Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1959.12.18Burlingame, California December 18, 1959 CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Burlingame City Planning Commission was held on the above given date. Meeting called to order at 8:15 p.m., - Chairman Kindig in the Chair. ROLL CALL Present - Commissioners: Diederichsen-Henderson-Kindig-Moore Norberg-Stivers Absent - Commissioners: Martin The Chair announced the illness of Commissioner Martin. Others Present: City Attorney Karmel, City Engineer Marr, Planning Consultant Mann PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO EXCEED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATION (Arc Way and E1 Camino Real) Chairman Kindig announced that this was the time and the place scheduled by the Planning Commission and in conformance with published notice, to conduct a public hearing on a variance to construct an apartment house on Are Way and E1 Camino Real, in the City of Burlingame, in excess of the height limitation as provided in the zoning ordinance. The Chairman further announced that the two applications submitted, one dated September 14, 1959, from E. Eugene Umland, 1515 Are Way, the opptionee, and the second, dated November 24, 1959, from Merton A. Yolles, 880 Longview Road, Hillsborough, the owner, would be combined into one hearing. Reference was made by the Chair to a brochure, prepared by Mr. E. Eugene Umland, copies of which were submitted to members of the Planning Commission, Monday, December 14, 1959. James W. Hally, Attorney, representing the Suburban Protective Associa- tion, and opponents to the proposed variance, commented on the brochure, stating that a Planning Commission (or a Council) serving in a "quasi - Judicial" capacity is compelled by law to conform to the legal rules of evidence that apply, bypermitting objections and cross examination. A quotation from a rd eent ruling rendered by the California Supreme Court illustrated the point.made by Mr. Hally. Mr.Hally advised that a copy of the brochure was presented to him only upon his request prior to the opening of the public hearing and at this time, he would enter his objection to the reception of the document. In farther corm-fient, Mr, Hal.l.y directed attention to the. dif evenc© in the two applications, stating that the lots so stipulated on the respective applications are not identical and a determination must be made upon which application to proceed. Chairman Kind.ig advised that, a. public hearing on this occasion was scheduled for the express purpose of hearing now ev:3 denoe and a decision of the -Commission would be rendered on that bads; that the application requests the right .to exceed the height limitation in the erection of an apartment '.souse on R-3 zoned Lots 1, 2a 3, 4,, designated as 15010 1509 and 1515 Are Way, and, that both proponents and opponents shall be given an opportunity to be heard, with instructions that comments be relative to the issue. In response to the Chair's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that an examination of the map of the area indicates that a portion of one lot crosses minutely into another, explaining the difference in the lot designation appearing on the applications for a variance. The City Attorney advised that the second application takes this into account and legally, no difficulty is anticipated. Following the announcement by the Chair concerning the procedure to be applied in conducting the public hearing, the applicant was invited to present his evidence at this time, Henry B. Nathan, Attorney, representing 14P..Merton A. Yolles, owner of record of the real property in question, addressed the Commission, advising that photographs and letters were being re -submitted as the applicants' evidence as follows: Applicants' Exhibit No. 1 - A photograph, taken by a professional photographer, FrIday9 0ctober 30, 1a599 to illustrate the congested, one-way traffic condition existing on Are Way, at 2 P.M., and an affidavit of the photographer; A licants' Exhibit No. 2 w A scale model of the proposed ten story apartment house on Are Way and EI..Camino Beal; A licants' Exhibit -No. 3 - A coPy of a communication, dated July 1, 19599 from the City of Burlingame, bearing the signature of A. M. Rebarchiek, Assistant City Engineer, to Mr. E. Eugene Umland, 1515 Are way, Burlingame. California, the optionee, pertaining to an estimate of cost to install a combined fire protection and domestic water service; Applicants' Exhibit No. 4 - A copy of a letter from Willis S. Clayton,Jr. R. ., dated November 21, 1959m stating his opinion relative to land values in the case of a fouroetorry frame and stucco building versus a ten story concrete and steel improvement. 2 s E o a objec Qd to t'["ae x �f_C?El i3 ii 2e _1' Z+t`� ° c (,C'i._.s:,➢..t.1_ Oil s -at.` ng d,hat the evidence p-rs ,ented ... `� �ea7z s ; �t 1_d? iGC c.�iC i>:i3dl.r:G� to the opponents the r1llg+ht 2 ' cross The City Attorney, through inquiries directed to him by the Chair, advised that legally Tyr.. Ha € ly a s s taternent was correct* hou*ever, hearsay evidence may be adrilttod provided it substantiates other relative evidence. Itwas the recomwndation of the City Attorney th4t Applicants t E hj bit Hjo�, h t sdmitt:'l in e vi-d€ nco, Prior to the admission of farther evidence Mr. sully requested the privilege of entering a "blanket objection to all communications thai-- may be introduced into evidence and read frora those not in attov.d.ance,, stipulating that such evidence is incampetent,, l.frdrria*`.ev.,1 al and, irrelevant. Mr. 1-lathan expressed no opposition to the objection, stating that the issue is a technical one and if the Commission so desires, professionals may be invited to appear at a continued meeting scheduled in the near future. Applicants' Exhibit No. 5. A communication from the Better Burlingame ssociation, dated November 30, 1959s bearing the signature of Edward R. Martin, President, stating that the property owners in the Burlingame Avenue Shopping District favor the proposed construction of the ten story apartment building. A licants' Exhibit No. 6. A communication from Davis & Clifton, Realtors, 9 ark Road, rlingadne, dated November 5, 1959s stating their approval.. Applicants' Exhibit No. ?e A communication from the Town and Country eal Estate, data ecember 4, 1959, expressing its approval. James A. Mitchell, Architect, was introduced by Mr. Nathan and subsequent to questions directed to him by Mr. Lathan, concerning his qualifica- tions and experience, Mr. Mitch.61_l descri-ibed in some detail, tha proposed type of constructions the materials to be used in the construc- tion, the number of rooms proposed:and the rear, side and front setbacks. Mr. Mitchell advised that a second building proposed as an alternate should the variance be denied, aaould cover approximately 65 percen'�- of the land area in comparison to 38 8% of the land area of the proposed ten story apartment.. Applicants-1 Exhibit No. 8, depicting Scheme "A" proposing a lot coverage of 38,1359 eight floors and ;penthouse, fifty units, one floor and basement parking and a height not over 115 feet and Scheme "B", proposing a lot coverage of 65,o,: four floors and basement, 48 units, and a height not over 55 feet, was introduced in evidence. Upon advice from the City Attorney that an Interrogation of a "witness" Is proper at the time evidence is submitted, Br. Bally was permitted to d Irect a number of inquiries to the architect, regarding the square footage proposed for both structures, the parking facilities proposed, the plans for the widening of Are day, including the installation of and paving of curbs and gutters. Mr, Mitchell responded to each inquiry. —3B M In a summation of evidence., Mr. Nathan discussed the conditions which,, in the opinion of the proponents, meet the requirements and Justify the granting of a variance: A Tonal or extraordinamv circumstances or conditi appU &enerall-v to the property or class of uses in the District, a dental of the application would result in undue property loss. The applicants submitted that conditions relating to the area commonly known as 1501, 1509 and 1515 Are Way, Burlingame, California, which do not apply generally,to other properties in the District are: 1. The property faces El Camino Realm Other properties in the area are back of El Camino Real, appropriate to homes and not for a luxury type of apartment house; 2, Applicants' property consists of three contiguous parcels, representing a site large enough for a luxury apartment; 3, The property is available for the construction of a luxury apartment house, while others in the area are built upon or occupy too small an area; and 4. Applicants' propose to Widen Are way to permit two-way traffIa. Conditions submitted that appear applicable to the intended use of the property: 1. Applicants' property is currently zoned R-3; 2. Because of its area and location, the property can be used for a luxury community or rental apartment house; 3. The proposed apartment house will appeal to the Burlingame executive or to the retired BurlinMme resident. The property loss that would inure if said application is denied, alleged as follows: 1. The land becomes more valuable by virtue of the value of the improvements thereon. If the application were denied, the value of land would diminish; 2, Income from the contemplated type apartment will be greater than that from the inexpensive type and if application is denied, the anticipated income will be diminished; 3. The placing together of adjacent parcels of land renders the combined area more valuable and if denied, may result in a financial loss to the applicants; 4 4o If denied the application, the expense bonne by the. applicants for architectural words Mould be lost. B Such variance would be necessa for the preservation and en.oyMnt of a property right of the owner of the property. Applicants submitted that to improve the land and attract the highest type of patronage is their property right and contended that building a luxury apartment house is inherent in the American tradition of free business enterprises. C the variance will not be materiall detrimental to the afety or welfare or Injurious to the property or other DroDerty owners. or the quiet enloyment of such or imDrovemen�us. The applicants contended that the granting of the variance would not create detrimental affects but would provide certain beneficial effects on surrounding properties as follows: (a) Widening of Are Way to result in greater traffic safety; (b) Said widening shall result in greater fire protection; (c) Building of a climate -controlled apartment will contribute to the health of its occupants; (d) The contemplated structure proposes the housing of 18 families on the Are Way side in comparison to 20 families if a four story structure is erected; (e) The proposed structure would be approximately thirty feet farther away from the neighboring buildings than a four story building; (f) The light and shadow studies indicate a fifty degree obstruction of view as.compared with an eight degree obstruction of view by a four story standard structure; (g) As indicated in a le tter from Millis S. Clayton, Jr., real estate appraiser,.. the widening of Are Way will have a beneficial effect upon adjacent properties; and, (h) As noted in a letter from the Better Burlingame Association, the addition of the proposed apartment will benefit the entire community. D ting of -the variance will not ng plan of the , ity. -5 of fec i Applicants advised that they have pr-doeeeded und_;aI Divisio-n 8, Scctien. 1944 of the Cit'Y's Ordinance Code, in which it is stipulated tb-at a "variance may be p7ant` d v including size of bul lding 3 ov.-n l i*fui t "wi; lons,, as to height and. as ea. There b ei.ng no further evidence submitted by the proponents at this tune, the Chair invited cominents from Mr. Hally; representing the opponents. Mr. rally stated that in his opinion, the evidence presented by the applicants was insuffielent to justify the granting of a variance and suggested that the'hearing be terminated on that basis. An informal poll of the Commission resulted in a ruling by the Chair that the hearing be continued by the presentation of evidence by the opponents. Mr. Hally invit®d the following to speak in opposition to the prpposed construction of the apartment house: R. T. Perry, President, Burlingables-Oak Grove Manor Improvement Club, read a communication from that organizations dated December 18', 1959s, strongly urging the disapproval of the requested variance and stating that the "skyscraper11 apartment would be detrimental to the best Interests of the City of Burlingame and contrary to both the City's zoning ordinances and good city planning. Dr. William Wards President, Burlingame Park Improvement Club, directed attention to a letter forwarded previously by that organization to the Planning Commission, entering an objection to the proposed erection of the apartment house. Mrs. D. L. Warner, Secretary, Ray Park Improvement Club, speaking in behalf of the Improvement Club, stated that an over four story building should not be -permitted without due consideration for all concerned and urged that the application be denied. Mr. Fred Lehman, President of the Intercity Council of Improvement Clubs, stated that the proposed construction will violate the comprehensive zoning plan of the City and tend to create a precedent. Mr. Howard Wdkinson, 1544 Bernal Avenues Mr. Clarence Busch of the Broadway Merchants ',As' Mr, Robert Meyer, President of the Suburban Protective Association, Mrs. Harriet Peters, 1508 Are Way, Mr. Ed Montgomery,'104 Occidental Avenue, Mr. Jack Edwards, 1429 Palm Drive, Mr. Harry Stevens, 839 Walnut Avenue and Mr. Warner Anderson, representing the Burlingame Village Improvement Club, each voiced their objection, basing said objection on the points of parking and traffic hazards, invasion of privacy of property and that the evidence presented by the proponents does not meet the requirements of a variance 49 s tipulated in the oning ordinance. RED A moose was declared by the Chair at 10:30 p.m. 6 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was again called to order by Chairman K Lndig at 10:40 p,m, Mr. Lathan, Attorney for the applicants, requested and was granted permission to submit additional evidence. Applicants' Exhibit No. 11. Shadow studies prepared by the architect, James H. Mitchell, were submitted in evidence, illustrating a comparison of shadows cast by the ten story structure and the four Cory structure at 10 A. M. in March. June, September and Decembesn In his explanation of the foregoing,, Mr. Mitchell stated that any one of the trees on EI Camino 'deal are relatively the same height, casting identical shadows as a building. Mr. Rally invited Mr. William Beckett, owner of an apartment house at 827 E1 Camino Real to present evidence from the opponents at this time, Mr. Beckett submitted photographs taken from the fourth and the tenth floor of the De Sabla Apartments in the City of San Mateo, illustrating a comparative view from that height. Mr. Beckett stated that if a variance is permitted, others will follow and in his opinion, the value of apartments constructed in conformance with the zoning law would decrease. Mr. Nathan's objection to the display of the foregoing photographs was overruled by the Chair upon advice of the City Attorney. Mr. Nathan thereupon submitted Applicants' Exhibit No. 12 - "View Obstruction" studies prepared by the architect to illustrate a slight difference in the obstruction of the view created by the ten story building (Scheme A) in comparison with the four story building (Scheme B). Mr,. James Carroll, 848 Walnut Avenue, displayed a model proportionately scaled to illustrate the height of the proposed construction in relation to the height of the Eucalyptus frees and the surrounding properties. Mr. Robert Meyer stated that the property owners currently residing on Are Way experience difficulty turning into the street and the "indented" parking sstiuip as proposed by the applicants, will not alleviate the hazard of traffic problems. Mr. Rally advised that he, personally, had refrained from speaking in order that the Commission may hear a "cross-section" opinion of the Cityls residents. He continued by stating that the City has a -well-planned, modern law; that it is easily read and understood and while on occasion a variance may be appropriate, generally, a variance is not a "way to rebuild a city." Mr. Rally urged the Commission to heed the wishes of the community. In commenting on the evidence presented by the proponents, Mr. Hally stated that the record is devoid of evidence to justify the granting of a variance, that the law is "rather plain that a hardship is not a hardship if self-imposed;" and that "financial or pecuniary loss" is not basis for the granting of a variance. 7 Mr. Hally., in conclusion, •esubmitted into ovis c�-:cc p WOtoo T hS indicating the nature of the district and i.11us slating the height of the proposed construction in relation to the suppoiAndpope:rties and a. property Indenture entered into March "1, 1910, =h.e eein� the property owner is obligated not to "conduct or c€zrrd- rt at or on said premises any factory., mane -factory, business, trade or occupation, which shall, can or may be in anywise offensive to the to ighboring inhabitants. It In response to the Chair's invitation, Commissioner Diederichsen questioned Mr. Hally whether he was opposed to variances. I1L". Hally replied that he was cognizant that they are an essential part of the law; however, he was opposed on occasion to the manner in which they were granted. In reply to Commissioner Diederichsen's further inquiries concerning "turn -over in rentals of a four story structure in relation to others on El Camino Peal.", the cost of a ten story structure in comparison with a four story structure and how much of the proposed structure would be utilized for parking facilities within the building, Mr. Umland, the optionee, advised that the proposed ten story structure will be a cooperative apartment house project wherein the turn -over would be nil" that the difference in cost would approximate a "four to one" ratio, the ten story structure will provide spaces for fifty- two cars within the building and from its terminus on El Camino Real, Arc Way will be widened an additional sixteen feet. Commissioner Henderson expressed his interest in the announcement by Mr. Umland that the structure would be a cooperative community apartment house, stating that the proposal.has not been projected into the discussion heretofore. Mr. UmlandD in reply, advised that it is proposed to "cater" to executives and retired persons whereby a person may purchase a share of stock in the corporation, entitling them to occupancy and there- after to assume a proportionate share of the expenses. Mr. Umland stated that the proposed plan has proven satisfactory in other localities. Commissioner Henderson expressed his disapproval to the proposed plan. Coirsmissioner Norbgrg questioned Mr.. Mitchell, the architect, whether there would be a different type of construction for the alternately proposed four story building. Mr,.Mitchell replied affirmatively, stating that the ten story building would be a steel frame, fire proof construction, Commissioner Moore questioned Mr. Umland whether he would construct the four story building should_ his application for a variance be denied and to which Inquiry Mir, Umland stated his inability to answer at this time, 8 - Mrs. Harriet Peters, 1508 Am Way, objected to what appeased to be, in her opinion, a g tb_reat" by the applicants as t o `?what they will coystru.ct, if not perm.: tted a variance." Mrs. Clarence Rusch, 1384 Hillside Circle, urged that the Commission, in its consideration, uphold the z oning laws of the City by denying the variance. The wearing was thereafter concluded and the Chair requested the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Stivers moved that the application for a variance to permit the construction of a building in excess of the height limita- tion as stipulated in the Cityts zoning ordinance be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Henderson. Following a brief discussion on the question, a roll call vote was called and the result announced as follows: Ayes: Commissioners: Henderson- Kindig-Stivers Noes: Commissioners: Diederichsen-Moore-Worberg Absent Commissioners: Martin Acting upon the advice of the City Attorney, Chairman Kindi.g declared the hearing and the presentation of evidence concluded and thereafter the City's staff was instructed to prepare alternate summaries of findings for presentation at an adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission, January 11, 1959. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was thereafter regularly adjourned at 11:55 p.m. on motion of Commissioner Henderson, seconded by Commissioner Diederichsen, and continued until the presentation of summaries of findings, January 110 1959, 8 o'clock, P.M. Respectfully submitted, D. A. Stivera, Secretary /ELA