HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1966.04.25iiraL'ner
(As,t(rlii
C.
c Y0�'w 46 Z
CALL TO ORDER
CITY (IF t1UPLI£Nf A-1 PLMNNI,T�' Ch'. "ISSI-IN'
April 25, 1966
C'O=. "TSSIONE.'.S AL;SENT ( Th-),P S PPE S3;.`1'T
Pierce City Attorney kar),vel
C itv Planner "lane
City I;rwineer "'arr
Counci Doan Uiederichse—,
Councilman .Tohnson
A re,: ul r meetinf; of the Burlinj-.ame Planning C am�ission was called to
`3ruer on the above GALL at 8:?'sti p.m., Chairman kindi.t presidj.np.,
R0!,1, C 1,L
The Secretary's e`t ary's roll call rec`vrdf::4d t1he above -named ver"he-rs present:,
CoP. ii`? s lone-r Pierce, 03 vaCs7t t €?r? ;, i a5 excused.
.
c r:°Inutes of the Yepular meeting of 'arcii 24 and the adjourned n-eet-
iri of ref,ri.3 11, H66, previously submitted to r:erbers were approved
It IT 1 (11 adopted; the r;inutes of the study ):reetinc; of April 11, 1966, were
approved and ado; lieu followint a correction —page 7, last paral;;'aph
under Item i�oa 6 to read "to allot, the architect time to prepare pre-
lir..inary sketches".
1_ 'IE ti ATIVl !0A11 ;'E:SI iJ)1V1,S1 N' OF ACRYArfi., LA .'-11E A 1011I:. :U'PrJNV 00
C,ilairman Ki_ndi,; announced a J7u',1ic rearing on the application o.r
Ir, Lct4F;ic Johnston,153i� La '`esa E�xiv(�y t�url:irtf:arrYe, to resubdivicie
acre2(,e on the northeasterly si ue of Lis r`esa Drive.
The itan prepared btr lim,"Jard C, £; ckey, Civil [Engineer, and filed with
the cii:ti evil -inner, vroi)osed to di isle ti-e Iap(J into three separate
parcels, rt, ii aric'c C, each ha,;3 n .fr wren in excess of 10,000 scu;,Ire
feet; '.'r , .Johns'ton s horre i S located on Parcel A.
(-11?27' -in K`, iiv recopiii zze i ''`.r Inlu stor �;ili7 stated that the pub_l"ic
r1i i-overnentc. desif;n il-' d on €_he r>; i lncludini� i-a vinf; in the prof oseci
iri.Vett�,.� and the will be ?nst«'Jled at h-is expense.
h,eCi v Ln in er ;t cro T ted thr t; i,te Pubj-14c works irpro'i e-retnts i Pd J c: tF ':.
the :reap are k;en€:raliv_ slt.isfactory to his ofr: ce, with flee ea.Ce;;t;ic? :
of fC,"' winor detai!-s. Lie stated that there ror:'nins the problei,., C?f
.,ems 4;:ce'ss to i''rrccls aii" (,' propCs.:il Lo const:iucl" 1
AE i y'at.e" C r i Vevray i r. -1c, 710 fig( `- s.G'G s 2'ip at 1.lic end of La
is city props tv, was re"e "l`ed to tiSe City At.torne'/,
. % !: t d a .L 0 si : t �'� y x. � _ ; 6, ",. f: g�, AL S: o- 3' :1 e Y reported
pror:ert,v over hiclI ir�O`it1S`_ofl cC}%2�E r %A7'LC'S access to C-CY;lUi fe t!.'e
lots p,-c;ls,secl to t e resL<bclivicleci 1�elr�rtr,s icy the City of i>urli.n a►;e blot
lis urlilrl:r-oved as a city street; that tF1e property was j>ranted by
Panama Realty Company to the city ill 1952"..,.for the use of the
l;eneral ;-mblic forever o , o"; anO that there is a question whether title
to the l:roperty nay be conveyed to a pri vote owner by the citVO
The City Ai to=rney's letter proposed i method whereby the city would
secure fee title by quitc.la_in, deed from Manama Realty Company, or its
successors, he recoiierier_dc d, if a resubdivision nap were approved, that
such approval he give -in subject to five ex,-)ress conditions, which were
noted in the con(mmic.otion,
"ro Johnston, it,, ropy to Uair?ran kindil;, agreed to the conditions
reco>Y,:>;ended by the City Attorney, vdv±S_Jn�, ' at -.'r, Frank J. Pochex,
Real Estate tlppra serz will isal:e a311 a F raisal then the City Council
authorizes a sale of the r r€:Iaex'tIy.
In reply to Ccmrissi[:iner :.orberj;'S inn-iiry crncernill�- the dinf;onli mill:"•
between Parcels ft :gnu v, :`r. < Johnston advised that there are 11 trees
Oil the Property; the p�'o?ose(_'t nev, r'rt?�lert�` lines were deliberately (I? �;Le'Ti
to reservet1,_. ri C.€€its Of each OWner to t?,c trues
1'l,e City Planner, pointed cut that in audition to an ingress and el;ress
easement to Parcels L, and Cr, an-6 file code: rcoui. e-s than tDc city simll
11ecome Tart ov,ner i.n su,-1'i cagcT.,en1 s., th,;t t!t'o t<1:itIe,c o'1Le pTc?1!0sed
ir1 the 30 foot str-�i) - storr drain ands sanitary :,ewerso i"l,e tit.v will
` need access for raintenance, purposes; the Cite r anner advised that it
is :l sv and the City i.<� E.neer's opinion that the cite should take a
public utility easelr,ent over the entire 30 foot s„zili,
The City Planner stated that the end of La aIesa DT.J ve drops off very
sl:ar;:ly-, because. of -lie lack of %,Jiclth and the steel) grade, it would be
impossible to put- 'it) a complete city street; however, it will serve
the purpose -if ., c,ri-VCW y -o tbe two lots,
In iE'TJJYaF` to �i'e J0llr[st;ill4;; cG;2r.-ment`s that �=ne prope'f t'v was deeded originias _,,.
for the use of file f�erera i pubift and that it should be continueei as such,
the r;ty Attorney advised that so far as the i.n.; r•ess and oftress ease-
lnent the cf tY` Will I►old a rion-exclusive easer.ent ;; the property owner
may grant eases wets to other's as lobe; as there is: no intee,Jer> nce with
the city's use.
Cor.+rlissionrr l3kat-.Iier ouFvtxonec v,:leLhL: t .ere L oi11d Ire "in ax3clit"s.On�ll
easement renui;"e.i het.weeli Log's 9 an(l C whey the )kar. shc-ws other publ:c
woYks; the City Enl;ineer se orted that oil .lie final recar4jed uiap there
will be a public utility ease -Vent dedicated in ti:is area.
Tile- City Planner exr-l:11ned `ht,�L: due to r<_'ceilt: i:l a3?V`.c;s in tile. State
SLIu(>IIJl r l,Ol3 ;aka !1.c n caller. �:- -mb sl.c i.l' j1TC!'ess�P.ili are i. oll%e,I 1.11 1f'ss
tL ail Five lot Sub'div 1,S Io$ gviItati v - a11d f i.nal 1:1aps ImAst he. filed;
�so J`s1^ Sc^P_f= 1::,:.,? iC?€:ti tx - `k he s?i 2^ P4_?. > il� 'L-32_.i S
the 1I S tale tE.;t a' iVe 1:a1
.-`Onal 1,, �i� ;vt incl.!_de tile i"!i cati_sJl zio
TlaeZ'e: were ni-)
,'t3or:;i`l�:j` rod ce,c', by CJ1i;l. "s.. :Z1OfI Yi'_' i.ilr,'T' `J..11,;rC,Fi: i:j., ilia' ('sLl�'cilt 1 :..
&nd re,'-c'm c -11 =ado _u,
a
subject tc conditions specifleord in the City Attorney',; letter to the
Planning Cown-ission dated April 11, 10,66, and the further condition
1 that easements shall be provided for drainan.e and other utilities from
the turn -around between Parcels B and C. 'Motion seconded by Commissioner
"l Cistulli and carried unanimously on roll call.
2. P CLASSIFICATIO R-4 TO C-2 13AY:g"ATEP & IlTr!1LAa11 AVE.S.
Chairman Kindi.g announced a public Bearing; on the application of
Jollies �Iinto Ford Sales, 101 California Drive, Burlingame, to reclassify
a portion of Lot 6, block 13, Town of Rurlinf,ane Subdivision .... a
parcel 50 feet on Highland by 100 feet on Bayswater, at the south-
easterly corner of the intersection of Highland and Bayswater Avenues....
from P.-4 District (Fourth Residential) (`.;ulti-Fa:rvily) to C-2 District
(Service Business)
A communication from the applicant dated April 7, 1966, advised that the
property was commercially zoned at one tine but a few years ago was
changed to vulti-family because the anticipated F,rowth in the autowo-
vile industries failed to viaaterialize and Iliph land Avenue was not
developed for commercial use.
The communication mentioned problems arising fror the lack of adequate
off-street parking and the need for an expanded service facility; the
requested rezoning;will permit the property to be usedd as a storage
lot and later, in a year or two, a con=_plete service facility will be
installed
A sketch of the proposed building was filed.
A communication was read fror.= Mrs. Harriet A. Bennesen, 110 Lorton
Avenue, protesting the reclassification because of neighboring apart -
gent buildings and existing on -street Parking contesti.on in the area.
Chairman Kindig invited the applicant to cot-iment.
Nr. James `-Tin<to explained that because of business growth the present
service facility is handicapped by lack of space and parking is
critical; if the subject property and an adjacent commercial lot on
Iayswater Avenue were permitted to be used for expansion, the situation
can be alleviated.
The City Planner reviewed existing uses in the block, explaining that
in the Cat District on Bayswater Avenue there is a single-family
dwellinL; and a four unit frame apartment building; on Highland Avenue,
cohere the zoning was changed frown, commercial to R-4, the use is
mixed, single-favily and apartment; the corner lot at peninsula Avenue,
zoned C-2, is the Jones *.Tntc. parking lot.
Cowments were invited fror: the audience.
Dr. A.J. Belton, 1601 Chapin Avenue, advised that he ig Part owner of
ISO feet of improved property on highland Avenue., immediately adjacent
to the subject property. In reply to his inquii-y concerning treatment
along the property line to screen the parking, he City Planner read
code provisions applicable to auto:iiobile parkillg lots. Caro Vinto stated
that there will be landscaping, similar to that at Peninsula and
I g;hlan�:'•. Avenues; shrubs rill be planted so that eventually a solid
i
Chairman Kindig informed the applicant that if the reclassification is
accomplished the proposed use will require a special perrrit fron the
Pinnning Commission.
MTS. E. Sofos, 115 Highland Avenue; Nr. C.L. Jones, 31 Highland Avenue,
"ITS. itarriet Bennessen, 110 Lorton Avenue, commented on noise nuisances
from other automobile storage lots in the neighborhood and the prac-
tice of automobile businesses in the area using -the sidewalks for
parking, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street.
?r. Minto explained that there will be no towing of wrecked cars, that
the lot is to be used, primarily, to relieve on street parking and
that the eventual service facility will be confined solely to servicinf;
of new cars, inside the building, and during the regular working day.
Mr. Daniel Minto, 01 Santa Inez Avenue, San Mateo, owner of the build-
ings in which the applicants operate their business, informed the
Commission that the autorobile agency and the incumbent services
have been in the location for approximately 30 years and that the
proposed expansion will improve rather than detract from the operation.
Upon determination by the ChaAh6ere were no further corwents from
tine floor, the bearing was declared concluded.
Following advice from the City Attorney and the City Planner that
recent amendments adopted by the State Legislature require, in matters
of land reclassification, a letter of recormendation, with reasons,
fron the Planning Commission to the City Council.
Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion authorizing the City Attorney
and City Planner to prepare a communication to the City Council for
Commission approval, recommending the requested change in classification
of the particular property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Edwards and carried unanimously on roll call.
Following Commission discussion, Chairman Kindig stated reasons for
the Commission's action as follows: to return the property to its
former zoning; to eliminate the possibility of the business.being
forced to relocate elsewhere to find the space necessary to ;t.s operation;
to eliminate on street parking and to permit future expansion of the
service facilitye
3. VARIANCE APPROVED FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO MAIN DWELLING.
Chairman Kindig announced a public hearing on the application of
P.A. DeCenzie, 2917 Mariposa Drive, for a variance to permit attachment
of a patio cover and windbreak to the eaves of a: dwelling, rather than
detached four feet o Lot 37, Block 46, 'Mills Estate No. 19, Zone R-1.
A communication from the applicant dated April 6, 1966, explained
that the location of the structure was determined by the limitations
of the lot; its purpose is to furnish protection from the prevailing
west winds and privacy for the pool area; detaching from the house
four feet would decrease its value as a windbreak and lessen the
privacy value; the usable patio area between the! pool and the retain-
ing wall is not large enough to permit the structure to be relocated.
Drawings were filed. -4-
Upon recognition by the Chairs firs. DeCenzie stated that the wised in
the particular location is very strong; to relocate will nullify the
l effectiveness of the windbreak.
There were no other comments from the audience.
Commissioners were invited to comment.
In reply to Commissioner Horwitz, the Chair advised that the structure
is in place.
In reply to Commissioner Norberg, the City Planner advised that the
residence is the flat roof -type Eichler home with the eaves extending
beyond the walls of the building; that there is no attachment to the
house except at the eaves.
The City Planner, in answer to the Chair's inquiry, advised that the
zoning code provides that "No accessory building shall he erected
closer than Four feet to any other building on the same lot or parcel
of land".
The City Planner reported further"
concerning open space around the
dwelling in event of fire that, as the structure now stands, there is
a walk and access on the west side of the property; in that area,
the lanai consists of a plexiglass roof supported by ornamental posts.
However. a wall added or, the northerly line would restrict access to
the property. lie stated that lie had no strong objection to the
structure but, with other vembers of the staff, objected to construe
tion without benefit of a building permit; none has been issued, nor
will be, for the structure as it stands unless the Commission grants
the variance.
During a review of the drawings, f1r. DeCenzie answered a series of
questions raised by Commissioner NOTberg.
Mr. Tom Martin, Bel -Air Outdoor Products, in reply to Commissioner
Norberg, explained that the crew was sent to the job on a Saturday
morning and the application for building permit was filed the follow-
ing Monday. lie stated that he was advised at that, time that the
structure was illegal and that the owners jaight apply for a variance.
The applicants stated they were unaware that the necessary permits had
not been issued when the work was started.
Commissioner Horwitz commented that the present situation way encourage
other toning violations and then subsequent applications for variances.
Commissioner Brauner concurred that it was bad practice to ignore the
rules pertaining to building permits but expressed the opinion that
strict enforcement of the building regulations in the present situation
would appear to be an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant.
Stating that the structure serves a useful purpose and the violation
is minimal and somewhat of a technicality, Commissioner Brauner intro-
duced a notion approving the variance, subject to the condition that
at no tire will thenre be any additional construction of any kind
pl2ced between the residence dnd the existing patio.
Commissioner Edwards seconded the motion, agreeing that denial would
place a burden upon the applicants,, lie suggested that,in the futures
_S_
t'he contractor not start a job when the buildiaq.., inspector is not
available to issue a permit.
The notion was declared carried on the following; roll call:
AYES: CO"WISSIONIERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Edurards, Kindig
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Horwitz, Norberg
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Pierce
Commissioner Cistulli commented on the contractor's negligence, stating
that it was his position that the homeowner should not be penalized.
The applicants were advised that the variance would become effective
Tuesday, May 3, if not appealed.
The hearing was declared concluded.
4. VARIANCES FOR APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION 212 ANITA ROAD a - DL'NI -D.
-� -- s
Chairman Kindig; announced a public hearing on the application of
Joseph and Gladys Arnaudo, 1004 North Humboldt Street, San !,tateo, for
variances pertaining to property at 212 Anita Road, to permit a non-
conforming three unit apartment building, which is built on the rear
property lime and six inches from both side lines, to remain on the
property; and to permit a second apartment building to be built on the
save lot. (Portion of -Block 22, Town of Burlingame Subdivision).
Zone Rai.
Architectural drawings were filed by the applicants.
A letter from the applicants, dated April 4, 1966, was read advising
that the existing building was moved from the front of the property
to the present rear location in 1949 with the intent of building
another structure on the property; moving to the, present location was
approved by the City of Burlingame; to destroy the structure would
mean destroying something the owner has taken a personal pride in
improving with the thought that the building would obtain a fair
period of usage and, together with the great financial loss, which
would be caused by destroying one structure to rebuild a new, repre-
sents a hardship.
The communication listed the applicant's arguments for approval of the
variance in accordance with the four code conditions relating to
variance grants.
Letters protesting the variances were read from Leo L. and Evelyn ii. Hill,
215 Arundel Road; Louis and Evelyn Rinkel, 217 Arundel Road;
fi-:rs. J.D. Armstrong, Sr., 477 Bloomfield Road, owner of improvements at
209 Arundel Road, all properties adjacent at the rear to the
subject property.
The protestants claimed that the applicants fail to meet code con-
ditions i6quisite to variance grants; that the adjacent property owners
have long had a grievance since the existing .apartment building was
illegally placed on the rear property line many years ago; that
a�,proval of the -variances, legalizing a non-couforming building and
allowing a second building on the property, would establish an undesir.,
able precedent; that the building is detriventaF to public safety.
Chairman Kindig .invited comments from the audience. favorl,ng or pro-,
-6-
In
testing.
P9ro Leo Dunne, 220 Arundel Road, and "'r. C.A. *acFarland, 716 lloward
Avenue, questioned whether the proposed new construction will provide
legal parking; �--1ro Dunne commented that the area is excessively bur-
dened with on -street parking.
Chairman Kindi.g advised that the plans indicate parking in accordance
with code,
?fir, Joseph Flanagan, 229 Arundel Road, objected to a second building
on the property in violation of existing ordinances.
Mr. Leo Hill, 215 Arundel Road, stated that his letter on file covered
his reasons for objecting, Ile mentioned incidents of damage and
nuisance re9tulting to his property because of the proximity of the
building at the rear.
Chairman K:irldig; questioned the City Planner concerning; the highest
number of units and lot coverage permitted, disregarding the existing.
building.
The City Planner stated that the code doF-s not sad' specifically but
setbacks, lot coverage and on -site parking regulations generally
determine the number of units; stan'Clard practice is to figure one
unit per 1000 square feet of area; can that basis, and under normal
condition`, about 10 units would be permitted on the property:
height li,n Station in R-3 Districts is four stories, or SS feet in
weight.
In reply to Commissioner CiStul.li's comment that the City Building
Inspector issued the permit allowing the building to be sited on
the rear of the lot, the City Planner staged that the building permit
was a matter of record; city ordinances and the State Housing Act,
in effect at the time, provided for side and rear setbacks, He stated
that the building was on the .lot when it was first built and was
moved to the back fo-r the purpose of building another building and
the permit was issued with the knowledge that this was intended,
Commissioner lvorbexg stated that it was his understanding; the city
code permits garage walls on the rear one-third of the lot.
Commissioner Brauner agreed that: this was so, that the cement block
wall on the property line is legal for the garages but not to support:
the superstructure above.
Commissioner Cistulli pointed out that the proposed building; will
meet: ,required front setback and lot coererag*e requirements,
Commissioner Brauner, stat lag that it was his understanding; that t-1le
building which now occupi. s .:he back part of the lot, and does not
conform to setbac#.s on si&= or --ear-, wGs built under a permit
issued by the Building lnsG ,-�,cto-rs. and ass aQi-fig that this was, fact- zuaI
Ill.' questioned the City -"."hether the 111 i-Inste responsibi .i.i--y
for copipliance grit;: _:FED codN_� IS uot S.a* af. he €;le:ner of the
rather than the officials of she c
The City �tte`�?;j�.�r 'deP.;1 -.E-r s��: t `5S t% L °:')f?�ie' e i> y' ;r ,lie C;'vl'• ;5"
of the prts}`ert", Z,O See t.1 a'-:: h ii 5 -i -.,g i _`> -an't
3'
o
C.
by the code; there is no right in the Building Inspector to give
anyone a right to violate the law; the mere fact the person has a
permit from the Building Inspector to do an illegal act does not
legalize it.
Commissioner Norber°g stated that in his opinion the applicant has
a very definite hardship in that he did what he thought was Fight
because he had a permit.
Commissioner Brauner, referring to the City Attorneys remarks,
stated that the fact the applicant held a building permit should not
now be used as a crutch to gain approval of a second building
on the lot, which, in itself, is illegal under the code.
Mr. Arnaudo, in reply to Chairman Kindig's questions concerning improve-
ments which were made to the -building after it was moved to the rear,
advised that the first floor was divided into two apartments by
installing a partition and a staircase built at the rear to the top
apartment.
±r. Louis Rinkel, 217 Arundel goads advised that there is only one
door which provides entry and exit to the top -floor apartment,
The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, stated *that the law requires
that there shall be more than one means of exit.
The applicant's architect advised that a metal lire escape is now
being instailed on the building.
Mrs. E. Sofos, 115 Highland Avenue, stated that approval of the
variances would establish a precedent for construction of two build-
ing on one lot.
There were no further comments from the audience.
The City Planner, in response to Chairman Kindig's invitation to com-
ment, stated that the city has been aware of the existing building
for many years but nothing was done on the basis that the building
had been granted a building permit; it has been treated as a non-
conforming use and, on that basis, was allowed to continue without
changes, hoping eventually it would disappear° He stated that the
applicants are requesting that the Planning Commission and the City
Council give some of the advantages of legality 'to an illegal or
non -conforming use.
The City Planner stated that there are many properties upon which
a second building could be built but the present code provides for
one building on a lot, as did the 1941 code, in effect at the time
the building was moved. lie stated that lie was concerned that the
hardship is one of financial gain and that there are properties in
all areas of t1he city on which the saYrw c?ain could be made and
probably wit'ai the same Justification.
In conclusion, he expressed his position that the variances should
riot be ranted; that the applicants own a beautiful piece of property
and should ;remove the building at the -rear and build a proper apart-
ment there.
�B�
Commissioner Noritlerp stated his posi tioi; in favor of the proposal. since
it was not in the best interests of the city to leave the front of the
property vacant, that the new construction will give a much finer appear-
ance to the area and will be an advantage rather than a detriment to the
city. Ile stated that there is plenty of light, air and sunshine to the
units in the rear;.the drawings show that there is sufficient parking for
the new construction, cowplying with the code.
Mr. Leo Dunne, 220 Arundel Road, upon recognition by the Chair, stated
that there is an obvious inequity between the situation of the building
and neighboring properties.
Commissioner Edwards commented that an individual would normally assume,
in dealing with the Building Inspector, that the latter would be familiar
with the code. Ile stated, however, if the application is approved, the
city would be placed in the position of compounding a violation of the
code since the building in the rear does not conform; he questioned
whether it would not be possible for the applicants to create a new 10
unit building in the front and reprove the old structure.
Commissioner Horwitz stated that it was not in the interests of good
planning, nor to the city's advantage, to establish a precedent by per-
mitting the non conforming building to remain on the property.
Commissioner Brauner stated that he was concerned about the building as a
fire hazard since there is little or no access on either side; a fire
could be disastrous to the building and to other buildings in the area;
I
ie referred to objections raised by a speaker from the floor that the
building and the tenants have created nuisances to his property. fie
stated that it is his position that neither the applicants, nor any of
those in favor, have showed in any way that the application meets the
conditions of the code.
Commissioner Brauner referred to applications before the Commission in
the past where variances were requested and denied for construction of a
second building on a property; he stated that precedence must be con-
sidered.
Commissioner Norberg reported that he had occasion to consult with the
fire department and was told that from their standpoint two buildings are
easier to AR�han one on a lot.
Commissioner Cistulli pointed out that the applicants have been before
the Commission on several occasions in study meetings, cooperating in
submitting drawings and plans, as requested.
Commissioner Cistulli informed Mr. Arnaudo that if the application were,
denied at this time one year must elapse before a similar application
may be filed for the property; he inquired whether the applicant would
be interested in asking for a continuance to allow time to reconsider
the application and perhaps decide to proceed on the basis of the new
construction only.
Mr. Arnaudo replied in the negative.
Chairman gindig declared the hearing concluded.
Commissioner Horwitz consented that due to the fact the applicants have
-9-
not proved compliance- with the four code conditions for variance grants
and, if a variance were approved, a non -conforming, building would be
} legalized, introduced a motion to deny the application. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Brauner and carried on the following roll call:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS Brauner, Edwards, I-Iorwitz, Kindig
NOES: COMWISSIONERS Cistulli, Norberg
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS Pierce
The applicants were advised of the right of appeal to the City Council,
NEW BUSINESS
1. Capital Improvement Studies.
Commissioners concurred with the City Planner's suggestion that studies
on capital improvement projects start at the study -meeting -on May 9.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairman Kindig announced that nominations were in order for the office
of Chairman of the Commission for the ensuing yeaa.
The name of Commissioner Edwin L. Pierce, the present Vice -Chairman, was
placed in nomination by Commissioner Cistulli and seconded by Commissioner
Norbert.
There were no further nominations.
CHAIRMAN ELECTED
Edwin L. Pierce was thereafter unanimously elected Chairman for the
year 1966-67.
VICE-CIIAIRMAN AND SECRETARY.
Election of the Nice -Chairman and Secretary was postponed to the next
regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 10:4S p.m.
Commissioners net with representatives of the Lesley Foundation to
review informally drawings prepared by the architect, I!r. Richard R. Zahai,
of a proposed Retirement Residence on property located on Almer Road.
Pespectfully submitted,
John J. Brauner, Secretary
m10-
���'
� �,
�....
�_
�_
,r,
__
--i