HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1971.08.23THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
August 23, 1971
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli Taylor
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
CALL TO O RDE R
City Engineer Marr
City Planner Mann
City Attorney Karmel
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called
to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m.; Chairman Sine presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members were present, Commissioner Taylor's absence
being excused due to vacation.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 26 and study meeting of
August 8, 1971, submitted to members previously, were approved and
adopted.
1. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE - LOUIS A. STATES, INSTALLATION OF
BATHROOM WITHIN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 1355 PALOMA
Chairman Sine announced the continuance of the public hearing on this
application. Mr. Clark Barrett, representing the applicant, reviewed
the matter. He reported that Mr. States did not bring a written con-
tractor's proposal for the cost of moving the wall of the enclosed
patio, but had recently contacted a contractor who gave him a figure
of not less than $2,000. Another contractor had quoted $2,500. Mr.
Barrett informed the Commission that Mr. States did not feel he could
put in the bathroom and also take care of the cost of moving the wall.
He reiterated that the bathroom itself is not in an illegal area, and
that a building permit for the kitchen remodeling was allowed last year.
He mentioned that the States' have been taxpayers for 20 - 25 years,
and informed the Commission that Mr. States was willing to agree to an
alternative: that of having as a condition of the variance a statement
in the planning commission motion that approval of the variance in no
way would be construed as an estoppel or indicate the City's approval
of an illegal side yard setback. Mr. Barrett stated that he had
discussed this alternative with the City Attorney who asked him how
this could be used to bind a prospective purchaser in the years to come.
The attorney replied that Mr. States would be willing to execute and
record a document indicating to any title company or prospective
purchaser that they are buying this property with an illegal side
setback. He mentioned that the States' had inherited this problem, and
this last solution would not set a precedent - that Mr. States was
willing to bear the resulting reduction in property price.
Upon being asked for comments by the Chair, the City Planner
stated that a document recorded under these conditions would be most
unusual; that he was in doubt of a contract saying that the City knew
about an illegal room and would hold any future purchaser harmless.
With regard to Mr. Barrett's comments about the kitchen permit, he
brought out the fact that the kitchen is on the other side of the
house from the illegal room, and the inspector would not have gone to
the rear of the house to inspect the kitchen. He repeated that
there was no record of a building -permit for the room in question.
He stated that for years he had been attempting to eliminate illegal
usages, but in this case had been trying to find some way to compromise.
He mentioned that if the roof were open, this would not be considered
a room, and suggested that a door be put in instead of having a
straight wall.
The City Attorney told the Commission that on this afternoon Attorney
Barrett had made a phone call to him with the suggestion that his
client would be willing to enter into some kind of agreement to the
effect that if a favorable action of some kind were taken by the
planning commission, the applicant would recognize that the City was
not to be estopped in action to be taken in the future. The City
Attorney stated that he asked how this could be made binding on
successors in interest. He stated that Mr. Barrett suggested a ministeria:
act on the part of the building inspector and that perhaps an application
to the building inspector would suffice. Mr. Karmel stated he had not
arrived at any understanding with Mr. Barrett.
Commissioner Jacobs indicated that he felt the same as at a previous
meeting - that something must be done about non -conforming buildings -
but made the suggestion that possibly the illegal room could be
opened up with doors.
Commissioner Norberg voiced sympathy for the States' but stated he
appreciated the legal complications of permitting this bathroom to be
built.
Commissioner Mink asked permission to read from the zoning code on
non -conforming uses, Section 25.50.070, Repairs and Alterations,
which states,in brief,that remodeling, rebuilding or reconstructions
on a non -conforming building shall not be permitted. He felt in the
light of this there was nothing the Commission could do about this
variance.
Commissioner Kindig, after establishing the facts that the enclosed
patio was non -conforming and that no door was planned from it to the
proposed bathroom, questioned its possible future use as a rental
unit.
Commissioner Cistulli felt that since the "enclosed patio" was
actually an illegal room and not a patio, and that he did not feel
that Mr. States' proposition should be put into a recorded document,
he would abide by his former decision that this application be denied.
Chairman Sine stated that he could not find himself in the position
of condoning an illegal structure, nor could he accept Mr. Barrett's
suggestion of a legal recording. He indicated that the question was
- I -
open for a motion. Commissioner Cistulli moved that the application
for variance by Louis A. States to install a bathroom in the existing
structure at 1355 Paloma be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the
motion, and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. The Chairman
informed the applicant that he has the right of appeal to the City
Council.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
At this point, Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence of Councilman
Victor A. Mangini.
2. APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE, JOHN J. EXLINE, 2805 FRONTE RA WAY
Chairman Sine announced the consideration of this application, and
asked Secretary Kindig to read the correspondence on this case, which
included a note postmarked August 20 from Mrs. Exline, indicating they
would not be able to attend this public hearing because of vacation
plans, but would like it scheduled for the future. Mention was also
made of a notation of a phone call from a.Mr. Schneider inquiring
about the hearing, and his statement that the fence extension had
already been erected for a month.
There were no comments from the audience in response to the Chairman's
request for favorable or unfavorable statements.
Chairman Sine suggested that this matter be carried over until
another meeting, and there was discussion. Commissioner Cistulli
moved that this application be carried over to the date of the next
study meeting, September 13. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Jacobs and passed by voice vote.
3. SUBDIVISION, LANDS OF DORE, ROLLINS ROAD AND MARSTEN ROAD
Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on this proposed action.
Mr. Don Yarborough, Bank of America, San Mateo, administrator of this
property was present. Mr. Yarborough, upon being queried by the
City Planner, stated that the final map was not yet ready nor were
the easement deeds. The City Planner then went into the background of
this proposed subdivision which he had tried to effect for years,
stating that Mr. Yarborough had been the first to cooperate. He
went on to say that approval will be needed on a tentative map which
will be followed by a final map. This map divides the property into
four pieces and easements are provided to give complete access to all
four areas. He mentioned that adjoininc property holders will be parties
to the easements and that the only legal problem is the easement
where there is no other owner; and that, in this case, the City may be
a party. He reported that Fire Chief Moorby had looked at the map
and was pleased with the access roads. Prior to a brief recess, the
adjoining property owners were given copies of the map for examination
and discussion.
RECONVENE
Following a recess at 8:45, Chairman Sine reconvened the meeting at
8:50.
- 3 -
LANDS OF DORE (CONTINUED
At this point Chairman Sine asked if the adjoining property owners
were in agreement on the tentative map, and Messrs. Nerli and Walsh,
stated they were. The City Planner noted that agreement on easements
and other documents would be taken care of later. Commissioner Mink
commented that it was a very appropriate solution to a difficult
problem, and introduced a motion that the tentative map be approved.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously
on roll call vote. The City Planner requested Mr. Yarborough to finish
procedures on the final map and other documents as soon as possible.
4. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE, NEIL VANNUCCI, 5-UNIT APARTMENT AT
1116 CAPUCHINO (LOT 19, EASTON ADDITION)
The Chair introduced this application for public hearing. Mr. Vannucci
presented the commission for inspection a colored sketch of the proposed
apartment building. The Secretary of the Commission read the letter
of application presented by Mr. Vannucci.
Upon being invited to speak, Mr. Vannucci stated that there are many
buildings in this area of this type, similar variances having been
granted in the past; that his are very nice buildings, well located
on the lot; and that apartments of this type and size fit in with the
General Plan for this neighborhood.
Chairman Sine asked for comments from the audience in favor of this
variance, and Mrs. Jennie Sacco of 1142 Capuchino addressed the
Commission. He stated she lived next door to one of the proposed
apartments and thought it would definitely be an asset to the neigh-
borhood, since the house now occupying the lot is badly deteriorated.
Mrs. Olivia Rockwood of 1120 Capuchino voiced much the same opinion,
while a Mr. Dirkeson of 1131 Capuchino thought both of these apartments
would add a lot to the neighborhood.
There were no comments from the audience against the variance, and
the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Norberg thought the plans were in good shape. Commissioner
Jacobs considered the apartments would be an improvement to the area
and Commissioner Mink agreed. Commissioner Kindig also approved.
Commissioner Cistulli considered the building beautiful, although he
did not like the front stair case and suggested that more of the
landscaping be in shrubs rather than rocks. Chairman Sine thought
the apartments would be a decided asset. The City Planner stated he
had made a study of that particular block last year and that a
pattern has already been established of 5, 6, and 7 unit apartment
houses. Commissioner Mink suggested that in the future plans for such
apartments be much more detailed than Mr. Vannucci's in order that the
Commission might review them more thoroughly.
Upon Chairman Sine's request Mr. Vannucci presented a floor plan
for the Commission's inspection. Commissioner Mink moved that the
variance for a 5-unit apartment house at 1116 Capuchino, Lot 19,
Easton addition, be approved according to plans submitted, with the
condition that the landscaping contain more shrubbery than rocks.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously
on roll call vote. Chairman Sine informed the applicant that the variance
would be in effect September 8, 1971 if not appealed to the City
Council, and cautioned him with regard to the landscaping that this
variance was subject to recall if this item were not properly developed.
.Hr asked Vannucci to relay this information to the owner, although
it was made plain that Vannucci, as applicant, was personally
responsible.
S. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE - NEIL VANNUCCI, 5-UNIT APARTMENT AT
1136 CAPUCHINO (LOT 24, _EASTON ADDITION)
The Secretary of the Commission read the letter of application for this
variance. Mr. Vannucci explained that the plan for this apartment
was reversed in order to save a tree on the lot, and also to take
advantage of the position of the sun. He presented the Commission
with a floor plan.
In response to Chairman Sine's request for comments in favor from
the audience, the same people who approved the apartment for 1116
Capuchino indicated their comments were the same for this one. There
were no comments against the variance. The public hearing was
declared closed. All members of the commission indicated their approval
of this variance. Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion that the
variance for a 5-unit apartment building at 1136 Capuchino (Lot 24,
Easton Addition) be approved according to the plans submitted, with
the condition that the landscaping contain more shrubbery than rocks.
Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously on
roll call vote. Mr. Vannucci was informed by the Chair that this
variance would take effect on September 8, if not appealed to the
Council.
6. APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE, SKYLINE TERRACE APARTb1ENTS,
3133 AND 3155 FRONTERA WAY
Chairman Sine announced the public hearing on this application for
variance, and the Secretary read the letter of application.
Mrs. Diane Shane was present as representative of Skyline Terrace
Apartments. She informed the Commission that there were presently
two signs that were put up when the building was built. They were
getting worn and it was desired to take them down and replace them
with one large sign. She mentioned that at the study meeting she
was told the sign was too large, and indicated that a compromise
could be made. She mentioned that the apartments had had some
problems with the City in the past and voiced a desire to cooperate
fully. In response to a question, she stated she was the resident
manager of the apartments.
The City Planner 'commented on the proposed sign, stating the sign
presented two problems - that of size and that of location. The
size desired would be five or six times that of the code limitation.
However, he did agree for that particular location the size set forth
in the code would be too small. He mentioned that the proposed sign
seems to be in the nature of a billboard.
The Chairman asked for comments from the audience in favor of the variance.
- 5 -
There were none. He then asked for comments against the variance, and
a Mr. Mauss of 1837 Hunt Drive told the Commission that the sign would
be annoying, that this was a residential area and should be kept that
way. A Mrs. Agnello of 1807 Hunt stated that she was very much
against this sign. She felt harassed by the several applications
for signs that the apartment house owners had made and the subsequent
notices to the neighborhood. Mrs. Eileen Mauss of 1837 Hunt Drive
was also against the granting of this variance. She felt that residential
areas should not be exposed to signs of this type, and mentioned that
the present signs could be seen from down on Trousdale.
The public hearing was declared closed.
The Chairman noted from personal inspection that the two signs
presently on the property are 6 x 6 and no variance had ever been
granted for either of them. He stated they should have been removed
when the building was completed. Commissioner Norberg felt that some
compromise could be made on the size of the sign but nothing should
be allowed 4 times the legal size. Commissioner Jacobs thought the
sign was too big, not fitting for a residential area, and he would not
be in favor of it.
Commissioner Mink stated that a sign 6 feet square would be inappropriate
for the size of the building and he thought it should be redesigned,
noting that the sign should be of incombustible materials. Upon
being informed that there would be a recessed light, he stated that
the lighting should be very subdued, and such that you would not be
able to see the light fixture itself.
Commissioner Kindig thought the sign should be reduced to 1/2 size.
Otherwise, he had no comments.
Commissioner Cistulli felt that the property owners in the area
should be considered with regard to this sign. He mentioned that in
an interview with a former manager he was informed that the apartments
were always full with a waiting list of possible tenants. He felt
that with this kind of business no huge sign was necessary. Commissioner
Cistulli moved that this variance be denied. Motion died for lack of
a second. There was further discussion, during the course of which it
developed that the apartment building had been built four years ago
and that Mrs. Shane is not paying for the sign, but donating her time
and effort toward getting a more presentable one; also that Mrs.
Shane would consider a reduced size on the sign, although not as
small as code requires.
It was again moved by Commissioner Cistulli that this variance be
denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and carried
unanimously on roll call vote. The applicant was informed of her
right to appeal to the Council.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,