Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1971.10.27THE CITY OF BURLINGA14E PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 1971 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO O RDE R Kindig - excused City Planner Swan City Attorney Karmel City Engineer Marr A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Sine presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of September 27 and the study meeting of October 13, 1971, submitted to members previously were approved and adopted. 1. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT, WILLIAM J. THOMP SON, 27.01 MARIPOSA AVENUE - MODIFICATION OF EXISTING ILLEGAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Chairman Sine announced the consideration of this application continued from the regular meeting of September 27. He stated that at the time of this meeting, by mutual consent of the applicant's attorney and the Planning Commission, the application was continued to the present meeting because of the absence of the City Attorney as reference on legal ramifications. Attorney Cyrus McMillan was present as applicant's representative. The City Attorney gave a brief summary of the case. He stated that the public hearing had been concluded at the last meeting and it was now in the hands of the Commission; that there had been some discussion among Commission members because of pending litigation. He reported that the case is now in Superior Court n_ending trial on two counts: 1. To have structure removed because of violation of code; 2. To have structure removed because it was buil'c without a building permit. The -City Attorney noted that the applicant holds a legal position in that an application, if denied, may be resubmitted one year later, and that action by the Planning Commission is appropriate. However, in view of the fact that litigation is pending the Commission does not have all the alternatives it would normally have. The Commission has two alternatives: 1. To deny the application on its merits; 2. To certify the matter to the City Council with recommendations. The City Planner had no comment on this phase of the application. Chairman Sine told the Commission that he had inspected the property - 2 - and that the structure violated the code in several ways. He reported that the structure has no foundations. It is on an existing swimming pool slab and the floor is on 2' x 4' sleepers. There is a wet area on the south end of the building. The code requires that it be water- proofed and there is no water proofing. The electrical definitely would not meet the code and there are no plumbing vents. The nailing of the structure would not conform to a minimum of the code. There is no gutter,and no downspouts. The sink is drained with a rubber hose that goes outside to the property line, comes back in and spills into a floor drain. The sink's hot and cold copper water lines feed from the easterly side of the house and are nailed to the southern side of the concrete retaining wall outside of the property line. Chairman Sine declared that the building does not conform to the code in any respect. Commissioner Norberg commented that the building sounded like "an illegal mess." Commissioner Jacobs agreed. Commissioner Taylor spoke of each individual's obligation to obey laws in order to live in harmony with society and the fact that most people accept this respon- sibility. He stated he was overwhelmed by such an application from a person who had taken the law into his own hands and expected the commission to ratify his conduct. Commissioner Mink had no comment. Commissioner Cistulli agreed with other Commissioners that the applicant's -actions were reprehensible. He noted that he had not wanted to act on this previously without being fully informed of the legal aspects, but they now had been made clear. Chairman Sine told the Commission that he could understand someone's violating the code in ignorance, but that the present case was inexcusable. He stated that Mr. Thompson does know the laws and rules, since he is in the construction business. He thought that Mr. Thompson had ignored all of the city codes and he had absolutely no sympathy with his application. Commissioner Cistulli moved that the application of William J. Thompson, 2701 Mariposa Avenue for modification of existing accessory structure be denied. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. Chairman Sine stated that this action would become effective Tuesday, November 2 unless appealed to the City Council. 2. PARCEL Wi P FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4, 5, and PORTION 7, BLOCK 36, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 AT 2017 EASTON DRIVE AND 1236 VANCOUVE R AVENUE Chairman Sine announced this parcel map for consideration, and requested the City Planner's comments. City Planner Swan commented on the purpose of a parcel map. It is to insure compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, to respect the provisions of the General Plan, to insure compliance with the design standards for streets and alleys, as well as compliance with other regulations. He stated that in this map an exchange of property is being effected. One property is being increased in size by addition from the adjacent property, and a new property line is being established. The tentative parcel map was then circulated among the Commission members. There was discussion. The Chairman requested comments from the audience in favor of this - 3 - parcel map, and Mr. William Fitch, Civil Engineer with Jones-Tillson & Associates, Palo Alto, came forth. He elaborated on the fact that this parcel map is merely .to effect a transfer of property. City Engineer Marr reminded him that this action will require a field survey and monuments set at two corners. Mr. Fitch stated that this had already been done. There was no comment from the audience against the application, and no comment from the Commission. Commissioner Cistulli moved that the parcel map for resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, and Portion 7, Block 36, Easton Addition No. 2, be approved. Commissioner Taylor seconded, and the motion passed unani- mously on roll call vote. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LANDS OF MOORE AND MASTERS, PARCEL 45, ASSESSORS 1 AP B16, AT 1554 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHATAY Chairman Sine announced the consideration of this tentative parcel map by the Commission. Copies of the parcel map were circulated among commission members. City Planner Sean pointed out that there is no certification on the map itself, that it is an outline of parcels and easements in the C-4 district to meet the code regulations in order that Parcels 1 and 2 can be developed as legal entities. He commented that there is a stipulation in the General Plan which requires that before a building permit can be issued on the property, the owner must provide satisfactory public access to San Francisco Bay. BCDC has a condition that automobile access to the property shall be provided. Before construction can start the applicant must provide evidence that this automobile access is sufficient. On the map there is a public access easement indicated as being 30' wide. The shoreline is along this line. No construction should take place within that area; however, plans for landscaping the back lot are within that area. The dividing line between Parcels 1 and 2 indicates the leasehold. The development of Parcel 2 is not known at this time. BCDC indicates that access does not have to follow the shoreline but could be behind the development. A private 30' access easement is shown along the Southwest side of the property to provide a driveway for auto traffic and public facilities. The problem is how to provide adequate auto access to Parcel 1, using the 15' exclusive easement across the property owned by O'Hara. After the construction of Bayshore Highway, a 202' unused strip bordering it reverted back to the original owners. What is the relation of Mrs. Riley's 15' easement to this 202' strip? The 15' easement, if used for access, will have to be transferred to another location on the property of O'Hara. However, this 15' would provide for only one lane of traffic. According to the code, the minimum width of streets and alleys, measured from curb to curb, shall be 20'. There should be a two-way street connecting Bayshore to Parcel l in order to provide safe access for the public and for police and fire use. There is another easement of 30' which is along the lower line of the Riley property and goes over the lands of McClenahan to Burlway Road. The McClenahan property is being used for manufacturing purposes and this is not the type of access to be used for a first class restaurant. The City Planner said he was concerned about the lack of a two way street as access to the property. - 4 - Chairman Sine asked for comments from the audience in favor of this subdivision, and Mr..Paul Markling, architect for the project, presented himself. He stated that he and his client were working on a better solution for the easement running through the O'Hara property. He thought they had a legal right to the 15' easement and that it was adequate, and that the 30' easement from Burlway Road through the McClenahan property was adequate for two traffic lanes for access and egress. He stated it was originally put there for access to Mrs. Riley's property and was the legal entrance to the property. He noted that Mrs. Riley's name was changed from Moore by marriage. Mrs. P.iley then addressed the Commission. She stated she had a document signed by Robert O'Hara giving her rights to this 15' easement. She also stated she had discussed the project with former City Planner Mann, and he had suggested she present the matter to the Planning Commission. She showed the Commission a drawing of the proposed use of the 15' ease- ment indicating its removal to the side of the property along the City drainage canal, and indicated she was willing to use it as a road, with the addition of 5', making a 20' road, paving it and landscaping it at her expense. The 51, presumably, would be part of the City property along the drainage canal. City Engineer Marr brought out the fact that the Planning Commission does not have the right to grant the use of City property for private use. This can be done only by the City Council. He stated that one time there was an agreement with O'Hara that the City would sell back to him the triangular section of land at the bottom of his property on condition he would extend the existing box culvert to carry Mills Creek. The City Attorney agreed with the City Engineer, stating that the action of the Planning Commission is only recommendatory. He pointed out that the Code formerly stipulated that whenever there was any division of property there shall be frontage on a public street. However, there were situations where this was not possible, and the code was amended so that the property owner could provide access to a public street by means of an easement, but this must be considered by the City Council. In such event, the City shall become owner of the easement, since fire and police must have a public road to get on the property. The City is made owner so that property owners cannot extinguish this easement. He made three points with regard to Mrs. Riley's property: 1. There is no frontage on a public street. 2. The City does not know if there is an easement. 3. If there is an easement, the City is not a party to it. In the past there has been some litigation between Riley and O'Hara with respect to this easement. He suggested that the Commission determine definitely what Mrs. Riley's rights are in this easement. He stated the City should have a document showing grant of easement or court decree. Mrs. Riley stated she had a title search in her possession showing a deed of grant on this easement recorded since 1950. The City Attorney questioned if it were also subject to revocation by O'Hara. Mrs. Riley stated that Mr. O'Hara had given her permission to put the.easement on the edge of the property. The City Attorney declared that the city must know her rights in the property and this cannot be established without a search of records. Mrs. Riley repeated that she had documentary evidence, and stated that she would be willing to give an - 5 - easement to the City of Burlingame to comply with the law. Mr. Riley, her husband, told the_ Commission that he had attended a legal hearing wherein it was decreed that this 15' easement was a fact that could not be changed. Chairman Sine asked for comments from the audience against this property division. A Mr. Mitzner, of Aluminum Plumbing Fixture Corporation located on the McClenahan property, addressed the Commission. He stated his company is definitely opposed to the use of the 30' easement on the basis that it goes through their plant operation and is a hazard to their personnel. Also when trucks are unloading and loading this road will be restricted. He showed the Commission a small drawing of the McClenahan property. He stated that the public might then attempt to use the 15' easement and it was inadequate for ingress and egress. There were no other audience objections and the public hearin7 was declared closed. The City Attorney requested that Mrs. Riley leave her copies of documents with City Hall so that they could be copied and examined by the staff. Mrs. Riley agreed. There was further Commission discussion regarding these easements and the question was raised if the McClenahan easement would be sufficient. The point was made that a restaurant was an acceptable use for this land. The City Attorney stated that it might be, and suggested that this matter be held over to the next study meeting in order to give Mrs. Riley time to furnish documentation and the staff time to study it. Commissioner Cistulli moved that the consideration of this parcel map be held over to the study meeting of November 8 for further staff study. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed by voice vote. The Chairman announced that it would be considered at the study meeting of November 8. RECONVENE Following a recess at 9:15, Chairman Sine reconvened the meeting at 9:25. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS, CHRI STENSEN PROPERTIES, INC., WESTERLY CORNER OF BAYSHORE HIGITNAY AND HINKLEY ROAD Chairman Sine announced this application for public hearing. Secretary Pro-Tem Taylor read correspondence from the applicant stating he wished to build two office buildings on this site and felt the development was consistent with the general area. He also read a letter from Aeroland Development Corporation dated September 25, 1971 stating that Herman Christensen Jr. had been appointed as their agent in the development of this land. Copy of.document attached stated that he had been appointed as their agent for a period of 90 days. Plans of the development and descriptive booklets were distributed to the Commission. City Planner Swan gave a resume of the situation. He stated that one of the conditions for approval of this application should be that it be resubdivided to combine all of the lots into one. There is a pattern of office building construction in this area for the past few years that seems to be consistent, and this type of land use is complementary to surrounding hotels and restaurants. He noted that the code for M-1 has a stipulation that a special permit is required for office buildings, and the development must provide parking in compliance with the code. Mr. Herman Christensen Jr. introduced himself as representative of his firm, and stated they wished to build offices there because they felt it would enhance the area and is consistent with other uses. He showed additional large drawings of the project to the Commission. He stated that 26% of the site would be landscaped. On a question by Commissioner Cistulli he stated he would be pleased to consult the City Park Superintendent as to best types of shrubbery. No one in the audience spoke in favor of or against this application and the public hearing was declared closed. City Engineer Marr had no comment on the application, but repeated the position that the granting of the permit be contingent upon re - subdivision. Commissioner Norberg had no objections, and stated he thought the.project was well thought out and appropriate to the location. Commissioner Jacobs agreed and thought the landscaping was adequate. Commissioner Taylor approved of the land use. Commissioner Mink had no comment. Commissioner Cistulli approved. Chairman Sine approved. He stated that the applicant was a good reputable construction firm. Commissioner Mink introduced a motion that the special permit for construction of two office buildings on the westerly corner of Bayshore Highway and Hinkley Road by Christensen Properties Inc. be approved, subject to the following condition: occupancy of either building can be accomplished only after an appropriate resubdivision map is submitted according to plans and drawings submitted October 27, 1971. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. Then Mr. Christensen raised the, issue of dividing the property into two parcels. There followed considerable discussion as to type of subdivision with particular regard to assure required parking space for each building. The question was raised if this would require two separate subdivision applications to assure proper parking for each lot. The City Planner suggested a joint ingress -egress easement for the commonly used parking area so it could not be subdivided for either Building A or Building B. The City Attorney suggested that the action of the Com- mission on this application could be postponed until a resub map was submitted. Viere was further discussion. The motion was amended as " . . subject to the condition that a resubdivision map be submitted and issuance of a building permit be subject to the resub map", brought to vote and passed unanimously on roll call vote. Chairman Sine reminded the applicant that his next action should be to submit the resub map. 5. VARIANCE FOR FENCE GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, 118 ANITA ROAD, PAT WEATHERSBY This application was introduced for hearing by Chairman Sine. The Secretary Pro-Tem read correspondence from Mr. r9eathersby stating - 7 - he built the fence without knvaledge o- the six foot limit, that it was necessary to protect the property from blo%,iing refuse, marauding dogs and carelessly flung baseballs from the adjacent school. City Planner 0aan had no comment on this application. Mr. �Keathersby -represented himself and repeated the statements he had made in his letter. There was no comment from the audience in favor of this variance. The Secretary read a letter from Mr. Weathersby's landlord, Mr. 'William Watts, giving his approval for the fence and asking the Commission's sanction. There were no audience comments against the variance and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg felt the application was unusual since the fence is already up. However, he thought that since it was not on the property line, it would be reasonable to grant the variance. Commis- sioner Jacobs thought the fence anything but beautiful, and that it was not helping in "beautification" of the property since there was much debris around the carport, but that it did serve its purpose and its unsightliness could not be seen from the street. Commissioner Taylor agreed that it was not a beautiful fence, as did Commissioner Mink. He did think it was functional. Commissioner Cistulli did not like the idea of the fence. He mentioned that Mr.-Weathersby could be excused because he is not the property owner. Chairman Sine said that the fence could be easily lowered one foot with the use of a skilsaw, and did not feel the Commission should grant a variance on rental property. However, Mr. vVeathersby said he was not capable of cutting the fence down to height, would have to hire it done, and it would be too expensive. Chairman Sine asked if the applicant would be amenable to removing the fence when he moved. Mr. Weathersby agreed. Commissioner Jacobs moved that variance be granted to Pat leleathersby for the existing fence at 118 Anita Road. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it passed on the following roll call vote: COMMISSIOidERS FOR: CISTULLI, JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR C0101ISSIONERS AGAINST: SINE Chairman Sine informed the applicant the variance would become effec- tive November 2 if not appealed to the City Council. 6. VARIANCE FOR FENCE GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, 104 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, PAUL MUNKDALE Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. The Secretary read the application letter from Mr. and Mrs. Munkdale which stated that due to a verbal misunderstanding they had not realized the height of seven feet was illegal. They had wanted a seven foot fence for privacy because of the height of their deck. The letter stated they had gone to great expense in '.building this fence, that it was beautiful and complementary to the neighborhood. Drawings of the fence and site plans were distributed to the Commission. Mrs. Mary Munkdale addressed the Commission stating that when they applied for a permit for a brick wall on their property, a land- scaping drawing was used which showed the 7' fence. The brick wall was approved and they were under the impression that the fence was also approved since it was on the drawing, although they did state that the fence was not to be built until later. She gave the Commission a list of signatures from her neighbors affirming that they "are not unhappy with Mr. and Mrs. Munkdale's fence." The City Planner noted that he had once lived on a corner lot and there was a privacy problem, particularly with regard to car headlights. He noted that the side yard along Barroilhet is only 4' wide, and the back is the only area of privacy. He stated that he had no way of knowing how the fence appeared on the drawing for the brick wall permit, but that when a permit is obtained it should be exclusive of all other building on the property. Upon a question from the Chair it was brought out that the brick wall had been applied for last December and Mr. Munkdale had thought it had included the fence. It was indicated by Chairman Sine that he could not have obtained a permit for the brick wall from the landscape drawing which did not show the cross sectioning; and Mr. Munkdale stated he had been asked by the Building Department for a sketch of the wall itself, and it was from this that the permit was issued. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience in favor of this fence, and the Secretary read the letter from the 16 people who "did not object." There were no audience comments against, and the public hearing was declared closed. Before he initiated Commission comment Chairman Sine asked if the applicant had reconstructed the sidewalk when he put in the brick wall. Mr. Munkdale replied that he had not, just the approach to the front door. Commissioner Norberg had no comment on this application. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not condone the height of the fence but felt there were extenuating circumstances from the privacy standpoint and the fact that there was confusion as to whether or not the fence was approved. He thought this was a case where a variance was required. Commissioner Taylor stated he had mixed reactions due to the fact that the applicant is a contractor and surely must know about fence height regulations. He thought the fence was very attractive. Commissioner Mink felt the real problem was the deck, that when the deck is at its present height the 7' fence becomes almost a necessity. He suggested that it would not be a hardship for the applicant to drop the.height of the deck and drop the fence a foot. Commissioner Cistulli commented he was not in favor of high fencss; however this was a case of a corner lot. He thought that Mr. Munkdale, being a landscape contractor, would not have the familiarity with building permits as would a building contractor. Chairman Sine asked Mr. Munkdale if he regularly designs, builds and takes out permits for various pieces of work. Mr. 141unkdale stated that he did. The Chairman then_ pointed out that since he was in this business, he should be aware of the regulations. He asked Mr. Munkdale if he would be willing to lower the fence and the deck.•. - 9 - Mr. Munkdale replied that as far as the permit went, he felt it was his fault and he would drop the height of deck and fence one foot if this would rectify the situation. The Chairman gave him the alternative of doing this lowering or having the variance go to the vote of the Commission. Mr. Munkdale elected to have it go to vote. Commissioner Mink moved that the variance be denied, Commissioner Taylor seconded. This resulted in a tie vote on the following roll call: COMMMISSIONERS FOR DENIAL: PRINK, TAYLOR, SINE COMMISSIONERS AGAINST " : CISTULLI, JACOBS, NORBERG Commissioner Jacobs then moved that the variance be granted, Commissioner Cistulli seconded. This resulted in a tie vote on the following roll call; COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL: CISTULLI, JACOBS, NORBERG COMMISSIONERS AGAINST MINK, TAYLOR, SINE The application was denied for lack of a majority vote, and Mr. Munkdale was informed that he had the right to appeal the matter to the City Council at their next regular meeting. 7. VARIANCE OR EXCEPTION FOR 1:70 5' x 7' REAL ESTATE SIGNS FOR NORTHPARK, BURLINGAME SHORELAND PARCEL AT CAROLAN AVENUE, CADILLAC WAY AND BAYSHORE BOULEVARD, BY L. BURLINGANlE, INC. Chairman Sine presented this application for hearing. Secretary Pro-tem Taylor read correspondence from the applicant asking for this variance for a period of one year because of the size of the develop- ment and the importance of informing the public as to :chat the project is. The letter noted that the square footage of signs allowable for a subdivision is 80 square feet but they are requesting only 70 square feet. The Commission was given a site plan showing the location of the signs and a detail of the sign. City Planner Swan told the Commission that this is a real estate sign, comparable to a tract, due to the large size of the property. He stated a six month permit can be approved for a sign of this type, but the magnitude of the project makes it realistic for the sign to be up for a year. This could be considered or the variance could be granted for a period of 6 months and renewed for the next six month period. Mr. Henry L. Richman, representing L. Burlingame, Inc., addressed the Commission, and stated that his firm was the developer of the project and that Wheatley -Jacobsen Inc. were the constructors. He stated they were endeavoring to finish the project in a year, and since it will take so long they are requesting this permit so the public and tenants will be informed. There was no one in the audience either for or against this variance. The public meeting was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg stated he thought the signs were an asset to the property. Commissioners Jacobs, Taylor, Mink, and Cistulli concurred. Chairman Sine asked if the construction would be completed in phases and Mr. Richman replied that it would be done all at once. The - 10 - Chairman concurred that the property should have identity. Commissioner Taylor moved that the application for variance for two 5' x 7' real estate signs for Northpark, Burlingame Shoreland Parcel at Carolan Avenue, Cadillac bray and Bayshore Boulevard be granted. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. The Chairman told the applicant that this would go into effect November 2, if not appealed, and that the signs were expected to be removed in the period of one year. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO MODIFY AN ADVERTISING STRUCTURE ( SIGN) ADJACENT TO FREEWAY FOR HYATT HOUSE HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGIrKAY Chairman Sine introduced this application for public hearing. Secretary Taylor read letter of application from Custom Sign Company, Hayward in which they stated they wished to raise the free-standing sign at the Hyatt House Hotel, 1333 Bayshore, eight feet because of present obstructions. Photos of the present sign were given to the Commission as well as a plot plan and a drawing of the indicative sign. George Lane, president of Custom Sign Company, addressed the Commission,.stating that -the Hyatt House wished to reidentify itself in the community and the present sign is obstructed by trees. It is not readily visible from Highway 101. He commented that the simplest solution would be to raise the sign, but that he was open to suggestion as to other measures. Mr. Bill Griffin, Manager of the Hyatt House, also addressed the Commission. He stated they wished to use the sign for various community messages, as well as for identity. The present sign had been there for approximately 12 years and the commuters had a habit of looking up at it. The previous sign had a reader board which was changed manually and it was a distraction to traffic to watch the man changing it, so it was changed to a non -manual reader board operated from the ground. City Planner Swan went into the background of the various sign applications made by the Hyatt House in the past, noting that the size and height of the sign had been approved because Highway 101 is a high speed highway, the Broadway overpass and planting tend to obstruct the sign, and the Hyatt House had a large investment in the community, one in which the City also has an interest. He noted that on the sign applied for the reader board is four times as large as the existing one, which is not necessarily warranted. He stated that the sign is not clearly shown on a set of plans, and he did not feel he could recommend anything not documented. Mr. Lane responded that the larger reader board was necessary because the present one cannot be read from the highway; the flow of traffic is fast and there is more traffic than in the past. He suggested that they could raise the identification portion without raising the height of the structure itself. The Chairman asked the audience for comments in favor of the sign. Mr. Jim Moran, 4428 Sandalwood, Pleasanton, commented that the present -11- reader board was a reduction in size from the one previous. No comments were received against the sign ane the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg requested specific heights on the sign. Mr. Lane stated that the top of the sign structure is 58', the top of the present identification sign is 46', and the new I.D. sign would be 54'. The reader board base *mould remain the same. Upon query from the Chairman it was established that the exact height of the structure is 58'6", the size of the reader board would be 9'8" x 57'6", and the identification sign would,be raised 8' but not the structure. Commissioners Norberg and Jacobs had no comments. Commissioner Taylor questioned that this was a type of sign included in the code execptions, and the City Planner stated that it was an exception because the display advertises the business on which it is located. Moving reader boards and flashing lights are prohibited. Commissioner Taylor stated he recognized that the identification sign should be raised but was not convinced about the reader board. Commissioner Mink noted that when the present sign was put up it could be seen from the freeway exit but this is not possible now. He commented that if the reader board were also raised it would require two more poles in the ground; and noted -that the reader board does not advertise the Hyatt House. Commissioner Cistulli agreed that the identification sign should be raised but considered the reader board too big. Chairman Sine questioned the value of the reader board to traffic going North. Mr. Griffin replied that they had many comments from people traveling South and it made sense that the northbound traffic would also be affected. City Engineer Marr commented that the original sign twelve years ago was called a directional sign and the reader board was not included. Commissioner Mink stated he would like to approve of the `identification sign but not the reader board, and Commissioner Cistulli suggested that possibly part of the application could be approved and part denied. Mr. Griffin noted that the present reader board and the one prior contained three lines, and the proposed board only two for 30-inch letters. He asked if possibly the Commission could use its influence to help him persuade the State to control the tree growth and was informed that the Commission would have to go to the State itself - it had no influence. The Chairman commented that if the Custom Sign Company wished to modify its requirements it would find the Commission in a receptive mood. A motion was suggested that the special permit be modified. Mr. Joe Blumel, regional manager of the Reader Board Corporation reaffirmed the fact that the present reader board is smaller.zhan one previous, and is changed from the ground rather than manually. However he brought out the fact that the proposed board, while larger, would have only two lines and 44 modules - or letter spaces - hence would be much more readable. Mr. Moran stated that the present sign has been up only about 6 months. At this point the City Attorney asked that Mr. Griffin state that the Hyatt House adopts the Custom Sign application as their application.- - 12 - Mr. Lane stated that the Custom Sign Company felt that they were acting as representatives of the Hyatt House and that the responsibility of the application was upon them. The City Attorney replied that the sign company has no authority to maintain a sign on that property and the application should have been made by the Hyatt House. Mr. Griffin then stated that he wished to withdraw the application and resubmit it with modifications. The Commission indicated no objections to this, and Mr. Lane of Custom Sign stated he would be happy to withdraw the application without prejudice. Commissioner Taylor moved that the -Commission accept the withdrawal of this application without prejudice. It was seconded by Commissioner Mink and approved unanimously by voice vote. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CAR RENTAL SERVICE AT HUGHE S BURLINGA14E SHELL STATION, 1490 BURLINGAMME AVENUE. This application was announced for hearing by Chairman Sine. The Secretary Pro-Tem read a letter from the applicant asking that he be permitted to operate a car rental enterprise on these premises which would take only two or three parking spaces. The City Planner told the Commission that Mr. Hughes had brought in a plot plan indicating the parking spaces, and that there was a total of 13 plus what could be added behind the structure. There could be a maximum of 18 autos on the property. There are three company vehicles and six employees at this four -bay service station. The reason for the special permit is a limitation on the number of rental cars that -.can be parked on the property. Mr. Hughes addressed the Commission, reiterating his reasons for asking for this permit, and stating that the operation would be an addition to the business area. There were no comments from the audience either for or against. Commissioner Norberg thought a rental service might be helpful to people in the city, as long as there is sufficient parking space. Commissioners Jacobs and Taylor were favorable. Commissioners Mink, Cistulli, and Sine had no comment. Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion that a special permit for a car rental service at Hughes Burlingame Shell Station be approved, subject to a limitation of four rental cars. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. City Engineer Marr cautioned the applicant about his observation of water from the car wash operation running over the sidewalk. Chairman Sine indicated to the applicant that the approval would be effective November 2 unless appealed to the City Council. ADJOURNTtiLNT : Commissioner Cistulli moved that the remaining items on the agenda be carried over to an adjourned meeting November 8 because of the lateness of the hour. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried unanimously on voice vote. Meeting adjourned at 12:05 P.M. to Monday, November 8 at 8:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, .Thomas C. Taylor_, Secy-. Pro -Tern