however, that all things considered he was unable to reach a
decision.
Commissioner Edwards agreed with Commissioner Bra.uner that there was
an economic aspect involved but, by the same token, the developers
were aware of this when the Property was ipurchased. Commissioner
Edwards stated that it was his opinion that some fine single-family
dwellings could be built with proper engineering and planning.
Stating that he was impressed with Mr. Ingber's presentation,
Commissioner Stivers stated that he was very much more impressed
with the appeal of the property owners in the area who are concerned
about preserving the character of their single-family residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Kindig, complimenting Mr. Ingber's presentation, stated
that if the lots facing Rivera and Margarita were eliminated, in his
opinion duplex dwellings on the Skyline Boulevard would be neither
harmful nor injurious to other properties in the area, however, he
was unable to see the necessity for changing the classification.
Commissioner Kindig thereafter introduced a motion to recommend to the
City Council that the reclassification application not be approved.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Edwards and declared carried on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Edwards, Kindig, Norberg
Stivers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS: Pierce
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None
Pg-
The applicant was advised that the determination of the Planning
Commission would be forwarded to the City Council.
The hearing was declared concluded.
NEW BUSINESS
1. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED: TIDAL PLAIN DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
The City Planner informed Commissioners that at the last meeting of
the Association of Bay Area Governments there was considerable
discussion concerning the question of bay fill including comments
from those who were program speakers that the cities and counties
should proveed with some restrictive action of their own in the
nature of local ordinances.
Stating that Mayor Martin has requested that the Planning Commission
initiate public hearings on such an ordinance, the City Planning
Planner recalled that copies of proposed tidal plain district regula-
tions were distributed to the Commission some months ago.
On a motion introduced by Commissioner Edwards, seconded by
Commissioner Kindig, and unanimously carried, Monday, December 28,
1964 was scheduled as the time for conducting a public hearing on an
ordinance providing for Tidal Plain District Regulations.
It was suggested by Commissioner Kindig that the material be reviewed
at the study meeting of December 14.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:15 p•m•
Respectfully submitted,
John J. Brauner, Secretary
-9-