The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About740 Crossway Road - Staff Reporty �� . * . �'`ti,r : _ _ � � _. PC 8/24/81 MEMO T0: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTING CITY PLANNER FENCE EXCEPTION FOR EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE AT 740 CROSSWAY ROAD; RESUBMITTAL OF PLANS At his appeal hearing before the City Council on August 17, the applicant, Mr. Lindquist, su,qgested to Council a revised proposal for the fence between 740 and 744 Crossway. The Council's action was to return the matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. In his letter of August 18, 1981, Mr. Lindquist describes his revised plans. He is seeking a fence exception for an eight foot fence, seven feet of which would be a permanent redwood fence. Atop the permanent fence he is proposing to place a one foot temporary fence of fibepglass inside a wooden frame of 2 x 4's with spacers every three feet to provide additional strength. He points out his design was recommended by Goodman's of San Francisco, a firm specializing in building materials (plans attached). Mr. Lindquist indicates the need for a seven foot fence because of the difference in elevation of the two properties; and the need for the temporary portion until a natural barrier can be grown. Neighbors have expressed concern about any fence other than a standard six foot redwood fence at this location. Mr. Lindquist indicates he has taken out a building permit for a six foot fence. A code exception is required because fences in the R-1 District are limited to a six foot maximum height. Code Section 25.78.050 advises that a greater height may be approved by the Commission if "the petitioner makes sufficient showing": 1. That there are exceptional circumstances; 2. That there is no public hazard; 3. That neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; 4. That the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Several issues have been brought out in the previous discussions of the fence at this location. The Commission may wish to consider these in the light of the new proposal. 1. Will the height and appearance of the fiberglass panel (the new fence) be consistent with the character of the existing fences on several adjacent properties? 2. Will the two feet of additional height serve to protect the backyard of 740 Crossway from the neighbor's view? 3. Are the legal requirements for a code exception satisfied by Mr. Lindquistls request, including possible hazards inherent in the proposed building materials? Findings in support of this application appear to be balanced by arguments against; perhaps the essential question is whether the fiberglass panels (which could remain on __ top of the present fence for three or four years) are a reasonable response to_Mr. ___ ___ 1 -� --- screenin , the tem orar - 9 p y portion of the fence should be removed. �16�Q�' ��nro�t, MARGARET MONROE Acting City Planner Attachment MM/k 8/19/�1 2 �� o�� L T._ ��_.._..- COUNCIL HEARING AUGUST 17, 1981 MEMO T0: CITY COUNCIL FRUM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A FENCE EXCEPTION TO INCREASE AN EXISTING 6` SIDEYARD FENCE TO 9' BETWEEN 740/744 CROSSWAY ROAD At their meeting of July 13, the Planning Commission denied an application for a height variance to a 6' fence between 740/744 Crossway Road requested by Clifford Lindquist. In its deliberation the Commission indicated that in their opinion,of the four conditions for a variance, only two, exceptional circumstances and the loss of backyard privacy, were met by the application. (July 13 Planning Commission minutes attached). Issuance of a variance for a fence requires four findings (Code Sec. 25.78.050): (1) that there are exceptional circumstances; (2) that there is no public hazard; (3) that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; (4) that the regula- tions cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. The applicant, Mr. Lindquist, submitted a letter date stamped June 8, 1981 expressing the reasons for his application for a fence variance. Among them he cites the recent loss of trees which created a visual screen for his backyard, the large number of windows with view of his yard on this side of his neighbor's house, and the fact that for cost reasons he wishes to build a temporary fence of green corrugated fiberglass to be removed when recently planted vegetation reaches appropriate height. (The pictures submitted by the applicant with his letter are also attached.) Mr. Lindquist's request is supported by two letters, June 9, 1981 and June 29, 1981, from his landlord, Darrell Smith. P�r. Lindquist also submitted a petition in support of his project dated July 10 in response to a petition circulated by his neighbor at 744 Crossway Road. At the Planning Commission meeting of July 13 Mr. Tim Goll, representing his mother, the property owner at 744 Crossway Road, submitted a petition date stamped June 18, 1981 opposing his neighbor's application. The petition was signed by a number of residents in the area. His points of opposition are: approval of a fence would establish a precedent and thus affect aesthetics and property values, the applicant does not own but rents the property and therefore is transien.t and could leave before a temporary structure is removed, and the applicant has already built an illegal bamboo fence which is not sound. Mr. Goll also submitted a letter from Mr. McCallion of Horner-McCallion dated July 12 indicating that the fencing materials existing and proposed are inadequate. The Planning Comr}ission staff report for the July 13, 1981 meetina recommended that if the variance is.approved the added material be considered temporary . and removed when trees reach the appropriate neight. In their deliberation the Planning Commission noted that the cost of building a suitable redwood fence would prohibit it being a temporary structure and proposed materials may create a possible public hazard and might materially damage the neighboring properties. MM/s r� Margaret Monroe Acting City Planner cc: Clifford Lindquist � �urlingame Planning C�mmission Minutes Recess 8:25 P.M.; reconvene 8:40 P.M. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 2 July 13, 198I 2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO INCREASE AN EXISTIP�G 6' SIDEYARD FENCE BETWEEN 740/744 CROSSWAY ROAD TO A NEW 9' HEIGHT, BY CLIFFORD LINDQUIST (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 22, 1981) ACP Monroe reviewed this application to build a 9 foot fence along the side property line between two single family homes. Reference staff report for Item No. 2; 6/5/81 letter from Clifford Lindquist; aerial photo and photographs of the site taken by the applicant; June 9, 1981 letter from the Lindquist family to Darrell Smith, the property owner; June 9 and June 29, 1981 letters from Darrell Smith including notation of his telephone conversation with Helen Towber, Zoning Aide on 7/9/81; site drawings received June 8, 1981; 6/22/81 letter from the applicant requesting a continuance from the 6/22/81 meeting; and petition in opposition received June 18, 1981 with attached photographs. ACP discussed code requirements and issues raised; if approved, one condition was recorr�nended as listed in the staff report. Secy. Harvey read letter received today from the applicant advising he would be unable to attend the meeting. This letter stressed his family's need for privacy and his willingness to consider alternative materials for the fence. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. Tim Goll, 744 Crossway Road, the next door neighbor, spoke in opposition. He noted his family's long time residence at this address and addressed the petiti�nsubmitted by the Golls, the counter petition submitted by the applicant and the nature of this "temporary" fence. He objected to the material currently used because of its possible safety problems and appearance; it was his feeling this proposal would have an adverse effect on the value of his property and on the neighborhood. Secy. Harvey read a letter received this evening from Richard McCallion, the co-owner of Horner-McCallion, 305 Winchester Drive, Burlingame stating that in his opinion, as �t builder, such construction was not a suitable material and could become a hazard in bad weather. For the record, Secy. Harvey also noted the p�titi�n in opposition (with 32 signatures) enclosed with the packet and counter petition (with 32 signatures) - received July 10, 1981 from Mr. Lindquist. Mr. Lindquist's cover letter advised that 14 signers of the original p�iiti�on had signed the counter petitian. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: the large number of windows in the next door home overlooking the site were noted; unacceptable fence material and alternative materials; the intent of the fence ordinance; the fact that a fence built of acceptable materials would be too expensive to serve as a temporary screen; the legal requirements for a fence exceptit�n. C. Mink found there were exceptional circumstances and a hardship upon the applicant in the need for privacy in his backyard, but that the other legal requirements had not been met, i.e., there may be a possible public hazard and neighborhood properties might be materially damaged. C. Mink then moved that this fence exception be denied. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. . CITY OF BURLINGAP�E PLANNING COMP�ISSION JULY 13, 1981 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, July 13, 198I at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Harvey, Mink, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Leahy (excused) Staff Present: Acting City Planner Margaret P�lonroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the June 22, 1981 meeting were unanimously approved and adQpted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. 1. PUBLIC FORUM TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED MARRIOTT HOTEL/OFFICE COMPLEX AT 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY � Reference staff inemorandum for this item with attached press release. Robert Ironside, Planning Consultant who is assisting in the preparation of the environmental impact report for the proposed Marriott project, was present as well as architects for the project; Thomas Hart, Vice President - Development, Marriott Corporation; and John Bjorner, the property owner. With the aid of sketches, Mr. IronsTde discussed the four alternatives proposed by Marriott and requested comments from the public. These issues along with information necessary to address them will be incorporated into the Draft EIR. The following individuals spoke: Don Spencer, Manager, Burlingame Chamber of Cornmerce; Michael Hogan, President, Earth Metrics Incorporated; Ardith Erickson; Thomas W. Sine; Nannette Giomi; Alan Horn; Dorothy Cusick; Chuck Pappaleri; Frank Pagliaro; David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust. Chm. Jacobs welcomed Councilwoman Barton who was in the audience. The following is a summary of concerns and issues; a more detailed list which will be used by staff in reviewing the DEIR is attached: parking and traffic congestion/circula- tion: trip ends per hour and peak period for each alternative including the effect on the immediate area and subregion, relate discussion to applicable CalTrans and City of Burlingame traffic studies, including present and future, traffic safety, signalization of Bayshore Highway and air quality; impacts on parking and access to the bay; impacts on transportation and parking for employees; impacts of employment on the area and sub- region including housing; access through the site; number of people to be employed for each plan; housing impacts; airport orientation, compatibility of each of the plans with the airport and other uses in the general area; financial impact (revenue to the city), including the worst case of State legislation limiting the amount of this revenue retained by local jurisdiction; fire and police services required for each alternative; utility impacts including sewage, water, gas, electricity, passive energy; impact on undeveloped land costs; economic impact on the area and subregion; impacts of bulk and shadow; flooding information including impact on other properties in the area; impacts of earthquakes; consider impact on the subregion from Millbrae to Peninsula Avenues. Mr. Ironsides and Chm. Jacobs thanked all present for their input. MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER �� .l i'� � :..J.. . -� P.C. 7/13/81 Item No. 2 (continued from 6/22/81) SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 9 FOOT HIGH FENCE AT 740 CROSSWAY ROAD This application is to build a 9 foot fence along the side property line between two single family homes at 740 and 744 Crossway Road. The application is made by Mr. Clifford Lindquist (letter date stamped June 8, 1981) with the approval of his landlord and the property owner, Mr. Darrell Smith (letter date stamped June 11, 1981�. The purpose of the fence is to shield the backyard of 740 Crossway from the neighbor's view until several newly planted trees are high enough to screen the rear yard. A code exception is required because fences in the R-1 District are limited to a 6 foot maximum height. Code Sec. 25.78.050 advises that a greater height may be approved by the Commission if "the petitioner makes sufficient showing": 1. that there are exceptiona.l circumstances; 2. that there is no public hazard; 3. that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; 4. 'that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. During the June 22, 1981 public hearring severa't issues should be explored: 1. Will the height and appearance of the fiberglass panels (the new fence) be consistent with the character of the existing fences on the several adjacent properties? 2. Will the 3' of additional height serve to protect the backyard af 740 Crossway from the neighbor's view? 3. Are the legal requirements for a eode exception satisfied by Mr. Lindquist's request? • � Findings in support of this application appear to be balanced by arguments against; perhaps the central question is whether the fiberglass panels (which could remain on top of the present fence for three or four years) are a reasonable response to Mr. Lindquist's problem. Opposition from the neighbors at 744 Crossway Road should be expected, and a site visit to this property prior to the June 22, 1981 hearing is recommended. If the exception is approved, one condition is suggested: after the new trees along the side property line grow to a height where they provide adequate screening, the fence be reduced to a maximum of 6 feet. JRY/MM/s J�,. �. �- John R. Yost City Plann cc: Clifford Lindqwist �. ,. . � P.C. 6/22/81 Item No. 6 --MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER .SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 9 FOOT HIGH FENCE AT 740 CROSSWAY ROAD This application is to build a 9 foot fence along the side property line between two single family homes at 740 and 744 Crossway Road. The application is made by Mr. Clifford Lindquist (letter date stamped June 8, 1981) vrith the approval of his landlord and the property owner, Mr. Darrell Smith (letter date stamped June 11, 1981). The purpose of the fence is to shield the backyard of 740 Crossway from the neighbor's �iew until several newly planted trees are high enough to screen the rear yard. A code excQption is required because fences in the R-1 District are limited to a b foot maximum height. Code Sec. 25.78.050 advises that e greater height may be �pproved by the Commission if "the petitioner makes sufficient showing": �.. that there are exceptional circumstances; 2. tfiat there is no public hazard; 3. that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; -�4. tfiat the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upan the petitioner. .fluring the June 22, 1981 public hearing several issues should be explored: 1. Will the height and appearance of the fiberglass panels (the new fence) be consistent with the character of the existing fences on the several .adjacent properties? � � . 2, Will the 3' of additional height serve ta protect the backyard of 740 Crossway from the neighbor's view? � 3. Are the legal requirements for a code exception satisfied by NM. Lindquist's ,request? • � Findings in support of this application appear to be balanced by arguments against; perhaps the central question is whether the fiberglass panels (which could remain on top of the present fence for three or four years) are a reasonable response to Mr. Lindquist's problem. Opposition from the neighbors at 744 Crossway Road should be expected, and a site visit to this property prior to the June 22, 1981 hearing is recommended. If the exception is approved, one condition is suggested: after the new trees along the side property line grow to a height where they provide adequate screening, the fence be reduced to a maximum of 6 feet. JRY/MM/s C�s Clifford Lindquist J�,. �. �- John R. Yost City Plann r