Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.05.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Tuesday, May 26, 1987 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Ken Musso, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 11, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP TO COMBINE LOT 24 AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 25 AND 26, MAP OF GLENWOOD PARK, 45 EL CAMINO REAL Reference agenda memo (5/26/87) with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this lot combination which is necessary to fulfill building code requirements with respect to property line setbacks and to permanently define building site; demolition of existing structures will soon be under way. He discussed staff review; utility companies were not contacted since merging of these parcels does not affect rights within and no utilities were shown crossing the property. CE recommended the map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Jacobs moved that this tentative and final map to combine lots be recommended to City Council for approval. Second C. S.Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Following the motion the Chair recognized those in the audience who wished to inquire about the proposed apartment building on this site. Staff advised action this evening is merely to merge the lots, this proposal does meet all requirements of the Map Act, no Planning approvals are necessary for the apartment building; if citizens are interested in the project itself they should contact the Building Department. Procedures for appeal of tonight's action were advised. (Note: Upon consultation with the City Attorney the following morning he determined that a public hearing should have been held on this item and advised that it be renoticed and a hearing held at the Planning Commission meeting on June 8, 1987. The applicant was so advised.) Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 2. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PLANNING APPROVALS FOR THE 559 ROOM HOTEL AT 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BY CARRUF CORPORATION Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed history of this project including traffic allocation. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. During discussion it was determined these conditions would be added to the 18 previous conditions, the development and construction schedule to supersede previous condition #18. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Franz Boncodin, Carruf California Corporation, applicant was present. He advised they were in the final stages of financing and hoped to get the project going soon, he had read the staff report and had no problem with the additional conditions. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this extension to June 19, 1988 with all previous conditions and with the addition of the following: (1) that the conditions in the City Engineer's memo of May 11, 1987 shall be met; (2) that the project shall be developed, and in order to retain the traffic allocation, on the following development and construction schedule: BCDC permit - June 1986, Submit final plans commencing - August 1987, Pick up building permit - November 1987, Final foundation - May 1988, Final framing inspection - April 1989, Occupancy - October 1989; (3) that the structural design conform to the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes in effect at the time completed final construction plans are submitted to the city for approval; and (4) that any valet parking use provided by this hotel shall not exceed 10% of the parking area provided and that no fee shall be charged for valet parking. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 3. VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1132 HAMILTON LANE Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, code requirements for variance approval. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP discussed the plans which show a room with closet, applicants may use as a family room but any area with a closet is considered a bedroom. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicants were present. Responding to Commission question, Gerald Woods stated there is an existing family room downstairs now used as the master bedroom, they plan a master bedroom and library upstairs; he felt Commissioner suggestion of moving the kitchen extension in the garage to the other side of the lot would be too difficult since it would necessitate removing cabinets and moving electrical and gas lines. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 Maureen Lennon, 1128 Hamilton Lane and Pola Fiorito; 1137 Hamilton Lane spoke in favor of the improvements: applicants are an asset to the neighborhood, parking in the area has not been a problem. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: support the application, a second story is necessary in order to maintain sanity in a family, the additional lot coverage is not out of line, it will benefit the appearance of the house; support the proposal, there are other homes in this area which have had second floor additions without adding parking so this would not be an exception to the rule; have no problem with increased square footage but do have reservations from a Planning standpoint, no parking problems in the past could be the result of very careful planning, if the neighborhood is in transition as this one is parking could become a big problem, would suggest applicant look at the ultimate benefit of having adequate parking, if he wanted to sell in the future parking could be very important, think applicant might better reevaluate his plans and provide more parking now; can understand the need for more space but there is an alternative on this lot, would rather give a larger lot coverage variance and keep the garage; concerned about inadequate parking, there is ability to return the garage to its original size and kitchen could be extended in the other direction. Further comment: it is unreasonable to ask the applicants to extend their existing kitchen, this would make an awkward entry to the house, it would be less attractive, asking someone to redo his entire kitchen would be a real hardship, regardless of the number of bedrooms the same number of people live in the house; there are many people with two bedroom homes and five cars, do not think there is a correlation between number of bedrooms and number of cars; not opposed to increased lot coverage, this property will improve if the garage is returned to its original size, would rather grant an extension on the west side all the way down, financial hardship is not a legal reason (relating to the property) for granting a variance. C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in that the kitchen was extended into the garage prior to purchase by the applicants, they were unaware of the violation; that denial of the variance would prohibit their ability to use the property to house their family, it is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owners; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, as neighbors have testified in support this evening; and it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city since it could not be used as a second unit. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the two variances for lot coverage and parking and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variances with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's May 12, 1987 memo and the Fire Marshal's May 15, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that as built the new addition shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 date stamped April 30, 1987; and (3) that before any new construction is begun at this address the previous addition to the kitchen which extends into the garage parking area shall be brought up to current Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code standards and shall receive a final inspection and occupancy permit from the Building Department. Second C. Harry Graham. Comment on the motion: Commission has discussed parking/number of bedrooms but cars come and go, if more lot coverage is allowed it will stay there forever; support the motion, have concern about parking but applicants can get one car in the garage and two in the driveway, it is a good addition, the expense of moving the kitchen out would be too high; this parking variance will be there forever also; there is only one garage with room for one car, no matter how many cars there are one will be parked in the garage and the rest on the street; additional cars could be parked within the setback. Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN OVER HEIGHT DETACHED GARAGE AT 926 CHULA VISTA AVENUE Reference staff report, 5/16/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, petition in support from neighbors, study meeting questions. She also advised no building permit had been obtained for an existing deck area and spa which staff noted on a site inspection. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussed the recent code amendment which requires removal of the paved driveway and curb cut to the existing garage if it is used only for storage; it was suggested the conditions be amended to include replacement of the existing garage doors. Further discussion: the condition to relocate the proposed detached garage at least 15' from the property line; applicant's plans for a fence and gate; distance between deck and new garage; shed in the rear not shown on the plans, will it be removed. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicant, Richard Garban, was present. His comments: he wished to conform the roof pitch of the garage to the existing house; regarding the deck, there was an existing deck when he moved in which he has since renovated; he objected to removing the existing driveway and curb cut and wished to use the existing driveway for parking; he has three cars and shares a fourth with his father. Commission and applicant discussed his plans for a fence and gate; he is requesting the pitched roof in order to match the house. A Commissioner commented that at 7'-6" from property line the garage would not match the setback of the house and could appear bulky; applicant discussed his plans for a retaining wall as a part of the garage because of the slope on the lot; drainage will have to be considered at the building permit stage; plans did not show the Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 playhouse (shed) in the rear, it is approximately 4' x 5' and applicant would like to retain it; under code a 7'-6" side setback is required; existing garage can be accessed from the house. The following spoke in favor of the application. Robert Lingaas, 1115 Bayswater Avenue: applicant is trying to increase the on-site parking, he does meet the side setback requirement, this site is located next to commercial, the proposed garage will be an asset to the neighborhood, it will not block anyone's view, just behind is a condominium which is taller and more objectionable. Bob Cameron, 1200 Majilla Avenue: he has a detached garage which does not meet code which was approved on appeal to the City Council, see no problem with the 7'-6" setback, a lesser pitched roof would not be feasible structurally, proposal would be aesthetically pleasing and wouldn't it be better to have off-street parking for three cars. Applicant commented there is no problem with on -street parking now, his neighbors are 100 percent in favor of the proposal, the existing garage will be used only for storage. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Individual Commission comment: regular sized truck is 15' long minimum, a stationwagon 16-1/21, there would be a problem parking a truck in the 7'-6" requested by the applicant (CE commented that with a gate or not 15' would allow parking a vehicle off the street); would go along with staff's conditions deleting the existing driveway and curb cut and requiring a 15' driveway for the new garage, do not see the need for the pitch of the roof as requested; agree with this statement with the exception of the pitch, pitch should stay with the house; also agree but think it is important to retain the pitch, it will look better with the house, obviously applicant is not planning to use the new garage for storage. This is R-3 property, for multiple family use only one building on the site would be allowed, the city has the code for a reason (limiting height), Commission tries to avoid abuses in the future and Commission/Council agreed about limiting space above a garage, perhaps Commission should study the code again if the priority is matching pitch; have no problem with exceptions as a general rule, think pitch should match the house but am concerned about the 7'-6" setback, Commission might give consideration to a change in the ordinance regarding driveways in the side yard; ceiling height of the storage area.in the garage is only a maximum of 61, doubt there could be an abuse of this area for extra living space C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit for height and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the condition of the Chief Building Inspector's May 12, 1987 memo shall be met and the applicant shall apply for a building permit for the existing deck and spa and comply with all requirements for these structures before receiving a building permit for the new garage; (2) that the proposed detached garage shall be relocated at least 15' from the property line on Majilla (City Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 Engineer memo, April 27, 1987); (3) that the existing paved driveway and curb cut between the Majilla roadway frontage and the existing residential structure be removed and the area landscaped; and (4) that the proposed detached garage shall be served only with electricity and shall be used only for the purpose of parking automobiles and never used as a second dwelling unit. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 8, BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION, 1440 COLUMBUS AVENUE Reference agenda memo, 5/26/87, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this resubdivision of two existing lots with a single family structure across the lot lines into two new lots with approximately the same lot areas as exist. He discussed lot sizes in the area, the fact that utility companies had been contacted and had no comments, staff review. CE recommended the map be forwarded to City Council for approval with the condition that the final map not be recorded until the existing structure is removed. Addresses for the two lots would depend on the location of frontage of the new homes, addresses would be obtained from the Public Works Department. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Bob Lehto, applicant, advised there are no redevelopment plans drawn up at the present time; he was aware of all code requirements. There were no audience comments in favor. Mrs. Frank Holub, 1440 Columbus Avenue, objected to her home being demolished, when the house was sold she had hoped a family would move in and continue maintenance of her lovely home and grounds, she understood the intent of the buyer was to move in himself. Others speaking in opposition: Pat Benson, 1435 Columbus Avenue: existing house is a beautiful home with beautiful landscaping, well maintained, an asset to the neighborhood, there should be a large family living there, would not want to see it redeveloped; concern about construction and danger to her grandchildren; with two 2 -story houses there will be four cars parked on the street; her lot across the street is approximately 80' x 100/120'. Janet Pallavicini, 2215 Hale Drive: lives directly east of this property, her house is 3' from the property line of 1440 Columbus; she understood 5' is required now; two more houses only 3' from her property line would block natural light and affect the entire side of her house; parking is a problem on the street now, three curb cuts would cause a hardship; she parks her RV by the side of her house to get it off the street. Staff advised a 15' minimum rear yard would be required. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 Erwin Lassahn, 2218 Hale Drive: this will change the neighborhood drastically, two big houses will increase parking problems. Mrs. Holub's granddaughter, Jean: her grandparents have lived in the house for 31 years, the only reason they are selling is to get into something smaller; they have made a lot of improvements and would not have sold if they thought it were to be demolished; house is historic and beautiful. Ted Ross, 2115 Hale Drive: one of his reasons for buying in Burlingame was because of the aesthetic beauty; quality rather than quantity should be considered; the present property and grounds are beautiful, an asset to the area; this proposal is exploiting the neighborhood. Applicant advised Mr. and Mrs. Holub did sign the tentative map application (this was confirmed by the CE later in the discussion); the new homes would be designed to fit into the existing neighborhood, they would be well built with three car garages. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion Commission confirmed with staff the size of the new lots and that they would be buildable; there was some concern expressed about the effect of redevelopment on the 2215 Hale Drive lot. Commission discussed the matter of present ownership of the property; consensus was that legal status of the sale should be determined by the City Attorney (absent this evening). C. Jacobs moved to carry over this item to the meeting of June 8, 1987. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. CP explained determination of front, side and rear yards on a corner lot. Commission requested a plan showing tentative location of buildable areas on these lots for the next meeting. Recess 9:28 P.M.; reconvene 9:38 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND TRUE LEARNING CENTER PRIVATE SCHOOL INTO TWO ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS AT 2109 BROADWAY Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, present operation of the school, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Larry Krusemark, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the area used by the True Learning Center shall be increased by 2,074 SF (rooms 11 and 12); and Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 (2) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of the original use permit and those of the amendment in May, 1988. Second C. H.Graham. Staff confirmed school district approval has been received. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR HOURS OF OPERATION AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR A DRY CLEANING SERVICE AT 1883 EL CAMINO REAL Reference staff report, 5/16/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Applicant's letter of May 22, 1987 was also noted detailing his dry cleaning/laundry business; he would like to continue the wholesale laundry operation at this site. Staff has not received any complaints about this business. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission and staff discussed operation of the wholesale shirt laundry and enforcement of the conditions of approval. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Howard Hill, applicant, was present. He discussed his purchase of this business from the equipment company as a dry cleaning and wholesale laundry operation; in limiting the laundry he thought number of employees should be used rather than number of shirts, new and better equipment might increase the number of shirts with the same number of employees; deliveries are made by one small van leaving the site twice a day. Commission/applicant discussion: CE's original conditions are included by reference in the original conditions of approval; an increase could be made in the amount of dry cleaning handled; the laundry machinery is limited to 100 shirts an hour, that can't be increased. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the dry cleaning service and shirt laundry at this site shall operate between the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Saturday, closed Sunday; (2) that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time shall not exceed 10; (3) that wholesaling of laundry services shall be limited to 700 shirts per day done from this site with pickup for delivery at 10:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M. daily; and (4) that this use permit shall be reviewed in one year (May, 1988) and each 18 months thereafter. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT AND CATERING SERVICE AT 723 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, findings required for variance approval, study meeting questions. Take-out Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 26, 1987 food service has been requested but must be considered at a later hearing. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Two communications received after preparation of the staff report were noted: May 20, 1987 letter in opposition from Roland J. and Margaret M. Wynne, 1225 Oak Grove Avenue; May 19, 1987 letter from Carolyn Woodhall, Trustee to the applicants regarding availability of five nearby off -premise parking spaces after 5:00 P.M Monday through Sunday. Discussion/comment: the parking survey received April 15, 1987 was made by the applicants; staff report notes four parking spaces at the end of this group of buildings, the Trustee's letter mentions five available spaces; condition limiting use of the rear entrance to catering activities (staff commented this was included to mitigate impacts on the apartments across San Mateo Avenue); have known other popular restaurants with no parking, people generally find a way even if it requires walking two or more blocks; there are parking spaces in the area even if off -premise, aerial photo shows 8-10 cars parked on San Mateo Avenue, a small parking lot at the end of the group of buildings and there are 8-9 spaces around the corner; this variance will be limited to a restaurant/catering business only. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Sandra Okada, applicant, was present. She advised when they first talked to the landlord they asked merely to use four spaces in the parking area at the end of the building, landlord has decided to give them five spaces; they have read and understand all of the suggested conditions as well as the fact that if they wish to have take-out food service it would be necessary to reapply. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: application is for a two space parking variance for the restaurant/catering business which is an intensification of the previous use; the 4/5 spaces at the end of the building may be offered as mitigation but they are off -premise spaces and do not waive the need for a parking variance. C. H.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances: San Mateo Avenue, a public street, is unique to the city, located behind a line of buildings with various commercial uses, and it will provide additional parking area; this group of buildings is under one ownership and although the parking area at the end of the buildings would be off -premise parking there is parking available there, this is an unusual site; the variance would be necessary for the enjoyment of a property right of the owner, to lease out his property; it would not be detrimental to other property owners, there have been no objections from residents/property owners on San Mateo Avenue; and it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. H. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 April 27, 1987 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's May 12, 1987 memo and the City Engineer's April 27, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that a restaurant operating at this location shall be limited to the hours of 5:00 P.M. to 12:00 midnight, Monday through Saturday, with four employees and one catering truck; (3) that the restaurant shall be limited to a maximum of 25 seats and the rear entrance on San Mateo Avenue shall be used only for catering activities and emergency exiting; (4) that any intensification in the operation, hours of operation, size and/or intensity of the restaurant use on this site shall require a review of this variance to parking and the parking variance shall be limited to a restaurant/catering business at this location; and (5) that this variance shall be reviewed in one year and/or upon complaint. Comment on the motion: staff understands this property has been managed by the Trustees for a period of time and they have no intention at this time of selling the property; congratulate C.Graham on his findings although am not comfortable with them; concerned about a restaurant at this location, patrons parking on California Drive and having to cross the street or those who will abuse apartment dwellers' parking at the rear of the restaurant, have no problem with catering; have a problem with any parking variance in this city, particularly for a restaurant; am not concerned due to the small size of this use; there is a safeguard in that the variance will be reviewed in one year and/or upon complaint. Motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham, Jacobs and Leahy voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the public. ITEMS FOR STUDY 9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - PORTION OF LOT 5, EL QUANITO ACRES NO. 2 (2740 EL PRADO ROAD/3009 CANYON ROAD Requests: where will the power line easement be; will not hold public hearing until easement concerns are resolved; is the property resurveyed after subdivision; what is the extent of the riprap in the channel, does it spill over onto any other properties. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987. 10. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1400 LINCOLN AVENUE Requests: elevation of fence and trellis; what motivated applicant to comply with the law and file an application; is this the only way they can get the privacy they are looking for; are all setback requirements met on the next door addition. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 26, 1987. 11. THREE VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN APARTMENT ADDED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT TO REMAIN - 1225 CAPUCHINO AVENUE Requests: are the two upstairs units legal nonconforming; when was building sold to the applicant. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987. 12. USE DETERMINATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ADDITION IS A SECOND UNIT - 1611 WILLOW AVENUE Requests: copy of original building plans; floor plan of the entire house; ease of access into the garden from the main house; location/ clarify cooking facilities downstairs; are exterior walls fully insulated; dimensions of garage and house; what type of floor covering and window covering. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT - STORAGE SHED - 1453 BENITO AVENUE Requests: relationship to rear fence and house behind; what was the complaint received from a neighbor. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT —SNACK SHOP AT GAS STATION IN C-4 ZONE - 1200 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: are there any other mini markets in gas stations in the city; what is the walk-in ingress/egress to this site; comment from applicant on why it took so long to respond to the city's follow-ups; parking layout for service and/or gas; do they service large commercial diesel trucks; how are the items paid for; where is the cashier; number and location of restrooms; penalty fee for building permit; is this station run by the oil company itself or subleased; history of the relationship. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT - TEMPORARY WAREHOUSE CLEARANCE SALE - 405 BEACH ROAD Requests: adjacent uses on Beach Road; what kind of signage is proposed - where, how many, how big; do they intend to continue normal operations during the same time period or will it be strictly sale on Thursday through Sunday; do they plan to have any help to direct traffic and parking; where are they moving to; what type of advertising will they use (radio, TV, newspapers). Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Planner memo, May 13, 1987, re: Broadway sign. Page 12 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987 PLANNER REPORTS - Permit review, A Child's Way, Washington School, 801 Howard Avenue - CP Monroe and C. Garcia reviewed Council actions at its May 18, 1987 regular meeting. - Automobile Dealership Signage - continued to a later meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary