HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.10.14CITY OF'BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
Co3,IhITSSIONERS 'PRESENT
Brauner
Cis -U114
Ea wa-rds
Kindig
Norberg
Stivers
CALL TO ORDER
October 14, 1963
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Mnore
City Attorney Karmel
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
An adjourned regular meeting of the Burlingame Manning Commission,
from September 23, 1963, was called to order on the above date at
8:00 p.m., Chairman Brauner presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members answered the roll call. Commissioner Moore,
absent due to a business commitment, was excused,,
Commissioner Kindig was appointed Secretary pro-tem, in the absence
of Commissioner Moore.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Chairman Brauner acknowledged the presence of Mayor Johnson,
Councilmen Martin, Crosby and George.
HEARINGS
Chairman Brauner announced that public hearings, continued from the
meeting of September 23, would proceed at this time as follows:
1, RESUBDIVISION - Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, East Millsdale Industrial
Park, Unlit No, 20 (Bayshore Highway & Stanton Road),,
The City Engineer reported that the resubdivision map submitted by the
applicant, Mr. Stanford Gluck, was found to be in conflict with the
provisions of the building code and Mr. Gluck has requested additional
time to make the modifications necessary to meet the city's requirements.
There were no protests heard, and members of the Commission concurring,
the hearing was continued to the meeting of October 28, 1963,,
20 VARIANCE o William E. Jenkins: To construct apartment building in
First Residential District.
A public hearing on the application of William E. Jenkins,
2111 Roosevelt Avenue, was continued from the meeting of September 23,
1963, to the present date:, Mr. Jenkins requested a variance to permit
construction of a "S unit garden -type apartment" on first, resi der:t= a.1
property at 1511 Newlands Avenue (Lot 8, .Burlingame Heights Subdivision).
Existing improvements include a two -car garage, a small rental unit,
20x2S storage unit and an unused swimming pool.
A letter dated August 12, 1963, from the applicant stated that the lot
is not conducive to single-dwellirg construction and the proposed building
would be an asset and improvement to the neighborhood and the city as
a whole.
A letter dated August 26, 1963, from Lorenz H. Hansen, owner/resident,
1540 Newlands Avenue opposed "a variance or spot rezoning from REsidentia:
to Apartment zoning!'.
A land use study prepared by the City Planner, after a personal survey
of both sides of Newlands Avenue from El Camino Real to Crescent Avenue,
was displayed and, at.the request of the Chair, the Planner commented
on each property. It was noted that of the two R-3 lots which front
E1 Camino, one is apartment in use, the other, single-family. On both
sides of Newlands Avenue, in the R-1 District, there is a total of six
duplex dwellings. Immediately adjacent to the Jenkins property, there
are two buildings on one lot with a total of five dwelling units.
The City Planner explained that from records on file in the city offices
he was able to determine that certain of the duplexes are legal, having
been in existence before the present zoning ordinance was adopted..
The City Planner stated that while the majority of the properties are
in good condition and well maintained there are some which are either
poor or approaching the poor stage rapidly. The City Planner suggested
that eventually a land use study (similar to that recently completed
in the easterly section of the city) could be made of the area bounded
by E1 Camino, Barriohlet and Occidental Avenues.
In reviewing the study of Newlands Avenue, some of the Commissioners
expressed the opinion, based on the varied uses in existence on the one
street, that a more extensive survey might be advisable.
Mr. Jenkins stated that if his variance were approved at this time, it
was very unlikely that he would commence building before early Spring,
1964. He stated that he would be agreeable to continuing the hearing to
another meeting to permit the Commission time to decide whether or not
an area survey was warranted.
Members of the Commission indicating agreement, Chairman Brauner advised
Mr. Jenkins that the present hearing would be continued to the regular
meeting in March, 1964. Chairman Brauner informed Mr. Jenkins that the
action to postpone was not to be construed as a commitment on the part
of the Commission that a study would be made or that any zoning changes
were contemplated in the districts west of E1 Camino Real.
The hearing was thereafter declared continued to the meeting of March
23, 1964.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was thereafter regularly adjourned at 8-40 p.m., followed
immediately by the study meeting regularly scheduled for this date.
-2-
STUDY MEETING
to Land Use Study m Lyon F Hoag Subdivision, Town of Burlingame.
Chairman Brauner announced a discussion period on the lard use report
prepared by the City Planner of the area vast of Myrtle Road between
Peninsula and Burlingame Avenues.
At the Chair's invitation, the City Planner offered the following from
personal observation of the area; The majority of properties are
either good or excellent; the bulk of the area is, improved there are
about 13 vacant lots. Reference was made to the page in the report
eni sled "Inventory of Properties": 41 properties rate; "Poor"' would
have to be removed or completely rebuilt; 157 "Fa.ir", require painting,
gardening and general maintenance; 479 properties rated "Excellent"
or "Good".
In the area nearest the railroad tracks, th.e properties are zoned R-3,
some of which are in good condition but the density is too high. There
appears to be justification for a new lower density multiple -family
zone, a type of transitional zoning between the existing R-3 and the
R-l.
Chairman Brauner recalled that at a special study meeting of
September 5, 1963, the Commission reviewed the report at length, con-
sidered the question of an additional zoning classification and re-
quested the City Planner and City Attorney to prepare material for
public hearing in the near future.
In a period of discussion, it was the majority opinion that at the
meeting of October 28, 1963, the Commission would decide whether or
not to hold public hearings. Commissioners took the position that
the new classification would not be considered in relation to particu-
lar properties or areas, but the physical boundaries of the district
could be determined at a later date.
2. Final Map G Mills Estate No. 23.
The final map of Mills Estate No. 23, prepared by George S. Nolte, Inc.,
Engineers, was presented to the Commission. Mr. James Roemer repre-
sented Eichler Homes, Inc., the subdivider..
This is the second section to be developed by Eichler Homes and the
map represented approximately 83 lots, including the park and firehouse
sitestn$he tank site. A third map will include the remaining land - a
portion on Skyline Boulevard and the area along the canyon.
The Commission was advised that Lot 16, Block 41, is the park site;
Lot 15, in the same block, the firehouse site, both of which will be
deeded to the city by the developer.
The City Planner advised that when the map is before the City Council
for approval deeds will be presented by the subdivider for the park
and firehouse sites, the tank site and the cne foot reserve strip along
Trousdale Drive, all conditions of the tentative map.
Commissioner Cistulli stated that the proposed firehouse site on the
present map is smaller in area than or. the overall tentative reap.
-3-
Mr. Roemer advised that he was not aware of any change in lot dimensions
but upon closer examination agreed that there appeared to be approx-
imately 20 feet less of street frontage. Mr. Roemer stated that he
would have an explanation for the Commission at the meeting of October 28,
Mr. Roemer was advised that the Commission would expect the map to be
revised to bring the firehouse site to its original size.
The City Manner noted that the one foot reserve strip on Trousdale was
omitted from the map. Mr. Roemer advised that this would be corrected.
The final mpp of Mills Estate No. 23 was scheduled for formal consideratiol
at the meeting of October 28, 1963.
3. Eichler Homes, Inc.;
Construction Yard.
A communication from Eichler Homes, inc., dated September 25,1963, re-
quested permission to use Lots 20 and 21, Block 48, Mills Estate No. 19
as a temporary construction yard for storage: of building materials
and some construction equipment through April, 1964.
Mr. A.L. Shapro, representing Eichler Homes was .in attendance.
Mr. Shapro stated that the site is on Frontera Way between Mariposa and
Hunt Drives. There is a field office, tool storage shed and outside
storage of materials and equipment.
Mr. Shapro stated that in order to build the model homes it was necessary
to locate in an area where there was a paved street. It is expected
that after April of next year paving will ;lave progressed sufficiently
to move the yard and field office to an inside location away from the
perimeter streets.
There was discussion concerning Code requirements applicable to the use.
The City Planner stated that a temporary accessory building used for
storage in connection with construction projects is permitted. However,
because of the nature of the operation planned b;y Eichler, they were
requested to appear before the Commission to discuss the location, the
types of buildings and the use.
The City Planner suggested that a definite time limitation should be
fixed, subject to extension upon application.
Mr. Shapro stated that it was their understanding that a permit was not
required from the Commission and referred to Cods Section 1921.a
"Temporary Accessory Buildings - Storage Building".
Upon inquiry from the Chair concerning the Commission's jurisdiction
in the matter, the City Attorney advised that he would be prepared to
render an opinion at the regular meeting on October 28. The communica-
tion of Eichler Homes, Inc., was thereupon referred to that meeting
for disposition.
-4-
Y
Sales Office:
A letter dated September 24, 1963, from Eichler Homes requested a permit
for a temporary subdivision sales office on Lot 8, Block 48, Mills Estate
No, 19, corner Sebastian Drive and Frontera Way, The communication
stated that it is planned to occupy a trailer for office purposes until
model homes are constructed - approximately December 1, 1963,
The communication requested a second permit to establish a temporary
sales office in the garage of a model home on Lot 10, Block 48, after
December 1,
Reference was made to Code Section 1921,b "Tract Sales Office" providing
for issuance of permits by the Planning Commission,
Commissioner Kindig recalled that a number of years ago Trousdale Con-
struction Company was granted a permit to maintain a sales office
in a residence on Trousdale Drive subject to conditions of operation
imposed by the Commission and suggested that a similar set of rules
could apply in the present application.
The application was scheduled for formal consideration at the meeting
of October 28, 1963,
4, Glen We Allen re: Apartment Construction 1144 Capuchino Avenue.
An application filed by Glen W. Alien requested a variance to construct
an apartment building on Lot 26 and the southerly one-half of Lot 27,
Block 4, Easton Addition,
Mr, Allen appeared at the study meeting of September 10 to discuss the
project and at that time there were several questions raised by the
Commission concerning Lot 27,- a commercially zoned lot divided into
two 2S foot parcels.
The City Planner advised that since the September meeting he has had an
opportunity to verify zoning records on the property, A statement
prepared by the Planner, distributed to members of the Commission,
included information as follows:
In 1941 the Ordinance Code classified Lot 27 "Commercial"; a 1947 zoning
map showed the lot divided into two 2S foot parcels both zoned commer-
cial. The zoning map and ordinance now in use classify the lot as C-1.
The statement pointed out that the property is in the first Fire Zone,
requiring four hour fire -resistive construction,
The City Planner suggested that Mr. Allen•s proposal to combine the two
properties for apartment construction will require the following:
Approval of a resubdivision map; an application for reclassification of
the property; an ordinance moving the existing boundary of the fire zone
to place the property in Fire Zone #2; if the applicant's building does
not meet apartment zone requirements, then it will. be necessary to pro-
ceed on a variance application.
In discussing the project with Mr. Allen, members of the Commission
pointed out that it would not be possible to consider the variance appl.i<
cation which he has on file until the matters of land reclassification
and fire zoning were resolved,
oSo
Mr. Allen was furnished a copy of the paper prepared by the Planner
and invited to return to the study meeting in November if
prepared to proceed at that time,
S. Variance 4 Fence Height - 01S E1 Camino Real,
An application filed by Mr. Nicholas A. Crisafi requested a variance
to permit an existing fence at 1S E1 Camino Real to exceed the legal
height of six feet.
The application form recited as follows: Variance Applied For:
'tifeight limitation'on fence be extended over the six 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".
Mr. Crisafi explained that an apartment building was recently built
on the property and the Notice of Completion has been filed.
Mr. Crisafi described the fence and stated that he does not believe it
will interfere with nor create a nuisance to neighboring properties,
The City Planner stated that he with the Building Inspector viewed the
fence as the result of a telephone call from a neighbor, who complained
about the excessive height that he would have to maintain on his side
of the fence,
The City Planner stated that measurements were taken at three points
and the fence measures 6 foot 10 inches, 7 foot six inches, and 8 feet,
Commissioners agreed to inspect the property before the meeting of
October 28 at which time the application would be heard,
6. Discussion re: Waterfront Area,
Copies of a letter dated October 7, 1963, written by the City Planner
to the City Council concerning acquisition_ of waterfront areas were
distributed and a period of discussion ensued, Commissioner Cistulli
reported that the Joint Baylands Development Committee at a recent
meeting unanimously endorsed acquisition by the city of the surplus
lands of the State Division of Highways easterly of the Bayshore
Freeway and recommended that the offer of Burlingame Shore Land Company
to trade properties be rejected and the city authorize an independent
appraisal,
ADJOURNMENT
Prior to adjournment, Mayor Johnson commended Chairman Brauner and the
members of the Commission on their efforts in the interests of the
community.
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Everett K., Kindig
Secretary Pro-tem.,
-6-