The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1513 Burlingame Avenue - Staff Report� � _ . . . ��tP C�if� �f ��t��trt��xm� SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- SOI PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 November 18, 1971 Planning Commission City of Burlingame In reference to the above the possible rezoning of a certain Burlingame Avenue, this office has water supply. TEL:(415) 342-8931 Re: Proposed Rezoning Lots 8, 11, 12, Block 3 Burlingame Park request before your body in section of Burlingame Park on made an investigation of our We find that there exists only a 4-inch cast iron main on Burlingame Avenue between E1 Camino Real and Occidental which does not provide sufficient fire flow for multiple dwelling units. Also, we find that the hydrant distribution is inadequate to pro- vide the necessary fire flow that would be required for more dense zoning than single family dwelling. To provide the adequate fire flow, it would require an installation of an 8-inch main from the easterly side of El Camino Real to a connection to the existing 6-inch main on Occidental Avenue. The estimated cost for this installation including the necessary gate valves and fire hydrants would be about $15,000.00. Consequently both sides of this street should contribute to this cost since they would benefit. We have a total of about 1,500 linear feet, therefore, the cost per linear foot including both sides of the street would be $10.00. Since the frontage along this proposed rezoning is 150 feet, t�e-contribution at this time for these three lots in question would be $1,500.00. It has been my suggestion in the past on situations of rezoning or variance of this nature that the proponents of this reclassification should deposit with the City an estimated amount so that the City may build up a fund to eventually up-grade our water system taking into consideration, of course, the arrange- ment under concern. How this could be accomplished legally should be a decision by our attorney, Burress Karmel. Also regarding this multiple unit proposal, it would be my suggestion that the street be widened in conformity to the Planning Commission November 18, 1971 Page 2 widening previously accomplished at the apartment near E1 Camino Real on the same side of the street. On this occasion, the street was widened 4� feet. Our estimate for this construction for widen- ing this section from the existing widened section to the westerly property line of the proposed rezoning would be $4,000.00. This above information is being given to you for your consideration at your meeting of Monday, November 22, 1971. � G. . Director of Public Works GJM : bg �� ;�, C� ��`� g� 7 � were presented along with an application for variance on Lots 8,11, anc3 12. At this meeting the Commission took action to continue consideration of the reclassification applications until February 28, 1972, He quoted the minutes of tha� meeting noting the motion for continuance of the application and subsequent approval of the motion. Due to the amount of concern expressed by Burlingame Park residents, the City will study this area in depth with the aid of a Citizens Committee being formed for this purpose. Ideas and offers of assis�ance will be welcomed by the City Planner. He requested the ideas in writing. . � .- Commissioner riink introduced a motion that the application for reclassification of Lot 5, Block 3, Burli�ngame Park No. 2 be � withdrawn without prejudice, The motion was seconded by Commissioner 3acobs and passed unanimously on roll call vote. 2, RECLASSIFICATIOi� OF LOI'S 8, 11, and 1.2, BLOCIC 3, BURLINGAi�IE FARY. N0. 2� RSi+� B/17, FROM R-1 TO R-3A, BEING 1513 AND 15�7_ � BURLINGAME AVErNE �A,PPLICANT AND O�V�TER: RICH�1Rn F_. MC LAUGHLIN) The Commission Chairman announced that this application had been -- scheduled for public hearing at this meeting. He then reported to Commission members and the audience that late thi� af�ernoon a.letter - had been received from Dr. Richard F. rlcLauqhlin withdrawing the application for reclassification without prejudice to resubmission. Secretary'Kindig read the letter which commended the PZanning Cc�rYunission for their recognition of the need to modernize and improve this part of Burlingame Avenue and thanked them for courtesies extended and the thoughtful consideration of the application. Dr. McLaughlin expressed the opinion that his plans were consistent with the revitalization of the street, and his application was rejected upon appeal to the City Council on the basis of objections he believed ". ..were emotionally presented and insufficiently substan�iaLed.° He went on to s�ate he deeply re.sented any suggestions that this prope-rt_y had been allowed to depreciate in order to qualify for reclassification, and maintained he had made considerable expenditures on this prop�rty and others he owned in order to keep them up to neighborhood standards. - The letter informed: "However, I do not cnoose to engage in xecrim- inations with those who are not interested in factual considerations. Instead, with regret, but after due reflection, I u�ithdraw my application �or reclassification of these lots, without prejudice to resubmission." There was no Commission comment. �here was no audience comment. AC�TO>VLEDGMENT S ChaiYman Sine acknowledned the p�_esence in the audi�nce �f Councilr,izn Mangini, and of Mrs. Dorothy Cusick, candidate for councilman. February 28, 1972 Mr. Wayne 5wan Burlingame City Planner Burlingame City Hall Burlingame, California Dear Mr. 5wan: R E C E 1 V E D E�t� � t� i�I� CITY OF Bii��INGAM� SUBJECT: Lots 8-11-12 Block 3 Burlingame Park The reclassification of our property described above is on the agenda of tonight's meeting of the Burlingame City Planning Commission. At the outset I wish to commend you and the Commission for your long overdue recognition of the urgent need to modernize and improve this part of Burlingame Avenue. It was, and is my opinion that the plan I submitted is completely consistent with any plan for the revitalization of this street, but, while the Planning Commission agreed, a majority of the City Council did not concur on the basis of objections which I believe were emotionally presented and insufficiently substantiated. Any contention that the property we hoped to redevelop had been allowed to depreciate in order to qualify for reclassification is completely false. It could easily be proved that I have made con- siderable expenditures to maintain this property in accordance with the standards of the neighborhood. This has been my consistent practice at my home and my other properties, and I deeply resent any suggestion to the contrary. However, I do not choose to engage in recriminations with those who are not interested in factual considerations. Instead, with regret,_but after due reflection, I withdraw my application for reclassification of these lot�, without prejudice to resubmission. I wish to extend my thanks to you and your staff, and particularly to Cha_;.rman, Thomas W. '3ine, and the other members of the Planning Commission for the thoughtful consideration of this application and the courtesies that have been extended to me. I would appreciate your presenting this letter to be read at the meeting this evening. Yours incerely, _ /� �G /d�_ /// � � "! C �! `�� "-� �C-. - �G� j�� -� ` / � Richard F. McLaughlin � , . � � � - _ � � �� f `� � SO� /26' I�fo' m^ /LB' SO' ' /66' �' � So' I SS• 60� 0 I � y� � h yJ�� .� h t � 2 � H � k I 4�. �� -....--j�' � ,; � s � ' � �-. � i i p.�•h•., - -<.. ��'��, /23.SB. � . 'a7.J3' �- 9 r� ,� /67. � - � � � , � c � � � � 3 � .6r� ,� � � �� , r ( 3 � ,Y r �� h 4 � . �- �� "� `� � 4 . . x � �` � /66 . yZ � �' � 'L 6b ..�wlw' � //9.So' � `0 - . . � . � _ .:�' ,., � o � � 6 �o � � p� ��e:ry � o � 9 ��. " 5 i � h �` hCtT ' � . _, � .c<<�� c�� :, � y ��iE`6�{tt��a � ir�a.�s• � ' a,,. �; � ��.�s� /�f �` 4� z : c % �i56' , . H� R 7 � p . G i,/ � • O 8 m v; ' / �J� �°9j y7 'o ,., � � /60./ ' � % • / e. o �69.0 � n 7 t � y s. o ,52�"S� �/,�� 9 � Y:;.�'�'� ��,�N;I/`� 9 � � y I I � / /S6' :.�.:: 41 �69.Sp. 7 `• � / , / � � � �+ / � 149.gg• 7 � 0 � � � '� ' ,i � 2 b /49, 83. �,._,,;�, / � ' �6A, 60 . h 14 • - ; , 14 . /42.75, /Gg 42 " � ho h � h . 4j `:�� I G` �. _, y.� /66 So � 6 � �g4' � ,u � 5 '36. o O � j 4Z; - B6. ab • es �� I � � �1 '' � �:�� ^, �� " i- h h , �' 0 � P � � — 3 . �6s.� �, �36.oe• � �`7` � a w � �, � : .o g . . . o a. � � h ' 8 . e � h ,6z� zs � y�' ia `' 4 .s • � � 2L 19 � / ,30 /�� ' . h - ��` ' 19 � � �'� /6j ��' y P 2 oaa, yo tio ��. � y0 22 z b' �`'s. .ry o r�'0 ;� ,_ �o O yo �6z, , �,�.� CJ � 2 rJ 5p T� �� _�`,.._ �, '°2 h S'o . : _ � .. ^�/ � �;�,, � I LOT 5, B�oCK 3-- CITY OF BURl.1NGAME ��2• �h'� ' b� �.ors s, Il �ND 12, etocrc 3— M`�AUG�ll.lt�� h° C�S9 � �o. �. �'''{ , ` 2 _ : � . .' �� 6�� y ClTY PLAfJNtNG COMMISSIoN , .. �oi� -- F� HRUARY 28, f97T _ ��., __ _ _ -- � --- ---- -- T - ---- �� ------- - �� ,, . -- - - --- - -- - - .6'- ��. 4 �'�' �: � 3 0 � - - - - � ,5 / �. � � 5 S � � q�' gjs� \�nj o_. � s. �y 1 O. � � � . / "-5,�, ��y.,, s � �,. ��,�, ,��.� o tih � � 34 / , `� ��• ��,-,-::,,,.,,s o. � / �V` O. � � i.uW�y.a� w41i0a`p'� I ,� 2 �/ o I 1C.. , '°1 so. ��A; " . _..__ ., , _ . °.-�ii �j i ��. Illl��hii / /6�6 � 7 "`,' o. ' �,.ro. ` � �� .ro . qi h>o' // �5 5� a o \5ti'A l �$ 7 �'lll s '� �?o. 150 0 '�;��` p ,51. .,�3_ , �5 � O �'� 9C I � s o, so �5 O. 1�j�r . 1• 0 vQ. '' �� ' � 5 � � � � �S �,, , � 6 ti o _ \ �,' � , 9 � o. � `50• � � �a-�;,, b1� � 0 ,.o `� ��„ � 5 8 � 2 ,� ,, �- :r. � o � , �,, so ; �' �� .3� o y � �,-�,c�, a. ^ , �°�`1� - � - . � ,�,�,,;,.,�� d"� ��- ��'""� . �C� �� . � �—��2�'_ � �J o�� r � � �,�;v ��, - - _ �/f�,7�,� >zJ �; �G � , �'w�' G cleared up before the Commission can act. y��z�/ �'�"`" / /� d Chairman Sine asked if the Commission would like to continue this �matter to an adjourned meeting so that this could be done. Mrs. Riley protested that she had received the documents only today and that they contained everything the City had asked. There was further discussion. Commissioner Cistulli moved that this matter be adjourned to the next study meeiing. Commissioner Nor�erg asked if action could be � taken subject to completion of documents. The City Attorney repeated that it would be best not to do so. The agreement received had no . exhibits A& B, exhibits C& D are metes and bounds descriptions _ which must be checked with the City Engineer's office. The City Planner had not seen the agreement nor had the City Engineer. Drawings have been submitted which are likewise subject to checkina by the Engineer`s office. � � . Mr. C. HaII, attorney for Mrs. Riley, addressed the commission, stating he had raised $50,000 for purchase of the ac3ditional land from O'Hara, subject to City approva.l, and he feared fur�her delays might cause the financing agent to withdraw his offer. He was remindeci by the Chairman that at the last hearing it was requested that alI documentation be completed and examined �y staif so that the Com�-�aission coulci make a decision. The City Attorney commented that while the matter was much further alona, than it had been, he could not approve a document placed before him just prior to the meeting. Z'he agreement concerned not only P�rs. Riley and Mr. 0'Hara but also the City of Burlingame. Zt must be satisfactory to the City. City Engineer Marr noted that he had not seen any revisions to the parcel map showing the 25' easement, and this should be revised befo.re the next meeti.ng. Commissioner Mink seconcied the motion to adjourn this hearing to the next study meeting, December 13, and it passed by voice vote. ACKNO°��TLEDGENP NT S Chairman Sine and Commission memrers extended congratulations to Commissioner Everett Kindig upon his recent marriage. Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence at-the meeting of Councilman Mangini. 2. RECI,A�SIF�EA3�ON- DF _LOT 5, BLOCK 3, BURLINGA,.'�IE PARK NO. 2 RSP� E/17 FROM R—I TO R-3A, BEING CITY 0�`-EU�,31dCA�FE- PA?�i:I_�G_ LOT 3. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 8, 11, AND 12, BLOCK 3, BU?2LINGAI�'IE PARK N0. 2 RSP�I B/17, FROM R-1 TO R-3A, BEING 1513 AND 1517 BURLINGAP2E AVENUE (APPLICANT AND O�VNER: RICNA4D F. MC LAUG�iLIN) 4. VAQIANCE TO ALLO��^T MO� TNAN ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDII3G O�T ONE LOT, LOTS 8, 11, AND 12, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME PAR�C N0. 2, RSM B/17� SAPPLICA'1T: RICHARD F. biC LAUGHLIN) � - � Chairman Sine announcec7 a hearing on these applications, which were again considered toge�ner because of their inter-relation. City Planner S�•�an reviewed the background of these applications, commenting that R-3A is for medium density and is an apartment type between R-2 and R-3. He stated that next to Dr. McLaughlin's 3 lots there is a s � ' . - - 3 - city parkin5 lot. Since a group of four lots cannot be considerec7 spot zoning it was decided to incluc?e all four in the reclassi�ication action. Th� densi-ty permitted by the General Plan guides the change in this par��i�ular area. The General Plan permizs a density of 20 units per net acre. The McLaughlin proper�y ��ould comprise 26,300 square fee-� or .6 of an ac�e and 12 units woulc3 be permitted. He . no�ed that tne condominium could be handled on a variance basis buL that reclassiiication woulc? indica�e commission policy. He recom1-�ended the reclassification and the variance for placement of three buildin�s on one lot be consiaered, noting tnat w�zen an intensi- fication of use occurs there should 'pe an upg�ading of public _ facilities. . . . The commission discussed the merits.of a variance as opposed to reclassification in t�is case. City Engineer Marr s�ated he had prepared a cvritten report regarding the water supply and the proposed widening of the street to be eonsistent with the partion already accomplisned. Secretary I;inclicr read the letter of application and also the City Enaineer's le�ter which stated that an 8" main, costing approxima�ely $15,000, ��rould be necessa_ry. The let�er also s�ated that the �•�iclenin, of the stree 4 to t'ne v�es�.erly property line of the applicant's property woulc? cost appro;:imately $�,000. The City Engineer sugqeste� that the applicant deposit �:�it'n the City an estimated amount so that a City fund could be built up co upg=aue the ��ater system. Chairman Sine gave the audience ground rules for a public hearina and asked that the applicant's representative address the meeting. James McLauchlin, developer for the projec�, gave a set of plans to th� Commission foy their exartination. He then introduced his archi- tect, :�Tilliam Kelley. The arc'nitecz stated that the plans a-re pre- liminary design; the 3 buildings �aould be of Spanish design, pedestrian oriented and in keeping cvith the residential charactEr of the neighbor- � hood. Underground parkir_g :��ould accommodate 24 cars and there ��rould be a Iarge area for recreation. The Chairman invited conments from the audience in favor of this -t�evelo�ment_. Mr. Dan Thurston, 1530 BuYlingame Avenue, stated that he -,, --, - Iived in the n2ignr:ornood--and-- Lhe-general_ opinion was that the lots were bought because they ��rere going to be rezonecl:- -He statec�-�e----- would like to see the �a'nole black rezoned and get it over with. He suggested R-3 rather than R-3A. Helen 0'Conner, 1549 Burlingame Avenue, had questions regarding the up;seep of the condoninium and the wideninc of the street. The City Engineer informed her that . the 42' widening c•�ould be taken off the one side of the street and only to the limits of the proposed development. • T`he architect then explained the�plans to t'ne audience and a recess was declared by the Chairrian a� 9:00 p.m. so that alI could examine the plans�personally. � RF,CONVE�� Zfhe Chairman reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. - 4 - RECLASSIFIC�ITION (CONTIIv'tTF'D) A resident ��ho lives at Occidental ana Ralston stated that there were many non-confoYming propzrties in this area and she would like to see a general improvement of the area. She would like to see the develop- ment go th=ough so it would encourage elimination of non-conforming properties. Eernice Barnett of 1575 Ralston, agreed. Mrs. Jon Rosell, 1525 Burlinga:ne Avenue,o:•Jner of properc.y a�joining the proposed development, objected to the swinuning pool being on her side of the property because of zhe noise. She asked if the pool could be on the other side away from them. On a question by the Chairman, bir. McLaughlin stated that the pool could be relocated on the other side. P�irs. Rose11 stated she �aould be happy to see the street - upgraded - the scvim�-nina pool �aas the only obj ection. _ The public hearing was declared closec3. Commissioner IvTor�erg indicated he thought the plan very well conceived anc7 that it would be an asset to the City. He cautioned that the Commission should make cercain that the property is developed accordina to plan after reclassification. There was co.mmission discussion as to hoc•� this coulcl best be implemented. If the reclassification were accomplished first, the applicant could conceiva's�ly withdra�.�r the application fo•r variance and the Commission would have no cont-rol over the type of building. The City Attorney suggested that action could be taken upon the variance conditional upon the completion of the reclassification. The City Pl.anner s�ated, as a resolution of the problern, that the variance could be considered now and the reclassification be accom- plished at a time more convenient to the Commission; or the applicant could withdrac•� the reclassification and the City could be the applicant. Mr. blcLaughlin indicated app-roval of the pos�por�ent of the reclassi- fication. Com,-nissioner Taylor moved that the reclassification items for the City parking lot and the P�cLaur,hlin prope-rty be continued until the regular Commission meeting on February 28. Commissioner �Uiink seconded, and the motion ca-rried on voice vote. In considering the variance, City Planner S�aan commented that the roof and garage c,�ould be commonly o'.vned; that the condominium group --- --�tould__buy one life insurance policy for the entire development. The structures must mee�- ai1-�r��-eo�l-es__�nd _the fire department would ------- require a one-hour fire wall. He comriented that - the-�d�fiitro�ral ------- intensity of use should pay its share of the increased �vater supply. He sucgested that an approved landscapinc plan be a condition of the variance. ' � Commissioner Cistulli asked for more information as �o ho�a maintenance of the condominium was paid. Mr. McLaughlin explained that conciominiums operate under direct control of the State. The condominium owners form an associa�ion ��hich charges dues monthly. Out of this, all condomir_ium arrangements, suc'n as insu-rance, landscaping, maintenance etc. must b� paid. No one person can deqrade the building. There was no audienc� comment on this variance, since all opinions had been e;�pre�sed previously. The publi� hearing was declared closed. Corimissioner Norberg had no comments. Co:nmissioner Jacobs approved . - 5 - of the develogment cait� the stipulations of adeauate water supply, the meeting of the fire codes, replacem�n� o� trees in the parking, � and a lanoscaping plan. Commissioner Taylor agreed that the use was gooc3 anc7 it would upgrade the area. He did feel that additional stipulations should be that there be no more �han three buildings, and relocation of s�airL.wiing pool be noted. Commissioner P�iink approved the development. Com�-nissioner Kindig had no comment on the plans but raisec� the question of ho�•� the �vater main replacement and street widenina was to �e accompl.ished cost-wise. Commissioner Cistulli - approved of the develop�nent, no�ing that the near-do�.�ntown locatio� would ma�e it sui�able for senior citizens. Chairman Sine stated it was an excellent overall concept, and the firsc tima used in Burlinqame. He noted, ho:vever, that the present ��rater supply was inadequa-te . _ � � . The Ci�y Engineer su,aested financing of Lhe new main. The Chairmzn commented 'ne did not feel �he people living on the street should be penalize�r by assessment for this larc;er riain, and asked the developer . if he would os�ject to puttinc� up the front money for development of -• the water main and street �aidening, in the appro:�imate amount of $15,000 - 20,000. He noted that as the area �aas developed further this money coula be refunced. � Mr. McLaughlin s-tated tnat he caould be amenahle to putting up the front money for t�is projec�. The City Engineer stated that he had a water project in the amount oi $200,000 coming up for bid ne�t month and that he had cont.rol of the time linit. If he coulc have assurance in the nz�t tcro or three weeks that the McLaug'nlin project were going throug'n, he could include it in the water p�oject. There was discussion of ho:�� the applicant could make an ac;reement with the City. The City At�orney suc,gested that the e�fective date of the variance be the eTfective date of an agreement between the City of Eurlinqame and the applicant. Corn�-nissione= Mink moved �he variance be approved to al1o�� more �han one residential building on one lot, Lots 8, lI, anc� 12, Block 3, Burlingame Park No. 2, Richard F. McLaughlin, subject to the follo�ving conditions: the condominum be built per the plans su�mitted with t�e relocation of the swimming pool, the structure is to meet all city codes, it is to be of one hour fire construction, there is to be submerred parking �aith at least --t�ao_ �paces_ per unit, there is to be an approved landscaping plan, there shall be sub*ni�si�n o�-a-�a�fi�I-map to__combine lots, �he -- ------------- variance shall become e�fective upon execution oi agreemen�-betw�er�- -- the City of Burlingame anu p-roperty o:��ner to develop an 8" water supply and fire hydran�s, and agreement to widen the southerly side of Burlingame Avenue �'6". Commissioner Cis�ulli seconded the motion and it passed on the following roll call vote: � AYES: COP�T'iiISSIO�TEP.S CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MIN'�C, NOr23EP.G, TAYLOR NAYE S : I�IOPTE . _ ABSTAIN: COi�T`�IISSIO�?ER SIN�' ABSENT : NON� - 5. SPECIAL PE��1IT FOR COVT�CTOR' S STO�iGE YARD I�i t�,N M-1 DI ST:.2ICT. JAP•IES R. TEEVAi�T, 1019 BAYSHORE BOUL�VAPTJ. 05�TNER, ti�TILLIAti? R��E. 'I'he Secre=�ary read correspondence from the applicant. Tne City Planner