Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.12.08THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION December 8, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Kindig (excused - City Planner Swan Jacobs out of town) Asst.City Planner Yost Mink City Engineer Davidson Norberg City Attorney Coleman 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 November 24. 1975 were approved as written. 1. SIGN PERMIT FOR AN ILLUMINATED READERBOARD OF 11 SF TO BE ADDED TO AN 18' POLE SIGN WITH 50 SF OF COPY FOR FISHERMAN RESTAURANT 1492 BAYSHORE HIGH!MY,--- = EYh :ELEC'TRICAL.'sm-NS.---'- -" Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and inquired if applicant's representative were present. After he had ascertained no representative was yet at the meeting, he stated this item would be considered later in the meeting. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY, CASA AMIGO - BURLINGAME, 234/236/238 MYRTLE ROAD (APN 029-215- 220/230), ZONED R-3, BY LEROY W. JOHNSON OF B.J.M. COMPANY (APPLICANT) AND WARREN P. HOUCK (OWNER) This application was presented for Commission consideration by Chairman Sine. There was Commission question of staff if this application differed from the.one_Commission had approved previously. City Planner Swan replied there was nothing different except the title of the special permit. After Commission consensus that no discussion would then be necessary, Chairman Sine set this application for hearing on December 22, 1975. 3.(a) SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RUMPUS ROOM IN ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 1525 CYPRESS AVENUE (APN 028-301-26) ZONED R-1, BY ADOLFO AND MARTHA LOPEZ Chairman Sine introduced this application for discussion and requested staff report. Asst. City Planner Yost told Commissioners this application had been brought about by a neighbor's inquiry regarding new construction on - 2 - the Lopez property. Upon inspection of the Chief Building Inspector, there was found to be a partially completed room at the rear of the lot, approximately 16' x 24' for which no building permit had been issued. Roof, siding, and flooring are in; there is no plumbing involved. The Lopezes told City representatives they intend this struc- ture as a playroom for their two children and for use as storage. Mr. and Mrs. Lopez had bought the property five months ago. The Asst. City Planner told Commissioners there were many technical problems with the construction of this room. However, the special permit application is complete and could be set for hearing. In response to Commission questions the Asst. City Planner stated the room was in the rear 306 of the lot, hence needed no rear or side setbacks. However, the Fire Department requires a one-hour fire wall for the side which is only 2' from the property line. Chairman Sine called upon Mr. Lopez for comment. Mr. Lopez stated he merely wanted a rumpus room for his children with storage space. He had not been aware of the need for a building permit for this project. His experience with owning property had been in another country and he thought he could do as he wished on his own property. Mr. Lopez stated he had a petition containing signatures of 25 neighbors who did not object to his project. The Assistant City Planner read Chief Building Inspector Calwell's memo of 12/5/75 to the Planning Department. This listed several corrections to be made if the Planning Commission approved the permit. These were: Removal and replacement of Romex cable. Correction of water drainage to the street instead of to the sanitary sewer. Remeval of goof; replacement of rafters; and replacement with new roof with an approved pitch. Replacement of sleepers in the foundation with pressure treated wood. He stated these requirements had.been transmitted to Mr. Lopez. Commissioners questioned if Mr. Lopez was willing to make these extensive changes after a special permit was approved, or if he wished to delay the application and seek another solution. Mr. Lopez indicated he wished to continue with the application, and it was set for hearing December 22, 1975. 3(b) FENCE EXCEPTION TO PERMIT A SIX (6) FOOT HIGH FENCE ON A CORNER LOT AT 1256 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, PETITION BY V. MATOV, City Planner Swan circulated copies of letter from Mr. Matov containing diagram of proposed fence. He then reviewed code regulations on fences, which permit a 5' fence in front yard 15' back from the front property line, and which stipulate that a fence for a corner lot should be only 3' in height to provide sight distance for autos on the streets. He reviewed the special circumstances which must apply for the granting of a variance. There were some Commission questions regarding this proposed 6' fence. It was established that there is a stop sign on Laguna but no stop signs on Lincoln. - 3 - Mr. Matov briefly addressed the Commission, stating his reasons for the fence. There was Commission request that he give staff a sketch showing design offence and material for review prior to the meeting. He agreed. This application was set for hearing December 22, 1975. At this point the applicant for Agenda Item *1 bad net yet arrived. After some discussion Chairman Sine announced this application would be continued to the meeting of December 22, 1975. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES City Planner Swan distributed progress report on Planning Commission priorities, and told Commissioners that the list met with approval at the Council study meeting of November 12. He reported the Council was very interested in sign priorities; had discussed need for better definition of roof signs; wished roof signs incorporated into the code; and discussed the possibility of a separate set of regulations for automobile raw. He mentioned the inventory and appraisal of roof signs might be used later to develop an amortization schedule. This inventory will be held for future Council direction. He noted condominium guidelines were supported by Council. He reported on progress of work on zoning code ordinance and General Plan republication. He noted that the location of a transfer station is of prime impor- tance to the Council since it is a prerequisite to the development of a golf course on the present dump site. He said the Council wants to schedule a meeting with the scavenger company, Anza Pacific, and the city Manager. The Council would be receptive to ideas as to where a transfer station could be located in Burlingame. He stated the zone with which this would be most compatible would be M-1 and agreed -with Commission comment that it should be within a building and should be reasonably accessible to residents and to Bayshore Freeway. Commission discussion followed with one suggestion that the site of the police station could conceivably be available. City Planner Swan presented the idea that any assignments referred to the Planning Commission would be given top priority. At this point, Mr. Dewey Bell, sign representative for Fisherman Restaurant, entered the meeting. Upon being informed of his presence, Chairman Sine informed Mr. Bell the Commission had delayed his hearing as long as possible and it was now scheduled for December 22. 5. SIGN PERMIT GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS City Planner Swan introduced this subject, reminding Commissioners of basic questions to be answered: What signs are permitted with a building permit? When is a sign permit required? What signs are to be prohibited? Should there be separate sign regulations for Auto Row? He turned balance of presentation over to Assistant City Planner Yost. - 4 - The Assistant City Planner noted that Commissioners had in their possession the first part of the sign ordinance and the second part is being worked out. He suggested that the draft ordinance was a framework within which the Commission could make comments and suggestions. The Assistant City Planner illustrated bymeans of diagrams on a flip chart main points for Commission consideration. The first diagram was of present regulations which limit new signs to 32 SF with a building permit. Above this size, a sign permit or sign exception must be granted by the Commission. He reviewed earlier suggestions to increase this limit from 32 SF to a larger size, noting previous discussion of 50 SF. Several additional charts were displayed, with discussion of their alternative merits. The Assistant City Planner reminded the Commission these diagrams had given no recognition to site frontage and its effect on sign area. The concept of increasing sign area to correspond to increasing frontage had been previously discussed. He questioned what ratio of sign area to front footage the Commission would recommend. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if an upper, maximum signage line was constitutional. The City Attorney stated it was not illegal. A chart was then presented showing tentative lines for different zoning districts relating to front footage: M-1 and C-41 C-2 (auto row); C-1 and balance of C-2. He questioned what figures the Commission wished to use for these different zones. City Attorney Coleman reminded Commissioners that every sign, regardless of whether or not it was of permitted size, must have a building permit. Discussion followed. Commissioner Jacobs approved the relation of sign area to frontage. Commissioner Mink liked prohibition above a certain level and suggested the concept of relating sign area to height of building in the zone. Also, he suggested differ*nt regulations for auto oriented and pedestrian oriented zones. He also considered that sign area might be related to the use within the zone. He added he was concerned about the number of messages on a sign. In some cases these are confusing and present a traffic hazard. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if sign wording could be regulated. City Attorney Coleman considered this would have the same type of difficulties as architectural review. Commissioner Jacobs spoke of governmental control and its limitations in certain areas. She wondered if it was the right of the Commission to regulate such things as sign wording and lighting hours when it does not affect a residential zone. She also noted that too much conformity in signs might not always be attractive. Chairman Sine wanted prohibition of readerboards. There followed discussion of "blatant advertising" and signs along freeways. Commissioner Francard raised the question of frontage on corner lots, and the Assistant City Planner suggested that only primary frontage be considered at this time for wall signs and projecting signs. - 5 - City Attorney Coleman emphasized the need for numerical guidelines. After considerable discussion there was tentative agreement on M-1 and C-4 zone limits of 100 SF of sign area permitted for any property with a top limit of 200 SF for properties with a frontage of 150' or more. C-1 and C-2 Cexcept automobile row) limits start at 50 SF with a maximum of 150 SF. Automobile Row signage could start at 150 SF, no top limit decided. These area limits are with a sign permit from the Planning Department and a subsequent building perAit from the Building Department. Signs with areas above these would come to the Planning Commission. Mr. David Keyston commented these limits appeared more reasonable than the present code. City Planner Swan remarked that the C-4 and M-1 limits would exclude virtually all signs on Bayshore Highway from Commission review. Chairman Sine raised the question of prohibition of signs in plate glass windows and on roofs (to be seen from the air), and then terminated Commission discussion of signs. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan reported that the Council has directed staff to prepare tentative projects subject to approval by Council for parti- cipation in the Community Development Program with the County. One major area is Housing for Law and Moderate Income People. The City Planner explained that this could include low interest loans to remove hazards in housing for people who can't get money to improve their property. Another major area is the provision of community facilities that will improve the quality of life in the project area. He stated that this block grant program could include improvement of water and sewer lines. The City Planner stated he had another Council assignment b participate in Aircraft Noise Abatement. Heenoted an idea from a recent city staff meeting about requiring a statement from the purchaser of a residential property in the City. The City Attorney amplified that this statement would say that the purchaser understands there must be only one dwelling on the property. If the purchaser wishes, he may have the property inspected. He commented there would be an ordinance passed, and all realtors would be notified. The City Planner commented that two sign permit appeals would be on the next Council agenda - Airport Marina and Dick Bullis. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:00 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary AGENDA CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1975 - 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL 111. MINUTES IV. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION Meeting of December 8, 1975 1. Application to extend Special Permit for office building at 1755 Bayshore Highway until December 30, 1976 by Albert Hoover & Associates for Mount Royal- Estates. 2. Special Permit for group residential facility for the elderly: Casa Amigo - Burlingame, 234/236/238 Myrtle Road (APN 029--215-220/230), zoned R-3, by LeRoy W. Johnson of B.J.M. Company (applicant) and Warren P. Houck (owner). 3. Special Permit for rumpus room in accessory building at 1525 Cypress Avenue (APN 028-301-260), zoned R-1, by Aldolfo and Martha Lopez. 4. Sign Permit for an illuminated readerboard of 11 SF to be added to an 18' pole sign with 50 SF of copy for Fisherman Restaurant, 1492 Bayshore Highway, by Bell Electrical Signs (continued from December 8, 1975). 5. Sign Permit for one non -illuminated wall sign of 171 SF for Goodyear Wholesale Tire Center at 1511 Adrian Road, by Federal Sign Corporation. 6. Sign Permit for new copy on 4 existing pole signs and 1 existing roof sign for Putnam Buick, 21 California Drive, by Wilmac Signs. 7. Fence.Exception to permit a six (6) foot high fence on a corner lot at 1256 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1, petition by V. Matov. V. OTHER V1. CITY PLANNER REPORT VII. ADJOURNMENT L/ C) 0o THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION December 22, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg 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 7:35 P.M. MINUTES The -minutes of the meeting of December 8, 1975 were approved as written. On behalf of the Commission, Chairman Sine extended holiday greetings to staff and thanked them for date books sent to each Cosmnission member as a Christmas greeting. 1. APPLICATION TO EXTEND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY UNTIL DECEMBER 30, 1976 BY ALBERT HOOVER & ASSOCIATES FOR MOUNT ROYAL ESTATES. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested Secretary Jacobs to read correspondence received. She read letter dated December 11, 1975 from Albert Hoover and Associates applying for one year's extension of,time for the special permit in order to finalize financing. She then read letter of December 22, 1975 from Albert Hoover and Associates asking for one month's continuation to January 26, 1976 of the hearing on the special permit. Chairman Sine reported receipt of letter at 5:15 this date from owner of the property, Carol J. Flynn. Secretary Jacobs read this letter which stated that the property is being sold to a new owner and there is no need to extend this special permit. City Planner Swan amplified that a special permit can be extended for a one year period upon receipt of a petition from the applicant. He stated he had been informed this morning that American Airlines is purchasing the property to expand their flight kitchen and parking, and he considered that an application for this interim -.type of use might come before the Commission in January. No representative of the applicant was present. - 2 - Commissioner Taylor suggested the matter be removed from the agenda or tabled. The City Planner remarked that the owner feels there is no need to continue the matter but the Planning Commission might wish to continue for subsequent action. Commissioner Kindig noted that even though Mr. Flynn is the owner, the special permit was granted to Hoover and he has not withdrawn it. Commissioner Taylor moved this agenda item be tabled.___ Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried onrnr►imous.aoll.call vote. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLYf CASA AMIGO-BURLINGAME, 234/236/238 MYRTLE.ROAD (APN 029-215- 220/230) ZONED R-3, BY LEROY W. JOHNSON OF B.J.M. COMPANY (APPLICANT) AND WARREN P. HOUCK (OWNER) . Chairman Sine queried the City Planner if anything had changed about this application since it was first approved. For the benefit of the audience, the City Planner reviewed the type of application, and told Commissioners that initial application plans and specifications had not changed in any way. Staff report indicated findings before the City Council, who had approved the application on April 7, 1975. Mr. LeRoy Johnson was granted permission to address the Commission. He stated he wished to reassure them that his company is proceeding on the same basis as previous plans and specifications. FHA financing has been approved pending approval of this special permit, and construction could start the latter part of January. He stated that the $10,000 payment to the City for sewer system improvements is still their intention. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the percentage of occupants to be admitted under SSI. Mr. Johnson stated that in their two residential facilities, Burlingame and Daly City, 15% of the applicants will continue to be under SSI. He amplified that the Daly City facility is now 100% occupied and has 30% on SSI. Operators follow the community pattern which tends to be sometimes more than 15%, sometimes less. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comments and the public hearing was declared closed. There was little Commission comment. Chairman Sine stated he would vote against the application because he did not consider it a good project for the city. Commissioner Mink moved this special permit be granted with all of the conditions agreed to between the applicant and Council on April 7, 1975. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG,TAYIAR NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: SINE 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RUMPUS ROOM IN ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 1525 CYPRESS AVENUE (APN 028-301-260) ZONED R-1, BY ADOLFO AND MARTHA LOPEZ. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested - 3 - staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners the application had been initiated because of a neighbor's inquiry about construction going on at this address, and the subsequent discovery that no building permit had been issued. Mrs. Lopez had told staff the building was proposed for storage space and a rumpus room for their two children. Mr. and Mrs. Lopez had been informed by staff that a special permit would be necessary. Assistant City Planner Yost read application letter of 11/4/75 which specified the proposed use of the structure as children's playroom And storage. The Assistant City Planner noted submittal of site plan, and stated that lot coverage with the new building, 16' x 241, would be 38%. The zoning ordinance allows 40%. He then read memo of 12/5/75 from Chief Building Inspector Calwell which listed technical difficulties with the new structure and requirements which must be met. These were: 1. Side and rear setbacks shall be determined. 2. Redwood sleepers to be replaced with pressure treated lumber or structure raised 18" above grade. 3. Ceiling joist under size for span. Remove roof, install 2 x 8 rafters. Provide slope to drain roof to rear yard area. 4. Roof and area water is now drained to sanitary sewer. Provide sump to collect water and pump to street. 5. Remove all Romex wiring. Replace as per code. The.Assistant City Planner presented Commission alternatives as: 1. Grant permit with requirement that the building be finished according to code. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny the application, limiting the use of the building to storage space only rather than play space. Upon the Chairman's request for correspondence, Secretary Jacobs noted there had been a petition submitted by Mr. Lopez at the study meeting. It had been returned to him with the request he present it at the public hearing. Chairman Sine asked applicant to give his reasons for submitting this application. Mr. Lopez replied he needed the structure as playroom and storage and that if the permit were granted the work would be done as required by the City. He did not submit the petition. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. J. Barton Elliott, 1536 Carol, told Commissioners Mr. Lopez had circulated a petition in the neighborhood and had represented that the structure would be smaller - 9' x 121. Mr. Lopez had stated there would be no electricity in the building and that it had been approved by the building inspector. Upon inspection, Mr. Elliott had found the structure was 12' x 241. He had told Mr. Lopez that he would not sign the petition but would not appear before the Commission with objections. However, he had found the facts as represented in this meeting contrary to those represented by Mr. Lopez, and wished to oppose the use of the rumpus room, since this large structure could be easily developed into a studio apartment. - 4 - Sophia van Egmont, whose address is 105 El Camino, stated she lived on adjoining property where she had been for nearly 30 years. She stated the proposed rumpus room would be right under her bedroom windows and she disapproved because it was a building which would have adult parties. Also, as the children get older, the use of the building would become annoying. Mrs. Rose Pero, 1532 Carol Avenue, told Coanmissioners her property is directly behind Mr. Lopez' property: his building is an eyesore= the rumpus room will cause noise in one of her back bedrooms. She did not object if it were just a playroom,'but knew that grownups would. be in it making noise at all hours. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg disapproved of the application because the structure was illegal and apparently would be a public nuisance. Commissioner Mink confirmed with staff his impression that determination of setbacks was necessary for specification of fire walls. He commented that regardless of the outcome of the application, staff should pursue the non -conforming sewer connections. Commissioner Francard wanted details on the connection of the storm drain to the sanitary sewer. The Assistant City Planner explained, with details, that the back yard is almost completely paved and slopes to two drains which are connected with the surer. It would be necessary to sever the connection with the sewer and install piping under the concrete, a sump and a sump pump to get storm water to the street. Commissioner Kindig asked the applicant if he would be willing to change the entire back yard. Mr. Lopez protested he thought it was legal to have storm water running to the sewer in San Mateo County. The Assistant City Planner assured him it was non -conforming. Mr. Lopez then stated that the drains had been installed when he bought the house, but if it was necessary, he would agree to change them. Commissioner Kindig was concerned with the large size of the room, which could be changed into living quarters, and questioned if the use were entirely storage would changes specified by the Building Department still have to be made. The Assistant City Planner assured him they would. Commissioner Jacobs asked the applicant if he was a realtor. Mr. Lopez said he was. She commented that as a realtor she would assume he knew some of these code requirements. She questioned staff if this building could be removed. The Assistant City Planner. stated there was no way to deny the building permit for a storage room if the building was brought to code. City Attorney Coleman confirmed there is no way to control the use for storage, but stated he would put Commission action on this application into a resolution to be recorded for the information of future purchasers. Commissioner Taylor made the point that the structure would virtually have to be rebuilt to code before it could be used, and that he did not object to the use of a rumpus room for children. However, he - 5 - felt that Mr. Lopez had been very -vague and had not demonstrated what he wanted to use the building for. Chairman Sine stated he had visited the premises this date, had found no one at hone and was unable to inspect the building. However, from an outside view it appeared to be poorly constructed. While he sympathized with the Lopez' desire to get their children out of the house, he consideredthey knew the limitations of the house when they purchased it, and should have known that any structure requires a building permit. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the building would not have to conform to setback regulations. Assistant City Planner Yost replied that an accessory building on the rear 30% of the lot can go to the lot line, and that there is no restriction on the number of such buildings within the 409 lot coverage allowed. . Commissioner Norberg moved the special permit be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. On the question, Commissioner Francard received confirmation that the building could remain if brought up to code. commissioner Taylor asked if legal review of the structure was available to the City. The City Attorney again stated that if the building is brought up to code it can be used as a storage room. Commissioner Mink noted that the denial of this request does not imply that any residential building in a residential zone has a limited use. Commissioner Taylor suggested that the denial be by resolution which could be recorded for this property. Commissioner Norberg restated the motion, moving that the special permit be denied by resolution and that the resolution be recorded. Commissioner Jacobs seconded this motion and it carried. on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Sine informed Mr. Lopez he had the right of appeal to the City Council. Mr. Lopez protested he had additional information and had not been given the chance to present it. Chairman Sine pointed out he had the opportunity at the public hearing which was now closed, and he should confer with staff if he wished to appeal. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, Chairman Sine introduced his older son,. Tom Jr.; daughter-in-law, Joy; and grandchildren; from Seattle who are visiting for the holidays. 4. SIGN PERMIT FOR AN ILLUMINATED READERBOARD OF 11 SF TO BE ADDED TO AN 18' POLE SIGN WITH 50 SF OF COPY FOR FISHERMAN RESTAURANT, 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY BELL ELECTRICAL SIGNS (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 8, 1975) Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and gave representative Dewey Bell, of Bell Electrical Signs, permission to address the Commission. He stated the application is for a small sign - a readerboard - to be placed underneath an existing sign for the Fisherman. The readerboard will be 11h SF and would contain 3 lines of 6" letters. He distributed photograph of existing sign. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if price changes on the readerboard would have to be approved. The Assistant'City Planner replied they would not and went on to state the existing 18' pole sign meets - 6 - requirements of the sign ordinance. Total sign area for double faced sign would be 122 SF. Tentative guidelines for the new sign ordinance specify 100 SF for C-4. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink noted the property is a panhandle lot, and a larger square footage would be allowed if the frontage were projected. There was little Commission comment. Commissioner Jacobs moved the sign permit for this readerboard be approved per diagram presented. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. At this point Chairman Sine introduced his youngest son, Johnt and daughter-in-law, Karen from New York, who had just entered the meeting. 5. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE NON -ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN OF 171 SF FOR GOODYEAR WHOLESALE TIRE CENTER AT 1511 ADRIAN ROAD, BY FEDERAL SIGN CORPORATION. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested report from staff. Assistant City Planner Yost reported that Goodyear will be occupying an office -warehouse at this address, and this 171 SF sign would be on a frontage of 1541, which is within the regulations of the present sign code and the new draft. This non -illuminated wall sign would be 3' x 57' and 1513" high. Mr. Ray Olson, representing Federal Sign Corporation, told Commissioners the purpose of the sign was simply identification. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. There was little Commission comment. Commissioner Mink moved this sign permit be approved, Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 6. SIGN PERMIT FOR NEW COPY ON 4 EXISTING POLE SIGNS AND 1 EXISTING ROOF SIGN FOR PUTNAM BUICK, 21 CALIFORNIA DRIVE_ B LMAC SIGNS The Assistant City Planner reported this site, formerly occupied by Dick Bullis, had had 18 signs on it. Putnam Buick proposes to eliminate 13 of these signs and place new copy on five. He displayed site plan and diagrams which specify these five signs as : Sign A, 17' high, 54 SF, white background, red copy, neon illuminated from 5:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sign B, three signs of the same type of pole sign. All are 16' high. The sign itself is 6' x 61, white background, red copy, non -illuminated. Sign C is a pole supported roof sign 30' high, 8' x 8', white background, red copy, non -illuminated. The double faced area of all five signs is 378 SF, which is just barely over the sign review line proposed. The Assistant City Planner noted, however, that Sign C does pose a problem since roof signs are now prohibited. Mr. Bohmer of Wilmac Signs stated that Putnam Buick wanted to change - 7 - the existing five signs, and if any had to be removed, they would prefer to keep the roof sign. Chairman Sine asked him if he knew the City had An ordinance prohibiting roof signs. Mr. Bohmer stated he realized this. Assistant City Planner Yost remarked that Mr. McAlister of Wilmac Signs, who originally had submitted the application, had been advised of the ordinance. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how the Commission could grant something that was prohibited, and City Attorney Coleman remarked that application could be made for this, but not approved. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner rrancard wanted clarification on the roof sign, and was informed it was presently on the location and would not be enlarged. In the following Commission discussion most Commissioners indicated approval of four signs, but not the roof sign. Several questioned how the roof sign could even be considered. Chairman Sine made the point that the owner of the business for which the signs are intended was not present at this meeting. He considered that sign companies do not have the right to speak for the applicant and requested staff to make certain in the future that a representative of the owner is present at all meetings. Commissioner Mink moved that the Commission grant this sign permit as submitted with the exception of Sign C, which is listed as a roof sign on top -of the building. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. On the question, Commissioner Mink asked the City Attorney if a more appropriate motion would be to deny. The City Attorney stated it would not be, since Sign C is prohibited and the Planning Commission had no jurisdiction over it. The motion carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Sine asked the sign company representative to advise Mr. Putnam that he had the right of appeal. 7. FENCE EXCEPTION TO PERMIT A SIX (6) FOOT HIGH FENCE ON A CORNER IAT AT 1256 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, PETITION BY V. MATOV. _ City Planner Swan distributed detail on fence received this date, and quoted letter of application from Mr. Matov dated 12/1/75. This letter requested permission for 6' fence for purpose of protecting property from neighbors' dogs, maintain fencing for own dog, afford security for his house, and opportunity for garden. City Planner Swan reminded Commissioners of code requirements for finding of special circumstances for a permit of this type. He noted receipt of memo dated 12/18/75 from Traffic Engineer Thos. E. Moore and Traffic Director Sgt. James O'Brien which states this fence would not be in the interest of safety, as it would restrict motorists' sight distance. Secretary Jacobs read this memo in full. In response to question from the Chair, Mr. Matov stated he wanted the fence so that he could use his property as much as possible. At present he had no use of his property in front. On the Chairman's request for audience comment, Mr. Conny Sench, - 8 - 1316 L4guna, responded, representing Mr. N. Bogounsky, 1128 Lincoln, who was unable to be present. Mr. Sench stated his neighbor had no objections to the fence. .Secretary Jacobs read memo in the file acknowledging phone call from Mrs. M. E. Carson, 1125 Lincoln, who would approve of the fence if it could be chain link. Commissioner Norberg did not approve the application because of traffic problems. Commissioner Mink questioned if Mr. Matov could prove hardship. Mr. Matov stated he did not have room in his back yard for a garden. Commissioner Mink noted the City's responsibility for open space and considered this fence detrimental to sight distance and maintenance of open space in the neighborhood. Commissioner Jacobs disapproved because of sight distance, as did Commissioner Francard. Commissioner Kindig disapproved because of traffic hazard and open space inter- ference. Commissioner Taylor had nothing to add to these comments, and Chairman Sine agreed with the Traffic Engineer and Police Depart- ment, Commissioner Taylor moved this application be denied per code section 25.78.05. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. The applicant was informed he had the right of appeal to the City Council. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan presented schedule for Planning Commission meeting dates for approval. There was little discussion. Commissioner Mink moved adoption of this schedule. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. City Planner Swan noted Council hearing of two appeals on sign permits Dick Bullis Chevrolet and Airport Marina at 866 Burlway Road. He noted conditions imposed by Council and their discussion of striping as constituting graphics. He commented on approval of additional wall sign for Dick Bullis. The City Planner reported introduction of ordinance prohibiting theaters in C-1 and C-2. He announced Planning Commissioners' Institute to be held February 4 through 6 at the Holiday Inn in San Francisco, and distributed list of meeting topics. He noted staff activity on Council assignment: of work with Task Force of Northern County Cities for Aircraft Noise Abatement. The City Planner touched on the subject of projects for Community Development Program, stating he thought one of the most important would be to request funds for improvement of sanitary sewer in the general area of the proposed Casa Amigo. Assistant City Planner Yost announced that draft sign ordinance would be ready for study in January. City Planner Swan requested that Commissioners leave with him their written comments on review line position for sign code. Commissioner Taylor commented on his enjoyment of this year with the Planning Commission and Chairman Sine extended best wishes of the season to Commissioners and staff. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting regularly adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth F._ Tmnn}va Co.•ro+=r.. 1976 Planning Commission Index J Accessory buidings in residential districts, 1/12, 2/9, 3/8, 4/22 Amoroso, G.J., 1881-A & B Rollins Rd., Special Permit, 4/12, 4/26 Anza Pacific Future Plans & Liquidating Trust, 2/9 Anza Pacific Corp., 433 Airport Blvd., Final Parcel Map, 1/12, 1/26 Anza Pacific Corp., 615 Airport Blvd., Special Permit, 1/12, 1/262 2/9, 2/23 Autohaus Burlingame, 1315 Rollins -Rd., Sign Permit, 1/26, 3/8 Aztec Rent-A-Car, review, Special Permit, 1/26 Beach Road Associates, 380 Lang Rd., Sign Permit, 2/9, 3/8 Bomar Investment Co. & The Glemby Co. Inc., 1575 Burlingame Ave., Special Permit, 1/12, 1/26 Cantone, Donald H., 848 Newhall Ave., Variance, 2/23 Casa Amigo, 234/236/238 Myrtle Rd., Final Parcel Map, 1/12, 1/26 Cook, Theodore L., 1316 Burlingame Ave., Sign Permit, 5/10 Crivelli, Lawrence, 383-399 Beach Rd., Tentative & Final 'Parcel Map, 3/8, 3/22 Crocker National Bank, 310 Lang Rd., Sign Exeption, 1/12, 5/24 Cvitanovic, Milan, 1011 Capuchino Ave., Variance, 3/8, 3/22 Devine, John, 1348 DeSoto Ave., Tentative & Final Parcel Maps, 2/9, 2/23 Diodati, Rich, 1331 Rollins Rd., Special Permit, 1/12, 1/26 Dore, Kathleen, Marsten & Rollins Rds., Final Subdivision Map, 1/12, 1/26 Dowd, Edward & Bernadetta, 200 Devereux Dr., Variance, 3/8, 3/22 Eley, Charles N., "House of Travel", Draft EIR, 6/14 Erickson, Scott, 1320 Marsten Rd., Sign Permit, 2/23 Fairweather, Elisabeth, 900 El Camino Real, Special Permit, 4/12, 4/26 (withdrawn) Fanucchi, Robert, 305 Dwight Rd., Variance, 6/14 Fir -Fed Service Corp., Final Parcel Map, 2/9, 2/23 Floribunda Developers, 1515 Floribunda Ave., Draft EIR, 2/9, 2/23 Floribunda Developers, 1515 Floribunda Ave., Condiminium Permit, 2/9, 2/23 Flowerday, William E., 1448 Balboa Ave., Variance, 5/10, 5/24 Founders Title Co., 1300 Howard Ave., Sign Permit, 1/26 Geller, Joseph, 1203 Howard Ave., Special Permit, 2/9, 3/8, 3/22, 4/12 Geller, Joseph, 1203 Howard Ave., Draft EIR, 3/8, 3/22, 4/12 Goberts, James, 1215 Burlingame Ave., Sign Permit, 2/23 Gort, Peter E., 1280 Cortez Ave., Variance, 4/12, 4/26 Gonzalez, Maurice, 1530 Rollins Rd., Special Permit, 5/10, 5/21 t Hammett & Edison Real Estate, 1410 Rollins Rd., Tentative Parcel Map, 4/12, 4126 Harris, Ronald A., 1110 Burlingame Ave., Sign Permit, 4/26 Ingeborg's Bakery, 1308 Burlingame Ave., Sign Permit, 4/12 Johnson, Brian J., 609 Concord Way, Variance, 5/10 JRM Company, 33 Park Rd., Draft EIR, 6/14 Kern Jewelers, 1298 Burlingame Ave., Sign Permit, 5/10 Khan, Najim, 1190 California Dr., Special Permit, 3/8,.3/22 Kimoto, Paul, 826 Cowan Rd., Special Permit, 5/10, 5/24 League Planning Commissioners Institute, 1/12 Lucett, Neal J., 1225 Majilla Ave., Varinace, 5/24 McGettigan, Michael & Ann, 1315 Benito Ave., Variance., 3/8, 3/22 McMillan, Cyrus J., 1515 Bernal Ave., Variance, 3/8 Mori, Ann, 1730 Rollins Rd., Special Permit, 3/8, 3/22 Mori, Ann, 1730 Rollins Rd., Tentative Parcel Map, 5/10, 5/24, 6/14 Morrow, Andrew, 27 Edwards Ct., Special Permit, 4/12, 4/26 Mullery, Michael, 1021 Burlingame Ave., Sign Permit, 2/23 Muzzi, Domenic, 1766 E1 Camino Real, Sign Permit, 4/26 Nerli, William, 1320 Marsten Rd., Special Permit, 2/93, 2/23 New n Ordinance, Title 22, Preliminary Draft, 1/12, 2/9, SiM, 4/12 "0" - none Peratis, Paul S., corner of Dwight Rd. & Peninsula Ave., Reclassification, 6/14 Person, Oscar, 1028 Carolan Ave., Special Permit, 4/12, 4/26 Precedent: Policy for Staff Guidance, 3/8 "Q" - none R & R Auto Repair, 1244 Rollins Rd., Special Permit, 4/12, 4/26 Ratinoff, Jacob, Reclassification, 6/14 Reclassification: General Plan Amendment, 3/8, 4/12 Richardson, Leon, 117 Arundel Rd., Reclassification, 6/14 Rorke's, 261 Park Rd., Special Permit, 1/12, 1/26 Schenone, Ernest, 419 Dwight Rd., Variance, 2/9, 2/23 Strocher, Gordon R., 1508 La Mesa Dr., Variance, 2/9 Topping, Kenneth R., 1725 Hunt Dr., Variance, 5/10, 5/21 Traffic International..Corp., 1660 Rollins Rd., Special Permit, 1/12, 1/26 2. M University Real Estate Fund, Ltd., 1461 Bayshore Hwy., Special Permit, 2/9., 2/2E3 United Airlines, 845/855 Stanton Rd., Tentative & Final Parcel Maps, 3/8, 3/22 Vanucci, Neil, 1555 Bayshore Highway., Special Permit, 2/23, 4/12, 4/26, 5/10 Warne, Richard E., 1545 La Mesa Dr., Variance, 4/12, 4/26 Weiner, Gerald'H, 1454 Broadway, Sign Permit, 4/12 White, R.A. and Louis & Eugene Ivani, 247-251 California Dr., Special Permit, 2/23 "X" - none - Yeager, Frederick, 200 Occidental Ave., Hedge Exception, 4/12 "Z" - none - 3.