Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1967.04.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 1967 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Brauner None City Attorney Karmel Cistulli City Planner Mann Edwards City Engineer Marr Kindig Councilman Johnson Mink- Norberg Pierce CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Pierce presiding, ACKNOWLEDGMENT Chairman Pierce welcomed Vice Mayor Charlotte Johnson, recently named ex-officio member of the Planning Commission. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE A communication dated April 24, 1967 from the law offices of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson € Horn, signed by Robert J. MacDonald, requested that consideration of the Tentative Map of dills Estate No, 27 be delayed for one month to the next regular meeting. The City Planner reported that as the result of a petition by the sub- dividers for a rehearing before the City Council on the reap and the conditions attached thereto by the Council, the natter has been referred to the Commission for study and recommendation. There was an inquiry from the floor by Mr, Thomas Marshall, 2715 Martinez Drive, whether the public will be permitted to be heard when the maxi is considered. Tho City Attorney explained that where maps are concerned, either tenta- tive or final, there is not a requirement for public hearing; however, in the past., the public has never been denied the right to be heard and it would be unlikely that persons in the neighborhood would not have the opportunity to express their views when the matter is before the City Council for final dater= F nation With Commissioners concurring, Chairman Fierce declared a continuance to the regular m,aeting of May 22, 1.967. ROLL CALL The Smcr&?t.rrv*s roll call recorded all merbers. present MINUTES The minutes of the meetings of March 27 and April. 10, 1967D prey;ions ly sLiba-itterF� to miembess, �-ere approved xno adopted. HEARINGS i )Hearings, pursuant to public notice, proceeded as follows: 1. RESUBDIVISIOR GUITTARD ROAD. A Tentative Parcel Map, being a resubdivision of Parcels tPA" and "E" of Lot.2, Block I., Millsdale Industrial Parr Unit No. 1, prepared by Wilsey % Ham for the owner, Guittard Chocolate Company, was reviewed at the study meeting and scheduled for hearing at this time, The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, explained that there is involved a portion of the holdings of Guittard Chocolate Company and it is pro- posed to add an additional area to Parcel 19E" by relocating the rear property line in a northerly direction for the purpose of enlarging an existing building. He advised that during a discussion with Mr. Guittard it was determined that off-street parking is sufficient for the existing uses. Mr. Clyde Cabrina of Wilsey F Ham was in attendance representing ,the applicant. There were no comments from the audience favoring or protesting the appli- cation. Following an indication from the City Engineer that the map was in order, a motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner Brauner and unanimously carried on roll call approving the resubdivision An accordance with the map on file. 2. RESUBDIVI:SI:ON _MAHLER AND GILBRETH ROADS. A resubdivision map of Lots 15, 16 $ 17, Block 6, East Millsdale Industrial Park Unit No. 2, prepared by Charles E. Randlett, Civil Engineer, for the owners, V . F. and Florence Batton, was reviewed at the study meeting and scheduled for hearing at this time. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, reported that the property presently consists of three unimproved lots, two facing on Gilbreth Road and one on Mahler Road; the proposal is to combine to create two parcels. The City Engineer reported that there are no problems in the property as the owners have apparently resolved the matter of a substitute easement with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. There were no comments from the audience favoring or protesting the appli- cation. In -response to they City Engineer's comments that the original had not been received for signature, the applicant's representative promised delivery the following days A motion introduced by Commissioner gindig, seconded by Commissioner Miuk and unanimouly' carried a --proved the. re_--ubdivision, -2- 3. RES� UBDIVISION LOYOLA DRIVE DENIED, Chairman Pierce announced a continued hearing from the meeting of, March 27, 1967 on the application of Mr. Venice Howell for a resub- division of Lot 53, Block 36 Mills Estate No. 13. Drawings prepared by Mr. Howell the -property could accommodate with the resubdivision map. to show the type of dwellings which were furnished Commissioners along At the Chair*s request, the City Planner gave a brief resume of the subject, explaining that the property consists of a single parcel fronting Loyola Drive which the applicant/owner desires to divide into three parcels, the depth of the parcels varying from 149 feet at the -northerly extremity to 184 feet at the south; the lots are ample in sizo exceeding by a considerable amount the minimum area require- ment cf 7000 square feet and conform to street frontage and average width standards. In reply to the Chair's inquiry whether other code requirements apply, in addition to those enumerated. the City Planner referred to code chapter 26.24 "Subdivision of Less Than Five Lots." section 26.24.040, quoting therefrom as follows: "The Commission shall make its decision upon such consideration as, but not limited to, the following: recommendations of the city engineer, general character cf the neighborhood, fitness of plan to surrounding properties, accessibility by safety services, traffic needs." In reply to the Chair's further inquiry concerning regulations on land development relating to steepness, the City Planner replied that none exist in this city; however. the County of San Mateo recently included a new provision in its zoning code for lot sizes based upon zoning and topography requiring that lot sizes shall increase as steepness increases. Chairman Pierce recalled that the hearing was continued with the hope that Mr. Howell and neighboring owners in opposition to the plan would reach some form of compromise Mr. Howell informed the Commission that his position remains unchanged for the reason there are no variances involved and the resubdivision is legal, conforming to all code requirements, At the request of Chairman Pierce to comvwnt on potential difficulties in construction., the City Engineer reported that none existed in his opinion, so long as there is proper engineering; he referred to hill- side developments in the City of Berkeley and in Marin County on land considerably steeper than the subject property, Tha City Engineer reported that existing drainage facilities presumed a single dot improvement; anything greater will certainly require rearrangement of the drainage, which Mr. Howell has indicated will be completed. There were no comments from the audience in favors of the application. Opponents were invited to speakC -3- Mr. Nick Elchinoff, 1720 E1 Camino Real, Burlingame, attorney repre- senting a group of interested home owners submitted letters from individuals unable to appear personally. Referring to a. discussion at the prior meeting during which the City Attorney advised the Commission that no area of discretion in resub- division applications existed where all of the code requirements were met, citing "Roussey vs. City of Burlingame" as the leading case, Mr. Elchinoff maintained that because of the lapse of time and sub- sequent code revisions the case no longer applied. Mr. Elchinoff "'referred to code standards applicable to less than five lot subdivisions, quoted earlier in the meeting by the City Planner,and stated that the salient deficiencies in the proposal are unfitness of plan to surrounding properties and to the general character of the neighborhood; he pointed out that the applicant plans three 6S feet wide Dots - the lot pattern in the general area was designed to give broad street frontage; the lots average 75 to 80 feet in width. Communications were read from: Constant and Theresa Cassou, 1942 Loyola Drive; C.J. Slickman, 1816 Montecito Way; Mr. and Mrs. V.C. Benedict, 1838 Loyola Drive; T.J.S. and Amy N. Muirhead, 1808 Montecito Way; Mrs. James F. Inch, 1830 Loyola Drive protesting on the grounds that the narrower lots will not permit improvements compatible with surrounding properties. Comments from the floor were heard in opposition from: Mr, and Mrs. W.F. McCann, 2601 Frontera Way; their property has probably one of the largest boundaries to the subject property; the home was purchased on the premise that the subject property was a single lot and to be improved as such; excavating for three building sites will create a sheer cliff directly behind the fence at the rear of their property causing anxiety for theifare and safety of children in.the family; the resubdivisiof[ilst conform to the general character of the neighborhood. MT. William Caplan, 2701 Arguello Drive, President Mills Estate Improve- ment Association maintained that the applicant's proposal fails to meet the xequixement for "fitness of plan to surrounding properties;' he suggested consideration to a two -lot subdivision with the resultant lofts adapting more readily to the established lot pattern. Mr. Leslie A. Irvin, 1820 Montecito Way, owner of property above and to the side of the property, voiced opposition on the basis of the steepness of the land, small and shallow building sites and potential hazardous conditions to surrounding properties.resulting from the excavating; he also requested consideration to a two -lot subdivision. Mr. C.M. Nihanp 1812 Montecito Avenue referred to . recent newspaper articles relating slide damage to homes in the east bay caused by slope excavation and slippage; he stated that he is particularly con- cerned as his property lies at the top of the bank above the Howell lot. In reply to a series of questions directed by the City Engineer, Mr. Dowell advised that the general uniform slope is 2 to 1, that on the southerly side there is considerable rock, consequently, in that area there wall. be a minimum of excavation; -4— the buildings will be constructed on the slope, stepped up on the hill, and wherever there is excavation the main garage will will serve as a retaining wall. He stated there are no plans for changing the slope in any way nor disturbing the grades from the drainage bench at the topo The City Engineer, thereafter, reiterated his position that buildings properly constructed should create no problems. There were further comments from Mr. Irvin and Mr. Caplan concerning evidences of slippage on the property, Commissioner Brauner referred to comments that the resubdivision will result in lots smaller in size than existing lots in the surrounding area, requesting the City planner to comment. The City Planner advised that the pattern is generally 7S to 80 feet average front and, excepting the slopes, the depths are considerably less; area -wise the proposed -..lots compare favorably. The City Attorney, in reply to Commissioner Brauner, stated his position that the case of Roussey vs, the City of Burlingame, and subsequent actions, continue the law for the resubdivision of properties in cities. He pointed out that in addition to the lot size requirements there are other items to be considered; however, if the Commission does consider such items as a basis for denial there must be concretes evidence of their applicability, Chairman Pierce°s reference to a property on the northerly side of Loyola Drive, where building damage has resulted from land movement, initiated a period of discussion wherein Building Inspector Calwell, advising of his familiarity with the situation, reported that water from a spring on the property owned by Mr. Howell,running under the street, caused the foundation of the house to move, Mr. Howell advised that he was not aware of the presence of a spring, as such, and that the two concrete benches appeared to provide adequate drainage, Commissioner Cistulli inquired whether Mr. Howell would consider the two -lot subdivision with the latter replying in the negative, stating that as a professional architect and member of A.I.A. he was confident that the plan was workable and an acceptable and highly satisfactory use of the land, Commissioner Cistulli indicated his preference for no more than two lots. Commissioner Brauner stated that the Commission is concerned primarily with an application for resubdivision, that improvements plans are secondary and need not be considered by the Commission, that staff mem- bers have indicated that the resubdivision map is in order, with the City Attorney taking the position that the Commission has a duty to approve, Commissioner Kindig, agreeing that lot si-e requirements have been met and Mr. Howell undoubtedly is well -qualified to engineer the development, maintained that the Commission shall give consideration to the adequacy of buildable area and compatibility of improvements with those existing, _So Commissioner Mink agreed that the question of building sites should �\ not be ignored. ~~ Commissioner Norberg commented that.the plan conforms to code require- ments for lot sizes and questioned the relevancy of any other areas of argument. Commissioner Edwards indicated his preference to a two -lot subdivision. Chairman Pierce stated that the Commission is obligated to consider problems inherent in the land, particularly where there is a potential of damage to adjacent properties. A motion thereafter introduced by Commissioner Brauner to approve the resubdivision was seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared defeated on the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Norberg NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli, Edwards, Kindig, Mink, Pierce ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Alone The applicant was advised of his right of appeal to the City Council. 4, SIGN VARIANCE RECTOR <iCADILLAC DENIED. A communication dated March 20, 1967 from Ad Art, Emeryville, California, requested a variance from the sign ordinance for a free: -standing sign ,,with an overall height of 80 feet measured from ground level to be 'installed at the Rector Cadillac site, 1010 Cadillac flay. The communication stated that because of the location adjacent to the overpass adnd`the tree line bordering the freeway, a sign of the height proposed is the sole method of effective identification and advertising; that the sign is being designed by a registered civil engineer to assure compliance with all of the safety requirements and, in the applicants opinion, there will be no invasion of privacy to citizens within the surrounding are*. Mr. R. Ramsey of Ad Art posted a rendering of the sign and furnished Commissioners sign details and photographs taken from locations easterly of the freeway, on the freeway and on Broadway to substantiate the variance. Referring to the rendering, My. Ramsey advised that the sign will be located at the corner of the property adjacent to Bayshore Boulevard and Cadillac Way; a double face will shown the words "Rector" on one side, "Cadillac" on the other; he described structural details of the steel supporting column and mentioned a fountain to be installed at the base; the face of the sign to be 32 feet across, illuminated and revoltng- with no flashing components. The City Planner referred to and read from the section of the sign ordinance (22.20.010, sub -paragraph "g") requiring the Building Inspector to refer to the Planning Commission any application for a sign which, because of the method of illuminatingo may be considered "a detriment to surrounding properties or prevents the peaceful enjoyment of residantial uses.," In reply to Commission inquiry. the City Planner reported that the �6- subject property is zoned M-1, the acreage immediately adjoining, R-4, and on the opposite side of Broadway, C-2; the maximum code height is �y 20 feet for free-standing signs; the highest signs in the city at the present time are General Electric at 60 feet, which was constructed just prior to passage -of the sign ordinance, and the Hyatt House and Fiat Motors, each 54 feet, approved by variance. Mr.- Buddy Baer, representing the applicant, pointed out that the nearest residences are approximately two blocks distant; he referred to the illuminated.sign on the roof of the dells Fargo building, visible for great distances. Mr. Baer was informed of height and area limitations applicable to roof signs. Comments were .invited from the audience Mr. D.M. Tejixei.ra, 1601 Granada Drive, stated that the brightness of the drive-in theatres and the Wells Fargo building signs is discernible from his residence, a distance of approximately two miles; inasmuch as the lights are stationary there is somewhat less of a nuisance factor than in a rotating illuminated sign. He requested that the sign not be approved in the interests of neighboring resi- dential areas and community aesthetics. In reply to Commissioner Cistulli°s inquiry whether the applicant would consider a lesser height, representatives in attendance replied in the negative. During a period of Commission discussion, the matter of precedent was explored at some length; there were comments that approval may have the effect of encouraging other similar applications where denial may place the Commission in an undefensible position." Commissioner Kindig commented that the Commission has made every effort to cooperate with local business interests by approving height variances to give reasonable visibility above the natural obstructions in .the industrial areas, and that the proposed sign would rise considerably higher than any other sign in the city, Commissioner Kindig introduced a motion to deny the variance request; motion was seconded by Commissioner Mink and declared carried on six "aye"votes, Commissioner Edwards abstaining. The proponents were informed of the right of appeal to the City Council, So VARIANCE APPR0VED FOR FIREWORKS SALES IN FIRST RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, Chairman Pierce announced a. public hearing on the application for variance filed by Mr, David A. Keenum, 1849 Royal Avenue, San Mateo, to operate an outdoor stand for sale of fireworks from .Tune 2E through July 4, 1967, on vacant land at the northeast corner of Dwight Road and Peninsula Avenue - Zone A-L An undated communication from the applicant received in the Office of the City Planner on April 3, 1957 advised that permission has been granted by the owner with an agreement that the property shall not be damaged nor left in a littered condition. A letter dated April 20, 1967, was read from Alfred G, Lawson, - 7- r � 9 Dwight Road, directing the Commission's attention to the unsightly condition of the property, overgrown with weeds and used as a neighborhood trash disposal. Chairman Pierce recognized Mr. Keenum who advised that he was aware of other firework stands which are permitted to be maintained during the season in various places throughout the city but, to his knowledge, none have been located in the easterly section; for this reason, the site was selected, The City Planner enumerated service club and church -affiliated groups which have been permitted to operate such stands; he mentioned that the``lacations are all westerly of California Drive and in commercial districts. Comments from the audience were invited, Mr. G.L. F.er&ins, 23 Dwight Road protested the intrusion into a resi- dential area with the accompanying nuisances of lights and traffic. In reply to the City Engineer's comments concerning the unsightly condition of the property, referred to in the communication read earlier, Commissioner Cistulli and Building Inspector Calwell reported, from personal observation, that the lot is cleano Commissioner Brauner expressed concern over the possibility of setting a precedent. Commissioner.Mink.stated that youngsters will be attracted to the. area causing annoyance to the neighbors. Fire Inspector Howard Pearson reported that each year information is received from the Office of the State Fire Marshal of all applications received for firework sales in the city, that, to date, six to eight have been received and that in all instances, the persons concerned have been most cooperative. A motion introduced by Commissioner,Cistulli to approve the variance for the period stated by the applicant, with the understanding that the property shall be left in an orderly condition, and that sales shall cease nightly at 10:00 p.m., and a 20 jallon metal litter container provided, was seconded by Commissioner Norberg and declared carried on the following roll call: AYES: CONRAISSIONERS: Cistulli, Edwards, Kindig, Norberg NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Mink, Pierce ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None The applicant was advised the variance would be effective Tuesday, May 2, 1967 if not appealed. 6, VARIANCE BOARDING HOME FOR ELDERLY (continued) Chairman Pierce announced a public hearing on the application of Mrs. Nancy Lazar, 922 Capuchino Avenue, for a variance to maintain a home for six elderly persons in a single-family residence at 900 El Camino Real. - Zone: Ra3o -8- The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, recalled that during a dis- cussion at the study meeting, Mrs. Lazar stated that a na4hew will reside on the premises and tend to the guests, making a total of seven persons in residence. He referred to a drawing of the building pre- pared by a contractor for Mrs, Lazar showing three bedrooms, one bath, a kitchen and living room. A report dated April 24, 1967 from L.D. Kierig, Housing Sanitarian, San Mateo County Health Department, was read noting deficiencies and recommendations for the property. The report concluded with the statement that it is the opinion of the department that the building has space only for three aged persons and one full time staff member. A reported dated April 19, 1967 from Howard Pearson, City Fire Inspector, enumerated mine "changes, corrections or improvements" required to be made in the dwelling in order to comply with rules and regulations of the State Fire Marshal, Chairman Pierce recognized Mrs. A. Quist, representative of the county agency charged with licensing of homes for the aged, who advised that the primary concern is that there shall be a home -like atmosphere with some area for social activities; she stated that it was question- able. that Mrs. Lazar could realize sufficient livelihood if the number of residents were limited to three, Mrs. Lazar stated her preference not to make an immediate commitment and indicated that a thirty -day delay would be acceptable. Chairman Pierce thereafter declared a continuance to the regular meeting, May 22, 1967. 7e VARIANCE.1516.RALSTUN AVENUE. (continued),. An application for variance filed by United California Bank as Executor for the Estate of Christine Baker c/o Tormey & Cotchett, S20 E1 Camino Building, San Mateo, requested apartment zoning, R-3, for the property at IS16 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame - Lot 9, Block 3, Burlingame Park Subdivision Noo 2 m Zone R-1, The application form recited improvements existing "Apartment structure consisting of eleven (11) units." A communication from the law offices of Tormey & Cotchett, dated April 4, 1967, signed by James R. Tormey, Jr,, Attorney for United California RAnk, Executor of the Estate, stated that variance tospart- ment or R-3 zoning is justified in that such a structure has existed on the property for a number of years; such types of apartment build- ings are located in other nearby areas; the property has been in the condition and operated as an apartment house with eleven unitA for a number of years by the deceased; failure: to grant the variance could mean substantial loss to the Estate. Chairman Pierce recognized Mr. To p-ey who advised that there have been problems with the property for many years but that the owner, Mrs. Baker, refused to awake any effort to comply with the rules and -9- r regulations during the years she occupied the building. He stated that now that Mrs. Baker is deceased, the Executor is faced with a problem of attempting to dispose of the property for the Estate, that there are more than thirty heirs, none of whom reside in the area. Mr. Tormey reported that the Executor is aware that there are serious violations of health and safety codes but that the actual extent is not known; the variance application was filed in an attempt to be informed. He advised that permits for any corrections will not be issued without a variance for the use of the property. A file from the County of San Mateo, Department of Public Health and Welfare, including a communication dated April 21 from. Eugene Mason Howell, Public Health Engineer, a report of an inspection of the pro--perty dated April 21, 1967 signed by Leslie 0. Kierig, Housing Sanitarian, copies of letters dated June 19, 1959 to Mrs. Christine Baker .from the County Public Health Department, a copy of a Notice to Abate Nuisance dated June 15, 1959, issued to Christine Baker by the County Department of Public Health and Welfare -Health Division, was reviewed. The City Building Inspector°s inspection report dated April 20, 19670 and the City Fire Inspector's report dated April 24, 1967, were read. A memo to the Commission from the City Planner dated May 199 1967 was read, Noted in all of the above material were existing violations of health, fire safety and building codes and zoning violations. There was a period of discussion following which the City Attorney recommended that inasmuch as Mr. Tormey has now been furnished informa- tion on the extent of code violations that he is in position to meet with his client for the purpose of preparing a concrete proposal for the city°s consideration. Mr. Tormey, indicating willingness to comply, Chairman Pierce declared a continuance to the regular meetings May 22, 1967. NEW BUSINESS 1. Cali Improvements. Commissioners were furnished copies of a memo sent to all department heads, signed by the City Planner and approved by the City Manager concerning the Annual Capital Improvement.Study. 2. Election of Officers. Commissioners were informed that the City Council has been al6ated to the expiration of terms of two members of the Commission; probably the matter of appointments will be resolved by Council at tk,, next regular meeting. Accordingly, Commissioners agreed to postpone reorganization until the regular meeting in May. ADJOURNMENT e meet ng was regularly adjourned at 11:50 posy. Respectfully submittal _10- John J. Brauner, Scty, ol ct _ It �- -7 Gk-- �- _ -N --� Ck—