Loading...
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