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