HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1971.04.26THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
April 26, 1971
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli None
Kindig
Jacobs
Mink
Norbe rg
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
City Attorney Karmel
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called
to order on the above date at 8:05 p.m. Chairman Sine presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members responded to roll call.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 22 and the study
meeting of April 12, 1971 previously submitted to members were
approved and adopted.
HEARINGS
1. REQUEST GRANTED FOR AMENDMENT OF USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR
SHOP AT 1213 ROLLINS ROAD
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on a request by Dale Whitt,
1411 Floribunda, for amendment of his present use permit for auto shop
at 1213 Rollins Road. Correspondence from Mr. Whitt was read in which
he indicated that his previous understanding was that he could park
four cars in front of his repair shop, but that he had now been
informed by the City Building Inspector that he could not. He stated
he checked with the City Planner who verified this; and he requested
the Commission's reconsideration of this permit, pleading hardship
to his business.
Upon invitation from the Chair, Mr. Whitt stated there was actually
room for six cars in front of his establishment but that he needed
only space for four; that all cars would be inside at night; that
all cars parked would be ready for delivery, not torn down; and that,
to his knowledge, there had always been parking in the area.
Chairman Sine asked for comments from the audience favoring this
application. Mr. Ferd Gebhard, of 1212 Rollins Road responded,
stating that he had observed Mr. Whitt's business methods, and that
he was an asset/(nErwlingame. Mr. Gebhard commented that he personally
had been in business there for eight years and this area had always been
used for parking.
There were no comments from the audience against the application.
In response to Chairman Sine, the City Planner commented that there had
been some confusion among Commission members at the time of use permit
granting, there being much resistance to the idea of parking wrecks.
He saw no objection to parking for normal business use, particularly
since this building has a setback, and virtually all other, buildings
on the street are built up to the property line.
Commissioner Norberg felt that Mr. Whitt's business operations should
not be restricted when his request was not detrimental, and essential
to his business.
Commissioner Jacobs commented that Mr. Whitt had kept his place of
business very clean, and had previously agreed to no overnight parking.
His opinion was that the restriction of no parking was a definite
hardship. Commissioner Taylor agreed. Both Commissioners Mink and
Cistulli had no comment.
Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion to amend the use permit
for the purpose of using the four parking spaces in front for operable
motor vehicles, daytime parking only, with suggested hours of 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
Chairman Sine informed the applicant the amendment would be effective
Tuesday, May 4 if -not appealed, and cautioned him that this use permit
was subject to recall if non-conformance is found.
ACKNOIRLEDGMENTS
The Chair acknowledged the presence at the meeting of Vice -Mayor
Charlotte Johnson and her husband.
2. DENIAL OF FENCE VARIANCE AT 1400 COLUMBUS AVENUE TO DENNIS
HUAJARDO
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application for fence
variance at 1400 Columbus Avenue by Dennis Huajardo. A letter and
accompanying sketch by Mr. Huajardo were introduced. In his letter
Mr. Huajardo requested permission to -erect 4 fence posts 24" above a
2216" fence to be constructed of variable heights to 6'. The posts
were to be for the purpose of supporting a trellis on which vines or
other foliage could be supported, affording greater privacy from the
sunbathing and pool area of an adjacent lot.
Mr. Huajardo's sketch of the proposed fence was presented to the
Commission, and he was invited by the Chair to speak. He stated he
only wished to re-emphasize the points made in his letter, mentioning
that at no point would the actual fence be higher than 6', lowest
point to be 5'8". The extra 24", he said, would be enough essentially
to screen the view of the next yard.from his kitchen area, although
he had no objection to his neighbor's activities.
There were no comments from the audience favoring this application.
- 2 -
Upon'Chairman's Sine's request for comment against the application,
Mr. Richard Rogers of 2212 Hillside Drive came forth, stating he
was the owner of the adjoining property. He declared that Mr. Huajardo's
lot is 18';higher than his own, and the proposed fence would be
essentially 9'6" above his lot, thus cutting off the sun from his patio
area. He stated that a fence of such varying heights would be unsightly,
even as seen from the street and might be top-heavy. He mentioned the
drainage problem to his lot, and the setting of a bad precedent.
There were no more comments from the audience against the application,
and the public meeting was declared closed.
During a period of Commission discussion, the City Planner declared he
had no comments other than that fence variances are allowable if
hardship can be proved.
Commissioner Jacobs felt that, based on Mr. Huajardo's sketch, the
angle of the sun would not be such that Mr. Rogers' yard would be
affected.
In response to Commissioner Mink's several questions, Mr. Huajardo
indicated that the fence would be of varying heights because of the
terrain, that it would be constructed of batt and board of good quality,
and the trellis either of wood or lath. Commissioner Mink felt that
the fence presently in the back yard would make a much more proper
example, and commented that since neighbors have to live with fences,
their wishes should be considered. Commissioner Norberg stated that
many people value privacy highly, and believed that Mr. Huajardo had
a legitimate claim for arlditional fence height, while Commissioner
Taylor believed that the project would better be accomplished by
plantings, such as a hedge.
Commissioner Kindig questioned the material for the trellis and felt
that the distance from the Huajardo house to the property line - 12'6"
and the 9' to the wall of the Rogers house should negate the need for
a fence exceeding 6'. Commissioner Cistulli felt that since a 6'
fence had been adequate for 8 yearQ, there was no good reason for
raising the height now.
Chairman Sine also thought that the 6' fence would take care of the
view from' -the pool area, but Mr. Huajardo informed him that there
were some individual differences, such as the use of pesticides,which
would be settled by a higher fence, also that his kitchen floor is 3'
above the ground level.Commissioner Kindig moved that the application
for fence variance by Mr. Huajardo at 1400 Columbus be approved in
accordance with the map that he provided and only for the distance
provided. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it was denied
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Jacobs-Norberg
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli-Kindig-Mink-Taylor-Sine
The applicant was informed of his right to appeal to the City Council
at the next meeting of May 3. He thanked the Commission for their time
and efforts and voiced respect for Mr. Rogers' point of view.
- 3 -
3. SPECIAL PERMIT DELAYED FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1299 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY BY AERO RENT -A -CAR.
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of
Aero Rent-A-Car for a car rental agency at 1299 Bayshore Highway.
Aero Rent-A-Car was represented by Mr. Hollenbeck of Walnut Creek.
Plans were passed around showing the office building already on the
property, and existing parking spaces, with notation as to the ten
spaces allotted to the.car rental agency in the excess parking. The
Commission Secretary explained the application. There would be a gas
pump installed, but only to service rental cars and there would be
no car repairs on the site, although rental cars would be washed
there.
The Chair invited Mr. Hollenbeck to speak. He stated he had operated
the same type of business at 825 Hinckley Road for some time, and had
no problems with the city; that he intended to run a good operation.
Chairman Sine invited comments from the audience in favor of this
application. Mr. David Keyston of 1310 Bayshore Highway responded,
commenting that there was more than adequate parking and Mr. Hollenbeck
had agreed to keep parking open for tenants of the building. In res-
ponse to a question, Mr. Hollenbeck acknowledged that only ten spaces
would be occupied and that if there were additional cars, they would
be moved to another area.
The Chair asked for response from the audience against the application,
and there was an objection that all spaces on the lot were supposed to
be for the use of the office building, and other businesses cannot
rent parking spaces.
The public hearing was declared closed.
During a period of Commission discussion, Mr. Hollenbeck was questioned
as to car washing. He reported that this would be done only for the
rental cars and near a drain which apparently goes into the sanitary
sewer system. The City Engineer commented that if car washing is done,
it should be done with clear water. He stated that if detergents are
used, the water must go into the sanitary sewer system rather than an
open storm drain because of pollution. He was also concerned with the
presence of floating materials such as oil and grease in an open storm
drain, and warned that even if they were discharged into the sanitary
sewer, it would require a pit of some kind.
Commissioner Taylor, upon questioning Mr. Hollenbeck, was informed
that the car wash area would not be covered but was not visible from
the street. The washing would be manual with a hose and could be
done with clear water.
The City Planner voiced concern about the appearance of the operation
and about the drainage system. He felt that the applicant should
present more definitive plans.
During a following discussion of the gassing operation, it was found
that it would be necessary to have a 1,000 to 2,000 gallon tank, to
service 30 to 50 cars, effecting a savings to the applicant of 10�
a gallon.
Commissioner Mink was concerned as to whether the surface of the parking
lot was well built enough to handle highway trucks to service the gas
tank and felt that the tank would constitute a fire hazard if placed
behind the building. He was assured by Mr. Keyston that he felt the
surface would be adequate, especially since it would not require a
huge truck to service a 2,000 gallon tank, but that the applicant
would go along with any location desired for the tank. However,
Commissioner Mink felt that better planning should be used to make
certain about fire hazards, gas pump, and washing facilities.
Commissioner Kindig agreed. He also wished the reservation of spaces
for the agency and was told that the southernmost ten spaces farthest
from the building would be used.
Commissioner Norberg had no comment, while Commissioner Taylor voiced
misgivings about .the washing methods which he stated would be allayed
if the water entered the sanitary sewer system. Commissioner Cistulli
mentioned he would like to have the spaces for the cars marked and
no structure around the gas pump.
Commissioner Mink moved that this item be continued to an adjourned
meeting on May 10, during which time the applicant should prepare
specific plans after conferring with staff about the problems which
had been discussed.
RECONVENE
Following a recess at 9:25, Chairman Sine reconvened the meeting at
9:35.
4. VARIANCE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE UNIT APARTMENT HOUSE
AT 1516 NE'VI,AND S
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of the
Albar Construction -Company, represented by Les Alexander and Tyrel?
Barker, to build a five -unit apartment building in a site presently
zoned R-1. iihe letter received with the application justified the
variance request by the fact that the neighborhood is already composed
of 60/ multiple family &A,ellings, a variance just having been granted
to property directly across the street from the proposed site; that a
relatively neglected piece of nronerty would be utilized; and that
architecturally the proposed building would contribute to the
neighborhood. Revised plans were given Commission members.
Upon the invitation of the Chair, the applicants stated they felt they
should have the variance since the neighborhood is now mainly
composed of multi -family dwellings. They stated they had added two
more parking places to the plans as requested in the study meeting.
There was no one in the audience either for or against the granting
- 5 -
of this variance.
The City Planner stated that he had made a study of the block from
E1 Camino to Center Avenue which showed that eight lots were occupied
by two or more units, legal or illegal, and five lots had single
family dwellings on them,one of which was the applicants' building
site. He commented that there was a definite pattern of multi -family
dwellings on this block, and that the proposal is in accord with the
General Plan which designates this block as low -density multiple.
He commented that the General Plan is a valid document, and if this
is a proper building, built according to code with two stories and
garages in the rear, he had no objection.
Commissioner Norberg mentioned that he thought the plan for addition
of the garages could be improved, but that he had no other objections.
It was brought out that the garages are now 18 x 20 in accord with
code requirements.
Commissioners Jacobs, Taylor and Mink had no comment on the plans.
Commissioner Kindig wanted verbal confirmation that the two trees
in front would stay, and questioned the front and rear setbacks
and height of the building. He was informed that the front is 171.
the back, 15', and the height of the building was 21'.
Commissioner Cistulli was also interested in preserving the trees.
The applicants stated that this would be done, as well as the one
in the rear if it developed that it was on the property of the
applicant.
Chairman Sine commented on the fence to the east of the property
between 1514 and 1516 stating that was illegal in that it has a
plastic extension on top of the 6' fence, and asked the applicants'
intention with it. They stated that it would be removed if it were
on their property.
Commissioner Jacobs introduced a motion that the variance be granted
to Albar Construction to build a 5-unit apartment building at 1516
Newlands complying as near as possible to the elevation shown on the
plans and preserving the two trees in front, plus the one tree in the
rear if possible. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, and it
passed unanimously on roll call vote.
Chairman Sine informed the applicants that the variance would become
effective on May 4, 1971 if not appealed to the City Council.
5. VARIANCE APPROVED TO CONSTRUCT TEN APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON
SHORELAND PROPERTY AT CADILLAC WAY, CAROLAN AVENUE, AND BAYSHORE
BOULEVARD BY WHEATLEY-OLIVER OF PALO ALTO
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the above application for
variance, and plans were distributed to Commission members. A letter
accompanying the application indicated that application would also
be made at a later date for construction of a restaurant at a site
adjacent to the apartment area, and also that the applicants believed
the project would be an attractive addition to the city and would be
instrumental in improving business in the Broadway area.
Both Mr. Wheatley and Mr. Oliver were present.
Chairman Sine requested the applicants to make a presentation of
their plans, and Mr. Oliver responded.
He informed the Commission that since the last planning meeting
they had an additional request that an existing structure on the
property be allowed to remain and be refurbished for use as a storage
area and possibly a rental office during the rental period. This is
now a one story office building and its rear wall is on the property line
next to a gas station.
Mr. Oliver went on to say that there would be a total of twelve
buildings on the site - ten apartment build.ings,.the existing structure,
and the recreation building which does not contain apartments. The
variance is for the construction of these buildings on one parcel of
land since financing of twelve separate buildings on twelve separate
lots would be extremely difficult: A box culvert carrying storm
drainage traverses the property. The present overhead utilities are
to be put underground.
The City Planner reviewed the background for this variance application.
The property is presently zoned R-4, apartment, and the proposed use
accords with that classification. However, the code also provides that
not more than one residential building may be constructed on a single
parcel and the proposal includes ten such buildings on a single site
in addition to the accessory buildings mentioned. This is similar to
a "planned unit development" but we have no such provision in our
zoning code. For this reason, the only approach of the applicant is to
request a variance.
He has reviewed the plans. The land coverage, number of car spaces,
distance between buildings and gener<_1 layout are satisfactory. Since
all residential structures have frontage on a street, the fire department
has few objections but will require that through access must be made
available by proper paving over the box culvert. They may have other
internal requirements.
He said that there are 510 units but that this number should pose a
lesser traffic problem than other possible uses of the property.
An apartment building has fairly consi7tent traffic while a commercial
building would create peak hour-. He would strongly object to an
office building, etc. He inquired if Oliver had solved his problems
with the Fire Chief.
Oliver replied he thought this had been done. They have assured the
Chief they would place some type of material over the culvert to
support fire equipment. They are agreeable to an enunciator system
on Carolan Avenue, also a pull box, and the necessary fire entrances.
The City Engineer commented that the box culvert easement is 201,
the width of the culvert is 18' and the depth around 6' - that it should
be adequate to carry a storm sewer. To a question about access in
event of stoppage, he stated that there is an access point on Bayshore
and another access point.
Mr. Oliver mentioned that there at least two manholes in the culvert.
They plan to pick up the inv.rts that are there for drainage of their
property.
- 7 -
The City Engineer reported that the utilities are adequate. There are
12"-14" water mains and the sewage should be adequate. He stated
that the sewer would be installed along the box culvert and a couple
of connections would be necessary.
Mr. Oliver mentioned that another developer in a different area had
asked permission to install a sewerline through the property, and they
want to grant him an easement.
Chairman Sine asked for. comments from the audience in favor of this
variance. Mr. Ferd Gebhard, of 1212 Rollins Road, appeared and
voiced his approval, saying that this was the only logical development
to be put on the site, since a shopping center would damage Broadway
Avenue business, and the apartment buildings being between the railroad
and the freeway, would be convenient for commuters. Office buildings
would require much more off-street parking, and present more of a
traffic problem.
Mrs. Lillian Triplett of 900 Toyon Drive then came forth and stated
she thoroughly approved, that it would be a desirable location because
of its proximity to the shopping district. She mentioned the aesthetic
improvement that will result, although she felt that in the construction
of the apartments adequate protection should be made against noise.
Mrs. Mary Crockett, 1032 Toyon Drive, also indicated her approval.
Chairman Sine then requested comments from the audience against this
variance. There were none, and the public hearing was declared closed.
During a period of Commission discussion, Commissioner Norberg stated
that it was a very well designed and creditable development.
Chairman Sine requested the Commissioners to give their individual
opinions regarding density.
Commissioner Jacobs felt that the plan was very good and there would
be no density problem. Commissioner Taylor agreed, stating that it
was the best organized project presented in several years.
Commissioner Mink felt that the real problem is the relationship of
open space to density, and the plan showed good work in that the
maximum amount of open space had been maintained. Commissioner
Kindig asked for a review of the parking ratio, and he was informed
by Mr. Oliver that it was 12 to 1; that there were 510 covered spaces
directly under the buildings, which meant that there was sufficient
parking in each'building for all occupants. There were an additional
258 parking spaces on the site. Commissioner Kindig felt that the
density feature was all right.
Commissioner Cistulli commented that he approved highly of the __project,
and was happy with the density. He hoped that this project would
go through as it would be an asset to Broadway.
Chairman Sine had other questions, one of which was the question of
fencing around the two swimming pools. The City Planner stated that
the code requires fencing, and there is a specific swimming pool
section in our code.
The Chairman then inquired about children. Mr. Oliver said they had
not definitely decided. Commissioner Cistulli suggested that possibly
children of up to age 4 or 5 might be consd eyed. Mr. Oliver commented
that maybe one building might be given over to young families with
young children. This was a possibility. In reply to the Chairman's
question as to start and finish of the project, Mr. Oliver stated that
they plan to start August 17 and allow 18 months for completion, the
contractor moving from building to building.
Chairman Sine mentioned that the existing traffic problem would be
compounded. He wondered if the company would be amenable, if the
traffic grew too heavy on Carolan, to assuming their fair share of a
traffic light. Mr. Oliver stated -that he could not say until he knew
what sort of cost would be necessary and commented on the ten access
driveways. Chairman Sine replied that regardless of this, all
driveways bunch up into two exits. Upon being asked for an opinion,
the City Attorney stated that the property could be liable for the lights
to the extent that it contributed to the traffic problem.
Commissioner Mink moved that the variance be granted subject to
modification or to cancellation or termination of existing contract
with Burlingame Shore Land Company, that location of buildings and
number of unit^ be in accordance with plans submitted and that the
project be built generally in accordance with these plans, that the
project be in accordance with all building and fire codes of the city
together with such interior fire protection devices required by the
fire department, and that landscaping plans be submitt-d and approved
before occupancy of the buildings. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the
motion, and it carried unanimously on roll call vote.
EWCTION OF OFFICERS:
Chairman dine announced that officers should now be elected for the
forthcoming year. Commissioner Jacobs then moved that the same panel
of officers continue for the next year. Commissioner Taylor seconded
the motion and it carried unanimously on a voice vote. The Officers
are:
Chairmane Thomas W. Sine
Vice -Chairman: Frank Cistulli
Secretary: Everett K. Kindig
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett K. Kindig
Secretary
!W0Z
of this variance.
(� The City Planner stated that he had made a study of the block from
El Camino to Center Avenue which showed that eight lots were occupied
by two or more units, legal or illegal, and five lots had single
family dwellings on them,one of which was the applicants' building
site. He commented that there was a definite pattern of multi -family
dwellings on this block, and that the proposal is in accord with the
General Plan which designates this block as low -density multiple.
He commented that the General Plan is a valid document, and if this
is a proper building, built according to code with two stories and
garages in the rear, he had no objection.
Commissioner Norberg'mentioned that he thought the plan for addition
of the garages could be improved, but that he had no other objections.
It was brought out that the garages are now 18 x 20 in accord with
code requirements.
Commissioners Jacobs, Taylor and Mink had no comment on the plans.
Commissioner Kindig wanted verbal confirmation that the two trees
in front would stay, and questioned the front and rear setbacks
and height of the building. He was informed that the front is 171.
the back, 151, and the height of the building was 211.
Commissioner Cistulli was also interested in preserving the trees.
The applicants stated that this would be done, as well as the one
in the rear if it developed that it was on the property of the
applicant.
Chairman Sine commented on the fence to the east of the property
between 1514 and 1516 stating that was illegal in that it has a
plastic extension on top of the 6' fence, and asked the applicants'
intention with it. They stated that it would be removed if it were
on their property.
Commissioner Jacobs introduced a motion that the variance be granted
to Albar Construction to build a 5-unit apartment building at 1516
Newlands complying as near as possible to the elevation shown on the
plans and preserving the two trees in front, plus the one tree in the
rear if possible. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, and it
passed unanimously on roll call vote.
Chairman Sine informed the applicants that the variance would become
effective on May 4, 1971 if not appealed to the City Council.
/ 5. VARIANCE APPROVED TO CONSTRUCT TEN APART,dENT BUILDINGS ON
V SHORELAND PROPERTY AT CADILLAC WAY, CAROLAN AVENUE, AND BAYSHORE
BOULEVARD BY WHEATLFY—OLIVER OF PALO ALTO
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the above application for
variance, and plans were distributed to Commission members. A letter
accompanying the application indicated that application would also
be made at a later date for construction of a restaurant at a site
adjacent to the apartment area, and also that the applicants believed
the project would be an attractive addition to the city and would be
instrumental in improving business in the Broadway area.
Both Mr. LPneatley and Mr. Oliver were present.
Chairman.Sine requested the applicants to make a presentation of
their plans, and Mr. Oliver responded.
He informed the Commission that since the last planning meeting
( they had an additional request that an existing structure on the
property be allowed to remain and be refurbished for use as a storage
area and possibly a rental office during the rental, period. This is
now a one story office building and its rear wall is on the property line
next to a gas station.
Mr. Oliver went on to say that there would be a total of twelve
buildings on the site - ten apartment buildings, the existing structure,
and the recreation building which does not contain apartments. The
variance is for the construction of these buildings on one parcel of
land since financing of twelve separate buildings on twelve separate
lots would be extremely difficult. A box culvert carrying storm
drainage traverses the property. The present overhead utilities are
to be put underground.
The City Planner reviewed the background for this variance application.
The property is presently zoned R-4, apartment, and the proposed use
accords with that classification. However, the code also provides that
not more than one residential building may be constructed on a single
parcel and the proposal includes ten such buildings on a single site
in addition to the accessory buildings mentioned. This is similar to
a "planned unit development" but we have no such provision in our
zoning code. For this reason, the only approach of the applicant is to
request n variance.
He has reviewed the plans. The land coverage, number of car spaces,
distance between buildings and general layout are satisfactory. Since
all residential structures have frontages on a street, the fire department
has few objections but will require that through access must be made
available by proper paving over the box culvert. They may have other
internal requirements.
He said that there are 510 units but that this number should pose a
lesser traffic problem than other possible uses of the property.
An apartment building has fairly consi.:-tent traffic while a commercial
building would create peak hour-. He would strongly object to an
office building, etc. He inquired if Oliver had solved his problems
with the Fire Chief.
Oliver replied he thought this had been done. They have assured the
Chief they would place some type of material over the cu lv^rt to
support fire equipment. They are agreeable to -n enunciator system
On Carolan Avenue, also a pull box, and the necessary fire entrances.
The City Engineer commented that the box culvert easement is 201,
the width of the culvert is 18' and the depth around 6' - that it should
be adequate to carry a storm sewer. To a question about access in
event of stoppage, he stated that there is an access point on Bayshore
and another access pint.
Mr. Oliver mentioned that there at least two manholes in the culvert.
They plan to pick up the inverts that are there for drainage of their
property.
- 7 -
The City Engineer reported that the utilities are adequate. There are
12"-14" water mains and the sewage should be adequate. lie stated
that the sever would be installed along the box culvert and a couple
of connections would be necessary.
Mr. Oliver mentioned that another developer in a different area had
asked permission to install a sewerline through the property, and they
want to grant him an easement.
Chairman Sine asked for. comments from the audience in favor of this
variance. Mr. Ferd Gebhard, of 1212 Rollins Road, appeared and
voiced his approval, saying that.this was the only logical development
to be put on the site, since a shopping center would damage Broadway
Avenue business, and the apartment buildings being between the railroad
and the freeway, would be convenient for commuters. Office buildings
would require much more off-street parking, and present more of a
traffic problem.
Mrs. Lillian Triplett of 900 Toyon Drive then came forth and stated
she thoroughly approved, that it would be a desirable location because
of its proximity.to the shopping district. She mentioned the aesthetic
improvement that will result, although she felt that in the construction
of the apartments adequate protection should be made against noise.
Mrs. Mary Crockett, 1032 Toyon Drive, also indicated her approval.
Chairman Sine then requested comments from the audience against this
variance. There were none, and the public hearing was declared closed.
During a period of Commission discussion, Commissioner Norberg stated
that it was a very well designed and creditable development.
Chairman Sine requested the Commissioners to give their individual
opinions regarding density.
Commissioner Jacobs felt that the plan was very good and there would
be no density problem. Commissioner Taylor agreed, stating that it
was the best organized project presented in several years.
Commissioner Mink felt that the real problem is the relationship of
open space to density, and the plan showed good work in that the
maximum amount of open space had been maintained. Commissioner
Kindig asked for a review of the parking ratio, and he was informed
by Mr. Oliver that it was 12 to 1; that there were 510 covered spaces
directly under the buildings, which meant that there was sufficient
parking in each building for all occupants. There were an additional
258 parking spaces on the site. Commissioner Kindig felt that the
density feature was all right.
Commissioner Cistulli commented that he approved highly of the..project,
and was happy with the density. He hoped that this project would
�. go through as it would be an asset to Broadway.
Chairman Sine had other questions, one of which was the question of
fencing around the two swimming pools. The City Planner stated that
the code requires fencing, and there is a specific swimming pool
section in our code.
The Chairman then inquired about children. Mr. Oliver said they had
not definitely decided. Commissioner Cistulli suggested that possibly
children of up to age 4 or 5 might be cons ered. Mr. Oliver commented
that maybe one building might be given over to young families with
young children. This was a possibility. In reply to the Chairman's
question as to start and finish of the project, Mr. Oliver stated that
they plan to start August 17 and allow 18 months for completion, the
contractor moving from building to building.
Chairman Sine mentioned that the existing traffic problem would be
compounded. He wondered if the company would be amenable, if the
traffic grew too heavy on Carolan, to assuming their fair share of a
traffic light. Mr. Oliver stated that he could not say until he knew
what sort of cost would be necessary and commented on the ten access
driveways. Chairman Sine replied that regardless of this, all
driveways bunch up into two exits. Upon being asked for an opinion,
the City Attorney stated that the property could be liable for the lights
to the extent that it contributed to the traffic problem.
Commissioner Mink moved that the variance be granted subject to
modification or to cancellation or termination of existing contract
with Burlingame Shore Land Company, that location of buildings and
number of unit^ be in accordance_ with plans submitted and that the
project be built generally in accordance with these plans, that the
project be in accordance with all building andfire codes of the city
together with such interior fire protection devices required by the
ff fire department, and that landscaping plans be submitt-d and approved
1, before occupancy of the buildings. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the
motion, and it carried unanimously on roll call vote.
EJECTION OF OFFICERS:
Chairman Sine announced that officers should now be elected for the
forthcoming year, Commissioner Jacobs then moved that the same panel
of officers continue for the next year. Commissioner Taylor seconded
the motion and it carried unanimously on a voice vote. The Officers
are:
Chairman:
Vice -Chairman:
Secretary:
ADJOU RNMENT :
Thomas W. Sine
Frank Cistulli
Everett K. Kindig
The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett K. Kindig
Secretary