Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.11.11THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 1.1, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Assist. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg Councilman Amstrup Sine Councilman Harrison Taylor CALL TO O RDE R The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:35 P.M. on the above date, Chairman Mink presiding. ROLL CALL The above members were present. 1. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Chairman Mink announced opening of discussion on this policy planning item, and called on City Planner Swan for report. City Planner Swan referred Commissioners to an exhibit which displayed the General Plan with an overlay showing areas in excess of densities permitted by the present zoning map. He also called their attention to the Negative Declaration which describes the project as "Remove areas of medium and medium high density in the R-1 and R-2 Districts so that the General Plan is identical with the zoning district boundaries. He noted that the Council had referred this matter to the Planning Commission on July 15, 1974 for hearing and report on the proposed amendment. At the August meeting of the Planning Commission there had been reluctance to use the word "identical", and a preference for "consistent with." He reminded the Commission that a previous referral in February, 1973 by the Council had been studied; and on May 14, 1973 the Planning Commission unanimously passed Resolution #4-73 with the finding that the land uses authorized by the zoning ordinance are both compatible and consistent with the present General Plan. Hence no recommendation was made for amendment to the General Plan. The Council had subsequently adopted a resolution finding General Plan and zoning ordinance to be consistent. He emphasized that the present referral is to make the General Plan identical with the zoning ordinance rather than merely consistent. Turning again to the exhibit, the City Planner noted it identified each of the areas within the City where the General Plan expresses a density that is greater than that permitted by the existing zoning. Noting that State Guidelines define a city's general plan as a long range guideline, he explained the differences between the two maps. - 2 - He particularly noted that the boundaries are shown irrespective of existing uses, which in many cases have been caused by the granting of use variances. As an example, there have been some variances to build apartments where part of the site is in R-1 and part is in R-3. To make the General Plan identical with the zoning here would make half of an existing building non -conforming. He then identified the difficulty of density comparisons between the General Plan and the zoning code. City Planner Swan noted that the conclusions of the Negative Declaration on this proposed amendment were that there will be no growth inducing impacts, that secondary and indirect impacts are speculative, that residential land values in R-1 and R-2 districts will continue to depend upon local housing markets and that amending the General Plan may inhibit population growth. With reference to this latter statement, he explained that the number of the logs affected is about 670, or about 140 acres. This could result in a possible population reduction of from 4,500 to 6,000 people. Assistant City Planner Yost added that there are areas in the General Plan where densities are lower than permitted by the zoning map, and stated the Commission may want to upgrade these areas. Also, the General Plan proposes a change in land use in some instances where the zoning map shbws residential use. He distributed a map showing areas thus affected. City Planner Swan noted that the zoning map could be amended to be consistent with actual use. Chairman Mink then stated the custom of the Planning Commission at study meetings had been to allow the person who requested the agenda item to speak. He asked if Council members present would like to comment. Councilman Harrison noted he had not been on the Council at the time of the consistency resolution, but he considered that the Council is in full accord with having the General Plan conform with the present zoning map, and anticipates that the Planning Commission will recommend such a proposal. Chairman Mink then stated that as he understood this referred item, it would make a number of buildings in the city non -conforming. He questioned if the amendment of the General Plan would be followed by a Council directive to go ahead at a future time and abate illegal and non -conforming uses. Councilman Harrison stated he could not speak for -the Council as a whole, but that he would hope this course of action would be pursued. Chairman Mink stated his concern was with people who had built in good faith with permits from the City, and questioned Attorney Coleman as to the status of buildings erected with variances by joint action of the Council and Planning Commission. Attorney Coleman stated they would be non -conforming, assuming they were legal under the zoning laws at the time they were built. On a further question as to rebuilding if such a non -conforming structure were damaged by fire or by any other means, he pointed out that if the damage is 100% or more of its assessed value, it can be rebuilt only in - 3 - conformity with the present zoning. If the damage is less than 100% of its assessed value, it could be rebuilt to its original non- conforming condition. There followed Commission discussion of the present General Plan and its rationale. It was stated that at that time there was concern that the two major E -W corridors to the city, Broadway and Peninsula, were attracting a number of illegal and non -conforming uses, and the adoption of the present General Plan was an attempt to recognize these effects and move toward controlling them. Another point was that the area surrounding City fall at that time had the highest variation from the zoning ordinance. This area was selected for an increase in density because it: was already there. Another objective at that time was that not only were there a lot of non -conforming uses but the City was getting more applications for use variances, mostly from older neighborhoods which were gradually deteriorating. it was thought these areas could be upgraded by allowing higher densities which would result in new construction. Oak Grove Avenue was one example. One Commissioner remarked he thought the Commission would create as many problems as it would solve with this amendment, since it would then have to deal with many non -conforming uses. He did not see how the City could change direction without taking all of the steps - such as abatement programs. Chairman Mink raised the question of the requirement of the General Plan that areas of housing for a wide area of income groups be furnished. He noted that Burlingame does not have a low income area and may not have moderate income areas, since the trend is to upper middle income and higher. Discussion followed, with one Commissioner's saying that low income housing would not come about without Federal subsidy; and since there was no vacant land left, development must be effected by tearing down existing structures. There was also a comment that action should be taken to change R-2 zoning, since for some time it has been inoperative. Chairman Mink observed that the Commission appeared to have several choices: 1. Deny Council request for "identity." 2. Concur with Council request and amend the General Plan to make it identical to the zoning map. 3. Present to the Council within 60 days a compromise: some changes in the General Plan and some changes to the zoning map to rectify concerns voiced. There was some Commission feeling that Council objectives were quite different from those of the Commission, since the function of the Commission is planning - a concern for the future - and this amendment would be an oversimplification of the problem. Another practical point mentioned was that the only time a General Plan MIM would normally conform with zoning would be in an entirely new town. Also it was stated that any changes in zoning, either up or down, will effect changes in the underground utilities, and this needs to be explored thoroughly. Another Commissioner thought the time period from July had been ample and action should be taken immediately. There was suggestion that there be Commission and Council to iron out However, it was decided this would bodies with two separate functions. a joint meeting of the Planning difficulties in this amendment. not be appropriate for two separate Chairman Mink set this item for hearing on November 25, 1974. Councilman Amstrup remarked it was not the intent of the Council to direct the Planning Commission to approve this amendment. It had been suggested by one member of the Council, and Planning Commission input and advice was all that was desired. 2. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Planner Swan reviewed past methods of communication from the Planning Commission to the City Council which have! consisted of an abstract of actions immediately after a public hearing and subsequent transmittal of minutes of regular meeting. A recent exception to this has been the transmittal of study meeting minutes concerning Anza for Council information. The City Planner went on to say that at the recent. joint dinner meeting of the Planning Commission and Council it was suggested that all agendas be sent in advance to Council so that they would be aware of proposed action of the Commission. He stated that in the future all meeting agendas and minutes of all meetings would be sent to the Council. Discussion followed. The City Planner reported that at the recent League of California Cities Conference he had contact with members of several planning commissions which have regular joint meetings with their City Councils. One of these commissions scheduled such a meeting for every fifth Monday in the year. Discussion followed, during which it was stated every 5th Monday would be a hardship for staff. Comments were resolved with a consensus of the Commission that they would desire more joint meetings with the Council, possibly two or three a year, with agendas being prepared for subjects of importance. The City Planner was requested to draft a letter to Council informing them the Planning Commission would be interested in such joint meetings with times to be set at Council discretion. 3. FEEDBACK ON ANZA MASTER PLAN PROJECT City Planner Swan reviewed Commission actions on Anza project and EIR which resulted in the decision to file documentation for future reference. He requested Commission opinion as to what next steps, if any, should be taken on this subject. Chairman Mink stated he felt obligated to summarize and share with - 5 - the Council information that the Planning Commission had gained from the Anza Master Plan Study. He stated there was now in his personal file, in addition to the original submission, more than 200 pages of documentation. He believed this could be abstracted down with regard to specific areas of concern. As an example he read the Commission a brief abstract he himself had made of the highlights of the proceedings and a summary statement. He suggested that a committee be established of Commission members to draft such a document, which could then be presented to the Commission for review and possible change. In this manner, the Council could then receive a summary of the hearings with the best information the Commission has at this time. There was considerable discussion resulting in Commission consensus that such a document should be drafted as a synopsis of the entire proceedings. Chairman Mink inquired if this would be of value to the Planning and Public Works Departments. City Planner Swan did not believe it was necessary for staff, but thought it would be a useful communication to Council. City Engineer Davidson agreed that such a document might not give his department much help, but it probably would give the developer some assistance., Councilman Amstrup considered that any input the Council could get would be of great help, and the summarization was a good idea. Councilman Harrison agreed. Mr. David Keyston was in favor, stating he thought it would be appropriate to proceed with a relatively informal set of recommendations that have resulted from these hearings. These could go to Council and Anza would accept them for guidance. He stated he would be glad to assist in this endeavor if possible. He added, with reference to the statement made that his project would have a definite effect on the environment, that this effect was foregone when the land was zoned C-4. It was at that time certain problems were made inherent. Chairman Mink commented that the Brown Act limits such a committee to no more than three members, and requested that volunteers for such a committee contact him by November 14. He stated he would announce names of committee members at the regular meeting on November 25, and invited participation from Planning Department and the City Engineer. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 52 ASSESSORS MAP B16 CITY OF BURLINGAMi; (APN 026-123-060) 1348-68 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY BILL FITCH OF JONES-TILLSON & ASSOCIATES FOR NILS AND ASTRID WIK City Engineer Davidson distributed copies of this map. Discussion followed. Mr. Bill Fitch explained the purpose was to split this portion of Parcel 52 into three small parcels. Mr. Wik desires to sell Sub -Parcel 3 and eventually deed Sub -Parcels 1 and 2 to members of his family. All three sub -parcels have structures on them presently. Assistant City Planner Yost reported that details of parking should be supplied as well as present use of the buildings. Traffic egress and ingress and interior circulation should be reported. City Engineer Davidson stated other information needed: number of openings in walls; fire ratings utility location on site; building inspection and fire inspection reports. Mr. Fitch stated there were no openings in rear walls which are in a straight line across the rear of the property, although there might have to be an additional fire wall between Parcels 3 and 2. Chairman Mink questioned if this information could! be available by the hearing meeting. In the opinion of the City Engineer this was possible, but delay could be caused by difficulties in locating utilities. With the consent of the applicant, the! Chairman continued this application to the December study meeting so that complete information could be available. 5. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION INTO ONE IDT OF A PORTION OF IAT 14, BLOCK 7, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY MAP NO. 2 RSM D/36 (APN 029-100-140/150) 619-23 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY WM. JAY HAMMOND FOR ROBERT AND KATHERINE BERRYMAN. City Engineer Davidson distributed copies of this map and reported that the tentative map had been approved by the Commission several months previously. The purpose of the map is to combine two lots into one parcel. In his. -opinion the map was ready for hearing except for an adjustment on the front property line and a bearing on the SE property line. However, the applicant's engineer is working on these corrections and had assured the City Engineer the map would be complete by the hearing date. Chairman Mink set this map for hearing on November- 25, 1974. 6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 3, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 1 (APN 024-403-270) PROPERTY AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1, BY BRIAN, KANGAS, FALK AND ASSOCIATES FOR ALBERT HOOVER & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS) AND CAROL J. FLYNN (OWNER) This map was distributed to Commission members. City Engineer Davidson explained that this map, also, had been approved by the Commission several years before, but had never been recorded. It now has proper signatures. It combines three existing lots into one for development purposes, and except for a question on the front property line he stated it appeared to be ready for hearing. Chairman Mink set this map for hearing on November- 25, 1974. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY BY ALBERT HOOVER & ASSOCIATE:'. Assistant City Planner Yost exhibited site plans.and explained this proposed development. After considerable discussion with the architect, this proposal had now been finalized as an economic solution for this parcel. Approximate figures are 29,700 SF for the office building, of which ground floor coverage is 7,000 SF; and open landscaping of 6,500 SF, about 12.6%. He reported surface parking - 7 - of 99 car spaces on site, and remarked that the parking design should have Commission attention, since it designates 6 of these spaces as compact car spaces. City code does not make provision for such spaces. He noted there may be some problem with the trees proposed for the parking area since there is only 1' wide area around them, and there could be trouble with trash collection. He believed a Negative Declaration could be filed on this project. In reply to Commission question on landscaping he noted that the 12.6% is open and there is another 2,700 SF under cover, around an interior courtyard and the like. With regard to setbacks, he declared this parcel is under Millsdale Industrial Park deed restrictions and it would also meet the City's proposed restrictions with the one exception of the front setback which is only 16'6" in one corner because of the slanted street; average front setback, however, was greater than 25'. Mr. James O'Neal, project architect, displayed colored elevations and further explained the site plan. He commented he thought the problem with the trees could be worked out, and that separate application would be made for the sign on the project. After some discussion, Chairman Mink set this application for hearing on November 25, 1974. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-31P, FOR FLORIBUNDA GARDENS PROJECT AT (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) 545 ALMER ROAD, BY HISATA DESIGN ASSOCIATES. INC. There was some preliminary discussion on the address for this proposed development. City Planner Swan informed the Commission a tentative address was 545 Almer, but it was the responsibility of the applicant to receive an assigned address from the Department of Public Works. The City Planner then outlined subjects for Commission decision: 1. The height for conceptual approval (not the density). 2. Special permit from Emergency Ordinance since it exceeds 35'. 3. Condominium permit requirement. He noted an EIR is required since this is a discretionary action. City Planner Swan then reviewed the EIR itself. HE! stated he was impressed by the detailed information about other gall buildings constructed and proposed in Burlingame. He noted as one concern the limits imposed on the purchasers of this building. The price range is from $150,000 to $210,000, which is predicated on very wealthy buyers. The age group proposed is from 58-•62 years with nearly grown or college age children. This is a limited market. On Page 3-4 he noted the EIR refers to Pacific Western's "Experience with similar luxury condominiums . . The City Planner thought these examples should be identified. He also commented that the M-� " population is shown as 102 residents for the complete project of 36 units, which averages more than 2.4 people per household, and remarked that the average in Burlingame is more than 3 persons per household. He also raised the question of who the! second owners of these condominiums would be in the event of the original owners' demise. What assurance is there that this expensive a living unit will be held in ownership by the people who are going to live in it? Are there exclusions to the unit being rented? In conclusion, the City Planner considered that the idea of covering a small portion of the lot and erecting a higher building, together with the excellent design of land and building deserved very close review. He thought a building of nine stories in height should not be objected to merely because it sticks up higher than average, since it can be a far more efficient building than some. He noted the building next to it covers 509 of the lot. In his opinion, this is a project with real potential that is different, adding that a nine -story building is considered a medium rise, not a high rise. He suggested, with regard to the EIR, the possible addition of economic feasibility data. This would be appropriate to assure that the City got a high class project. Commission discussion followed. Some Commission concerns, with applicants' replies, follow: Is there a shadow pattern that would affect neighbor's outdoor living space? Most of the shadow would fall in the morning. The EIR states permitted lot coverage is 609 for a corner lot. There is some question if this actually is a corner lot. Should not the EIR show allowable.percentage as 509? Would a building of this height require purchase of more fire equipment, such as another truck? No. Fire protection for building? Building and garage 1009 fire sprinklered. Fire walls conform to code. General paragraph 5. "Alternatives" should reflect an alternative within 55' height limit, since this would be the height limit if the emergency ordinance were not in effect. Section 8 speaks of . all buildings within the area designated for higher density residential use in the General :Plan were visually surveyed .." This covers a total of 65 lots. :Details of this survey should be incorporated in the appendix. Are units built to accommodate live-in domestics? No. Residents would employ day help. City Engineer Davidson commented briefly on public works requirements. He thought that while the streets are narrow, they could still handle the traffic caused. He considered water supply will be ample with the 12" main on Floribunda; and with reference to the sanitary sewer, he noted some sort of retention basin would be required in the basement or some underground drain be taken to the sanitary sewer. Chairman Mink set this EIR for hearing on November 25, 1974. 9. VARIANCE TO EXCEED HEIGHT LIMITATION IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 545 ALMER ROAD (FORMERLY APN 029-111-030/040/050) BY PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS, INC. Assistant City Planner Yost opened discussion on this application with the idea that a height limit is not a good way to limit density. With reference to the proposed building, he thought that visually it is better than some lower buildings; traffic is not likely to clog the street; and he asked Commissioners to consider as a central point the statement in Paragraph 2-1 of the EIR which says Burlingame is in transition toward the policy of the General Plan. In his opinion, this project is in reasonable conformity with the general plan. Chairman Mink requested comment from the applicant's representatives. They presented revised elevations, incorporating a different roof line; a site plan with a fire lane through the property; and new photos and drawings. The Chairman requested research into lot coverage of gazebo and sauna. This application was set for hearing November 25. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1515 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-280-310) BY DENNIS KOBZA, ARCHITECT FOR AIR TRANSPORT WORKERS. City Planner Swan reported this application could not be considered at this time. 11. APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR DRAINAGE SPECIFICATIONS AT BURLINGAME PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER PARKING IAT, ZONED C-1, BY STEVE J. MUSICH, OWNER OF 1845-49 EL CAMINO REAL City Engineer Davidson reported to the Commission that merchants on Burlingame Plaza had presented a project to resurface and upgrade the parking lot. He displayed site plan of this project and stated there were code requirements which prohibit drainage across the public sidewalk, as proposed in this plan. Mr. Musich had been informed of these requirements, and he had requested they be waived. The City Engineer stated that both he and the Building Inspector had felt they could not be waived, and had informed Mr. Musich he could appeal their decision to the Planning Commission. The City Engineer would like to have drainage contained by means of a drainage swale at the back edge of the sidewalk which would go under the sidewalk and be taken to the storm drain in the street. He noted the swale is not deep enough to cause accident, and at the present time drainage runs over the public sidewalk at the east side of the parking lot near E1 Camino. Commission discussion followed. The subject of the City's liability in the event of a mishap either on a slippery sidE!walk or on the drainage swale was explored. Mr. Musich was invited to speak, and told the Commission he and - 10 - six other property owners are repaving and restriping the parking lot. In this process, some parking spaces would be lost, but the primary goal would be safety. They are not putting in a slurry_ seal, but 13�" of concrete asphalt over the entire lot. He stated he was informed that since this was a structural change, it must be done according to code. Also, he was told that: if just a slurry seal was used, he would not have to conform to code. He protested this was not a structural change and he appealed to the logic of the Commission in his desire to do a good job with good materials. There was more discussion with some comment that the swales would be hard on cars; pedestrians rarely, use this sidewalk; and a suggestion that since the service road is not used much, the property owners investigate the possibility of the? City deeding the property to the Plaza owners for increased parking. Mr. Jim Tarbell spoke as a property owner. He stated that in ten years he had never seen a pedestrian use that sidewalk, and he had never been aware of any water standing in the lot. Chairman Mink questioned the City Engineer if he saw any real problem with this water. The City Engineer replied that aside from the code he did not, and that the only problem he could see is the question of precedent, since this ruling is enforced in -other areas. Commissioner Taylor moved that the appeal from the decision of the building inspector as well as the City Engineer be sustained. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: TAYLOR,SINE,MINK,FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBE RG NAYE S: JACOBS ABSENT: PONE 12. SIGN PERMIT FOR 40 SF GROUND SIGN FOR AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, AT THE CORNER OF ADRIAN ROAD AND ADRIAN COURT, BY LAVENSTEIN & COMPANY Assistant City Planner Yost displayed an illustration of this sign and explained its details. He noted that according to deed restrictions it is in a side yard, but technically the sign does not violate any city code restrictions. It is less than 12' high. This sign was set for hearing on November 25, 1974. 13. SIGN VARIANCES FOR 48 SF GROUND SIGN FOR SAM -CO INSURANCE COMPANIES AT 1720 EL CAMINO REAL, BY FEDERAL SIGN AND SIGNAL CORPORATION Assistant City Planner Yost pointed out on a wall illustration some of the code infringements of this sign. The code specifies a height limit of 12'; this sign is 12'6". A code requirement is a 2' open space from bottom of sign to ground level; this sign does not have that clearance. In addition, the code states signs shall not be within the building setback; this sign is 7' from the property line. Mr. Paul Heathcliff, representing the applicant, told the Commission this non -rotating sign will be the only one on the property. The sign will be double-faced., non -illuminated, and made of sheet metal with aluminum cast letters and emblems. There was little discussion. This sign was set for hearing November 25, 1974. 14. SIGN VARIANCE FOR EXISTING 42 SF AWNING SIGN FOR SNAPPY FOTO SHOP AT 1212 BROADWAY, BY GUS HAAG. Mr. Gus Haag of Snappy Foto Shop was present. Assistant City Planner Yost showed an illustration of the awning sign and explained that there was a second existing sign over the top of the awning. He stated the property owner had not been aware of sign restrictions on awnings. The code specifies that wording on an awning shall not exceed S" in height, and, he estimated the letters on this awning were 36" in height. Chairman Mink directed the applicant to submit scale drawing of both signs and color photographs to the City Planner. He then set this application for hearing November 25, 1974. 15. SIGN PERMIT FOR 47 SF WALL SIGN FOR SIMPSONS,LTD. AT 1294 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY COAST/QRS SIGNS. Assistant City Planner Yost illustrated this sign by means of plan and colored rendering, noting the permit is required because of its area. The sign was set for hearing November 25, 1974. CITY PLANNER REPORT: City Planner Swan told Commission members that Mr.. Robert Brown had recommended to the Beautification Commission a street tree planting program for merchant participation on Old Bayshore Highway. He commented that the Planning Commission had asked that surety bonds be required in future landscaping plans, and he thought that street trees are part of a landscaping plan. He suggested Commission consideration of this idea. There was some question of under whose jurisdiction this plan would operate since this would be on City property and a survey and cost estimate should be required. The City Planner reported that two different sets of code amendments are now in the hands of the Council. He stated the sign variance on Putnam Dodge had been appealed and scheduled for Council hearing. There is in progress a review of the building permit for the Kohlenberg Ford sign and a communication had been directed to Mr. Kohlenberg for subsequent report to the City Council. He notified Commission members of an opportunity to attend a "Growth Seminar" at U.C. Berkeley on December 5, 1974. There will be a $15.00 fee, and staff could be contacted for reservations. City Planner Swan spoke of Cooperative Planning Task Force Ad Hoc Committee, which is composed of City Planners, City Managers'and - 12 - City Engineers in San Mateo County. Meetings are held monthly for the purpose of exchanging.information. At their last meeting a representative of HUD explained the Community Development Act of 1974. Subject for the next meeting will be a program for corpputerized traffic control on Bayshore Freeway. The City Planner reported there would be a meeting of the Environmental Quality Coordinating Council at Millbrae City Hal]. on November 13. Subject will be HUD. He mentioned that San Mateo Bikeways Committee need people to represent Burlingame. He then commented that the Government Code has been amended to permit an historical preservation element in a general plan. The Burlingame S.P. Station would qualify as an historical monument. Other subjects noted at this time were: Sign application is pending on the Sheraton Hotel. ARCO has made a minor change in their rebuilding plans to allow for entry and exit tank trucks. Lawsuit has been filed and hearing set on November 19 for Pro Ski and Sport Shop. Blue Carrot Restaurant has applied for a liquor license. Should investigation be made if they have changed hours of operation that were approved with permit? There was discussion of the date of the public hearing for December. Several members will not be in town on December 23. Commissioner Kindig announced he would be out of town on the meeting date of November 25, 1974. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary