HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.03.23CITY OF BURLINCAME PLANNING COWU SSION
a
March 23, 1964
COWU SSIONERS PRESENT
Brauner
Cistulii
Edwards
Kindig
?Moore
lorberg
sti`Jers
CALL TO ORDER
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
None
OTHERS PRESENT
City Attorney Karnel
City Planner Mann
City Engineer Parr
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order on the above date at 8:00 p.m. o Chairman Brauner presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll call.
MINUTES
?Minutes of the regular meeting of February 24 and the study neeting of
l March 9, 1964, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted,
J 1, PLANS APPROVED FOR STANDARD OII, SERVICE STATION BAYSHORE 111CHWAY.
A Special Permit granted Keyston and Company in April, 1963, for a ser-
vice station on Bayshore Highway, easterly of Hyatt !louse Hotel, required
the Commission's approval of final drawings prior -to construction,
Two sets of plans, "Elevations and Section" and "Ground and Gracie Plan",
were reviewed at the study meeting and scheduled for formal action by the
Commission at this time,
Chairman Brauner informed Mr. Utterbach that the proposed sign exceeded
the legal height of 20 feet by approximately two feet where the chevron
insignia projected above the top of the lettering.
In reply to a suggestion from Commissioner Norberg to reduce the height
of the supporting column from 16 to 14 feet, Air. Utterbach explained that
a sign exceeding 20 feet may be required to properly identify the location.
-fr. Utterbach inquired whether it would be permissible at a later date to
seen a variance for a greater height,
The City Attorney, in reply to Chairman Brauner, stated that certain vari-
ances relating to signs are authorized by Code, but such authorization is
expressly limited to size or location. Variances to height are not author-
ized,,
.Commissioner Norberg suggested a roof sign as an alternative and Chairman
Brauner informed Mr. Utterbach that the matter could be continued to
another meeting to allow time for reconsidering; the location of the sign.
A request was made by Mr. Keyston that the plans be approved subject to
}compliance with Code requirements and any variation considered at a
later date. 'fr. Utterbach concurred.
The City Planner stated that he examined the two sets of Plans, particu-
larly the plot Ilan. tie stated that the layout is satisfactory; the
traffic Pattern good. A planter along; the front will prevent free access
to the highway; planters at the rear, and on the sides to some -extent,,
will aid in controlling; traffic.
The City Engineer stated that there were no problems `,of concern to his
department.
A motion was -introduced by Commissioner.Cistulli to approve the elevations
and section and the. ground and grade plan for service station No, 5-131,
Rayshore Ilig;hway, filed by Standard Oil Company of California, dated
March, 1964, with the exception that the sign not exceed 20 feet in height
measured from -sidewalk level to the highest point of the sign structure.
"•lotion seconded by Commissioner Afoore and carried unanimously on roll call
vote
HEARINGS
1. RESUBDIVI� SIOW, Lands of Keyston anndd Company, Bayshorree Highway.
A resubdivisiont map filed with the City Engineer Proposed to divide a
9.383 acre parcel owned by Keyston and Company on Bayshore Ilighway,
easterly of Hyatt [louse hotel, into three parcels as follows`:-.
Parcel A o 0.33S-acres; Parcel B - 2.489 acres; Parcel C - 6.SS9 acres.
Chairman Brauner recognized Mr. David Keyston who advised that the map
was filed at the request of the Commission to establish boundary lines for
the properties to be occupied by the gasoline service station and the
theatre, which were -approved by the Commission at prior meetings.
Mr, Keyston stated that Parcel A is the service station site; Parcel B,
the theatre; and Parcelg:,the balance of the acreage(,
Air. Keyston advised that 188 parking; spaces required by Code will be avail-
able on the theatre property, parking,,*up parkinguP to a total of 800
spaces, will he located on adjacent properties, -to satisfy the terms of
the lease with the theatres operators.
The City Planner stated that the resubdivision was requested in order to
include the legally required parking for the theatre within the Parcel
and, additionally, to establish site boundaries for computing; the build-
ings proper and the open areas.
The City Engineer mentioned two matters *of concern to his -department:
Completion by the owner of public improvements on Baysbore llighwa)r,
including the drainage, for the frontage of the entire nine acre parcel;
Possible legal ramifications arising from the owner's intention to
superimpose the access easement to the service station on the existing
Easton Creek drainage easement held by the city. The City Engineer stated
that the proposed easement will not interfere with the city•s'use of the
drainage easement.
020
tl
The City Attorney, in reply to Chairman Brauner, stated that without
seeing; the easement instrument lee was unable to determine the extent of
the city`s rights n whether the city held an exclusive or non-exclusive
easement, He stated that based on the general pattern of procedure in
similar situations lie would assume that there was a nonexclusive ease-
ment, therefore, if the proposed use for the service station does not
interfere with the city's prior use, the city would not he in position to
object.
Mr. David Keyston maintained that since the city•s easement was recorded
first it would take prioYityo
The City Attorney suggested, if the Commission wished to do so, that it
act upon the map since the action would not affect the city's rights in
the easement in any way, the Commission having; no authority in such matters,
In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Moore concerning a possible hazard
5vhere the access easement will cross the drainage channel, fir. Keyston
described the improvement at length, to -the satisfaction of the Commission.
The City Planner, in reply to Commissioner Kindig, confirmed that Parcel B.
within itself, contained sufficient parkin; to meet the city's requirements.
Mr. Keyston stated that street improvements, including standard curbs and
gutters, storm drains and sewer laterals will be installed on Bayshore
Highway for the entire frontage of Parcels A and R, prior to occupancy.
Air. Keyston stated that should a Portion of. Parcel C he used for off-street
parking, in connection with the theatre, the street will be improved as
far as the parking extends.
The City Engineer approved Fir. Keyston's program with the comment that
when the remainder of Parcel C is improved the City will insist that the
street work be completed.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Kindii; to approve the resubdivision
map filed with the City Engineer with the understanding that the Commission
does not purport to accept or consent to the granting of an easement over
the city's prior easement - this being beyond the authority of the Com-
mission. Street improvements to he installed on Bayshore Highway, to
the specifications of the City Engineer, for the frontage of Parcels A
and B. prior to occupancy of said Parcels. The street frontage of Parcel C
to be improved to the extent that off-street parking is installed.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and carried unanimously on roll
call vote.
2. RESURDIVISION. Portion Lots 19 and 20, Block 1., Subdivision No. 3
Bu�rlin&ane ParkRalston and film.+ Avenues.
A resubdivision map of the above -described property„ filed with the City
Engineer by Dr. Elmer E. Specht, owner, proposed to delete an existing
lot line and establish a new line, thereby dividing the property into two
separate parcels as follows: Parcel 1, a new lot at the southwesterly
corner of Elm and Ralston Avenues, being a portion of Lot 20 with an area
of 3207 square feet; Parcel 2, including, portions of Lots 19 and 20, with
frontage on Elm Avenue, having -an area of 14,522 square feet.
The City Planner stated that both parcels meet Code requirements for area,
street frontage and average width. The minimum lot size in the area is
-3-
7000 square feet; the new lot has just over 7200 square feet. There
is frontage on two streets,
The City Planner referred to discussion at the study meeting when the
Commission was advised that practically the entire lot is creek.
The City Planner advised that in a personal inspection he discovered that
a lot pattern is practically non-existent on the block. Large properties
are few since most of the original lots have been resubdivided at one
point or another. fie stated that the average front setback on Elm Avenue
is 32 feet;, Tequirirg a 30 foot setback on any new construction.
Chairman. invited comments from the floor,
Mr: Thomas F., Risho, 1821 Ralston Avenue„ read a prepared statement pro-
` that because the proposed new lot is practically all creek, only
.�iriiin gym house could be accommodated, which would not be in keeping with
neishborl.,Z; nun,;: s, either in Naze or character. Further, a number of
beautiful, trees must be removed to clear a building site,, The statement
was accepted for filing as part of the record.
Chairman Armorer recognized Dr. Specht who submitted snapshots of the
property and a newspaper photograph to illustrate the architectural design
which he claimed the property would accommodate. r►r. Specht stated that
due to circumstances he must sell the property and leave the area.
Chairman Brauner and Commissioner Norberg advised of personal inspection
of the property.,
} In a period of general discussion, the City Engineer informed Commissioners
of precautions which the city will take before a building permit is issued
to prevent any structural interference with the natural flow of the creek.
Chairman Brauner requested the City Attorney to inform the Commission
of the provisions of the law where a proposed resubdivision meets the
city°s code requirements.
The City Attorney stated that the leading authority is "Roussey vs, The
City of Burlingame". In 1950, the courts held that the city improperly
refused an application for a resubdivision where all of the conditions
of the ordinance were met.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Edwards to approve the resub-
division in accordance with the map on file with the City Engineer. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Moore and declared carried on the following roll
call vote:
AYE: COtIMISSTONERS: Brauner, Edwards, Moore, Norberg, Stivers
NO: C(?411SSIONERS : Cistulli, Kindig
ABSENT COWISSIONERS: None
3. VARIANCE, MjLJl1TI-FATIILY DWELLING IN R-2 DISTRICT APPROVED.
An application filed by Ronald Wollmer requested a variance to construct
a five unit apartment building on second -residential property at
1144 Capuchino Avenue. (Lot 26, Block 4, Easton Addition),
Preliminary drawings of the proposed construction accompanied the appli-
cation.
-4-
A statement of justification dated March 7, 1964, was filed by the
applicant.
A communication was acknowledged from Mrs. Laura 011er, 1120 Capuchino
Avenue, in favor of the variance.
In examining the drawings, Commissioner Norberg recalled discussion at
the study meeting with Mr. Wollmer concerning modifications in the de-
sign of the long balustrade to improve the appearance of the building,.
Commissioner Norberg noted that the present plans show no change
Mr. Wollmer stated that it is his intention to accept the suggestions
of the Commission to revise the balustrade and requested approval of
the variance subject to submittal at a later date of a balustrade
acceptable to the Commission.
In reviewing the plans further with Mr. Wollmer, Commissioners were ad,
vised that the lot is 50 feet wide by 115 feet deep. The property
immediately adjacent to the south is duplex zonedimproved with a five
unit building permitted by variance. To the north, between the subject
property and Broadway, the zoning and use are commercial.
In reply to the Chair's inquiry, there were no comments from the floor.
There were no protests recorded, oral or written.
Commissioner Norberg introduced a motion to approve the variance for
the construction in accordance with the elevations and plot plan on file,.
with the exception that a revised drawing of the balustrade shall be
submitted for Commission approval at the meetingof April 13. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Moore and carried unanimously on roll call vote,.
4. LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE GRANTED CARL M. FISKE. 2012 DEVEREUX DRIVE2
A public hearing, continued from the meeting of February 24, was
scheduled to proceed at this time on an application filed by Carl p1. and
Patricia M. Fiske for a lot coverage variance on :first -residential
property at 2012 Devereux Drive. (Lot 30, Block 10, Ray Park Subdivision).
A letter dated February 4, 1964, from the applicant advised that it is
proposed to remodel the present home to increase the living area by
enclosing and converting an existing patio into a family room and con-
structing an inside staircase to two rooms in a "tower -like" structure
appended to the rear of the house, which was built by a previous owner
with the only means of access from the outside. The resultant lot
coverage will exceed the permitted maximum of 401 by approximately 8%.
Photographs of the patio area, including the existing structural addit-lon;
and a preliminary alteration plan were filed.
A letter dated March 6, 1964, from Craig W. Fitzpatrick, 2008 Devereux
Drive, protested that the existing two-story addition at the rear of ti:<_•'
Fiske home casts a shadow over the major part of his rear yard, incluci
ing the swimming pool and patio; the proposed construction will further
shade the yard depriving him of the full use and enjoyment of his
property.
The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Brauner's inquiry concerning the
background of the rear addition, stated that while it is an oddity, ZZ
building permit was approved and it is a legal structure under present--
day rules.
-5-
Chairman Brauner recognized `fro Fiske, the applicant, who stated that
preliminary drawings submitted to the Commission were prepared to
scale by Mr. Robert F. Onorato, draftsman, from on -site measurements,,
He stated that these were confirmed by measurements which he personally
made and by the City Planner who measured the ;property in the area of
the planned improvements.
Mr. Fiske referred to a protest from Mr. W.R. Vierra, 2019 Ray Drive,
who claimed at a prior meeting that the drawings were incorrect and not
a true representation, of the property. Piro Fiske stated that he was
satisfied that the measurements were .accurate,
,,fir. Fiske agreed that the new construction would add somewhat to the
amount of shade in the Fitzpatrick rear yard but pointed out that the
tiro -story struc uYe was in existence possibly four to five years prior
to Uhc pae on the Fitzpatrick property.
Chairman Brauiier recognized Mrs, Mary Frates, attorney, repremting
Mir. and Mrs. W.R. Vierra, who requested permission to examine the pre-
liminary drawings,
Chairman Brauner invited those in favor of the variance to speak.
Air, T,F, Jordan, 1924 Devereux Drive, requested favorable action by the
Commission.
There being no other speakers in favor, the Chair invited comments from
those opposed.
Air, Craig Fitzgerald protested that the structure has been a source of
irritation in the neighborhood since constructed.
An inquiry from Mrs. Mary Frates concerning the drawings filed by the
applicant was answered by the City Planner who stated that preliminary
plot plans and elevations were required to be filed with the application,
Should the Commission approve the variance, complete working drawings,
conforming to the preliminary plans, and meeting all requirements of the
city's building laws, must be submitted to the building department before
a building permit is issued,
Pars. Frates, on behalf of her clients, protested that sufficient grounds
were not shown to give the Commission authority to approve the variance.
There were no other speakers in opposition.
In reply to Chairman Brauner's inquiry concerning rear setback measure-
ments, Air. Onorato stated that the existing building is 28 feet from the
rear wall,, When all of the contemplated alterations are completed, in-
cluding an enclosed garden area, the net setback will be 24 feet 6 inches.
In reply to Commissioner Edward's comments concerning measurements of the
upper floor section, Air. Onorato, upon examining the drawing, agreed that
the section was incorrectly drawn,
Chairman Brauner recognized firs. Frates who stated that her client was
not satisfied that the drawing was to scale When Mrs. Frates directed
questions to the City Planner concerning the point from which his
measurements were made, Chairman Brauner interrup*ct to advise Mrs, Frates
that it was not permissible to question persons in attendance except
-6-
through the Chair.
The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Brauner, stated that the rieasure-
meats were made from an existing fence between the Fiske and Vierra
properties.
Mr. Vierra read from a prepared statement protesting the variance and
stating his intention to personally use every legal means to assure that
the law was upheld.
There were no further comments from the floor.
Commissioners were invited to comment.
` loo= e stated that after inspecting the property he was of
e o`)xr�.on -�i rz� the alterations would improve the Fiske property and
benefit the entire neighborhood.
In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Norberg concerning a condition
of hardship, Mr. Fiske explained that regardless of continuing* efforts,
he has been unsuccessful in finding a larger home for his family of nine
which offers the conveniences, "location -wise", of the present home;
schools are within walking distance for the six children in the family;
the proposed remodeling will provide two usable bedrooms, a much needed
family room and will improve the exterior appearance of the building.
Chairman Brauner questioned Mr. Onorato concerning the total enclosed
area to be added to the house proper, excluding the! roofed patio.
Mr. Onorato indicated approximately 110 square feet, pointing, out that
there will be no intrusion into the legal setback at any place.
The Chair requested the pleasure of the Commission.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Moore to approve the variance
in accordance with the drawings on file. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Norberg and declared carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Kindig, Moore, Norberg
NOES: CONI'MISSIONERS: Edwards, Stivers
ABSENT C0R09ISSIONERS: None
The applicant was advised that the variance would become effective on
April 7 provided there was no appeal prior to that elate.
The hearing was declared concluded.
RF.0 ESS
The Chair declared a recess at 10:20 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Brauner at 10:30 pm.
HEARINGS (cons)
S,, VARIANCE APPROVED. FIVE UNIT APARTMENT IN R'1' ZONE. 1S11 NETILANDS AVr.
Chairman Brauner announced the next hearing: A variance request of.
William E. Jenkins for multi family use in first residential district,
-7-
1511 Newlands Avenue (Lot B, Burlingame Heights Subdivision), continued
from the meeting of October i4 and, prior to that., from the meeting of
September 23, 1963.
Reference was made to correspondence on file, pertinent to the application,
!which was read at prior meetings.
Chairman Brauner referred to a land use survey of both sides of Newlands
Avenue, from El Camino to Crescent Avenue, prepared by the City Planner
and exhibited and discussed at the meetings of September 23 and
October 14, 1963.
The City Manner" in real',; to the Chaim recalled that in previous de.
liberation' ivn the application the Commission was concerned with the
avestion of establishing a precedent. The subject property is within the
triangle j�ounded by Ill. Camino; Occidental Avenue and Barriohlet Avenue,
w_ x a-rea which _,as been a szubject of study and discussion by the Planning
CoT:l,nission or many years.
Chairman Brallner recognized i'r, Jenkins, the applicant, who advised that
at the prior hearing he was requested to return on this date with
evidence of hardship to substantiate the variance. Mr. Jenkins explained,
that he is the owner of the property, which, in its present condition,
is unattractive, of little value as a personal investment, and a minimum
improvement in the neighborhood.
Mr. Jenkins stated that he has had expert assistance in investigating any
number of possible developments. lie stated that a first -,residential
building would be unwise economically. Duplex was discussed but, finally,
the plans were drawn for a five unit buildings for which the variance
was requested.
Plot plans and elevations which were filed originally were not available.
Mr. Jenkins submitted a schematic drawing of the proposed building.
The City Planner referred to the use survey which disclosed a variety of
uses on the street, from single family, to duplex, to a five unit
apartment building, all on lots zoned R-1. fie expressed the opinion
that the multiafarnily buildings were in existence for some time and,
in the absence •!of records to substantiate, were probably converted without
benefit of building permits.
In further comment. the City Planner suggested that the potential of the
entire area should be a matter of primary concern. The Commission
should decide whether a reclassification procedure affecting all
properties is warranaed, as opposed to treating individual properties by
variance.
Chairmam Brauner stated that treatment of the area as a whole is a matter
of long-range planning. There is before the Commission an application
to be considered on its own merits. The Chair stated that it is the
responsibility of the applicant to prove that the variance is justified
and the hearing should proceed accordingly.
In reply to a comment from Commissioner Moore concerning time elapsed
Fince the application was first noticed for hearing, the City Attorney
ruled -hat a. second notice of hearing would not be legally required
but cautioned that hearings so long delayed may place the city in a
questionable situation.
�B�
Hr. Jenkins stated': that in discussing the proposed building with every
person on the block these were ro objections, but, rather, it was the
consensus that any now construction would he an improvement,
Chairman Brauner stated that it was his understanding that legally there
were no R-3 properties on Newlands Avenue at present,.,
The City Planner stated that when the five unit building on the property
immediately adjacent to the ease of Para Jenkins' lot was convertedghe
land was zoned single-family. fie stated teat there was no record of a
variance nor a building permit.
Commissioner Kindig agreed with Mr, Jenkins' statement that the property
could not be developed logically for single-family use, Commissioner
'Kindig stated that it -would be economically unsound to do so and, in his
interpyeltat _or. a definite hardship existed.
N,.)rberg concurred. lie stated that it would be economically
unfeasible and impractical to do anything with the property except
develop as the applicant proposed. The five unit building directly
adjacent is not a good neighbor to new single-family construction.
Chairman Brauner stated that he was in agreement that the property was
highly desirable with ample area to accommodate a five unit garden -type
apartment building but he was not satisfied that a condition of hardship
existed,
Chairman Brauner stated that if the hardship were to be based on the
uneconomical aspects, this must be proven. Chairman Brauner raised a
point concerning the assessed valuation of the land.
Commissioner Norberg,"debated the relevancy of the point made by the
Chair, referring to the location of the land in relation to existing
apartment houses; the possibility of a change in zoning in the area which
would make a single-family residence out of. place.
Following further general comments concerning the economic feasibility
of single-family use, a notion was introduced by Commissioner Norberg
approving the request for variance subject to presentation of proper
elevations and a landscaping plan. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Edwards and declared carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli, Edwards, Kindig, Moore, Norberg,Stivers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN COINSU SSIONERS: Brauner, Chairman Brauner stated that on the
basis.of material presented he was unable to determine personally
whether the application met code conditions requisite to approval,
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None
The applicant was advised that a building permit would not issue until
elevations and landscaping were approved by the Planning Commission.
The applicant was advised the variance would be effective April 7,
provided there was no appeal prior to that date,
The hearing was declared concluded,
NEW BUSINESS:
CITY PLANNER REPORTS:
The Commission was advised by the,City Planner that the following material
would ba submitted rc itext, study meeting, Traffic pattern at the
'Broadway overpass; a section for the ordinance code proposing a new
zoning district, "Tidal Plain District"; suggestions for deletion of
certain permitted uses in M-I Districts,
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to Monday, April 13,1964,
at 8:00 p.m,
Respectfully submitted,
Edward A. Moore, Secretary
I
0100