Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1971.07.26THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 26, 1971 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER City Engineer Marr City Planner Mann City Attorney Karmel A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:05, Chairman Sine presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. MINUTES• Commissioner Kindig questioned the statement in the fourth paragraph on page 5 of the study meeting minutes of July 12 "Hyatt House would like to combine their airport service with Anza." This was altered to ". . .Hyatt House may consider combining their airport services with Anza." The minutes of the adjourned meeting of July 12, the study meeting of July 12 and the regular meeting of June 28, 1971, then stood approved. 1. SPECIAL PERMIT BY ANZA PACIFIC TO INSTALL AIRPORT PARKING SERVICE, LOTS 3 THROUGH 13, BLOCK 7, ANZA AIRPORT PARK NO. 6 Chairman Sine at this time announced a public hearing on this project, and the Secretary read a letter from Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney for the applicant, describing it. The City Planner then passed around plans prepared by Anza Pacific to the Commission. Upon invitation from the Chair, Mr. McMillan, representing his client, went into details of the operation, stating his client felt there was a need for this type of service because one-half of the people who use the airport come from south of the airport, and this facility is convenient to them. He stated it is located between Airport Boulevard and City Lagoon and the area is sufficient to park 600 cars, with complete landscaping plans having been submitted. He contended that it is compatible with the waterfront commercial ordinance and the surrounding area because much o.f that district is developed with executive office uses, and they are primarily customers for airports. He added that the parking lot would not interfere with the view of the lagoon since there are no tall buildings. There is a small office for the cashier and other employees. There will be six buses for transporting the customers from the lot to the airport immediately they are parked in the lot. The charges would be minimal, less than parking at the San Francisco Airport. He stated that the State Lands Commission is negotiating with Anza Pacific concerning the 3evelopment of the property, and they cannot attempt permanent construction until such a settlement is reached. David Keyston then addressed the commission, stating that they had planned 657 parking spaces but have now changed the plans to 597 so as to accomplish the landscaping required by code - about 1200 plants. The City Planner, upon invitation from the Chair, spoke, stating that the proposed use is not named in the Waterfront Commercial regulations, and suggested that the section should be read. A catchall phrase allows other uses if the Commission finds that they are compatible with the described purposes. There was further dis- cussion of use compatibility. At this point Chairman Sine asked for comments from the audience either for or against this special permit. There were none. Commissioner Kindig read aloud both the permitted and prohibited uses in Section 25.41 of the Waterfront Commercial District Regulations to the Commission. On a question by Chairman Sine, Mr. Keyston stated that they expected their investment to be amortized in five years, and he would prefer the special permit to run for a period of five years. Commissioner Taylor stated that the City Planner had noted at the study meeting that he had asked Mr. McMillan to prepare material showing that this project was compatible with the uses of the area and he would be interested in it. Mr. McMillan replied, stating that since executive offices are a permitted use, this proposed operation was compatible, since executives are the best customers of airport services. Also, it did not interfere with the visual enjoyment of the Bay, and it is as compatible as some stated uses - such as bowling alleys. It is difficult to prove what is compatible. Commissioner Norberg, after noting that he thought the use was compatible, suggested that the small building now on the grounds be redesigned. Mr. Keyston agreed to do this, and Commissioner Norberg also voiced concern about some voids in the landscaping, which Mr. Keyston said would be provided. Mr. Keyston also commented that the center aisles were not included in the 15% landscaping nor the 30' along the lagoon. All landscaping proper will be done within the site itself. Commissioner Jacobs was pleased with the landscaping and asked if there would be two buildings on the premises. Mr. Keyston responded there would be only one building with a canopy and three of the little waiting areas 4 x 8; that they do not anticipate putting in a sidewalk until the land is filled to grade. Another question was whether wiring was to be put above or below ground, and Mr. Keyston stated it was all to be below. Commissioner Mink commented that he could not accept that this is a really honest and compatible use; however, he realized that the property is tied up in litigation and Keyston is unable to build a structure on it. McMillan then went into the details of the transaction which involves a suit by the State against West Bay Associates. This alienated title insurance companies to other properties in the area. This has held up many developments, including Anza Pacific.. There was a discussion of landfill involving the use of broken concrete by contractors. - 2 - Commissioner Cistulli questioned the City Attorney if he should express an opinion since he had to leave the study meeting before this matter was discussed. The City Attorney stated that since the study meeting was not a formal meetinq, Commissioner Cistulli could take action. The Commissioner then stated he thought the permit should be given on a yearly basis for a period of five years. This would mean an option to renew every year and would give the Commission better control, and they could police the operation better. Mr. McMillan voiced strong objections, stating that they could not make an investment of this type and pay for the improvements in one year. Commissioner Cistulli remarked that if in, say, two years this project failed to go well, Anza Pacific would be before the Commission with another project anyhow, but Mr. McMillan said it was too big an investment to accept on a year to year basis. The City Engineer questioned the location, with regard to the fencing, of the 10' easement for the water main. He was told that 2/3 of the easement was outside of the lot; that it was not parallel to the property line, and that Anza Pacific could leave the water line outside the fence. However, the City Engineer mentioned there was a section of main on the property and asked that Anza Pacific make certain the fence builder knows the exact location. On a question from Commissioner would be willing to absolve the the property will not be filled question from the City Engineer, include water damage within the Kindig, Mr. Keyston indicated they City from any problems because to acceptable elevations; and on a Keyston agreed that this would area. Chairman Sine asked the overall size of the lot, and was informed it was 245' x 1,000'; that about 300,000 square feet of it could be used for parking space. The Chairman felt that a period of five years for amortization was not necessary; that three years would possibly be more logical. Mr. Keyston stated that this would depend on the success of the project. Commissioner Mink questioned the pavement of the surface, and was told that it would consist of 4" of base rock and 2" of asphaltic concrete. He then asked the City Attorney if the Commission had the same rights to police the project under a use permit, and was informed that they did. He asked Mr. Keyston to state definitely what type of policing and protection Anza Pacific had. Mr. Keyston replied that they would have a six foot fence with three strands of barbed wire on top; that their personnel would be at the project 24 hours a day; that the area was patrolled by Anza Pacific's own force from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m. Commissioner Jacobs moved that a use permit be granted Anza Pacific for a period of five years for the construction of airport parking service at Anza Airport Park #6 in accordance with their plans; subject to waiver of liability to the city in the case of damage because of subgrade; and with the understanding that this particular action in no way represents what the Planning Commission feels is a compatible use, but is a matter of expediency. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. RECONVENE Following a recess at 9:10, Chairman Sine reconvened the meeting at 9:15. - 3 - 2. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE - LOUIS A. STATES, INSTALLATION OF BATHROOM WITHIN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 1355 PALOMA Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on this application, and upon his invitation Mr. Clark Barrett, attorney for Mr. States, came forth. Mr. Barrett stated that he felt the commission was well informed on the facts of the case - that Mr. and Mrs. States wished to build a bathroom in a structure which they have found was illegal, without their previous knowledge of this fact. Mr. Barrett asked if there were any questions based on the visits which the commissioners had made to the residence. He mentioned the long duration of the structure and mentioned that within the past year a building permit was obtained for kitchen remodeling without indication from the city that the building was illegal. The City Planner also went into the background. He stated that not too long prior to the time the property was bought by the States' an additional room had been built on the house to the adjoining property line. This had been done without virtue of a building permit. Both zoning regulations and building code had been ignored by those who had done the work. This is not a nonconforming use, but, even if it were, the code does not allow additional construction. He added, however, that he had no objection to the bathroom per se. Upon a question from Mr. Barrett if his report on the situation - which was quite lengthy and involved - should be publicly read, the City Attorney decided that it need not be if he made a formal request that it be incorporated as part of this public meeting. Mr. Barrett thereupon requested that the diagram, request, attached statements and his remarks be considered as a formal presentation. This was granted. Chairman Sine asked for comments from the audience in favor of this variance, and Mrs. Ganine Kalina-Kun of 1336 Paloma spoke in favor, stating she felt they should be able to alter their own house. Mrs. Vera Kalina-Kun of the same address voiced the same opinions. There were no comments from the audience against the variance, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg felt that there was a definite hardship incurred to the owner, inasmuch as he was permitted to invest $4,000 on a new kitchen, and now he is prevented from putting in a bathroom. Commissioner Norberg said he checked with the Fire Department with reference to access and the illegal wall. They said it wasn't the ideal situation but that they could get to the house from the adjacent property, and they felt that they could live with it. Commissioner Jacobs stated that his main objection was to the fire ingress. He voiced sympathy for the States' but thought that something must be done about non -conforming buildings and that possibly the room which is called an enclosed patio could be cut off the building, thus making it conform and providing adequate fire ingress. Commissioner Taylor agreed with Commissioner Jacobs, and said that while he, too, sympathized with Mr. States, the only way to correct non -conforming buildings is to take steps to correct conditions as they become apparent. Chairman Sine interjected a - 4 - comment in defense of the City Building Department, noting that the accepted practice in adding a room is merely to submit a sketch for the room concerned. Commissioner Mink brought out the fact that this house has a room - built without benefit of building permit or inspection - which was meant to house some children - and he was not convinced that this did not present a hazard. He asked what changes in the structure might be made to approximate spirit of the code so that the Commission could assume that the fire protection was adequate. He noted that the fire underwriters have the right and responsibility to change fire rating regulations, resulting in higher insurance rates. He stated he would like to have an exploration of alternatives. There was discussion of a proposed city ordinance which would require inspectio: of a property as to code conformance before sale. Commissioner Kindig commented that if this variance is passed, when and if Mr. States wished to sell this property, he would be confronted with the problem of the illegal room. He commented that it might be expensive to take 3' off the enclosed room, but in the long run Mr. States might be ahead. Commissioner Cistulli questioned the applicant as to hardship if the enclosed room were modified by cutting 3' off. Mr. States replied that it might cost him $2,500 - $3,000, and Commissioner Cistulli asked if it would not be worthwhile to spend this amount to improve his property. Mr. States replied that even in that event there would be no fire egress from the building. Commissioner Cistulli pointed out that the need for a bathroom was a definite hardship, and that sometimes it was necessary to sacrifice something not needed for something necessary in order to protect the security of property and the security of people. Chairman Sine questioned the City Planner, if the enclosed room would have to have sheetrock on the exterior and interior if it were altered. The City Planner stated he did not believe so. Chairman Sine then asked the applicant if, as a condition of the variance, the one wall be moved in to conform to code, would he be willing to do it? The Chairman added that Mr. States' estimate amounted to $40.00 per square foot and he thought that this was excessive. Mr. States replied that he would not be willing, but that he had not been turned down yet. Here the City Planner commented that the point at issue was not the bathroom but the variance. Commissioner Mink asked the City Planner for suggestions as to alternatives so that the code might be satisfied. The City Planner suggested that the wall of the enclosure might be taken out, since the roof, by our code, can extend to 1/2 the distance of the side yard setback; or the building wall could be rebuilt at the proper setback distance. Commissioner Mink suggested that the property lines might be changed since Mr. States owns both pieces of property, but the City Planner refused this idea, since these are 40' lots and cannot be diminished. Commissioner Norberg suggested that if Mr. States could get some - 5 - definite figures on moving the wall, it might change the situation. At this point, Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion that the variance be denied, and it was seconded by Commissioner Kindig. Commissioner Mink then stated that he was still not satisfied with the exploration of reasonable alternatives up to this point, and pointed out that if the variance were denied and Mr. States later came up with a solution, he would be constrained from implementing it for a period of one year. He then offered a substitute motion that the matter be continued to the regular meeting of August. After more discussion, Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. This motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli, Jacobs, Kindig, Mink, Norberg, Sine NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Taylor The applicant was informed that his request would be carried over to the next regular meeting of the Commission, August 23, 1971. 3. CONSIDERATION OF PLANS FOR WHEATLEY-OLIVER APARTMENT BUILDING AT CADILLAC WAY, CAROLAN AVENUE AND BAYSHORE BOULEVARD Mr. Oliver and Mr. Wheatley were present as representatives of their company. The City Planner explained that two matters were before the Commission for consideration. First was the parcel map which divided the subject property into three pieces and was a substitute for an existing recorded map of the same area. The second was a formal approval of the landscaping plans which had been reviewed informally at the prior study meeting. The City Engineer gave a resume of the background of the parcel map, stating minor changes had been made. He reported that he had checked out the description and the map is correct. There was some discussion among the Commissioners about the parking facilities on Parcel 3, but they were reminded by the City Planner that that was not under con- sideration now, and would be dealt with later, if a restaurant proposal is submitted. Commissioner Mink moved that the Commission approve the parcel map. This was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and carried unanimously. The landscaping plans were discussed, and Commissioner Taylor moved their approval. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and carried unanimously by roll call vote. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary .