Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1964.02.24CITY OF BURLINCAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Brauner Cistulli Edwards Kindig Stivers CALL TO ORDER February 24, 1964 COWISSIONERS ABSCNT OTHERS PRESENT Moore City Attorney Karmel Norberg City Planner Mann City Engineer flarr A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 8:00 p.m., on the above date 4 Chairman Brauner presiding. ROLL CALL In the absence of Secretary Moore, Commissioner Kindig was appointed Secretary pro tempore. The above -named members answered the Secretary's roll calls Commissioners Moore and Norberg, absent because of illness, were excused. MINUTES Minutes of the meetings of January 27 and February 10, 1964, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chairman Brauner acknowledged Mayor Johnson and Councilman Diederichsen in attendance. I UNDERGROUND PARKING PLAN AND SURFACE LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED. APARTMENT BUILDING m.1900 CARDEN DRIVE. Code section 1958.1,"Underground Garages in Setback Areas",requires that before a building permit is issued the Planning Commission must approve plans for garages which are to be constructed below ground level and the landscaping above. For this reason, the Planning Com- mission acted upon plans presented in connection with a proposed apart- ment building at 1900 Carden Drive A Jack Clang and Associates, developers. Mr. Karl Treffinger, the architect for the project, and Mr. Emile Dinga, landscape contractor, were in attendance. Following review of the plans and the architect's detailed description of the proposed landscaping, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli and seconded by Commissioner Kindig approving parking and landscaping plans as submitted. Motion carried unanimously on roll call vote. HEARINGS 1. RESUBDIVISION.. Lot 26 and SEly por. Lot 27, Block 4, Easton Addition. (1144 Capuchino Avenue A resubdivision m:tp of the above -described property, filed by Glen W. Allen, agent for the owner, continued from the meeting of January 27, 1964, and, previous to that, from the meeting of. December 23, 1963, when the applicant failed to appear on either occasion, was before the Commission for hearing. It.was determined by Chairman Brauner that the applicant was not in attendance nor represented. In reply to the Chair, the City Planner advised that notice was sent. to the applicant -.that the matter was to be heard at this time. The City Planner commented further that certain newspaper advertisements within the past month would indicate that the applicant is offering the property for sale.. Commissioner Edwards, commenting that the Commission has extended every consideration in continuing the hearing over three meetings, and apparent- ly the applicant has no further interest, introduced a motion to remove the application from the agenda of Commission business. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried. 2. VARIANCE. UBALDO SIBOLDI. LOT WIT14 LESS THAN AVERAGE WIDTH OF F,LFTY. FFET„APPRMED A An application filed by Mr. and mrs. Ubaldo Siboldi, 811 Bayshore Boulevard, requested a variance to combine the following described real property to create one parcel having an average width less than SO feet: "Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 6, Burlingame Shore Land Company Subdivision". A communication from the applicant dated February 7, 1964, explained that the portion of Lot 6, purchased by a previous owner some years ago, is part of a lame property under one ownership, including four other lots. The Burlingame Motel occupies three of the lots. The communication stated that the portion of the lot is completely land- locked at the rear of all of the other lots and cannot be used fore building purposes unless combined with a lot having street frontage. Lot 3 is a legal, existing, unimproved lot fronting Bayshore Boulevard. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair referred to the drawings on file and noted that the interior lot, some 40 feet in width by-79 feet to 91 feet deep, was separated from the remainder of Lot 6 at a time in the past before there were rules for.combining lots. Present laws re- quire that all lots shall have an'average width of SO feet but the owners are unable to purchase any portion of the remainder of the lot and the properties cannot be combined without approval of a variance. The City Planner noted that if there is approval the interior parcel will disappear and the resultant property will provide a satisfactory build- ing site with ample open space. -2- In reply to the Chair's inquiry, there were no comments from the floor, pro or cone The City Planner noted that an existing five foot sewer reserve easement, clearly designated on the drawings, must be maintained free of any struc- ture. On a motion thereafter introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner Edwards and unanimously carried the variance to combine all of Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 6, Burlingame Shore Land Company Subdivision was approved, in accordance with the resubdivision map on file with the City Engineer. The applicant was advised that the variance would become effective March 3, 1964, provided there was no appeal. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. 3. VARIANCE. BERNARD STACK. MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING APPROVED ON FIRST RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. An application filed by Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Stack; requested a variance to allow construction of a multi -family dwelling on first residential property at 1225 Laguna Avenue - Lot 4, Block 159 Burlingame Grove Subdivision. A preliminary plan of a proposed four unit building, prepared by Robert E. Onorato, accompanied the application. The applicants were in attendance and, upon recognition by the Chair, filed a petition signed by ten neighboring owners in favor of the pro- posed construction. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair's request to comment, stated that the property is directly across the street from Rhinette Avenue and immediately adjoins the Ra3 zoning, which follows almost a straight line from California Drive to El Camino Real,southeasterly of Rhinette. Northerly of Rhinette, the zoning is exclusively R-1. The City Planner referred to comments of the applicants concerning the existing dwelling on the property, which they described as too old to remodel or repair, and stated their intention of replacing with the apartment building and occupying one of the units,, In reply to Commission inquiry, the City Planner advised that there are apartment buildings on Lagune,Avenue southerly from the Stack property to Broadway. The Chair invited comments from the floor. There were none. Mr. Stack, in reply to members of the Commission, stated that the building will be two stories in height, three units on the upper story and one ground -floor apartment. Mr. White, the contractor, stated that the upper units will range in size from 517 to 600 square feet of area; the ground floor apartment, which the owner will occupy, will be considerably larger. The Commission was advised that lot area is 6000 :square feet; lot coverage, 48%. m3� There will not be garages at the front of the building and the owners will maintain a garden complementary to their home and property. Chairman Brauner referred to discussion at the study meeting when Commissioner Norberg suggested that it might be advantageous to have a staircase at the rear of the building. The City Planner recalled that Mr. Onorato, the draftsman, explained that if there were to be such a staircase it would be directly in front of the window of the ground floor apartment which the owners intend to occupy. They would prefer, if possible, to forego the rear stairs, for their priracy and the appearance of their apartment and substitute a.drop-dokin fire escape. The City Planner stated that whetheror not the second staircase is re- quired by code will be determined when the plans are! examined in the build- ing department prior to issuance :of a building permits A notion was introduced by Conaissiorrr Cistulli to apprevc the variance for the construction in accordance v'1-.I j"iw s In seconding the motion, Commissioner Kindig referred to the location directly across from the end of Rhinette Avenue adjoining the existing R-3 zoning. The owners propose to replace an existing old single-family dwelling with a four unit building which will offer an acceptable trans- itional use between the apartments southerly of Rhinette Avenue and the first residential properties to the north. Chairman Brauner stated that after inspecting the property and the neigh- borhood he was convinced that there were situations applicable to the property which would not apply generally throughout the district. The motion "to approve" was thereafter declared carried on the follow- ing roll call vote: AYE: COWISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Kindi.g, Stivers NO: COMMISSIONERS: Edwards _ ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Moore, Norberg The applicant was advised that the variance would be: effective March 3,1964, provided there was no appeal. The hearing was declared concluded. 4. ARIANCF CARL A SKE F O (CilM INtim) � -._.._ i� Ei• �. TQ_E�E..J�ES�1i. , .or c .V�-i3As'�,►.._.. �._ An application filed by Mr. and Mrs. Carl N. Fiske requested a variance to exceed the legal 40 percent maximum lot coverage on first residential property at 2012 Devereux Drive - Lot 30, Block 10, Ray Park Subdivision, A letter from the applicant explained that family circumstances require enlarging tho.present home to.provide additional living area. It is pro- posed to enclose an existing patio and convert to a family room, and con- struct an inside staircase to two rooms in a "tower -like" structure appended to the rear of the main house, which was built by a previous owner with the only means of access from the outside. Two photographs of the patio area, including the structural addition, were filed, also a preliminary alteration plan. The City Planner stated that in the remodeling proposed by the applicants -4- the present patio, which is now open spaces will be enclosed and become part of the house area. The resultant excessive lot coverage will he approximately eight percents l The City Planner mentioned also that it was his understanding that access to the rooms in the rear addition is by an outside draw ladder, lie stated that the structure first came to his attention several years ago when a former resident of Ray Pais complained of the appearance, Chairman Brauner recognized Air. Fiske, the applicant, who posted the drawing and described proposed alterations at.some length„ It was pointed out that the lot has 75 feet of frontage on Devereux Drive by a rear measurement of 32.69 feet o a total lot area of 5724 square feet. Atr. Fiske stated that the existing building kitchen and bedroom was eight feet from the property line and that the new wall covering the present patio would be about 30 feet from the line. Chairman Brauner invited comments from the floors Mrs. Mary Frates, representing Air. and Mrs. W.R. Vierra, 2019 Ray Drive, adjoining the Fiske property, protested that the applicant fails to meet conditions requisite to a variance grant o that there are neither ex- ceptional nor extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property. In reply to Commission inquiry, Mrs, Frates stated that her client's home is next to the Fiske property on the side of the proposed new construction. By permitting the addition, the open area between the houses will be reduced; there will be increased noise, depriving the neighbors of the quiet enjoyment of their property. Chairman Brauner referred to the photographs filed by the applicant and expressed the opinion that any remodeling or alteration to improve the architectural appearance should be of advantage not only to the property but the area as well. Chairman Brauner commented also that the structural problem certainly would be peculiar to this particular property, Chairman Brauner recognized Mr. Vierra who claimed that the measurements quoted by Mr. Fiske were incorrect and that the drawing was not.a true representation of the property. In a period of discussion, Commissioners agreed that a more detailed drawing, to exact scale, should be prepared, including measurements of the new construction and the boundary of the proposed patio. A motion was thereafter introduced by Commissioner Edwards to continue the hearing to the regular meeting of starch 23, Mr. Fiske, or his representative, to appear at the study meeting of.March 9 with a revised plan, accurate as to measurements, "lotion seconded by Commissioner Stivers and carried unanimously, S. VARIANCE." SYLVESTER J. McATEE. REAR SETBACK REDUCTION DENIED.. An application filed by Sylvester J. McAtee, Jr,, requested a variance to reduce the rear yard setback on first residential property at 724 Concord Way (Lot 12, Block 11, Burlingables Map No. 1). The application form recited as follows: "Reduction of the fifteen foot _S_ setback on the rear property line to three feet to permit the building of a 233 square feet, 1118" by 2010", work shop and storage area". A communication from the applicant dated February 8, 1964, provided in part as follows: ........ Since there is no inside storage space in the garage, the children's wheel toys must be left out: in the weather. At present,there is no place to repair or paint furniture unless the car is left on the street, which I would rather not do...'...The new construction would be built behind and attached to the garage, finished on the outside in either stucco or wood and maintained as part of the house. The 40 percent land use rule would not be breached by the re- quested variance". A site plan, including the proposed addition, was filed. Chairman Brauner recognized I -IT. McAtee who stated that, contrary to reports circulating in the neighborhood that the shop will be used for commercial purposes, the proposed addition will provide badly needed storage area and space to do the small repair and painting chores in- cidental to maintaining his home and.property. In reply to Chairman Brauner's request for comments from the floor from those in favor, Mr. William Blumer, 720 Vernon Way, supported the applicant. Those opposed were invited to speak. Mr. and Mrs. John Humphries, 725 Vernon flay, adjacent to the subject property at the rear, protested that Mr. McAtee operates electrical tools until quite late at night and if permitted to enlarge his working area will create a major neighborhood nuisance; the size of the proposed addition is unrealistic since small garages without storage area exist throughout the district -but others have overcome the difficulty without interWence to neighbors; the proposed structure„ extending above the rear fence, will be injurious to their property and interfere with their righttq quiet enjoyment of their garden and outdoor living area, The following speakers protested on the grounds that an existing noise nuisance will increase; the shop may be converted to commercial use; a precedent will be established leading to other requests for similar in- trusions into areas reserved for yards and open space: Mr. F. Kramer, 720 Concord Way; Mr. Coyle Collins, 609 Concord Way; Air, J.J. MacDonald, 721 Vernon Way; Mr. J.L, Sweeney, 708 Vernon Way; Mr. and Mrs. Thomas B. Lee, 320 Bloomfield Road. Chairman Brauner invited Mr. McAtee to rebut, Referring to'the matter of precedent, Air. McAtee :identified two properties on Vernon Way and one on Concord Way which he asserted are built beyond the 15 foot rear setback. He stated that references to commercial usage of the property are unreasonable and unwarranted, Mr. McAtee explained that he is employed in San Francisco, consequently his activities in the work shop are confined primarily to the weekend. He denied.creating a noise nuisance or disturbing his neighbors. In reply to suggestions from the Commission to use a part of the existing garage for storage and a working area by constructing a carport over the driveway to store the car, Mr. !McAtee explained that this would not be practical because of the architectural design of the house and a -6- courtyard entrance way, Chairman Brauner referred to conditions requisite to a variance grant proof of exceptional circumstances applicable to a property which would cause undue property loss should the variance be denied. Mr. McAtee stated that with a garage too small for his requirements he is burdened with inadequate storage and working areas. There were no further comments from the floor. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Edwards to deny the variance. Motion seconded by Commissioner Stivers and carried unanimously on roll call vote. The applicant was advised of his right of appeal. Commissioner Kindig, through the Chair, explained to Mr. McAtee that as a resident of the same neighborhood he was familiar with the problems of inadequate garages and storage area, however, since the minimum setback requirements were established to protect open space and yard areas and to avoid crowding of properties, it was :important that they be maintained to the benefit of the individual property and the neighborhood as a whole. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded, REir CESS: The Chair announced a recess at 10:10 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Brauner at 10:15 p.m. HEARINGS. (cont.). 6, SPECIAL PERMIT. KEYSTON BROS. THEATRE ON BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. An application filed by 1300 Bayshore Ltd., as applicant, over the sig- nature of David H. Keyston, requested approval of a special permit to construct and operate a theatre with seating capacity of approximately 2200 on a portion of a ten acre parcel located on the easterly side of Bayshore Highway m the particular site designated 1310 Bayshore highway. A plot plan, prepared by Robert M. Bl.unk, A•I•A•, accompanied the appli- cation. A letter dated February 24, 1964, from Howard Pearson, City Fire In- spector, to the City Planner, advised in part as follows: Automatic sprinkler plans and placement of fire extinguishers have not been sub- mitted but the owners have been informed of applicable regulations. Because of the size of the structure and the distance from the public street and an existing fire hydrant, the owners were requested, as a safety factor, to install an approved type of fire. hydrant on the site. Chairman Brauner recognized Mr. David Keyston who stated that the require- ments of the fire department will be met, including the fire hydrant. Attu Keyston stated that the property will be landscaped in selected varieties of trees, shrubs and ground cover, I�� describing parking -7- facilities Mr Keyston advised that the lease arrangement with the operators provides for a total of 800 spaces. There are 188 spaces on the property and additional parking will be provided on adjoining properties owned by the applicants, The City Engineer mentioned street improvements to be installed, whith should be a condition of the permit, The City Planner suggested as an additional condition that the appli- cant file a resubdivision map establishing property boundaries for the building and the required parking, as indicated on. the plot plan. Chairman Brauner invited comments from the floor. Mr, John C. Bauer, #2 Rio Court, President, Burlingame gills Estate Improvement Association, endorsed the project as a recreation and cultural addition to the com- munity. Mr. Keyston advised in reply to an inquiry from Mr. Howard Watkinson, 1544 Bernal Avenue, that telephone poles and wires, will be located away from the front of the building. There were no further comments from the floor. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to approve the permit as requested o the applicant to file a resubdivision map with the City Engineer establishing property lines as indicated on the plot plan; street improvements to be constructed in accordance with the specifications of the City Engineer; a fire hydrant on the site and safety equipment in the building, to meet the requirements of the city Fire Department; parkin; and planted areas to conform to the plot plan. Motion seconded by Commissioner Edwards and carried unanimously on roll call vote. The applicant was advised that the permit would be effective Harch 3, provided there was no appeal, The hearing was declared concluded. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Lewis Weil requesting continuance to June, 1964 of variance hearing. A request dated February 22, 1964, from Lewis 11eil, 1637 Coronado Way, for a continuance to .tune, 1964, of the hearing on a variance application was concurred in by members of the Commission, 1. RESOLUTION NO 64 "RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE. REC3 T I C l3SF.S IN R-3A (LOW -DENSITY MULTI-FA14ILY) DISTRICTS"was introduced for passage by Commissioner Kindig, seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and declared carried on the following roll call vote: AYE: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Edwards, Kindig NOE: C%54ISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN CONI"ISSIONERS: Stivers ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Moore, Norberg -8- NEW BUSINESS 1. Capital Improvement Budget- Annual Review. Commissioners agreed with a suggestion of the City Planner that a special study neeting be scheduled,, probably some time in April, 1964, to review capital improvement projects suggested by department heads. ADJOURNL' U The meeting was regularly adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary Protempore -9-