Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.07.14COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor ROLL CALL THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 1975 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Norberg (excused - illnes) City Planner Swan Asst.City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Davidson 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. NII NUTE S The minutes of the meeting of June 23, 1975 were approved and adopted with the following corrections: Page 7, last paragraph, ". . . at the end of which time it would lapse.", add "if not put into operation." Page 3, vote on Resolution No. 10-75, Chairman Sine's vote recorded as "Aye." 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 18, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 AT 1021 AND 1029 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-164-070/080) ZONED R-3, BY RICHARD EISELT FOR MAX AND JEANNE EISELT (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1975) Chairman Sine announced consideration of this parcel map. At his request, City Engineer Davidson reviewed the application. He told Commissioners this revised parcel map shows a frontage of 82' for the existing apartment building, and frontage of 67.90' for the remainder of the lot. He pointed out the 26' joint ingress -egress easement down the center line of the proposed lots. He considered these changes resolved previous Commission objections, but cautioned that the existing apartment house would now show a lot coverage of 54%, 4% over allowable. He added that the technical details of a parcel map are satisfied, and introduced Mr. Eiselt. Mr. Eiselt reported that the additional 4% coverage was necessitated by the 26' easement. He had brought in a copy of the proposed wording for the easement and maintenance agreement that had been reviewed by the City Attorney. He commented this revised plan provides more land- scaping and 50% less blacktop than the original. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the effect of the map on the non- conforming apartment building. The City Engineer replied the only change would be in degree of lot coverage, which now conforms but - 2 - will not conform after resubdivision. There was no response to the request of the Chair for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink questioned if the 48" eucalyptus tree on El Camino in line with the edge of the new driveway was in danger. Discussion followed of the proposed driveway which some Commissioners felt may be insufficient for the use of both the existing and proposed apartments. Regarding the tree, City Engineer Davidson remarked that the 26' drive- way need not be projected all the way to the street, and could be narrowed considerably at that end Commissioner Taylor was concerned that the 48" tree would block the view of drivers exiting north on E1 Camino. Mr. Eiselt reminded Commissioners his original plans had shown one driveway for each property. They had objected to this because two separate driveways cut down landscaping, so he had combined them. He added he was willing to cooperate with the Park Department on land- scaping and protection of the large eucalyptus. Commissioner Francard suggested the erection of a barrier along the driveway to prevent cars from parking on the landscaping. Again, Mr. Eiselt stated he would work with the City on this. In response to question from Commissioner Kindig, Mr. Eiselt verified his parking of 20 spaces has been adequate for the 15 units in the existing building, since some residents have only one car and some have none. There has been no need to use the vacant lot for parking; although his neighbors have been using it. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the process of common easements and was informed by the City Attorney that they are a matter of record and would be evidenced in a title search. He added that in a case such as this, they can make bad properties useable. Commissioner Mink moved the Planning Commission approve this tentative parcel map contingent upon completion and recording of the joint easement and with the precaution that as the landscaping is installed, a device to protect the 48" eucalyptus tree and to keep cars out of the landscaped front setback be submitted to the City Engineer. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,MINK,TAYLOR, SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS Chairman Sine informed Mr. Eiselt this tentative map would now be recommended to the City Council. 2. FINAL PARCEL MAP OF 533 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BEING LOT NOS. 16, 17, 18, 19, BLOCK 7 AND LOT NO. 1, BLOCK 10, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (RSM VOL. 70/35) ZONED C-4, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPROVED FEBRUARY 25, 1974) Chairman Sine requested report from City Engineer Davidson. The City Engineer told the Commission this final map is in conformity with the tentative map approved earlier, and he recommended its approval. There was little discussion. Commissioner Jacobs moved approval of this final map. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. - 3 - 3. SIGN PERMIT FOR 14 SF WALL SIGN AT BROADWAY ARCADE, 1050-1060 BROADWAY, BY B. C. MENICUCCI OF APOLLO TRAVEL. Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. City Planner Swan distributed recent tabulation of signage at this address, comparing signage approved to actual signage existing. Assistant City Planner Yost described the Apollo Travel sign as being 2' high and 7' wide, 14 SF in area, single faced, white background with lettering of gold and turquoise. Justification for this sign, which is supplemental to existing signage program, cited in applicant's letter of 6/30/75, is that the existing building directory for tenants is filled, and this particular business is different, requiring more definite identification. The Assistant City Planner stated that the problem presented by this application is that the signage existing on the building already exceeds the signage approved by the Commission in October of 1974. He displayed drawing which showed existing signage superimposed on approved signage. Existing signage totals 197 SF. Approved signage program totals only 109 SF. He explained details of installed signs, noting that signs have been added in excess of the number on the program and some signs have been installed larger than approved. If the Apollo Travel sign is approved, it will bring total signage to 211 SF as opposed to 109 SF approved. The Assistant City Planner remarked the present applicant had chosen to follow the rules in applying for this sign; the owner of the building was in violation of permit conditions. Chairman Sine questioned legal alternatives in this matter.. City Attorney Coleman stated that the previous decision of the Planning Commission can be enforced and legal proceedings could be instituted against the owner. Staff could inform the owner he is not keeping his agreement; and if he does not voluntarily reduce signage to what was agreed, an in- junctive action could be filed in court. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if it would be legal to approve another sign such as Apollo Travel. The City Attorney replied it would be possible. Commissioner Jacobs thought this would set a precedent for all tenants in the building. Chairman Sine stated the applicant was entitled to a hearing, and requested audience comment. There was none, and the public hearing was declared closed. The Chairman accorded the applicant the floor. Mrs. Menicucci remarked she was sorry to put the other tenants of the Broadway Arcade in this position, but stated that the building directory has left only a 2' space at the bottom. If the agency name were put there, the sign could not be seen from cars. She stressed the importance of a travel agency being well identified, and in response to comments, agreed to take "Air,Land,Sea" off the sign. Commissioner Mink remarked with relation to the size of the sign that this was a driving area rather than a walking area. He considered the lettering on this sign to be too small to be adequately read, and a possible hazard for traffic. He suggested the sign would be appropriate with just logo and name. He thought the sign should be approved and the owner of the building should be instructed to resubmit signage program, with legal action if this is not done. Commissioner Taylor had no objection to the travel agency sign, but did not wish to consider it until the owner had appeared before the Planning Commission. Several other Commissioners felt the owner should appear before the Commission before this sign was approved. The Assistant City Planner remarked that a letter was received from one of the owners acknowledging that he had seen this sign proposal and is in agreement. He commented that if the sign sets a precedent, it will be with the knowledge of the present owners. After some further Commission discussion, Chairman Sine continued this application to the meeting of July 28, requesting staff to make arrange- ments with the owner to be present. City Attorney Coleman affirmed he would contact the owner. 4. SIGN PERMIT FOR NEW COPY ON EXISTING FLAGPOLE SIGN OF 10 SF BY BELL ELECTRICAL SIGNS INC. FOR FRED HARVEY, INC. AT AIRPORT MARINA HOTEL, 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 23, 1975) Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed permit letter of 10/5/71 to Airport Marina from the City Clerk's Office. This gives permission to erect a sign on a 3416" mast with the following restrictions: 1. Only the American and State flags may be flown 2. The mast may be allowed to stand only as long as Shipwreck Kelley's is in operation at this hotel 3. This shall be the last sign, no other exterior advertising signs to be allowed at this location. He pointed out location of sign on a map and reminded the Commission the only change requested is the wording on the sign from "Shipwreck Kelley's" to "Coffee Shop." Commissioner Taylor questioned why a permit was necessary since the square footage of the sign program was the same and there was no change in ownership. In the discussion following Commissioners tended to agree that this should be a ministerial action rather than a permit. City Planner Swan commented that this sign to be changed was -permitted as a variance, and Airport Marina had voluntarily submitted an application. Commissioner Mink moved that since there was no change in ownership and the proposed copy change was consistent with the original variance, the Commission determine that this is a ministerial action. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 11-75 DENYING SPECIAL PERMIT TO KAZIMIERZ AND EMILIA NOWAK AT 21 BANCROFT ROAD (APN 029-303-090) City Planner Swan explained that this document formalizes the action of the Commission and is a permanent record that the accessory living unit at this address is no longer permitted. After approval it would be recorded by the County, and would appear in a title search as a type of lien against the property. A copy of the resolution would be forwarded to the property owner. Commissioner Mink, who was absent from the meeting on the Nowak hearing was determined ineligible to vote on this matter. - 5 - Commissioner Jacobs moved the adoption of Resolution 11-75. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioner Mink abstaining. City Attorney Coleman informed Commissioners he could now institute abatement proceedings; that time would be given for the tenant to move from the building, but probably no more than six weeks. CITY PLANNER REPORT At this time Chairman Sine requested the Planner report. City Planner Swan told Commissioners that 150 responses had been received on noise questionnaires, tabulated, and transmitted to the noise consultant. He listed citizens' main noise concerns as: 1. Motorcycles 2. Domestic animals and 3. Aircraft. The City Planner considered the draft noise element would be available for study on August 11 with a possible hearing date of August 25. The City Planner referenced letter of 7/1/75 from Munkdale Bros. Inc. complaining that their neighbor, the S.F. Examiner, allows its employees to park on the street, congesting traffic. The letter requested action. City Planner Swan commented he had visited the site; the Examiner has a policy of not allowing employees to park on the site although they have enough parking for 69 trucks and 15 cars. He noted he had written a memo to the City Council who had been sent copies of the letter by Munkdale. The Commission discussed and decided to refer this matter to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. City Planner Swan reported that Fidelity Savings and Loan, 1301 Broadway, had been informed of the illegality of their lighted sign on Paloma and that they had subsequently disconnected the illumination. The City Planner commented the City Council had continued their consideration of the Seismic Element to their next meeting. One question they had was why the area around Alcazar was not designated as a slide area. He explained by means of a diagram that some construction sites in this area were made by cut and fill. The fill on the slope was not sufficiently compacted and has had a tendency to slide. However, this is not a slide hazard area in the normal sense. He noted the Council's concern with the Element's suggestion of building inspections, and stated the intent of the element was to inspect older commercial, industrial and multi -family buildings where there was a risk of the public being hurt from the collapse in the event of an earthquake. Single family dwellings would not be considered. He reported the Council would hear an appeal on the Zira Baskett application. He noted that the Safety Element had been transmitted to them. He also noted Council study meeting consideration on Park Plaza Towers and the issue of a subdivision of one unit to create a 45th living unit. City Planner Swan spoke to the issue of applications received after the closing date for agenda inclusion. He commented on the importance of items being received on time so that staff may prepare proper report - 6 - for Commission consideration, and the inequity of stopping work on applications presented on .time in order to include applications received late. He noted the presence of applicants at this meeting who did not present their material in time for the agenda. City Planner Swan reminded Commissionetp that the special permit given the Burroughs Training Facility at 1525 Rollins Road specified a review of parking in one year, which time had elapsed. He stated this site had been inspected 7/1/75. There is adequate parking; the facility is not operating at its peak; and trainees are being transported from the Sheraton Hotel by shuttle bus. He noted letter of 6/10/75 from Dr. Steven Holmstrom, Burlingame Animal Hospital, complaining about noise of car wash at the ARCO station at Broadway and Rollins Road. Carl Fava, "Western" Exxon Station, 988 Howard City Planner Swan reported to Commissioners that Mr. Fava had been furnished with a copy of the sign code along with letter of 6/27/75 informing him that roof signs had been prohibited. Mr. Fava had also been provided with application for sign permit but this had not been returned. In response to question from Chairman Sine, Mr. Fava stated he had not applied for sign permit and that no building permit had been obtained for the remodeling at the station. For his benefit, the City Planner reviewed Commission discussion at the meeting of June 23 of the remodeling which included the wagon on the roof. Chairman Sine asked staff if it was their opinion that a sign permit and a building permit were required. City Attorney Coleman considered it a display and, as such, a sign. Commissioner Jacobs considered the City Attorney had defined it as a sign two weeks ago, and it should be abated if no application is received. Chairman Sine told the applicant he thought a building permit should be obtained, and if the wagon on the roof is to be permanent a sign permit should be applied for. Commissioner Mink questioned code provisions for combustible materials, and City Engineer Davidson described Building Code requirements. He added that Fire Inspector Pearson had been on the site. Mr. Fava remarked that 90% of the station is of wood. Chairman Sine told the applicant to check with Building Inspector Calwell as to building permit and sign, and with Fire Inspector Pearson as to safety. 6. DRAFT SCENIC ROADS AND HIGHWAYS ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN City Planner Swan quoted from the draft Element its purpose as to provide for the protection and preservation of attractive views from scenic routes for the enjoyment of the public and to enhance the scenic qualities of Burlingame. Objectives he listed as: 1. To retain a system of arterials and local roads that are beautiful and useful to local residents. 2. To harmonize roads and highways with adjacent land use and roadside development. - 7 - 3. To enhance the traveler's "view from the road." Noting the definition of a State Scenic Highway, City Planner Swan stated the only road which has this potential is Freeway 280. He went on to discuss the San Mateo County Scenic Roads element, now in its draft stage. This element suggests as a scenic road a loop from Skyline Boulevard to Canyon Road, to Easton Drive, to E1 Camino; down E1 Camino to Crystal Springs Road and thence to Skyline Boulevard. This suggestion is incorporated under "Implementation" in the Burlingame Element. He discussed other scenic roads proposed in the City, such as Trousdale Drive and Hillside, and the designation of "connector" streets on which abutting property is zoned commercial. Commission discussion followed. Some comments questioned the use of Trousdale as scenic with its many stop signs; and if scenic roads designated in the City would be adequate for heavier traffic volumes. Commissioners disliked the inclusion of the County proposal for the Skyline - Canyon -Road loop as a City implementation. They agreed with the first three items under Implementation but asked that Item 4, the "loop" scenic road, be reworded as "The County of San Mateo proposes . . ." There was a further suggestion that the Element should state the City joins with the County in the designation of Easton Drive in that plan, but not to comment on the other roads outside Burlingame's jurisdiction. Commissioners agreed with implementation measures of proper identification of scenic roads, undergrounding of utility lines, and use of plant materials. Commissioners approved the viewscape plan for Airport Boulevard and an integrated plan for hiking, riding and bike trails, with the stipulation that no bike path should be shown on California Drive unless it is on the right-of-way belonging to the City of San Francisco. There was a suggestion that Adeline Drive be included as a scenic road. City Planner Swan told Commissioners he would be able to amend the element in time for hearing at the next meeting. The Commission discussed and approved forwarding copies of the element to the Beautification Commission and Traffic,Safety and Parking Commission for their comments. They also approved the invitation of these two commissions to the hearing on the element. Chairman Sine scheduled the Scenic Roadways Element for hearing on July 28, 1975. 7. ADMINISTRATION OF SIGN PERMIT APPLICATIONS City Planner Swan pointed out that an objective for sign review is the beautification of the city. On this basis, an effective enforcement program is needed. He listed as goals a better and more consistent sign permit process, and the establishment of a clear relationship in the responsibility of sign review. He noted that Ordinance 979 requires review of signs in excess of 32 SF, which brings in many sign applications. He questioned how much Commission time should be spent on signs. He also suggested that a system be established whereby the responsibility for signs is clear: if it is to be the Planning Department, then it should be contained in the zoning code. If itis to be the Building Department, then responsibility should be given to someone in that department. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the ambiguities inherent in the statement a permit must be obtained if a sign exceeds 32 SF on a single face. Among these: Can any number of smaller signs be installed on a building without a permit? Or should a permit be requested for total signage of 32 SF on a single face of a building? On the entire property? When one tenant applied for a sign permit, should all tenants' existing signs be reviewed? Who prepares the plan? How does the Commission know the information is accurate? Should consent of property owner be proven? The Assistant City Planner suggested that a change in copy for a previously approved sign exception, requested by the same owner, come before the Planning Commission for review since the new colors or design could be objectionable. He requested Commission guidance on the question of ambiguities, and stated the Planning Department is drafting an appli- cation form which will make it easier for applicants to supply needed information. He questioned how detailed a review was necessary, and commented that the more severe the requirements, the more applications will be submitted. Commissioner Jacobs thought a total signage on a property would be realistic at 50 SF, and the owner's consent was not necessary if the applicant had a business license.: Chairman Sine considered the problems would be the same regardless of the size of sign allowed. Commissioner Mink suggested that a limit of 32 SF be placed on a single sign with a total of 50 SF for the entire property. He further suggested that "property" be defined as that map related to the land surface as recorded, and not the vertical map as in a condominium. This is for visual protection in the event of sale of property as a business condominium. He preferred consent of owner for signs so that subsequent removal of signs could be regulated. The role of the Building Inspector in removal of old signs and the regulation of new signs was discussed. City Attorney Coleman suggested that the Building Department should be involved in only the technical aspects of how a sign is constructed. Commissioner Mink considered that copy change should require a review. Commissioner Francard questioned how signs should be sited. Chairman Sine suggested that a copy of sign regulations be given to all applicants for business licenses. Discussion then centered around the work load necessary for sign enforcement, and the question of how much time should be spent. Commissioner Jacobs considered it unrealistic to have an ordinance and not enforce it. She approved of 50 SF for all signs on a property. Chairman Sine requested staff to consider Commission suggestions and bring back a report at the August 14 meeting. - 9 - 8. COUNCIL REFERRAL FOR .REPORT ON CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT 1315 ROLLINS ROAD FOR WHICH COUNCIL APPROVED A SPECIAL PERMIT OCTOBER 7, 1974. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO SERVICE CENTER IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1315 ROLLINS ROAD (0.72 AC MOL BEING SELY PORTION AND 0.231 AC MOL BEING NWLY PORTION RESPECTIVELY OF PARCEL E, PARCEL MAP VOL. 15 (19) BY WILLY OSTERTAG. City Planner Swan reviewed conditions of the special permit approved by Council for this site because of more than 30% lot coverage. The property has been sold and the new owner is requesting that the building plans approved by the special permit be modified by adding five addition- al truck doors on Rollins Road. The only construction now on the site is a partial unreinforced floor slab. He told Commissioners a report to Council must be made on whether or not the new building plans are acceptable in view of the new M-1 district regulations. Can the previous special permit be recommended for change? Also, there is the question of the partial floor slab and if it justifies the granting of a variance on the 15' setback regulations. The City Planner told the Commission the present owners wish to use the building as an auto service facility. He noted the presence of Richard Deodati, contractor and Willy Ostertag, new owners of the property. In the discussion following, Chairman Sine considered that the developer should destroy previous speculative plans for this building and develop his own, especially in view of the inadequacies of the concrete slab and the present 15' setback regulations. Mr. Deodati protested the slab was adequate; only change requested is the additional five doors; a permit exists for the building; and the 15' setback regulation was enacted after the building was approved. Plans for the building were distributed to Commissioners and discussed. Mr. Ostertag pointed out his business will be the repairing of foreign cars. The building would be divided into five sections, each specializing in a certain model car. The five doors on the front are for -the purpose of allowing customers to enter at the front and exit to the back. His investment would be large, and he intends this as a permanent business. Commissioner Mink commented this is an M-1 district and he did not feel the use of the building was bad, as long as the perimeter of the building was unchanged. He had some concern about the landscaping and the location of one door. Mr. Deodati said that they planned to recess the windows back 4' and put landscaping in front of them. In answer to Commission questions Mr. Deodati affirmed that there would be no sales carried on; parking is identical to the original plan; and there would be 7 to 8 employees. City Attorney Coleman summarized that a permit exists which is valid. The question is whether or not that special permit should be amended. His opinion was that the Planning Commission should make a decision on the conditional use permit, and a recommendation to the Council on the plan at the same hearing. Chairman Sine set this application and recommendation Lor hearing July 28, 1975. - 10 - 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS IN GARAGE AT 225 STANLEY ROAD (APN 029-261-080) ZONED R-1, BY LUCILLE J. ARSENAULT. Assistant City Planner Yost explained this application, which he termed close to the code intention of a suitable conditional use. The garage was converted some ten years ago and was used by the oldest son in the family as sleeping quarters. It is now occupied by another son since the family dwelling is a small cottage. There is no plumbing or provision for cooking in the garage. There is.no suggestion by the applicant that this be turned into a living unit. The permit is requested for two years maximum. The Assistant City Planner noted some concerns with this structure such as inadequate ventilation, and the question of fireproofing the wall closest to the property line. Both the Building Department and the Fire Department have visited the site. He intro- duced Mrs. Arsenault who confirmed that the room is for the use of her family only, and that the building is unheated. She agreed to Commission inspection of the building and to limitation on storage of flammable material in a shed at the back of the yard. This application was scheduled for hearing July 28, 1975. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TRUCKING TERMINAL AND WAREHOUSING OF PRODUCE IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 330 BEACH ROAD BY ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION FOR GLENCO TRUCK LINES INC. Since this application was not presented in time for staff to review, there was no staff report. Mr. David Keyston told the Commission this was an application for a truck terminal at the Pirelli facility at this address. Tenant would be Glenco Truck Lines who anticipate installing considerable refrigerated storage in the building and enlarging the truck well in front of the building to accommodate seven trucks. He then presented plans for the change on the Pirelli site. A portion of the landscaping in front of the building would be removed to use for the truck well, but 10/ landscaping would remain. He stated he would submit EIR soon, and added he would be agreeable to a time limitation on this conditional use. City Planner Swan had two concerns with this application: the frequency of truck movements and public health regulations on the handling of produce. Mr. Keyston said Mr. Hubbard is aware of the state health requirements for this type of facility. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing at the meeting of July 28, 1975. 12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO kFSUBDIVIDE THE PURDY PROPERTY AT 770 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. There was no staff report on this appl-ication since it had not been received in time. Mr. Leonard Waldo appeared for the Tohn. J. Purdy Company. He explained the company wishes to refinance the Purdy building which is located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Anza Airport Park, Unit 5. It is proposed to combine Lot 1 and part of Lot 2 into one Parcel "A"; the remainder of Lot 2 and Lots 3 and 4 Into Parcel "B". Parcel A, containing the building to be refinanced, would be roughly 55,000 SF. Mr. Waldo commented that the financing agency has given a deadline of 30 days, and it is urgent this be accomplished before that time. He indicated that both tentative and final map are requested at this time. City Engineer Davidson told the applicant there was much technical detail to be worked out, such as drainage of Parcel B onto neighboring property, and arrangements with Anza Pacific. He considered his department would not have time unless Mr. Waldo could assist with this preliminary work. Mr. Waldo stated he would retain his own engineer, and confer with City Engineer Davidson well ahead of meeting date. The City Engineer agreed the map could be considered if this schedule were met. Chairman Sine set tentative and final map for hearing on July 28, 1975. COUNCI L APPEAL Chairman Sine suggested to the Commission that they consider an ordinance which would provide that if no one protests an action at the Planning Commission level, it cannot be appealed to the City Council. This refers to the practice of some citizens of bypassing Planning Commission meetings, although properly noticed, and appealing to the Council after a decision has been made. The Chairman commented such an ordinance is in effect in some _other municipalities, and requested opinion from the City Attorney. City Attorney Coleman considered this could be done. However, notices are sent on an item as it appears on the agenda. If there is a decision made on a matter that is not included in the notice, there is a possibility that appeal should be allowed. In the discussion following, the Commission had differing opinions on this proposal, and it was agreed that City Attorney Coleman should research the matter and report at a later date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary