HomeMy WebLinkAbout1304 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report, < <a .
� ��' P.C. 3/27/89
Item # 8
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNER
SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 5' HIGH FENCE ON A CORNER
LOT AT 1304 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Kristine and James Cannon are requesting a fence exception iri
order to construct a 5' high fence along the front and side of
their property at 1304 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. A fence
exception is required for the portion of the fence which extends
for 15' in each direction from the external corner of the lot,
because 3' is the maximum fence height allowed in this area (Code
Section 25.78.040).
The applicants are proposing to place this fence approximately
l� outside the property line on the Bernal side of the lot and
approximately 5' outside the property line on the Easton side of
the property. An encroachment permit from the City Council is
required in order to place the fence on city property. The
requested fence exception is for the height of the fence only.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The Chief Building
Inspector ( February 23, 1989 memo) and the Fire Marshal
(February 22, 1989 memo) had no comments. The City Engineer
(March 7, 1989 memo) notes that due to the large planting strip
on Easton Drive, he supports this fence request as long as an
encroachment permit is received from the City Council for the
fence; if Easton Drive is ever widened this fence exception will
be voided ; the fence shall have a"corner cut-off" measured at
12� from the line of intersection of the back of the two
sidewalks .(approximately as shown on the plans where the fence is
squared off at the corner); and all shrubs and bushes in the
"corner cut-off" area shall have a height not greater than 3'.
AQ,plicant�s Letter
In their letter date stamped February 16, 1989 the applicants
explain that the project involves replacing an existing 3' high
wooden fence with a 5' high black mesh cyclone fence on the
Easton and Bernal sides of the property. This fence will create
a hedge like effect with the existing oleanders and is requested
in order to provide privacy in the garden area. The new fence
will be set one foot on the inside of the area where the existing
fence is placed both on the Bernal and Easton sides of the
property. The applicants feel that this fence request is
justified due to the large setback on Easton Drive. The proposed
fence will be setback approximately 23' from back of curb on the
Easton side and 10' from back of curb on the Bernal side. No
public hazard will be created by this new fence because the angle
of the intersection is such that it allows clear vision of Easton
Drive and therefore will not hamper drivers' vision.
-continued-
-2-
The applicants also discuss the fact that the corner of Bernal
and Easton is a busy intersection for both pedestrian and vehicle
travel and they would like to have more privacy in order to use
their garden more. The existing oleanders on the inside of the
existing fence grow very quickly and have to be constantly cut
back. By replacing the 3' high fence with a 5' high fence they
would be able to create a hedge like effect which will make
maintenance of the oleanders easier as a sheared hedge. In
addition, the eucalyptus tree on the Easton side of the property
drops heavy branches and has over the years damaged the existing
fence a number of times. A cyclone mesh fence will be better
able to withstand falling branches. Having a 5' high fence all
along the property will give a more uniform appearance than
having a portion of the fence stepped down to 3'. On their plans
the applicants have included an elevation of what the fence would
look like if it were stepped down to 3' as required by code. In
addition they note that a 3' high fence would not be high enough
to allow them to make a hedge out of it and would create a
different appearance from the rest of the fence.
Study Ouestions
At the study meeting on March 13, 1989 the Planning Commission
requested a letter from the applicants explaining why the fence
is to be placed on the outside of their property line (P.C.
minutes 3/13/89). In their letter dated March 17, 1989 the
applicants explain that they are requesting to place the fence
outside their property line in order to create a hedge with the
existing oleanders which have been growing on the inside of the
present fence for the past 18 years. Because oleanders have
branches which grow outward from the base of the trunk, if they
are not held back by a fence they tend to spread and fall out
onto the sidewalk and obstruct pedestrians. If the fence was
placed on their property it would be behind the oleanders and
would have.no effect in creating a hedge. They understand that
the city property line is 3' to 5-1/2 � inside the proposed fence
and they plan on maintaining that area as they have done in the
past, since this area is on the inside of the existing fence.
The location and height of the proposed fence will allow them to
train the oleanders into a hedge. The fence will also allow them
to keep back the part of the oleanders which is on city property
and borders the sidewalk. If in the future the City needs that
property, they will gladly give it up.
Findinas for a Fence Exception
In order to grant a Fence Exception the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code
Section 25.78.050 1-4):
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.
-continued-
-3-
Plannina Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing regarding
the height of the proposed fence. Affirmative action should be
taken by resolution and findings should be made. At the public
hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the fence shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
February 16, 1989 except that an encroachment permit shall
be obtained from the City Council before the fence may be
place on the outside of the property line; and
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 7, 1989
memo shall be met;
C,� ���1Gz�'�
Adriana Garefalos
Planner
cc: Kristine and James Cannon
PROJECT APPLICATION ��� "T" °�
1304 BERNAL AVENUE
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLJNGAME project address
�b� � �,'� project name - if any
Application received ( 2-16-89 )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Kri sti ne and James Cannon 343-4377
name telephone no.
1304 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
contact person, if differen
epnone no.��� �
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION °1i�''�'�4J )
✓
Specia.l Perr�it ( ) Variance* ( ) Cone+ominium Perr!it ( ) Other Fence Exception
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FENCE EXCEPTION for a 5' hi h fence on the portion of the
�p�r�y which extends for 15' in each direction from the
external corner of the lot where 3' is the maximum height
allowed for a fence. This fence will be 1' to 5' on the
O1"�ide of the property lines and will require an encroachment
permit from the City Council in order to be placed on city
propertv.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.78.040 ) (
n. PROPERTY IDE(•ITIFICATION
� 026-063-140 ) ( 22 ) ( 43
APN lot no. block no.
( R-1 ) ( 6,800±
zoning district land area, square feet
James W. Jr. & Kristine Cannon
land owner's name
Reauire�
(3��) ( n o )
(��) (no)
( Easton Addition No. 3
subdivision name
1304 Bernal Avenue
address
Burlingame. CA 94010
Date received city zip code
( - ) Proof of ownershio
( - ) Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTIPJG SITE CONDITIONS
3' hiqh wooden fence approximately 4' to 6' outside property
lines on the Bernal Avenue and Easton Drive sides of this
Reouired
(yes ) ��
(}x�) (no)
(yes ) ��
(I�es) (n�)
(other)
Date received
(2-16-89 )
�2-16-89
(2-16-89
Site plan showino: propert,y lines; public sidewali;s and
curbs; all str4ctures and improvements;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by tyoe of usc�`on each floor plan.
Euilding elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
*Land use classifications are: residential (shoiv u dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT P�np�cq� FENCE ONLY
Proposed c^nst•ruction, "elovr orade ( - SF) Second floor• ( - SF)
gro�s floor area First floor ( - SF) Third floor ( _ c��
Pro.ject Co��
Prr,�� ;al P,equi r�men�
Front sethack
Side setback
Side y�rci
�'rlY' VdY'(.i � �
�f'OjE�Ct Code
Proposal Requirement
Lct covera,�e
�ui Irlin� hei�ht �
Lardscaned area �
� �
;,,, �
,jtn i)kC'.SI1�Il:C`_. � r.,..
�
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (cantinued)
EXISTING IPl 2 YEARS IM 5 YEARS
after after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PP1 8-5 5 PM
Full tine emnlo.yees on site
Part tir�e employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trin ends to/from site'`
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
"Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent lot�; this
to the General Plan.
Required Date received
(.�) (�o) ( - )
(.�s) (no) ( - )
use conforms
Location plan of adjacent properties.
Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firr.is ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee 5 1 5. (X)
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts 3 40 () Project Assessment S 25 (x j
Variance/other districts � 75 () veoative Declaration S 25
Condominium Permit $ 50 O EIR/City & consultant fees S O
TOTAL FEES � 4� . �� RECEI PT N0. 4g99 Recei ved by B• W•
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
/�
Signature C���!'J Dat "�G�• /ai7 /�1
Aoplicant -
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a revie��a of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
19 ,
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Categorically exempt, reference CEQA
—_ Code Section 15303 (e), construction of
fences
- ��� c� m�-�_�,
ig ture f Processing Official ' 1� Daie Signed
Unless �onealed within 10 days hereof tne r�ate oosted, the deterriination shall be final.
DECL^iRATIO"d OF POSTI�16 Dai:e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perj�iry tnat T ar� City Clerl; of the City of 6urlingame and that
I �osted a true copy of the above �Jegati��e �eclar�tion aL- the City Hall of said City near
the doors to ili� Council Chariber•s.
xecuted at ;urlinqame, California on
Apoeal�ci: ( )Yes ( );!o
19
„�;�DITI! �;. ; ^�Lf��TTI, CITY rLERK. CIT` �U'?L.''�Gr.'1E
STAFF REUIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer ( 2-21-89 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( _ ) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOP! MEASUP,ES
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
Concerns Mitigation Measures
3.
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comoleted
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
�FP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR acce�ted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4. APPLICATIOPJ STATUS Date first received ( 2-16-89 )
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 3-13-89 )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( )
Date staff report mailed aoplicant (3�:2 Z�,�y) Date Commission hearing (3/.L7 13� )
Application approved (�Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no)
Date Council hearing ( ) Aoolication aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
Vti1�� �Inr��n �s�- _ , � g�
signed date
CEQA REQUIRE�1E^1TS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Categori cal ly exempt
�2EC�1�'VE�
F�B �. � �4�� Application for variance - fence height. Cannon
'� ' 1304 Bernal Ave.
CITYOFE3URL! �i:;,:bS
�, � • r�mv: : �, „_.
The project is to replace an existing 3 ft. wooden fence with a 5 ft.
black mesh cyclone fence on Easton and Bernal sides of our yard.
The purpose of the fence is to establish privacy in a garden by creating
a hedge with existing oleanders and the new fence.
'I`he fence ordinance allows a corner lot to have only a 3 ft. fence for
15 ft. in either direction.
We are asking for a variance because of the following exceptiional
ci rcuristances :
l. The fence set back from Easton curb is already 22 ft. 'I`hat is
considerably more setback than a normal parking strip width, and most corners.
The fence is now setback 9 ft. from Bernal. The new fence would be set back
approximately 1 more foot on both sides.
2. No public hazard would be created by a 5 ft fence or hedge. The angle
of the intersection at Bernal and Easton allows clear vision of Easton Dr.
regardless of shrubs or fences on our lot because the line on the street
at the stop sign is in front of the fence line. Driver's view is not impeded
Additional information:
Bernal and Easton corner is a busy one for both foot and car traffic.
We would like to have more use of our garden by creating some privacy.
The oleander which are inside the fence bordering our property are over
20 years old. They are vigorous growers, using very little water.
Each year we find that the branches have grown out onto the narrow side-
t,ralk and need to }�e cut back to allow pedestrians comfortable access.
Replacing a 3' wooden fence with 5' mesh fence would allow the oleander
leaves to grow through but keep branches in the yard. It should also
be easier to maintain as a sheared hedge.
A city owned eucalyptus tree is on the fence line in the middle of Easton
side. Each year this tree drops heavy k�ranches, due to a�e and wind.
Our �aooden fence has been repeatedly broken by the branches. A fence of
cyclone mesh would be better able to withstand the weight of falling branches.
Having a 5' fence all around the yard would give a uniform look to the
property. A 3' fence for 15' in either direction would not alloti,r these
30' to be maintained as a hedge, thus creating a different l�ind of look,
much less neat in appearance.
'I`he existing fence encloses a holly tree which is on the corner of the lot.
The �roposed fence would not come to the corner, but rather cut at an an�le
behind the tree leaving that corner outside the fence. This ��rill be more
aesthetically pleasing.
'I`he proposed fence does not affect either neighbor's property adversely.
DATE : � � • Z. � �
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER �-°=
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTQR OF PARKS
FROM: PL.ANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: 3Q �'�;1-Q� -- eN(,Q ,G k 'O
Gt. S` � �t CS� D �C C.c91 .�O�
r,�1 i�o� � r �� S� m o�-�l r,,�v ,C�z�. g�.�-
An applicat�on has been received for the above project for review� the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S
at their_��iG� ��� �� meeting. We would appreciate ha '
your comments by ��° �j • G� r%� �Q �
Thank you.
����� C�L.�'��r•./IC ,�/l
,!��,��'
�
� I�
�
----.
DATE :�.� • � � '�
—T---- _/
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING� r�`' ECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL V
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
�
3v �-�
� � / �
0
nC�Q �
' �O
- - C� �d�
. ��`�-- `� , I` S �-�i..� rii �C'r /yr,v �..�' q �.�'-
An application has been received for the above project for review� the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S �
at their /�'l� !� ��meeting. We would appreciate ha '
your comments by F�° �j • � �%� �q �
Thank you.
-� :
�� � �
� G
�� :
u
fi�- ���zs��
N� ��,r�f,�; s
2 - 22- ��
----� p
DATE: � � . � � � �
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER V
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTME�JT
S U BJ EC T: ����,.,,�� a;�„�
C�� �
L! �
�
nc� � X
' 'o
1 l - � �. �61 �d �
���'�C- `� 1� S� t'y1 a'',Yr r� �.�['Q ��''
An application has been received for the above "
project for review b the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S .
at their l�l�'t /� !� meeting. We would appreciate ha '
your commen ts by �e b. �. �', �q�
Thank you.
^ `
.
/v;
,
%�-�,, ,� ��'r� ��'�� ✓
� � ��
��� �� 1��� ����� � ��� ��
�
G
�j ,�-,�7'� %'' �c�d� s`'`��p�'��/ � � 7�l/t�<.Z.. .r
Ly�?"-'�u �/ q ,,�
C.% ��i��' ����/!-B�"� Q G��l�''s?T'�!'� �%�,c�/- �,� `i,�%�-tZdGti�'� � �� �
��,�, �� /� o �� �� r�r���'zd;' a �'�� 6�-�' �� �a
.`� / , �
��l �.iJ r,�-�� C. �i�%��'t�,t�//�?�a� �'-d �`i�..✓ .� _
U %�Z1�� i �'1 �j�J�'�� /'�l �v/ ��G�,c-c. /�G��/ i"P�G�t l� �
lY�,� 1D'✓
� ��G���x��m��7'� � ��-���-�.e..�� ��
,� ,
1i-� � -t��.��'���' � � ����z �-�i
� ��f�/' :, �,,/j
O3 ��►��� ��f ,b�o� � � � �f -�o��� C°��D�� ��� ,��-�" �-�'
T � � ' �'
�t �-- �� G���'�,�i- ��s-� 3 �i?� �a�� ��'��-�y 3 -�s vk�
C7� ��i-v�� � ��� L�e G1r-�/1s�q' ��� %�` � '� ' f ��.e�•F �
`bt� lr1� ����� � � 3 `���j�'�� �=��r ,>
�i�%��C- �GG �JB� i ,
7
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 13, 1989
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, March 13, 1989 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
MINUTES
Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs
None
Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill
Reilly, Fire Marshal
- The minutes of the February 27, 1989 meeting were
approved with the following correction: Item #8,
page 5, first paragraph, add "motion was seconded
by C. Harrison".
AGENDA -
ITEMS FOR STUDY
Order of the agenda approved.
1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1304 BERNAL AVENUE ZONED R-1
Request: explanation from applicant regarding why they need an.
encroachment permit, why not put the fence on applicant�s property.
Item set for public hearing March 27, 1989.
2. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1536 VANCOWER AVENUE ZONED R-1
Requests: further explanation of why a building permit was issued
for this 6' fence over a 4� retaining wall; is this fence on
property line; explanation of how a fence is measured; number of
feet of soil taken out and number of feet to be put back in;
clarification of fence along rear property line. Item set for
public hearing March 27, 1989.
3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD AND
OPERATE A GROCERY STORE - 814 EDGEHILL DRIVE ZONED C-2
Requests: is it easier to get in on the Edgehill side of the
property; explain parking; could this site be used for auto repair;
will loading be on site and off site; will a loading zone on the
street be reguested. Item set for public hearing March 27, 1989.
R�C�IVED
March 17, 1989
Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
Planning Department, City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010
MAR � 01989
�� q ANNING OEPTME
Dear Commissioners and Planning Staff,
At your study session last week a question was raised regarding the
reason for an encroachment permit, If I understand correctly the question
was as to why the fence is to be located outside our property and what
problems would occur were it inside our property line.
From Meg Monroe I understand that the fence varience is the first
step to be addressed, and by the Planning Commission. If approved, our
application for encroachment permit will be reviewed by City Council,
The reason for fence variance is explained in the letter which I
attached to the permit application.
The reason for an encroachment permit is because we want to include
in our yard the oleanders which have been growing on our property for at
least 25 years, and have been included inside the existing fence for at
least the 18 years that we have been living there. Basically, we want to
replace the fence with a new one, and keep the border of oleanders.
Oleanders have long sturdy branches growing outward from the base of
the trunk. If they are not held back by a fence they tend to spread and
fall out onto the sidewalk causing obstruction for pedestrians.
If we were to place the fence on our property line it would be behind
the oleanders and actually not of any use in cresting a hedge. The part of
the oleanders that needs keeping back is the part that borders
the sidewalk, on city property.
We realize the city property line is 3' - 5�' inside our y.ard (depending
on side of the lot), but we plan to maintsin that property, as we have in
the past. The new fence will enable us to train the oleanders into a hedge.
If at some time in the future the City needs that property we will gladly
acquiesce.
I will be at the Planning Commission meeting on March 27 when you next
discuss and vote on our fence variance, and I will be happy to answer any
questions regarding this project. I will have some photographs with me
of the site, the oleanders, the lot and the existing fence.
If you have other questions or concerns before that, please let me �now.
Sincerely,
�
4 � �,
> -�-�C-t. ��/
Kristine Cannon
1304 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA. 940].0
343-4377 home
697-3344 work
, � � � �� � , .s:a�r�..�� � < � � , F r' + �
� � '!�% , � �'+ t� � ' ^ti!. ,� � a !t •� � _
�''`���"T � ' � ". � r ��: •," � .
C` � . ' � �i '* f`� �� '�"'�� + �
�. , • �''''���,•� . � i' . i �, • �i� �'"�� �� � l � �, ,
—�.+� . .-r,l Y� �r � � �� ,�• � .
w _ —� ' � , . _ � Y - , _
. � + �
L � .����Yt � �- _.� ..��� 1
�'^,. • T _ ,� � , � .. - . .� • ! ,
� - ��t' 1 f �' ' � _ 7 . ' ..` �_. � . � . '7�
'�Z�O.�,. ''���.� � :�r� � '�� . ��
.` + . � f
'� � .. �.,' � • `+.. • . } :� '��� , �. � -�t�' -
. • ' _.....�� ,.�� � �r�. � r * ' - —
l . � , T � ,a � � �•. —
i �!� � � � ,, �� ' . �"' .i�M ,
�
�, t � •"p� ( . F-��:;�� 1 � ' a— «�
t ♦ � ��
� � ,� � � �\'
�' � � ��. � ...4� . _ -� - � �, ....,,r � -`�
: �► ,.::.. ' �-� :..� � �'� �'�`:�-.� �■
,� . v«,.�.�:�� ,�
!" ^ � .,�. 'e i �h� ` �.",1�.► ' � ,«�
.`_�.+�rw��' � �� :- t y . � ... +� ,
ii ����� � . x w�'""�;.�„_ ' +�?:! '
. ,
� � � � , t . �,_� � � . � ►
� � r _ ; * � ' "'�'�.� ; ,�, � y.
�. . r .: � - . , Vi
�. - !� ` -�. �
A 'XJ� i r�^�'' "'a , , , . . ,
. � s � . � '„"'�" N J 'h :
�` � � � � � ..
I . . \ R " , ��
� {�_ 1�/�� � 'f� � 1
• � '�C .- �.y .,. � � •� r �
� �f�' `"�_` r { , , � r
� .w f �~ W .
� � �� � �t •4 _ � �. - I� r �
�:`�'� � • � y � �..^ ��,
,_
.� � �.,..,. ' .';.
— �. ,. . :�-�� �,.
� ,r. ,. �' .: � o >,
,
�� �
- M� �. w��' r'i IU1 1�� j _� . o C.-.
�� � �, •. � � / P �
i t ; • V � �
� � r � - � . . �, ���1; � ,` .
i � �...-_ , � ,,, ''�'� �� ; •- � . ,
, --�•w.�,�'� ��1t i1, - �;�p p�p #a�x � f, .
�' } � �„ � , , • ' ��'. �I � � � : ' '
��+ m � {908 ;�, p �,�
s �* �
� � - ` "W ---�,r ' -."cys� ai� , .f
�::a.� , � ` -�.. '�` .!!�r � �J� y' : -
•a �� �„"' f P �F��' �� �'�i:l�` • �t•._
��n♦ � ._ "'�''�'t•`� �T'....:'J"+' ""�^. Iq03��'t - r .
� � � � - `� � � �q�' N �� -
� ,y�,
` � �' N
. �� � � J�. �s.�
. �
�� �. /l0�' 7 1 ` r:�• �� `*` i �'
i�°$ �� �' • f
� � .�,. . r • �, . . • �► �
..._. � . 'O t `:`� _ _�''�'� .,�,,� ' .
4 � :t o� �E� - -'"�"'�..�
� ••�� t' � ' �'o � \ _..� � � .
" w
.. � , � , _ `t
. - >- ` � '�,
�
� ,9�
. � �'
, ` ��j., .� ..
r ' �I�r7�
i %��
i it
l�j � "'�' '� -" .�`.�t �
2� � cc . � � � .
� � i ., ^ � y �i ; : '; ` . ►� *
� 1 � .� .j-. N '� .� �.� _�*^
�• w
.�. ,. � � r M i
�i • ' ,
. �,� . ,, a� w
. , � •a r
, S
. ��� � � ~ � � �
i
���r � " . ,� � ' , ��
\�;��'� .%
9 wno.i�nc�.
� hr �i��r uf �uriirtg�znr
SAN MATEO GOUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURUNGAME,CALIFORNIA g4plp rEL�'al5) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
Fence Exception
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIUEN that Monday, the 27th day of March, 1989 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
d pUb11C hearing 011 thE application to construct a fence above the maximum height
(5'-0" pro.�osed, �'-••0" al�lowed) at the corner of the lot within the city right of way
at.1304 Bernal Ave. Zoned R-1.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLAN�IER
March 17, 1989
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLVED
Burlingame that:
RESOLUTION APPROVING FENCE �XCEPTION
by the Planning Commission of the City of
WHEREAS, application has been made for a fence exception for
a 5' high fence where 3' is the maximur�allowed
a t 1304 Bernal Avenue
� 1APN 026-063-140 �
and �
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on �rch 27, � lggg� at wh.ich time it reviewed
and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this
Planning Commission that said fence exception is approved, subject
to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San
Mateo.
RUTH E. JACOBS
CHAIRMAN
I, MIKE ELLIS, Secretary of the Planning Commission of
the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 27th day of rsarch,
1989 by the following vote: �
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
MIKE ELLIS
SECRETARY
DATE :��� � �. �
�
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�'
SUBJECT: ��Q � �,.�,.�{ �-- �'/�,� �x '�
t'^.-�._ SL � ►� CS� d ci �.81 4�"''
r �
���`�-- `�v ' f� 5 � �'yi �r r�,t� �c' Q �,�-
An application has been received for the above project for review� the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S �
at tfieir ��'t /�7 l���meeting. We would appreciate ha '
your comments hv �e+�j• 'c_._'�'�� �q�
Thank you.
0
� 7 �;�
^ .
�v , ��d�-���:�%
/ .
�� �� ��/�p-��'i� ��
� >�P !u� o�/ �� c� �'�- L� � � ��,-Z
�E�� � -
� �- f� ,-� �� s�.�o�-� �' � �'`/�<,� � ��
u�'�'� _ �` � �, � ��' �, � ,
C% �E?��'"� �J�/.�8�`c 4 G��i''�^ G',.�iT=�7�/ILeC�d�v����-
e � P-,� L r �%'!/�C ��GL%� /� T�f�
�� �� /��nl � � !r� �evf' �`' � �
.
�►�:�l�J�� C��Jn�,�%/�? �d ��..✓.� _
U /�r� l rl ���7'�e7 �'��' /��c�/ ���''`'t /ti�l"C',�� � ,
/�:� / �/ '�+�'�✓ e r � � "'���� c
� ��G�iz���� f 7�� y �� �
� c � ��
h� � ������������ � �,
��f,b�o,�o � � � `�-�0�� ��`o��� ,�/ -���;
0 ���° T - � ,� � -� �
a ������-�� 3 �� �1 ��� ��y .�
C�% �G�� �� �e �.��-�� ��� �f � � -���d� ���6�
�b� ����.�4� � �' 3 '��r� ��-�r
�r�'�P�� �
TO:
� CITY
�� O�
BURLINGAME
� �, .. STAFF REPORT
a.,
HONORABLE MAYOR AND .ITY .O N IL SUBMITTED
BY
�ATE: MARCH 28. 1989
APPROVED
FRonn: PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING �i eY
��
AGENDA 7 �`
ITGM st
""T� 4/3/89
D A T E'.
� �
S�B,E�T: SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A 5.0 FOOT�/TALL CYCLONE FENCE WHICH
ENCROACHES 1.0 FOOT INTO THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY ON BERNAL AVENUE AND
5.0 FEET INTO THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY ON EASTON DRIVE - 1304 BERNAL
Recommendation: That Council approve this Special Encroachment Permit
request provided that no appeals are received on the fence height
exception granted by the Planning Commission. Standard permit conditions
of removal if it is not maintained or is in the way of future work in the
street right-of-way will be included in the permit.
Background: The attached permit application is to remove an existing
three foot tall wooden fence and replace it with a 5.0 foot tall cyclone
fence. Staff has reviewed the site, contacted P.G.& E. for their
facility locations and has researched the existing utilities. No
conflicts were encountered.
The applicant was granted an exception to exceed the permitted fence
height (3') on a corner lot at the March 27th Planning Commission
meeting. Because of the large setback to sidewalk on Easton Drive, the
5' fencing, as approved by the Planning Commission, does not extend into
the vehicle and pedestrian visibility needs at this intersection.
Exhibits: Permit Application; Permit and Sketch (to be attached to
recorded permit)
:�; � ��
Phil p B. M n ghan
djm
cc: City Clerk/City Attorney
Mr. & Mrs. J. Cannon
�It�' CIt�� uf ��u liitu�iitr
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY MA�L - SOI PRIMROSE R04D
BURLINdAME, CALIFOqN1A 94010
� � '�1 � M �
� �'►+ : S' : 1,1
TEL:(416) 942-aQ�l
A.P. No. 0�6 - OE.� - /�D
Address of Proposed Encroachment �'30L� fjprnal
Avenue Bur] inQa: +�
Lot No. _2� Block No. 43 Subdivision Easton Additi.on # 3
OW�er �B� Mrc T f annnri Phone 343 - 4377
Address ��O[1 �r��;�� q�, r�P Bt�rl i ng�me Best Time t0 Cal 1�enin�s
Descri be Encroachment Rxi st'i np n� w�lich is to be repla�ed is �urrently 2� ir�to City
easement on Berria7 Ave. and 7.5' into City easement on Easton Drive. '
Give Redsons for Request Tfle ericroactlment is requested to install riew chair� liril� fer��e ir�
same lo�:atior� arid �sl�tion as existir�g feri�e. 111is will lceep yard and existirig lar�ds�ape
ir� tact.
NOTE: Additional City Encroachment Permit fee and.bond required for any constructio�.
or other activity requiring additional inspection services. .
Date 1-23-89
Below This Line is for City Use On1Y
Sidewalk Encroachment �
$50.00 Fee Paid
Signature pa-
0
Si ned�� � � �� ;� �� �
$10.00 fee paid -�.(�f.� ` �«• x` Ref. Ordinance 1053
�-1¢- �'9 effective 1/1/76
Ref, aldg. Permit No9 a re clate chap. 12.10 City Code
signature date
Oate Permit sent to owner '
Date Memo to Mgr. Ddte owner signed:
Date sent to City C erk Date of Council Concur
Date necord Copy to owner Oate of Recording
'Jol. Page
WHEN RECORDED RETURN T0:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME CA. 94010
THIS SPACE FOR COUNTY
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
MARCH 28, 1989
(Date)
TO:
MR. & MRS. J. CANNON
1304 BERNAL AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
In compliance with your request of JANUARY 23, 1989
and subject to all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set
forth herein, permission is hereby granted to install a 5.0 foot tall
cyclone fence which encroaches 1.0 foot into the Citv ri ht-of-way on
Bernal Avenue and 5.0 feet into the City right-of-way on Easton Drive
The fence shall have a"corner cut-off" measured at 12' from the line
of intersection of the back of the two sidewalks; and all shrubs and
bushes in the "corner cut-off" area shall have a heiqht not qreater
than 3'
at 1304 Bernal Avenue
Lot 22, Block 43, Easton Addition #3
Lot, block and subdivision or legal description)
Assessor's Parcel No.
026-063-140
General Provisions
1. Definition; Revocabilitv.
The term "encroachment" is
used in this permit to mean any structure or object of any kind or
character which is placed in, under, or over, any portion of the
right-of-way of the City of Burlingame. This permit is revocable on
fifteen (15) days notice.
-1-
U �"v
� "0
� �r
�v z
-� "� d
� p
r-
rn