Planning Commission Minutes 1969

Transcription

237
January 6, 1969
The regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. on January 6, 1969
in the City Hall. Representing the City Staff: John O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent:
r--,
!
2.
Creighton, Heinecke, Moore, Perry, Tusler,
Perry, West
Gue
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16,1968
Commissioner Heinecke moved the minutes of December 16, 1968 be
approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Creighton and
unanimously approved.
3.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
Commissioner Perry nominated Commissioner Creighton for Chairman.
There was no second. Commissioner Tusler nominated Commissioner
West for Chairman. Commissioner Moore seconded the nomination.
Commissioner West was elected Chairman with Commissioner Perry
casting a dissenting vote.
Commissioner Perry nominated Commissioner Heinecke for ViceChairman; Commissioner Tusler seconded the nomination.
Commissioner Heinecke nominated Commissioner Creighton for
Vice-Chairman. There was no second, and Commissioner Heinecke
was elected Vice..,..Chairman~, Commissioner Heinecke abstained
from voting.
4.
OLD BUSINESS
None
1'----.,
S.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT APPLICATION
(1)
U-1Sl Tri-State Development Company. Application
for gasoline sales and car wash at 111 Red Hill
Avenue. AlP 6-169-03
Mr. Lee Boles of Napa, California, applicant, said this application
was for a combination gasoline sales and car wash. There would
be no routine service station jobs such as lubrications or tires.
Customers would never leave their car; traffic would flow smoothly
in a steady stream. He said it was anticipated there would be
2 employees.
!~"
Mr. Lee Chestnut, partner of Mr. Boles, of 1103 Main Street, Napa,
was asked how many cars they would anticipate using the service
per day, and he estimated 200. He said the hours of operation would
be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. He also said they would not be open
during the peak traffic hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Mr.
Chesnut said he hadspokeh to the Chief of Police, and there was
no record of an accident at this location, nor near the adjacent
service station. He said the lot would stack a total of 7 cars.
He said they did not anticipate a peak hour for this operation,
but e~pected acontinous flow. He pointed out that there was a
similar operation in Napa, and there had been no problems at that
location.
Commissioner Tusler said he heard the staff report on the off-street
parking, and he felt there should be on-site parking for employees,
at least.
Commissioner Perry said he was concerned about traffic, the lights,
turns off Sequoia, ingress and egress J noise, and if the operation
can be carried on in a safe manner.
Commissioner Creighton said he felt this application had more
merit than any of the others the Commission had received for the
location; however, he felt it would be a traffic generator.
---C
~atJ
QJ
Page No. 2
1/6/69
Commissioner Tusler pointed out that the application failed
to comply with city ordinance in distance from intersection
to driveway and off-street parking, and he felt the City has
sufficient gasoline service stations. He said he agreed the
site must be developed for a traffic-oriented use; he felt
the car wash alone would be better than that including a
gasoline sale.
~.
...
Commissioner Tusler moved that U-15l, application for Use
Permit, be denied for the reasons that:
1.
It would be detrimental to safety by creating undue
traffic congestion and access problems;
2.
It does not provide on-site parking;
3.
On-site circulation is not adequate to prevent
possible off-site stacking of cars;
4.
Granting of the application is not necessary for the
preservation of existing property rights.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Heinecke and unanimously
approved.
The applicant was informed of his right of appeal to the City
Council within ten days.
Commissioner West said he felt inadequacy of the site was the
basic problem and its proximity to the intersection.
B.
SUBDIVISION
(1)
SS-149 George Dray. Application for a 2-lot subdivision of A/P 6-115-01 at the corner of Sequoia
Drive and Knoll Road
After the staff report 'was read, Commissioner West pointed out
that actually Parcel #1 is a legal building site--an old
survey shows the site to be a shade over 5,,000' square ,feet and
meets the minimum width requirement. Parcels 2 & 3 are combined
as one building site, so what was actually before the Commission
was a lot line revision. He said a sanitary easement should be
considered as well as curb and gutter repair. He pointed out
that the staff had requirements in the building code to cover
the drainage.
Mr. Dray said he was agreeable to making curb and gutter repairs.
He said he would like to revise the lot line to create a better
building site.
Commissioner Perry moved SS-149, application for a 2 lot subdivision, be approved on the following conditions:
1.
The proposed line between the two parcels will be
drawn in a fashion which will parallel the northerly
line of lot #1, having its terminus points approximately as designated on the proposed map.
2.
That the map specify reservation of sewer easement
serving parcel 2 and running across parcell.
3.
That the existing curb be repaired.
4.
That a parcel map or record of survey be prepared
and recorded pursuant to ordinance.
,"_J
Motion seconded by Commissioners Creighton and unanimously approved.
Chairman West said this application does not involve the
creation of a new building site and that the lot line revision
is an improvement to the overall lot design in the area.
239
Page No. 3
6.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
A.
r-
1/6/69
Request of Phillip B. Lygren to discuss proposed lot line
revision with Planning Commission.
Mr. Lygren presented Assessor's Maps for the area of Oak Avenue
showing the Shortall and Watkin properties. He said 2 property
owners were involved. This was merely a transfer of property-there would be no new building site created. He said a cost of
a survey in this area would almost equal the value of the land,
and he felt this should be considered a community problem rather
than a problem for one or two property owners.
Chairman West agreed it would be an improvement to have the
property lines clearly delineated and said, on its face, the
request appears to have foundation and is reasonable; he would
be concerned not to create additional problems in the area and
not to set a precedent. Before approving the lot line revision,
he would like a staff comment and a comment from the City
Attorney.
Commissioner Heinecke was concerned that there not be created a
land-locked parcel.
Mr. Lygren was advised to submit his application for a subdivision under the small subdivision procedure, citing Section 7
or Ordinance 425 and to request an exception under. Section 9 of
Ordinance 425.
B.
SETBACK POLICY
After some discussion it was decided not to adopt a setback policy
at this time. Each applicant for a variance is to be considered
on its own merits.
r'----
C.
POLICY REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman West said some citizens have expressed dissatisfaction
with the postcard system of notifying adjacent property owners
of applications before the Planning Commission. He asked the
Commission to consider posting of the property itself. He said
he felt the advertisment in the newspaper was seen by few people.
Commissioner Perry said he felt the property would stay posted
only until thE! nearest teenager saw the notice.
Commissioner Heinecke suggested the Commission adopt the following
policy:
1.
A Public Hearing will be held on Use Permit Applications
only when specifically required by ordinance or by the
Chairman of the Planning Commission at his discretion.
2.
All application for Use Permits shall be accompanied by
a list of property owners within 300 feet of the
perimeter of the property for which a Use Permit is
being requested, and postcards will be sent at least
7 days in advance of the consideration. In the case of
an absentee property owner, a postcard will be sent to
the tenant also.
This item will be placed on the next agenda for final adoption.
The Commission was reminded of the Public Hearing on the Proposed
Widening of Sir Franci.s· Drake Boulevard on Thursday, and all were
asked to review the Peat, Marwick, Livingston Traffic Study
report prior to the meeting. Commissioner Creighton said he would
not be present.
/
The meeting adjourned at 10:30~.mL ~/J
CHAIRMAN
--c
2,4U
January 9, 1969
The Special Meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman John F. West, at 8:00 p.m. on January 9, 1969 in
the City Hall. Representing City Staff: Charles R. Leitzell, City
Engineer.
1.
~
,.."'%:'
ROLL CALL
Heiriecke, Moore, PerrY7 Tusler, West
Creighton and Gue
Chairman West explained this Public Hearing regarding the proposed
widening of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard was being held at the direction
of the City Council. He then asked the City Engineer to explain the
proposals.
Mr. Leitzell said Whitlow, Hoffman, Albritton's alternate #1 proposed
a minimum right of way take of 4 feet on each side of Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard from the Hub to Butterfield Road; in certain areas the
acquisition would, of necessity, be on one side. This proposal will
yield two 11 foot center lanes and two 13 foot side or gutter lanes with
3 foot planter strips and 5 foot sidewalks, for a total of 64 feet.
In
some areas of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard an overlay would be needed;
some areas would require repair and reconstruction. Other areas would
require removal of existing curb and gutter and providing new curb and
gutter and drainage facilities.
The second alternate would be to acquire property along one side of Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard; move homes back or to a new location and
salvage of lots, creating wide lots rather than deep lots, to obtain
100 feet of right of way. This would include provision for left turn
lanes.
If no left turn lanes were provided, then only 88 feet of right
of way would be necessary. Mr. Leitzell said if this property were
taken from the north side of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, roughly the
property acquisition would cost $2,037,000. These £igures were taken
from the Assessor's Tax Role and may be as much as 10% low. He felt
approximately $375,000 could be salvaged as buildable lots. He said
Urban Extension funds are available for right of way construction, but
not for right of way acquisition. Every possible source of funding has
been investigated, and Mr. Leitzell said this alternate appears not to
be within the financial capabilities of San Anselmo.
Mr. B. J. Wood of 47 Yolanda Drive asked to have the second alternate
explained as he came in late. He asked if there was a consideration
of Yolanda Court on the Agenda. Mr. Wood said he was distrubed because he did not see a notice in the newspaper.
Mr. Leitzell said this meeting was advertised in the Independent
Journal as a Public Hearing to consider the proposed widening of Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard.
Mr. Franceschi of Yolanda Court asked the boundaries of the proposed
widening, and was told the proposal was from the Hub to Butterfield
Road on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
Mr. Miriam Grove, 40 Yolanda Drive said she did not feel the Commission
should make a decision at this meeting since Commissioner Gue was
absent and he has a personal interest. Mrs. Grove also said the south
side of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard could be used for widening purposes
without moving any houses. She said her mother, who owns property on
Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, would be happy to dedicate to the City 15
feet of her property on the south side of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
for right of way purposes.
I
.1
Mr. David Bacigalupi, 56 Alder Avenue, thought it might be a good
idea to have the Commission discussion first and then audience participation, since perhaps many of the audience questions would be answered
before being asked. He also stated that he thought this whole matter
had been settled when the meetings were held at Wade Thomas School.
Page No. 2
24t'
1/9/69
Mayor Ragan, in the audience, stated that although Public Hearings had
been held at Wade Thomas School, there had been no decision made.
Mayor Ragan said that if interested civic groups wished to receive
agendas of city meetings, if the name of the Secretary of the Group
were given to the City Clerk and Planning Commission Clerk, Agendas
would be mailed.
r-.
Mrs. Marjorie McDonald, 34 Florence Avenue said she had attended all
of the meetings and had thought the matter settled. She said she was
still 100% against any widening project. She said she will fight
against any widening until her dying day.
Mrs. Wagner of Fern Lane said since there was a question of financial
feasibility she did not understand why there was discussion about
anything other than the proposed widening of 2 feet on either side
of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
Mr. Cecil Norton, 1437 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, said he felt
to have Sir Francis Drake Boulevard a four lane roadway with no
parking would be extremely hazardous for property owners on Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard who find it necessary to back onto Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard.
Mrs. Marjorie Hadley, 1405 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard said she felt
the first alternative would not solve the problem of a route to the
coast, that it was only a stop-gap measure and would create a
genuinely bad parking situation, as. well as ingress and egress for
property owners on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
Mr. David Greenlee, III of Hillcrest Courst said he uses Sir Francis
Drake every day and would appreciate anything that could be done to
improve the traffic situation.
Mrs. Sarah Nome, 77 Alder. Avenue asked how many minutes could be
saved on an average trip from Butterfield Road to the Hub. Mrs.
Nome said she was not speaking as Secretary for the San Anselmo
Homes Association, and it was the consensus of the Traffic Committee
that no action should be taken at the present time until the County
decides on a route to West Marin.
Mr. George Davison of 34 Foss Avenue said he had helped work out
the first alternate plan. He said presently there is an 800 vehicle
per hour per lane capacity.
In the near future he felt the
saturation point would be reached and there would be blockages, etc.
He said alternate 1 would relieve the situation somewhat in that it
would provide 2 lanes in each direction, less bus stops. He felt it
would handle the situation .for 3 or 4 years at the best. Mr.
Davison said the reiief was needed right now and the funds were
available for the narrower widening, and this money would not be
lost inasmuch as the lanes will still be there.
Mrs. Alice Stinchcomb, 50 Alder Avenue said she felt the City should
consider the kind of place we are living in. She would like the
Commission to think in terms of trying to slow the traffic down, retain the natural atmosphere of the community.
Mr. Franceschi. said he felt it better to do any improvement
once piecemeal.
Mrs. Grove asked if rapid transit had been considered.
Butierfield Road and Sleepy Hollow should be.widened~
Mr. Majesky
He was told
that when a
the highway
~ll
at
She felt
asked if anyone knew of a, decision on Highway 17 as yet.
no decision was reached, but the Engineers had estimated
decision was made, it would take at least 10 years before
would be constructed.
Mrs. Hadley said it was too bad that. there
parking for the homes on Sir Francis Drake
thought should be given to the widening so
graciously. She felt it strange that only
Drake Boulevard were present.
might eventually be no
Boulevard--calm, serious
it could be accomplished
3 residents of Sir Francis
~,4~
"""""
c
~
Page No. 3
1/9/69
Mrs. McDonald asked if the City improved Center Boulevard if the
State would then preempt it.
Mr. Leitzell said the State Highway people do not consider Center
Boulevard or Sir Francis Drake Boulevard suitable for freeway
purposes. He said further that problems exist: Presently there
is a section of approximately 1 mile that has a peak capacity of
800 vehicles per hour. Last year there were 91 property damage
accidents on this section, 22 injury accidents and 1 fatality.
He said while San Anselmo has no obligation to provide for West
Marin, until the State does something, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
is the only access to West Marin and peo~le must continue to use it.
Commissioner Heinecke asked if with the minimum improvement there
would be no parking 24 hours a day; he wondered if, during midday
and mid-week and winter weekends, this would be necessary.
Mr. Leitzell said restricting parking only at certain times of the
day is confusing to people and hazardous,and even at midday the
present 2 lanes are used to capacity.
Mr. Heinecke then asked about reversible lanes.
Mr. Leitzell pointed out that besides being confusing to people,
maintenance costs would be extremely high inasmuch as it would take
considerable manpower to move the needed physical barriers each time (
during the day that the lanes were reversed.
Commissioner Moore said he felt the City might be trading one evil
for another. He said the widening might invite deterioration
of the property adjacent to the widening. He said to materially
improve street£ means stimulating traffic from other areas. He said
within San Anselmo, getting through San Anselmo is not that difficult.
Commissioner Perry said he was not in favor of any development which
would make San Anselmo a route to anywhere; however, we must
recognize that we do have a traffic problem. He said he strongly
felt a more logical approach would be to straighten out the intersections at the Hub and Bridge Street, and he felt this would relieve
traffic without any widening.
Commissioner Tusler said the Commission did have a responsibility to
give a reccomendation to the City Council on the proposal. He
thought Mrs. Stinchcomb made an extremely good point of why people
live in San Anselmo, and whether or not the proposal would enhance
the environment. He said a traffic study was under way presently by
the County, and he would be reluctant to commit the City until this
study was complete. He said he felt widening of Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard would result in numerous requests for increased density,
and this would not be desirable.
Commissioner West said some consideration should be given to what is
considered a service area; provision should be made for local
circulation within this area. Highway widening tends to generate
traffic to use the improvement to its full capacity. The traffic
circulation problem should be looked at as a balanced transportation
problem. He felt the City should continue to support and press for
balanced transportation. Mr. West said further the impact on the
neighborhood should be considered--destroying front yards and
plantings. Undergrounding of utilities should be considered, and lastly, he felt the issue of 10 lanes of traffic through San Anselmo
should be settled for once and for all.
Mr. Leitzell said his major function as City Engineer was to present
facts to the Commission and to the Council; however, as a private
citizen, he felt while the minimum section would provide for an
increase in capacity, it is not an ultimate solution.
If some form
of rapid transit is develpped , then perhaps 6 lanes would be
adequate. He said there is going to have to be a by-pass built,
and someone other than the City of San Anselmo is going to have to
construct it. There is no money available at the present time for
-
,.."'%:'
2:43·
Page No.·4
1/9/69
other alternates~ He agreed that widening will tend to generate more
traffic and tend to increase pressures for strip commercial or
multiple zoning. He said while strip commercial zoning is not considered good planning, he was not so sure that strip multiple zoning
would be poor planning. He said another alternate would be to widen
Center Boulevard where the City already has a large portion of the
right of way for 4 lanes. ·Provision ·for noise mitigation could be
made with earth berms. and planting •.
r~
Commissioner Heinecke asked if it would be beneficial to improve the
Hub and the "Little Hub" at Bridge Street.
Mr. Leitzell said he felt it would. be,. and would ease the traffic
si tuation some,· but not as much as the widening.
Commissioner Tusler said he believed all were agreed that whatever
is done will have a long-range effect on the community. The impact of
the development proposed for 4 moving lanes is not satisfactory in terms
of overall welfare of the community.
It was clear that there. was not
sufficient information in terms of impact on community, alternatives
and firm cost figures to make a valid decision at the present time. He
suggested a one-year moratorium. He felt an additional year would allow
completion of the revised City Master Plan, release of the County
Planning Transportation Study and study of the above available options
on city environment.
Chairman West said he would prepare a presentation for the City Council;
he asked if the Commission agreed that the Council should review a
consideration of 10 lanes in the corridor .. All~ of the Commission
agreed 10 lanes through San Anselmo would not be acceptable.
:CHAIRMAN
Z''3I: 'iI
January 20, 1969
c
~
...,...
,......
.....
The regular' meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was called
to order-by Chairman John F.-West in the City Hall at 8:00p.m. on
January 20,1969. Representing the City Staff:· 'Charles R. Leitzell
1.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Commissioners absent:
2.
Moore, Perry, Tusler, West
Creighton, Gue~ Heinecke
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Tusler moved the minutes of January 6, 1969, be
approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Moore: and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
SUBDIVISIONS
(1)
SS-150 E. K. Boggs. Application for a lot line
revision AlP 5-185-03 & 14 at 30 & 32 Meadowcroft·
Drive.
Mr. Leitzell read the staff report.
He said presently there are
two existing lots and Mr. and Mrs. Boggs wish to sell them
separately; however, the existing lot line would cut through the
patio and the front porch, hence the need for the lot line
revision.
There is an existing sewer line that serves both
houses and a sanitary sewer easement would be necessary.
Commissioner Perry asked about the setback for the accessory
building. Mr. Leitzell explained that this building was more
than 60 feet from the front property line.
Chairman West said
the ordinance did not so read. Mr. Leitzell explained that
there was an error in punctuation of the ordinance and this was
the intent. Chairman West asked if this were so, steps be taken
to see that the Municipal Code is correctly punctuated or
confirmed as written.
Commissioner Tusler said generally, it was not a good idea to
create a meandering lot line; however, in this case, he felt the
end result justified the line. He said he did not wish to set a
precedent.
Commissioner West said in this case, he saw a "tortured lot
line"; however, he was concerned over the first 110 feet of the
lot, since the proposed lot line would cut one of the lots to
37 feet at one point. He said he would like to see the lot
line follow the original lot line. He said the smaller home
could be removed at some time and some subsequent owner would
be left with only 37 feet to construct a new house and would
undoubtedly require a variance.
Commissioner West asked if, at some time a record of survey
would have to be filed, and if so what reason would there be
from departure at this time from the policy of filing of a
record of surveyor parcel map and a survey would be costly.
Mr. Leitzell said a record of survey could be omitted at this
time because the dwelling exists and all that is needed is
evidence of the land division (a metes and bounds description
to be recorded).
He said if, at some future time, there was a
demolition of one dwelling and application for a new building,
the land would have to be surveyed in order to confirm setbacks.
He said further, the applicant had been going. to sell the one
parcel and grant an easement for access and patio. He felt this
was a far better solution to the problem and therefore was
willing to forego the map at this time.
__i
,-:.a
w
.....-...
Page No. 2
-
'''''!"''I
_do
1/20/69
245'
. ...
Commissioner Tusl~r moved SS-150, application for lot line
revision of A/P 5-185-03 & 14, as indicated on the map prepared
by Arthur J. Lang and dated January 31, 1968, be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1.
That the
lot line
Drive to
distance
westerly line of Parcel B follow the original
from the front of the parc,el on Meadowcroft
its intersection with the existing fence, a
of approximately 100 to 105 feet.
2.
That the lot line revision is recorded by metes and
bounds; map to be filed with the City.
~
Motion seconded by Commissioner Perry who said justification, as
far as the City is concerned in approving of this lot line
revision,. is that a sale of Parcel A could be accomplished
without the lot line revision, but such a sale would probably
result in the creation of an easement for the use of the area
incorporated in the lot line adjustment, thereby having the use
of the land and its ownership not coincide; the City would have
no control, and by and large, this is a more orderly manner of
Accomplishing the transfer.
Motion approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Moore, Perry, Tusler
Commissioner West
Commissioner West said:
"While I have no objection to the lot
line revision, I feel it is not in the best interests of orderly
record keeping to waive the record of survey". He further stated
that he was disturbed about the waiving of maps, he felt a map
should be required in every revision of lot line.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
A memorandum from the Administrator-Controller regarding regular
attendance of Commissioners, Committee members and others serving
the City was read. A copy of this memorandum is being forwarded
to each Commissioner.
6.
A.
NOTICE OF HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND·TENANTS
Commissioner Perry said he felt the following addition should be
made to the policy proposed at the last meeting " ..• post cards
should be'sent by the City".
Commissioner Tusler felt the occupant of the property adjacent to
a proposed use should-be notified as well as the owner of the
property. Mr. Leitzell said he felt the property owner was the
only person concerned. Chairman West said again that he felt the
property should be posted, and this w9uld take care of informing
possible rental occupancies.
Commissioner Perry said he felt notification to owners of property
within 150 feet would be adequate.
It was suggested that additional post cards wou1d be duplicated
and attached to an 8 x 10 inch cardboard and the propert'y in
question posted in at least 3 places.
Mr. Leitzell asked if this would pertain to all applications for
Use Permits, Subdivisions and Rezonings . .
Chairman West said he would reword the policy to be adopted regarding notice to adjacent property owners and submit his wording
to the Commission for the next regular meeting.
./
m~eting
At 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Moore moved the
be 4ourned; seconded
by Commissioner Perry and unan~sly ~J
F. WEST
NING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
-...
:t:~4tj,
c
cs
February 3, 1969
"%:'
=-
The regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. on February
3, 1969 in the City Hall. Representing the City Staff: Charles
R. Leitzell
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Creighton, Heinecke, Moore, Perry,
Tusler, West
Gue
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 1969
Commissioner Tusler asked that the last line of paragraph 36 of
the miriutes be corrected to read as follows:
"I feel an
additional year would allow completion of the revised City
Master Plan, release of the County Planning Transportation
Study and study of the above available options on city environment.
Mr. Leitzell asked that paragraph 2, in the last sentence, the
word "asphalt" be repl~ced with "earth".
Mr. Leitzell also said in regard to paragraph 15, the statement
of Mrs. Sarah Nome, he understood Mrs. Nome was not speaking
as a representative of the Homes Association and the statement
should indicate the consensus of the Traffic Committee rather
than of the membership of the Association.
Commissioner Perry said he felt the minutes should reflect
what actually was said at the meeting.
Commissioner Moore moved the minutes of January 9, 1969 be
approved as corrected; mot-ion seconded by Commissioner Perry
and unanimously approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 1969
-~,
Chairman West asked that Item 4A (1), paragraph 4-be corrected
to read:
"Commissioner West said in this case he saw a
"tortured lot line".
Commissioner Tusler moved the minutes of January 20, 1969 be
approved with this correction, seconded by Commissioner Moore
At this time Chairman West read a statement written by Chairman
West in which he said he had heard criticism of the 1969 election
of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, and
he then stated he declared the election of January 6, 1969 null
and void and nominations were now in order.
Commissioner Perry said he did not feel it would be' in the
Commission's best interests at this point to reopen the
election, rather a vote of confidence would be in order, and
he there fore moved:
"That this Commission give a vote of
confidence both as to the procedure and outcome of the recent
election wherein John West was elected as Chairman and Philip
Heinecke as Vice Chairman. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Creighton and unanimously approved.
Commissioner Moore said he felt that the outcome of the_~,.J
election, whether Robert's Rules of Order were followed precisely, was within the spirit of what the Commission intended,
so whether or not the strictest following of those rules was
met is almost an academic consideration.
Commissioner Tus'ler said he would certainly like to second
what Commissioner Moore said.
Motion unanimously approved.
247
Page No. 2
2/10/69
Chairman West abstained. He said, for the record, he would like to
say that he was quite certain no one on the Commission had anything
to do with the rumors that he had heard circulated about the election.
A.
SUBDIVISIONS
(1)
r=-
SS-lSl Shortall-Watkin. Lot Line Revision A/Ps 7-191-07,
7-201-01-03-04 (Vicinity of 500 Oak Avenue)
Mr. Leitzell read the staff report. He said the tentative map had
been examined and appeared to be in order. One small parcel is being
eliminated. Mr. Lygren, Engineer for the applicant, said normally they
would submit a -regular map; however, a survey was not justified, and no
new lots were being created; one small 'lot was being eliminated. The
reason for the request would be to simplify lot lines and given added
privacy.
Commissioner Perry said he thoughtthiswould solve one of the many,
many problems on the hill.
Commissioner Perry moved that SS-lSI, Shortall--Watkin, application for
lot line revision of Assessor's Parcels 7-191-07, 7-201-01-03-04 be
approved as indicated on tentative map dated January 16, 1969, provided
that a good and sufficient metes and bounds description be recorded
with the County Recorder; that this application should be approved
because the particular area poses difficult problems relating to
ascertaining of definite property lines, and that, in this application,
no ~dditional building sites are proposed,but rather that the end
result is to separate two ownerships by a used road rather than having
arbitrary and meaningless lines; that there-is a discernable benefit'
to .the City of San Anselmo, and that an obscure boundary line- situation
is cleared up.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Heinecke and approved unanimously.
B.
STREET NAME
(1)
Request by 6 residents of private road off Melville Avenue to
name Road "Echo Court".
Mr. Leitzell reported that the Police Department and Fire Department
had approved the name for this street; there were no similar names in
the area.
Commissioner Tusler moved that the request to name the private road off
Melville Avenue, Echo Court, having been approved by the Police Chief
and Fire Chief, be approved also by the Planning Commission, subject
to approval of the postmaster as to possible duplication. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Heinecke and unanimously approved.
C.
REVIEW OF USE PERMIT
(1)
U-144 A. W. Cherry. Review of Traffic in conjunction with
Use at 112 Spaulding Street, per Use Permit.
Mr. Leitzell reported there have been no complaints with regard to this
Use, and the'Police Department has reported no congestion.
Commissioner Heinecke moved that the report be accepted and no further
action be taken at this time with respect to U-144. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Moore and unanimously approved.
5.
A.
Policy regarding notification to Property Owners
Chairman West had drafted a proposed policy regarding notice to adjacent
property owners and a,fter some 'discussion , the following policy was
adopted:
1.
A Public Hearing will be held for Subdivision, Rezoning, ~r Use
Permit applications when specifically required by Ordinance or
when deemed necessary by the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
---c
2·4~
c;
Page No. 3
2.
B.
2/10/69
'"%:'
....
-.
Applications for Subdivisions, Rezonings or Use Permits
shall be accompanied by a list of names and addresses of
all owners of property, any part of .which lies wi thin
,150 feet of the property for which the application is
made.
3.
Planning Staff will mail postcard notice of the application
to all property.owners on the list, at least 7 days fn
advance of the meeting at which the application will be
considered.
4.
Notice
Permit
cinity
of the
5.
Applications ·for Use Permfts' 'shall be submitted to the
Planning Office not less than 13 days in advance of the
meeting· at which the application will be considered, unless a Public Hearing is required, in which case the
application shall be submitted 17 days in advance.
of application for Subdivision, rezoning or Use
shall be posted in 3 conspicuous places in the viof the affected property at least 7 days in advance
meeting at which the application will be considered.
~_I
USE OF ADDITIONAL WESTBOUND LANE ON SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BOULEVARD DURING 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. PEAK HOURS
Mr. Leitzell explained that this would not involve moving the
right of way but would involve improving a portion of the street
and the curb and gutter area, particularly across from Sir Francis
Drake High School.
Commissioner Tusler asked the reason for restricting traffic westbound and not eastbound.
Mr. Leitzell told him the peaking hours in the morning were spread
over a longer period of time.
When asked if it were a requisite of receiving Urban Thorofare
Funds to restrict parking during peak hours, Mr. Leitzell replied
that was the implication. Mr. Leitzell said the City was going to
have to do something about the drainage in the area.
__J
Commissioner Tusler said he· agreed there should be no parking from
the Hub to Sonoma Avenue because there is an extremely dangerous
situation the way it is now. One never knows when coming around
the curve what is going to be there. ~ He felt further westward
restriction of parking would create certain difficulties for home
owners in the area getting in and out of their driveways. He said
he would like to see Sir Francis Drake Boulevard improved without
necessarily restricting parking at this time.
Mr. Leitzell said at the recent convention he attended on Highway
Safety it was brought out that when parking was restricted, improving the driveways and widening 'of driveways increased the
safety of ingress and egress onto restricted streets.
Commissioner Heinecke said he did not feel the Commission had time
to study the proposal adequately, and that the matter should be
held over until the Commission had time to review the area.
Commissioner Creighton said he felt the restriction would benefit
a great number of people.
Commissioner West said he felt the Commission was getting the rush
act because there was some possibility of getting some money; however, he felt that did not justify an inadequate examination. He
said he was concerned because the County Traffic Engineer appeared
to be attempting to shove us in the direction of 4 lanes on Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard which the Commission and the Council had
already rejected, and while he agreed, it is desirable to repair
curb section for drainage and to repair the road section structurally, he is doubtful about the condition which the County Traffic
,.J
-
249
Page No. 4
2/10/69
Engineer has hung on this. It seems to propel us in the direction
of 4 moving lanes and an intrusion in the ar~a, which in his opinion,
will lead to the destruction of the area.
It is a short range thing
with probably only a secondary benefit to our service area. He said
he felt it an- unwise short range expedient.
Mr. Leitzell said it was true that this is only a shbrt range project,
but it gives time to work out other "long range solutions. This is
not intended to be a lon~ range solution.
Chairman Tusler moved that the Chairman inform the City Council that
the Planning Commission recommends against prohibition of parking at
any time on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard because it is not in the
best interests of the City in that:
1.
It is one step
section;
2.
It would he detrimental to adjacent property owners;
3.
That it would encourage through traffic while providing
what is, at best, a temporary solution.
t~ward
~n
ultimate narrow 4
moving lane
Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and" approved by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Perry, Tusler, Moore, West
NOES: Commissione!t' Creighton
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Heinecke
Commissioner Creighton said he voted no for the reason- that it might
simply eliminate a bottleneck for that portion of Sir Francis Drake
where you permit the parking--you have 2 lanes which suddenly come
into one lane. By eliminating the parking from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.
you would have an additional lane of- traffic which would expedite the
flow of traffic in the westbound direction.
Commissioner Heinecke abstained for the reason that he did not::feel
the Commission had adequate opportunity to prepare themselves to vote
on the question.
Commissioner Perry said he voted Aye because he feels that the
Commission, in general, have had inadequate opportunity to study the
matter, and it would be a mistake to proceed with an improvement like
this without adequate consideration of what the end result might be.
Chairman West said he would prepare a presentation for the City Cou'ncil.
He asked if the Commission agreed that the Council should review a
consideration of 10 lanes in the corridor. All of the Commission
agreed 10 lanes through San Anselmo would not be acceptable.
At 12:25 a.m. Commissioner Perry moved, seconded by Commissioner Moore,
unanimously approved, that the meeting be adjourned.
JoHN~~J
ING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
,--c
~'aU
~
"'%:'
=The regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman John F. West at 8:05 p.m. in the City Hall on
February 17, 1969. Representing the City Staff: John OiRourke
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Creighton, Heinecke, Peiry, Tuslei, West
G~
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Creighton moved the minutes of February 3, 1969
be approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Perry and unanimously
approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
(1)
U-124.
Request by Paul L. Foti, Foti's Head Shop,.
640 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard for Modifications
of Use Permit granted on 4-17-69
'
(2)
U-152 R.D.M. Motors, Application for Auto Repair
Shop and Sale of Accessories at 640 Sir Francis Drake
B~l~a~.
(3)
U-153 David J.Miller, application for Auto Repair
Shop at 640 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
Commissioner Perry asked the applicants if there was 'any connection
between the three businesses, and the applicants agreed there
was nonei they are simply independent businessmen doing business
in the same building and sharing ,the same outdoor area. Mr. Perry
said in view of the common building and outdoor area, he felt each
applicant should be heard before a motion was made on anyapplication. The rest of the Commission agreed, and Mr. Foti was heard
from first.
Mr. Foti said his original use permit did not allow storage of
cars out of doors over night, and he now finds that it is sometimes
necessary to store a car outdoors when the motor is being worked
on. He said he had recently purchased a rack and hoist and it was
necessary for him to assemble the rack and to see that it was in
proper working oider in the outdoor area. He said he intended to
move it inside.
Commissioner Tusler said he noticed 6 cars outdoors on Sunday.
The City Staff reported 5 cars parked outside the building tonight,
and the Chairman said there were 10 cars outside when he was
there on Sunday, including some in ,the, area between the gas
pumps and the street.
Mr. Foti said there was 12 to 15 feet between the pumps and
the street, and there was plen~y of room to park without parking
on the sidewalk. The reason, he said, for so many cars on Sunday
was that each of his family was there working on cars, and they
all came in their own cars. These were not cars that were
being worked on.
Commissioner Creighton asked about the yellow line delineating
the outdoor area and about the outdoor storage of materials-trash cans and removed heads. He felt this area should be
screened.
251
- 2 -
2/17/69
Mr. Foti said that he felt fencing might hamper garbage collection,
He said he had constructed a raised pad, approximately 5 x 10 feet
in size, ·on·which to place his trash cans and to store the removed
heads, and he has a small grate on which he dries recently cleaned
parts. He agreed that some fencing could be placed on one side of
this pad. Mr~ Foti said he felt a total of four cars stored out of
doors would satisfy his requirements.
Mr. Roy Matthews of R.D.M. Motors said his business was absolutely
identical to that of Brady & Ulrich (former owner), from whom he had
purchased the business, and who had a Use Permit. He repairs cars
and sells auto accessories. He said he required no outdoor storage;
he would be happy if none were granted, and he would also like to see
the gasoline pumps removed.
Mr. David J. Miller, the third applicant, said while he does not
work for R.D.M. Motors, he does services for them and is paid a
contract price for the auto repair work he does. He s~lls no accessories. His automobile storage is all inside, and he requires no outdoor
storage overnight. Commissioner Tusler asked him if signs would be
required for his business, and he replied that they would not.
Commissioner West said the relationship was not clear to him.
asked if Mr. Miller leased space from R.D~M.
He
Mr. Miller said he -neigher leases space from the owner of the
building, nor from R.D.M. Motors. He simply is an independent
contractor working in Mr. Matthews portion of the building.
Commissioner West asked Mr. Miller if his business came exclusively
from R.D.M.Motors and if he had no business from off the street.
Mr. Miller replied that he did contract work for R.D.M. Motors only;
he did not accept work- from the general public.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Matthews each agreed that this was the case:
Mr.
Matthews is the leasee for the entire space used by both businesses.
Commissioner Perry suggested in this event Mr. Miller would not need
a Use Permit.
Commissioner Creighton felt that each business should have a Use
Permit.
Commissioner West said if this were a new,business, he would vote
against a third Use Permit because the building would be overcrowded.
Commissioner Perry moved with respect to U-i52 that a Use Permit be
issued to R.D~M. Motors for the operation of an automobile repair
service and the sale of accessories providing that the sale of
gasoline is prohibited, and further provided that there is no
authorization for the overnight storage of automobiles or materials
out of doors. Commissioner Tusler seconded the motion which was
Commissioner Perry moved with respect to U-153, application of David
J. Miller, for a Use Permit to conduct an automobile repair shop at
640 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, that the Planning Commission
recommend withdrawal by the applicant of the application, and further,
that a request be made to the City to refund his application fee for
the reason that: The Commission finds that so long as Mr. Miller's
business is conducted exclusively with R.D.M. Motors, he is not, in
fact, a separate business which should have a Use Permit, but rather
he is an independent contractor operating within the framework of the
business and the Use Permit granted to R.D.M. motors. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Tusler and unanimously approved.
Chairman West informed Mr. Miller that he has no Use Permit for a
business, he cannot advertise as a business, nor will he be permitted
a sign or any identity as a separate business. Mr. Miller said this
was his understanding of the motion, and he was agreeable.
With respect to U-124, application of Paul L. Foti, for a modification
of his Use Permit granted by the Planning Comml'ss'
A'
lon on prl1 17
, 1967
~
~5~
-
3 -
2/17/69
Commissioner Perry.moved that a modification of the conditions regarding
this Use Permit be . :made to the effect that overnight parking out of doors
for 4 automobiles is authorized; that outdoor storage of equipment or
material be.authorized; provided it be kept in, the area which is
approximateLy-. 5. -by 10' feet in size at the northwesterly corner of the
outdoor space, 'and further providing that this modification shall be
further reviewed 6 months from this date. This is not to be construed
as authorization to store the hoist outside. Motion seconded by
Commiss-ioner, Tusler and unanimously approved.
Commissioner West said he voted for approval of this application
because, in hsiopinion, outdoor storage for 4 automobiles is the
maximum for the entire premises at 640- Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
and that the successful conduct of the activities of the two
permittees at that address is dependent on their cooperation and good
relationships'~ -.. '"
Commissioner Tusler said that anything the permittees could do to
encourage the owner to remove the gasoline pumps at this address would
be of great benefit to the City.
B.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
(1)
ADJ.
391, Frank S. Baczynski, application for a 3 foot
sideyard variance to construct an addition and a patio
(Air Vent
cover at 113 Santa Cruz Avenue. A/P 5-211-36.
Aluminum Awning Co., Contractor).
Mr. Baczynski said they have 2 daughters sharing a very small bedroom
and no family room, and they would like to square off the corner of
their house to enlarge the small bedroom and cover their patio area
to be used for an outdoor living area.
Commissioner Perry said he felt the main issue would be whether view,
light or air would be restricted by this Construction.
Mr. Butterfield, the neighbor on the south side, said he had
absolutely no objection to the application.
Commissioner West said the room area addition was nominal--less than
17 square feet--the roof line was below the neighbor's first floor
and he could see no objection to the application.
Commissioner Tusler moved that ADJ. 391, application of Frank S.
Baczynski, for a sideyard variance of approximately 3 feet and
extending 5 & 1/2 feet, plus the length of the existing patio to the
west of the existing dwelling, be approved for the following reasons:
/
1.
That due to a difference in elevations of the neighboring
properties, the variance does not materially affect these
properties;
2.
Existing fire access is not affected;
3.
That this provides a logical means of improving the property.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Creighton and unanimously approved.
Commissioner West voted Aye for the reason that:
(1)
In connection
with the extension of the bedroom, the area involved is nominal as
far as the non-conformity is concerned and that enforcement of the
ordinance here would create practical difficulties;
(2)
That as far
as the patio cover is concerned, there are minor practical difficulties,
but the variance seems justified since it in no way affects
the property on the westerly side by reason of the difference in
elevations and does not affect the property on the easterly side,
being 25 to 30 feet away.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
A letter regarding rezoning policy from the City Administrator
was read.
A letter regarding a meeting of the City Council on February 25, 1969
c
c:
--
,.."'%:'
253
Planning Commission Minutes
2/17/69
which the Planning Commission were invited to attend was read.
6.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A.
Planning for Future Arterial Widening--questions for Zucker,
Frost and Kashin.
Chairman West explained that the City Council has asked these
experts to consult with the City to answer any questions the City
might pose in regard to the transportation corridor.
Councilman Reed had prepared a list of questions for the experts
which Mr. Leitzell read aloud.
Commissioner Tusler had prepared a·list of 11 questions which
he read aloud.
Commissioner Heinecke asked what was meant by "rapid transit"
and what the alternatives that are apt to come about are.
Commissioner Creighton asked how our improvements were going
to be correlated with those of Fairfax and Ross.
Commissioner West and Commissioner Tusler volunteered to prepare
a list of questions based on those read by Commissioner Tusler
for the experts and make the presentation.
B. City Engineer Leitzell reported that he met with the Urban
Thorofare Committee, and they had denied the request for
money to cimprove the signalization on Sir Francis Drake Blvd;
however, they had increased the appropriation for the Hub and
Bridge Street Improvement.
At 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Creighton moved the meeting be adjourned,
seconded by Commissioner Heinecke and unanimously approved.
. WEST
COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
~~4
c
~
PIf:'
;..
The regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission
was called to order by Chairma,n John F. West at 8:00 p.m. in the
City Hall on March 3, 1969. Representing the City Staff: John
. O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Bresent: Creighton, Heinecke, Moore, Tusler,
West
Commissioners Absent: Gue, Perry
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1969
Commi,ssioner Tusler moved the minutes of February 17, 1969 he
approved as written. Motion seconded by Commissioner Heinecke
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None --.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
~
(1) U-154, Bartlett C. Tucker.. Application for living
quarters, secondary toC-l Use at 1 Saunders Avenue.
The staff report was read and. letters opposing the use were
read from Mrs. Fred Schrader, 1 Yolanda Drive, Helen M. Arfsten,
21 Yolanda Drive; and Winifred Bryant, 15 Yolanda Drive.
Mr. & Mrs. Randall, operators of the business were present with
Mr. Bartlett Tucker the leasee of the building. Mr. Tucker said
they were partners, more or less, in that they each bought and
sold items of furniture, appliance and miscellanea at this location.
Mr. Tucker said he had hauled 15 loads of garbage away from
this location and had painted and generally cleaned up the location.
Mrs. Randall said she anticipated no outdoor use; however,
when appliances are brought in they are stored outside until
they are cleaned.
Mrs. Dorothy Smith, 33 Yolanda Drive, asked when the ordinance
was amended to allow living quarters in a C-l District. She
questioned whether this was an appropriate use for this district.
She said the ordinance appeared to indicate to her that a C-l
district would be for neighborhood~eriented services. She did
not think a used furniture and appliance store was a neighborhood-oriented service.
Mrs. Randall said the Veteran's pick-up store across the street
was the same general type use and it had operated there for
many years.
Mr. Tusler asked if previous owners or leasees had used the rear
of the store for living quarters--Mr. Tucker said they had.
Mr. Bryant, 15 Yolanda Drive, in the audience, said no one had
lived there during the past 25 years in which the Bryants had
lived in Yolanda Court.
Commissioner Heinecke said he wanted to go into the Retail Use
before acting on the application for the secondary use of the
living quarters.
Chairman West said the questions raised at this meeting are:
(1) Is this Use similar to the uses enumerated in Section
10-3.902 (1) through (4).
(2) Is there, or will there be, outdoor storage of
merchandise.
(3) The suitab11ity of living quarters as a secondary use.
,..,j
-2-
3/3/69
255'
Chairman West said the questions raised at this meeting are:
(1) Is this Use similar to the uses enumerated in Section
10-3.902 (1) through (4).
(2) Is there, or will there be, outdoor storage of merchandise.
(3) The suitability of living quarters as a secondary use.
Commissioner West said he did not interpret the ordinance to mean
the secondary use would necessarily be required to be in conjunction with the permitted use.
Mr. Randall was asked to describe the nature of his proposed use.
He said he sold second-hand furniture and appliances. He added
that any amount of people are so glad that they have opened this
store.
Commissioner Heinecke asked about the difference in the operation
of the store at 1 Saunders Avenue and that of the Veteran's
Pick-up Service at 1201 San Anselmo Avenue. Mr. Tucker said the
store on Saunders Avenue concentrated mostly on used furniture
and used 'appliances, while he, at his store at 1201 San Anselmo
Avenue, sells "junk", clothing, earrings, pictures, anything and
everything.
Commissioner Heinecke said the Ordinance specified when there was
reasonable doubt as to whether or not a particular use is permitted with or without a use permit, then the doubt shall be
resolved by requiring a use permit. In this instance, he said
the Commission did entertain reasonable doubt.
Commissioner Moore said he felt permitted C-l uses were neighborhood in character. They would draw from the surrounding neighborhood for the most part. He said he felt the clientele from
the used furniture business would be too broad a clientele to be
considered a neighborhood service.
Mrs.~Jean
Roberts, 16 Saunders Avenue-, asked about off-street
parking. She said this type of business will encroach into
residential parking.
Commissioner Tusler said this was an extremely difficult determination; he did not feel the Muni Code is clear; however, it
did appear to him that C-l uses, as enumerated in the Muni Code,
were all neighborhood-oriented, and this use was more trafficoriented in nature.
Chairman West said it was a complicated situation. He felt the
use would require a Use Permit which would depend largely on how
the business is conducted. He mentioned screening for outdoor
use. He asked to have -the staff investigate the use across the
street (The Veteran's Pick-up) to see if there was ever a use
permit for this use, and to see if it remained valid when the
business changed ownership, if thEDe;was one. He said he felt
this application should be expanded to include the retail use
and the application should then be re-scheduled for the next
regula.r meeting.
Commissioner Creighton moved that the Commission finds that the
business of retailing second-hand furniture and appliances is
a business which requires a Use Permit in a C-l District. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Tusler and unanimously approved.
The Chairman asked the ~pplicantls cooperation in agreeing to
postpone action on this application until the next regular meeting,
and in the meantime for the applicant to modify the application to
include the retail sale of second hand furniture and appliances.
Mr. & Mrs.
Randa~l
agreed.
(2) U-155 Lucien N. Remy. Application for a shop to craft
fine furniture and cabinets and to repair and refinish
antiques at 1606 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
2,nb
-3-
""""""
c
3/3/69
Mr. Remy stated he felt this application fell into the neighborhood
situation. It is custom work; he works alone; his business is
primarily making furniture. Last year he thought his business
was approximately one-third repair work and two-thirds new work.
Commissioner Moore said he felt this use fit into a pocket--it
is located in an area devoted to small stores, and this business
would be mostly retail and repair.
Mr. Remy said he used regular cabinet shop machinery, a table
saw, a radial saw, and a jointer. He said;he had no surface
planer which is the machine that is noise-making. His trash
is put into steel drums which he then disposes of himself.
Commissioner C·reighton said the area would preclude any large
business. He said·he thought the buflding was an ideal location
for this use.
Commissioner Tusler said that although the boundary line was
not spelled out in the ordinance, he felt this was differ.ent from
the previous application in that it is not a high volume, trafficgenerated business, and it seems compatible with the character
of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Tusler moved that U-155, application for a shop
to craft fine furniture and cabinets and to repair and refinish
antiques at 1606 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard be approved for the
reason that the use is not essentially inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance nor with the specific environment of the
neighborhood. Motion seconded by Commissioner Creighton and
Commissioner West said he felt that the type and number of
machines involved here are acceptable, and he agreed with the
reasons given by Commissioner Tusler.
The applicant was informed of the ten-day waiting period before
the permit becomes valid.
.
B.
VARIANCES
(1)
ADJ. 393 Larry Nilsen, application for a 3-foot
variance in sideyard setback to construct a garage
at 32 Meadowcroft Drive.
Mr. Henry Muller. was present for the applicant. He said the
reason for the application is this is a narrow lot; the house
sets in the back of the lot, and this variance would allow a
wider entrance and a planting area along the side of the garage.
He said the sideyard of this property is adjacent to the backyards
of the property along Broadmoor Avenue.
Commissioner Creighton said he felt there were no compelling
factors for approval of this variance.
Commissioner Tusler said the adjacent house is quite close to
this property and has a roof overhang. He said he felt 8 feet
would allow light and air for planting. He did not feel there
was a demonstration of hardship.
Commissioner Moore felt the key pOint was not this garage, but
the precedent that would be established if this variance were
granted.
Commissioner West asked the Commissioner if this were an application for a house on a 40-foot lot, would they still require
8-foot sideyard setbacks on each -side of the house and end up
with a house 24 feet wide? He said he felt the narrowness of
the lot and the location of the existing walkway WOUld. justify
a one-foot variance in sideyard set-back to allow for planting.
~
fIIt:.~
=-
-4-
3/3/69
257
Commissioner Moore moved that ADJ. 393, Larry Nilsen,
application for a 3-foot variance in sideyard setback to
construct a garage at 32 Meadowcroft Drive be denied on the
basis that it does not show any evidence' of hardship. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Heinecke and approved by four Aye votes
with Commissioner West casting a dissenting vote. He said he
would have been prepared to approve a one-foot variance in
this particular case for his reasons stated earlier.
';
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
An announcement was made of a Conference on Housing to be
held at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on March 4th and 5th.
6.
A.
Traffic and Transportation Problems
Commissioners West and Tusler had developed a list of questions for the experts on Traffic Problems. These questions
were read aloud and additions made.
B. Property Acquisition
The 'Administrator-Controller had referred the matter of the
Jones Property acquisition to the Planning Commission,
however, copies had not been circulated to the Commission.
This item will be on the next agenda, in the meantime, the
Chairman asked the Engineer to stake the property, and to
find out how much money is involved on the part of the City.
The Assistant Engineer will meet with anyone who wishes to
view the property at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 15, 1969
to show the boundaries of this property.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
;~
~~ts.
c
~
'T::
The regular meeting of the San AnselmQ Planning Commission
was called to order by ,Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m,. on March 17,
1969 in the City Hall. Representing the City Staff: John O'Rourke.
1.
2.
ROLL CALL
Creighton, Gue, Heinecke, Moore, Perry,
Tusler,' West
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 1969
COrnrrlissioner Creighton moved the minutes of March 3, 1969 be approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Gue and unanimously
approved.
'
3.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
(1)
U-154 Bartlett C. Tucker. Application for Retail Sales
of Used Furniture and Appli~nces and liv~ng quarters as
a secondary use at 1 Saunders A~en~e. Alp 1-643-15
Building and Planning Reports were read; the Chairman ruled that
,an'anonymous letter received regarding this area was not to
be considered.
Mrs. Louise Randall, manager for Mr. Tucker, of the business
located at 1 Saunders Avenue, reported that approximately 7
and one-half years ago Mrs., Gresser had applied to ,the City
Council for an additional curb cut for off-street parking at
this location, and there is adequate off-street parking for the
business.
Mrs. Randall also said that when the Shrock family operated a
grocery business at this address the entire family resided in
the' rear of the' s"tore.
Mrs. Randall read a petition signed by many San Anselmo residents stating they felt this business would be beneficial to
the neighborhood. She also read an unsolicited letter from
Joyce Elberg favoring the use.
Mrs. Dorothy Smith, 33 Yolanda Drive questioned whether or not
this was a proper use f6r:a C-l district.
Commissioner Tusler questioned the equipment at the rear of the
property at 1 Saunders Avenue, and asked if this were to remain.
He was told it would be removed. Mrs. Randall said there would
be no outdoor display.
Commissioner Heinecke asked if it were an economic necessity
to live in the store.
Mrs. Randall and Mr. Tucker both said that it was, and that
also, this afforded a greater protection from robbery.
Commissioner Perry asked what connection there was between the
two businesses, and Mr. Tucker said he was the owner of both
businesses. Commissioner Moore said he felt the Veteran's
Pickup Store was a separate and distince business from the new
business at 1 Saunders Avenue and should be treated thusly.
He said he did not feel it was the intent of the ordinance to
allow a furniture business in a neighborhood commercial zone
since a furniture business was specifically allowed in a C-2
zone. He said he felt a used furnitur~ and appliance store
would draw on a substantially broader area than ~as intended
for C-l use.
=-
,
-2-
3/17/69
259
Corrunissioner Tusler read the criteria for issuance of a Use Permit and said that since we have several letters from people in
the neighborhood who object to the use, it could reasonably be
considered that the use would be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood. He said he agreed with
corrunissioner Moore that he did not feel a furniture store was
a neighborhood use, and said he preferred to preserve the site
for a true neighborhood use.
~I
corrunissioner Creighton said he had measured the off-street
parking area and came up with 1900 square feet.
He said the
corrunercial use was fhe~e_long before the residential, judging
from the buildings. He felt a permitted use could go into this
location which would be far less desirable in a-residential area
than a used furniture store.
Chairman West suggested that the two considerations, the used
furniture use and the living quarters, be separated. He said
that since Mr. Tucker is the owner of both businesses, perhaps
the two uses could be considered together, and stipulations
could be attached to the Use. He said he would like to see that
the 7-Up signs were painted out, the rear of the building painted, and that there be no outdoor storage or service, and that
before an expansion could be considered, he would like to see
the sideyard of the veteran's Pickup Store cleaned up. He felt
with the use of the two locations, the outdoor storage at the
veteran's Pickup Store could be eliminated.
Mrs. -Smith asked if there was a reason to assume that Mr. Tucker
would do better on Saunders Avenue than he has done on San
Anselmo Avenue. She said she felt that aesthetically a used
furniture and appliance store would tend to downgrade the area.
Mr. Steve Cerrutti, 32 Redwood Road said he felt the Model
Market looked much better since it had been painted, and he felt
that if the two were tied together and the Veteran's Pickup
Store prohibited from having outdoor storage, it would be a
big impr_ovement to the neighborhood.
Mr. Dennis Shine, 47 Yolanda Drive said he did not feel a used
furniture store would benefit the neighborhood.
Mr. Dave Baciagalupi, 56 A~der Avenue said he felt one furniture
store in the neighborhood should be sufficient.
Chairman West asked if Mr. Tucker would consider the combining
of the two uses and the elimination of outdoor storage or display, and Mr. Tucker agreed he would do so.
Corrunissioner Perry moved with respect to U-154, application of
Bartlett C. Tucker for retail sales of used furniture and appliances, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed use
of second-hand furniture business on the Saunders Avenue property is not a use which is detrimental to health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to
property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City, and that the granting of the application
is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sUbstantial
property rights of the petitioner. That it is proposed in making this motion, the applicant submit to the jurisdiction of
the City as to the uses, both on the Saunders Avenue property
and the San Anselmo Avenue property. That the use on the
Saunders Avenue property should be conditional upon the painting out of the present 7 Upg signs and also painting the rear
of the structure. Both uses are conditional upon the keeping
of the outdoor area clean and in a neat and orderly condition,
there being allowed no outdoor storage or display of merchandise, nor shall there be outdoor overhaul and/or repair work.
260
LJ4J
-3-
3/17/69
C
~
~
=Tllat the applIcant has 45. days to comply with all the conditions
of the Use Permit; that the Use be reviewed six months from this
date.
That the uses upon both properties shall be revocable
and conditional upon the overall compliance with the conditions
herein set forth.
Motion seconded by Commissioners Creighton and approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Perry, Tusler, Creighton, Gue, West
NOES:
Commissione"rs Heinecke and Moore
Commissioner Tusler said he voted Aye, because although the
proposed business is not, in his opinion, a logical neighborhood use, the combining of the uses will provide the greatest
overall benefit for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Gue said he agreed with Commissioner Tusler, and
said this was the lesser of two evils.
Commissioner Heinecke said he voted No for the reason that he
believes that the use will be detrimental to property values in
the neighborhood, and, as desirable as it would be to attempt
restrictions of Veteran's Pickup business, he believed it necessary to use other means to accomplish this.
The applicant was informed that there would be a 10 day appeal
period before the Use Permit became valid, and that any interested citizen could appeal the decision to the City Council.
Mrs. Sarah Nome, 77 Alder Avenue,said she did not believe it
was necessary to have 2 junk stores in the area. She said the
windows of 1 Saunders Avenue display 10 or 15 year old dresses
and upside down pictures. She felt if the building were left
vacant, perhaps a beauty shop or real estate office would go in
there, and this, she felt, would be a true neighborhood use.
Commissioner Tusler asked if the license of the Veteran's Pickup
Store could be revoked if any of the conditions of the Use Permit were violated.
Mr. Tucker agreed to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and said 45 days was amply time to remove the outdoor
'storage at Veteran's Pickup at 1201 San Anselmo Avenue.
Mr. Bryant, property owner adjacent to the 1 Saunders Avenue
location said he still felt the neighborhood would be downgraded
and felt there should be some tax rebate to adjacent property
owners.
Regarding the application for living quarters~ secondary to the
Commercial Use at 1 Saunders Avenue, Commissioner Gue said he
did not feel any furniture store would require anyone living
there, and he said he felt the proposed living area would be
needed to store furniture.
Commissioner Tusler said if the proposed living area conformed
to the appropriate codes, he could see no objection because of
aesthetics since it is adjacent to R-l zoning. He did feel the
living quarters should be tied to the use.
Commissioner Tusler moved that the Use Permit be granted for the
living quarters' at 1 Saunders Avenue; the use to be restricted
to the occupancy of Mr. and Mrs. Randall so long as they remain
the operators of the enterprize at this address, and that the
existing premises will not be expanded outside of the present
building. Motion seconded by Commissioner Perry and approved
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Perry, Tusler, Creighton and West
Commissioners Moore, Gue and Heinecke
Commissioner Heinecke said he felt it to be detrimental to the
_I
. ,'
2-61
("
~
~
za
:r....
•=-
-4-
3/17/69
neighborhood to legalize a residence in a unit which was not
designed as a living unit~and it was a dangerous precendent
for the Planning Commission to set.
Commissioner Moore said he felt that commercial property is not
suited for residential living.
Commissioner Gue said he did not feel that living quarters are
necessary for the economics of this business and he felt that
this would add'another detrimental factor to the area.
I
The applicant was informed that the Use Permit was granted and
would become valid in 10 days provided that there was no appeal
by any interested party.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
USE PERMIT APPLICATION
(1)
U-156 James E. Kendall, application for independent
living quarters in the main building at 20 Idalia Road.
A/P 7-232-45
The applicant said he 80 year old mother-in-law had come to live
with the family, and additional living quarters were needed for
her, hence the application to finish off a room in the garage
area with a bath. He said he felt that he had adequate parking
with the use of tandem parking. He said there was room for
grading and constructing another parkirig space on one side of
his house.
Commissioner Tusler asked if there were to be kitchen facilities
in the downstairs living quarters, and Mr. Kendall replied he
had a rough-in for a small bar sink and 220 wiring. He said his
mother-in~law liked to do a little cooking in her own quarters,
and this was the reason. for the kitchen facilities.
He had no
intention of constructing a rental unit. When his mother-in-law
is no longer living there, his children will use the room.
Commissioner Creighton said this room would leave awfully tight
quarters; he was concerned about egress in case of fire.
Commissioner West said he felt it was a question of the appropriateness of a second living unit. He- said it was a small lot,
around 6,000 square feet, and, in effect, a second independent
living quarters would create duplex use.
Commissioner Creighton felt precise plans should·be submitted
indicating exactly what is proposed.
Commissioner Perry moved that this Commission finds that because
this living area does not have interior access, it is, in fact,
a'separate living area; .that a Use Permit for this separate
living area be issued upon the condition that no separate cooking and/or kitchen facilities, or any rough-in plumbing or
electrical connections therefore, be installed, and that an
assurance be given by the applicant that an additional parking
space will be constructed within one year, or, in the event such
additional space is not-constructed, that the use wil~ be abated
until an additional parking space is provided, and that the use
be subject to inspection at the will of the City to ascertain
from time to time that, in fact, there has not been a kitchen
put in, and that it is not being used as a rental unit, but
rather as' a means of facil-itating housing for· this particular
family. Motion seconded by Commissioner Glle and failed to pass
by the following vote:
'
.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Perry, Tusler and Gue
Commissioners Creighton, Heinecke, Moore and West
2~6~
c...;i
3/1.7/69
-5-
c
~
P'T:'
~
The applicant was informed of the denial of the application and
of his right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission
to the City Council within ten days.
5.
A.
ACQUISITION OF JONES PROPERTY
The property corners had been staked, and Mr. O'Rourke conducted
a field trip to view the property on Saturday, March 15th.
. Chairman West enumerated his observations for discussion.
Commissioner Tusler said the land is eminently suited to remain open and as open space has some value.
Commissioner Creighton wanted to know the county zoning for this
area, and if there would be annexing problems.
Commissioner Gue said he hadn't seen the plans for the Sorich
Ranch yet, and to buy more property to add to something about
which we know very little yet, would be a poor recommendation.
Commissioner Tusler moved the following findings be forwarded
to the City Council seconded by Commissioner Gue and unanimously
approved:
1.
All but a small knoll area is very steep and would be
suitable only for open space--not for intensive
development.
2.
The area lies in a fault zone, the land is unstable
and subject to sliding.
3.
Access through Carmel Way appears to be in doubt and
should be established.
4.
Development would be limited to hiking trails.
5.
The entire canyon above and below the property should
not be permitted to jeopardize other park programs.
6.
Consideration of acquiring this property should not be
permitted to jeopardize other park programs.
7.
AcqUisition at nominal cost might be justified for open
space, but the Commission considers this a very low
priority project.
Mr. Dave Bacigalupi, 56 Alder Avenue and Mr. Cerrutti, 32 Redwood
Road, both spoke against recommending acquisition of this property.
At 11:15 p.m. Commissioner Perry moved the meeting be adjourned,
seconded by Commissioner Gue an unanimously approved.
2SVJ
CHAIRMAN
I
_I
263
to order by Chairman John F,. West at 8:00 p.m. on April 14, 1969 in
the City Hall, after having been postponed on April 7, 1969. Representing the City Staff: John O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
r-
2.
Creighton, Gue, Perry, West
Heinecke, Moore, Tusler
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 1969
Commissioner West asked to have the minutes' .of March 17, 1969
corrected as follows: Page No.2, line 32, omit· the words Ita
little". Page No.3, line 18, should read: "the San Anselmo
Avenue property. That the use on the Saunders".
With the above corrections, Commi~sioner Gue moved the minutes
of March 17, 1969 be approved, seconded by Commissioner Perry
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
USE PERMIT
(1)
U-157 DR. GAR C. MAY." Application for ad~itionalinde
pendent living quarters for domestic help at 24-28 Ash
Avenue. Alp 5-194-23
.
Staff reports were read. An objection to the use by Mrs. Naomi
Martin, which had been received via the telephone, was read.
Dr. May said the driveway was too steep for his cars and he intended to remodel this, subsequently going through Design Review,
but the reason he was applying f9r the use permit was to enable
his baby-sitter - maintenance couple to live in an already existing studio apartment on the ground floor of the duplex, the building having two other dwelling units on the main floor. The lot is
zoned R-2.
Commissioner Perry thought the questions seemed ~o be whether this
application would, in effect, change the zon~ng of the property
from R-2 to R-3.
Dr. May said he had no idea of using the third unit as a rental
unit, now or ever.
There was no one in the audience to speak on the application.
Commissioner Perry said he had no objection as far as the multiple
use was concerned; there is other multiple use in the area; however,
he was worried about the parking problem which is inadequate for
the existing duplex use.
Commissioner Gue said he felt this would be allowing a tri-plex in
a duplex zone with inadequate off-street parking.
Commissioner West pointed to the fact at our present ordinance requires a 20 foot setback for garages, plus 2 parking spaces for
each unit of a duplex; he felt favorable action on this application
would be to grant de facto R-3 zoning by use permit, and he felt
a proper approach would be to request rezoning. He pointed out that
the lot size is apprOXimately 4,300 square feet which is well below the 7,500 minimum lot size under the present ordinance.
Commissioner Gue moved that U-157 , application of Dr. Gar C. May
for additional living quarters for domestic help at 24-28 Ash
Avenue be denied because to approve this application WOUld, in
effect, rezone the lot to R-3 from the present R-2; it would compound an inadequate off-street parking situation that presently
exists.
,.........,
-~t)4
-2-
4/14/69
Motion seconded by Commissioner Perry and Unanimously approved.
c
~
"'%:'
:...
The applicant was informed of his right to appeal the decision to the
City Council within ten days.
B.
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS
(1)
ADJ. 394 EUGENE DEPRAnO. Application for a 20 foot variance
in front yard setback and an 8 foot to o variance in side yard
setback to construct an approach ramp at 243 Redwood Road.
A/P 7-095-39
Staff report was read. Mr. de Prado explained the 5 foot easement
alongside the property was actually a 5 foot sewer easement on the
Johnson property; he also said his'development would not require
the use of this particular sewer easement. He said the driveway
easement across his property was held by Mr. William Scalapino as
access to his lot, and he had spoken to Mr.Scalapino, who was unwilling to relinquish this easement. Mr. de Prado said the grade of the
lot was too steep to use a regular driveway access, and there were
some very old oak trees on the lot which he wished to preserve, and
this was the reason he was requesting a variance to construct an
approach ramp and for the parking deck to encroach approximately 4 feet into the front yard setback. The narrowness of the lot, together
with Mr. Scalapino's easement necessitates the side yard variance
request.
Commissioner West said he thought it would be possible, with careful
work, to construct a driveway down onto the property from the raadway and this would achieve a beneficial effect for the neighborhood.
He said he felt Mr. Scalapino was involved in Mr. dePrado's problem,
and said he felt the two owners should get together to work out a common
access for both lots.
Commissioner Creighton said he did not feel it was a practical approach to try to get down on the ground with a driveway on an 18 foot
section, he felt egress from a driveway of this nature would be unsafe.
Commissioner Gue said he thought a 6 foot retaining wall with fill
might solve the approach problem.
Mr. dePrado said he had applied for a similar variance several years
ago, and at that time he was told by the Planning Commission to see
if he and Mr. Scalapino could get together to work out a solution to
the problem; he said this time he had contacted Mr. Scalapino, and he
had refused. Mr. de Prado said also, that to ramp down would create
a very dangerous situation in backing out of the lot, since one would
be backing uphill. For safety sake, he would like a level ramp to the
parking deck, and to save the large oak tree at the corner of the proposed house, he would like to be allowed to construct his regulation
size parking deck 16 feet from the property line rather than the,reqUired 20. He said he has studied the terrain thoroughly and almost
all of the neighboring properties had used a similar approach.
Commissioner West said he felt the Commission should consider the
future development of adjacent property (Mr. Scalapino's property)
now.
Commissioner Perry moved that the application of Eugene dePrado for a
front yard and 0 side yard setback to accomplish the construction of
a parking deck and access ramp pursuant to the amended plan of April 10,
1969 be approved on the grounds that there is a hardship presented
by virtue of the topography of land and the limited use of the parcel
because of an easement serving the Scalapino property, and that the
proposal presents an apparent solution to what might otherwise be a
safety problem in getting on and off Redwood Road.
o
Motion seconded by Commissioner Creighton and failed to pass with a
tie vote.
AYES:
Commissioners Perry and Creighton
NOES:
Commissioners Gue and West
I
---
·c~
2 titl
-3-
4/14/69
Commissioner Gue voted no because he said he thought maybe alternate solutions could be developed, and he didn't like to see
the loss of off-street parking by the shortening of the ramp
as proposed in the plan.
1-
Commissioner West said he voted no for the reason that he felt
that access could be developed on the ground by use of retaining
walls and other methods. Further he stated that should such
access be developed, he would be prepared to consider variances,
if need were properly demonstrated for the structure itself.
The applicant was informed that his application was denied and
of his right to appeal the decision to the City Council within
10 days.
(2)
ADJ. 395 WILLIAM E. RAUDIO. Application for a 5 foot
variance in front yard setback and a 3 foot variance in
side yard setback to con~t~uct a second story above the
carport at 50 Florence Avenue. A/P 7-014-30
Mr. O'Rourke read the staff report and said the lot is level, and
there is apParently no hardship from a building standpoint since
there was adequate space in the rear year for an addition.
Letters were read from Mrs. Marjorie C. McDonald, 34 Florence
Avenue and Herbert M. Christian, 46 Florence Avenue, stating they
had no objection to this application.
When asked about the proposed use for the room, Mr. Raudio replied
that it would either be a playroom for the children or an extra
bedroom. The plan did show a sink area and a bathroom, and Mr.
Raudio said he would be willing to delete the sink if the Commission desired. Mr. Raudio said the room had no interior entrance
to it, but would have access by means of a stairway which would
end on their front porch. He said the reason for this was in
order not to cut down on floor space in the interior of the
building. He would prefer not to enclose the front porch area.
He stressed that this addition was for the use of his family only,
and was not intended as a studio apartment.
Commissioner Perry said he did not see that there.::was a requisite
building hardship or justification. He wondered about the overall
impact on the neighborhood of having a structure elevated so close
to the front yard.
Commissioner West asked if any parking would be eliminated by the
stairway, and Mr. Raudio said there would be room under the stairway to pull a car up all the way into the carport.
Commissioner Creighton said he felt there was adequate room in
the rear yard for the addition. He said Florence Avenue is only
l8 1 6tt wide, and he thought this would give the appearance of
crowding.
Commissioner Perry said since he did not see the required hardship
that would justify varying from the ordinance at this point, he
thought the plan should be referred back to the applicant so the
applicant could give the Commission more information on the interior floor plan and the possibility of a solution, either to have
interior access which would be less likely to turn this addition
into a rental unit type of thing, also, for additional information
on the exterior development, and the reason why, or why not, addition around the perimeter is not possible. For these reasons,
Commissioner Perry moved that the application be referred back to
the applicant for resubmission.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Gue and approved unanimously.
Commissioner West commented that he would be inclined to not vote
approval of the front and sideyard variances as presented. He felt
that the design concept is very close to being a second residential
rc:.v
~6ti·
o
4/14/69
-4-
~
""2:
......,.
#fa
unit. He said he would possibly consider rear or sideyard variances
for a structure toward the rear of the lot.
8.
CORRESPONDENCE
None
6.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
None
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45
~m."
",
~J
• WEST
G COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
i
".....)
267
-',
to order by John F. West, Chairman at 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall on
April 21, 1969. Representing the City Staff: John T. O'Rourke
1.
1--
2.
ROLL CALL
Creighton, Gu~ Heinecke, Moore, Perry,
Tusler, West .
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
This item was held over until th~ next regular meeting since the
minutes had not been distributed.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
U-158 Safeway Stores, 900;;Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
(Redhill Shopping Center) application for outdoor
display and sale of nursery stock and peat moss for a
3 week period annually.
The staff report was read and Mr. O'Rourke pOinted out the location of the pr9Posed use and the area involved.
Mr. Cleon Tolman, store manager, said one of the reasons they are
requesting this permit is other Safeway Stores have had a moderate success with this type of thing. It is for a 3 week period
only, and once a year only. He explained the flats of bedding
plants are on pallets and racks and have small signs labeling them,
as required by State Law. He said there would be a person in at,tendance at all times, and an outdoor cash register.
Commissioner Tusler saked if it would not be a better location
to use the area which is presently undeveloped adjacent to the
Safeway store and outisde of the parking lot.
Mr. Tolman said their main objection to this area is that it is
not paved, and because of the necessity of watering the plants
each day, it would soon become a muddy, unattractive area.
Commissioner Gue said he did not feel this outdoor use was in
keeping with the appearance of the Shopping Center. He also said
he felt the Safeway store needed the parking stalls that would be
used.
Commissioner Tusler said he was philQ.sophically not opposed to this
use; however, he was distur.bed by the fact that the parking lot was
being used, as it could be a possible pedestrian safety hazard. He
said he would be much more willing to ~ee the undeveloped portion
used.
Commissioner West said he felt this a reasonable application; he
saw nothing undesirable in an outdoor sale Of nursery stock; he
has definite reservations about peat moss and fertilizer. Insofar
as the parking lot is concerned, the safety factor is a primary
consideration. The Shopping Center already has in excess of the
ordinance requirements for parking space.
.
Mr. A. C. Signorelli, 90 Ridge Road, asked the Commission not to
overlook the fact that there may be a bank in the location of the
proposed use.
Commissioner Tusler moved that U-158, application of Safeway Store
in the Red Hill Shopping Center, for outdoor display and sale of
nursery stock, be approved with the following conditions:
u,:J
26tf'
c
-2-
~
4/21/69 ...PI%';
.......
(1) That the display be restricted to a maximum of one threeweek period annually.
(2) That the area for display be located on the south side of
the Safeway building, off the pavement, and be approximately
16 x 40 feet in area.
(3) That advertising signs be restricted to a maximum of 8.5 x
11 inches in size.
(4)
That display be restricted to nursery stock. only.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and approved by the following
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Tusler, Heinecke, Moore, West
NOES:
Commissioners Creighton and Gue
ABSTAINING:
Commissioner Perry
Commissioner Gue voted No because he did not feel that this is in
keeping with the general appearance of the presently attractive Shopping Center.
Commissioner Perry abstained because of a conflict of interest.
The applicant was informed the Use Permit was granted, but that it would
not become valid for a period of ten days from this date.
B.
(1)
ADJ. 396 Paul Miersch, Jr., Application for side yard variances of 3 feet and 1.01 feet to construct an addition to a
dwelling at 1 ParksideCourt~ A/P 5-172-79
A letter was read from three neighbors on Ridge Road, Mr. A. C.
Signorelli, 90 Ridge Road; Irwin Lezzini, 181 Ridge Road, and S. E.
Tangeman, 175 Ridge Road, indi¢ating each has viewed the plan and
has no objections to the variance.
Mr. Paul Miersch said he was limited in the direction in which he
could add~onto his present dwelling because of the topography of
the land; and his desire to save the oak trees on his property. He
said he wished to tie the design in with the present structure. He
said in an effort to save an oak tree he had already cut the family
room down in size, and that only a very small triangle would extend
into the setback. He said there was an 8 foot walkway easement
along this property line, which, in effect, gave him a 13 foot setback from his neighbor's property line.
Commissioner Perry said he saw justification for the variance because of the elevation variation from the Signorelli property down to
Parkside Court; he did not see how the development could be moved
to the other end of the house, plus the fact that he would like to
see the oak tree saved as it is a very attractive attribute.
Commissioner West agreed with Commissioner Perry. He said there
was a definite terrain problem peculiar to this parcel and special
circumstances, and to solve the problem by moving the structure
down the Hill would involve real difficult.ies with the terrain.
Mr. A. C. Signorelli, 90 Ridge Road said he .and Mr. Lezzini had
discussed the application and have no objection.
Commissioner Perry moved that with respect to ADJ. 396, Paul·
Miersch, Jr., application for sideyard variance of 3 feet and
1.01 feet, to construct an addition to the dwelling at 1 Parkside
Court, the application be approved to allow such improvement to
be constructed in accordance with the drawings submitted, and .
dated April 5, 1969; the reasons for the granting of this application being:
I
--
2 69
i
-3-
4/21/69
1. That the site poses peculiar and difficult construction
problems because of the terrain, specifically, the extreme
variation in elevation.
2. That there appears to be no reasonable alternative area
for an alternate addition, and more particularly, any relocation would be likely to result in a loss of oak trees.
3.
That there appears to be no obstruction of light, air,
view or use of the adjacent properties.
1-
4.
That there is the additional factor of the existence
of an eight foot walkway identified as "Ridge Walk" between
the applicant's property and the Signorelli property which
affords a natural open space between the two properties.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:4
.m.
/.
~
21U.
o
~
"""""
......
=The regular' meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman John F.' West on May 5, 1.969 at 8:00 p.m. in the
City Hall. Representing the City Staff: John O'Rourke.
1.
2.
ROLL CALL
Gue, Heinecke, Moore, Perry, Tusler, West
Creighton
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Tusler asked that the following be added at the end
of the first sentence, page 2, of. the minutes of , April 21, 1969:
"as it could be a possible pedestrian safety hazard".
_I
Commissioner Gue moved the minutes of April 14 be approved as
wri tten and the minutes of Apr.il 21 be approved with the above
addition. Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously
approved.
.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Request of Mary R. King for a determination as to whether
a "Mountain Shop" is a use permitted in. a C-l district.
Proposed location, 1501 San Anselmo Avenue (corner of Center
Boulevard)
The Chairman explained that the Planning Director did not feel
the propo~ed use fell within the C-l (Neighborhood Business
District) zoning, and did not wish to rUle on it at a staff level~
it had, therefore, been referred to the Chairman of the Planning
Commission who felt that the proposed use was similar to that in
Section 10-3.902 (b) (4) of the Municipal ~ode, variety, hardware
or clothing store.
Mrs. King said she is planning to locate a branch of her San
Francisco Mountain Shop in Marin County, and this is,one of the
location~ she is considering.
She said the store carries equipment for high country back packers, sleeping bags, t~nts, etc~
her main customers are members of the Sierra Club and other conservation societies throughout the Bay Area. She said that later
on she would, perhaps, train beginning high country back packers,
show movies, etc. She said she .felt the operation of this business would do nothing but good for the community.
Commissioner Moore asked if she could estimate how many customers
she would average over a weekly period.
Mrs. King said she did not really have an idea, but felt the shop
would start slowly with light advertising, and did not ever expect
it to grow to a heavy business such as the one in San Francisco.
She said there would be no lunch hour rush or business from normal
street traffic caused by peak hour commuters.
Commissioner Heinecke said he felt the store would be very nice
and not a detriment to the neighborhood~ however, he did not feel
the use would be in accordance with the ordinance since it was
clearly designed to draw from, and serve, a much wider area.
Commissioner Tusler said he felt the shop would be a tremendous
benefit to the City, and he certainly would support it in the.
proper zoning; however, he agreed with Commissioner Heinecke that
it was not a permitted use in a C-l district. He said he felt
C-l districts were intended for pedestrian-oriented uses which
serve the immediate community, and he felt this use would serve
the Ross Valley and perhaps the entire county. He said he felt
the Planning Commission had the responsibility to reserve these
areas. He also said perhaps the ordinance need revision.
i
~-
271'
-2-
5/5/6 9
Com missi oner Perry said he felt there was a grea
t simi larit y betw een
this use and a hardw are or varie ty "stor e. He
said there was an exis ting struc ture- -they were not crea ting anyth ing
new- -he felt it was a
legit imat e and desir eabl e use and in the best
inter ests of the communi ty to have such a shop .
Comm ission er Tusl er poin ted out that a spor ting
good s store is spec ificall y ment ioned , as a use perm itted in a C-2 dist
rict, and said perhaps the site shou ld be re~oned.
Comm ission er Gue said he felt the ordin ance was
very clea r that C-l
zonin g is for neigh borh ood uses , and this is clea
rly not a neigh borhood busi ness .
Comm ission er West said he share d Comm ission er
Perr y's view , this is
not a high traff ic gene rator ; the avera ge sale
is much ligh ter than
any driv e-in or corn er groc ery store ; there woul
d
of peop le comi ng; a soda foun tain woul d gene rate be a limit ed numb er
far more traff ic.
Comm ission er Hein ecke said there were two prob
lems ;
tween the dist ricts (in the zonin g ordin ance ) does the divis ion ben't make much sens e,
and seco ndly , does not take into acco unt the probl
em
of vaca nt store s
whic h the City is conf ronte d with .
Comm ission er Perry said an ordin ance like this,
if cons idere d when a
neigh borho od is being buil t, is one thing , but
this is a diffe rent
cons idera tion. He said the need for neigh borho
od store s is not there
anym ore-- times have chan ged.
Comm ission er Hein ecke felt the real solu tion woul
d be to chang e the
ordin ance .
Comm ission er Perry move d to appro ve the requ est
for the main tenan ce
of a Moun tain Shop at 1501 San Anse lmo Aven ue
for the reaso n that the
prop osed use ~s cons igten t with the uses set forth
3.902 (b) (4) of the Mun icipa l Code . Moti on secon in Sect ion 10ded by Comm ission er
Moor e and appro ved by the follo wing vote :
AYES:
Comm ission ers Hein ecke, Moor e, Perry , West
NOES:
Comm ission ers Gue and Tusl er
Comm ission er Gue voted No beca use, altho ugh he
belie ves it is a desi rable shop , he did not think it is the type that
is neigh borh oodorien ted, and there fore is not acce ptab le in a
C-l dist rict.
Comm ission er Tusl er said whil e he also felt that
this is an acce ptable use for the area , he felt that it is not
consi~tent with a C-l
zone in that it is esse ntial ly a coun ty-w ide serv
ice. He feels the
prop er way to appro ach this is throu gh a re-ex amin
ation of the city
ordin ance on the zonin g for the part icula r parc
el.
The 'Chai rman infor med Mrs. King that if she desir
ed to hold class es,
show movi es, etc. at this loca tion, that part icula
r use woul d requ ire a
use perm it.
Mrs. Patr icia Culle n Schu ltz brou ght to the atten
tion of the Plan ning
Comm ission that peop le were livin g"in the rear
of the barb er shop and
rock shop in the 1500 block of San Anse lmo Aven
ue, and she felt this was
a viola tion of the zonin g ordin ance .
The Chair man said it woul d be turne d over to the
city staf f for
inve stiga tion.
CHAIRMAN
:l', ~
~
c
~
"'f':
The regular meeting of the San Anselmo ~lann~ng Commission was called
to order by Chairman John F. West on May 19, 1969 at 8:00 p.m. in the
City Hall. Representing the City staff: John T. O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Creighton, Perry, Tusler, West
Gue, Heinecke, Moore
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Creighton moved the minutes of May 5, 1969 be approved
as written, seconded by Commissioner Tusler and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
ADJ. 395 WILLIAM E. RAUDIO. Application for a 5 foot variance in front yard setback and a 3 foot variance in sideyard setback to construct a second story above the carport
at 50 Florence Avenue. AlP 7-014-30
Mr. Raudio explained he felt there would be a building hardship
to put in an interior stairwell, and in the rear yard they planned
to put in a swimming pool. He said they had redesigned the entry
hall so the stairway would be inside the house, and they had removed
the proposed upstairs bathroom., He also said this plan included
the floor plan of the house and the proposed use of the backyard.
Commissioner Tusler questioned whether a car could be parked under
the stairs.
Mr. Kotch of Fairfax Lumber Company said
dition for Mr. and Mrs. Raudio. He said
room, and when the carport was built two
inspector had advised the Raudios how to
would take a second story.
he had designed the adthey needed a third bedyears ago, the building
construct it so that it
Chairman West explain~d that the ordinance has been amended and
now required greater setbacki than when the carport wasconstructed, and he also explained the meaning of "hardshib" within the
ordinance.
Mrs. Raudio said that a room off the back bedroom would cut off
the light both from the rear bedroom and her kitchen.
She said
to build in the rear yard would, in effect, chop up their outdoor
area into 5 small sized yards.
Mr. Raudio pointed out that there are two 2-story buildings across
the street, virtually on the property line. He said he could see
no advantage to requiring the second story of his carport to conform to present setbacks.
Commissioner Perry said he could see where the applicants had made
an attempt to overcome the Planning Commission's objection that
the addition would become a second unit; however, he could not see
that a building hardship exists. Because the property is developed to the hilt, he said, did not create a hardship. He said he
felt the rear yeard could be developed.
Commissioner Tusler said he supported the remarks of Commissioner
Perry. He said he was sure the applicants had work~d very hard
on the property, and the architecture of the house does not lend
itself to a rear yard addition; however, he could see no hardship
consistent with the intent of tpe ordinance. He said Florence
Avenue is extremely narrow, and if all of the property were developed with front yard variances, the character of- the street would
be changed.
Commissioner Creighton said he concurred with the other Commissioners; he felt there was plenty of room to develop horizontally
rather than vertically.
c...
27;)"
-2Commissioner West said he thought the Commission did feel
with what the Raudios were trying to accomplish. He said
variance was denied, they could still construct a room on
of the carport, but instead of its dimensions being those
it would be somewhat smaller.
5/19/69
sympathetic
if this
the top
requested,
Commissioner Tusler moved that ADJ. 395, William E. Raudio, application for a 5 foot variance in front yard setback and a 3 foot variance in sideyard, setback to construct a second story above the carport at 50 Florence Avenue be denied for the reason that hardship
or results inconsistent with the ordinance have not been demonstrated.
Commissioner West stated another reason for denial is there appears
to be no denial of substantial property rights involved here.
The applicant was informed of his right to appeal the decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council within ten days.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
ADJUSTMENTS
(1)
ADJ. 397
variance
sideyard
Avenue.
HOWARD N. COLLAMER. Application for a 7'6"
in front yard setback and a 2' variance in
setback to construct a dwelling at 479 Laurel
A/P 7-131-47
M£. Ronald Schenck appeared as counsel for Mr. Collamer; Mr. Valmar
Schaaf, consul t:Lng engineer, was present on behalf of Mr. Collamer .
./
Mr. Schenck explained this was a re-application; a variance had been
granted for this property and Mr. Collamer did not realize that the
variance expired at the end of one year. He had been obtaining soils
reports, engineering and plans. Mr. Schenck said ,it was risky to
plan the house further down the slope because the soil is unstable.
The sideyard setback is requested in order to save the trees; and
the parking variance is requested for the same reason. He explained
that the road is up a 20 foot bank, and the road could never be
developed toward this property for that reason. There was an old
home that was demolished in this location, and that is the reason
there are trees located around the proposed building, but none where
the building is proposed to be located.
There was no one in the audience to comment on the application.
Commissioner Perry asked about the debris removal, and Mr. Schaaf
:s-~da that all of the old patio area would be removed and some loose
unstable ground also. Mr. Schaaf said the parking would be on a
ground deck.
Commissioner Tusler asked if the flue from the' fireplace would be in
the oak trees, and Mr. Schaaf said it would.
Commissioner West said he doubted that a deck as shown on the plans
could be considered a ground deck, hence landscaping, requiring no
permit.
Commissioner West said in considering a variance we have to consider
design aspect as it relates to the terrain. He said he would be happier if the house could be more closely snubbed __ into the ground.
Insofar as the sideyard is concerned, he could not see any compelling
reason why this structure couldn't conform to ,the eight foot requirement. He said he would go along with the application because of a
technicality since there has been approval of a variance for this
construction a little over a year ago.
Commissioner Perry moved that ADJ. 397 application of Howard N.
Col lamer for a 7 foot 6 inch variance in front yard setback and a two
foot variance in sideyard setback be granted; and further that a variance be granted so as to permit construction of the patio deck and
parking area pursuant to the plans prepared by Schaaf and Jacobs,
:z:, '!
u..;
o
~
-3-
dated April 13, 1969; the hardship justifying this variance being
physical characteristics of the land and engineering problems presented, and the fact that it is consistent with th~ intent of the
ordinance to allow location of improvements not to interfere with
existing trees. Commissioner Tusler seconded the motion which was
Commissioner West commented that as far as the approval of the permit is concerned, it will be up to the staff to make a determination of the building-height for conformance to the ordinance.
(2)
ADJ. 398 MEL R. WESTENBERG, Application to roof carport
at 36 Sunview Avenue. A/P 5-164-19
Mr. Westenberg said he wanted to roof his carport to keep the weather off his car, and perhaps if he found the roof did not do so
adequately, he would then like to add sides part of the way up on
two sides.
Mrs. William Rankin, 37 Sunview Avenue, said she wished to object
to the carport for the following reasons: The carport was on a
sharp curve and sides and a roof would obscure visibility. She
also said there was a fire hydrant just across from the cardeck,
and large trucks frequently tried to turn around and had to use
the car deck. Several times in the past these .trucks had ber-ome
"hung up" on the fire plug. Without an open deck, it would be
virtually impossible to free any vehicle that was caught on the
hydrant. She said the plan was not compatible with the wooded
area. She said the -Street was approximately 15 to 18 feet wide
at this point, and she felt a carport instead of the deck would
give the appearance of a tunnel.
Commissioner West said the objection to the visual impact of the
structure had some validity; however, it would appear the deck was
serving traffic in general, and he did not feel we could compel
an individual to maintain a cardeck for the convenience of street
traffic.
Commissioner Tusler asked about the proposed walls on the structure, and Mr. Westenberg said he would only add those if the
weather still comes through, and then only on the west and· south
side.·· .
Commissioner Creighton said if the deck is covered and sides
added, he would prefer not allowing it all the way to the street.
Commissioner Tusler said he was not sure that a variance for a
roof over a cardeck with a zero setback could ever be justified.
.
--
,........
,""",'
5/19/69
~
Commissioner Perry said he did feel it a hardship to have an uncovered cardeck; an automobile represents an important facet in
everyday life, and it was a great inconvenience to get in and out
of a car in the pouring rain. He said he was somewhat concerned
with the design and felt if there was a showing of a justification
for a variance that the application should be referred to the
Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Perry moved that ADJ. 398, application of Mel. R.
Westenberg to roof a carport at 36 Sunview Avenue be approved
so as to allow the construction of a roof over the interior 20
feet of the existing car deck as such deck is shown.on the application received by the City of San Anselmo on May 13, 1969, subject, however, to approval of plans by the San Anselmo Design
Review Committee prior to issuance of a building permit. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Creighton and unanimously approved.
Commissioner West asked if the intent of the motion is to have the
roof set back 4 feet from the edge of the deck.
275':;
-4-
5/19/69
Commissioner Perry said yes, the motion was not intended to imply
that an encroachment into public right of way is approved; the
Planning Commission, in approving the application was taking the
statement at face value, it being represented that the front of the
car deck is flush with the property line. He also said it might be
well to have the staff check to the best of their ability to see if
there is an encroachment prior to the issuance of the permit.
Commissioner Tusler said he voted Aye for the reason that prior
Planning Commission approval had been granted on this application;
however, he feels that the question of hardship should be reevaluated on future ~pplications of this type.
Co~missioner
West said he did not feel constrained by any previous
approval to vote Aye, but did so with the thought that the terrain
circumstances are such as to justify the approval, and he relies
upon the Design Review Committee to require a suitable and aestheticcally pleasing design, or else to deny design approval. He also said
the design submitted to the planning commission is totally unsatisfactory -- very unpleasing and unaesthetic.
The applicant was-informed that the variance was granted subject to
approval by the Design Review Committee, and provided there was no
appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council
within ten days.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
A notice from the County of Marin on the hearing of the new regulations for signs.
6.
The Chairman announced that Commissioner Creighton had been appointed by the City Council to serve another four year term on the
Planning Commission; that Commissioner Perry had been appointed by
the City Council to serve on the Design Review Committee for the
following year, and that it was Commissioner Tusler's last meeting.
He had resigned because he was moving to Kentfield. The Commission
expressed their appreciation to Mr. Tusler and said they would miss
his wisdom and guidance which has been very valuable to the Planning
Commission and the City. Mr. Martin Stuart, the Planning Commissioner
appointed to fulfill Mr. Tusler's term, was introduced.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
~J
.~1tj
o
~
~
to order by Chairman John West at 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall on
June 2, 1969. Representing the City Staff: John T. O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Creighton, Gue, Moore, Perry, Stuart, West
Heinecke
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Moore moved the minutes of May 19, 1969 be approved
as written, seconded by Commissioner Gue and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
U-159, Application of Mrs~ Marius Righetti (Owner) and
Chester Markham (Occupant) for living quarters secondary to commercial use in a C-l district, located at
1509 San Anselmo Avenue. AlP 7-011-04
Mrs. Righetti, owner of the property and Mr. Chester Markham, barbershop proprietor were present. Mrs. Righetti said she would like
to have someone live on the property to prevent vandalism and to
maintain the sidewalks, etc. She has three stores on the same lot,
and the barbershop is the only one that has living quarters.
Chairman West asked the Planning Assistant if the Use Permit would
be issued to the property owner or the tenant. He said a Use
Permit is issued to a person rather than a property, and if the
permit were granted, it would be ~ranted to Mr. Markham. Any
subsequent tenant Mrs. Righetti might have would have to apply
for his own Use Permit.
Commissioner Gue asked if it were the intent of the ordinance to
allow apartments in a C-l district only if it would be necessary
to have an attendant on the premises at all times, such as a
veterinary.
Commissioner Perry said he understood that the term secondary
use indicated an apartment was a permitted usage, not necessary
to the function of the business, but keeping primary utilization
of the property for the use permitted in that district.
Commissioner West said he agreed with Commissioner Perry; he said
rental units per se are not envisioned, but more an owner or operator maintaining living quarters in the same building. He asked
if this was an existing condition, if Mr. Markham presently lived
at the rear of the barbershop, and also if there was off-street
parking.
Mrs. Righetti said yes, Mr. and Mrs. Markham presently lived at
the rear of the barbershop, and also that there are three offstreet parking spaces at the rear of the building.
Commissioner Moore moved that U-159, application of Chester Markham to obtain a Use Permit for living quarters secondary to the
barbershop at 1509 San Anselmo Avenue be approved because the
residential use is, indeed, secondary to the commercial use of the
establishment. The Use Permit is to be confined to Mr. Markham
and his immediate family only. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Gue and unanimously approved.
=-
277--:;
-2-
(2)
6/2/69
U-160, application of F. M. Gelardi (Owner) and Michael
Considine (Occupant) to serve alcoholic beverages in conjunction with proposed restaurant use at 56 & 60 Red Hill
Avenue. A/P 6-201-04
Mr. Considine explained that he previously had a similar business in
Sausalito, known as the "Lion's Share". The proposed use is a restaurant with live entertainment where wine and beer will be served.
There will be no "hard" liquor served. He said he proposes to be open
for business between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. He thinks
the use will be the restaurant between 5:30 p.m. and 9:00 or 9:30 p.m.
and the entertainment will draw the main business from 9:30 p.m. until
2:00 a.m. He said he felt a fair estimate of customers for the restaurant use would be a maximum of 50 people, and for the entertainment,
he hoped to have as many as 150 to 200 people at anyone time.
He said there would be no dancing, all patrons would be seated at
small tables. He said his peak business hours would be after all of
the nearby businesses had closed, or after 9:30 p.m., and he felt
there would be parking available. He said the United Market was onehalf block away, and he had hopes of making some arrangements with
the owners to use a portion of their parking lot. He said that a
paved parking lot 40 x 85 goes with the building, and if he used valet
parking, he could put considerably more than the 7 cars in the area.
Commissioner Moore asked what type of entertainment was proposed, and
Mr. Considine said folk groups, and perhaps a magician.
Commissioner West said that San Anselmo had trouble in the past with
a noise factor at another place of entertainment 'on Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard, and he wanted to be sure that there would not be a
repetition~
Mr. Considine said he did not think he would have such a problem here
for the reason that this location is in a less densely populated area;
he has. a larger building, and the type of entertainment he proposes
is not as loud as that at the other location.
Mr. Considine also said they had never had a problem when they were
located in Sausalito, either with disturbances or parking, and asked
the staff to check with the Chief of Police of Sausalito or the City
Manager. His reason for moving is because the building in Sausalito
burned.
Chairman West said he thought a determination should be made first,
regarding the use, the:noise factor, how the patrons are going to
act in the neighborhood, etc. He asked the applicant if he were
correct in describing the use as a restaurant with live entertainment,
serving wine and beer, and generally a place of entertainment. The
applicant agreed.
Commissioner Gue said he thought since the major patronage would be
from the entertainment, it would be considered a place of amusement
and entertainment.
;--
Commissioner Guemoved that the Planning Commission find that the
proposed use in application U-160 does constitute a place of entertainment as defined under Section 10-3.1102 (a) of the· San Anselmo
MUnicipal Code. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and it was
Chairman West then asked if the Commission found this use objectionable. None did.
Commissioner Moore said he thought the turnover would be high and
parking would be a major concern.
When asked what his thoughts on parking were, Mr. Considine replied
that he had not made definite arrangements yet since he thought it
would be premature until he knew if the use would be allowed; however,
he intended to contact the owners of United Market, and he would consider valet parking.
11,-"
&I ( ••
'.,(
\.,.I..J
c
~
~
Commissioner Perry said because of the non-coincidence of peak hours
there might be less of a problem; however, the City had a duty to
~qke certain that ample off-street parking is available.
It was determined that ,for a patronage of 150 to 200 people, approximately 50 parking spaces would be needed. There are between m~ and 15
on-street parking spaces available, 7 off-street parking spaces are
available. The rest would have to be provided.
Commissioner Perry moved that U-160; application of Michael Considine
to serve alcoholic beverages in conjunction with proposed restaurant
use and a place of entertainment at 56 & 60 Red Hill Avenue, AlP
6-201-04, be approved on the following conditions:
1. That 35 off-street, off-site parking spaces be obtained,
available for the hours of 9:00 p.m. through 2:00 p.m., and
evidence thereof be provided to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer;
2.
That 7 parking spaces be provided on-site;
3. That the Use Permit be reviewed in six months from this date
to ascertain whether or not any nature of interference with the
public interests has occurred, and in the event there are no complaints, the matter need not be heard formally. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Moore and unanimously approved.
Chairman West asked if it were the intent of the motion that valet
parking would be acceptable if it were to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer~
Commissioner Perry agreed that this was the intent.
Chairman West pointed out that if a problem in obtaining the parking
does develop, Mr. Considine can come back to the planning commission
at the next meeting. He said he wished to make it clear to the applicant that the proposed business is interesting and desirable,
but it was the duty of the Planning Commission to see that parking
is no problem.
The applicant was informed that there was a 10 day appeal period before the Use Permit became valid.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
The City Council had asked for the Planning Commission's views on the
subject of Bicycle Paths as proposed by the Marin County Department of
Parks and Recreation.
Commissioner Moore said he approved the concept, but it was difficult
to tell exactly where the proposed paths are located.
Commissioner Perry moved that the Commission recommend that the City
Council give full cooperation to the County for the establishment of
a basic county bicycle path system and also work to establish additional local systems within the City of San Anselmo. The Commission
regards the bicycle as a significant part of our transportation system.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously approved.
(2)
Chairman West said he had sent a memorandum to the City Council
after the Commission's last determination of a use in a C-l zon,e,
and the Council, in turn, had asked the Planning Commission to schedule
a public hearing for _
to Section 10-3.902 of the San Anselmo
Municipal Code (Uses permitted in C-l districts). The Public Hearing
is scheduled for the July 7, 1969 meeting.
(3)
The Chairman said a problem has arisen in regard to applications
before the Planning Commission in that postcards had been mailed on a
variance application that was originally scheduled for tonight's meeting. The applicant subsequently asked to have the application continued
until the June 16th meeting, hence it was removed from the agenda, and
=-
27!}
.''''''''''''''-;
-4-
6/2/69
' .. ,J!
there were two people in the audience who had come for that particular
item. He said he felt that one the postcards were mailed, items should
not be removed from the Agenda. The Chairman made a ruling that during
his term of office, once an item was placed on the Agenda, and postcards
were mailed, it would be necessary to obtain his approval before removing
an item from the Agenda.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
JOHN F. WEST, Chairman
~<
rc...J
280
o
~
""""".
'-'
to order by Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. on June 16, 1969, in
the City Hall.
Representing the City Staff: John T. O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Creighton, Gue, Heinecke, Perry,Stuart,
West
Moore
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Creighton moved the minutes of June 2, 1969 be approved as read, seconded by Commissioner Gue and unanimously
approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
U-16l Mario Juarez, application to serve beer in conjunction with restaurant use at 330 San Anselmo Avenue
The staff report was read. Mr. Juarez said he plans to open a
restaurant serving Mexican food, and he would like to serve beer
also. The restaurant has been in this location for sometime, but
there had been no liquor license.
Commissioner West said he could see no objection to the use.
Commissioner Heinecke moved that U-16l, application of Mario
Juarez to serve beer in conjunction with the restaurant use at
330 San Anselmo Avenue be approved. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Perry and unanimously approved.
B.
(1)
ADJ. 399
Variance
sideyard
Avenue.
Tor J. Nielsen. Application for a 20 foot
in front yard setback and a 6 foot variance in
setback to construct a carport at 20 Tamalpais
AlP 7-211-21
Mr. Edward Hageman appeared with Mr. Nielsen. He explained that
the occupants of Mr. Nielsen's apartment building complain because the trees drip on their automobiles, and there are numerous
leaves that fallon the autos in the summer, and in the winter
there is no protection from the rain and windshields frost over.
Mr. Hageman said the carport was designed to keep the posts away
from the street with a roof overhang to give the impression of
floating.
At this point, Commissioner Perry said, merits of the application
aside, he would like to say that this is the type of application
that he would like to see on all submissions to the Planning Commission -- clear drawings indicating exactly what is requested.
Commissioner Heinecke asked when the apartment building was first
occupied, and Mr. Nielsen said May 2, 1967.
Mr. Hageman said there are two covered parking spaces in the
building and four in the forecourt.
He said they considered the
appearance of the carport on the street. He said the building
sets back 40 feet from the front property line, and adjacent
buildings have only a 12 to 13 foot front yard setback. He said
he could not see how this carport could be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
=-
;
,"
2·~1
~
-2-
6/16/69
Commissioner Perry said he was a little distressed to see the applicant come back at this stage for a variance because the adequacy of the parking was or should have been considered with the
original application. He said this is a high density street, and
a carport in the front yard setback would aggravate a closed in
area and give a feeling of crowding. He said that he would be
willing to consider the two interior parking spaces being covered~
and granting a sideyard variance.
Commissioner Gue agr~ed with Commissioner Perry.
He said he
might even consider a variance as far into the setback as adjacent
buildings, but definitely not all the way to the street.
Commissioner Creighton said he felt as much open space as possible
should be retained.
He felt perhaps two covered spaces could be
allowed, but he felt to enclose more area than that would cut out
a certain portion of natural light. He said he would go along
with one-half of what is proposed.
Commissioner Perry said he could see no hardship to justify a
variance, the only possible hardship is that which might result
from the inability to provide shelter for the automobiles for
the people on the premises; however, he felt this is not a
strong hardship.
He said there might be some aesthetic consideration since the carport would probably look better than cars in
the open.
.
Commissioner West said the building itself is a nicely done building.
In fact, he feels it is one of the better mUltiple struc~
tures in town.
The parking in front, under any circumstances is
not a very attractive thing. He said he could not see how to
justify granting a variance as there does not appear to be any exceptional circumstance where there would be denial of property
rights or results inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance.
Commissioner Heinecke said he did not think a variance could be
granted for two cars when there was an application for a fourcar carport before the Commission. He felt a new submission
would be necessary.
Commissioner Perry said he felt the applicant should be given some indication as to whether or not a
variance would be granted for two cars.
Commissioner Perry said the. Commission could approve the application as it is modified to provide for 2 parking spaces wherein
the front yard setback is required, allowing necessary sideyard
setback based on the grounds that to deny it would have results
inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Hageman then asked the Commission to consider a variance to
cover at least 3 spaces with the building roof projecting but
about three feet beyond Mr. Rollins' apartment to the west and
about 2 feet beyond the Bazzettahome on the east.
Mr. Nielsen said that the first winter they were in the apartments
they had lost 3 out of 5 tenants because there was no covered
parking.
Chairman West asked if any of the Commissioners are prepared to
grant a 20 foot front yard variance. None said they were.
Commissioner Heinecke moved that ADJ. 399, application of Tor
J. Nielsen for a 20 feet variance in front yard setback and a
6 foot variance in sideyard setback to construct a carport at
20 Tamalpais Avenue be denied inasmuch as th~re has been no
showing of a hardship. Motion seconded by Commissioner Perry.
Mr. Hageman then asked if he could amend his application and
\..«,J
2ti~'
c
~
-3-
6/16/69
request a 4 foot sideyard variance and a 10 foot front yard variance.
The Chairman asked if any Planning Commissioner wished to so move.
No one did.
A vote was then taken on Mr. Heinecke's motion to deny the application, and it was unanimously approved.
Commissioner Heinecke said he did not see any justification for
encroaching into the front yard setback at all. He felt it would
be definitely detrimental and undesirable to the area. He
stated further he had little sympathy with a two or three year
old building since he felt adequate parking facilities should
have been taken care of in the basic plan.
The appli~ant was informed that the application was denied and
ten days.
(2)
ADJ. 400 Mr. and Mrs. John H. Poppy. Application for a
6' 10" variance in parking space to construct a storage
room in existing garage at 462 Laurel Avenue. A/P 7-131-43.
Staff report was read, as well as a letter from Mrs. Poppy.
Mr. Poppy said he did not realize a permit was needed to build
a room in his garage, hence he had started. He said his 20 year
old son had returned home to live and badly needed a room.
Commissioner Heinecke said he saw a couple of alternatives to
the problem which would not involve a variance; one being to enclose only one parking space within the garage and provide for
the other off-street parking space in the area where the Poppy's
now park their camper.
Commissioner Gue said he saw no demonstration of hardship.
Mr. Edward F. Owen, 472 Laurel Avenue, said he was a neighbor of
the Poppy:s~ and he has no objection to the application for the
variance.
Commissioner Creighton said he did not see where any property
owners would be affected by the granting of this variance since
it was at the end of an easement. While he felt that it would
be better to use only a portion of the garage, and retain one
inside space, he did not see that this would accomplish any more
off-street parking than many of the neighbors have.
Commissioner Perry said that although in a sense none of the
neighbors would be hurt by granting this variance, there were
obvious alternative measures available to the applicant, and
therefore he could see no hardship demonstrated.
Commissioner Gue moved that ADJ. 400, application of John H.
Poppy for a 6' 10~ variance in parking space to construct a
storage room in the existing garage at 462 Laurel Avenue be denied because no hardship, as defined by the ordinance, has been
demonstrated.
Commissioner Heinecke seconded the motion which was approved by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Heinecke, Perry, Stuart, Gue, West
Commissioner Creighton
Commissioner West commented that there appears to be ample land
available for additions to the building in conformity with the
--
,.'"%:
283
6/16/69
-4-
setback requirements of the zoning ordinance and for that reason
it seems clear that there are numerous alternatives available,
and therefore, this is not a true hardship situation.
10 days.
Mr. Poppy said that while he was disappointed that his variance
application was not granted, he did feel pleased that so many of
the Commissioners personally took the trouble to come up and look
at the situation at his home, and he appreciated the time the
Commission had taken.
I
6.
CORRESPONDENCE
None
7.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION
Commissioner Perry asked that the Planning Commission review
in their minds the action taken on ADJ. 398 Mel R. Westenberg.
He said that he had made a motion to allow a roof over a cardeck
~t 36 Sunview Avenue, and the matter had been referred to the
Design Review Committee. When plans were submitted to Design
Revie •..v, the plans indicated siding of woven redwood, and Commissioner Perry said he felt it was the intent of the Planning Commission, and certainly. of his motion, not to allow siding in
order to maintain the open effect. He said in addition, Mr.
Signorelli, Design Review Member and General Contractor, felt the
structure encroaches into the public right of way.
The chairman instructed the secretary to draft a memorandum to
the Design Review Committee indicating the intent of the motion
was to permit a roof over a cardeck, having open rails as required
by the building code, but there was no approval of siding or
screening, nor a structure encroaching into the public right of
way.
The Chairman also instructed the secretary to draft a memorandum
to the staff indicating that the Planning Commission did not intend to tacitly approve an encroachment into the public right of
way with ins·tructions to the staff to secure such a showing, as
it deems proper, to establish that the construction of a roof will
not constitute an encroachment in the public way, and in the event
that this is not proved conclusively, the staff should either require a surveyor that an encroachment agreement be entered into
with the property owner to protect the City in the event there is,
in fact, an encroachment of any portion of the structure on the
public way.
Chairman West announced the resignation of Commissioner Gue, and
said the Commission would miss his good. judgment and thanked him
for a job well done both on the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee. He had, Chairman West said, made a real
contribution to the City.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 ..
JOHN F. WEST, Chairman
CQ
2,~4
o
~
"T:
:....
called to order by. Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. in the
City Hall on july 7, 1969. Representing the City Staff: John
O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Creighton, Heinecke, Moore, Perry,
West
Stuart
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Creighton moved the minutes of June 16, 1969
be approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Perry and
3.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
(1)
U-160 Application of M~chael Considine (Occupant)
and F.M. Gelardi (Owner) to serve alcoholic beverages in a place of entertainment and proposed restaurant use at 60 Red Hill Avenue. AlP 6-201-04
Mr. O'Rourke said that Mr. Considine had reduced the size
of the space he proposes to lease for his restaurant from
5100 square feet. to 2900 square feet of floor space, hence
his parking requirements would be fewer.
He said Mr. Considine presented a parking plan which utilized the entire
lot adjacent to the building plus the unimproved lot next
door. His plan indicated 17 parking spaces for regular
sized cars, 4 spaces for sports cars, making a total of 21
spacep.
Mr. O'Rourke said this did not allow parking for the rest
of the building that Mr. Considine is not leasing. The spaces provided are 9 x 19 feet in size. This plan would
fall 13 spaces short of the ordinance requirement.
Mr. Considine said he had talked with John Astley of the
Richfield Service Station and had made arrangements for
additional parking at the station if needed. He said he
had previously talked with the owners of United Markets,
and they had refused him parking space.
Commissioner Perry pointed out that previously the Commission had made allowance' for 9 on-street: parking spaces;
however, since there would be an additional u.se in the
building, he felt the on-street allowance should be reduced
to provide for the balance of the building.
Commissioner Moore suggested the same ratio be applied to
the new square footage which had been applied to the larger
space. He said approximately 70% of the required space
was approved in the original application, and he therefore
felt 70% of the required space would be sufficient for
this application which would result in a required 20 spaces.
Commissioner West said he felt if the application were approved, there should b~ written evidence of the guaranteed
parking spaces.
Mr. Considine said the Fire Department had told him a maximum of 150 people could occupy the building at one time, and
i
._-,-)
.-
285
... ..., .....
"~
;
-2-
.
:' ~
7/7/69
~
'';;''
therefore he felt this should have some bearing on the number
of required parking spaces.
Commissioner Moore moved U-160, application of Michael Considine
(occupant) and F. M. Gelardi (owner) to serve alcoholic beverages in a place of entertainment and proposed restaurant use at
60 Red Hill Avenue be approved on the basis that Mr. Considine
and Mr. Gelardi show written evidence of availability of the 16
parking spaces on-site and the lot adjacent thereto, plus 5
spaces at the Richfield Station; the later 5 spaces to be available on Friday and Saturday evenings only.
Motion approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
4.
Commissioners Creighton, Heinecke, Moore, Perry
Commissioner West
NEW BUSINESS
A.
PUBLIC HEARING
(1)
Proposed Revisions to Section 10-3.902 (Uses permitted
in a C-l District) Municipal Code.
Commissioner West said when the Mountain Shop applied for a
determination of the proposed use in a C-l District the Commission had felt that perhaps a revision of the statement of intent
for uses in a C-l district should be revised. He had written a
memorandum regarding this to the City Council who, in turn, referred it back to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing.
He said many of the small stores in C-l Districts cannot be
rented for their intended use because of the restrictions imposed by the statement of intent, and were, therefore. having
their windows painted out and being used for residential use.
Mr. Phillip Cullen, speaking for his mother who owns the property
at 1501 San Anselmo ... Avenue, said he felt the ordinance posed
very limited use for these C-l zones, and he felt there should
be a change in the ordinance to give the property owners an opportunity to lease their buildings with a less cumbersome approach. He said times have changed, traffic patterns have
changed, and the need for neighborhood stores has decreased
since there are large shopping centers, with adequate parking
fairly close to all residential districts.
Mrs. Teresa Righetti said she owned property zoned C-l in the
same block as Mrs. Cullen, and she had experienced some difficulty in r~nting one of her stores. She said she recently had
someone who wanted to make ~mall handcrafted garden ornaments,
and she had to tell him she could not rent to him under the current ordinance.
Mr. Cullen said he felt any commercial use should be permitted
that had a low volume traffic use.
He said he had to turn down
applications from a Building Maintenance Firm, a maintenance
supply firm and an upholstery shop.
Commissioner Perry said he felt the phrasing of the statement of
intent is outmoded.
Commissioner Moore said he felt there was a place for a C-l zone;
he felt such a use should be limited in size, have a low traffic
draw, and ~ low noise,level and be generally unobtrusive to the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Perry suggested the statement of intent be changed
to read:
"It is intended that the uses permitted within this
district be reasonably compatible with the surroundingresidential use and that in allowing any particular use, special,
"-'Y
2Mti
o
-3-
7/7/69
attention be given to traffic, sound production and impact on the
neighborhood. 11
~
"'::
=-
Commissioner West said he was generally in accord with what
Commissioners Moore and, Perry had said.
There were no further comments from the audience, and the Chairmen continued the matter unti.l the next meeting, in the meantime he asked Commissioner Perry to draft suitable wording for
a new statement of intent.
B.
(1)
U-162 SUBUD CALIFORNIA. Application for Church Use
in an R-l District at 1405 San Anselmo Avenue.
AlP 7-023-04
Staff reports were read, and Mr. O'Rourke said that a Mrs.
Ellsworth presently lives in the church building and another
tenant in the pastor's home behind the church building.
Mr. Roland Jacopetti of 44 Oak Knoll Avenue said he represented
SUBUD CALIFORNIA.
He said they intended to return the building to its original use as a church. He said the group would
occupy the. building two nights a week from 8 to 10 p.m., and
perhaps a smaller group of. 10 persons on one additional night.
He, said ?UBUD was composed of couples with families, it is a
non-profit organization registered with, the State of California.
He said the services are different from other religions in that
they are not open to the public. He said the Group has been
in Marin for one year and in California for approximately 12
years.
Mr. Jacopetti read a letter from Dr. Evans of the Presbyterian
Church on Red Rock Drive in Tiburon where the group has met for
the past year. The letter indicated the two religious orders
had been compatible and further that the church had no problems
of any type with the group. He felt SUBUD would be an asset
to any neighborhood.
When asked approximately how many members there were, Mr.
Jacopetti said approximately 55, and he would anticipate no more
than 20 cars at each service. He said 50% to 60% of the congregation live in the San Anselmo-Fairfax-Kentfield area, and
many within walking distance. He said each meeting was spent
with approximately 40 minutes of worship and an hour and 20
minutes in a social meeting. He said it would be analagous to
a Quaker Meeting.,
Daniel Solomon, 17-A Humboldt Street said he lived next door,
and he felt the group would create quite a bit of noise.
Commissioner Perry said he,felt it was a little beyond the
pervue of the Planning Commission.to define religion; he felt
if a group assembled for prayer, it would seem religious.
Commissioners West and Moore agreed.
Commissioner Creighton said he did not feel it qualified as a
place of worship in the accepted sense. He felt it was more
of a lodge-type gathering.
Commissioner Perry moved that the Commission finds: That the
particular use is a church use within the meaning of our ordinance.
Motion s.econded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously approved.
Commissioner Perry said he was concerned about noise, unusual
traffic and people in an R-l district, and he was also concerned
with parking.
. ..J
...
287·
-:~ ,
-4-
7/7/69
Commissioner Heinecke said a church building was there -- it
best lends itself to use as a church. He would hope SUBUD would
improve the building if they took it over.
,..--,
Commissioner West said he was concerned with parking, noise and
hours.
He said presently there was no parking provided for the
house on Humboldt Avenue which is proposed to be rented. He
said the Planning Commission has waived parking requirements
for the Presbyterian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church,
however, there was ample on-street parking in these areas.
Mr. Jacopetti said there was considerable on-street parking
in front of the church and the Yolansdale School adjacent to
the Church; he said there was a lot just one block away on
the corner of Center Boulevard and San Anselmo Avenue which
he understood could be rented, and as a back-up, Mr. Max
Friedman had promised they could use as much of the FairAnselm parking lot as they desired.
Commissioner West said he was favorably impressed by the
things Mr. Jacopetti had told the Commission. He said they
appear to have a worthwhile and acceptable organization. He
said after examining the property and looking at all aspects
of the thing and feeling that SUBUD is a group that would be
welcome in San Anselmo, he still can't feel that this property
is suitable for meetings or gatherings of any kind. He feels
it should go back to the use for which it is zoned, which is
R-l or Single Family Residential Use. He said as far as the
present use of the church as residential use, he feels i t is illegal, 'non-conforming and should be stopped.
,,...
~.
Commissioner Moore moved that U-162 SUBUD CALIFORNIA, application
for church use in an R-l district at 1405 San Anselmo Avenue be
denied on' the basis that parking is totally inadequate for the
particular location and that it would create conge~tion in
this particular neighborhood and that it would not be appropriate to the neighborhood itself.
Commissioner West seconded the motion with regret.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Commissioner Creighton said as long 'as the Commission found it
to be a church use, he did not understand why the application
was being denied.
Commissioner Perry said he was concerned with the traffic in
particular, but was concerned since the application was denied,
with what the neighborhood would be faced with since a ch~rch
building did exist;
Mr. Blackburn, agent for the owner of the property asked what
could be dorie with the property. He said it has been used for
a church since 1908.
Commissioner Perry said he voted Aye only for the reason that
he felt there is inadequate parking and therefore the congestion
and noise factor would cause an undue disturbance within the
neighborhood, other than these reasons he feels that,the proposedruse would be acceptable to the property.
Commissioner Creighton said he voted Aye for the same reasons
given by Commissioner Perry, inadequate parking, traffic congestion and noise.
. '
right to appeal the decision to the City Council within ten
days.
hi~
-...,..
~.ljr:;
c
-5-
7/7/69
~
fT:
c...
C.
(1)
ADJ. 401 William E. Brennan. Application for a 4 foot
6 inch variance in sideyard setback to construct a
greenhouse at 21 Idalia Court.
AlP 7-232-65
Staff report was read and a letter from the neighboring property owner, Orval G. Mead, favoring the application was read
also.
Mr. Brennan said his property was so hilly that this was the
most logical area for· a greenhouse. He said he did have 25
feet on the other side of -his house, however, this is strictly
a driveway. He said there was a 4 foot fence between his
property and that of his neighbor, and since it was downhill,
the neighbor would not be able to see his construction.
Commissioner Perry said he was concerned because the proposed
construction was so close to the Hunter property on the downhill side.
Commissioner Moore asked why the construction was started before the variance was granted, and Mr. Brennan said if the
application was denied, the area would be used for a patio.
Commissioner Moore said he thought the greenhouse was interesting and an unusual feature, he said there apparently was ·no
objection from the neighbor, and it would be impractical to
locate the greenhouse on any other portion of the lot.
Commissioner West said he could not see why the structure
could not be built within the setback requirements or with a
lesser variance.
Commissioner Perry said he was not convinced that there is not
a good alternative for a location for a greenhouse.
Mr. Brennan said he did not want to build on filled land or
to cut a tree to construct a greenhouse.
Commissioner. West said he did not think there was requisite
showing of hardship or results inconsistent with the ordinance.
He said while there were certain terrain problems, he felt the
applicant was asking for too much.
Commissioner Moore moved with regard to ADJ. 401, William E.
Brennan, a 3 foot variance in sideyard setback to construct
a greenhouse at 21 Idalia Court be approved on the basis that:
(1) it is not a conventional addition to a house, and
thus would not be an area in which much time would
be spent by the occupants.
(2) because i t is made of glass it would not appe~r to
be physically overwhelming to the house next door.
(3) because of the steepriess of the terrain on this
particular lot, that it does not appear likely that
there are reasonable alternatives to erect such a
building on this property.
Motion seconded by Commissioner West and unanimously approved.
(2) ADJ. 402 George B. Geramoni. Application for following variances to construct 4 apartment units' at l7-C
Ancho Vista Avenue. AlP 6-161-02
2·89
-6-
7/7/69
Variances requested for dwelling units:
5 foot variance in front yard setback
10 foot variance in rearyard setback
1 foot variance in sideyard setback
Variances requested for parking spaces and garage building:
Space #1 - 10 foot front yard variance
1-
Garage, Spaces 3 & 4 - 17 foot front yard variance
and 16 foot rearyard variance
3.5 foot variance in clear space between garage and main
building.
The staff report was read, and a map indicated the 13 requested
Varianc~s was posted.
"
Mr. Ray Hall was present to represent Mr. Geramoni who is presently in Europe.
Commissioner Perry said he thought the applicant was trying to
do too much on a very difficult site. The proposed parking
was virtually on the street, and there was no on-street parking fo~ guests~
Commissioners Moore and Crei"ghton agreed.
Mr. Hall said the number of variances needed for this construction overWhelmed him, and he asked if he could withdraw the
application and"resubmit a modified application at a subsequent meeting.
Commissioner West said although the lot was zoned R-3, he
also felt an attempt was being mad~ to construct more units
than the site would accomodate. There were terrain problems,
plus problems of access to the parking. Commissioner West
asked Mr. Hall to look at the street and consider possible
street widening so there could be some curb parking provided
for guests. He said the elevations shown generally present
a nice"effect.
Mr. Hall asked if the Commission would consider a submission
of some sketches before going to the trouble and expense of
preparing-the final presentation, and it was agreed that this
would be acceptable.
"
"
Commissioner Perry moved that the application be continued
until the next regular meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Creighton and unanimously approved.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE:
None
6.
A.
Determination of whether an upholstery shop can be maintained in a C-l Di~trict. Proposed location of workshop
for Janko Upholstery, 1601 San Anselmo Avenue (Retail
store already located at 570 San Anselmo Avenue)
Mr. San Janko, 570 San Anselmo Avenue, said he rented the
store at 570 San Anselmo Avenue four months ago with a
~
~~u
-
c
r-"\~
~
7/7/69
-7-
c...
5 year lease, and he has already outgrown it with his furniture business. He now wishes to have an-additional workshop,
and has located a suitable building at 1501 San Anselmo Avenue
which is in a C-l District.
He came before the Planning Commission to see if this would be considered a permitted use in
a C-l District. He said there would be no car or pedestrian
traffic. Most of the business transactions are done in the
home, and he has a display and salesroom downtown if people
wish to come into his shop. He said he would have a window
display to make the building attractive; however, he primarily
wished the building at 1501- San Anselmo Avenue for a workshop.
Commissioner Heinecke asked how many hours per week Mr. Janko's
employees worked, and Mr. Janko said now they work 50 to 55
hours, but if he has additional space he can hire another man,
and all will work 40 hours per week.
Commissioner Moore said he considered this use to fall in-with
Section 10-3.902 (c) (3) of the Municipal Code, repair shops
for shoes, radios and domestic appliances.
Commissioner Creighton said he thought it an ideal use for
this location.
Commissioner Perry said he thought the ·use fell into the-category shown as Section 10-3.902 (b) (5) of the Municipal Code,
other services and agencies which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, are similar to the above.
Commissioner Moore moved that the Planning Commission find
that upholstery recovering, repair and display is a service or
agency similar to those enumerated in Sections 10"-3.902 (b)
and (c), and is an appropriate type use for a C-l district.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Perry'and unanimously approved.
B.
Reviews Per Commission Instruction:
(1) C-l Eldon H. Hill. Certificate of Use and Occupancy,
15, IS-A, 17 and 17-A Humboldt Avenue
(2) U-142 Bess .and Alexander Gildroy, Nursery School at
176 Tunstead Avenue
(3) U-144 Coffrini Sisters.
at 176 Tunstead Avenue
School of Dance and Drama
The staff report indicated there had been no change in the
Humboldt Avenue property and there had been no complaints
about the Tunstead Avenue use.
JOHN' F. WES-T, Chairman
I-.J
291The regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. in the City
Hall on July 21, 1969. Representing the City Staff: Charles R.
Leitzell
1.
ROLL CALL
r-,
Bernt, Creighton, Perry,Stuart,
West
Heine~ke, Moore
The Chairman presented a citation for service to the City
to Joseph Gue former Planning Commissioner and introduced
Mr. Ragnvald Bernt who replaced Mr. Gue.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Perry moved the minutes of July 7, 1969 be
approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Stuart and
3.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
(l)ADJ. 402 George B. Geramoni. Application for
the following variances to construct a 3 unit
apartment at 17-C Ancho Vista Avenue:
5 foot variance in front yard setback and 10
foot variance in rearyard,to construct dwelling
units
(WI
18 foot variance in front yard setback and 16
foot variance in ,rearyard
Variance to allow 3 stories in a portion of the
building
Mr. Leitzell enumerated the variances, requested. He said
the applicant had reduced, the application from 4 units to
3 units, consisting of 2 one bedroom and one two bedroom
apartment, which will require 4 off-street parking spaces.
He said the street is in fairly good condition, probably
an overlay only would be needed. He would recommend a
3.5 foot widening.
Mr. Ray Hall was present for the applicant.- He said the
plan was to raise the existing building approximately 1
and 1/2 feet.
There will be three stories in one corner
of the building. The general architectural features are
the same as previously presented.
Commissioner Perry said he felt the considerations ,should
be, will the lot carry 3 units-without causing congestion
and. overcrowding, and what the impact on the neighborhood
would be. He asked Mr. Hall where. the 3 story section
would be.
Mr. Hall said the 3 story section would be about 20 feet
from the Ancho Vista Apartments and 8 feet from the parcel
down the hill.
Commissioner West said he thought the triangular pro-eusions
into the setback were justified by the site and terrain.
He said he did not feel there was going to be difficulty
in relationship to adjoining, buildings. CommissionerWest
said he was- concerned with the garage being too narrow
and would eventually not be used as a garage, as it now
exists.
C.)
2,92
o
-2-
7/21/69
~
~
~
Commissioner Perry asked if the garage could be widened, and
Mr. Hall replied that it could be widened and attached to the
dwelling.
This would eliminate the need for the variance in
the garage size as well as the variance needed in the clear
space between the garage and main building.
In regard to the variance requested for 3 stories in a portion
of the building, Commissioner West said this would be putting
the parking under the building, providing covered, screened
parking, and he felt it would serve the best interests of the
City and planning concepts.
Commissioner Perry agreed. He said it was not such an imposing structure that it would dominate the terrain.
When asked for a staff recommendation for street widening, Mr.
Leitzell said the staff had recommended widening Ancho Vista
Avenue to 20 feet with curb and gutter to city standar.ds.
Commissioner Perry said he thought under the circumstances a
wider street was needed for safety and guest parking.
Commissioner Perry moved regarding ADJ. 402 George B. Geramoni,
that this Commission grant a 5 foot variance in front yard setback and a 10 foot variance in rear yard setback in order to
construct a dwelling pursuant to the site plan dated May 31,
1969 and revised July 14, 1969, and further permit a variance
for the construction of a 20 x 20 foot garage connected to
the main dwelling, such connecting garage to be in the approximate location of the existing garage depicted on the site plan,
the variance pertaining to front yard and rearyard setback, and
that further variances be granted to allow construction of a
3 story structure on a portion of the building. All of this
upon the condition that the Ancho Vista roadway adjacent to the
property be widened to a minimum width of 20 feet according to
city standards and curb and gutter improvements installed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These variances are
justified because of the hardship resulting from the terrain
characteristics of the property and the triangular shape of
the lot. Motion seconded by Commissioner Creighton and approved
with four Aye votes and Commissioner Bernt abstaining.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICATION
(1) Z-106, Application of Mrs. Sydney D. Alexander (present owner) and Mr. Edwin Wicander (prospective purchaser) to
rezone Lot 7, Magnolia Tract (Assessor's Parcel 7-212-43)
commonly known as 58 Magnolia Avenue from R-l (Single
Family Residence District) to R-3 (Neighborhood Apartment
District) .
The staff report was read, and Mr. Leitzell said it was his
understanding that the lot to the west of this property has
been purchased and the intention was to combine the lots, and,
if this were done, he felt it would be a developable lot. He
said he felt evidence should be brought in of this.
There had
been no written objections received. There is R-3 zoning on
each side.
Mr. Wicander said he was planning on multiple units and a
package of 3 lots since he had recently purchased the corner
lot also, and hoped to work that in with it.
Commissioner West asked Mr. Leitzell what the present concept
on Cedar Street was.· Mr. Leitzell said it has been the policy
of the Commission to maintain ore lot with R-2 zoning as ·a buffer to the R-l across the street.
293
-3-
7/21/69
Commissioner West asked about an additional setback imposed by
the Planning Commission at the time Mr. Larkins rezoned #60
Magnolia Avenue toR-3.
,--
Mr. Leitzell said there was an additional setback of 7.5 feet
required at the time of the above rezoning to provide for
possible future widening of Magnolia Avenue. Present setback
requirements would dictate a 27.5 foot setback to maintain a
20 feet front yard setback if Magnolia Avenue were, at some time
in the future, widened an additional 15 feet.
Commissioner Bernt said this was a multiple use on a narrow
residential street, and he did not feel rezoning on this particular type of street should be done piecemeal. He said if
this was an area where R-3 zoning was desirable, he felt the
whole area should be rezoned. He said to rezone single parcels
to R~3 would be doing a disservice to the remaining single
family residences.
Mr. Alexander, from the audience, asked how Magnolia Avenue could
be widened when there were two substantial businesses in relatively new buildings located at the entrance.
Commissioner Bernt asked if a Planned Development would be
feasible in this area, and it was generally agreed by the rest
of the Commission that Planned Development Zoning was intended
for larger parcels.
Chairman West said he would like to see this item held over
until the application for rezoning the corner lot was presented to the Commission, and all three parcels could be considered at one time. .
Commissioner Perry moved that the Z-106 application of Mrs.
Sydney D. Alexander and Mr. Edwin F. Wicander be continued
pending its resubmission together with the application pertaining to Assessor's Parcels 7-212-44 and 45. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Creighton and unanimously approved.
B.
(1) ADJ. 403. Application of E. Keith Franc for a 20
foot variance in front yard setback to construct a
car deck at 506 Sequoia Drive. A/P 6-118-20
Commissioner Perry stated in regard to this application that
there may be a conflict of interests and asked if Mr. Franc had
any objections to Commissioner Perry ac~ing on this. application.
Mr. Franc said he had no objection at all.
Commissioner West asked about the graded width of Sequoia
Drive, and Mr. Franc said he thought it was about 16 feet.
Mr. Franc said he was able to locate the dwelling with proper
setbacks, and he felt the cardeck was the only answer to a
steep downslope lot. He said he did not wish to disturb the
soils condition and felt this was the best solution for the
people who live in these areas. He said neighbors did not
find this objectionable.
Mr. Leitzell said he would like to encourage the garage in
the structure itself. Mr. Franc said this would require such
heavy bracing that it would not be economically feasible in
this area.
Chairman West said this provided for no guest parking whatsoever, and he felt it would be to the advantage of the owner
to require some widening for guest parking on the street. He
said upslope of the lot he felt there could be some widening.
~'"
,~,~':I
c
-4-
7/21/69
Mr. Franc said there was additional parking available across
the street. He sa-id 'he would be willing to try to get another on-street parking space some~here in the 'area, but
would not want to cut down any of the acacia tree,s on the
frontage.
'
~
--
,..~
Mr. Lei tzellsaid with presen't ordinances, it was possib-le
to requirestree't 'improvements before' issuing' a b'uilding'
permit.
Commissioner Perry moved that ADJ. 403, application of E.
Kei th Franc for a 20 'foot variance in front yard set,back
to construct a cardeck at 506 sequoia Drive, be apprOved in
accordance with th'esiteplan dated July 10, 1969, upon
the condition that street improvements be installed subject
to meeting the requirements of the CTfy'Engineer for the
purpose of permitting on-street parking. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Bernt and unanimously approved.'
B.
_..J
VARIANCE' APPLI"CATIONS'
(2)
ADJ. 404 A~rplication of Robert E. Wade for a 9
foot variance in front yard setback and a 3.5
foot va:riance in sideyard setbackt'o construct
an addition to the dwelling at 12 Morton Lane.
A/P 7":'053-13
Mrs. Wade was present, she said they needed the additional
room very b~dlY.
It was difficult t6 build on the uphill
side of the 'lot hecauseofthe concrete an'd steel retaining
walls and a small spring in that area.
Commissioner Stuart asked where the entry would be, and Mrs.
Wade said they planned to remove a window and put in a door.
Commissiorie'r 'Perry said he wondere:d if the land was not
built to' 'the hilt now, or if perhaps there was not another
design solution where the addition could be built in another
location.
Commissioner Bernt said this was not an ideal solution, but
appeared to be the only practical ,one.
Commissioner Perry moved that ADJ. 404, application of Robert
E. Wade for a 9 foot variance in front yard setba~k and a 3.5
foot variance in 's'ideyard'setback' to' construct an addi tIbn' to
the dwelling at 12 Morton Lane be approved pursuant to the
plans marked "received July 10, 1969"'for the reason that
hardship can be found in' the fact that because of the existing bulkheading behind the structure and the spring which
appears to be in the area of the rear 6f the house makes the
alternatives impractical and undesirable.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Bernt and approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
commissioners Perry, Stuart, Creighton and Bernt
Commissioner West
Commissioner West said he voted no because he felt the lot is
built to the hilt, and it would create overcrowding on the
lower end of 'the lot.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
None
6.
A.
Proposed Revisions to Section 10-3.902 (Uses Permitted in
a C-l District) Municipal Code (continued from 7/7/69)
..-"-"=-......i
295'
7/21/69
-5-
Commissioner Perry had prepared proposed wording ,for the
paragraph of intent, however, copies had not been distributed to the Commission and the matter was held over until
the next meeting when all of the Commissioners will have a
copy.
B.
Non-Conforming Multiple Family use of Property in R-l
Districts
The Chairman said this matter had been referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council with instructions to hold
two public hearings on the item.
Mr. Leitzell said the Zoning Department is discovering more
and more legal and illegal non-conforming uses, and he felt
the only long range solution would be to put some time limit
on these uses and to have them registered with the Zoning
Office.
In that manner if there are any new illegal uses
created they can be abated immediately.
The secretary was instructed to schedule two public hearings
on this item.
At 10:30 Commissioner Perry moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Creighton and unanimously approved.
JOHN F. WEST,
CHAIRMA~
L..)
296
C
~
~
~
called to order by Acting Chairman Warren R. Perry at 8:00 pm. in
the City Hall on August 4, 1969. Representing the City Staff:
John O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Bernt, Creighton, Moore, Perry, Stuart
Heinecke, West
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Creighton moved the minutes of July 21, 1969 be
approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
(1)Z-106 Application of Mrs. Sydney Alexander and Edwin
Wicander, Jr. to rezone Lot 7, Magnolia Tract (AlP
7-212-43) commonly known as 58 Magnolia Avenue from
R-l (Single F'amily Residence District) to R-3
(Neighborhood Apartment District)
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING APPLICATIONS
(1)
.
Z-108 Application of Edwin Wicander, Jr., (purchaser)
and Mrs. Christine Neidlinger (present owner) to rezone a portion of Lot 8, Magnolia Tract, AlP 7-212-45,
commonly known as 72 Magnolia Avenue from R-l (Single
Family Residence District) to R-3 (Neighborhood
Apartment District)
The applications for Z-106 and Z-108 were heard together
since, if approved, they will be developed as one parcel.
Mr. O'Rourke stated that it was the intention of the purchaser
to combine Lot 7, Magnolia Tract with a portion of Lot 8 already zoned R-3, plus the remaining portion of lot 8 for which
rezoning is being requested, in order to develop it as one parcel.
These lots are within the area designated to be zoned
R-3 on the Master Plan, however, they are suitable for multiple
dwelling use only if developed as one parcel.
Mr. Wicander stated that the development would be multiple
units for Senior Citizens and he felt this area was particularly
desirable because the residents would be able to walk to the
downtown area. He pointed out that this development would not
present any policing problem, nor add students to the school
system. The units would be rental units - not a condominiumtype residence.
Mr. O'Rourke advised Mr. Wicander that the setback requirements
for multiple use are a 20 feet setback from front and rear
lines, an 8 foot sideyard setback, with a 12' setback required
on the Cedar Street line.
He further noted that Magnolia Street is 18' wide, with a 25'
right-of-way. Commissioner Perry noted that if the lots were
developed separately there would be an 8' sideyard setback
required on each parcel.
.
Mrs. Lundquist, from the audience, stated she was against the
rezoning if this would allow low-rent housing to be built,
which would lower property values throughout the neighborhood.
-.
297'
-2-
8/4/69
Commissioner Perry advised her that the zoning only defines
setbacks, parking, density, etc. - the quality of the structure would have to be determined by the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Carter, from the audience, asked if this rezoning would
have any possible effect on the zoning of his property across
Magnolia Avenue.
Commissioner Perry advised him that there is
a need for mUltiple density zoning, which should be concentrated around the downtown area.
R-4 zoning was deemed too
heavy for San Anselmo and was eliminated from zoning ordinances.
The Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council
that commercial development be on San Anselmo Avenue with the
area immediately behind zoned R-3, tapering off to R-2 and
Cedar Street defining the start of the R-l zone.
He felt
that Mr. Carter's property would p~obably fall within an area
that could conceivably be zoned R-3.
Commissioner Creighton stated that he is definitely in favor
of combining the three lots, since they are narrow and deep and
would combine areawise to make an ideal parcel for R-3 zoning.
However, he does feel that the narrowness of the street does
not lend itself to high density - he feels that provisions
should be made to allow for future street widening. Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Stuart both concurred with
Commissioner Creighton's comments.
Commissioner Bernt said he felt these lots would lend themselves. to Planned Development and would like to see Mr.
Wicander consider this, but is in favor o£ requiring sufficient front yard setback to allow for future street widening.
Commissioner Perry recommended that an extra 7 1/2 foot
front yard setback be required to allow. for future street
widening, but stressed that they were not calling for dedication to the city of this property at this time. Mr.
Wicanderstated that he was agreeable to providing a total
front yard setback of 27 1/2 feet, if he could landscape and
possibly include in his off-street parking area the additional
7·1/2.feet, untili t is needed for s.treet widening.
Commissioner Creighton moved that Z-106, Application of Mrs.
Sydney Alexander and Edwin Wicander, Jr. to rezone Lot 7,
Magnolia Tract (AlP 7-212-43)' commonly known as 58 Magnolia
Avenue from R-l (Single Family Residence District) to R-3
(Neighborhood Apartment District) be approved provided:
1.
that Lot 7 be combined with 'Lot 8 of Magnolia Tract;
2.
an additional 7 1/2 foot front yard setback over the
'required 20 foot front yard setback be maintained for
the building structure erected.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Bernt and unanimously approved.
Commissioner Creighton moved that Z-:-108, Application of Edwin
Wicander, Jr., (purchaser) and Mrs. Christine Neid1inger (present owner) to rezone a portion of Lot 8, Magnolia Tract (AlP
7-212-45), commonly known as 72 Magnolia Avenue from R-l
(Single Family Residence District) to R-3 (Neighborhood Apartment District), be approved provided:
1.
that Lot 8 be combined with Lot 7 of Magnolia Tract;
2. -' a 27.5 foot front yard setback will be maintained on
the building erected on this property.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Bernt and unanimously approved .
. (2)'
Z-107 Application of Monty W. Connery to rezone a
portion of Lot 31j Ross Vall~y Park. Sub. tl, AlP
7-211-42, commonly known as 46 and 48 Tamalpais
-
4.J
2,~~
f""".,
""3:-
8/4/69
Avenue from R-2 (Two Family Residence District) to
R-3 (Neighborhood Apartment District) .
Mr. O'Rourke stated that although this property is within a
multiple use area, this particular parcel is only 58' in
width and the ,ordinance requires a minimum width of 75',
which would necessitate a variance if the parcel is rezoned.
The Planning Director has recommended that this parcel be combined with adjacent property before rezoning to allow multiple
use.
Commissioner Perry requested Mr. O'Rourke to verbally abstract
the minutes from the January 3, 1966 and February 7, 1966 Pl~n
ning Commission Meetings relating to two previous applications
to rezone this parcel. The first application was to rezone from
R-2 to R-4, and the second was to rezone from R-2 to R-3. Both
these rezonings were denied.
Mr. Connery stated that since the previous applications, two
other parcels on this street have been rezoned to ~-3, as this
area is within the Master Plan area designated for R-3. He
stated it is not economically feasible to retain the structure
on this parcel as a duplex unit; and building costs are too high
to justify remodeling.
Mr. Joslin, from the audience, stated he would be in favor of
having it rezoned, since the existing building is highly undesirable, and the only method of improving the property would be a
higher density use.
Mr. Kulps, from the audience, stated he feels the applicant has
deliberately neglected the property and is encouraging the type
of people who have no respect for the property, to live in it in
an attempt to push rezoning because of the run down condition.
Mr. George Nelson, from the audience, asked what the height limit
on an R-3 zone is, and stated he will lose the view from his
next-door home if a 35' high structure is allowed to be added
to the lot. He f~els Mr~ Connery has deliberately neglected
the property.
Commissioner Creighton pointed out to Mr. Connery that he would
only be allowed to add three more units to the existing two,
because of the density per sq,. footage limitations. Commissioner
Moore stated that he feels that the minimum lot width of 75'
for R-3 zoning should be enforced in this case, and Commissioner
Stuart concurred with his thinking. Commissioner Bernt said
he felt the rezoning was not consistent with the neighborhood,
and that the present rundown condition of the property does not
indicate good intentions for the future. Commissioner Perry
stated that he feels that the property has been allowed to run
down in an attempt to "black-jack" the community. He feels the
property should be combined with adjacent property to provide
adequate width.
Commissioner Creighton moved that Z-107, Application of Monty
Connery to rezone a portion of Lot 31, Ross Valley Park Sub.
#1, A/P 7~211-42, commonly known as 46 and 48 Tamalpais Avenue
from R-2 (Two Family Residence District) to R-3 (Neighborhood
Apartment District) be denied. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bernt and unanimously approved.
w.
his right to appeal the decision to the City Council within ten
days.
B.
(1)
U-163 Laverne P. Swaney. Application for home occupation, dressmaking, alteration and design at 45 Barber
~
~
=-
299'
-4-
8/4/69
Avenue, A/P 6-241-30
Mr. O'Rourke stated that the Planning Department had received
many letters and telephone calls opposed to this application
being approved; however, many of the protestors seemed to be
confused about the issue.
Mrs. Swaney stated that she intended to have 3 or 4 clients
per week visit her home for dressmaking purposes; that she
intended to have no signs, would do no advertising, and would
request clients to park in her driveway, rather than the
street.
Mr. Raymond Harris, from the audience, commented that his
only concern was would there be a discernable impact on the
neighborhood if the permit is granted.
Sybil Conklin, from the audience, stated that she was concerned with increased traffic and parking problems in the
neighborhood, and fears a lowering of property values.
Mrs. Mahl, from the audience, said she objects because of
increased traffic which will be generated on an already busy
street.
Mrs. King, from the audience, said she objects because of
the parking problems.
Commissioner Bernt inquired about the propriety of parking
a-house trailer in a residential yard. Coinmissioner Perry
asked that the discussion be limited to the use permit application, and requested the City Staff to report at ~he
next Planning Commission meeting on the status of the trailer.
Commissioner Bernt stated that he feels the use is not out
of. context with the neighborhood~ Commissioner Moore stated
that .. he·has no, objections. as ··long as a limitation is imposed
on signs and traffic generation. Commissioners Creighton
and Perry concurred.
Commissioner Moore moved that U-163, Application of Laverne
P. Swaney for home occupation,' dressmaking, alteration and
design at 45 Barber Avenue be approved subject to the following conditions:
1.
No signs or commercial advertising in newspapers
or other media be.' allowed ;
2.
No employees be allowed;
3.
No equipment over and above a standard sewing
machine and other minor equipment be used;
4.
This use- permit·is predicated upon a minimum
traffic generation;
5.
.~
This matter be reviewed in six months to determine
whether matt-e-rs are satisfactory wi thin the
neighborhood.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Stuart and unanimously
approved ..
Mrs. Swaney was advised that the use permit will not be
effective for 10 days, since there is a ten day period in
which. the Commission's decision may be appealed to the City
Council.
.
~,.jt
c
tj-UU
-5C.
8/4/69
VARIANCEAPPLICATIONS
(1) ADJ. 405 San Francisco Theological Seminary. Application to enlarge an existing non-conforming use.
An additional classroom at the corner of Austin Avenue
and Kensington Road. A/P 7-291-01
Mr. O'Rourke advised that the department felt that no offstreet parking need be required s~nce there is already sufficient off-street parking, and on-street parking in the
area, and it would be necessary to destroy large trees and
other landscaping in order to provide off street parking.
Mr. Donald Duerr, of the Seminary staff, explained the proposed building is a laboratory situation for the improvement
of counselling skills and communication by 'the students. He
stated they anticipated no parking problems since the entire
Seminary program is being revised and the student enrollment
at the San Anselmo campus will be about one-half of the
previous year's enrollment.
John Colteaus, from the audience, asked if the building will
be used for programs that involve community participation,
that is, will there be more than the usual number of cars
drawn to the building.
Commissioner Perry asked if there is anything about the program to be carried on in this-building which will jeopardize
the quiet, residential tone of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hooper, the architect, informed the Commission that it will
be a one story building, and they intend to preserve as much
of the greenery as possible. They intend to make it semi-residential - non-institutional in character.
The largest room
would be a classroom to seat 40 students, the rest of the
building would consist of small informal rooms.
Mr. Robert Widaa, from the audience, stated he is concerned
about possible traffic congestion - but does not want to see
the trees destroyed.
Mr. O'Rourke stated that the parking ordinance states that 1
space is needed for every 100 sq. ft. of building, or 1 space
for everY'lO seats, if it is considered an assembly hall.
Commissioner Perry suggested that the variance be allowed,
since greenery is preferable to asphalt, with the provision
that the Seminary.will provide off-street parking if a parking
problem arises; and that the Design Review Committee reviews
the building plans before a building permit is issued.
Commissioner Bernt moved that ADJ. 405 San Anselmo Theological
Seminary application to enlarge an exi~ting non-conforming
use for an additional classroom building at the corner of
Austin Avenue and Kensington Road, be approved with a variance
as to any additional off-street parking, subject to review
in six months after the date of the issuing of an occupancy
permit, the express purpose of the review will be to determine
if the lack of off-street parking has caused any parking congestion; and also subject to plans being submitted to the
Design Review Committee before the issuance of a building
permit. Upon review, this Commission reserves the right to
require such off-street parking as is required by ordinance,
as may be necessary to alleviate the demonstrated parking
congestion. Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously approved.
(2) ADJ. 406 Kelso Norman. Application for a 10 foot
variance in front yard setback to construct a dwelling at 130 Sequoia Drive. A/P 6-115-15
~
""",",'
""-'
:....
~
.....
3'01:
-6-
8/4/69
Mr. O'Rourke read a report from the Planning Director stating he felt a variance should be granted for the residence
portion of the application, but was unnecessary on the garage
portion, since the garage could be shortened by eight feet
and moved back two feet, to make a 10 foot variance in frontyard setback unnecessary.
Mr. Norman stated that he feels since much of the neighborhood is built right to the street, and it is a low density
area, that it would be in line to allow this dwelling to be
built with a 10' variance in front yard setback.
Mr. Weeks, the developer, stated that the additional area was
needed in the garage for utility and service area, since the
house itself is quite small.
Commissioner Perry asked is there any possibility the street
might be widened, which might require using part of the
setback area.
He stated he can see hardship circumstances,
and feels the impact on the city is negligible.
Commissioner Creighton moved that ADJ. 406, Kelso Norman,
application for a 10 foot variance in front yard setback
to construct a dwelling at 130 Sequoia Drive be granted
for the reason:
1.
peculiar terrain characteristics in the form of
a substantial elevation increase at the rear of
the parcel;
2.
the peculiar shape of the lot;
3.
there appears to be a substantial area between
the proposed structure and existing street improvements making the proposed structure setback
adequate despite the variance.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Bernt and unanimously
approved.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
Held over until next regular meeting.
6.
(1)
Discussion of Architectural Features of Appurtenances,
Section 10~3.1906 (f) (2) of the San Anselmo Municipal
Code.
Held over until the next regular meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:25p.m.
WARREN R. PERRY, ACTING CHAIRMAN
c
J'U~
~
PIT!
:.....
called to order by Chairman John F. West at-S:OO p.m. in the
City Hall on August 18, 1969. Representing the City Staff:
John O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Bernt, Creighton, Heinecke, Moore
West
Perry, Stuart
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Moore moved the minutes of August 4, 1969 be
approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Bernt and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
USE ,PERMIT APPLICATIONS
U-164 Application of Lani L. Waller and Gisela Ratliff
(owner) for Use Permit for living quarters secondary
to commercial use - painting and sculpturing studio at
1525 San Anselmo Avenue. A/P 7-014-21
Mr. O'Rourke stated that the City Staff felt that there was
not a commercial use being made of the property, hence the
living quarters would be a primary use, rather than a secondary use. Also, no off-street parking was provided on the
property. He recommended denial of the application.
Mr. Waller stated that he had previously had an antique
furniture refinishing business and a book store at this location in an attempt to satisfy the zoning requirements, but
his primary interest was in using the property as a sculptur-_
ing studio with living quarters as a secondary use.
He
stated that he worked full time as a carpenter to earn a
living since his art work was not a financially profitable
venture at this time.
Mr. West informed Mr. Waller that an art studio was a permitted use in a C-l District, and that really all the Commission
was considering was his application for secondar'y living
quarters.
Mr. O'Rourke was requested to read the section of the ordinance pertaining to secondary use for living quarters in a
C-l District.
Mr. Waller stated that the portion of the building devoted to
studio space is about 40' x 25', and that the portion devoted
to living space is about 15' x 25'~ so the living area is less
than 1/3 of the total area. He also stated the previous 2
or 3 tenants, going back a period of five or more years had
used this portion of the building for living quarters. Commissioner Bernt asked what his hours of being open for business
would be, and Mr. Waller replied that the commercial aspect
would be minimal, this was primarily a working studio.
Commissioner Bernt stated that a Mrs. Sullivan of 2 Florence
Avenue, which is next to Mr. Waller's building, had asked him
to inform the Commission that she was in favor of Mr. Waller
being granted a permit to allow him to live on the premises.
Mr. and Mrs. Scott Parsons of Marshall, California, stated
303'-2-
8/18/69
that they plan to open a hand-made clothing shop at 1527 San
Anselmo Avenue, and would like to see Mr. Waller granted permission to have secondary living quarters in his building.
Commissioner Moore stated that he feels the basic use in C-l
Districts should be maintained as a regular commercial establishment, with living quarters decidedly a secondary use.
Commissioner West stated that he feels that the applicant
plans to use the premises as living quarters first, with the
art studio a secondary use, since he earns his livelihood
in another manner.
Commissioner Heinecke moved that U-164, application of Lani
L. Waller and Gisela Ratliff (owner) for a use permit for living quarters secondary to commercial use - painting and
sculpturing studio, at 1525 San Anselmo Avenue be denied on
the grounds that the studio located on the premises is not
a studio within the meaning of the definition of a C-l district, and on the grounds that the living quarters are not
secondary to commercial use.
The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Creighton and unanimously approved.
The applicant was informed of the denial of the application
and his right to appeal the decision to the City Council
within ten days from this date.
Commissioner West informed the applicant that he may continue to use the premises as an art studio, with the residential use abated.
(2)
U-165 Application of Thomas J. Belton and Ernest
Ongaro (owner) for Use Permit to serve beer and wine
in conjunction with restaurant business at 726 San
Anselmo Avenue. A/P 6-102-21
Mr. O'Rourke stated that the staff felt there were no objections to Mr. Belton's use of these premises as a pizza
parlor serving wine and beer since the premises have been
used in the past for a restaurant business with no problems observed.
Mr. Belton stated he felt there would be adequate parking
during the hours he will be open for business both onstreet and off-street (in the area between and behind the
two Ongaro buildings).
He plans to be open from about
4:30 p.m. to midnight.
Corrmissioner West stated that he could see no reason to
question the parking aspect since the Commission would
not even be considering this matter if it were a restaurant business without a beer and wine license.
Commissioner Heinecke moved that U-165, application of
Thomas J. Belton and Ernest Ongaro (owner) for a use permit to serve beer and wine in conjunction with restaurant
busin~ss at 726 San ~.nselmo Avenue be approved inasmuch
as the Commission finds that the use is not incompatible
with the area.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimouslyapproved. Commissioner West informed the applicant
that a use permit is revokable and is subject to review
by the Cornmission at any time if conditions warrant.
(3)
U-166 Application of David M. Lewis (Ross Valley
Company) for Use Permit to construct a Planned
Development at 84 Madrone Avenue. A/P 6-052-21
(Approved by Design Review Committee on 4/9/69)
Mr. O'Rourke stated that the Planning Commission has
previously reviewed the proposed Planned Development,
when the applicant applied for a rezoning of the parcel.
He also noted that the Design Review Committee has
'\,...,(.,..1
o
ilU4
-3-
8/18/69
~
"":C
~
approved the building plans.
Commissioner West stated that this application for Use Permit
is merely a formality.
Commissioner Moore moved that U-166, application of David M.
Lewis (Ross Valley Company) for a use permit ,to construct a
Planned Development at 84 Madrbne Avenue be approved consistent with the already approved building design and off-street
parking requirements for the proposed 22 unit apartment complex,
and further consistent with all of the other requirements previously imposed in the approval for this Pianned Development
by the Commission on December 16, 1968. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bernt and approved by ,the following vote:
AYES:
Abstain:
Commissioners Heinecke, Moore, Bernt and West
Commissioner Creighton
Commissioner Heinecke stated he voted Aye because the Commission had previously approved this application, but at which
time he voted No for the reason he felt the development is too
dense. Commissioner Bernt said he voted Aye because the commission had previously approved the application, but he too
felt the development was too dense. Commissioner Creighton
abstained because he had previously voted no on this Planned
Development.
B.
(1)
ADJ. 407 Application of Robert E. McCurdy for a 3' 4"
variance in front yard setback and a 5' variance in sideyard setback to construct an open two-car carport at 8
Brookside Court. A/P 5-172-05
Mr. O'Rourke stated that the staff felt there was no objection
to allowing this variance since a practical building difficulty
is demonstrated, and terrain conditions will prevent an addition
of this carport from being objectionable to the neighbors and
neighborhood.
.
Commissioner Bernt inquired when the existing garage had been
enclosed, and Mr. McCurdy replied that it was done before he
purchased the property, perhaps as much as two owners in the
past. Commissioner West stated he felt that this was the only
way Mr. McCurdy could add covered parking, but he felt the design submitted was not very attractive - it lacked style.
Commissioner Creighton stated that he felt there was no true
hardship demonstrated for the stone wall could be moved, but
that this did present a practical difficulty. Since this
street is a cuI 'de sac and there would be nq vision impairment for the street traffic, he could see no reason to require
the tearing down of an attractive stone wall in order to meet
the ordinance setback requirements. He sugg~sted that the
carport be moved back one foot further from the street.
Commissioner Creighton moved that ADJ. 407, application of
Robert E. McCurdy be approved granting a 2' 4" varianc~ in
front yard setback and a 5~ variance in sideyard setback to construct an open two-car carport for the reasons that a practical
hardship has been demonstrated, and that this street is a cuI
de sac and it does not present any traffic problem nor impair
the vision of the motor traffic in the are,a. The building plan
shall be subject to approval of the Design Review Committee.
The motion was second'ed by Commissioner Moore and unanimously
approved.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
Held over uritil next r~g~lar meeting ..
305-46.
8/18/69
(1)
Discussion of Architectural Features or Appurtenances,
Section 10-3.1906 (f) (2) of the San Anselmo Municipal
Code
Commissioner West stated that the fireplaces were removed from
the list of architectural features allowed to project into the
setback area at some time in the past. Subsequent to their
removal from the list, the ordinance was amended to provide
an an 8' sideyard setback, rather than a 5' sideyard setback.
The Building Inspector has now recommended that fireplaces
once again be considered an architectural feature allowed to
project into the sideyard setback. He said he agrees with the
Building Inspector's recommendation, and suggested that the
staff prepare a proposed amendment to the ordinance to allow
this.
Commissioner Creighton moved that the staff prepare an amendment to Section 10-3.1906 (f) (2) granting the additional 2'
extension into sideyard setback be applied to fireplaces.
This proposed_amendment to be presented to the Commission at
its regular meeting, September 15, 1969 for consideration.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moore and was carried
by four Aye votes and one No.
(2)
Discussion of Non-Conforming Multiple Family Use of
Property in R-l Districts.
Mr. O'Rourke announced that two public hearings have been set
on this matter, one on September 15, 1969 and one on October
6, 1969.
Commissioner Bernt reported that at
prove that a multiple use in an R-l
after the adoption of the ordinance
was vacant for a period of over six
present the City must
District was started
in 1926, or that the unit
months.
It is almost impossible to offer conclusive proof of either
of these two conditions.
These multiple use units are often
in a poor condition of repair. Commissioner West stated he
feels that a home owner should. be entitled to the protection
of the ordinance, i.e., an R-l district should be strictly
for single family residences. Both Commissioner Bernt and
Commissioner West stated they feel the only solution is to
set a time limit for these multiple use units to be abated.
Commissioner Bernt and Commissioner West will confer on the
non-conforming mUltiple family use of property in R-l districts; and will draft a memo and report back with recommendations at the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
(3)
Review of legality of house trailer parked on residential lot at 45 Barber Avenue. A/P 6-241-30
Mr. O'Rourke stated that the Police Chief reported no complaints received in the past year on this house trailer,
and that it presents no hazard to traffic. Mr. O'Rourke
also stated that the ordinance provides that a house tra~ler
may be parked on R-l district property if it is not connected to any utilities.
Commissioner Bernt said he felt Commissioner Perry was
questioning the overall situation of house trailers parked
on private property, not just this specific incident. He said
he would like to see the Planning Commission propose an ordinance to the City Council that would place some restrictions
on the parking of house trailers on pri vat:~>'property. Commissioner West stated that he would like to reschedule this matter
for further discussion at the next regular meeting.
~]
3-06'
o
-5-
~
~
8/18/69
".
~
(4)
Request for finding if cottage at 22 Park Drive is still
a legal non-conforming use. A/P 6-044-03 (Building is at
rear of lot at 20 Park Drive)
Mr. O'Rourke read a report on this matter prepared by the Building Inspector and Mr. John A. Jeffrey (one of the present owners)
presented his knowledge of the use of the cottage as a rental
unit in the past.
Commissioner West stated that since the staff could offer no
conclusive proof that the~multiple use had started since 1926,
or has lapsed for more than six months, there appears to be no
action this Planning Commission can take in the matter under the
ordinance as presently constituted. He suggested the matter revert to the Building Inspector for appropriate disposition.
(5)
Review of U-143 - Use Permit to extend service of food and
beverage to p~tio area - Pepperwood Restaurant, Red Hill
Shopping Center.
Mr. O'Rourke reported that the patio area has been used on a
limited basis for food service, and no complaints or adverse
reports had been received. Commissioner West recommended that
the use permit continue as originally issued.
JOHN F. WEST, CHAIRMAN
..
i
: ~
307'
The regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman JohnF. West' at 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall on
September 15, 1969.' Representing the City Staff: Charles R. Leitzell
1.
ROLL CALL
r'-~
I
2.
Bernt, Heinecke, Moore, Perry, Stuart,
West
Creighton
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Heinecke moved the minutes of August 18, 1969 be
approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
(1)
ADJ. 407 Application of Robert E. McCurdy for a 3' 4"
variance in front yard setback and a 5' variance in side
yard setback to construct an open two-car carport at 8
Brookside Court. AlP 5-172-05
City Engineer Leitzell reported that Chairman James McDonald
of the Design Review Committee had inadvertently discovered
a discrepance on the plot plan submitted by the McCurdys, the
discrepancy being that the property line was shown as the curb
line, when in actuality the property line is 8 feet behind
the curb face.
Thus, a 10' 4" variance, rather than a 2' 4"
variance should have been granted.
Commissioner Perry stated that the Design Review Committee
has approved the proposed carport design, and felt that the
correction necessary in the variance granted was academic,
but should be handled by the Planning Commission to keep the
records straight. Commissioner Bernt stated he felt that
since the Design Review Committee has approved the plan,
the Planning Commission should not delay the McCurdys further.
Commissioner Perry moved that in the matter of ADJ. 407, application of Robert F. McCurdy for a 3' 4" variance in front
yard setback and a 5' variance in sideyard setback to construct
an open two-car carport at 8 Brookside Court (AlP 5-172-05),
that the language of the prior action by the Planning Commission be modified to reflect the 10' 4" variance in front yard
setback granted, rather than a 2' 4" variance in front yard
setback. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moore and
approved bX the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Bernt, Heinecke, Moore, Perry, Stuart
West
Commissioner Heinecke stated that his "aye" vote qnthis matter
does not indicate a change in his original "no" vote on the
initial application. Commissioner West stated he voted Uno"
because he thinks the matter should be discussed further.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
Z...;109 Application of Anna Ghezzi (owner) and John Komo
(applicant) to rezone from R-2 (Two Family Residence District) to R-3 (Neighborhood Apartment District) AlP
7-213-25 and 7-213-41, commonly known as 158 Tunste,ad
Avenue.
Mr. Lei tzell reported that the staff recommen.ded denial of this
application on the ground that Mrs. Ghezzi, the owner, would be
t:,...)
3~08
c
-2-
9/15/69
left with a small isolated lot, unsuitable for rezoning, in an
area of R-3 zoning. Mr. Komo, the applicant, presented plans
for the development of this parcel, wh.ich development would be
in conjunction with adjacent property already owned and developed by him.
Commissioner Moore stated he feels rezoning should be done in
clusters, and this application would seem to be spot rezoning.
Commissioner West stated he feels the property owner, Mrs.
Ghezzi, should be notified that the Commission agrees with the
staff recommendation, and ask her for her comments.
Commissioner Perry moved that this matter be continued until
the next regular Planning Commission meeting, October 6, 1969,
pending staff communication with the property owner. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Moore and approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
.Moore, Perry, Stuart, Bernt, West
Heinecke
Commissioner Heinecke stated he voted "No" because he feels the
Commission is attempting to make this into a combining of parcels
for rezoning, when this is not what the application asked for.
B.
PUBLIC HEARING
(1)
NON-CONFORMING MULTIPLE FAMILY USES in Single Family Residential R-l Districts.
(Title 10, Section 3, Article
23, of the San Anselmo Municipal Code).
Commissioner West announced that two public hearings would be
held on this matter.
This meeting would hear a background report on the mat~er,and comments from the audience. The following hearing would be for further audience comments, and commission discussion on the matter.
Mr. Leitzell reported that the City Council had directed a Mayor's
Committee be formed, and two public hearings held, to present
recommendations to them for handling both legal and illegal nonconforming mUltiple uses, and for solving off-street parking
problems in the City. _Mr. Leitzell reported the City's Streets
and Traffic Commi tt,ee has held one meeting regarding this, and
on Monday, SepteIT\ber 22 at 8:00 p.m. will hold another meeting
in tbe Ross Valley Savings Building for further discussion and
recommendations on the parking situation.
Mr. Braun, from the audience, stated he feels the narrow streets
and steep hills are the real problems, and in many cases a real
hardship is created if off-street parking must be developed for
old, existing dwellings. He stated that in his neighborhood
there is a l~ck of off-street parking, but the residents work
together on the situation and no r~al problem exists.
Mr. Turner, 27 Foothill, stated he feels there is a real problem
of multiple use in R-l Districts, often with an absentee owner
situation, and this needs correction.
Mr. Paul Brand of the San Anselmo Home Owners Association stated
he agrees with both of the previous comments, and urged against
a "shotgun" solution of the problems. He feels this would only
worsen the situation, rather than improve it. HE NOTED this is
also the fee~ing of the Sap Anselmo Homes Association .
Mr. Val Schaaf, a member of the Streets -and Traffic Committee,
suggested that a survey be made to determine the illegal nonconforming multiple uses, and the whole problem approached slowly
especially "with reference to the legal non:-conforming multiple_
uses.
He stated that the Streets and Traffic Committee feels
~
'""l':
=-
309 '
"
-3-
9/15/69
that multiple non-confbrming uses should be required to put in
parking, but there is a concern on .the Committee's
part over hasty action regarding off~streetparking in general.
off~street
Mr. Dave Leach and Mr. Dan Goltz agreed.
C.
(1)
U~168
Application of Alfred Nanniz~i (owner) and Fotomat
Corporation (lessee) for Use Permit to operate a drive-up
Fotomat at 5 Red Hill Avenue. A/P 6-214-02
Mr. Leitzell reported that the Police Chief has no objection to
this use in Connection with any traffic hazard, and that the
staff recommendation was for approval of the use permit.
Mr. Nannizzi stated that there would be room for 4 cars to pull
into the Fotomat at a time, so there would be no problem of
cars stacking in a traffic lane while waiting to enter. He
also noted that with the installation of the Fotomat, there
would be no longer access to this parcel from Red Hill Avenue
eastbound, and presently vehicles entering here to park does
present some hazard to traffic. He also noted that it would
be necessary to remove four trees in order to construct this
building. Commissioner Stuart stated that he is concerned
over possible traffic congestion in the area. Mr. Leitzell
noted that there is an extra parking lane available at this
point, so cars would not be entering and exiting into a moving
traffic lane. Commissioner Heinecke stated that he feels
this particular type of building is detrimental to the area this should be an attractive entrance to our city. He does not
feel that there should be any commercial development here,
rather it should be a greenbelt area.
Commissioners Perry and West concurred with Commissioner
Heinecke's thoughts.
Commissioner West pointed out to Mr.
Nanizzi and the Fotomat representative that if a use permit
is granted, the building design would be subject to approval
by the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Heinecke moved that U-168, application of Alfred
Nanizzi (owner) and Fotomat Corporation (lessee) for Use Permit to operate a drive-up Fotomat at 5 Red Hill Avenue
(A/P 6-214-02) be denied on the basis that it is injurious
to property and improvements in the neighborhood and to the
City in general. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Bernt
Commissioner West informed the applicant of the denial of the
application and of his right to appeal the.decision to the City
Council with ten days from this date.
D.
(I)
""-'~'-",
ADJ. 408 Application of Melvin J. Chanbers for 3'
variance in sideyard setback to construct an addition
to the dwelling at 19 Hooper Lane. A/P 7-012-09
Mr. Leitzell reported that since this was a narrow lot, and
the creek in the rearyard makes expansion impossible in that
direction;' he felt there was a hardship demonstrated and recommended granting the requested variance. He also noted that
in checking the plans submitted, he had found a variance is
needed to permit the parking of two vehicles in the proposed
carport area.
Commissioner Perry stated that he would like to seethe new
addition inset 3-feet, since the neighboring house is very
close to the property line, and if the requested variance is
granted the two structures will be very close together.
. .
iW}
;j,l U
C
-4-
9/15/69
~
~
:..
Mr. Leitzell noted that the creek in the rear makes the rear
yard unusable for outdoor living, hence the only outdoor living
area available is the small area on the west side of the' house.
If the variance is not granted and the new addition has to be
moved over 3', this would cut 3' off of the small outdoor area.
Commissioner Perry moved that Adj. 408, Application of Melvin
J. Chanbers for 3' variance in sideyard se,tback to construct an
addition to the dwelling at 19 Hooper Lane, (AlP 7-012-09) be
granted according to the plan submitted on the ground that a
hardship is shown through the encroachment of the creek into
the rear of the property impairing the useable land area and
the narrowness of the lot makes outdoor living space hard to
develop. A variance shall also be granted to permit construction of the proposed carport area according to the plan submitted, said variance to permit a 6" encroachment into the ,frontyard setback by one vehicle and a 5' 6" encroachment into the
front yard setback by a second vehicle, for the reason that
additional off-street :parking is created by the granting of such
a variance~ and it is recognized that Hooper Lane has a critical
on-street parking situation. These variances are.granted subject to the submission of plans for approval to the Design Review
Commi ttee., The, motion was seconded by Commissioner Heinecke and
approved with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Perry, Stuart,
West
Bernt~
Heinecke, Moore
Commissioner West stated that he voted "No" because he felt there
was a danger of th.e Commission entering into inconsistencies in
the almost automatic granting of variances on substandard lots.
(2)
ADJ. 409 Application of Thomas D. Wilson for 5" variance
in front yard setback,S' variance in, rear yard setback
and 3' variance in sideyard setback to construct an addition
to the dwelling at 8 Crescent Lane. Alp 7-221-20
Mr. Leitzell reported that the applicant had been in his office
about a year ago to check out the setback requirements. The
plans had been drawn to conform to information given the applicant at that time, but'in·the·.,meantime the zoning ordinance had
been changed and when Mr. Wilson recently came into the Building
Inspector's office to take out a building permit, he was informed
the setback requirements had been changed and variances would
be required. Mr. Leit~ell recommended the granting of the
variance.
Commissioner West stated that he is a neighbor of Mr. Wilson,
but has had no personal involvement with the Wilsons, so felt
he could take part in the discussion and voting.
Mr. Leitzell noted that the dedicated width of Crescent Lane
is 10', but the street as constructed is actually 12' in front
of the Wilson's property.
The property owned by the Wilsons
presently has no covered parking.
Commissioner Heinecke said he did not like to see the face of
the building moved closer to the street than it already is,
and though he feels the other variances requested are justified,
he did not feel ,the variance in front yard setback should be
granted.
Commissioners West and Perry concurred with Commissioner
Heinecke's statements and felt th~t there was an alternative
possibility to provide off-street parking which would not require the front yard variance requested.
Commissioner l'!!oore moved that ADJ. 409, application of Thomas
D. Wilson for variances to construct an addition ,to the dwelling at 8 Crescent, Lane, (AlP 7-,221-20) be granted as follows:
I
c, __ J
311
-5-
9/15/69
5' variance in rear yard setback
3' variance in side yard setback
for the reasons that the plans were made prior to the change in
zoning 'ordinance regarding setbacks, and that the addition would
be an improvement to the neighborhood.
The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bernt and unanimously approved.
(3)
ADJ. 410 Application of B. M. Schmidt for 3' variance in
side yard setback and 5' variance in front yard setback to
construct a garage at 61 Madrone Avenue.
A/P 6-083-26
Mr. Leitzell reported that this is an application to construct
a garage with a 15' setback, consistent with the setback of
the dwelling, and to replace a garage presently built to the
front property line.
The applicant stated that moving the garage back from the
front property line would correct a potentially dangerous
situation and that a variance was requested in front yard
setback because if the garage was set back a full 20' it
would cut off light to the dining room.
Commissioner West stated he felt a variance was justified
and suggested granting the variance, and an alternate variance to allow the garage to be set back from the front property
line as far as feasible to allow ample room for vehicles parked
on ,the parking apron.
Commissioner Heinecke moved that ADJ. 410, application of
B. M. Schmidt for a 5' variance in front yard setback and a
3' variance in sideyard setback to construct a garage at
61 Madrone Avenue (A/P 6-083-26) be granted on the condition
that the applicant also has the alternate of constructing
essentially the same plan but with a 3' variance in front
yard setback and a 5' variance in sideyard setback; per plans
drawn by W. P. Beck, revised 9/8/69.
Commissioner Perry
seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
6.
(3)
Recommendation by the Reconnaissance Report Steering
Committee on the selection of a Planner to prepare
the application for 701 Federal Planning Funds
Mr. Leitzell stated that the Planning Commission has been
asked to make a recommendation to the City Council of a Planner
to assist in the preparation of an application for Federal 701
Planning Assistance Funds.
The Reconnaissance report Steering
Committee had reviewed the qualifications and interviewed a
number of planners, and selected a slate of three planners
for further consideration:
Sedway-Cooke, Duncan & Jones, and
Williams & Mocine.
The final choice was the firm of Williams
& Mocine. The 1970 Planning Commission budget includes $1,000
for the services of a planner in preparing this application.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Mocine gave a brief resume of their background and stated some of their aims in city planning:
They
said they felt there should be strong citizen participation
throughout the program; the plan should be a continuing thing
with revisions from time to time, but with its own continuity;
it must reflect the communities needs and thoughts; general
plans sometimes tend to be too general - a plan should be more
developmental with more phasing and more sophistication.
Commissioner Perry moved that the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council the retention of Williams & Mocine to prepare a Reconnaissance Report, work outline, and application for
Federal 701 Planning Assistance Funds, at a fee of $1,000.
The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously approved.
;-ll~·
~~io'
c
-6-
9/15/69
~
,..'"'!C
~
(1) Review of proposed amendment to Section 10-3.1906 (f) (2)
of the San Anselmo Municipal Code - Architectural Features
and Appurtenances
Mr. Leitzell read the proposed amendment to Section 10-3.1906
(f) (2)~ Commissioner Heinecke moved the recommendation to
the City Council of the proposed amendment to Section 10.3-1906
(f) (2) as follows:
"Architectural features, such as cornices, eaves, canopies,
and chimneys,· may extend not more than two feet (2') into
any yard, as required by the provisions of this chapter.
An uncovered porch, outside stairway, or landing place may
extend not more than six (6) feet into front or rear yards
and two (2') feet into side yards."
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion which was approved by
a unanimous voice vote.
(2)
Review of hous·e·trailers parked on private property.
Commissioner West suggested this item be held over until a
future meeting F in view of the lateness.
Commissioner Heinecke requested the staff to check into the
present status of the Ross Town Ordinance relating to nonconforming multiple useSj and also to investigat'9 the dying
foliage at the Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant at 830 Sir Francis
Drake Boulevard.
,_I
313"
to order by Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall on
October 6, 1969. Representing the City Staff: Charles R. Leitzell
and John T. O'Rourke.
1.
ROLL CALL
r=-
2.
Bernt, Heinecke, Perry, Stuart, West
Creighton, Moore
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Heinecke moved the minutes of September 15, 1969 be
written, seconded by commissioner Perry and unanimously approved.
~approvedas
3.
Mr. Martin Macke, Assistant Chairman of the Steering Committee
of the Housing Workshop addressed the Commission and extended
an invitation to the Commission members to attend the PEOPLE
IN WONDERLAND workshop to be held Saturday, October 25, 1969
at Dominican College in San Rafael.
4.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
(1)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Z-109 Application of Anna Ghezzi (owner) and John Komo
(applicant) to· rezone from R-2 (Two Family Residence District) toR-3 (Neighborhood Apartment District) AlP 7-213-25
and 7-213-41, commonly known as 158 Tunstead Avenue.
Mr. Leitzell reported that he had communicated with Mrs. Ghessi
and Mr. Komo via a letter dated September 24, regarding the
staff's recommendation regarding the rezoning, and also stating
the Planning Commission's concurrence with this recommendation,
but had not had a reply from either Mrs. Ghezzi or Mr. Komo.
Neither Mrs. Ghezzi, Mr. Komo, nor anyone representing them, was
present at this meeting to answer the Commission's questions.
Mt. Perry moved that the matter be continued until the next
regular meeting on October 20, 1969. Commissioner Heinecke
seconded the motion which was approved by a voice vote of four
"Ayes" and one "no". Chairman West asked that Mrs. Ghezzi and
Mr. Komo be notified of this continuance, and that the Commis~
sion would act on the matter at the next meeting, whether or
not they appeared.
(2)
NON CONFORMING MULTIPLE FAMILY USES in Single Family
Residential R-l Districts.
(Title 10, Section 3,
Article 23, of the San Anselmo Municipal Code) .
Commissioner West announced that this was the second public
hearing held on this matter. At the previous meeting the
staff report was read, and the Commission heard comments from
the audience on· both non-conforming multiple use and offstreet par,king. Tonight's discussion is to be limited to nonconforming mUltiple uses.
There were no comments from the audience.
Commissioner West stated he would like to arrive at a concensus
at this meeting, and pass the Commission's recommendations on
to the City Council. Commissioner Perry- said he would like to
see· what results Ross .is having with its ordinance, and base the
Planning Commission's recommendations and comments on this.
Commissioner Bernt said he felt the Commission was asked to make
recommendations on what the ordinance should do iaeally ~ even
though these recommendations might not be passable.
c:..J
~l14
C
10/6/69
-2-
~
~
c.
Mr. Leitzell read from the existing ordinance which provides
for the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, renewable every year, for multiple uses. This is a system of regis-'
tration only, and does not attempt to abate these uses. Commissioner Heinecke pointed out that the ordinance does not set
up any standards for the Commission for either the granting
or denial of this certificate, so it is of little use. Commissioner West stated he and Commissioner Bernt in their memo, suggested a housing survey 'be made. Mr. Leitzell said a survey
would be made as part of the Master Plan study, but such a survey would not be extensive enough to identify all non-conforming
multiple uses. He suggested mailing a letter to every property
owner notifying them that all uses, other than those permitted
in their zone, must be registered.
Illegal uses would thus be
pinpointed for failure to register, and because they were recently instituted. This system would require passage of a new
ordinance. Commissioner West stated he favors
Ross-type
ordinance as a 'way of solving the problem. The Ross Ordinance
gave property owners five years to abate multiple uses - this
time limit is now up -so the enforcement problem is now 'present.
a
Commissioner Perry stated he felt we must have an ordinance with
"teeth" which will enable the city to abate multiple uses which
result in overcrowding, traffic problems, a change in the character of the neighborhood, as well as property values. He suggested the Commission instruct the staff to take the matter up
with both San Anselmo's City Attorney and the Town of Ross's
attorney, and report to the Commission on the strengths and
weaknesses of the Ross Ordinance, and draft a possible San Anselmo
ordinance.
Commissioner Heinecke stated he feels the Planning Commission
should give the City Council some very specific recommendations
for a means of surveying non-conforming uses, and for possible
amortization periods.'
Commissioner West requested the Staff prepare a memorandum relative to the Town of Ross's experiences with their ordinance, and
draft a Ross-type ordinance' for consideration by the San Anselmo
Planning Commission at its next regular meeting.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Z-110 Application of Grant Perkins and John P. McInnis
to rezone from R-l (Single Family Residence District and
C-3 (Commercial District) to P. D. (Planned Development)
A/P 6-121-07, 6-121-08, 6-12104, and a portion of 6-121-09
and 6-091-07 in the vicinity of Essex Avenue.
SS-153 Application of Grant Perkins for revision of lot
line of A/P 6-121-09, 6-121-07 and 6-091-07 on Essex Avenue.
Chairman West stated that he felt that Z-110 and SS-153, since
they are inter-related, should be considered together.
In view
of the extremely long agenda at this meeting, he stated that
with the Commission's concurrence, they would hear the staff
reports, the applicant's presentation, and comments from the
audience on the two matters and then re-schedulethe Commission's
discussion of the matter for a special meeting at a future date.
Mr. Leitzell reported that there had been a previous application
for rezoning to Planned Development by the same applicant, which
had been denied. The new application is for a lower density
and shows improved access. Mr. Leitzell stated that he feels
that Planned Development is the best use of this land - R-l is
not ideal next to the Commercially zoned property, and R-3 is
315'
-3-
10/6/69
too dense for the area. Mr. O'Rourke pointed out the changes
requested in,the Lot Line Revision. These are to separate
property surrounding Mr. Perkin's existing residence from the
area proposed for rezoning to Planned Development.
Mr. Perkins . explained that· he ha,s planned 34 townhouse type
residences on approximately 3 acres of land. Most of the units
would have views toward downtown San Anselmo and Mt. Tamalpais.
They have been designed to harmonize with the Essex Center
buildings at the foot of Essex Street - a Monterey style of
architecture. A representative of Cooper-Clark and Associates
stated that they had been asked to give some preliminary
opinions. on the site stability. ,They feel that although this
is part. of Red Hill, this area is' much more stable than the·
area behind Lorna Robles, and geological samples bear this out.
There are no signs of slides or other instability, and no
evidence of subsurface water~
They feel the site can feasibly
be_developed.
Mr. Perkins stated that he presently owns all of the area
requested to be rezoned except for the one lot owned by Mr. McInnis, on which he has an option to buy.
Mr. Leitzell noted that the plans show approximately 3600 sq.
feet per unit and a total lot coverage of about 15%. He also
explained the advantages to the City .with Planned Development
rather than R-3, and enumerated the' procedure in approving
a Planned Development.
Mr. Feingold, of the Essex Business Center, stated ·they were
in favor of the project and were flattered that their architectural style was to be copied, but do feel that Essex Street
should·be· improved as a condition;of.approval.
Mr. James Kilty of 60 Essex Street, stated he strongly objects
to the proposed plan for three reasons:'
1.
San Anselmo is primarily a single family residential
community and he objects to the apartment house
building trend.
2.
Traffic is already a bad problem,there is poor
ingress and egress on Essex, and the parking situation is critical.
3.
R-l Districts are being threatened by "creeping
commercialism" with accompanying noise, policing
problems, and crowded schools.
He stated he is definitely against allowing more apartments
to be built.
Commissioner West announced that a·special meeting will' be
held at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15th for further
con§ideration of these matters.
B.
(1)
U-169 Application of Charles L. Irvine for use permit to
allow janitor-overseer to live in second unit in R-l
District at 573 Scenic Avenue A/P 7-061-04
Mr. O'Rourke read-the staff report recommending' denial' on
the grounds that the janitor does not constitute full-time
household help and approval would be granting a duplex use in
an R-l distri'ct .
..
Mr. Irvine stated that this house was a multiple dwelling that
he has converted to single family use.
The portion occupied
by the janitor is a crudely finished basement room. He does
C,;..)
31t>
o
-4-
10/6/69
~
""r::
...-.c
not pay rent. Commissioner West noted that the payment of
rental is not relative, the ordinance permits only one family
per R-l resid~ntial lot.
Commissioner Bernt moved that U-169, Application of Charles L.
Irvine for use permit to allow janitor to tive in second unit
in R-l District at 573 Scenic Aven~e be denied on the baSis that
approval of the application would constitute rezoning from
R-l to R-2 use, through th~ device of granting a use permit.
Commissioner Stuart seconded the motion which was unanimously
approved.:
application and of his right' to appeal th~ decision to the
City Council within t~n days'from this-date~
(2) U-170 Application of John H. Meisenheimer, D. C. for use
permit to allow professional practice of chiropractic in
residence at 1412 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (R-l, Single
Family Residence District) A/P 5-143-15.
.
Mr. O'Rourke stated that a limited amount of on-street parking
is the only parking available. A doctor's office is permitted
with a use permit in an R-l Di'strict. Dr. Meisenheimer stated
that he will have an average of 20 patients a day, with two,
or rarely three,peisons at any ohe tim~~
~he house is approximately 1500 Sq. ft. in size - 75% of this woutd be used as
office space.
He stated he could provide 3 or 4 diagonal parking spaces in the area that is currently lawn, if this would
be required. Commissioner Heinecke informed the applicant that
the ordinance sp~cifies that no more than 25% of 'a home,' or
50% of an accessory building, may be used for a home occupation.
Commissioner Perry and Commissioner West both stated that they
feel that the use proposed is inconsistent with the area.
Commissioner Perry moved that U-170, application of John H.
Misenheimer, D. C. for use permit to allow professional practice of chiro~ractic in residence at 1412 Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard in an R-l (Single Family Residence) District be
denied for the following reasons:
1.
The proposed use is more than an incidental use.
2.
75% of the dwelling area would be occupied by the home
occupation.
3.
There is a lack of adequate parklng.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bernt and unanimously
approved.
. ,
.
commissioner West informed the applicant of the denial of the
application and of his right to appeal the decision to the City
Council within ten days from this date.
(3) U-171 Application of Richard T. Grohs (lessee) and James
Townsend (owner) for use permit to allow foreign' automotive
repair service at 640 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
A/P 6-092-07 .
Mr. O'Rourke stated'that this application was from the successor
to R.D.M. Motors, and recommended approval of the application
with the restrictions imposed on R.D.M. Motors continued in this
case.
Mr. Grohs informed the commission that he had requested permission of the property owner to remove the pumps,and this will
be done within the next two months.
Commissioner Perry moved that U-171, Application of Richard T.
Grohs (lessee) and James Townsend (owner) for use permit to
I \
-----
317-'
-5~
10/6/69
allow foreign automotive repair service at 640 Sir Francis
Drake Boulevard be granted upon the cbndition that:
r==-
1.
brily on~ automotive repair busine~~ is to be conducted at this location.
2.
The sale of gasoli~e will not be permitted and the
existing gas pumps will be removed within a reasonable period of time.
3.
Overnight storage of automobiles and equipment outof-doors will not be permitted.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Heinecke and unanimously approved.
C.
(1)
ADJ. 411 Application of E. N. Wicander for the following
v,ariances: _
20 I rear yard setback to allow parking
2. Increase density from 23 units to 40 units
3. - Decrease required number of parking spaces
1.
~~ 54, 58,
7~212-44,
6b and 72 Magnolia Avenue. _ A/P 7-212-43,
7-212-45, 7-212-49 and 7-212-50.
Mr. Leitzell read staff reports and recommended that
increased density not be allowed, for the re~son that
nance makes no provision for density of this-nature,
not within the purview of the'Planning Commission to
increase of density. '
the
the ordiand it is
grant an
, -
Mr. Ryken of the Marin Senior Coordinating Council spoke of
the need for Senior Citizens housing and the requirements of
housing for elderly people. He pointed out that these are
low-income people who do not own cars, so the normal number of
parking facilities are not required. These citizens are almost totally dependent on the downtown area for shopping and
recreation. They are quiet people, with a reduced need for
police protection. Mr. Ryken stated that a group of Seriior
Citizens had inspected the site of the proposed development, and
were extremely enthusiastic about the proposal. They felt the
site was suited for 36 units, rather than 40, as did the Marin
Senior Coordinating Council.
Commissioners Heinecke and ,Bernt both expressed concern over the
fact that there was no guarantee that the complex would remain Senior housing for the life of the structures. A representative of the Marin County Housing Authority explained the
"turri:':"key" system of leased housing in which the' Housing
AU,thori ty leases on a 5 year renewable lease an entire unit
from the developer, and in turn sub-lets the apartments to
individual senior citizens. The property stays in the ownership of the private developer, and t~xes are paid on it by
him.
There is another system of leased housing in which the
units are leased for 15 years, at the end of which time the
Housing Authority may decide to purchase them, but a voter
referendum is necessary to accomplish the, purchase.
Commissioner Perry noted that he had inspected this site, as
well as Senior Citizens leased Housing projects in Homestead
Valley and Santa Venetia and felt there was no similarity.
This application was for extremely high density over the ordinance allowance, is on a narrow street, has inadequate parking
and there is no assurance it will remain housing for the .
elderly forever.
If the Senior Citizens left after the Commission granted the requested variances, the results would be
catastrophic. He said he felt the application could possibly
be considered under Planned Development.
4""1
;51~
.~~
-6-
10/6/69
C
~
"'".C
...........
Commissioner West stated the view that he feels the Senior
Citizen housing concept is desirable and thought the entire
Commission'would agree with this, but felt the density requested was unrealistically high.
If 40 units were granted,
this would be 74% over the allow,able density.
Commissioner Bernt moved that ADJ. 411, application for E. N.
Wicander for'the following variances:
1.
2.
3.
20' rear yard setback to allow parking
Increase density ,from 23 units to 40 units
Decrease required number of parking spaces
at 54, 58, 60 and 72 Magnolia Avenue, AI P 7-212-43, 44, 45,
49 & 50 be denied on the basis that no practical hardship has
been shown, the density is inconsistent with' the stated policy
of the City, this is a congested narrow street, there would
be inadequate parking except for the use proposed here '
overcrowding and traffic congestion would result- if it is not
kept as Senior Citizen housing; this should be considered as
a Planned Development rather than altering the provision of
R-3 (Neighborhood ApartJ:nent District) • ,
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stuart and unanimously
approved.
Commissioner West stated that he voted "Aye" although he dislikes voting against Senior Citizen housing; in
this case he feels he did not vote against Senior Citizen housing but rather against a request that demands too much of the
City.
application and of his right to appeal th'e decision to the
City Council within ten days from this date.
D.
SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS
(1) SS-152 Application of Newell, Van Meter and Chambliss
(owners) for revision of lot 'line of AlP 6-181-02 at
15 Avenue Del Norte.
._~I
Mr. O'Rourke reported that he felt there was no advantagc=
in decreasing the lot size, since the matter of the property
line bisecting the garage can be corrected' in some other manner.
Mr. James McDonald, representing Mr., Paul Purdom the prospective
buyer, explained that the Purdom's want to combine Parcel
6-241-28 (Lot A) with a samll lot adjacent to it (AlP 6-181-30),
in addition to eliminatipg the problem of the lot line bisecting the existing garage on AlP 6-181-02 and 6-181-39
(Lots B anq C).
'
,
,
Mr. and Mrs. Freeman Andrews , Mr. and Mrs. Davenport Brown"
Mrs. Pokorny, Mrs. touisPaolini, Mr. and'Mrs. James Hovsep;ian
and Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Cohn all spoke strongly in objection
to the proposed lot line revision on the grounds that Avenue
Del Norte is a narrow street, and the entire area would depreciate if small lots with small houses are allowed.
Commissioner West explained that Lot C is a legal building
site, whether or not the lot line revision is allowed, and
that the sub-division request to combine two parcels, would
eliminate what is now another legal building site. Commissioner Perry disqualified himself from voting, but explained that he would vote against the lot line revision
which would reduce the lot size of Lot C. He felt the problem
could be overcome by adding a deed restriction or encroachment easement. A request to include property containing
some large bay trees in Lot A, rather than Lot B, could also
be handled in the same manner.
1_=_1
31~,
10/6/69
-7-
Commissioner West stated he feels the subdivision is not justified because the detriment to Lot C is. greater than the advantage obtained by comb-ining the small parcel with Lot A.
Commissioner Perry suggested the applicant modify the application to reflect the following:
1.
Not allow reduction in size of Lot C.
2.
Leave bay trees in Lot B.
3.
Combin.e A/P 6-181-30 with 6-241-28.
Mr. McDonald and Mr. Purdom conferred and asked to have SS-152
application of Newell, Van Meter and Chambliss (Owners) and
Purdom (applicapt) for revision of lot line of A/P 6-241-28,
6-181-30, 6-181~'D2 and 6-181-39 at Prospect Avenue and
Avenue Del Norte withdrawn from consideration ..
Commissioner West announced the application was considered
withdrawn.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m.
;c..)
~··:lU
o
~
~
:...
The special meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. in the
City Hall on October 15, 1969. Representing the City Staff:
John T. O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
2.
Bernt, Creighton, Heinecke, Moore,
Perry, Stuart, West
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1--",,1
Commissioner Perry moved the minutes of October 6, 1969 be
approved as writteri, seconded by Commissioner Heinecke and
unanimous ly ?lPproved.
...
3.
OLD BUSINESS
(1)
Z-110 Application of Grant Perkins and John P. McInnis to
rezone from R~l (Single Family Residence District and C-3
(Commercial District) to P. D. (Planned Development)
AlP 6-121-07, 6-121-08, 6-121-04, and a portion of 6-121-09
and 6-091-07 in the vicinity of Essex Avenue.
(2) SS-153 Application of Grant Perkins for revision of lot
line of AlP 6-121-09, 6-121-07 and 6-091-07 on Essex
Avenue.
The staff reports prepared on the items and presented at the
public hearing· on October 6 were reread for the benefit of
the Commission and audience. Commissioner West read a letter
written by Mr. James Kilty of 60 Essex Avenue, copies of which
were presented to each Commissioner, presenting his objections
to the proposed rezoning on the following grounds:
1.
Technical
a.
b.
c.
2.
'--J
pedestrian traffic hazard
vehicular traffic hazard
Geological - slide danger
Philosophical - San Anselmo is a single family
residence community and he feels no more apartment buildings should be constructed.
Commissioner West commented that it is the Staff's duty to
ascertain the stability or instability of the proposed site,
and a discussion of the geological stability of the area is
not within the Commission's domain.
Mr. Perkins stated he feels the area is suited for mUltiple
construction because of its proximity to other multiple use
and to commercial use.
He stated that the area cannot be
economically developed as R-l. He noted that the area is convenient to downtown and yet the topography and vegetation
offer a great degree of isolation.
Mr. Kilty stated that he has no objection to the area parall~ling Red Hill Avenue being rezoned to multiple, but he does
object to the introduction of mUltiple back into theR-l
district.
Commissioner Heinecke said he feels that basically San Anselmo
is a single family residence community, and that he has difficulty in seeing the justification for running mUltiple use
up the hill.
i
'~l
321'
-2-
10/15/69
Commissioner Perry said he sees no objection to R-3 density on the
lower parcels, but he still remembers the reliance the Planning
Commission placed on engineer's reports and staff recommendation
on the area of Red Hill that ultimately slid, so cannot be easily
convinced that further building on the hill area should be allowed.
Commissioner Moore said he feels the traffic hazard which already
exists on Essex would be further aggravated by a higher density.
He agrees San Anselmo is a residential community.
,-==---,
I
Commissioner Bernt said he feels it is an encroachment of multiple
dwellings up the hill.
Commissioner Creighton said that although he is generally in favor
of Planned Development where suitable, he feels he would want to
take a long, hard look at this proposal before agreeing to it.
Commissioner West said he feels that mUltiple development belongs
in the core area of San Anselmo, and does not feel that multiple
and commercial necessarily belong along the main arterial routes.
He said he does not feel that at this time-the area proposed for
rezoning meets the test of being a logical site for rezoning to
multiple. He does not feel it is particularly accessible by
foot to the central area and public transportation. Essex is
a very inadequate street with no sidewalks and a lack of adequate
street width, which precludes any intensive development of this
area.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that the street right-of-way is 30 feet,
and that he felt by widening the actual street to 21 feet, constructing new curbing at the entrance from Red Hill and prohibiting parking on the lower end of Essex, that there would be ample
room for adequate traffic movement.
Mr. O'Rourke 'noted that in the area of Red Hill which previously
had a slide problem, no geological survey had been made, and the
City had relied solely on a soils test. He said that both he and
another geologist feel that the area proposed for rezoning by Mr.
Perkins is much more suitable for development than the area of
Red Hill above Lorna Robles.
Commissioner Perry suggested that the application be referred
back to the applicant to allow him a chance to modify his plan,
since at this point it looks as if the Commission would deny
the application if a vote is taken.
Commissioner Perry moved that Z-110 application of Grant Perkins
and John P. McInnis to rezone from R-l (single family residence
district) and C-3 (commercial district) to P. D. (Planned Development) A/P 6-121-07, 6-121-08, 6-121-04 and a portion of
6-121-09 and 6-091-07 in the vicinity of Essex Street be referred
back to the applicant for resubmission at such time as he would
like to make a mo~ified proposal. Commissioner Heinecke seconded
the motion which was approved with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Creighton, Heinecke, Perry, Stuart
West, Moore, Bernt
Commissioner West stated he voted "no" because he feels that the
Commission is temporizing.
Commissioner Perry moved that SS-153 application of Grant Perkins
and John P. McInnis to rezone from R-l (single family residence
district) and C-3 (commercial district) to P. D. (Planned Development)- A/P 6-121-07, 6-121~08, 6-121-04 and a portion of 6-121-09
and 6-091-07 in the vicinity of Essex Street be referred back to
the applicant for resubmission at such time as he would like to
make a modified proposal. Commissioner Heinecke seconded the
motion which was approved with the following vote:
c...,
i},~~
o
-3AYES:
NOES:
Abstain:
Creighton,
Moore
Bernt
~einecke,
10/15/69
Perry, Stuart, West
Mr. Perkins asked for guidance from the Commission on what they
would find acceptable in the area.
Mr. Perry commented that he
personally would consider approving R-3 density on the lower parcels that front on Essex, but this is strictly conditional upon
solving the street widening-traffic problems on Essex. He would
not look favorably on a density on the hill portion greater than
R-l density.
Commissioner West suggested he bring rough sketches
of any new proposals when he next appears before the Commission,
rather than going to the expense of elaborate drawings.
Commissioner West announced that the next possible date at which Mr.
Perkins could present an alternate proposal is the meeting of
November 3, 1969.
~
"'%:
=-
3'23:':
called to order by Vice-Chairman Philip Heinecke at 8:00 p.m.
in the City Hall on October 20, 1969. Representing the City
S.taff: John T. O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
C.ommissioners Present:
2.
Bernt, Creighton, Heinecke, Moore
Perry, Stuart
West
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Moore moved the minutes of the special meeting
of October 15, 1969 be approved as written, seconded by
Commissioner Perry and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
(1)
Z-109 Application of Anna Ghezzi (owner) and John Komo
(applicant) to rezone from R-2 (Two Family Residence
District) to R-3 (Neighborhood Apartment District)
AlP 7-213-25 and 7-213-41, commonly known as 158
Tunste.ad Avenue.
Mr. O'Rourke announced that the Planning Office has received a
request from Mr. Komo that the above matter be continued to
the next meeting, since Mr. Komo was still negotiating the purchase of Mrs. Ghezzi's lot at 154 Tunstead Avenue (AlP 7-213-40).
Commissioner Moore moved that Z-109, application of Anna Ghezzi
(owner) and John Komo (applicant) to rezone from R-2 to R-3,
assessor's parcels 7-213-25 and 7-213-41, commonly known as 158
Tunstead Avenue, be continued to the next regular meeting,
November 3- r 1969, for ·further action. Commissioner Bernt seconded
the motion which was unanimously approved.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
SS-154 Application of Adolph Meyer for lot split of
Lot 30 and a portion of 'Parcel A, Lincoln Park Suhdivision, A/P 6-241-47 and 6-241-48, at 56 Lincoln
Avenue.
Mr. O'Rourke read the staff report which stated that the
parcels were originally subdivided, but with the passage
of Ordinance 190, a'll sub-standard lots in contiguous
ownership were-' combined. Since that' time this parcel has
been considered one lot. He noted that one of the proposed
parcels is deficient in minimum average width, and will require a 20' variance for parking in the rear setback.
Improvements such as sidewalk, driveway approach and curb and
gutter will be required, and the Fire Chief has required the
replacing of 500' of 4" water main with a larger pipe.
Commissioner Perry questioned the cost per foot of replacing
thewater'main and was told it would be about $12.00. Commissioner Stuart asked if it would be necessary to move the
. power pole which' presently is on the area designated for a
driveway easement.
Porteous representing Mr. Meyer stated that they feel
it is not out of line to create lots substandard in size,
since they are the'same size as many other existing lots
in the Lincoln'Park area~'
Mrs~
Commissioner Perry stated he feels the proposed driveway
easement, though it looks fine on paper, would not work out
as a practical matter. This area is less than 10 feet from
c..-.;J
324
o
-2-
10/20/69
~
~
c....
the edge of the creek and there is a power pole in the middle
of it. He noted that the City has decreed a policy of creating larger lots - this application would create two substandard in size lots. He said he does not feel there is anything special about this property that would justify a variation in the ordinance.
Commissioner Creighton said he feels that Mr. Meyer bought
the property as two lots and was forced to join the two lots
into one parcel as a result of Ordinance 190. He said he
feels the existing dwelling is properly situated on the one
lot to allow the lot split, and is in favor of granting the
subdivision.
Commissioner Bernt said he feels that the effect on the town
is the consideration - not the moral values connected with
the development.
Commissioner Moore moved that SS-154, application of Adolph
Meyer for lot split of Lbt 30 and a portion of Parcel,
Lincoln Park Subdivision, assessor's parcels 6-241-47 and
48, at 56 Lincoln Avenue, be denied on the basis that it
fails to show that hardship exists and that the propE>sed·
subdivision would create lots substandard to ordinance provisions.
Commissioner Bernt seconded the motion which was approved
with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Moore, Perry, Stuart, Bernt, Heinecke
Creighton
Commissioner Perry explained to the applicant that in order
to grant a variation from the ordinance it is necessary to
show that a hardship exists, or that results inconsistent
with the intent of the ordinance will result if the variation is denied.
Commissioner Heinecke explained the process involved in the
changing of an ordinance or adopting of a new ·ordinance, including public notice.
Commissioner Heinecke informed the applicant_ of the denial
of the application and of his right to appeal the decision to
the City Council within ten days from this date.
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. O'Rourke announced that the Commission had received a letter from Mr. Wicander requesting the withdrawal of his appli=
cation for rezoning of lots at 58 and 72 Magnolia Avenue.
There was also a communication from the City Attorney, accompanied by a reproduction of a magazine article ~elative to
gas station land use.
6.
(1)
U-144 A. W. Cherry application to serve wine and beer
in conjunction with restaurant at 112 Spaulding Avenue
Determination if present proposed use is allowable under
U-144
Mr. Cherry explained his present proposed use at 112 Spaulding Avenue; i.e., abandonment of the restaurant use and expansion of the wine sales use to include wine tasting, wine
making demonstrations, mail order sales, and limited wine
bottling, blending and production.
-,
325,'
;:"
-3-
10/20/69
Commissioner Perry inquired if there would be increased traffic, generation of noise, or noxious odors produced. Mr.
Cherry replied that the traffic volume would be larger, but
would be spread over a longer period of time each day. The
only odor produced would be the odor of wine, which he feels
is not objectionable. Commissioner Stuart inquired how
many parking spaces would be ,available and Mr. Cherry replied
about 20 on-street spaces and 80-100 off-street spaces on the
roof of the adjoining garage. Commissioner Moore" inquired if
he was considered principally a wholesaler of wines, and Mr.
Cherry answered, ~no, a retailer".
Commissioner Heinecke stated he feels this is a substantial
change from the original use permit, although he is in favor
of the proposed operation. Commissioner Moore pointed out
that the discussion of the application for U-144 included the
wine tasting and off-sale wine use.
Commissioner Bernt moved that the Commission find that this
use falls under the meaning of the original use permit and
that included iri this interpretatitin is wine making demonstrations, mail order sales, and limited wine bottling, blending
and production. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion which
was approved with the following vote:
AYES":
NOES:
(2)
Moore, Perry, Stuart, Bernt, Creighton
Heinecke
NON-CONFORMING MULTIPLE FAMILY USES in Single Family
Residential R-l Districts.
Commiss'ioner Bernt reite-rated some of the items previously
discussed by the Commission with regard to this matter.
The Staff Report relative to the Town of Ross ordinance was
read and discussed by the Commission.
Commissioner Creighton inquired as to the number of non-conforming mUltiple uses presently known to the Zoning Official,
and was informed it was in the neighborhood of 75. He stated
"that he fE~e'lsthat the City should start with the non-conforming uses the City knows of and make the owners come in for
a variance which would be recorded with the Coutity Recorder's
Office to act as a deed restriction.
Val Bchaaf~ from the floor, . presented some suggestions for
approachirigthe prob lam:
.
L
Set tools to prevent any further non-conforming
uses from being cre~ted. A system of registration
should be included .
. 2. "Provisions for a penalty for anyone creating a
new non-conforming use.
3. A system"of-nOtification of ordinance provisions
should be set up so there can be no claims of ignorance on the part of property owners.
He stated he would like to see the problem solved with no
undue hardship to anyone. He feels the problem should be
approached with a degree of caution.
Mr. Frank Moore of 141 Sequoia Drive, inquired what the
Commission considered multiple use, five unrelated families
living in a one kitchen - one bathroom house, or two families
living in separate living quarters on a R-l lot. Commissioner
Heinecke said there was no problem in abating the first type
of multiple use - it was only necessary to report the problem
to the Building Department.
It was the second instance of
mUltiple use that was difficult to abate and with which the
Commission was concerned.
lI:;..J
3~~ij
o
-4-
10/20/69
~
"'t:
:...
Mr. Tony Adam of 10 Knoll Road, stated he felt there was a
problem of defining "a family" with regard to certain types
of mUltiple use - the "hippie lay-out" being a good example.
Commissioner Bernt said the City Attorney was working on a
new definition of "family".
Mr. Schaal pointed out that A.B. 1702 makes it necessary for
the owner, or his agent, of a residential building to obtain
and deliver to the buyer a report of residential building
record obtained from the City, showing the regularly authorized
use, occupancy, and zoning classification of such property,
prior to the sale or transfer of any resid~ntial property.
Commissioner Heinecke said he felt that four main points had
been touched on at this Commission discussion:
1. Would we be satisfied with an ordinance that simply
attempts to prevent new multiple uses from being created,
or is it necessary to attack the problem of all non-conforming multiple uses both new and old?
A straw vote showed five Commissioners in favor, one
opposed, to attacking the total problem.
2.
Does the registration approach appeal to the Commission?
The straw vote showed all Commissioners in favor oia
system of registration.
3. Do we feel it would be desirable to attem!?t to notify
the property owners by some sort of mailing,rather than
just notice by publication.
The straw vote showed four Commissioners _in favor, one
opposed to a direct mail notification system.
4. What system for eliminating non-conforming multiple
uses upon discovery should be used - (a) an amortization
period for discontinuing the use, (b) automatic terminati-on on t:ransfer of the property, or (c) a combination
of the two systems.
The straw vote showed the Commissioners generally favoring a combined system of elimination, with two Commission:o"'
ers in favor of a five year amortization period, two favoring a ten year amortization period, and two abstentions;
and with a maximum period of one year to abate nonconforming multiple use upon transfer of such property.
The Staff was requested to report on the ordinance passed and
in use ~n San Francisco relative to the abatement of non-conforming mUltiple uses in R-I Districts.
Commissioner Moore moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Stuart and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
PHILIP HEINECKE, VICE-CHAIRMAN
327"
>;,,,,,~
~
':
'
.':~'
,
.)
called to order by ·Chairman John F. West at 8:00 .p.m. in the City
Hall on Noveniber 3, 1969.
.
1.
ROLL CALL
~i
2.
Bernt, Creighton, Moore, Perry,
Stuart, West
Heinecke
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Moore moved the minutes of the meeting of October 20,1969 be approved as written, seconded by Commissioner
Stuart and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
REZONING APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING
(1)
Z-109 John Komo and Anna Ghezzi. Application to rezone
AlP 7-213-2S and 7-211-41 from R-2 to R-3 at lS8 Tunstead Avenue.
Mr. O'Rourke announced that Mr. Komo has been unable to arrive
at a satisfactory arrangement regarding the purchase of the lots
under consideration from Mrs. Ghezzi, and has requested that his
application for rezoning be withdrawn from Commission consideration.
Commissioner 'N'E~st directed the staff to notify Mr. Kamo in wri ting that upon his request his application is cancelled, and that
the application fee is forfeited.
4.
NEW BUSINESS.
A.
STREET NAME CHANGE
(1)
Request. of r~sidents on Kathy Court to change the street
name to Encina Place
Mr. O'Rourke said that the residents of Kathy Court had requested the name of their street be changecf to Encina Place.
"Encina" is Spanish and means "live oak". The Police Chief,
Fire Chief and City Engineer have no objection to the name
change.
Commissioner Moore moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the request to change
the street name Kathy Court to Encina Place on the basis
that there is no conflict between the proposed name and any
other street name wi thin the City, but with the stipulation
that the cost of the sign and the cost of placing the sign
be borne by the residents, funds for this to be deposited
with the City prior to the name change becoming effective.
Commissioneer Perry seconded the motion which was unanimously
approved.
B.
(1)
ADJ. 412 Application of Delia Comolli for a variance of one parking space from the parking requirements
for duplex use at lSlS-A Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
The staff report was read, noting that there was no possible
way the property could accommodate four automobiles except
to use tandem parking which would necessitate backing into
Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to exit.
~u
3~t;
-2-
11/3/69
o
~
'"%'5
Mrs. Marie. Pie.rotti spoke for her sister, Mrs. ComollL
In answer to Commissioner Perry's ques.tions, she said that
the two- lots are under common ownership.
The front unit
is a five room house, the rear unit is larger.
The proposed
duplex use is for the rear lot only.
Commissioner Moore stated that traffic on Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard is very heavy, and the common driveway from these
lots enters the Boulevard at an extremeRy complicated intersection. He felt to allow additional vehicles to enter and
exit Sir Francis Drake Boulevard at this point would aggravate an already hazardous situation.
Commissioner West stated he felt this Commission had inherited bad planning approved in 1956, in which these parcels, then one parcel, in an R-2 District, were subdivided
into two substandard lots.
He said he feels te allew this
variance would create .further problems when rightfully
steps should be taken te erase a bad situation.
Cemmissioner Moore moved that ADJ. 412, application of Delia
Comolli for a variance .of one parking space frem the parking
requirements fer duplex use at 1515-A Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard be denied on the basis that:
1.
2.
3.
it fails to prove hardship
it has the petential for creating additional
aggravatien of an already hazardous traffic
conditien on Sir Francis Drake Beulevard
the land appears to be used to its full capacity
by the present develepment.
Commissioner Bernt seconded the motion which was unanimously
approved.
Commissioner West informed the applicant of the denial .of the
application and of her right to appeal the decision te the
City Council within ten days from this date.
(2)
ADJ. 413 Applicatien of Clyde A. Sargent for a 5
foot variance in sideyard setback to censtruct a
carport at 190 Butterfield Road A/P 5-101-22
The staff report was read noting that the City Ceuncil had
approved the curb cut for an additional driveway. The planning Director recommended the granting of this variance on
the ground that this would allow trees to be saved.
Mr. Sargent said that this property, which he recently purchased, has parking previsions for one car only. The proposed carport structure will be set back 36' frem the street,
and to censtruct it without a variance weuld necessitate
removing a number of large trees.
The propesed structure
will not·block his neighbor's view or light, and the neighbor
has indicated his appreval of the construction of the preposed
parking structure.
Cemmissioner Perry said he feels it is desirable from the
City's standpoint to have additional off-street parking provided. He feels it is advantageous to save the trees, even
if this necessitates granting a variance. Commissioner
West concurred with these thoughts.
Commissiener Bernt moved that ADJ. 413, .application of
Clyde A. Sargent for a 5' variance in sideyard setback to
construct a carport at 190 Butterfield Read be granted because to deny the application would end in a result inconsistent with the provisions and intentions of the ordinance,
in that t.rees would be lest and the neighborhood's appearan,ce would be impaired. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion
which was unanimously appreved.
=-
329:'
-3-
C.
11/3/69
(1) SS-155 Application of Milton J. Mark for a lot line
revision A/P 5-081-01 and 5-031-07 - 91 Valley Road.
The staff reports were read recommending approval of the application to increase the lot size, and recommending that no
dedication of a right-of-way be required at this time.
The
only improvements required would be installation of a driveway approach in accordance with the provisions of other city
ordinances.
Mr. Mark said that it was his intention to construct a garage
on the area being added to his present lot, and the driveway
would be totally within the boundaries of his property.
Commissioner Perry said he felt it was beneficial to increase
a smaller lot into a larger one, since there would be no
significant decrease in size of the lot being subtracted from,
it being a 19.5 acre parcel.
Commissioner Perry moved that SS-155, application of Milton
J. Mark for a lot line revision of A/P 5-081-01 and 5-031-07,
91 Valley Road be approved provided an appropriate parcel map
is duly recorded, and that the Commission waive any requirements for a dedication of right-of-way or street improvements
at this time. Commissioner Creighton seconded the motion
which was unanimously approved.
(2) SS-156 Application of Frank Cherne for a lot line revision A/P 5-261-18, 5-261-23, 29 & 35 Woodside Court.
The staff reports were read noting that this request was to
adjust lot lines for topographical reasons, and to correct a
previous lot line change which was made illegally.
Commissioner Perry asked Mr. Cherne for clarification of level
pad areas, lot lines and driveway easements as shown on the
maps SUbmitted.
Commissioner West asked the staff when the grading was done,
and was told the original grading was done in about 1963.
Mr. Cherne said that since that time he had widened the driveway and enlarged the level pad on Lot 10. Commissioner West
said he felt that it does not make good planning sense to
accommodate Mr. Cherne who bulldozes level pads whenever he
pleases.
Commissioner Moore said he does not feel this lot line revision should be granted since it would make it seem allowable
to other people to make pads and bend lot lines, and then ask
for a lot line revision. Commissioner Bernt stated he felt
this was a classic example of a "tortured lot line". Commissioner Perry said the "tortured" line does not bother him,
since this is difficult terrain and to have straight lines on
paper does not always make sense. He said he feels lot lines
should be put where people can reasonably use the land. He
said the grading done from time to time does not necessarily
dissuade him from his opinion. He would rather see the lower
parcel have the use of the flat area, rather than have a
property line run through the middle of the area and have the
ownership of th.e level area in one person, and the practical
use in another.
He felt the same reasoning applied to the
"illegal" lot line revision of Lots 8 and 9.
Commissioner Perry asked if the City would require soils tests
before issuing building permits regardless of the outcome of
this application, and Mr. O'Rourke said undoubtedly yes, since
this was an area that has had stability problems in the past.
Commissioner Creighton in response to Mr. Cherne's comment
'\.,oi.,.v
3~U
-4-
11/3/69
o
~
'TJ
:...
that drainage provisions had already been completed based
on the City Engineer's recommendation, asked if this was
the short piece of corrogated pipe visible from the lower
pad (Lot 10) which empties into a natural gully. Mr.
Cherne said yes, this emptied onto his property and was
eventually drained into the City Storm Drain System on
Carlson Avenue.
Commissioner Perry moved that SS-156, application of Frank
Cherne for a lot line revision of A/P 5-261-18 and 5-261-23,
in accordance with the amended map submitted, be approved,
provided:
1.
2.
3.
A parcel" map is:submitted for recordation
that a suitable cash deposit, bond, or other
surety be posted for any drainage improvements
or other improvements required by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of any building
permits
no construction will be accomplished only after
the City Engineer is satisfied as to the soils
condition and soils stability.
Commissioner West seconded the motion which failed to pass
by a tie vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
Perry, Stuart,' West
Bernt, Creighton, Moore
Commissioner West informed the applicant of the failure
to pass by virtue of a tie vote, and of his right to appeal
the decision to the City Council within thirty days from
this date.
Mr. Murray, the owner of Lot 8 asked the Commission for
guidance in what steps he should take to legalize the lot
line revision affecting his parcel. He said he felt that
the comments of the Commission in opposition to application SS-156, did not apply to his situation.
Commissioner Perry said that the City Council might be
willing to consider the matter in two parts, or the Planning Commission itself could possibly make a separate motion
with regard to the lot line revision relating to Lots 8 and 9.
After a brief Commission discussion, Commissioner Perry
moved that the Commission reconsider the matter of SS-156,
application of Frank Cherne for a lot line revision. Commissioner Bernt seconded the motion which was unanimously
approved.
"~
Commiss"ioner Perry moved that in connection with SS-156,
application of Frank Cherne for a lot line revision, the
proposed lot line adjustmen.t, des:Lgnated :9U tlie amended
map, which lies between Lots 8 and 9 of Woodland Park unit
#4 be approved.
Commissioner Bernt seconded the motion
Commissioner Perry moved that in connection with SS-156,
application of Frank Cherne for lot line revision, the proposed lot line adjustment designated on the amended map7
which lies between!Lots 9 and 10 of Woodland Park Unit #4
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
a parcel map be submitted for recordation
a suitable cash deposit, bond or other surety be
posted for any drainage improvements or.other improvements required by the City Engineer, prior
to the issuance of any building permits
no construction will be accomplished until after
the City Engineer is satisfied as to the soils
condition and soil stability
'-,
33J
i
-5-
11/3/69
This approval is. based on the recognition that while an irregularly shaped lot. is created, it is more realistic than
the. exLsti?-g~"lo_t. s.truct.ure in that the property lines will
coincide with the areas which are likely to be used by the
respective lot owners and thereby responsibility as well as
enjoyment will be more properly designated.
Commissioner West
seconded the motion which failed to pass by a tie vote as
follows:
AYES:
NOES:
I'
Perry, Stuart, West
Bernt, Creighton, Moore
Commissioner West informed the applicant of the failure to
pass by virtue of a tie vote, and of his right to appeal the
decision to the City Council within thirty days from this
date.
5.
A.
U-124 Review of Use Permit granted to Paul Foti on
4-17-67 and amended 2-17-69
Mr. O'Rourke reported that no complaints had been received
and it appears to the staff that Mr. Foti is conducting his
business in accordance with the amended use permit. The
Commission reviewed the conditions imposed by the amended
use permit, and found everything to be in order. Commissioner West stated no action was necessary at this time
with regard to U-124.
B.
r~
Non-Conforming Multiple Use of property in R-l
Districts
Commissioner West stated he feels the Commission has been
asked to report to the Mayor's Committee if a Ross-type
oidinance is desirable for San Anselmo, not asked to draft
a possible ordinance. He said he had drafted some thoughts
and recommendations to be passed to the Mayor's Committee
and asked if they were the Commission's concensus. Commissioner West's draft was read and discussed by the Commission, with comments from the audience.
Commissioner Bernt moved that the following thoughts be endorsed as a recommendation to the Mayor's Committee:
1.
Owners of property in R-l Districts rely on the
City to protect the integrity of their neighborhood zoning.
2.
The continuation of legal non-conforming mUltiple
uses in R-l Districts after more than thirty years
since the enactment of the first zoning ordinance
is not in the best interest of the community.
3.
Illegal non-conforming multiple uses in R-l
Districts resulting from bootleg construction and
other causes are continually increasing.
4.
The existing ordinance provisions offer no practical means for dealing with the problems of nonconforming multiple uses in R-l Districts.
5.
Non-conforming multiple uses in R-l Districts
should be eliminated. To accomplish this a new
ordinance is needed as soon as possible.
The ordinance should:
(a) Require the abatement of all non-conforming multiple
uses in R-l Districts after a specified date. This
date should be set for a reasonable time, possibly
5 to 10 years after enactment of the new ordinance.
332
-6-
11/3/69
(b)
Provide for variances to be effective for perhaps three years in the firs.t instance and renewable for not more than two successive three
year periods. The basis for granting variances
should be narrowly drawn and should put the
burden of justification squarely on the applicant.
(c)
Notify all owners of property in R-l Districts
by registered mail of the requirement that nonconforming multiple uses be registered with the
Planning Department within six months, or the nonconforming uses will be subject to abatement upon
discovery.
C.)
o
~
~
c:....
I
I
Commissioner Perry seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
6.
-.,...........00)
CORRESPONDENCE
The Commission discussed a letter addressed to the
Planning Commission, and distributed to each member,
from Mr. James Kilty with regard to the publicity of
discussion between individual Commissioners and applicants at the applicant's property. Commissioner
Creighton elaborated on the incident which had precipitated this letter. Commissioner West suggested the
matter be referred to the City Attorney for his opinion.
Commissioner Moore moved the meeting be adjourned at
10:30 p.m. Commissioner Creighton seconded the motion
JOHN F. WEST" CHAIRMAN
_I
--
333.
The regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission
Vfas cal1~d to order by Chairman·John F. West at ,8:00 p.m.
ln theCltyHall_,.~Oll,".,Nov:em.her..._12,_, ,19.69.
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Bernt~ Creighton, Heinecke,
Moore,Perry, West
Stuart
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Creighton moved the minutes of the meeting
of November 3, 1969 be approved as written, seconded by
Commissioner Perry and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
REZONING APPLICATION (PUBLIC HEARING) - SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION
(1) Z-110 Application of Grant Perkins and John P.
McInnis to rezone from R-l (Single Family Residence District) and C-3 (Commercial District) to
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AlP 6-121-07, 6-121-08,
6-121-04, and a portion of 6-121~09 and 6-091-07
in the vicinity of Essex Street.
(2) SS-153 Application of Grant Perkins for revision
of lot line of AlP 6-121~09, 6-121-07 and
6-091-07 on Essex Street.
Mr. Perkins said he felt his parcels were suitable for
rezoning to P.D. because of their proximity to downtown
San Anselmo and the businesses on Red Hill Avenue, because tnere are many apartment houses in the immediate
area, and because the front portion of the parcel is not
suitable 'for R-l developments.
Commissioner West explained there would be two steps involved in the ultimate approval of the development.
First, the parcels involved must be rezoned to P. D. for
multiple development; and secondly, a use permit for
specific development plans must be granted.
Mr. Dill of 520 Red Hill Avenue said he feels Essex Street
is too narrow to provide adequate access for a mUltiple
housing development.
Mr. Perkins said that the present paved width of Essex
Street is 18 feet, and that Essex Street has a 30 foot
roadway easement. He said he feels the main problem is
the lack of adequate radius for making turns into and
out of Essex Street. He proposed widening the paved
roadway to 20 feet and improving the radius for turns in
and out; installing a 4 foot wide sidewalk on the Nolan
Building side of the street; and widening the paved road
to 28 feet, north of the Nolan Building. He noted that
the roadway on all of Essex Street could be widened to
26 feet if necessary.
Commissioner Creighton said he agrees with the concept
of P. D. in this area, but feels that some points must
be solved before approval for rezoning is granted:
(1)
the betterment of Essex Street to at least 20 feet in
width, (2) soils: tests on both the building site and the
area above and below the development, (3) proper setbacks
must be provided.
Commissioner Moore said he objects to the concept of P.D.
in this area on two grounds:
(1) he feels multiple
c...,
334'
-2-
11/17/69
development should be concentrated in the downtown area,
and (2) small inadequate streets which lead into a heavily
travelled thoroughfare should not be further burdened with
the additional traffic generated by multiple development.
o
~
"'%j
:....
Commissioner Perry said he agrees with the concept of P. D.
in this area but: (1) reserves judgment on the possibility
of solving the Essex Street problem, and would want to rely
on the advice of the City Engineer with respect to this,
(2) feels the soils stability is a matter of continuing
concern - the City must take every step to see that whatever
happens to the property the cuts are reasonably done to
prevent another catastrophe, and (3) is concerned about the
overall density situation. The elevation difference would
ease the situation of intrusion,;' on the single family residences in the area, but he still has reservations about the
higher density to be imposed.
Commissioner Heinecke said he is doubtful about the concept
of P. D. in this area, and has not been terribly impressed
with the reasons given for advancing the P. D. He is concerned about the possibility of other less desirable developments which might go in here if this P. D. is not granted.
Commissioner Bernt feels that the considerations which were
advanced att:he first discussion should be reconsidered:
(1) the inadequacy of Essex Street and (2) if this rezoning
is allowed, the rest of the property along Red Hill Avenue
to the east will then almost automatically be eligible for
rezoning to multiple use.
Commissio rer West said he feels Mr. Perkins has demonstrated
that the access problem on Essex Street is solvable. He
feels that the only property in the area that would be affected
by the rezoning to multiple use would be the Sharrow's. He
does not feel that rezoning to multiple use would set any
precedent for rezoning other property on Red Hill Avenue.
However, he does not feel that the time is here to have this
area go to mUltiple use.
If the rezoning is granted, he feels
this project could be an attractive development.
Mr. Perkins, in reply to a question raised by Commissioner
Heinecke,., said there would be approximately 88,000 square
feet in the area containing the residential units, and approximately 31,000 square ~eet in the open space area on the
steepest part of the hill.
Commissioner Heinecke said he feels it is probably not economically feasible to develop the upper portion as single family
residential - but he does not feel that only R-l density is
appropriate for the area.
Commissioner Perry moved that this Commission make a finding
that the property which is the subject of this application
is amenable for P. D. zoning, but recognizes that:
(1) special
problems are presented in the access afforded by Essex Street,
(2) that by this finding there is no specific determination
as to any specific density, and (3) that ultimately there
will be detailed and exhaustive studies required as to
geological and soils conditions on the property.
Commissioner Creighton seconded the motion which failed to
pass by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Creighton, Perry
Heinecke, Moore, Bernt, West
Commissioner West said that this vote amounts to a denial
of the rezoning application, but a motion for denial of the
application should be made for technical reasons.
:_J
335"
-3-
11/17/69
Commissioner Heinecke moved that Z-llO, application of Grant
Perkins and John P. McInnis to rezone from R-l (Single
Family Residence District) and C-3 (Commercial District) to
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, A/P 6-121-07, 6-121-08, 6-121-04, and
a portion of 6-121-09 and 6-091-07, in the vicinity of Essex
Street be denied, it being the finding of this Commission
that the property as a'whole is not suitable for rezoning to
P. D. for multiple residential purposes. Commissioner Moore
seconded the motion which was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
r-'
Heinecke, Moore, Bernt, West
Creighton, Perry
Commissioner Perry said he voted "No" because he thinks that
this particular application for P. D. affords a mechanism for
the overall treatment of a difficult peice of property which
might otherwise be developed piecemeal or in a haphazard
manner, if it can be otherwise developed at all.
He feels
that it is within the power of the City to require adequate
geological and soils testing to affoid protection for the
City. He also feels that this is nothing novel about injecting multiple density into this area.
It is immediately
adjacent to other apartment houses and is also close enough
to Red Hill Avenue to be usable by people who might be on
foot or otherwise likely to live in apartment-type housing.
He feels that the denial of a P. D. application at this
particular point has not adequately explored the density
which might ultimately be acceptable to both the Commission
and the applicant.
Commissioner West announced that upon the applicant'srequest, SS-153, application of Grant Perkins for revision of
lot line of A/P 6-121-09, 6-121-07 and 6-091-07 on Essex
Street, is postponed.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
ADJ. 414 Application of Cary and Mary Gaidano
for a 3 foot variance in sideyard setback to construct anaddi tion at 51 Belle Avenue, .AlP 7- 30 2-0 1
Mr. O'Rourke read the staff report which indicat3d that the
variance requested was to allow an addition to an existing
house at this location.
The house was built when the minimum
lot width was 50' and sideyard setbacks were 5'. The Gaidano's
would like to align the addition with the main dtructure, for
if the addition is offset to conform with present setbacks,
light and air to the kitchen and bathroom will be cut off.
Commissioner Perry inquired if the Gaidano's had considered
turning the dimensions of the addition around, that is making
the room long, rather than wide, so that a variance is not
necessary. He explained to the Gaidano's that hardship must
be shown to justify the granting of a variance, to conform
with ordinance provisions.
Vance Barnett, from the floor, stated that he is a general
contractor in San Anselmo and has just learned of the new
setback and minimum lot size requirements. He said he feels
an 8' sideyard setback imposed on an existing dwelling may
cause many economic hardships. Commissioner Perry said that
economic factors do not constitute hardship - such things as
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the application, that the granting is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights,
or that the granting will not adversely affect the health
and safety of the neighborhood, be materially detrimental to
public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements of
the neighborhood - are considered in granting a variance.
~,
336'
-4-
11/17/69
o
~
~
....
...
Mr. Gaidano said he felt that to offset the addition or
elong_ate the· addi tion to conform to the. setback"requirements
would affect the aesthetic value of his home.
The elongated
plan would also make furniture arrangement extremely difficult and would tend to cut down the open floor area.
Commissioner Heinecke said at the time of the passage of the
new ordinanGe, the Planning Commission recognized that. there
were going to be difficulties with existing dwellings, and
these would be treated with a degree of leniency.
Commissioner Heinecke moved that ADJ. 414, application of
Cary and Mary Gaidano for a 3 foot variance in sideyard setback
to construct an addition at 51 Belle Avenue, A/P 7-302-01 be
approved on the condition that the variance applies only to
the proposed addition as shown on the plans drawn by Cary Gaidano
dated November 6, 1969, and submitted to this Commission, the
basis for the granting of the variance is that the denial
thereof would achieve a result inconsistent ~ith the intent
of the ordinance, in that the structure which would result
from construction in strict compliance with the ordinance would
be irregular at best, and aesthetically and structurally undesirable.
This granting is subject to the approval of the
Design Review Committee of building plans.
I
"y=~
Commissioner Creighton seconded the motion which was approved
with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES-:
Bernt, Creighton, Heinecke, Moore, Perry
West
Commissioner West said he voted "No" because he feels the Commission is granting a variance on a ground not provided in the
ordinance for the granting of variances.
~
337
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order
by Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall on December
1, ~969.
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Bernt, Creighton, Stuart, West
Heinecke, Moore, Perry
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
r--,
Commissioner Creighton moved the minutes of the meeting of
November 17, 1969 be approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Stuart and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
None
5.
CORRESPONDENCE
None
6.
(1)
U-142
Application of Bess and Alexander Gildroy to conduct nursery school at 176 Tunstead Avenue - modification of present use permit to increase number
of children enrolled from 20 to 28
Commissioner West explained that Mr. and Mrs. Gildroy were
requesting a modification of their use permit to allow more
children to be enrolled, in order to be licensed by the County
Welfare Department for an increased enrollment.
Mrs. Gildroy explained that they had a regular nursery school
program from 8:00 to 12:00, with 20 children enrolled and a
day care program in the afternoon until 5:00 for about 12
children of working mothers. They have three full-time teachers
and at least two part-time helpers. The increased enrollment
would be for the morning nursery school program only.
Commissioner Stuart moved that U-142, use permit of Bess and
Alexander Gildroy to conduct a nursery school at 176 Tunstead
Avenue be amended to increase to twenty-eight the number of
children permitted to be enrolled. Commissioner Creighton
seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
(2)
1--'
Proposed Amendment to Section 10-3.1906 (f) (2) of
the Municipal Code - Architectural Features and
Appurtenances
Commissioner West explained that the City Council was concerned that chimneys not be allowed to extend so far into
the setbacks as to obstruct firemen or other officials in
getting between buildings.
After a brief Commission discussion, it was agreed that the
Council's recommendation that chimneys not be allowed to
project so far as to impair easy access was well founded.
They felt the Planning Director's suggested wording for this
section of the ordinance was appropriate.
Commissioner Creighton moved that the Planning Director's
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated November 26, 1969
rP>~
33~··
'\._i;1 ...~.
C
-2-
12/1/69
regarding "Proposed Amendment to Section 10-3.1906 (f) (2) of
the Municipal Code - Architectural Features and Appurtenances"
be accepted as a recommendation to the City Council for the
proposed amendment.
Commissioner Stuart seconded the motion
which was approved with a unanimous voice vote.
~
'"!:
=-
Commissioner Bernt moved the meeting be adjourned, Commissioner
Stuart seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
_ _I
~_I
-~
339
called to order by Chairman John F. West at 8:00 p.m. in the
City Hall on December 15, 1969. Representing the City Staff:
John T. O'Rourke
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
Bernt, Creighton, Heinecke, Moore,
Perry, Stuart, West
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Creighton moved the minutes of the meeting of
December 1, 1969 be approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Stuart and unanimously approved.
3.
OLD BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
(1)
REZONING APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING
Z-lll Application of Ronald Harder to rezone from
R-l (Single Family Residence District) to R-3
(Neighborhood Apartment District) AlP 7-213-54 and
7-213-56, commonly known as 55 Magnolia Avenue.
Mr. O'Rourke read the staff report indicating that these
parcels are in an area designated for high residential
density on the 1960 Campbell Master Plan, and are currently
in the midst of a number of multiple residential zoned
parcels.
Both Mr. Harder, the present owner, and Mr. Sestak, the
proposed purchaser were present. Mr. Sestak said that
there are a number of other apartment buildings in the
neighborhood, and that the site has sufficient room for
eight parking spaces. Seven spaces would be required, if
the allowable seven units are constructed.
Commissioner West said that the parcels are in a district
planned for R-3 development. The parcels, if combined,
meet the minimum lot size and frontage requirements for
R-3 development. He suggested that two conditions be imposed if the change of zoning is approved: the two parcels
be combined as one, and an additional front yard setback
be imposed.
Commissioner Perry explained for the benefit of the applicants that it has been the policy of the Planning Commission to require an additional 7.5 foot front yard setback
along Magnolia Avenue in anticipation of future street
widening, since Magnolia :is a very narrow street. This
means that the front yard setback would be a total of 27.5
feet.
Mr. Sestak said that they were aware of this, and
their plans had -taken this into account.
Commissioner Bernt moved that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council that Z-lll Application of
Ronald Harder to rezone from R-l (Single Family Residence
District) to R-3 (Neighborhood Apartment District)
AlP 7-213-5-4 and 7-213-56, commonly known as 55 Magnolia
Avenue, be approved subject to the condition that the lots
be combined and an agreement approved by the City Attorney
effecting this combining be entered into; and further
subject to the condition that an additional 7.5 foot
!C.;<.:'!J
;1LJ:tJ
-2-
12/15/69
o
~
.-.0
:....
front yard setback restriction be imposed upon these two parcels.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
B.
(1)
ADJ. 415
Application of Douglas Trost (owner) and Samuel
Farr (applicant) for a 0' front yard setback
variance to construct a carport at 90 Forest
Avenue. A/P 7-013-02
This item was deleted from the Agenda due to the inadequate
plans submitted by the applicants.
5.
(1)
Cable Car Burgers and Fisherman's Wharf Fish and Chips
Determination if this is a use permitted in a C-2 District
Mr. O'Rourke read the staff report which indicated that the
two restaurants do have some take-out business, perhaps 20% of
the total volume. No waitresses are employed, and food is obtained at the counter.
The menus include some items which are
designated "to go".
Mr. O'Rourke said that he had also determined from telephone conversations that the food is served in
disposable containers, and that Mr. Reilly, one of the firm's
vice-presidents, had said they were unwilling to remove the
"Food to Go" sign from the establishment.
Commissioner West explained that this is not a hearing on an
application for a use permit - but rather to determine if this
is a restaurant use permitted in a C-2 District.
He explained
that the architectural plans had come before the Design Review
Committee for review and the question if this is an allowable
use had come up at that time.
Since the matter was beyond the
purview of the Design Review Committee, the Planning Director
had consulted the Planning Commission Chairman and they had
concluded it was a matter for hearing before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner West read from the San Anselmo Municipal Code
relative to uses permitted in C-2 and C-3 districts.
The
ordinance states that restaurants and cafes (but not drive-in
or take-out establishments) were allowed in C-2 Districts.
Drive-in and take-out establishments are permitted in a C-3 district with a use permit first had and obtained.
If the Planning
Commission determines this use comes under the category of a
restaurant or cafe, then no use permit is necessary.
If they
determine this is a take-out establishment, then it is not permitted under any circumstances in the C-2 district.
Mr. Harry Kohl, architect, representing Cable Car Burgers and
Fisherman's Wharf Fish & Chips said he feels this operation is
not to any great degree a take-out establishment.
In the Fish
& Chips portion, food is frequently taken out, although tables
are provided for customers use.
He stated that very little
volume of food is taken out in the Cable Car Burgers portion of
the establishment. Mr. Kohl presented brochures and sample
menus to all of the Commissioners.
Mr. William Kapranos, landscape architect, said he feels there
should be a cl~ar-cut definition as to what is a take-out
establishment.
He said he feels to use disposable serving containers and paper napkins does not indicate necessarily that the
establishment is a take-out business, but rather that these
short-cuts are necessary for maximum efficiency and profit.
Commissioner Moore inquired of Mr. Kohl what the percentage of
take-out was in each operation. Mr. Kohl answered very little
in Cable Car Burgers, perhaps 20% in Fisherman's Wharf Fish &
._.J
341.,
1'.- ....:
12/51/69
-3Chips. He could not provide information as to
or busiest days. Commissioner West asked what
capacity of the establishments and was told 43
Cable Car Burger portion and 30 persons in the
tion. The Fish and Chips portion is a smaller
Skip Stewart of 130 Madrone Avenue,
small towns being commercialized by
out the possible traffic congestion
be created by a take-out restaurant
this site.
peak hour traffic,
is the,seating
persons in the
Fish and Chips porarea.
said he is disturbed at seeing
strip development. He pointed
and trash problem which might
being allowed to locate on
John Palunko of 21 Tamalpais Avenue, said he feels that the argument what is a take-out restaurant should be settled, and he
asked in what ways will the San Anselmo operation of Cable Car
Burgers and Fish and Chips differ from their other operations
already in business around the Bay Area. He was told this operation will be the same as those in other areas.
Terry Savage of 142 Sequoia Drive said he feels that San Anselmo
has all the take-out restaurant problems it needs, and that this
application would constitute a take-out establishment.
Dan Goltz of 4 Canyon Road, said he feels that the matter that
should be considered is if the packaging entices people to take
the food out, it is going to cause traffic congestion and litter
problems. He feels this operation will have a considerable
amount of take-out customers.
Dr. Richard Galbreath of 22 Belle Avenue said he feels if the
food is going to betaken home and eaten, this is one matter;
but if the food is to be' eaten while driving and the containers
disposed of on the streets and surrounding area, then this is
an entirely'differentmatter.
Commissioner Bernt said he feels there is no question this is a
take-out operation.
The vice~president says he will not take
down the take-out sign, and the plates, etc. are designed for
take-out.
There are many San Francisco cafeterias which are
programmed for fast service and efficient operation, and they
use regular china plates, not disposable plates.
Commissioner Perry said he feels this is clearly not a restaurant use - a restaurant is geared for on-site service. This
business is programmed for packaging food to be eaten on or off
the premises, and no waitresses are employed. He said he does
not feel it is necessary to define the amount of take-out to
classify an operation a take-out operation. He suggested perhaps
the Planning Commission should present the facts to the City
Attorney and ask him fora finding.
Commissioner Moore said he feels a restaurant is a business in
which very close to 100% of the service is on-site service.
When a business is overt in promoting its take-out service it is
clear they are counting on this portion of the business for
financial success.
Commissioner Creighton said he feels this application is a combination of both on-site and take-out service. With a seating
capacity of 73 persons, it seems to fit the restaurant category
better than the take-out category.
Commissioner Stuart pointed out two menu items which were specifically "to go" items, and said he feels this alone would indicate
it is a take-out establishment.
Commissioner Moore said he feels that the fact that the applicant is offering free promotional items only on take-out orders
indicates its ultimate aim is for a take-out business.
~4~
il.."
-4-
12/15/69
C
C!
~
:....
Commissioner Heinecke said that he had visited both Cable car
Burgers and Fisherman's Wharf Fish and Chips restaurants in
the Fremont Shopping Center. There was a sign on the front
of the Fish and Chips establishment advertising the take-out
service, and take-out menus were displayed by the cash register in the Cable Car Burgers establishment. The counterman
at the Fish & Chips establishment estimated that the majority
of their business was take-out.
Commissioner West said he has some trouble with the concept
of what is a take-out restaurant, i.e., what are the characteristics of a take-out business and what percentage of the
volume indicates a take-out business. He said he is prepared
to determine what is a take-out, but not is this proposed
establishment a take-out.
In the absence of a specific definition of a take-out establishment, he could only find that
this is a take-out to protect the city under any circumstances.
He questioned if the Commission was tackling a legal problem and forming a definition which would be a guideline in the
future.
He said he feels the Fish & Chips establ,ishment probably is a take-out, but the Cable Car Burger does not seem
to be quite the same situation.
Commissioner Perry suggested that the Commission make a finding that this is a take-out establishment and spell out the
reasons the finding is based on:
type of packaging, lack of
waitresses, advertising, etc.
Commissioner Bernt moved that the Commission find the Cable
Car Burgers and Fisherman's Wharf Fish & Chips operation as
constituted is a take-out business, therefore, is not permitted in a C-2 District. This finding is based on the following
indications:
(1) promotional material indicates it is a
take-out, (2) the proposed sign indicates it is a take-out,
(3) the physical plan and degree of self-service suggests
take-out, (4) the product and its accouterments suggests
take-out. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion which was
approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Heinecke, Moore, Perry, Stuart, Bernt, West
Creighton
Commissioner West informed the representative of Cable Car
Burgers and Fisherman's Wharf Fish & Chips that the Commission
had found the business to be a take-out operation, therefore,
not a permitted use in a C-2 District, and also of the right
to appeal the decision to the City Council within ten days
from this date.
Commissioner Bernt moved the meeting be adjourned; the motion
was seconded by Commissioner Perry and unanimously approved.
..J

Planning Commission Minutes 1969

Transcription

Similar documents

City Commission Meeting 06-07-2011

Federal Power Bar Association Dinner, Mayflower Hotel

Please take5minutes to watch Scott`s video at ScottBahr.org

minutes of the kent county levy court regular business meeting kent

minutes february 2, 2016 brazos county commissioners court regular

REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF COUNTY, GEORGIA, HELD 19

20160105 Profil Anggota AC ENG Periode 2015

District of Columbia Public Service Commissioner Lori Murphy Lee

FOL-1-FORMA 2 - Service Alberta

April 03, 2014 - Escambia County Clerk of the Circuit Court