HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1966.04.11t I THE CTTY OF € LANNTNr rn"+"TSSTn�I
April 11, 1966
COI!„TSSTONF,f'S M-TSENT OTHE S PPF.SFNT
Brauner NTone
CistulIi
Horwitz
Kitn(Ii gr
��Orl�ei
Pi e-fCe
CALL TO ORTWR
City Planner *Iann
city tinrineeY "art
An adJourned rieetinp, of the Bir ling3ame Plann-Ing; Coirmis:sion, from the regular
MOetislg, of "arc!) 29, 1966, via-, called to order on the above date- at 8:05 p.r . ;
Cliairinen Kindig presid rigs.
PMLL CALL
The Secretary's roll cell reco•.ded the above nared merbers present.
TF NTATIVF "AI' "iTLLS ESTATE NO. 27 (Pisap;;Toved) .
Chairman Kindig; announced a public hearing on the Tentative lisp of Fills
Estate No. 27, a 14 lot subdivision lying adjacent to tAills Estate No. 11
and the wild life canyop area, with access off Cranada Drive.
Communications from 1-iIlsev Ham ant! Blair, project engineers, dated "4arch 8
and 23 and April 50 196€6, advised that the number of lots was reduced from
15 to 14; right-of-way width was increased to 43 feet; no parking on the
north side will leave a 22 foot lane for two-wav traffic;a vlHggireas were
increased to 14,500 square feet; the minimum lots being 8400 square feet;
the subdividers propose that a home -owners association shall be formed for
the purpose of maintaining; the portions of hots I and 14 north of Pills
Canyon Court and the landscape -architect's recommendations shall be sub-
mitted for Coirmissioni approval.
The subdivision street, 'Pulls Canyon Court", consi.steO of two cul-de-sacs,
coming together in the center of the subdivision, with all of the lots lying
along the southerly side.
Chairman Kintiig invited the proponents to comment.
Mr, Janes S. Sc_h"Pp, erig ineeT, Teported that there have been conferences
with the City Engineer, since the °,Tv ch, study meeting, to resolve all of the
scellanevus engineering; problems.
.tie City Engineer confirmed that ? r om an enl inee'ri.iin standpoint tI?e r,ap is
acceptable. fie €aported also that Fire Chief Mloorhy has ex.ainine(I and
approved the maps.
'Ir.- 'Ealcolri ct'zrt1���, attorney for the subdividers, reviewed changes
which were matte to reduce the tturl)er of lots and to redesil;n the cul�
ode-sacs,•stating that the owners believe the present proposal repre-
sents the l 11fiest ant' best use of the land, corspatible with improve-
ments existing in the area.
Colz+missioners were i_nvite(s' to comment,
Commissioner `1orlierl, recalled that when the map was first presented
lie requested deletion of at least two lots so that ,rll of the lots
would have street frontage of 30 feet or greater to conform with the
properties in the adjacent r,'ills ]!state subdivision,, He pointed out
that of the 14 propose(] lots at least 7 were less than ta0 feet wide.
Cor,mi.ssi_oner Ci.stulli agreed that the nut-ber of lots should lie reduced,
maintaining that the density vas too great and the cul-de-sacs
inadequate to accorer-odlate tine traffic in(l parking ge-nerated by 14 resi-
dences. Ile requested clarification of the developers plans for main
tiining the slope section on the n0rth10rly side of the proposed street,
'`r, McCarthy explaine-0 that it was intended to fore, a homeowners ass(
ation, comprised of the individual otrners in the sul.,division, that the
properties would be sold subject to a recorded, contractural obligation
involve(' in the deed to each lot to contribute to the maintenance of
the two strips,
The City 1'1art;,er stated that the city would not be n party to the agree-
meizt,,t,iai fire «evclopers were l�roposittg a privs:te organization wherein
responsibility lies solely with the property owners,
'Ire >chuppe advised that the initial cost and installation will be
assur,<ed by the developers; tite landscape improvement: flans will be sub-
mitted along with the usual subdivision improvement plans.
In reply to Corimissioner Brauner's inquiry whether portions of the strips
could be sold off to the other lots, the City Planner reporter', that it
was the Citv Attcornev's position, for both practical, and legal reasons,
that fife lot lines not be carried across the street,
in reply to the Chair's inquiry, there were no corm nts from the audience.
The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Kindig, stated that the land is
so situated that the lots can only be built in one i-ow since there is
not sufficient depth for a street in the middle; it is proposed to have
sidewalk on one side, carried around the cul-de=sacs; on the slope side,
curbs and gutters only. lie reported code variations as follows: street
width is slightly under the legal mininLm; the length of the cul-de-sacs
exceeds the persritted maximum.,
The City Planner stated that of the manta' proposals submitted for the
property, including one from Trou*dale Construction Company several years
ago, in his opinion the present design was the Trost acceptable.
In reply to questions from Commissioners Brauner an(J Ci.stulli, the City
Engineer and City Planner reported as follows:
1. All of the proposed lots comply with code requirements for street
frontage and land. area;
2. The proposed street is acceptable; 30 feet of pavement, front curb
` o curl:,, parking on one side only ajci tares 11 feet wide travel lanes
-2-
a
will carry a normal traffic floe., includinp. erierpency vehicles.
3. The normal street in the !Rills Estate area is 34 feet from curt) to
%to curb, with parkins; on both sides, leaving two 9 feet wide travel
lanes,
Piro Schupp requested and was granted permission to illustrate on the
blackboard the proposed street plan as compared with existing secondary
streets in the 11ills Estate.
Commissioner Edwards stated that it.would be reasonable to assume two to
three cars per family, thereby creating a heavy traffic flow, exclusive
of service or guest parking, lie objected to the length of the cul-de-sac
and the lot widths.
Commissioner Pierce stated that as a resident of the "ills Estate he was
very familiar with on -street parkins; problems; experience would indicate
an average of over too automobiles per family. lie suggested that it was
impractical to assume that between resident and guest parking there would
not be violations of the no Larking restrictions.
Commissioner �3rauner thereafter introduced a motion to accept the Tertitive
"ap as submitted and recommend its adoption to the City Council. for the
reasons that the lots meet code requirements and the street design
satisfies the City i ng-inee;r and Fire Chief. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Horwitz and, on the following roll call, declare(] defeated:
Ayes • Commissioners : Braurter, Horwitz, Kindi.g
foes: Commissioners: Cistulli, Edwards, Norberp., Pierce
The City Planner reported that the applicants have the right to either
summit the map in its present form to the City Council with the Commission°s
negative recommendation; or, revise and return to the Commission.
The hearing; was declared concluded.
2. HOTEL LANDS OF BIJRLINC'A'AE SHOPE LAND COMPANY (continued) .
Chairman Kindig announced that a public hearing on the application of
Harry Somers for a special permit for hotel use of the lands of Bur-
lingame Shore Land Company easterly or Bayshore Freeway and southerly of
the Broadway Overpass was continued from the meeting of 'March 28 to the
present date to give the applicants and members of the Commission an
opportunity to study the scale model of the Broadway Overpass reconstruc-
tion (on display in the Council Chambers) in relation to the subject
property,
In reply to the Chair, the City Planner pointed out that the application
has been before the Commission for some time and thoroughly discussed;
however, a decision has been delayed until there was some indication of
the portion of the applicant's lands to he taken in the highway project
and whether th9 remaining area would be competent to support the hotel,
the parking and all of the facilities.
The City Planner stated that the model indicates that eery little of
the property will rennin because cf a proposed off -ramp from the Freeway
coming north, whicIkUe off just south of the property and then join
eventually -ri.th th ' c_ld tR.ayshore ilik,;iwQy-, further, another part of the
-3-
S3{l, t}ate CSr�j)� w:j 11 t::ik e i�t Eacticaliv a! oi" tf1�c''. rerlaI.ning la-nd, an p{4 Ile
it might be possible to site a building-, there would he no access to the
property. He expressed the opinion that because of severance problems
(/ ,property.
Staten following procedures {which have been established in other
'similar situations, undoubtedly would purchase all of the property, dis-
posing of the excess at a later date.
In reply to Commissioner Edwards' inquiry whether there is a formal com-
mitment that the modes represents an acceptable plan, the City Planner
reported that the City,' Council has taken the position at this time that
there is not; the tiodel will he displayed at various locations in the
city and public hearings will be held.
In repay to the Chair's inquiry whether the State 0ivision of highways
will accept the model plan,, if approved by the City Council, the City
Engineer reported that the San Francisco Division office has approved
this particular scheme and their progress report will be submitted to
the Sacramento office. fie stated that lie expects to receive a copy of
the report which will include inforration an costs and the financial
responsibility of the jurisdictional agencies involved.
Chairman Kindig invited the nE:piicants to comment.
Mr. Oscar Person, owner of the subject property, declared that because
there are many agencies involved, and financing will be complicated,
construction could be delayed for some tine, depriving him, in the r.ean-
tune, of his rights to irtirrove the property.
;'tr. Person reported that Burlingame Shore Land Company, together with
representatives of Pacific Air Commerce Center, the Keyston interests,
and another property owner have had a series of meetings to discuss a
planned development of their respective properties between Peninsula
Avenue and the Burlingame%Ifillbrae city limits; he stated that there is
general dissatisfaction among; these people with the proposed overpass
scheme and that other methods have been explored for resolving the
traffic situation.
Mr. person requested that the Commission continue the present hearing
for one month to allow time for a revised proposal.
There were no protests from the audience and on a motion introduced by
Commissioner `!orberg, seconded by Con{rlissioner Cistulli and unanimously
carried, the hearing was declared continued to the meeting of "lay 23,1966.
ADJOURNMM
The meeting; was adjourned at 9:40 p,,m., to he followed by the study meet-
ing regularly scheduled for this elate.
Pespectfully submitted,
John J. Byauner, Secretary
4d
P17CFSS
The Chair declared arecess at 3:4[) p.m�
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Kindig; called the study neeti-ng to order at Ir pm.
FOR STUDY:
1. Real Estate Sign. Apartment Clouse, I:1 Camino Veal.
A letter dated April 4, 1966, from Pansk, Inc., 724 laurel avenue, San
:Mateo, requested a variance to place a sign 32 square feet in area offer-
ing apartments for rent at the site of a recently corpleted apartment
building, 821 Ill Camino Real.
The City Planner explained that such signs are permitted by code but
limited to a maximum of six square feet in area; lie advised that the appli-
cation to the Commission resulted after he and the Building Inspector
informed the applicants that the sign was illegal and there was no basis
for a variance.
Following a reference to conditions requisite to variance grants, Chair-
man Kindig informed the applicant's representative that the request
failed to rieet code requirements and the variance was not legally possible,
?� Resubdivision. Acreage. La tlesa Drive.
H resubdivision map of the property or "?r. L'dward R. Johnston, 1536 La A'esa
Drive, prepared by Cloward C. hickey, Civil lingineer, was submitted to the
Commission at the meeting of February 14, 1966, and continued to the present
date for further study.
The City Planner recalled that there were some Problems in connection with
street frontage and the use of the area proposed by giro Johnston for access
into the property and the matter was referred to the City Attorney.
A letter dated April 11, 1966, addressed to the I'lanning Commission from
the City Attorney, advised that the property over which '±r. Johnston
contemplates access to certain of the lots proposed to be resubdivided is
unimproved as a city street but was granted to the City of Burlingame by
Panama Realty Company in 1952 "for the use of the general public forever".
The communication stated that there is a question whether the city holds a
title which may be conveyed to a private owner and recorimended, if the
Commission agrees to the proposed resubdivision, that approval he made
subject to the following;:
1. Fee title, without limitation, be acquired by the city by quit-
claim Geed from the present owners of record, without compensation;
2. The City Council determine the pYOPerty is not: required for a
public street, presently or prospectively;
3. To avoid the constitutional prohibition against gifts, of Public
Property, the real property he sold to R!r. Johnston, for an amount
having* a reasonable relation to its value;
4. In the conveyance to `tr. .Johnston, the city reserve easements for
ingress and egress, sanitary sewer and storm drain.
hero Johnston stated that he intends to install all of the necessary improve-
-5-
❑cents, including the storm drain, pavement, and will Maintain but would
_._p refer not to become the owner, pointing; out that the property was a -
art of the original grant to the city and it would not appear reasonable
hat he should be required to purchase land deeded for street purposes.
The City Planner stated that the area which was never improved and where
4r. Johnston proposes to construct the driveway to serve the new lots
is not wide enough to build a street since there is only one-half of a
right-of-way; the balance was sold to a private property owner on the
westerly side a number of years ago. Ile stated that if the City Attorney's
method is followed and "1r. Johnston takes ownership .and constructs the
driveway, this will be the same as any other private driveway; fee title
will not be in the city but the city will become a part owner to assure
that the driveway will not disappear.
The City Engineer reported that with the exception of a few minor details,
the utility and engineering probiltrns have been resolved.
The application was scheduled for public hearing on April 250
3. Reclassification R-4 to C-2 Bayswater and iiigblarid Avenue.
An application filed by Jones -"into Ford Sales, 101 California Drive,
requested a reclassification from P-4 (Fourth Residential) to C-2
(Service Business) Pistrict of two adjoining parcels at Bayswater and
Highland Avenues: SO by 100 feet on the southeasterly corner and SO
y 100 feet easterly on Bayswater .Avenue, portions of Lot 6, Block 13
`own of Burlingame Subdivision.
A letter from the applicant dated April 7, 1966, advised that there is
an immediate need for an are. to park service anti customer vehicles to
alleviate parkin; that now exists on the street; it is intended that
the property shall be used for Parking, initislIv; eventually, a com-
plete service facility will be installed.
The City Planner advised that at one time the entire block was zoned
C-2 but was not used as such; a few years ago, some of the property owners
on highland Avenue petitioned for R-4 and there Ij.is Deep ene neu allart-
vent building since then.
Mr. James Minto discussed parking problems in connection with the body
shop operation at California Drive and Bayswater Avenue, stating that
the need is urgent for additional off-street parking.
A public hearing was scheduled for April 2S.
4. Variances for Apartment Construction, 212 Anita Road.
An application filets by Joseph and Gladys E. Arnaudo, 1004 North Humboldt
Street, San Mateo, requested variances to legalize an existing building
without side or rear yards and to pErmit a second apartment building on the
front of the lot at 212 Anita Road, a portion of Block 22, Lyon $ Hoag
ubdivision.
The City Planner advised that the existing building was moved to the
property from another location, was placed on the property line at the rear,
with clearance of approximately six (6) inches on the two sides; there are
-6-
two stories above ground level garages.
i'lans for a new eight (8) unit building; at the front of the lot indicated
lot area, 10,125 square feet; lot coverage, approximately 50t; open
space between the proposed and the existing building , approximately 24 feet -
the minimuri standard for automobile maneuverability; 14 parking spaces for
11 units; two of the spaces were less than 9 feet wide, the legal minimum.
A suggestion was made to the applicants to reduce the driveway width in
order to provide more landscaping.
The application was scheduled for public hearing on April 25.
S. Variance for Accessory Structure Attached To Main Dwelling.
An application filed by P.A..DeCenzie, 2917 Ifariposa P rive (Lot 37, Block
46, Mills Estate No. 19) requested a variance to allow a windbreak and
patio cover to he attached to the eave of the house, rather than detached
by four feet.
A communication fron the applicant dated April 6, 1966, stated that because
of the shape of the lot, and to provide a suitable win(IU)reak and privacy
to the pool area, the structure was continued from an existing retainins.
wall on the west side of the property. The communication advised that
there is insufficient usable patio area between the {pool and the retaining
wall to relocate the structure; detaching from the house would lessen the
effectiveness of a windbreak and decrease the privacy value.
The City Planner advised that legally any construction which is a secondary
building on the lot rlust be detached from the principal building by a
space of at least four feet; the basic purpose is to allow sufficient open
space for fire safety.
{r. Tom "Jartin, Bel -Air Outdoor Products, the contractor, accepted responsi-
bility for the construction at variance with the city°s requirements.
A public hearing was scheduled for April 25.
6. Variances for Retirement Residence, Alger Road.
Representatives of The Lesley Foundation - *Ir. A.J. t atson, "Ir. Morris,
attorney, and ?Ir. Zah m, architect, were in attendance to discuss a pro-
posed "Castle Towers Retirement Residence" and the variances involved to
permit construction on a large parcel of property on Almer Road.
The Commission was advised that the site consists of four parcels having
a total area of 48,600 square feet; a 12 to 14 story building, 112 .feet in
height, is contemplated; zoning - R-3.
Following comments from °Ir. Watson concerning the community's need for such
a facility, Commissioners decided to hold the matter to the May study meet-
ing to allow the architect time to prepare detailed E1-aw
REPORTS
Copies of the City Improvenent Committee Final Reports and the �-Iatioral
Recreation and Park- association Study were distributed.
ADJOURNMENT
r,e meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m� Respectfully submitted,
-7- John J. Brauner, Secretary