Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1971.11.08THE CITY OF BURLINGJ_U4E PLANNING COMMISSION November 8, 1971 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Kindig (excused) City Planner Swan Jacobs City Engineer Marr Mink City Attorney Karmel Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO C ;'DE R An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from the regular meeting of October 27, 1971, was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Sine presiding. ROLL CALL All members of the commission were present except Commissioner Kindig who was excused. HEARINGS: 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR PROPERTY OF MRS. MELBA P. MOORE, 3.50 AC MOL AT 1554 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 (SITE OF FISHERMAN RE STAU RANT) Chairman Sine announced the continuation of this hearing and asked the City Attorney if he had received the documents in this case. The City Attorney replied that he had, that they had resolved some questions but not all. He noted that there is a provision for revoca- tion in the grant of the 15' easement from O'Hara to Moore, in effect a right of O'Hara to shift the easement to an easement of equal width in a different location. Mrs. Riley (Moore, owner of record) and Mr. O'Hara stated that the easement has now been shifted to run parallel to the drainage canal. This shifting was accomplished by' having Mr. O'Hara sign a map on which the present location of the easement is shown.. City Attorney Karmel thought that Mr. O'Hara should execute and record a document showing this shift and Mrs. Riley (Moore) should execute and record an acceptance of this shift of easement. He commented that as far as the public record is concerned the easement has not been shifted. He made note of a preliminary injunction five years ago by Mrs. Riley (Moore) against Mr. O'Hara to prevent blockage of the easement. He mentioned the ordinance amendment which provides for use of an easement, to be owned by the,City, when lots in a proposed subdivision do not front on a public street. The 15' easement could be used for this purpose if it were widened to 20' for two way traffic. When the easement was granted it ran from Old Bayshore to the Moore property. Bayshore was then reduced in width 20'6" on both sides. This left 20'6" belonging to Mr. O'Hara between the edge of the public street and commencement of the easement. Therefore the - 2 - easement does not go through. Regarding the 30' easement connecting with Burlway Road, the City'Attorney questioned if it were merely an ingress -egress easement, and noted that the property owner objects to its public use. City Planner aaan again brought out the point that automobile access must be safe and sufficient. City Engineer Marr agreed, and noted that the main problem in this case is that of easements. It was noted that the 30' easement was used by the lessee as a loading and unloading zone; and the City Engineer remarked that if the easement were encumbered it would defeat the purpose. Commissioner Taylor referred to the easement along the drainage canal and stated that even if an additional 5' were bought it would not be. enough. The City Attorney indicated that the City would not sell Mrs. Riley (Moore) that land since it was needed, and she would have to buy land from O'Hara. Commissioner Mink agreed that 22' was needed and asked about the possibility of a bridge across the drainage canal. Com,-nissioner Cistulli suggested that since both parties and their attorneys were in the audience it would be well to hear their opinions. City Planner Swan stated that all three property owners had been contacted and there was hope that a solution could be achieved. He said point of discussion should be the price of the extra land for the easement, and that there should be an agreement and the recording of that agreement. On the Chair's invitation Mr. Richard O'Hara addressed the Commission. He went into the background of the easement. He declared that he had verbally agreed to sell an additional 10' along the easement including a piece across the 2011' along Bayshore to Mrs. Riley (Moore) with the understanding that any agreement or any public record would have to show that it was to be a paved road. He stated that the present plans for development made by Mrs. Riley (Moore) showed some side roads across his property. He referred this to his attorney, and it is now in process of investigation. He stated that if land were sold to Mrs. Riley (Moore) the total width of the easement would be 25'. The City Engineer felt that this would be sufficient. The City Attorney noted that the width of this easement could vary if the McClenahan easement were used and there could be 'a turn -around. Upon a question as to the McClenahan easement, he stated that it is an easement by grant, not a way of necessity, and the question is as to how much burden it must sustain. Mrs. Riley then addressed the Commission. Llith regard to the 20 z' strip vacated by the City, she stated that at the time of vacation a memo was circulated to landowners that all permanent easements, such as hers, were exempt from such vacation. She was never notified to buy the 20 z' . She noted that Mr. O'"rIara's price for a 5' strip along the drainage side was $10.00 per square foot and she could not afford it. She would be willing to compromise at a lesser price. She stated she had the Burlway Road easement long before McClenahan bought the property, that she moved the easement so he could build the present buildings; however he has narrowed - 3 - it to.20' by parking cars there. Mr. Roy C. Hall, Mrs. Riley's attorney, addressed the commission. He stated he had been retained by Mrs. Riley to obtain financing for the project. Financing, in the amount of $500,000 is now on deposit, bids have been td�--rjand the contractor is ready to start. All that is needed is a permit. He suggested that the subdivision be'accomplished subject to the stipulation that the easement problem be worked out. He noted that when he appeared before BCDC on this project he stated that they had a permit. Commissioner Cistulli commented that most of the Commission was in favor of this project, but he doubted that the City Council would buy stipulations. The City Attorney commented that this must go before the Council, the City must be made a party to the easements, and provisions for public improvements must be made. Since the action of the Planning Commission in this instance is only advisory, he recommended that all problems be resolved and the entire package go to the City Council. He suggested that all parties return to a public meeting when they had straightened out their differences. Chairman Sine asked the participants if they could continue this to another meeting, reminding them that the Commission would not agree to stipulations. Commissioner Mink moved that this subdivision be continued to the next regular meeting. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. Attorney Hall protested that a delay of two weeks might endanger the financing. He was reminded by Chairman Sine that the matter had been continued to this meeting so that participants could bring a solution of their problems to the Commission, and that this had not been accomplished. The motion carried by voice vote. At this point it was agreed by the Commission that the subject of ordinances, next on the agenda for the adjourned meeting, be postponed until completion of the study meeting topics. ORDINANCES: At the completion of the regular study meeting agenda, this subject was introduced for Commission action. ORDINANCE REGULATING HEIGHT OF RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS, RESOLUTION NO. 1-71 City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that the ordinance had been prepared in the form that was approved in previous study, that the.findings, attached as Exhibit A to support the ordinance amendment,were new and should be reviewed. The City Attorney stated that the resolution is a procedural resolution which adopts findings and ordinance. Commissioner Mink read the findings to the Commission. He then moved the adoption of Resolution No. 1-71. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. The documents will be forwarded to the City Council for its approval. ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON POLE. SIGNS, RESOLUTION NO. 2-71 Commissioner TayJnr read the findings to the Commission. He then moved adoption of Resolution No. 2-71. Commissioner Mink, seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. These documents also will be forwarded to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1971 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONTRACTOR'S STORAGE YARD IN AN M-1 DISTRICT, J2V4ES R. TEEVAN, 1019 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. OWNER: WILLIAM ROESE This matter was introduced for consideration. Correspondence from Mr. Teevan stated that he wished to buy this property as a head- quarters for his painting company, and the special permit is for outside storage of ladders and'trash containers. City Planner Swan explained a plot plan of the location to the Commission which showed parking and storage areas. It was noted that this storage yard is fenced, and the location is approximately 150' from the Northpark Apartment'site. Chairman Sine announced that this application would be scheduled,for the next public meeting of the Planning Commission on November 22, 1971. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LIMITED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE OF EXISTING METAL 1t7AREHOUSE BUILDING IN WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. APPLICANT WILLIAM F. MC CLENAHAN Chairman Sine introduced this application for study. Received with the application were letter from the applicant, plot plan, photographs of the property, and artist's rendering of the property after renov- ation. The applicant's letter stated that he wished to renovate an old warehouse building on the Smallcomb property and use it for light manufacturing since his company is expanding its operation and needs more space. City Planner Swan noted that this is an unusual type of application since it is a request to use a present non -conforming building for a certain period time, until April 30, 1979. The City.Planner explained the plot plan to the Commission and stated that at a meeting with the owner and the building and fire inspectors, a requirement was explained; the roof and walls must be made more fire resistant or a sprinkler system be installed. He explained that zoning was changed from M-1 to C-4 in October, 1969. This parcel does not touch the shoreline. He noted that after the seven-year term of this variance the company would likely move to another location because of expansion, and the property along Burlway Road would be redeveloped. The City Engineer stated that this property is on an unimproved portion of the street; that the city had been attempting to get property owners to contribute toward improving the street and they had verbally agreed to do so. - 5 - The question was raised if the lease would be contingent upon the Commission's approval, and it was stated that it would be. The City Engineer questioned if approval were given for this permit would the owner contribute to the street. Mr. Mitzner of Aluminum Plumbing Fixtures Corporation, lessee, questioned the cost. The City Engineer informed him that it would be approximately $1,500. Mr. Mitzner indicated that it would be agreeable with the owner. This application was scheduled by Chairman Sine for hearing November 22, 1971. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES AT RETAIL IN AN M-1 DISTRICT, 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE, PENINSULA GENERAL TIRE COMPANY Chairman Sine introduced this item for consideration. City Planner Swan told the Commission that Peninsula General Tire wishes to move to this location and lease a portion of the property owned by Mr. Oscar Person. Peninsula Tire wishes to sell goods and services at retail in this location. Automobile services will be conducted inside the existing building, and there would be 7 or 8 service bays. The City Planner showed a set of plans to the Commissioners, and noted that there was parking in front of the building and two spaces ,,in the rear. The City Planner called attention to the area at the rear of the building which is now occupied by a storage yard for contractors' equipment. It could be used for parking. He stated he had earlier told Mr. Person he hoped the equipment could be moved elsewhere. He passed around a drawing of the applicant's proposed sign which is also a part of the application. The City Engineer remarked that a parcel map for leasing part of this acreage probably would not be necessary. Terms of the leasehold were described; there are ingress and egress rights on the north side of the building. It was suggested that a condition of the approval of the permit might be that the construction equipment be moved. The Chairman announced that this application would be scheduled for public hearing November 22, 1971. 4. RECLA:SSIFICATION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 3, BURLINGA14E PARK NO. 2, FROM R-1 TO R=3A, CITY OF BURLINGAM�E PARKING LOT 5. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 8, 11, AND 12, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 FROM R-1 TO R-3A, BEING 1513 AND 1517 BURLIr:GA_ME AVENUE, APPLICANT RICHARD F. MC LAUGHLIN 6. VARIANCE TO ALLOY) MORE THAN ONE RE'SIDENPIAL BUILDING ON ONE LOT, LOTS 8, 11, AND 12, BLOCK 3, BURL INGAME PARK NO. 2, APPLICAN'T RICHARD F. MC LAUGHLIN These three applications were considered together since they are inter -related. The City Planner explained to the Commission that the reclassification of Lots 8, 11, and 12 was for the purpose of combining them into one lot and building on it a condominium apartment. Lots 8 and 11 presently have single family houses on them, Lot 12 is vacant, and Lot 5 is the City parking lot. The condominium requires a variance to have more than one residential building on one lot. He commented that since the neighborhood will in the future"be zoned R-3A, according to the General Plan, the City.Parking lot should be included in this reclassification. He noted that to his knowledge the only residential reclassification in this last decade had been the site for the Northpark Apartments from M-1 to R-4 in 1963. Plans were distributed and the City Planner explained them. There is one unit per 2,200 square feet of land area and underground parking with two garage spaces for each of the units. He commented that a resubdivision map would be a condition of the variance. Mr. James McLaughlin, developer, went into further detail of the plans. It was recommended that the effective date of the reclassification be subsequent to the issuance of the building. permit. Also recommended was the widening -of the street along the development to conform with the street widening already effected along the parking lot. On a question from Chairman Sine, Mr. McLaughlin stated he would present eight sets of plans at the hearing including site elevations and floor plans. There followed a discussion of the value of variance on the development as opposed to reclassification. It was decided that reclassification would best suit the prupose. Chairman Sine informed the applicant that the matter would be scheduled for public hearing November 22, 1971. NEW BUSINESS: SS• The City Planner reported to the Commission on several cases which required code engorcement. 2. Reclassification The City Planner submitted to the Commission a procedural outline on reclassification, noting that the purpose of reclassification of various areas would be to encourage private redevelopment. He stated that basically there were certain areas which should be studied for this purpose and their priority for reclassification decided. There was considerable discussion, with the suggestion that the City Planner research this program with regard to slope lots. The Commission agreed to study this outline and agreed with the City Planner's suggestion that he proceed with a reclassification map. 3.- Development Guidelines for Bank of America The City Planner informed the Commission that the Bank of America is considering a bank building on Chapin at E1 Camino Real, with office space on top. The bank itself would occupy 50,000 square feet. The height of the building is not determined. He suggested that undergrounding be considered for the entire block from E1 Camino to Primrose. The Commission indicated approval for him to prepare a resolution recommending that an undergrounding district be studied for Chapin Avenue. The meeting then continued to an item which had been brought up for 7 - study too late to be included in the study meeting agenda. SPECIAL PERi�IIT TO MODIFY AN ADVERTISING STRUCTURE (SIGN) ADJACENT TO F..REE4AY FOR HYATT HOUSE HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY The Chairman introduced this application for further study. City Planner Swan stated that the modified application had been resubmitted by the Hyatt House Hotel to comply with Commission requirements. He asked that Mr. Griffin, manager of the Hyatt House, present the new application for modifications of the present sign. Mr. Griffin presented photographs of past and present signs, with particular reference to size of reader boards. Then he showed an exhibit of proposed sign with overlays contrasting past and present signs. He stated they are proposing a sign that will be readable from the freeway when traffic is traveling at the speed limit of 65 MPH. He asked for a variance on the reader board of 3' on each side over the original reader board which was 378 square feet and for raising the identification sign to the top of the pylons. He then showed blueprints of the proposed sign, noting that they are asking for 420 square feet on the reader board, with 3 lines 16 modules across. The top of the reader board would be 3' below the identification sign, which would be raised 8' to the top of the pylons. There was considerable discussion .cis to the merits of a readable board at high traffic speeds, and its value in increasing business for the hotel. Chairman Sine announced that this application would be considered'at the public hearing of November 22, 1971 ADJOU RNME N The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Thomas C. Taylor Secretary Pro-Tem