Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.07.27CITY Or BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Brauner Cistulli Edwards Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Kindig July 27, 1964 OTHERS PRESENT City Attorney Karmel City Planner Mann Councilman Diederichse A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m. • Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The Secretary's Roll Call recorded the above members present. _ Commissioner Kindig, on vacation, was excused. MINUTES Minutes of the meetings of. June 22 and July 13, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. HEARINGS Public hearings, pursuant to public notice, were conducted as follows: 1. RESUBDIVISION. Lot S4. Block 36. Mills Estate No, 13. A resubdivision map of the property described above filed by Mrs. Sue Hovsepian, 1800 tfontecito Way, Burlingame, owner, proposed to establish new lot lines dividing the property into three parcels: Parcel A, the site of the existing residence, having frontage on Montecito Way; Parcels B and C, the proposed new lots to have street frontage on Loyola Drive. The applicant, Airs. Hovsepian, and Mr. Clyde Cabzal of Wilsey, Ham and Blair, project engineers, were in attendance. The City Planner distributed to each Commissioner a copy of a report dated July 24, 1964, prepared by the City Engineer, absent on vacation, pertaining to matters on the agenda of concern to his department. Regarding the present application, the City Engineer's report described in detail sewer and storm drain facilities required to be installed at the owner's expense and recommended, should the Commission approve the resubdivision, the map not be signed until such time that said installations are accepted by the city. The City Planner commented that the parcels will meet lend area and street frontage requirements. In reply to Chairman Cistulli's comments on the steepness of the slope, the City Planner referred to sketches i submitted by the applicant to show the possibilities of building on the lots. Commissioner Brauner questioned whether the requirements of. the City Engineer for sewer and drainage installations have been agreed to by the applicant. Mr. £abT*1-. speaking for Airs. Hovsepian, replied in the affirmative. Chairman Cistulli invited comments from the floor. Air. E.L. Pierce, owner/resident, 1813 Loyola Drive, pointed out that there is a very abrupt drop from Mrs. llovsepian"s lot into his lot. Ile stated that he was primarily concerned about drainage and the location of the easement required by the City Engineer to carry the water to Loyola Drive. He explained that presently the drainage ditch from the Hovsepian lot runs through the back portion of his; lot. Mr. . in reply to Chairman Cistulli, stated that the easement is entirely within Mrs. Hovsepian's lot; there is no encroachment on any other property. lie stated that the drainage through Mr. Pierce's lot probably will be eliminated entirely. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Brauner approving the requested resubdivision, signing of the map to be withheld until sewer and drainage improvements have been accepted by the city•s engineering department. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and carried unanimously on roll call vote. 2. RESUBDWISION. Acreage Northerly Corner of Rollins Road and Broadway. An application filed with the City Engineer by Ferdinand A. and Majel S. Gebhard requesting a resubdivision of acreage at the northerly corner of Broadway and Rollins Road proposed to delete interior boundary lines to. combine four existing parcels into one parcel having frontage on Broadway and Rollins Road, A resubdivision map of the property, prepared by H.G. Hickey, Civil Engineer, was filed by the applicants. The City Planner explained that the property consists of a number of small odd shaped parcels owned by the applicant. Deleting all of the interior lines will create a single large parcel which will permit the owner to develop his property with buildings and parking on the same parcel. The City Engineer, in his report dated July 24, 1964, filed with the Commission, indicated no problems of concern to his department. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, indicated no problems. On a motion introduced by Commissioner Norberg, seconded by Commissioner Edwards and unanimously carried the resubdivision 'map filed with the City Engineer was approved. eZa 3. TENTATIVE MAP, Anza Airport Park. (Keyston -property). The Tentative Map of the proposed new subdivision "Anza Airport Park", a portion of the Keyston property east of the channel, consisting of 21 lots was submitted for Commission consideration. Mr. David Keyston, representing the developers, was in attendance. In the City Engineer's report dated July 24, 1964, filed with the Com- mission, it was noted that examination of the details for.improvements revealed several items missing, other items to be corrected, which were discussed with the project engineer. The City Engineer reported further as follows: "To date I have received no further corrections or additional drawings of this tentative map assuring me that these requested additions, corrections, etc., have been complied with. Therefore, at this time we do not have sufficient informa- tion to recommend the acceptance of this tentative map.' The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Cistulli, explained that the draw- ings before the Commission are corrected drawings which were delivered after the City Engineer left on vacation. In reviewing the map, the City Planner pointed out: some changes made since the Commission first saw the map at the study meeting. The City Planner stated that Mr. Hickey, the project engineer, states that the map includes all of the corrections required to date. The City Planner suggested, since the map is tentative, that if the Com- mission desires to approve it may do so since there will be time before the City Council meets for additional engineering detail to be included, if required. Mr. Keyston, in reply to the Chair's inquiry, staged that it is hoped to start the public improvements in September and complete the project early 1965, The City Attorney, in reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Brauner con- cerning conditional approval by the Commission stated that the procedure is acoptable if the proponents of the map agree. The City Attorney sug- gested that the Commission inform the City Council of the terms of the approval. A motion introduced by Commissioner Brauner accepted the Tentative Map of Anza Airport Park and recommended its approval by the City Council, subject to the City Engineer's acceptance of the map; the City Council to be informed of the conditioned approval. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared carried unanimously on roll call vote. 4. VARIANCE FOR AUCTION STUDIO IN C-1 DISTRICT APPROVED CONDITIONALLY. An application filed by Carl Tait, Tait Auction Studio (formerly Peninsula Auction Studio) requested a variance to operate an auction studio on property zoned C-1 at 1209 Howard Avenue (Portion Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Town of Burlingame Subdivision). -3- The applic_at-i"On contai,ied the inl'orma-tior. that an cNisting Structure on the property will be demolished, In a communication dated July 2, 1964, the applicant stated his intention of building a new building for his purposes. A second communication from the applicant dated Jelly 27, 1964, requested approval of the use subject to submittal of building plans and elevations at a later date. Mrs. Ida Schreiber represented the applicant, who had previously informed the Commission that he would not be present due to a scheduled auction. The. City Planner explained that the variance is required since auction studios are classified C-2; the subject property is zoned C-1. The City Planner stated he suggested to Mr. Tait that the Commission could consider the use itself with the understanding if favorable action were taken that Mr. Tait would engage an architect: to prepare plans to be submitted for Commission approval. The City Planner stated that Mr. Tait is reluctant to proceed with plans not knowing the Commission's position on the use. Mrs. Schreiber reported that it is Mr. Tait's intention to employ an architect immediately if the use is approved. Chairman Cistulli invited comments from the floor. Mrs. L.E. Preston, 1441 Bellevue Avenue, and Mrs. J. Countryman, 757 Acacia Drive, urged approval of the application on the basis that the Peninsula Auction Studio which Mr. Tait operated for many years on Howard Avenue was an acceptable and successful use in the area. There being no further comments from the floor, the Chair invited com- ments from members of the Commission. Commissioner Stivers stated that it is his paoition that an auction studio is not a proper use in the center of the cityl�s commercial area, rather he would prefer that Mr. Tait continue in his present location in the industrial area. Commissioners Brauner, Edwards and Chairman Cistulli commented favorably on Mr. Tait's previous operation on Howard Avenue; it was noted that there will not be a traffic or parking burden created since most of the activity Is at night when other businesses in the area are closed. A motion was thereafter introduced by Commissioner Edwards to approve the variance in principle, conditions of the variance to be imposed at such time that the applicant returns to the Commission with building plans and elevations; no building permit to issue until said plans are approved by the Commission. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli,, Edwards, Norberg NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Stivers ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Kindig Mrs. Schreiber was requested to inform Mr. Tait that he should confer with the City Planner. -4- S. VARIANCE FOR DUPLEX DV-1ELLING IN R-1 DISTRICT (ACACIA DRIVF" DENIED,, An application filed by George F. Bueckle requested a variance to permit a duplex dwelling on first -residential property at 828 Acacia Drive (Lot F, Block 30 Burlingame Terrace Subdivision No. 2). A communication from the applicant dated June 16, 1964, submitted that the lot, 46 feet by 130 feet, is sufficiently large to accommodate a duplex building; existing improvements, consisting of a two -bedroom cottage, recently condemned by the city building inspector is beyond repair or remodeling. In its present neglected state, overgrown with large trees and other vegetation, the property is a source of irritation and complaint in the neighborhood. Taking into consideration the expense of clearing the land and the cost of single-family construction, an economic hardship would result if the property were to be developed in its present zoning. A further communication from the applicant dated July 22, 1964, referred to the property immediately adjoining the subject property where there are two separate single-family residences, one used as a rental unit. A map of the area and photographs of the property accompanied the applica- tion. Petitions in opposition to the variance, bearing a total of 39 signatures were filed. Chairman Cistulli invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Frank Schlageter, attorney, speaking for the applicant stated that the lot in its present condition is an eyesore, worthless to the owner and to the city. Referring to the petitions in opposition, in which the protestants claimed the proposed construction would aggravate an on - street parking problem in the neighborhood, Mr. Schlageter stated that there would be a gauge for each dwelling unit, plus one extra. He stated that the area is one -of the oHest in the city; there are many homes in need of improvement; the new construction which fair. Bueckle contemplates will benefit not only the immediate street but the area generally. The Chair invited opponents to speak. Mr. W.J. Petersen, 838 Acacia Drive, expressed his opposition in principle to the intrusion of duplex or multi -family dwellings into an R-1 District. He noted that the subject lot is narrower than the usual single- family lot. Mr. Petersen stated that although the district may be one of the oldest in the city the majority of Properties are well -maintained and occupied by families who appreciate and prefer to live in single-family areas. Mr. H F� Slade, 827 Crossway Road, objected on the basis of "spot zoning", pointing out that approval in the present application would establish a precedent whereby the Commission would find it difficult to deny any other similar request in the neighborhood. Mr„ and Mrs. E.E. Wilkins, 83S Acacia Drive, informed the Commission that they have resided in their home for 33 years and feel very strongly about any change in -the resitlential character of the neighborhood. -5- bfrs. 0. flenpsteadi, 834 Acacia Drive, resident, 36 years; Mr. Frank Dibelka, 843 Acacia Drive, resident 39 years; firs. J. Countryman 757 Acacia Drive, resident 29 years; Mr. R.P. Bland, 750 Acacia Drive; Mrs. J.J. Rezek, 843 Acacia Drive, echoed the protests of the previous speakers. A request from the floor directed to the Chair that those in opposition be permitted to stand was granted. There were no further speakers in opposition. Mr. Schlageter, invited by Chairman Cistulli to comment in.behalf of his client, stated that there is no.question that the subject property must be improved, which the requested variance will accomplish. He stated that any person in the same situation, if forced to place a single-family" residence on the property, would claim economic hardship. Mr. E. Wilkins, 835 Acacia Drive, stated that it was his understanding that the property was purchased by the applicant after it was condemned with full knowledge of the single-family classification. Mrs. A. Botti, 840 Paloma Avenue, stated that "spot zoning" was a method of replacing old dilapidated structures. She expressed the opinion that the area was "old enough" to justify rezoning to duplex or multi -family uses. Mr. M. Stipicivich, 804 Acacia Drive, stated that he could see no reason for denying the variance since the proposed construction would improve the property and the neighborhood. Mr. Bueckle informed the Commission that he with his family will occupy one unit; Mrs. Bueckie•s parents will occupy the other. The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Cistulli, stated his position in opposition, as a policy matter, to starting a new trend in a neighborhood without a full and complete knowledge of the neighborhood generally and a completestudy by the Planning Commission and City Council before any changes were made. He stated that it is his position that the variance is a poor procedure for introducing new uses into a neighborhood which become a precedent and tend to establish a pattern. The City Planner commented at some length on conditions in the neighborhood observed in an inspection tour. He stated that it: is his understanding that the property to which Mr. Bueckle referred, adjacent to his where there are two houses on the one lot, is non -conforming, the structures having been in existence for many years. He stated that the street pattern and water service will accommodate single-family use but if changes were made which led to a number of duplexes the services would be burdened. It was the recommendation of the City Planner that the variance not be granted. In reply to Commission inquiry, Mr. Bueckle informed the Commission that he was aware that the existing structure had been condemned by the city when he purchased the property approximately four to five months ago. Commissioner Brauner stated that it was his opinion the applicant failed to meet conditions necessary for a variance and thereafter introduced a -6- motion to de y thc- variance. declared car3ied unanimously 3Iotion seconded by (loan issioneT Edwards ano on roll call vote. he applicant was advised of his right of appeal. The hearing was declared concluded.. RECESS A recess was declared at 9:35 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. HEARINGS (coat.). 6. HEIGHT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES APPROVED. APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION IN 9-4 U19TRIUT. An application filed by John J. and Matilda M. Conway requested a variance to construct an apartment building of ten stories plus one story for penthouse (maximum 112 feet), portion of parking to 'be within setback area, at 1430 Bellevue Avenue (Ahmer Road and Bellevue), portion Lots 4 and S. Block 90 Burlingame Land Company Subdivision No. 2. The applicant's statement of justification accompanied the application. "hairman Cistulli invited the applicant to speak. Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney, represented the applicant. Mr. McMillan recalled that approximately a year and a half ago the Planning Commission granted Mr. Conway a variance for an eight story building on the property, including an underground parking area completely below grade, projecting into the setback areas. However, because of an underground water con- dition, Mr. Conway has determined that that building cannot be accomplished. Mr. McMillan stated that the building now proposed includes two stories more of apartment units, but the total number of units has been reduced from 84 to 63. To provide the required parking, it is necessary to project the parking structure into the side setback. Mr. McMillan stated that the building proper observers setbacks far in excess of code. One parking level will be approximately four feet below grade, however, an above -grade level, or deck, will project into the side setback. There are no -other setback variations. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, noted that the area was committed some time ago to apartment construction. lie pointed out that in the previous height variance granted Mr. Conway and, prior to that a height variance granted to another owner of the property, it was the position of the Commission that height variations would not be harmful nor cause injury to other properties since there are large open areas and yards around most of the existing buildings. He stated that the particular site Is quite large, considerably larger than other sites in the neighborhood. Referring to the setback variance, the City Planner g)ointed out that the ordinance requires as additional one foot of setback for every story above the first story, which in this instance is a good deal of variance. The 7- City Planner stated that since the garage Portion only is affected he could find no objection. In reply to Commission inquiry concerning water services, the City Planner reported that facilities in the area are adequate. The Chair invited comments from the floor. Mr. Lyman Lee, attorney representing Mrs. Helen Fe:ldcamp, owner of the Marion Apartments, adjacent to the subject property, informed the Com- mission that his client protests the excessive height on the grounds that substantial injury and damage will result to her property. Mr. Lee objected that the garage structure extending into the setback will become a source of annoyance to tenants in the Marion Apartments. Stating further that there is no precedent in the area for a building of the proposed height, Mr. Lee requested denial of the variance. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Norberg concerning open area between the Marion Apartment building and the proposed building, Mr. McMillan stated that at the closest point there will be 40 feet 6 inches of open space. Mr. Lee was invited to.examine plans submitted by the applicant. The City Planner, in reply to Commission inquiry, stated that in an Rz4 District the legal height is six stories or 7S feet. In reply to Commissioner Brauner, Mr. McMillan stated that the building proper will occupy 23% of the lot. Commissioner Brauner noted that the plan previously approved by the Commission proposed 41% coverage. The City Planner stated that the parking structure above grade is a large flat plateau, covering a considerable portion of the land. He stated that he figured 47% coverage for the whole garage ;plan, however, the building proper is considerably distant from the garage portion, and,in his opinion, will not create shadow patterns nor intrude into light, air or sunshine. Mr. McMillan informed the Commission that there will be plantings to screen the parking deck. In reply to an objection raised by Mr. Lee that the building will create an obstruction damaging to the Marion Apartments, Air. Lee was reminded that the code permits a building height of 75 feet, which is taller than the Marion Apartments; also, the building could occupy considerably more land area. Commissioner Norberg,commenting on the reduced lot coverage and density and improved building design, expressed the opinion that the project is superior to that previously approved by the Commission. Commissioner Norberg thereafter introduced a motion to approve the variances requested, subject to approval by the Commission of landscaping plans prior to issuance of a building permit. !Motion seconded by Commissioner Brauner. -8- Mr. Conway agreed, in response to a request from Mr. Lee, to plant a hWAge between the proposed building and the Marion Apartments building. The motion was thereafter declared carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Norberg, Stivers NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Edwards ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Kindig The hearing was declared concluded. Air. Conway was advised that the variance would become effective August 4 provided there was no appeal. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing Scheduled R-3A District Boundaries. On a motion introduced by Commissioner Brauner, seconded by Commissioner Edwards and unanimously carried, the Commission scheduled a public hear- ing for the regular meeting of August 24, 1964, in the matter of reclass- ifying from R-1 (Single-family dwelling) District to R-3A (Low -density multi -family) District, the following described properties: Lyon and 11oag Subdivision of the Town of Burlingame: Block 22 - Lots 1, IA, 2 to 10 inc., 10A, 11, 11B, 21A, 22 23 - 1, 1A, 2 to 7 inc. 24 - 1 to 4 inc., 26 to 33 inc. 2$ - 3 to 10 inc,, 10A, 11, 12, 12A, 139 14 to 20 inc, 26 - 1', 1A, 2 to 10 inc., 10A, 11, 129 12A0 13, 14 to 21 inc,, 21A, 22. 29 - 12, 12A, 13 to 22 inc., 22A,: 30 - 12, 12A, 13 to 20 inc. , generally fronting on Arundel and Bloomfield Roads, Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue, 2. Planning Commission Recommendations to City Council - Broadway Oyerpas: On a motion introduced by'Commissioner Edwards, seconded by Commissioner Brauner and unanimously carried, the recommendations of the Broadway Overpass Committee of the Burlingame Planning Commission, submitted by Commissioners Norberg and Kindig, were accepted and directed to be trans- mitted to the City Council, 3. Dr, II.D. Chope Communication re: Homes For Elderly People. A communication dated July 22, 1964, from Dr. H.D. Chope, Director of Public health and Welfare, San Mateo County, concerning homes for elderly people was read. The City Planner was requested by the Chair to direct an appropriate acknowledgment to Dr. Chope. ADJOURNMENT Pd or to adjournment at 10:35 p.m., Chairman Cistulli acknowledged Councilman Diederichsen in attendance. Respectfully submitted, -9- John J. Brauner, Secretary