Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.09.27COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION September 27, 1976 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Swan Asst:. City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Kirkup A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES C. Sine, commenting on the minutes of September 13,.1976, thought the minutes of the last half of the meeting after the secretary left were incomplete and inconclusive. C. Cistulli thought the same, particularly regarding his own remarks; he stated he read.them in the newspaper and not in the minutes, and felt the Commission needed a complete resume of the minutes. C. Cistulli referred to page 5, item 6 (Ed. Discussion of Guidelines for Garages and Covered Parking Spaces, the August 4 memo from C.P. to P.C. marked "Preliminary Draft for Study Purposes Only"), noting he didn't see any comments by the Commission re garage size. C. Jacobs said that some Commissioners were agreeable to the 18 ft. width of the garage. C. Mink commented that he saw no action recorded in the minutes and therefore saw no need to record fully. Chm. Taylor recalled the Commission had a reluctance to get below 18 feet, and thought the Commission was agreed to examine each application on its own merits when the garage was less than 20 feet wide. C. Cistulli felt that if the minutes are being taken, then they should be taken completely, including comments and reasons why, particularly on this problem which pertains to a recommendation to the City Council. The Council doesn't know why Commissioners commented or why they did not make a recommendation. Chm. Taylor reminded the Commission it didn't make a recommendation to the Council, and asked if anyone wished to propose a specific amendment, change or alteration to the minutes. C. Cistulli requested adding comments submitted to the P.C. at that time. C. Sine suggested that staff re-edit the tape and incorporate more text in the minutes. C. P. Swan commented the Council had directed that minutes are to be prepared and available for the next following City Council meeting. This means in three days time in order to be included with Council packet. It had been suggested by the City Manager that brief notations could be made of the study meeting when other than action items are discussed. September 27, 1976 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 C. Cistulli stated he still felt the minutes were not complete by whatever limitations have been set. He questioned, are the minutes complete or not complete. He wished the minutes to read the way he spoke at the meeting. C. Cistulli then moved that the minutes be corrected to include all of the comments made by Commissioners. Second C. Sine. C. Jacobs noted her belief that when Commission has something it wishes to express from P.C. to Council there should be more detailed minutes. C.. Kindig referred to item #7 which he noted also was not clear. In this case Commission wished Council to know that it wanted Council to go further into this subject because the Commission did not exactly approve the staff recommendations that were being studied. He noted that the way the Commission felt about this subject was not clear in the minutes. C. Francard preferred to see limited minutes and felt there was too much repetition anyway. C. Cistulli agreed it was not necessary to include all conversation. Summing up the discussion to this point, Chm. Taylor thought Commission meant a greater sense of the discussion occurring among the Commissioners should be recorded for transmittal to the Council; and suggested C. Cistulli might like to rephrase his motion. Discussion continued with C. Cistulli referring to item #6, Guidelines for Garages. He noted this matter had been discussed but remarks made by each Commissioner do not show in the minutes, or why Commission decided to leave the code as it is. The draft guideline for garages came from staff, but the Council might not know this without the remarks made by Commissioners. C. Mink felt that the minutes should be more complete with regard to areas of general planning and possibly more with regard to specific items. He commented that if C. Cistulli's motion passes, the general procedural rule would be that any items concerning general planning would be covered more thoroughly. C. Cistulli agreed to including C. Mink's remarks in his motion. Chm. Taylor called for a vote in favor of the sense of C. Cistulli's motion, with C. Mink's comments and C. Sine's concurrence. All aye voice vote. The Chairman then directed staff to prepare more complete minutes relating to matters of policy and general planning. C. Sine noted that his comments regarding items 6 and 7 could be properly updated if staff would review and re-edit the tape. C. Mink moved that adoption of the September 13, 1976 minutes be continued until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 13, 1976. Second Commissioners Sine and Cistulli; all aye voice vote. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 (APN 028-291-010) AT 1500 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (LOT 3) AND R-3 (LOT 2), BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR SOL AND HOPE GITTELSOHN. C. Taylor determined that Mr. and Mrs. Sol Gittelsohn and Mr. and Mrs. M. P. Bruton were present in the audience. C. P. Swan advised that notices had been sent to all property owners within 300 feet, and to some other interested parties. This is a concurrent application for a tentative parcel map and reclassification (Item #2 of the agenda). He referred to the map received September 27. The rear property line had been revised September 24 to exclude about 1,000 SF of area beyond the creek. The revised lot area of Parcel A is now reported as 12,524 SF (per map revision of September 29). The purpose of this hearing is to eliminate an existing property line and consolidate two lots into one parcel. September 27, 1976 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 Sol and Hope Gittelsohn live at 1500 Howard Avenue, a single family dwelling at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Howard Avenue; their house is located on two lots, and is a nonconforming structure. The C.P. read from staff report, noting that the Gittelsohn house is located partly on Lot 2 which has a side yard along E1 Camino Real and is in an R-3 District, and Lot 3 which is in an R-1 District. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3-75 recommended to Council the adoption of an ordinance reclassifying seven lots in Burlingame Park from R-1 to R-3 and this included Lot 3 of Block 4, the Gittelsohn lot. One of the Commission findings at that time stated only one parcel was likely to change, the property at 1500 Howard Avenue; the owners favored the reclassification since it would present an opportunity to develop the site satisfactorily. The C.P. noted no project has been proposed at'the present time and that the proposal to relocate the property line appears reasonable and consistent with objectives of the General Plan. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in favor or opposed. Receiving none, he declared the public hearing closed. C. E. Kirkup advised utilities are adequate to handle either single family or apartment use and advised Commission it could approve the map. C. Mink moved approval of this Tentative Parcel Map; second C. Sine and approved by unanimous roll call vote. 2. RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE LOT FROM R-1 TO R-3, BEING A PORTION OF 1500 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 028-291-010) BY SOL AND HOPE GITTELSOHN. C. P. Swan commented that the Reclassification had been discussed with the Tentative Map (Item #1). ND -89P relative to reclassification had been posted; the C.P.'s "Reasons for a Conclusion" noted that no EIR was required because EIR-32P, which was certified by the Council on April 21, 1975, was prepared for reclassification of this lot and 9 other lots from R-1 to R-3. The negative declaration also stated improvement of this corner lot with an 8 to 10 unit apartment building would have little or no adverse impact. There was no audience comment in favor or opposed to the application and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Sine moved approval of this Reclassification application; second C. Cistulli, and approved by unanimous roll call vote. Replying to a question from C. Jacobs, C.A. Coleman advised that reclassification is simply a bookkeeping matter under Burlingame's code; the code provides that when a parcel map such as this, which combines lots in two different districts, is approved, the resulting lot will go to the least restrictive zoning district. C. Mink suggested Chm. Taylor direct staff to prepare a study dealing with deletion of this section of the code. C. Cistulli concurred and Chm. Taylor so directed staff. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING AS A LIBRARY/RECREATION ROOM/ GUEST QUARTERS AT 1521 CABRILLO AVENUE (APN 025-224-150), ZONED R-1, BY GEORGE DERUGIN. Chm. Taylor determined that Mr. George Derugin was present, and requested review of the application by Asst. C. P. Yost. Mr. Yost reported 1521 Cabrillo Avenue is a large lot, approximately 17,000 SF. Mills Creek bisects the property. In 1959 a new house was constructed on the portion closest to the street. When the property was put up for sale in 1970 an inspection showed that a second dwelling unit had been constructed without a building permit on the far corner of the lot. This new unit had a first floor with kitchen and dining room and a second floor with living room and bath. Before the City could take action to correct this code violation, the property was sold to Mr. Alexander Ralli. Mr. Ralli sought a building permit to correct certain defects on the second unit and it was discovered that during construction the cabin had been placed 5 feet over the side property line. On March 24, 1975 the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1976 Page 4 Commission approved a parcel map which moved the lot line. Mr. Derugin, the present owner, has reported the second building has full itilities, wall-to-wall carpeting, wood paneling and a telephone; however, the kitchen has been removed. He wishes to use the three room cabin as his study/library, as a rumpus/recreation building and, when needed, as a guest house. The Asst. C.P. pointed out to Commission a copy of a May, 1975 building permit issued to Mr. Ralli and noted that Mr. Derugin may have had the impression, at the time of his purchase, that a special permit for the cabin had already been approved by the City. This was incorrect and is clarified in an April, 1975 letter from R. M. Davidson to Alexander Ralli. Commission attention was also drawn to a September 22, 1976 staff memo which stated in part that the Fire Department would not object to the use of this building as a library and recreation room, but would object to the use of the building for living (and sleeping) purposes. Dr. Derugin addressed Commission asking help, as a new citizen of Burlingame, in taking possession of the property he had recently bought. Discussing the accessory building, he said it is well located and he had no intention of renting it. He mentioned the Fire Department's concerns and stated he felt in case of an emergency the cabin could be reached via a footbridge over the creek. The applicant stated he would prefer to be able to use this second building for a guest house also, but more important to him was the use as a library and recreation room. There was no audience comment in favor or against this application, and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs expressed her concern with use of the accessory building as guest quarters, in view of the Fire Inspector's memorandum; and was concerned this building might become a living quarters at some future time. C. Sine noted that it had been used as living quarters in the past, the property had frequently changed ownership in recent years, and the possibility of a mother-in-law apartment use also concerned him. C. Sine asked that the record show he had visited the property the afternoon of this meeting. The C.A. told Commission that regardless of what action is taken at this meeting he would prepare a resolution which can be recorded for the benefit of subsequent buyers. Chm. Taylor was advised by Asst. C.P. Yost that the applicant could use this building for storage, and for storage of books, at any time without a permit. C. Mink concurred the structure should not be used as a residence or for overnight sleeping, but stated it is within Commission's prerogative to grant a special permit for recreational/library use. C. Cistulli agreed with him, and Chm. Taylor noted it appeared the entire Commission concurred. The Asst. C.P. advised there is a sanitary sewer and 220 volt electricity for the accessory structure. It was noted a kitchen could be easily installed, and there is a bathroom at present. C. Mink moved that this Special Permit to use an existing accessory building at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue be approved with the following conditions: that it be for recreation/library purposes only, that there be no overnight occupancy, and that no kitchen facilities be developed in the building. Second C. Cistulli, and approved by unanimous roll call vote. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 2828 TROUSDALE DRIVE (APN 025-011-230), ZONED R-1, FOR CHURCH PURPOSES BY THE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES (BUYER); CHRIST EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (SELLER). Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this item which is an application by the Burlingame Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses to use the existing building at 2828 Trousdale Drive for church purposes. A church is a conditional use in an R-1 District which requires a special permit. The present structure was constructed with a building permit issued in September, 1960 and its use as a church was authorized by P.C. in May, 1958 when a special permit was granted Christ Lutheran Church for Lots 21-26, Mills Estate No. 11. September 27, 1976 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 This May, 1958 special permit does not run with the property; therefore, the intending buyer has submitted a new special permit application. This application reports that the church has approximately 125 members; the building would be used for services on Sundays and two evenings per week. The C.P. determined no environmental impact report would be required, renewed church use would be a continuation of a previously approved use, but church use should be conditional upon there being adequate off-street parking. The Asst. C.P. referred to the proposed site plan, and noted that 32 parking spaces are shown; since minimum parking required by code is 30, spaces, no parking variance is necessary. Concerns with the site plan are: 1. There is no cross-section of the rear portion of the site to show the ground slope and height of proposed concrete retaining wall. 2. Parking is shown on or very close to the adjacent lots on either side of the church site and may cause disturbance to future residents on these lots. 3. The retaining wall would have to be engineered to code standards. 4. Existing paved area in front of the church extends 4'6" into the public right-of-way; it is suggested this be removed and replaced with planting. 5. Perhaps the most important concern is the future resubdivision of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26. The purchase contract has two conditions: (1) that a permit be obtained from the City of Burlingame for church purposes, and (2) that Lots 25, 26 and a 10 ft. wide portion of Lot 24 be resubdivided into three R-1 lots. This intended resubdivision will be back before the Commission, but staff feels an assessment of its immediate impact should be reviewed. Mr. Yost reviewed the proposed site plan which shows four new parcels: Parcels A, B and C, which are presently vacant, and Parcel D, a 150 ft. wide lot with the existing church building. It was noted that lots in this particular area average 80 ft. in width. Mr. Yost concluded his remarks, stating the Commission may act at this meeting on the special permit application and, if approved, a parcel map should be required that would meet minimum standards to be suggested by the Commission. William Hardy, attorney practicing at 1425 Park Avenue, San Jose represented the applicants. He said he had reviewed the documents and material, and felt it was one of the best parcels requested for church use he had seen in several years since it had been built for a church use originally. He pointed out that the use at this location would be primarily for two congregations, three meetings per week, maximum of 10 hours per week, 40 hours per month. On Sundays there would be a public lecture and one hour Bible study and a one hour Bible study possibly two evenings a week; there would be no entertainment use of the building, memorial services once a year and weddings but no receptions. He told Commission it would be difficult for the Jehovah's Witnesses to have a church in Burlingame unless they were able to get an existing building. He thought a church was the best use for this existing building because it would present fewer problems than a commercial or semi -commercial use. In discussing the vacant lots, he suggested screening could be put. in to mitigate any impact on nearby properties. If more parking were required, the Witnesses would be happy to expand the parking, and to install a "no left turn" sign to alleviate traffic problems coming out of the driveway. He told Commission the proposal to create three lots from two was made in order to help finance the purchase. September 27, 1976 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 Discussion between Commission, staff and the applicant ensued. New plans brought to the meeting were distributed by Mr. Hardy. The revised plan enlarged the church site by 10 feet, revised the parking layout and showed a driveway all the way around the building. It was determined that by adding 10 feet of width to, Parcel D the original property line would be retained. Mr. Hardy indicated to C. Jacobs the applicants would be agreeable to replacing the paving in front of the building with landscaping, and whatever else they can do to reasonably work with the City and give the City confidence in their plans. Asst. C. P. Yost suggested eliminating Parking Spaces 31 and 32, which are surplus, and replacing these with landscaping. It was noted by Mr. Hardy that the Congregation will own the entire hill slope in back, that any work would be done by engineered plans so there would be.no damage to homes on the top, and there would be no liability to these property owners. C. Mink noted that Commission now has before it an amended special permit, specifically asking for a special permit for church use of a building in an R-1 District; and a new proposed plan, which was revised September 16, 1976, has been submitted specifically for Lots 23 and 24 only. The Commissioner determined the applicants were prepared to remove the paving in the public right-of-way and replace it with planting; they would put plantings between Lots 22 and 23, and submit engineered plans for any retaining walls that are on the property. The applicants assured him they would be agreeable to striping the parking spaces and installing a "no left turn" sign, enforcing it among the Congregation; and in addition were prepared to come back to Commission at a later time to discuss a parcel map for the remaining two lots. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments. James Koras, 2853 Mariposa Drive stated he lived directly behind the church, was concerned about the possibility of high -rising on the building, and property owners' liability in case of erosion. He was assured the property would be professionally engineered, no property owner would be liable and there was no possibility of high-rise since the foundation of the existing church was designed for only the height it now has. Harold Einhorn told Commission he would be moving to Sebastian Drive and consequently would be overlooking the subject building. He was concerned about the possibility of resubdivision of the vacant area to create three lots and the height of possible new homes. He was told new homes would not be permitted any higher than the present 30 ft. limitation. There was a large number of people in favor of the application as evidenced by a show of hands from members of the Witnesses' Congregation attending the meeting. The C.A. wished the audience to understand that if this permit were granted there would be no commitment whatsoever regarding approval of any subdivision. Robert W. Trares, 2841 Trousdale Drive determined the lot would remain zoned R-1; he had no objection but would be very interested in the parcel map application. Elaine Sorenson, 2857 Mariposa Drive inquired about the once -a -year memorial service and was told by Mr. Hardy this was held in celebration of the death and! resurrection of Christ, and was a very quiet, dignified meeting, with attendance the same as every Sunday. Bernard Boden, 2816 Trousdale Drive wanted to be sure that whoever bought the property took care of the hill slope in back. Marilyn Hanson, 1806 Sebastian Drive hoped there would be no more ringing of doorbells by the Witnesses than normally. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared t�e public hearing closed. Commission discussion followed. C. Sine was in favor of granting this special permit; he had no objection to the use as a church and felt that parking would be of concern only if the assembly increased in size.. He commented this appeared to be the only church in Burlingame that had adequate parking. His one concern was that the retaining wall be done in accordance with building department code. Chm. Taylor, C. Mink and September 27, 1976 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 C. Cistulli expressed their approval of the application. C. Cistulli questioned the choice of such an expensive property and Mr. Hardy commented it would be impossible for the applicants to buy a parcel and build on it for what they will be paying for this proposed purchase. C. A. Coleman informed C. Francard this permit is given to the Burlingame Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and not the present owner, Lutheran Church of America. C. Mink moved approval of the amended special permit requested by the Burlingame Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses to use Lots 23 and 24 of Mills Estate #11 for church purposes as described this evening, with the following two conditions: (1) that the 4'6" of blacktop which parallels the sidewalk and is on the public right-of-way be removed and replaced with planting; and (2) that the parking spaces be striped to code standard. C. Mink then made the further suggestion that members of the Congregation meet with City staff to see what can be done about screening between Lot 23, the easterly side of the church, and Lot 22 which is a residential lot. Second C. Kindig and approved by unanimous roll call vote. C. Jacobs was told by C. Mink that geological work required is not a part of this application but pertains to another part of the Ordinance Code. C. Mink brought up the subject of signs, if any, presuming these would be constructed in accordance with code. He also invoked Sec. 26.24.050(b) of the Ordinance Code with regard to resubdivision of the adjacent lots and the need for evidence that they are compatible with the pattern of existing lots. A recess was declared at 9;15 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. 5. VARIANCES FOR PROPOSED SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 958 CHULA VISTA AVENUE (APN 026- 201-140), ZONED R-3, BY TOM MC LAUGHLIN. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application, stating that 958 Chula Vista is a 2 -story house with 4 bedrooms; at the back of the lot is a garage 17' wide by 36' deep. Over this garage is a room, with plumbing at one end, which has been used in the past as a recreation room and occasionally as a studio apartment. The property is zoned R-3. There is a 3 unit apartment building immediately adjacent and the Volker Company's parking lot is to the east on the other side of a ten foot wide utility easement. This application is for a variance to permit the present accessory structure to be remodeled, redoing the studio apartment and adding a rumpus room on the ground floor. This variance is required because the code specifies "only one building used as a residence for one or more families shall be maintained,on any one lot." The proposed parking layout may also require a variance; and, if the second building is not treated as an accessory building, then a third variance would be needed from the 15 ft. rear yard requirement of the code. Asst. Planner Yost noted two staff memos: one from the Fire Department advising Building and Fire Departments will require that the structure be brought into full compliance with Building Code for residential structures, and one from the Director of Public Works advising the proposed second dwelling unit on this property currently lies over a sanitary sewer main. If improvements are made to this second structure, the problem of possible future access to this sewer should be reviewed. The applicant's statements regarding hardship and need should be reviewed, and should the Commission approve the application, a desirable condition would be the filing and approval of a parcel map to erase the lot line between the two adjacent lots owned by Mr. McLaughlin. The applicant addressed Commission, stating his intent was to restore and improve the buildings for the benefit of his family. Several setbacks had occurred, including a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1976 Page 8 fire in the main building and the necessity of buying the 14 ft. easement in order to eliminate the problem of the secondary building being two feet over the property line. He commented that the main house is one of the 10 oldest houses in Burlingame and they wish to restore it to its original condition. He felt this positive approach by variance would bring a closer family relationship since his father and brother who now live in San Mateo could then live nearer to them. He stated his family are 4th generation Burlingame people. C. Sine had inspected the secondary building the afternoon of this meeting, and noted that remodeling the second floor to make living quarters over the garage may be more expensive than anticipated to bring it up to code. The applicant said that at present financial difficulties are not the problem. Chm.Taylor requested audience comment, and receiving none, declared the public hearing closed. There was Commission discussion concerning the number of single family homes in Burlingame which are on R-3 lots, and C. Jacobs noted a decision of this type would invariably be brought up when someone else has a similar application. Chm. Taylor remarked it was unusual to have an application in a higher density area for a lower density use. Further discussion pointed out that the C.E.'s memo regarding the sanitary sewer must be considered; C. Kindig cautioned the applicant about the expense of bringing the building up to code; Mr. McLaughlin felt anything he did would be an improvement aesthetically, and he planned to restore the house to its original design with no compromise as far as safety features were concerned. C. Mink determined that the exterior of the second building would not be changed, with the exception of stucco.on the rear wall, and the roof might be raised to meet code for minimum ceiling height. The applicant noted he had kept the original design on the main house but modernized the inside with regard to electricity, heating, etc. It was also determined from staff that a structure could not be built on the 10 ft. rear easement adjoining the Volker property; and C. A. Coleman, commenting on the existing sanitary sewer line under the second building, said the City is entitled to go into Mr. McLaughlin's garage if it has a maintenance problem. He confirmed that staff would request Commission to condition approval of this application upon submittal of a parcel map to delete the property line between the McLaughlins' two properties. C. Mink moved the granting of the variances as requested by Thomas and Linda McLaughlin for 958 Chula Vista Avenue, particularly noting the findings as found on page 2 and 3 of their application, specifically those findings which support the requirements for variance from the Ordinance Code; this approval to be conditioned upon the filing of a parcel map which deletes the lot line between the two properties owned by Mr. and Mrs. McLaughlin. The Commissioner added that P.C. has made a finding that there are exceptional circumstances which make it possible for Commission to grant this variance. Second C. Jacobs and approved unanimously by roll call vote. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE AT 1241 WHITETHORN WAY (PORTION OF APN 026-131-020 AND -090), ZONED M-1, BY NICHOLAS CRISAFI (BUYER) WITH INDUSTRIAL REALTY COMPANY (SELLER). Secy. Sine read into the record the following letter to the Burlingame Planning Commission dated 9/15/76 received from and signed by N. A. Crisafi: "Regarding my application for a special permit on 1241 Whitethorn Way, please accept my request to postpone the hearing until 10/27/76 which will allow me sufficient time to complete my drawings and presentation." With no objection from Commission, Chm. Taylor reset this item for the meeting of October 27, 1976. September 27, 1976 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 7. FENCE EXCEPTION TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 10' HIGH FENCE BETWEEN HOUSE AND GARAGE, 13 HUMBOLDT ROAD (APN 029-305-250), ZONED R-1, BY CARL CARINO. C. P. Swan told Commission that C. A. Coleman had reviewed the matter of whether or not this is a fence and whether a fence exception would be required. The C. A. had advised a fence exception is not needed and requested it be dropped from the agenda. Chm. Taylor, with consent of Commission, announced.this item dropped from the agenda. 8. VARIANCE TO ALLOW 2' SIDEYARD FOR A HOUSE ADDITION AT 822 CROSSWAY ROAD (APN 029- 021-280), ZONED R-1, BY JOSEPH AND HELENA VELLA. C. P. Swan remarked that staff had been asked to bring this item back to Commission when redesign had been accomplished. Previously there had been only a 2 ft. wide sideyard which did not meet code requirements. It is being redesigned; and the applicant has requested it be dropped from the agenda and requested refund. Chm. Taylor, with no objection from Commission, declared this item dropped from the agenda. 9. COMMUNICATION FROM D&M TOWING REQUESTING OVERNIGHT PARKING OF SIX VEHICLES IN FRONT OF 1213 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-131-100), ZONED M-1. C. P. Swan advised Commission had brought to staff's attention that parking was taking place at night at this location. Staff had discussed the matter with these people and the letter sent to Commission in its packet was the result. This letter requested an amendment of their special permit allowing them to park six vehicles in front of their building during the nighttime hours. It was believed that there is room to park eight cars in front. (Ed. Inspected 10/1/76: four spaces per parking regulations). The C. P. asked for direction as to how to handle this matter; should there be a formal permit and a fee. C. A. Coleman advised it should be treated like a new application that could be set for study on October 13 and public hearing on October 27. Commissioners requested a report from the Police Department regarding parking and a dimensioned diagram to show the position of the building with respect to the curb line. 10. COMMUNICATION FROM MARSHALL PRUETT, OWNER, PRUETT'S OLD COUNTRY EXXON, 988 HOWARD AVENUE. C. P. Swan advised he had asked Mr. Pruett to write to Commission relative to the roof appendage at his place of business. Mr. Pruett addressed Commission noting that his letter simply stated he could not agree that the wagon on the roof was an advertising sign; he felt it was a part of the decoration of the building in accordance with the theme of the station. His letter had advised that all he wished to do was apply for the permits that should have been applied for and straighten things up; no new work is planned. Since he was told his letter would be presented at this meeting, he felt the courteous thing to do was attend. There was considerable Commission discussion regarding the problem of whether a wagon is a roof sign; if there is no writing, is it a sign or part of the structure; is there anything in the code which says a wagon, an airplane, or whatever is not allowed on a roof. C. Sine reviewed the history of this particular matter. The previous owner had failed to obtain the required permits or check on legalities with the City; it was about to be taken up by Commission when the owner died and eventually his widow disposed of. the business. C. Mink told Mr. Pruett he was caught in one of the strangest circumstances Commission had ever dealt with. For once the P.C. had agreed on a matter of taste centering on this particular wagon on the roof; it was the Commissioner's hope that Mr. Pruett might agree that the wagon should come down. He added, then P.C. needs advice of staff as to what procedure it should follow. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1976 Page 10 It was Mr. Pruett's opinion the Burlingame is a unique city, and with proper decoration, and individualism, it could become more so. He felt a sign could be called a sign only if it had writing on it. The C. A. and C. P. asked for Commission direction. After further discussion Chm. Taylor, hearing no objection, proceeded to the next item on the agenda. C. A. Coleman reported to Commission regarding the matter of Donald H. Cantone's fence at 848 Newhall Road. Mr. Cantone had been granted a variance for remodeling on February 23, 1976 with the condition that the fence be brought into conformance with the zoning code. He did reduce his 6 ft. fence to 5 feet, but subsequently he put it back to 6 feet. The C.A. then wrote him a letter and received no compliance from Mr. Cantoni; the Attorney told Commission he would prefer to go to court and plans to do so. C. P. Swan reported on the eyesore of the Dore property at Marsten and Rollins Rd. He distributed photographs of the area, noting the Bank of America is Trustee of the Dore property and P.C. just recently granted a six months extension to them for submittal of the Final Map and engineering improvements. There are four conditional use permits in that location that are not being satisfied at the present time. In addition, approval of the Tentative Map had a condition requiring redwood slats in a chain link fence which would at least screen the junk cars from visitors. Planner Swan was particularly concerned since there is to be a Planners' conference in October at the Airport Marina and he wondered how he would excuse a junk yard at the main entrance to Broadway/Burlingame. He noted another permit granted in 1968 for a period of two years having a primary consideration that there be evidence of proper housekeeping; there has never been an extension of this permit. The C. P. suggested the use of PR to get redwood slats put in the cyclone fence. C.A. Coleman advised it is possible, through a process in the code, to revoke permits and enjoin the use of the property. Commission discussion noted: until the cars are removed, the eyesore remains; a six to eight foot fence won't improve the eyesore very much; once there are improvements the property will be much more leasable; at present it looks like a contractor's yard. C. Mink suggested this particular industry is forcing the P.C. to require enclosed storage. It was also doubted that the Bank of America would ever come in with a Final Map. Chm. Taylor remarked whatever remedies are possible should be pursued. C. Sine requested consideration in changing the date of the P.C. meeting scheduled for December 27. Following discussion, it was decided to hold one meeting in December on December 13, 1976. C. P. Swan drew attention to the October meeting dates which are October 13 and 27, both on a Wednesday. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Respectfully -submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary