HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/10/1968
- 1: -
E
meet
8 P
..
.. ,
..
..
..
..
..
..
meet
t 19 ,
the. following
,
.,
t,
..
..
MEETING
- 2 -
Variance
attache.d
, in
of C. l.\fslker, to permit construction
structure, the required side yard #128
District.
Ci ty Planner
read the recommendations as made by his office:
by the topography of the
side thereof. The three-
two lots would preclude
with light, ventilation, and
2.
cant
would enable the appli-
westerly property line.
, it is respectfully recommended
the findings embodied in the
R.eport, and approve the
by his
ice, to wit:
circumstances or conditions
tp in the application,
apply generally to land or
nece~lsary' for the preserva-
rights the petitioner.
will not, under the circum-
affect adversely the
working . the neighborhood
will not, under the eircum-
materially detrimental to the
or improvements in said
4. The granting of variance will be in harmony with
,the general e Ordinance..
5. The requested variance is necessary to prevent practical diffi-
culties, unnecessary hardships, and results. inconsistent with
general the Zoning Ordinance..
6. The
subject
the topography of the
westerly side thereof..
the. said lots would preclude
light, ventilat ,
8.
cant
would
westerly
walled swale
10 t . If
, 1
Mr.
1968,
29,
f
the
This
present a
check was made at the site of the
acce.ssory structure is reques
where
does not
It is therefore
to the
City
aF'proved
tad
Mr.. furthe.r
1968, from
interoffice , dated August 23,
A.. Marchi, to wit:
U1
u
Mr.
1968,
., to wit:
, dated August 29,
, this
no recommendations
time.f1
, the. aF'plicant,
. Walker said was
ion might have.
or
on
request,
clos ,
Zlatunich, to
the.
motion was
vote""
..
'"
.,
t
,
t
: None
..
'"
.... 3 ....
.,
,
M.
as made
Mr...
off
..
..
or condi-
,
preserva-
it
..
with
the subject lot
level
n
..
t
,
TV
...
111
.... 5
,
,
mot
vote:
'"
..
,
, Boblitt
..
..
- 4 ....
€8
represent
land,
Burren
San Francisco
ion of an
northeasterly side of
trict, into 10
ite
is,
proposed
ies. most
entwined with the
of a. public
which correctly
. Commis s ion
,
SA-6.
of the State.
Subdivision
does not need the lands
to private
capabil
the exist
orderly procedure.
the tax burden
in South San
nine, single-
face existing
conform to
aceommo-
have
7. According to the instant
on Wexford Avenue
's
,
6
6
2.
1968.
3. The
Commis
t
t Planning
map of the South
The Commission's
reduct size
ially rimental to the
its school children.
was the
,
its
School
Community,
Council on July 1,
Recreat &
Community III
desire
7.
more.
would
5.
from
tion
thereof.
RECOMMENDATION
tee
1.
2.
3.
4 III
- 556 -
, 1
.
sn.
6.
would cons
a chairman
n
,
a 10 foot
a
sanitary
no
t
- 557 -
,
Present for
intendent for
District
applicant were Dro Nielsen, District Super-
South Francisco Unified School Distric!, and
Stanley Haney, also of the School Districto
Dr~ Nielsen took the stand and stated he was representing
Board of Directo~s of the School District and was their officially
designated agento His personal viewpoints on the matters concerned
did nqt need to be shared by some or even all members of said
Boardo authorization could not go beyond that of
exactly the commission given to him by his superiors, the Board
of tae School Districto The Board had given him a specific task~
he had heard and seen many proposals concerning the
originally px-oposed 11 new residential lots, as there were 7 and 4,
6 and 5, etco The Board had only authorized him to advocate the
presently requested and 2 proposal, 9 of the original lots to
become residential lots, while the 2 remaining would be added to
the scnool site at the location of the entrance thereto from Wexford
Avenue~ Dr. Nielsen went through a long list of school sites
within the District where the District had brought great improvements
landscaping, beautification, and o~her forms of utilization,
as parks, playground, sportfield, etc., amoynting to a total cost
of well over a quarter of a million dollars. With this list
he wanted to shew that the District cared in the past, and wanted
to care in future, since many future improvements were still on
the waiting list, wheneverfJ and wherever funds would be availableo
realized that this job was still unfinishe4 and that another
list of unimproved property was still waiting~ Dr~ Nielsen then
the list of still unimproved properties, totalling about
acres, the improvement thereof an even greater amount would be
necessaryo Concerning the Foxridge school site he stated that the
improvement of the lands, presently proposed for sUbdivisiQn, would
be a time off, since no funds were available for this.
Dr~ Nielsen again stated that the District had made very sincere
efforts in the past, and would continue to do so in the future~
further stated, that no matter what his personal view this
matter were, the Board as his superiors had only authorized the
subdivision of 9 and 2 as explained before, where two of the
originally proposed lots would become pa~t and parcel of
school site, Lot No. 10 this proposalo These two lots were on
both sides of the pres~nt entrance and would create a new entrance
of about feet wideQ The lands of these two lots would then
landscaped/I" ettfiperation with the IS ,ark and Recreation
Departmentl~J
Commissioner Lazzari then asked Dr~ Nielsen concerning new
addition at the Spruce Avenue,,,schoolo Dr; Nielsen stated that the
contract would be for 90 dayso ceuld not assure that the con-
tractor would finished by then, but the contract read dayso
Mro Haney added that the new addition would only take up about
5,000 sq. fto, about 1/8 acreg
Commissioner Zlatunich Dr. Nielsen conoerning the 7 and 4
proposi tion that was made at the me~ting," the Commission wi th
the Planning Commission in the past.. Dr. Nielsen stated that
this proportion had been considered at that meeting, as were other
_ E;E;Q _
, 19
6
2.
commission
This was a
never
Commissioner
suggest
as
asked . Nielsen if he would
hoc" commi.ttee. Dr. responded
were willing to sit down to iron matters out
a satisfactory sett of tbe controversy.
to sid down in this or any matter, no le
solution eoulaoe .. If his superiors would commission him
to part in a discussion as th.eir representative h.e would
serve in this eapacit~~ He wanted to on
opposed to any. form of a flat denial
.
use
as the
part
entrance
Way, President the Westborough Home-
soeiat, Mr. to restate th.e proposed
to such an ad hoci:committee. Mr. Pa.ss then read the propos
memoership th.is nine-member committee. .. Toby
concern with this membership, since many of these
opinion whether or against wha.tever
proposal made so .. hims was very much sitt
in such. a committee and the idea of reasoning matters out,
instead of giving no decision at all. far, however, as the
9 2 proposal was concerned felt h.is assoc ion would
be much against would have to request a denial of the
present proposal. Mr. Toby further asked Mr. to the
term and 2ff in connection with. the total of 10 lots
that the term "9 and 2"
residential outside the
to the total of proposed
hand. Nine would be des for residential
by the triet, th.e tenth would then retained
school s . The 2 lots referred to would become
parcel the remaining school site and well at the
thereof~
his
Mr. John F. O'Connor, of 2570 Wexford Avenue, South
a neighbor of school site in quest ,took
stated:
1. That deeis
sion to be wise, when on January 22, 1968 they
application and h.e would urge t'hell to
ion.
wondered whatever
in the two
,
6
as
now
o
n
as
...
- 5
- 4F ...
6
6.
District came
and
When
total
far
s
Also,
..
..
l.
2.
to
3. .
,
.
the
lost con-
the
',t
to
a
.
mot
vote:
..
..
..
..
3
1
one
mot
f
6
vote
..
.
..
,
to
1.
2.
3.
4.
5..
,
mot
1 vote:
:
,
i,
:
two
not
.
- 5 -
6
, 19
lowing
as
19
the
..
..
:
ted
..
..
t
- 5
t 1
6
comments any
the questioning
a roll call vote.
s
,
The mot
vote:
'!I
..
,
,
:
,
or other
., Chairman
the South
68
meet
was
at 9:
t:t:A -