HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.03.27THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
March 27, 1972
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
CALL TO ORDER
Taylor (excused) City Planner Swan
City Engineer Marr
City Attorney Karmel
A regular meeting of the Burlingame -Planning Commission was called to
order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Sine presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members were present.
being out of town on business.
MINUTES
Commissioner Taylor was excused,
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 28, 1972 and the study
meeting of March 13, 1972 submitted to members previously were approved
and adopted.
HEARINGS
1. PARCEL MAP OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD SERVICE STATION AT BROADWAY AND
ROLLINS ROAD
Chairman Sine announced this item for hearing. However, the City
Planner reported to the Commission that ARCO wanted the map continued
to the April regular meeting, since the title company needed more time
to trace the easement on Whitethorn Way. Commissioner Cistulli moved
this application be continued to the April 24 regular meeting,
Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on voice
vote.
2. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SETBACK FOR SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD AND FOR
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE WITHIN A BUILDING IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT AT 1540 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. H. RICHARD O'HARA.
After the Chairman introduced this matter for hearing, Secretary Kindig
read a letter from Mr. O'Hara, withdrawing the application without
prejudice because of difficulties in planning the proposed building.
City Planner Swan told the Commission he had received another communication
from a Mr. Pendleton, Asst. Counsel of BCDC. This was a response to
inquiry if the property were within the jurisdiction of BCDC. Mr.
Pendleton replied that this was within 100 feet of the shoreline and
therefore under BCDC jurisdiction.
3. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6-UNIT APARTMENT ON AN R-2 LOT AT 1131
CAPUCHINO, BEING LOT 7, BLOCK 5, EASTON ADDITION. LESLIE T.
ALEXANDER.
- 2 -
Chairman Sine announced the hearing on this application which had been
referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council, and
Secretary Kindig read Mr. Alexander's letter to the Council of
February 29, 1972, which in brief stated that because of plan revisions
the application might now be reconsidered.
The City Planner reviewed the present status of the application, after
he had distributed revised plans to the Commission members.
He asked the Commission to note that this apartment building is almost
a mirror image of the building next door. The double garage at the
rear is now 19' rather than 181. Also the entire building has been
shifted over 1'4" for a 6'4" side yard which provides a useful area.
The lot now has more space devoted to open area. By combining the two
driveways there is a possibility of another parking space and temporary
parking along the front entrance. He stated this plan seems to be in
keeping with what the Planning Commission has recommended on that block.
The coverage is still 50% on an R-2 lot, and is no more than other buildings
nearby.
Mr. Alexander was present and addressed the Commission. He commented
that this plan is much the same as others which the Commission has
approved on that block, and is the only remaining lot on its side of the
street which does not have at least two units on it. He thought the
building had been brought back down to a more desirable size as far
as units and areas were concerned.
Chairman Sine asked the audience for comments in favor of this
application.
Fiory Olivio, of 1129 Capuchino, was in favor of the application.
Stephen Sacco of 1142 Capuchino also spoke in favor. He commented it
would be an asset to the street.
Chairman Sine then asked for audience comment against the application.
Secretary Kindig read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. S. F. Childers of
1139 Capuchino praising the Commission for their previous rejection of
the Alexander apartment, and commenting on the bad traffic situation
in the area, the already existing overloading of sewer and water
systems, and the fact that erection of a two-story building next to
their property will eliminate the sun from their yard during the winter,
damaging expensive landscaping.
Mr. S. F. Childers addressed the Commission. He stated the problem was
not so much the on -street parking from the apartments as the general
traffic, the post office traffic and the business parking due to lack
of business parking lots. He did not see where the change from the
three -bedroom apartment to a two -bedroom would change the density, and
noted that the Northpark apartments with their 510 units would add
greatly to Broadway's traffic difficulties. He feared that having an
apartment next door would devalue his property.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Norberg raised the question of revised elevations on the
plans. There was discussion and it was resolved by the fact that
revised elevations were presented to the City Council at the appeal.
- 3 -
Commissioner Norberg commented that a drop ladder was needed on one
corner of the building. He also stated that there should be some
planting along each side of the 24' driveway.
Commissioner Jacobs stated that he liked the revised plans. Commissioner
Mink brought out the facts that side setback required for R-1 is 5'f
this apartment setback is 6'4"; height limitation in R-1 is 351,
and this building will be approximately 21' high. Commissioner Kindig
had no comment on the plans, stating they were an improvement over
those previous. He felt that the pattern for these apartments had been
set on the block. Commissioner Cistulli also liked the modified plan,
although he was not actually in favor of the common driveway, feeling
there might be future complications. He thought that redwood planters
along the driveway sides would be damaged by cars, as well as being
an attractive nuisance to dogs. He would prefer vines to shrubs. He
noted that on that street the traffic is not mainly brought about by
the apartments but by the post office and nearby businesses.
Chairman Sine, referring to Mr. Childers' letter, asked the City
Engineer if the water and sewer systems were overloaded, and if he
anticipated any problems. City Engineer Marr replied that he always
made a study of residential areas for variances such as this, and he
did not anticipate that this small 6-unit building would add to the
problems.
Chairman Sine pointed out to Mr. Childers that if this building were
a single-family residence or a duplex, the height would be approximately
the same. The Chairman stated he would rather have the driveway a
matter of mutual consent between the two owners and that he did not
like the idea of planters.
Mr. Alexander suggested that a brick planter area with trees in the
center of the driveway would reduce the concrete area and still provide
for a turn -around area in the back.
Commissioner Cistulli moved that the variance to construct a 6-unit
apartment .on an R-2 lot at 1131 Capuchin, being Lot 7, Block 5,
Easton Addition, be approved with the modification of elevations and
revised plan showing landscaping. Commissioner Norberg questioned the
omission of planter boxes from the qualifications. Commissioner
Jacobs pointed out that the Commission had the builder's word that he
would do something about the 24' of concrete. Mr. Alexander repeated
that he would work something out in the way of planting for this
concrete area. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously on roll call vote. Mr. Alexander was informed that this
variance would become effective April 4, unless appealed to the
City Council.
4. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10-UNIT APARTMENT IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 255
ROLLINS ROAD WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED YARD, BEING REMAINDER OF LOTS 3,
6, AND 7, BLOCK 46, TOWN OF BURLINGAME. G. C. JOHNSON.
This application was announced for hearing by the Chairman. Secretary
Kindig read the correspondence, which included an amended application
for a ten -unit building.
In the City Planner's review of the application, he pointed out that
a variance had been granted for a 14-unit apartment on this property
- 4 -
in 1969; but a recent application for 14 units had been rejected, as
well as one for 12 units. -The builder had then worked closely with the
staff and the result is the present application for a ten -unit building.
His opinion was that this plan was superior to the 14-unit approved in
1969. The structure now meets fire regulations and building codes, and
most setback requirements. There should be an 8'6" setback along
Rollins Road.
He commented that the application appears to satisfy variance require-
ments: It is not injurious to surrounding property owners. Mr.
Johnson has contacted nearly all the property owners in this area, and
they approve. It will not adversely affect the zoning plan. Much of
the existing development along Rollins Road indicates a higher density.
Lot coverage is 40%, which is permitted in R-1. The structure is well
under 35' in height, even though 3-story. 35' is permitted in R-1.
The City Planner showed diagrams of the yards, noting that when there
are two frontages the shorter one shall be the front yard and the
longer frontage shall be the side. In this case the front yard would
be along Humboldt and.the side yard along Rollins Road. He distributed
to the Commission three different diagrams which the builder had prepared
for placement of the building on the site. The City Planner commented
that in this case the best place for additional space would be in the
rear yard away from the noise of Bayshore Freeway. With a rear yard
setback of 20 feet, the minimum setback along Rollins Road would be V ;
the average setback is 13'4"from the freeway frontage road. He noted
there was adequate parking to meet the code. With tandem parking
there would be 18 spaces offstreet.
Mr. G. C. Johnson addressed the Commission, stating he felt the plan
was excellent, and in his opinion it could not be improved. However,
he would cooperate with any suggestions.
Chairman Sine asked for comments from the audience in favor of this
variance. Charles Nolan of 221 Victoria, responded. He stated that
the vacant lot is now an eyesore; that he had looked at the builder's
plans and approved; that an apartment probably would be much better
maintained than if a single family residence were located there; that
it would add to the value of his property. There were no comments
against the variance and the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Norberg questioned the parking and commented that one of
the side areas near the front required additional planting. Commissioner
Jacobs agreed with him regarding the planting, and liked Exhibit "C"
because of the 20' rear yard. Commissioner Mink agreed and suggested
a condition that the variance include a variance to front setback
requirements. Commissioner Kindig agreed with Commissioner Mink, and
felt the 20' rear setback would be of greater value to the tenants,
assuming the builder would agree to any of the three alternates.
Mr. Johnson stated he would.
Commissioner Cistulli commented he would rather have 8 units than 10,
but that he also favored Exhibit "C" with the 20' rear setback.
Chairman Sine suggested a 30' entrance driveway to parking spaces 11,
12, and 13 and enlargement of the planted area. Commissioner Norberg
also suggested that the cornice (or fascia) on the building be made more
decorative.
- 5 -
City Engineer Marr reported to the Commission that this is a law area
with drainage problems. He recommended the floor area be well above the
curb level to prevent flooding. With regard to fire protection he
stated there was a 12" main on Humboldt Road with a nearby hydrant. There
is no main on Rollins Road. He questioned the percentage of the frontage
in driveway, since ordinance requires not more than 25%. It was est-
ablished that it was about 33%, and the City Engineer felt that was
not beyond the limit that could be allowed.
Commissioner Mink moved that the variance to allow a 10-unit apartment
in R-1 District at 255 Rollins Road with less than required yard be
granted with the following conditions:
1. The gasoline tank currently on the property be either removed
or filled with inert material.
2. The building be built in general conformance with plans and
and elevations submitted March 27.
3. The building be sited on the property in accordance with
Exhibit "C."
4. This motion to approve include a variance allowing the setback
along Rollins Road to be 7' rather than 8'6".
5. The street openings for driveways conform with submitted
drawings rather than the 25% requirements.
6. Driveway parking spaces 11, 12, and 13 be reduced to 30' to
enlarge the planted area.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously
on roll call vote. Chairman Sine commended Mr. Johnson for his coopera-
tion in working closely with the City Planner and staff.
RECONVENE:
After a recess at 9:25, the meeting reconvened at 9:33.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING ADVERTISING DISPLAY
AT ANZA AIRPORT PARK NO. 6 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING AUGUST 3, 1976,
THE EXPIRATION DATE OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE AIRPORT PARKING
SERVICE
Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. Secretary Kindig
read the correspondence which included the application and letter from
the applicant. He noted the receipt of site plan, and drawings of the
addition to the existing sign.
The City Planner commented on the difficulty of identifying this type
of sign. It is not a ground sign because it is more than 12' high;
it is not a pole sign because it is not made of incombustible material.
The present sign would be an advertising structure. Advertising displays
are prohibited if viewed from the freeway; or if they conditute a
hazard. However, the exception is a sign to designate name of owner or
6
occupant and to identify the premises. He stated the existing sign is
unlawful without a special permit; he did not think it attractive and
recommended that it be the only sign of this nature on the Anza
property facing the freeway. He also recommended the exclusion of the
time and temperature part of the sign; the elimination of night
lighting; and that the sign shall be removed by August 3, 1976 or an
earlier date if there is some change in land use. He commented that to
be consistent with a proposed sign code amendment, the sign should be
removed within 30 days if there is a change of land use on the
property.
David Keyston, Anza representative, addressed the Commission. He stated
they would have no objection to the condition -that the sign should be
removed if the use is discontinued, nor to the condition that this would
be the only sign on the property. He did feel that inability to
illuminate the sign would be a hardship, since much of their business
is at night and early morning. He pointed out that the existing sign
is lighted. He thought the time and temperature portion would be
helpful, although this was a matter of judgement. Commissioner Kindig
asked if Anza Pacific in leasing their property retained enough control
to prohibit any future applications for signs. Mr. Keyston replied that
he felt they could control; that they would not support any application
for variance or special permit; and to his recollection, their lease
forms state that Anza Pacific reserves the right to all signs on the
outside of buildings.
Chairman Sine asked for audience comments in favor. Mr. Charles Nolan
of 221 Victoria, stated he approved and that an airport parking lot
such as this was a step in the right direction in reducing air pollution.
He liked what Anza Pacific had accomplished in their particular area.
There was no audience comment against the sign. The public hearing
was declared closed.
Commissioners Norberg and Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner Mink
commented that since this is a sign of relatively short duration
consideration should be given to the fact that it will be made of a
less expensive material. Commissioner Kindig did not like the sign
and did not think it would do the job, since it is difficult to see
from the freeway. However, he considered the airport parking an asset.
Commissioner Cistulli, in a discussion with Mr. Keyston, brought out the
fact that the average daily customer rate is 320, and Anza Pacific
would need 400 per day to break even. Therefore the identification
sign is necessary for the upkeep of their business. Chairman Sine
concurred with Commissioner Kindig's opinion that the sign would not be
effective. He did not like it, although he did realize it was
temporary.
Commissioner Cistulli moved that the special permit be granted for
modification of existing advertising display at Anza Airport No. 6 for
the period ending August 3, 1976, the expiration date of the Special
Permit for the Airport Parking Service, in accordance with the plans
reviewed March 27, 1972 and subject to the conditions that this be the
only sign on the property and that the sign be removed within 30 days
of the change cf use of the property if it occurs before the expiration
- 7 -
date. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously
on roll call vote.
Chairman Sine informed Mr. Keyston that this special permit would
become effective on April 4, 1972 if not appealed to the Council.
6. RESUBDIVISION MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 10, 11 AND 12, BLOCK 20,
EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 IN R-3 DISTRICT FOR A 30-UNIT APARTMENT AT
BROADWAY AND EL CAMINO REAL. MICHAEL J. KALEND.
Chairman Sine announced this item for hearing, and asked the opinion of
the City Engineer on the map.
City Engineer Marr reported to the Commission that the map has been
checked and is technically correct; that it provides for elimination of
two property lines, and the three lots will then serve as one parcel.
There was a question of the type of building appearing on the agenda
for this item, since essentially it is merely an application for a
resub map. The City Planner commented that this was to present the
purpose of the resub map - to obtain a building permit for a 30-unit
apartment.
The Chairman stated that any audience comments should be in regard to
the resub map with no reference to the units proposed for the property.
He then asked for audience comments.
Henry W. Herren of 1204 Balboa addressed the Commission, stating his
property adjoins these lots, and he had heard several months ago there
were to be 30.units there. He asked if the neighborhood would be
notified if the building permit was granted, and was informed that there
would be no reason for notification unless the building needs a variance,
since this is an apartment zone. Mr. Herren then protested that the
area was already very densely populated, there is no parking on
Broadway or E1 Camino, and there is a definite traffic hazard.
Mr. Terence Sullivan of 1208 Balboa spoke, protesting the traffic
and stated this was a very dangerous corner already. He stated he hoped
the neighborhood would be notified if apartments were to be -built. Mrs.
Leo E. del Rosso of 1200 Balboa addressed the Commission stating she
had small children, and already there were 4 - 5 accidents on this
corner every week. She stated that privacy, safety and parking all
are endangered by the proposed 4-story apartments. The public hearing
was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg had no comments.
Commissioner Kindig commented he did not like the idea of the apartments
but there was not much the Commission could do about it. He was not
against the resub. Commissioner Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner
Mink questioned the City Engineer regarding easements, water service,
widening of Broadway, and safety services. City Engineer Marr reported
that there were no plans for widening of Broadway, but that all services
seemed satisfactory. He noted he had not seen the plans for the
building but that 42 parking spaces would be required. Commissioner
Mink then commented the Commission was not in a position to judge the
plans and building; only the resub map was germane to this meeting.
Mr. Herren noted sewer and water breakdowns presently encountered,
8 -
and felt they would increase with this use. Chairman Sine had no
comment.
Commissioner Kindig moved the resub map be approved in accordance with
the map submitted. Commissioner Mink seconded, and the motion carried
unanimously on roll call vote. Chairman Sine commented he shared the
concern of the people who had spoken, and requested the City Planner
to allow them to look at the plans if the apartment is to be developed.
He asked these people to give their names to the Planner who will
notify them.
7. PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY FINANCIAL OFFICE ON CONSTRUCTION SITE OF
PERMANENT BUILDING FOR PALO ALTO-SALINAS SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSN.
AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, BEING LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 10,
BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO. 2, ZONED C-1, T. E. MORRISSEY.
There was Commission discussion regarding the introduction of this item.
The City Planner reported he had received a letter of application from
this institution. Copies were distributed. According to the zoning
code, a temporary building may be permitted upon application to the
Planning Commission without or after notice. No fee is involved.
The stipulation in the code is that a permit shall state a date on or
before which the building shall be removed. It was his suggestion
that the temporary building be removed on or before March 27, 1973.
The offstreet parking should include maintenance spaces for the
realty company now located on the same parcel; 4 spaces for Palo Alto -
Salinas and temporary parking if possible; also there should be some
landscaping around this prefabricated building along with adequate
safety measures to protect the public from construction activity.
A resub is a prerequisite for a permanent building, as well as a building
permit. He reported that Mr. Thomas Morrissey and a Mr. Val Domer were
present as representatives of Palo Alto -Salinas.
Chairman Sine questioned if this should have come before the study
meeting. The City Attorney commented that this type of application
could be acted upon by the Commission without notice.
Mr. Morrissey told the Commission that his institution had been looking
for a temporary location in Burlingame for over a year, but could find
nothing suitable. Therefore they wished to install a temporary office
on the same site as the permanent construction and in front of a
building occupied by the Wright Realty Company. They wish to establish
business soon. If the permit is granted they could be in business
within 3 weeks. Mr. Val Domer reported they had made an agreement with
the Wright Realty Company that they could keep occupancy until
December 1 of this year. Then this building will be destroyed. He
stated they have a leasehold interest in these three lots - 150'
frontage, 160-170' in depth.
The City Planner showed the Commission the plot plan. Mr. Val Domer
stated that the property is presently addressed 1432, 1436 and 1440
Chapin Avenue. Mr. Morrissey showed photographs of their installations
in Fremont and Watsonville.
chairman Sine asked for comments from the audience. There were none.
The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Norberg asked for elevations
of temporary building. Mr. Morrissey showed cards giving a minimal
plot plan. The building will be 24' x 48'. Commissioner Norberg
indicated no objection. Commissioner Mink questioned the lease and was
informed that a 30-year lease with provision for two 10-year renewals
was in the hands of Mr. Carl F. Roepke, owner. Also it was indicated they
would be willing to file a copy of the lease as a condition of the
permit. Commissioner Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner Kindig
questioned if the temporary building would be there until such time as
the permanent building were constructed, and Mr. Val Domer stated that
under the terms of the lease they could not afford to keep only the
temporary building there.
City Engineer Marr questioned if the temporary building would interfere
with the construction and was informed it would not.
Commissioner Mink moved that the permit for temporary financial office
on construction site of permanent building for Palo Alto -Salinas Savings
and Loan Association at 1440 Chapin Avenue be granted subject to the
following conditions: that the permit is to become effective upon
filing a copy of the lease for 30 years with the City Attorney; that
the temporary building be removed within 15 days of the occupancy of
the permanent structure; that all other buildings be removed within 90
days of the occupancy of the permanent structure. Commissioner
Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously on roll call
vote. Chairman Sine informed the applicants that the permit would be
effective April 4 unless appealed.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett K. Kindig
Secretary