Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.06.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Brauner Cistulli Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Edwards Kindig Moore June 22, 1964 OTHERS PRESENT City Attorney Karmel City Planner Mann City Engineer Harr A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll call. Commissioner Edwards, absent from the city on business, was excused. Commissioner Kindig was excused because of illness. Commissioner Moore, absent because of a business commitment, was excused. In the absence of Secretary Moore, Commissioner Brauner was appointed Secretary pro temporeo -MINUTES Minutes of the meetings of May 2S and June 8, 1964, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. HEARINGS Public hearings, scheduled for this date, were conducted as follows: 1. STANDARD OIL COMPANY SIGN VARIANCE. APPLICATION REMOVED FROM AGENDA. The application of Standard Oil Company for a variance to permit instal- lation of a pole sign 26 feet high, rather than 20 feet as provided by code, at the site of a proposed service station on Bayshore Highway, was heard at the meeting of April 27, 1964, and subsequently continued to the present date. The City Planner informed the Commission that the applicant apparently has no further interest in the variance but intends to proceed with a sign in accordance with code requirements. The building inspector has issued a permit for a sign within the 20 foot height limitation for the location. Chairman Cistulli requested the pleasure of the Commission. The appli- cation was removed from the agenda of Commission business upon unanimous agreement of members present. e 2. FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE. FRANK D.U'SULLIVAN. (continued) In a letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 19649 Mr. Frank D. O'Sullivan, owner of property at 1392 Vancouver Avenue, the corner of Vancouver Avenue and Hillside Drive, requested a Vari- ance to construct approximately 3S feet of horizontal board fence ranging in height from 8 to 10 feet because of property slopes on the Hillside Drive property line, the 10 feet to be at the low end of the lot bordering the city utility easement. The communication stated that the fence will replace an unsightly hedge, thereby improving the appearance of the property, will afford some de- gree of privacy and protect patio furniture and other articles from theft; it is intended to plant the space between the sidewalk and the fence. Two photographs of a fence similar to that proposed and a set of pencil sketches accompanied the letter. A letter dated June 16, 1964, from Mr. Peter Sargenti, 2021 Hillside Drive, the neighboring property on Hillside Drive, protested that a fence 10 feet high would create a billboard effect, visible for many blocks. Mr. Sargenti claimed injury to his property stating that he would be look- ing at a 10 foot wall from the dining area of his home. Chairman Cistulli recognized Mrs. Frank D. O'Sullivan, who submitted two photographs of the Hillside Drive property line, showing the new fence posts in place. Chairman Cistulli referred to the drawings showing a height range from 7 to 10 feet. Mrs. O'Sullivan explained that 7 feet was incorrect; the fence would vary from 8 to 10 feet. The Chair invited comments from the floor. Mr. Henry Mueller, 1388 Vancouver Avenue, neighboring owner, spoke in favor of the variance for the reason that the fence would be an accept- able improvement on the property, which has been neglected for some time. Mrs. O'Sullivan reported incidents of vandalism in the neighborhood, pointing out that the new fence will enclose and secure the rear yard against easy access from the street. Mrs, O'Sullivan stated that the rear yard is approximately 4 to 6 feet above the sidewalk so that it is necessary to step up from the sidewalk to the yard proper; the fence boards at the top will follow a straight line but the bottom level will be irregular because of the land slope. She stated that no part of the fence will exceed 8 feet with the excep- tion of the one 10 foot post in the corner at the lowest area of the lot. Commissioner Brauner, commenting that he was familiar with the area, referred to a property in the neighborhood with similar slope conditions where the fence is S feet high. Commissioner Norberg suggested a stepped design in which the top board in each of the four sections would be stepped down one foot. Mrs. O'Sullivan accepted the suggestion providing that the resultant fence would be 8 feet high. -2- Commissioner Brauner questioned the City Planner concerning the permitted maximum fence height. The latter informed the Commission that 6 feet is the legal limitation. He reported that 10 foot high posts are in place on Hillside Drive, properly set two feet back from, the property line. Ile pointed out that on hillside Drive the land commences to slope immed- iately behind the sidewalk; the posts have been placed on the slope. Referring to the complaint of Mr. Peter Sargenti, the neighbor on Hillside Drive, the City Planner informed the Commission that the posts in place in the easement are 10 feet high. At the study meeting of June 8, Mr. O'Sullivan indicated that the fence in this area would be 6 feet high. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Brauner concerning the place from which the fence height would be measued, the City Planner reported the natural ground level at the property line, Mrs. O'Sullivan explained that all of the posts were purchased at one time in one length; they will be cut down to required height. Commissioner Brauner stated that he was concerned about the matter of precedent. Referring to the location on a prominent corner on a heavily traveled street, he suggested, as an alternate .to the proposed fence which he found objectionable, that a 6 foot fence with a hedge inside would provide the requested privacy. Chairman Cistulli stated that the drawings and photographs were inadequate to properly identify the type of fence to be installed. Commissioner Stivers stated his objection to the 1.0 foot height. Commissioner Norberg repeated his suggestion of a stepped design to pro- vide an attractive fence, agreed with Commissioner Brauner's comment concerning a hedge and expressed the opinion that the proposed fence could be quite objectionable. Following a suggestion from the City Planner that the hearing be continued for the applicant to prepare an actual drawing of what was proposed, by unanimous consent of the Commission, the application was carried over to the meeting of July 13, 1964. A suggestion was made to Mrs. O'Sullivan that the fence contractor meet with the City Planner prior to the meeting of the thirteenth. 3. VARIANCE, Mrs, IRMA NEWELL. CARPORT INN, FRONT OF DWELLING, (contin.ued) An application filed by Mrs, Irma Newell requested a variance to con- struct a detac.;.-hed carport in front of the dwelling at 1617 Sanchez Avenue. A communication from the applicant dated May 26, 1.964, submitted the following: The property consists of two lots — Lots 14 and IS, Burlingame Park Subdivision No. S. The dwelling is.located on the rear 70% of Lot 14; the driveway and the detached garage at the rear cross the lot line, occupying portions of both lots. The owner wishes to sell the two lots separately, therefore, proposes to demolish or relocate the existing garage and construct a new detached carport or garage in front of the residence on Lot 14. Sketches prepared by James M. Henley accompanied the application. -3- Mr. Cari E. Shaw, real estate salesman, represented the applicant. In reply to Chairman Cistulli, Mr. Shaw confirmed that the structure will conform to the drawings on file. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Brauner, Mr. Shaw stated that the owner has abandoned the idea of a sun - deck on the roof, which was discussed at the study meeting. The Chair invited comments from the floor. Mr. and Mrs. H.W. Zollinger, 1608 Sanchez Avenue, and Mrs. Adelaide Malatesta, 1612 Sanchez Avenue, requested and were granted permission by the Chair to examine the drawings. Mrs. Zollinger thereupon protested that the structure would not conform architecturally with the main building nor be an acceptable addition to the property or the neighborhood. Claiming that any structure at the front of the house would be objection- able, Mr. Zollinger requested the ruling on garage; requirements. The City Planner explained code provisions, pointing out that if the property were to be sold as two separate parcels the existing garage may not legally serve both properties; the law requires a garage or caport for every dwelling. The City Planner stated that it is his understanding that there is in- sufficient space at the side of the house to build a driveway and garage. An attached garage would be permitted at the front: but there are windows all -along the front of the house, hence, the variance request to build a detached structure. In reply to an inquiry from Mrs. Malatesta, Mr. Shaw explained that a carport with conventional garage doors will be built, constructed prin- cipally from redwood. Mrs. Malatesta stated that she appreciated that code requirements must be met but the proposed garage was not acceptable. Mrs. Perry Knox* 560 Berkeley Avenue, Menlo Park, who stated that she was interested in the property, suggests s ring the existing driveway between the two lots and relocating theg�to the rear of the house on Lot 14. The City Attorney stated that this would be legal, provided there was a separate garage for each property. He stated that: the city does not encourage common driveways since personal disputes can arise which make sharing the easement impossible. The City Attorney commented that an easement document executed between the property owners should be properly recorded. A suggestion from Commissioner Norberg whereby a change in the location of the lot line would eliminate the need for a variance was received with interest by Mr. Shaw who requested an opportunity to pursue the re - subdivision procedure. Members of the Commission did not object, nor were there protests from the floor. Chairman Cistulli thereupon declared the hearing continued to the meeting of July 13, 1964. -4- 4. SPECIAL PERMIT. AUTO STORAGE AREA LANDS OF KEYSTONQ (continued) An application filed by Anza Pacific Corporation, 1290 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, requested a special permit for an auto storage area, screened by an eight foot fence and planting, on a. portion of Keyston Bayshore Land under development easterly of Bayshore Freeway. A communication dated June 19, 1964, bearing the signature of David H. Keyston, Executive Vice President, Anza Pacific Corporation, submitted a plot plan and a letter from Mr. Max Reefer who will operate the facility. Mr. Keyston's communication stated that a different location from that previously discussed has been selected. It is now proposed to locate adjacent to the City Dump, subject to the city's continued permission to use the Dump access road. Concerning utilities, the communication informed as follows: within six months, the property will be served by the water main indicated on the submitted plan; power and telephone which service the Dump can be ex- tended to the site; sewerage and sanitary facilities will be of the same type in existence at the Dump. The communication stated that a full- time watchman will be employed by the operator. The communication from the operator, Auto Pool Company by M.C. Reefer, dated June 19, 1964, described the business as a storage lot or pool for insurance companies "total loss" vehicles; will provide storage space and sales outlets for stolen or abandoned vehicles and serve large fleet operators such as the utility companies. Mr. David Keyston informed the Commission that Mr. Reefer will handle all automobiles abandoned at the City Dump. lie reported further, in reply to the Chair's inquiry concerning fencing and landscaping,that if the storage area should be relocated elsewhere on the property, a new fence would be installed. Mr. Reefer, in reply to a series of inquiries, informed the Commission as follows: there will be two full-time employees, a watchman and a driver; to start, there will be one tow -truck operating; no storage of gasoline or oil on the premises, no maintenance work; 951 of the cars are total wrecks which must be towed in and out; repossessions are a small part of the business; 100 to 400 cars to be :stored, depending on the amount of available space. Air, Keyston, in reply to Commissioner Norberg's inquiry concerning a roadway from the drive-in theater site to the area, agreed that eventually there should be access between the two areas but, :For the present,there are no plans until the Crocker Land -Ideal Cement Company master plan is completed and available. The City Engineer raised the question of water and sewer facilities, commented also that Fire Chief Moorby undoubtedly would have some in- terest in the %loperation. The City Planner stated that police and fire protection should be seriously considered and investigated. Mr. Keyston mentioned that the private patrol service which they employ could be extended to the area. -5- The City Attorney, in reply to comments concerning the roadway to the City Dump, informed the Commission that the city gave to the Keystons the right to use the road; whether or not other persons have the same right is not known at the present time. Mr. John C. Bauer, 02 Rio Court, President, Mills Estate Improvement Association, reminded Commissioners that the site is in the general area of, and will be visible from, the high-rise apartment complex planned by Oscar Person and associates. Mr. A.C.-Wilson, owner of property on Bayshore Boulevard, and Mr. Douglas Pringle, 2860 Hillside Drive, protested the use. Mr. Reefer, in reply to Commissioner Brauner, stated that he does not assume ownership of the vehicles; at all times, he! acts as the agent for the owner. The City Attorney mentioned areas to be explored: is the Planning Com- mission attempting to permit either an auction business or a used car business. Mr. Reefer stated that there is no public auction; vehicles are sold by sealed bid. There is no sale on the lot; cars are bid on, bids are passed to the insurance companies who negotiate the sale with the pur- chaser. The City Attorney suggested to Mr. Reefer that he investigate the law pertaining to used car sales. In a period of discussion, Commissioners decided that the questions raised by the city staff deserved consideration: possible legal com- plications referred to by the City Attorney, the extent of the revocable permit controlling use of the access road to the City Dump, problems of water service, sanitary facilities, police and fire department require- ments. Mr. Keyston indicating agreement, Chairman Cistull:i thereupon announced that the hearing would be continued to the meeting of July 13, 1964. F� §2 The Chair declared a recess at 9:40 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cistullli at 10:00 p.m. S. PRINGLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VARIANCE FOR APARTMENTS MILLS ESTATE DENIED. An application filed by Douglas Pringle, 2860 Hillside Drive, requested a variance to permit construction of two apartment buildings of three story maximum height on a 3.12 acre parcel of vacant unimproved land, zoned R-1, in the Mills Estate bounded by Trousda:le Drive, Skyline Boulevard and Frontera Way. -6- A letter from the applicant dated June 10, 1964, submitted that con- ditions inherent in the location make the site undesirable for single- family development: a large high knoll rising above and isolated from the surrounding residential area, it is bounded by the future Skyline Freeway and the Trousdale interchange. Single-family dwellings would be overshadowed by the high-rise apartment development in the City of Millbrae; the privacy factor desired by home owners could not exist. The communication stated that the proposed development would constitute a buffer between the tower apartments and the residential areas. Plans call for two buildings of 60 units and S9 units, three stories high. The combined buildings would cover 411 of the total parcel; landscaping at the base of the project, including trees with an initial height of 20 feet, will screen the buildings from the view of other residents. The units would be available only to families whose children have passed intermediate school level. The Chair invited comments from the floor. Mr, Turney, representing Alpha Land Company, requested information on setbacks on Trousdale and Hunt Drives. Mr. Pringle reported 23 feet at the Trousdale corner of the parcel and 20 feet at Hunt Drive; he stated that the average on all setbacks would be slightly over 40 feet. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, recalled that Mr. Pringle ap- peared initially before the Planning Commission to request a rezoning to R-3 for apartments - the proposal, to build two apartment buildings. The City Planner recalled the discussion disclosed that the buildings could not be accomplished in R-39 consequently, since any type of con- struction permitted in that zone might be built, a suggestion was made, if Mr. Pringle wished to proceed, that he request a variance for the apartments and file a tentative subdivision map providing for the pub- lic improvements. The City Planner informed the Commission that a map dividing the land into two parcels to accommodate the proposed buildings, including public improvements, has been filed by Mr. Pringle and will be submitted to the Commission following the present hearing. lReferring to code provisions requisite to a variance grant, Commissioner Brauner questioned whether the applicant has conclusively proved hardship in his claim that the land is not suitable for R-1 development. In reply, Mr. Pringle stated that the property's unsuitability for first - residential use creates the hardship. In reply to the Chair's request for an elaboration of the above statement, Mr. Pringle stated that freeway traffic and high-rise towers in close proximity are not suitable neighbors to single -faintly living. He claimed that apartment house dwellers expect and are conditioned to noise elements unacceptable to the home owner. Commissioner Brauner, referring again to code requirements for variances, stated that the property is classified R-1 in the present zoning plan of the city. Mr. Pringle was requested to show that the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. Mr. Pringle repeated that the City_of Millbrae development has a definite impact on the use of the subject property. The garden typeipartments herein proposed, between the Millbrae high-rise, and the residential areas of the Burlingame Mills Estate represent an acceptable compromise buffer zone. A letter dated May 129 1964, from Burlingame -Mills Estate Improvement Association, addressed to Mr. R. Douglas Pringle, bearing the signature of John C. Bauer, President, stated that the group had no opposition to the proposed apartment plans as they were outlined in a letter dated May 8 received by the Association from Mr. Pringle, and the presentation made personally by Mr. Pringle to the group on May 7, 1964. Mr. Pringle thereafter, for the benefit of the Commission, read the letter of May 8, referred to in the preceding paragraph. Chairman Cistulli recognized Mr. E.L. Pierce, member of the Mills Estate Home Owners Improvement Association, who stated that he has been informed by any number of residents in the Mills Estate, who did not hear' Mr. Pringle's personal presentation to the Improvement Association, that they are not in favor of the apartment development:. Mr. John C. Bauer, President, Mills Estate Home Owners Association,confirmed Mr. Pierce's remarks. Mr. Turney of Alpha Land Company, emphasizing that: it was not his in- tention to speak in defense of nor in opposition to Mr. Pringle's application, stated, as a point of information, that Alpha Land Company will continue to build for some time in the Mills Estate. Immediately surrounding the area in question, homes will be built; there is no pos- sibility of high-rise construction by Alpha Land Company in the area. Commissioner Norberg concurred with Commissioner 11rauner's opinion that the applicant failed to prove hardship in the property, or, in fact, to meet any of the four conditions required for variance grants. Norber In further comment, Commissioner/state that the density is far too great for the area; the site is to the south of the tower apartments to be built in the City of Millbrae, therefore, there will be no shadows cast upon the area. He mentioned also that after studying the plans 4t was his opinion that the proposed buildings were unattractive, . Commissioner Skivers. expressing agreement with fellow Commissioners, and pointing out to Air. Pringle that developments in perimeter cities do not necessarily influence the City of Burlingame zoning plan, introduced a motion to deny the variance. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared carried unanimously on roll call vote. The applicant was advised of his right of appeal 'to the City Council. The hearing was declared concluded. 6. TENTATIVE MAP - MILLS ESTATE ACREAGE. PRINGLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. The City Planner informed the Commission that the tentative subdivision map filed by Mr. Douglas Pringle was designed in its entirety for the purpose of accommodating the two apartment buildings rejected by the Commission in the hearing just concluded. -8- The City Planner suggested, since the land division would not be suit- able for any use other than the two buildings, that the Commission take an action disapproving the map and recommend accordingly to the City Council. Commissioner Brauner thereupon moved that the Commission recommend that the City Council disapprove the tentative subdivision map of acreage in the Mills Estate in view of the Commission's denial of the variance application for the use of the land. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared carried unanimously on roll call vote. 7. TO CLASSIFY LANDS OF KEYSTON LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) DISTRICT Chairman Cistulli announced that this was the time and place fixed by the Planning Commission on its own initiative to consider the matter of classifying Light Industrial (M-1) District the now unclassified lands known as Keyston bay properties. Invited by the Chair to review circumstances pertinent to the subject, the City Planner stated that through an oversight„ when the zoning map of the city was prepared in 1954, no designation was given to the underwater acreage,'not then subdivided, northerly of the Bayshore Freeway. He pointed out that since that time the Keyston interests have purchased a great part of the property, installed a berm, formed a reclamation district for the purpose of filling the property and have appeared before -the Commission with proposals for uses of the property* e owners and the city have proceeded on the assumption that the lands were zoned M-1. The city's records do not substantiate the assumed zoning - presently, the land is unclassified. Submitting a legal description and site drawing to the Commission, the City Planner stated that the property concerned is that confined within the berm. Referring to the boundaries of the existing M-1 District, the City Planner stated that by reason of location the property quite properly falls within the M-1 zone and thereafter suggested that the Commission recommend accordingly to the City Council. Chairman Cistulli invited comments from the floor.. Mr. G.H. Kelly, 308 Channing Road, and Mr. And Mrs. A.C. Wilson, owners of property on Bayshore Boulevard, inquired wheth4Dr the proposed industrial zoning would interfere with the city's park and recreation plan or permit undesirable industrial uses. Using the aerial map posted in the chambers, the City Planner replied to the inquiries. There were no further comments from the floor. Expressing an opinion that the land would naturally assume an M-1 classification since all of the land on the bay frontage is so classified, and to remedy an existing fault which should have been corrected some time ago, Commissioner Brauner introduced a motion recommending to the City Council Light Industrial (M-1) District classification of the Lands of Keyston, fully described in the legal description on file and the map attached thereto. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared carried unanimously on roll call vote. The City Planner stated that pertinent documents for transmittal to the City Council will be prepared for Commission action at the next regular meeting. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. -9- a . A NEW BUSINESS 1. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Material prepared by the City Planner, including a. list and description of proposed capital improvement projects for the next few years was distributed to Commissioners. The City Planner explained that the City Council expects a priority list recommended by the, Planning Commission. Following some discussion, it was the concensus of members present that the subject be continued since there were but four members in attendance; further, some time should be permitted each member to study the material privately. Chairman Cistulli thereafter announced a continuance to the meeting of July 13, 1964. 2. COMMISSIONER EDWARD MOORE RESIGNATION. In a letter dated June 11, 1964, addressed to the City Council, with copies to Commission Chairman Frank Cistulli and the City Planner, Mr. Edward A. Moore, long a member of the Planning Commission and Secretary for some years, submitted his resignation from the Commission due to his relocating in another city. Commissioners individually acknowledged Mr. Moore's interest in and conscientious service to the community. The City Planner was requested by the Chair to direct an appropriate acknowledgment to Mr. Moore. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:15 p.m., to Monday, July 13,19649 at 8:00 p.m. -10- Respectfully submitted, John J. B afuner Secretary pro tempore