Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1945.05.24MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Burlingame, California. May 25, 1945 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the City Hall at 7:45 p.m. Thursday, May 24.. 1945• MEMBERS PRESENT: Mitchell OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Dahl Coles Councilman Hunt Macomber City Attorney Karmel Brown City Engineer Longson Stivers ABSENT: Rapp Chairman Mitchell presiding. There was a delegation present with reference to the petition to rezone Park Road. Chairman Mitchell stated the Planning Commission has given much study to a mas- ter plan relating to the area between Burlingame Avenue and Peninsula Avenue and California Drive and E1 Camino Real and that this would therefore include Park Road, so that he suggested that the matter as to Park Road should be put forward for sixty days about which time it is expected that the more inclusive program will be completed. Attorney Cosgriff, representing Park Road property owners, spoke to the effect that Park Road is the logical entrance to the city from the South and he`.recommended that variances be granted under the control of the Planning Commission and requested that set -back lines be established and other proper protective measures included which would maintain a high character of development of this important entrance to the city. Chair- man Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission leans favorably to a variance rather than throwing open the entire street for unrestricted use of various business enter- prises, but it is hoped by the Planning Commission to avoid numerous variances, and find if possible a better means to retain an attractive appearance of the street. U.-S. Simonds spoke as a property owner and one of the signers of the Park Road petition and stated he has for some time regarded Park Road as the natural entrance to the -city. He said that at various times he has made personal surveys of the traffic using Park Road and has found a majority of the people stop at Burlingame Avenue which is -the bottleneck for business expansion beyond that street. He said that he would like to have the petition considered on its merits for the benefit of the community as a whole. William H. Crosby said that he recently acquired property at 2 Park Road and is in favor, along with the other property owners along that street, of permitting variances for business purposes. Joseph Gaffey spoke of being the owner of two unimproved lots on Park Road for which he has tenants waiting as soon as it may be permissible to construct buildings for business purposes, and he expressed a belief that delaying action for a master plan at a future date would be an injustice to the property owners. Commissioner Coles stated he is opposed to piecemeal approach to rezoning for the expansion of the business district. He expressed the thought that more people will be better satisfied if the overall plan is adopted. Commissioner Brown stated he thought the petitioners were overlooking the fact that if Park Road is rezoned for business, some undesirable use might appear which would detract from the other properties on the street. MINUTES - Regular Meeting May 24, 1945 Page 2 Attorney Cosgriff stated the petition asked for rezoning, but he believes a variance would be appreciated and the property owners better served by a control under the Planning Commis- sion. Chairman Mitchell asked if the property owners would see any objection to doctors' and dentists' offices in the neighborhood and Attorney Cosgriff replied, "Not at all." Chairman Mitchell asked City Attorney Karmel regarding procedure. Mr. Karmel stated that properties on Park Road already are zoned for apartment use under the ordinances and that the code makes provision for variances which is merely another term for spot zoning, to which he and the Planning Commission generally are opposed. Mr. Karmel states he advises the Planning Commission to rezone the street rather than set up a district for numerous variances. Mr. Karmel said that the procedure he advises at this time is a continuance of the petition for sixty days for further study, and let the matter stand submitted. It was moved and unanimously voted that the Park Road petition as submitted be held over sixty days. Chairman Mitchell brought up the subject of proposing the rezoning of three groups of lots as follows: "l. At the intersection of Primrose Road and Bellevue Avenue, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, +1 Block 10, Burlingame Land Company Subdivison, said lots being a resubdivi- �cov sign of Lot A and the northeasterly one-half of Lot 18, Block 10, Burlingame tiV Land Company Subdivison as officially filed and recorded in the County Recorder's Office. These lots were inadvertently included in the Code from an incorrect map and should be removed from the'CommerciAl zone and rezoned to apartment zone. "2. Lot 1, Block 22, Burlingables Subdivision, an area zone at the request of Lang Realty Co. some years ago for commercial purposes to be rezoned to apartment zone. "3• Lots 13, 14, 152 16, 17, Block 46 and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Block 47, Town of Burlingame Subdivision to be rezoned from,the commercial zone to the apart- ment zone." After discussion the secretary was directed to communicate to the city council recommenda- tion of the Planning Commission that the above -mentioned lots be rezoned as indicated. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. D. A. STIVERS, Secretary.