The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1504 Cortez Avenue - Approval Letter%�, � -�v �.�e Lz�� o�.� �uxZia�.��rrr.e SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-SOI PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 August 11, 1987 Gregory and Nancy Sterling 1504 Cortez Avenue Burlingame, C.A 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sterling; P�ANNING DEPARTMEN7 (415)342-8625 We wish to notify you that a minor modification has been granted to your project, a 405 square foot kitchen remodel and family room addition on the ground floor and a 563 square foot second story 2 bedroom/bath addition, at 1504 Cortez Avenue. This action is based on the plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 24, 1987. The minor modification was for exception to the on-site parking requirements of the zoning code and is good only for the project improvements as described in the submitted plans. A building permit is required for any construction in the City of Burlingame. Please contact the Building Department at your earliest convenience. This action of the city is good for one year; a building permit must be issued prior to August 11, 1988 for the construction of this proposal. Do not hesitate to call me or Adriana Garefalos of my office if you have any questions regarding this action. Sincerely yours, ��2�- �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Chief Building Inspector Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 8, Block 52, Easton Addition; APN 026-012-080) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION �UGUST 10, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman ^viomi on Monday, August 10, 1987 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs None Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Ren Musso, Fir2 Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the July 27, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #6 withdrawn by the applicant. approved. CONSENT ITEMS 1. MINOR MODIFICATION - 716 BURLING�ME AVENUE 2. MINOR MODIFICATION - 31 CHANNING ROAD Order of the agenda C. Jacobs called up Items #1 and #2 for full review 31 Channing need the outside stairway. �J�-. MINOR MODIFIC�TION - 1504 CORTEZ AVENUE / 4. MINOR MODIFICATION - 3053 RIVERA DRIVE Request: why does C. S.Graham moved to accept Items #3 and #4, second C. H,Graham, motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote. ITEM FOR �CTION 5. TENT�TIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORT�TION COMPANY AND LANDS OF MUNKDALE - 1616 ROLLINS RO�D Reference agenda memo (8/10/87) with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed this resubdivision of a former railroad right-of-way to combine a portion of it with 1616 Rollins Road property and 3.4 acres of landscape storage in a PG&E and drainage easement area behind 1616 Rollins Road. Staff requested that drainage requirements be considered and the area covered by the 20' wide parcels 47 and 49 be dedicated as a drainage easement to the City of Burlingame and that Parcel 48 provide a 10' minimum weed and debris cleaning easement from Rollins Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes �ugust 10, 1987 Road to Parcels 47 and 49. Staff recommended approval of this tentative and final parcel map with two conditions as listed in the agenda memo. Discussion followed regarding the status of the S.P. property from the Millbrae city limit; CE advised trains were stopped a long time ago, there has been some abandonment, no spur track easement rights are available to properties now. � Commissioner requested a brief discussion of abandonment actions be included in any future staff reports for this area. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Louis �rata, civil engineer, representing Steve Munkdale, applicant, stated they were aware of the suggested conditions of approval and were opposed to them. With regard to the easement for drainage purnoses on Parcels 47 and 49, S.P, will not sign a map for a blanket easement. When Munkdale developed the area in the rear underneath the towers in accordance with the conditions of approval at that time he extended all the known pipes of all adjoining properties on the PG&E easement across the PG&E easement he was using for storing plant materials. These pipes crossed S.P. land without permission of S.P, with one exception, the city has a legal arrangement for crossing S.P, land; they felt this should satisfy the drainage requirements of Rollins Road properties across Parcels 47 and 49. Regarding the weed abatement easement, it would seem Munkdale is being told he should put in an easement for all other properties; they could go along their own properties for weed abatement in the area behind, why go to Munkdale's property which could be four or five parcels away; if there is a weed problem why can't S.P, cross property adjacent to the problem. Responding to Commission question, CE noted Parcels 47 and 49 are now two very long, narrow lots which will be kept clean when purchased by someone in the future; his concern is temporary maintenance; if any of the properties are sold separately, then access to the remnants of S.P. land may be a problem. Tom Chakos, 1600 Rollins Road, advised he wanted to buy the piece of land behind his property but had difficulty communicating with S.P.; he saw no problem if S.P, sold that land to each adjacent property owner, then there would be no need for an easement, but if the entire parcels were sold to someone else then there would be a need for access since 47 and 49 have no street frontage. Regarding any indication of the future for this S.P, land, CE stated that as an absentee landowner S.P, is doing its best to sell all the land off. Steve Munkdale, applicant, commented on his dealings with S.P., it had taken at least six months trying to acquire this property; the only reason he objected to the 10' easements relative to drainage and weed abatement is that no one other than those properties fronting on Rollins Road would want to buy the S.P. property, he would expect S.P. to deal with each landowner; they asked him to purchase the entire parcels but the price was too high; S.P. will not allow any restrictions, if this purchase doesn't go through the piece of property behind 1616 Rollins Road will remain as it is, an abandoned spur; who would buy it?