Loading...
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,