HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.01.271.• ''rn
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulli
Edwards
Kindig
Moore
Norberg
S givers
CALL TO ORDER
January 27, 1964
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None City Attorney Karmel
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order on the above date at 800 p.m., Chairman Brauner presiding.
w . 74f C ! .y -
Chairman Brauner acknowledged the presence of Councilman Diederichsen,
ex--officio member of the Commission.
1
ROLL CALL
The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll call.
MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of December 23, 1963, and study meeting
of January 13, 1964, previously submitted to members, were approved and
adopted.
1. CONWAY AND COMPANY GRANTED SIX MOVM EXTENSION OF VARIANCE GRANT.
A letter dated January 8, 1964. from John J. Conway, for Conway and
Company, requested an extension of ninety days of a. variance approved
in February, 1963, in connection with a proposed apartment building at
1430 Bellevue Avenue.
The applicant was in attendance and, upon recognition by Chairman
Brauner, requested an extension -of six months, rather than ninety days.
There were no written protests filed and no conment.s pro or con from
persons in attendance. A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli
and seconded by Commissioner Norberg granting an extension of six months
€rem February 1, 1964, eras carried unanimously on roll call vote.
1.
HEARINGS
Public hearings, scheduled for this date, were conducted as follows:
1. RESUBDIDISION - Lot 26 and southeasterly portion Lot 27, Block 4,
Easton Addition - 1144 Ca uchino Avenue. continued from 12-23-63 .
An application filed by Glen W. Allen, agent for the owner, to resubdivide
the above -described property by deleting a common lot line to combine
two lots into one parcel, was continued to the meeting of February 24,
1964, when it was determined that the applicant was not in attendance
nor represented.
Upon advice from the City Engineer that a final drawing had not been
filed by the applicant, Cammi.ssioners requested the City Planner to
contact the applicant, or his representative, and request his attendance
at the study meeting -of February 10.
2. RESUBDIVISION - Lots 10, 11 and 12. Block 9, Millsdale Industrial
Park, Unit No. S. (R,o1i.ns-Rorad„_)
A resubdivision map of the above -described property, prepared by Wilsey.
Ham and Blair. Engineers, for the owners, Emerson Electric Company,
proposed to create two lots from the presently existing three lots by
deleting interior lot lines and establishing a new line dividing Lot 11
into two sections.
Mr. Robert Brown, from the firm of Ritchie and Ritchie, represented the
applicant. Mr. Brown pointed out that the lots in the area twere origin-
ally subdivided into sixty -foot units. Emerson Electric Company purchased
three lots for their purposes and in constructing their building they
used one lot and one-half of another. The proposed resubdivision will
place the building on its own lot. The remaining area will be developed
separately.
Following a review of the map and indications from the City Engineer and
the City Planner that the application was in order, a notion was introduced
by Commissioner Cistulli to approve the resubdivision of Lots 10, 11 and
12, Block 9, Millsdale Industrial Park, Unit No. 5, in accordance with
the map filed with the City Engineer. Notion.seconded by Commissioner
Edwards and carried unanimously on roll call vote.
3. RESUBBIVISION - Lot 3 and portion of Lot 6, Block 6, Burlingame Shore
Land 2MWZ Ba shore Boulevard .
A resubdivision map prepared by Howard G. Hickey, Civil Engineer, for the
owners, Mr. and Mrs. U. Siboldi, proposed to delete an existing lot line
between Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 6, Burlingame Shore Land
Company Subdivision, to combine the two parcels into one lot having
frontage on Bayshore Boulevard.
2.
The City Planner stated that the portion of Lot 6 included in the present
application was originally part of a lot which fronts on Winchester Drive
but some years ago the portion was sold to the owners of the Burlingame
Motel property on Sayshore Boulevard. Lots 1, 2, 3, 11 and the portion
of 6 are a single property in one ownership. The present owner, Mr.
Siboldi, wishes to attach the portion of Lot 6 to Lot 3, which is an
existing lot, presumably for the purpose of selling as a single property.
The City Planner referred to a five foot sewer reserve easement indicated
on the map and advised that if the properties were to be combined, the
easement must be maintained free of any structure. A portion of a garage
and storage building on Lot 11, which extends across the lot line on to
Lot 6, must be removed. A small storage sued at the rear of Lot 6, does
not affect the property; it can remain or be removed at the discretion
of the owner.
Chairman Brauner recognized Mr. Siboldi who advised that the portion of
the building encroaching on Lot 6 has been removed.
In reviewing the map. Commissioners noted that the combined lots will
Meet street frontage and area requirements but questioned whether there
is a legal average width of not less than fifty feet.
Following a period of discussion, it was the opinion of the City Attorney
that the property will not meet the average width requirement. A variance
procedure should follow.
Upon determination that the present application was noticed on the basis
of a lot resubdivision,and following a statement from Mr. Siboldi that
he would be willing to proceed on a variance application, the matter was
continued to the regular meeting of February 2% Mr. Siboldi was requested
to confer with the City Planner concerning procedure and the City Engineer
was instructed to investigate to determine that the building encroachment
on Lot 6 has been removed.
4. VARIANCE - JOSEPH M. PETERSON OFF-STJUMT PARRIBO VARIANCS DMIBD.
Chairman Brauner announced that a hearing on the application of Joseph M.
Peterson for a variance from the off-street parking requirements in
connection with a proposed fifty-five room hotel, continued from the
meeting of December 23, 1963, would proceed at this time.
The application form recited as follows: Property address, 1209 Howard
Avenue. Portion Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Town of Burlingame Subdivision.
Zoning C-1 (Commercial Retail). Variance applied fore variance from the
off-street parking requirements of code section 1971.2d.
Acknowledgment was made of a statement of justification from the applicant
and communications and petitions on file, all of which were read and
recorded at prior meetings.
3.
Chairman Brauner stated that the hearing was continued at the request
of the applicant who indicated that some on -site parking might be possible.
)Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney, representing the applicant, stated that an
engineering study revealed that the cost of providing on -site parking
would create a financial burden upon the project. The building proper
is subject to severe fire -safety restrictions requiring extremely
expensive construction. The developer takes the position that it is not
economically feasible to add to his costs by providing parking facilities.
Mr. McMillan stated that the developer would be willing to reduce the
number of rooms from fifty-five but finds it impossible to provide on -
site parking.
Mr. McMillan referred to hotels operated by the developer, Mr. B. T. Maas,
in the cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City and San Jose.
With the exception of Mountain View, where less than minimum on -site
parking was requested, none of the other cities required on -site parking.
Comments were requested from the floor frass those in opposition, who
had not stated their positions at prior meetings.
Mr. Albert Horn, one of the owners of commercial property at 216 Park Road,
protested that the parking district was formed at considerable expense to
)property owners in the area for the purpose of benefiting the community
and aiding the commercial district. it was not the intention that the
parking lots should be used for the private benefit of an individual
property owner.
Mr. Stanley Bernal, owner of property at 117-121 Bloomfield Road, protested
that the type of hotel proposed is not a proper development for the City
of Burlingame.
Chairman Brauner referred to code requirements requisite to a variance
grant and requested Mr. McMillan to state his arguments to support the
application.
Mr. McMillan pointed out that the property is subject to assessment by
the parking district in an amount approximating $3,800.00. The zooming
is commercial and the property could be used for any type of cc mmm►ercial
use without provision for off-street parking. It is the owner's conten-
tion that a hotel is a commercial use and that he will be assessed doubly
by the City's requirement that hotels provide their own parking. The
o*mer claims undue property loss since he cannot build for the proposed
use as he could for any other commercial use.
Mr. McMillan mentioned that in other locations where the applicant
)operates similar hotels there are panting districts such as in this City.
Experience has shown that the hotel parking does not place a burden upon
the public parking lots. Mr. McMillan noted further that the project
4.
cost will be close to $300,000.001 the building will be of first-class
construction and of a design pleasing to the neighborhood and the
l community.
lThe City planner, in reply to the Chair's inquiry explained the formula
whereby properties were assessed for the parking district, noting that
such assessments were based on assessed valuations of land only, as
established by the Bounty assessor.
Mr. Maas, the developer, in reply to Commission inquiry, stated that the
number of rooms could be reduced to forty. Anything less would make the
project financially unsound.
At the request of Commissioner Norberg, the City Planner read from a
statement setting forth facts pertinent to the application, previously
submitted to members of the Commission, wherein it was noteds "The code
requirements for a hotel are one space for each of the first twenty rooms
and one space for each two additional'roomm. A hotel of -fifty-five rooms
would require thirty-seven spaces and a hotel of forty rooms would require
thirty spaces. Assuming a theoretical building of two stories with*a
store on the ground floor acid offices above, the code requirements would
be twenty-two spaces, a difference of fifteen spaces in the first instance
and eight spaces -in the second."
on the basis of the theory advanced by the Planner, Mr. Mclrlillan was
questioned by the commission `coucerning the possibility of providing
eight parking spaces. The Commission was advised that this appears
to be an impossible situation.'
Commissioner Kindig expressed the opinion that hotel or apartment parking
which could be a combination of both day and night parking should not be
compared with the usual retail commercial parking where cars move in and
out during the normal business hours:
Counnissioner Norberg stated that he personally viewed the hotel building
owned by Mr. Maas in Palo Alto and was very favorably Impressed and
questioned whether any research -was conducted by the applicants to
determine if a need does exist In the City of Burlingame for the particular
type of hotel.
A period of discussion followed concerning existing hotel accommodations
in the City and comments from Commissioners to the effect that an attrac-
tive, well -managed hotel, in the proper location and with adequate parking,
undoubtedly would provide a service to the community.
Commissioner Edwards stated that he -visited the location of some of the
hotels owned by Mr. Maas and it was his opinion, in the present instance,
that the location was improper and the site inadequate to accommodate the
type of building proposed. He stated that he was in agreement that some
study should be made of the City's needs for such accommodations.
S.
A motion was thereupon introduced by Commissioner Edwards and seconded
by Commissioner Moore to deny the application of Joseph M. Peterson for
a variance fran the parking requirements of code section 1971.2d in
` connection with a proposed fifty-five roan hotel. !lotion carried
unanimously on roll call vote.
Mr. McMillan speaking for Mr. Maas advised that the latter will continue
his search for another site in the City of Burlingame since in his
opinion there is a need for the type of building he will provide.
The applicant was advised of his right of appeal to the City Council.
The Dearing was declared concluded.
5. SPECIAL, PERMM GRAMM PBNINSMA AUCTION STWIO FOR NEW LOCATION.
An application filed by Carl Tait, owner of Peninsula Auction Studio,
requested a permit to relocate the business, conduct auction sales at
night and maintain a warehouse in a portion of an industrial building
at 850 Mahler Road (Lots 10 and 11, Block 6, East Millsdale Industrial
Park, Unit No. 2) . Zoning: X-1 (Light industrial) .
A communication from the applicant dated January 13, 1964, referred to
the fact that the business has operated for many years at 1311 Howard
Avenue but was requested to vacate to make way for a new tenant.
A plan of the building was submitted and reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Tait described the area that he will occupy, comprising approximately
10,000 square feet; 4,000 for the sales room and 6,000 for warehouse.
Mr. Tait stated that he is moving into the new location on a trial basis
for a period of ninety days. After that time, if the location proves
itself, some structural changes will be made to comply with requirements
of the City Fire Department.
In reply to questions raised by Commissioners concerning fire safety
precautions, the City Planner read from a letter dated January 22, 1964,
from Howard Pearson, City Fire Inspector, setting forth requirements to
be met to insure proper compliance with Building and.Fire Prevention
Codes. The communication stated that all conditions would be held in
abeyance for a period of ninety days, pending a determination as to the
permanency of the location. The Fire Inspector set forth fire safety
rules for the ninety day trial occupancy.
The Chair invited comments from the floor. Where were none.
The City Engineer indicated that there were no problems of concern to
his department.
in reply to the Chairs inquiry concerning operation of a retail business
6.
in the industrial area, the City Planner advised that uses permitted
in the M-1.District are specifically named in the ordinance and include
all uses proper in a C-2 District. On that basis, since the C-2 is
'higher, it might be possible to assume that any such use would be auto-
matic in an *-1 District. Noanever, it has been the policy to require
that a use not specifically named shall caste before the - Planning Com..
mission for decision.
Commissioner Kindig recalled that the Commission has been reluctant to
permit any retail operation in the industrial district but there would
not appear to be a question of precedent in the present application
since the operation is unlike the usual retail business where there
would be pedestrian and automobile traffic throughout the day.
There were couptents from members of the commission :indicating agreement
with the opinion expressed by Commissioner Kindig. A motion was there-
upon introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to approve the permit requested
by the applicant subject to compliance with requirements of the Building
and Fire Prevention Codes, specifically as noted in the canmunication
dated January 22, 1964, from the City Fire Inspector.
Motion seconded -by Commissioner Kindig and carried unanimously on roll
call vote.
The applicant was advised that the permit would become effective
47ebruary 4, 1964, provided there was no appeal.
The hearing was declared concluded.
6. VARiARCS: RAYS L. SINES. FENCE 88 G= AUD SETBACKS. I CONTINWD .
An application filed by Raymond L. Sines requested side setback and fence
height variances on property located at 400 Chapin Lane, intersection of
Chapin Avenue and Chapin Lane. (Lots 14 and 17, Block 14. Burlingame
Park No. 2) .
The application fora recited as follows: Improvements existing: Single
family home, detached garage, tool shed and concrete slab for garden house.
Variance applied fors To permit construction of Sauna Bath in present
tool shed within one foot of side property line= to build garden house
on existing concrete slab within two feet of side property line and to
construct a fence in excess of permitted height.
A statement from the property owner explained that it is proposed to
construct a garden house of Japanese architecture on the existing concrete
slab and convert the tool shed to a Sauna Bath. A large redwood tree
near the tool shed prevents moving that building further into the yard.
'A fence parallel to Chapin Lane, approximately ten feet high, has been
in existence for many years and should be replaced.
7.
Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, submitted a
fence plan -and plot plan and photographs to indicate location of the
garden house and tool shed.
Chairman Brauner stated that he viewed the property frown the sidewalk
and there appeared to be ample space to reconstruct the garden house
in another location and observe the correct setbacks.
In reply to Chairman Brauner•s inquiry, Mr. Sines advised that there
was thirty-eight feet of open area between the edge: of the swimming
pool and the fence.
Mr. McMillan agreed that it would be physically possible to rebuild
the structure in a different location but Air. Sines; was hoping to
utilize the existing concrete slab.
in reply to Commissioner Kindig•s inquiries concerning the fence,
Mr. Sines advised that it was his intention to remove the present wire
fence and shrubbery and. if permissible, construct a solid concrete
block wall approximately ten feet in height.
Mr. Sines explained that he hoped to build the fence to a height which
would maintain the line of the garage structure and, at the same time,
eliminate any projection from within the property above the fence. It
;was pointed out that Chapin Lane is a dead-end street and there are no
neighboring properties to be disturbed or affected. The existing fence,
which has been in place for many years, is at least ten feet hi4%L.*
Mr. Sines.agreed,*after some general discussion, that a fence height of
eight feet would be acceptable and described landscaping which would be
placed between the fence and the sidewalk along Chapin Lane.
The City Planner suggested that Commissioners consider the matter of
precedent should permission be granted for excessive fence height for
the sole purpose of screening interior buildings on a property.
in comments from some members of the Commission who had visited the
property, it was the opinion that there were conditions applicable to
the property which would not be generally true of all properties.
Particular reference was made to the location on a dead-end street and
to the existing fence which is higher by two feet than the fence which
will replace it.t
comments were invited from those in attendance.
Mr. A. R. Mertens, 1616 Chapin Avenue, adjacent on -the northerly side
to the subject property, stated that he has been concerned for some
time about construction taking place on the Sine property. Reference
was made to a structure adjacent to the fence at the rear property line.
Air. McMillan pointed out that the structure described by Mr. Mertens
a.
was a permissible accessory building within the rear 30% of the property.
The area referred to was not a part of the application before the
commission.
There were ccuments concerning the age of the structures proposed to be
replaced and rules concerning non -conforming buildings. The City Planner
and City Attorney indicated that when a non -conforming structure de-
teriorates or is demolished, replacement would be considered new construc-
tion subject to present laws.
The majority of Commissioners expressed a desire to inspect the property
and were invited to coo so by Mr. Sines.
All members indicating agreement, the hearing was thereafter declared
continued to the meeting of February 10, 1964.
7. VARIANCE To RESIT13DIVIDE LOT ON HILLSIDE DRIVE WITH LESS THAN LEGAL
AREA APPROVED.
An application filed by Nina L. Beckwith requested a variance to resub-
divide Lot 4, Block 4, Burlingame Hills Subdivision No. 2, to allow a
6,462 square foot lot on Hillside Drive.
A communication dated January 11. 1964, from the applicant, who is the
/prospective purchaser of the property, was acknowledged.
A resubdivision map filed by Charles M. Monroe, the present owner,
proposed that the lot would be divided at an existing stone retaining
wall, which appears to be a natural boundary between the lower and upper
sections of the property.
The lot has frontage on two streets, Adeline Drive and Hillside Drive.
The lower section, fronting Adeline, is improved. The upper section,
with frontage on Hillside Drive, is the area -involved in the present
application. .
Air. Glen Peterson; architect representing Nina Beckwith, the prospective
purchaser, advised that he has had discussions with the City Engineer
concerning possible improvements to Hillside Drive to meet the City's
requirements should the resubdivision be approved.
The City Engineer submitted renderings showing in general the improvements
to be made to the Hillside Drive frontage. He advised that approximate
details have been worked out for the widening of Hillside Drive to provide
for an area of on -street parking, a driveway access to the lot and for
curbs and gutters and drainage for the property.
)Mr. Peterson explained that a series of retaining walls, the largest of
which is fifteen inches to eighteen inches thick and approximately five
feet high, provides a natural barrier between the two lots. If the line
were moved below the wall to meet lot area requirements, legal title to
9.
t
e property between the gall and the new lot would be vested in one
ner but the actual land would be in the Year of a different property.
The City Planner, in reply to Cci.ssion inquiry, advised that the
required lot site In the area is 7,4DD square i�+aet,
There was no reply to the Chalr*s f nvjistj fi.``f f ee rent from the floor.
Commissioner Norberg commented that the eristin wafl'appeared to offer
a practical dividing line between the upper and lower sections of the
lot with no harmful effects to either property, and thereafter intro-
duced a motion to approve the variance to divide Lot 4, Block 4,
Burlingame Hills No. 2 into two parcels by establishing a new property
line at an existing stone wall, thereby creating a lot on Hillside Drive
with an area of 6,462 square feet; variance subject to completion of
public improvements in accordance with the renuirements of the City
Engineer and the plan submitted by Air. Glen Peterson, architect.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Kindig and carried unanimously on roll
call vote.
Mr. Peterson, representing the applicant, was advised that the variance
would become effective on February 4, 19640 provided there was no appeal.
The City Engineer reported that the resubdivision map would not be
finally signed -until all public improvements were completed.
ihe hearing was thereafter declared concluded.
RECESS
A recess was declared at 10:15 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting reconvened at 10:2-0 .p.m.
8,s VARIANCE TO LADDER BROS. FOR MULTI•FAMILy DWELLING ON R•1 PROPERTY DENIED.
Chairman Drauner announced that a hearing would proceed at this time on an
application filed some time ago by Wylie E. Middleton to construct an
apartment building on two lots zoned first residential at 130 Arundel Road
(Lots 15 and 16, Block 26, Lyon and Hoag Subdivision). The property has
changed ownership, in the awantime. and the present,-owner/applicant is
the firm of Lauder 11ros.s 91S Uoward Avenue. Burlingame*
Chairman Srauner recognized Mr. Kenneth Lauder who stated that permission
is requested to develop the lots as a single property and construct a
twelve -unit apartment building. Each lot is fifty feet wide by one
hun-fired fifty feet deep.
3uilding elevations and a landscape plan were filed.
10.
Air. Lauder stated that the total investment will approximate $160,000.00
and the resultant building will enhance the appearance of the property
,and increase the value of neighboring properties.
Mr. Lauder advised that there will be two stories of dwelling units' the
building will be "U" shaped with individual gardens and patios for the
ground -level apartments. All of the parking will be at the rear so that
no automobiles will be visible from the street. Mr.. Lauder stated that
seventeen parking spaces will be provided= fifteen are required.
in reply to the Chair's request, there were no comments from the floor in
favor. Those opposed were invited to speak.
Uwward. Pearson, 132 Arundel Road. spoke in behalf of his father-in-law
Mr. J. Sanchez, owner of three Properties in the area, one immediately
adjacent to the subject property.
Mr. Pearson advised that the properties are suitable for apartment house
development but Mr. Sanchez recognizes that he would be unable to prove
compliance with the conditions necessary to a variance grant.
Mr. Pearson maintained that the area easterly of Arundel Road is residential
in character and should Jr4 main as such and referred to the land -use survey
recently prepared by the City Planner which revealed a high proportion
..,of well -maintained hoaxes.
Mr. Pearson referred to Section 1944 of the code setting forth conditions
necessary to a variance grant and questioned the applicant's ability to
prove justification for his request.
Mr. Stanley Bernal, owner of properties at 117-121 Bloomfield Road,
adjacent to the subject property at the rear, spoke in opposition.
in a general discussion concerning existing uses on the block, it was
noted that there are two non -conforming apartment buildings on the
opposite side of the street, and duplex dwellings on.both sides of the
street. Presumably, all of these have been in existence for some years.
Mr. Kenneth Lauder, in reply to the Chair's invitation to comment concerning
conditions for a variance grant, stated that he would not claim undue hard-
ship or property loss but as an investor in properties in the City of
Burlingame for many years, it was his belief that in due time the area
could become one of the finer sections if developers were permitted to
purchase properties and replace saxae of the older buildings with modern,
attractive apartment units.
,)Mr. B. Sinclair. caner/resident, 110 Arundel Road. spoke in favor of the
variance.
11.
r
Following individual comments from members of the Commission concerning,
the subject property and the entire easterly section of the city, based
upon personal knowledge and inspection trips throughout the area, a motion
is introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to deny the variance. TIotion
conded by Commissioner Moore and carried unanimously.
The applicant was advised of his right of appeal.
The hearing was declared concluded.
9. VARIANCE FOR MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING IN R-2 DISTRICT APPROVED.
An application filed by Valwyn G. Fletcher requested a variance to remove
an existing single-family dwelling on duplex zoned property at
1112 Capuchi.no Avenue and construct a five unit apartment building;.
(Lot 18, Block 4, Easton Addition) .
A statement of justification from the applicant, dated October 28, 19639
was read and accepted for filing.
Building plans were submitted and examined at length by the Commission.
The City Planner noted that the location is in the block between Brea•zway
and Carmelita; the zoning is duplex but over the past several years the
Commission has approved variances for apartment construction on both sides
of the street.
Tn reply to the Chairs request for comments from the floor, Mr. !l, Stoesser,
sident of San Mateo, and owner of property adjacent to the subject
.:operty, requested permission to examine the building; plans, following
which, he indicated no objection to the variance.
There were no protests recorded, oral or written, and on a motion intro-
duced by Commissioner Kindig; and seconded by Commissioner Norberg, the
variance for a five unit building, in accordance with the plans on file,
including landscaping as indicated on said plans, was approved unanimously
on roll call vote.
The applicant was advised that the variance would become effective
February 4, 1964, provided there was no appeal.
The hearing was declared concluded.
10. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE CODE: REGULATION'S FOR R-3A DISTRICT.
A hearing scheduled for this date to consider a proposed amendment to the
ordinance code 11R-3A District Regulations" was continued to February 10,1964,
following; considerable discussion and review when the Commission was unable
to reach an area of agreement on the requirement for garages.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting; was regularly adjourned at 12 Midnight to Monday, February 10,19649
t 8:00 pom.
Respectfully submitted.
Edward A. Moore
Secretary
-12-