Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1960.07.25/f F` CITY OF BURLINGAME ELMINING CCNMMISSION Jul' 25e 1960 � CMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Kindig Martin Moore Stivers CALL TO ORDER Diederichsen Norberg City Attorney Kammmel City Engineer Marr Plano Consultant Mann Council -man Lorenz Bldg, inspector Calwell A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date. Meeting called to order at 8:00 p.m.. Vice -Chairman Kindig presiding. Chairman Diederichsen having previously advised that he would be absent, was excused. Commissioner Norberg was excused because of illness. Minutes of the regular meeting of June 27 -1960, and adjourned regular meeting and study meeting of July lit 1966, having been previously sub- mitted to members of the Commission, were unanimously approved and adopted. HEARINGS Public hearings, pursuant to published notice, were held as follows: 1. RESUBDIVISION o'Portion Lots 7 and 9. Block 9„ Land An application proposing to resubdivide the property of W.E. Chambliss, described as portions of Lots 7 and 9. Block 9 Burlingame Land Company Subdivision, with frontages on Almer Road and Floribunda Avenue, having been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission at the study meeting of July 11, 1960, was scheduled for public hearing; on this date. The map of the proposed resubdivision, filed by the applicant with the City Engineer, was submitted to the Commission, Chairman Kindig recognized Mr. Chambliss who advised that the two lots adjoin at the rear property line. It is intended to construct a 16, unit apartment building on the Floribunda Avenue property. However, the lot is not deep enough and the resubdivision will move the common lot line at the rear approximately 30 feet in a southerly direction. Mr. Chambliss stated that this will provide the required footage but will not jeopardize the Almer Road property. Chairman Kindig invited comments from the floor. In reply to an inquiry, concerning the height of the proposed building, Mr. , o it Morris Daley Company, General Contractors, speaking in behalf of Mr. Chambliss, stated that there will be two stories above ground and an underground or basement parking area. There were no further comet -eats from the floor. Chai man Kindig questioned Mr. Chambliss concerning the effect of the resubdivision on neighboring properties, pointing out that the building would extend into what is presently open area for the lots which front on Almer Road. Chairman Kindig mentioned particularly the property to the south of Mr. Chambliss° s lot.. Mr, Chambliss replied that the lots on either side are not as deep and he did not feel that the building would affect the properties. In ad- dition, the property to the south has been converted to apartment use the rear yard being used for parking. Commissioner Martin noted that the rear lot line of all of the properties in the block is continuous. Mr. Chambliss's proposal will disturb this pattern and possibly lead to further requests to "zig-Gag" the line, thereby nullifying the purpose of the laws establishing setbacks. The Planning Consultant in reply to the Chair, stated that the resub- division is legal, the dots have ample area, and the line change is "quite usual for this apartment house area". The City Engineer concurred that the resubdivision proposes a legal lot and advised that the engineering detail has been verified. There being no further comments, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli that the resubdivision be denied. Commissioner Stivers stated that he felt the proposal was not in the interests of good planning but since the Planning Consultant and the City Engineer declared it a legal resubdivision perhaps the City Attorney should render an opinion. The City Attorney referred to Division 15, City Ordinance Code "Subdivision Of Less Than Five Lots" and noted that under Section 1984 certain requirements are listed as a guide to the Commission in consider- ing resubdivision applications. Among these is "fitness of the plan to surrounding properties. The City Attorney declared that should the Commission find that staggering the common lot line is not suitable there may be sufficient grounds to deny the application. The motion above stated was thereafter seconded b,Y Commissioner Stivers, and unanimously carried on roll call vote of members present. The City Attorney advised that the law provides that upon rejection by the Planning Commission, a resubdivision request is automatically referred to the City Council for final decision. The Chair advised Mr. Chambliss that the necessarY procedure would be followed to place the matter before the City Council at its next regular meeting., The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. 2. VARIANCE - Standard Oil Company of California„ To build within A public hearing was held on an application for a variance filed by »2.Q% Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc., requesting. permission to construct a fuel pump island within the 20 foot setback on El Camino Real, in connection with remodeling of the existing service station on the southeasterly corner of Burlingame Avenue and El Camino Rea: " A sketch accompanied the application describing the station and the pro- posed reconstruction. A letter from the applicant dated June 14, 1960, was read advising that it is planned to revamp the existing building and completely reconstruct the pump island and canopies. The communication stated that due to the size and shape of the property it is difficult to place the station facilities to best serve the public without some encroachment into the setback along the El Camino frontage. A second letter from the applicant dated July 20,, 1960, written subsequent to the discussion at the Commission study meeting; of July 11, 1960, stated that the proposed layout, which includes construction of a second driveway for ingress and egress on E1 Camino, would appear to be a safer and easier arrangement for handling traffic than the present method of sending customers on to Burlingame Avenue for return to the 1,14ighway, The communication stated that in the interests of maximum safety, the large eucalyptus tree on El Camino should be removed. The communication further agreed that all cost and expenses in connection with removal of the proposed improvements from the setback area (at such time that said area may be required for highway widening) would be assumed by the appli- cant. Mr. D.C. Meckfessel and Mr. A. Amadeo were in attendance representing the applicant. In reply to the Chair, Mr. Meckfessel: advised that all of the reconstruction and additions are included in the plan before the Com- mission. The Chair invited comments from the floor. There: being none, Commission- ers were requested to comment. Commissioner Martin stated that -she had no objection to the variance to pqrmit construction within the setback. However, the proposed driveway at the north end of the property was hazardous and.should be eliminated. Mr. Amadeo advised that he is aware from personal. experience, having been assigned to the station for a number of years, that customers prefer to drive out over the curb on to El Camino, at the point where the new driveway is proposed.. rather than drive into the two lanes of traffic on Burlingame Avenue to reach the highway. Mention was made of the suggestion to remove the eucalyptus tree. Mem- bers indicated disapproval and agreed that this was a matter within the interests of the City Park Commission. Mr: Meckfessel stated that they would like to remove the tree but were more or less prepared for refusal. Mr. Meckfessel pointed out that the plan on file with the Commission indicates the tree remaining in place. There being no further discussion, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Moore that the variance be granted -in accordance with the application and the map dated January 1.3, 1956, and including the conditions outlined - r. in the appl.icant'1s letter dated June 14, 1960. ,Above motion lost for lack of a second. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Martin to grant the variance in accordance with the application on file and the map "S-361, as revised 1-13-56"9 with the exception that the 30 foot approach from E1 Camino, as shown on said map and labeled "New Approach" be eliminated. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roll call vote of members present. Chairman Kindig advised the applicant of the right of appeal to the City Council. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. 3. VARIA14CE - David G. Cummings. Less than legal side setbacks 17 El Quanito Wa 1. An application for a variance to legalize a side setback of 2°7" on property described as Lot 99 E1 Quanito Acres Subdivision and known as 17 El Quanito Way filed by the property owner, David G. 6ummings, was scheduled for pubic hearing at this time. A letter dated July 11, 1960, was read from the applicant advising that at the time of the purchase in June, 1958, the property was represented as complying with all local zoning requirements. Subsequently, when the adjacent lot was improved, it became evident that the side setback on the easterly or garage side of the property was less than the required 4 feet. The letter further advised that it has become necessary to sell J the property because of business relocation. However, the illegal set- back prevents a clear transfer of title. Chairman Kindig recognized Mr. Cummings and invited his comments. Mr. Cummings described the condition briefly, explaining that at the rear of the house, on the garage side, there is a space of approximately 2tr between the property line and the building. The line is on an angle so that at the front, the setback is legal. Chairman Kindig asked for discussion from the floor. Mr. Ralph Glasson, 21 El Quanito Way, identified himself as owner of Lot li, two lots distant from Mr. Cummings's property. Mr. Glasson stated that he was in sympathy with Mr. Cummings, whom he felt was in- volved in an unfortunate situation not of his own making. Mr. Glasson urged that the Commission approve the variance. The Chair recognized Mr. David Nicolaides, General Contractor, who ad. vised that he had built the Cummings home. He stated that the building was located on the lot according to the engineerAs stakes. The Planning Consultant, in reply to the Chair expressed the opinion that a variance was not the proper solution. +he hardship was self- induced when the property lines were not definitely established prior to construction. The Planning Consultant stated that the house on the ad- jacent lot is also in violation along the side line. He stated that he had discussed this with the owner of the property, Mr. Franklin Knock, and had suggested to him, since there was sufficient distance between the buildings that a resubdivision map be prepared establishing a new property line. 4- The Planning Consultant submitted a letter written by Mr. Knock, under date of July 22, 1960, advising that he was agreeable to shifting the existing property line provided that all expenses in connection with surveys, and recording of data necessary to provide a clear title record,. be the responsibility of the builders. A sketch of the proposed resubdivision was submitted to the Commission. Mr. Cummings, in reply to the Chaim stated that the proposed resubdivision was not acceptable unless he were to be reimbursed for the legal expenses incurred during the past 13 months while endeavoring to solve the problem. Mir. Cummings advised that if he were not assured that he will be reimbursed for these expenses, he will not agree to anything other than the variance for which application was made. In a general discussion,, reference was made to the fact that the house on Lot 10 is in violation of the front setback requirement as well as the side setback which abuts the Cummings property. Co.-missioners.expressed considerable concern over the negligence on the part of building contrac- tors in connection with setback requirements as evidenced by the number of variance applications processed by the Commission in the past two to three years. Commissioner Martin stated that he felt Per. Cummings was being penalized because of an error on the part of the builder and that he was entitled to the variance. Commissioner Martin introduced a motion that the variance be approved to legalize the side setback on the southeasterly side of the lot of 2' 7", at the rear corner of the garage. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roll can vote of members present. Commissioners acknowledged Mr. Nicolaides's cooperation in attending the hearing. The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. COMMUNICATIONS 1. City Clerk re: Street Improveemments. R.P. Etienne Prooertl. A letter dated July 22, 1960, was acknowledged from the Office of the City Clerk transmitting communications from the City Manager, and from Harry Lee and Meade Mohun, M.D. owners of industrial property within the Rollins Road and North Caroian Avenue area, concerning certain street improvements to be made by R.P. Etienne on property located on Rollins Road The Planning Consultant, in reply to the Chair recalled that a few. years ago Mr. Etienne appeared before -the Commission with a tentative map of a proposed subdivision of his property, said map included con- struction of a street to give access to Rollins Road. However, the development did not. materialize and the project did not progress beyond the tentative map stage. The Planning Consultant stated that the City cannot force Mr. Etienne to improve the property. However, if and when he does subdivide, the must install the necessary public improvements. -5- The file was- accepted for consideration at such time that a final sub- division map should be submitted by Asir. Etienne. ADJOURWENT Prior to adjournment, Commissioners Cistulli and Stivers advised that they would be -on vacation and unable to be present at 'the study meeting of August S. 1960. The meeting was thereafter regularly adjourned at 9.45 p.m. Respectfully submitted,, D.A. Stivers, Secretary [1 .A -6