Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1961.12.28CO'*iISSI ONERS Brauner Cistulli Diederichsen Kindig Norberg Stivers CITY OF BURLINGAME PIANNING' COTAXISSION December 280 1961 PRESENT COFfMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT CALL TO ORDER A regular mee i to order at 8 0 siding. ROLL CALL 0 Moore City Attorney Karmel City Engineer Vlarr Plan. Cons. Mann Councilman Martin of the Burlingame City Planning Commission was called p.m. on the above date - Chaira..an Diederichsen prey The Secretary s roll call recorded the above members present, Commissioner ores having previously advised that he would be away from the City was excused. The minutes ot the regular meeting'of November 2:7, 1961, and the study _ meeting of De ember 11, 1961, previously submitted to members of the Commission, w re approved and adopted. HEARINGS Public hea.rin s, pursuant to published notice, were conducted as follows: 1. RESUBDIVI ION - Lots 1 and 2, Belvedere Heights Subdivision. A resubdivisi n map, filed with the City Engineer by Leo A. lacopi, proposing a r subdivision of Lots 1 and 2; Belvedere Heights Subdivision, was presented F to the Commission on this date The City 11.ngi eer adv aed that the application proposed to change the southerly por ion of the lot line dividing Lots I and 2 by transferring a small triangular area from Lot 2 to Lot 1. The City Engineer stated that the Line originally was at a diagonal for purposes of a driveway to Lot 2. It appears now that this arrangement will ziot be cessary and vhe ownep ?requests approval of the new lot :Lies, as indic - ted. on the mm o 11r. Paul Con one of the s on Summit Dr age to 100 f formity with itantino, representing the owner, advised that Lot 1 is caller lots in the subdivision with a frontage of 70 feet me. The lot line change will increase the street f ront- iet which will permit the property to be improved in con - neighboring properties. There being io protests received, oral or written, and the City En- gineer indic ting that said resubdivisi,on was in order, a motion was introduced br Comilssioner Cistuili to approve the resubdivision of Lout I and 2 s3elveders Heights Subdivision, in accordance with the map subma tte 1. I -lotion seconded by Commissioner! Norberg and unani- mously cars i. d on roll call vote of members present. 2. FACIT A commxnicat in behalf of variance f ra City of Burl: standing sig; of the perml The comzmnaiic; very shortly moved from Ids is inadequat, (b) It bears describe the deficiencies A detailed SIGN VARIANCE APPROVED on from Bali. Electrical Signs, Inc., dated December 7,1961, Facit, Inc., 895 Stanton Road, Burlingame, requested a the provisions of Section 1861, paragraph b., of the ngame Sigh Ordinance to permit installation of a free- 42 feet; 6 inches high - or 22 feat, 6 inches in excess ted 20 foot maximum, tion stated, that the Facit facilities will be expanded to accommodate the North American offices, which will be w York to Burlingame. It is felt that the present sign (a) It is small and not easily seen from the Freeway; no lettering, other than the firm names, to identify or operation. The proposed display will eliminate these of the new sign accompanied the communication. The Chair recognized Mr. Richard Mo Hauck of Bell Ea ctrical Signs, Inc., who replied to questions directed by members of the Commission concerning physical aspects of the proposed sign. The Commission was advised that the sign will be double-faced, neon lighted, non -revolving; the actual s gn approximately 12 feet, 6 inches high, mounted on two pillars loci ed at sosie distance from the building. A memo from he Planning Consultant dated December 21, 1961, reported the results f a survey made of freestanding signs in the industrial area. The C remission was advised that presently there are Just two signs which y properly be classified 'free -•standing". One of these is the exist ng Facit sign, which the Planning Consultant described as "out of prop ation arachitecturally" with the building. The report i eluded comments concerning the desirability of processing each sign va iance on its own merits, considering not only the aesthetics, but the righ of the applicant to identify his property and product. Comntissione� expressed concurrence with the opinions of the Planning Consultant d accepted the report for filing. The Chair recognized Commissioner N'orberg who stated that he felt the contemplated expansion of Facitts Burlingame facilities will prove an asset to a city and to the industrial area. -2- Commenting th, correct and si a motion apprq struction of seconded by C4 vote of member There being concluded. 3• Chairman Died scheduled to Harold L. Wal locate and ma 1236 Rollins A communicati that the prin the operation vice. ,t the proposed display appeared to -be architecturally citable to the location, Commissioner Norberg introduced iffing the variance grant to Facit, Inc., to permit con - he sign in accordance with the drawing on file. Motion :mmissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roll call -s present. protests recorded, the hearing was thereafter declared - CARDINAL ROOFING C014PANY STORAGE YARD APPROVED., ichsen announced that this was the time and place nduct a public hearing on an application filed by r DBA Cardinal Roofing Company for a use permit to tain a materials and equipment storage yard at ad* n from the applicant dated December 8, 1961, advised 1pal place of business is located in Mountain View; in Burlingame will be a storage yard with telephone sera Mr. Walker was in attendance and, in reply to questioning by the Commission.de cribed the type of materials and equipment to be stored. He advised that for the present he does not intend to construct a structure of any type but the area which he will occupy will be com- pletely enclosed by a solid t oard fence. The Planning Consultant., in reply to the Chair, identified the lo- cation as the Dore property lying between the Bg7shore Freeway and Rollins Road. He stated that the property is quite large and ac- commodates a rumber of tenants. There is storage of many types of materials and equipment. The site selected by the applicant adjoins the storage yard of a plastering contractor who -etas granted a permit some time ago There being nc further comments, and no protests received, oral or written, a mo ion was introduced by Commissioner Kindig approving a use permit to the applicant to locate a storage yard at 1236 Rollins Road; said yard to be enclosed by a properly maintained solid board fence, not lots than 8 feet in height. Motion seconded by Commissioner Brauner and unanimously carried on roll call vote of members present. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. 4- GRANITE DEVELOPPMT COMPANY VARIANCE APPROVED 14ULTI- MILY DWELLING 9 CLARENDON ROAD. An applicati to construct property bei No. 9 Claren from Granite Development Company :requested a variance multi -family dwelling on property zoned R-1, said described as Lot 3, Block 30, Lyon & Hoag Subdivision, ? Road, Burlingame. -30 A cormmnicat that the lot Peninsula Av lot. A sketch, house bui: southarly The c omii lessening t A prelim spective Chairman Dl applicant, triplex dwe on from the applicant dated December 19, 1961, contended situated as it is adjoining the apartment zoning on nue, has lost its desirability as a first -residential parrying the cor_munica.tlon, indicated three apartment (tiro two -stories, one three story) which abut the rty line and overlook the property. ion stated that this situation creates a hardship by appeal of the property for single-family use. plot and floor plan of a triplex dwelling and a per- ng accompanied the application. iehsen recognized Mat. Ralph Fum)r, representing the stated that it was planned to construct a ones -story g to conform to the plan and drawing submitted. The Planning Ponsultant, in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that the zoning oo Clarendon Road is R-1g Peninsula Avenue, R-3. Chairman Die Mr. John Ibs has been off He stated th acceptable. Chairman Die There were n The Planning hearings befe He recalled t the lots abut Arundel Road, apartment use quested a var applications by the City C chsen invited those in favor of the variance to speak. , 12 Clarendon Road, stated that 1he subject property live to neighboring propea ty owners for some time, he personally felt that any residential use would be richsen invited comments from those in opposition. Do 'onsultant, in reply to the Chairs referred to two prior -a the Planning Commission involving the property, .at approximately 18 months ago, all of the owners of ing the R-3 zone on Peninsula Avenue, from Dwight to requested a reclassification from first residential to Some months later, the owner of 9 Clarendon Road re- ance to permit an eight unit apartment building. Both ere denied by the Planning Commission and, on appeal, until. The Planning onsultant stated that the present proposal differs from previous appl cations in that the variance refers to a specific build- ing. In reply to q estioning by the Commission, Mr. Furner stated that the building will be as shown on the plan and drawing; the driveway will be located on the south side of the lot, adjoining the apartment buildings on eninsula Avenue. Commissioner the applicant He stated tha spent zone on use. The use zone's between orberg expressed the opinion that the plan advanced by offered a reasonable and proper use of the property. these and similarly situated lots abutting the apart- eninsula Avenue are not conducive to single-family proposed here will establish a satisfactory "P 4WA-161 the apartments and the first residential properties. -4- Commissioner orberg thereupon introduced a motion approving the variance to G anite Development Company to permit construction of } a triplex dwe ling on -Lot 3, Block 30, Lyon & Hoag Subdivision, in accordance wi h the plot and floor plan and perspective drawing filed with th appli.cation. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli. On the quests n, Chairman Diederichsen questioned whether or not the Commission mi t be establishing a precedent which would invite an influx of var ante requests on other similar properties. The Planning Consultant reported that there were possibly six more lots between Duright, and Arundel Roads adjoining the apartment zone on Peninsula Avenue. All are improved., with the exception of one lot. He stated that be felt there would not be an Immediate demand for change Commissioner Kindig and Commissioner Brauner stated that the present procedure pro ides the Commission with the means to control the properties and to assure a well -planned transitional type of use. The motion above stated was thereafter unanimously carried on roll call of mamba s present. The applicant was advised that the variance would become effective on January 3s 1962, provided there was no appeal.. The hearing wos declared concluded. 5. SPECIAL P�RM IT - LOUIS MA.LASPINA # 1537 HOWARD AVENUE. The CVr ann un©ed that a public hearing had been scheduled on this date consi er► the request of Louis Malaspina, 1537 Howard Avenue, for a Special Permit to remove an existing garage and storage shed and thereafter to erect a two -car garage with attached family room and bath facilities. A plot plan accompanied the application. A communication from the- applicant dated December S, 1961, advised that the f amily room will accommodate an elderly member of the f amily who has been forced to vacate her own home. Chairman Diedrichsen recognized Mr. Malaspina, the applicant, who advised that he existing garage and storage shed are in poor con- dition. The arage is old and inadequate. He stated that the new structure will improve the appearance of the property and enable the family to accommodate the- needs. Th® Planning onsultant referred to Section 1926 of the Ordinance Code which pr video that the Planning COMMission may approve a use permit for ". .......sleeping rooms,.......in garages or accessory buildings, pr vided that such rooms shall not contain a kitchen and shall not bee me a separate rental property, and provided further that no such ooms shall be constructed above or as a second story to such garag or accessory building". —5- The Planning Code provide, ing located TA or side lot 7 Consultant stated that Section 1967 of the Ordinance "A detached garage or other one-story accessory build- ithin the rear 30% of the lot may be built to the rear ines........". Mr. Malaspin , in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that the new construction will be built at the rear of the lot with 3 foot set- backs between the rear and side property lines. In reply to inquiry from Commissioner Stivers concerning a Poten- tial rental ituation, the Planning Consultant staked that by pro- hibiting tit hen facilities$ the City attempts to control duplex use. In reply to the Chair's invitation for comment from those in at- tandance, T4ro W.E. Jensen., owner of the adjoining property at 1529 Howard Avenue, stated that he had no objections to the proposed use. There being o further comments, and no protests received oral or written, a m tion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli approving the Special Permit for the construction in accordance with the plans submitted. motion seconded by Commissioner Kindig and unan- imously carried on roll call vote of members present. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. 6. USE PERP T - JA14ES E. AND LOIS T. LAMBERT, ,B LORTON AVENUE. } The Chair announced that a public hearing would be held at this time on an application filed by Jams E. and Lois T. Lambert for a permit to maintain al home for girls,who are wards of Sian Mateo County, at 8 Dorton Ave e, Burlingame. A communication from the applicant dated December 10, 1961, advised that room and board will be provided for girls over 16 years of age who are San Mateo County dependents. The communication also advised that the buil ing at 8 Lorton Avenue has been inspected and approved by a representative of the San Mateo County Social Service and Juvenile Division. A letter from Mars. Jessica Kimball, Poster Horne Consultant, County of San Mateo, dated December 11, 1.961, stated that Mir. and Mrs. Lambert will Provide a home environment for children in need of temporary car). The County of San Mateo will provide supervision. The com mnica ion advised that the County staff is satisfied that the applicanto are mature and competent. A letter date December 19, 1.961, from James G.B. DeMartini, Jr., and Charles W. He ton, Co -owners.,.: Lorton Arms Community Apartments, 117 Lorton Av nue protested that the proposed use was completely out of character ith residential uses established in the neighborhood. Chairman Died richsen recognized Mfrs. Lambert who explained that the children are Placed by the County of San Mateo on a temporary basis In private homes until such time that it is possible for them to return to the r families. Circum,:tances are such in their own homes that the Coun y Welfare Department has assumed responsibility for e6_ their care under a foster home program. Mrs. Lambert tested that she would not have more than six girls and, on occasion, hero would be a lesser number. Mrs. Lambert advised that she has orked in nursing hones and has had some years exper- ience caring or elderly people. Chairman Diedorichsen invited comments from those in attendance. Mrs. J.A. Jo ones 311 Robinwood Lane, H111aborough, owner of a newly constru ted apartment building at 1108 Peninsula Avenue stated that the proposed use would adversely affect neighborhood property values and the investment of property owners. She expressed the opinion that other areas in the city could better accommodate such homes* Mr. and Pars. alph Frederickson, owners of two apartment buildings, 20 and 24 Lor on Avenue, also protested the possible decrease in property vales and maintained that a nuisance mould arise from in- creased traffic and parking on the street. The Planning Consultant, in reply to the Chair, advised that the zoning is H-4The applicants are proposing a boarding house, par. ticularized ag to the type of boarders. Boarding houses are per- mitted in an -4 District upon approval by the Planning Commisaion. The Planning onsultant, upon further Commission. inquiry, advised that he had n t inspected the premises. This would be done at the proper time b the City Fire Inspector and Building inspector. Further protests as follows were heard from the floor: Mrs. Effie Boharmong 16 Lorton Avenue; Mrs. Zoe Auga, 38 Lorton Avenue; Mr. P. Jensen, 35 Lorton Avenue. These speakers claimed that the building was not suitable to house the applicants and their chil- dren, plus six additional persons, In reply to t ®Chairs invitation to members of°.the Commission to comment, Co s®loner Kindig stated that he would prefer to delay action until he Fire Inspector and then Building. Inspector submitted reports. Co saloner Kindig suggested that a representative from San Mateo Co ty Social Service Division be invited to meet with the Commission. ere appeared to be a number of details which required Commissioner he too would Commissioner I hearing to th( at which time partment and I ante from the Motion second( roll call of a r concurred with Commissioner Kindig and stated that to continue the hearing to a, later meeting. Indig thereupon introduced a motion to continue the neat regular meeting of the Commission, January 22,1962, reports were to be available from the City•s Fire De-• uilding Department, and staff representatives in attend - County Departments having jurisdiction in these matters. d by Commissioner Brauner and unanimously carried on embers present. -7- 7. VARIANCE Chairman. Di ac Chandler M. Regulations I November 27, CHANDLER M. SPRAGUE PROPOSING. DUPLEX USE, 93h PALOMA AVE. terichsen announced that a hearing on the application of ►prague, 934 Paloma Avenue, for a variance from the Por R-2 Districts, continued from the meeting of 1961, would proceed at this time. ' Mr. Sprague, the applicant, was in attendance, and reported that bids which were secured from firms engaged In the business of house moving proved that It would not be economically Feasible to attempt to move the existing house for-4arrd from the rear property line to provide legal setbacks. He stated that there were a number of factors involved which would 4ring the cost to between $6000.00 and $7000.00. Mr. Sprague 4dvised that if the variance were not granted to pewit the house to remain in its present location, he would prefer to aban- don his plang for duplex development. The Planning Consultant, in reply to.the Chair, stated that the moaning is second residential. However, the present house, built some years ago at the rear of the lot, does not conform to present set- back requirements* Following a brief period of discussions during -which Commissioners in- dicated that there did not appear to be justification for a variance grant, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner Brauner., to deny the applicant t s request for a variance from the Regulations For R-2 Districts. Motion carried unanimously on roll call vote of members present. The applicant was advised of his right of appeal. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. 8. ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND14ENTS a SECTION 1926 :FALLOUT AND PROTECTIVE SHELTERS. Chairman Died richsen invited the Planning Consultant to review the circumstances pertaining to the ordinance amendment presently before the CommlssI06. The Planning onsultant stated that the City Council at its meeting on December 4 1961, conducted a public hearing on a proposed amend- ment to Secti n 1926 (Regulations For R-1 Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance. caption was taken to provisions of sub -section G - Fallout And P otective Shelters - permitting construction of shelters in front yards, Council returned the proposed amendment to the Planning Co_ ssion with a request that said construction be permitted only on a variance procedure. Since the last Planning Commission study meeting, when the subject was briefly disco sed, material was prepared and submitted to members of the Commis ion, setting forth conditions under which variances may be granted. Following a riod of discussion, and there being no protests heard, a motion was ntroduced by Comzrissioner Kin -dig, seconded by Commission- ®8. er Norbergs pppoving and recommending to the City Council adoption of a substit to sub -section G. Section 1926, Zoning Ordinance, entitled ^F lout And Protective Shelters". Motiondeclared carried on the foil ing roll call vote: AYES: CO SSIO ERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Dlederichsen, Norberg, Kindi.g NOES: CO S SI ONERS : Done ABSTAIN C OUSSIONERS: Stivers ABSENT CO SSIONMS: Moore The hearing G 1. A communica ferred to c tion with a Mr. Monroe, completed a plate the b The Planning Mr. Monroe a: that; there i� transaction This will re, Mr. Monroe h. dropped from thereafter declared concluded. RE: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS HILLSIDE DRIVE. n dated December 7, 1961, from Charles M. Monroe re. itions imposed by the Planning Coumi,ssion in eonnec- subdivision of his property on Hillside Drive. his letter, advised that part of the work has been requested an extension to December 28, 1962, to eom- noe of the improvements. Consultant reported that he had been contacted by . nee the above letter was written. Mr. Monroe advised a. potential purchaser for the property ulho, if the s finalized, will undertake to build a new dwelling, uire completion of the street work and other improvements. s requested that the matter of the time extension be the agenda of Commission business. In a brief period of discussion, the point was raised that Mr. Monroe was granted a variance to resubdivide his property subject to cer- tain conditions of public improvements. Until the work is completed, the resubdivi ion is not legal. A motion was thereupon introduced by Gosmnissioner Rindig approving an extenbion of ix months, to June 28, 1962, to p-Ormit Charles M.Monroe to meet the c hditions of the variance grant. Motion seconded by Commissioner latulli and unanimously carried on roll call of members present. NEW BUSINESS 1. DISCUSSIO RE: APART14EENT CONSTRUCTION SOUT]WEST CORNER BURLINGW4E AVENUE AND EL CAI4INO REAL. Mr, Stan W. G tas was in attendance to discuss informally with mem- bers of the C mmisalon a plan .for construction of a 40 unit apartment building on p operty located at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Burl ngame Avenues, more particularly described as Lots 1 and ua Block , Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2. Mr. Gates adv sed that Lot 1, the corner lot, is zoned for apartment use. Lot 4o he interior lot, with frontage on Burlingama Avenue, is zoned R-1¢J He stated that the two lots together will offer an �9� attractive ap rtment house site. Mr. Gates stared that it is his understanding that the property is under considetation for inclusion in the proposed parking district. The Planning onsultant advised that if a resubdivision map were to be filed to ease the common lot line and crOate a single parcel, the whole pro erty would assume the Rm3 classification,. Mr. Gates was and requested ADJOURNMP,NT The meeting Instructed concerning the lot resu.bdivision procedure to confer with the City Engineer. s regularly adjourned at 11:25 p.m, Respectfully submitted, D.A. Stivers, Secretary 4�