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 .