Loading...
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-