Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1970.12.28THE CITY OF BURLINGX,4E PLANNING COMMISSION December 28, 1970 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT CO`LMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Jacobs Cistulli City Attorney Karmel Kindig City Planner Mann Plink City Engineer 114arr Norberg Councilman Johnson Sine Councilman Mangini Taylor 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 Sine presiding. Pr)T.T. r A T.T. The above -named members responded to roll call. Commissioner Cistulli, on vacation, was excused. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of November 23 and the study meeting of December 14, 1970, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted! ACKNOWLEDGMENT Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence of Councilman Johnson, accompanied by Mr. Johnson, and Councilman `Rangini. v /J HEARINGS _------------ --- 1. VARIANCE TO COMBINE R-1 LOTS WITH R-3 LOTS FOR MULTI -FAMILY CONSTRUCTION, RALSTON AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REAL. (Continued) Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the variance application of David A. Nicolaides, 1009 California Drive, Burlingame, to develop a parcel at the southwest corner of E1 Camino Real and Ralston Avenue, zoned R-3 and R-1, with "a twenty-seven unit apartment building con- forming to all R-3 code provisions." The application form identified the property as 1501 Ralston Avenue -- Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, Lot 1 and portion of Lot 2 zoned R-3 (apartment and multi -family dwellings) and Lot 4 and portions of 'Jots 3,5,and 6, zoned R-1 (single-family dwellings). The applicant's letter of justification dated December 9, 1970, noted that the total property, approximating 22,943 square feet in area, was developed many years ago as a single parcel with a single-family dwelling that is now badly deteriorated, that the portion of the property within the apartment zone on F1 Camino will not provide a suitable apartment -building site, because of the 20 feet of setback required both on El Camino peal and on the rear property line, and that approval of the application will result in a form of redevelopment that will be con- sistent with other modern attractive multi -family buildings that have been permitted by variance on corner properties on E1 Camino Real where similar mixed zoning exists. The communication stated that utilizing the entire property will allow a frontage of 143.41 feet on Ralston Avenue and 156.42 feet on El Camino Real, with access to the building proper and to the parking garage from Ralston Avenue. A colored rendering of the proposed building and preliminary plans pre- pared by Gunther Alberts, Building Designer, and C.A. Johnson, Civil Engineer, were filed. A letter dated December 21, 1970, from Arthur Samuel, 125 Primrose Road, supported the application as a highly desirable use of the land, con- forming to the patternof land use prevalent in the general area. The Chair acknowledged the presence of Mr. David A. Nicolaides, applicant. The City Planner, in response to Chairman Sine, pointed out that the precedent has been established by reason of the number of variances granted for developments similar to the proposal, whereby apartment -zoned properties on El Camino Real and abutting first -residential lots on the side streets were permitted to be combined to create building sites for multiple occupancy construction. In reporting that the plans were examined and found to be in order, the City Planner indicated no objection to the variance. Comments were invited from the audience in favor of the application. Mr. John J. Sullivan, 1513 Ralston Avenue, owner/occupant of first - residential property immediately adjacent at the west to the subject property, indicated no objection to apartment construction per se, agreeing that the highest and best land use would be accomplished by developing the property as a unit. As a method of guarding against harm or injury to his property from the proposed construction, Mr. Sullivan requested the Commission's considera- tion to the following: (a) The west wall of the building, which will face the master bed- room and living room of the Sullivan residence, to be solid with a mini- mum of windows to eliminate noise and preserve privacy, the wall to be continued along the driveway area as a buffer against vehicle noise and fumes; or, as an alternative, entry to the garage to be relocated to the center of the building away from the west property line; (b) Side yard requirements to be strictly enforced; (c) A study be made to determine adequacy of existing sanitary sewer and water installations. Mr. Sullivan mentioned an existing redwood tree that would appear to be on both his and the subject property, requesting that it be preserved if possible. There were no further comments from the audience. The hearing was declared concluded. Commissioners were invited to comment. Commissioner Norberg stated his position in favor of the project, noting that an additional 27 dwelling units will relieve the city's housing shortage to some extent. Commissioner Taylor suggested that balconies on the loser level of the building could create an obstruction by projecting over the sidewalk should E1 Camino Real be widened in the future. In response to Commissioner Taylor, Mr. Nicolaides confirmed that all parking spaces will be properly marked. In response to Commissioner '`oink, the City Planner confirmed that the property is in a single ownership and improved as a single property, the existing building being located in the center of the lots. Ile stated that the original map shows the property consisting of three lots -- one on El Camino Real, the remaining two on Ralston Avenue-- and that, apparently, small triangular pieces of the creek bank at the rear were acquired later by the owner. The City Engineer, responding to Commissioner Mink, stated that he had no personal knowledge of problems in the sanitary sewer system in the particular location but would investigate; in regard to water capacity, the City Engineer reported that existing installations would be considered adequate to furnish required fire flow for the project, that one of the lots under discussion is presently zoned R-3 and that it was his position that the city is obligated to supply the necessary utilities to accommo- date the existing zoning, and that the opposite would be true where an owner realizes extraordinary personal benefit from a change in zoning. The City Engineer stated that any concentration of similar buildings in the area will be cause for objection, because of fire flow conditions. Commissioner Kindig's reference to a complaint voiced earlier concerning traffic nuisances that may exist in the area of the garage initiated a period of discussion on the feasibility of extending the proposed concrete retaining wall on the west property line to Ralston Avenue property line. Chairman Sine's suggestion that the wall be tapered from a height of eight or nine feet above garage floor to four feet above curb line at Ralston Avenue appeared to be acceptable to for. Nicolaides. In response to Mr. Sullivan's request that the legal side setback of seven feet be maintained, in addition to the driveway on the west property line, the City Planner reported that in practically all of the residential properties a driveway at the side has been considered part of the normal building setback --the city has never requested a side yard in addition to a side driveway. There was a period of discussion concerning parking arrangements, several Commissioners indicating dissatisfaction with the number of open spaces and the overall plan for controlling on -site vehicle movements -3- Commissioner Norberg commented that there would appear to be sufficient space at the rear to permit the building to be relocated at least five or six feet back from the Ralston Avenue property line, thereby providing additional area for landscaping at the front of the building to screen open parking spaces and allow for street widening should the need arise at some future date. Mr. Nicolaides indicated no objection to the suggestion, pointing out that some parking spaces may be sacrified as a result. Commissioner mink expressed a desire to explore the matters of water supply, sewer installations and off-street parking before taking a final action. Commissioner Jacobs introduced a motion to continue the hearing to the meeting of January 25, 1971, for the applicant to attempt to revise the plans to incorporate suggestions relating to extension of the retaining wall on the west property line and relocation of the building away from Ralston Avenue property line and to enable the engineering department to investigate the utilities. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mink and declared carried on the following roll call: AYES: COr•'MISSIONERS: Jacobs, Kindig, Mink, Sine NOES: COIL4ISSIONERS: Norberg, Taylor ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli Chairman Sine suggested that the applicant attempt to have material available for the Commission at the study meeting on January 11. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED RETAIL SALES IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT,)312 LANG ROAD. Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of Marvin G. Nachtsheim, 271 Southwood, Palo Alto, for special use permit to sell pre -fabricated cedar log cabins at retail on property located in Anza Airport Park. The applicant's letter dated December 8, 1970, stated that it is pro- posed to construct a building approximately 800 square feet in area of aged cedar having a silver gray patina, for the purpose of an office and sales model. A site plan was filed. Mr. Nachtsheim, upon recognition by Chairman Sine, explained that the proposed location offers several advantages, including proximity to an existing operation offering a similar product. The City Planner, in response to the Chair, indicated no objection on the condition that a properly designed,paved off-street parking area be provided for at least three or four vehicles. There were no comments from the audience in response to the Chair. The hearing was declared concluded. -4- In response to Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Nachtsheim reported that the paving will extend from the sidewalk along the side of the building to the rear. In response to Commissioner Taylor, the City Planner stated that the present hearing relates only to the one building; additional buildings will require approval of the Commission and probably increased parking facilities. A motion introduced by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Norberg to approve the application of Marvin G. Nachtsheim for special permit to offer pre -fabricated cedar log cabins at retail on the property designated 312 Lang Road, Lot 4 Anza Airport Park Unit No. 2, was carried unanimously on roll call. The applicant was informed the permit would be effective Tuesday, January 5, 1971, if not appealed. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED AUTOMOBILE -TRUCK LEASING, 1409 ROLLINS RD. Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of McCullagh Leasing Inc., and Commercial Credit Industrial Corporation, San Francisco, for special permit to maintain a new car and truck leasing facility in the industrial district at 1409 Rollins Road. The application form recited improvements existing: "office building, asphalt yard, cyclone fence." The applicant's communication, dated November 24, 1970, signed by C. E. Martin, Area Vice President, Commercial Credit Industrial Corporation, stated that McCullagh Leasing Inc., a wholly -owned subsidiary of Commercial Credit Company, Baltimore, Maryland, is engaged in the business of leasing new cars and trucks to major business concerns using fleets of up to 50 units; that vehicles are in storage only for the relatively short period necessary to perform minor adjust- ments to assure safe operating condition prior to delivery to the client, that used units are returned to the center to be held until sold, the majority being disposed of through new or used car dealers and that it is anticipated that fifty to seventy-five vehicles to be the maximum in storage at any one time. The communication stated that at no time will major repairs or replacements be made at the local facility, such work being performed by the manufacturer or new car dealer on new units and used vehicles are disposed of "as is." Mr. E. Rickenbacher, 126 Rosewood Way, South San Francisco, represented the applicants. The City Planner, in response to Chairman Sine, reported that the property was originally built as a service headquarters for the telephone company being improved with complete paving, cyclone fence and a small building. The City Planner stated that there would appear to be no problems in the property except that the area at the front of the fence on Rollins Road should be re -landscaped and maintained. - 5 - There were no comments from the audience in response to the Chair. In response to Commissioner Kindig's reference to landscaping as a method of screening vehicle storage from the street, Mr. Rickenbacher reported that the applicants are aware of their responsibility to maintain the property and intend to employ a gardener on a regular basis. A motion introduced by Commissioner Kindig to approve the special permit application of McCullagh Leasing Inc., and Commercial Credit Industrial Corporation to lease new cars and trucks at 1409 Rollins Road (Edwards Industrial Park Acreage) was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and unanimously carried on roll call. Mr. Rickenbacher was informed that the permit would be effective Tuesday, January 5, 1971, if not appealed. RECONVENE Following a ten minute recess, Chairman Sine called the meeting to order at 9:25 p.m. HEARINGS - Continued 4. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING IN R-1 DISTRICT, 117 BLOOMFIELD ROAD (Continued) Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of David Kron and George Parsons, 1005 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, for variance to develop a property in the first -residential district at 117 Bloomfield Road with a five unit garden apartment. (Lot 5, Block 26, Lyon & Hoag Subdivision) The application form recited improvements existing: "Six room single- family residence." The applicant's letter of justification stated that the granting of the variance would serve the public interest by ridding the city of an out- dated and "tired out" property, improving the "eye appeal" for the immediate residents in the area and creating reasonably -priced modern living quarters for reliable city -supporting residents. The communication stated that the property is creating a hardship for the owners in its present condition because the building is structurally unsound and rent potential nil; from the standpoint of economics, it would be impractical to demolish the existing structure and replace with a single-family dwelling. The communication stated further that the proposed dwelling with a low to medium density factor conforms to general plan recommendations for the area of which the subject property is a part. Preliminary drawings prepared by DeWolf & Associates were filed. Letters in favor of the request for variance were read from: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Machado, owner/occupant, 114 Bloomfield Road, Harry M. Lehrfeld, owner of 128 Bloomfield Road, Emil J. Hitte, owner/occupant, 132 Bloomfield Road. Arguments in favor were based on the lack apartment units in the city and the need that have been permitted to deteriorate. Letters in opposition were read from: of small, moderately -priced for redeveloping properties J. G. Thomson, 707 Lexington Way, Charles S. Worsley, 17 Bloomfield Road, Russell Lillemoen, 704 Bayswater Avenue, Mr. and Mrs. Randal Wardlaw, 116 Bloomfield Road. Opponents protested that approval of one multi -family building in a single-family residential area will establish the precedent for others to follow with resultant increases in traffic, on -street parking, over -crowding of schools, over -loading of utility installa- tions and increased property and school taxes. A petition in protest, bearing 135 signatures, objected strongly to a multi -family building on the property. The petition st&ted, in part, that apartment buildings create unfavorable conditions in a neighborhood, that apartment tenants have little interest in the affairs of the community, buildings are not well maintained, detract- ing from the appearance and value of neighborhood properties. The Secretary noted that two occupants of a single residence signed the petition in a number of instances, thereby reducing somewhat the actual number of residences and that many of the petitioners resided in the immediate vicinity of the property, others, some distance removed. Chairman Sine recognized Mr. David Kron, applicant, who referred to correspondence filed with the Commission at the study meeting, including a report from the City of Burlingame Fire and Building Departments and the County of San Mateo Health Department noting numerous deficiencies in the interior and exterior of the building and recommend- ing that all structures on the property be demolished. Mr. Kron stated that the proposed improvement represents an economically sound method of redevelopment, will offer desirable residential units and will be owner -occupied and maintained. The City Planner, in response to the Chair, referred to a drawing on display, representing existing land uses on the block. He explained that there is a total of eighteen properties, thirteen are single- family (the subject property is one of these) and five are occupied by duplex dwellings. He stated his personal evaluation of the conditions of the properties, as follows: three, excellent, six. good, six, fair, three, poor (the -subject property -included in the last classification.) The City Planner stated that the building at 117 Bloomfield Road has deteriorated to the state where replacement appears to be the solution; it is doubtful that the building could be repaired to be habitable. The City Planner explained that the City's general plan projects - 7 - eventual reclassification of the area from the railroad to Dwight Road to "low density apartment." He discussed the mechanics of the general plan study and its ultimate adoption by the City Council. Referring to communications read earlier in opposition to the applica- tion, the City Planner expressed concern at the number of critical comments directed toward persons who elect to live in apartment buildings, indicating that such persons are "different." He noted that the term "transient" was used and pointed out that many persons are required to move frequently, because of their employment. He stated that census records on file in the city prove that Burlingame is not exclusively a "home -owner community" and that renters are not confined to apartment dwellings --many of the city's single-family dwellings are occupied by tenants. The City Planner stated his position that this city and every other city has a social obligation to endeavor to provide housing for its working people, young couples unable to purchase a home in the present market, and for its senior citizens. He stated that a number of older homes in the general area under discussion will, in time, be- come obsolescent and unusable and that the economics of land and building costs will make a single-family dwelling a poor investment. In conclusion, the City Planner stated that Bloomfield Road, between Bayswater and Howard Avenues cannot, in fact, be considered R-1 District, that a person attempting to secure financing for single- family construction would have difficulty, because of existing duplex dwellings, and that the only reasonable method of redevelopment is low -density multiple. He recommended approval of the request for variance. Comments were invited from the audience in favor of the application. Mr. William J. Moir, 452 Peninsula Avenue, San Mateo, stated that he purchased the property at 133 Bloomfield Road a number of years ago for the purpose of renting to his daughter and son-in-law, that it was not his intention at the time of purchasing, nor is it presently, to remove the building and replace with a new single-family dwelling. He concurred with the position of the City Planner and urged favorable consideration to the application. There were no further speakers to support the variance. Protestants were accorded the Floor. Mr. Costas Triggas, 601 Burlingame Avenue, responsed to the Planner's comments, stating that local zoning laws should take precedence over any social obligation on the city's part to provide housing for a segment of its citizens, that the area under discussion is zoned for single-family swellings and should be preserved and developed accord- ingly. He stated that apartment dwellers per se are not necessarily "different," the difference is in the attitude of the tenant and the homeowner toward the buildings in which they reside; the apartment dwellers are not expected to be concerned with matters of external maintenance, nor to have the same feeling of kinship for the community as the homeowner. Mr. Robert Adkins, 109 Bloomfield Road, Mr. Robert C. Metzler, 100 Arundel Road, Mr. Gerald Rafferty, 121 Bloomfield Road, spoke of time, efforts and funds expended to repair, remodel and maintain their particular homes and objected to any attempt to change the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Michael Kolesnikow, 40 Bloomfield Road, acknowledged that the City faces a problem in attempting to meet current housing needs, because of the obvious lack of land. He requested consideration to allowing the owner two or three units on the property, as an alternative to the proposal. Mr. Henry A. Use, 40 Bloomfield Road, Mr. Leo Dunne, 220 Arundel Road, Mrs. Susan Ferris, 606 Howater Avenue, stated that the area cannot support additional traffic nor increased density. Mrs. Ferris reported that the neighborhood elementary school is presently accommodating a full complement of students and that approval of the variance will establish a precedent for successive similar applications. Mrs. Nellie A. Spooner, 133 Clarendon Road, Mr. Rex Uhl, 800 Howard Avenue and Mr. Angelo Moresi, 608 Howard Avenue, referred to proceedings initiated by the city approximately seven years ago to reclassify the area, to the protests that were raised at that time by property owners and stated that the majority of owners remain adamant in opposition to zoning changes. Mr. Uhl stated that many areas in the city zoned for apartment buildings are currently underdeveloped. Mr. Hsientsu King, 141 Clarendon Road, stated that introduction of multi -family building will have the effect of discouraging maintenance of single-family properties. Mr. Olaf Skreden, 512 Howard Avenue, protested that the owners were placed at a disadvantage, that many were unable to be present and voice opposition because of the holiday season. Miss Norma Parr, 212 Bloomfield Road, urged the preservation of single-family areas. There were no further speakers from the floor. The hearing was declared concluded. There followed a period of Commission comment during which reference was made to staff reports on file noting property deficiencies; comments from neighboring owners indicating concern for preservation of their property rights. There appeared to be unanimity among Commissioners that some form of multiple -family occupancy would be desirable, that changes in land use and increased density are inevitable, because of the dearth of land available for residential construction and that the city faces a time of transition and of meeting housing require- ments of its citizens. In response to Commission inquiry, the City Engineer reported that probably two or three five -unit buildings would not disturb the city's rating with the Board of Fire Underwriters. He stated that when the matter of area -wide reclassification to multiple -occupancy was under consideration several years ago, the cost for upgrading the water system was approximately $150.00 per lot; current costs may be fifteen percent to twenty percent higher. The City Engineer suggested that as individual variances for changes in density are granted, the owner be requested to deposit a fixed sum per lot, as a method of accumulating a reserve for future improvements in the water system for fire protection in the event of area -wide rezoning. Commissioner Taylor suggested that d density proposed by the applicant appears to exceed guidelines recommended in the general plan for eventual redevelopment of the area. He questioned whether the applicant can satisfy code requirements for variance grants. IMx.T• MAWN101 Following a recess at 10:45 p.m., for the audience use drawing on display, copies of the general plan proposed improvement, Chairman Sine reconvened the HEARING - 117 BLOOMFIELD RD. (Continued) to review the land and drawings of the ieetincr at 11:00 p.m. The discussion continued with the City Attorney, responding to an inquiry from Commissioner Mink, confirming that the matter before the Commission is an application for variance to construct a particular structure -- not a request for rezoning to R-3A. Commissioner Mink, reiterating his earlier comments that changes in land use are inevitable, suggested that the proposed building may represent too drastic a change at this time and that the applicant may be amenable to considering a lesser density than five units. Commissioner Taylor pointed out that the long-range plan for the area, as recommended in the general plan, envisions multiple -family occupancy, .that he was not totally satisfied with the applicant's proposal and __agreed with Commissioner Mink that the density be reduced. Commissioners Norberg-and Jacobs agreed that general plan guidelines should be observed and that four units would more nearly meet general plan density recommendations. Commissioner Kindig stated that he would prefer the lesser number of units but that eliminating the one unit would not materially affect the height or appearance of the building. Mr. Kron, in response to Chairman Sine, agreed to confer with his architec and to attempt to have revised plans available for Commission review at the January study meeting. A motion introduced by Commissioner Mink to continue the hearing to the regular meeting on January 25, 1971, requested the applicant's considera- tion to modification of plans reducing the number of dwelling units to four. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and unanimously carried. The audience was informed that the hearing would continue on the specified date. 5. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ADDITIONAL APARTMENT UNIT, 216 IiOWARD AVENUE. APPROVED. Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of Anthony Nanni, 1233 Nadina Street, San Mateo, for variance to remodel vacant store area to two bedroom, one and one-half bath apartment in an existing building at 216 Howard Avenue. (Lot 17, Block 40, Lyon and Hoag Subdivision --Zone R-1 (first resi- dential) The applicant's letter of justification dated December 14, 1970, explained that existing improvements consist of two one -bedroom units on the second story of the building, with entry on Channing Road, and vacant store on ground floor, plus three -car detached garage. The communication stated that it is proposed to restore the building to conform with the general neighborhood appearance by changing the entry to Channing Road and removing cement on Howard Avenue to pro- vide for landscaping. Enlarged photographs of the existing building; plot plan and floor plans of the proposed unit were filed. Mr. Nanni, upon recognition by the Chair, reported that the area formerly used as a grocery store has been vacant for some months, that the two apartment units on the second story are occupied and addition of a third unit will permit residential use of the entire building. The City Planner, in response to the Chair, reported that the building was changed from a single-family dwelling to mixed apartment and com- mercial use without benefit of permit, that some years after the con- version, the City approved a variance for extension of the grocery store to the entire lower level and that the store operated successfully until faced with competition of the Safeway Store in the woodlake Com- plex The City Planner stated that a letter directed toihe City Manager recently requesting that the property not be permitted to be used for commercial purposes was referred to his attention, that he inspected the property, had an opportunity to discuss the situation with the owner, who made the decision to place the property on the market, and that the subject application is the result. The City Planner referred to non -conforming residential units on the second story, stating that it is questionable that the city could force their removal at this late date. Comments were invited from the audience in favor of the variance. Mr. James Russell, Russell Realty Company, 1445 Burlingame Avenue, stated that he represented the owner in attempting to locate a pur- chaser for the property and that efforts were unsuccessful until the decision was .Wade to request the city's approval to conversion to apartment use. Mr. Russell stated that the location is not conducive to a successful commercial operation, whereas a residential building =11- will conform to the neighborhood pattern. Mr. R.C. Spurgeon, owner/occupant 210 Howard' Avenue, advised that, in addition to his residence, he owns the dwelling immediately adjacent to the subject property. Reporting that he had communicated with the City Manager requesting that the commercial use be abolished and the building returned to single-family use, Mr. Spurgeon stated that he could find no reason to object to the proposed conversion to apartment. Comments in opposition were heard from: Mr. G.C. Cook, 117 Channing Road, Russell E. Snyder, 137 Stanley Road, Mr. Angelo Dellacasa, 141 Victoria Road. The protestants objected to "spot zoning," stated the low -rental apartments attract undesirable tenants and that existing utility instal- lations are inadequate to service �$��-family density. There were no further comments from the floor. The hearing was declared concluded. During a period of Commission comment, reference was made to staff reports indicating that the building is structurally sound; there was agreement that vandalism would result if the lower level remained vacant and that the proposed improvement would appear to be the only Practical method of remedying an unsightly situation and assuring proper maintenance of the property. A motion introduced by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Norberg to approve the application of Anthony Nanni, 1233 Nadina Street, San 'Mateo, for variance to remodel the lower floor of the building at 216 Howard Avenue to an additional apartment,•on the condition that cement in the setback on Howard Avenue be removed and the area landscaped. was carried unanimously on roll call. The applicant was informed the variance would be effective Tuesday, January 5, 1970, if not appealed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary =12=