Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2740 Summit Dr - Noticing� (, 2--40 S((I^IKA llrilt�. ANY f1EMBEP. OF THE AUDIENCE DESIRING TO SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING: If you wish to speak on an item under discussion which appears on this agenda, you may do so upon receiving recognition from the Zoning Hearing Officer. After receiving recognition from the Zoning Hearing Officer, please walk to the rostrum, and state your name and address. SAN MATEO COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARS c ii�I V G ZONING HEARING OFFICER REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA D E L 26 19VV A G E N D A CITY OF SURLIN AM6r PLANNING DEFT DATE: January 2, 1981 MEETING TIME: 9:00 A.M. MEETING PLACE: ROOM 101, County Government Center 590 Hamilton Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 1 iCLIFFORD SDT- TLER SMN 80- 26 -quest for a parcel map to divide a 33,190 sq.ft. parcel into two parcels, 10,010 sq.ft. and 23,180 sq.ft. in the R-1/S-9 (Single -Family Residential) zone district. Location is 2740 Summit Drive vicinity of Burlingame, APN 22I-060. Project Planner: Fred Waters. 48 property owners notified. 2 _S-nt, (Andv Gibbs) S"1-80-29 e.:-zest to allow division of 167.5' x 231.7' lot into two parcels. Location is 9'_1 llyrtle St., East Palo Alto, APN 063-352-170. Project Planner: Larry' Siders. 17 property owners notified. �. JOB E-S (Andrew Zack) UP 40-77 . ew and amendment of Use Permit for nursery. Location is Alhambra avenue, El Granada, APN 047-251-080 and -090. Project Planner: Larry Siders. 4. N�LZELT;lAN VA 80-26 Request for a Variance to allow a 2-story addition with a 19' front yard setback where 25' is required. Location is 211 Mesa Drive, Menlo Park, APN 077-172-710. Project Planner: Kerry Burke. 35 property owners notified. 03iC'HI (Ronald T. Shimamoto) UP 80-21 Request for a Use Permit to allow a four -unit apartment building on a parcel zoned C-2 (General Commercial). Location is 11 Krammer Lane, Redwood City, APN 060-281-360. Project Planner: Kerry Burke. 31 property owners notified. 6. LOPEZ (Anderson Nevins) HIP 80-4 Request for a House Moving Permit to move a house from 360 University, San Jose, to 1150 Weeks Street, East Palo Alto, APN 063-271-380. Project Planner: Kerry Burke. 22 property owners notified. -2- 7. STANLEY (Michael Baker dba Infinity Salvage) AWP-5 Request for renewal of Auto Wrecking Permit. Location is 2091 Bay Road, East Palo Alto, APN 063-121-080. Project Planner: Kerry Burke. 8. BAKER (James Norman) AIVP-6 Request for renewal of Auto Wrecking Permit. Location is 2099 Bay Road, East Palo Alto, APN 63-121-090. Project Planner: Kerry Burke. Department of Environmental Management pl�>nnin� <111(1 I)(•velol)nu•nt llivisioll BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EDWARD J. BACCIOCCO, JR. JAMES V. FITZGERALD ARLEN GREGORIO FRED LYON JOHN M. WARD COUNTY O A A ID C. HALE �� PDANNIING DIRECTOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER REDWOOD CITY • CALIFORNIA 94oR ECIE-510Vr-D61 January 2, 1981 File SMN 80-26 Mr. Clifford Semmler 2740 Summit Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Mr. Semmler: DEC 26 1980 Your application for minor subdivision (a parcel map) of your land on Summit Drive has been approved this date by the Zoning Hearing Officer with the following conditions, to be processed through the Public Works Department: 1. Submit a plan and profile of the proposed common driveway to serve both parcels, and of the extension to serve Parcel B. 2. Show on the parcel map a proposed easement through Parcel B for the sewer I ine serving Parcel A. 3. Sumbit a parcel map for checking. This protect is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance with Section 66473.5, GC, Subdivision Map Act, this map has been found to be consistent with the San Mateo County General Plan. The conditions of approval must be met within one year for final approval to be granted; otherwise, the subdivision application will be disapproved. An extension may be granted only for good cause. Any interested person adversely affected by this decision may file an appeal with the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days of the date of decision. Appeal applications must be submitted in writing to the Planning Division, along with a fee of $35. DAVID C. HALE, PLANNING DIRECTOR by S.G. Dalton, Zoning Hearing Officer cc: Director of Public Works Public Health Engineer George Kelly N 0 T I C E O F A P P E A L TO: SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: FILE SNM 80-26 APPEAL FROM CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION (CLIFFORD SEMMLER) FROM: AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE ZONE OF HAZARD WHO SIGN THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL . The conditional approval of minor subdivision granted to CLIFFORD SEMMLER is hereby appealed on the grounds setforth in this Notice of Appeal. Condition 114., as added on January 16, 1980, requires a soils engin- eering geological investigation of proposed Parcel B. Such an investigation, limited to Parcel B only, is inadequate to protect the rights of appellants_ A previous application by Mr. Semmler to subdivide the same parcel was denied by San Mateo County due to the history of drainage problems and earth movement in this immed- iate area. The document entitled "Minimum Standards for Geotechnical Reports" dated February, 1977 and published by the County, reads in part: as follows (Section A -page 1-4th paragraph): "Where soil and/or geologic hazards are identified on or near the site, approval may be withheld pending engineering and geologic studies to more adequately define the Zone of Hazard. These studies and resulting recommendations for the mitigation of such hazards will be the responsibility of the applicant and will be reviewed by the County." The applicant in this case has been directed only to provide an ir,- vestigation of Parcel B (the proposed subdivision parcel), whereas the applicant should be required to provide a study of the "Zone of Hazard", which includes properties c-,,med by appellants. SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1981 At a minimum, any approval should require that applicant install a subsurface storm drain to E1 Prado Road and further to adequately guarantee the continued maintenance of said drain. Furthermore, applicant should be required to replace any existing surface drain that would have to be removed in order to install the subsurface drain facility. Applicant should also be required to guarantee continuing maintenance of existing and new surface drains. The history of the Zone of Hazard indicates that the critical danger is not to the proposed subdivision parcel, but rather to the down- hill parcels. A technical investigation of the subdivision parcel is, therefore, inadequate to reveal the conditions which must be dealt with. Accordingly appellants request that the San Mateo County Planning Commission refer this matter back to the Zoning Hazard Officer for delineation of appropriate conditions consistent with the above. , 1 , 2� EM PR.b.Fb Rn ��+-+N6rC ME G1V Z7�-j n � � � 3 v f� •�ce� Vic//'ate �fi fz :.. L736 i>v X J\/ jIF J\/10 J� A �, I D+ I J\/I FROM: JOHli A. BRUNING, COUjij-y CL SAIT MATEO COUNTY 1965 17, - TO: Reir_o Liukkonen, Planning Director February - DATE SUBJxT: appeal by Clifford M. Semmler from denial of application for resubdivision (vicinity of Canyon. Terrace) By motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board of Supervisors at its February 16 meeting upheld the action of the Planning Commission in denying the above application, --_ denied the application, and requested the Clerk to forward Mr. Semmler excerpt from the minutes showing the Board's action (as soon as such minutes have been approved). Very truly yours, JOHN A. BRUNING, Clerk of the Board By 31e-�,z Deputy JarKt&ry 29, 1 %5 Board of Supervisors Hall of Justice Redwood City, California Gent i epm n : The Semler Resubdivision ME-2749) was referred by the Planning Staff to "e Planning Commission for its consideration at the regular meeting of January 27, 1965. The Planning Co mission, by majority vote, disc proved the Smiler Resubdivislon an the following grounds:®" 1. The rear parcel would not have direct access to a street. The creation of a panhandle lot is out of character wltb other parcels in the i =*d i ate area. This property Is very nearly completely surrounded by the City of Burlingame. 2. The panhandle access would require fill and would be a moderately steep drivoaay. 3. Fire protection services are provided by the State Division of Forestry, which are considered inadequate for an Intensively developed urban residtntail area. The decision of the Planning Co=ission has been appealed by Mr. Seamier. A copy of the proposed resubdivision map Is enclosed. Very tru I y yours, Rotrro Llukkcnyen Planning Cirec-tc- RL/ep Encl. 17 TL? MINUTES SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NO. 574 JANUARY 27, 1965 Commissioners Present: Cohen,,Hirschey, Levy, McCahon, Snyder Advisory Members Present: Gawthrop, Howell Staff Members Present: Liukkonen, McCavitt, Johnson, Angus, Shrieve Note: A tape recording of testimony submitted on all matters at this hearing is on file in the office of the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Hirschey opened the meeting in the place of Chairman Snyder who was delayed. Approval of Minutes: The Chair directed that consideration of the minutes of January 13, 1965, be tabled until later in the meeting. RESUBDIVISION - X6E-2749 - SEMMLER - Review by Planning Commission Mr. Johnson located the subject property on a map. He reported that the proposal was for a panhandle lot among conventional subdivisions, and the staff felt that such a proposal involved a matter of policy. Mr. Johnson read a letter from the City of Hillsborough to the effect that the city could not supply water or other services and that no new lots should be created until fire pro- tection was available. Mr. Johnson read a letter from the City of Burlingame to the effect that water and sewage were available, that the parcels met the minimum lot size required by the City of Burlingame, and that if the property were within the City of Burlingame, that City would insist upon necessary storm drainage facilities to avoid damage from erosion to nearby lots. (Chairman Snyder arrived at this point). Mr. Semmler stated that he had owned the property for 8 years, and, subsequently, the adjacent property had been subdivided with the homes which obstructed his view. He wanted ito put his own home on the newly created lot to obtain a better view. He has been advised that the proposed lot is a good building site and that the layout would not be unusual for the area. He stated that the City of Burlingame would allow the proposed resubdivision or would be willing to annex the property. He felt that he had met all of the County standards inasmuch as one of the lots would be over 10,000 square feet and the other would be about 23,C00 square feet. He cited an example of a nearby resubdivision in the City of Burlingame which he felt was quite similar to his proposal. He further stated that the house would be sited on a new lot so that water would drain onto the driveway into a catch basin and then into a natural ravine. A discussion followed on the driveway layout and grade. 1 l .. 1 .. UJ' .,. the Moved �y CommlSSiGn2r Levy ta�1 ;le re5u;`l1SIGn :e en;ed �eCavSe aI, Of 9 i0 1 1' 5 ;n �e Burlingame Hills area were 25,000 square feet or better, this resubdivision would establish a precedent to allow panhandle lots in the area, bringing in other requests to build on very steep terrain with the possible dangers of erosion, the subject property does not front on two streets, and is not designed to provide two lots. San Mateo County Planning Commission - Meeting of January 27, 1965 Page 2 (At this time Commissioner Snyder took the Chair) Commissioner Hirschey seconded the motion. Commissioners Levy and Hirschey voted Yes; Commissioners Cohen and McCahon voted No. Chairman Snyder was unable to vote at this time because he had arrived after the hearing had started. The motion did not carry. Mr. Gawthrop suggested that the hearing be reopened so that Chairman Snyder could hear the staff report and any previous evidence that had been presented. (Commissioner Hirschey took the Chair). Mr. Johnson gave the staff report and located the subject property on the map. He ex- plained that the staff had denied the request for resubdivision with a panhandle design because there was no other similar resubdivision in the immediate area. He read the letter from the City of Hillsborough and the letter from the City of Burlingame. He pointed out that the building site was on a gentle slope but that access was on a fairly steep slope. Mr. Semmler stated that he had purchased the property several years ago because division of nearby land and the siting of buildings on that land had blocked his view. He had called in experts to determine if division of his property was feasible and had been informed that division was feasible. He discussed plans for handling the drainage problem, explained his plan to place his own homesite on the larger site, and cited examples of other resubdivisions in the area. A discussion followed on the lot dimensions, of frontage and dimensions of adjoining lots. Mr. Semmler stated that adjoining lots are around 10,000 square feet; the City of Burlingame would allow the proposed resubdivision if the property were within that jurisdiction. Chairman Snyder stated that the property appeared to be an unusual lot for the area. Commissioner Levy stated that nearby lots are very steep, although not necessarily on the subject street. He expressed his concern that the subject lot would need a driveway access of 12 to 18 percent, that many other requests might come in for panhandle lots on steep terrain where such lots were not designed for resubdivision, and the drainage problems would result in damage to other property. Commissioner Cohen stated that he felt in this particular case where there were 23,000 square feet available for a building site, proper drainage and other facilities could be provided, and minimum lot sizes met, then the only problem was one of panhandle access. He felt that because the proposed resubdivision presents no problem to adjacent lots it should not be denied. Commissioner Levy expressed his concern with the problem of giving fire protection down an 18% grade. Mr. Semmler noted that lots across the street are in a steeper, more difficult terrain. Mr. Liukkonen pointed out that the subject property was dependent upon the State Division of Forestry for fire protection and that there were no fire requirements which the Com- mission could impose. Commissioner Levy moved that the resubdivision be denied. (Commissioner Snyder took the Chair). Commissioner Hirschey seconded The motion,. Cow issioners Hirschey, Levy and Snyder voted Yes. Commissioners Cohen and M -ahon voted No. The motion to deny carried three to two. Commissioner Snyder advised Mr. Semmier of his rigit to appeal to the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Gawthrop advised him to file the appeal with the Planning Commission so that they could forward his material to the Board of Supervisors.