Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1962.09.11COMMISSIONERS PRE Brauner Moore Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER c JTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Cistuili Edwards Kindig .11 September 11, 1962 OTHERS PRESENT City Attorney Karmel City Planner Mann City Engineer Marr The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the a ove date at 8:00 p.m. o Vice -Chairman Brauner presiding. ROLL CALL The Secretary's r#ll call recorded the above members present. Absent members were excused. 1. RESUBDIVISION a Parcel "C" of Lot 2, Block 1, Ray Park Subdivision And Lot S. Block S1, Easton Addition No. S. A resubdivision map, prepared by Wilsey, Ham and Blair, Civil Engineers, and filed with the City Engineer, proposing a lot line change between the above -described p operties, was submitted to the Commission for study on this date. Mrs. Clorette B. ardiner, 1520 Balboa Avenue, owner of Lot S. Block 51, advised that the urpose of the resubdivision is to readjust the common lot line between he two properties to place the new property line along an existing fence also, to increase the street frontage of the Ray Park parcel and correc an encroachment at the rear of the Gardiner lot. The Ray Park prop rty fronts the cul-de-sac at Albemarle Way but as the result of a previ us resubdivision, Parcel "C" will front Balboa Way. The Gardiner prop rty fronts Balboa Avenue. Mrs. Gardiner exp aimed that the line change has been under discussion for some time. T e present map has been prepared with the consent of both owners. The City Engineer advised that both lots meet street frontage and land area requirements The application wads scheduled for public hearing at the next regular Commission meetin , September 24, 1962.' i 2. NORMA MOORE S A communication d The Norma Moore S Commission under day school at 700 Commission to ame, The communication buildings and the problems have ari It is proposed no pletely new struc Mr. Field and Al discussed the pr In reviewing off - Commissioner Norb nearest to Penins tend completely a noted that there and elimination o REQUEST TO AMEND VARIANCE. ted September 11, 1962, from Sydney P. Field, President, hool, referred to a variance granted by the Planning ate of January 8, 19629 to permit a private coeducational 706-710 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame, and requested the d said variance because of a change in construction plans. stated that it was intended originally to alter existing Commission approved the plans.. However, a number of en which ;hake it impractical to prooeed on this basis. to demolish two of the buildings and construct a com- ure. d W. Johnson, architect, submitted the new plans and sal with members of the Commission. reet parking facilities, a suggestion was offered by g to remove the parking space shown on the drawing a Avenue to permit the lawn and landscaped area to ex- oss the front of the property to the driveway. It was s ample area to provide all of the necessary parking the one space would not upset the parking plan. Mr. Field was adv sed that the Commission will consider the revised plans at the regular me ting of September 24, as applying only to the portion \'�f the property o which the original variance was granted. Any plans for extending the use, or demolition of the third building, must come be� fore the Commissi n in a separate application. 3. VARIANCE o Ly n Insurance Group. Height Variance For Commercial Building, Ogden and Murchison Drives. Mr. Phillip G. La son, representing the Lynn Insurance Group, submitted an application fo a four (4) foot height variance for a commercial build- ing at the southe st corner of the intersection of Murchison and Ogden (C-3 District v P ofessional Uses). Parcel J. Block 7, Mills Estate No. 3. A communication from the applicant, dated September 110 1962, advised that the building will front Murchison Drive but because of the slope of the lot it has not been possible to stay within the 35 foot height limi- tation. If the building were to face Ogden Drive there would be no height problems, but the developers prefer, because of the architectural design, to facet the major street rather than on the side street. Mr. Larson reviewed plans with members of the Commission and advised that the location is a portion of the lands originally owned by the California Teachers' Association. It is proposed that the building will compare favorably with existing buildings in the area. A public hearing bras scheduled for the next regular meeting, September 24. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bra ner, Acting Chairman, announced adjournment of the study session, to be f llowed immediately by an adjourned regular meeting, previously schsd led for this date. 02® All ADJOURNED REGULARI MEETING ( �t 9:10 p.m., Vice Chairman Brauner called to order an adjourned meeting from the regular meeting of August 27, 1962, to consider the particular sections of the Zoning Ordinance recently proposed to be amended and returned to the Commission by the City Council for further study and report. The City Attorney related to the fo District, present some urgency in t Chairman Brauner numerical order. Y SECTION 1910 Referring to the in 1961 the State lic notice in mat mitted: (a) Not OR (b) Publicat a notice in a pub described parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as mation of the Burlingame Avenue Off -Street Parking y before the City Council, and suggested the need for e present deliberations. nnounced that the sections would be considered in otice To Property Owners. tate of California Code, the City Attorney advised that Legislature enacted a law providing for giving of pub` ers of variance and use permits. Two methods are per- ce by mail to property owners within a prescribed area; on in a newspaper of general circulation plus posting of is place close to the subject property. The City Attorney advised that the city's" procedure must conformwith the provisions of the State of California Code. J.G. Westcott, pr sident Suburban Protective Association, stated that his organization feel that notification by mail to owners within 500 feet of the affected p operty does not provide sufficient circulation and re- quested at least ne newspaper publication. A paper prepared y the City Planner submitted to members of the Commission costs of publishi g; costs of mailing by certified and registered mail anJan approximate cost per application if the city were to post notices. Members took the osition that notification to property owners within S00 feet by regal r mail only, as provided in the proposed amendment, affords adequate overage. A motion introduced by Commissioner Moore that Section 1910 rema n unchanged, was seconded by Commissioner Norberg and unanimously carri d on roll call vote. SECTIONS 19389 19409 1941 and 1942, all applicable to Non -Conforming Uses. Section 1938: Automatic Change By Non -Use. The San Mateo -Bur ingame Real Estate Board has objected to the time limi- tation of six mon hs because of possible problems created by title trans- fers, probates anq similar situations. The Chairman invi ed comments from the floor. There were none. Upon de- termination by th Chair that there were no persons present to comment -on the matter befif re the Commission, the discussion was therefore con- 7ined to members the Commission. Commissioners agr ed with the opinion of the City Planner, based on the case law on the s bject, that there would be no legal abandonment under -3- such situations since there would be no intent to abandon. On a motion intro uced by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Nor - erg and unanimou ly carried, Section 1938 was retained as written. t Sections 1940-41-42: Restoration, Repairs, Enlargements. The proposed amen ment provides that, in the event of damage, repairs may be made to a non- onforming building, and occupancy and use resumed, pro- viding repairs ar less than 1001 of the assessed valuation and are started within a eriod of six months. The present law p�ovides that restoration may not exceed SO% of assessed valuation and set a time limit of one year for repair. Commissioners agr ed that the amended law offers the city a fair and equitable control of nonconforming uses without working a hardship on the owners and on a m tion introduced by Commissioner Norberg, seconded by Commissioner Moor , and unanimously carried, Sections 1940, 1941 and 1942 remained unchange . SECTION 19S4.b A*erage Setback. Commissioners fel an objection raised by the Real Estate Board that the method of establi hing average setbacks could create a hardship if first residential prope ties were rezoned to multiple use did not justify a ,7hange, particula ly since the problem could be resolved should the need ]rise, and unanim usly voted to retain Section 1954.b as written. SECTION 1958 Measurement Of Setback Lines (second paragraph). The Real Estate Board objected to the provisions of this section pertain- ing to open balconies. Commissioners noted that this is a new addition to the Code since balconies are not permitted under the present law and agreed that past experience has shown the need for the restrictions herein proposed. On a motion introduced by Commissioner N rberg, seconded by Commissioner Moore, the Commission voted unanimously to retain Section 1958 (second paragraph) as written. SECTION 1958.1 U*derground Garages In Setback Areas. A question was rased concerning the city•s ability to police the landscap- ing requirements f this section (Item No. 2). Commissioners agr ed that the section would apply generally to large, ex- pansive developme ts. It was felt that the restrictions were basically sound and should be retained. The Real Estate Board requested clarification of the term "natural grade" �s it appears in Item No. 4. The City Engineer, in reply to the Chair, advised that the term, as used, is acceptable from an engineering and building standpoint and expressed the opinion that here should be no difficulties encountered in practical application. 04- On a motion regularly introduced and seconded, Commissioners voted that Section 1958.1 shill remain as written, C-) SECTION 1960 Lo Coverage. The Real Estate B and and the Peninsula Contractors' Association objected to the proposed 1 t coverage percentages in R-3 and R-4 Districts. The new law provi es: 50% Interior Lot 55% Corner Lot The opponents req est: 55% Interior Lot 60% Corner Lot The City Planner xdvised that the present law provides 60% Interior Lots and 65% Corner Lo s and expressed the opinion that these percentages will lead to a gradual elimination of open space and gardens. The City Planner' advised that lot overage percentages over the past several months indicate an average of 51$ He stated that the proposed law comes very close to this average and xpressed the opinion that there should be no change. Mention was made 3f Section 1966 increasing side yard requirements and Commissioners com ented that perhaps the two sections as proposed (1960 and 1966) w re too restrictive. Reference was mad at this time to the absence of representatives from the present meeting of the Realtors and Contractors groups, but Commissioners agreed that a cha ge might be justified in the Lot Coverage percentages. A motion was then upon introduced by Commissioner Norberg and seconded by Commissioner B auner that Section 1960 as proposed to be amended be "rewritten to prov de for a 60% coverage on Corner Lots in R-3 and R-4 Districts. Motio carried unanimously. SECTION 1966 Measurement Of Side Yards and Rear Yards. An objection to tie above section, raised by the Realtors and Contractors Groups, was ackno ledged but Commissioners felt that there was a lack of sufficient suppor ing argument to justify a change. Accordingly, on a motion introduced by Commissioner Norberg, regularly seconded and unanimous- ly carried, Secti n 1966 was retained as written. SECTION 1967e IFire Escapes In Side Yards. The Contractors A sociation objected to the 36" limitation on the basis that this was not a st ndard size; that the State Fire Code provides for 42" and this is the o ly size that can be purchased. The City Planner that he was informed by the City Building Inspector that it is possib�tated a to purchase in multiples of 6" beginning at 30". The City Planner tated also that this section provides for a secondary means of egress _We required by law. In many of the older buildings, there there is a foot side yard, a 42" fire escape could not be accommo- iated. Commissioner Moor moved that Section 1967e remain unchanged. Motion seconded by Commi sioner Norberg and unanimously carried. -5- . Q 'SECTION 1971.1 Dissensions Of Spaces, Access. William R. Ward, Club objected to width for single .1he objectors ma inimum dimensio 120 Occidental Avenue, and the Burlingame Park Improvement the amendment to Section 1971.1 reducing the minimum family dwelling parking spaces from 10 feet to 9 feet. ntained that the present law should continue, requiring s of 10 feet x 20 feet. The Realtors and Contractors proposed a width of 8 foot 6 inches for all parking. The City Planner entioned that past experience has proved the present requirements of I feet x20 feet not workable in all constructions. There is merit in the request pertaining to first residential properties and the section h s been amended on this basis. With reference to agreed that 9 fee A motion was intr Section 1971.1 pr all other parking Motion seconded b vote, the request of the Realtors and Contractors, Commissioners was the minimum for safe and convenient parking. duced by Commissioner Norberg accepting the amendment to viding for 10 foot wide parking in single family dwellings; to be on the basis of 9 feet in width by 20 feet in length. Commissioner Moore and unanimously carried on roll call SECTION 1971.2 1equirements For Particular Uses () Dwellings, Apartments, Apartment Hotels. The new section i creases the parking requirements to 1-1/2 to 1 in build- ings containing m re than six units and permits parking in the side yard under certain conditions. the Fire Chief protested parking in the side setbacks. The Burlingame Park "Improvement Club requested 1-1/2 to 1 beginning with the first unit. The Real Estate Board requested an opportunity for further discussion on all, parking provision . Commissioners agr ed that the existing 1 to 1 ratio on small apartment buildings has pro ed satisfactory and need not be changed. 1-1/2 to I in the larger buildi gs will help to an extent to relieve on -street parking. The increase is j stiffed and should be retained. With reference to the Fire Chief*s objections, the section was rewritten to provide for an additional open area, of a width equal to the side set- back, to provide 4 clear passageway parallel to the building. The City Planner uggested that the new wording clarifies the section.and Commissioners agr ed and on a motion by Commissioner Norberg, seconded by Commissioner Moorlarried , Section 1971.2 was changed to restrict side setback parking. Motion unanimously. SECTIONS 1971 bo nd d., Parking For Lodging Houses; Hotels, Private Clubs were determined t be adequate and on a unanimous vote, Commissioners recommended the s ctions remain as written. Chairman Brauner nnounced, thereafter, that all sections in question had been reviewed. A motion introduced by Commissioner Norberg, seconded by Iommissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, instructed the City Planner _o prepare and transmit to the City Council a full report of the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was r gularly adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Edward A. Moore,Sec'y.