Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.10.27MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 1997 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on October 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, GaIligan, Luzuriaga, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the October 14, 1997 Planning Commission conditions of approval of for 1333 Bayshore Highway, be amended as follows; "condition #28 added "or upon complaint". condition #33 that a fee may be charged for self -park visitors at a rate of up to $0.50 per hour for the first four hours, and $1.00 thereafter , any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; and condition # 36 is deleted (duplicate of Condition #28) . The minutes were there approved. AGENDA - CP noted that Item # 5, 601 Burlingame Avenue, was continued from Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, October 14, 1997. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND AREA AT 1100 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, (DAVID R. FRAZER, APPLICANT AND NATHAN & MARILYN SCHMIDT, PROPERTY OWNERS.) Requests: Was the arrow sign on the California Drive side of this business considered a sign in the original sign permit. There were no other questions and the item was set for public hearing on November 10, 1997. -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minures October 27, 1997 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD 3 PARKING SPACES AND TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP AT AN EXISTING GAS STATION AT 1101 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2, (RHL DESIGN GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND CHEVRON USA, INC., PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Parking space number 2 appears to be located where the air pressure gage and radiator water are placed, will they be relocated; does the proposed parking space number 3 work, would the applicant please explain how; it is hard to see the location and sizes of the proposed parking spaces, would the applicant submit a new set of plans showing the proposed parking spaces more clearly. There were no other questions and the item was set for the meeting of November 10, 1997, providing the information was available in time for preparation of that packet. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE AREA IN EXCESS OF 20 % OF THE STRUCTURE AND A PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AT 770 AIRPORT BLVD., ZONED C-4, (THE GYMBOREE CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND BURLINGAME SHORE INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: the impact of removing the roll up doors on the parking layout and use should be evaluated and presented; usage of the on site parking is not clear, it will have a big impact given the request, a more thorough survey of user peaks, including seasonal differences in usage, should be completed and presented; what is the nature of the business, why will there be so many more visitors; the parking needs study presented was based on current use, no explanation of what they will do to compensate for the fact that they do not have one parking space on site for each employee, do they have TSM programs or some other method to reduce the need for on site parking; if there are going to be 75 employees there then they should have some kind of guesstimate for the arrivals and departures, flow of traffic, on and off the site; is the survey the extreme case; are there other alternatives to unistall dimensioning to meet parking needs on site, there appears to be some room next to the retaining wall of the building to the east, there is tandem parking on the site which might be incorporated into a solution. The applicant should discuss alternatives. There were no other questions and the item was set for hearing on November 10, 1997, providing the information was available in time for preparation of that packet. ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 233 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1, (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND JOHN D. AND DEBORAH M. PIVIROTTO PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 10.27.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. Is the deck shown at the rear of the property 3 feet off the ground, staff indicated that the applicant would be able to respond. Chair Key opened the public hearing. John and Deborah Pivirotto property owners and Ferdinand DeVera from James Chu Design and Engineering office, presented the project. The applicant noted -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 that they now have two children, a boy and a girl, 13 and 11, and two bedrooms; the son sleeps in the dining room; they love this house and want to preserve the style, but need more space; the room referred to as a loft will not be used as a bedroom but as a study for the children, there is a stair way into this area and a second stair way out of it up into the master bedroom; their project will not touch the front of the house at all except that the new master bedroom will be visible on top; there are three houses in the neighborhood with the same addition, two of these have the same size garage as they do, one has a one car garage; the driveway is 15 feet wide so two cars can be parked in it side by side,with the one covered space three cars can be parked off the street; as the children grow the over crowding situation will only get worse. Asked about the potential of putting a driveway on the side of the house opposite the present garage and building a garage in the rear yard; doing that would require removing 6 feet of the dining room and relocating part of the second story, the kitchen would be reduced in size if the dining room were kept where it is and enlarged, would need to remove the chimney since the distance to the side property line is 8 feet and a driveway needs to be 9.5 feet; would have to remove more walls than they want to remove to do that, have to put dining room behind the kitchen in the rear yard and there would be no eating nook retained in the kitchen; you don't have a code parking space in the garage, you would need to remove the powder room to get one; do not want to remove the house and start again, removing part for the side driveway costs too much, they have been living in the place that is too small since February. This is a major remodeling job on an old house which will hold some surprises as it is torn apart, the plans show that the kitchen will be replaced to such an extent that it would :not be hard to relocate it, the problem would be what to do with the existing garage area; the applicant noted that there is an orchard of various fruit trees in the big rear yard and they want to keep as much of that as possible, that is why they only moved the house out 17 feet to the rear, he does not want to put a garage in the rear yard and eat up the lot with parking; commission noted that this is an unusual situation where there is room along the side for a driveway and two car garage in the rear yard; applicant notes that no other houses have two car garages, to add one will change the look of the neighborhood want to maintain neighborhood appearance not change it; if put garage at rear cheaper to tear down house and start over; commission noted often see properties with no options, here there are some choices; how high is the deck, around 3.5 feet above grade; won't this height affect the neighbor's privacy; need more landscaping to screen neighbor and give both of you some privacy; can reduce height of deck. Donald Lembi, 229 Bloomfield, immediate neighbor spoke noting that he is the only neighbor affected because the other adjoining neighbors are all adjacent to the rear yard; spoke to applicant only objection is to the height of the deck at the rear because when using it they will be able to see into his property; aware commission bound by code but he would be opposed to a driveway along the south side of the house next to his property, such a driveway would be out of character for the neighborhood, there are two such houses now and they do not fit with the rest; want individual property owners to meet the city standards but want it done without impacting the character of the neighborhood; he doesn't want a new house next door either; would like the deck lowered to 18 inches, has spoken to applicant, he seems agreeable. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27. 1997 Commissioner discussion: looked at site, seems driveway on the south side a simple solution until take a closer look, there is an existing chimney which extends into the potential driveway area and an established hedge which separates the properties and provides a visual break in the front yards down the street; relocating the driveway would also have a major impact on the applicant's design and cost; they own the house, they plan to meet the aesthetics of the neighborhood with nonconforming parking; there would be the dilemma of how to use the existing garage if it were changed. C. Deal moved approval of the single car garage and parking variance noting that it would be a taking to demand that the applicant meet current code in this case by putting the driveway along the side, remove established landscaping and relocate part of the existing and proposed structure, the 3.5 foot side setback is existing, the construction does not require removing this foundation, and the neighbor has not complained so the variance should be approved; the deck at the rear should be lowered to 15 inches above existing adjacent grade and the area in the side yard between the deck and the fence landscaped so the property to the side is screened from view as approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector; this is a three bedroom 2915 SF house, if this were a four or five bedroom house could not vote for parking variances, the loft room is not a bedroom because one has to travel through it to reach other living areas so this is really a 3 bedroom house, the non -conforming depth of the parking area is compensated for by the fact that the parking space is wider, on the basis of these findings the motion is made to approve the parking variances and side setback variance with the conditions suggested by staff as amended and by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans date stamped September 26, 1997, Sheet Al (site & roof plan, existing main floor plan, existing upper floor plan), A-2 (new main floor plan & new upper floor plan, and A3 (front elevation, rear elevation, right elevation, left elevation) with a distance of 3'-6" measured from the left side property line to the first floor of the residence, a one car garage which measures 13'-6" x 18'- 6"L and the deck at the rear of the house which shall be no higher than 15" above existing grade; 2) the area in the side yard between the deck and the fence shall be landscaped so that the property to the side is screened from view; the choice of landscaping materials used to establish a privacy screen shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector prior to final building approval; 3) that upon completion of this project this house shall be considered to be three bedrooms and any subsequent expansion which adds bedrooms shall cause the variances for parking number and dimension to become void; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California. Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. On the Motion: appropriate to treated as a three bedroom house, given that it is appropriate to keep appliances in the garage and the powder room on the first floor, if this were a bigger house these should be relocated to free up parking space; spoke to applicant at site visit think project will maintain existing look of the house and neighborhood; glad only want 2900 SF when could have asked for 3900 SF, building only what they need, that is good. Chair called for the vote. The motion to approve two parking variances and side setback variance passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 APPLICATION FOR AN ANTENNA EXCEPTION AT 601 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (ALEXANDER BOGDIS, APPLICANT AND AGELIKI A. BOGDIS, PROPERTY OWNER). (58 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1997 Reference staff report, 10.27.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. CA Anderson noted that in the case of antennas the FCC has preempted local control limiting jurisdiction over antennas of this size; since there seem to be no safety or historic considerations in this case the only review is aesthetic. The commission must act tonight to stay within the FCC's 90 day to action requirement. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Alex Bogdis, property owner at 601 Burlingame Avenue spoke. He noted that he had submitted written material and in that, and tonight, he had three issues: (1), the height, he requested 12 feet but he had done some measurements and is a good chance that he will not have to go higher than 9 feet, he needs half the dish exposed, believes he can get that with 2 more feet, not perfect reception but he is willing to accept it; (2) disputes the comment by the Chief Building Inspector that he get a building permit since the ordinance states that such permit are not required if the antenna is less than 25 feet tall and less than 500 pounds, this is not the case with this antenna; and (3) spoke with the City Attorney, he prefers to work with the city and not fight and get this issue closed. The CA noted that Mr. Bogdis is correct windloading measurement requirements are not required unless the antenna is over 25 feet tall or weighs more than 500 pounds; so he only needs to submit manufacturers specifications to the Building Department to meet windloading requirements. Roland Zillmer, 232 Clarendon Road, spoke, he lives across the street and cannot see the antenna so feels it is alright. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he was at the site, spoke with the applicant's wife and noted that a yellow ribbon had been added to the 12 foot pole at 9 feet to show the effect of this height, feels that this is a good solution for the city and the adjoining neighbor which is most affected who also said it was alright; not a great deal of difference between 7 feet and 9 feet, its pretty ugly at both; he then moved approval by resolution with staff comments stipulating that, if the height of the dish is to rise above 9 feet, the applicant shall come back to the Planning Commission and address that issue; he does not need to do any engineering but will need a building permit for any electrical service to the unit and he should get that if he needs it. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. On the motion: in favor but applicant may have put himself on a limb with the 9 foot maximum, would commission consider giving him 10 feet in height; happy with 9 feet, applicant expressed that 9 feet would be adequate, if we give him 10 feet he will expand to that height even if 9 feet would work; CA suggested that motion might include wording that if the applicant could demonstrate to the City Planner that he would need the additional height in order to get 50 % of the dish exposed she could approve a change up to 10 feet in height from adjacent grade. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 At Mr. Bogdis' request Chair Key reopened the public hearing so he could address the commission. Mr. Bogdis said he would take responsibility that the top of the dish would not be above 10 feet even if he had to improve the electronics to do it. The Chair closed the reopened public hearing. C. Deal accepted the proposed amendment to the motion that the height could be increased from 9 feet to 10 feet if the applicant could demonstrate to the City Planner that he would need the additional foot in order to get 50 % of the dish exposed and the submittal of windloading calculations to the building department was not necessary. The amendment was accepted by the second C. Galligan. Chair Key called for the vote. The motion to approve the antenna exception as amended was approved on a voice vote 7-0, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 3, 1997 except that the height can be increased to 10 feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the City Planner that he would need the additional foot from 9 feet to 10 feet in height in order to get 50 % of the: dish exposed; 2) that the submittal of wind loading calculations to the Building Department shall not be required for this antenna since it is less than 25' tall and weighs less than 500 pounds; and 3) that the installation of the satellite dish antenna project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1529 ROLLIN'S ROAD, ZONED M-1, (FREDRIC V . ALLEN, INC., APPLICANT AND KENNETH V . MERRILL, TR. , PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 10.27.97, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. CE Erbacher clarified that the lot line adjustment affected Lot 1 by adding the portion of the old railroad right of way designated Lot 2, to Lot 1; he noted that the area could be used for parking although it is only 20 feet wide. Chair Key opened the public hearing. There was no testimony and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey moved that he has dealt with Southern Pacific in this area, it is very difficult; the existing lot is an odd configuration and this addition will make it better, this property owner has maintained his property and will maintain the railroad right-of-way as well, this will be good for the area since the right-of-way is occupied by homeless and hard to police; on this basis he moved approval of the lot line adjustment request. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. On the motion: commissioner asked if the motion needed to be made by resolution; CA said no. Chair Key called for the vote, and the motion to approve was passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION REGARDING DECK REPLACEMENT AT 117 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (GARY NICHOLS, 116 COSTA RICA, APPLICANT AND EDITH A. MACARTHUR, PROPERTY OWNERS). Chair Key opened the item from the agenda. A Commissioner noted that a large packet of material relating to this request had been put at the commissioners' desks tonight, he would like a little time to look it over before hearing the staff presentation. The other commissioners agreed. Chair Key called for a brief break at 9:35 p.m. to allow all the commissioners to review the new material. The meeting reconvened at 9:48 p.m. Reference staff report, 10.27.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. The CA noted that when Mr. Nichols reported construction was going on at 117 Crescent to the Building; Official we thought that the deck was smaller. Jerry Coleman, past city attorney, was out of the country on vacation until Labor Day. When he returned CA went though the history with him, the 1992 action was to have an 8 foot by 20 foot addition to a pre-existing deck removed, this addition had been built without a building permit; this removal requirement went to Superior Court which eventually resulted in the court finding the property owner in contempt for not acting to remove the illegal addition; the addition was eventually removed and this was reported in the court papers; nothing was done at that time (1992) to remove the pre-existing deck which had been added onto so that pre-existing deck was accepted by the city as existing and non -conforming. For some reason this summer that pre-existing deck was removed. Mr. Davis did not get a building permit for the work done this summer. Staff saw this as maintenance/repair work since decks require replacement over time to be kept in safe condition, based on that concept staff said it was alright to maintain the non -conforming deck. Commissioners questions: in 1992 was the entire deck replaced or rebuilt, if it were then wouldn't the non -conforming status be removed; CA noted that in the case of a deck maintenance this could mean periodic replacement. It is incumbent upon the property owner to verify that the deck needed maintenance. There is no evidence that the 1997 replacement extended the deck beyond the 1992 non- conforming deck. Original deck appears to be about 10 feet by 20 feet, CA. Coleman thought it was 9.5 feet instead of 10 feet. When was the first deck installed; CA commented that city possibly gave up the right to have the original deck removed if it was illegal when they did not bring that issue before the court in 1992 and ask for it to be removed also at that time. The issue is not the status of the pre-existing deck, but the 10' x 20' 1992 deck and what Mr. Davis can do with that deck. Chair Key opened the item to comment from the floor. Paul Davis, Real Estate Broker, 1115 Howard Avenue, spoke. He noted that he has owned the property since 1959, he bought it from Mrs. MacArthur. The deck was built 35 or 40 years ago,it is 10' x 20' and it is setback from the rear property line, the neighbor to the rear is protected by tall trees, has a lot of privacy; a pervious tenant Michael Dacus, added on to the deck previously after contacting all the neighbors, none of whom objected; Dacus' brother was a building contractor; the deck extension was there several years, then someone complained to the Building Department, Jerry Coleman became involved and wanted the deck taken back to the original which the tenant finally did; he and the tenant were each fined $150 by the court, the tenant paid Mr. Davis' fine. The tenant was evicted for not paying his rent for five years. The place has been vacant since, a lady living next door was interested in living in the unit; just after -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 made that commitment Mr. Nichols (neighbor to the rear) called and wanted to use the area for an office, was told no since the lady was interested; the deck had deteriorated, had representative of Friendly Fences look it over, he agreed to replace some boards before the structure got worse; there was confusion over who was to get the permit for the work, Mr. Davis or Friendly Fences, neither did; work commenced and the work was "red tagged". Mr. Davis came to the building department with the red tag. He was about to get a building permit when the computer flagged that there was a problem on the property. He got sick and when he got home again he got a letter from the CA to correct the situation which he has been trying to do since. He feels that the staff report is a good description of the Planning side of the issue. He noted that the Costa Rica lot behind is very deep, the previous owner of that lot did not complain since his house was about 100 feet away and the deck 10 feet back on the Crescent lot. The neighbors on both sides, and the tenants of the two units are here to testify. Wendy Bauch, 117 Crescent Avenue, rear unit, has lived there for 3 or 4 months, lived next door 4 years, remember when the deck was wider and reduced. Baron Cassella, 117 Crescent, front unit, has lived in the front unit two years; cement blocks in the ground show where deck was; Mr. Collin's garage blocks 62 % of the view of the deck from the rear; garage on neighboring property built with narrow sideyards, if there was a fire there it would be hard to get to; he can see into neighbor rear yard from upstairs of front house; property owner would not rent to neighbor at rear, so vendetta; he looked at the deck, the boards were rickety, Mr. Davis good landlord, fixed up apartment since previous tenant did not keep it up; original deck was built in 1938, that's a long time for a deck to last; deck being replaced is 12 feet from rear property line; did not remove whole deck, replaced portions, some bolts, some concrete where supports had rotted. Vaughn and Nancy Janssen, 121 Crescent, lived there 27 years and deck had been there whole time; so many vines cannot see it; previous tenant had wooden planter boxes full of dirt on deck, probably increased deterioration; never had a problem with any of the tenants, loud noise or invasion of privacy; they removed and replaced about 1/3 of the deck with this repair. Jan Hoover, 113 Crescent, commented that the deck there today the same as when she saw the house 8 years ago; tenant added to it then took it back to original; deck is an important asset to the unit, it gives a sense of the outdoors to the living area. Gary Nichols, 116 Costa Rica Avenue, provided the supplement to the packet which were his notes and letters from city staff, deck sits 8 feet high and about 10 feet from his rear property line, violating his right to privacy; is there any record in the city that the portion of the: deck added in 1992 was removed, was it inspected; reviewed the history of the correspondence included in the packet distributed, including sequence of events and discussions with city as history evolved; the previous neighbor, Mr. Jordan complained regularly to the city because of the activity on the deck; he moved to Costa Rica on March 22, 1993, property owner said unit at rear was vacant, there was in fact a tenant there up to the first part of 1997; want to see the record of final inspection showing the deck was removed and how much was removed; his garage is built close to the property lines but it is low, about 11 feet tall, and the building permit showing this height was signed off; the deck affects the value of his property and his privacy; current tenant is OK but don't know about the next one; feel there was a lack of procedure among city staff; opposed to correction to a wrongful situation and need to send a message that property owners rights will be protected; was told it was only a landing,then expanded and not removed after 1993, don't know if it was removed, don't know what was originally built; recently had 4 or 5 guys on the job over a three day week -end working on replacement when city offices were closed. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 Mr. Davis spoke noting he felt that Mr. Nichols had the facts mixed up; the portion of the deck added in 1992 was removed; he as owner was slow because it is hard to push tenants around; asked tenant who installed to remove and eventually he did. Commissioner asked why ignored getting a building permit. Davis responded in 1992 tenant who had possession did work without any consent, he doesn't like tenants to change property; in 1996 contractor going to get permit, did not do work right away,had a lot of work to do inside, time passed, confusion over who was going to get the permit, he decided at the last minute it was just repair and he did not need a permit. Commissioner went through all the correspondence and asked why it took a year to correct the situation in 1991/92. Mr. Davis said that he did not want the extension to the deck built, he had received no rent for a long time and who goes to court over a little thing like this. Commissioner noted that there was no indication in the assessors record that this deck was built with the unit in 1938. When was deck added; Mr. Davis said it had been there since 1959 when he bought the property; deck had always been 10 feet by 20 feet; Mr. Dacus got the impression of a landing because there is a small landing then one steps up to the bigger portion. Have you checked to see if Mrs. MacArthur got a building permit for the deck, no. The CA added that Jerry Coleman had put into the court record that on October 2, 1992 the removal work was completed and the added portion of the deck had been removed. Mr. Davis was asked how extensive the present work was and he said he was not a witness to that. The hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: focus is on the determination, have heard a lot of testimony on history based on heresay, this is not relevant; have a current situation, should deck be removed or is it non- conforming and court decision stands; feel that Planning staff made the correct determination. The other issues are distressing, the way the property has been managed, hard to push tenants around so put up with actions and not feel responsible to do anything to correct; city depends on property owners, not tenants, to take action to correct problems and do it promptly; there has been a due process, inspection, collection of fees and penalties. A couple of code sections are applicable, can do maintenance if normal, when remove all it is beyond maintenance; if there were an earthquake which destroyed, could put it back the way it was before; if want to retain the non -conforming then should come to the city for permit; action can be viewed as voluntary destruction and commission can decide if going to allow it to continue; property owner gave up entitlement by failing to ask for permit. Need to balance: have been to court and was fined for failure to do clear obligation, hard to believe 4 years later did not know needed permit, especially given property owner's profession as a real estate broker. Appalled at the way Mr. Davis managed this property, need condition written into lease regarding behavior which disturbs other people in the neighborhood; his position that staff made the correct determination in mitigating a problem in part created by the property owner. C. Galligan moved to uphold the determination of the city staff with the condition that adequate landscaping be planted by the property owner subject to review of the Senior Landscape Inspector so the privacy of the rear neighbor shall be protected and if the property owner at 117 Crescent fails to get the proper permits for any future repair, alteration or destruction of the deck it shall not be replaced. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford. Comment on the motion: the landscaping provided shall be dense enough to screen views and shall be non -deciduous and shall be maintained by the property owner. This condition was added to the motion with the agreement of C. Galligan the maker and C. Wellford who seconded the motion. S2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 Chair Key called for a vote on the motion to uphold the city staff determination that the 10 foot by 20 foot deck was a non -conforming structure with the added conditions: 1) that adequate landscaping, dense enough to screen views and of non -deciduous material, shall be planted and maintained by the property owner so that the privacy of the property owner to the rear shall be protected; and 2) that if the property owner at 117 Crescent Drive fails to get the proper permits for any future repair, alteration or destruction of the deck attached to the rear unit it shall loose :its non -conforming status and shall not be replaced. The motion was passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR The Commission discussed briefly the 1998 Planning Commission Calendar of submittal, study and public hearing dates. C. Galligan moved approval. C. Deal seconded the motion. The motion carried on a 7-0 voice vote. PLANNERS REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed the Council's actions on planning matters at the meeting of October 20, 1997. The Commission discussed the report of the 1997 Zoning Code Update Subcommittee on the first section of the report, corrections to the code. C. Mink reviewed the subcommittee's objectives in reviewing this section (1) organize the zoning code so that it is more logical and similar parts of the code are collected together; and (2) make the language of the code more friendly and easier to understand. The group made several corrections to the text submitted and decided to hold this portion over to have the public hearing with the rest of the document. The sub -committee has completed the review of the remaining sections and they will be brought forward for commission review at the meeting of November 10, 1997, time permitting. CP Monroe noted that the required public hearing on the changes to the restaurant regulations had to be put off until the commission meeting of November 10, 1997 because of the timing required for publishing noticing for that hearing. CA Anderson handed out to each commissioner a brochure on conflict of interest which he had picked up at the recent California League of Cities meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key moved to adjourn at 10.45 p.m. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. MINUTES 10.27 Respectfully submitted, Chuck Mink, Secretary -10-