Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1949.11.17Id M I N U T E S Chairman -Mitchell presiding. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Burlingame, California Regular Meeting November 17, 1949 - 8 p.m. Present Absent Others Present Mitchell Macomber City Engineer Fitch Harris Attorney Buress Karmel Brown Henderson Stivers There was held at this meeting a public hearing"in the matter of the petition of Mildred Levy and Marie Louise Ewell for variance from the requirements of the city zoning regu lations with respect to portions of Lots 16, 17, and 18, Block 31, Easton Addition No. 2./ At- torney Alfred C. Musante, representing the petitioner, spoke at length in behalf of his client and stated that Mrs. MauLe Dudley, the prospective purchaser, has withdrawn her offer and tha it is impractical for the owners to hold the property unless it can be sold for a semi -business use. The Chairman pointed out that the petition sets forth that a variance, if granted would be for Mrs. Dudley. Attorney Musante requested that the petition be amended on its face to grant Mrs. Levy the variance subject to assignment to a purchaser. In the discussion which en- sued, Commissioner Harris brought up the question of what would happen if the Planning Commission did look with favor on a variance such as this in an established first -residential zone. Attorney Musante in response inquired, "What is the solution?" At this point Mrs. Levy made the statement that she purchased the property for investment purposes and she urged the granting of a variance permitting the operation of a guest house or a rest home. The Chairman inquired if anyone else present desired to speak on the subject. Mrs. Wright, 1129 Bernal Avenue, spoke in favor of a variance. Mrs. Dougherty, 1109 Cortez Avenue, spoke in favor. Howard B. Arneson, 1121 Drake Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting a variance and recalled that there had been presented to the City Council a petition bearing the signatures of many nearby neighbors who are opposed. The Secretary announced that the petition was on file with the Planning Commission and that it contained 97 signatures. Mrs. Torello, 1135 Drake Avenue, appeared and spoke in opposition. At this point in the hearing Attorney Musante stated that a variance is being sought only on the condition that it would be granted subject to regulation and supervision by the City. Murray Gautsch, 1116 Drake Avenue, appeared and stated that he is an adjoining resident and opposed to a variance with or without regulations. There was also on file with the Planning Commission three letters in opposition. Commissioner Brown stated that it was apparent the great preponderance of expression was in opposition and he believed that the Planning Commission should deny this petition for spot zoning. Whereupon Mrs. Peggy Levy appeared in favor of the petition arguing that a precedent has been established by operation of similar institutions in violation of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henderson, that the petition be denied, and upon roll call, the motion carried unanimously. Following the adoption of this motion, Mr. Wright, 1129 Bernal Avenue, spoke in favor of a variance. A. D. Duncan appeared and resubmitted a plot plan for a proposed six -story apartment house at Primrose Road and Bellevue Avenue. The revised plot plan indicated a set -back of 151 at only one point at the center of the curve of Primrose Road and a similar set -back on Douglas Avenue, commencing at the respective rear corner and extending for a distance 251, and the balance of the structure on the three streets would approach the property line with various lesser setbacks of 6►, T , and 99 and 10' at the rear. After consideration at length, it ap- peared that none of the Commissioners viewed the plot plan with sufficient favor to recommend approval, and under the circumstances, it was deemed the only thing they could do is hold this over for further study and another visit to the property with the owner, and a special meeting if necessary for further consideration. Continuation - MINUTES - Burlingame City Planning Commission Page 2 November 17, 1949 There was read a communication from Jennie M. Pennington seeking permission to r subdivide Lots 11 2, and 3, Block 2, Burlinghome Subdivision. The petitioner was not pres and as it could not be determined from the plat what was intended to be done, the matter w tabled for reference to the City Engineer. The members of the Planning Commission have received copies of a communication ai dressed to the City Council relative to a proposed installation of a swimming pool by the Peninsula Tennis Club. No one appeared and there was no formal communication on file with the Planning Commission. There was no discussion. No action. The Secretary read a communication from the Army Engineers requesting that they furnished with any maps or data which indicate future shoreline development plans. This w referred to the City Engineer. City Engineer Fitch, in the absence of Building Inspector Watson, reported that there were no building plans on file for submission to the Commission. The meeting adjourned 9:45 P.M. i D. A. Stivers, Secretary After adjournment, the members of the Commission viewed the property at Primrose Road and Bellevue and Dbuglas Avenues, and being unable to come to a conclusion, it was agreed that a Special Meeting will be held with the City Engineer and the City Attorney ne3 Monday evening, November 21, 1949.