HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1966.05.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
May 23, 1966
COS€TSSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Brauner
None City Attorney Karmel
Cistulli
City Planner Mann
Edwards
City Engineer !Tarr
Horwitz
Mayor George
Kindig
Norberg
Pierce
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Pierce presiding.
The Chair acknowledged the presence of Mayor George.
ROLL CALL
All members of the Commission answered the Secretary's roll call.
MINUTES
Minutes of the meetingsof April 2S and May 9, 1966, previously submitted
to members, were approved and adopted.
HEAR%
Chairman Pierce welcomed the large group in attendance, set forth ground
rules for the public hearings and explained procedure whereby the decisions
of the Commission may be appealed„
1. RESUBDIVISION LOTS 28 THROUGH 32A BLOCK S. EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PAR
A resubdivision map of the above -described properties, prepared by
Charles E. Randlett, Civil Engineer, for the owners, Robert Ryan and
Charles King, and filed with the City Engineer, was scheduled for public
hearing at this time.
In reply to the Chair's request to review the application, the City Planner
advised that the owners propose to divide five presently existing lots
into two parcels, "A" and "B", fronting on Stanton Road, for the purpose
of constructing an office/warehouse building on Parcel A. Referring, to a
strap 44 feet in depth at the rear of Parcel A, but: not included within
its boundaries, the City Planner stated that it was his understanding this
was to be used for off-street parking for an adjoining parcel. He indicated
no objection to the map,,
Commissioner Kindig commented that the 44 foot strip appeared to be "wasted
area°'.
Mr. Charles King, one of the owners, explained that plans were in progress
for developing the property at the ,ear of the subject property, which is
held b� the same owners, that a resubdivision map would be filed eventually,
adding the strip in question to the property at the rear for parking.
There were no comments from the audience, favoring; or protesting the
application.
l The City Engineer, in reply to Commission inquiry, indicated "no objection"
On a motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner
Horwitz, and unanimously carried on roll call, the resubdivision was
approved in accordance with the map on file.
2. BURLINGAME SHORE LAND COMPANY HOTEL.
Chairman Pierce announced that, at the request of the proponents, the
hearing on.the above application would be delayed until later in the meet-
ing.
3. VARIANCE FOR CARPORT 124 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE DENIED.
Chairman Pierce announced a public hearing on the application of
Miss Kay Ellis, 124 Occidental Avenue, for a variance for a carport of
less than required dimensions to be attached to the dwelling (Lot 230
Block 8, Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2).
Sketches filed by the applicant were acknowledged.
A letter from the applicant dated May 9, 1966, advised that by using an
existing concrete,slab, for which a building permit was issued in 1960,
it would be possible to build a carport with an. area of 200 square feet;
that the construction, in no way, would affect neighboring properties;
and, that "running from the car for shelter against rain and wind causes
unnecessary hardship".
Letters opposing the variance were read from the following:
Gloria K. Eberle, 136 Costa Rica Avenue; Joseph N'ieri, 132 Occidental
Avenue; Air. and Mrs. Edward Mitchell, 132 Costa Rica Avenue; William R.
and Elizabeth A. Ward, 120 Occidental Avenue; Charles D. Cole, 117
Occidental Avenue; Willis T. Chapman, 141 Occidental Avenue; Airs. Aubrey
L. Railey, 125 Costa Rica Avenue; T.C. Porter, 120 Costa Rica Avenue;
Bertha Macomber, 128 Occidental Avenue, The protestants claimed injury
to other properties and to the area generally; that there is space
available at the rear of the lot, where the original garage was located,
for the new construction; that the application fails to meet conditions
for variance grants.
In response to the Chair's request to review details of the application,
the City Planner, using the blackboard, described property lines and
the proposed location of the carport, attached to the front of the dwell-
ing; indicated the area where a former garage was located and the exist-
ing driveway. He advised that the code requires garages or carports to
be a minimum of 10 feet in width by 20 feet in length; because side and
front setbacks must be observed, it is impossible to construct a legal
carport in the area proposed; and, in conclusion, commented that the
situation was created by the applicant and it can be cured by other
means than suggest-ed,
Hiss Ellis referred to sketches on file, pointing out that on one side
the structure would be 10 inches short of the required length; by extend-
ing back on the driteway, it would be possible to have inside dimensions
of 200 square feet. -2-
The building arispece:or, in reply to Chairman Fierce, advised that after
the building permit was issued in 1960 for the carport he, personally,
made some measurements on the property and discovered, because of front
and side setbacks, a 10 by 20 foot carport was not possible; therefore,
the job was stopped.
Comments were invited from the audience in favor of the application.
Mr. E.D. Dahlberg, 125 Occidental Avenue, stated that the applicant has
the right to build the carport, that the construction will not be harm-
ful in the neighborhood and that the appearance of the property will
improve by providing covered parking.
Opponents were invited to speak.
Mr, Edo Montgomery, owner of property at 104 Occidental Avenue,
Mr, William Ward, 120 Occidental Avenue, Mr. E.L. 'Whitesell, 129
Occidental Avenue, Mrs. B.E. Powell, 1640 Barroilhet Avenue, Mr. C.D.
Cole, 117 Occidental Avenue, protested that an undesirable precedent
would be established by permitting a carport at the front of the house;
that property values would be jeopardized in the neighborhood and that
a hardship did not exist since the applicant, by her own decision, chose
to remove an existing garage; approval of the variance would alleviate
the situation for the applicant at the expense of her neighbors.
Miss Kay Elliott, San Mateo, identified herself as a friend of the
applicant, spoke in favor of the application,
Miss Ellis stated that the structure will be designed to adapt to the
existing dwelling, will be well constructed, improving not only the
appearance of the property but the street generally.
Commissioner Brauner referred to code requirements for variance grants,
stating his position that the conditions had not been fulfilled; the
applicant failed to prove exceptional circumstances in the property or
that extreme hardship would result if the variance were denied, and
precedential acts by the Commission must be considered.
There were no further comments.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to deny the variance on the
grounds that the applicant failed to show hardship was seconded by Com-
missioner Horwitz and declared carried unanimously on roll call.
The applicant was advised of the right of appeal to the City Council.
The hearing was declared concluded.
4. REAR YARD VARIANCE APPROVED 1038 MORRELL AVENUE.
Chairman Pierce announced a public hearing on the variance application of
Cecil R. and Corrine M. Wilson, 1038 Morrell Avenue, for a rear yard of
less than code requirements to allow two bedrooms and bath to be con-
structed above an existing garage (Lot 2, Block 6, Villa Park Subdivision).
A communication from the applicant dated April 27, 1966, explained the
urgency for enlarging the existing two bedroom one bath dwelling, to
accommodate the family of two adults and seven children.
-3-
Sketches prepared by the applicant were filed,
The City Planner.. in reply to Chairman Pierce, advised that a large.tri-
angular section of the lot was taken by the city when Carolan Avenue
right. -of -way was purchased; the building was moved, to the property from
another location several years ago and placed toward the rear, leaving a
short rear yard; apparently, there was an error when the building was
placed, but neither the applicant, who now owns the property, nor the
present building inspector were involved. He advised that the building
is non -conforming, that. the proposed construction will not create lot
coverage nor related problems, but a building permit may not issue
except on a variance,
The Chair invited comments from the audience in favor of the appliattiono
Mr. R.K. Truitt, 1008 Morrell Avenue, pointed out that the improvement
of Carolan Avenue caused a variance application for reconstruction
of a property .at 1035 Morrell Avenue, which was granted; therefore,
for the same reasons, the present application should be justified. fie
spoke highly of the applicants as desirable neighbors, stating a con-
dition of justifiable hardship existed in that suitable housing must
be provided for the growing children in the family.
Mr. John Calwell, 1035 Morrell Avenue, stated his position in favor of
the proposed construction, also commenting favorably on the applicants
and their family.
There were no comments in opposition.
Commissioner Kindig referred to an attractive home and garden on
Larkspur Driven adjacent at the rear to the subject property, raising
a series of questions concerning the ultimate height of the applicants
building, whether windows in the new addition would overlook the
Property at the rear, or a glare created by reason, of the type of
exterior finish,
Mr. Wilson advised that total height to the roof pitch from ground level
would be 22 feet, that high windows, five feet from floor ievel,would be
installed facing Larkspur Drive and, on Carolan Avenue, windows not
exceeding 36 Inches above the floor, to meet building code requirements;
the exterior will be painted redwood siding.
A motion introduced by Commissioner C stulli and seconded by Commissioner
Norberg sDorovinQ the variance to slliw ronetruction in ae:cnrcfa_nee with
the drawings on file wai unanimously carried on roll call,
The Chair announced that the ,variance would be effective following the
next succeeding.'regular meeting of the City Council, if not appealed.
The nearing was declared concludes-o
5, RETIREMENT RESIDENCE ON ALMER ROAD APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE.
Chairman Pierce announced a public hearing on the variance application
of The Lesley Foundation, 3080 Ralston Avenue, Hillsborough, to permit
construction of the Castle Towers Retirement Residence, 12 stories and
108 feed; in height, on third residential property - 519, 5219 5259
S27 Almer Road - JPortions of Lots 13 and 15 and all Lot 14, Block 8,
8arlingame Land Company Subdivision No. 2).
�4o
The applicant's Statement of Justification and drawings prepared by
DeLong, Zahm, Associates, project architects, were filed,
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair's request to comment, stated
that the variance refers principally to height since the limitation
in R-3 Zone is four stories or SS feet. He referred to drawings sub-
mitted by the applicant, including the interior arrangement of the
building, advising that "in the true sense" this cannot be considered
an apartment house; that total population, including tenants and
employees,was projected at 300; and that garage requirements for the
particular type of building are not discussed in the code, but the
drawings indicate spaces for ten -.ants, visitors and employee parking.
Proponents were invited to comment,
Mr. A.J. Watson, principal in The Lesley Foundation, referred to the
Park Towers and Pilgrim Plaza buildings in the City of San Mateo,
built by the Foundation on funds available from the Federal Government
to non-profit foundations for the purpose of constructing housing for
the "low middle -income group of Senior Citizens".
Mr. Watson advised that their experience shows 73 as the average age
of tenants and 821 are women; the minimum entry age is bS. lie described
activities programs, considered essential to the projects, explaining
that the residence will fill a community need in Burlingame for those
not having the means to purchase more affluent retirement housing but
desire to maintain their dignity and independence.
RECESS
A recess was declared at 9:30 p.m., for those interested in viewing:the
architect's drawings.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
in response to the Chair's invitation for comments in favor,
Mr. W.E. Chambliss, 518 Almer Road, advising that he was the owner of
property on the opposite side of the street from the subject property,
stated that the project will be a welcome addition in the Almer Road
area and increase the value of other properties by upgrading the neigh-
borhood , that there is a nded for such facilities and, as the owner
of an apartment building at 1439 Floribunda Avenue,was not concerned
that his investment would be adversely affected by the proposed con-
struction.
Mr. Rex Rhodes, president,Burlingame Senior Citizens, stated that
retirement residences, such as that proposed and the two in the City
of San Mateo offer "an excellent way for the elderly to live".
4 Opponents were invited to speak.
Mrs. Ether M. Dickie, 811 Highland Avenue, San Mateo, owner of property
it 1445 Floribunda Avenue, questioned whether the project will be
anted property tax concessions,
1
In reply to the Chair's comment that normally nonprofit foundations
would be tax exempt, Mrs. Dickie and Mr. Walter Schafer, 1S17 Floribunda
Avenue, inquired the amount of city and county real property taxes
collected on the three properties involved in the application.
Mr. Watson advised a total of $3300.00.
Mrs. Dickie, Mr. Frederick W. Darby, co-owner of 144S Floribunda Avenue,
and Mrs. J.B. McCloskey, 535 Almer Road, protested that property values
would be depreciated.
Mr. A.G. Westcott, 843 Walnut Avenue, inquired if special fire fighting
equipment would be necessary because of the building height, or existing
water and sanitary sewer systems excessively burdened, and referred to
a potential traffic problem because of the narrow streets.
Mrs. M. Baxter, 52;-1/2 Almer Road, Mr. Paul Goldstone, 420 Roblar Avenue,
Hillsborough, owne4 1545 Floribunda Avenue, objected to the building
height as detrimental to the character of the neighborhood where the
majority of buildings are two, three or four stories.
Mr. John Cockcroft, Secretary, Burlingame Towers, 1469 Bellevue Avenue,
stated that some arrangement should be possible whereby the costs of
city services which the building will enjoy,and any additional costs
arising from water or sewer installations, will be borne by the Founda-
tion, as the property owner. Mr. Cockcroft agreed that providing suit-
able low-cost housing for senior citizens is worthwhile but the burden
of support should not be imposed upon the taxpayers of the community,
Mr. Watson, in reply to Commission inquiry, reported that Federal regu-
lations require that an agreement shall be signed 'binding the use of
the building to the specified purpose for a period of 50 years.
The City Engineer, in reply to Chairman Pierce, advised that a recent
study of existing sanitary sewer and water in the area reveals no
serious problems if the variance were approved; 'however certain con-
ditions should be attached requiring a sanitary sewer line be laid to
Floribunda rather than Bellevue Avenue, an additional fire hydrant
installed in the center of the block --costs of these improvements to
be the owner's responsibility.
Commissioner Horwitz inquired concerning reimbursement to the city for
the loss of property taxes in the form of an in lieu payment.
Material supporting the applicant's position that the building should
be tax exempt .was distributed.
During a period of discussion, the City Attorney recommended, should the
Commission decide favorably on the variance, that the subject be referred
to the City Council for determination with respect to taxes.
Chairman Pierce, expressed his position in favor of the City Attorney's
recommendation --the Commissions decision should be based on other con-
siderations.
In reply to Commissioner Edwards, Mr, Watson advised that a recipient
of county welfare would qualify as a tenant.
Commissioner Morberg stated that he was highly impressed when visiting
-6-
Park Towers _n Say' Mateo, disagreeing with the Protestants$ statements
that the building would depress property values,
Commissioner Norberg introduced a motion that the construction of a
12-story residential building in accordance with "the plans submitted
be approved in principle, but that no action be taken by the Commission
pending certain policy conditions which can be resolved only by agree-
ment of the applicants and the City Council, Motion seconded by
Commissioner Horwitz,
On the question, in reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Kindig whether
the plans would be subject to final approval by the Commission, the
City Planner advised in the affirmative, provided there is agreement
between the applicant and the City Council in the matter of taxes.
The motion was thereafter declared carried on the following roll call:
Ayes: Commissioners: Braurer, Cistulli, Horwitz, Kindig, Norberg
Pierce
Noes: Commissioners: Edwards
The City Attorney, in reply to Chairman Pierce, advised that the action
taken is subject to appeal.
RECESS
A recess was declared at 10:55 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting reconvened at 11:05 p.m.
(2) SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED FOR HOTEL., LANDS OF BURLINGAME SH
Chairman Pierce announced the public hearing, continued from the meeting
of April 119 1966, on a Special Permit application filed by
Mr, Harry Sowers for Burlingame Shore Lard Company for hotel construction
easterly of the freeway.
The hearing was scheduled for earlier in the meeting but delayed at the
request of Mr, Oscar Person; the Secretary had advised that no new
correspondence had been received since the meeting of April 11.
Comments made.earlier in the meeting by the City Planner are inserted
here for purposes of. continuity:
At the request of Chairman Pierce, the City Planner reviewed proceed-
ings to date, explaining that the application proposed construction of a
hotel, dining rooms, service areas and parking, a project of consider-
able size on the easterly side of Bayshore Freeway, just south of the
overpass. He stated that the matter has been on the agenda for some
months, primarily for the Commission to wait for some determination,
or a nearer point of determination, on the Broadway Overpass construc-
tion, since the probability is that that construction might interfere
with the hotel project, either in land taken by the overpass structures,
or in limiting access.
The City Planner mentioned other problems - additional volume of traffic
movements to be expected because of the size of the project, and water,
sewer and street improvements, fie stated that the Commission has felt
that the principal factor which would make a decision impossible was
-7-
the possibility that the land would be necessary for the overpass; at
the last meeting at which the application was heard, there was some
discussion that perhaps a determination should be made but the matter
was continued at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Parson advised that an alternate plan for the overpass and the
surrounding; area has been prepared and introduced Mr. Keith Dellaway,
transportation engineer with the firm of Wilsey, Ham and Blair,
Consulting Engineers and Planners.
Mr. Dellaway advised that the firm has been employed by the Burlingame
Shore land Company, the Keyston interests and Pacific Air Commerce
Center to study an alternate solution to the Broadway Overpass from
several aspefft s including preservation of the hotel site and a better
financial arrangement for the city in the overpass reconstruction.
Drawings of the proposed scheme were posted and discussed at some length
by Mr. Dellaway; it was pointed out that the plants were preliminary and
required extensive study and traffic analysis; however,the proposal
envisioned shifting of a freeway overpass northerly of the existing
structure, a lesser "property take" at Industrial Way and Broadway, and
the valuable frontage on California Drive, and raising the railroad
tracks above the existing grade "some 2000 feet on both sides of Broad-
way" to allow traffic to go underneath.
Mr. Dellaway stated that there is considerable saving in cost, in com-
parison with the plan being considered by the city„ He quoted a total
cost figure of $7.1 million for all of the agencies involved; contem-
plating a two-year program, the city's total cost would be $1.29
million, including funds to be contributed by the County; the State,
$4.6 million; plus the Southern Pacific Company and Public Utilities
Commission.
During a period of discussion, the City Engineer and City Planner,
in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that they had reviewed the
plan very briefly prior to the presentation, but were not sufficiently
informed to advise on its merits. The City Engineer indicated that
there might be a saving in property acquisition but that he could not
comment on the plan itself without further study.
Mr. Dellaway explained that it was not intended to present the pro-
posal in competition with the city's present plan but was submitted
purely as an informative.measure in support of the hotel application
so that the Commission would be aware that alternate plans were pos-
sible to preserve the hotel site.
Commissioner Cistulli stated that it was his understanding that the
scheme prepared by York and Dady may be delayed from eight to 10 years
because of the lack of State funds,
The City Engineer explained that this was the opinion of the San Fran-
cisco Office of the State Highway Division; that, as yet, there has
been no firm commitment from Division headquarters in Sacramento.
Chairman Pierce expressed interest in the Dellaway proposal, commenting
that it appeared to meet all of the problems involved and possibly
could be executed within the near future.
Chairman Pierce requested comments from the audience in favor of or
-8-
protesting the application.
There were none. Mr. Oscar Person advised that the proponents were
prepared to answer Commission inquiries.
Commissioners were invited to comment.
Commissioner Kindig stated that he did not wish to handicap the city.
State, or any party involved, by approving any proposal for the land
at the present time. He stated that the proponents' plan for the
overpass had a great deal of merit but should not influence the Coro -
mission's thinking on the special permit; while he did not intend to
eliminate the possibility of the hotel, he was not: now prepared to
approve,
Commissioner Norberg stated that he has had a great deal of experience
in traffic analysis and control and has made careful study of the over-
pass project; it was his opinion that plans can be accomplished to pre-
serve the property for the hotel and for the Cadillac agency at
Broadway and Industrial Way - if not Dellaway's, then another plan.
Commissioner Brauner concurred with Commissioner Kindig, stating that
he was not prepared to vote since there were "too many unknowns"'.
Commissioner Cistulli stated that the applicants should not be penalized
1y further delay and that problems burdening the land because of the
overpass undoubtedly could be resolved.
Mr. Dellaway stated that a number of informal discussions with repre-
sentatives of the Highway Division indicated that the plan could be
accomplished from an engineering and economic feasibility standpoint.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Kindig to postpone action to the
.tune 27, 1966, meeting was seconded by Commissioner Brauner and declared
defeated on the following roll call:
Ayes; Commissioners: Brauner, Horwitz, Kindig
Noes: Commissioners: Cistulli, Edwards, Norberg, Fierce
Commissioner Norberg introduced a motion to approve the Special Permit.
stating that it was his firm belief that an overpass design could be
accomplished to permit development of the hotel. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Cistulli,
On the question, Commissioner Brauner pointed out that during the course
of the hearings, extending over many months, a number of conditions were
discussed; questions have been raised concerning property boundaries and
site plans; the applicant has made no firm commitment on sewer and
water improvements, nor has the matter of access to the property been
determined. He stated that the Commission was not in position to take
a definitive action and the motion was premature.
Commissioner Norberg stated his willingness to accept qualifying con-
ditions to the motion following a discussion concerning utility ease-
ments.
Commissioner Brauner suggested that the proponents meet with the City
Engineer to prepare a memorandum of agreement for utilities for Com-
mission approval at the next regular meeting.
-9-
In reply to Commissioner Kindig°s inquiry concerning access, biro Person
:ref'errecl the Commission to the access road to the city dump; he
stated when the overpass is accomplished the matter of access must be
resolved and expressed the opinion that the site will not be allowed to
be land -locked; a road must be installed and the hotel company will
pay its share, He pointed out that the proponents have verbally com-
mitted to [year costs of a sever line to the disposal plant and water
service imT)rovementso
The motion to approve the Special Permit was thereafter declared carried
on the following roll call:
Ayes: Commissioners: Cistulli, Edwards, Norberg, Pierce
Noes: Commissioners: Brauner, Horwitz, Kindig
The hearing was concluded.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
—Flection of Officers.
Chairman PieTIMPA telhis was the time selected to elect a Vice -Chairman
and Secretary.
Vice -Chairman Commissioner Frank Cistulli was nominated by
Commissioner Kin dig, seconded by Commissioner Brauner, and on a unani-
mous ballot elected Vice -Chairman.
Secretary Commissioner John Brauner was nominated by
Co&amissione3 Horwitz, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, and on a unani-
mous ballot elected Secretary.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Capital Imprevements.
The Commission discussed a a report which had been prepared
for trznsmittai to the ity Council recommending a Capital Improve-
ment P rogram ,
2. Cit° 13al.l and Broadway Ovelnass Studies,
The above subjects were referred to the study meeting of June 13, 1966.
3. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Special Permit Extended.
A request from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, dated May 23, 1966;
for an extension to June 4, 19670 to exercise a Special Permit for con-
struction of an electric sub -station, was approved on motion of Com-
missioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner Norberg and carried unani-
mously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meetiiag ;gas regularly adjourned at 1.2:25 a,m,
Respectfully submitted,
John Jo Brauner, Secretary
sue-, .t e� r-r
/..�t4, - ——
Fe�
Q...
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER
Y ROLL CALL
VIV
HEARINGS
Ao Re{s}iEWbdiu:I.S"Lon Lots 20-�ira.2 h 32:, Krick 5" , East Hillsdale
dustrial Park.
2. special PeF:vd-ii. .. �iote a Lands of Burlingame Shore Lead C®mpar,
s`rom April o a
3. Variance for carport, 124 f ccid ntal Avenue.
4. near yard variance, 038 MorrelE Ayenue�
1e Electio-n of € fficers and Secretary),
capitalV1 NEW BUSINESS
1.
2. City Hal' Q tu&r.
3. Broadway overpass study.
V1 d ADf-3iid3RNME-11 E