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