Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.12.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Brauner Edwards Kindig Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER December 9, 1963 COMNMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Moore (9:30 p.m.) City Attorney Karmel City Planner Mann City Engineer !Tarr Councilman Diederi.chse An adjourned regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from November 26, 1963, was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Brauner presiding. Chairman Brauner acknowledged Councilman Diederichsen, ex-officio member of the Commission, in attendance. ROLL CALL a In the absence of Commission Secretary Moore, Commissioner Kindig was appointed Secretary protempore. Commissioners Cistulli and )Moore, having advised that they would be detained by other commitments, were excused. HEARINGS 1. Nicholas A. Crisafi. Fence Height Variance. Chairman Brauner announced that a hearing continued from the meeting of November 26, 1963, would proceed at this time on an application filed by Nicholas A. Crisafi requesting a variance to exceed the legal fence height on property at #15 E1 Camino -Real, (Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Glenwood Park Subdivision). The application form recited as follows: "Height limitation on fence be extended over the 6 foot maximum in order to allow us to cover and hide sheds and garages.of surrounding neighbors. This higher fence also provides more privacy for swimming pool area". The City Planner, reply to Chairman Brauner's request to review pro- ,ceedings to date, wised that the matter was first heard by the Com- mission at the mee ng of October 28 and continued for thirty days so that Commissioners could inspect the fence and deride whether the excessive height involved a condition of hardship„ In the meantime, :4r. Crisafi was to attempt to meet objections raised by the neighboring owner. A further continuance to the present time ws approved by the Commission when the regular meeting in November was rescheduled without prior notice due to the death of president Kennedy. Mr. Crisafi, upon recognition by the Chair, advised that a compromise was reached with the neighbors of the adjacent property at 19 El Camino, who were opposed because they would be forced into a more expensive fence on their property by the added height, whereby he will assume the additional cost. . Mr. Crisafi explained that on the property to the rear there is an old garage structure on the property line clearly visible from the apartment units on his property. The particular type of fence was selected to screen this structure and provide an attractive background for the swimming pool and outdoor living area. The owner on the adjoining property has stated that he has no objections to the higher fence since it will afford him greater privacy. tbtr. Crisafi, in reply to Chairman Brauner, stated that if the fence were not permitted at the rear the rental value of the apartments in that area would be affected because of sheds and garages on neighboring properties, resulting in undue property loss, In a period of discussion, Commissioners commented on Mr. Crisafi's failure to follow proper procedure but agreed, from personal observa- tion of the property, that there was an element of hardship with respect to the rear fence but no justification for exceeding the legal height on the sides. A motion introduced by Commissioner Norberg permitting the existing 8 foot fence to remain on the rear property line and directing that the side fences (bordering Lots 16 and 19) be reduced to the legal height was seconded by Commissioner Kindig and carried unanimously on roll call vote. The hearing was declared concluded. COMMUNICATIONS 1. F.D. Sperry Company request to continue to operate at 1421 North Carolan Avenue. A letter dated November 1, 1963. from F.D. Sperry Company requested an extension of time on a temporary use permit to operate a contractor's equipment yard at 1421 North Carolan Avenue. The communication advised that it is expected that a new permanent location will be ready for occupancy in the City of San Mateo by June, 1964, when the location on Carolan Avenue will be vacated. Upon recognition by the Chair, Mr. Sperry advised the Commission of the many obstacles encountered in effecting the removal to the new location but it is expected now that the property can be developed without fur- ther difficulty and will be ready in June. In a period of discussion, Commissioners concurred that Mr. Sperry had been penalized by a series of unfortunate events not of his making. Chairman Brauner advised that he had no objections personally to an extension.of the permit but after visiting the property he was con- cerned about the appearance and poor housekeeping. In reply to the -2- Char, Mr. Sperry advised that an attempt is made regularly to clear the debris but recently, due to the pressure of business, this has been neglected. Commissioner Edwards introduced a motion to approve an extension of the permit to June, 1964, conditional upon the grounds being cleaned and maintained free of debris and weeds. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared carried unanimously on roll call vote, 2, Mrs, Erma Browne request to postpone public hearing to Januaryp1964. A request from Airs, Erma Browne, dated November 2'7, 1963, for a further continuance of the public hearing on a variance application to the regular meeting in January, was concurred in unanimously by Commissioners, The City Planner was instructed to advise Mrs. Brown accordingly and request her presence at the study meeting of January 13, 1964, prepared to submit a representative set of elevations and plot plan. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was thereafter regularly adjourned at 8:45 p.m., to be followed immediately by the study meeting scheduled for this date. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary protempore, STUDY MEETING The study meeting was called to order by Chairman Brauner, FOR STUDY: 1, RESUBDIVISION m Lot 26 and S.E. Portion Lot 27, Block 4, Easton Addition (1144 Capuchino Avenue). A resubdivision map of the above -described property, prepared by Robert E. Onorato $ Associates, for the applicant, Mr, Glen W. Allen, was submitted. The resubdivision proposed to erase a common lot line between the two properties to establish one parcel having a frontage of 75 feet on Capuchino Avenue, The City Planner recalled that the property came to the attention of the Commission some months ago when Air. Allen filed a variance appli- cation to permit apartment construction. Lot 26 is a 50 foot lot, zoned R-2; there is an old dwelling existing. Lot 27 was divided some years ago into two 25 foot parcels; the zoning is C-1. -3- Mr. Allen proposes to combine one 25 foot parcel, which is vacant, with the duplex lot. If the resubdivision is accomplished, both j properties will assume the least restricted classification, i,e., C-1. The City Engineer advised that the map does not provide sufficient engineering detail. Following a brief discussion with Mr. Allen, a public hearing was scheduled for the meeting of December 23, 1963, conditional upon an acceptable resubdivision map being filed with the City Engineer. 2, RESUBDIVISION - Lot 19, Block 3, East Millsda.le Industrial Park Unit No. 1. Gilbreth & Mitten Roads. A resubdivision map of the above -described property, prepared'by Wilsey, Ham F Blair, was filed by Stanford Gluck, agent for the owners. The resubdivision proposed to establish a new lot line dividing Lot 19 into two parcels u the corner parcel to front Gilbreth and Mitten Roads; the new parcel to front Mitten Road,; The City Planner advised that there is an existing building on the corner and in an inspection of the property it was determined that the proposed resubdivision will not affect the building nor its park- ing, The City Engineer suggested to the engineer in attendance representing the applicant that an outline of the existing building appear on the map. The application was scheduled for formal hearing on December 23, 1963. 3. RESUBDIVISION - Revision of lot lines of Lots 3 and 9, and a portion of Lot 2, Block 3, Burlingame Hills, San Mateo County_ A resubdivision map of the above property, James C. Causey, owner, prepared by Wilsey, Ham and Blair, was submitted. The City Planner advised that the property is not within the city limits and prior to a final action on the resubdivision the owner will petition the City Council to annex to the city. The resubdivision proposed to realign existing lot lines to establish three parcels. An existing residence will occupy one parcel, the other two parcels will be vacant. In reviewing the map, Commissioners noted as follows: The garage of the existing residence will be located on a separate parcel. It will be necessary to construct a new garage on the same property with the house. The old garage building should be removed. A suggestion was made to change the proposed boundaries of Lot 2 to create a better design. Lot 2 would then have less than 10,000 square feet in area requiring a variance hearing. The engineer representing the applicant agreed to discuss the latter point with his principals and to confer with the City Engineer. -4- The City Attorney explained that after the Commission has considered the map and arrived at the conditions which it finds necessary to a proper use of the property it can recommend to the City Council that there be no annexation unless the developer will agree that the con- ditions will be met. The map was scheduled for consideration at the meeting of December 23. 4. RESUBDIVISION o Properties of Adolph Blaich, Inc., and Pacific Kay, Inc. Lot E, Resubdivision Parcel B, Resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 2, Unit No, 1, Millsdale Industrial Park. A resubdivision map of the above properties, prepared by Philip B.Lygren, engineer,was submitted. The City Planner explained that several months ago the Commission ap- proved a resubdivision when Lot E was divided off the Adolph Blaich property and subsequently sold. After the property was sold, it was discovered that the seller inadvertently disposed of the spur track along with the lot. The present proposal will reattach the portion at the rear, which is the spur, to the Blaich property and, in exchange for that, the owner who purchased the lot will take eight feet more from Lot B for parking. The City Planner advised that there is a large strip of vacant land between the building on Lot B and Lot E so that the resubdivision will not affect the building nor its parking. Mr. Richard Lavenstein, representing the applicants, advised that a proper resubdivision map would be filed with the City Engineer. The application was scheduled for hearing on December 23, 1963. S. TENTATIVE MAP - E1 Quanito Acres No. 3. A hearing on the Tentative Map of E1 Quanito Acres; No. 3 was continued from the meeting of November 26, 1963, to the regular meeting in December to permit the map proponents to meet with the city staff to discuss a number of questions pertaining to the subdivision which were raised at the time of the hearing. Upon advice from the City Planner that no representations were made by the applicants since the time of the last meeting the matter was referred to the study meeting in January, 1964. 6. FINAL MAP o Mills Estate No. 2S, The Final Map of Mills Estate No. 2S, representing the last of the Eichler lands in the Mills Estates, was presented. The Commission was advised of various conditions which apply to the property: A ten foot pedestrian way from Marguerita to Arguello is to be dedicated to the city. The City Engineer advised that improvement plans will include steps and paving. Lot 35, Block 39 will be deeded for city access to the canyon. The one foot non -access strip on Trousdale Drive frontage will be deeded to the city. =S- The map shows two parcels on Skyline Boulevard for the tree strip which will be deeded to the city, The City Attorney advised that the matter of reserving driveway ease- ments into the properties on the Skyline Boulevard frontage will be discussed with the legal representatives of the developer. The City Engineer stated that subdivision improvement plans will in- clude the driveway easements. The map was scheduled for formal consideration at the meeting of December 23, 1963. 7. A.R. CARPENTER VARIANCE APPhICATIOU, The City witorney advised that the variance granted by the Commission to A.R. Carpenter for apartment construction is before the City Council on an appeal action. In the course of discussions before the Council, the applicant made modifications in his plans so that the present plan is not the one approved by the Commission. Because of the modifications, the City Council has requested the Planning Com- mission to review and submit a recommendation. The City Planner advised that the total number of units has been reduced to 37, including the existing building and the proposed addition. The duplex building on Willow Avenue will be removed. Park- ing will be provided for S2 astomobiles. The City Planner stated that in checking current plans, parking and setback requirements have been met. It would appear that the only variance is to include the R-1 lot on Willow Avenue so that there will be sufficient open space and parking. The City Planner mentioned that the question of widening Willow Avenue for the frontage of the property, by eliminating -the planting strip, was discussed by the City Council for the purpose of providing a "stacking" lane. However, Mr. Carpenter has discovered that this would involve moving a Pacific Gas $ Electric Company pole on the corner of Willow Avenue and El Camino Real, which carries telephone facilities for the existing apartment building. The City Engineer stated that the street should be widened but the cost of relocating the utility pole is prohibitive. Mr. Carpenter stated that the street widening would not cause a financial burden but estimates received from the Pacific Gas $ Electric Company and the Telephone Company indicate approximately $2000.00 to move the pole, which is not economically feasible. Following a period of discussion, Mr. Carpenter was advised that the matter would be on the agenda of Commission business for the meeting of December 23. 8. VARIANCE - Multi -family dwelling on R-2 property. 1112 Capuchino_. A request for a variance filed by Valwyn G. Fletcher to permit R-3 use of duplex property at 1112 Capuchino Avenue was referred to the study meeting of January 13, 1964, at the request of Donald A. Nahrwold, agent for the applicant. -6- .* 9. VARIANCE o Multi -Family Building on R-1 Property. 130 Arundel Road. The variance application of Lauder Bros., for apartment construction on property zoned R-19 scheduled for +st dy at this time, was referred to ) the study meeting of January 1�fs1963, when it was determined that the applicant was not in attendance nor represented. 10, PARKING VARIANCE. FOR HOTEL. 1209 Howard Avenue. The application of Joseph M. Peterson for a variance from off-street parking requirements for a hotel at 1209 Howard Avenue,reviewed at a prior meeting, was scheduled for public hearing on December 23, 1963. 11. VARIANCE o Multi Family Dwelling on R-1 Property. 1225 Laguna,', A variance application filed by Bernard M. Stack proposed construction of a five unit apartment building on first residential property at 1225 Laguna Avenue. The applicant advised that the existing building, which is his home, is old and repairs and maintenance have created a financial burden. A preliminary drawing was submitted of the proposed construction. A question was raised concerning lot coverage, which appeared to be in excess of code. Commissioners commented on the fact that approx- imately 25t of the total frontage was taken up by driveway and two of the garages would back into the street. It was the opinion of the Commission that the plans could be improved and a suggestion was made to Mr. Stack that his draftsman meet with the City Planner. 12. LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE. 2012 Devereux Drive. An application for a variance filed by Carl M. Fiske to exceed lot coverage on property at 2012 Devereux Drive to permit an addition to an existing residence was referred to the study meeting of January,1964, when it was determined that the applicant was not in attendance nor represented. 13. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE CODE: REGULATIONS FOR R-3A DISTRICT. A proposed amendment to the Ordinance Code to provide for R-3A District Regulations, scheduled for continued hearing at the meeting of December 23, was discussed. The City Planner distributed material which was prepared to illustrate the difference between the type of development possible under existing R=3 rules and the proposed Rm3A. There was considerable discussion regarding garage requirements with Commissioner Norberg maintaining his position in opposition to all. covered parking. There were comments concerning application of the rules either on an area basis or, possibly, in individual situations where present R-3 would not apply. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Edward A. Moore, Secretary