HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1961.11.27}i i
COMMISSIONERS
Braun"°
Cistulli.
Diederichson
Kindig
Moore
Norberg
Stivers
CALL TO ORDER
1TY OF 'BML NGA I"WE PIA NNTivC COMMISSION
November 27, 1961
CO "MISSI0sERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None City Attorney Carmel
City Engineer Marr
Plan. Cons. Mann
Councilman Lorenz
Councilman Martin
A regular meeti.nj?, of the Burlingame City Planning Commission was called
to order at 8:00 p.m. on the above date 4 Chairman Diederichsen presiding.
ROILL CALL
The Searetary2s Poll call recorded the above members present,
Minutes of the r gular meeting of October 3o, 19619 and the study meeting
of November 13,961, submitted previously to members of the Commission,
were unanimously approved and adopted.
HEARINGS
Public hearings,lpursuant to published notice, were conducted as follows:
1. VARTANCE : D*lex Construction 934- Paloma Avenue.
C ndler M. Sprague, Applicant.
The Chairman ann unced that a hearing on the application of
Chandler V1. Spra a for a variance to permit duplex use of property at
Pe y
934 Paloma A venu , continued from the Commission meeting of October 30,1961,
wouldproceed on this.date.
The application Zted that a variance was requested to permit a second
dwelling to be ctructed on the.front of the lot. The zoning is second
residential and here is sufficient area but an existing house, built some
years ago at the rear of the lot, is too close to the rear property line
and does not con orm to present setback requirements.
Two conmunicatio
advised that app
denied -by the C1
not be built unl
15 feet between
protested that t
from the applicant, dated August 10 and September 11,1961,
cation was made for a building permit. The permit was
Building Inspector who stated that a second unit may
s the present house is moved forward to provide at least
e house and the near property line. The communications
s will prove very costly. P4ention was mode of other
properties in t e.ne
with less than egal
s
,f
ZhhorhoiiW where second dwellings have been built
setbacks°
The'Chair ackn fledged a pencilled plot plan of the existing house and
garage and the proposed construction.
Mr. Sprague's presence was acknowledged.
There was no re ponse to Chairman Diederichsen's request for comments
from those i.n a tendance either in favor of or in opposition to the ap-
plication.
Commissioner Ki d9.g, commenting on the dimensions of the lot, questioned
whetheror not wo separate single family dwellings would be legal. The
Planning Consultant stated that this would not be possible. Only on
lots 150 feet In depth, or greater, may two buildings be permitted. In
the present Instance,, if duplex use were to be approved, the new building
must be joined to the existing structure by a common foundation, common
roof and common walla
The Planning Co-, sultant, in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that from
a superficial a aamination of the property, it would appear that the house
is perhaps 2 to 2-1%2 feet from the rear property line; the detached garage
built to the fr nt of the house, perhaps 3 feet from the side line. Legal
setbacks are 15 feet and 5 feet respectively„
Mr.. Sprague described the property and stated that the house was built ap-
t, 1 proximately 30 years ago but has been modernized and welli-maintained. The
garage was built approximately 10 years ago. He referred to similar
properties in the neighborhood where duplex dwellings have been permitted;
A land use study of the block, prepared by the Planning Consultant, was
submitted. It w s pointed out that there are two properties which have
been converted t duplex use by building on to the original structures.
In each instance the use has been in existence for ten to twelve years.
One has a situat on where the rear yard is 10 Feet rather than the re-
quired 15 feet. The remaining properties on the block are single-family.
Mr. Sprague advi ed that he had considered moving the house but felt that
this would beec nomically 'impractical. Be agreed, at the suggestion of
the.Chair, to in estigate further and requested that he be permitted to
return in 30 coy .
On a motion intr duced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner
Moore, and unani ously carried, the applicant's request was granted and
the hearing coat i0ed to the next regular meeting of the Commission.
The applicant wa requested to make an effort to have material available
for Commission r view'at the study meeting of December 11, 1961.
2. VARIANCE 0 fice Use Of R®3 (Third Residential) Property
Primrose Road. Mfrs. Leonia_ Lieutard, App1
An ap] lIlcation f led by Mrs. Leonie Lieutard, requested a variance to
permit property hick she owns at 3.99 Primrose Road to be used for office
purposes by a gr up of volunteer servI ce organizations.
-2
A communicatio from.the applicant, dated November 13, 1961, advised
that the premi s have been rented for some time to the Assistance League
for use by the olunteer Bureau., the Senior Citizens, the Braille Trans-
cribers Guild a other charitable organizations. The zoning is R-3
and the variane Is required to permit the present use to continue.
The Chair recog Y7:d s, Pau ine Umland who advised that she was repre-
senting the app iconic and the Braille T-ranseribers. firs. Umland ex-
plained that th property has been occupied by the present tenants for
approximately o years` the Braille Transcribors Intended to make some
repairs to an used detached. garage buildi-� and use the space for their
machines but �•�e unable to obtaina building permit until the property
use was approve by the Ci.tye
The Planning Co sultant, In reply to the Chalr9 advised that the zoning
in the block is divided. There are R-3 lots as well as C-l. The sub-
ject property I R-3, directly next door is C-1.
The City Engine r reported that: an Inspection was made. The main build-
ing was found t be in very good condition. However, there is some il-
legal electr2ca wiring,
The City Engine r suggested that If the Commission were to approve the
variance the ower should be required to have the buildings properly wired.
Commissioner No erg stated that he visited the property and agreed that
It was wall mai tained. He mentioned that In view of the other commer-
cial uses on the street it would appear to be reasonable to pelt the
present use to c nt4nue.
Commissioner llor1berg thereupon Introduced a motion approving a variance
grant.to the pro rty owner, as requested, subject to Installation of
electrical wiri to meet present Code requirements. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Cis ulli and unanimously carried on roll call vote.
The applicants w re advised that the variance would become effective
on December �, 3. 61, provided there was no appeal.
The hearing vas" hereafter declared concluded.
3. VARIANCE: Ga olive Service Station Peninsula Avenue And Dwight Road.
An application f led by Eugene C. Signarowitz requested a variance to
permit a g�asolin 'service station to be operated on property at the north-
west corner of fight Road and Peninsula Avenue. The property is zoned
R-3; a variance s required to permit the commercial use.
A letter dated Nc
two lots having P
tant and 'heavily
on the second lot
Hancock 013. Comps
It is not Intende
inating the noise
rember 4, 1961, from the applicant advised t}_at there are
,sontage s on Peninsula Avenue and Dwight Road both " impor-
;raveled streets*. one lot has never been improved;
there is an old dwelling. If the variance is approved,
iy, the proposed occupants, plan an attractive development.
i to include lubrication or mechanical work, "thus elim-
and unsightliness attached to some gasoline stations".
-3-
i A petiton fits in protest to the variance grant, signed by nine
4 property owners was acknowledged by the Chair and read in full.
Chairman Dieder
was aware that
to consider gas
quests were den
surrounding pro;
necessarily so;
hood standards
their services.
mr. signarowItz
since there are
seating streets
Mr. Signarowi tz
owners in the ne
Lchsen recognized Mr. Signa-rowitz who advised that he
;he Commission has been requested on previous occasions
51i.ne service stati ozis on Peninsula Avenue. The re -
red on the basis That the use would be' detrimental to
;erties. Mr. Signarowitz maintained that this was not
stations can be attractively designed to meet neighbor-
snd are ordinarily located t{.here there Is a reed for
mentioned that the Intersection in question is suitable
no service stations within several blocks and the inter -
carry a heavy load of traffic.
stated that lie contacted approxi mstely 15 property
:ighborh.00d none of whom appeared to object,
The Chair invitod comments from the floor.
Mr. Loren W. lea uet,, owner of a new apartment building at Clarendon Road
and Peninsula { enue,, stated that he was not in favor of a commercial
use In a residential neighborhood. He stated that there have been a
number of new alartment development@ can. Peninsula Avenue and a gasoline
station was not compatible with these buildings.
Mrs. Eva c, . Fin 404 Peninsula Avenues spoke in opposition.
Hugh Smith, attorney representing Mr. and firs. Gaspav Viano,, owners of
three lots at "Che northeast corner of Peninsula Avenue and rywight Road,
stated that his clients requested a permit at least five years ago for
a service station, which was denied. They are still interested and
will expect equal consideration: from the Commission it the event that
the present application as approved.
Mr. Ross Smith, 5 I�r 1ght Road., stated that his property ad joined the
Signarowitz lotsHe stated that he felt one station would not be ob-
jectionable but a would oppose any attempt to place service stations
on. both corners if
the intersection.
The Planning Con ultar_t, in reply to Commission inquiry, referred to
Section 1973 of he Ordinance Code, "Permits For Gasoline.Service
Stations", provi. ing three qualifications and restrictions pertaining to
location. The s ction was read in its entirety.
The Planning Con ultant commented that the present proposal can be con-
sidered to meet wo of the requirements: (1) "Location on a main street
or artery at an rterial stop intersection."; ( 3) "A distance of 490
feet exclusive o the width of intervening streets, between the closest
boundary of the ocation and the closest boundary of any existing
gasol ine eervic® station".
Requirement (2) rovides that "both sides of the street are in either
commercial or Industrial districts"-.
-4-
The particular ooation will not meet this requirement. The property
t` is zone8 R®3 a d the surrounding properties, Rml. The zoning aorosa
i Peninsula Aver on the City of San Mateo side may not be considered.
Following a re iew of a land case study, prepared by the Planning Con-
sultant, Commi-2ioner Windig expressed the opinion that the use
would not be p ._, or in the neighborhood. He stated that he Is famillar-
with the locati n and does rot believe it would be fair to surrounding
property owners or to the city to permit commercial uses in this sec-
tion of Peninsu a A venue .
Commissioner X_i Ig thereupon introduced a motion to deny the variance.
notion seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously carried on roll
call vote.
The applicant tier s advised of his right of appeal to the City Council.
The hearing was thereafter declared concluded.
NEW BUS L ES S
1. DECEM3ER RE
On a motion ant
Norberg, the da
changed from De
A DJOURItiTP9EN3T
The meeting wasl
duced by Commissioner Kindig, seconded by Commissioner
of the next regular meeting of the Commission was
tuber 25 to December 28, 1961.
repzlarly adjourned at 9 :40 p.m.
W5�
Respectfully submitted$
D.A. Stivers, Secretary