The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - PC - 1966.11.28COMMISzKONERS PRESENT Framer Eewards Mink Norb rg Pier-->e CALIT TO ORDER COMMISSIONERS ABSENT November 28, 1966 OTHERS PRESENT Kindig City i torrae r KarmeI City Planner Mann City Erigi.neer Marr Councilman Diederic -sex A regular meeting o the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to ,ar or, the above date at 8:09 p.n. , Chairman Pierce presiding. 'ALL The Seca a y'S Roll Call recorded the above -named members present. Commissioner Kindig absent or. vacation was excused. MINUTr S The minnt,:�s of the meeting of CctobeT 24, 1966, previously submitted to "Ciatbsssr,Y esW"s 3 were Fproved and adopted following corrections oil page 6, rrex a.o last TC arag`'cph, cbangarng "Councilman Kindig" to ' Co—m3'E ssioner Kindig", andi on page: 4, text to last parag-rapY, deletirw g the word v hardware" from the motion. The iiiinutes of the meeting of November 1.4, 1966, were ap-)rovad and adopted, 1 � REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FOR TNSTAl.El.NC IMPROVEMENTS, KENO+ -, TFRE?LU ., A ommuni.ca-tion dated November 7, 1966, from Paul J. Constan -ino, 1501 El Camino Real, Burlingame, owner of unimproved property in Kenmar Terrace Subdivision, 3equested an additional six months to construct pv _15. `aliAR`.. c i7E' e::� qui ments rod I -In connection with a resubdivis on apprOved approximately one year ago T.-he corimunication explained that because of tF e present Ploney mark t and Curren-, decrease in building activity it has been impossible to sting late interest in the property Commenting that the request is understandable since financing; is difficult at the present time,, Commissioner Cistulli introduced a notion to extend, the deadline for the i��3rovemie is to May lip1967. Mott on seconded by Commissioner Edwards and carried unanimously on roll call. 1P replir to C.aImmisoaesioll 110,Ett z 41 City, Engineer repor ed that improve— UEertt: involve installation of two fire lines aind two hydrants .P Vc.e L. atlCS]�THIRTY DFGL4G f-z m= ;icy;;<iGYP dated l;,,veQbs 1s 1966, from Standard 0-11. Com—, arty of San Francisco,Sig iiv � ks� xb..cTao :Y..Crausla d, requested ara add? rtp.o al Cont?nuoaace To t1hvy ;ecember regular meeting on iti applicat If , for a varivzce to install ?.n car wash at El Caniao Real azW c- e d b v Gt )-, i- w i s s i o n e r if ivj a, v d s f-mm'10'. s i oner Ci stu H i the ccnitinuance was ap lade p rcy P4 n r -" -i a n fle Fee n:41-zounc, ed. '1--h at hear ings, purs uan -5. Z o public not i ce uo�_Ald proceod. 'a_t t."ais t-, ' mo,'- ;gourd rifles daLclared by the Chniz provided for prvpr_'�Pierlts to speak;first, fellowed by opponents, then Commission .SC 3 s 10 P. f-ror,, the floor were requested to a-'rin-olince naffie 'Sne. acldrers foT r-ecord' SIGN VARIANCE OWCO HAPKET APPROVED. A coAlJlunicati-a da-ed Octobsy 6, 1966, w&s read from OWCO Market, Barb ng&'Lme, i,quiegs��Ang a v...?Tiance from the sign code to pernit z -pole sj.gt to an overall height of 35 feet, IS feet above code maximum, thue, si' :of tfite, new ni-sinketo, (925 Avenue. The comr..,uznics'Zion stated that the existing sign is -almost completely ineffective be,_ausof the, 20 ftet height Hmitatioln. Four photogrz-t-As' szlpportir�,g the request were filed. Mir. 5. C, Conn-,r rep tche� ,pyiicant. T' e C11-t-;', Pla:nncar' 'n repl,% to the Ch-air, agreed that the increased hezight would be helu fu7. in the lGcatio7; although. the market is large, --"era i- snia'hre from he cast and from Californ-'r a Drive. ,'on,miss'oner Edwards reported that in visi'l-i-ag the site he observed a S-al-9 c...cUIST S!Ta; 01, the top Vf rise' sign face proper, which seems to be visib ;laa; he suggested -removing that pvrpion of the sign and t1he sign -face, V-s art alterrIative to the Jincre�ased height,, Pl--. Como-, explAined that an attempt was triade to ral - se the board witho:,am success; ho requested that the circulzr feature not be removed, explaining that it is a part of the compeny"s advertising. sf:heme. Referrktg to Uie pliotagrap',-xs on ftle, ffr,- Comer stated that ncta-con.far-min - s:� gn s i-n,. the create cansiderable sight int-erference, The -re wF�re nio ccinmv,:�nts frc,..P. z-he floor. _T-a recognition of zonddtionls peculiir the lccatian.,?. mr-51,)n to ap ComeTi3s-_� one-Z. int dtzced by Comissianer Cist ulli and seconded by Nvyberg, was u-nanimonsly carried on roll 'v-;s-,A the variance %7.oulfli bC- effect`--ue to 'tkle C-3ty COM-Rcil. 2, 'PHIIAVE"S PE-IRGLY-EMN COTNPIANY S-IGN VAiR1j;.;N'CE APPROVED. is het" e - r o m P h JL 11 i P s P - 1- o A. e u m C cz m -p a Sari Fran- sc o e 0, Ho r la rK, '-,i t_-. r 2 E 1 e d bye 11i C, 51 . ap e -n i o r C -*,nz s t r ra c t _J o -a E -, i vae e F T, TJi_*d'.etqa"-iz"r Oi g'_"-MP&7nY r"m-n-, Augw't 235 a 'n'm C8 R� al and, pa-f k Ro .d J1 ch f'l� y. :..�a Sn oneAli.+$ . not did; ?url. �:.� s;:�. c.i }i �..�.s c3 zt t Ito 1c. �. The communication recited circumstances delaying :Mart of actual construc- tiop of the facility until October 25, 1966, including acquisition by Phillips Petroleum Company of certain Tidewater Oil Company facilities, and referred to a signs structure constructed by the City of Burlingame in the interim, explaining that the city :sign was located in such a way to interfere with the service station sign approved by the city. The communication requested a variance to a.liow the top of the proposed service station sign to a height of 24 feet above grade, four feet over code maxa.mlamc Tie communnication stated that the size of the new Phillips Petroleum Company sign was voluntarily reduced by 29 square feet per face; there- fore, it would seem that the variance request is -reasonable. A sign detail, and site plan, including the location of the city sign, were filed. Colored e1hotographs showed the type of sign and supporting structure; also, a view of the property looking; westerly along E1 Camino Real. The City Planner, in reply to the Chair, reported that the sign approved originally would have been adequate except =1 the city's sign. Referring to the City Planners comments concerning two city trees Mr. Parse stated that visibility has always been obstructed by the trees. He stated that it is the company's position that a smaller sized sign at a greater height, to clear the city sign, will be satisfactory. There were no comments from the audie-nce. A communication dated November 25, 1966, from torso Ellen Parker, 15 park Road, objected to the variance. In reply to an inquiry from Commissioner Edwards whether the supporting structure will be used for other advertising material, t+'Ira Pape replied in the negative, stating that the new company policy prohibits poster boards end limits signs strictly to company identification. Commissioner Brauner stateet that he inspected the site carefully, driv-ing El Camino Real to determine the extent of sight interference from the city sign, he stated he observed no interference whatsoever with visibility when traveiling worth in the outside lane. In the inside lanes there is so&Wbstruction at the Park Road turn-off. He suggested that increasing the height will result in greater interference from the trees than presently exists from the city sign. Commissioner BFauner also commented on the matter of pr-ecedent.involved in approving a sign variance in a location on El Camino Real where the Commission has always attempted strict enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. Pape explained that the new sign will not be in the same location a;, the existing sign but cioser to the corner of the intersection; in fact, the site which was approved is directly behind the city?s sign. Agra gape agreed than: the sign will be stationary and without flashing li�htsa b:` N.C'� seconded by �,omi� ssi.on€:� N`sink , failed to carry, l A In oti.on to approve the variance was introduced by Commissioner Edv arms with the comment that he5 oo& is concerned with the precedent, but in the: present situation there are extenusting circumstances restalting from the city Q µ action. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ci :tull i and carried on the 1,01l014ing roll call AYES: COMMISSIONERc: Cbstulli, Edwards, Norberg, Pierce NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Braunere Mink ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Kindi.g The applicants T•aere advised, the variance would be effective Tuesday, December 6, 1966, if not appealed. S. SHELL € IL COMPANY .a.,S-,.P._.E..�-CIa.Ar_-P EERI.T� APPROVED TO RaCdNSTRJCI_ An application for a Special. Permit filed by Shell Oil Company, I Rollins Road, Milibra.e, proposed reconstruction of an existing service station on the northerly corner of El Camino Real and Burlingame Avenue. The applicant's communication dated November 10, 1966, signed by R.S. Davis, District Manager, advised that Shell Oil Company has acquired title to an additional property, S0 feet by 116 feet, adjoining the present site to the west; it is intended to relocate and rebuild the existing facility, uti.l c zing. both properties Plans and specifications werAe filed, accompanied by three colored photo- graphs toillustrate the type of construction proposed, The City Planner, in reply:.to the Chair, reported that the property acquired by Shall Oil Company` has been used as a real estate office for many years, the old wooden building will be demolished. Mr. Ray White, real estate; representative of Shell Oil Company, reviewed the plans and specifications with Commissioners, agreeing to revisions suggested by Commissioner Norberg relating to the exterior finish on the Burlingame Avenue elevation, roof material and landscaping. There were no comments from the audience, nor communications filed, favoring or protesting the application. Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion to approve? the Special Permit for reconstruction of the property at Burlingame Avenue and El Camino Meal in accordance with the plans submitted, except that masonry instead of sheet metal shall be used on the side of the building facing Burlingame Avenue and the roof to be finished with buff colored crushed rocks; steam cleaning will not be permitted in the brash rack. Motion seconded by Comw4,ssi.ezner Edwards and cmarried unanimously on roll, call.. The applicants were advised the permit would be effective Tuesday, December 6, 1966, if not appealed. 4. OLYMPIAN OIL COMPANY SPECIAL PERMLT TO RECONSTRUCT SERVICE STATION. An application for a Special. Pert:it filed by Olympians Oil Company, 35 South Linden Avenue, So unuh Sa-i Francisco, to reconstruct and enlc rgz an existing gasc•l.-Ine service station at till Cali z'Fornia Urine, scheduled for public Itear :rah;; at- tILis �5:i3e, was cc-nc r4ued to the December regular meeting following review of a. prel.aminary plait filed by the . appli- cant, Which tho Commission censi. gored inadequate for the purposes of the hearing. ,y . j So SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT GARAGE TO POOL SIDE CABANA An application filed by Mr. and Mrs. Charles W. Greer, 245 Chapin Lane, proposed to convert an existing garage to a room "to serve pool side a.ctivitiesT and to construct a new carport extending to the side property line. A communication from the applicant dated November 14, 1966, explained in detail a number of ways in which the converted garage is proposed to be used in connection with the swimming pool. A, site plan was filed. The City Planner reported that the application, in fact, proposes a combination of permits: first, an accessary structure used for the purposes intended by the applicant requires approval of a Special Permit; second, in order to convert the garage, it will be necessary that a new garage or carport be: constructed. The applicant's drawings show a proposed carport forward of the present garage on the property line at the; side of the main building. A variance is necessary since the structure is not confined within the rear 30% of -the lot where it could be carried to the property line. The City Planner repor5ved that the building code Tequires that the gall on the property line shall be "one hour". } The Building Inspector, in reply to Commissioner mink, confirmed that: there will be a similar "one hoar" requirement for the garage wher. con- verted. During a discussion on the site plan, Commissioner Norberg suggested that the variance could be eliminated if the; applicant would agree to move the carport one foot closer to the dwelling and reduce the width from 22 to 20 feety thereby establishing the required three foot side setback, and removing the need for a fire wall. In reply to Chairman Pierce, the applicant agreed that the carport could be relocated as suggested by the Commission. Chairman Pierce announced that the hearing shall be confined only to the use permit for the pool -side roam. Comments were invited from the audience. Mr, R.L. McRoskey:, 233 Chapin Lane, stated that he was not coneerred particularly about the pool n;scar the use or the garage but, rather, whether crowding of the property will result with mother structure permitted on the property. He questioned whether lot coveraba and setback requirement_ will be met; also, if the carportt relocated as suggested by the Comm-issi o- mill meet code requirements. Mr. McRoskey was advised that the buildiing permit: will not issue~ if the structure does not, meet all code requirements. There were no further comments from the audience, nor communications filed in favor of or objecting to the application. �5� f garago for pool -side c s. iail r_N-wurposes was Y:_'zosaded by Commissioner iJoxb rg and carried unan.i.nt ous l y ei.-ra xi ca i 1 The applicant was ;nfarre.�- . ttlae permit wot3l;, be effective Tuesday De:ce Aber 6, IM& of not ap :>eal ::d. RECESS The Chair declared a 'ecoss at 9:50 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The mes:'^ iag came to order at C :55 p.sn- HEARINGS (continued) 6. 4 PPUCATION TO REVOKE VARIA.NCE CRAINTED 9 OUGLAS H. PRINGLE FOR APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION. ION. A letter dated October 18, 1966, fro : thle Ls?w Offices of Rhein and Dien.stag, 98 Post Street, San. Francisco, signed by Lawrence A. Augusta, submitted in behal.:` of Mrs. and hers. Hernri d Plack„ 184: Hunt,, hive, Burlingame:, and of sers sip=i.lar ly situated, an Application For Revocation of Variance, and T9quested that a public hearing be scheduled was; pro- vided b; .'he Burlingame Muria tc pal Code. A netation entitle,] 80APPUCAT ON FOR REVOCATION 01 VARIANCE and for ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH ARIA:^ CU" y dated October 17, 1966, and bearing the following signatures was read: Bernard Plack, Dorothy Plack w 1.847 Hunt give, Eurlingaiae; Marvin Boyd, Fran Ro,,�s39 1827 Hunt Drive; Raymond Mauss, Eileen Mauss, 183E Hunt Drive; Leonml D. Linn, Marie E. Linn, 1357 Haunt Drive. The potition referred to a variance grant-ed Mr. Douglas Pringle for apartment construction in -the northwest- ._-o•rner of the Mills Estate, ss'3'i7mitt d that the Structures are in violation ow the expr e5s instru-c- tions of the City Council given in operk meeting on November 16, 1964, and requested the Punning Commission to recommenid that the City Council rs'poke the variance or order conpliasice with the 'terms of the variance, i.e. c ord'er the rc-,ao6ural o:3 'f. G :fE<'� �r '4i ,_n, st-uctural corporsents, and that all appurtenaices for the: protection of adjacent landowners bs ccn- structed according to plan". The City Attorney informed Chairman Pie i e that Mr. Pringle was not present in the Council Chasabers. He recalled that Mr. Pringle was in ati F a € at the study meeting, NovembeT 14, 1966, when the Application: was first presente=l to ih•a Commission and, at that time, was informed by the C.-hair € f the date —r, to a publI c h ar ing in repl-to the City rtt a,.v-n :y ° s inkuX'.f- € hathe6 'Mr. Prin-gle had received any P>EiZ.'3f?;ation ca-ncerning the public hearing before the Cori-, mission, the City Plsnyser Tead a letter dated November 3, 1-966,, from his offic`: Pringle of Alva petition, the date that Coiemi5 lion 3? t c-, n-ec eve he poi: for s�- Lolly avid that, in con fornia:nce e+ th %€ou?d sat The matt-er for public hey...:. Fg E:` its neMt rorular nwee ing; N=ay.zmb er 28, 1966. -6- .)i e...._J �^ � fl 6. �% � s > �h '. S.. u.cc Z,-. �d .«�`G:' w� .`;Z f. nL Cx_.. iC6• :ia.`-1 ��. c.?i aY iL .'•t f. u . _ i. +.:., i.v �i ie. ��. oral aid written notice of the date of h ar ing., the City Attorney recQn?- ma nded that the hearing p7oceedo Cha.irmzln pierce invited the appellants to speak. Mr. Lawrence A. Augusta, Attorney,, requested tho Planning Commission to recompend to the City Council revocation of variances granted Douglas Pringle for the apartment development in the Mills; Estate, bounded generally by Trousda..le Drive, Skyline Boulevard and Vallejo Drive, on the gaounds of non-com-aliance with the conditions of the variance grant, Mr. Augusta contended as follows to The variances limited the height of the buildings to three stories; as the structures presently stand, they are four to fire stories high, including parking level and a penthouse. 20 Minutes of the City C-ounci l record that plans submitted to the city staff and, subsequently, yo the City Council in epen meeting were not acceptable, because they did not meet the terms of the variance, that Mr. Pringle was informed accordingly and ,ranted permission to submit Tevised drawings. 4r. Augusta submi"'ted that Mr. Pringle, in actuality, has proceeded to b -ail.d "a> he wanted to"'. 3e In a Personal. :appearance before the Mills Estate Homeowners Associations and in a letter to that group, Mr. Pringle advised that a building site would be ,graded to create a plateau in order to obscEvre the view of the buildings from resideEntial propert les below. 4. With reference to the penthouse, Wxg rhMr- Pringle describes as a `machinery house", Mr. Augusta poirtreu out that the latter was wall aware that he was limited to a maaximubi of three stories and that the addition on the roof was not permissible; Aire Pringle attempted to install utilities in the penthouse but the work was stopped by the Building inspector; the addition on the roof, as constructed, was not a part of the plans approved by she Building Inspector. S. With reference to the parking level, which Mr. Pringle elects to call a basement", Mr. Augusta stated that I4ro Pringle is attempting to rely on the UnaiforLn Building Code enforced in the City of Burlingame which provides that any story six feet or less below grade is a basement and that it does not count as a story, Isar. Augusta stated that there is not a basement but a parking level and that strict compliance with the variances will req Tire a parking level with two stories of residential units above. Mr. Pringle has Levelled off the earith, installed parking and built three to four stories above and is now attempting certain angtneeri.ng to pile dirt to achieve the average six feet below grade so that the parking .level will qualify as a non -story, in compl.i: nce with the Uniform Building Code.: ,fro Augusta maintained that variances approved by the City Council should take precedence in this situation over the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Augusta, in conclusion requested that: the Com-ri%isJ' 3 Lon recommend in ac.cerdanace with the petit -on on filet, on. the vLisis of the conditions described. Commissioners were melt cclh e,3 cotsmens t, -7- Commissioner BA'aun ;ti re€bu?es tees Mr. k3ugusti^ 6.o the City Council €ainutes wheTein that precise ;were; noted. clarify his 4efe rence to conditions of the variance!; Mr. August& referred to Council minutes dated November 16, 1964P page 120 of the City Clerk's official record., quoting as follows: "...Council advised Mr. Pringle that he must conform with the terms of the variance, namely, two three-story buildings, measured from ground letfel � o o?i o In reply to Commissioner Brauner, the Building Inspector recited the formula for measuring ground level, expi fining that under certain candi'tions where a building site has been excavated or graded, a contractor may legal y build retaining walls and back fill to establish grade,upon com- pletion of the building. The Building Inspector stated that he permitted Mr. Pringle to grade the entire plageau provided that retaining all.s were constructed and grades established for the -.-fire department to ladder the buildings. He advised that: Ithe retaining wall at the Gear of the ho-mes on Hunt D-_rive is 14 feet high. The Building Inspector emphasized that unless the builder meets ground levels rewired by the Building Coale the buildings will not be approved. Concerning a one foci strip on Trousdale Drive frontages the City Plannzr stated that the strip has never been deeded to the city. The Building Inspector stated that Fir,, Pringle has been directed that the penthouse may not be enclosed Fir: any h*a nner, shake or form vaivhou-t approvW1 The City Planner reported that the plans which were finally approved were available for Commission review; he stated that the plans showed a base- ment and three stories, which were approved by staff but he was unable to recall that Council, coll.ectiy, el.y, saw the plans at an open meeting, The City Attorney explained that the Pringle -ratter was before the City Council on massy occasions, that the Co-minission is III possession of just, two sets of minutes of Council s deliberations on the: subject. To clarify procedure whereby thie plans subum3tted by Mr. Pringle were approved, the City Attorney s rtma,rized brie:fly City Council minutes of July S. 1964, July 20s 1964', November la, 1.964, December 70 1964, Februarys 15, 1965, and, finally,, March 1, 1965. The latter minutes con- cerni rg final approval of the subdivision map and the plans submitted by Mr. Pringle were read in their entirety, the City Attorney commenting, thereafter, 69no green light has been given to Mr. Pringle or the penthouse" The Building inspector advised that "A"' building is 26-1/2 feet high with" another € fine feet an top; he stated further that the builder is esraby.isb ing proper grades. Chairman Pierce recognized i4r, Raymo-nd ?.,amass, 1357 Flunt Drive-, who main., tained that Mr. Pringle has not fulfilled any portion of the commitments made to the City Council, the Planni sg Comr-iission, n r the Mills Estate Associate ne Mr. M-Auss 215o Anentio -ad that the retaining wall at tn- rear of his propertv is 14 fait above h-5.S fence. The Buil6in; Inspectoy stated that as s -1 as the building depart i'en`n."rtcr Bad ldl—ing Code Yee_' emen s there- are no pl'fatbler�ts in the cfp-rite �iction; the addition on the roof is legal so long as it is used as €i mechanical -a- equipment room. The plans were submitted to the Commission with the Building Inspector stating that they were the plans on which a building permit was issued and, to his knowledge, the same plans approved by the City Council. The plans were made available to the audience for inspection. The City Planner commented that the plans shod a duck -board area, adjacent to the elevator shaft: Following review of the plans, Commissioner Norberg stated that there is a sun deck shovin on the roof; if the builder has deviated in any way from the plans without the Building Inspector's approval the latter has the right to require the penthouse structure to be removed. There were no further comments :from the audience; the Chair declared the hearing closed. . The Building Inspector submitted two photographs taken earlier on this date, suggesting these be dated and forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Pierce, speaking as a private citizen and not the Chairman of the Planning Commission, advised that he has been involved with the project as long as any other person, with the possible exception..of the builder; when he was president of the Mills Estate Association and a member of the Board of Directors, Mr. Pringle appeared to discuss the project and solicit opinions from the residents of the area. Mr. Pierce stated there is no comparison between the project described by Mr. Pringle and the approved plans, nor the actual buildings as they have developed. Mr. Pierce recalled that Mr. Pringle made a definite statement to the Mills Estate residents that the buildings would be on a large plateau almost out of view of the Mills Estate homes below. A motion was thereafter introduced by Commissioner Brauner that the Com- mission finnds that the structure has been erected in conformity with the variance in all respects with the exception of the penthouse which is not in conformance with the variance granted, The Commission recom- mends that the penthouse be removed because it dues not comply with the plans filed with and approved by the Building Department which indicate a duck -board sundeck and not a penthouse. Motion seconded by Commissioner Edwards and declared carried on the following roil call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brauner, Cistulli, Edwards, Mink, Norberg NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Pierce ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Ki.nadi.g In reply to Mr. Mauss"s inquiry. the Chair declared the Commission's action would be transmitted to the City Clerk for the agenda of t%e City Council meeting December 5, 1966. DECEMBER MEETIN2 DATE SELECTED, Because of the holiday, December 26, 1966s, the next regular meeting of the Commission was scheduled for Tuesday, December 27v 1966 8:00 Pam. oa- ANNOUNCEMENT The City Planner 3..itfSirFT2ed Commmissioners of the Regional Plarmi g CcsqmZ4ttee Task Force meetinig, to be hold -in the Burlingame City Hall oin-, Thursdays December l.s 1966 at, :00 p.7., 1n Q,onatection with the Pact fc Air Commerce Center proposaAl for filling the bay. He advised that Councilma--s Di d' rich en, Councilman Marti a and Commissioner Cist-ulli will represent Che city. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Res ectfu1 y sWbmi t taus Secretary �3�a -t C�Cl'`Y OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION A-- ) a- ) '- --o I CALL TO ORDER 11 ROLL ; ALI..' III MINUTES tsctoll-,er 24 and Nlo estber 14, 19tr6, ICJ COMMUNICATIONS .1. Paul J. Cc xstantine request for extension o,7 time fig:' improvements Kerhrtar Terrace, 20 Standard Oil Company request for centiituapce of *pp':li:asioT2 V HEARINGS 1 o Sign variance wce My-XiKe t'. - 2, Phillips Petro r eum Company �:.gn variance. 3a Shell 01.1 Conpany special p€)rwit to reconstruct service static-, 3, 01yrn-era Oil Company special permit to reconstruyet service station,, q `" 4 ,fie AF��•s',9.�� . �?a�. '4. e'R-. d��t} l �i 1�2 �i �`��Z�i i. �F d.�Y�� t`�.!td S��'i. �.d) `, �a. �y ypermi - to convert garage to r€ mnpus roomy 245 Chapin i.an , VI w BUSINESS l' 13 E;)OUR?'ME- iqT _.�--- 3c �� ., c*_ r � � - 0 C� i