HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1970.11.23THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COA—MISSIONERS PRESENT
Cistulli
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
November 23, 1970
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None City Attorney Karmel
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
Councilman Amstrup
Councilman Mangini
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called
to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Sine presiding.
POT.T. (`AT.T.
All members responded to roll call.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 28 and the study
meeting of November 9, 1970, were approved and adopted.
HEARINGS
1. FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE DENIED.
The Chair announced a public hearing on the application of
John R. Skelton, 1916 Broadway, for variance to allos.7 a fence six (6)
feet in height in the front setback where five (5) feet is permitted.
A sketch prepared by the applicant identified the location at the
southwest corner of Broadway and Bernal Avenue, indicated placement
of the fence along the Bernal Avenue frontage, in relation to side-
walk and property line, and the extent of encroachment into the
front setback.
Chairman Sine recognized Mr. Skelton who explained that the request
for variance was motivated by Mrs. Skelton's desire for a fence six (6)
feet in height. Ile stated that he was unable to justify a condition
of hardship, since none exists.
The City Planner, in response to the Chair, discussed regulations per-
taining to fence heights, pointing out that the maximum is five (5)
feet in the front setback, except on corner lots where height is
further restricted under certain conditions.
Referring to the drawing, the City Planner stated that the applicant
is permitted five (5) feet, above that he must prove that the
regulations cause unnecessary hardship in order to qualify for variance.
In response to the Chair, there were no comments from the audience
favoring or protesting the application.
Commissioners were invited to comment.
Commissioner Norberg stated that the applicant has failed to prove
hardship.
In response to Commissioner Taylor's reference to the partially con-
structed fence on the property, which appears to be well over six (6)
feet in height, Mr. Skelton confirmed that it will be removed.
Commissioners were informed by staff that it has been determined that
the property line is two (2) feet back of the sidewalk and that there
is reason to believe that the fence posts were placed outside of the
property in the city's right of way.
The City Engineer stated further that it is the owner's responsi-
bility to obtain a building permit before any fence may be constructed.
Commissioner Cistulli commented on the potential of public hazard,
because of the location on a corner.
Commissioner Kindig suggested, -as a matter of aesthetics, that the
area remain.unfenced. He recommended, if a fence is to be installed,
that there be no variation from code.
Chairman Sine concurred with Commissioner Kindig and reported that
his measurements of the portion of the fence that has been erected
agree with staff's position that the posts encroach on the city right
of way and height exceeds the legal maximum.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Taylor, seconded by Commissioner Kin -
dig, to deny the application for variance of John R. Skelton to con-
struct a fence six feet in height in the front setback of the property
at 1916 Broadway was carried unanimously on roll call.
The applicant was informed of the right of appeal to the City Council.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence of Councilman Mangini.
HEARINGS (cont.)
2. MOTEL USE OF INDUSTRIAL LAND APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE.
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of
S&J Company, Inc., Burlingame, for special permit to develop a par-
cel at the southwest corner of Hinckley Road and Bayshore Highway,
East Millsdale Industrial Park, with a 60 unit motel.
-2-
A communication dated October 28, 1970, from the law offices of
Anderson,""McMillan & Connolly, Burlingame, in behalf of the appli-
cant, stated that the latter has owned the property for several
years and decided to undertake the proposed improvement upon expira-
tion recently of a lease with one of the smaller car rental opera-
tions.
The communication stated further that the site is approximately one
acre in size and considered suitable for the purpose, because of
the location on a corner and the ever-increasing traffic on Bay -
shore Highway; additionally, three commercial operation are directly
across the highway --Charlie Brown and Tia Maria Restaurants and a
Union Oil Company service station.
The communication stated there will be no public facilities, such
as restaurant and cocktail lounge and that the developer is con-
fident that a motel charging room rent substantially less than
other motels in the area will be successful.
Preliminary plans prepared by Gunther Alberts, Building Designer,
and C.A. Johnson, Civil Engineer, were filed.
A letter dated November 19, 1970, was read from Albert J. Day,
Certified Public Accountant, San Mateo, opposing the application
on behalf of a client, Mrs. Jane K. Molyneux who is owner of eight
(8) office buildings west of Bayshore Highway in East Millsdale
Industrial Park.
The communication protested that the proposed development would
appear to be incompatible with the extremely unique pattern of
development on Bayshore Highway in Burlingame, offering prime and
prestige office space west of the highway and motel, restaurant and
entertainment facilities on the east, overlooking San Francisco Bay.
The communication requested consideration to limiting property uses
west of the highway to office buildings.
Chairman Sine recognized Mr. Cyrus J. McMillan, the applicant's
representative, who presented a rendering of the type of building
proposed. Referring to the suggestion of restrictive land uses
west of the highway, Mr. McMillan pointed out that the light
industrial zone provides for a number of uses other than office
buildings, including warehousing and certain forms of manufac-
turing, and that the subject site could be improved with a ware-
house, if the owner so desired.
Mr. McMillan referred to Hyatt House, located on the wrist side of
the highway, recalled that a little over a year ago he appeared
before the Commission in behalf of Royal Coach Inn for a site on
the opposite side of Hinckley Road from the subject site, and
stated that his client has had overtures from three motel chains
interested in developing the property.
In conclusion, Mr. 'McMillan stated that the owner believes the land
to be too valuable for light industrial but ideallysituated
-3-
for a motel offering reasonable rates.
In response to the Chair, there were no comments from the audience
favoring the application.
Protests were heard from:
Mr. William E. Regan, associated with Coldwell Banker and Company,
speaking for Mrs. Jane K. Molyneux (letter of protest read earlier)
stated that an office building complex is planned for the site
immediately adjacent to the subject property and that his client
considers the motel an incompatible use.
Mr. Wade C. Young, 1169 Broadway, Burlingame, read a letter from
Mr. A.L. Christensen, owner of property adjacent to the subject
property, stating that, with the exception of Hyatt House, all
similar developments are located east of Bayshore Highway, that
the highway is a natural dividing line between water -oriented uses
and those normally associated with an industrial park, and that
approval of the project will establish a precedent for further
similar applications. The writer questioned whether the site,
area -wise, can accommodate a building of the size proposed and
provide legal parking and setbacks.
There being no further comments from the audience, the hearing
was declared concluded.
The City Planner, in response to the Chair, confirmed that the
drawings show legal setbacks and parking. He stated that archi-
tectural design is such that a number of parking spaces will
actually be under the building, thereby eliminating the "dsphalt-
jungle" effect.
The City Planner noted that, with the exception of Ramada Inn,
available accommodations in the area are costly; developments in
prospect will be equally costly. He indicated no objection to the
permit,_ commenting that the facility may serve a use for the
city.
During a period of Commission comment, there appeared to be a con-
sensus that the land use would be suitable, providing convenient
lodging for travelers who can neither afford nor desire to stay at
near -by luxury hotels.
Commissioners reacted unfavorably to the building design indicated
in the rendering, expressing reluctance'to grant the permit in the
absence of detailed drawings including a landscaping plan.
The City Planner suggested that the Commission consider approval in
principle and request that final plans be submitted.
Mr. McMillan, in response to the Chair, indicated no objection to
the suggested procedure.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Mink and seconded by Commissioner
Cistulli, approving the special permit application of S&J Company,Inc.,
-4-
Burlingame to develop a parcel at the southwest corner of Hinckley
Road and Bayshore Highway with a 60-unit motel was conditioned as
follows: facade, plan for the exterior of the building and lands-
caping to be subject to Commission review and approval.
The motion was carried unanimously on roll call.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence of Vice -Mayor Amstrup.
RECONVENE
Following a ten-minute recess, Chairman Sine called the meeting
to order at. 8:50,p.m.
HEARINGS (cont.)
3. RECLASSIFICATION OF CORBITT TRACT FROM DUPLEX TO LOW -DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY.(Defeated)
Chairman Sine announced that this was the time and place scheduled
by the Commission on its own motion to conduct a public hearing
and to recommend to the City Council in the matter of reclassifi-
cation of properties in the area designated "Corbitt Tract," from
R-2 (duplex dwelling) District to R-3A (low -density multi -family)
District.
(Corbitt Tract is bounded generally by Carolan Avenue, Park Avenue,
Winchester Tract and Oak Grove Avenue).
The City Planner, invited by the Chair to initiate the discussion,
stated that the hearing was called as a method of implementing pro-
posals in the city's adopted general plan for increased density in
certain areas, including Corbitt Tract, because of the existence of
properties in such areas that are either under -developed or neglected
and poorly used.
The City Planner noted that Corbitt Tract is one of the oldest resi-
dential districts in the city, originally divided into very large
parcels with varying depths up to 218 feet; later resubdivisions
reduced street frontage to 50 feet on the majority of properties -
depths remained unchanged - and further resubdivisions created some
rather small lots on Oak Grove Avenue and Park Avenue. He
stated that building regulations in R-3A permit one dwelling unit
for each 1500 square feet of land, citing, as an example, a lot
50 by 150 feet where five (5) units could be built.
The City Planner explained that the term "density" means "number of
dwelling units per acre," that the proposed zone classification
will introduce a suitable form of low -density multi -family use that
can be compatible with neighboring properties where owners may elect
to retain their single-family dwellings and, hopefully, will
encourage redevelopment of properties showing evidences of deterior-
ation. He stated that R-3A is not a type of zoning that will per-
mit high-rise buildings, heights being restricted to a maximum of
-5- .
35 feet, identical with R-1 and R-2.
The City Planner stated that drawings on display resulted from a
physical study of every property in Corbitt Tract, indicate as
accurately as possible existing units on each lot and include notes
showing number of units permitted in R-3A. ,
Following a recital of ground rules, the Chair declared the hearing
open.
A petition on file listed property owners of the Corbitt Tract in
favor of the Burlingame adopted general plan proposing medium -
high density, allowing 21 to 50 dwelling units per acre; the
petition stated that the owners believe they should be permitted
to develop property to its fullest potential, thereby eliminating
the possibility of a necessary rezoning at some later date,
indicated no objection to taller buildings interspersed with
remaining dwellings and requested that the plan for medium -high
density be allowed.
The petition was signed by owners of 33 properties; additionally,
six (6) owners opposed rezoning and two (2) were uncommitted.
Mr. George S. Kammler, 740 Laurel Avenue, upon recognition by the
Chair, explained that there appeared to be some question whether
properties on Oak Grove Avenue and Park Avenue were to be included
in the reclassification action and that the petition was not cir-
culated on either of those streets.
Mr. Virgil Smith, in business at 1495 Burlingame Avenue, accorded
the privilege of the floor, spoke in behalf of Mrs. June H. Chapman,
owner of 731 Laurel Avenue, urging consideration to rezoning to
R-3, as opposed to R-3A, for economic reasons, citing the failure
of garden -type apartments to develop successfully in the City of
San Mateo where a zone classification similar to R-3A was adopted
some time ago.
Commissioner Mink commented that it was his understanding the hearing
was limited to consideration of reclassification to R-3A.
The City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Mink, explaining that,
as a matter of due process, it is impossible for the Commission to
hold a public hearing and to consider a change from one zoning classifi-
cation to another in the absence of proper notification.
There were no comments from the audience favoring the proposed reclas-
sification.
Protests were heard from:
Mr. James B. Waldron, 735 Winchester Drive, owner of property immediately
adjacent at the rear to properties within the area of reclassification.
Mr. Waldron reported that at a meeting held recently where the future
of Burlingame High School was discussed, a city official made the
statement that the high school site would never be rezoned for high-
. -6-
density use. Mr. Waldron protested the Planning Commission attempt
to rezone property directly opposite the high school site. He
stated that Burlingame should strive to retain its image as a city
of predominately single-family dwellings where home -owners need not
fear loss of privacy from intrusion of multi -story apartment buildings
into residential areas.
Mrs. R. Sasuly, 724 Laurel Avenue, questioned the status of the large
unimproved parcel at Bayshore Boulevard and Cadillac Way, stating
that the site would appear to be ideal for an apartment building
complex.
Mr. Buel Proffitt, 10 Kinder Lane, Hillsborough, owner of 709 Linden
Avenue, stated that the petition on file would appear to represent a
majority opinion in opposition to R-3A on the theory that low -density
or "garden apartment" projects are too costly to be considered a
profitable investment, because of costs of land, financing, construc-
tion and maintenance. Mr. Proffitt stated his position in opposition
to reclassification to R-3A and in favor of R-3.
Mrs.W. Harman, representing her father, owner of 912 Park Avenue,
referred to the City Attorney's earlier comments concerning pro-
cedure and questioned the propriety of the previous speaker's
remarks..
The City Attorney, in response to Commissioner Kindig, recounseled
members of the Commission to ignore any reference to reclassification
to R-3.
Mr. Cyril Gilbert, 723 Winchester Drive, owner of 722 Laurel Avenue,
agreed with the idea of redevelopment but stated that R-3A is too
restrictive to encourage rebuilding.
Mr. R. Sasuly, 724 Laurel Avenue, stated that the owners who signed
the petition for a higher density than permitted in R-3A recognize
the drift of population to peninsula cities and are receptive to a
change that will permit rational redevelopment.
Mr. Russell F. Blake, 724 Linden Avenue, stated that he is the owner
of a single-family dwelling on a lot 55 by 218 feet, that he intends
to continue to maintain the dwelling and to respect a neighbor's right
to maximum use of his property.
Mr. George Kammler, 740 Laurel Avenue, stated that the text of the
land use study of Corbitt Tract prepared by the City Planner
recognizes' that the adopted general plan proposes medium -high density
in the Corbitt Tract but suggests medium density for the reason that
application of the higher density could result in taller buildings
interspersed with remaining dwellings.
Mr. Kammler stated that he is reasonably familiar with the city,
having resided on Laurel Avenue for 32 years, and has observed apart-
ment buildings interspersed with low dwellings in any number of areas.
Mr. Kammler stated that therWo garden apartments in all of the
City of Burlingame and very few in the City of San Mateo, because they
-7-
are considered poor investments.
Mrs. H. Heagney, 1009 Park Avenue, questioned whether teclassifi-
cation will affect property taxes.
The City Planner reported that he discussed the matter of changes
in assessment with representatives of the San Mateo County Assessor
and that it would appear that land assessments are predicated upon
sale prices] building assessments upon use.
Ernestine L. Deering, 747Linden. Avenue, suggested that there would
appear to be no immediate urgency for a change in the existing zoning.
For the benefit of the audience, Commissioner Mink explained that
during the processes of developing the general plan, the Commission
received numerous requests to consider rezoning in various areas
throughout the city, that some owners in the Corbitt Tract were
interested in the variance procedure as a method of accomplishing
higher density and that, upon adoption of the general plan,
the Commission decided to establish a priority list for implemen-
tation of changes in land use in areas where owners had indicated
interest.
RECONVENE
Following a recess at 9:45, the Chair reconvened the meeting at
9:55 p.m.
HEARING -'(co
Qt_}
The discussion continued with comments from Commissioner Mink
acknowledging that the Commission's proposal for land use in the
Corbitt Tract is not the same as the general plan proposal. He
explained that "medium -high density" recommended in the general
plan would permit buildings 55 feet or greater in height, as opposed
to the Commission's recommendation of a maximum height of 35 feet,
that there is wide variation in setback requirements in the two
proposals; additionally, the higher density could result in recon-
struction of the existing water system to satisfy standards of the
Board of Fire Underwriters and possibly changes in street design
to accommodate increased traffic flow.
Commissioner Mink explained that the Commission decided to recom-
mend reclassification to R-3A as a method of preserving the resi-
dential atmosphere of Corbitt Tract, created by beautiful trees
and some very well maintained homes and providing an incentive to
owners to rebuild properties that have outlived their usefulness.
In response to the Chair, a show of hands revealed 50 persons
opposing reclassification to R-3A, two (2) approving, and 32
favoring retention of existing zoning.
In response to comments from the audience, the City Planner explained
the reclassification procedure, stating that the procedure may be
initiated by the Commission on its own motion, at the request of the
City Council, or upon application of a property owner.
ME
The Chair declared the hearing concluded.
There followed a period of Commission comment.
Commissioner Jacobs recommended that the matter be held for further
study.
Commissioner mink concurred, stating that perhaps a comparative
study of R-3A and R-3 would be in order.
Commissioner Cistulli stated that he was hopeful of sending a
favorable recommendation to the City Council on reclassification to
R-3A but would concede to additional study, because of the mis-
understanding that apparently exists among the property owners.
Commissioner Norberg stated that the persons most effected are
obviously not in agreement with the Commission and should not be
forced to accept something that they do not want.
Commissioner Taylor stated that he would prefer that there be
further study in an attempt to establish mutual agreement between
the Commission and the property owners as to what is best for the
area.
Commissioner Kindig stated that the area has a number of advantages,
including good location but that there are reasons for concern
about its future, because of the number of properties that are
showing evidence of neglect. He stated that he considered the area
fiuitable for, R-3A improvements that will accomplish orderly
transition from one land use to another_, but that he would defer
to the property owners.
Commissioner Mink announced his intention to initiate an action
to conclude the proceedings and remove the subject matter from the
agenda until further notice.
Commissioner Mink thereafter introduced a -motion requesting staff
to prepare proper documents for the Commission to recommend reclassifi-
cation of properties in Corbitt Tract from R-2District to R-3ADistrict
to the City Council.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and declared defeated
on the following roll call:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Jacobs, Kindig, Mink, Norberg, Sine, Taylor
ABSENT CONIMISSIONERS: None
The Chair acknowledged the large group in attendance, expressing
appreciation for their interest in community affairs.
RECONVENE
Following a recess at 10:30 p.m., the Chair reconvened the meeting at
10:40 p.m.
-9-
4. VARIANCE TO COMPLETE SOCIAL ROOM, 3155 FRONTERA WAY. DENIED.
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of
R.Douglas Pringle, 90 E1 Camino Real, Burlingame, for variance to
complete a social room on the roof of an apartment building at
3155 Frontera Way (Lots 1 and 2, Skyline Terrace Subdivision,
Zone R-1).
The applicant's statement of justification dated November 9,1970,
stated that the 340 residents of Skyline Terrace have been
using a portion of a three -bedroom apartment for social functions
for three years and that the decision to attempt to provide more
suitable facilities resulted from tenants' requests and complaints
from neighbors.
The communication stated that the owners have suffered hardship
in that recreational facilities are unable to compete with those
of Woodlake in San Mateo, that the variance is necessary to pre-
serve property rights of the owners and that approval will not
have an adverse effect upon other properties nor the comprehensive
zoning plan of the city.
Invited by the Chair to comment, Mr. Pringle referred to drawings
on file, stating that, in addition to the proposed room, there is
an area intended to be used for purposes of a guest room that,
although not as important to the complex�as the recreation area,
will offer an additional service to tenants by providing accommo-
dations for overnight guests.
Mr. Pringle placed on display a scaled model of the apartment com-
plex to show location of the addition proposed for the roof of
the building closest to Junipero Serra Freeway, approximately
150 feet distant from the nearest neighbor on Hunt Drive. He stated
that the finished room will cover approximately 12% of roof area
and be at least 30 feet back from the front edge of the roof in any
direction.
Mr. Pringle stated that Skyline Terrace.contributes substantially
to the city's economy and that offering the tenants conventional
social and recreation facilities is essential to its continuing
success.
Mr. Pringle referred to comments at the study meeting wherein it
was suggested that the current proposal is "a variance on a variance."
Stating that the owners intend to continue improving the property,
he suggested that there could be a series of requests to expand
existing facilities. Ile also noted that a finished structure for
purposes of enclosing mechanical equipment would be permitted on
the roof and not considered a fourth story.
The City Planner referred to the minutes of the City Council meeting
of July 20, 1964, approving Mr. Pringle's application for variance
to construct "two three -storied maximum height apartments" on first -
residential property, stating that the current application is, in
fact, "a variance on a variance" --the variance allowing multi-
family use of R-1 property restricted building heights to three
stories. -10-
In response to the Chair, there were no comments from the audience
favoring the variance.
Objections.were heard from:
Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Mauss, 1837 Hunt Drive, Mr. Bernard D. Plack,
1845 Hunt Drive, Mr. Leonard D. Linn, 1857 Hunt Drive,
Mrs. Samuel D. Agnello, 1807 Hunt Drive, and Mr. Ning C. Cheng,
1832 Hunt Drive.
The speakers protested that --
A prior appeal by Mr. Pringle to add a fourth story for purposes
of a social room was disapproved by the Council;
The owners of Skyline Terrace have disregarded promises to add
extensive landscaping;
Open garages are a constant source of annoyance to residents on
Hunt Drive, because of noise and glare from headlights;
Proximity of the apartment complex has caused depreciation of
residential property values;
The slope between the apartments and residences on Hunt Drive is
used as a trash disposal area by apartment dwellers;
The buildings contribute little to aesthetic values, resembling
"factory or tenement house structures".
There being no further comments from the floor, the Chair declared
the hearing closed.
Mr. Pringle,, in response to Commissioners Norberg and Jacobs,
reported that the guest room would be restricted to temporary
occupancy by tenants' guests; extensive landscaping was installed,
including 21 trees that now average 28 to 31 feet in height, and
ground cover plants that did not survive are being replaced.
In response to Commissioner Mink's comment that plans indicate free
access from the social room to open areas on the roof, Mr. Pringle
pointed out that a guard rail is included. He explained that the
sliding doors are required by the fire department.
Commissioner "fink suggested consideration to combining two apartment
units,'.as an alternative to the roof addition.
Commissioners were in agreement that Mr. Pringle make every effort
to control or eliminate conditions that are distasteful to the
neighbors, including landscaping and maintenance of the slope above
the residences on Hunt Drive and installing some form of screen in
the driveway areas where the lights reflect on the dwellings below.
A motion introduced by'Commissioner Norberg to continue the hearing
until Mr. Pringle has remedied conditions described by the neigh-
bors failed for lack of a second.
A motion introduced by Commissioner Mink to deny the variance appli-
cation of R.Douglas Pringle for variance to construct a social room
-11-
on the roof of the building at 3155 Frontera Way was seconded by
Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roll call.
Mr. Pringle was informed of the right of appeal to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration at this time,
the meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett K. Kindig, Secretary
-12-