The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2620 Summit Drive - Staff ReportN Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 14, 1991 3. SIGN EXCEPTION - HYATT REGENCY HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE:-HIGHWAY - �nN��n r_a � ""` _� -- S�fdy item contiriued to„F th"e meeting of `;Janua�ry 28, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. FENCE EXCEPTION TO BUILD A GATE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 2620 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/14/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were sugqested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. William Garibaldi, applicant and property owner, was present and expressed his concern about prowlers. He advised the gate will be locked, have an electronic opener and an intercom system; they have had only one prowler (in August, 1990 when his wife was home alone), they did not make a police report; gate will be custom made, black with gold color on top, lettering will be in gold. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found no problem with this request, there are 5'-6' hedges in the neighborhood, the slope of the driveway is an exceptional circumstance, there will be no public hazard and neighboring properties will not be materially damaged. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1990; (2) that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit with the City Engineer within 30 days of Planning Commission action; (3) that the property owner shall maintain the existing hedge on either side of the gate at a maximum height of 5'-0" from the adjacent grade; and (4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. FENCE��Ei�CEPTION FOR AN EXISTING HEDGE_:WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT°�1316 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1` Reference staf det.ails of the questions, req from Pat Gral suggested for report, 1/14/91.,,``with attach aquest, staft-,`review, applica red findings. CP noted lettE nsky, ;,�1325 Castillo AvenuE zns,id`eration at the public IiE nts. CP Monroe reviewed 's letter,,-="study meeting in support dated 1/14/91 Two" conditions were •ina. � ,. . � � r�. :��,. MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNER P.C. 1/14/91 Item # 4 FENCE EXCEPTION TO BUILD A GATE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 2620 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Applicant William Garibaldi, and Engineer Charles Kavanagh are requesting a fence exception for a gate which exceeds the 5'-0" maximum allowed height in the front setback at 2620 Summit Drive, zoned R-1. A 17'-0" wide metal driveway gate with a 6'-0" wide pedestrian gate are proposed along Summit Drive within the public right-of-way. There is an existing 6'-6" tall hedge that flanks the driveway and proposed gate. An encroachment permit will be required with this application and is being handled separately by the City Engineer. The driveway gate has a 6'-0" high central pediment and the driveway and pedestrian gate both have end posts at 5'-6" in height. This exceeds the 5'-0' maximum allowed in the code (Sec. 25.78.020) by 1'-0' and 6" respectively. Staff Review City staff have reviewed this application. The Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal had no comments. The City Engineer notes that he has no objection to the height of the gate, and will process the request for a special encroachment permit at the next available council meeting (memo dated 11/26/90). Applicant's Letter On his application for a fence exception, the applicant states that he plans to build the gate to keep out prowlers and to enhance the appearance of the entry to his hou�e (fence exception application 11/8/90). The taller gate is required since the driveway is angled and sloped necessitating a longer than usual gate, 17' long. The higher gate is stronger and a better use of materials. A higher gate will be properly proportioned to fit within the neighborhood and will be tall enough to detract intruders. The gate will be compatible with the existing mass, bulk and character of the adjacent properties. Study Questions The Planning Commission reviewed this request at the study meeting on December 10, 1990 (Planning Commission Minutes, December 10, 1990). The Commissioners asked the Parks Department to check the status of the shrubbery and its height as it relates to the gate. The Parks Director indicated that shrubs and ground cover in the public right-of-way are the responsibility of the property owner. The city maintains only street trees. The applicant has agreed to maintain the hedge located in the front setback at a maximum height of 5'-0" (C.S. 25.78.020) which is less than the gate height of 6'- , e Pa 0" (refer to letter from engineer of 12/17/90). There will be no fence on either side of the gate, just the existing dense hedge. The commission also asked if there were exceptional circumstances to justify the exception. The applicant explained that on August 23, 1990 a man walked down their driveway and looked into the garage and around to the back door. He did not ring the bell and finally left frightening the owners of the property (refer to letter of 12/17/90). This is one of the reasons for the proposed gate. It should be noted that affirmative action on the fence exception does not presume affirma�ive action by the City Council on the encroachment permit. The two actions are independent of one another. Findincrs for a Fence Exception In order to grant a fence exception the applicant must show and the Planning Commission must find the following exist (CS 25.78.040): 1. 2. 3. 4. that there are exceptional c'ircumstances; that there is no public hazard; that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; and that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should include findings made for the variance requested. Reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. 2. 3. L!� that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submit- ted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1990; that the applicant shall apply for an Encroachment Permit with the City Engineer within 30 days of Planning Commission action; that the property owner shall maintain the existing hedge on either side of the gate at a maximum height of 5'-0" from the adjacent grade; and that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Jane Gomery cc: William Garibaldi - applicant and property owner Planner Charles Kavanagh - engineer 1 M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Vice Chairman Kelly on Monday, December 10, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Commissioner Graham Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal C. Jacobs requested the meeting be opened in memory of Everett Kindig who served on the Planning Commission for many years. MINUTES - The minutes. of the November 26, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY $� l. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A GATE --��SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 � . � Requests: check status of the shrubbery with the Parks Department; will existing shrubbery be taller than the gate; will there be a fence on either side of the gate, how tall will the fence be; elaborate on justification for the exception, i.e., have there been specific instances involving prowlers. Item set for public hearing January 14, 1991. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING HEDGE - 1316 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: other than privacy, what is unique about this property to support the fence exception request; in CE's memo clarify exactly where property line is behind face of curb. Item set for public hearing January 14, 1991. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ADD THREE NEW SIGNS - 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 SUB AREA D Requests: comparison with signage for other dealerships on California Drive; does this site have a master signage program; new signs are KAVANAGH ENGINEERINCa 70B CAROLAN AVE. - BURLINGAME - CA. 94010 (415) 579-1944 9055 BR GARIB.4 �,��; � �� 9�� ,. ��r - "•`�p � �'v�,,,, 12-17-90 T0: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FR: Charlie Kavanagh 1 ��"....�1�� RE: William Garibaldi, 2620 Summit Dr. RESPONSE TO STUDY SESSION QUESTIONS Reference the following applications: a. SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. Dated 9-20-90. Asks to construct a gate 8.5' within the street right of way. b. VARIANCE. Dated 11-6-90. Asks to construct a gate 6.0' high within the front setback instead of the code allowed 5.0' high. These were discussed at the 12-10-90 study session. Questions at that time and our responses follow: l. PROWLER. The Special Encroachment Permit lists "'prowler" as the reason for the request. Mr. Garibaldi explains: "On August 23, 1990, at about 11 a.m., a young white male about 30 years old walked down our driveway and looked into the garage and then walked around the back door. The garage door was open. He did not ring to door bell. He turned around and walked back up the driveway. We have lived here 31 years. This never happened before and it frightened my wife very much." 2. HEIGHT OF EXISTING HEDGE. The existing dense hedge at each side of the proposed gate is now about 6.5' high. We understand the 5' maximum for a fence applies to the hedge as well. Mr. Garibaldi will trim the hedge to 5.0' high. We hope this answers the questions raised at the study session. cc: William Garibaldi CIVII� DESIGN, SURVEYING, UTILITIES tl STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. Proiect Address: 2620 Summit Drive II. Project Description and Permits Requested: FENCE EXCEPTION for a gate which exceeds the 5'-0" maximum allowed height in the front setback at 2620 Summit Drive, zoned R-1. A 17'-0" wide metal driveway gate with a 6'-0" wide pedestrian gate are proposed along Summit Drive within the public right-of-way. An encroachment permit will be required with this application and is being handled separately by the City Engineer. The driveway gate has a 6'-0' high central pediment and the driveway and pedestrian gaie both have end posts at 5'-6" in height. This exceeds the 5'- 0' maximum allowed in the code (Sec. 25.78.020) by 1'-0' and 6" respectively. III. Pro�erty Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 027-271-320 Lot No: 21 Block No: 3 Subdivision: Kenmar Terrace Lot Size: Approximately .36 Acres Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential-8 d.u./Ac. IV. Existincr Site Conditions and Adjacent Land Uses: Al1 adjacent land uses are single family residences; all are zoned R-1 and all have a low density residential General Plan Designation. V. CEQA Status• Categorically exempt per CEQA Code Section 15303 Class 3(e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including fences. VY. Project Data: Proposed New Construction: 17'-0" wide metal gate with a 6'- 0" tall central portion and 5'-6" end posts: 6'-0" wide pedestrian metal gate with 5'-6" end posts. Recruired Front Setback: not affected Side Yard Setback: " Rear Yard Setback: " Lot Coverage: " On-Site Parking Spaces: " Fence Height: 5'-0" Fence Location: on property Proposed not affected � W W 6'-0"/5'-6" 1'-6" from face of curb (5eparate encroachment permit required) � PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' CITY OF BURLING�ME CITYHALL-501PRIMROSEROAD APPL�CATION TO THE 3.'Ll-�.NNING COMMISSION . gURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401D Type of Application: /- ��'�' Special Permit Variance _Other ,� � �, � � � ► Project Address ��C, O ,� °�" �� ` c.i �i ria i �� °� Assessor's Parcel Number(s) APPLICIINT � � PROPERTY OWNER�� Name :�gYp ,�� f"�) �c� 1c( f Name : Address : 2-. � Z- O-S u/x� /,�i� /�` D/", Address : City/State/Zip �c,. r' / �/�9.4j B�Yj� City/State/Zip Telephone:(Work) (Home),;��¢"��J�CD ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name : � � �.,i Address: I �"� .rrr i'-Z�L�r — � � �.. � � r ,� i , � !� _ �`_:... � ��, Telephone (daytime):� � PROJECT DESCfZIPTION _ � P� �-� /�a.0 AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: +r + �� I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the bes f my knowledge and belief. � i // � _� � �-o Applicant�s Signat re Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. �.�� ,�,.,` / � / � � -- %j Property Ow r�s Signature Date -------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------- �:- , Date Filed: — � " � / Fee � ��'�i• L%?.% Receipt # �';; ) G� (Home) Please indicate with an asterisk (*) who is the contact per.son for this pro-i ect . 1c�t� : ' / � � e- r- d r v F S� � � aring (date) Council meeting date Council Action ��' ( � ) �Q �i��-?��r�� advi�ing app�,ic�tion ine Date applica�ion accepted as complete: J%,o P.C. study meeting (date) �:�� p.C, pu li P.C. Action � .� b . �� ,! o('� .�-l� � Appeal to Council? Yes o� Telephone (Work) � i9�� vr,u`�n'U1 �,,,�INr Q fr�ti � � � - J ,� a,s' �+- P, L, --►i i- PRaP. 6R'rE P , _ __ � .-- � - -- ,� __ R�Izd F I L E � - _H �v 1"=�0' / / go � a ��, �N OA'/ / h� � 10 ' x _ , 1a — . � 9 �J � % � d=� � � �� 5 / a6 / ¢�`%. a � � �� j _ � i��/'�/ 2B �� ExlST. 6ARRGE � � O � � ��O \�� O 10 20 FEE"� EXIST. NouSE _ PARcE L 21-A _ �o-3o�e4 SS PM ZB FORMEfZLY LoT 21 KEhIN1RR T�R, - Z-27-53 3G �1 Z4-ZS ;\ . � u �%� F�lJ�'E � y�v v, ' z�9a ; �'" /� F Ra Po5 E P � �� @ P, L,—�� rP 9�, �7 G�� ,// _F E NC E V✓. 2�2O ! J � � :�� /�.2 i _IJ1F�lL U' a� � v_ / , 2e. �iy-',�i° �/ P. L. / '6 J —i�- � ~'3 ,,. .534 16'30'W 89.83 — _ ^ 5 _ — --_---_ D�15'10'3H��^ qe325.00 �PF.oPosE� r7� e4c .� i �= o—_A-�e.� DWY G-FiTE �- ;� -PRoPoSF_C PED. 6ATE extsT. DEIJSF_ '� — � -,� -� _� HEo<-E � �` �.,-- -G � �� f o_.. �.-��`•`=—T P o `' E'oTN 51 C�5 DVJY. . . M -�' � �.. . . . .. , � . 3 ' � +1 _ — _ � ,Ty . . ___ - _- � � �� d `'�, • ----�.--- . �_ � r .. _� p . F �R � ,-►...-s, ..� ,. "— . . ; .J.33 _. '_ . _. ' .•� �,�. \.____ _... ___._—_ � - � p � �+ � Q � . 2 _'_ �J� � , � ,� c �� r -r��: � • `o . � ��, I � � � I � NI � Z. r�JIDE P.oLLED Z �, P o ��RB ,. �r�r '�� "$ ��sQ � �, i U; q D i._, / a, �, - �i � � r L �" � �" �_ v �/� `�- p � Y Uf 1P �UNGAv � ' ii "' S U� ��-I � I DI\. '' nEr , S 133. 8 --- -- ------- - — — -------- - - — O-- - ��` `_ __.__ __._— — /+-- 534 16 30'H R9.83 � � ' _ . a4{16 ,,,, n 74.4�-- • P1i°¢� ti ��,�34 I-S-90 Kev7d. G�K S'rP�2 �Q�e� Pr�-��, ` .( �CE' ' �� /o-z3-9a �d.�'��-^� WILLIAM GARIBALDI 2620 SUMMIT DR. BURLIN�GAME ``F'�,�� Ni� ��• n�,�ii:i�;�i�:��;i��K SoSSGr .. , °� , '°,s,57-1y" �P"�. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY GATE �-1 ,�K ��,�,��„ �..,.�„�. , � _. --. _ , ,��,.��„�.,,,,�. �� ao,� � . , .. _ � � _ -=- = =-= - � : � t. ; m � � �. m� � m a — M y X dA ¢ a � � � ZR � s-+ o .� � C� W � '�.i � � Z m� a o � � f � "'r U � m � '� = o ^: � ~ W . y r r--� W 4 �2 Z � � 1 � � z _ � < �+ d �n � o � � S� �S �- S �'—o " r��x. � � t� � «� ff Z� � , �xc� � ,s. r�s �s �;�t1 13_��.�:1, �-�: / .-- � _ L� �� . _. �� 4 � 4 � 4 �� 4QQ �� . �, _- _ � .► _ -_---.��_. i�; , � � p �� ' � � l.�` � _ � ' f i _ i;� ;� i �` i�� j � ' � � {�� I ��/ � � ' -- ' :� I � _ rR�_ �- `�� ' I �� _-�,. -- — �- , -�--� f — t � . � � t .J`� - � �' � � . I ,�, I � ti �" � I. � ° __ f .� -_ f . �� c� ;-�, �� - ,� , : I T : �, � � � i� ' � � _ _ . ._. . . .� .___,, f,,� :',, - : �,; . rN — _._ . . _ _ �-. � ' . ... _ ... _ � ' �' . I � . . . .. _.. ...__. _ _ _ . . . . 1 , . . . j T� �, P_ r o . _. ' ' - - . _._._.. ._ � - -,; • ' �-- I Z _ �� -_- � �t 1 � � N � r- � r � , _�,1�, � � � .-i< < - /' � �� . � � � _�' �: I; � � � / <-- , iCG��7�. /=oa %� ��c S 7"i{ - 'i � � o - ` - --� � � � I -� r-+-. � - ._.. _ - , i _''�� ; ` � / ^ � : �� .._. � , � a_� t _ --------_._...._._._.- l � �:rY-----__ ____„_.__.._ z _----_ � � ° _— � � � �- �-- .�-o �z � � ��[ �ax, h � � ��,?` 7U � -o / a -- L 3 � 9-0 . G. , L , �. , �, �� ,,'i/�a� �� ald�' �� z� Za s� �, �; � � �. S � - 2 'v Ur tiurtuivGFlv . G � ( j� � �•%$ � ( L '"IIN.!f� �[r l ._.. .. ... . . . ... .._.._..__....._ ._,.._-.:_.... ,.<.w..._,._,.w�...:;..u.:,.k......«...�....:..�..�. ��..:��..-.��_-,.�.,:�.z .�...a.»::a . ...aav�,.�......�.�:m. ,,...,.....r,ae��. a..,,,,,,.�. .�Ms:a, ��+,. ��.i:�,. ._.��S�F�i:= i * ��c�,T.S• �'�, s _ � � :.. . _- � �_�d��e�� ; William Garibaldi 2620 Summit Dr. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY GATE FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION I plan to build a gate across my driveway to keep out prowlers and enhance the appearance of my entry which is across the street from houses in Hillsborough. I am asking for a variance from the normal 5' front fence height limitation to 6' high for the central portion of my proposed gate and to 5.5' for the end posts of the gate as shown on the attached sketch SK-2. This request is made for the following reasons: a. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. My driveway is on a skew, making a longer than usual gate, 17' long. The higher gate is stronger and a better use of materials. b. PROPERTY RIGHTS. I wish to protect my property in a way consistent with the existing property values. A higher gate will be properly proportioned and fit with the neighborhood. A 5' high fence would be easier to climb over and would detract from the appearance of the entry. c. NOT DETRIMENTAL TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. The higher gate will enhance the adjacent properties by fitting in well with the existing streetscape. d. COMPATIBLE. The higher gate will be compatible with the exisit:ng mass, bulk and character of the properties in the vicinity, i.e. Hillsborough. S�� _._ _ __y. , � f, _ � A z � � 708 CAROLAN AVE. - BURLINGAME - CA. 94010 _�� R �,� �1 (21 (415) 579-1944 � \� / F.J � � � � �� ' J %� . / ✓ � � � ��G � , 1 � Z � �o � .-t , � � /�� 1� �� ; � A �, �. �� . 5�- - �a .� � .� . -� _ ' �� .. ' , 2. s�-I � �� ,,�C f��--� � � .� . S r� - Z � ( // �� P` cc •. CIVIL DESIGN, ,. ...�_ _ _ _ , � �-�--�.` ,� �SY1€Ly.EY,ING, UTILITIES � ' . � �"� � �r �� , r �. � � , S��-� ,� , � , .�_ 5�-� �- �--�`-� �? �- - � rr �, "'= 1F'� .• ��_. � � �..-: P...... ,;.!"��-' �^` o �. �, ��, . @ � IFCi►1►iy'4�,N • .�►� � . �,. ., � �� i c� Ite C��f�r �� ulx�t��t�nc SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PR�MROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA-94010 TEL: (415) 3a2-gg�� SPECIAL ENCROACHf�EM PERMiT APP(1CQTION 0�7- 271-3z� A.P. No. � �� Address of Proposed Encroachment ,��f; � D�y �7.j yn ��" �� ' �/� Lot No. � � Block No. �_ Subdivision /��h/ M � � '�� e� Owner y(il �II �W�'f��C',fy(Vi�C 2. �J}!;� I�3f��.D:�Phone ,��%5`�� / � `�� Address ^�� j � �� ,�� yy� �� Best Time to Cal 1_ /�%, Nj Descri be Encroachment �a p� �.7'�-�.✓ c' 1 � r, � � � �l � � � `—t—� 8� .� r n �%Q s'�' �1,,� � Give Reasons for Request �/� p�� C NOTE: Additional City Encroachment Permit fee and.bond required_for any construction or other activity requiring additional inspection services. Date 9 �b �y6 Below This Line is for Ci Side��alk Encroachment �50,00 Fee Paid Signature � S 0 fee paid signature Ref. �ldg. Permit No. s�gnature Da�� Permi� se�� o ow��r Date Memo to Mgr. Date sent to City Clerk Date Record Copy to owner Use Onl Date - Signed �%l��:_ ,. � � Ref. Ordinance 1053 effective 1/1/76 date chap. 12.10 City Code date D.dte owner signed: Date of Council Concur Date of Recording Vol. Page f:::;�., __ _ ,ti � � William Garibaldi 2620 Summit Dr, PROPOSED DRIVEWAY GATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES The exceptional SK-l. My drivew The property lin part of the driv crest of the driveway behind the curb. Most sloping driveways and critical. 2. NO PUBLIC HAZARD are shown on t te steeply down hind the curb a st place for th near the driveway appr properties in my area the location of the ga he attached sketch from the street. nd on the sloping e gate is oach about have more te is not I believe no public hazard will be created. The gate the street and electronically operated with a beeper. is relatively straight and visibility is good. There sidewalk in front of my house so pedestrians will not affected. 3. NO DAMAGE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES on the 1.5' gradually as wi11 be off The street is no be Neighboring properties will not be materially damaged. The gate wi11 be handsomely constructed of rod iron and will enhance the neighborhood. It will fit with the existing vegetation at the top of the bank. 4. HARDSHIP It would be an unnecessary hardship to locate the gate at the property line 12.5' behind the curb because of the slope of the driveway at this location. The pedestrian gate and the driveway gate are meant to augment each other. Placing the pedestrian gate on the slope would create a hazard, particularly for elderly people. 5��. � circumstances ay slopes qui e is 12.5' be eway. The be . MEMORANDUM `�,J�� u Date � � ,. � - � �� ,�..� _ � � � ��r�� , � �� =� � , �� of Comments ��fP--��f�� ,�� '�� . � � �� 7'w��/�� _ `� %d� z�Yu��i�l � � �� .�� ..� �,� '` f �� ' �� G,-.� !`fc��'�� -��L� �r e v ` ��l � j : �,a��'� . �� - �� DATE: TO: CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : REQUEST FOR 1�� J I/if" C��I D� � % f • � 3 �'O � CITY ENGINEER �� . . AT 1.�/J ZO C� ��! �+�I ( 1 JJ �I �J SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: _�IP�LJ, IO ,IN S�C7 REVIEW BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY, N� V� '�/ �� v Thanks, Jane/Sheri � � I �� ,rl .i'.� '�. � C � � � ,�c�' \A �� O :; % �."� / ' o - ( � Jt;_ i' � �� o � A Text Consisting of: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEAR,ING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 14th day of January 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 2620 SUMMIT DRIVE - APN: 027-271-320 APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A GATE WHICH EXCEEDS THE 5'-0�' MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 2620 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone etse raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER January 4, 1991 was mailed to the fotlowing property owners: CHAPMAN CHARLES H& VIRGINIA M PUI TSANG MING DAVIDSON PETER R & RAYLENE�J KEITHLEY WALTRAUD G BRAUN CLIFFORD J& BARBARA M FERRARI PAUL LUISETTI ANGELO H KLEEBAUER J A& THELMA A MC NEILLY JAMES P& K C SIMONETTI ALDO J& M M HAUSER ROBERT E& FRANCES M JOE TOMMY 0& CAROLYN S HASEGAWA YUKIKO GAZIS GUS & LOIS LAMBERT PEGGY ANN ZUCCA JOHN J& MARIAN A TRS WALKER WILLIAM G& M M JACOPI LEO A JR NATLY MARY ANN TR LING TUNG ET AL GARIBALDI WILLIAM J& B F TRS HUTNICK JOSEPH A& VALIJA M MAHNKEN CHARLES H& ANNE C MORAN JOHN P & JACQUELINE 6 KENMAR WAY 4 KENMAR WY 2694 SUMMIT DR 2683 SUMMIT DR 2675 SUMMIT DR 2667 SUMMIT DR 2659 SUMMIT DR 2651 SUMMIT DR 2643 SUMMIT DR 2635 SUMMIT DR 2711 BURLINGVIEW DR 2625 SUMMIT DR 2684 SUMMIT DR 2674 SUMMIT DR 2660 SUMMIT DR 2628 SUMMIT DR 2606 SUMMIT DR 2600 SUMMIT DR 2656 SUMMIT DR 1044 DANBURY DR 2620 SUMMIT DR P o BOX 1598 2614 SUMMIT DR 2616 SUMMIT DR BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLiNGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLiNGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, SAN JOSE BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA.95129 CA 94010 CA 94011 CA 94010 CA 94010 A.P.N. A.P.N. A:P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. A.P.N. 027-130-100 027-130-110 027-130-120 027-224-020 027-224-030 027-224-040 027-224-050 027-224-060 027-224-070 027-224-080 027-261-100 027-261-110 027-271-010 027-271-020 027-271-030 027-271-050 027-271-100 027-271-110 027-271-290 027-271-310 027-271-320 027-271-340 027-271-350 027-271-360 BOZZINI GEORGE J& DOROTHY L ZIMMERMAN BRYANT K& HARRIET B NORN BRUCE G& VIRGINIA S SALEVOURIS BILLIE TR MOUNTANOS MARK P PETTINICCHI ARTHUR J & R TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED: BILLING FOR THIS MAILING: $48.92 30 ;� � 2615 SUMMIT DR 75 DEL MONTE DR 10 KINDER LN 20 KINDER LN 55 DEL MONTE DR 25 DEL MONTE DR HILLSBOROUGN, HILLSBOROUGN, HILLSBOROUGH, HILLSBOROUGH, HILLSBOROUGH, HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 CA 94010 A.P.N. : 027-272-020 A.P.N. : 027-272-030 A.P.N. : 027-301-020 A.P.N. : 027-301-030 A.P.N. : 027-301-040 A.P.N. : 027-301-050 � �i a MEMORANDUM DATE: �I � I3 �� TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF SUILDING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ��CJ� l�J .I/,il �,21 L� �P,t/'�t . . AT �� s�� - �� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: _TIP�J� 'C� , IN S�b REVIEW BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY, �U�% V� '� �r v Thanks, Jane/Sheri � �� : �(A� r� r n, � I�n.Q� �, �, � %'1C� ��-r ( ( - �3 - 9 � Date of Comments � jv a C� h P�'•�--s � �� MEMORANDUM DATE: / r TO: CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN • • • • �/V�'I �' / � -��J � � � / . � �. � Ll� . / / I � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: �I�.CJ� (O , I�/ r/C7 REVIEW BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY, �V �V �'� �/ �� v Thanks, Jane/Sheri � �� _ ��.�� -��.�.--. �� / 3 � Date of Comments