Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1965.07.26CITY OF BURLINGAME P-LA14NING CONSIISSION July 26, 1965 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMIM'ISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Brauner None Cistulli Edwards Kindig Norberg Pierce Stivers CALL TO ORDER 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 p.m., Chairman Kindig presiding. ROLL CALL All members answered the Secretary's roll call. MINUTES __ The minutes of the regular meeting of June 28, the adjourned Meeting and the study meeting of July 12, 1965, were approved and adopted., HEARINGS Hearings, pursuant to public notice, were conducted as follows: 1. FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE 441 CHATHAM ROAD APPROVED. A letter dated July 6, 1965, from James J. O'Brien, 441 Chatham Road, (Lot 13, Block 7, Oak Grove Manor) requested permission to construct a fence 7-1/2 feet high - 1-1/2 feet above the permitted maximum - on the rear property line, abutting the Burlingame High School parking lot. The letter explained that the section of the school parking area lying along the rear fences of the private properties is unpaved, creating a dirt and dust nuisance. It is hoped that the higher fence will help to control this condition and, by providing greater privacy, eliminate other probtans which exist during the school term. Penciled sketches filed by the applicant indicated the design of the fence and its location in relation to the parking area. Chairman Kindig recognized Mrs, O'Brien who stated that the total height .will measure 7-1/2 feet, 1-1/2 feet of decorative design atop solid !boards six feet high. 1'11 reply to Commission inquiry, Mrs. O'Brien confirmed that the fence jai ll be consE:ruc::ed so that there will be no encroachment nor overhang on the school property. Mrs, WBrien stated also that the trees on the property twill remain but will be trimmed to accommodate to the higher fence The City Planner stated that the situation is somewhat unusual inasmuch as the owners of the properties next to the school grounds must apply for a ,)variance to exceed the maximum height but the code excepts schools and playgrounds; if the school district so desired, it would have the legal right to construct a fence higher than six feet. Fie stated further that because of the location the proposed fence should not be harmful to neighboring properties nor create a hazard. There were no comments from the floor in favor of or protesting, nor com- munications filed. Commenting that he has visited the property and believes the request is justified, Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion approving a variance for a fence 7-1/2 feet in height; on the rear property line at 441 Chatham Road, with any addition to be confined within the owner's property. Motion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and carried unanimously on roll call. 2. VARIANCE TO CONVERT CARACE TO RUMPUS ROOM 2008 EASTON DRIVE (continued) An application filed by Marguerite Welch, 2008 Easton Drive (Lot 23, Block 44, Easton Addition No. 3) requested a variance to convert an exist- ing one -car garage structure to a rumpus room. In a letter dated July 7, 1965, the applicant explained that due to family circumstances it became necessary to do considerable repair work and remodeling of a detached garage at the rear of the -property to provide a storage area and family room; despite the extensive remodeling, at no time was the original overall frame of the garage increased or decreased nor anything installed to pmvent containment of a car as originally intended. Additionally, the original aluminum overhanging garage door was left intact. The communication stated further that the garage is 13 feet by 17 feet, too small for late model cars, excepting the compact or sports -car models; however, a large circular driveway, within the property at the front of the dwelling, will accommodate several cars. A penciled sketch indicating the location of the circular driveway, the main building and the garage was filed. Chairman Kindig invited comments from the audience. Mir, Reinold J. Jones, 1907 Easton Drive, stated that he is familiar with the construction completed thus far, which, in his opinion, improves rather than detracts from the overall appearance of the property. lie stated that since the garage has not been used by Airs. Welch for automobile parking she is not proposing to discontinue a previously existing use. Chairman Kindig referred to code :requirements for garage or carport parking for every residential property, explaining that the Commission recognizes that a property without legal parking facilities ma-y create problems in the event of zt change in ownership, TvIrs. Ae'3. Ross, 1209 Drake Avenue, stated that it is not uncommon in the neighborhood for the garages, many built years ago and inadequate by -yesent —day standards, to -remain vinused and the automobiles to be parked in the a-oen F -2- r The City Planner recited regulations pertinent to residential parking, -,noting that the minimum for garages or carports for single-family )dwellings is 10 feet by 20 feet the space remaining in Airs. 19elch°s �._ garage does not conform. Referring to the matter of the rumpus room, the City Planner stated that such uses, when located in garages or accessory buildings, require a special permit whereby the city shall have a record of the use and be in position to exercise some control. The City Planner stated that Mrs. Welch was granted a building permit to install siding on the exterior of the garage, all of the remaining work, including remodeling the interior, was done without: a permit. He stated that the project was halted by the Building Inspector and Airs. Welch subsequently informed concerning the variance procedure, since apparently it was her intent to discontinue the garage use, and the requirements of a special permit for the rumpus room. In a period of discussion, Mrs. Welch stated that she would be willing to consider a carport in the area directly in front of the present garage structures Following a statement from the City Planner that certain measurements must be made as there was some question whether a carport could be supported without carrying the structure to the property lines Chairman Kindig suggested to Mrs. Welch that she should confer with the City Building Inspector. ,'The majority of Commissioners indicatingthey were agreeable to a continu- ance to allow the applicant an opportunity to resolve the carport issue, on a motion introduced by Commissioner Brauner, regularly seconded and carried, the hearing was declared continued to the Commission meeting August 9,196S. 3. VARIANCE FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN R-3 ZONE (continued). An application filed by Lee-J. and Marjorie H. Aaronian, 3387 Countryside Drive, San Mateo, requested a variance to construct a one-story office building in a third residential district at 1317 Bayswater Avenue (Lots SA and 5B, Block 3, Town of Burlingame Subdivision). The applicant's Statement of Justification, dated July 2., 1965, a General Information statement prepared by Richard Rosek Associates, Designers, and a rendering of the proposed improvement were filed. When the rendering was presented to the Commission, Commissioner Norberg noted that it was identical to the drawing reviewed at the study meeting and questioned Mr. Aaronian concerning revisions in the roof line from the flat type to pitched, which was agreed upon at the study meeting. My. Aaronian stated that it is his intention to co;ziply with all of the req4.jrements of the Commission and the final working drawings will be prepared accordingly,. Commissioner Ki.ndig invited comments from the audience. Mr. Ui S. Sintends, 34 Park Road, Burlingame, following examination of the drawing, stated that he had no objection to the proposed use. -5- vi Mr. Aaronian discussed the underground parking area, stating that there dill be ample area for maneuvering so that the cars will drive out rather than back on to the street. In reply to Commissioner Cistulli, the City Planner stated for the size building proposed ,- 2300 square feet- seven on -site parking spaces are required. The drawing indicated the correct number of spaces, The City Planner reviewed facts pertinent to the application, noting that the block, on the south side of Bayswater Avenue, contains six lots three of the lots beginning at Park Road are zoned Cml, the others are R- 3; the split zoning has existed for many years. lie stated that gradual changes have taken place with the result that presently of the three lots which are commercial, one is a residence, the other two, commercially used; of the three lots zoned R-3, two are commercial, one a residence. In effect, the block has been commercial for some time. The City Planner stated that Mr. Aaronian has operated a beauty shop in the existing building for some time; it is practically surrounded by commercial use and, because of the character of the block, there is basis for the application of the variance. Commenting on the drawing and the garage area, the City Planner called attention to an opening from the basement garage, pointing out that this is actually the side setback and, since it is necessary that the fire department have access from the front to the rear, it would be necessary to cover the section with concrete. The City Planner suggested, since the plans which are approved become the basis for building permits and the other activities in the Building Department, that the applicant prepare a revised submittal, including all of the conditions discussed by the Commission. Air. Aaronian indicated that he was agreeable to the City Planner§ sug- gestion and would arrange to meet with him to discuss a new drawing, With the unanimous consent of Commissioners, the Chair thereupon declared the hearing continued to the meeting of August 23, 1965. 4. CODE AMENDMENT M-1 DISTRICT PROHIBITED USES, Chairman Kindig announced that this was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing to consider amending the Municipal Code by adding to Section 25.42.040, M-1 District Regulations, Prohibited Uses, a new paragraph, as follows: tic. Marinas, boat harbor facilities, or commercial recreation establishments based on water -oriented sports." Invited by the Chair to initiate the discussion, the City Planner stated that the matter is before the Commission at the direction of the City Council since Council has taken the position that it may be in the best interests of the city to prohibit,, for a few years at least, any water - oriented commercial activities in the waterfront area,, He stated that the City Council feels that caution must be exercised to guard against the Regional Water Pollution. Control Board imposing even stricter regu- lations against the city,, -4- I' `J The City Planner stated that on numerous occasions the Regional Board has complained that the city's sewage disposal plant is polluting the bay, thereby creating a serious nuisance to the recreation area at Coyote Point, Consequently, the City Planer continued, if the city were to invite water -oriented activities, the Board may find there is no longer a nuisance but a health problem, which could become a very serious matter, Commissioner Brauner questioned the need for amending the code, com- menting that the reference to "water sports activities" could be omitted from the code entirely and the city adopt a policy in opposition to such activities until the situation improves. There were no comments from the audience in favor of or protesting the proposed amendment, nor communications filed. The hearing was declared closed. On a motion introduced by Commissioner Edwards, seconded by Commissioner Brauner-and unanimously carried on roll call, the City Attorney and City Planner were directed to prepare and submit to the Commission material whereby the Commission shall recommend, to the City Council an amendment to Mal District Regulations, Prohibited Uses. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 9:40 p,m., to Monday, August 9, 1965, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John J. Brauner Secretary _Sa I v --- a-�