Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1961.08.28BURLINGAME CITY PLANNING COM14ISSION Brauner Diederichsen Kindig Moore Norberg Stivers CALL TO ORDER August 28, 1961 COMMISSI0NERS ABSENT Cistulli (vacation) OTHERS PRESENT City Atty.Karme1 Plan.Cons.Mann City Eng.Marr Councilman Lorenz Councilman Martin A regular mee ing of the Burlingame City Planning Commission was called to order at 8 00 p.m. on the above given date - Chairman Diederichsen presiding. ROLL CALL A Roll Call bt the Secretary recorded the above members of the Commission Pr sent. The minutes o the regular meeting of July 24, 1961, the adjourned meeting of Au st 14, 1961 and the study meeting of August 14, 1961, submitted to qommissioners previously, were approved and adopted. HEARINGS The Chair ced that the following subjects had been scheduled for public hec#ing on this date: 1. Re:=ivi ion - Lands of Aluminum Company of America 2. Resubdivi ion - Lots 6 and 7, Belvedere Heights Subdivision 3. Resubdivi ion - Lots 12, 16, por. 17, Block 9, Burlingame Park 2 Subdivision 4. Variance Gordon R. Strocher — Subdivision of Lots 8, Burlin ame Manor No. 2 Subdivision. I. The City Engi r referred the Commission to a map indicating the re - subdivision o the Lands of Aluminum Company of America on Ogden Drive, Mills tate No. 3 and advised that "Lot B" was not resub- divided at th time other resubdiviltions occurred in the area. The City Engi r further advised that the applicant proposes a re - subdivision to create Lots M and N, with a building to be constructed on Lot N; howe er, approval for said resubdivision must be obtained prior to the i suance of a building permit. There being nolprotests received, either verbally or in writing, Commissioner K'ndig moved that the application for a resubdivision of the Lands of Aluminum Company of America be approved, seconded by Commissioner Stivers and unanimously carried upon roll call of _ members. i 2. LOTS 6. 7. BELVEDERE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION The City Engineer advised that an application for a resubdivision of Lots 6 and 7, Belvedere Heights, proposes a slight change in the lot line between Lots 6 and 7, at the end of a cul-de-sac on Belvedere Court, off Summitt Drive. The Commission was advised that the owner of Lot 7 has indicated his willingness to relinquish, through sale, a small portion of his property (Lot 7) in order that the applicant (Lot 6) may alter his present driveway to provide a more convenient access to his property. The City Engineer further advised that the lot line would be moved appr imately twenty feet in a northerly direction. In reply to Commission inquiry, the City Engineer advised that the acquisition and alteration of the parcel would permit the applicant a direct approach to his property and would affect, in no way, the required square footage area of Lot No. _7. It was further noted that t property is located within the hillside regions of the City. Mr. Luke Dav ,-the applicant, identified himself as the owner of Lot 6 and confirmed that Dr. Wilbur I. Petersen has consented to the sale of the portion under discussion. Commissioner Norberg thereafter moved that the resubdivision of Lots 6 and 7, Belvedere Heights Subdivision, be approved as indicated, seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously carried upon roll call of membeIrs. 3. The City Engi r advised that 146 Chapin Lane consists of a large parcel of prou , including two lots and a portion of another, with a "stai" erected on Lots 12 and 16 (Chapin Lane side) and a smalle at the rear, erected on Lot 16 and a small portion of the resubdivision is requested in order that the owner may formulate a sale. The City Engineer pointed out that several problems must be corrected, however; the cottage at the rear has a rear setback of only five feet (non -co forming usage) and a second garage, a new water service line, a eta sewer lateral clean -out on each sewer must be provided and a removal of an existing greenhouse occur prior to a resubdivision of said property. Questioned Commissioner Kindig on the possible construction of a larger dwelli g on the "cottage" site parcel in the future and its effect upon a property, the City Engineer advised that a building - 2 - could be ere ted on the site of the proposed new garage; (Chapin Lane side) -ever, some disposition would have to be made of the cottage prio to the issuance of a building permit. The City Engineer poi ted out that the cottage could be made into a rumpus room, in tha event, provided kitchen facilities were first removed. Dr. Cleary, a applicant, invited by the Chair to comment, stated circumstance in connection with the erection of the rear cottage and advised at it is a substantially constructed, two bedroom dwelling, fete with a basement. Dr. Cleary,An response to Commission inquiries, advised that he had no iemeeate plans to sell the property; however, all conditions would be met o conform to the building code of the City. Following a rief discussion and requested by the Chair for his opinion, the Planning Consultant advised that the land and frontage area indicate a proper subdivision. Continuing, the Consultant advised that "the chance of a second building, under present day conditions is very remote" and if the cottage, currently under a non -conforms usage, were removed, the construction of a new building on the site, would be prohibitive. The Planning inonsultant recomtaended if said application were approved, that signatu�escribed s on the subdivision asap be withheld, pending comple- tion of the requirements. A motion was thereafter introduced by Commissioner Norberg that the resubdivision be approved, subject to the following conditions: that a garage or carport, a new water service line, a standard sewer lateral clean -out on each sewer be provided, the existing greenhouse be removed and signatures on the subdivision map be withheld pen! ng completion of requirements. The motion was seconded by Commsssi Moore and unanimously carried on roll call of members. 4. Mr. Gordon RStrocher requesting a variance to resubdivide Lot 8, . Burlingame or No. jPinto three parcels (A, B, C, one of which fails to meet lot frontage requirements) advised the Commission that he has incorporated into his proposal, recommendations made at previous s udy sessions and in his opinion, the property will provide besut ful homesites for the City of Burlingame. Questioned b Strocher adv on Lot A (La C and the gr fill. Questioned by no complicatio however, in h: proper access the Commission concerning ingress and egress, Mr. ed that his plan proposes a common roadway beginning esa Drive) following the contours of Lots A, B, and ing will be, in all probability, that of pipe and the Chair, the City Engineer advised that there were ons in connection with the description of property; .s opinion, the Commission should be concerned that a from the street and a proper building site is provided - 3 - -� each parcel.. Following dim appropriate t ion on the steepness of the.property and ng, the Chair invited audience comments. R. David Martin, 1504 Alturas Drive, speaking as the owner of property acro the -street from the subject property, referred first to his tatus as a member of the City Council, advising that in the Mart tance of an appeal to Council, he would abstain from voting the issue. Continuing, Mr. Martin expressed his objection to the granting of a variance, stating that the applicant fails to meet the four requi9 for a variance and recalling that the entire acreage in the area, is l through 8, had been properly resubdivided several years ago. Mr. Martin suL sted that the Planning Commission, prior to approving the variance,tain from the owner, a resubdivision plot plan and a complete plplan foreach of the three lots to ascertain its future develont. William K. Fkuiey, 1503 La Mesa Drive, advised that he had not received noti of the scheduled hearing, therefore was unable to study the "pr m and cons" of. the issue. Mr.. Finney was advised that noticeswere mailed to property owners -within a five hundred foot radius. Allan Anderson, 1512 Alturas Drive, stated that in his opinion, the variance sbould be denied until such time as the owner of the property shall indicate his plans for its development. In reply to a Chairs request for an opinion, the Planning Con- sultant stat that a resubdivision of two lots would pose no problem; howe the proposal to create three parcels and the "treatment of1the land" should be of concern to the Commission. She Planning onsultant stated that there is the.question of "cuts and fills" ause of the steep terrain and the location of the creek on the rty and referring to a resolution previously adopted by th Comm3.anion establishing a policy to preserve the hillside ar of the City, suggested that more information be obtained cons Wing plans for the future development of the property. Commissioner as defined resubdivisio development "exercise as There being moved that Burlingame: yore expressed his failure to justify a "hardship" the zoning code in relation to.a request for said his concern for the "cut" that may appear in the the property and suggested that the Commission ch control as may be pueeible." further commentsComm.issioner Moore thereafter variance to permit the resubdivision of Lot 8, w No. 2 Subdivision be denied. - 4 - The motion was seconded by Commissioner Norberg and unanimously 1) carried upon roll call of members. 2he applicant, was advised of his right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. ADJOUROMM The meeting that a study Wednesday, A regularly adjourned at 9:20 p.m. with a reminder sion on "Capital Improvements" was scheduled for t 30, 1961, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, D. A. STIMS, Secretary