Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.02.14THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 14, 1972 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER City Planner Swan City Engineer Marr City Attorney Karmel An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from..the regular meeting of January 24, 1912, was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Sine presiding. ROLL CALL All members of the commission were present. HEARINGS 1. TENTATIVE.PARCEL MAP BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 1, BUnWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK, - 808-826 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY REYNOLD C. JOHNSON COMPANY City Planner Swan explained that the Reynold C. Johnson Company wishes to make their property in this location more desirable for sale by remodeling part of a building from shipping use to office use. In order to do this there'must be more parking on the same lot as the office building. This makes it necessary to relocate property lines. The entire property will be made more marketable by dividing it up since they wish to sell part or all of it. He noted that the entrance driveways on Burlway Road would be rebuilt. City Engineer Marr reported that this resubdivision would consist of deleting six property lines and adding two. He commented that the owner has a leasehold from the City for the unloading area constructed over Mills Creek. On a question as to the use of the 24' aisle or driveway, which is divided by a property line in 1 the event of sale, he stated that an ingress -egress easement must be provided. This is one of the conditions of a parcel map. Milt Johnson, architect, addressed the Commission as representative of Reynold C. Johnson. He stated that a revised parcel map would stipulate the easements and that a reciprocal easement would be shown on each side of the property line for the driveway. He said that the leasehold with the City for the parking has another 20 years to run, and he did not elieve it was revocable. The warehouse building, which is in Parcel "C" nas a total area of 60,000 square feet. He stated that after remodeling warehouse space will be 51,400 square feet and office space will be 8,600 square feet. He was under the impression that a total of 50 spaces would be adequate - 21 for the office and 29 for the warehouse. - 2 - However, it was brought out that one space per 1,000 square feet As required for the warehouse and one space for 300 square feet for the office. Mr. Johnson expressed regret that there was this misunderstanding about parking. Further discussion clarified the fact that while the property will be divided into Parcels A,B, and C, Parcel A is self- sufficient as far as parking is concerned. Only Parcel B would be used for office parking, and the question appeared to be the parking for Parcel C. The City Planner recommended that the parking for Parcel C be determined on the basis of warehouse gross floor area - 60,000 square feet, 60 parking spaces. He also recommended that the additional lease area be indicated on the parcel map. The Chairman announced that this tentative parcel map would be considered at the public hearing of February 28. The meeting then proceeded to the agenda for the regular study meeting. STUDY MEETING 2. TENTATIVE RESUBDIVISION MAP FOR ATLANTIC RICHFIELD SERVICE STATION AT BROADWAY AND ROLLINS ROAD No representative of the applicant was present at the meeting. The City Planner reviewed the situation, stating that: this resubdivision map is a condition for the remodeling of the service station. He Mated that it has been submitted and checked by the City Engineer. 1 'City Engineer Marr reported that there were no major problems with this map; just a few small additions were necessary. He noted that it accomplishes a deletion of just a portion of one property line, and stated that staff will have the map correct including all notations necessary by the time of the next regular meeting. He added that the 10' easement to be used by D & M Garage will appear on the parcel map as a matter of record. Chairman Sine announced the consideration of this parcel map at the next regular meeting of February 28. 3. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SETBACKS FOR SIDE AND REAR YARD AND FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE WITHIN A BUILDING IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 1540 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY H. RICHARD O'HARA. The City Planner explained that this application for variance was to construct a building that would have two walls on property lines, one at the rear and one at the side. The code stipulates 25' rear setback and 10' side setback. He displayed the proposed building location plan and noted there is no information about the structural design of the proposed building. He stated that a substantial portion of the building would be used for Z-barring-the undercoating of trucks. This would be an expansion of an existing use on the same lot, and it is questionable whether that use is acceptable in the Waterfront Commercial district. The remainder of the building will be for storage of vehicles. The City Planner made the point that one of the recent inquiries concerning the undeveloped portion of the Riley property adjacent was for development of another restaurant. He thought that this new building would block - 3 - the view of the Riley property from the highway. He added, however, that she property owner at the side, Mr. McClenahan, does not object to the building and has so stated in writing. Mr. Richard O'Hara then addressed the Commission. He stated there are two buildings on the property at present. One is near the front of the property with a 20'h' setback at the front and a 5'side setback. The other building, 50' x 251, is on the back line, and will be removed to construct the proposed building. There will be no windows on the back side which abuts the Riley property where presumably a parking lot will be. He noted discussion with property owners McClenahan and Riley. Mr. McClenahan had no objections, but Mrs. Riley objected that the building would block the view of her restaurant from Bayshore. Mr. O'Hara reported that he had checked with the builder to see if the same amount of useable footage could be gained by locating the new building lengthwise on the lot, but it was not possible. He noted that the major part of the building would not be used for Z-barring - only 40' of it. He explained the process, which is rust -proofing and tropical treatment, using spray -on material which does not create a fire hazard. Drainage is accomplished out-of-doors on drain pads. Nothing goes in the sanitary sewer or stor3pJE@in. He commented he felt nothing could be accomplished by a 101/between his building and the existing McClenahan building, and offered to take 10' off his new building, making it 60' x 1901. It is a one-story building of tilt -up construction. -_Chairman Sine commented that this type of construction is more than pne-hour fire wall. He told Mr. O'Hara that a plot plan, cross -sections __.-end elevation of the building would be necessary before the Commission could act on the special permit, and asked if this could be available by the time of hearing. Mr. O'Hara replied that he would contact the builder and get the necessary material. The Chairman stated that this application would be scheduled for the next regular meeting, but if more time were necessary, a continuance could be granted. 4. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 14-UNIT APARTMENT IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 255 ROLLINS ROAD WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED YARDS, BEING REMAINDER OF LOTS 3, 6 AND 7, BLOCK 46, TOWN OF BURLINGAME, G. C. JOHNSON. City Planner Swan summarized this application, stating that a similar application for a 14-unit apartment had been approved for Mr: Neil Vannucci on May 26, 1969. However, the variance was no longer in effect, having expired after a period of one year. He commented that the plans submitted by Mr. Johnson are the same as those drawn in 1969. He stated that this would be a 14-unit apartment building on a triangular lot, which is a remainder parcel. The land amounts to 11,527 square feet more or less, and the plans indicate that the first floor will be 6' above grade. All adjacent development is R-1 with the exception of 11 Burlingame Avenue, which is a three story apartment building on another irregular lot. There are 5 units over parking. He commented this particular building did not add much to the neighborhood. There was to have been landscaping, and there is little or none. Also the lot has flooded on more than one occasion because the parking area is below the sidewalk level. Flooding is a problem in that area. He 4 - recommended that the proposed apartment have no submerged parking but be built at grade. He also.suggested that the front yard be along Humboldt Avenue and that a 15' setback be maintained as a minimum; and that the yard along Rollins Road might be considered as a side yard. He questioned the effect this apartment building would have on the property to the rear, believing a three-story apartment building 5' from the rear lot line deteriorates adjacent R-1 property. He suggested that if this type of property is developed it be treated as R3-A which permits one unit per 1,500 square feet of land area. An eight -unit apartment could be designed to fit on that lot. Mr. Johnson replied that he had close to $30,000 in the lot alone and felt that he had to have 14 units to realize anything from his investment; also that the frontage should be the long way of the lot and the address of the property had always been on Bayshore (now Rollins Road.) Chairman Sine questioned the applicant if he wanted the present application to go to a public hearing or if he wanted to redesign the building. It was decided that this application would be continued to the study meeting of March 13, 1972. 5. REFERRAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AT BROADWAY AND CAROLAN AVENUE BY CABLE CAR WASH, NAPA. RETURNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REHEARING BY JANUARY 17TH ACTION OF CITY COUNCIL. This application was announced for study with Attorney Cyrus McMillan being present as representative of the applicant. City Planner Swan summarized past actions on the application, stating it had been referred back to the Planning Commission for a complete rehearing by the recent action of the City Council with the understanding that a subdivision map is to be filed delineating the boundaries of the parcel to be used for the car wash. The City Planner reminded that this is unclassified property and a precedent -setting action would affect other lands of the Southern Pacific. He quoted former City Planner George Mann who had previously given the opinion that, "If Southern Pacific wishes to make use of land for other than railroad purposes, it should come to the City in the role of subdivider." The City Planner emphasized that the Public Utilities Commission regards S.P. property as one parcel of land. The portion not used for railroad purposes has been claimed by the railroad to be "operating property not now needed for operating purposes." He recommended a parcel map describing the area proposed for the car wash operation as a separate piece of property. Commission discussion followed. Attorney Cyrus McMillan then addressed the Commission_ He told them that this matter had been referred back to them because previously former City Planner Mann had raised the question that the applicant should not be the Cable Car Wash but Southern Pacific, and further, that Southern Pacific had refused to contribute at all to the improvement of Carolan Avenue. He stated that now there has been an indication that Southern Pacific would contribute a given amount and would act as co -applicant. He commented that he disagreed with references to "other ='W lands of the Southern Pacific" because the Planning Commission had Always considered each case on its own merits. He stated that Southern Pacific will contribute $6,000 for the improvement of Carolan Avenue. Commissioner Norberg brought up the point that eventually BART is going to go along this right-of-way, either underground or overhead, and any structure built on it would have to be torn down, at the City's expense. Mr. McMillan posed the question of how far into the future the Planning Commission is going to project the whole development of certain areas of Burlingame. He stated that the proposed building is not a type of ex- tensive development, such as high-rise apartments, and that there would not even be a service station on it, but that they would have a gas pump. He claimed that the land could not be subdivided since it is within the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, and added that the taxes are quite substantial. Chairman Sine suggested that if S.P. is willing to pay for street improvement along 600 feet of Carolan Avenue, it would be a good idea if they went for the whole package from Oak Grove to Broadway. Commissioner Kindig commented that a precedent would be set regardless. Attorney McMillan disagreed, reiterating that each parcel of railroad property is unique, and that such matters as traffic count and lack of __proximity to R-1 property would not apply at Oak Grove, whereas they pould at Broadway. He showed the Commission photos of the installation -'at other cities as well as letters from the Planning Department and Police Department in Napa stating that no traffic hazard was created. City Planner Swan pointed out that there is some justification for a pedestrian and bicycle crossing opposite Carmelita Avenue. The Bikeway Committee has suggested that Carmelita be a bike route. The car wash is to be fenced along 600 feet of railroad right-of-way. Also, people in Northpark Apartments will have to walk past the car wash to Broadway unless there is a new railroad crossing for pedestrians southeasterly of the car wash. A new railroad crossing would require approval of the P.U.C. He noted that merchants on Broadway have asked for a direct route for Northpark residents to go to Broadway. Commissioner Sine announced that this application would be scheduled for a public hearing two weeks hence. Considerable comment followed. During the course of this it was suggested that a hairpin overpass be built, since a signal arm would involve the P.U.C. Several suggestions were made with regard to the pedestrian crossing and traffic flow such as referral to the Traffic and Safety Commission or solicitation of comments from the Broadway Improvement Association. It was decided this would best be handled by staff and that the Police Department would be asked for a report. City Planner Swan stated that the Planning Commission still has only the original application from Cable Car Wash and nothing to indicate the S.P. is a co -applicant. He was asked by the Chairman to check with the attorney for the purpose of securing an amended application. ;..ity Attorney Karmel commented that the Southern Pacific is setting i precedent in asking for this variance, since for many years they have insisted that the City could not regulate them because they were not subject to any zoning ordinances. 6. VARIANCE TO USE AN R-2 LOT AS R-3 AND CONSTRUCT A 6-UNIT APARTMENT AT 1131 CAPUCHINO, BEING LOT 7, BLOCK 5, EASTON ADDITION. LESLIE T. ALEXANDE R. Leslie T. Alexander was introduced. City Planner Swan reviewed the appli- cation and showed the Commission the floor plans for the development. He commented that the precedent had already been set for granting a variance for such a use on Capuchino between Broadway and Carmelita. He also posed the question of which zoning regulations are to be followed in the interest of future developments - R-2 or the projected R-3. R-2 permits 40% lot coverage and R-3 50%. The proposed apartment covers about 50% of the lot. He stated this application does meet parking requirements and could be approved as others have been on Capuchino. There was a Commission comment that since these apartments on Capuchino have always been considered as a variance on R-2 it would be best not to use another zone because it might cause misinterpretation later on. _,Mr. Alexander reported to the Commission that he had just finished �nother 6-unit apartment on the same block; that the lot is 132 x 52; ;_and that these apartments are not designed for the use of families with children - there are no children on this block. There followed.Commission discussion of the plans and comment was made that it did not seem right to allow one parking space for a 3-bedroom apartment when this is not allowed for a private residence. The Chairman announced that this application would be heard at the public meeting of February 28, 1972. 7. SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW STORAGE AND SERVICE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AT 1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AVIS RENT -A -CAR. City Planner Swan showed the Commission a plot plan for this facility, commenting that it must be updated since it does not show either the storage area or the service area. He noted that the Fire Department requires that this application be given a close review since there are certain restrictions on propane vehicles. Mike Hoffman, National Recreational Vehicle Manager for Avis, addressed the Commission. He commented that the application was for storage of vehicles using propane, not for the installation of a propane tank. There will be nine vehicles on a fenced lot, with a possibility of up to 15 later. Each vehicle contains one 50 lb. propane tank, which is ,,filled from a propane local supply. There is no propane supply tank on the Avis lot, although it is hoped to have one in the future after issu- ance of another special permit. The vehicles will be stored on the parking lot and the exact location can be at the discretion of the - 7 - Manning Commission. The present use permit for that lot is not limited :o storage but also permits renting. He presented the Commission pictures of the vehicles to be stored and rented, large camper -type vans which cost from $18-20,000. There was Commission suggestion that this permit be considered as an extension of the present use permit. City Planner Swan suggested that perhaps the present use could be defined as a non -conforming use in the Waterfront Commercial District. Chairman Sine commented that this technicality required research, and scheduled the application for the public hearing on February 28, 1972. 8. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DUPLEX IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 754 CROSSWAY ROAD BEING LOT 15, BLOCK 12, BURLINGAME TERRACE. MR. AND MRS. LEO A. WYRICK. City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that Mr. and Mrs. Wyrick had purchased this property two years ago "as is" as a "handyman special." This dwelling, constructed in 1906, is not up to residential code, and the owners do not find it economically possible to bring it up to code for a residence, nor to invest enough money to remodel for a duplex. Mrs. Wyrick addressed the Commission and distributed a letter of justification for the variance which listed circumstances applying to the property. Their idea is not to remodel, but to sell the property for conversion by another owner; hence the desire for a variance. The point was made that a variance is given to the owner of the property, and does not go with the property; hence it would accomplish nothing if the Wyricks were given the variance and then sell the property. If the Wyricks had a buyer, he could come to the Planning Commission with a set of plans for remodeling, the variance might be granted, and they could initiate a sale. After much Commission discussion, it was decided that this matter would be considered further at the study meeting of March .13. NEW BUSINESS 9. PRESENTATION ON THE BURLINGAME STAR CONDOMINIUM PROGRAM AT 80 EL CAMINO REAL BY VICTOR DI SUVERO City Planner Swan introduced Mr. Victor di Suvero, who is presently developing an apartment house in Burlingame for subdivision as a condominium. The City Planner commented this process is likely to happen often in Burlingame. Mr. diSuvero told the Commission that the property at 80 E1 Camino, an 8-unit apartment, zoned R-3, is being converted after the owner, Mr. Jacob Ratinoff, decided that an apartment house as an investment left something to be desired. He went on to say that the practice of converting a rental unit into a condominium has just recently started on the West Coast. Apartment owners may be interested because they do not wish to deal with the instability of renters. A condominium project involves subdivision - not subdivision of the land area but subdivision of the cubeage of the building. In order to implement a condominium project a subdivision report must be obtained and the condominium plan itself referred to the State Division of Real Estate. According to the condominium code, there must be an undivided interest in the lot and in a common area on each floor. This subdivision is filed and recorded at the time the deed is recorded. By doing this you have a subdivision of cubeage which is then recorded and which provides for a transfer in fee of the various apartments. The maintenance of the common areas is governed by an agreement which is filed. Once filed, it becomes a governing document and makes it impossible for a partition of interest in the common areas. This permits the Board of Governors of the condominium to levy maintenance assessments on the apartment owners. This becomes a legal assessment which can be enforced, and in some counties can be collected with the regular tax assessment. At this point in Mr. diSuvero's discussion, there was a question on sound transmission in the construction. He stated that there is complete separation of the walls, with separate plates, and a blanket of fiberglass in between them. Mr. diSuvero commented that Mr. Ratinoff's application has been reviewed by deputies in the Real Estate Division in San Francisco and apparently there will be no objection to it. He noted that in this particular instance the condominium assessments would be 1/8 of the anticipated pperating costs of the condominium. He then went into the value of condominium projects to the community, stressing stability of the occupants, since they actually own the units. He noted that when this property is subdivided it is incumbent upon the Assessor's office to supply separate tax bills to the separate owners. This gives the owner of the condominium unit a tax advantage, in that he could instead be paying the same amount of money for an apartment rental, and have no deductible tax. Also, owners of condominium units may in some cases be able to live in the type of neighborhood where they could not afford a single family residence. In addition, many older people actually do not want to own the land itself, since it involves a great deal of maintenance. He stressed the fact that no unit may be sold before a subdivision report is filed describing the units and specifications. The City Planner asked if he thought the City should have some review function in the establishment of condominiums, and Mr.. diSuvero replied that it would be as a matter of courtesy only, since condominiums do not change the use or the density, and strict surveillance is maintained by the State's Real Estate Division. 10. SIGN FOR SYLVANIA BUILDING, BURLINGAME. FRED NIELSEN OF QRS NEON COMPANY City Planner Swan told the Commission that Mr. Nielsen, representing this sign company, wished to erect a 13' x 62' sign on this building to replace the existing sign. Mr. Neilsen showed some prints of the proposed sign. However, he was informed by the Commission Chairman that he must go through the proper channels, Sylvania must make an MM application, and a representative of the Sylvania Company must be present at the next study meeting. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Cistulli reported that a neighbor had erected a 20' pole with a basketball ring on it adjacent to his property, and the resultant noise had made it impossible for his family to enjoy their cabana. The City Attorney commented that this could be taken care of by private action against a private nuisance with resulting abatement. Commissioner Jacobs noted the presence of an undrained sump with 2'N feet of water in it at Broadway and El Camino, making a hazard for small neighborhood children. It was decided that a member of the City staff should call the owner, asking him to drain the pool. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig, Secretary