Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.09.28- r CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Brauner Cistulli Edwards Kindig Norberg Pierce Stivers CALL TO ORDER September 28, 1964 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT None City Attorney Karmel City Planner Mann City Engineer Marr Councilman Diederichsen A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above given date. Meeting called to.order at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The Secretary's Roll Call recorded all members present. MLNUTE The Minutes of August 24 and September 14, 1964, previously submitted to Commissioners were approved and adopted. COMMtFNICATI- ONS 1. BURLINGAME SHORE LAND C,OAVARIANCL EXTENSION, A communication from Cyrus J. McMillan, Attorney, dated September 25, 1964, advised that his client, the Burlingame Shore Land Company, has submitted to Council a request for an extension of variances granted September 16, 1963, and that the matter has been referred to the Planning Commission. The communication outlined data to support the request of the applicant: (a) that an assessment district has been formed by the property owners in the area (including the Burlingame Shore Land Company) to install certain public works, drainage culverts and off -site streets; (b) that because of a project of the magnitude proposed, it has been necessary..to submit an economic survey and a feasibility analysis to financiers interested in the project; and (c) that the preparation of plans, specifications and working drawings have been delayed considerably due to first resolving engineering problems that have arisen. Mr. McMillan, in attendance, stated that the size of the project, its incumbent engineering and financial details, not generally prevalent in an ordinary construction, has determined that one year has not I. --en a sufficient peed of time in which to start the construction. Mr. McMilia;s added that upon approval of the variance extension, his client shall be in a position to proceed with his obligation with respect to the new assessment district. In replyi>:-: to Commissioner Kindig, Mr. McMillan advised that a six months extenb;an is sufficient; the assessment district is in existence, bids %:r the work will be received within thirty days and actual work within the district shall commence before the end of this year. The City Attorney, in rer3y to inquiries from Commissioner Kindig and Commissioner Brauner, adviaz-•, that the extension requested is for variances previously approved ox-.!y and that the Commission may take action on the request at this meeting, without conducting further hearings. The City Engineer, questioned by Commissioner Brauner concerning the status of the Broadway Overpass in relation to the Burlingame Shore Land Company's project, advised that preliminary plans for the Overpass shall be available prior to the commencement of the apartment project. A motion was introduced thereafter by Commissioner Kindig, that the request of the Burlingame Shore Land Company for a six months' extension of variances granted September 16, 1963, be approved, seconded by Commissioner Norberg and unanimously, carried upon Roll Call. HEARINGS 1, RECLASSIFICATION -LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION Chairman Cistulli announced that a public hearing on the proposed reclassification of certain properties within the Lyon and Hoag Subdivision from a R-1 (single-family) to an R-3A (low --density, multi -family) zoning had.been continued from its first hearing, August 24, 1964, contingent upon the receipt of a report from the City Engineer on the improvements necessary to meet fire specifica- tions and cost figures on water and sewer installations for the area. The City Engineer, in reply to the Chair, advised that the pressure of other engineering projects has delayed the submission of a report; however, it was anticipated that a study would be completed for presentation at the regular Commission meeting in October. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, advised that a written notice to the property owners within the area is not required, subsequent to the initial public hearing in August; the subject was continued with the understanding that it would be retained on the Agenda for September and continued further to the regular meeting in October, at which time the City Engineer indicated his report would be available. -2- `I Protests from Mrs. Rosemary Winstead, 126 Clarendon Road and Mr. Robert L. Anderson, 120 Clarendon Road, on the failure of property owners being notified by mail when the subject shall be open to discussion, were replied to by the City Attorney, who advised that municipal and state codes require written notice of an initial hearing, either before the Planning Commission or the City Council; that it is within the prerogative of each to continue a hearing from time to time; the Planning Commission, having no clerical staff relies on the Office of the City Clerk to mail notices of hearings and as an advisory body, it has no authority to issue instructions to an elective official to mail notices of further hearings. Following considerable discussion, wherein the City Engineer gave reasonable assurance that a report shall be available at the regular Commission meeting in November, the Chair suggested to those in attendance that they attend on that occasion. A motion was introduced by Councilman Edwards that the subject matter be continued to the meeting of October 26 and further continued to the regular meeting in November, at which time the engineering report shall be available for evaluation and discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brauner and unanimously carried upon Roll Call. 2. RESUBDIVISION "CAUSER" PROPERTY HILLSIDE CIRCLE - EASTON DRIVE Chairman Cistulli announced that this was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the application presented by Mr. James C. Causey, requesting a resubdivision of Lots 3, 9 and'a portion of Lot 2, Block 3, Burlingame Hills, recently annexed to the City of Burlingame. Reference was made to a communication from Mrs. Dorothy Sommer, 1387 Hillside Circle, dated August 13, 1964, requesting that the subject property be subdivided to conform to legal limitations set forth in the City`s Zoning Code. The City Planner advised that the property fronts on Hillside Circle and Easton Drive; the original subdivision of three lots has been revised to establish two lots, parcel "A" with an area of 26,822 square feet and parcel "B" with an area of 10,137 square feet and "planning -wise" the proposal is acceptable. The City Engineer stated that only minor conditions exist with respect to engineering and advised that a notation appeare upon the Subdivision Map stipulating that "upon conveyance of Parcel B an easement shall be reserved therefrom in favor of Parcel A for sewer purposes" as a safeguard to the owner. The Chair invited comments from Mrs. Dorothy Sommers, owner of property adjacent to the applicant, who advised that her personal review of the subdivision map in the Office of the City Planner on this day, - 3 - illustrating two lots rather than the originally proposed three lots, is not objectionable to her. Commissioner Stiver's disapproval to the easement reservation initiated a brief discussion on the possible relocation of the sewer lateral. The City Engineer estimated that a relocation would cost between $200.00 to $300.00 at least, and any difficulties that may be encountered would add considerably to the cost. Commissioner Kindig and Commissioner Pierce expressed their concern with respect to the long triangular strip at ong of Parcel B, its consider- able distance from the main property, the landscaping and extensive work that shall be required to retain the area in an attractive appearance. Mr. Clyde Cabrino, representing the applicant, advised that the triangular section represents the contour of the land and no problem is anticipated in its maintenance. Mr. Cabrino further advised, in reply to inquiries, that stakes shall be placed at the property lines to appropriately distinguish the lot line divisions. The City Planner in reply to Commissioner Brauner, advised that the proposed subdivision is identical to that approved, in principle, by'the Commission prior to the annexation of thc* property to the City of Burlingame; the original map indicated three parcels with one fronting on Easton Drive, which now has been removed, leaving two parcels to be resubdivided. There being no further comments from the audience or from the Commis- sion, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Edwards, that the re - subdivision as requested be approved, seconded by Commissioner Pierce and adopted by the following Roll Call votes Ayes: Commissioners: Brauner-Cistulli-Edwards-Kiidig- Norberg-Pierce &,Oea z Co me issioners : Stivers Ab&ay t Commiss ionors.- Mcrae 3. SETBACK VARIANCE - Dr. Nicholas P. P222V The Chair announced that this was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing on an application filed by Dr. Nicholas P. Popov requesting A variance for a reduced setback to five feet at the left rear corner of his proposed duplex at 909 Capuchino Avenue. The City Planner advised that the property is triangularly -shaped and consists of portions of three lots maintained as a single lot since 1935. Plot and building plans submitted by the applicant were reviewed by the Commission. - 4 - The City Engineer directed the attention of the Commission to a portion of the rear yard in excess of fifteen feet in depth and a small portion abutting neighboring property less than the required setback distance requirement. A communication was read from Mr. and Mrs. M. Silva, 7424 Heatherwood, San Jose, owners of property within the subject area, protesting the granting of the variance. Dr. Popov, the applicant, invited by the Chair to personally comment on his application, stated that the original dwelling was in fact located closer to neighboring properties than the prevently proposed structure and the plans for a two unit - two storied duplex shall provide an attractive addition to the area. Dr. Popov stated that without a variance a proper building cannot be erected. Mrs. Dorothy Caplan, entered a protest in behalf of her ,other, owner of property located at 919 Capuchino Avenue, stating that the parcel itself comprises an area less than the area of neighboringT lots and that it was her understanding that the R-2 zoning has beer, in effect only for the past two or two and one-half years. Discussion arose on the latter point, with the City Planner advising that the area was rezoned many years ago and incorporated inti the revised zoning ordinance code in 1954. Mrs. Caplan also opposed the variance on the basis that a building as proposed would increase the number of cars, creating additional hazards to the elderly people residing in the area and adding to the existing parking congestion. Mrs. Martha Pratt, 919 Capuchino Avenue, residing next door to the subject property expressed her objection to the variance and stated that the erection of a two story duplex would deprive her property of su>>light. Protests were also recorded from Mr. and Mrs. P. Lalini, 914 Capucbino Avenue, and Mrs. A. S. Pay, 918 Capuchino Avenue, parti^ularly with respect to added parking congestion on the "dead-end" street. Questions directed to the City Planner by the Chair, indicated the lot comprises a square footage area in excess of code provisions ai:d hds been a legally constituted R-2 zoned parcel for many years. Commissioner Brauner concurred that the parking issue is serious, addi.q that the applicant, however, is providing off street parking by constructing two garages in connection with the two unit duplex. Commissioner Norberg, in reviewing the plot plan, suggested that the applicant provide an additional parking space on a section of the lot abutting the neighboring property. Dr. Popov expressed his willingness to comply. Following further discussion, Commissioner Brauner prefaced a motion stating that (1) objections entered have been based entirely on traffic - 5 - conditions in the atea; (2) the applicant has renol.vPd parking nn hig property by providing the legal number of spaces and has indicated his willingness to create an additional off-street parking space; (3) the R-2 zoning permits a duplex construction; and (4) the building proposed utilizes the property to the best advantage. A motion by Commissioner Brauner to approve the request of Dr. Popov for a variance to reduce the left rear corner of the proposed building to five feet, was seconded by Commissioner Pierce and unanimously adopted upon Roll Call. Commissioner Kindig stated that he was sympathetic to the objection raised by Mrs. Pratt; however, the property is zoned R-2 and the reduced -rear set back will not inconvenience neighboring properties. The Chairman advised the applicant that a building, permit can be issued provided no appeal :L.3 submitted to Council on or before October 5. The City Planner a,.?nounced that he would confer with the Police Depart- ment on the problain of traffic congestion in the area as related by the property ownecs. 4. SIGN PERM? - Al-WER CASH REGISTER CORPORATION A communicp,:ion was read from Mr. Arthur C. Chapman, Attorney, represenVA9 the law offices of David, Painman, Abrahams & Chapman, dated September 17, 1964, advising that in view of the unfavorable react.1*n of the Planning Commission at its study meeting, to an applica- -ts._ nor a variance to exceed provisions of the City's Sign Code, filed by his client, the Anker Cash Register Corporation, and because re/isions suggested are not practicable, the application was requested tj be withdrawn. The subject matter was thereafter withdrawn from the Agenda as requested. RECESS A recess was declared by the Chair at 9:55 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m. 5. PARKIN VARIANCE - HYATT CORPORATION Chairman Cistulli announced that this was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing on an application filed by the Hyatt Corporation of America requesting approval to install less than the required number of on -site parking spaces in connection with the construction of an additional 102 motel units on the northerly portion of its property on Bayshore Highway, and adjacent to the executive offices in the City of Burlingame. -- 6 - Mr. Cyrus J. McMillan, Attorney, was invited by the mohair to speak 7 in behalf of the Hyatt Corporation. Mr. McMillan referred to statistics previously presented to the Commission and advised that additional information has been obtained as a result of a six months' survey of air passengers transported to Hyatt House by the hotel facilities, indicating that an average of approximately seventy percent of the hotel guests arrive by the airlines. Mr. McMillan further advised that the plans for the proposed 102 units include parking spaces for fifty-six, or an overall total of 357 parking spaces, a difference of only thirteen spaces to the code requirements of 370. Considerable discussion arose on the availability of parking spaces in relation to the number of guests and executive and social functions utilizing the facilities of the hotel, with members of the Commission relating their personal findings that additional parking is -desirable. Commissioner Edwards questioned the City Engineer with respect to fire protection, paving and the marking of parking spaces. The City Engineer, commenting on street improvement aspects only, stated that the grounds are in poor condition and the condition shall be aggravated during the winter months; the gas line previously referred to as being difficult to relocate, is installed eighteen feet inside the propwty line and would create no problem insofar as street improvements are concerned. Questioned by the Commission concerning his views on re -paving, re- marking and the installation of fire hydrants, Mr. McMillan advised that the parking area shall be improved in compliance with code provisions; however, there are objections to installing approximately 1,100 lineal feet of curb and gutter along the street frontage of the property and that a plan proposed by the lire Chief for additional fire protection vx tIA be emstLy amd VOt 0- Commissioner Norberg's comment that in his opinion the additional thirteen parking spaces can be provided, was replied to by Mr. Robert Blunk, project architect, who advised that a considerable amount of the landscaping would have to be removed. Chairman Cistulli questioned Mr. Ed Sullivan, Burlingame Hyatt House Manager, on his reaction to the request of the City Engineer that curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements be installed. Mr. Sullivan advised that some of the improvements have been delayed pending the outcome of litigation concerning the property title of that portion of the Bayshore Highway and that it was a "matter of timing" to proceed with improvement installations. The City Engineer stated that his department would be "satisfied" if assurance were given that the improvements would be completed within a period of one year. - 7 - Mr. Sullivan, in behalf of the Hyatt Corporation, Indicated his consent. In reply to the Commission, the Fire Chief recommended a plan to compromise his original proposal to establish "on -site" fire protection; that the water line be extended from the northerly portion of the property to the westerly portion of the new units. Mr. McMillan, in behalf of his client, indicated his approval. A motion was thereupon introduced by Commissioner Brauner that the parking variance be approved upon the following conditions and consented to by the applicants: 1. That curbs, gutters and sidewalks be installed along the property line frontage within a period of one year; 2. That a water main, with a fire hydrant, be installed at the northerly end of the main property anc9 westerly to the new units; and 3. That the parking area be improved by paving and re -marking as indicated on the sketched plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Edwards and unanimously adopted upon Roll Call. NEW BUSINESS 1. AIRPORT PERMIcSIVE BUILDING HEIGHTS The City Planner announced receipt of a map prepared by the San Francisco Airport, indicating permissive building heights in areas adjacent to the airport and pans are underway to prepare a "model" ordinance as a guide to cities affected by the airport. The Commissioners were invited to reviwd the map at the conclusion of the meeting. 2. STUDY MEETM CHANGE October 7, 1964, 8:00 p.m., was scheduled as the next Study Meeting. 3. PLANKING MANUAL Commissioners acknowledged receipt of copies of a "Manual for Planning Commissioners" prepared by the City Planner. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was thereafter regularly adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JOHN J. BRAUNER, Secretary