Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.01.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1988 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, January 25, 1988 at 7:31 P.M. Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 11, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: item #2, page 3, fourth paragraph, comment on the motion, add "C. H.Graham stated lie will vote yes because ." A ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ACTION ITEMS 1. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A BEDROOM TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 515 FRANCISCO DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to convert the existing one car garage to a family room, add a one car garage at the front of the structure and add a master bedroom. She discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, findings required to grant a variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Bill Lacs of Lacs Design and Construction representing the property owners, was present. Responding to Commissioner questions, Mr. Lacs stated putting the family room where the solarium is proposed in order to provide two covered tandem parking spaces on site would. also require a variance and major plumbing work which would be costly. Concerns were expressed that this floor plan could easily be converted to five bedrooms; house looks large on the lot now, with the addition it will be even bigger; on-site covered parking is a concern of the city, project could be redesigned to provide more covered parking. Applicant commented there are six people in the family now, they cannot provide a bedroom for each child in the existing Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 25, 1988 structure. A Commissioner noted the laundry and solarium, this could be converted to another bedroom, there is a possibility of six bedrooms with this design. Possibility of opening up the existing garage and putting a two car garage in the back was discussed; applicant stated this would eliminate all play area for the children. It was noted most people use their garages for some storage; applicant added this is a larger garage than required for one car. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: possibility of denying this application without prejudice to remove one year limit on reapplication and allow applicant to come back with a substantial change; staff stressed the need to give clear direction to the applicant and staff if this action were pursued. Further Commission comment: with this many bedrooms have difficulty finding hardship, if property owners are willing to spend this much money on remodeling think they could provide a two car garage also; in view of Council's attitude regarding number of bedrooms and parking in recent months, if approved this application will be called up for review, have no problem with a denial without prejudice. The Chair asked if Commission would accept tandem parking; two Commissioners had no problem with tandem parking; another commented she would have a problem denying this application, would not want to see construction extended into the backyard, the addition would result in a very nice home, property owners can provide more parking behind the front setback. C. Jacobs moved to deny the parking variance without prejudice, with the statement this is a nice house at present, redesign is possible, concern about a one car garage for a six person family, that large a family can have a lot of storage, would not object to tandem parking being provided and granting a variance for that, suggest applicant look at covered tandem parking, could stay within 40% lot coverage. Second C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: this is a small lot with a large house, there is no possible way to add a garage except with tandem, will not vote for denial; cannot find exceptional circumstances to support the variance request, property owners have other options, would like a redesign and compliance with code as much as possible. Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and S.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 25, 1988 2. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A PROPERTY LINE FENCE AT 1150 ROSEDALE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to retain a newly installed fence about 7' high along the side and rear property lines. She discussed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, code requirements for granting a fence exception, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP commented on the change in grade along Rosedale from the rear frontage toward El Camino and portion of the fence which exceeds 71. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Jeffery Short, applicant, was present. His comments: portion of the fence which parallels E1 Camino is only 6' on the inside due to rototilling and ground settling; he set the new fence inside the location of the old fence so he would not have to remove foundation; he built the fence at 61, then added 13" of lattice for privacy after the fence was signed off by the building inspector; along Rosedale the fence averages 6'-611, on the driveway it is 71; encroachment wasn't discussed by the building inspector; since the new fence is inside the location of the old fence there is less impact. Responding to Commission questions, applicant stated the code mentions solid fences, he did not think that open latticework could be defined as solid fence; he added the latticework several weeks later and it did occur to him it might be a problem, he would not do it again; he needs 7' all the way around to make the fence uniform, at 6'-1" people could look over and could climb over, he would like to increase his security, the lattice will add beauty for himself and the public; he believed a 7' fence would make his yard safer, without the lattice a 6' person could look over it. Commission comment: concern about the 4"-5" posts extending above the latticework, it appears that it was originally planned to raise the height; applicant stated posts were originally 10' high, then cut for aesthetic reasons, they could be cut off further. Concern was expressed about contractors who willfully disregard the codes and regulations of the city; applicant. is a contractor himself so should be aware of the need to meet codes and of the requirements for permits. Responding to a Commissioner, staff advised this matter had been reported by a building inspector who did a final inspection, staff has also :received several complaints. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 25, 1988 The following members of the audience spoke in favor of the application. W. J. Pottberg, 1621 Westmoor Road: fence is an attractive addition to the neighborhood; it is no problem for the highway, it's too far away; live adjacent to the same easement along El Camino and have a 6' solid fence, people have thrown trash over it. Mike Collom, 1530 Albemarle Way: this fence is beautiful, our fence is falling down and we have a problem with buses, cars, trucks as well as vagrants looking into the back windows; there are many fences along E1 Camino that have latticework, some with flower boxes on top, to keep people out; there is one fence on Albemarle that is 8' high made of plywood. Dolores Rodriguez, 1613 Westmoor Road: have a constant problem with people walking along the E1 Camino pathway, they can look into our rear yard; the pathway area is not clean; this fence is attractive and well done. Mel Collom, 1562 Albemarle Way: wish all fences looked as good as this one; if cut down it would be down to 4' on E1 Camino; there is a problem in this area with eucalyptus trees damaging fences; people do throw things into the yard, look into our kitchen window. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff reiterated this matter came to Commission as a code enforcement item from a building inspector, several complaints were also received by staff. Commission comment: seems there is a problem along E1 Camino with the lower elevation of the path, there is no neighboring property that would be affected, see no problem with the application; can understand concerns expressed this evening, but have a further concern that approval of a 7' fence will set a precedent, everyone needs and wants privacy, the city often uses shrubs and trees to screen many of its projects, would hate to see E1 Camino or any street in the city become a street of fences taller than 61. Continued comment: have no objection to a taller fence but the code says 61, cannot make findings to support exceptional circumstances or hardship, applicant's reasons, .i.e. privacy, are no different than those of other petitioners for a fence exception; fence does parallel E1 Camino which has a wide pedestrian access strip at this point and which is not a condition of every property in the city; think it's a great fence and would not object to a 7' fence on the E1 Camino side, but think 7' all around is excessive and could not find exceptional circumstances to grant it; agree it's a beautiful fence, possibly one could find exceptional circumstances to grant 7' along El Camino but not 7' for the entire fence. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 25, 1988 C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the portion of the fence paralleling E1 Camino Real and the change in grade level in that particular area. C. S.Graham then moved to grant the fence exception for the E1 Camino side only, the remainder of the fence to be reduced to 61 with the following conditions: (1) that plans showing the precise location of the fence as modified, 61 except along the E1 Camino Real frontage where 71 is allowed, shall be submitted to the Building Department for an amended building permit and penalty fees as required; (2) that application shall be made for an encroachment permit for the portions of the fence determined by the City Engineer to be located on city property or in the public utilities easement and shall be received or the fence shall be relocated off city property; and (3) that the application for an encroachment permit shall be made within 30 days of final action on the fence exception or the existing fence shall be removed from city property and the public utilities easement. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRINTING SERVICE AT 214 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D Reference staff report, 1/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: when the bar across the street reopens in a few weeks parking demand in the area will increase; was a marketing survey ever done for this type of business; an auto related use could go into this space without a use permit or limitations on number of employees, etc.; this is a small operation, not a large printing complex; areas of the city where this business might be allowed; parking impact and heavy turnover were concerns when this business applied for a permit on Broadway. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Aldorey Mendoza, applicant, was present. His comments: a marketing survey was submitted with the previous application; this business will have free pickup and delivery which will reduce traffic and congestion in the area; majority of the walk-in trade will be from nearby businesses; in and out business would be 20 minutes maximum, there would be no long term impact; equipment includes one high speed copier, a duplicator (small press copies, 11" x 17"), they will make stationery, 5,000 copies. There will be -three full time employees, himself, his wife and a press operator; majority of the business is delivered, other Sir Speedy operations average 70% delivery; they expect 8-10 walk-in customers daily at a maximum. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 25, 1988 Responding to Commissioner question about why he wished to locate in this area with existing parking problems, applicant stated he had never encountered parking problems on California Drive, there seemed to be more problems on Broadway; the marketing survey had been done by the applicant with Sir Speedy marketing people; there would be an offset press which would operate with more than one color; the store layout submitted with the application will be used. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this use will have the least parking impact of any businesses in the building at this time, C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the condition of the Fire Marshals January 4, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that this business shall operate Monday through Friday from 8:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Saturday 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., closed Sunday with four full time and two part time employees and no more than two pickup and delivery trips per working day; (3) that this business shall only operate from a 1,200 SF site addressed 214 California Drive; and (4) that this business shall be reviewed in six months (July, 1988) for operation consistent with these conditions and each year thereafter. Second C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: this type of business will be much appreciated; will support the application, know several people in that complex and have never seen a parking problem, this is a good business for this area; condition #4 for review in six months will give Commission some control. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR 14 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1731 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 1/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, CA's review of the CC&Rls for required language regarding signage, applicants letter, findings necessary for granting a sign exception, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: CA confirmed he was satisfied that the CC&R's would be amended sufficiently with regard to signage and CP noted this requirement has been included in the conditions of approval which will be recorded with the title; signs will be mounted on the wall by the entry doors of each unit; there is a directory sign parallel to the street; FM advised fire call response can be made Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 25, 1988 efficiently either with a single address and unit numbers or different addresses for each unit; this signage program commits the applicant to a specific amount of signage at a particular location on the site; should a buyer purchase three of the units and wish to change the approved signage he must come back to the Commission for approval. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. George Avanessian, architect for the project, stated the property owners have reviewed the suggested conditions and have no problem with them; this is a narrow lot, the primary frontage is much less than the depth, they wish to trade primary frontage signage for secondary frontage signage; the secondary frontage signage request is for signs identifying each owner of a unit. Responding to a question, architect advised the developers are putting up blank boards now (background color will be uniform), each occupant. will then put up his own lettering, logo, etc. on the board; property owners have no control of color and copy on these signs, this does not work. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the sign exception and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Master Signage Program with the following conditions: (1) that the signs as installed shall conform to the description in the sign permit application dated December 17, 1987 and site plan submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 17, 1987; (2) that the standards established in the sign permit and shown on the site plan shall be incorporated into the CC&Rls and made known to each buyer prior to purchase; and (3) that the owners association shall be responsible for seeing that all owners and their tenants comply with the signage requirements and shall be the responsible agency to make any application for amendment to the master signage program for this site and structure. C. S.Graham found that this would not be a grant of special privilege since there are other properties in the area which exhibit the same conditions and that there are special circumstances, this narrow lot with excessive depth is not conducive to locating the major amount ,of signage on the primary frontage, the proposal will provide the clearest identification for people visiting the site. Second C. H.Graham. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BUS/LIMOUSINE SERVICE WITH STORAGE YARD AT 370 LANG ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 1/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comments, applicants letter, study meeting questions which were answered by the applicant in a later letter. Eight conditions Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 25, 1988 were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted letter in opposition (January 22, 1988) from Richard Lavenstein, owner of property adjacent to this site. Comment/discussion: site is fully enclosed by a chain link fence; possibility of adding wood slats to this fence; concern about on - street parking, this could be a policing problem,. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, JD & Associates, designer, presented a new site plan incorporating changes requested by the Fire, Building and Engineering Departments. He reviewed these changes, specifically a total of 17 parking spaces provided on site, and noted drivers would not be waiting on site for work, they are called off site, then come in, take out the vehicle they will be using and leave their personal vehicle parked in that space. There is a large space inside for a bus to be parked when it is not being used as a wash rack. This business can't afford to have buses sitting on site so it would be unusual if all four buses were parked on site when the wash rack area was not available; there are two access points to the site, Lang Road and Beach Road; they will limit buses to entrance on Lang and exit on Beach. The service and storage areas are delineated on the plan, this business does no major repair work but vehicles must be maintained on site for safety. Mr. Deal noted several comments by the Building Department. are UBC mandated and these items will be adhered to. Responding to a question, he explained there is a 38' access easement at the rear through to Beach Road; this whole area has several semis which come on and off the property, buses are not such a different type of vehicle. Milton Henke, Milt's Livery Service, applicant, was present. His comments: he is licensed throughout California and the 48 contiguous states; describing the type of business, he noted three coaches might be leaving on seven different trips, each trip involving all three coaches which would be away from the site for 14 days; if all these vehicles were sitting on the property for even a short period of time he would be out of business. Many of the vehicles are used for charter work, four vehicles are engaged now out of South San Francisco, they never come to the site except to be cleaned; presently he has two other contracts for small buses, they are out every day doing shuttle work; there is a lot of off site work; 100% of his revenue is from off site work. There are vehicles stored elsewhere which are part of his fleet but they need to be cleaned and have minor service, he plans to bring them to Burlingame for this at a time when at least 60% of his vehicles are off site. Mr. Henke stated he could not meet condition #2 as the vehicles stored off site need to be cleaned and maintained. Regarding a condition that only cleaning be allowed on site, he stated he also Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 25, 1988 needs to do oil changes on site which would require a 55 gallon drum of oil for storage. Addressing condition #3 requiring no repair or servicing other than cleaning on site, applicant said he must by law maintain the vehicles so must be able to do minor maintenance on site; major body work would be clone outside. He has a 10 ton jack which will lift the coaches. Commission/applicant discussion: the 4-5 vehicles stored in South San Francisco which must be serviced at the site in Burlingame would be driven to Burlingame by a driver who would leave his car at the off-site location, the vehicle would be serviced in Burlingame, then a driver would return it to the South San Francisco location. This driver could be reassigned to another vehicle during the servicing period. Applicant confirmed that at present his only other location is the lot in South San Francisco; all 23 employees would never arrive at one time at the Burlingame site; if there are a large number of vehicles scheduled to go out at one time the drivers would carpool to the site; recently they had nine vehicles going out for a major convention, nine drivers arrived at the site in three cars. Applicant will be consolidating his business in Burlingame; he is on call for public charter service; the contracts are written in the office of his customer. Applicant had 45 vehicles but sold off and cut back to 14; he is not planning to close the Colma site. A Commissioner expressed concern about the impact of minor servicing, that the building might be too small. Applicant stated when he had 45 vehicles he had a 40,000' property and rented 15 spaces for boats and RVIs, there was never any congestion, he has always allowed his drivers to park on the premise. There is one dispatcher and the applicant himself, communication with the drivers is by radio and/or telephone, the dispatcher usually works 10 hours a day. Applicant explained one contract: the company does not have enough on-site parking for its workmen, they are parking elsewhere, applicant's drivers pick them up, drop them off at the work site, then take them back to the parking lot at the end of the working day. The buses stay on that lot all day and the drivers can go to another assignment or on leave until later in the day. Applicants company does a lot of major convention work with hotels, convention centers, etc. and does misconn.ects for a number of airlines in the middle of the night. He would be willing to put in a power gate and make the fence more attractive. Repair work will be done in the area marked service on the plan. Fire Marshal advised the plans presented this evening do not meet all his concerns but these concerns will be addressed in the final construction plans. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 25, 1988 Ralph Ferguson, realtor, San Mateo commented that a minimal amount of on-site maintenance is needed, he requested deletion of condition #3 and clarification of the need to do incidental maintenance; regarding condition #2, applicant has addressed the need to bring vehicles from South San Francisco to Burlingame for cleaning. There were no further audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Dick Lavenstein, owner of property at 302- 332 Lang Road and 371-381 Beach Road: he presented copy of a letter (January 21, 1988) from Howard Hickey, owner of 390 Lang Road, in opposition to the proposed use at 370 Lang Road. His comments: this is a highly sensitive site and a gateway property to the city, without this tenant on this site the area could be upgraded, all other tenants operate totally within the buildings, the existing tenants on Beach Road deserve some consideration, the buses will add noise and nuisance to the area. He had discussed driver parking with a courier company who didn't think it would work, it would need to be supervised; he did not wish to be placed in the position of monitoring this business. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Lavenstein enumerated the uses in his building on Lang Road and noted that the Beach Road businesses are conducted inside the buildings; he attempts to have all his tenants park on site. Herbert Hamerslough, one of the two owners of 370 Lang Road: have been in the area since 1968, brought in 40' carriers on the easement in back of the building, the present owners of Hamerslag Equipment Co. are in liquidation and the 370 Lang building will be vacant, they will have to rent the property and this type of operation will not help, there is congestion already, parking is a problem, buses and limos are big vehicles, the 5„000 SF warehouse may not provide enough turning space, they will be trying to put too many vehicles into a 10 car garage, Lang Road is not very wide and cars park along it, his company never used the access gate on Lang Road because of appearance, now there is the possibility of an access door in that 5,000 SF warehouse, there might be an application for a 20' door facing the Bayshore; movement of vehicles in and out of that area is a problem now; if a new tenant comes into the vacant 14,000 SF, parking will be :impacted further. Dean Mawdsley, owner of property at 360-380 Beach Road: he expressed opposition to and concern about the application, there are warehouses with trucks on Beach Road now, will have a bigger problem with the buses, concern about overflow parking as it would be natural for some of the drivers to park on Beach and walk to Lang to pick up the limos; there are a number of vacancies in the area at the present time, property owners are trying to promote the area, buses and increased traffic congestion would be a negative for leasing space in the area. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 25, 1988 Mr. Lavenstein advised he owns the 33' wide egress easement. Jerry Deal commented further: he has seen large semis backing into large truck bays, what is so different or detrimental about large buses; it would be an extremely rare occasion when there is no space on the site for a car to park, when a vehicle is taken out there is another parking space available; don't believe this use will cause a problem, there is a problem in the area now but should the prospective tenant have to pay a penalty when present tenants are not using the area properly themselves? There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: CP explained that. outdoor storage is what triggered this special permit application, trucking uses are allowed in the M-1 zone; she also discussed her rewording of condition #6 regarding vehicular access; there was a concern about employee parking and the incidental repair work: applicant finds necessary on site, support the recommendations and conditions of staff relative to repair work, applicant has said he cannot do business with those conditions, would only be in favor of the application if they were included. C. Harrison moved to deny the special permit application. Second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: am not concerned about this type of business, vehicle activity will occur throughout the day; am concerned about the incidental maintenance, vehicles being on site much of the time and vehicle movement, this location is too small, if on a large site would be in favor, -the area in back doesn't look good now; had some concerns but they have been addressed by the applicant, with regular review and review upon complaint this business can be controlled, there! are many hotels in the bayshore area with a need for this type of service; a lot of businesses with heavy traffic impact could go :in here without a use permit; noted a semi on the aerial photograph but buses can drive in at Lang Road and drive out at Beach, not as much of a problem as semis, this is a needed business service; area was developed for a nice M-1 area, this use is not compatible with plans for the area; Commission does not really know how the business will work out but the applicant should be given an opportunity to prove himself. Motion to deny failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi, H.Graham, S.Graham dissenting. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's January 18, 1988 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 25, 1988 January 18, 1988 and January 11, 1988 memos and the City Engineers January 18, 1988 and January 4, 1988 memos shall be met; (2) that this bus/limousine business shall be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week with no more than 14 vehicles stored and dispatched from this site and that no more than 19 vehicles shall be serviced on the site; (3) that repair or servicing of vehicles as allowed in B-1 occupancy shall be done at this location; all other servicing, incidental or heavy, shall be done off these premises; (4) that there shall be no more than three full time employees who stay on the site all day and no employees shall stay on the site 24 consecutive hours or live on this site; (5) that employees who drive vehicles shall park in the space where the company vehicle is stored while they are out with the company vehicle, in no case shall company vehicles be parked on the public street or on adjacent private property; (6) that vehicular access to and from this site shall be limited to Lang Road and the access easement to Beach Road at the rear of the property, providing the applicant can document the right to use this easement for egress; (7) that any change to these conditions shall require amendment to this use permit prior to the changes being instituted on the site; (8) that this use shall be reviewed for consistency with these conditions in six months (July, 1988) and each year thereafter or upon complaint and any violation of these conditions shall result in immediate review and possible revocation of the use permit; and ( 9 ) that a power gate and wood slats shall be added to the fence, and the fence shall be maintained by the operator. Second C. Garcia. Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Harrison, Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Recess 10:30 P.M.; reconvene 10:40 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - MIXED USE PROJECT - 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE Requests: clarification of zoning requirements; what is height on California Drive; number of residents allowed. Item set for public hearing February 8, 1988 if the matter of the elevator is resolved with staff. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 25, 1988 7. SPECIAL PERMIT - TRAINING CLASSES - 1350 13AYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: will this use be temporary or long term; is office manager also the instructor. Item set for public: hearing February 8, 1988. PLANNER REPORTS Permit Reviews - 412 Bayswater Avenue - Denial of Fence Exception - 1028 Carolan Avenue - Special Use Permit CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 18, 1988 regular meeting and January 20, 1988 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary