Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.04.22THE CITY OF BU RLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs City Engineer Davidson Kindig City Attorney Karmel Mink Fire Chief Moorby Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL, The above named members were present. MINUTES Minutes of the regular meeting of March 25, 1974 were approved with the following addition: Page 12, third paragraph: " . . . Nevada county suit ." Minutes of the study meeting of April 8, 1974 were approved after discussion of "Policy for Review of Landscaping Plans", page 2. It was agreed last sentence in this section should stipulate referral to the Beautification Commission rather than to the Park and Recreation Commission. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Chair acknowledged the presence of Mrs. Thomas Sine and Mrs. Everett Kindig in the audience. Chairman Kindig questioned Commission acceptance -of the changed date of the study meeting with the City Council to May 4, 1974. He noted Commissioner Frankard would not be able to be present. The date was agreeable to the balance of the Commission. The Chairman then informed the Commission that he and Commissioner Sine had been appointed to meet with Councilman Amstrup for work on guidelines regulating conversion of apartments to condominiums. Commission members approved this program. Chairman Kindig questioned if the meeting time of 7:30 P.M. should be permanent. Commission members approved this change and the City Planner was requested to inform the S.M. Times of it for inclusion in their list of municipal meetings. - 2 - 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, COLONIAL TWELVE, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 28 AND 29, BLOCK 1, MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 4 OF BURLINGAME PARK, BY PHILIP KARP (ND -35P) Chairman Kindig announced hearing on this application, and called on Mr. Philip Karp to make a presentation. Mr. Karp told the. Commission the map had been redrawn since the study meeting. He distributed copies of the new map which preserves present lot lines of Lots 28 and 29 instead of combining them into one lot. Each lot is then divided into six small lots and part of a common parcel, "A." This Parcel A encompasses the front setback, the driveway and the rear yard, all common areas for the proposed townhouses. Mr. Karp explained that they propose six side by side connected town- houses on each of the two lots, 28 and 29. An old building on the site would be demolished. No variance would be required. He claimed that all ordinances would be met, and all that is required is approval of a tentative subdivision map. The property is zoned for greater density than the proposed use. Each townhouse unit would have its own two -car garage with automatic doors and. would be approximately 31' high. The project would be set back 20 feet from E1 Camino Real. Side setbacks will be 11h'. Center line of the 25' wide driveway would be the line between Lots 28 and 29. Commissioner Sine reminded Mr. Karp he had previously mentioned land- scaping the rear of the lots instead of having a concrete driveway. Mr. Karp agreed to the landscaping. There was no response to Chairman Kindig's request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. City Engineer Davidson was asked to comment. He reserved final comment on the new map since there had been no opportunity to review, but stated that the City does not want to be a party to the common easement of 25' down the middle of the lots for access and public utilities. He emphasized that the City does not "maintain the sewer" for this property, although it does maintain the cleanout in front of the right-of-way on the sidewalk. The sewer is privately maintained from that point back. He added there is a problem with water service since there is only a 2" standard steel main in front of the property. This 2" main serves several properties on the north and south of the site, and it might be necessary to connect to an 8" water main to the south, because of the additional load. This connection must be at the developer's expense. This would be dependent upon the meter size chosen by the developer, which would probably be l'h-211. Pulling 2" of water off a 2" main depletes the supply. Mr. Karp protested his engineers had found adequate pressure of 90# to 100# on this 2" main, and considered the 2" main adequate for this and adjoining properties. The City Engineer agreed there would be no problem with pressure, but there definitely would not be enough capacity. Location and cost of new connection were discussed. Chairman Kindig requested comment from the City Planner. City Planner ,4'wan, commenting there had not been time to review the new map, submitted at 7:45 P.M., said environmental assessment had been made on the old map - 3 - which showed one Parcel "A" plus 12 townhouse lots. But if the lot line between Lot 28 and Lot -29 is retained, Parcel A would be part of two different lots. Mr. Karp agreed that Lot 28 would be divided into 6 lots plus Parcel A, as would Lot 29. He stated that Parcel A is the same on both, and was "Just a line and does not exist." The City Planner was not convinced this was the correct procedure. He noted this was both a subdivision and a conversion from a single lot to a six -unit condominium. Procedure requires a negative declaration. The conclusions on the negative declaration showed a physical betterment of the property. He requested the record show the negative declaration was based on the previous tentative map showing Parcel A as one lot; and said that on the basis of two lots this statement would not be correct. Commissioner Taylor questioned the lot coverage, thinking it excessive. Mr. Karp insisted coverage was 46.5%. He added this type of subdivision comes under the provisions of the State Map Act. Commissioner Mink questioned if a purchaser would buy his lot plus 1/6 or 1/12 of the common area. Mr. Karp stated it would be 1/12 of Parcel A. When the Commissioner noted that there are two lots and that Parcel A actually does not exist, Mr. Karp indicated the two lots could be called A and B and an undivided interest in common areas of A and B sold. On a question from Commissioner Mink, City Attorney Karmel confirmed that the usual type of common driveway consists of two equidistant sides of a centerline. In this case, it would be 12'h' of Lot 28 and 12Y of Lot 29. Commissioner Mink affirmed that this is then a resub map of lots of less than legal size with a common driveway which does not meet code requirements, and he saw no way to approve it. Mr. Karp took the position that while this was the first townhouse subdivision for Burlingame, it is not new for other cities and these were not substandard lots for this purpose. Mr. Karp described the advantages of these townhouses over condominiums - fully insulated building, garage and laundry downstairs, dumb waiter in each unit, 3/4 bath on 2nd floor; 2 bedrooms and 2 baths on third floor. He called it a small home for people who disliked condominiums, and cited several being built in San Mateo. He considered there was a good market for this type of building; felt all requirements were being met, and that this discussion involved only technicalities. Commissioner Mink stated there was a technical problem with the map since it shows two lots of 50' frontage and a substandard driveway of only 12k' on each lot. He noted the Commission did not have the plans for this development. Mr. Karp stated these had been presented to staff previously. The Chairman asked the reason for a revised map. Mr. Karp replied that the Fire Department would require 100% sprinkling of the buildings if this was one lot. The cost of this would be prohibitive to the developer, so the site was again made two lots. Commissioner Jacobs suggested this application be continued to the next study meeting since the Commission had no opportunity to review the new map and there was confusion as to whether or not it was in compliance with applicable codes. City Attorney Karmel, after questioning the applicant, concluded that this map, whether it was a 7 unit subdivision or a 14 unit subdivision, was within the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act. He quoted Section 11535.1 of this Act which provides a condominium containing five or more units is a subdivision under State law. He commented on the possibility of a variance between the City code and the Subdivision Map Act, since it is working with a true subdivision within the meaning of the State statutes. A tentative subdivision map would have to be approved by the City Council under the usual subdivision procedure. Mr. Karp agreed to change the term "parcel map" to "subdivision map." Chairman Kindig pointed out that because of this map revision the Commission was being forced to conduct a study meeting at a public hearing. Commissioner Mink still considered lot'size to be substandard. The City Attorney felt he could not be definite on this point since it is a condominium'project. Commissioner Taylor was disturbed by the idea of buying a lot and an undivided interest in some other land, mentioning . .connecting Los Angeles bungalows side by side on a private cul-de-sac." Mr. Karp protested the'term "substandard lot size," stating a regular condominium does not have any private land area at all, being a subdivision of air space. He inferred this is a combination of both land and air space, and the purchaser is actually getting a total 3,000 square feet of area. Commissioner Taylor reminded him that in a condo- minium all land is under a single ownership. Commissioner Mink questioned the City Planner on the present status of the negative declaration. City Planner Swan stated the negative declaration must now be amended since it was based on a condominium project on a single lot. If this present project has two common areas, it is introducing the problem of a mutual access easement from one side to the other, and there cannot be an easement granted to one owner from the same owner. The ingress -egress easement is difficult and must be resolved. Fire Chief Moorby commented that the original project had been presented to his department as one building with all units being connected. The applicant had been informed that the project would require a sprinkler system because the floor area would exceed 20,000 square feet. He had then gone to two lots. City Attorney Karmel suggested information be presented as to the method of handling this type of project in other cities, and stated the problem of proper description of private and common areas in the deeds must be resolved. Commissioner Mink moved this map be referred to staff and continued for study May 13 and hearing May 29. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ROOM ADDITION TO ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 21 HAYWARD COURT FOR JOHN G. HURD BY ROGER CHINN. Chairman Kindig announced this application for hearing. Mr. Roger Chinn, representing the applicant, told the Commission his client wishes to -5 - add a room to an accessory building presently used as a bathhouse on the rear of his lot. This addition would be a game room or rumpus room and would upgrade the present structure. The structure already has a bathroom. Site plan and elevations were inspected by the Commission. City Planner Swan told the Commission this was a permitted use with a special permit in the R-1 district. City Engineer Davidson had no comment other than that the 5' utility easements across the rear and the west side of the property must be maintained. Mr. Chinn affirmed they would be. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment. The public meeting was declared closed. Commissioner Mink questioned cooking facilities, and was assured there would be none. Commissioner Sine moved this application be granted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and carried on unanimous roll call vote. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OPEN STORAGE OF VEHICLES IN M-1 DISTRICT, ON PG & E EASEMENT IN MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK (APN 025-271-090): OWNER -----FRANK EDWARDS COMPANY, INC.: BY PAUL JACKSON ND -34P) Chairman Kindig announced this application for hearing, and questioned City Planner Swan for comments. The City Planner reported he was concerned with the number of vehicles to be parked in this area and had requested parking plan showing spaces and striping. This 340' x 140' area is already paved and will have a chain link fence. Mr. Allan Ames of Coldwell, Banker & Company reviewed the application for the Commission, as agent for the Frank Edwards Company. Mr. Ames explained that this paved area fronting on David Road and in the P.G. & E. easement between Rollins and Adrian Road has drainage and has previously been used to park cars. There are three P.G. & E towers on the property. Paul's Camper Sales of San Bruno would be leasing the property and using it for storage of their recreational vehicles until the vehicles are moved to their lot in San Bruno for sale. Private parking for owners of recreational vehicles would also be provided. The area would be enclosed by a 6' chain link fence with two 12' rolling gates. Mr. Paul Jackson then presented the Commission with parking plan showing spaces and striping for the lot. Commissioner Kindig requested audience comment on this application. There was none and the public hearing was declared closed. City Engineer Davidson, upon being asked to comment, stated his only concern was with the 12" storm drain on this property and that it not be covered up. Mr. Ames assured him there had been no changes in the property for a number of years and there would be no change in the drainage. Commissioner Francard stated he would like some landscaping along the David Road side of the property. Mr. Jackson had no objection, but noted the Police Department had preferred the fencing be of a type so that the interior of the lot would be visible. Commissioner Francard commented the landscaping would not have to be solid and could be spaced. Mr. Jackson indicated it would be no problem. Chairman Kindig questioned ingress and exit. Mr. Ames stated both would be on David Road. There is a 14' driveway all around the interior of the lot. Commissioner Taylor questioned method of parking. Mr. Jackson indicated he would park the vehicles himself, backing them into spaces. City Planner.Swan questioned the angle of parking and length of vehicles. Average vehicle length was declared as 25' and parking angle at 709 Some discussion on striping followed. Commissioner Francard again brought up the subject of landscaping. Mr. Ames considered it would be too difficult with no water and a blacktop surface. Mr. Jackson volunteered to use planter boxes. Commissioner Taylor questioned the cleaning of the vehicles and was informed they would be cleaned on the lot in San Bruno and towed to this lot for parking. Commissioner Mink requested the following to be made part of the record: Letter of explanation from Frank Edwards Company dated April 5, 1974, negative declaration dated April 12, 1974, and Environmental Assessment dated 4/12/74. Commissioner Taylor moved this application be approved subject to review in one year. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion. Commissioner Francard wished a commitment on the landscaping stated. Mr. Ames protested that a permit for one year did not justify the expensive fence to be erected and the applicant's five year lease. Commissioner Norberg moved to amend the motion by adding, "a strip of 3' be landscaped and maintained in front of this property on David Road, landscaping to be kept trimmed to a height of 3.60." Commissioner Mink seconded the motion to amend and it carried by'unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Taylor then restated his motion to show "approved for a period of five years." Commissioner Mink approved his former second, and the motion carried by unanipous roll call vote. 4. PETITION TO AMEND PLANS FOR APARTMENT PROJECT AT 255 ROLLINS ROAD BY ANTHONY AKELIS. Paul Kilmartin was present as representative of the applicant and told the commission the amendment desired is to reduce the project from 8 apartments to 7 apartments. It will be a two story building. Upon inquiry by the Chairman, it was found that landscaping and all other provisions of the variance would remain the same. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Neither the City Planner nor the City Engineer had a comment on this amendment to variance. Commissioner Mink moved that this petition to - 7 - amend be approved. Commissioner-Mimk--seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous roll call vote. RECONVENE After a short recess at 9:10, the meeting reconvened. 5. SIGN VARIANCE FOR GROUND SIGN IN FRONT SETBACK AT 1575 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FOR BOMAR INVESTMENT. Chairman Kindig real letter of April 22, 1974 from James Marsh Company stating they had modified this sign to conform to the ordinance. Therefore no variance is necessary. 6. SIGN PERMIT FOR 228 SF POLE SIGN ON ADRIAN ROAD BY AMANA REFRIGERATION WEST COAST Plans for this sign were distributed to the Commission. Mr. Gene Whittle of Amana Refrigeration was invited to address the Commission. He told them Amana plans to erect a 19,000 square feet office -warehouse on this property which they have purchased. No construction has yet been started but the sign permit application is part of an attempt to get all details organized. The sign is needed for identification from Adrian Road and the Freeway. The sign proposed would be 35' high because of trees in this area; 225 square feet; freestanding and located in the front setback. He stated they propose a well-designed building set back from the street 128'. The sign itself would be approximately 5' from the sidewalk, and he considered it in conformity with other signs in that area. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. The City Planner had no comment. Commissioner Norberg objected to the stark appearance of the I-beam pole and suggested a different design. Mr. Whittle replied they had planned to cover it with white aggregate, but the cost was prohibitive, and they are looking for an alternate method. Commissioner Taylor agreed with Commissioner Norberg that the pole should be made more attractive. Commissioner Francard questioned landscaping and was told there would be planting around the base. Commissioner Sine suggested plastering the pole with marble chips. Commissioner Mink moved the sign permit be approved in compliance with two sketches submitted April 22, and that treatment of the pole for design be reviewed by staff. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous roll call vote. 7. PETITION FOR FENCE THAT EXCEEDS SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AT 1247 DRAKE AVENUE BY BRUNO N. MUZZI Sketches of Mr. Muzzi's proposed structure had previously been distributed to the Commission. He was invited by the Chairman to describe it. Mr. Muzzi told the Commission'he wished to build an arch over his driveway entrance which would connect to a newly constructed block wall across the front of his property. This arch -type structure consists M -IM of two 4 x 6's 8'6" high, 20' apart. They would support a 2' wide trellis type arrangement made of two 4 x 6's 2' long which would in turn support two 2 x 4's extending 20' across the top. The house number would be dependent from the center of the arch, and vines, etc. could be grown across it. This structure would be erected on the front property line with the top extending back into Muzzi's property. There was no audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. The City Planner cautioned if this is considered a fence, no part of it should extend over the property line, including the top cross members. If it is considered a sign, the supporting members should be entirely of metal. There followed some discussion of whether or not the top would extend over the side property line. Commissioner Sine moved the application for fence exceeding 6' in height be approved conditional upon the building inspector's approval of the construction. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,SINE,KINDIG NAYE S : COMMI S S I ONE RS : MINK, NORBE RG , TAYLOR 8. APPEAL BY HAROLD W. MARTIN TO DECISION BY CITY PLANNER THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED FOR C-3 USE OF IAT IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 119 PRIMROSE ROAD Chairman Kindig announced this appeal for hearing. Secretary Sine read City Planner Swan's letter of March 15, 1974 to Mr. Harold W. Martin which stated in brief that the change in use would be similar to that permitted by a reclassification. A reclassification is a code amendment, and all code amendments require Environmental Impact Reports. The applicant was informed that upon submittal of additional fee and the EIR, the application could come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wm. R. Morris, an associate in the law firm of Mr. Harold Martin, was present as representative. Mr. Martin was unable to appear because of an impending trial. Mr. Morris cited Form E-2 filed by Mr. Martin which essentially shows the present uses of the building are to be continued. He stated that since this is the case, no detrimental environmental impact could be ascertained. Mr. Morris quoted Guidelines for Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act which cite 9 changes having a significant effect on the environment. These include conflict with environmental goals set by the community; negative aesthetic effect; endangering plant and wildlife, and others. He stated that this project does not come within the province of any of these effects. Mr. Morris concluded by stating that any effect of the project would be affirmative rather than negative, referencing increased parking, installation of a sprinkling system and general upgrading of the building. Chairman Kindig requested staff comment on Mr. Morris' presentation. City Attorney Karmel, after reviewing the process by which this matter came before the Commission, discussed the difference between discretionary and ministerial projects as affected by the Environmental Quality Act. He also cited City Resolution 26-73 which specifically list four types of action as discretionary and requiring an EIR. These are: enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances; issuance of zoning variances; issuance of conditional use permits; approval of tentative subdivision maps. Final EIR must be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris argued that this is a discretionary.matter. By definition in the State Guidelines, adopted by the City, a discretionary project requires the judgment and the interpretation of the public agency. This, he inferred, would be consideration of actual circumstances, evidence and facts such as he presented at this meeting. Chairman Kindig commented that apparently City Planner Swan had based his request for an EIR both on City policy and on Fire Department regulations. He requested comment from Fire Chief Moorby. The Fire Chief stated his basic concern was with the reclassification of this property. If it is reclassified to C-3, it automatically becomes Fire zone 1, and the building would not meet the requirements of the UBC for this fire zone. The Fire Department therefore would not allow this use for this frame and stucco building. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the fact that the building is now being used for offices, and this has been permitted. Fire Chief Moorby suggested that if this variance is denied, some action be taken against this present commercial use. Commissioner Mink remarked that in his opinion this process would be similar to a reclassification�.which would require an EIR, and he would uphold the City Planner's decision. Commissioner Sine requested confirmation from the Fire Chief that sprinkling a building is the best protection for it, if the consideration of zoning and fire code is put aside. Chief Moorby agreed. Replying to Commissioner Mink's statement, Mr. Morris interpreted the State Code not as an absolute mandate, but thought it should be construed to consider code amendments in relation to other conditions pertinent. Commissioner Mink replied that his request deals with land use which is a code amendment requiring an EIR. The City Attorney repeated reference in Resolution 26-73 which states that an amendment to -the zoning ordinance requires an EIR, and also quoted another section which states "Where there is . . . a substantial body of opinion that considers the effect to be adverse, then an EIR should be prepared . ." Commissioner Taylor moved that the City Planner's decision that an EIR is required for C-3 use of this lot be sustained. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: - 10 - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE,KINDIG Mr. Morris protested that in this immediate R-3 area there were now existing uses of offices, auto shop, and office and apartment building. 9. REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Landscaping plans were distributed to Commission members. City Planner Swan reviewed this project for the Commission. He reported that the special permit was approved by the Planning Commission on October 30, 1972 subject to a number of conditions, one of which was "Specific landscaping plans be submitted for review by the Commission." The City Planner remarked on recently established policy of having all landscaping plans approved by the Park Director, and noted this had been reviewed by Park Director John Hoffman. Both the City Planner and the Park Director had conferred with Mr. Woodruff as of this date. He referred to the Park Director's memo of April 18, 1974 which commented: Landscape plans do not correspond to plot plan in regard to planters in main parking lot. Planter at side of property is not large enough for plantings proposed, especially with overhang, -..of autos. Planter at rear inadequate for trees proposed. No irrigation system plans submitted. Inadequate backup room for some 900 parking. The City Planner commented on these items and then introduced Mr. Woodruff. With regard to plan discrepancies, Mr. Woodruff stated that the total landscaped area was the same as in the original plan. Some changes in placement of landscaping were made in the front. He offered to put in auto bumpers in the rear and other locations to minimize the 2' overhang of cars and prevent damage to the trees. He suggested low ground cover could be planted instead in the rear. Mr. Woodruff voiced pride in the overall landscaping which includes 200 trees of 15 gallon size and hundreds of plants. He noted design by a top landscape architect. Commissioner Kindig questioned the Park Director's reaction after today's conference. The City Planner indicated Mr. Hoffman was not satisfied. Chairman Kindig commented he thought these points of difference should be settled between the developer and staff before final approval is given. Commissioner Francard stated he would like to see such plans at least 24 hours ahead of time so that some conclusions could be drawn before the actual meeting. Mr. Woodruff commented that the only urgency in approval of this plan was the number of plantings and large trees already on the site which needed to be planted. He noticed the only areas of disagreement were along the rear property line and the south property line, and requested permission to go ahead in areas where there is no controversy. Commissioner Francard questioned where the line could be drawn in an approval of this type, and when revised plans would be available. Chairman Kindig remarked that this plan was being studied at a public hearing, and thought it the -consensus of Commission opinion that planting could progress in areas of no controversy. Commissioner Taylor moved that permission be given to proceed with plantings on the Stanton Road and Bayshore sides of the site. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. Commissioner Kindig told the developer the balance of the plan should be presented at the study meeting of May 13 with adequate preparation. Commissioner Francard again remarked that he could not vote onplans he had not had the opportunity to study. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Sine nominated Commissioner Mink for chairman, seconded by Commissioner Taylor. Nominations closed on motion of Commissioner Sine. Commissioner Jacobs nominated Commissioner Sine for vice chairman, seconded by Commissioner Francard, nominations closed on motion of Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioner Mink nominated Commissioner Taylor for secretary, Commissioner Norberg seconded. Commissioner Sine nominated Commissioner Jacobs for secretary. Nominations closed. Commissioner Jacobs elected secretary by roll call vote. Commissioner Kindig voiced his appreciation of the privilege of serving as chairman for the past year. Chairman Mink commented the commission had enjoyed his good leadership. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan told the Commission of a request for a business permit at 1212 Burlingame Lane which is leased space at the rear of a property that has been occupied by a TV repair center. He added that as far as he knew there was a joint egress -ingress easement - that this lane was not public property. The Building Inspector thought it should not be permitted. He questioned if Commission had any background on this property. Chairman Mink commented it had previously been determined this was not a legitimate city address. There was further discussion which supported this position. City Planner Swan requested suggestions from the Commission for inclusion in staff development of guidelines for condominium conversions. Some suggestions were: Inclusion of laundry facilities; enough room in shared areas; provision for all amenities; adequate parking; private storage areas. The City Planner closed the meeting with appreciation to Commissioner Kindig for his year's guidance and compliment to the Commission as being one of the best in the Bay area. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary AGENDA CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 22, 1974 - 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES Regular Meeting March 25, 1974 Study Meeting April 8, 1974 IV. HEARINGS ON MAPS 1. Tentative Parcel Map, Colonial Twelve, being a resubdivision of Lots 28 and 29, Block 1, Map of Subdivision No. 4 of Burlingame Park, by Philip Karp (ND -35P). HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS 2. Special Permit for room addition to accessory building at 21 Hayward Court for John G. Hurd by Roger Chinn. 3. Special Permit for open storage of vehicles in M-1 District, on PG&E easement in Millsdale Industrial Park (APN 025-271-090): Owner - Frank Edwards Co., Inc.; by Paul Jackson (ND -34P). 4. Petition to amend plans for apartment project at 255 Rollins Road by Anthony Akelis. 5. Sign Variance for ground sign in front setback at 1575 Bayshore Highway for Bomar Investment. V. MINOR PERMITS 6. Sign Permit for 228 SF pole sign on Adrian Road by Amana Refrigeration West Coast. 7. Petition for fence that exceeds six feet in height at 124.7 Drake Avenue by Bruno N. Muzzi. VI. OTHER BUSINESS 8. Appeal by Harold W. Martin to decision by City Planner that an Environmental Impact Report is required for C-3 use of lot in R-3 District at 119 Primrose Road. 9. Review of Landscaping Plans for office building project at 1633 Bayshore Highway. 10. Election of Officers. 11. City Planner Report. VII. ADJOURNMENT �� �� - o -o o � v o