Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1968.11.25i'' CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 25, 1968 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ASSENT OTHERS PRESENT Brauner Kindig City Attorney Karmel Cistulii* City Planner Mann Mink City Engineer Marr Norberg Taylor 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 Mink presiding. ROLL CALL A roll call recorded the above -named members present. Commissioner Kindig, on vacation,*was excused. MINUTES _ e minutes of the adjourned meeting and study meeting of November 12,1968, ,.breviously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. Action on the minutes of the regular meeting of October 28, 1968, was with- held temporarily at the request of Commissioner Brauner. HEARINGS Pursuant to public notice, hearings proceeded as follows: 1. UNION OIL COMPANY SIGN VARIANCE DENIED. Chairman Mink announced that a public hearing initiated at the meeting of October 28, 1968, on the application of Union Oil Company of California to erect a sign exceeding the maximum height prescribed by code was interrupLed when circumstances resulted in the lack of a quorum and the subsequent abrupt adjournment of the meeting. Commissioner Brauner requested legal clarification as to procedure, the City Attorney responded, and Chairman Mink thereafter ruled, with concur- rence of the Commission, to proceed with the hearing. For the benefit of those in attendance, Chairman Mink explained that the applicant has requested a height variance for a pole sign 25 feet 6 inches measured from ground level, exceeding by S feet 6 inches the legal height . for such signs, on service station property at E1 Camino Real and Murchison ,'rive. Referring to discussion at the prior sleeting wherein the applicants was requested by Commissioner Taylor to present evidence demonstrating that the difference in height between code maximum and the proposal is necessary *o the business, Chairman Mink invited Mr. Norman H. Miller, Union Oil ompany Real Estate Representative, to comment. Mr. Miller stated that the proposal is to install a new trademark sign on the radius.of the property, including two area lighters on the pole, replacing an existing obsolete sign. He stated that the station is some distance from the center line of El Camino Real, the main thtroughfare, that the sign of -a competing service station on the.opposite side of Murchison Drive in the City of Millbrae interferes with visibility to the Union oil sign and station, and that the operator of the subject station has experienced a recent incident of �obb��ey; therefore, for reasons of competition and security the addition �)e considered essential. -- the sign will be more readily visible to motorists and the pole lights will provide evening illumination to the yard area. t Chairman Mink invited comments from the audience favoring or protesting the variance. 'There were none. The hearing was declared concluded. A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to approve the request of Union Oil Company of California to install a pole sign to a gross height of 25 feet 6 inches on service station property at the southeasterly cor- ner of El Camino Real and Murchison Drive, in accordance with drawings on file, was seconded by Commissioner Brauner. The motion was defeated _on the following roil call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Mink NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Taylor ABSTAIN CO*1ISSIONERS: Norberg (absent at the initial hearing) ABSENT COMMISSIONERS : Kindig Chairman Mink announced that the motion failed to pars by the four votes required. The applicant was informed of the right of appeal to the City Council. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of October 28, 1968, were thereafter approved as submitted. HEARINGS (cone.) 2. SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED HOME FOR AGED. Chairman Mink announced a puLlic hearing on the application of Grace H. Duda for a special use permit to operate a "Room and hoarding Home" for elderly persons at 1451 El Camino Real, Third -Residential Zone. The a.pplicant°s communication dated September 12, 1968, requested per- ,ission to house a Maximum of five people. The communication stated that .,:he premises have been inspected by the San Mateo County Department of Public Health and Welfare and the City of Burlingame Fire Department. -2- A copy of an inspection report dated March 25, 1968, from the Burlingame Fire Department, Bureau of Fire Prevention and Public Safety, and a copy bf a letter dated September.24, 1968, from the Chief of the Fire Depart- ment to Mrs. Grace H. Duda were read. Floor plans of the first and second stories of the building were filed. A letter dated October 22, 1968, from George H. and Jean Reeder, owners of the LuJean Apartments, immediately adjacent to the subject property, was read protesting the proposed use as detrimental to neighboring properties and not for the benefit of the majority. The City Planner, in response to Chairman Mink, reported that the building consists of four (4) apartment units, two ground level and two on the upper story; the upper story is not a part of the application as it is not to be used for the purpose; in fact, neither the County Health and Welfare Department nor the City Fire Department will permit aged persons to be housed on the second floor. The City Planner stated that it is proposed to convert two units on the first floor to one to accommodate a maximum of five guests, plus the operator, that the proposed density differs little from the existing, that the use is residential and permissible. He reported that he has no objection., nor do the fire and health departments, provided the cor- rections noted in the fire department letter of September 24, 1968, are completed. : hairman Mink recognized Mrs. Grace H. Duda who stated that all con- itions requisite to the use of the building will be ,met. Mrs. Duda stated that there probably will be no more than three guests but that, occasionally, when space is available, the welfare department believes there are advantages to two persons sharing a room and, for that reason, the permit is requested for a total of five. In response to Commissioner Taylor's question whether the dual use is permissible - multi -family residential and a home for the aged - the City Planner replied in the affirmative, explaining that both uses are residential. Commissioner Brauner's inquiry concerning off-street parking -initiated a period of discussion during which Airs. Duda reported there are five covered spaces plus additional spaces to accommodate a total of eight automobiles at the rear of the property. Mrs. Duda stated that two spaces are reserved for the purposes of the second -story apartments and one space for her use. Chairman Mink referred to code section 25.32.030 providing for garage spaces for boarding and rooming houses, stating that the requirements are not being net. In reply to Chairman Mink, the City Attorney commented that experience has proved that boarding and rooming houses tend to attract a great >aumber of automobiles; whereas, in a home for the elderly, there will "oe the exact opposite effect as persons residing in such homes do not own automobiles but, in some instances, there will be visitors' cars. He stated that., in regard to the parking requirements, the two uses do not equate and that this has been the thinking of the Planning Commission, - 3- in the past; however, as a proper approach, if there is to be a separate /.-,treatment for the small, privately -operated homes for the aged, the code / `}should provide accordingly. J There were no comments from the audience favoring or protesting the appli- cation. In response to Commissioner Brauner°s n uiry as to whether the certifi- cate of occupancy will be withheld all conditions are met, the City Planner replied in the affirmative. The hearing was declared concluded. A motion introduced by Commissioner Brauner approving a special use permit to Grace H. Duda to maintain a home for aged persons at 1431 E1 Camino Real was.condtioned on the use being restricted to the first floor of the building, the number of guests in residence limited to five and,j before the building is so used, all requirements -of State, County and City agencies concerned shall have been met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and carried unanimously on roll call. The applicant was advised the permit would be effective Tuesday, December 3, 1968s, if not appealed. 3. BANK OF CALIFORNIA SIGN VARIANCE DENIED. Chairman Mink announced a public hearing on of California, San Francisco, for a variance sign code relating to height of pole signs. the application of The Bank from the provisions of the A communication dated November 6, 19680 from the applicant, signed by James V. Davitte, Assistant Vice President, Properties and Building Division, requested approval of a sign 12 feet by 28 feet to a gross height of 45 feet, to replace an existing sign on the bank property at 1887 E1 Camino Real. (Burlingame Plaza). The communication stated that the existing sign was considered adequate when erected i:n`195S but new buildings and signs since constructed, northerly of the bank and fronting E1 Camino Real, create a'barrier limiting the distance at which motorists can be alerted to the location of the bank. Mr. Frank Sellers, Modern Neon Sign Company, represented the applicant. In response to Chairman Mink, the City Planner reported that dimensions shown on the drawings were examined and the height verified at 45 feet above ground level -- at the location, ground level is a sloping lob:., The City Planner. stated that the Plaza -shopping area is not a70tfar as property ownership is concerned but composed of a number of strips extending from E1 Camino Real to Magnolia Avenue, on separate lots; The Bank of California is at the northerly edge bordering Murchison Drive. He stated that incraasing the height of the sign is not essential to identification as, immediately that the Plaza is reached, the existing sign is visible; that it would appear to be quite reasonable to expect -4- that if one high sign were to be approved each of the strips might claim a similar need, in which case the bank sign would be competing with others and any value would be lost. The City Planner stated his position that there may be an immediate value to the bank but, eventually, a disadvantage to the Plaza, which has been the source of stronger criticism than any other construction in the city. Chairman Mink recognized Mr. Frank Sellers who stated that any effort by the bank to increase its business reflects to the advantage of every other merchant by bringing people into the area. He maintained that the proposed sign will not interfere with other businesses, nor with sur- rounding residential areas, and that none of the lighted portion will be visible to the California Teachers Association building. Mr. Sellers stated that there is interference with visibility to motgqrists coming from the south because of highway trees and, from the north, signs in the City of Mi.11braeo In response to the_Chair's inquiry, there were no comments from the audience favoring or protesting the variance. Commissioner Brauner referred to code section 22.60.020 and to the con- ditions noted therein requisite to grants of variance by the Commission. Commenting on the applicants communication wherein the sole reason given for the additional height is limited visibility to southbound traffic on E1 Camino Real, and to Mr. Seller's statement that the sign is not risible to northbound traffic because of the trees, Commissioner Brauner stated that he had no difficulty identifying the sign when touring the area, Commissioner Brauner, indicating concurrence with Mr. Seller's statement that a bank will attract customers to a business community, questioned the need for anything greater than a very small identification sign. Mr. Sellers replied that because of the "flamboyant" advertising and strong competition.from savings and loan associations, the banking business is being forced to advertise to compete in the lending market. Commissioner Taylor stated that the applicant's communication fails to justify the need for variance, that then® is no mention in the letter of economic hardship, nor is there a representative of the bank present to elaborate. Commissioner Cistulli, commenting on the situation of hardship, referred to existing signs in the City of Millbrae which obstruct the view of The Sank of California sign, pointing out that Mr. Sellers has failed to mention the large, revolving sign permitLed a competitor bank in Millbrae, as well as a large restaurant sign in the latter city, each approved, presumably, for economic reasons, Commissioner Cistulli stated that the two businesses referred to in the . ity of Millbrae front directly on El Camino Real. He stated that con- sideration should be given to The Bank of California location, some distance removed from the highway. to the matter of economics, and to the -5- need for advertising for competitive reasonso 1 Mr. Sellers confirmed that the Lyon's Restaurant and United California Bank signs have created -an unfortunate situation completely blocking E a P Y g The Bank of California sign but these were not mentioned since the location is in another city. Commissioner Brauner referred to the City Planner's comments regarding the number and variety of businesses in the Plaza, the potential for a broad array of signs should one high sign be permitted, stated that the row of trees that interferes with the bank will also interfere with all of the ether businesses in the same row of buildings, and that he was hesitant about setting a precedent for high signs in the area unless the applicant proves clearly and concisely that all conditions of the code apply. Commissioner Brauner introduced a motion to deny the application of The Bank of California for a variance to erect a pole sign exceeding the legal height on the property at 1887 E1 Camino Real. Motion seconded by Commissioner Taylor and declared carried on the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Mink, Norberg, Taylor NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Kindig Commissioner Cistullk stated that the evidence presented did not justify denial. _The applicant was advised of the right of appeal. 4. SIGN VARIANCE DENIED LINDAL CEDAR HOMES. INC. Chairman Mink announced a public hearing on the application of Bell Electrical Signs, Inc.., San Mateo, :in behalf of LiR dal Homes, Inc., 310 Lang Road, for a variance to permit a sign exceeding the legal maximum height for pole signs. A communication dated October 9, 1968 from Bell Electrical Signs, Irec., signed by Dewey Bell stated that the proposed sign will measure six feet by 12 feet, double-faced plastic with interior illumination, to a: gross height of 30 feet above ground let=el - 10 feet higher than the code allows. A sign detail was filed. The City Planner, in reply to Chairman Mink, state, that the sign is proposed to be located on a site in the Anza Pacific tract. where Lindal Homes have established a sales outlet and erected three modal vacation -type dwellings. The City Planner stated that the applicant maintains :;he extensicn --tf height is necessary for visibility to the freeway becvluse of the tilt in the curve of Bayshore Freeway and the lower ole ation of the ►ands of Anza Pacific Corporation at the location. fie advised that the zoning is M-1 - Industrial. a�� Chairman Mink recognized Mr. Dewey Bell who advised that Mr. Robert McCienahan. representing Lindal Cedar Homes in this area, was present. Mr. Bell stated that in -response to a request made at the study meeting a profile was taken approximately 50 feet beyond the point where traffic leaves the Peninsula Avenue overpass, between the location of the model structures and the sign and the point from which it is intended that the sign will be seen. Drawings were furnished Commissioners supporting the applicant's position that the additional height is essential because of the difference in elevation between the grade of the freeway and the site of the models. Mr. Bell reported that an existing sign conforms to code, that visi- bility is limited to the point that motorists are unaware of the sign until they are upon it, and that the intent is for the sign $o be readable at a distance before it is reached so as not to interfere with traffic. Chairman Mink ?recognized Mr. Robert McClenahan who stated that when the height of 30 feet was first proposed it seemed excessive, that it was decided to experiment with a sign conforming to code. which was subsequently installed and, admittedly, is quit: effective after dark, as are the buildings. He stated that in the day light, however, the effectiveness is lost because of the adjacent Hammerslag and drive-in theatre operations. He stated that the motoring public has no more than a fleeting glimpse of the existing sign. In response to the Chair, there were no comments from the audience favoring or protesting the application. Chairman Mink stated that the present sign appears to be acceptable and effective as to visibility. Commissioner Brauner concurred with Chairman Mink. In response to Commissioner Brauner, the City Engineer and City Planner advised that the minimum grade of Bayshore Freeway is 7 to 9 feet and that.at the Location, the grade of the freeway is approximately 1-1/2 feet above the grade of the lands of Anza Pacific Corporation. Mr. Bell stated that at the point where the sign should be read coming from Peninsula Avenue, the curve of the freeway is such that driving in the outside lane there is an approximate difference of 8-1/2 feet in elevation above the foundations of the models. fie stated that measurements were taken by actual level readings on the buildings. Commissioner Norberg stated that as a new business venture, bringing added revenue to the city, the proponents should be encouraged and given an opportunity to make a success of the undertaking; he stated that it was questionable that the signn would be harmful to other businesses in the area. The hearing was declared concluded. Commissioner Norberg introduced a metion to approve he application of Bell Electrical Signs, Inc., in behalf of IUndal. Homes, Inc.,, to -7- install a sign to M81 ght of 30 feet at 310 Lang Road, in accordance with the drawings sGmittedo Motion was seconded by Commissioner Cistulli AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli, Mink, Norberg Brauner, Taylor Kindig Following the .above roll call, Chairman Mink announced that the motion failed -to pass by the four votes required. The applicant was advised of the right of appeal. RECESS The Chair declared a recess at 9:40 v.m. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Mirk reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. HEARINGS (cone..) S. ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION 5ICI DENIED. Chairman Mink announced a public hearing on the application of Anza Pacific Corporation for a permit to install a double -face -., sign at 390 Lang Road. The application form recited as follows: "Construction of sign (directional) to direct highway travelers to Old Bayshore off -rump with adequate notice to patronize Denny's and Standard Oil Company facilities.' Sign drawings were filed. An accompanying communication dated November 1, 1958, signed by David H. Keyston, stated that the site is adjacent to Bayshore Freeway at the end of.Lang Road, that the sign will serve a dual purpose, advertising on the southerly face "Denny's Restaurant" and the "Standard Oil service station's to northbound freeway traffic; and, on the opposite face, a real estate sign for Anza Pacific Corporation's industrial park, visible to southbound traffics The communication mentioned reasons for the proposed sign: As a result of construction of the Hammerslag Building on Lang. Road, Anza Pacific Corporation removed the billboard advertising its indus- trial development; secp _Iy� the existing Denny's sign on the 1299 Bayshore Highwa I Qless value since the opening of the new northbound off=ramp at Broadway; if the proposed sign is approved, the billboard will not be reinstalled, the Denny sign will be removed from the building, thereby replacing two signswith one. Chairman Mini: recognized Mr. Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the applicant. Per. McMillan stated, as a point of clarification, that the proposed sign is a directional sign; as the drawings show, the sign indicates "Next Right", so that traffic can take the new access off the freeway; that the sign will not be an additional sign but replace two existing; that a. situation of hardship has resulted because -8- motorists ;Ding beyond the overpass are not alerted to the restaurant location; the proposed sign, southerly of the overpass will identify access not only to the restaurant but to service station facilities, thereby me.:ting the requirements of public convenience as indicated by the ordinance. In response to inquiries from the City Planner concerning the precise location of the sign, Mr. David Keyston explained the location as the same lot as the transit company terminal; the actual site of the proposed sign is vacant in the sense that.it is not being used as it was not a part of the property leased to the transit company, The City Planner stated that the sign structure consists of two boards erected in the shape of a "V", one face to advertise real estate for sale, the other, two businesses existing on Bayshore Highway some distance away. The City Planner stated that the code provides for real estate signs not exceeding 80 square feet in area pertaining to the sale or rental of the property on which they are displayed,and providing that the property shall consist of a group of five or more contiguous lots. He pointed out that from the standpoint of the code, approval of the sign would involve variances from these two conditions. The City Planner stated that with reference to the messages relating to the restaurant and service station, more than one section of the sign ordinance may apply. He referred to code section 22.20.010 wherein prohibited signs are designated, including "signs or structures carrying the advertising of a person, product or service other than that of the -,occupant of the land on which it is placed......" and to Directional Signs o section 22.26.040 o wherein the Planning Commission is authorized to issue permits for directional signs "when it finds that such signs will serve the public convenience or necessity." The City Attorney explained that when the Directional Sign ordinance was adopted by the City Council it was intended that a permit should be granted only if it was determined that a sign would serve the oublic in some phase, as opposed to assisting the owner of the sign who would rent it out, or assisting the advertiser of the sign to sell his product. He stated that the directional sign is property. applied in circumstances where the sign helps people to reach a particular place or area in the city and where there is a substantial segment of the public who would need such a signo He stated that, conversely, the permit should not be granted where the aforementioned conditions are not meta Mr. McMillan recalled that the directional sign came into existence several years ago as the result of an application which he made for a variance for a sign to be erected on the westerly side of Bayshore Freeway for the purposes of The Hyatt House, to alert motorists to the Broadway Overpass. He stated that the present application is similar in that it is important to inform the public to leave the freeway to reach dining and service station facilities before going further north where a difficult turn is involved to return to Bayshore Highway. In response to Chairman mink these. nO comments p , , from the audience. -9-1 In response to Chairman Minh; : s camme;nt concerning procedure, the City Attorney, noting that there is a single application and a single structure, advised that there would appear to be separate justifications for the two faces, that the Commission consider the implications where there is but one Anza Airport Park and perhaps as many as 500 uses on the same street as the restaurant and the service station, and that Avis; for example, would be equally entitled to have such a sign. Mr. McMillan stated that it would be agreeable to delete that portion of the sign relating to Anza Airport Park. Mr. Keyston stated that the directional message facing south is of primary importance, that it would be agreeable for the opposite face to remain blank for the present and, at a later date, a proposal would be made to relocate the real estate billboard for the purposes of Anza Airport Park Commissioner Brauner observed that the usual directional signs within the city are rather small, citing `huto row" and the church signs, as examples; he stated that a sign of the size proposed, advertising a single restaurant or a particular service station would appear to distort the ordinary concept of a directional sign and should not be considered as such. Commissioner Norberg commented that, the fact the restaurant and service station intend to remain open 24 hours if the sign is permitted would appear to comply with "public convenience and necessity" phases of the ordinance. Mr. Keyston stated that if the sign is approved the two businesses anticipate a sizeable increase in business; the service station operator has indicated that the volume of business will not warrant 24 hour service if the sign is not approved. Commissioner Cistulli stater that the sign will seX-e the public con- venience and necessity in alerting travelers to the availability of refreshments or products and services offered by gasoline service stations, The City Attorney referred to code section 22.24.020 "Advertising displays adjacent to freeways prohibited" including "such advertising display designed to hove the advertis-ing thereon, maintained primarily to be viewed from a mzin traveled roadway or freeway.'° The City Attorney pointed out that another section of the code permits a person to advertise his name or product on his own property; however, in the present instance, there is no attempt at advertising anything that the applicant owns or sells; it is freely admitted that the intent is to attract highway traffic. Mr. McMillan stated that the ordinwnce expressly provides for Directional Signs, that Directional Signs imply visibility to a travelers and "Cheat there have been such signs permitted in the city oo Hyatt Cinema sign is located on another property. Commissioner Taylor stated that it was his interpretation of the code that Directional Signs were not intended to advertise: a specific place of business. m10� Commissioner Brauner commented concerning .the matter of precedent; Commissioner Norberg stated that any future sign proposal should be discussed and decided on its merits. The hearing was declared concluded. A motion was introduced by Commissio er Norberg to approve the request of Anza Pacific Corporation for tha;_ortion of the sign directing northbound freeway traffic to the off -ramp to Bayshore Highway for the benefit of Denny's Restaurant and the Standard Oil service station, as shown on the drawings on file. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli, Norberg NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Mink, Taylor ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Kindig Following the above roll call, Chairman Mink announced that the motion failed to pass by the four votes required. The applicant was advised of the right of appeal. 6. AUTOMOBILE STORAGE LOT APPROVED, HIGHLAND AVENUE. Chairman Mink announced a public hearing on the application for variance submitted by Kenneth W. Jones and James E. Min-oa 101 California Drive, Burlingame, to improve a parcel zoned Fourth -Residential on Highland Avenue, SO feet southerly from Bayswater Avenue, for the purposes of an automobile storage lot. A communication favoring the variance was acknowledged from R.D. and Margaret L. King, owner of property on the westerly side of California Drive, southerly of Bayswater Avenue. The City Planner, in response to the Chair, explained that the parcel is adjacent to an existing automobile storage lot owned by the appli- cants at the southeasterly corner of Bayswater and Highland Avenues, and that the proposal is to extend the existing lot to include the additional 50 feet on Highland Avenue. Mr, James Minto9 in response to Chairman Mink, stated that the parcel will be acquired from the present owner an existing small residence removed and improvements installeflOWEA698 existing on the corner lot. Mr. Kenneth Jones stated that eventually additional service facilities will be built'on the property; for the present, the use will be con- fined to automobile storage. A memo dated November 25, 1968, was acknowledged from Reginald E. Moorbyj Fire Chief, recommending that at such time that the property shall be improved with structures, connected with a business of any kind, that, where applicable, the lots be rezoned as to Fire and Zoning. A drawing prepared by the City Planner showed locations of the existing parking lot, the.proposed addition, a four unit apartment building and a 17 unit apartment building adjoining the subject property on the Bayswater and Highland Avenue frontages, respectively. _11- The City Manner stated that he toured the area, that the apartment building on Bayswater Avenue is an older building and located on property zoned C-2•, the apartment building on Highland Avenue is on R-4 property, constructed,probably,four to five years ago. He stated that in considering the removal of the small dwelling presently existing on the subject lot, and adjacent to the large apartment building, it would not appear that any more of a nuisance could be created, as under present conditions the residents of the apartment building overlook the automobile storage on the corner lot. Comments were invited from the audience. Mrs. Mary Perry, 423 Dwight Road, owner of property on Highland Avenue, questioned whether the Commission will require the lot to be paved and properly maintained if the existing dwelling is removed. Mrs. Perry referred to a property on Highland Avenue, southerly of Howard Avenue, on which a permit was granted for automobile storage under conditions requiring improvements to be made, and stated that the lot is in deplorable condition and a source of annoyance and frustration to all of the Qwners on the street. The City Planner explained that Mrs. Perry referred to a variance granted Burlingame Motors Company which was never exercised. Mr. John Ao Watson, San Mateo, owner of 150 190 21 Highland Avenue objected t.d.the . large carriers which park on Highland Avenue liti. the middle 0., :-the:; :s;t_reet and unload new automobiles for delivery to the dealers itr them area. Mrs. Mary .Valencia, San Mateo, owner of property on Bayswater Avenue, stated that'the.drayage trucks should not be permitted to park on streets traveled by children: on the way to school. Chairman Mink informed the speakers that the problem is one to be reported td the Police Department. In response -to Commission inquiry, Mr. Minto staters that a continuous fence will be -installed from the existing lot to enclose the additional lot-, with the gate on Bayswater Avenue. The hearing: was declared concluded. A motion was :introduced by Commissioner Taylor approving the application of James E. Minto and Kenneth W. Jones for variance to improve a parcel 50 feet by 100 feet on Highland Avenue, commencing 50 feet southerly from Bayswater Avenue, zoned Four -Residential, for the pur- poses of automobile storage,subject to the restrictions that a gate shall not be permitted on the Highland Avenue frontage, that the property shall be pavedt fenced and landscaped in accordance with the adjoining two properties, and the landscaping to be maintained. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cis.tulli,carried unanimously on roll call. The applicant was advised the variance wou d become effective Tuesday, December 3, if not appealed. �17a l ?. AUTOMOBILE dSTORAGE LOT, BAYSWATER AVENUE, DENIED. Chairman Mink announced a public hearing on the application of James E. Minto and Kenneth W. Jones for variance to use a property at 1113 Bayswater Avenue, zoned Fourth -Residential, for commercial purposes - outdoor storage of automobiles, The applicant's communication dated October 11, 1968, stated that an existing single-family dwelling is in poor condition requiring costly repairs, which has discouraged prospective buyers, and that the lot, SO x 100 feet, is not considered a sound investment for apartment con- struction. The communication stated further that it is imperative that additional storage areas be made available due to the increased volume of business and that there are no other properties available in the immediate vicinity. A communication dated November 16, 1968Q from R.D. and Margaret King, owners of property on California Drive, approved the variance. Communications in opposition to the variance were read from Doris P. Walshef 1117 Bayswater Avenue; Mary M. Valencia, owner of property on the opposite side of Bayswater Avenue from the subject property; Mabel G. and Robert Lingaasb owner of 1115 Bayswater Avenue, immediately adjacent to the subject property; Robert F. Lindstrom, 1121 Bayswater Avenue. The communications -protested intrusion of a commercial use into a residential area, the resultant traffic and congestion from automobiles being moved in and out of the lot; the residents of 1115 Bayswater Avenue, immediately adjacent to the subject property, reported that a common driveway exists to service their lot and this subject lot and that a situation of hardship will arise if the driveway is to be shared with an automobile storage lot. The City Planner reported that the block is zoned fourth residential and that the subject property is approximately in the middle of the block. Mr. Kent Atwater, representing the owners of the property, stated that the only possible economic use is commercial, that the building is in such a condition that it is not suitable for occupancy, and that another residential building is not considered a sound investment. Comments were invited from the audience in favor of the variance. Mrs. Mary Perry, owner of property on Highland Avenue, indicating no objection to the variance, raised the question of the variance granted Burlingame Motors for the lot at 14S Highland Avenue, repeating comments made earlier that the latter property is a blight in the neighborhood. The City Attorney advised Chairman Mink that a communication was directed to the Bank of America, with a copy to the owner of 145 Highland Avenue; requesting that the bank, if it had an interest in the property., con- tact his office. -13- There were no other comments favoring the application. Comments in opposition were invited. Mr,John BanchOto, 1208 Bayswater Avenue, stated that the property, immediately a`dj_-aceh to his - a 50 by 100 foot lot - is improved with an apartment building. He protested that the area should not be burdened with'!.adaitional automobile storage lots, Mr, Robert Li-ngaasa Jr.. representing the owners of 1115 Bayswater Avenue, protested that -approval of the variance and the resultant use by -the automobile company of the common driveway shared by his parents, will have the effect -of creating an alleyway between the two properti'es he stated that permitting commercial use on a street exclusively residential will establish a precedent for other similar encroachments and questioned that the existi�ig' building at I1$3 Bayswater Avenue is in such poor, con- dition that it' `cainnot be made habitable. Comments in opposition were heard from E.J. Duncan, 41 Lorton Avenue, lone M. Curtks8 owner apartment buildizg,, Lorton and Bayswater 'Avenue, Mrs. Mary Mo''Yalencia, owner duplex Bayswater Avenue, all protesting the intrusion of business into a residential area; Mrs. Curtis questioned the statement that the lot was unsuitable for apartment con- struction. because of the size. A drawing prepared by the City planner was reviewed, showing the location of the subject property, the number of lots on the street and the°!uses. The City Plaanne.r . discussed the couvon driveway existing between the subject property and that adjacent, stated fleet fibs block on both' sides is zoned identically, that the block is essentially residential and that it was h-i"s position that it would be a serious mistake to create a commercial 'zone in the middle. He stated furthe'r:'that the building could be repaired, or removed and three or four units built, and that there 'is no hardship in the land, Mr. Minto, in response to Chairman Mink, advised that the entrance to the storage wdU'l-A .be from Bayswater Avenue, that rights of access -to the common driveway would be maintained, that the area would be paved; fenced and landscaped. The hearing was declared concluded. Commissioner `Norberg stated that he was in sympathy with the 'problems of the automobile industry, that the business is certainly an advantage to the City of Burlingame, but that the proposal here is a positive example of "spot zoning." A motion introduced by Commissioner Taylor to deny the variance of James E. Minto and Kenneth W. Jones for automobile storage at 1113 Bayswater Avenue was seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and carried. The applicant was advised of the right of appeal. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at. 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Thomas Co Taylor. `1'i` Secretary Pro Tempore application unanimously • —�►--- , a,, C(- CU a� a. 7- w ok-1 BURLINGAt-,E PLANNING COMMISSION 1-1--o .Yw Q-J Novam er 25, 1969 I CALL TO ORDER 11 ROLL CALL III MINUTES October 23 and November 12, 1968. Iv HEARINGS 1. Union ail Company sign variance. El Camino Real and I-efs3rchison Elk* _io (continued O tuber 28) i indal Cedar €do zes , Inc., sign vari ante v Lang Read. (continued frori Octabor 28) L Grace H. Duda, spec'al permit application for bczrding home fOT elderly persons, 1431 u- Camino Real. (conf-inued from October 281 4. The Bank of California sign va-ria"nce 1887 E1 Ca-m-no Real. S. Anv a- PaciIi c Corporation sig;, v ex an<ca, Lang Read. 6. Jones -Min e Co w-r paapplicat-i ern :for g�u.�•l_ �.fng a sat vca.riance s Highland Avenue. i. Jones44-into Company application 3or par:lk. ng lot variance, Baysitsa ,er Avenue. u ep NEW BUSINESS �. BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 25, 1968 I CALL, TO ORDER II ROLL CALL III MINUTES October 28 and November 12, 1968,, IV HEARINGS 1. Union Oil Company sign variance, E1 Carerino Real and Murchison drive. (continued from October 28) 2. Lindal Cedar domes, Inc., sign varattnce, La -rig Road. (continued from October 28) ��- / �C..-,:{ r.__ - , t • _ . /v-J_,-i r;.j 4f] 17'7. �. �K-- t-li ��<-: .. ... r.. .•--4�N-�+�.w.,. ✓i. ._,.v ��7C-i. � S. Grace H. Duda, special permit application for boarding home for elderly persons, 1431 El Camino Real, (continued from October 28) 4. The Bank of California sign variances 1887 El Camino Real. S. Anz.a Pacific Corporation sign variance,, Lang Road, 6. Jones-Mint.o Company application for parking lost variance, Highland Avenue. ' 7. Jones-Minto Company application for parking lest variance, Bayswater Avenue. V NEW BUSINESS VI ADJOURNMENT 1