Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1961.06.26C$TY OF BURi,114GAME P!,ANNING 001MMTSSION June z6,, 1_961 C011113711SSITGTTSRS PRE ENT -010M. ISSIONERS ABSIj U OTHERS PRESE14T °istv.IIi i Norberg City Attorney Karmal D i ed.erw ; i- ar... City Sngineer Marr i1i A�% g Y-�Il.an. Cons. Mann Moos Bldg. Inspector Calwell St41, rs Councilman Martin CALL TO ORD-"-R A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date, Meeting called to order at 8:00 p,m, c Chairman Diederichsen presiding,. ROLL CALL The Secreta.ryl s roll tali recorded the above membr:rs present. Commiscs°_oner ;gorb4rg absent because of illness, was excused. MINUTES Minutes of the regular meeting, of May 22, 1961„ and study meeting of June 12, 1961, previously submitted to Commissioners, were approved and adopted. HEARINGS Public hearings, pursuant to published notice, were conducted as follows- 1, RESUBDIVISIONI - Lot 11, Block 3. Burlingables Subdivision. Orin C. Fieldsg Property, Bayshore Boulevard. Chairman Diederic4sen announced that the application filed by Orin C<, Fields to resui>div►ide the above property by adding a portion of Lot 11 to Lot 6, Block 3, Burlingables Subdivision, to permit an existing duplex to be enlatged by the addition of three new rental units, has been held awaiting completion of the building. The building was per- mitted under a variance granted by the Commission on February 13, 1961, with certain conditions attached. The Building InspOctor, in reply to an inquiry from the Chair, advised that the building has been completed in accordance with the plans and the conditions o ithe variance have been met. There being no pr tests heard, and the City Engineer and Planning ,;on.sultant indica ing approval, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconde by -Commissioner Moore, to approve the resubdivision of Lot 110 Block 39 Burlingables Subdivision, in accordance with the map on file with the City Engineer, Motion carried unanimously on roll call vote, 2 . RESUBDIVISION Lots 1 and 2 r Block 2 � Burl way Industrial Park_._ An application fil d by Turek and Neck Company, owners, proposed to re -- subdivide Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Burlway Industrial Park, by deleting ,he center line between the two lots to make one large parcel. The City Engineer advised that the applicants wish to enlarge the present building, Which is located on Lot 1. If the lot lines were to remain as is, and Lot 2 transferred to another owner at some future date, the building could become an Illegal building. The resubdivision map has been filed ;at the request of the City9s Engineering Department, There being no protests received, oral or written, a. motion was intro- duced by Commissioner Kindig, seconded by Commissioner Moore to approve the resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2. Block 2, Burlway Industrial Park, in accordance with the map on file with the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously on roll call vote. 3, SPECIAL PERMIT Jerry D. Kelleher, Parking Lot. California Drive at Carmelita Avenue. An application fit d by Jerry D. Kelleher, 1101 California Drive, re- quested a use permit to provide private off-street parking on a portion of the City of San'Franciseo street car right-of-way. The matter had been continued on the agenda for several months pending advice from the applicant that he dad completed negotiations with the owners of the property. j The applicant was not in attendance on this occasion, nor represented, therefore, on a motion introdveed by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded ay Commissioner StXvers, and unanimously carried, the application was declared dropped from the agenda of Commission business. 4. VARIANCE ® To Aesubdivide Lands of Earl M. Dilley, Hillside Drive. Chairman Diederichsen announced the continuance of the hearing from May 22, 1961, on the request of Earl M. Dilley, 3030 Hillside Drive, to divide his property into three lots, two of which will not have frontage on the public street. The Chair recognized Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the ap- plicant, Mr. McMillan advised that since the last meeting of the Commission it has ',been determined that neighboring property owners will be unable to join with Mr. Dilley in a unified subdivision of the canyon lands. Mr. McMillan explained that Mrs. Virginia Doney, whose property offers the logical entry to the area, has refused to participate. Mention was made that the owners hope to work out access to their properties; perhaps through a cooperative use of the driveway which Mr. Dilley will construct or a comparable access way between two of the other properties. Mr. T.C. DeLoach,13012 Hillside Drive, stated that their principal concern is access to their lands. There is no objection to the Dilley subdivisio if it does not interfere with their plans to eventually open t eir lower lands to development. -2- The City Engineer advised that a formal resubdivision map has not been filed with his Office. He mentioned that a number of public improve- ments must be constructed, subject to City approval and acceptance. He requested also that no additional house connections be made to the sewer main untl. the County of San Mateo does the necessary repairs In the unincorp rated area. The Planning Co sultant stated that an agreement must be prepared,, executed betwee the City and the property owner, to provide for the Ingress and eg as easement, also some provision made to replace the portion of the .ard rail which will be removed on Hillside Drive. Commissioner Ki dig expressed opposition to subdivision of the canyon lands where 1ng as and egress most be provided from Hillside Drive. He agreed that he lots are large and that there is ample land for building. Howe-jer, he stated, this does not place an obligation upon the City to per t additional home sites where access is dependent upon narrow pri to roadways of exceedingly steep grade, Commissioner Cisjtulli stated his position in favor of the plan and introduced a motion to permit the resubdivision, conditional upon approval and acceptance by the City Engineer and the Planning Com- mission of a foilmal resubdivision map and compliance with the City° s requirements in all matters pertaining to such resubdivisions. Lotion seconded by Commissioner Moore and declared carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIOERS: Cistulli, Diederichsen, Moore NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kindig, Stivers ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Norberg Mr. Dilley was requested to have the map prepared and available at the next regular Commission meeting, July 24, 1961. 5. VARIANCE m R2ynold C. Johnson Comps+ Bayshore Highway Setback, A variance application from Johnson-Qvale, Inc., owners of property located at the south corner of the intersection of Burlway Road and Bayshore Highway, was presented for formal hearing on this date. A communication dated May 17, 1961, signed by Joseph Ehrlich, Architect, advised that Reynold C. Johnson Company, Volkswagen Distributors, propose to build an office building on the above -described corner property - the building to front on Burlway Road where a 15 foot set- back has been established. The eommunieatioo referred to the present law which requires 15 feet of setback from tayshore Highway and requested a waiver to permit 8 feet of setback, The Burlway Road frontage is to remain unchanged. A communication rom Johnson- Inc, dated gone 1 1961 a ree- ing to installatts ono curbs guttdrs and sidewalks a 'su h dim that their need determine&, was acknowledged andacceptedfor filing. A communication From Frank Brandon Brown, Burlingame, owner or property In the immediate ' vicinity of the subject property, efidorsed the variance request, -3 4 The City Engine r referred to litigation between the Easton heirs and the City of Bur Ingame involving ownership of the Bayshore Highway right-of-way. he present width of the right-of-way is 125 feet. The City has fixed he eventual width at 84 feet where street improvements will be install d when it is possible to proceed. Assuming that the remaining foota e will be assigned to abutting property owners on each side, the would be considerable distance of setback on the Bayshore Highwa line should. the 15 foot setback be upheld. The Planning Consultant recalled that at the tires of the study meet- ing the Commission was advised by Robert Hanson of Johnson Qvale Company that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company has a right-of-way between the highway right-of-way and their proposed building line where the high ,reassure gas pipe Is located. Mr. Hansen stated there is an agreement to assure the continued location of the pipe and to maintain the strip free of any structure. The Planning Colisultant stated ghat he felt the request for the variance was reasonable inasmuch as there could not be any building within the 8 foot strip, and there could be an additional 20j feet of setback whenjthe street line is determined. Following a rev ew of the site development plan and perspective of the proposed building, and there being no protests received.,oral or written, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Kindig to approve the variance to permit an 8 foot setback from the Bayshore Highway property line; the owners to undertake the expense of street im- provements aacixag their property, including paving, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, to City specifications and to conform to like im- provements in the East Millsdale Industrial Park area. Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously carried on roll call vote The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. The applicants were advised that the variance would become effective July 6, 1961, provided there was no appeal, 6. VARIANCE m A paato, Inc. Olden Drive Setback_. A variance application filed by Paul D. Markling, architect and agent for Apato, Inc.$ owners and developers, requested removal of the recorded 15 foot setback on Ogden Drive, to permit a 7-1/2 foot set- back, in connection with an apartment building construction at the northwest corner of Trousdale Drive and Ogden Drive. A communication from Emanuele and Liva Podesta, owners of property at 1814 Ogden Drive, protested issuance of the variance. Mr. Markling, in response to the Chair, advised that tho building was designed a000to setbaok provisions of the City of Burlin4ams Ordinance Code. I The plans were In final form and oonstruction about to start when were informed aonoerning the 15 foot setbaek on the recorded su vision map for all properties on Ogden Drive. -4- Mr. Karkling stated that considerable time and expense will be ir_­ volved should i# be necessary to revise the plaxzs. He stated that the setback on Trousdale Drive is greater than required, also theca Is a greater distanee than usual between their building; and the building on the adjoining property. He requested that they be per- mitted to proceed at 7-1,72 feet on Ogden Drive. The Chair invited comments from those in favor. There were none. Those opposed w$re requested to comment. Mrs. A. (bra ssis owner of the building immediately adjacent on Ogden Drive pro ested that the applicants were requesting speciall consideration n t accorded other owners. Mr. Marry K. wo]fe, Jr., speaking in behalf of the Hills Estate Home abanersa A soociation, requested that the 15 foot setback be maintained. Morton Rude, o er of an apartment building at 2001 Trousdale Drive,Dale D. Wolfe,rwner of 2018 Trousdale Drives games Clarke, of the Aluminum Company of America, spoke in opposition.. Mr. Markling advised that he had conferred with representatives of the City on 0 number of occasions when the plans were being prepared, They 71m1/2 foot setback on Ogden Drive was indicated to be the proper setback. The City Engineer confirmed that an error was made when the building permit was issued for the lesser setback, The Planning Conjsultant stated that there are a number of areas throughout the City where setbacks have been established by recorded map for the purpose of Insuring development to a particular pattern. It would appear to be the responsibility of the owner and the architect, when the lot plan is prepared, to be aware of the build- able area. He stated that `he felt the recorded setback should re- main. There being no further comments, on a motion introduced by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Cistulli, and unanimously carried, the variance request was denied. The applicants were advised of their right of appeal to the City Council. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. 7. SPECIAL PE U. F.D. Sperry ComMny Contractor's Storage Yard. A public hearing scheduled on this date on an application, filed by F.D. Sperry Company for a use permit for a contractor's storage yard at 1421 North Carolan Avenue, w..a continued to the next regular meeting, July 24� 1961, when it was determined that the applicant was no in a ten ance. m5� CO MMUNICA T TOILS 1. City Managere: vital Improvement Propramo A communication] dated June 21, 1961, from the City Manager advising that the City Cbunoil has requested that the establishment of a Capital Improvement Program be referred to the Planning Commission for r+ecommendat ons for Capital Improvements on both a long range and annual basio was read. Commissioners unanimously agreed to devote a part o the July 10 study meeting to the subject. RESO%UTIONS 1, RESOLUTION oO 2®61 'Controlling Development Of Building Sites in Hillsgdel Subdivision 0 was introduced for passage on motion of Commissioners Kindig, seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried. ADJOURNMENT There being no ourther business, the meeting was regularly ad- journed at 10:1� p.m,, Respectfully submitted, D.A. Stivers, Secretary �6�