Loading...
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