Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1971.03.22THE CITY OF BURLINGA14E PLANNING COMMISSION March 22, 1971 CO14MI S SI ONE RS PRESENT C014NII S SI ONE RS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Attorney Karmel Kindig City Planner Mann Jacobs City Engineer Marr Mink Councilman Mangini Norberg Sine Taylor C-Aftow0iZe t t 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 responded to roll call. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of February 22 and the study meeting of March 8, 1971 previously submitted to members were approved and adopted. HEARINGS 1. SUSPENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WEST BAY EXPRESS, 1368 ROLLINS ROAD Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the matter of suspension of West Bay Express' conditional use permit on the grounds of non-conformance to the conditions set forth. Upon inquiry, however, it was determined that no representative of West Bay was present in the audience. It was decided that the subject be postponed until later in the meeting so that a representative might be given an opportunity to appear. The Commission then proceeded with the next item on the agenda." 2. RESUBDIVISION APPLICATION, JOHN BELLEVUE, 1700 BLOCK, ROLLINS ROAD A public hearing was announced on the application of John Bellevue, #10 S. E1 Camino Real, Millbrae for the resubdivision of Lots 1, 2,3, Block 9, Millsdale Industrial Park n5 (1700 Block, Rollins Road) in connection with a swim and acrobatic club which he proposes to build and operate there. This action was initiated at staff request. In response to Chairman Sine, the City Engineer stated that since this resubdivision was simply for the purpose of combining several lots to form one property, he had no objection. The City Planner elaborated on the proposed useage of this property and stated that Louis Arata, Civil Engineer who had drawn the plans, was in the audience, if there were questions or comments. There was no further discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Cistulli moved and Commissioner Kindig seconded that John Bellevue's application for a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 9, Millsdale Industrial Park #5 be approved. The motion was carried unanimously on roll call. 3. FENCE VARIANCE APPLICATION APPROVED FOR MR. AND MRS. D. E. SULLIVAN, 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 35, MILLS ESTATE #9 Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application for fence variance by Mr. and Mrs. D. E. Sullivan, 1825 Castenada Drive. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan received with the application stated that it was desirable for the purposes of privacy to add 22' fibreglas panels to the top of their already existing fence on the northwest side of their property. They noted that this fence was originally six feet but that builders had bought the lots on either side of their property and had filled three feet of dirt on the northwest side, changing the grade of the lot. The result is an effective height of 3'. The City Planner, at the Chair's invitation to comment, stated that the conditions were basically as outlined in the letter, that actually there is a 6' fence on the Sullivan side but that the grade of the adjoining lot is approximately 2' higher than the Sullivans. He noted that the builder had probably put 2 x 12's on the neighbor's side of the fence and had then backfilled. In response to Chairman Sine, Mr. D. E. Sullivan told the Commission that he had had a disagreement with the builder at the time the adjoining lots were leveled, building up the grade and changing the drainage, which resulted in fill against their 6' fence. He had told the contractor that dirt could not be piled directly against the fence, so the builder had first put redwood boards against it. Mr. Sullivan felt that the addition of translucent paneling on the top of the fence would be attractive and afford the desired privacy. There was no correspondence nor comments from the audience favoring the application. In response to the Chair, Mr. Jim Bishop, 1829 Castenada, spoke against the granting of this variance.. He felt that since the Sullivans already have a 6' fence on their property, an 82' fence would be non -conforming. His basic objection, however, was to the fibreglas paneling which would raise the heat of the area effecting damage to plant life, and is aesthetically undesirable. He thought the paneling should be of redwood. In reply to a question from Commissioner Cistulli, Mr. Bishop stated that he would have no objection if the fence were of - 2 - redwood - that the main objection was that of design, not of height. The hearing was declared closed. During a period of Commission discussion Commissioner Jacobs indicated he had no objection to the variance, although he was unfamiliar with the heat -generating qualities of fibreglas. Commissioner Norberg had no objection. Commissioner Mink asked Mr. Sullivan if he would care to reply to Mr. Bishop's questions, and Mr. Sullivan assured the Commission that he would not consider putting up a fence that would damage neighboring property, but that fibreglas was extensively used all over the neighborhood, and that he personally preferred it. Commissioner Taylor voiced a reluctance to vote for the variance if the material were to be of fibreglas, otherwise he had no objection. Commissioner Cistulli stated no objection, and felt that the heat generated by this type of upright translucent panel would be minimal. Commissioner Kindig questioned the distance the fence would run into the front yard, feeling the fibreglas might be unpleasing if viewed from the street. Mr. Sullivan mentioned the 20' house setback from the street and conceded that the fence might start a few feet back from "phis. Chairman Sine concurred that Mr. Sullivan was entitled to the privacy of a 6' fence, but suggested to Mr. Sullivan that, in order to comply with the request of Mr. Bishop, and as long as the present fence is already redwood, it would be much better to continue the existing fence in the same material. At this point Commissioner Mink mentioned the wind load that fibreglas would develop and the fact that in 5 - 10 years the redwood would look much better. Mr. Sullivan agreed, in response to the Chair's question, that he would be able to continue his fence in conformity with the request for redwood material. Commissioner Jacobs moved that a variance be granted Mr. and Mrs. D. E. Sullivan of 1825 Castenada Drive to increase the height of their fence,on the north boundary extending east and west,22', using basket -weave redwood similar to existing fence. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously on roll call. The applicant was informed the variance would be effective Tuesday, April 6 if not appealed. The Chair also told the applicant he would have to take out a building permit. ACKNOWLEDG14ENT Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence of Councilman Victor A. Mangini. 4. APPROVAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION, JOHN D. MC PHERSON, USEAGE CHANGE FOR 1275 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of John D. McPherson, 302 Bald% -,in Avenue, San Mateo, for a useage - 3 - change for 1275 California Drive, Lots 1 and 2, Block 12, Burlingame Grove. A letter from Mr. McPherson, received with the application set forth that the building, presently used as a medical -dental building, could better be utilized as a professional office building in that its use is now.limited due to the large number of medical and dental offices in the area, particularly near hospitals. It stated that the applicant desires to convert one suite for his personal use as a private office to conduct business affairs, and to lease another suite to an accountant and/or attorney, etc. There would be no major repairs other than refurbishing and rearrangement of interior floor space. In response to the Chair, Mr. McPherson stated that the building had been vacant for some time and that he would like to move from his offices in San Mateo closer to his home in Hillsborough. The City Planner informed the Commission that at the time the original variance was granted to Dr. Peterson, all medical and dental facilities were in San Mateo and the Commission thought it would be advantageous to have one in Burlingame. However, of later years many facilities of this nature have developed in the city, and the building has very limited use now, since such profes- sions will not rent it. He felt that it is still a good building and a choice should be made as to how it can best be used, stating that he had very little objection to Mr. McPherson's idea. There were no comments from the audience in response to the Chair. The hearing was declared concluded. Commissioner Norberg indicated no objection, nor did Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioners Mink and Taylor, as did Commissioner Kindig felt that while there was no problem with using the building, the exact type of occupants should be specified, such as accountants and attorneys, and mention was made that no signs except identification signs should be used without further application to the Planning Commission. In response to the Chair, Mr. McPherson stated that he intended to lease the property from the owner with an option to purchase; that Dr. Peterson is still operating a dental office in the building and will continue to do so, subleasing from him. He noted that there are eleven parking spaces for tenants and customers. The City Planner suggested that since there are three suites, the number of tenants be held to three and the occupancy be limited to those suggested. Commissioner Mink introduced a motion to amend the variance to the property at 1275 California Drive to include uses in addition to medical and dental but limited to office spaces of attorneys of law, accountants and investment services; that the occupants be limited to three for the total building, and that the only signs permitted be identification. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and unanimously carried on roll call. Mr. McPherson was informed by the Chair that this variance would be effective April 6, 1971 if not appealed. 5. APPROVAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION, NEIL J. VANNUCCI, CONSTRUCTION OF 3-UNIT APARTIMENT BUILDING. LAGUNA AVENUE Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of Neil J. Vannucci, 301 South Spruce Avenue, South San Francisco, to construct a three -unit apartment building on Laguna Avenue, Lots 18 and 19, Block 12, Easton Addition. Mr. Vannucci had previously requested variance for a four-plex, but had revised his plans to a three -unit building. These plans were passed around to the members of the commission. A letter was read from Mr. and Mrs. E. P. McElhany, 1009 Laguna Avenue, objecting to the proposed construction. They stated that they did not feel that a three or four unit apartment house is a suitable use for this property, and that they felt Mr. Vannucci had not established proper justification in accordance with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. They felt that this lot is not 12 times the size of adjacent property lots, but rather about 14, since the 10' rear easement and the box culvert could not be considered as "open space." At the Chair's invitation to comment, Mr. Vannucci informed the Commission that while the previous plans had an area coverage of 37.4% - 40/ being allowed -, the revised plans have a coverage of only 32/; that one unit had been eliminated and the area for the private yards has been increased substantially. He mentioned that while the easement area does not belong to the property owner, it does not belong to anyone else either, and definitely represents open area. He felt that the sewage problem could be eliminated - probably by raising the grade; there was ample parking, one space per unit and one additional space; the design had been changed from contemporary to early California Spanish design with a lower mansard type roof, only 19' high. In his opinion, everything in the design was in excess of minimum. There were no comments from the audience in favor of or opposed. to the granting of the variance. The hearing was declared concluded. in response to Chairman Sine, the City Planner brought out, with regard to the lot size, that the creek running through the area does make for oddly shaped lots, and that while the box culvert easement and the 101. alley in the rear do not belong to the property holder, neither do they belong to anyone else. He said they would never be used for anything, and in effect the result is a larger lot. He personally saw no objection to the variance. - 5 - Comm issioner Jacobs commented favorably, stating he thought Mr. Vannucci had designed a beautiful building; while Commissioner Norberg was not impressed with the design. Commissioner Taylor felt that since the applicant knew that the district was zoned for R-2 when the propertLy was purchased, there was no basis for the claim of hardship involved in this request for variance. Commissioner Mink stated that the reduced area in the revised design met his previous objections and he liked the idea of keeping the height of the building down. Commissioner Kindig said that no R-2 buildings had been corftructed in -this area for years because they are not economically feasible. He felt, however, that the extra easement space could not be counted as lot area, and that the density would be increased, but that this apartment building would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Cistulli reported that he felt Mr. Vannucci had done an outstanding job in the design; that the open area of the lot was now 68/, and that the apartments would be an asset to the district. Chairman Sine indicated no objection to the variance. Commissioner Cistulli moved that the variance of Neil J. Vannucci be approved to conscruet a three -unit apartment building on Laguna Avenue, Lots 18 and 19, Block 12, Easton Addition, according to plans submitted. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it was declared carried on the following roll call: AYES: CODUMISSIONERS: Cistulli, Kindig, Jacobs, Mink, Sine NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Norberg, Taylor Chairman Sine informed Mr. Vannucci that the variance would be effective April 6, the day after the next Council meeting, if not appealed. RECONVENE Following a recess at 9:10 p.m., Chairman Sine reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. 1. (CONTINUED) SUSPENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WEST BAY EXPRESS, 1368 ROLLINS ROAD (STORAGE YARD AT 1330ROLLINS ROAD) Chairman Sine asked for a show of hands from the audience from those awaiting the matter of West Bay Express. There was no one. Neither was there a representative of West Bay present. Since sufficient time had been allowed for a representative to appear, it was decided to go on with the hearing at this time. At this point, the City Attorney addressed the Commission, stating that under the Municipal Code the Planning Commission is permitted to conduct a hearing in the event that there is a violation of a variance. In the particular situation where the conditional use permit is exercised contrary to the conditions of such approval notices are sent to the permittee and notices to surrounding property owners. The code provides for appeal by permittee in the event of adverse action. The City Attorney then proceeded with the formal hearing. He stated that a notice was mailed by registered letter to the permittee, as required, and introduced to the Commission a series of documents: (1) Application for Special Permit dated 7/10/70, showing a study meeting hearing date of 7/13/70, a public hearing date of 7/27/70 and 8/24/70. (The City Attorney noted that Commission action was on September 28.) He asked that this application, together with the drawing which is attached with the letter of justification be marked as Exhibit A. He stated that the first paragraph of the letter of justification, dated July10, 1970 contains the statement, "It is our intention if the permit is granted, to repaint and repair the present property as needed." (2) Letter from West Bay Express and Drayage Company dated August 21, 1970 and signed by R. E. Moore which stated, "Due to a previously planned vacation, I will not be able to attend our meeting of Monday the 24th of August. ;Jith regret, I am asking that we postpone our meeting until the following session. However, if you will accept this letter as my consent to oil and rock the referenced property, this would be done within 45 days of your appro- val, otherwise I will make a personal appearance at the next meeting." He asked that this letter be marked "Exhibit B." (3) Letter to West Bay Express dated September 10, 1970 from Herbert K. 14hite, City Clerk, acknowledging their letter of August 21 and requesting their presence at the Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1970. He requested this letter to be marked "Exhibit C." (4) Copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission of September 28, 1970 which recites in part, "A motion was introduced by Commissioner Cistulli that the application of the West Bay Express and Drayage Co. for a special permit to store trucks on the lot at 1330 Rollins Road be approved, subject to surfacing and maintenance of the area." He requested this be marked "Exhibit D" and admitted as evidence. (5) Registered letter dated March 8,1971 re revocation or suspension of conditional use permit from City Planner to Blest Bay Express notifying them that apparently they had failed to.meet the conditions of their use permit, and that a hearing would be held on this subject by the Planning Commission on March 22, 1971. (6) Letter dated March 8, 1971 to holders of surrounding property notifying them that a public hearing would be held on March 22,1971 concerning the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit granted to West Bay Express. 7 - The City Attorney requested the Chair's permission to call on the City Planner as a witness and indicated that any statement the Planner made should be considered as testimony. Permission being granted, the City Planner stated that on March 19 he had visited the property in question and could state there had been no attempt of any sort to change the paving. The paving was the same as it was previously. He said that the removal of junk cars was a condition, also that the area should be paved, but that nothing had been done, and that there was the same dirt, rock and debris as previously existed. The City Attorney asked if he had ever had any conversations with Moore and the City Planner replied he did not see him at the time of his last visit, but that on November 19 he had written a letter to Mr. Moore suggesting that he drop into his office and talk the situation over. The City Planner then read the letter which stated that nothing had been done to pave the lot, and asking for advice on when this work would be done. There had been no response to that letter. The City Planner went on to say that the whole theory behind use permits is that in almost any case they are conditional. The use permit almost invariably implies there must be conditions. He stated that in this case the Commission spent considerable time with Mr. Moore, and it was his contention that Mr. Moore has not met conditions under which the permit was approved. The City Attorney suggested that if any Commissioner had any knowledge of conditions at this property, he should so state in order that action could be taken. Commissioner Norberg noted that there seems to be plenty of evidence that Moore has not complied with conditions and he saw no other action justified except suspension. Commissioner Jacobs also felt that the use permit should no longer be allowed. Upon Commissioner Taylor's question as to the practical application of a revocation of a use permit, the City Attorney replied that the Commission has the option to its suspension, and the permittee has the right to appeal to the,City Council in the event of suspension or revocation. He said that revocation would be effective by virtue of injunctive action. Commissioner Taylor stated that he had no personal knowledge of the situation. Commissioner Kindig remarked that he had looked at the property and could verify that nothing had been done. Incidental to this, he found that on Saturday, March 20, five trucks were parked on the street. Commissioner Cistulli felt that the action of revocation should be taken. Chairman Sine reported that on March 19, 20, 21, and 22 he had been by the property and there had been no change in these four days. The City Attorney requested a statement from the City Planner that it was a fact he had been at the property on '.larch 19. The City Planner replied that it had been a matter of observation for some time on his part, and on March 19 he went to see if any action had been taken after receiving notice of the revocation hearing. A letter was read from Gordon J. and Lillian M. Hagstrom, owners of adjoining property giving their consensus of opinions of the operation of Kest Bay Express. They stated that the operation was out of character_ wit'n surrounding and adjoining development, that it constitLecd an attractive nuisance with youngsters playing on the parked trucks and sometimes jumping from the trucks to the roof of the Hagstrom building, which has several skylights. The Hagstroms requested that if the permit is continued, West Bay should be instructed to maintain their property in a more orderly fashion and also enclose the area with a fence. There was no one in the audience in favor of the continuation of the use permit, nor was there anyone in favor of its suspension. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Mink that the conditional use permit granted to Vest Bay Express for the use of the lot at 1330 Rollins Road for truck parking be revoked. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and carried unanimously upon roll call. Commissioner Mink moved that the Secretary of the Commission send notification to ;Nest Bay Express of the revocation of their permit and informing them that they have a right to appeal at the April 5 Council meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kindig and carried unanimously on a voice vote. 6. DENIAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CAR WASH AT BROADIKAY AND CAROLAN BY CABLE CAP. `nTASH, NAPA Chairman Sine announced a public hearing on the application of the Cable Car Wash Company, Inc. of Napa to construct a car wash operation at the southwest corner of Broadway and Carolan on Southern Pacific property, Cable Car Nash being -represented by Cyrus J. McMillan. A letter received with the application stated that the location desired on S.P. ground is 35' width on Broadway, and 600' length on Carolan Avenue. It referred to accompanying photographs of another location for the attractive appearance and landscaping of the facility, noting that the recommendations of the City Park Department would be accepted concerning landscaping. It was reported that the operation consists of two traffic lanes passing a single gasoline pump island. Cars are driven to the building containing the washing machinery and the driver stays in the automobile, which is propelled on a conveyor through the washing process. Mention was made that there are no such facilities in either the Burlingame Avenue or Broadway district, and this operation would serve an existing need. it was also noted that because of the narrow width of the land involved, any other useage would be difficult and impractical. The letter also stated that the applicant had constructed similar installations in other cities which have been satisfactorily received. Commissioner Jacobs at this point requested the Chair's permission to address himself to the City Attorney. This being granted, he told the City Attorney that Mr. McMillan, representative of Cable Car Wash, was his own attorney and he was involved in several ventures with him. He questioned whether this would involve a conflict of interest and volunteered to waive his right to vote on this application. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that the present situation would involve no conflict of interest. Upon the chair's invitation, Mr. McMillan made a presentation of his client's proposed operation. He displayed to the Commission a large rendering of the car wash,_ and noted that the Broadway entrance had been deleted because of the Commission's objections at the previous study meeting. Cars would enter on Carolan and drive on either side of a gas pump. 35' x 30' of the area would be landscaped, using the Park Superintendent's recommendations. He noted that the building was designed by Architect Keenan, and introduced Mr. Al Kamura, one of the principals of Cable Car Wash. Mr. McMillan reported that Cable Car Wash had similar facilities in Napa, Chico,,and Davis, and read a letter from Mr. George Oliver of the City of Napa stating that their business had proved a welcome addition to the city. Mr. McMillan noted that the Davis car wash site is also on SP -right-of-way, the same width but not quite as long. He then brought up the subject of land use, and cited the City Planner's memo presented at a study meeting covering the questions of zoning, right to improve, and gasoline sales. At this point, the City Planner indicated that the memo had been rewritten with respect to minor details and gave copiesto the Commission and Mr. McMillan. After reading this, Mr. McMillan stated that he felt the revised memo brought out the same ideas in substance, and went on with his clarification of three -points contained therein. First of these was the matter of this constituting a precedent. He stated he felt that the Burlingame Planning Commission had always decided an application on its own merits and not as a matter of precedent. His second consideration was the objection raised that SP failed to contribute to the assessment district, and he brought out the fact that he was not representing the Southern Pacific Railroad but his client, an individual business man. Mr. McMillan then went on to his third point which was the definition of a service station. He stated that this operation was essentially that of a car crash, that his client could not have the gas service open to anyone who was not going through the car wash, and that since no tires, batteries, lubrication services etc. were for sale, it was not., in fact, a service station. He mentioned that the City of Napa has a 500' service station ordinance and their operation there was determined not to be a service station under the city code, that gasoline is only incidental to. the car wash. - 10 - The City Engineer commented that they gave a free car wash with ten gallons of gas, and this was conceded. The City Planner requested the Chair's permission to read his revised memorandum aloud. This was done, and Mr. McMillan stated he felt he might agree with the views expressed as to Southern Pacific's responsibility, but questioned what could be done with this strip of land otherwise. His contention was that no development would ever be put on this property and this was an opportunity for an attractive service on an otherwise useless piece of land, stating this property fronts on Broadway which is a business district. There were no comments from the audience favoring the application. Upon the Chair's query as to whether anyone opposed the application, Mr. Don Tateosian of 15 Chateau Drive, Hillsborough, came forth. He stated he was the owner of the property across the street from this proposed development - the General Tire Company, 1047 Broadway He told the Commission he has two buildings on this property, one of seven units and one of two, and that the employees in these buildings use this SP area for parking - that if this facility is put in, it will cause a definite parking problem, along with that created by the proposed 540 unit apartment building at Carolan and Cadillac 7•7ay. He also contended that there would be a definite traffic problem caused by this facility, especially for traffic attempting to go west on Cadillac Way. The hearing was declared closed. During the period of Commission discussion, Commissioner Norberg indicated he had no comment. Commissioner Taylor questioned the design, particularly with regard to the entrance and exits and the traffic hazards created by them. Mr. McMillan inf"ormed him that the entrance would be 45' south of Broadway, and that this facility would probably not be patronized much during the peak traffic hours. In reply to Commissioner Jacobs' question about exact hours of operation, Mr. McMillan stated that it would be a seven-day a week type, probably open from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., but with the main business coming from housewives etc. in the hours from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Commissioner Minl questioned if this was a specific piece of property with definite property lines, and he was informed by the City Planner that this is acreage which has never been subdivided or zoned; that it is an SP right of way, on which there were previously spur lines. Commissioner Kindig questioned several items, the first of which was the matter of signs. In reply to his question, he was informed by the City Planner that no sign was allowed more than 20' in height unless the district was rezoned to M-1. He indicated concern as to the size of the sign, and the applicant was willing to agree to a sign 8' x 15'. Commissioner Kindig questioned Tyr. McMillan about the building itself, and was told that the building would be 64' in length, the actual structure being over the car wash itself and on both sides; also, that a fence is to be con- structed on the railroad side. Commissioner Kindig wondered if the noise from the car wash would disturb the restaurant patrons at the SP station, but remarked that he was very deeply concerned about the precedent -setting qualities of this application. He stated that the right-of-way was the same width all the way from Broadway to Oak Grove, and that 35' is wide enough for some small businesses, as well as carpa_rking for car agencies; and that if this business were allowed, others would have to be. Also, he felt that this particular corner would look crowded, with the railroad station, the tracks and the car wash. Commissioner Cistulli commented that he had personally found that this type of car wash operation, such as the one in Millbrae, took less time than the manned type, thus causing less traffic problems and less noise. Upon his question to Mr. McMillan, he was informed that there would be three people present at peak times at the most, and usually two. He felt that the facility was attractive and doubted if positive action would set a precedent. Mr. McMillan told the commission that his client had received no complaints about noise and read a letter from the Napa Police Depart- ment which stated, "This business has created no problem with either noise or traffic congestion." Chairman Sine was mainly concerned with the traffic control or lack of it. Upon questioning Mr. McMillan he was informed that the entrance would be 45' south of Broadway and there would be two exits on Carolan, one south of the gas pump and one south of the car wash. Chairman Sine felt that cars exiting south on Carolan would have no problem but those desiring to go north would run into definite trouble, compounded by the fact that the traffic from Cadillac Way also enters Carolan at about this point. He thought that if there were any way of guiding the traffic from the exit so it would continue southbound, it would be much better. He asked if the price of gasoline were not higher in car washes, and Mr. McMillan assured him that the price would be kept at standard. Chairman Sine4nquired if the property immediately adjacent to the tracks were to be fenced, and was informed there would be a 3' fence and the area would be policed as to papers, bottles, etc. He felt, however, that the fence might serve as a trash collector. Commissioner Mink was concerned about "piecemeal" zoning and felt that this type of building, if allowed, could extend all the way down SP property to Burlingame High School. He felt that if Southern Pacific wished to gain the -financial benefits from leasing their property, they should come to the Planning Commission for zoning. However, he thought that this particular car wash business would be a real asset to the community, and conceded that this put the applicant in a very unfortunate situation. Commissioner Cistulli felt that the 3' fence would be too low. Then Mr_. McMillan stated that they would raise the fence if desired, he stated that 4' would be preferable. Mr. McMillan also said that the railroad side of the fence would also be policed, papers picked up, etc. - 12 - Commissioner Norberg asked for a definite opinion as to whether this operation was or was not a gas station. The City Planner replied that in his opinion this was a gas stb_on; that any place gasoline is sold for placement into an automobile is a gas station; whereupon Mr. McMillan read the definition of gasoline service station from the city code, which states ". .for the retail distribution of gasoline directly to motor vehicles, oils, greases, tires and batteries, greasing and washing, the sale of minor accessories, etc. etc." and reiterated that they do not engage in any of the services except the sale of gas. A motion was:introduced by Commissioner Cistulli, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs that a special permit be issued the Cable Car Wash Company, Inc. for the construction and operation of a car wash and the sale of gasoline at the SW corner of Broadway and Ca•rolan. This was declared denied on the following roll call: AYES: COP-IMISSIONE RS: Cistulli, Jacobs NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kindig, Mink, Norberg, Taylor, Sine In the short discussion following, Mr. McMillan replied to Mr. Tatcosian's further questions about traffic congestion caused by this car wash, that there would be room for twenty automobiles on this property backed up for two lanes. The applicant was informed by the Chair that he had the right of appeal to the City Council. Mr. McMillan stated that this would be appealed. The City Planner commented that the Commission was not equal to discussing some of the questions, legal and otherwise, with regard to the entire use of SP property. He stated he would seek a definite opinion from the City Council. NEW BUSINESS: None. ADJOURNI•'IENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully Asubmitted, Everett K. Kindig, Secretary - 13 -