Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.10.28a CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNINC COMMISSION CO'1011SSIONERS PRESENT Brauner Cistuxli Edwards Kindig Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER October 28, 1963 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Moore OTHERS PRESENT City Attorney Karmel City Planner Mann City Engineer Marr A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m. - Chairman Brauner presiding, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chairman Brauner announced that he was informed by Mayor Johnson that Werner Ha Diederichsen, former member and Chairman of the Planning Commission, and recent appointee to the City Council, was named by Council ex-officio member of the Planning Commission. A conflicting engagement prevented Councilman Diederichsen from attend- ing the present meeting. Members of the Commission joined Chairman Brauner in acknowledging the interest and cooperation of Councilman George, predecessor to Councilman Diederichsen as ex-officio member of the Commission, ROLL CALL In the absence of Commission Secretary Moore, Commissioner Kindig was appointed Secretary pro tempore. The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll call. Commissioner Moore, having advised that he would The detained due to a business commitment, was excused, MINUTES An inquiry directed to members of the Commission by Chairman Brauner established that all had received minutes of the meetings of September 23 and October 14, 1963, together with -the agenda of business for the present meeting through the mail. The minutes of the meetings of September 23 and October 14, 1963, as submitted, were approved, 1EARII�NGS, :t Chairman Brauner announced that public hearings, previously scheduled for this date, would proceed as follows: 1. VARIANCE o Wylie E. and Edna 0, Middleton Mu gtple unit dwelling in first residential district, 130 Arundel Road. A hearing on a variance application filed by Wylie E. and Edna 0. Middleton, proposing construction of a multiple unit dwelling on first residential property at 130 Arundel Road e Lots 15 and 16, Block 26, Lyon $ Hoag Sub- division, was continued from the meeting of April 22, 1963; to the present date. It was determined that the applicant was not in attendance nor represented. The City Planner, at the request of the Chair to review facts pertinent to the application, advised that according to records on file in the City Hail, two transfers of ownership in the property have taken place since the variance application was filed: Mr. Middleton to a second party and from that party to a third owner. The City Planner advised that he has not heard from any of the persons involved concerning the variance application. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Kindig, it was established that bir. Middleton was advised by mail of the continued hearing scheduled for the present date, Chairman Brauner inquired of the City Attorney concerning the rights of a successor owner in the variance application. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that where there is a change in ownership after an application is filed and prior to disposition, and the successor owner either requests or consents to continuance of a hearing, said hearing may proceed where the variance will not be a personal variance but will run with the land. The City Attorney commented that as in the present application if the variance were to be granted it would be granted solely on the basis of the hardship inherent in the land and its classification, regardless of owner- ship. A hardship does not exist by virtue of ownership. The City Attorney stated further that a successor owner, prior to completion of the variance processes, would have the right to withdraw and request termination of the proceedings. In a period of discussion during which questions were raised concerning procedure, a suggestion offered by Commissioner Norberg to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting in November, the City Planner in the interim to so notify Mr. Middleton and the present owner, was concurred in by Commissioners. The hearing was thereafter declared continued to the meeting of November 25, 1963. -2- 2. VARIANCE ` Erma Browne and Henry .Speece. ,lo construct multiple unit dwelling on first residential property. A public hearing was continued from the meeting; of April 22, 19630 to the present date on a variance request filed by Erma Browne and Henry Speece "For a 6 or 8 unit, two bedroom class apartment with swimming pool if permitted" on property zoned R-1 at #30 Dwight Road, (Lot 23, Block 36, Lyon & Hoag Subdivision). Improvements existing: Three room cottage. A letter of justification from the applicants elated March 11, 1963, accompanied the application. Chairmen Brauner announced that the application was continued from the original hearing date with the consent of the applicant to enable the Commission to consider a land use survey of the! easterly section of the city in connection with possible changes in existing zoning classifications. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair's invitation to comment, referred to the report filed with the Commission entitled "Land Use Survey of the Lyon $ Hoag Subdivision of the Town of Burlingame" and to Commission discussions to date at three separate meetings. The Planner noted that the survey disclosed that some zoning changes might be made in particular locations; in other areas, no changes were required nor warranted. Reference was made to a discussion at the study meeting of October 14 when Commissioners generally agreed on the question of procedure; for the present, rezoning of particular areas would not be considered; rather, the Commission would decide first whether to proceed with public hearings on amendments to the Ordinance Code to permit a new zone classification for a low -density type of apartment building. Chairman Brauner recogni_fed Air. James Browne, representing the appli- cants, who described the existing structure on the property as com- pletely dilapidated, beyond repair and not habitable. tie stated that the lot is SO feet wide by 117 feet deep and will accommodate a well - designed attractive apartment building. Mro Browne stated that the houses on either side are quite old and an apartment building on his lot could not possibly be harmful nor detrimental to neighboring homes. Mr. Browne, in reply to Chairman Brauner's inquiry, advised that he would prefer to continue with the hearing and bring the application to conclusion on this date. In reply to questions directed to Mr. Browne concerning building plans, the Commission was advised that they were not presently available. Mr. Browne was advised that in variances of this type it is the policy of the Commission to require drawings at the time of the hearing showing property boundaries and the proposed structure, not necessarily a complete set of building plans. Following a period of discussion, Mr. Browne agreed to have a plot plan and rendering of the building prepared for the November study meeting. Mr. Browne was advised that the date of the study meeting was not known but would be determined prior to adjournment of the present meeting. It was suggested that he consult with the City Planner and Building Inspector concerning the drawings and to confirm the date of the study -3- 1 meeting, With the consent of the applicant, the present hearing was thereafter declared continued to the meeting of November 25, 1963. 3. VARIANCE a !Tarry J. Hardy. '�Iter single-family residence to duplex. 518 Bayswater Avenue. A public hearing on an application filed by Harry J. Hardy.for a variance to convert a single-family residence in an Rml District to duplex was continued at the request- of the applicant from the meet- ing of April 22, 1963, to the present date. Property: 518 Bayswater Avenue. Lot 21, Block 32, Lyon $ Hoag Subdivision. It was determined that the applicant was not in attendance nor repre- sented and the City Planner, in reply to the Chair, advised that there is a transfer of ownership in the property front Mr. Hardy to a new owner on file in the City Hall. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Kindig, the City Planner advised that the property was sold as a single-family dwelling and is occupied as such. Following a period of discussion, Commissioners; agreed that inasmuch as the applicant was aware that the Commission was conducting a survey of the area in connection with possible zoning changes and the hearing was continued on that basis, the application should not be removed from the agenda until the parties concerned were given an opportunity to meet with the Commission. The City Planner was requested to advise the former and the present owner of the position taken by the Commission. The hearing was thereafter declared continued to the meeting of November 25, 1963. 4. RESUBDIVISION Q Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, East: Millsdale No. 2. A hearing an an application to resubdivide the above -described properties continued from the meeting of October 14, 1963,, was declared continued to the meeting of November 25, 1963, upon advice from the City Planner that the applicant has requested additional time to resolve certain legal problems pertaining to the resubdivision. S. VARIANCE o Lewis Weil, 1637 Coronado Way. A hearing on an application for a variance to Exceed permitted lot coverage on the above -mentioned property, was continued from the meeting of September 23, 1963, to the present date, at the request of the applicant. A communication from the applicant dated October 25, 1963, requested a further continuance to the January meeting. There were no protests heard, and members of the Commission indicating; agreement, the appli- cation was declared continued to the meeting of January 27, 1964. -4- 6. FINAL MAP - Mills Estate No. 23. The Final Map of Mills Estate No. 23, prepared by George S. Nolte, Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc., for the subdivider, Eichler Homes, was reviewed at the study meeting of October 14 and submitted to the Commission at this time for formal consideration. Mills Estate No. 23 is the second unit of Eichler's development, and includes the park site, proposed firehouse site, tank farm site and the one foot reserve strip on Trousdale Drive. Mr. James Roemer represented the subdivider. The Commission was ad- vised that subsequent to the study meeting of October 14 when questions were raised concerning the area of the firehouse site, lot dimensions were revised to conform to the tentative map. The City Planner stated that when the map is presented to the City Council there should be deeds from the subdivider conveying title to the city to four lots as follows: Lot 15, Block 41, proposed firehouse site; Lot 16, Block 41, park site; Lot 17, Block 41, Alcazar Water Reservoir; Lot 1, Block 43, reserve strip on Trousdale Drive. Mr. Roemer advised that the deeds will be available for Council approval with the subdivision map. Following further examination of the map and a statement from the City Engineer that the map was examined and found technically correct, Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion approving the Final Map of Mills Estate No. 23 and recommending its acceptance by the City Council and directing that a letter be transmitted to the City Council concerning deeds of conveyance of title from the subdivider to the city for Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 41 and Lot 1, Block 43. Motion seconded by Commissioner Kindig and carried unanimously on roll call vote. 7. VARIANCE o To exceed legal fence height: Nicholas A. Crisafi. An application filed by Nicholas A. Crisafi requested a variance to permit a fence on an apartment house site at #15 E1 Camino Real to extend above the 6 foot legal maximum. The application form included the information that the additional height covers and hides sheds and garages of surrounding neighbors and pro- vides more privacy for swimming pool area. The City Planner advised that he received word from the applicant that he would be away from the city and unable to appear at the present meeting. Mr. Ledger of Ledger Construction Company represented the applicant and advised that the fence was completed approximately one month ago. Chairman Brauner, in referring to the application form, noted that the fence was constructed prior to the time the application was filed. Commissioner Cistulli stated that he visited the property and inspected the fence, which he described as attractive and well-constructedo fie commented that fir. Crisafi has had sufficient experience with the city's rules to be aware of the legal height. -5- The Chair invited comments from the floor from those in favor of the variance. Mr. E.D. VanSlyke, 1512 Barroilhet Avenue, advised that the fence extends approximately 100 feet along the common boundary line of his property and the Crisafi property. He stated that he had no objection since the additional height affords greater privacy to his. lot. The City Planner advised that he, with the Building Inspector, measured the fence which is 6 feet 10 inches at one point, 7 feet 6 inches in another area, and the highest portion measured from ground level is 8 feet. The Chair invited comments from those opposed. Mrs. Douglas Cormack, owner of an apartment building at 19 El Camino Real adjacent to the subject property, stated that several months ago Mr. Crisafi discussed with Mr. Cormack removal of a hedge which separated the two properties to permit a fence to be constructed. Mrs. Cormack stated that this was agreeable but it was assumed that the fence would not exceed the permitted height of 6 feet. The present fence is 7-1/2 feet high where it divides the two properties. Mrs. Cormack stated that they intended to back the fence with grapestakes on their property and object to being forced into more expensive con- struction because Mr. Crisafi exceeded the legal height. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Norberg, Mrs. Cormack advised that therdVeR objections to the existing fence other than the cost factor. Commissioner Norberg suggested that the property owners might amicably settle their differences and moved that the application be continued to the meeting of November 25, 1963. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Edwards. On the question, Chairman Brauner made reference to Code conditions requisite to variance grants. The motion above stated to continue the hearing to the November regular meeting was unanimously carried on roll call vote.. COMMUNICATIONS: I; Eichler Homes re: (a) Sales Office. (b) Construction Yard. (a) A communication from Eichler Homes dated September 24, 1963, signed by Curtis J. Henderson, Director of Sales, requested permits as follows: To maintain a temporary tract sales office in the form of a trailer at the corner of Sebastian Drive and Frontera.lWay (Lot 8, Block 489 Mills Estate No. 19) until -December 1, 1963: To maintain a tract sales office (Code Section 1921.b) in the garage of a model home (Lot 10, Block 48. Mills Estate No. 191 from December 1, 1963, until all of the houses are sold. The communication advised that it is intended to install a glass sliding door in the garage, to be replaced with a conventional door when the office is vacated, -6- A second communication from Mr. Henderson dated October 22, 196330 requested approval of conditions of operation as follows: 1. "The right to sell any unimproved property within the area of Eichler Homes• holdings; generally, Mills Estate 19, 23 and 25; 2. The right to sell improved property in the same area upon which Eichler Homes is the builder or where the builder has contracted with Eichler Homes to market the property after completion of the improve- ments; 3. The right to sell any improved property in the same area wherein Eichler Homes retains a property interest such as conditional sales contract's, etc.". The communication stated that generally Eichler Homes does not involve itself n`r its personnel in a resale operation of its own properties nor that of other builders. It is the intention to cease all sales activities from the temporary sales office when the last of the houses is sold, Chairman Brauner recognized Mr. A.L. Shapro, Vice President, Eichler Homes, who advised that the trailer has been removed and the garage rough finished so that the office will be located there immediately upon approval of the Planning Commission. Chairman Brauner invited comments from the floor. Mr. E.L. Pierce, President, Burlingame Mills Estate Improvement Association, stated that the organization which he represents does not object to the office but there is some concern among residents of the Mills Estate who feel that the tract sales office operating in the area for some years has violated the conditions of the permit. It is hoped that Eichler Homes will not permit a similar situation to develop. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Cistulli concerning landscap- ing, her. Shapro advised that all of the model homes will be landscaped. The City Planner suggested the same procedure in the present applica- tion as in previous permits. Should the Commission desire to process the application, it be conditional upon the letter submitted by the applicant as to the conduct of the office, and the permit not exceed one year, renewable upon application, In reply to Commissioner Cistulli's inquiry concerning signs, Mr. Henderson stated that there will not be signs to advertise the sales office -as such. Any signs posted in the area will be subject to the requirements of the city's sign ordinance. Commissioner Norberg introduced a motion approving a permit to Eichler Homes for a tract sales office to be maintained :in the garage of a model home on Lot 10, Block 48, Mills .Estate No. 19, in accordance with their letter of September 24, 1963; said office to be operated according to the conditions set forth in the let -ter from Eichler Homes dated October 22, 1963, signed by Curtis J. Henderson, Director of Sales; the permit to extend for a period of one year from date, sub- ject to renewal upon application and approval of the Planning Commission. The property.to be landscaped to conform with other properties on the streets Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and carried unan- imously on roll call vote. -7- (b) A communication dated September 25, 1963, from Eichler Homes requested permission to use two lots in Mills Estate No. 19, namely, Lots 20 and 21, Block 48 for storage of foundation materials, parking of light construction equipment, location of a temporary field office and several tool sheds, storage of plumbing pipe and fittings and electrical pipes The communication advised that there will be no lu*ber stored on the site except that used in current construction; the proposed use will extend through April, 1964, at which time it is expected that paving operations will have progressed to the point where the facilities can be relocated. Chairman Brauner recognized Mr. A,L. Shapro who advised that through inadvertence and mis-interpretation of the Ordinance Code the yard was located and in operation prior to the time the application for the permit was filed with the Planning Commission, Mr. Shapro advised that there was no attempt made nor intent to violate the rules of the city, The City Attorney, in reply to Chairman Brauner, referred to Code Section 1921.a providing for "Temporary Accessory Buildings -Storage Building". The City Attorney pointed out that the ordinance does not mention outside storage, however, it would appear quite proper for the Planning Commission to assume the jurisdiction of determining whether or not such storage is incidental to the building, and grant or deny a permit for the purpose. In reply to Commissioner Cistulli°s inquiry concerning a fence to enclose the property, Mr. Shapro stated that there would be no objection to a redwood fence similar to that placed by Alpha Land Company at its storage yard, except that Eichler Homes would prefer to space the boards, rather than solid construction, to discourage vandalism. In reply to the Chair's inquiry, there were no comments from the floor. A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to approve the storage yard on Lots 20 and 21, Block 48, Mills Estate No. 19, through April, 1964. for the purposes set forth in the letter from Eichler [comes dated September 2S, 1963, said yard to be enclosed with a redwood fence, as described by Mr. Shapro, was seconded by Commissioner Kindig and carried unanimously on roll call vote. The City Attorney advised that if the yard should be relocated it will be necessary to obtain a permit from the Commission for the new location. NEW BUSINESS 1. Commission decision regarding public hearing on amendment to code - new zone classification. Chairman Brauner announced that the Commission would consider at this time the matter of fixing a date for public hearings pertaining to amendments to the Ordinance Code to provide for a new zone classification - tentatively designated R-3A. The City Planner was invited to initiate the discussion. The Planner referred to recent study sessions when the Commission reviewed at length the report of the land use survey of the Lyon $ Hoag Subdivision and discussed the idea of a new zone classification, between the existing Ra2 and Rm3, for low density multiple -family dwellings. The Planner referred to comments of the Commission at the meeting of October 14, 1963, when it was the concensus that the ordinance would be considered independently and not attached to particular locations. It -a- was noted that this manner of treatment is not without precedent since there is an M-2 classification in the code, which has never been applied to any property in the city. In the discussion which followed, Commissioner Kindig questioned whether the Commission was prepared to hold public hearings without further study of the proposed classification. Following individual comments pro and con from members concerning additional study sessions, the City Attorney suggested, if the Commission wished to discuss the subject further, that the present meeting could be adjourned to the date of the next study meeting and at that time the Commission could decide whether to proceed with the public hearings. The discussion was temporarily interrupted to set the date of the November study meeting - the eleventh day, when the Commission would ordinarily meet, being Veterans Day. Upon agreement of members, the meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, November 12, 1963. Commissioners thereupon agreed to continue the discussion of the proposed code amendment to the above date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 10:20 p.m., to Tuesday, November 12, 1963, at 8:00 pom. . -9- Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary Pro tempore.