HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.05.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulli
Edwards
Kindig
Moore
Norberg
Stivers
CALL TO ORDER
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
None
May 25, 1964
OTHERS PRESENT
City Attorney Karmel
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Marr
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order on the above date at 8:00 o'clock p.m., Chairman Cistulli pre-
siding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll call.
MINUTES
Minutes of the meetings of April 27 and May 11, 11964, previously sub-
mitted to members, were approved and adopted.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SPECIAL PERMIT EXTENDED ONE YEAR.
A letter dated May 4, 1964, from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
bearing the signature of K.W. Van Gundy, District Manager, referred to
a Special Permit approved by the Commission for an electric substation,
expiring June 4, 1964, and requested that the permit be extended for
one year:
Mr. Richard Alves, representing the applicant, in reply to Commission
comments concerning the landscaping and fencing, which were conditions
of the original permit, stated that the site has 'been graded and the
work will be completed by ,tune 4, 1964, the time limit set by the
Commission.
There were no protests recorded, oral or written. On a motion intro-
duced by Commissioner Kindig, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, and
unanimously carded on roll call vote, the Special Permit.was extended
for one year as requested to June 4, 1965.
2. SIX MONTHS EXTENSION PERMITTED MILLS ESTATE HOMES TRACT OFFICE.
A letter dated May 6, 1964, from Mills Estate [tomes, bearing the sig-
nature of B. Carl Snyder, requested permission to operate the tract
office at 2500 Trousdale Drive until December 31, 1964, for the same
purpose and under the same conditions permitted Trousdale Construction
Company.
The communication stated that Trousdale Construction Company maintains
a financial interest in the properties remaining to be processed but
has assigned the management of the office to the present applicant.
Mr. Snyder was in attendance. Chairman Cistulli questioned whether the
office participated in property resales, other than those in which the
Trousdale Company held interest. Mr. Snyder replied in the negative.
The City Attorney, in reply to Commissioner Edwards, stated that tie
Commission may properly approve the requested extension; if the appli-
cant finds that additional time is required, he must reapply to the
Commission.
Mr. Snyder stated, in reply to Commissioner Brauner, that in the time
remaining to the end of the year he will conclude; the affairs of the
office.
The City Planner commented that the office has served a useful purpose
of developing the tract and selling the properties but all of the parties
concerned recognized that there had to be a time limitation after which
the use would no longer be permitted in the location. The City Planner
expressed the opinion that to revoke the permit abruptly would be unfair
to the management and recommended approval of the: requested extension.
Mr. E.L. Pierce, 1813 Loyola Drive, member of the; Board of Directors of
the Mills Estate Improvement Association, and Mr. John Bauer, #2 Rio
Court, President, Mills Estate Improvement Association, stated that there
would be no objection, providing the building was vacated by the end of
the year.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Edwards and seconded by
Commissioner Moore approving the tract office permit for the premises
at 2500 Trousdale Drive until December 31, 1964, for the same purposes
and under the same conditions of operation set forth in a letter on
file from Trousdale Construction Company dated April 17, 1958.
Motion carried unanimously on roll call vote.
HEARINGS
1. SIGN VARIANCE. STANDARD OIL COMPANY. MO—NTINUED).
Chairman Cistulli announced that a hearing on an application filed by
Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc., for a
sign height variance, continued from the meeting of April 27, 19649
would proceed at this time.
The City Planner, upon recognition by the Chair, reported that
Mr. R.W. Utterback, representative of Standard Oil Company, indicated
in a telephone conversation that the application might be withdrawn.
Upon determination by the Chair that the applicant was not in attendance
nor represented, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Edwards to
continue the hearing to the meeting of June 22, at which time the
Commission will expect to be informed whether the applicant wishes to
be heard further on the variance request. *lotion seconded by Commissioner
Kindig and carried. unanimously.
2. RESUBDIVISION. ACREAGE NORTHERLY CORNER BROADWAY AND ROLLINS ROAD.
The Chair announced a public hearing on an application filed with the
City Engineer to resubdivide acreage at the northerly corner of
Broadway and Rollins Road. -2-
Mr. F.A. Gebhard, the applicant, informed the Commission of his
intention not to proceed with the resubdivision at, this time.
A poll of Commissioners indicating no objection, the applicant was
permitted to withdraw the application without prejudice.
3. RESUBDIVISION. PORTION BLOCK 6, EAST HILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK 02,
A map filed with the City Engineer by Old Bayshore: Investment and East
Millsdale Investment Companies proposed a resubdivision of the follow-
ing described real property:
"Parcel 2, and Lots 3,4,5,E and remaining
portions of Lots i, 8 and 9 of Parcel 1,
Block 6, East Hillsdale Industrial. Park,
Unit No. 211.
Mr. Robert Ryan represented the applicants. Mr. Ryan informed the
Commission that the resubdivision will remove interior lot lines to
create a single large building site with off-street parking.
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair,.stated that there were no
problems of concern to his department. He pointed out that the owners
have provided for additional off-street parking beyond the minimum
legal requirements.
The City Engineer stated that the map was examined and found to be
in order. For the information of the Commission, he reported that
his department will inspect the new sew-r clean -out .installed by the
property owners in connection with the abandonment. of certain
easements on the property.
There were no protests recorded oral or written. On a motion intro-
duced by Commissioner Kindig, seconded by Commissioner Edwards and
unanimously carried, the resubdivision map filed with the City Engineer
was approved.
4. VARIANCE GRANTED GEORGE M. BARNES, 1232 BALBOA AVENUE. REDUCED
SIDE SETBACK.
The Chair announced a public hearing at this time on an application
filed by George L. and Georgina M. Barnes for a variance to permit
three feet of side setback, in place of five feet„ on the driveway
(north) side of the property at 1232 Balboa Avenue (Lot 21, Block 20,
Easton Addition No. 2).
A communication from the applicants dated April 30, 1964, explained
that it is proposed to add a new garage with elevated bedroom and
bath to the existing house in an area at the front side, which is
presently driveway. It was pointed out that the property is in an older
section of Burlingame where for many years the side setback was three
feet regardless of building height.
The communication stated further that the area
tion is slightly more than 15 feet wide; if the
setback were maintained, the resultant bedroom
serve the purposes of the family.
A plot plan and elevation were filed.
of the planned construc-
re:quired five feet of
addition would not
-3-
In reviewing the drawings, Commissioners determined that on the south
side of the property the setback was 8 feet 6 inches; on the north side,
where the construction was proposed, 15 feet 6 inches.
!The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, explained that side yards vary
in size according to lot size; the 'subject property requires four feet
of side setback for a one-story dwelling and five feet for two stories.
The applicants propose three feet for two stories - two feet under the
legal minimum.
Chairman Cistulli invited comments from the floor. There were none.
Commissioners were invited to comment.
In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Kindig concerning open space
between the proposed addition and the residence on the adjacent property,
Mrs. Branes explained that the driveways are adjoining on the two
properties; there would be driveway plus three feet of setback on each
property,
The City Planner, in reply to Commissioner Edwards, stated that it was
his impression from personal observation that there was approximately
eight feet of open space between the neighboring house and the fence
which separates the two properties.
In further comment, the City Planner expressed the opinion that there
was a condition of hardship in the property. He pointed out that where
a building was constructed to the three foot line the law provides an
exception whereby an addition can be constructed and the original set-
back maintained. However, the exception does not apply in the present
situation where the setbacks are greater than three feet.
Commissioner Norberg,commenting that the proposed construction apparent-
ly will not harm nor injure the neighboring property, considering the
open space existing between the two properties, and the location in a
district where the required setback was three feet, for many years, in-
troduced a motion to approve the variance in accordance with the plot
plan and elevation on file. Lotion seconded by Commissioner Brauner and
carried unanimously on roll call vote.
The applicant was advised that the variance would become effective
June 2, 1964, provided there was no appeal.
The hearing was declared concluded.
NEW BUSINESS
1. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED TO CLASSIFY KEYSTON PROPERTY.
On a motion introduced by Commissioner Kindig, seconded by Commissioner
Brauner and unanimously carried, a public hearing was scheduled for
Monday, June 22, 1964, at 8:00 o'clock p.m., for the purpose of classify-
ing 14-1 (Light Industrial) the unclassified properties of Keyston and
Company.
2. SIGN CODE AMENDMENT - REAL ESTATE SIGNS.
A proposed amendment to the sign code, referring to real estate signs,
reviewed at the study meeting of May 11, was scheduled for formal con-
sideration at this time; -4e
The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Cistulli to review circumstances
pertinent to the subject, read a communication dated April 30, 1964,
from Paul J. Constantino, real estate broker, with reference to un-
controlled display of real estate signs in the commercial and industrial
districts and setting forth suggestions for stricter regulations.
The City Planner stated that the above letter was forwarded to the City
Council accompanied by a cover letter from his office, a copy of the
latter was read for the information of the Commission.
The City Planner stated that the subject was referred to the Commission
by the City Council for the purpose of preliminary hearing and sub-
sequent recommendation to Council.
The proposed amendment was thereafter read in its entirety. The
City Planner pointed out that signs in residential districts remain un-
changed. In commercial districts, a provision has been added that not
more than one sign may be placed on any lot or parcel of land. There
is a new provision requiring payment of a $2.00 fee to the Building
Inspector for all sign permits.
Chairman Cistulli recognized Mr. Alex Smith, Chairman Industrial -
Commercial Committee of the San Mateo -Burlingame Board of Realtors,
who presented a series of points for clarification, also suggested re-
visions to the proposed amendment:
1. Clarification on policing of ordinance.
2. Who shall apply for permit - owner of property or broker.
3. Clarification on placement and number of permitted signs
on tracts in any district, where such property consists of
five or more contiguous lots.
4. Provision should be included for more than one sign in
or on multiple unit industrial buildings - similar to per-
mitted signs in commercial buildings.
S. Change size of signs in M-1 district from .36 to 40 square feet.
6. Two signs on a corner C-1, C-2, C-3 or M-1 lot - similar to
signs permitted on corner lots in residential districts.
Mr. Smith assured the Commission of the interest and full cooperation
of the members of the San Mateo -Burlingame Board of Realtors.
Mr. R. Lavenstein, of the firm of Ritchie and Ritchie, Redwood City,
industrial and commercial real estate, spoke of his company's desire
to cooperate.
Following considerable discussion, the subject was declared continued
to the study meeting of June 8, the City Planner at that time to have
material prepared for Commission review and action.
3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STUDY MEETING.
Wednesday, June 3, 1964, was tentatively scheduled to continue dis-
cussions with department heads on capital improvement projects for
1964-65.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 10:10 p.m., to Monday, June 8,
1964. Respectfully submitted,
oyo Edward A. Moore, Secretary