Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.01.22THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION January 22, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None Jacobs Kindig Mink NOrberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER City Planner Swan 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 December 11, 1972 were approved and adopted, with correction that vote on Harold C. Barber variance for 612 Peninsula Avenue, show Commissioner Mink as a "Nay" vote. The minutes of the adjourned and study meeting of January 8, 1973 were approved and adopted. 1. VARIANCE FOR 719" x 5010" GTE SYLVANIA ROOF SIGN AT 1811 ADRIAN ROAD (APN 025-169-050) ZONED M-11 BY AD -ART INC. AND SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS INC. Chairman Cistulli announced this continued application for hearing. Upon his invitation Mr. F. E. Brown, Distribution Manager for GTE Sylvania, addressed the Commission. He told them the sign had been redesigned and had been brought to code as to the required square footage. The City Planner concurred that it did meet code. There was some discussion of the fact that there was no need for a variance. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Planning Commission accept the 719" x 50' GTE Sylvania Roof Sign at 1811 Adrian Road. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous voice vote. 2. VARIANCE FOR NEW 9-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 11 PARKING SPACES AT 1000 CHULA VISTA BEING LOTS 16 AND 17, BLOCK 10, EASTON ADDITION, ZONED R-3i BY HAROLD C. BARBER: OWNER GERTRUDE E. SMOODY, Chairman Cistulli announced public hearing on this application continued from December 11, 1972 at the request of Mr. Barber. Secretary Jacobs read communication dated January 18, 1973 from Charles G. Rigg, attorney for Mr. Barber, requesting that the hearing set for January 22 be put over to the next regular Planning Commission hearing date. There followed Commission discussion about the continuance requested - 2 - by Mr. Barber to allow him time to work the matter out with the owner, Mrs. Smoody. She had advised him he no longer had an interest in the property since he had not met escrow conditions. The City Planner stated Mr. Barber had been in his office in the last week, and there were no changes in the situation. He added he had also received a phone call from the attorney and had informed Mr. Rigg he would recommend denial because of the parking. City Planner Swan added the Commission might wish to continue as a matter of courtesy to the attorney. Commissioner Kindig indicated he saw no point in this continuance without representation from Mrs. Smoody. The City Attorney pointed out that the Commission would not entertain an application where the applicant does not have an interest in the property, and saw no harm in having the application continued. Mrs. Gertrude Smoody, owner of the property, was granted permission to address the Commission. She stated she saw no reason for this continuance, she had not sold Mr. Barber the property, she did not intend to do so, and he had not approached her since the December 11 meeting. There was further discussion. Commissioner Taylor moved the application for variance be continued until the next regul4r meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, NORBERG, SINE, CISTULLI ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Sine expressed concern for the people in the audience interested in this application who had been forced to attend two meetings with no result, and felt it would be a hardship to expect them to attend still another meeting when the applicant did not even bother to attend this meeting. Commissioner Taylor moved the application for a variance be'denied. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Mink moved this item be dropped from the agenda. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion carried by voice vote. 3. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PENINSULA GENERAL TIRE, LEASED PORTION AT 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE, (APN 026-240-290) ZONED M-lt OWNER OSCAR F. PERSON. This item was announced for hearing by Chairman Cistulli. Secretary Jacobs read communication dated 12/8/72 from Mr. and Mrs. Frank Phillips urging revocation of this permit. Chairman Cistulli invited Mr. Oscar Person, owner of the -property, to speak. Mr. Person stated that the equipment and.materials for which he was responsible had been cleared from the lot, except for - 3 - some steel beams. He was not certain of Peninsula General Tire's housekeeping. Commissioner Sine stated he had inspected the site todayt the wall was downs the site was cleared with the exception of three I beams. In his opinion Mr. Person had complied with the request of the planning commission. Commissioner Norberg agreed. Mr. Person gave the Commission photographs of the storage yard taken this date for their inspection. City Planner Swan stated he visited the yard this afternoon and it did look clean. He noted it would be necessary for Mr. Person to make arrangements for the storage of the steel beams still on the property. There was no audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioners Taylor and Jacobs indicated approval of the lot clean-up. The City Attorney suggested the matter could be handled by dropping it,from the agenda. Commissioner Mink moved that the item for revocation or suspension of this special permit be removed from the agenda. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous voice vote. 4. RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 18-22 BLOCK 7, TOWN OF BURLINGAME, TO COMBINE APN 029-224-170 THROUGH -220 INCL. INTO ONE PARCEL FOR PARK PLAZA TOWERS CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS BY PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS INC., CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 8. This resubdivision was announced for hearing by the Chairman. Secretary Jacobs noted receipt of the resubdivision map. City Engineer Marr stated he had received a letter from this firm urging the map be considered at this meeting but stating they wish to hold up the recording of the map until such time as the hearing is completed by the City Council. The City Engineer stated he had no objection to the map, and would delay the recording until a later date. Commissioner Sine stated that since he had done business with this firm, he considered this a conflict of interest, and did not intend to participate in the discussion or the vote. Commissioner Taylor stated he had no objection to the map but questioned if it should be allowed until the project is approved, since it could require a reversal of the process. The City Engineer explained that the map does not become final until it has been recorded. Therefore, if the project does not go through, the map will not become final. He thought Pacific Western wished to save time. City Attorney Karmel suggested granting approval contingent upon Council approval of the project. Commissioner Taylor moved the resubdivision map for Lots 18-22, Block 7, Town of Burlingame, for Par%'_Plaza Tower Condominium Apartments be approved subject to the granting by the City Council of a permit to construct this condominium per plans submitted to them. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: - 4 - vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Jacobs, Kindig, Mink, Norberg, Taylor, Cistulli NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Sine 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW HOBBY ROOMS IN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING AND NEW CARPORT IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 333 CHAPIN LANE BEING LOT 6, BWCK 11, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 BY LESTER C. GUNTHER JR. Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Plot plans were distributed. Secretary Jacobs read letter from the applicant dated December 20, 1972. This outlined the proposed general improvement of the property which includes the construction of a swimming pool, the conversion of part of the garage to a pool accessory room and bathroom, and the construction of a carport. Incorporated in the letter was the owner's pledge that as long as he was owner of the property it would not be used for any illegal or nonconforming rental or commercial use. Mr. and Mrs. Gunther were present, but did not elaborate on the facts presented. City Planner Swan showed slides of the property, indicating the proposed additions. He referred to previous consideration for variance for less than four feet between the carport and the house, but the plans had been redesigned and it was not necessary. The special permit is for a hobby room in an accessory building in an R-1 district. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comments either for or against. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned the Gunthers as to their intent in this change and exactly what facilities it intended. Mrs. Gunther replied that primarily it would be a place for the children to change wet clothing before coming in the house. There would be a shower, sink, and toilet. The water would be heated by electricity. There would not be a storage tank for the hot water. The Commissioner stated in this case the building would have to be wired for 220V, and she indicated it already was. Commissioner Sine indicated the main point of his interest was the possibility of this becoming m illegal apartment at some time in the future, and he felt the pool must go in ahead of any accessory facilities. Commissioner Norberg had no objections since the neighbors did not object to the carport and the changing room facilities were necessary. He did note there was a question of the proper equipment being installed to heat the water. Commissioner Mink approved this effort to upgrade the property and thought it complied with the intent of the code. Commissioner Taylor agreed but questioned whether the garage should be wider than its present 10111" and if the carport should be as long as 180. The City Planner stated there were no specific criteria in the code. Commissioner Kindig agreed with Commissioner Sine's concern about this becoming an apartment if the property should be sold. He understood that fire equipment access was satisfactory and questioned if this - 5 - would be through the carport. The City Planner informed him that the standard here would be for an open space so that the fireman can carry a ladder on his shoulders between the buildings. The Building Inspector had agreed this was adequate and he concurred. Commissioner Jacobs indicated he would be in favor of the permit only if the swimming pool were built first so that there would be no future exploitation of the unfinished project. Chairman Cistulli suggested this be made one of the conditions of the permit. He questioned the Gunthers if they would accept this condition and they were agreeable. Mr. Gunther said that if they moved he'd fill the toilet with cement. Commissioner Norberg moved that the special permit -to allow hobby rooms in existing accessory building and new carport at 333 Chapin Lane be approved subject to the construction of a swimming pool before constructing the work as designated on the plans, and subject to the water heater being electrical. Mr. Gunther raised the question of what to do if a ;physical reason should prevent installation of electrical heater. He was directed to inform the commission for alternatives should this situation arise. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried unanimously on roll call vote. Mr. and Mrs. Gunther were informed this permit would become effective on February 6, 1973 if not appealed to the City Council. 6. SIGN VARIANCE FOR A TEMPORARY 8' x 16' DOUBLE FACED REAL ESTATE SIGN AND 6 PEDESTRIAN SIGNS AT NORTHPARK APARTMENTS (APN 026-231-280) ZONED R-4 BY HILLS SIGNS AND DISPLAYS. Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs noted the application and read letter from Mr. Tom Snyder of Hill Signs and Displays requesting variance for sign to direct prospective renters to the site. Sketches of proposed signs were distributed. Mr. Tom Snyder was present and at the invitation of the Chairman addressed the Commission. He stated the large sign is designed for temporary identification while the development is being rented, is attractively designed, and is not permanent. He suggested a time limit of one year, to be continued if the apartments are not rented by then. He noted the size has been reduced to 6' x 3.21, and would face on Bayshore Boulevard. There were no audience comments either for or against and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg had no objections to the sign. Commissioner Sine felt the application would have been more appropriate at the completion of construction, and thought the sign was still too big. He also questioned the temporary aspects feeling it: could be continued for several years. Commissioner Taylor agreed as to the size, and thought it should be limited to 32 square feet, especially since the Velvet Turtle sign is nearby. Commissioner Mink had objections to - 6 - the height of 191. Commissioner Jacobs thought the applicant would be amenable to lowering the height and noted the excellent efforts they have made in landscaping this property and the fact that there are 510 units to rent. He thought the sign should be granted to assist in rentals, especially since it will be on a limited time basis. Mr. Snyder stated they would be willing to adjust the height of the sign. It would not exceed the height of the tennis courts and would be lower than the Velvet Turtle sign. Commissioner Kindig objected to both the height and size of the sign. He noted that other projects with large numbers of units abided by the sign ordinance, and he did not feel there should be an exception in this case. Commissioner Cistulli thought the sign would be preferable to the banners which some projects use to advertise rentals, especially in view of the efforts made toward landscaping and the fact that there were 510 units to rent. He suggested it be cut down somewhat. In the following discussion it was established that the sign would not be lighted. The City Attorney noted that the Commission did not have jurisdiction over the six pedestrian signs. There followed comments on the height of the sign, and. Mr. Snyder indicated willingness to construct it a total of 16' from the ground level to the top of the sign. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Planning Commission approve the sign variance for a period of one year for a 6' x 12' double faced non -lighted real estate sign, not to exceed a height of 16 feet from the ground, for the Northpark Apartments. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, NORBERG, SINE, CISTULLI NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRANS RENT -A -CAR IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL (5-4) DISTRICT AT 1540 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-400) BY CYRUS MC MILLAN, AGENT FOR OWNER, RICHARD O'HARA This application was announced for hearing and Secretary Jacobs read application letter. Attorney Cyrus McMillan, upon invitation from the Chair, addressed the Commission as representative of the applicant. He submitted there would be little physical change in the existing building, 10' x 20' of which would be used for office purposes with a counter for car rental clients. There would be the! addition of sliding doors in the rear. The windows on the north side would be changed. He added there was little change in the use of the property since it is now used for displays of ambulances and some used hearses. He noted the adjacent property contains a warehouse, which use had a time limit; and stated that the applicant would not, object to a reasonable time limit for his project. He added there would be no cars parked in front of the building on Old Bayshore. They would be all parked in the rear. - 7 - There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comments in favor of the application. Mrs. Melba Riley, 1492 Bayshore, spoke against it. She explained that the Fisherman Restaurant is on her property and in back of the applicant's development. She did not believe that a car rental business would be desirable or compatible with the landscaping and with the frontage of Bayshore properties. She also questioned its conformance with Waterfront Commercial regulations. The public hearing was declared closed. City Planner Swan showed two slides of the applicant's property, and commented that application had been made for two identification signs. He stated that in his opinion the proposed car rental establishment is not one of.the permitted uses in the C-4 Waterfront Commercial District. He quoted the purposes of the C-4 District regulations. He added that if the Commission did approve the permit, it might be wise to consider a time limitation. The Special Permit might run until April, 1979, the same date as the special permit of the adjoining property so that these large parcels of property would then be available for redevelopment in conformance with the Waterfront Commercial regulations. Attorney McMillan indicated that a time limitation would not be objectionable, and it would be a step in the right direction for proper development of this area. Commissioner Sine asked if the driveway would encroach on that of the restaurant and Attorney McMillan stated the joint entrance from Old Bayshore goes back 300 and then is divided into two driveways. He claimed there is no encroachment. On the Commissioner's further question, it was indicated that the operating hours would be from 7:00 AM until 11:00 or 12:00 P.M., and the signs would be in conformance with sign ordinance. Commissioner Norberg had no objection since the parking is in the rear of the building and the access is all right. Commissioner Mink questioned the parking spaces and the possible stacking of cars coming in from the highway. Attorney McMillan stated that the maximum parking spaces would be 15, and since they anticipate rentals of 10 per day or less, there would be no stacking problem. Commissioner Taylor objected to the perpetuation of a non -conforming use and was against any proposal which would postpone the use of this property to C-4. Commissioner Kindig disliked the idea of granting an interim use for several years, thereby encouraging other interim use applications. He did not feel the Commission should expand an incompatible use. Commissioner Jacobs had no objections since the use is on a temporary basis, and this use is needed in proximity to the airport. Mrs. Riley objected to the design of the building and feared that parking would present a problem. She cautioned that BCDC would have jurisdiction over this property. Attorney McMillan replied that the matter tonight presented was for the Planning Commission's consideration only. After some further discussion Commissioner Jacobs moved the approval of the special permit to allow Trans Rent -a -Car at 1540 Bayshore Highway ME= for a period of time not to exceed April,. 1979. Commissioner Norberg seconded and the motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, NORBERG, SINE, CISTULLI NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE After a short recess, the meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. 8. RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF BACK NO, 8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK, UNIT NO. 6 TO COMBINE LOTS 1 - 4 INCLUSIVE INTO PARCEL A BY ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION. This matter was announced for Commission consideration. Mr. David Keyston of Anza Pacific told the Commission he had complied with the request of the Engineering Department of the City of Burlingame in preparing this resubdivision map. City Engineer Marr stated that the map had been drawn at the request of staff and that Anza Pacific already had a permit for the building going on. There was no Commission comment. Commissioner Kindig moved that the resubdivision map be approved, Commissioner Jacobs seconded, and the motion passed on unanimous roll call vote. 9. PERMIT FOR 310" x 3310" SINGLE FACED ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN ON NORTH ELEVATION OF BUILDING AT 200 .PARK ROAD FOR SECURITY PACIFIC BANK BY FEDERAL SIGN CORPORATION. Chairman Cistulli announced consideration of this agenda item. Secretary Jacobs read letter dated January 9, 1973 from Federal Sign and Signal Corporation advising their desire to install a single -faced sign 3' x 33' plastic face, interior illuminated, non -flashing sign for the Security Pacific Bank, 200 Park Road, Burlingame. Drawings of the sign were distributed to the Commission. Mr'. R. H. Clark, 312 W. 5th, Los Angeles, representative of Security Pacific Bank, addressed the Commission. Mr. Clark advised the sign was proposed for the north face of the building at the third floor level so it would be visible to pedestrians on Burlingame Avenue. It would have interior illumination. The City Planner noted that in effect this is an advertising sign rather than an identification sign. Commissioner Sine stated that he thought this sign was completely out of place at the third floor level, and that the bank is proposing to use the north side of the building as a billboard. He added that if this sign were permitted, every tenant in the building would have a precedent to apply for a similar sign. He felt that a modest sign identifying the bank, such as on the new Wells Fargo Bank and the Crocker Bank in its six -story building, would be sufficient. He cited the sign ordinance which permits 32 square feet. City Planner Swan elaborated on ordinance No. 979 which states that on an application for a sign of over 32 square feet on a single face, the applicant shall first obtain a permit from the Planning Commission. He noted that this is in the sign code, not the zoning ordinance, and that this had been the policy since the second of January, 1973, at which time this ordinance had had its second reading and been approved by the City Council. This application was brought •to the Commission to acquaint them with the code and to establish procedure. Chairman Cistulli questioned if it would be best to continue this application, since the ordinance does not become effective until February.2. The City Planner agreed that there was a thirty -day waiting period until an ordinance goes into effect, but added that at the time the Council makes its second reading and approves the ordinance it becomes staff policy. He emphasized the need for a procedure during this interim period. Mr. Clark stated he was not aware of the 32 square feet ruling and questioned if this sign were legal as of this date. He questioned the need for a permit. He emphasized that the terms of their agreement as major tenant in the building stated they were entitled to a sign identifying the Security Pacific Bank. He noted their property did not lend itself to a large free standing sign such as Wells Fargo's, and the only place the sign would be visible would be high on the building. He had no objection to modifying the sign size slightly, but at 32 square feet the letters would be only 7-8" high and would not be visible. The letters probably would have to be at least 12" high. The City Planner suggested that since banking hours are seldom late at night, a lighted sign would not be necessary, and therefore the letters could be larger. He cited the impact of an illuminated sign on nearby apartments. Commissioner Sine suggested the bank consider placing a sign in another location than the north wall. Commissioner Kindig considered this strictly an advertising sign, and thought a lighted sign would be entirely out of character. He thought an unlighted sign would put a different aspect on the matter. Commissioner Norberg had•no comment. Commissioner Taylor was reluctant to consider the application without an opportunity to study the material, particularly from the standpoint of alternatives. Commissioner Mink agreed and suggested a study and clarification of prerequisites. Commissioner Jacobs opposed a lighted sign and also wanted the item to be considered at a study meeting. Chairman Cistulli agreed this should be on the next study meeting agenda. Mr. Clark stated that it was anticipated the bank would open in March. In the interest of time he wished to hasten the procedure, and felt a non -illuminated sign would be acceptable. Chairman Cistulli commented that the Commission wished other modifications of the sign and if the sign in its present form were brought to a vote at this meeting it would possibly be rejected. Mr. David Keyston addressed the Commission in regard to a point of order. He personally questioned if the Planning Commission had any authority over the sign as of this date since the ordinance is not in effect. - 10 - Mr. Clark added they had made application for a sign and it was denied. He questioned the legality of this denial. Commissioner Mink pointed out that when this building was presented to the City, it was represented as unique because of its simplicity. He thought the sign would damage a fine building and asked that they reconsider on the basis of aesthetics, and reminded Mr. Clark that the bank has an obligation to the community in which it does its business. The City Attorney was asked if the Commission could vote on a matter which they had not yet studied concerning an ordinance not yet in effect. He replied that if an application lies with the department head in this city he had not yet seen it. If the application had been denied he would not comment unless he had seen the application or saw reasons for its denial. He added there is always a 30 day lag between the adoption of an ordinance and its effective date„ and he considered that matters which come up in this interim period would be considered as if the ordinance had not been adopted. Mr. Clark told the Commission he was concerned because the Bank was dealing with a law that would be changed at the date of the study meeting. However, whether the Bank is technically :legal or not, they did not wish to cause their integrity to be questioned. He suggested that modifications be considered and a compromise be reached at this meeting, and that they be allowed to exceed the 32 square feet limit, based on the fact that at the time of application this limit was not in effect. Commissioner Taylor stated the City would be concerned over a sign which might be objectionable to a large section of the public, and he would like this brought to a study meeting so that the matter could be properly considered. He pointed out that the bank could benefit in the long run, and if sign were denied, could appeal to the City Council. There followed a discussion of whether or not the Planning Commission has the final decision over matters pertaining to the building inspector's decisions. The City Attorney stated that the Uniform Building Code has a provision for a board of appeal from the decision of the building inspector. The building inspector has a latitude in approving building materials and methods of construction. His decisions can be appealed. However, appeal to the Planning Commission is limited to the Uniform Building Code, and does not apply to the sign code. The City Planner pointed out that the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council this amendment to the sign ordinance. He spoke of some signs causing visual pollution. He also noted the City Council has engaged a planning consultant to prepare design criteria and procedures contemplating what is attractive and what type of improve- ments need to be reviewed. He stated that since the Council had discussed this matter, it is incumbent on the staff to acquaint applicants of exactly what the position is rather than to authorize dubious signs at the last minute so that they will come under the deadline. He added that under the present sign code a wall sign can be 500 square feet, which is why the application had been brought to the Commission. Commissioner Kindig commented that the Building Inspector is also authorized to refer to the Planning Commission any signs Which may be detrimental because of lighting. Commissioner Sine stated that the bank might be well advised to take a continuance on this matter in the interests of good public relations with the community. Mr. Clark then requested that the Commission address itself to the legalities of the matter and take into consideration the fact that the bank is concerned with public relations and has no intention of harming the building or the City of Burlingame. He offered, as a concession, a sign 25' long and 2' high, non -illuminated, with letters 12" high, and. requested decision at this meeting. There was further Commission discussion. Mr. Clark then stated he wished to make a record of the fact that he tried the concession. He said he would agree that the matter be continued, and stated that at the study meeting it should be defined why the application was denied and there should be discussion of legalities. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the permit be held over to the next study meeting, February 14. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous voice vote. OLD BUSINESS Off Street Parking Regulations_ The City Planner reported to the Commission that the City Council did not take action on this proposed zoning amendment at their meeting of January 2, 1973, but had referred it back to the Planning Commission for study and changes. The City Council will consider it again at their February 5 meeting. He noted that the emergency parking ordinance will expire February 9, 1973, and suggested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the existing emergency ordinance be extended in order to give the Commission additional time to study the amendment. He stated the Council had commented that the Commission did not have enough facts and it was necessary to know the parking needs by different locations. He added he had started a survey of apartment owners in eight different locations to obtain more facts. There was some discussion. Commissioner Taylor moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Ordinance No. 971 be extended beyond its expiration date of February 9 so that the Planning Commission may have time to reconsider and recommend amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Mink seconded and the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. General The City Planner reported that the City Council has set the date of January 31 for the joint meeting of the Council and the Planning Commission. This will be at the Hyatt House at 6:30 p.m. The City Planner introduced Mr. Ken Niemczyk who is working with the City Planner's office in connection with the updating of the General Plan. - 12 - ecial Meetina January 29 for General Plan The City Planner announced that there would be a presentation of Wm. Spangle's Reports No. 1 and No. 2 at this meeting. He suggested that this be noticed as a special meeting so that the press would attend and there would be public input. Commissioner Mink moved that the Planning Commission set the date of January 29 as a special meeting to hear Wm. Spangle's reports. Commissioner Taylor seconded and the motion carried by voice vote. Commissioner Sine reported that the property at 129 Stanton Road had been sold and he was concerned if the new owner was aware of the conditions set upon the property. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary