HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1967.05.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
May 22, 1967
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Brauner Edwards City Attorney Karmal
Cistulli City Planner Mann
Kindig City Engineer Marr
Mink Councilman Johnson
Norberg
Pierce
CALL TO ORDER
The regular monthly meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was
called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Pierce Presiding,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Chairman Pierce acknowledged the presence of Councilman Johnson,
accompanied by her husband, Mr. William Johnson; also a group of visiting
students from Mills High School
ROLL CALL
The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll call. Commissioner
Edwards, absent from the city on business, was excused.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meetings of April 24 and May 8, 1967, previously sub-
mitted to members, were approved and adopted.
HEARINGS
Pursuant to public notice, hearings. proceeded as follows:
1. VARIANCE TO OPERATE BOARDING HOME FOR THE AGED (continued),
Chairman Piece announced a continued hearing from the meeting of
April 24, 1967 can the application of Mrs. Nancy Lazar, 922 Ca:puchino Avenue,
for a variance: to operate a boarding home for six elderly persons in a
single-family residence at 900 El Camino Real - Zone: R-3.
In response to the Chair's request to review proceedings to date, the City
Planner explained that inspection reports read at the .last meeting from
the City Fire Inspector and the: Housing Sanitarian, San Mateo County,
rr_t .,d the bey= flding;, in its present condition, inadequate for the number car
persons proposed to be housed by the applrc.ant, and it was the conclusion.
Oil t-he Coun.1ty ager°ccy that gtx ee is in. residence be limited to three (3)
plus the reces��ary attendant; Mrs. Bazar indicated she would be unable
to operate pi• : Stably on that basis and, at ror request, a continuance; was
r a n •E. e,. di p
The City Pla it.rse r reported that Mrs. Lazar has been conferring with Wi 1-d-
ing contractor in an attempt to make structural changes to satisfy the
e t s � ::. <i F.. c y- 5 e .v --. .. a' .:s,
r c _ fo ving a ee or --ore then, three persons,,
ti
Chairman Pierce recognized airs, Lazar who requested pa delay to the follow-
ing meeting.
�l Commissioners indicating concurrence, Chairman Pierce declared the hearing
continued to the regular sleeting of June 26, 1967.
L. VARIANCE TO CONTINUE NONCONFORMING APARTMENT BUILDING IN R-1 DISTRICT
DENIED.
Chairman Pierce announced a continued hearing, from the meeting of
April 24, 1967, on the application for variance: filed by United California
Bank as Executor for the Estate of Christine Baker to apply "apartment
zoning, R-3" to first -residential property at 1516 Ralston Avenue - Lot 9,
Block 3, Burlingame Park Subdivision No, 2; improvements existing
apartment structure consisting of 11 units.
received
The Secretary reported no communications since the previous meetings
Chairman Pierce recognized Mr. James R. Tormey, Jr., Attorney for the
+applicant.
Mr. Torney referred to material filed with the Commission at the onset of
the pre s_e nt meeting, including building floor plans (first and second
stories), a list of proposed structural corrections,and improvements to
be; --made to increase off-street parking; he stated that the Executor, acting
in good faith, is attempting to comply with building and health and safety
codes, thereby restoring the physical condition of the property to that
existing prior to the litigation "City of Burlingame vs. Christine Baker",
occurring in 19S3.
The City Manner, in response to the Chair, advised that problems in the
property are manifold, he discussed Zonipl- ;< llegal conversion of a
single-family residence to multiple use, no veriances applied f`or nor
granted: Buildin - construction continued over a period of years
expanding t�gal use, without bea-efit of building permits or inspec-
tions* State Housing Code - improper fire escapes, ceiling heights,
venting, and
Commenting.that health and safety deficiencies can be eliminated, the City
Planner pointed out that in the absence of nbrma3 inspections by a build-
ing official there is no .say of reckoning the extent of hidden violations,
the condition of the electrical wiring, as an example, He stated that
the zoning violations - apartment use of R-1 property, two residential
buildings on one lot, insufficient garages are real and apparent and
cannot be overlooked.
The City Planner questioned the validity of Mr. Torrey's argument that
Only by continuing the apartment use can the best interests of the
prosent owners, the bears of Mrs. Baker, be served. He stated that the
owner enjoyed a spacial privilege of financial gain over a period of
years, to whi-wh other property owners similarly situated were barred, and
that approval of the var-ance will have the effect of allowing a wholly
i.l agal b i oding, to continue,
Re Ferring to the matter of zoning, Mr. Tormey declared that the City, in a
sanse, encouraged an illegal situation to develop in ignoring the con-
dition of the property, failing to restrain the owner from- proceeding with
improper construction or by enforcin� the injunction,
.,a. i ' b%::i•S� zg � �yAe :end .e act in Tespo ase to the Chair's inquiry,
During a. period of Commission discussion, therm were comments on the
proposed structural improvements, with members indicating that such matters
1 were secondary, that the Commission should concern itself with approval
or disapproval of a variance for multiple use of a first residential
property.
Cc=m&issioner Brauner referred to code conditions requisite to variance
grants, requesting !fir, 'Tormey to relate the application to such con-
ditions.
Vitro Tormey submitted that approval will not adversely affect the compre-
hensive zoning plan of the city as there are evidences of gradual change
in the character of the neighborhood; construction of a city parking lot,
ane lot removed from the subject property, exemplifies an intrusion into
-art area once considered primarily first residential; he stated that
denial will create a hardship to the heirs through deprivation of a
property value created by Mrso Baker; that there is no doubt that the
owner was in error but the City condoned the error.
Commissioner Brauner stated that it is a matter of record that city and
County officials, attempting to inspect the property, were denied access
and that failure to initiate action to destroy the property of an
elderly person should hardly be considered condonation.
Mr. 'Tormey discussed financial wardship stating that the Executor. in
attempting to fulfill an obligation to the heirs by realizing the maximum
profit from the property, proposes building and health and safety correc-
tions, and to preserve the existing use through than variance procedure.
He stated that the alternatives would be to sell as a single-family
dwelling, thereby penalizing the heirs' interests, or t6 retain the
property and petition for a rezoning with other owners in the area.
in response to Commissioner Kindig's request for clarification on the
current status of the injunction secured by the city in 1953, the City
Attorney explained that regardless of hove the property were to be sold,
first -residential or otherwise, the brayer will be oblig&ted to conform
-1-c existing ordinances; furthermore, a purchaser cannot be substituted
In the prior legal action.
In further comment, the City Attorney pointed out that if the property
were to be appraised :in the estate by an inheritance tax appi.-A5er, in
possessioi of all of the facts there would be a true appraisal of an
k-1 property, and that it is questionable that the Executor would be
subject to criticism by the heirs if he found it convenient to sell
within the appraisal and under an order confirming sale of property
which must be obtained from the court.
The City Attorney stated that tehateveR the Executor may consider are
obl<gation to the heirs is his responsibility, not the city's,a.nd that
_ht Commission, therefore, should dis-regard any such arguments.
C r. #=ing a period of Commission cou:� 3� � iha.irman Pierce declared the
e
=ra �.tt oduced Commi s:a_orvs r Cf_st ' li to den -he application
P F" of failure to sat � sfy code regq� rements for variance
t .. zt.ionn seconded a ;r Branner and carried unanimously
.._ �. r ._._ .! "Corm issioner Edwards abrIent `,
,lx a m.?as advised of the. bight Lai �:pe€al to to City Council,
3
3. SIGN VARIANCE SAN MATEO COUNTY HEART ASSOCIATION APPROVED.
Chairman Pierce announced a public hearing on the application of San
1 Mateo County Heart Association for a variance from the provisions of
the Sign Ordinance to permit three wall signs on the office building
located at lOO El Camino Real, bounded by Primrose Road and Bayswater
Avenue.
The applicant's communication dated April 24, 1967, signed by Marren H.
Braden, Executive Director, advised that a lease is being negotiated
for the office space in a single -story building at the El Camino Real
location; identification signs, cut to the outline of the hurt and
torch and measuring four feet in height and three feet in width will
be placed above the building entrances at E1 Camino Real and Bayswater
Avenue, the third sign to be mounted aid -point on the Primrose Road wall;
. each sign to be floodlighted with a single ISO watt bulb.
A drawing.accompanying the communication showed sign design and pro-
posed locations on the building.
The City 1lanner, in reply to Chairman Pierce, explained that because
Of the triangular shape of the property d virtually impossible for
apartment construction a a variance was approved several years ago
for a commercial building; however, the R-3 zoning remains unchanged,
reqt; ,ring the Commission's approval of a variance for any signs.
Mr. James R. Tormey, dr., Attorney, and member of the Board of Directors
of the Heart Association, represented the applicant.
Commissioner Mink announced that as a member of the Board of Directors
of the Heart Association he will not participate in the discussion nor
vote.
In reply to Commissioner Kindig's inquiry on the type of lighting pro-
posed by the applicant, the City Planner reported that staff members
will insure proper. lighting, deflected away from the traffic.
There were no comments from the audience, favoring or protesting the
variance.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Kindig, seconded by Commissioner
Cistulli and carried unanimously on roll call approved the application
in accordance with the applicant's communication of April 24, 1967
and drawing attached. `Commissioner Mink abstained, Commissioner Edwards
absent).
4. SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED FOR KITCHEN IN COCKTAIL LOUNGE.
Chairman Pierce announced a public hearing on the application of Con-
solidated General Corporation, 1310 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, for
a Special Permit to add a kitchen to an existing cocktail lounge at
1300 Bayshore Highway.
A letter dated April 26, 1967, from Mike Kourkoutakis, 500 B Street,
San Mateo, advised that the writer recently purchased all outstanding
stock of Consolidated General Corporation, present operator's of the
cocktail loTunge; that extensive remodeling is contemplated a.nd, with the
addition of a kitchen, to offer a limited menu and cocktail operation
with nightly entertainment.
e4p
Mr,, William A. Hotmann, Certified Public Accountant, 1310 Bayshore
Highway, represented the applicant.
Mr. Hotmann advised that the former stockholders of Consolidated
General Corporation operated the cocktail lounge for one year, that
Mr. Kourkoutakis intends to install a very fine kitchen facility to
serve a limited but excellent menu, including lunch, dinner, and into
the evening,
Mr. Hotmann stated that the cocktail lounge, located in the Hyatt
Cinema Theatre building, has been in existence for some time.
In reply to Commission inquiry concerning off-street parking, the City
Planner advised that a parking layout furnished by the applicant meets
code requirements.
The Chair invited comments from the audience.
Mr. John Chaney, 2827 Arguello Drive, requested information on the
type of entertainment proposed.
Mr. Hotmann replied that there will be dinner dancing and Greek musical
selections.
The City Planner, in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that the use
qualifies as a retail business in an M-1 District requiring approval of
a Special Permit.
On a motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner
Mink and carried unanimously on roll call (Commissioner Edwards absent)
the application was approved,
RECESS
The Chair declared a recess at 9:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
HEARINGS (continued)
S. TENTATIVE MAP: MILLS ESTATE NO. 27,
Chairman Pierce announced that the Planning Commission has been requested
by the City Council to review an Amended Tentative Map of the proposed
subdivision Mills Estate No, 27.
A communication dated March 13, 1967, addressed to the City Council from
the law offices of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson y Horn, 216 Park
Road, Burlingame, signed by Robert J. MacDonald, advised that the
property owners, Fran -Snook -Gard Corporation, have been unable to comply
fully with the conditions required by the Council when the subdivision
map was approved in May, 1966, and petition.,.. for a rehearing,
The City Planner, at the Chairs request, advised that one of the con-
ditions imposed by the Council limited the number of lots to 10--the
subdividers are resubmitting on the basis of a "14 Lot Layout.'
050
•The C-ity Planner referred Commissioners to the right-hand side of the
map where, under a heading "Motes",, all other conditions imposed by
the Countil were accepted and made a part of the tentative map. He
} stated that with respect to the number of lots the map remains unchanged
from the original presentation.
Chai.rmaR pierce recognized Mr. Robert j. MacDonald, Attorney represent-
ing the property owners.
re ter
MyMacDon?a16 advised that. the owners believe the, aim er of lots can
be justified since there i.Z compliance with lot limitations and lot
Taquirements provided by code, He mentioned that area per lot averages
10,500 square feet, with several of the lots 8400 square feet.
Mr, MacDonald stated that economic studies and engineering data verify
the subdi.vider•s position that it is economically impossible to properly
develop withi.nn. the 10 lot limitation. He quoted a dotal project cost,
based on 1965 figures, in excess of $213,000.00 for 14 lots. developed
at $152590.20[6 per lot; 13 lots, $16,800.00 per lot; 12 lots, $180000.00
plus, per lot-. and 10 lots, $22,000.00 aver lot,
In reply to Commission inquiry, Mr. MacDonald advised that the firm of
Wilsey A Hari- made the engineering studies
In response to an inquiry from the floor, Mr. MacDonald furnished a
breakdowns one the project cost as fol_iows: Land purchase, $75 600.00;
Engineering studies, $11.,SW O0F Taxes, $2,000.00; Interest,, f:S00000;
Legal services, $970.00; Engineer's estimate on improvements cost,
$98,000.00, including grading, pedestrian walks, retaining walls, and
others, he stated that the breakdown is not all-inclusive as there are
other costs not immediately available.
In response to the Chairs Inquiry, there were no comments from the floor
in favor of the subdivision as proposed.
Opponents were invited to speak.
10r, William 4;.aplan, 2701 Arguello Drive, Burlingame Mills Estate Improve-
ment Association President, discussed the excessive length and the narrow
width of the caul -de -sac, requiring consideration of two requests for
variance; fitness of the subdivision plan to surrounding, properties,
the question, of lot sixes and density one slope properties as compared to
level sites,
Mr. Caplan maintained that' a-gam:ents of economics should be disregarded.
that. 14 lots -i11 result in crowding of the Land, teat the view of
existing neighboring property owners will be obstructed and that the Ion,,,
narrow cu —da— 3ati raises Ile wu6sl—rO-a Eat traffic and safety rel-ui.remen;s
particularly since thexv appears tobeI YS.tl.b; i:! the street fi.,f-'ni"xg..$
::.aft=s., pa.1'mis VI s:3bi`'.ia .d::r.a a greater Fi9ssnboK Of bL>s1s1i1'dg ss'i.re`_r:.
�'5`' O9�It, :Ec c
itn.c� E '. ze Ik f y '>tds s.'S'FisEi1t„ relating to Iot site wand density ddep 7
di3sg
` h. 5?0, t: ef ;she land. ]ie -x-ead from material ftrrtl h' ad by the Clouity vf;..__..
ria1 S0:1-s 0i 'a dimenk-15 n's Of the proposed cul-do—sac with E-xistA-4.:,1%
streets In 't . ; atl*-,acant: Set .�.&, y; , tb t a h a
0
is proposed at 43 feet, with a street width, curb to curb, of 30 feet,
sidewalk on one side and parking prohibited on the opposite side;
}} throughout the entire Mills Estate area, the normal street width is
l 34 feet, right-of-way. 54 feet, with sidewalk on both sides.
Mrs. Marie M. Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive, protested that entrance to
the subdivision will be over a driveway, or streets immediately
adjacont to her property with resultant loss of privacy and potential
hazaaads generated by traffic from 14 residences travelling a single
access road.
Mrs. Teixeira referred to a letter filed with the Commission prior to the
meeting requesting consideration to as public access to the lower part
of the canyon for emergency vehicles and pedestrians, and construction of
drainage facilities to safeguard against erosion in the canyon.
A letter dated May 18, 1967, was read from Thomas A. Marshall,
2715 Martinez Drive, registering disapproval of the proposed
subdivision plan.
Mr. J.P. Chaney, 2827 Arguello Drive, stated that as a result of the
recent rains there are springs evident on the site and the ground is
soft. He referred to slippage occurring in the Mills Estate, mentioning
specific locations, and expressed concern that his property, bordering
the canyon, may be endangered if the slopes are disturbed. He mentioned
that a retaining wall at the rear of his property was loft without any
alteration of the slope.
€fro E.C. Minklein, speaking in behalf of his parents, owners of
281S Arguello Drive, concurred with Mr. Chaney, advising that a fire
path recently cleared by the city forces denuded the slope and that
slippage is evident.
Three phoXographs were filed, showing slide damage and evidences of
slides at the rear of Volk residences 2844 Rivera Drive, and Minklein
residence, 281E Arguello Drive.
In reply to Commission inquiry, the City Engineer advised that expert
soils engineering tests are required in all subdivisions, that the
results are accepted by the city and the subdividers held responsible
for compliance with the recommendations. He statod that at no time
does the city guarantee soil conditions on private property - its
responsibility is limited solely to maintaining streets and other improve-
ments dedicated to public use.
Dr. D.C. Lindsey, 281,11 Arguello Drive, reported that the rear yard slipped
a retaining waAl was lost and renewed slippage is evident.
Mrs. JpP. Chaney, 2827 Arguello Driven protested that their property will,
be sandwiched between two streets, with street lights at the front and
back, 2 situation which does not exist elsewhere in the city.
In reply to Commissioner Mink, Mr. MacDonald advised that the subdivision
map has been examined and approved by the city fire department.
Mr. Kinklain requested Commission consideration to preferably eight lots:,
and no more than 10, to eliminate potential traffic difficulties.
og�
a
Mr. MacDonald pointed out that the code provides for lots not less than
7000 square feet in area in the Mills Estate; lots in the proposed sub-
division are substantially in excess of the minimum size.
Mr. Caplan maintained that the Commission should consider the basic
principle that a slope lot is not the same as a flat lot and to be com-
parable in quality the slope lot must be considerably larger areawise.
In reply to an inquiry from the floor concerning code limitations on
cul-de-sates lengths, the City Planner reported_ 250 feet; he advised
there is no question but that the both ends of the cul-de-sac exceed
the legal maximum.
In reply to the Chair's request to comment on the narrowness and length
of the'`cut®de-sac, the City Engineer advised that in the Kenmar Terrace
and E1 Quanito Acres subdivisions there are existing cul-de-sacs con-
siderably longer than that proposed with houses on both sides and on -
street parking permitted on both sides, He stated that should the
30 feet width, curb to curb, be accepted parking would be prohibited on
the side where there are no homes.
The City Engineer pointed out that with a 30 feet wide street and parking
on one side there remains two 11 foot wide travel lanes; a standard
34 feet wide street; with parking on both sides provides two 9 foot
wide travel lanes.
In reply to a comment from Commissioner Kindig concerning the location of
the easement and sidewalk to the wildlife areas, at the end of the cul-
de-sac where the slope is quite steep, the City Engineer stated that the
map filed approximately one year ago showed the walk between Lots 6 and
7; there is a two to one slope at the location now proposed and the
walkway would be virtually impossible.
Pollowa:ng a period of Commission comment, the Chair declared the discussion
closed.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Draundr recommending to the City
Council ,; roval of the 'Tentative Map as submitted failed for lack of a
second.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulii recommending approval of
the Tentative Map with this number of lots limited to 12, and including
the eight items listed trader "Notes" and the item indicated "A",at the
right-hand side and the top of the map respectively, was seconded by
Commissioner Norberg and carried on the following roll call:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Czstulli, Mink, Norberg, Pierce
NOES: E:ommiSSIONERS: Brauner, Kindig
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Edwards
Commissioner Kindig stated tent he favored no nore than 10 lots.
In reply to the City Planner's suggestion for a futther recommendation
can the location of the pedestrian wall -way to the wildlife area,
Commissioners agreed that this item should be left to the Counc:il's
discretion.
-9-
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairman Pierce announced that nominations were in order for the
offices of Chairman, Vice -Chairman and Secretary.
CHAIRMAN
Commissioner Frank Cistulli was nominated by Commissioner Kindig,
seconded by Commissioner Norberg, and on a unanimous ballot elected
Chairman for the term of one year.
VICE -.CHAIRMAN
Commissioner Charles W. Mink was nominated by Commissioner Norberg,
seconded by Commissioner Brauner and on a unanimous ballot elected
Vice -Chairman for the tern of one year.
SECRETARY
Commissioner Everett K. Kindig was nominated by Commissioner Brauner,
seconded by Commissioner Cistulli, and on a unanimous ballot elected
Secretary for the term of one year.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
.John J. Brauner, Secretary
-9-