|
75
<br /> PUBLIC HEARING , Application of LEVITT & SONS OF CALIFORNIA , INC . , under Article 46 ,
<br /> Ordinance No . 1130 , for a Planned Development Permit to allow the development
<br /> of a 324-unit apartment complex on two existing sites of Leslie Properties ,
<br /> Inc . Location : Property fronting on Shell Parkway, Peninsula Parkway , Davit
<br /> Lane and Anchor Circle ; being Lot 66 , Block B , and Lot 1 , Block C , Marlin
<br /> Subdivision No . 1 ; in "R-3 " (Residential - Multi -Family - Low Density ) District ,
<br /> declared open , and affidavits of publication and mailing ordered filed . There
<br /> were no communications .
<br /> Planning Commission , at meeting of March 2 , 1971 , unanimously recommended
<br /> that the Planned Development Permit be granted , subject to six conditions as
<br /> indicated in their report .
<br /> Mr . Neil Davidson , Project Manager , Levitt &
<br /> Sons , 1849 Bayshore Highway , Burlingame , described
<br /> his firm as one of the major residential builders
<br /> in the world , primarily experienced on the East
<br /> Coast , citing Levittown , N . Y . , being the original
<br /> planned community . He reviewed additional back-
<br /> ground of the firm, and their decision to develop
<br /> in the Redwood Shores area , He noted that the
<br /> plan as approved by Planning Commission called for
<br /> 328 units , rather than 324 , as indicated . He
<br /> described some , of the problems encountered , such
<br /> as unique soil characteristics , and access charac-
<br /> terisitics , but it was felt these were solved . He
<br /> introduced Mr , Royston, who would make a presentation
<br /> on the planning concept used for the project .
<br /> Robert Royston , 50 Green Street , San Francisco ,
<br /> described the development with the aid of renderings
<br /> of the units to be constructed on two sites totaling
<br /> 121 acres . One lot would be proposed to be developed
<br /> for adult occupancy , and the other as family type
<br /> units . The structures , landscaping and layout were
<br /> reviewed , and he pointed out the design removed cars
<br /> from the living area . Working drawings were intended
<br /> to be complete within the next two months .
<br /> Mr . Davidson advised that they plan a one -year
<br /> development schedule .
<br /> Council questioned applicant ' s representatives concerning distance of parking
<br /> from living units , and were informed maximum would be 250 feet . Concern was
<br /> also expressed regarding access for emergency vehicles , and it was indicated
<br /> walkways were 8 feet in width, with an additional 2 feet of brick on each side ,
<br /> to permit a total of 12 feet .
<br /> Council indicated concern as to capability of delivery vehicles to reach the
<br /> units , particularly in the case of heavy objects , and were advised this would
<br /> be no problem. Mr . Davidson also was questioned as to price range , which he
<br /> felt would begin at about $200 for one -bedroom units .
<br /> The discrepancy in the number of units originally applied for andultimately
<br /> approved was explained by Planning Director as resulting from a change in design ,
<br /> which made it possible to add another piece to the building , permitting four
<br /> additional units .
<br />
|