HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1952.02.28M I N U T E S
Chairman Mitchell presiding.
Present Absent
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Burlingame, California
Regular Meeting
February 28, 1952
Others Present
Mitchell Harris City Engineer Maar
Brown Macomber City Building Inspector Watson
Henderson
Stivers
At this meeting a further public hearing was held on the petition to re-
zone Burlingame Terrace from "First" to "Second" residential zone. 0. B. HEMPSTEAD
introduced EMILE A. LIEUTARD,753 Farringdon Lane, who read copy of a letter which
he reported had been mailed to,the residents in Burlingame Terrace accompanied by
return postal cards from those who are for or against the proposed rezoning. MRS.
ROBERT ADAMS spoke in favor of the petition to rezone. MR. LIEUTARD read a letter
in opposition to the petition, which letter was signed by himself and five other
property owners in Burlingame Terrace desiring to go on record as opposed to
changing the zoning from "First" to "Second" residential. The Secretary read com-
munications from MRS. DOROTHY WATSON and HAROLD JUNGE in opposition to the petition.
The City Engineer's office had prepared a study map of Burlingame Terrace
which was attached to the wall in the Council Chambers for public view. The Chair-
man pointed out on the map that Burlingame Terrace comprises a large portion of the
city and that parts of the area already are zoned "Second" residential, or "apart-
ment" or "commercial." Chairman Mitchell stated that the study indicates there are
290 lots in Burlingame Terrace of which 54 contain an area less than 5,000 square
feet. These smaller lots are not likely to be suitable for multi -family dwellings
without causing congestion, excessive street parking and other undesirable conditions.
In summing up the situation, -Mr. Mitchell made the following comparisons:
"COMPARISON #1: Present. 2nd Residential equals 9% of 1st Residential.
COMPARISON #2: If Terrace were 2nd residential - then the total of 2nd
residential would equal 17% of lst residential.
If Terrace plus Howard Avenue area were 2nd residential -
then the total of 2nd residential would equal 36% of 1st
residential.
COMPARISON #3: If Terrace were 2nd residential - then the total of 2nd
residential plus apartments would equal 70% of 1st res.
COMPARISON #4: If Terrace plus Howard Ave. Area were 2nd res. - then the
total of 2nd residential plus Apartments would equal 96%
of lst residential."
Other than continued discussion from the floor, KEN WEST spoke in favor of
the petition. ED WILKINS, 835 Acacia Drive, spoke in opposition. JOHN JOHNSON, 717
Acacia Drive, spoke in favor of apartments and duplexes. MR. WILKINS spoke of viola-
tions existing in neighborhood - sub -standard. STUART WELCH, 1316 Palm Drive, spoke
in opposition.
Chairman Mitchell stated that it appears there is a considerable difference
of opinion for and against the petition and he stated that the Planning Commission
has given a good deal of study to the subject. Commissioner Brown made a statement
saying he thinks the Planning Commission has gone into the subject very thoroughly
and that this rezoning if approved would affect the entire city. He expressed the
thought that the people desire to keep this a city of homes and it would be detrimen-
tal to the home owners in Burlingame Terrace if the Terrace were rezoned.
0. B. HEMPSTE:AD, Chairman of the Committee for Burlingame Terrace property
owners opposed to changing zoning from "First" Residential to "Second" Residential,
requested the Planning Commission endeavor to prevent more violations of the zoning
ordinance.
Continuation - MINUTES - Burlingame City Planning Commission
February 28, 1952
Page 2
Commissioner Henderson commented that if this petition is granted it would
also be necessary to grant rezoning on Howard Avenue and he stated he felt opposed to
the rezoning. Commissioner Mitchell also commented that he is against the rezoning.
Commissioner Henderson made a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the
petition be denied. This was seconded by Commissioner Brown. On roll call the vote
was as follows:
Yes No
Mitchell None
Brown
Henderson
Stivers
Absent
Harris
Macomber
Building Inspector Watson presented plans for a proposed apartment building
on Lot 7, Block 7, Fairfield Road, Burlingame Terrace. This was approved subject to
the City Engineer's approval on storm drain and easements.
Chairman Mitchell read a communication from the City Council referring to a
request from MELOIN T. EDGAR and CLARK F. HADSELL to rezone the land and building at
the Southeast corner of Floribunda Avenue and El Camino Real. The request stated
that the property would be used for the following purpose:
111. As a home for conducting weddings and receptions.
2. As a studio for giving piano and organ instruction and recitals.
3. As a meeting place for clubs and societies.
L,. As an establishment that may be rented for other activities similar to
the above.
5. Serving of refreshments in connection with the above named activities.
6. As living quarters for the management of the establishment."
In discussing the subject, the Commissioners made the following observations:
Commissioner Brown: "This Would be in the nature of too much business on
El Camino Real."
" Mitchell: "This would not fit in with the zoning."
" Henderson: "It appears this would be a commercial wedding home
which admittedly must have a catering service."
" Stivers:."It appears that this would constitute a business es-
tablishment on El Camino Real which has been contrary
to the aim of the zoning ordinance for many years."
Commissioner Brown made a motion that this communication be referred back to the
Council without recommendation for rezoning for business on E1 Camino Real. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Henderson and unanimously carried.
Meeting adjourned 10:20 p.m. I
00,
D. �. Stivers, Secretary