Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1960.01.11% tip CITY OF BURLINGAME PIANNING COMMISSION COPWiISSIOI��RS PRES III Died.eric'n sen i' sore Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER COMMISSIOrIERS ABS 11' January 11s 1960 OTHERS PR !,SE.NT City A tter ie-y Karmal. Ci 4y Er* % .,_nti`~..er Many, tcY o . � f''2`3 . Vic^ _q.r:,. An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held oil the above date. Meeting ealled to order at 8;05 p„m. - Chairman Kindig presiding. Chairman Kindig announced talat this was an ad journesd meeting from a special meeting held on December 18, 1959, and alsp from the regular meeting; of December 28, 1959 - the first order of busbness to be a. determination in the Utter of the applications of E.Eugene Umland and Herton A. Yolles for a variance to exceed buildiy; -.eight limita- tions on property at Are Way and El Camino meal. Chairman Kindig, stated that the public hearing and presentation of evidence were concluded at the meeting of December 18, 1959, 'that no new evidence is to be submitted on this occasion, that, the Coaril.ssion will re -view material of record and, by formal vote, arrive. at a de- 01sloil. Chal man Kindig requested the indulgence of those in attendance and thereupon invited discussion from members of the Commission,, Commissioner Diederichsen requested clarification of two Issues; (1) Does the Chair intend to vote on the initial roll call or will I e vote only in the event of a tie; (2) Will Commissioner Martin, who was absent from the hearing of December 18, 19590 be permitted to vote a-c this time In reply the Chair ruled. (1) That the past procedure of the Commission, whereby the Chairman has acted and voted as any other member, will be followed in the present instance; (2) On the basis that the hearing of December 18, 1959, was a new hearing, wherein new evidence was sub- mitted, Commissioner Martins absence from said hearing disqualifies him from voting. Commissioner Martin thereupon challenged the validity of the Chair°s ruling on the second point and appealed same on the grounds that a member°s voting rights may not be denied except by a vote of the en- tire Commission. A roll call vote on whether the Chair®s ruling should be upheld was re. corded as follows: AYES COMMIS SIONi,RS : Henderson, Kindigm Stivers NO E�'S : COMMISSION -,MS: : Di,eczerichsen, Martin. Moore, Norberg Chairman Ki ldig declared that at the pleasure of the3 Commissions all members would be entit?ed to vote, Fartin ad i S 11 �10 a-�. a�f�. ` ,,-'KolT- �ed.tht it was d�a'�. ��::E,�� vv�t- 3� r=s no . 'I ° .gat n �)clnt clarificatiar; made !,, attex- Commi.ssicner I3orberg expressed the opinion that the 10 story buil.0 'L.". g proposed by the applicants would be an asset to the city in many clays and that there was little area for comparison between this Gull(ling and the type of construction which would be permitted under the ordinance. Commissioner Henderson explained his position in opposition on the basis that there has been no showing of hardship and the applicant has not met the necessa77 requirements to justify a variance grant. Commissioner Norberg maintained that Are Way as a narrow congested street, poses a definite hardship in the development of the applicant's properties. Commissioner Diederichsen commented that there have been occasions in t °,e past when. the Planning Commission has been placed in. the Dosition of making controversial decisions but in each insta-ftce the basis for decisions has been the welfare of the community and an aw,aranass of the need o progress. Chairman K indig requested further comments and, there being nortC rl i na- dicated that a motion to determine the issue would be in order, Commissioner Henderson thereupon introduced a motion that the applica. tion for a variance be denied. Motion seconded by Commissioner otivers -Upon the following roll call, a tie vote was declared: AY S : COMMISSIOIL06 : Henderson, Kihdig, Stivers NOES: COMMISSION_1RS: .Diederichsen, Moore, Norberg ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS: Mlarti.n In reply to Chairman Kindiges request to the City Attorney for suggested procedure. the Commission was advised that until a variance is passed, the property is subject to established height limitations. The City Attorney stated th-at alternate decisions have been prepare. - to grant or to deny - also the resolution adopting the final decision... It would appear, they-6fore, that proper procedure would require introduction and adoption of the resolution, The U„ty Aittorfiey advised further that in the event the resolution should fail to pass, the matter would be concluded because the Commission_ would have taketi no action. However, in view of the privilege of appeal,, pro- vided by law, which may be on an individual basis or by the City Coullell on its own motion, should it see fit to so doe the Commission should order some official notification to the Council of what has trsAspil"ed, -2 Commissioner hOnderson introduced "A RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN DECISION OF THE PLAT NLIG COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZILNG ITS EXECUTION BY THE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY" and moved its passage. Motion. seconded by Commissioner Stivers. (At the request of Commissioner Diederichsen, the Resolution was read in full.) Commissioner hartin, entering the discussion for the first time questioned whether anything further would be determined by a second vote than had already been determined by the tie vote, already re- corded (on the motion to deny the variance) and was ad visod. k;'Y i tjr Attorney that a tie vote on the Resolution would leave ef'fec'+" D-U would provide a deans of certifying the Commlaslor:.Oe action to the City Counoil. There was a period of considerable debate on the maths of proueed� ing on the basis of the Resolution with Commissioners Diederiohsen, Mmartin and Norberg protesting that the action was unnecessa:cy anl without precedent in Commission procedures. The above stated motion to adopt the Resolution was withdrawn by Commissioner Henderson, In reply to Chairman Kindig°s inquiry concerning the end result should the hearing be declared concluded on the basis of the tie vote, the City Attorney stated that the applicant has been denied his request in that the varsanc© was not granted, leaving to him the right of 1appea.l to the City Cotuicil. Commissioner Diederich sen moved that the matter be referred to the City Council with the explanation that the Planning Commission by virtue of a tie vote was unable to resolve the iBsue3. Fiiotion seconded by Commissioner Norberg and carried by unanimous roll call vote of six members - Commissioner Martins abstaining. Chairman Kindig reminded the applicant of his right; of appeal to the City Council, the appeal to be filed by January 19, 1960. The hearing Was thereafter declared concluded. 2. SPECIAL P,RI-TIT - E.EPhillips. Retail Dumber Yard (Old BayshoreL. Chairman Kindig announced the second order of business a a public hearing on an application for a use permit for a retail lumber yard, submitted by Elmo E. Phillips, continued to this date from the meet- ing of December 28, 1959. The Planning Consultant, at the request of Chairman Kindig, summarized the background of the application, -recalling that the Commission has bear advised by Mr. Phillips that he holds an option to purchase the Harteg property on the Old Bayshore Highway, a part of which is presently occupied by the Holland Boat Works. Mr. Phillips intends to operate a lumber yard at the rear of the boat works and will con- struct a driveway from the Highway. Mr. Phillips was requested to prepare material describing his intended use of the land, Chairman Kindig recognized Mr. Phillips in attendanc:e.who submitted a -3- plot plan of the lumber yard, also a drawing of the boundaries of the -�� entire property. Chairman Kindig recognized C.J. McMillan, attorney, representing Myatt House, who advised that his client, because of the proximity of lo- cation, was particularly interested in the frontage appearance of the properties along the easterly side of the Bayshore Highway. Mr. Phillips advised that the lumber yard will be approximately 245 feet back from the hizz'iway and. will be enclosed by a zerc:-: s3 .`i:i_gh„ Mr. Fh l.:. Lp y g irt. ':?`tr .b to Cji, of . tlon:l ng from the Cfim-miss o't7.. st.—k -.c. s l:Yl� t• Z i.Fay Will be iGcated OI2 ;.12fl 'highway., }�.ais c, f,flrL._. + ilJ F )o coustri-iotF d along the highway frontage from the ent- ante v; ;p so%T;t:h. i, > the property Limits ; that bay piling, as Indicated tin the blot plan, w:a.11 not exceed 20 feet in height; that he does not operate a sawmill and there is no problem connected with sawdust disposal.. Chairman Kindig invited comments from the floor. Mr. George Keyston, Jr., a partner in the firm of Keyston & Company, owners of a large commercial building on the westerly side of Bayshore Highway, requested the Commission to exercise rigid controls so that uses proposed for the area will not prove a detriment nor harmful to neighboring developments. In reply to suggestions from the Planning Consultant concerning land - soaping. alon6 the Highway, Mr. Phillips agreed to „ocate the fence sr that there Tgould be an open area along the front, for shrublt-ary. The Planning Consultant referred to the boat works and advised that some effort should be glade to clean out the debris. The Fire Depart- ment hae a_=)r-ased reluctance to clear Mr. Phillips operation until fire hazards are removed from the area occupied by Mr, Hartog,, Following further discussion, in which Mr. Phillips declared h°,_a in-, tention to present as attractive a frontage as practical along the Highway, a MOTION was introduced by Commissioner Martin approving the use permit, conditional upon the following: (1) The lumber yard use to be confined to the area outlined in brown on the map which was submitted as a part of the application, said area lying 245 feet dis- tant from the Bayshore '1Iighway; (2) The remainder of the area being sided in brown, having a measurement of 35 ft x 245 ft to be used for driveway purposes only, paving on said driveway to be "armor coat'; ;. (3) The lumber yard area to be enclosed with an, 8 foot picket Fence of 3 inch pickets; (4) The bay piling proposed on the south side of the lumber yard not to exceed 20 feet in height; (f;) The Bayshore frontage, with the exception of the driveway and the Holland goat works, to be fenced with a 6 foot painted, solid wood fence, said fencing for a distance of approximately 160 feet to be placed as far back from the Highway as reasonably possible to provide an area between the pave- ment and the fence for suitable landscaping; (6) A shed located south of nxe driveway to be demolished and the debris removed; (7) jA4% �drawings of the entrance way and the fence along theBayshore�, ag7 to be submitted to the Commission for final approval.. Motion above stated, seconded by Commissioner Biederichsen and carried unanimously on roll call vote of members. -4- Chairman Kindig advised Nir�'. gnil'! ips that he must return to the Commission for final approv.�X, before proceeding with the fence and the entrance way constructions The hearing was thereafter declared concluded. A DJOURNN ';NT There being no further business,, the meeting was regularly adjourned at 10 :10 p.m. ST UD`4 MEETIIG Tl,.e study meeting regularly scheduled for this dice was ©aped to'.order at 10:25 p.m,, o Chairman Kindig presiding, to FINAL PAP EL &UUANITO ACRES NO 2 2 . mhe final map of El Quanit© Acres No. 2 was submitted to the Commission for study by Mr. Arata, engineer representing the developers, who ad- vised that there were no changes from the previously approved tentative map,, The City Engineer and the Planning Consultant indicating, no comment, the matter was scheduled .for formal consideration at the next regular meeting, January 25, 1960. 2. _c:l'uC SAL PERMIT d Mr. Jean Mourraille. Commercial parking lot south- east corner Primrose Road and Donnell, Avenue. An application foruse permit was submitted by Mr. Jean Mourraille fora commerci�11� property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Primrose Road. and Donnelly Avenue. A letter dated January 8, 1960, was read from the applicant advising of his willingness to provide legal fencing, to maintain the lot surfacing In good repair, to install paiInted bumpers. The letter advised further that in lieu of a full-time attendant, coin collecting machines will be installed, which will be checked at intervals. Arrangements for sani- tary facilities for the checker have been made with a near -by business house. The Planning Consultant referred to a previous application which re- quested a use permit for a parking lot on the same prope rty,which was denied by the Commission when the applicant failed to meet the City°s requirements, In the present instance, the Planning Consultant noted, Per. Mourraille is aware that certain conditions must be met, Mr. I4lourraille was in attendance and submitted a plot.plan for Com- mission review. He advised that 56 parking spaces will be provided, that entrance and exit will be from Donnelly Avenue only, and that present plans do not provide for night parking - the lot will close at 5:30 P.m,. The public hearing was scheduled for the next regular meeting,, January 25, 1960. Mr. Moutraille advised that it was possible he would be out of town but his representative, Mr. Clarke, would be in attendanco . If anything controversial should arise, biro :3ourra llle stated, he ,f!ou1d prefer that the hearing be continu8d until his rett.zrn. fl . REQUEST FOR REZONING ARi7I3DEL ROAD BH`I'WEErb HOWARD & BURLXAiGATir: 3VEF,iU�,S. .airs. Marie Haff, owner of property located at 225 Arundel Road., advised that she was interested in a zoning change from first residential to third residential on ;he west side of Arundel Road. betv,een 110-Kard axad Burlingame -Avenues, Said. properties back up. to t'-1kn a�^ � =-� � -)-i Anita Road i.Y: De :, r _ ✓he douse o-a e __ o . .:. , . ;4^ ?C;E's .`s,it'. eel 1.?� economically s:rt:C?:s.?�_`•_�� i Z'. E z� e._. zr-?modal..`ing nor would it appear w_:,e to e? )_ vJ h cE. ?�£ LS .' r .:i?_ fc? ! . s C we1`� r1a " :rlE: w C; -si ' _WS r . � s„ y . E a .G , 6 S: . directly in the tea:°: La ��E:j l to quesulono -I`r M the Comm���r;l.c: nrs. Haff stated that she lad approached other oxna a €,_?. 16�:-n nd. had not meet with any opposition., The Planning Consultant stated that at the request of the C%ormnission he had prepared a land use map of the block and It vTas his opinion that a change to R-•3 was not justified. Ile suggested t."Rat if any change were to be made, R.42 might be considered. Mrs, Haff was adv:i.sed. by Chairman. Kindig that the Commission on many occasions has expressed Itself in opposition to rezoning f'rora R-1 to R-3. 4. 1 TO ORD1r1-Wi.NCE CODE PROPOSED. ;The t lanni:ag Colasultant advised that progress is being made In the pro- paration of the material related to the ordinanoe code amendments, which have been scheduled for public hearing at the January 252 1960 raeet.9.rg. AD,TO TRNNI-7iW There being no further matters for discussion, the meeting was a(Journed at 10:55 p,m. Respectfully submitted, D.A .Stivers,, Secretary �60