Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.06.23THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Mink (excused - City Planner Swan Jacobs illnes) Asst.City Planner Yost Kindig City Attorney Coleman Norberg Asst.City Eng.Rebarchik Sine Taylor ROLL CALL The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P. M. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of June 9, 1975 were approved and adopted after correction on Page 7, third line from bottom, to "It was suggestion of most of the Commission that staff prepare an amendment ." COMMENDATION - CHARLES MINK At the request of Chairman Sine Secretary Jacobs read letter of commendation to Commissioner Mink from fellow Commissioners. This voiced appreciation for his leadership and guidance as Chairman during the past year, particularly in the complicated areas of revision of the General Plan, the Anza Master Plan, and new legislation regarding zoning. Also noted was his leadership as Chairman at the time of adoption of the City's General Plan. 1. DRAFT SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. (ND-GP4 POSTED` JUNE 12, 1975) Chairman Sine opened discussion of this proposed element. At the suggestion of City Planner Swan, Secretary Jacobs read Objectives and Major Recommendations of this plan for public information. Objectives were: 1. Identify Safety Hazards 2. Increase public understanding of safety issues 3. Identify urgent implementation measures 4. Set safety goals. Major recommendations include built-in fire protection for older high- rise buildings; smoke activated fire alarm devices for new dwellings; fire resistive roofing; review of dike levels; preparation of 100 -Year Flood Protection Plan; study of City water system; review of emergency water supplies; review of water pollution risk; evaluation of earth and mud slide hazards; supplementation of emergency operations plan For the benefit of the audience, Commissioner Taylor amplified that - 2 - the State had mandated the City must adopt this element, the purpose of which is to introduce.public safety into the planning process. He went on to say that the intent is to begin a program that will define the hazards and propose implementation measures that will reduce risk. This is for the welfare of the community as a whole and to comply with State Law. City Planner Swan, commenting on calculated risks, asked the Commission to consider how much risk is warranted because of the additional cost to mitigate potential damages. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. There was none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commission discussion ensued, with Commissioner Francard questioning how the proper use of available manpower in case of earthquake or other disaster would be determined. There was some discussion. The Chair commented these and other details could be worked out later. The priority at'present was getting the element established. He added he also had several recommendations, one of which was a 20% replace- ment each year for the underground system. Availability of water to fight fires is urgent in event of disaster. Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik noted there is a sewer study going on at present. Commis- sioner Jacobs stated she would prefer not to make recommendations until cost factors were established. Commissioner Kindig stressed the importance of implementation measure "Complete creek drainage works recommended in 1954," noting citizens' concerns that the overflow from these creeks could damage residential property, and the possibility of private diversion of channel. Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik commented that the City requires an engineering review of any construction near the waterway to be sure that the waterway is not obstructed for the channel flow at that point. Commissioner Taylor questioned if findings could be substantiated by material in the City Planner's office. City Planner Swan told Commissioners that the original draft Safety Element had been circulated to other department heads, and a number of their references had been incorporated in this present draft. Most of the findings are specifics that the department heads had provided to the Planning Department. Commissioner Jacobs had a number of concerns with the Element. She questioned if any other city has requirements for fire resistive roofing. The Assistant City Planner stated it was his impression there were examples of other cities. Commissioner Jacobs stated she had observed instances of inadequate water pressure for fire fighting in the Mills Estate and questioned if it were as high there as in other sections of the city. The Assistant City Engineer reported that areas may vary as to pressure because of differences in elevation. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the cost of implementation measures and was concerned that some recommendations might not be financially feasible. She also questioned references in the report to data she had not seen - such as National Fire Protection Association Standards. City Attorney Coleman commented these standards had been adopted by the City and were available for review. Commissioner Kindig considered the Commission would be merely accepting - 3 - an outline of matters to be considered and reviewed. Actual implementation would be considered at a later time. Chairman Sine agreed, stating the Commission would not be approving costs, since this is the province of the City Council. City Planner Swan spoke of the element as _identification of a problem with determination of acceptable and non -acceptable risks. The Element would establish a policy. The second step would be the commitment to solve some problems, with subsequent ordinance to this effect. Budgeting for implementation would then follow. There was some further discussion. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 10-75 APPROVING SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN. Commissioner Taylor moved the adoption of Resolution 10-75 approving the Safety Element of the Burlingame General Plan and recommending its adoption by the City Council. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS (on basis of insufficient information) 3. VARIANCE FROM REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 1220 PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026-094-190) BY DAN AND RITA CROWLEY. Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read note of 6/19/75 from Mrs. Vera Cousins, 1253 Paloma, approving the application. Mr. Crowley, present at this meeting, had nothing to add to his presentation in previous meetings. At the Chair's request Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the facts of the application which was necessitated by the Heritage Tree Ordinance. He drew attention to revised plans which substantially reduce the area of encroachment. He stated the area lost for the tree is 70SF; the area gained by the encroachment is 75 SF. ` Discussion of plans followed. The Assistant City Planner explained details, noting the two story apartment building would now have three units on the second floor with one unit and parking on the first floor. He estimated coverage for the revised plan would be just under the allowable 50,6. Commissioner Francard considered the tree was not accurately located on the sketch, but was assured by the Assistant City Planner it was on Mr. Crowley's property. The Commissioner questioned if the Commission could send this application back to the Beautification Commission. The City Attorney stated it could not. The Commissioner then affirmed he would rather sacrifice the tree than grant such a variance. Upon the Chair's request for audience comment, Gweneth Riordan of 1235 Paloma, responded. She was against the variance because she did not want the character of the neighborhood changed. When informed by Chairman Sine that the property was zoned for apartment use, she - 4 - stated the site was neglected. Chairman Sine questioned Mr. Crowley if he had attempted to implement the Chair's previous suggestion that the encroachment be at the second floor level as an overhang, instead of at the first. Mr. Crowley replied that his architect at that time thought it could not be done. There was Commission discussion of the possibilities of the second floor variance and its effect on the floor plan. Commissioner Taylor indicated he was satisfied with variance for the encroachment since it saved a valuable tree. He moved this variance be granted in accordance with plans and specifications submitted and with the following conditions: 1. Advice of Mr. Mayne, Leslie S. Mayne Associates, leiter of May 28, 1975, regarding care of trees be followed and work be done under his supervision. 2. No trenching deeper than 18" be done within 15' of the tree. 3. Building permit to have these conditions and to be enforced by the Building Department. 4. No occupancy to be permitted until Mr. Mayne has certified work on tree has been completed to his satisfaction. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,NORBERG,TAYLOR, SINE NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RUMPUS ROOM IN GARAGE AT 21 BANCROFT ROAD _(APN 029-303-090) ZONED R-1, BY KAZIMIERZ AND EMILIA NOWAK. As a preface to consideration of this and the next four applications, all in the R-1 zone, City Planner Swan showed slides of the structures at 21 Bancroft, 1124 Bernal, 1421 Palm, 3080 Rivera, and 1356 Drake. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the Nowak application to use an existing room within their garage as a rumpus room. He noted there is no Building Department record of the conversion of this garage 11-12 years ago, and the Building Department is concerned with fire protection within the structure since there is evidence that cooking is carried on. There is a connected gas stove on the patio, and a flue on the roof of the garage. The Assistant City Planner introduced Mrs. John Dumanovsky, 820 Pinon, Millbrae, who represented her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Nowak. She commented that the room is used temporarily by guests, and corrected a study meeting statement that there was an electric heater. She stated she now understands this is a gas heater. At the request of Chairman Sine, Secretary Jacobs read letters from the following residents regarding this application, all opposed: 6/23/75 Mr. and Mrs. David A. Lightfoot 26 Bancroft 6/23/75 J. Luchesi 17 Bancroft 6/16/75 Margaret Dillon 33 Bancroft 6/18/75 Mr. and Mrs. Joe Biagi 23 Channing 6/19/75 Mr. and Mrs. Donald McKean 28 Channing - 5 - Three of these letters indicated this unit had been used for rental purposes. At the request of the Chair for audience comment, Mrs. John DaDalt, 39 Bancroft, responded. She told Commission that to her knowledge the unit had been occupied by tenants continuously for five years, and spoke of noise of tenants' vehicles. She verified some occupants had stated they were paying rent. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Sine commented he had inspected this unit; it was occupied, had toilet facilities, sleeping quarters, and there was a hot plate in use. There was a mailbox for the unit, phone line, no separate water meter. Commissioner Norberg stated approving this permit would be condoning illegality; Commissioner Francard commented that permitting this use would increase parking problems. Commissioner Kindig agreed. Commissioner Taylor pointed out that the application was for rumpus room which is a permitted use in an R-1 area. In dealing with the facts of the case, Commissioners would be moving to deny a use variance to allow an additional living unit. City Attorney Coleman suggested that if there is a denial of this special permit, he could prepare a resolution setting forth the facts on this property and have it recorded. This would prevent a subsequent purchaser from stating he was not aware of the facts. Commissioner Jacobs moved the Commission deny this application for special permit. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Taylor commented he had voted to deny because this is not an application for a rumpus room but an application for a variance for second living quarters, as testimony evidenced. Chairman Sine informed the applicants they could appeal this decision to the City Council. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CARETAKERS QUARTERS IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 1124 BERNAL AVENUE (APN 026-182-170) ZONED R-1, BY ZINA G. BASKETT Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed that Mrs. Baskett purchased the property several years ago with three structures already on the lot: the main house, the garage, and the cottage. The cottage is a self-contained living unit with two rooms, bath, and a sink in the laundry room. The conversion of a previous radio workshop into this unit was done by a former owner. The cottage is occupied by a woman unrelated to the owner, who functions as a caretaker in exchange for free rent. He noted that the City Attorney had given an opinion that this constitutes rental. He presented Mrs. Baskett, who addressed the Commission. Mrs. Baskett told the Commission that she is merely trying to maintain what she had; that the cottage was there when she purchased the house, and she had not been informed that no one could live there. She stated her son had lived there for some time, since her own house is small. Mrs. Baskett added that it is important to her for several reasons that she have someone there: she travels a great deal, and the house must be taken care of; she is in ill health and could need assistance; for purposes of protection it is uncomfortable for a single woman to live in a house alone. She did not see why a relative occupying this cottage would be any different than anyone else. At this time Ms. Pearl Langer identified herself as the personal friend and caretaker who is the occupant of the cottage, and stated the concern about the cottage had been adversely affecting Mrs. Baskett's health. At the request of the Chair, Secretary Jacobs read letter of June 12, 1975 from R. J. O'Meara, 1109 Drake Avenue, opposing.the granting of this special permit in an R-1 zone. On the Chairman's request for audience comment, Mr. Francis Colahan, 1115 Bernal Avenue, identified himself as being against the permit. He said Bernal is a narrow street, many of these older homes have cottages, and the parking problem is intensified because of them. He opposed any precedent which would cause this to be a multiple dwelling area. As proponents of the special permit, five people rose in the audience. Mr. Wm. Lobdell, 1139 Bernal, identified himself as their spokesman. He stated all were neighbors of Mrs. Baskett and had no objection to the use of the cottage in view of the fact that Mrs. Baskett needed someone to be with her and to take care of the property. Mr. Lobdell stated he had been living at his present address for 23 years, and many houses on this street were older and were built differently than at present. He stated a previous owner who had a radio repair shop had altered the structure so that his helper could live there. With regard to traffic, he added that all residents in the neighborhood have had children with the attendant cars and motorcycles. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg considered that this was an illegal use which could not be approved. Commissioner Francard questioned if such a special permit would go with the land, not the owner. City Attorney Coleman affirmed it would go with the property, and if sold, the cottage could be rented. Commissioner Kindig commented his sympathies were with Mrs. Baskett in this unfortunate situation, especially since neighbors did not object to the use, but it was.definitely an ordinance violation. He regretted there seemed to be no way to condition the permit so that it would apply to her alone, so that this would not be rental property if sold. Commissioner Jacobs requested verification that there was no way to grant this to only one person, and concluded it was illegal. In response to questions from Commissioner Taylor, Mrs. Baskett reported she had purchased the house three years ago through a real estate agent, and had not consulted an attorney about the problems involved. She said her caretaker had no regular hours or duties, her primary function being merely to stay there. Commissioner Taylor questioned if this unit would be permitted for the use of live-in help if it were attached to the main building and if it met setback restrictions, lot coverage, etc. The City Attorney affirmed that it would, but cautioned that the deck might preclude any such attachment. - 7 - Commissioner Taylor suggested that Mrs. Baskett's recourse might be a malpractice action against the real estate agency. He then questioned Chairman Sine if in his opinion the buildings could be joined. The Chairman considered it could be done, but the cost might be prohibitive. Commissioner Taylor suggested Mrs. Baskett might wish to withdraw the application pending consideration of alternatives. Mrs. Baskett, however, wished the hearing to proceed since she felt she was being penalized for something she did not know was illegal. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the City Attorney if it would be best to deny this permit since it was, in effect, a variance. The City Attorney agreed that Mrs. Baskett could not ask for a variance. However, he said, she might be able to do some reconstruction. Chairman Sine noted the front porch had been enclosed without a building permit. Mrs. Baskett stated she had not done any remodeling to her residence. Commissioner Jacobs moved this special permit be denied because it might set a precedent. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,NORBERG,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR Commissioners Kindig and Norberg remarked their denial was reluctant. Chairman Sine advised the applicant she had the right of appeal to the City Council. RECESS A short recess was declared at 9:30 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHILD CARE CENTER IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 1421 PALM DRIVE BY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME Chairman Sine informed Commissioners that since he was a member of this church, his participation in the discussion would be a conflict of interest. He therefore turned the conduct of this application over to Vice Chairman Taylor. Chairman Taylor announced this application for hearing and requested report from Reverend Wm. Ebeling, pastor of First Baptist. Reverend Ebeling stated that while a permit was granted several years ago for the use of this structure, owned by the Church, for a childrens' center for Sundays, it stands vacant though out the week. At present the church is investigating areas where it can be of service to the community and is considering the use of this property as a day care center for children during the week. Children 2 through 5 would be accommodated, and it would operate under the approval and regulation of the department of Public Health. It would be adequately staffed. Commissioner Kindig questioned if the church would agree to a permit effective for one year, at the end of which time it would lapse. Reverend Ebeling stated that would be satisfactory. Secretary Jacobs read letter from Fire Inspector Pearson voicing no objections to the issuance of this permit. Chairman Taylor requested audience comment. Evelyn Harper, 832 Fairfield Road, was concerned about the increase of traffic and the safety of children who live in the neighborhood. Ralsey Edwards, 1429 Palm Drive, questioned if the use would be commercial, or if it would be limited to members of the church. Reverend Ebeling stated this would be a non-profit venture, and would not be limited to church members. He stated that a church program that limits itself to members of the church is not fulfilling its obligation to the community. Speaking to the traffic problem, which he considered would be minimal, he stated the church could work with the parents of the children in the neigh- borhood to encourage safety. Mr. Ralsey indicated his satisfaction. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Taylor questioned if this were a permitted use in R-1. City Attorney Coleman stated that a conditional permitted use is a private school, which would include religious or parochial schools. Commissioner Jacobs questioned hours of operation and compliance with health require- ments. Reverend Ebeling replied that health requirements are set by the State and must be met before permit is granted. Hours of operation would be from 7:30 to 5:30. Commissioner Jacobs moved that this special permit be granted subject to compliance with State health requirements, fire safety requirements as set forth in Title 19, 1973 Uniform Building Code, and in accordance with Reverend Ebeling's letter of application of May 28. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, with Commissioner Sine abstaining. At the close of this discussion Mr. Wm. Lobdell again addressed the Commission on Mrs. Baskett's special permit. He questioned how this action was started, and noted the issuance subsequently of a special permit to a church school in R-1, while Mrs. Baskett was denied. He did not think this was fair, and questioned if there were`political implications. Chairman Sine assured him no political considerations were involved. City Attorney Coleman pointed out that his duty was to pursue illegal uses in the community, and a citizen's complaint had been received on that property. Mr. Lobdell protested that many homes in that neighborhood have been there for over 50 years, and Mrs. Baskett did not build the house she bought. Chairman Sine assured him that the Commission was sympathetic to Mrs. Baskett's plight, and he himself had sought legal opinion on this case. The advice had been that it was not legally possible to permit it, and the Commission must be guided by certain laws. 7. VARIANCE FROM SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 3080 RIVERA DRIVE (APN 025-291-020) BY CON AND MARLENE RABOLI City Planner Swan referred Commissioners to site plan which shows small accessory building identified as a "doll house" located 3' from the corner of the dwelling. This accessory building is 4'5" from the property line. He noted it had previously been located very close to the property line but had been cut off at the request of the Building Inspection Department upon the issuance of a permit for a swimming pool. The City Planner stated Mr. Raboli now wishes to add two bedrooms and bath as a second story to his dwelling. The City code states that a side yard for a lot wider than 50' must be 5'; with the addition of a second story, another foot must be added, making 6' side yard. The accessory building is only 415" from the property line. Another code provision is that no accessory building shall be erected closer than 4' to another building. The doll house is only 3' from the main dwelling. This is not sufficient for fire fighting access. The City Planner added that the roof of the doll house and the roof of the house together effectively close the 3' area to the sky. This is not permitted in the fire regulations. Mr. Raboli had nothing to add to the City Planner's report. In response to Commission questions Mr. Raboli stated the "doll house" was used for a childrens' playroom; it had no shower in it; and he did not yet have a set of plans for the addition to the house. Commissioner Taylor questioned if 1�' could be taken off the accessory building, but Mr. Raboli stated it would be difficult because itis setting on a concrete slab. Also it would not add to Fire Department access because that side of the house is on the hill, which would make it difficult in any case. He added there is adequate access to other sides of the dwelling. Commissioner Taylor questioned the visual impact of the addition on the neighboring houses. Mr. Raboli told him it would be built to conform to the rest of the house, and the only neighbor on whom it would have a visual impact was present and would address the Commission. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the neighbor to the right would be affected, and stated she would be better satisfied with the doll house if it complied with code. Mr. Raboli replied the addition would be on the backside and there would be no windows there. He said he is on a hill and his property looks down on the roof of the neighboring house going uphill. Commissioner Francard questioned if the doll house could be turned. Mr. Raboli told him it would be difficult because it is positioned on a concrete slab. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. James Haddock, 3088 Rivera, identified himself as Mr. Raboli's neighbor. He stated Mr. Raboli had done an excellent job of modifying the doll house at the time of the swimming pool addition. He commented that it was well constructed and a separate entity, and any further modification would be extremely hard. He thought Mr. Raboli would do a good job on the addition and the neighborhood would be pleased. He noted the existence of other two story houses in the neighborhood, and urged favorable Commission action. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg did not think a variance should be approved on the side yard. Commissioner Kindig did not think the fire access problem appeared too bad according to Mr. Raboli's statement. Commissioner Jacobs was more concerned with the addition to the house than the side yard. Commissioner Taylor moved this application for variance be granted. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,TAYLOR,SINE NAYE S : COMMISSIONERS: NORBE RG 8. VARIANCE FROM LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 1356 DRAKE (APN 026-056-130) BY ALBERT AND AGNES RENNER Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners that the present coverage on Mr. Renner's 120' x 50' lot is existing house, carport, and garage is 34.3%. He proposed to add a recreation room and deck which will increase the coverage to 46%. R-1 coverage is restricted to 40%, so an overage of 6% is requested. He added that an item to be considered is the carport which is closer than 3' to the side property line. Assistant City Planner Yost asked Commission -consideration of the four qualifi- cations for variance approval, and introduced Mr. Renner. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Renner stated he did not use the rear garage because it was too narrow, and he had not built either the carport or the existing rear porch. Also, the old garage would remain on the property. The recreation room addition must contain a 12' antique pool table for which there is not enough room in the rest of the house. Chairman Sine commented the carport and rear porch had been added without building permits. Mr. Renner stated he had not built either. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Ms. Edith May, 1348 Drake Avenue, was concerned that this might be a two-story structure which would cut down light to her property. She was assured by Mr. Renner this would be a one story addition and would not affect her site. There was no other comment. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig questioned if the room could not be cut down in size. Mr. Renner replied it could not be done and still accommodate the pool table. Commissioner Taylor questioned if the deck would be considered lot coverage, noting that if it were not, total coverage would be only 42.8%. City Attorney Coleman commented that all structures and improve- ments over 5' in height are considered lot coverage. City Planner Swan added that this deck, just below 5' in height, might be a matter of interpretation as a structure, but it does not necessarily have to be construed as lot coverage. He commented that a deck 4' above grade might be considered a structure because of the way it is supported, but there are no plans available for this deck. Commissioner Jacobs noted the fence on the property is very high, and questioned how high the addition might be. Upon Mr. Renner's answer of 12', she found it acceptable. Commissioner Jacobs moved the Commission grant this variance to exceed lot coverage in accordance with drawings submitted. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,TAYLOR,SINE NAYE S : COMMISSIONERS: NORBE RG Chairman Sine, commenting on the last two applications, stated their consideration had been unduly difficult because plans were inadequate. He cautioned that future applications presented with insufficient plans may not be considered. 9. SIGN PERMIT 14' HIGH POLE SIGN KOHLENBERG FORD 101 CALIFORNIA DRIVE At e request or tne Cnair, Assistant city Planner Yost reviewea tnis application. He referred Commissioners to drawings of site and detail of the sign, and commented it is actually an application to move the existing sign from its present location to its original location across the street. This 32 SF sign conforms to code. There will be no change in the sign. With the permission of the Chair, Mr. James Minto of Kohlenberg Ford addressed the Commission. He stated that three years ago a permit had been obtained for this sign at its original location of 101 California Drive. It was subsequently moved to its present location at 100 California Drive. Due to change in business sites, he now wishes to move it back to 101 California Drive. Mr. Minto then displayed snapshots of the sign. Upon the Chair's request for audience comment, Mr. L. E. Goble of Cummings Inc. stated he was available for questions. There were no other comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. There was little Commission comment. Commissioner Kindig moved the sign permit be granted. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Minto requested that Mr. Dick Bullis be informed of the Commission action before the Council meeting so that verification of the moving could be established. The Commission agreed this could be done by staff. 10. SIGN PERMIT FOR NEW COPY ON EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGNS OF 66 SF TOTAL BY BELL ELECTRICAL SIGNS INC. FOR SHIPWRECK KELLY'S AT AIRPORT MARINA HOTEL, 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. Assistant City Planner Yost reported to Commissioners this request to change copy on two existing signs at this location. One sign structure consists of a flag pole on which is situated Sign A, "Shipwreck Kelly's", 18' above the ground. Request is made to change copy to "Coffee Shop." The other sign structure, located to the south of the flag pole, is 26'6" high. Change of copy is requested for existing signs B,C, and D attached to this structure. Sign B, located at the top of the structure, 34 SF and above the maximum height limit of 20', bears a "wheel" logo. This is to be changed to a standardized logo of blue and white. Sign C on the structure now bears words "Beef and Grog." It is proposed to change this to "Airport Marina." Sign D on the structure is now "Airport Marina." Proposed is a change to "Coffee Shop." The Assistant City Planner commented that no elevation had been submitted for the flag pole nor any site plans. Commissioner Taylor commented that at the time of the 1971 application for the flag pole, the Commission had been informed that flags would be kept flying. However, the use of flags is now only occasional. Permission to address the Commission was granted to David Fulton, 714 N. Humboldt, San Mateo, General Manager of the Airport Marina Hotel. - 12 - Mr. Fulton explained the substitution of sign copy, and added that flags are flown daily. In the ensuing discussion, Commissioners were displeased at the lack of site plans showing exact location of these signs, and the insufficient detail. There was a suggestion that having two signs for the coffee shop was superfluous. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. There was none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Sine reviewed the changes in the signs. Commissioner Taylor stated the original sign had been granted because the Commission was pursuaded that the mast on the flagpole required the wording "Shipwreck Kelly's." Chairman Sine suggested the major sign be granted conditional upon the removal of the existing flagpole sign. Commissioner Kindig agreed the coffee shop sign should be off the flag pole, and Commissioner Jacobs was reluctant to approve it there. After further discussion, Commissioner Taylor moved that the application for sign permit on the existing freestanding sign of 2616" height, double faced, be approved in accordance with detail shown on Sketch #1. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Taylor then moved that the application for the change in copy on the flag pole sign be denied without prejudice. After some discussion, he withdrew his motion. Chairman Sine announced that the application would be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of July 14. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that Carl's Exxon station at Howard Avenue and East Lane was in the process of being remodeled as a "Frontier Western" station with attendant rough hewn logs, wishing well and a wagon on the roof. It was his point that this wagon constitutes an advertising display; a roof sign, even though there is no copy. City Attorney Coleman agreed that this fell within the defini- tion of a roof sign. City Planner Swan read Planning Commission letter of 1960 wherein the owner was given a permit for this station, and stated the station owner had been informed this would be taken up with the Commission. Method of recourse was discussed. Commissioner Kindig noted that the savings and loan on Broadway and Paloma had a lighted sign on Paloma in defiance of permit conditions. The City Planner reported that Mr. Teevan had appealed the Porsche Audi permit, and that the seismic element had been scheduled for Council hearing. He added that many responses had been received to the noise element questionnaire. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Cc r.rci-n r%r