HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1962.08.27BURLINGAME CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSION
PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulli
Edwards
Moore
Norberg
CALL TO OR:
August 27, 1962
COMMISSIONERS OTHERS PRESENT
ABSENT
Kindig City Attorney Karmel
Stivers Mayor Lorenz
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Planning Commission was held
on the above Oiven date. Meeting called to order at 8:00 p.m., -
Chairman Pro Tempore Brauner in the Chair.
ROLL CALL
A Roll Call
and vetivers,
MINUTES PREV
The minutes
August 13, 1
and adopted.
1 HEARINGS
rded the above members present. Commissioners Kindig
vacation, were excused.
the regular meeting of Truly 23 and the study meeting of
1. submitted previously to members, were approved
Hearings sche#uled at a prior study meeting and appearing on the Agenda
on this date,lwere considered as follow;:
1.
An applicatio for a resubdivision proposing the transfer of the common
lot line be n the properties of "Edwards and Dilley," approximately
twenty-six fe t northeasterly along Hillside Drive, to increase the
area of the wards' property by approximately 1,600 square feet, was
formally ackn ledged. _
Mr. Earl M. Dilley, in attendance, advised that the twenty-six foot
transfer woul enable Mr. Edwards to add an additional room and patio
to his home.
The City Engren
r advised that the tentative map reviewed by the Com-
mission has revised slightly to exclude a road easement from
the propertybe transferred.
The City Plan0er, questioned by the Chairman, advised that the lot on
Hillside Driv con-- to ordinance eguirements and the proposed plan
will not affe t the low-lying properties.
A motion intr aced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner
Norberg that he subdivision be approved, was unanimously carried by
a Roll Call v te.
2.
- AMERICAN MOTORS SALES CORPORATION
A communicatio
Signs, dated J
the erection o
its new locati
a sign, design
currently loca
two story buil,
erection of a
Mr. Serlin, in
identical with
and attached ti
tracks.
from Mr. Paul Sirlin, Sales Representative, Coast Neon
y 18, 1962, was read, requesting a variance to permit
a neon sign on the American Motors building at
on 15 Guittard Road. The communication advised that
ing "Rambler" is erected on a one-story building
d at 1565 Adrian Road and will be re -located on a
ng at the new location. A variance to permit the
irty-five foot sign was therefor requested.
attendance, advised that the proposed installation,
that erected on the former building, will be installed
the rear wall of the building nearest the railroad
The City Plan r advised that the application for a sign variance
is before the ommission for the reason that the sign is neither a
"roof nor a fr -standing" type sign. The proposed sign will be
fifteen feet a ve the roof, mounted on poles that will be attached
to the buildin The City Planner stated that there was nothing
objectionable o the proposed sign.
A motion was i
sioner Norberg
by the Coast N
as unanimous.
3.
A communicatio
Coast Neon Sig
the erection o
be shortly loc
"Mercedes-Benz
south end of t
"Studebaker" t
"Rambler" is n
between the tw
was proposed b
The City Pla
with respect
troduced by Commissioner Edwards, seconded by Commis -
that the application for a sign variance as requested
on Signs be approved. A Roll Call vote was recorded
- STUDEBAKER CORPORATION
was read from Mr. Paul Sirlin, Sales Representative,
s, dated July 18, 1962, requesting a variance to permit
two signs on the Studebaker Corporation building to
ted at 1565 Adrian Road; one neon sign, designating
and Star" to be erected on two steel poles on the
e building and the other neon sign, designating
be erected on existing poles upon which the sign
w located, with an approximate distance of ninety feet
signs. A height of thirty five.feet from the ground
the applicants.
recommended that the applicant advise the Commission
the height of each of the proposed signs.
In reply, Mr. irlin stated that the two signs'to be erected on
opposite side4tudebaker"
of the building proposes a height of fourteen feet
for the "Merees-Benz and Star" sign and a height of twenty-two
feet for the sign.
Commissioner
be limited to
A brief discus
motion that th,
"Studebaker" s
above the roof
at a height no
motion was sec,
on a Roll Call
we expressed preference that the "Studebaker" sign
height of twenty feet.
ion concluded with Commissioner
variance be approved, upon the
gn be erected at a height not t
level and the "Mercedes -Benz
to exceed fourteen feet above
nded by Commissioner Cistulli a
vote.
-2-
o
Norberg introducing a
condition that the
exceed twenty feet
and Star" sign be erected
the roof level. The
nd unanimously carried
4. .
- COIT DRAPERIES
A communicati n from the Bell Electrical Signs, Inc., dated July 16,
1962,was read requesting a variance to permit the installation of
a sign in ex s of the twenty -foot maximum on the new Coit drapery
building loca ed at 897 Hinkley Road.
The City Pla er advised that in the interim between the study meeting
and the regular meeting, the drapery concern has notified his office
that the greater percentage of the business is wholesale and on
that basis ordinance requirements pertaining to the retail use of
property does not apply in this instance.
Mr. George RTrise, SanFrancisco architect, representing the drapery
concern, queoned the need for a variance and in referring to the
peculiarity the building roof lines, stated that the sign, its
declared heiof 38' 10" from ground level would be conforming.
The City Pla r, by a blackboard illustration, outlined the building
with its two istinct roof levels, stating that the ordinance makes no
reference to eight limitation measurements on this type of building
and the drape company was therefor requested to apply for a variance.
Some discussion arose with Commission members determining thereafter
that a sign mity be placed on the highest portion of the roof.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commis-
sioner Norberg that the sign as indicated on the diagram is in
conformance and that the procedure of filing a variance application
is unnecessary. A Roll Call recorded the following voter
Ayes: Commissioners: Brauner-Cistulli-Moore-Norberg
Noes: Commissioners: Edwards
Absent Commissioners: Kindig•-Stivers
S.
Formal acknow edgment was given to an application from R. P. Etienne
Properties, I c., requesting a permit for the construction of a
directional s gn for Hyatt House on a parcel of land located on
the westerly ide of the Bayshore Highway Freeway, approximately
fifty feet theasterly of the Burlingame Pumping Station.
Cyrus J. MaMi Ian, Attorney, representing Hyatt House intereds, advised
that the pres nt site has been sold and R. P. Etienne Properties,
owners, have ffered a new location, approximately 1,000 feet to the
south of the rent site. The sign will remain identical to that
now in use.
The City Pla r advised the Cow=tsion to consider (1) a permit for
the use of i ustrial property for the purpose stated and (2) a variance
to permit the increase in the height limitation.
In reply to
in which the
that its vla
A motion was
rloore that b
isioner Moores inquiry concerning the period of time
will remain on the new location, Mr. McMillan advised
would be contingent upon the sale of the property.
roduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner
the use permit and the variance from the height limita-
- 3 -
i
tson be approved. A Roll Call vote was recorded as unanimous.
6. VARIANCE GRANITE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Communications from the Granite Development Company, dated July 31
and August 1, 1962, were read, requesting a variance to permit the
construction f a triplex dwelling on first residential property at
No. 9 Dwight ;oad.
The latter co nmunication set forth in detail, reasons for which the
variance was requested and called attention to its location, one
block removed from commercial property and adjacent to property
zoned apartment.
Mr. James B
expressed a
an asset to
Commissioner
The City P
opinion, g
maintained
between an
on Dwight :
The Commissi
identical wi
at 9 Clarend
In reply to
between the
Mr. Jack G.
advised that
reduced six
subject prop
, representing his wife, owner of neighboring property,
val to the plan and stated that the triplex would be
neighborhood and the surrounding area.
i reported that he had reviewed th4 area.
er stated that the proposed construction is, in his
usage of the property and compatible with a position
the Commission with respect to an appropriate transition
zoning on Peninsula Avenue and first residential zoning
was advised by the City Planner that the plans are
those prepared and used in the construction of a triplex
Road by the Granite Development Company.
mission inquiry concerning the three foot difference
nth of the lot at 9 Clarendon Road and the subject lot,
liams, representing the Granite Development Company,
.e area in each unit in the new construction will be
hes to conform to lot coverage requirements on the
v.
There being further comments, Commissioner Norberg moved that the
variance be anted with the provision that the building plans be
altered to i icate a three foot decrease in the depth of the dwelling
to meet lot d-mensions and the construction thereafter to conform to
plans submitt The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cistulli
and on a Roll Call vote,, unanimously carried.
Mr. Williams s advised that the variance becomes effective one day
following the next Council meeting, or September 5, 1962, provided no
appeal is received in the interim.
7.
A comm►unicat
Orack, submi
Block 4, Eas
to R-3 (Agar
exterior eie
application.
The City P
wherein a
(1132 Capuchin)
n, dated August 10, 1962, was read from I. Ed and Dorothy
ing an application for a variance to rezone Lot 23,
n Addition No. 1 (1132 Capuchin Avenue) from R-2 (Duplex)
ent_.) Plans indicating a proposed five unit apartment
including a plan of the
tion requested at the study meeting, accompanied the
er advised that the property is located in an area
cy was established with respect to considering individual
applications and building plans are in conformance with ordinance
requirements
Carl G. manager of an apartment house located at 1136 Ll Camino
Real, .protes ed the granting of the variance, stating that the
sewer €acili ies in the neighborhood are inadequate to accomodate the
anticipated ncrease of residents.
Questioned b the Chairman, the City Engineer advised that the two
areas are no serviced by the same sewer main; however, he would
investigate oomplaints registered by Mr. Somner.
Following a
variance be
Commissioner
present.
A communic
Lundquist,
in the bag
The communic
occur on the
applicant bo
A petition
owners on
was acknow
rief discussion. Commissioner Cistulli moved that the
ranted in accordance with plans presented, seconded by
Norberg and unanimously adopted on Roll Call of members
dated August 6, 1962, was read from Arthur and Inez
ing for a variance to permit the storage of merchandise
of his home, located at 25 Highland Avenue.
n stated that sales and business conducted does not
mixes, there is no advertising nor signs and the
a valid City business license at this address.
the signatures of thirtyeen residents and property
Avenue, signifying consent to the proposed use,
A communication dated August 21, 1962, from the Fire Inspector, sub-
mitted at the request of the Commission, advised of an inspection made
by the Building Inspector and his Office, and the changes necessary
in order that the use may qualify a"change in occupancy: requirement.
The City Planner advised of his personal inspection of the property
and indicated that the changea demmided are reasonable and proper.
Chairman Brauner expressed coiwarn with respect to the possible
expansion of the storage of stock and the employment of personnel.
Mr. Lundquist gave assurance to the contrary and further assurance
that corrections would be made to conform to building and fire
requirements.
Commissioner f
took cognizance of the location of the area
adjacent to a cocial area, the willingness of the applicant to
comply with r ons imposed, thecontinuation of the business
operation by alicant exclusively, the petition from residents
in the neigh rhand moved that the variance be approved.
W. R. G. Freal7ickson, 24 Lorton Avenue, questioned whether the variance
would apply t the property or to the applicant and in reply, the
City Planner ecommended that it be granted to the applicant during
his occupancy of the subject property.
Following a b ief discussion, Commissioner P7orberg amended his motion
to include that the variance be granted to the applicant during his
- 5 -
occupancy of the premises, upon the condition that (1) there will
be no posting of signs; (2) there will be no employment of
personnel; that (3) alterations will be made within a period
of ninety day to conform to building and fire standards. The
I motion was s ed by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously
adopted on a oll Call of members present.
9. USE PERMI - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
A communicati n dated July 30, 1962, was read from the First Baptist
Church of Bur, ingame, applying for a use permit to convert a dwelling
at 809 Fairfield Road for Sunday School purposes. The application
indicated that an area at the rear of the dwelling would be improved
to serve as a small parking lot to relieve congested parking areas
on streets arOund the Church.
A communication to the First Baptist Church from the Chief and the
Inspector of :be Fire Department, dated August 9, 1962, was read,
advising of tie changes that must occur to maintain the building in
a safe and a sanitary condition for the use of the several church
activities.
Mr. Ernest H.101son, representing the applicant, confirmed that all
corrections shall be made.
Some discussion arose on the legal requirements with respect to
"school occupincy." The City Planner referred to the Communication
from the Fire Department wherein the Church was advised to "completely
seal off and discontinue all second floor use."
Mr. Olson ad sed that the use of the building would be limited and
children will not be permitted lento the building unless accompanied
by an adult.
Commissioner Edwards moved that the use permit be granted upon the
condition that (1) alterations conform to building and fire require-
ments and (2) legal requirements pertaining to "school occupancy"
are satisfactorily met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Cistulli and unanimously carried by a Roll Call vote.
RECESS
A recess at tie conclusion of the foregoing hearings was declared
by the Chair at 9:50 p.m.
Themeeting wa* recalled to order by Chairman Brauner at 10:00 p.m.
10.
Consideration of
Zoning Ordin ce
1962.
an amendment to Division 6, Section 1926 of the
was continued until the regular meeting, September 24,
- 6 -
1.
A commtmicati n from Fred D. Sperry, Jr., dated July 26, 1962, was
read, wherein an additional extension of time on the temporary use
permit to opwate a Contractor's equipment yard at 1421 North
Carolan Ave nu , was requested.
The Commission was advised that due to circumstances beyond its
control, a delay in the removal to a new location is anticipated.
The City Pla er advised that the continued operation of the
Contractor's and by the Sperry Company is illegal usage of the
property and should be abated.
Action was wilbbeld until the next regular meeting at which time
Mr. Sperry would be requested to be present.
2.
in reply to t
a Chair's invitation, the City Attorney briefly advised
Commission wi respect to the procedure in the matter of the referral
by the City C cil of proposed zoning amendments.
The City Atto ney advised that public hearings conducted by the
Planning C ssion and subsequently by the City Council have been
declared conc uded; objections to the proposed zoning ordinance
amendments s tted to the City Council have been referred to the
Planning C ssion solely for the purpose of review, consideration
and recommend tion.
Communicatio setting fourth specific objections to amendments proposed
and submitted to Council at an adjourned meeting, August 10, 1962,
were read front the following:
1. William R. Ward, 120 Occidental Avenue, objecting to SECTION 1971.1
and urging th retention of a ten foot minimum width requirement
for single g ages and carports;
2. Burling Suburban Protective Association of Burlingame, objecting
to the el tion of newspaper publications as proposed in
SECTION 1910;
3. The Burlingame Park Improvement Club, objecting to SECTIONS 1907,
1908 and 1910,I pertaining to Procedure and questioning the clarity
of SECTIONS 1 71.1, 1971.2 (a), 1971.2 (b) and 1971.2 (c);
4. San Mateo Burlingame Real Estate Board and the Peninsula General
Contractors sociation (jointly) objecting to and or requesting
clarification on SECTIONS 1938, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1954, 1958, 1958.1
1960. 1966. 1067. 1971.1 and 1971.2.
Reference was wade to a communication submitted to Council from the
Chief of the ire Department objecting to sub -section "a" of Section
1971.2, perta ing to side yard parking spaces.
- 7 -
The City Pla er advised that he has prepared an amended Section 1971.1
"Dimensions o Spaces, Access" and an amended Section 1971.2, sub-
section "a" lungs, apartment, apartment hotels" under "Require-
ments for Particular Uses."
Objections to sections, arranged in numerical order, were considered
as follows:
a
The City Attorney, in reply to the Chair's inquiry, read excerpts
from a number of sections of the Government Code and amendments
thereto pertaining to procedure and the giving of public notice,
indicating that the procedure proposed by the City is in conformance
with statuatory requirements.
It was noted at in addition to publications notice required under
the current city ordinance, the City has maintained a policy of
mailing notices to property owners within a 500 foot radius in an
area in which a change is proposed.
Mr. Fred W. Lehman, President, Burlingame Paris Improvement Club,
stated that his Association has maintained a position that
publications re necessary, not only to protect the citizens,
but to protect the Council and the Commission as well.
Commissioner Cistulli stated that on the basis of notification given
to property owners within the 500 foot radius and the audience
attendance at public hearings, one publication, in his opinion, would
be sufficient.
Chairs Bra observed that considerable investigation on the
determination f legislative bodies prior to establishing statuatory
requirements j stified the adoption by the City of a policy in
conformance w State planning procedure.
Following further discussion, in which an administrative policy to
require notic to be posted in the City Hall was established,
Commissioner C'stulli moved that Section 1907 remain as written.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Norberg and unanimously
adopted by Rol Call vote.
SECTION 1908 ar s Commission and Council"
(Classifications and reclassifications)
in nature
Section 1908, imilaV� to that set forth in the foregoing Section 1907,
Commissioner alwards moved that Section 1908 remain as written,
seconded by Coomissioner Norberg and unanimously carried by Roll Call.
SECTION 1910
The City Plan
and special p
classificatio
Planning laws
"
to)
advised that Section 1910, pertaining to variances
its was separated from the section including
and reclassifications in conformance with State
d eliminates publication requirements.
- 8 -
)The City Attornel
was in effect, tl
19S7 a statute w;
municipality, at
a publication, it
if the city elect
notice; the law i
notice should oc<
,advised that at the time the City's Zoning Ordinance
kere was no State statute with respect to notices; in
is written and later re -written to the effect that a
its discretion, may elect to publish; if there was to be
should be published ten days prior to the hearing and
:ed to publish the notice then it :rust also post a
lid not stipulate, however, where the "posting" of a
:ur, ,
A.G. Westcott, P#sident, Suburban Protective Association, urged that the
public be appris d by at least one publication and more preferably, two,
and stated that 'no public official has been injured by giving too much
notice".
In response to t e Chair's invitation to the Commission for comments,
Commissioner Cis ulli recommended conformance with the State Planning law
and Commissioner Moore expressed the opinion that the request for news-
paper publicatio is a legitimate request.
A discussion aro'a on the recommendation that notices to property owners
be mailed by regstered mail, the cost to the City to provide the ser-
vice and the publication -posting as set forth in the State statutes.
Further discussi
a report concern
,a return receipt
additional infor
notices.
Cons! deration `o►
the City Councsi
ADJOURNMENT
There being no f
at 11:5S p.m., t
ELA
concluded with the City Planner requested to submit
g the cost of mailing notices by certified mail with
equested and the City Attorney requested to submit
tion on the procedure of publication and posting of
e remaining sections-•referred7'to_.-the Commission by
s continued to the evening of Tudsday, September 11.
-then business, the meeting was regularly adjourned
reconvene on Tuesday September 110 1962.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward A. Moore
Secretary