Loading...
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-