HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.04.23THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
April 23, 1973
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
Norberg - excused, City Planner Swan
illness City Engineer Marr
City Attorney Karmel
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order on the above date at 8:05 P.M., Chairman Cistulli presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 26, 1973 and the minutes
of the study meeting of April 9, 1973 were approved and adopted.
HEARINGS
1. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, A PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE GENERAL PLAN
Chairman Cistulli announced this matter for public hearing. City
Planner Swan introduced Mr. George Mader, an associate of Mr. Wm.
Spangle, who made a presentation on this subject.
Mr. Mader informed the Commission that Mr. Spangle was unable to be
present, due to a conflict in appointments.
He reported that the State Planning Law now requires that each city
and county have an open space element by June 30, 1973. Impetus for
this law came -from groups who were concerned that not enough was being
done to protect open space. He went on to describe the four types
of open space as defined by State law. These are: 1. Open space for
preservation of natural resources, including areas required for
preservation of plant and animal life; 2. Open space used for the
managed production of resources including forest lands, rangeland,
and areas of economic importance for the production of food; 3, Open
space for outdoor recreation, including parks, beaches, riverbanks,
lakeshores; 4. open space for public health and safety including
areas requiring special management such as earthquake fault zones,
flood zones, watersheds. However, he told the Commission, the Spangle
report proposes a broader view of open space: the concept of open
space lands and all the open space above them. i.e., air space is
also open space. He emphasized a concern with all quarti.ties of open
space from the macro -scale of undeveloped regions and large expanses
of water to the micro -space of personal backyards.
Mr. Mader quoted 8 objectives of this element of the general plan.
- 2 -
Basically, these are: preserve existing open space; increase privacy
and safety and assure light and air; preserve important vistas:
provide open space for recreational needs; protect areas necessary
for natural processes such as water and air quality; protect open
space for wildlife; maintain open space to enhance community identity;
establish framework for continuing action program.
Mr. Mader pointed out the large open space diagram prepared for
the audience and illustrated it by slides. These depicted the open
space now existing in the city, and included in 20 such areas street
rights of way, the S.F. watershed, various parks,public school grounds,
the waterfront, and the S.P. right of way. He noted these areas
are described in detail in the plan. He categorized these as macro
open space, intermediate open space, micro open space, and air space,
giving examples of each. He commented that if views in the city
are obstructed, the open air space is violated; and added that
actually the city's major open space, aside from air space, was rights
of way. Mr. Mader remarked that the city was fortunate in being
situated between the two large open spaces - the S.F. watershed and
the S.F. Bay.
He reported that the Open Space element has many recommendations for
implementation, and enlarged on some of these. He suggested that
BCDC be supported in their control of the Bay and its shores, and
that tidal plain zoning regulations be reviewed and strengthened if
necessary. Bayside Park should be developed as a major open space
link between the City and the Bay waters. The inner lagoon between
Bayshore Freeway and the industrial area should be retained as open
space, since it is valuable for drainage and is an important part
of a visual corridor. He suggested that an appropriate development
plan along the shores of the lagoon be made, and that there be an
open space continuum from the land across Bayshore Freeway to the
inner lagoon. He recommended that Anza Pacific lands around the
outer lagoon be kept in open space use except for sites for restaurants.
Anza Pacific lands around a proposed inner lagoon (known as Area 17
on the map) he felt should be kept essentially open.
He moved into a discussion of the east shoreline which he thought
should be enhanced by a system of walks and pedestrian paths. The
west shoreline, already much developed, should have zoning regulations
requiring public access and uses restricted to those requiring water-
front location. With regard to the major open space area of the S.F.
watershed, he felt good liaison should be maintained with the City
of San Francisco Water Department so that actions on these lands
could be monitored.
Concerning other areas, Mr. Mader suggested lease or purchase of the
proposed Skyline Park; acquisition of easements to Mills Canyon
Park and Mills Canyon Hillside; prezoning of Russell College; protection
of Burlingame's creek system to maintain quality; prezoning of
hillside lands in the Easton Creek and Canyon Drive area, and
acquisition of conservation easements.
Mr. Mader presented a precis of recommendations for city parks,
school lands, institutional lands, Burlingame Plaza, Broadway, and
the downtown area. He summarized that actions for implementing
- 3 -
these recommendations fall into three classes: zoning regulations,
acquisition of easement rights by gift or purchase, acquisition in
full fee by purchase or gift.
Chairman Cistulli opened the meeting to public discussion.
Chuck Nolan, 221 Victoria, questioned if the City, by preserving
the open space by zoning, would not be limiting property owners' use
and would therefore be liable for compensation to the owner or
outright purchase. Mr. Mader replied that the history of regulations
regarding land is based on legislation developed in the past. The
line between these regulations and property ownership is difficult
to define. He suggested enactment of amendments to present regulations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
At this point, Chairman Cistulli acknowledged the presence in the
audience of Councilman Dorothy Cusick.
David Keyston of Anza Pacific commented that much of this open space
element affects their property, and in most cases has the same
excellent objectives as his company. He was most favorably impressed
with the proposal. However, he asked that the City Consider very
carefully the extension of tidal plain zoning to all tidal plains
since he felt this was extremely restrictive. He suggested minor
developments along the shoreline. In speaking of the outer lagoon
and its use limitation to restaurants, he said this property is
leased from -.the State. Permitted by the agreement with the State
it may be developed as restaurants and related retail. This includes
public uses, shop uses. He suggested a revision of C-4 zoning regula-
tions in his area, pointing out that Anza requires 30% landscaping
instead of 15% under the code.
He told the Commission that in Anza's preliminary plan they attempted
to maintain three visual corridors. if they were to make the open
space in Area 17 as large as shown on the proposed city plan, it would
not eliminate but would restrict the other two visual corridors.
He commented his present plans are for less than 20% lot coverage
in the entire area south of Airport Boulevard. He stated that all
of Anza Pacific property facing on the Bay has dedicated shoreline
access to the City, but requested the City's help in working with
the S.F. Airport and BCDC in some areas where their permission is
required for access walks and roads. He further stated that the
east portion (Areas 18 and 19) of Anza's property would contain 80%
of surface area in open space;'60% of the parking would be underground.
30% to 40% of this property is dedicated to public access. Again,
he requested that uses for Area 17 be expanded to include other
waterfront activities. He summarized that overall Anza Pacific
approved of the open space element and hoped the City would adopt it.
Mrs. Elizabeth Anderson of 113 Crescent had a number of comments
about the open space element. She criticized the concern with the
view of the city from Bayshore Freeway with no apparent concern for
the views of city dwellers, and felt that the view of the shoreline
was very important. She asked if it were legal to consider
Burlingame -Hills, which is in the County, in this projected plan for
Burlingame. City Planner Swan informed her that prezoning of
contiguous property is legal.
- 4 -
She complained that not enough attention was being given to the needs
of aging people in aging areas of Burlingame and that specific
recommendations of -the General Plan were not being followed with
relation to housing and building codes. On Commission question as to
what this had to do with the Open Space Element, she replied she
believed that the rehabilitation of neighborhoods fits in with the
Open Space Plan.
Mr. Mader told her that the open space plan does address building
height in that air space shall be protected through zoning regulations.
The urban design plan which is under study will suggest more specific
regulations on this. The Open Space element has no regulations as
to housing quality other than those for the micro open spaces of
setbacks and yards. These need to be in the zoning ordinances, but
the housing element is a separate plan. He commented that the view
of the City from Bayshore is important in relation to the way
Burlingame fits into the fabric of the Bay area.
Mrs. Anderson insisted that the open space element concerned all
other elements of the General Plan and that all sections, which she
said must be adopted by the first of June, should be considered
together instead of separately.
City Planner Swan told the Commission he had sent copies of
Burlingame's Open Space Element to the County of San Mateo, Hillsborough,
Millbrae, City of San Mateo, and LAFGO. He then read a letter dated
April 19, from Donald A. Wo'.lfe, Planning Director for the County
of San Mateo, commenting favorably on this element. He reported
that staff had prepared a resolution on the Open Space Element to
forward to the City Council.
Commissioner Sine commented that he was in favor of open space but
with respect to more park space he had observed that we already
have a number of parks that seemed to have a paucity of use. He
wondered if additional space for this use was necessary.
Commissioner Mink commented that Paragraphs 526, 527, and 528
make references to consideration being given to residential areas,
and he did not understand Mrs. Anderson's concern. He also noted
that the section dealing with "pocket parks" lies in the area of
speculation to be implemented when the land is available.
Commissioner Kindig stated that he was a resident of the flat area
of Burlingame which does not have the view corridors that the
hillsides do, but he did think that consideration of these residential
neighborhoods was being given.
Commissioner Taylor stated he thought Mrs. Anderson was somewhat
confused and possibly did not realize that the City is not adopting
a new general plan or changing it. The City is adopting a supplement
to it. He liked the objectives of the element and was looking
forward to implementing some of them.
Commissioner Jacobs thought the Spangle report was very good and
was pleased with the Anza Pacific proposal for open space on their
lands.
Commissioner Taylor raised the question of whether the Commission
- 5 -
would be adopting the map - Division III - if the open space element
were approved. He felt that some parts of the map, such as Area No. 17
below the actual lagoon were somewhat inflexible.
Mr. Mader replied that adoption of the open space element would
require the adoption of the plan diagram, which is Division III.
He commented that a general plan is not a detailed plan, but a some-
what flexible and general document. However, some things are
specified. He asked to get on record a change on the map due to
technicalities. This is Area 9 which should be extended to include
all of Russell College.
Commissioner Kindig commented that the Commission would be adopting
this resolution as part of the general plan, and questioned how details
could be changed if necessary. The City Planner here commented
that the open space element contains three divisions if adopted:
1. Definitions and Policies; 2. Proposals and Action Program=
3. Plan Diagram.
Commissioner Taylor suggested that if the element were adopted
without Division 3, subsequent action taken in regard to zoning could
be required to be consistent with the general plan. He felt the
City might be handicapped by having the map as part of the plan.
The City Attorney told the Commission that it was felt appropriate
to include a diagram as part of the plan. If at some future date
changes are made, the City must resolve that such action is not
inconsistent with the general plan or with the open space element,
Divisions 1, 2, and 3.
Commissioner Taylor felt this might present a complicated problem
in the future.
Commissioner Mink was concerned with the technicality of intermediate
open space as it relates to Anza Pacific holdings in Area 17. He
wondered if the wording could be changed (paragraph 537) to "This
area, or its equivalent, privately owned, should be kept essentially
open . . . ." This would allow the City and the developer to
determine the location of these open spaces.
Mr. Mader understood that some flexibility was desired without
amending the general plan. He commented it was only fair to say
that Area 17 was designated based on a plan where a major view could
be obtained. He thought if that were maintained, conditions would
be met.
The City Planner concurred, stating that the intent of the
legislation is to insure that cities and counties recognize that open
space is a valuable resource to be conserved wherever possible.
He emphasized the "wherever possible."
There was some further discussion.
Commissioner Taylor moved that Resolution 1-73 approving the Open
Space Element be recommended to the City Council for adoption.
This motion was amended by Commissioner Mink to include the amendment
of paragraphs 537 and 538 by addition of the words "or its equivalent"
after "This area," and "zone this portion."
Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,SINE,TAYLOR,CISTULLI
NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION ESTABLISHMENT
IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1465 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-101-120)
TRANSPORTATION LIMITED AS LESSEE: BY OWNER, RICHARD LAVENSTEIN
ET AL
This item was considered out of agenda context for the convenience of
the audience. Secretary M. Jacobs read letter of April 19, 1973
from Richard Lavenstein advising that John Harder wished to withdraw
his application. The Commission agreed to accept this withdrawal.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR COVEY TRUCKING COMPANY IN M-1 DISTRICT WITHOUT
STREET FRONTAGE AT 1246 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-040);
TRUSTEE: BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 26, 1973 )
Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary
Jacobs read letter dated March 22, 1973 from the Bank of America
stating that as owners of the property they are opposed to a permit
for an underground tank.
Mr. Spencer Covey addressed the Commission. He stated he no longer
had a need for a fuel tank; that he had leased this property for 4h
years, and the former City Planner had told him he would not need
a special permit. (Ed. Covey Trucking Company has a 2-year lease
which expires in November, 1973. Fire Inspector's report of
January 2, 1973 states: "This has been a problem since April 14,
1971 when a business license was approved for Mr. Covey to use the
building at 1246 Rollins Road as a workshop for the construction of
a small personal airplane.")
He added he had checked with the Bank of America regarding an access
near the Blue Chip Store. They told him Blue Chip had been considering
moving, but the problem was not yet resolved. Blue Chip has a fence
which closes off his area. He has access through Bank of America
property on Rollins Road and across the PGE easement.
There was no audience comment for or against this application.
Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria, stated that because of lack of
merchandise at the Blue Chip Store his wife had checked with their
Redwood City office and they had informed her that Blue Chip was closing.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Sine commented that obviously the problem of circulation
for entry and exit of Covey's trucks had not been solved. He asked
Mr. Covey where he would store all his equipment in the event he had
no construction work at all. Mr. Covey replied that his heavy
equipment was stored at project site, and if he had no work his
- 7 -
equipment would go back to his creditors.
Commissioner Taylor noted -that Covey's business license expires
on July 1, 1973 and his lease on November 1, 1973. He was concerned
about the appearance of the area, even though Mr. Covey was not
entirely responsible, and he objected to the approval of this
application unless Mr. Covey is able to park his equipment on land
which he leases.
Commissioner Mink had no comment since he was not present at the
study meeting. Commissioner Jacobs had no comment.
Commissioner Kindig questioned if Coveys lease was subject to
renewal. Mr. Covey replied that he had a two year option, and that
the Bank of America had no objections to his parking on their
property. Commissioner Kindig suggested the permit be limited to
one year, so that the entire area could be cleaned up if an opportunity
arose. Mr. Covey objected that he was being put on the defensive
for all five of the businesses concerned in this area.
Chairman Cistulli suggested that the permit be made concurrent with
the lease, since Mr. Covey has been in business in this location for
431 years, and it did not seem fair to ruin his business. He suggested
permit be granted until November of 1973, at which time it could
again be considered by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Sine moved that the special permit for Covey Trucking
be granted until November of 1973. Commissioner Jacobs seconded
the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR, CISTULLI
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MINK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG
3. VARIANCE FOR A FOUR -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX ON TWO LOTS IN AN
R-2 DISTRICT AT 922-926 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, BEING LOTS 12 AND 13,
BLOCK A, EASTON ADDITION, BY ABEL AND NANCY LAZAR
Chairman Cistulli brought up this application for public hearing.
Secretary Jacobs read letter of application from Mr. and Mrs. Lazar
which stated they wish to construct a 4-unit residential building
with guest facilities for elderly women. They noted they had
recommendations from the Department of Public Health and Welfare
of San Mateo County. City Planner Swan distributed plans dated
March 8, 1973 to the Commission.
Mrs. Lazar had nothing to add to the facts contained in the letter
of application.
Chairman Cistulli requested audience comment.
Mr. Paul Hinchcliffe Jr., 904 Paloma, objected to a rest home in
this area, citing increased traffic problems, increased load on
utilities and complained of -present inadequate storm drainage in the
wet season. He stated he definitelydid_ _ want, to know what
the plans were for the neighborhood_ as he was uncertain as to how
to use his property. He was informed by the Chairman that if he
wished to improve his property he could file for variance; that the
present hearing dealt only with the applicant, Mrs. Lazar. Mr.
Hinchcliffe insisted on information about the inadequacies of utilities
in this area. City Engineer Marr told him that if there are gas
leaks, P.G.E. should be notified. He said water fire flow is fairly
satisfactory and sewage mains gave trouble only in the wet season.
With reference to street lighting, the City Engineer said that
citizens complaints are given attention and the City will improve if
possible. Mr. Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria, objected to this use
since it is an increase in density. Mrs. Barbara O'Neill, 1411
Sanchez, objected to the greater density and the increase in traffic.
There were no audience comments in favor and the public hearing was
declared closed.
Commissioner Sine questioned the City Engineer as to sewer adequacy.
City Engineer Marr replied it would probably be adequate for a
standard 4-family unit but he did not know how many people the
Lazar's were proposing to accommodate.
Commissioner Sine was concerned that the structure would be used
temporarily for a nursing home and then modified to a 4-plex apartment.
He considered the second floor area very bad for occupants of a
nursing home. Old people must climb stairs; there is only one bath,
no kitchen facilities and no fire escapes. He stated this would be
a fire trap and he would not vote for it.
Commissioner Taylor objected to the 50% lot coverage and questioned
if a special permit for this use could be issued in an R-2 area.
Chairman Cistulli thought the plans would accommodate 16, guests and
staff, which would be excessive. He was concerned that in the
future interior walls could come out and allow an eight apartment
building.
Commissioner Mink objected to the excessive land coverage and considered
it a bad use.
Commissioner Jacobs objected to the 12 bedrooms on 'the 2nd'floor and
stated he could not vote for it.
Commissioner Kindig commented he was acquainted with Mrs. Lazar and
approved the condition of her establishment, but did not like the
design and the excessive coverage.
Commissioner Sine moved that this application for variance be denied.
Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG,MINK, SINE,TAYLOR, CISTULLI
NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG
Mr. and Mrs. Lazar were informed by Chairman Cistulli that they had
the right to appeal this decision to the City Council.
4. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 2-6 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 23, SUBDIVISION
OF BLOCK 22 AND 24 AND RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 23, TOWN OF
BURLINGAME FROM R-1 TO R-3A BY PETITION OF ALL THE PROPERTY
OWNERS AND REPRESENTED BY LEON RICHARDSON.
S. RECLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT LOTS 1 AND lA IN THE SAME BLOCK
FROM R-1 TO R-3A ON THE INITIATIVE OF THE BURLINGAME CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
6. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 1,
lA AND 2-6 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 23 FROM R-1 TO R-3A.
Chairman Cistulli announced public hearing on these items. Secretary
Jacobs read petition signed by five property owners on this block
requesting reclassification. He then read eleven communications
from property holders, some signed by several people, opposing this
reclassification.
Mr. Richardson was invited to give his reasons for wishing this
reclassification. He spoke as a property holder on the block, stating
that since 3/4 of the block is already zoned R-3, he felt strongly
the remainder should be zoned R-3A. He wishes to pull down an old
building and build a 5 unit apartment, in which he will live. He
noted there are two apartment buildings already on the same side of
the street.
Randall Wardlaw, 116 Bloomfield, opposed the rezoning, citing increased
costs in taxes and assessments, and the fact that most property holders
wish to keep this an R-1 area. Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria, opposed
on the grounds that there would soon be too many apartments and some
would not be rented. Raymond Guerber, 313 Estrella Way, San Mateo,
stated he had purchased property at 14 arundel Road, and the increased
traffic would be dangerous for school children, including his own.
Sam Marengo, 207 Clarendon, opposed, objecting to the fact that
variances are given in R-1 neighborhoods too much and that the R-1
classification should either be upheld or discarded.
A resident of 105 Arundel Road spoke in favor of the reclassification,
stating that the property was run-down and should be improved. He
also noted the presence of two apartment houses on this block. He
felt the reclassification was not being viewed in the proper perspective.
The public hearing was declared closed.
City Planner Swan reported that Burlingame's code permits an
application for reclassification by property owners, by the City
Planning Commission, and by the City Council. He stated there was
a 100% request for reclassification of Lots 2-6 to R-3A. The request
for reclassification of the two remaining lots was made by the City
Planning Commission. He noted that a request for reclassification
cannot be enlarged, but it can be reduced, and offered as an alternative
the reclassification of the single lot owned by Mr. Richardson. He
commented that approval of a one lot reclassification does -not
include building plans. He stated, however, that Mr. Richardson's
tentative apartment plan did meet the R-3A regulations. A 7,500
square foot lot would permit no more than five units.
The City Planner produced a draft of EIR-17P, which EIR could be
approved at a subsequent meeting. He presented conclusions of the
EIR briefly, and noted that the March, 1973 tax assessment roll was
- 10 -
reviewed for all properties in a 12 block area in this neighborhood.
This was done to get a ratio of the value of the land to the value of
the improvements, explaining that when the land is assessed at a
higher value than the improvements, it could be termed underimproved
property. He produced several exhibits: 1. Location
of high density, medium density, and low density as indicated in the
General Plan; 2. Location of existing multi -family housing in this
area; 3. Lots where the ratio of assessed valuation of land to the
assessed valuation of improvements is more than one in this area.
He suggested a small reclassification to ascertain the actual impact
on this neighborhood. The City Planner then suggested that this matter
be adjourned to the meeting of May 14 so that findings could be prepared
and action taken on EIR-17P.
Commissioner Mink commented he was led to believe there was R-3 zoned
property in the city which was not being used to its fullest
capacity. There were vacant properties now in the R-3 zone.
Commissioner Sine stated that sewer and water mains must be upgraded
if this reclassification were approved. In his opinion upgrading
systems for these few lots was not feasible and the whole area from
Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula should be upgraded, since this area
contains much old undersized cast iron pipe which has been in for
some 50 years. He noted that R-3A requirements call for a water flow
of 2,500 to 3,000 GEM which is more than these old mains can provide.
He stated the only way he would consider a reclassification would be
to reclassify the entire area to R-3A and upgrading the entire
underground system. He stated that by his computation this would
probably cost around $9.00-10.00 per linear foot. He suggested that
each developer should be required to pay $2,000 for each unit to help
defray this cost. Another suggestion was that owners of non -conforming
properties as well as properties built before 1922 be required to
participate in payments.
Commissioner Taylor thought the reclassification proposal made more
sense than requesting the applicants to come in for a variance.
He suggested two alternatives - acquisition of the land by Washington
School or rezoning the lots to R-2A.
Commissioner Mink had no comment. Commissioner Jacobs had'no comment.
Commissioner Kindig stated that consideration of these five lots is
unrealistic unless it takes into effect the fact that there is already
one 5-unit apartment and one 4-unit apartment on this block, leaving
only two lots with single family dwellings. He thought if the water
situation could be resolved, these five lots were a logical R-3A.
Commissioner Mink moved that the staff prepare findings of fact and
a resolution with regard to lots 2-6 inclusive, and that the resolution
contain a provision that the rezoning not take place until a satisfactory
resolution of water service in the area (100 block of Arundel Road)
is made and the fire flow be brought up to the standards of the Fire
Department. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried
by unanimous voice vote.
Commissioner Mink moved that the Planning Commission drop reclassification
of Lots 1-1A. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried
by unanimous voice vote.
8. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL - CONVERSION OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS TO
CONDOMINIUMS
City Planner Swan reported that he wished to make a progress report
to the City Council on this item, and that the key issue is that of
off-street parking.
9. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL - ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
GENERAL PLAN
After some discussion, Commissioner Mink requested that notices be
given and the resolution be considered at the adjourned meeting of
May 14. All Commissioners agreed.
10. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner Sine nominated, Commissioner Jacobs seconded Everett Kindig
for chairman. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Sine
nominated Charles Mink as vice chairman, Commissioner Jacobs seconded.
Carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Sine moved the Commission
continue with Malcolm Jacobs as secretary. Commissioner Kindig seconded
the motion, and it carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner
Kindig noted he would be out of town on the date of adjourned
meeting May 14.
COMMUNICATIONS:
City Planner Swan read communication from Mrs. Robert L. Hammett
thanking the Commission for their action in denying the Heskett
application for a carpet coliseum.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Taylor moved the meeting be adjourned to May 14.
Commissioner Kindig seconded and the motion carried by unanimous
vote.
Meeting adjourned at 12:00 M.
Respectfully submitted,
Malcolm M. Jacobs
Secretary