HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.03.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 26, 1984
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Graham on Monday, March 26, 1984 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 12, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved
and adopted.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with Items 1 and 2 withdrawn, Items 5 and 6
continued and Item 8 to be heard following Item 10.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE TO CREATE A NEW LOT AT 1133 PALM DRIVE WHICH IS 3,167 SF IN AREA RATHER
THAN 5,000 SF AS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED, ZONED R-1, BY ERICH BREMER
2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Items withdrawn at applicant's request.
3. VARIANCES FROM OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS AND MINIMUM SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS
TO ADD AN APARTMENT UNIT AT 1466 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4, BY ROBISON
CONSTRUCTION FOR CAROLYN MEISWINKEL
CP Monroe reviewed this request for two variances in order to divide an existing two-
bedroom apartment into two one -bedroom units. Reference staff report 3/26/84; study
meeting minutes, February 27 and March 12, 1984; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 2/1/84; applicant's justification for the variances date stamped February 1,
1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (March 16, 1984) and City Engineer (February 23,
1984); aerial photograph; site plan from Sanborn Map; site drawing; notice of hearing
mailed March 16, 1984; and plans date stamped March 5, 1984. CP discussed details
of the request and code requirements; staff review; applicant's justification; and
noted letter in opposition received after preparation of staff report from William
and Mabel Watts, 1520 Ralson Avenue. Two conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
CP confirmed Fire Marshal's requirements had been discussed with the applicant's
representative, a fully complying fire alarm system will be required; electrical
and plumbing will be updated in the two new units but no changes are contemplated in
the other units. Commission noted parking stall #17 is "a tight squeeze".
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Terry Robison, Robison Construction, San
Francisco, contractor representing the applicant, advised applicant will update
electrical and plumbing and bring parking up to code for the two new units; she
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
March 26, 1984
recently purchased the building and has made numerous improvements including grading
and blacktopping in the rear; no changes will be made to the exterior of the building,
nothing has been changed since it was constructed in 1929; an allowance for compact
cars would be appreciated. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Commission/staff discussion: Fire Marshal advised state law requires a residential
structure with 15 units or more to have a fire alarm system; this building, if the
variances are approved, will be moving into that category; code requires all parking
spaces to be standard size for an apartment building; would like to require as a
condition of approval that the entire building be brought up to current electrical
and plumbing codes within a reasonable period of time; in favor of providing more
housing but would want to ensure the general safety of all tenants of the building;
possibility of having the premises inspected for plumbing and electrical condition
prior to Commission action on the variances; Mr. Robison advised an electrician had
been to the site and applicant will be changing the service but not all wiring of
the building; suspect it would be prohibitively expensive to bring all plumbing
and electrical up to current code; variances will upgrade two units and the parking
for these units; concern about safety of the entire building and about parking, this
area is impacted presently; difficult to find exceptional circumstances except fiscal
considerations for the property owner. Parking layout was discussed, CP advised if
variances are approved applicant will be required to restripe the site according to
the plans; concern about this deteriorating older building, think it should be
inspected to determine if Commission could require upgrading the whole structure.
C. Schwalm moved to continue this application and request more information from the
applicant as to the economic feasibility of upgrading the whole structure. Second
C. Cistulli. Comment on the motion: where is the other two bedroom unit, concern
that in future it would also be divided; would like architect's plan for the use
of this building and projections for the future. C. Schwalm amended his motion to
require a reply from the applicant in time for the April 9, 1984 Commission packet;
C. Cistulli so amended his second. On roll call vote motion to continue this item
to April 9, 1984 passed 6-1, C. Leahy dissenting.
4. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 98 SF CANOPY ADDITION AT 1457 BELLEVUE AVENUE WHICH EXCEEDS
50% LOT COVERAGE, ZONED R-4, BY BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES
CP Monroe reivewed this request to provide a canopy over the entrance to this 18 unit
residential condominium. Reference staff report 3/26/84; Project Application & CEQA
Assessment received 2/15/84; staff review: Fire Marshal (2/22/84) and City Engineer
(2/23/84); applicant's letter (February 15, 1984); aerial photograph of the site;
plans date stamped February 15, 1984; study meeting minutes, March 12, 1984; memo
from Planner re lot coverage calculations, March 14, 1984; and notice of hearing mailed
March 16, 1984. CP discussed details of the request; code requirement; staff review;
applicant's letter; Planning staff comments. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. CP further advised a trellis was included on
the original plans but removed after staff review and prior to coming to the
Commission.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Philip German, representing Bellevue Associates,
applicant, discussed fencing of the swimming pool area, a temporary fence had been
removed during paving of adjacent areas, pool area is now secured with fencing;
original plans included an extensive trellis around the existing pool and from the
main entrance, this was removed to remain within 50% lot coverage; applicant is
asking for a canopy over the main entrance which does not face the street, it would
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1984
be 7' x 14' extending from the building line out to the pedestrian walkway. There
were no audience comments in favor. Letter in support from William and Mabel Watts,
1520 Ralston Avenue was noted. Speaking in opposition: Leo Paslin, 1435 Bellevue
Avenue: object to the canopy if it does not meet code requirements, would set a
precedent for other developers to request exceptions to the code. There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
During discussion CP advised canopy would be of canvas and must be fire proof.
Commission comment: have no objection but difficult to find exceptional circumstances,
would consider a canopy an amenity rather than a structure; this is a prime location
for development in the city, cannot understand developer's problems with this good
site, appears to be poor planning and feel approval of the variance would set a
precedent.
C. Giomi moved to deny the variance request. Motion died for lack of a second.
Further comment: would have liked an accurate set of plans indicating present lot
coverage with the numerous alterations, but do not find the canopy objectionable
as designed for protection of and use by persons over 65.
C. Taylor found there were exceptional circumstances to support approval of this
canopy in the use for which the building was designed (for older persons); that the
canopy would enhance the property and make the project more desirable; that it would
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and would not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Taylor moved to grant this
variance subject to the following conditions: (1) that the condition in the Fire
Marshal's memo of February 22, 1984 be met; and (2) that the canopy be built to the
dimensions as shown on the plans submitted and date stamped February 15, 1984.
Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: entrance is so far back on the lot it
appears the design created its own exceptional circumstances, canopy will draw
attention to the entrance; feel this is a first class project and canopy will add
to it. Variance approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. Appeal
procedures were advised.
5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 1114 PALOMA AVENUE - BY DIXON/KAINDL ASSOCIATES FOR
PALOMA ASSOCIATES
6. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Items continued to the meeting of April 9, 1984.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO OPERATE A TRUCK RENTAL OPERATION AT 1299 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY. ZONED M-1. BY BRIAN CORNELL FOR OLYMPIC RENT-A-CAR/JAR-TRAN TRUCK RENTAL
CP Monroe reviewed this request to amend Olympic Rent -A -Car's special permit in order
to operate Jar -Tran Truck Rental from the same site. Reference staff report dated
3/20/84; study meeting minutes, March 12, 1984; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 2/15/84; Rent-A-Car Questionnaire date stamped February 15, 1984; letters
from the applicant: February 15, March 19 and March 20, 1984; photographs of the site;
Monroe letter to Brian Cornell, applicant, March 13, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal
(2/22/84) and City Engineer (2/28/84); letter from property owner, January 5, 1984;
site plans date stamped February 15, 1984; site history: Commission minutes (May 10,
1971 and April 26, 1971), Yost letter to Travl-Car Rent-A-Car (April 7, 1981), Travl-
Car letter (January 26, 1981), Rent-A-Car Questionnaire (received 1/23/81); Cornell/
Lastra letter received 12/2/83; Towber letter to Travl-Car Rent-A-Car (October 31,
1983); Towber memos/notations: 1/24/84, 1/25/84, 1/30/84; aerial photograph;
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1984
notice of hearing mailed March 16, 1984; and plans date stamped March 19, 1984.
CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, use permit
history on this site, Planning staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: complaints about this operation received in January were from city staff,
there does not appear to be a parking problem on the lot at this time but staff does
not know if the building is fully occupied. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing.
Brian W. Cornell, applicant, addressed Commission: building on the site is fully
occupied at the present time; do not feel the 8' redwood fence is needed, business
involves only 6 trucks and 6 trailers; there are bushes 10-12 feet high which shield
the lot from northbound freeway traffic, traveling south along Bayshore Highway one
would have to look directly to the right to see the trucks; trucks are 15' long but
small in height; elimination of parking stalls 25 and 26 makes sense because of
existing roadway barriers as does eliminating one driveway; would ask for equal
consideration with other small businesses in the city; cost of the 8' fence, plus
retriping, sidewalk and lighting, would be a financial hardship; have seen other truck
parking on Bayshore Highway which isn't hidden by an 8' redwood fence; feel this
business would be a compatible use on the site without increasing employees and
overhead. Discussing the proposed conditions, applicant asked for elimination of
#2 and #3 and stated #5 would be automatically eliminated as aisle is already 26';
trucks do not extend into the aisleways at all; propose one stall be created for one
truck longer than 15'; do not feel 6 trucks and 6 trailers is a heavy use at this
location; Negative Declaration states the proposed rental of trucks and trailers
would not create any adverse environmental impacts, do not agree with the statement
that visibility of vehicles on site will increase.
The following spoke in favor of this application. Roy Ulrich, 2844 Biddleford Drive,
San Ramon, Northern Bay Area District Manager for Jar -Tran: explained the dealership
relationship of Jar -Tran, a nationwide truck and trailer business; approximately 21
dealers in the district, all owner operated; of the 21 dealers only seven have fences;
average number of vehicles a Jar -Tran dealer has on the lot at any one time is 4.4
trucks and 7.2 trailers; it is a highly mobilized business, a continuous in and out
operation; no maintenance is done on the site; do not feel fence is needed, site is
not that visible, have no problems with marking of the lot or additional planting;
expect this to be a highly commercial location with trucks in and out during the
week as well as on weekends; would like the trucks to be parked so they would be
visible; improvements would be a financial hardship to the applicants, their present
income from Jar -Tran is only $300-400 a month. Dennis Lastra, partner in this
dealership: regarding safety aspects, only employees drive trucks on the lot; stalls
25 and 26 should be removed; have received no complaints, our customers are local
merchants. There were no further comments in favor and no audience comments in
opposition. Chm. Graham closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion: responding to questions, applicant advised there has been no
overflow of company vehicles on site; there are two full time and one part time
employees who drive rental vehicles if available; if not available, they share one
car and park on site. It was pointed out applicant had agreed to abide by the
conditions of the use permit granted to the site for car rental; he could see no
difference between car rental or truck rental and therefore had gone ahead with the
truck/trailer rental business; landscaping could be continued along the front of
the fence and a planting area along the side of the fence would have to be created.
It was determined they would not be installing permanent type hitches but have a
limited number of temporary hitches available; most customers drive to the site,
leave their vehicles in the lot and pick them up when the truck is returned;
applicants plan to install a sign near the gas pump approximately 20' high and in
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
March 26, 1984
compliance with city ordinances but will make separate application.
Further Commission comment: the city's objective is to make this an attractive
industrial area, concern this intensity of use would not increase the attractiveness
of the area. Applicant stated that if in future the area were developed with more
hotels/restaurants he would be glad to build the fence. Continued discussion: the
district manager's statement that they are aiming for high visibility and Commission's
concerns about high visibility in the area; applicant's statement that renters do
not drive trucks on the premises, safety concern that renters may not know how to
drive these trucks; would like to see a low profile on this site; this area has
developed with many C-4 type uses, difficult to find truck rental compatible with a
C-4 use; think any time Commission gives a use permit with 10 conditions to make it
acceptable they should look carefully at the appropriateness of the use; would be
better to deny this applicant now when his financial gain is less than it might be
as the business develops.
C. Taylor moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Giomi. Comment on the motion:
have noticed a gas station nearby has service trucks parked on the site, how can
Commission deny this application with a limited number of trucks in good condition
and allow these other trucks which are old, dirty, not maintained. Motion to deny
this application was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Cistulli dissenting. Appeal
procedures were advised.
RECESS 9:15 P.M.; RECONVENE 9:22 P.M.
9. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON
BROADWAY, OGDEN DRIVE AND MARCO POLO WAY AND PROHIBIT OFFICES ON FIRST FLOORS
ON BROADWAY
Reference 3/26/84 staff report; Draft Ordinance; March 12, 1984 Commission minutes;
notice of hearing mailed March 16, 1984; Coldwell Banker survey of Broadway area
date stamped January 31, 1984. CP discussed Council's request for a draft ordinance
prohibiting financial institutions on Broadway and noted the land use study included
in the packet giving a review of existing uses on Broadway.
Discussion: ordinance would apply to all properties shown on the attached map, zoned
C-1, it also includes some properties on the side streets and on Ogden Drive (C-3)
and Marco Polo Way (C-3). Commission noted the lot on the southwest corner of
Broadway and California Drive had not been included in overlay area; this lot is
zoned C-2, financial institutions in the C-2 zone require a use permit from Commission.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue addressed
Commission: the ratio of service uses to retail on Broadway is strongly in favor of
service uses at present; would like to see this brought more into a 50/50 balance.
The Chair noted two calls received from realtors expressing concern about restricting
office use on the second floor, but having no objection to the proposed ordinance
which prohibits office use on the first floor. There were no further audience comments
and the hearing was closed.
Commission asked about the intent of including Ogden and Marco Polo Way; CP advised
there is concern about the impact of financial institutions adjacent to residential
areas, in these areas the C-3 zone does front on R-1 areas.
C. Giomi moved that the Planning Commission recommend draft Ordinance Prohibiting
Banks and Other Financial Institutions on Broadway, Ogden Drive and Marco Polo Way
and Limiting Offices on Broadway to the City Council for approval. Second C. Leahy.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1984
Comment on the motion: don't like absolute prohibitions such as this, prefer to be
able to deal with each application on its own merit to determine whether it meets
a community need or some other useful purpose; think city should deal with planning
problems as they arise and feel the present requirement for a use permit is adequate
control; this ordinance would not prohibit financial institutions, they could locate
in other sections of the city, the ordinance prevents a mix of incompatible uses in
an area; Broadway problems have been discussed for years but the merchants there
have not entered into areawide improvements, a financial institution would improve
its property and the street. Responding to Commission question CP explained the
ordinance adopted two years ago creating Sub -Areas A, B and D in the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area and prohibiting financial institutions in Sub -Area A. Further comment:
we have prohibited financial institutions on Burlingame Avenue and believe merchants
as well as City Council have asked for the same on Broadway, suggest the Broadway
land use survey be sent to Council also; should consider regulating restaurants the
same way we are financial institutions; feel financial institutions do hamper free
merchandise trade on the street, believe this is our only chance to get Broadway
back to a merchandising area; people today go to shopping centers, not small dress
shops in town, the only way to improve this street is to locate businesses there that
have money and can improve it.
Motion to recommend the draft ordinance to City Council for approval passed 5-2 on
roll call vote, Cers Cistulli and Taylor dissenting. Staff will transmit to Council.
10. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ADDRESSING SECOND UNITS IN THE R-1 ZONE
Reference 3/26/84 staff report; March 12, 1984 Commission minutes; Public Notice
published March 16, 1984 in the SAN MATEO TIMES; 3/12/84 staff report with attachments;
Draft Ordinance; and Senate Bill No. 1534. CP reviewed state legislation regarding
second units in R-1 zones, Council study of the issue and direction to staff to
examine the facts and identify those which might be used to justify a prohibition
of second units in R-1 zones. Staff's findings were detailed in Commission staff
report of March 12, 1984.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor of allowing
second units in R-1 zones:
George McQueen, 752 Lexington Way: came to assist his neighbor at 756 Lexington Way
whose father, a contractor, built the house at 756 Lexington with fixtures for a
second unit but was unable to proceed at that time or later because of the code;
second units have been illegal in most California communities; have seen a great
increase in the need for housing during the past few years in this city and the Bay
Area; neighbor needs the second unit or will have to sell her house; there are many
large homes in the city with only one person living in them, families have grown up
and moved away; with fewer younger people in the city the market is not what it used
to be; second units would provide security, aid the elderly, provide owner assistance
with some maintenance, increase tax revenue, create increased support for transit
and business; the fears surrounding second unit housing mostly imaginary.
Dan Marks, Housing Program Director, People for Open Space: PFOP became interested
in housing because of the shortage and investigated key strategies to help the housing
shortage; have investigated impacts of second units on single family neighborhoods
and found the impacts were very small; there would be problems but most could be handled
through a permissive ordinance that allows second units; there would be important
benefits to the elderly and in allowing families to purchase homes when income from
a second unit is available; a second unit has allowed my wife to remain at home with
the children; may also solve some of the problems of the community.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1984
Mary Alice Bigham, 1320 Skyview Drive who presented a formal statement from the League
of California Women: the League works for fair housing and expansion of the housing
supply for low and moderate income families; housing supply in Burlingame is at a
critical level and development of second units offers a good opportunity for
increasing this supply; support development of second units where feasible,
environmental quality, safety, design standards, infrastructure should also be
considered.
Sue Lempert, representing Shared Homes, 520 E1 Camino Real, San Mateo: support second
units to help alleviate the serious housing shortage in San Mateo County; would be
significant benefit to seniors; can provide needed extra income, service for the
elderly, enhance security; less costly to create second units than.to provide housing;
advantages to homeowners in financing purchase of a home; emergency assistance for
seniors, lower rents; there would be a need for regulation to mitigate neighborhood
impact but requirements should not be prohibitive; San Mateo County's ordinance
used a quota system by census tract, a poll has indicated people in general were
supportive of the second units.
Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue, representing San Mateo/Burlingame Board of Realtors:
support legalization of second units; would protect private property rights; would
add affordable housing and income for the homeowner to improve his property; would
provide more business in the downtown areas, add property taxes; good for society -
the housing needs of seniors, students and older parents are not being met; benefits
outweigh city service problems.
Leigh Tanton, 845 Linden Avenue: looking at this issue from a personal standpoint;
do not wish to sell my house, but rather have my son'sfamily move into the house
and then add a small apartment for my wife and myself; Linden has many legal non-
conforming two family units, would prefer to add an apartment legally; general public
may not be aware of this issue; many areas of the world, such as England and
Australia, have been implementing such a plan to increase housing.
Betty Wikowski, 756 Lexington Way, presented a photograph of her home: remodeling and
adding a second unit would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, house
appears as a small cottage from the front, adding a kitchen to the present laundry
room/small bedroom area would not have negative impact as seen from the street;
regarding parking problems, many neighborhoods are no longer two -car family neighbor-
hoods, many of the elderly have no cars.
Further comment from Mr. McQueen: the decrease in families reduces school population;
since number'of people in unit would still be less than previous larger families,
second units would lessen the impact on city services.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: reference parking impact, would have to allow parking in the
front setback to get vehicles off the street; regulate by quota, perhaps a percentage
of homes in a certain area on first come/first served basis, could be discriminatory;
regulate amount of square footage or number of people per unit; second units could
affect lot coverage; would involve individual facilities in the second unit; feel
parking not a problem since most second units would be occupied by elderly persons
with no car or only one car, younger people would be a problem; there is a parking
problem now - have several second units within a block of my house, parking is always
a problem, people park in front of my house and sometimes have difficulty even
getting out my driveway, also limits street sweepers' access; findings presented to
prohibit second units are good, but feel we should also examine why the city should
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
March 26, 1984
allow second units; parking would not be increased, would be replacing larger families
who used to live in Burlingame with smaller families occupying the same amount of
space; Commission has obligation to the city to consider needs of the entire community;
many people in Burlingame are against more intense use of R-1 zones, but think the
city should study this issue further and look at appropriate standards for allowing
second units; need more education of the public; the city has an obligation to determine
how it can increase the housing supply; it has been determined there is enough vacant
or underused land in the city to meet ABAG's projected housing need figures to the
year 2000, Burlingame is doing its fair share and it is not necessary to increase
the densities of the R-1 zones.
C. Taylor moved to recommend to the City Council that the draft Ordinance Precluding
Second Units Within R-1 Zone (with findings attached thereto) not be adopted. It
was noted Commission found the findings adequate but believed further study by the
city should be undertaken. On roll call vote motion approved 4-3, Cers Cistulli,
Giomi and Leahy dissenting. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to
Council.
8. PUBLIC HEARING - DEFINITION OF NUMBER OF SIGNS ON AN AWNING OR CANOPY
Reference 3/26/84 staff report; March 12 and February 27, 1984 Commission minutes; and
City Attorney's suggested alternatives for definition of a sign on an awning/canopy.
CP discussed Commission's request at its last meeting to investigate additional
wording to address defining a sign on an awning or canopy.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the
hearing was closed.
C. Giomi spoke in favor of CA's Alternative 1. (b) "Each side of an awning or canopy
shall be considered a separate face, except that the continuous signage on all sides
of an awning shall be considered a single sign". She found there is evidence in
the city that continuous signage can be very effective and that it would be self-
limiting as far as square footage is concerned.
C. Giomi moved to recommend to City Council an amendment of the Sign Code which
would define signage on awnings and canopies as follows: "Each side of an awning or
canopy shall be considered a separate face, except that the continuous signage on
all sides of an awning shall be considered a single sign". Second C. Schwalm;
motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting. Staff will forward
to Council.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW OFFICE EXPANSION IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1650 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY, AVIS RENT -A -CAR
Requests: advise applicant of city's strong interest in the 25' strip of land along
the bayfront (CP advised applicant is now negotiating with BCDC); remove training
room section from the plans. Item set for hearing April 9, 1984.
12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 824 COWAN ROAD,
HOLIDAY-PAYLESS RENT -A -CAR
Question: can city impose car rental tax over and above the sales tax? Item set for
hearing April 9, 1984.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
March 26, 1984
13. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO -MODIFY THE REQUIRED ON-SITE EMPLOYEE PARKING AT
1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, MIKE HARVEY OLDSMOBILE
Requests: background/history of this use permit; copy of lease agreement for Mike
Harvey Oldsmobile parking at Northpark Apartments; parking requirements for Northpark.
Staff's suggestion that Commission might wish to refer this request to the Traffic,
Safety & Parking Commission prior to acting on the use permit amendment was discussed.
Consensus was to hold Planning Commission hearing. Item set for hearing April 9, 1984.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its March 19, 1984 regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary