HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.07.13.,
a
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulli
Edwards
Kindig
Norberg
Stivers
CALL TO ORDER
July 13, 1964
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None
City Attorney Karmel
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from
June 22, 1964, was called to order at 8:00 p.m., on the above date
by Chairman Cistulli.
ROLL CALL
Commissioner Brauner was appointed Secretary pro tempore.
All members of the Commission answered the Secretary's roll call.
HEARINGS
Public hearings, continued from the meeting of June 22 to the present
time, were conducted as follows:
is FRANK D. O'SULLIVAN FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE DENIED.
An application filed by Mr. Frank D. O'Sullivan, 1392 Vancouver Avenue,
requested a variance to construct 3S feet of horizontal board fence
on the side property line facing Hillside Drive exceeding the legal
maximum height of six feet.
Correspondence on file pertinent to the application was read at the
June 22 meeting.,
Pencilled sketches drawn to scale of the north side fence (Hillside
Drive) ranging from 716" down to 694", and the rear fence facing the
city utility easement, from 6' to 716", prepared since the previous
meeting, were filed with the Commission.
Air, O'Sullivan, upon recognition by Chairman Cistulli, explained that
approximately 30 feet of hedge on the Hillside Drive property line was
removed, leaving approximately 15 feet of hedge remaining. He stated
that it is intended to continue the new fence from the existing hedge
line,
En reply, -to an inquiry from Commissioner Kindig concerning the fence
posts already in place on the property, Mr. O'Sullivan stated that they
measure 10 feet in height but were ordered in error; the posts will be
cut down and capped to conform with the sketches on file.
Commissioner Kindig suggested that the more attractive arrangement from
the street would be to place the fence 8 to 10 feet back from the
property line with plantings between the fence and the sidewalk. If this
were done, a 6 foot fence would provide the desired privacy and eliminate
the need for a variance.
Mr. O'Sullivan pointed out that the posts are in place two feet from the
property line; it is intended that the space between the fence and
sidewalk will be planted. lie stated that he would prefer to maintain the
illusion of a larger yard rather than reduce the area.
Mr. O'Sullivan mentioned that the fence design was revised to comply
with the suggestion of one of the Commissioners at the June 22 meeting.
Chairman Cistulli invited comments from the floor. There were none.
Commissioners were invited to comment.
Commissioner Brauner raised the following points:
Applications before the Commission are not considered as isolated situatiol
relating to a particular property; the type of fence proposed when located
on a heavily -traveled street becomes a matter of public concern. lie
referred also to the complaint of an adjoining neighbor that the fence
would create a billboard effect on Hillside Drive visible for some dis-
tance in the area.
Commissioner Brauner stated further that if the fence were to be approved,
the result would be that anyone else similarly situated on the street
under the same circumstances would have the right to demand the same
privilege. In conclusion, Commissioner Brauner referred to four con-
ditions requisite to a fence height variance and questioned whether the
applicant was able -.to meet said conditions.
In reply, Mr. O'Sullivan stated that the neighbor's complaint that a
billboard effect would result was occasioned by the 10 foot fence posts
on the property. Ile stated that it is not intended to erect a 10 foot
fence - the posts will be cut to the heights indicated on the drawings.
As far as the neighbors requesting a similar type fence, Mr. O'Sullivan
stated that there are exceptional circumstances i:n the property because
of the downward slope of the land. A 6 foot fence would offer no
privacy nor screen the yard from traffic on Hillside Drive; compliance
with the code would deprive the area of even a minimum degree of
privacy. He stated that there are no similar properties in the neigh-
borhood.
The City Planner informed the Commission that he met with Mr. O'Sullivan
and Mr. Buckley, who prepared the revised drawings to carry out the idea
of a "stepped'fence. lie stated that there was no attempt to agree on
the exact height - the drawings reflect the applicant's ideas of height.
Mr. O'Sullivan explained that 716" is the desired height; the height
would be greater only at the post to be capped.
In reply to an inquiry concerning the elevation from thich the height
-2-
would be measured, the City Planner staffed that the Building Inspector's
measurements would be taken from the natural grade at the property line
all down the slope.
Commissioner Brauner stated that if there were to be a fence in the
particular area, a stepped design would seem to be the most acceptable.
Ile stated that he was not in favor of the excessive height nor satisfied
that the applicant meets the code conditions for, variances.
Commissioner Brauner thereafter introduced a motion to deny the request
for a variance. Motion seconded by Commissioner Stivers.
Referring to the unique property slope, Mr. O'Sullivan questioned the
Commission's objection to a variance of 1-1/2 feet at the highest point
of the fence.
Commissioner Norberg referred to the suggestion made by Commissioner
Kindig to place the fence away from the property line into the yard
proper thereby providing the desired privacy by means of a legal fence
and eliminating the need for a variance. Commissioner Norberg commented
that the yard area would diminish but the resultant fence and landscaping
would be a better improvement to the property.
The motion "to deny" was thereafter declared carried on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: CO*IISSIONERS:
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS:
part of public hearing conducted
Brauner, Cistulli, Norberg, Stivers
None
None
Edwards, Kindig (absent from that
at the meeting of June 22).
The applicant was advised of his right of appeal.
The hearing was declared concluded,
2. MRS. IRMA NEWELL VARIANCE FOR CARPORT IN FRO14T OF RESIDENCE DENIED,
(application withdrawn)
A public hearing on an gpplication for a variance filed by
Mrs. Irma Newell requesting permission to construct a detached carport
or garage in front of the residence on the property at 1617 Sanchez Avenut
was continued from the meeting of June 22tD the present time,
A communication dated July 6, 1964, from Mrs. Nei -tell informed the
Commission of her desire to withdraw the variance request since the
property had been sold as one parcel.
By reason of the request of the applicant to withdraw, a motion was
thereupon introduced by Commissioner Brauner to deny the variance.
Motion seconded by. Commissioner Norberg and declared carried on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS Brauner, Cistulli., Norberg, Stivers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS None
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS None
ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS Edwards, Kindig (absent from that
part of public hearing conducted at June 22 meeting).
-3-
3. SPECIAL PERMIT AUTO STORAGE AREA LANDS OF KEYSTON DENIED,
application withdrawn
A public hearing on the application of Anza Pacific Corporation for a
Special Permit for an auto storage area on a portion of the Lands of
Keyston under development easterly of Baysh ore Highway was continued
from the meeting of June 22 to the present time.
A communication dated June 29, 1964, from Keyston and Company bearing
the signature of David H. Keyston, notified the Commission of the
withdrawal of the application necessitated because of the delay caused
by the lack of approval by the Planning Commission which led the operator
of the proposed facility to cancel the property lease and locate in
another Peninsula city,
In a period of discussion, Commissioners recalled that the hearing was
continued from the June 22 meeting to the present time for the reason
that the applicant was unable to answer a number of questions raised by
the Commission and the city staff which were pertinent to the use,
The City Planner stated that at the request of the Commission, since. the
previous meeting, he has communicated with Fire Chief Moorby and
Chief of Police Lollin apprising them of the application and requesting
their comments.
A letter dated July 2, 1964, from the Chief of Police stated that the
Police [lepartment is very much opposed to the type of use, outlined
reasons to support the position and, in conclusion, informed the
Commission that from the policing standpoint the: operation cannot be
recommended.
A communication dated June 29, 1964, from the Fire Chief set forth in
detail fire safety hazards related to the use which are of some concern
to the Fire Department.
A petition in opposition bearing the signatures of 130 local residents
was accepted for filing.
A communication from Mrs. Walter E. Benkman, 317' Lexington Way,
►Burl:i.ngame, dated July 10, 1964, opposed the permit.
By reason of the request of the applicant to withdraw, a motion was
thereupon introduced by Commissioner Brauner, seconded by Commissioner
Norberg, to deny the permit and declared carriedon the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Norberg, Stivers
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS: Edwards, Kindig (absent from that
part of the public hearing held at the meeting of June 22).
NEW BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMISSION SECRETARY.
Chairman Cistulli referred to the recent resignation from the Commission
of Edward A. Moore, Commission Secretary, and requested the pleasure of
members.
-4-
On a motion introduced by Commissioner Kindig, seconded by
Commissioner Norberg and unanimously carried, Commissioner John J:Braunei
was elected Commission Secretary.
RESOLUTIONS
1. Classifying Lands of Keyston Light Industrial (M-1) District.
RESOLUTION NO. 2-64 "RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1904 OF
THE BURLINGAME ORDINANCE CODE OF 1941 AND THE ZONING, MAP THEREIN
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE BY CLASSIFYING LANDS ENCOMPASSED WITHIN
RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 20970 KNOWN AS "LANDS OF KEYSTON",
HERETOFORE UNCLASSIFIED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) DISTRICT" was
introduced for passage by Commissioner Brauner, seconded by Commissioner
Norberg and declared carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES:, COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Norberg, Stivers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS: Edwards, Kindig, (absent from
public hearing at meeting of June 22).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 9:10 p.m., to be followed by
the study meeting regularly scheduled for this date.
STUDY MEETING
Following a recess, the study meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cistulli at 9:2S p.m.
1. RESUBDIVISION. Lot S4, Block 36, Mills Estate No. 13.
1800 Montecito Way.
Mrs. Sue Hovsepian, 1800 Montecito Way, submitted a resubdivision map to
establish new boundary lines dividing the property into three parcels:
Parcel A, the site of the existing residence, having frontage on
Montecito Way; Parcels B and C. the proposed new lots, to have street
frontage on Loyola Drive.
The City Planner explained that this is a large single lot which was
not divided when the original subdivision was laid out because the
Loyola Drive frontage at the bottom of the hill was considered t® steep
a slope to divide
The City Planner stated that Mrs. [lovsepian's residence at the crest
of the slope has access from Montecito Way over a panhandle, which is
a part of the lot; the proposed resubdivision will separate the Loyola
Drive frontage from the parcel above.
-5-
Mrs. tiovsepian informed the Commission that the area is much too large
to be landscaped. In its present condition, it is unsightly and a
constant source of concern because of the neighborhood children who
play there and the danger of fire.
Mrs. 11ovsepian submitted an architect's study to illustrate what could
be done with the property.
The City Planner and City Engineer informed the Commission that much of
the land is not usable because of the steepness of the slope.
The City Engineer stated that his main concern is drainage.
Mr. Clyde Cabral of Wilsey, Liam and Blair, engineers working with
Mrs. llovsepian, submitted a grading plan and discussed his ideas for
treating the drainage.
The application was scheduled for public hearing at the meeting of
July 27. !fr. Cabral agreed to meet with the City Engineer prior to that
time.
2. RESUBDIVISION. Acreage Northerly corner of Broadway and Rollins Road.
A resubdivision map filed by Mr. F.A. Geb}tard proposed to delete interior
lot lines and combine four existing parcels into a single parcel having
frontages on Broadway and Rollins Road.
Mr. Gebhard reminded the Commission that the identical application was
submitted a short time ago but was withdrawn. He: stated that he is now
prepared to proceed.
A drawing was submitted to acquaint Commissioners; with the. development
plan, Mr. Gebhard pointing out that the proposed resubdivision by
deleting all of the interior boundary lines will make it possible to
develop as a single property with the off. -street parking ondthe build-
ings on the same parcel.
The City Engineer stated there were no problems of concern to his depart-
ment.
The application was scheduled for public hearing on July 27.
3. VARIANCE. Duplex Dwelling on R-1 Property.
An application filed by George F. Bueckle requested a variance to con-
struct a duplex dwelling on first residential property at
828 Acacia Drive, Lot F. Block 3, Burlingame Terrace No. 2 Subdivision;
an existing small cottage, condemned by the Building Inspector, to be
demolished.
A communication from the applicant dated June 16, 1964, snapshots of the
site, and a map of the area referred to accompanied the application.
Mr. Bueckle informed the Commission that the property is in the middle
of the block on Acacia, between Edgehill and Palm Drives.
The City Planner stated that all of Acacia is R-1; R-2 starts where
Edgehill drops down toward California Drive,
-6-
The City Planner stated that he was familiar with the property, having
been there on an inspection trip with the Building Inspector. He
stated that the structure is dilapidated to such an extent that it has
to be removed.
The application was scheduled for hearing on Jul)► 27.
4. VARIANut, To Exceed Sleight Limitation and Extend Garage Area into
Side Setback.
An application filed by John J. and Matilda M. Conway requested a
variance to construct a building of ten stories plus one story for
penthouse (maximum 112 feet) and extension of garage area into side
setback lines on property zoned R-4 at 1430 Bellevue Avenue
(Almer Road and Bellevue); Portion Lots 4 and S, Block 9, Burlingame
Land Company Subdivision.
A statement of justification from the applicant accompanied the appli-
cation.
The City Planner recalled that Mr.
the same property in 1963 to build
height with two stories of parking
covered that this parking plan was
ground water condition.
Conway was granted a variance for
an eight story building 7S feet in
below grade. However, it was dis-
not possible because of an under -
Drawings of the proposed new building were submitted.
Mr. Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, stated that
the number of units has been reduced from 84 in the previous proposal
to 63. Because of the high water table, the underground parking level
has been raised; a total of 92 parking spaces will be provided. Part
of the parking will be underground and part in the open.
Mr. McMillan stated that two more stories of apartments have been added
over the first proposal; lot coverage approximates 231.
The application was scheduled for hearing on July 27, 1964.
S. VARIANCE. Auction Studio in C-1 District.
An application filed by Carl Tait (Tait Auction Studio) formerly
Peninsula Auction Studio, requested a variance to operate an auction
studio in a building to be constructed on property zoned C-1, Portion
Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Town of Burlingame Subdivision;
1209 Howard Avenue.
A communication dated July 2, 1964, from the applicant accompanied the
application.
The City Planner stated that the site was occupied by Peterson's Liquor
store for many years. Mr, Tait intends to demolish the existing struc-
ture and construct a new building for his purposes.
The City Planner mentioned that the variance is required since auctioneer
establishments are first mentioned in the ordinance under C-2 District.
The subject property is zoned C-1. lie stated thaton-site parking will
-7-
not be required since the property is within the parking; district.
Because there has been no credit allowed against the parking assess-
ment, the building may occupy the whole of the property,
The application was scheduled for public hearing at the meeting of
July 27. A preliminary sketch of a Proposed building submitted by
Mr. Tait was not acceptable to the Commission. lie was informed that
a plot plan and elevations should be anilable at the time of the pub-
lic hearing.
6. TENTATIVE MAP,, Anza Airport Park,
A tentative map of a proposed subdivision "Anza Airport Park", a
portion of the Keyston property east of the channel, was submitted
by Mr. George Keyston, showing a total of 26 lots. Until other roads
may be constructed in the future, access to the property will be over
an easement from the County leading from Peninsula Avenue.
In a period of discussion concerning the design of the street within
the subdivision, the City Planner and City Engineer pointed out that
the turn -around should be moved closer to the channel so that all of
the lots would have street frontage.
The City Engineer requested that the map include a 20 foot strip
parallel to the channel which will become an access easement to the
city to maintain the channel.
The map was scheduled for formal consideration at the meeting of
July 27.
7. CAPITAL IWWROVEMENT PROJECTS.
After a period of discussion and review of the requests of all of
the department heads, the Planning Commission approved a priority pro-
gram for recommendation to the City Council of Capital Improvements for
1964-6S, also selected projects to be considered :for the years 196S-66
and 1966-67.
The City Planner was requested to transmit to the City Council a formal
report of the Commission's recommendations.
8, R-3A DISTRICT. PUBLIC HEARING.
Following a review of material relative to R-3A District regulations
and discussion of possible areas to which the zoning might be applied
on a trial basis, the matter of scheduling public hearings was referred
to the meeting of July 27.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at ll:S0 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John J. Brauner, Secretary
-8-