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 MauLe Dudley, the prospective purchaser, has withdrawn her offer and tha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.