Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1963.04.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 1963 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Brauner Kindig (business.commitment) City Planner Mann Cistulli Moore City Engineer Mari Edwards Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m. Vice -Chairman Brauner presiding. FOR STUDY• E to VARIANCE o Wylie E. and Edna 0. Middleton. 1.30 Arundel Road. Multiple unit dwelling in R-1 District. i (Lots 15 and 16, Block 26, Lyon $ Hoag Subdivision). An application submitted by Wylie E. and Edna 0. Middleton requesting reclassification of the above -described first residential property to second or third residential classification was amended by the applicant to a variance application proposing construction of a multiple unit dwelling on said property. A land use study of Arundel Road, between Howard and Bayswater Avenues, prepared by the City Planner at the request of the Commission, was sub. muted. It was noted that the zoning is first residential but the uses are varied 4 including duplex dwellings on both sides of the street and two apartment buildingson the west side. The subject property has been the site of the Arundel Gardens Nursery for many years. Mr. Mliddleton advised that the business has outgrown the location and over the bast two to three years the bulk of the operation has been transferred to another location. There is an existing garage, a work area and a small cottage, probably close to 60 years old. Mr. Middleton advised that there are two lots 50 feet by 150 feet each. It is proposed to remove all existing improvements and develop the whole as a single property. In reply to Commission inquiry, Mr. Middleton stated that it is his in- tention to vacate the property but a decision has not been reached whether to sell as vacant land or improve for sale purposes. The application was scheduled for public hearing on April 22, 1963, and Mr. Middleton advised that in the variance procedure the Commission will require specifications of the proposed construction, including a plot plan and elevations. 2. VARIANCE - Erma Browne and Henry Speece. To construct 6 or 8 unit apartment building in first residential district. (Lot 23, Block 36, Lyon $ Hoag Subdivision;). An application filed by Erma Browne and Henry Speece requested a variance "for a 6 or 8 unit, two -bedroom class apartment with swimming pool if permitted" on property zoned R-1 - #30 Dwight Road. A communication dated March 11, 1963, from the applicants advised that the lot is 50 feet wide by 117 feet deep. A land use study of Dwight Road, between Peninsula and Bayswater Avenues, prepared by the City Planner at the request of the Commission was sub- mitted. The zoning is R-1 - the use R-1, with the exception of one lot on the westerly side of the street, abutting the apartment zone on Peninsula Avenue, where a triplex dwelling was permitted by variance; and a building on the easterly side which appears to be a duplex. Mr. James Browne, representing the applicants, advised that an existing three room cottage is very old and inadequate. It is felt that the lot is a satisfactory apartment house site. Mr. Browne was advised that a public hearing will be held on Monday, April 22, conditional upon his having available :specific information as to the proposed building, including a set of plants. -" 3. FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE - 2804 Mariposa Drive. Dr. and Airs. Norman Green requested a variance for a fence along the rear of the property at 2804 Mariposa Drive approximately 18 inches above ttie permitted height of six feet. ine City Planner reported that in company with the Building Inspector he visited the area. The properties on Mariposa 'Drive lie below the properties on thenext street, which is Las Piedras Drive.- The slope is part of the low-lying properties and Dr. Green has had.the.fence con- structed part way up the slope. Legally, a fence on the property line may not exceed six feet but there is a question here of lot boundaries and whether or not the fence is on the property line or well within. The City Planner stated that the owner of the property to the rear of the Green property - at the upper portion of the slope - has constructed a rear fence approximately four feet high. He has complained about the height of the fence on the slope. The City Building Inspector, in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that there is an open area of approximately ten to twelve feet between the two fences. Dr. Green advised that he was informed that his property included one- half of the slope. Presumably, the fence was placed on the property line. A public hearing was scheduled for the meeting of April 22, 1963, and Dr. Green requested to file a statement of facts pertinent to the appli- cation; also data concerning location of the fence in relation to the Property line. 4, VARIANCE - Burlingame Investment Company. Office Building in Third Residential District. An application filed by Burlingame Investment Company requested a variance to construct a one story office building; at 1321 Bayswater Ave., portion Lots 5A and 5B, Block 3, Town of Burlingame Subdivision - Zone R-3. A letter dated April 2, 1953, from the applicant claimed that the site is not suitable for apartment house development due to the irregular shape of the lot and existing neighborhood commercial uses. The City Planner advised that an existing building on the property was a single family residence converted to commercial. use by variance a number of years ago. The variance was granted personally to Leonard and Alfred Moskovitz for the purposes of the Burlingame Invest- ment Company. The present application proposes replacement of this building. R.D. Pringle, Pringle Construction Company, representing the applicant, submitted a sketch of the new construction and art off-street parking plane Mr. Pringle advised that he with the Moskovitz brothers and three other local businessmen propose to build and occupy the new building. There will be five office suites with the required off-street parking. In reviewing the sketch, Commissioners indicated that the proposed parking plan was not workable; also suggestions were made concerning possible changes in the exterior design of the building. The application was scheduled for public hearing at the meeting of April 22. Mr. Pringle agreed to submit a revised parking layout, S. SPECIAL PERMIT - St. Paul's Episcopal Church„ Parking Lot. An application filed by St. Paul's Episcopal Church requested a special permit for private off-street parking for church use on property described as the northerly corner of Occidental Avenue and Chapin Avenue, together with variances concerning setbacks to accomplish this. A letter dated April 4, 1963, from F.W. Whittlesey, architect, advised that a total of 22 parking spaces will be possible if five foot setbacks are permitted along Occidental and Chapin Avenue frontages, instead of the required 15 feet; also, if the three foot setback is waived at the northerly boundary line. Sketches prepared by the architect accompanied the application. Mr. Robert Adams, representing the applicant, advised that the property is included in the long-range expansion program of the church, temporarily at a standstill until an additional property can be acquired. In the interim, it is proposed to landscape and pave the property to eliminate an eyesore and relieve some of the congestion along Occidental Avenue. Following review of the drawings, Mr. Adams was informed concerning -3- code requirements for enclosing the property with an ornamental fence or compact hedge, also a suggestion was wade that: the lot be chained during the hours when not in use for church parking. A public hearing was scheduled for April 22, 196:5. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT 4 D.H. and George N. Keyston, Jr. Gasoline Service Station. An application for a special permit was filed by David H. Keyston and George N. Keyston, Jr., for a gasoline service station on Bayshore High- way, north of the Easton Creek drain4ge easement. A communication dated April 5, 1963, from Anderson, McMillan and Connolly, attorneys, accompanying the application described the property and advised that the subject site has a frontage of 108 feet on Bay - shore Highway by 13S feet depth. A site plan was submitted Mr. McMillan referred to litigation between the Easton heirs and property owners along Bayshore Highway concerning ownership of the street and advised that the matter is close to settlement. Mr. David Keyston stated that the service station is proposed to be constructed on property formerly known as the Schuetz property. Arrange- ments have been made to purhase the entire area but the owner wishes to sell as separate parcels over a period of four to five years. Mr. Keyston advised that the service station site contemplates an 84 foot street width o the 20.S foot strip, which the city decided would be sold to abutting property owners, has been included within the site boundaries. Assuming final settlement in the street ownership, Mr. Keyston stated that curbs and gutters will be placed along the service station frontage; remaining frontal footage improvements will be completed as the parcels are developed. The application was scheduled for public hearing on April 22, 1963. 7. CHILD CARE CENTER. S2S California Drive. Mr. Victor Grover, 16 Engle Road, San Mateo, submitted a proposal to conduct a day child care center on property which he owns at the south- westerly corner of Floribunda and California Drive. A set of tentative plans was submitted. Mr. Grover stated that the property has frontage of 104.33 feet on California Drive and 60 feet on Floribunda. Some time in the past, the property was divided into two parcels: the corner parcel is vacant; a residence known as 52S California Drive occupies the second parcel. Mr. Grover stated that he has been in contact with the San Mateo County Welfare Department, also the City Fire Inspector. He advised that considerable alterations will be made to the existing building. There was discussion concerning parking facilities, number of employees; and the number of children to be accommodated. -4- It was the opinion of the Commission. that Mr. Grovers' plans were too indefinite to permit a public hearing to be scheduled. He was advised that the subject would be considered for forther study at the meeting of April 22, 1963, at which time there should be avail- able a set of final plans, including structural alterations and additions, a parking plan, a written statement from the county agency having jurisdiction; also the recommendations of the City Fire Inspec- tor. 8. Burlingame Shore Land Company. High-rise apartment buildings. The City Planner advised that the City Council a1: its meeting April 1, 1963 held a public hearing on the application of the Burlingame Shore Land Company for reclassifiaation of property on Bayshore Boulevard in connection with a proposed apartment complex. The City Planner stated that the hearing was continued to the Council meeting of May 6, with .the consent of the applicant; in the interim, the Planning Commission to consider variances relating to the project and submit its recommendation to the City Council prior to the time of the continued hearing. A paper prepared by the City Planner, summariz- ing details pertinent to the applications, was distributed to Commissioner! The matter was thereafter directed to be placed on the agenda of Commission business for the meeting of April 22, 1963. 9. Proposed Resubdivision: Lot 2, Block 2, Mill.sdale Industrial Park No. 1. A tentative drawing of a proposed resubdivision of the above -described property was submitted by Mr. Richard Lavenstein of the firm of Ritchie and Ritchie, Industrial Real Estateo Mr. Lavenstein advised that the owner wishes to dispose of 70 feet of frontage on Rollins Road. The resubdivision will. permit a legal lot for sale purposes, The City Engineer stated that a signed map has not been filed nor the filing fee deposited. The City Engineer advised that, on the surface, there appear to be no problems but further comment would be withheld pending receipt of a proper resubdivision map. Mr. Lavenstein was instructed concerning procedure and the matter tentatively scheduled for hearing on April 22, 19,63. 10. Special Meeting Scheduled: Discussion of waterfront development. Thursday, April 18, 1963, at 8:00-p.m., in the Council Chambers was selected as the time and place for a special meeting for the purpose of discussing plans for development of the city's waterfront areas. The City Planner advised that a plan is available of the many proposed uses in the area. Notices of the meeting will be sent to Park and Recreation Commissioners and other persons in the city who are known to be interested. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 10:50 p.m. <. 4 0