Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1965.04.12CITE' OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Brauner Cistulli Edwards Norberg Pierce Stivers CALL TO ORDER COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Kindig Aptil 12, 1965 OTHERS PRESENT City Attorney Karmen City Planner Mann City Engineer Ma.rr The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members answered the Secretary°s roil calla Commissioner Kindig, absent due to illness, was excused. FOR STUDY: 1. SPECIAL PERMIT, Landscape Contractor Yard and Shop., Marsten Road. Brown and Bottari Company, Landscape Contractors, filed an application for a special permit to operate a yard and shop in the Easton Industrial Tract at 1320 Marsten Road, A site plan was filed and a letter from the applicant dated April 6,1965, stated that there will be an office building, a repair shop for the equipment used in the business, and overnight storage of four trucks and two tractors, The City Planner mentioned that the property is owned by Fisk_, Firenze and McLean, Inc., who maintained headquarters there for several years until moving to San Carlos. Air, Brown, one of the applicants, reported that there is covered parking for three of she trucks, one truck will be parked in the open, tie stated that most of the equipment is kept at the job sines and brought into the shots for servicing and repairs. In reply to Commission inquiry, Mr. Brown stated that there will be a ground cnver of red rock, six inches deep, with oil on top; the site will be fenced or, all sides, in grapestake or a similar type of fencing. In reply to Mr. Brown's comment that the company hopes to purchase the IT property eventually, the City Engineer and City Planner mentioned that l the property actually does not have its own street frontage; there is access over a private easement to Marsten Road recorded by John If. Dore, the prior owner, to Fisk and Firenze. The application was scheduled for public hearing at the regular meeting of April 26. 2. RECLASSIFICATION: R-1 TO R-3 160S SANCHEZ AVENUE. An application filed by Mr. L.C. Smith, 46S Concar Drive, San Mateo, requested reclassification from R-1 (single-family) District to R-3 (multi -family, third -residential) District of Lot 17, Burlingame Park Subdivision No. S; property address, 160S Sanchez Avenue. A sketch prepared by the City Planner indicated the R-3 zoning on the El Camino frontage, R-1 on all of Sanchez Avenue westerly from the highway; the subject property is eight lots removed from E1 Camino Real. The application was scheduled for public hearing at the meeting of April 26. 3. MISCELLANEOUS. 1. BROADWAY PARKING. STUDY. Commissioners were furnished copies of a report prepared by the City Planner for the City Council on off-street parking in the Broadway commercial district. 2. MUNICIPAL COSTS: APARTMENTS VERSUS DWELLINGS, a paper pre- pared by the City Planner, considering the questions of tax revenue and municipal costs relating to apartment dwellings in contrast to single-family dwellings, was distributed to Commissioners. 3. YORK AND DADY, CIVIL ENGINEERS, REPORT ON BROADWAY INTERCHANGE AND RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION. In distributing copies, the City Planner announced that the City Council referred the report to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Commissioners agreed to pursue the subject at the study meeting on May 10. The City Engineer discussed the report briefly, stating he con- curs with the recommendation of the consulting engineers that Scheme VIII will satisfy for the most.part the entire traffic problem in the location. fie pointed out that there are a number of alternative plans offered, some cost estimates and a suggested method of financing; whatever the design, there will be consider- able property acquisition involved. He -stated his position that it would be unwise to attempt to do the work piecemeal; it should he dote lWoverly or not at all. Commissioner Norberg stated that he too is concerned that the project will be property designed and executed. lie questioned whether the city, in the meantime, can proceed independently to alleviate the existing situation in the location without inter- fering with the overall design. -2- .1 4. TIDAL PLAIN (TP) DISTRICT REGULATIONS. The. City Planner reported that at the meeting of April S the City Council directed the Planning Commission to conduct public hearings and to submit findings and recommendations on a code.amendment to provide for the Tidal Plain zone. Referring to the Tidal Plain District regulations recently con- sidered by the Commission, Commissioner Brauner suggested certain revisions; namely, include a definition of the "Tidal Plain" classi- fication; under "Permitted Uses", include only parks and recreation areas and facilities; all other uses requiring filling of the bay waters to require a permit from the Planning Commission thereby giving to the city absolute control. The subject was thereupon referred to the meeting of April 26, at which time the date for a public hearing would be selected. S. M-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS. An amended version of a proposed amendment to the ordinance code applying to uses of land within the city's industrial areas was fur- nished Commissioners in connection with the public hearings on the subject scheduled to continue at the regular meeting of April 26. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John J. Brauner, Secretary -3-