HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.11.26�r
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulli
Edwards
Kindig
Norberg
Stivers
CALL TO ORDER
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Moore
November 26, 1963
OTHERS PRESENT
City Attorney Karmel
(9:50 p.m
City Planner Diann
City Engineer Marr
Bldg. Inspector Calwell
An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from
November 25, 1963, was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m.,
Chairman Brauner presiding.
ROLL CALL
In the absence of the Secretary, Commissioner Moore,
appointed Commissioner Kindig Secretary pro tempore.
The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll
Commissioner Moore, having previously advised that he
due to a business commitment, was excused.
Chairman Brauner
call.
would be absent
Chairman Brauner announced that he received word from Councilman
Diederichsen, ex-officio member of the Commission, that another appoint-
ment prevented his attendance on this occasion, however, Councilman
Diederichsen expects to rearrange his affairs to permit regular attend-
ance at future Commission meetings.
'.MINUTES PREVIOUS MEETINGS
Minutes of the meetings of October 28 and November 12, 1963, previously
submitted to Commissioners, were approved and adopted.
ORDER OF BUSINESS REVERSED
Chairman Brauner announced that the Commission was requested to change
the order of matters for consideration, and there appearing to be
sufficient reason therefor, Item No. 3 on the agenda under Communications
would be heard first, to be followed by the regular order of business.
COMMUNICATIONS
ALPHA LAND COMPANY RE: To relocate construction yard.
To maintain temporary sales office.
1. STORAGE YARD
A Letter dated November 14. 1963, from Alpha Land Company advised that
unforeseen circumstances and conditions have prevented locating the
temporary field office and storage compound on the site previously
approved by the Planning Commission - Lot 20, Block 45, Mills Estate
No. 19, and requested permission to use Lot 21, Block 45, for the
purpose.
The communication advised that if the new site is approved, Alpha Land
Company will conform with all of the requirements set forth by the
C7l ission in the original permit, as to fencing, landscaping and
identification sign.
Mr. Peter S. Ingber, representing the applicant, submitted a plat
showing the proposed site on Rivera Drive off Sebastian Drive, adjacent
to the original site. The Commission was advised that the two lots are
identical but Lot 21 is graded - Lot 20 is not; therefore, the request
to use the former lot.
Mr. Ingber advised that the fence is in place; landscaping as directed
by the Commission should be completed within a week's time.
There were no protests recorded, oral or written, and on a motion
introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner Norberg
and unanimously carried, a permit was granted the applicant to maintain
a temporary field office and storage compound on Lot 21, Block 45,
Mills Estate No. 19, in lieu of Lot 20; with identical restrictions
of fencing, landscaping and signs as attached to the permit approved
under date of September 23, 1963 for Lot 20.
2. SALES OFFZCE
A letter dated November 18, 1963, from Alpha Land Company requested a
permit to set a trailer on Lot 15, Block 45, Mills Estate No. 19, to
be used as a temporary sales office (Trousdale and Sebastian Drives).
The communication advised that construction has started on a model home
on Lot 1, Block 46 and, when completed, all of the sales activities
will be moved into the home and the trailer removed.
Peter S. Ingber, representing the applicant advised that the temporary
office will be located in a twenty-five foot trailer for a period not
to exceed ninety days.
There were no comments from the floor and no protests recorded, oral
or written, and on a motion introduced by Comvissi.oner Cistulli and
seconded by Commissioner Kindig the applicant was granted permission
to locate a trailer on Lot 15, Block 45, Mills Estate No. 19 for sales
office purposes for a period not to exceed ninety days. Motion carried
unanimously on roll call vote.
- 2 -
REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS RESUMED
;� HEp,RiNGs
1. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Apartment Building - Almer Road & Bellevue Avenue.
(Por. Lots 4 & 11, & Lot 5, Block 9, Burlingame Land Company.)
Mr. Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney, representing John Conway, owner/devel-
oper of a proposed apartment building at Almer Road and Bellevue Avenue,
submitted a landscape site plan for the property to be approved by the
Commission.
Mr. McMillan referred to a discussion at the study meeting of
November 12, 1963, when some rearranging of the landscaping,at the
front of the building was discussed. Mr. McMillan stated that since
there is more than the required parking, it was possible to remove two
parking spaces in the area and provide additional landscaping.
The plan was posted for all in the Chambers to view and was described
by Mr. McMillan.
Commissioner Norberg referred to a row of trees at the west boundary
of the property and suggested a slight change in alinement to produce
a curved rather than straight line. Mr. McMillan agreed that this
would be done.
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, stated that the plan is before
the Commission for approval in accordance with Code Section 1958.1
"Underground Garages in Set -back Areas," providing that where garages
are constructed below grade level, the surface of the structure lying
within a required yard or setback area shall be landscaped; the plans
for such landscaping to be approved by the Planning Commission. The
Chair invited comments from the floor. There were none.
On a motion introduced by Commissioner Edwards and seconded by Commis-
sioner Norberg the landscape site plan was approved with a change in
the planting of trees on the west property line, as shown on the
original plan filed with the City Planner. Motion carried unanimously
on roll call vote.
2. APPLICATION OF JOSEPH M. PETERSON FOR HOTEL. 1209 Howard Avenue.
An application for a Special Permit filed by Joseph M. Peterson for a
fifty-five room hotel at 1209 Howard Avenue with no provision for on -
site parking, was subsequently amended to an application for a variance
from code parking requirements and continued from the meeting -of
September 23, 1963 to the regular meeting in November. The Parking
Commission in the meantime was to be informed of facts pertinent to
the proposal and invited to submit an opinion.
- 3 -
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, advised that a letter was
directed to the Parking Commission explaining the problem and pointing
out arguments pro and con which were made at the time the application
was first heard by the Planning Commission. To the present date, no
action has been taken by the Parking Commission.
Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, stated that
it was his Lmderstanding that the Parking Commission would meet on
Wednesday, November 27, and the subject was to be on the agenda.
Following a brief period of discussion, an agreement was reached that
the variance application would be noticed for hearing at the next
regular meeting of the Commission, December 23, 1963, and the matter
was thereafter declared continued to that date.
3. VARIANCE - To exceed legal fence height. Nicholas A. Crisafi.
An application filed by Nicholas A. Crisafi requesting a variance to
permit a fence in excess of the legal six foot maximum on property
located at 15 E1 Camino Real was continued from the meeting of
October 28, 1963, to the regular meeting in November.
Upon determination by the Chair that the applicant: was not in atten-
dance nor represented, and in consideration of circumstances occurring
the past weekend which caused the Commission to change the date of its
regularly scheduled meeting from November 25 to this date, which may
have created a hardship upon the applicant, a motion was introduced
by Commissioner Edwards and seconded by Commissioner Cistulli to
continue the hearing to the meeting of December 9, 1963. Motion
carried unanimously on roll call vote.
4. VARIANCE - Harry J. Hardy. To convert single-family dwelling to duplex.
An application filed by Harry J. Hardy for a variance to remodel a single-
family dwelling at 518 Bayswater Avenue to a duplex was continued from
the meeting of October 28, 1963, to the regular meeting in November.
The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Brauner, advised that at the
direction of the Chair a letter was written under date of October 30,
1963, to Mr. Theodore R. Fry, successor owner in the property, with a
copy to Mr. Hardy. the original owner and applicant, advising that the
application was still before the Commission for disposition and would
be dropped from further consideration if it was not the intention of
the owner to pursue the variance. The City Planner stated that to the
present time there has been no word received from either parties.
It was determined that there were no persons in attendance who were
concerned in the matter.
- 4 -
Commissioner Edwards thereupon introduced a motion to remove the
i application from the agenda of Commission business since there was
apparently no further interest on the part of the applicant nor the
successor owner in the property. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Cistulli and carried unanimously on roll call vote.
5. VARIANCE - Erma Browne and Henry Speece. Multiple unit dwelling
in R-1 District. #30 Dwight Road.
An application filed by Erma Browne and Henry Speece requesting a
variance to construct a multiple unit dwelling on first residential
property at #30 Dwight Road, was continued from the meeting of
October 28, 1963, to the regular meeting in November.
The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Brauner, stated that he was
informed in a telephone call from Mrs. Brown that the plans for the
building were not completed and a request was made for a postponement
to the December or January meeting.
2he City Planner advised that Mrs. Browne was instructed to direct a
letter to the Commission requesting that the matter be continued on
the agenda to a future meeting. To the present time, the letter has
not been received.
Upon determination by the Chair that the applicants were not in
attendance nor represented, a motion was introduced by Commissioner
Kindig and seconded by Commissioner Norberg to continue the application
to the meeting of December 23, 1963.
6. VARIANCE - Multiple unit dwelling on R 1 property, 130 Arundel Road.
An application for a variance was filed by Wylie E. Middleton to permit
apartment construction on first -residential property at 130 Arundel Road.
Since the time the application was originally filed, there was a change
of ownership in the property and Lauder Bros., the successor owners,
indicated their intention to pursue the variance. The application was
continued from the meeting of October 28, 1963, to the regular meeting
in November.
It was determined that the applicant was not in attendance nor repre-
sented.
On a motion introduced by Commissioner Norberg, seconded by Commissioner
Edwards and unanimously carried, the hearing was continued to the regular
meeting in December, with the stipulation that the! applicant appear at
the study meeting of December 9 prepared to submit. a representative set
of drawings for the proposed building.
5 -
In response to an inquiry from the floor from Howard Pearson, 132 Arundel
Road, concerning notification to persons in the neighborhood. Commissioners
agreed, after some discussion, during which it was noted that the appli-
cation was noticed some time ago, but due to extenuating circumstances,
i.e., a new owner and change in building plans, that a second set of
notices should be mailed to persons within the prescribed area.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT - Earl E. Swanson, restaurant coffee house,
833 Mahler Road.
An application for a special permit filed by Earl Swanson, owner of an
industrial building at 833 Mahler Road, Burlingame, proposed a coffee
house --restaurant in a portion of said building. (Lots 6,7,8, Block 7,
East Millsdale Industrial Park, Unit ##2.) A plan of the proposed
facility accompanied the application.
Miss Greta Turnquist, who will lease the space and operate the restaurant,
was in attendance and advised that the location is between the Hyatt House
and Thunderbird Hotel where there is a need for restaurant facilities
for the personnel of industrial buildings in the area. Miss Turnquist
described the proposed operation and mentioned that the hours will be
from 7z00 a.m., to 4:00 p.m., each working day.
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, advised that the zoning is M-1
(Light Industrial). The proposed use, retail in nature, is adjunct to
an industrial use and requires approval of a permit from the Planning
Commission.
In reply to Commission inquiry, the City Planner advised that plans and
layout will be carefully checked to assure compliance with applicable
building and fire codes.
There were no protests.recorded, oral or written. A motion was introduced
by Commissioner Cistulli approving the permit to Earl B. Swanson, applicant,
in accordance with the plans on file. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Norberg.
Miss Turnquist, in reply to Commission inquiry, described off-street
parking facilities and advised that it was not anticipated that there
would be an appreciable amount of automobile traffic, rather the majority
of customers would comae from within walking distance.
The motion above stated "to approve" was thereafter carried unanimously
on roll call vote.
The hearing was thereafter declared concluded.
- 6 -
\, 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - James E. Delehanty, Contractor Storage Yard,
845 Malcolm Road.
An application for a special permit filed by James E. Delehanty proposed
a contractor storage yard on the rear fifty feet of property located at
845 Malcolm Road (Lot 28, Block 4, East Millsdale Industrial Park, Unit #2)
A letter from the applicant dated November 1, 1963, accompanying the
application, described material and equipment to be stored, the fence
to enclose the area, and a small office and shop building to be built
to the front of the yard to be used in connection with same.
A plot plan was filed.
Mr. Delehanty was in attendance and advised that subsequent to the
discussion at the study meeting of December 9 when it was suggested
that some landscaping be provided, the plans were :revised accordingly.
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, stated that after notices of
hearing were mailed, three property owners in the area visited his
office. In each case, there were no objections to the use but all were
interested in the appearance of the fence.
Reference was made to Code provisions requiring all outdoor storage to be
enclosed with an eight foot solid fence. The Planner noted that new
industrial areas on both sides of the Freeway have been developed with
attention to the amenities of well -designed buildings, open areas and
landscaping. The Commission may have some suggestions to make in
connection with the appearance of fences when required for outdoor storage.
The City Building Inspector, in reply to the Chair„ advised that there
were no problems of concern to that department.
Comments from the floor were invited.
Mrs. Ernest Schwartz, representing Pem Investors, owners of a 7111 acre
parcel on Mitten Road, suggested that the proposed use was not in
keeping with the industrial and commercial uses in the area and would
detract rather than contribute to the value level of surrounding properties.
The City Planner advised that the use is legal in the district with
permit from the Commission.
Mr. Delehanty, upon recognition by the Chair, displayed the plot plan
and described improvements to be made. Mr. Delehanty stated that one
piece of equipment may project approximately six inches above the eight
foot fence. None of the remaining equipment and material will be visible.
The Commission was advised that the lot is sixty feet wide by one hundred
seventy-five feet deep; the storage area to be confined to the rear fifty
feet.
17
ti
fir. Delehanty referred to the letter filed with the application and
t stated that the operation will be as described. There will be very
little traffic and a minimum amount of storage.
There were suggestions offered by Commissioners as to type and design
of the fence and Mr. Delehanty indicated willingness to cooperate.
There were no further comments from the floor, pro or cone.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Cktulli ,approving the permit
for the storage of materials and equipment in accordance with the
applicant's letter of November 1, 1963; storage to be confined in the
area designated on the plot plan and landscaping to conform with said
plot plan; the fence to conform to Code requirements and to be; of a
finished design acceptable to the applicant and the City Planner.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Edwards and carried unanimously on
roll call vote.
Mr. Delehanty was requested to file the plot plan, including landscap-
ing, with the City Planner.
The hearing was declared concluded.
9. TENTATIVE MAP ® El Quanito Acres No. 3 Subdivision
CA resuUdivision of Lots S $ 69 E1 Quanito Acres No. 2).
A Tentative Map of a proposed subdivision, El Quanito Acres No. 3,
reviewed at the study meeting of November 12, 1963, was presented to
the Commission for formal consideration at this time.
Louis A. Arata, engineer for the project, advised that there is
approximately an acre and a half consisting of two lots (Lots S $ 6,
El Quanito Acres Subdivision No. 2) at the southerly corner of
E1 Prado Road and Canyon Road. The owner proposes to subdivide into
five lots, three having an area of approximately 10,000 square feet
and two larger lots.
Mr. Arata stated that all of the lots will have street frontage and
access. Lots 1, 2 and S lie along Canyon Road. Lots 3 and 4, at
the rear, were designed with a panhandle or strip, to Canyon Road to
provide street frontage and access.
In reviewing the map, Chairman Brauner.questioned whether the sub-
division met code requirements, specifically with reference to the
So foot street frontage on Lots 3 and 4 on Canyon Road.
The City Attorney stated that there must be evidence presented that
Canyon Road is a public street, that there is access to the two lots
at the rear and that the access is usable. The City gttorney
expressed the opinion that the map as drawn did not meet the intent
of the ordinance.
In a discussion which followed, fir. Arata stated that there were two
means of providing access to the rear lots; either by an existing;
right-of-way from El Prado Road (indicated on the map as a shaded
area) or by bridging the Canyon Road frontage.
-8-
Chairman Brauner recognized Air. Frank Writter, 71.9 Sunnybrae Boulevard,
San Mateo, speaking for the proponents of the map, who requested the
i Commission to approve the map conditional upon the subdivision meeting
all code requirements and the performance of public improvements.
The City Planner pointed out that the map proposes a subdivision of
five lots where some time ago two lots were considered best.. In the
original subdivision,the Planning Commission and developer decided
that access from Canyon Road was difficult and for the purpose of the
two lots not necessary. It was felt that using the frontage on
Canyon Road would be a disadvantage; there were cost factors involved,
and the appearance of the property and depth of the creek to be con-
sidered.,
The City Planner mentioned that one of the conditions almost essential
to the subdivision would be a commitment from the developer to improve
Canyon Road.
The City Engineer made the following points: Canyon Road to be
widened, including pavement, standard curbs and gutters for the frontage
of the property; one-half of the right-of-way of Canyon Road to be
annexed to the City of Burlingame; tentative map to include detail as
follows: proposed drainage from Lots 3 and 4; proposed location of
utility services; tentative location of building sites on Lots 1, 2
and So On the latter point, the City Engineer stated his concern
about gravity flow to the existing sewer on Canyon Road.
Mr. Writter stated that it was not the thinking at the present time to
do the improvements. The owners intend simply to map the lots and
sell and the purchasers of the property would install improvements.
The City Attorney staid that improvements must be completed by the
developers. Improvement plans and bond must accompany the final map
then it is submitted to the City Council. The bond assures that the
owner/applicant shall perform the work of the public improvements.
The City Attorney raised a question also as to how the property would
be developed should the City Council refuse to accept an easement off
El Prado Road to the two lots at the rear.
In consideration of the questions raised by the City Engineer and the
City Attorney, members :of the Commission agreed •that it would not
be possible to recommend the map in its present form to the City Cousil.
Members of the Commission concurring, the hearing was continued to
the meeting of December 23, 1963, the proponents of the map in the mean-
time to meet with members of the city staff.
RECESS.
A recess was declared at 11:00 o'clock p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 11:OS p.m., by Chairman Brauner.
-9-
Chairman Brauner announced that items under Communications would be
considered at this time.
CoadmiCATIOKS
I. Pena Transit Advertisinas Clock with advertising display.
A request was filed by firs. Frances Pena for permission to mount a
clock carrying advertising display on the Southern Pacific depot at
Burlingame Avenue.
A letter from the Southern Pacific Company dated October 18, 1963,
indicated that the Company had no'objection to Mrs. Pena approaching
the Planning Commission concerning the proposal.
Mrs. Dena, upon recognition by the Chair, advised that the clock would
be neon lighted; the face measuring approximately eighteen inches and
advertising lettering measuring two inches in height. The clock would
be mounted not on the depot roof but on the face of the building to
the right of the lettering "Southern Pacific."
Mrs. Pena stated that there was no sponsor as yet but she was hopeful
that she would be successful in interesting a banking firm in the adver-
tising space.
The City Planner pointed out that the problem is not in the clock but
the fact that the advertising matter will not apply, to the occupants
of the building.
Reference was made to provisions of the Sign Ordinances Section 1855
"Prohibited Signs," paragraph "d"s "Signs or structures carrying the
advertising of a person, product or service other than that of the
occupant of the land on which it is placed or the building to which it
is attached, except signs for the sale or rental of the property."
In discussing the proposal with Mrs. Pena, Commissioners pointed out the
possibility of establishing a precedent opening a completely new avenue
of advertising in an area which the City thus far has been able to control.
There were no comments from the floor.
Commissioner Kindig stated that in his opinion the clock itself would
probably fulfill a service but the element of precedent must be taken
into consideration. Commissioner Kindig questioned whether a neon
clock would be in character with the architectural design of the depot
structure and thereafter introduced a motion to deny the request.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stivers and declared carried on
the following roll call vote:
- 10 -
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Kindig, Norberg, Stivers
NOES: COMMMISSIONERSs Cistulli, Edwards
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Moore
�2. F. D. SPERRY CO.. To continue storage yard at_14_21 No. Carolan Avenue.
A communication from F. D. Sperry Co., dated November 1, 1963. requested
permission to continue to operate a contractor's equipment yard at
1421 North Carolan revenue, until June, 1964.
Chairman Brauner noted that according to the record the date when
Mr. Sperry was to vacate the property was long past. It was the opinion
of the Commission that a final and conclusive action should be taken at
the meeting of December 9, 1963, and the City Planner was instructed to
inform Mr. Sperry accordingly and request his attendance at that time.
EMARINGS (cont.) :
10. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE CODS (ZONING): To provide regulations
for R-3A District (multi -family, low density).
Chairman Brauner announced that this was the time and place scheduled to
conduct a public hearing in the matter of a proposed amendment to the
Ordinance Code to provide regulations for a new zoning classification:
R-3A, multi -family, low density.
Copies of the proposed ordinance were distributed to members of the
Commission and the material was read in its entirety.
The City Planner commented that at the present time there is no classifi-
cation for a density between the R-2 and R-3 Districts; R-3A proposes a
transitional zone between the two.
There was a period of discussion during which Commissioner Norberg objected
to the section providing for garages and repeated his position in opposition
to requiring covered garages or carports. He stated that in his opinion
the question of whether a car should be parked in the open or under cover
is for the individual to decide and not a matter of law.
Commissioners Stivers and Edwards stated that they wished more time to
study the proposed ordinance.
There were no comments from the floor.
Following comments from members of the Commission, a motion was introduced
by Commissioner Edwards and seconded by Commissioner Kindig to continue
the hearing to December 23, 1963, the subject to be studied further at
the meeting of December 9.
Lotion carried unanimously on roll call vote.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett K. Kindig
Secretary pro tempore