HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.10.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 23, 1989
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, October 23, 1989
at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, Graham, Harrison,
Jacobs, Kelly, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill
Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 10, 1989 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
At the request of the Chair, CE Erbacher gave a brief status report
on the effects of the October 17 earthquake in Burlingame. FM
Reilly discussed Fire Departments recommendation concerning
inspection of chimneys and gas which has been turned off.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL
RECREATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1317/1321
NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE
Requests: why does applicant think he has 16 on-site parking spaces
available; number of on -street parking spaces available;
explanation of "paint wars", what do the police think of this
recreational use; why does the applicant expect his customers to
arrive 4-5 per automobile; will there be any sales on the premises;
what type of liability coverage will they have; are there any other
P.M. businesses in the area. Item set for public hearing November
13, 1989 or when answers to these requests are available.
1-A. PARCEL SPLIT AT 1333 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1
Requests: clarify setback requirements, front and rear; landscaping
requirement for each parcel; clarify location of the lot on the
aerial photograph. Item set for public hearing November 13, 1989.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
October 23, 1989
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. VARIANCE FROM SIDE SETBACK AND THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO
CONVERT A NONCONFORMING SECOND UNIT INTO A RECREATION ROOM
AT 609 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (CONTINUED FROM 10/10/891
Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions, history of construction on this lot. Six
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
The Chair thanked staff for including Attachments A, B and C
clarifying existing and proposed plans; as far as staff could
determine the house and accessory structure were built in 1913.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Ron Bellanti, applicant, was
present. He wished to keep the two windows in the living room
facing the side yard which add character to the house and suggested
they might put fire sprinklers above these windows to provide fire
spread protection if allowed by the Building Department; he
confirmed these windows were on either side of the fireplace and
removal of the other two windows on that side was not a problem.
With regard to retaining the shower in the accessory structure
following remodel of the house, applicant said he will use the
recreation room as an exercise room and would like to keep the
shower for his own convenience. There were no audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
C. Giomi found no problem with this project other than retaining
the shower in the recreation room which could be easily converted
to a second unit in the future; applicant will have two full
bathrooms in the main house; using the building in the rear as a
temporary living structure during remodel of the house was no
problem. C. Graham agreed with these statements, she found the
layout of the existing house is so unusual that in order to get to
any of the bedrooms one must go through the kitchen, this project
will make the house much more livable and will not compromise the
zoning or the neighbors.
C. Graham moved for approval of the variance and the special
permits, incorporating findings addressed by the applicant in his
supplemental statements, by resolution with the following
conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 25,
1989; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal (memo dated
September 12, 1989) and the City Engineer (memo dated September 13,
1989) shall be met; (3) that the project, including renovations to
the nonconforming second unit and the main residence, shall be
built to meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as
amended by the City of Burlingame; (4) that all the work on the
site be done under one building permit and final inspection for the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
October 23, 1989
primary residence shall not be issued until the work on the second
unit, including removal of the kitchen and removal of the shower
plumbing and stall and completion of any bathroom renovations, is
brought up to Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; (5) that
the accessory structure shall not be used for living purposes under
any circumstance after remodel of the primary residence and the
final inspection and issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; and
(6) that the driveway width as it currently exists (8' clearance
past the bay window) shall be maintained at no less than 8' at all
times.
Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 7-0 roll call
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. VARIANCE FROM SIDE SETBACK TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO AN
EXISTING HOUSE AT 1204 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter.
Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. Responding to a question, staff said if the dormer did
not contain a window or did not open it would still require a
variance if it were other than one hour construction.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Steven Hill,
architect/designer representing the applicant, Silas Wheaton,
commented the dormer would be a nice architectural feature, the
large tree in the back would remain. There were no audience
comments in favor.
The following spoke in opposition. Jane Gomery, 1205 Cabrillo
Avenue: she did not think there were exceptional circumstances with
this property, applicant could redesign and meet code, the houses
are very close now and putting anything closer will not enhance the
area, this addition would give a San Francisco look to a Burlingame
neighborhood, all trees on the property should be saved, the narrow
second floor balcony will not add to the property, the existing at
grade deck is an asset to the property and is in the back yard.
Phil Lyons, 1208 Drake Avenue (next door to the subject property):
he put in a swimming pool five years ago located to benefit from
the setback area, he was worried about this house going up to a
second story in the front, he has a shake roof too close to the
applicant's fireplace.
Steven Pade, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue: city has set up guidelines, he
didn't think there were exceptional circumstances to support the
variance; this would be pushing the limits of residential property
in the area, more like a city townhouse; he was opposed to the size
and impact.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
October 23, 1989
Barbara Lyons, 1208 Drake Avenue: is this gentleman a resident on
the site now; can understand a variance for a family with children
in this neighborhood when there is a need for more space but not as
speculation.
Speaking in rebuttal, architect said the house was recently
purchased, no one is living there now; they took special pains
designing the addition, second story is within the guidelines,
dormer is a positive factor, adding the second story will make the
house livable, without the dormer they would need to figure another
way upstairs which would affect the flow of living space.
Responding to a Commissioner suggestion about decreasing size of
the room at the bottom of the stairs, architect advised that room
is a family room and would be less usable if narrower. Another
Commissioner suggested removing the fireplace in the family room
and cutting the stairs closer, architect said this would not have
much effect on living area, it is 2' wide, and because of stair
design requirements that void will be there no matter what.
One of the speakers in the audience commented the house has been
vacant for at least six months, he did not think there was any
intention of the owner living in it. Silas Wheaton, applicant and
property owner, stated the first sale of this property fell
through, he only closed escrow in June, he did not plan to move in
until construction was completed. Another member of the audience
commented it was unreasonable to be able to increase a house by
175% and not be able to relocate the staircase within code. There
were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Harrison found it was difficult to make findings of exceptional
circumstances, the design creates the variance, not the property.
C. Graham agreed with this statement, she failed to see exceptional
circumstances that apply to this property and thought in the design
there is a 121 x 15' vaulted ceiling space that is not being used
as a room, it would seem the applicant could make better use of
that space with a different location for the staircase.
C. Graham moved for denial of the variance application. Motion was
seconded by C. Harrison.
In discussion on the motion a Commissioner asked if a building was
allowed that close to trees, staff advised there is no regulation
on the placement of trees, the city's limitation is on street trees
but not private trees on private property. Further comment: will
support denial, there are ways to put the staircase in and adequate
room, cannot find exceptional circumstances, think architect can
redesign; these are deep narrow lots and neighbors are close to
each other, think an architect can fit the staircase in.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
October 23, 1989
Motion for denial was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
4. VARIANCE FROM SIDE SETBACK TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING STORAGE
SHED ATTACHED TO THE GARAGE AT 2700 MARTINEZ DRIVE,
ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter.
Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Gerry O'Driscoll,
representing the property owners, AMTAD, Inc., was present. He has
done work in Burlingame previously, was not aware of the
requirement for a building permit for a shed under 100 SF, AMTAD is
a major corporation in the construction industry, this site will be
a home for its corporate executives when they are assigned to this
area, traditionally they stay three to five years. There were no
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: have a problem in that applicant states there
are no extraordinary circumstances, cannot make findings for
exceptional circumstances, if Commission cannot do so for each
property it makes it impossible to grant the variance. In view of
applicant's statement in his supplement to the application that
this particular property does not have extraordinary circumstances,
C. Harrison moved for denial of the variance.
Comment on the motion: think applicant may not have understood
exactly what was being asked, he does say the structure, layout and
design are unique; this is a unique house for the Mills Estates
area, the garage covers the addition from the street; many people
put in temporary Sears sheds, this looks better; there is a
courtyard which most houses don't have, the addition is in an
obvious place for storage. Based on these comments C. Harrison
withdrew his motion for denial.
Further comment: the lot is on a slope so its encroachment on the
side is not as intrusive to the house next door; do not have a
problem with the request, it is not the typical home in that area;
there have been a number of cases like this in the city where
setback lines have changed, structures are in place and someone
wants to make an addition, because the city changed the rules it
can't be done without a variance, would support approval.
C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances, the property
location and layout is unique, the small structure is behind the
garage, it will not be detrimental to the neighbors because of the
slope of the lot. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
October 23, 1989
with the following conditions: (1) that the project should be built
(and completed) as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped September 21, 1989; (2) that electrical
outlets and water connection in the storage shed shall be
prohibited; (3) that the project shall meet all the Uniform
Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City
of Burlingame; and (4) that the applicant shall pay the required
penalty fee and shall also complete the plan check and building
permit process, obtain a building permit and request and receive a
final inspection on all work from the Building Department within 90
days.
Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 7-0 roll call
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WATER
CONNECTION IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND TO USE ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE FOR HOME OCCUPATION AT 1433 PALOMA AVENUE,
ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter,
study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. CP noted letters and petition
in support included in the packet and one supportive letter
received after preparation of staff report from Peggy Litchenstein,
2404 Easton Drive (October 1, 1989). Commission/staff discussed
how the use of the accessory structure had been discovered, art
classes have been held there for about two years; a maximum 2"
waste pipe could be required in the conditions.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Carol Swanson-Petterson,
applicant and property owner, discussed her use of the accessory
structure as an art studio, one of the reasons they purchased the
property was because this structure was already there as well as
water, she found no problem aesthetically since it is an existing
building and cant be seen from the street, classes are small, a
maximum of six children, sometimes smaller; her neighbors were very
encouraging and supportive, many signed the petition in favor, this
is a worthwhile endeavor for the development of young children.
Chris Ganas, 1423 Laguna Avenue asked if this type of business fell
within the limits of R-1 zoning; CP explained the home occupation
regulations, this particular home occupation requires a use permit
because it is a classroom use. Mr. Ganas stated there is a
dangerous problem on Laguna between Grove and Mills, people drive
40 miles an hour; he hoped applicant would take this under
consideration so that parking/drop-off of children would be done
under supervision for their safety. There were no further audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
October 23, 1989
Commission discussion/comment: adding a condition limiting the
classes to six children; it's a needed service and a good setup;
should garage be increased to 20' x 201, this would require an
addition to the structure, applicant meets parking requirements of
one covered and one uncovered space for the size of house.
C. Graham found this is a good use for the benefit of the city's
children, applicant and parents are well aware of safety and
equally concerned, this use has been operating for some time
without any problems. C. Graham moved for approval of the three
special permits by resolution with the following conditions: (1)
that the project shall conform to the plans as shown and submitted
to the Planning Department, date stamped September 7, 1989; (2)
that the building shall be brought up to the standards of the
Uniform Building and Fire Codes (one hour fire wall construction
for walls 3' from the property line and no openings in walls 3'
from the property line and a one hour fire wall separating the art
studio from the garage area), that the waste line shall be limited
to 211, and that the conditions of the Fire Marshal (memo dated
September 19, 1989), the City Building Official (memo dated
September 20, 1989) shall be met; and shall comply with all other
pertinent municipal codes; (3) that the structure shall be used for
children's art classes only for a maximum number of six children
per class up to 10 years of age, and shall not be used for living
purposes; and (4) that this permit shall be in force for 10 years
at which time it shall come under review by the Planning
Commission. Motion was seconded by C. Mink.
Comments on the motion: children need to be in a caring and
creative environment, this is an opportunity for that; children
would have to use the bathroom in the primary structure; this is a
narrow but quiet street, with only six children per class and
adequate supervision it is a wonderful idea; Coolidge School was
not far from here and 150 children used that school; permit will
run for 10 years, need to make it very clear it is for children's
art classes and age of the children.
Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
Recess 8:55 P.M., reconvene 9:10 P.M.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SERVICE RETAIL
BUSINESS TO A RETAIL TAKE-OUT BAKERY AT 1160 CAPUCHINO
AVENUE, ZONED C-1
Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: the project's
parking, Earthbeam's (1399 Broadway) parking; retail sales are
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
October 23, 1989
allowed in this zone, special permit is required for the take-out
use.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect
representing the applicant, Teri Jew, addressed Commission: he
advised applicant has had the beauty salon for the last 13-1/2
years; she has been baking cookies for friends and relatives but
not on this site. Regarding the CBI's requirement for a
handicapped accessible restroom, this would only be required if
partitions were added; applicant will not add partitions (architect
has discussed this with the CBI). Goods will be prepared and baked
on site, there will be ovens, preparation area and sink as required
by the health department. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioners, comments: have no problem with this request as long
as there is no wholesale, the use permit for take-out will go with
the land, if this tenant leaves any new business must operate under
the conditions of this special permit.
C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit incorporating
the statements of the applicant in her supplement to the
application, C. Graham found the use will be in accordance with
zoning of the area and it will not be detrimental to neighboring
properties. Motion for approval was made by resolution with the
following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown
on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
September 7, 1989 except that no on-site parking shall be provided;
(2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official (memo dated
September 18, 1989) shall be met; (3) that the project shall be
built to meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that
this use shall be limited to a bakery with take-out service and
have no tables for eating purposes on the premises; the bakery
operator shall provide and maintain a trash receptacle on the site
for use of customers and be responsible for picking up litter on
the sidewalk in the area between the store location and Broadway.
Motion was seconded by C. Harrison.
In comment on the motion it was noted applicant indicates she will
have two employees, site is only 400 square feet, this is a
commercial district where deliveries are routine.
Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE FOR AUTO REPAIR
AND A VARIANCE FOR PARKING AT 70 STAR WAY, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, history of permits granted for 50-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
October 23, 1989
60-70 Star Way and use permit amendment required for 50-60 if 70
Star Way permit is granted, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were
suggested for the 70 Star Way application, Conditions 1 a -e for the
50-60 Star Way permit amendment. Commission and staff discussed
the parking variance. The Chair pointed out action on the request
for separate use of 70 Star Way will require amendment of the
present use permit for 50-60-70 Star Way; both would be considered
at the public hearing.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Nicholas Crisafi, property
owner of both Star Way and Whitethorn Way, addressed Commission.
He discussed his development of 50-60-70 Star Way, use of 50-60-70
Star Way by Charles Potts of California Classics, work done without
benefit of building permits, most of this has been corrected. He
has met with a representative of the Fire Department and was
advised all corrective work required by them has been done, they
still need to do restriping of the parking in front of the
building, he was waiting for the tenant at the end to move out
before completing this and now has an agreement with a striping
company to do the work. He leases land from the railroad from his
property line to the tracks, this is available for additional
parking, the other side of the street is also available for
parking, parking has never been a problem in this area for patrons
and employees.
Mr. Crisafi continued: the mezzanine at 70 Star Way can be removed,
he has been trying to comply with all of the requirements and has
met most of them. Responding to a Commissioner question about the
land leased from the railroad, Mr. Crisafi stated he has done some
landscaping, some of the land is his land and some leased from the
railroad, paving it would not be a problem; the lease runs year to
year and he has had it for nine years. There used to be a problem
with parking on Whitethorn, the business causing the problem has
left and there is no problem now. A Commissioner expressed concern
that the lease of land from the railroad might not always be
available.
Gary Christensen, applicant for the 70 Star Way site, was present.
He discussed with staff and Commission his desire to keep the
stairs and mezzanine area, it is a good place to store parts.
Property owner stated that area had been used for an overnight stay
by a man from out of town restoring a car for a sublessee of
California Classics, there is no mezzanine, just an office with set
of stairs going up to the roof of the office, this area is not
being used for living area. Staff noted there are storage
mezzanines in other places in the city. Applicant reiterated all
he wants it for is storage, he added that parking will not be a
problem, most cars can be parked inside. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
October 23, 1989
During Commission discussion it was noted 50-60 Star Way will lose
storage space in 70 but will still be required to store cars
inside. At the request of Commission CP reviewed history of the
site, permit in effect at the present time and this request, there
would be no change to the intensity of the existing business,
merely elimination of storage use of 70 for 50-60 Star Way and the
addition of another business at 70. CP commented there are many
cars stored in the railroad right-of-way area now and recommended
tieing the lease with the railroad to the special permit amendment.
A Commissioner discussed his concerns: in condition #4 for 70 Star
Way occupancy will be conditioned on completion of the work by 50-
60 Star Way, that might take two hours and it is leverage on the
property owner to get the work done, he did not think the property
owner has the right to charge the applicant rent until that work is
completed; the mezzanine for storage of parts would be useful to
the business at 70 Star Way, he suggested changing condition #4,
9th line to read ". . ., and complete inspection by the city
Building Department of the mezzanine and stairs to that mezzanine
built without a building permit in 70 Star Way to determine their
conformance with code requirements". Intent of that change is to
have building inspectors say the stairs are safe or they are not
safe, if not they will have to be ripped out and/or replaced, if
they are safe leave them; regarding striping of the parking lot, he
suggested keeping the language that is in the condition and adding
"or post bond within 60 days for striping of the parking area".
These changes to the conditions would solve the problems of the
applicant for a business at 70 Star Way and provide the property
owner with leverage to deal with his contractor and the other
tenant.
Another Commissioner who was concerned about storage of the cars
suggested a further condition tieing both the new special permit
and special permit amendment to retaining the lease on the railroad
property, if this lease is not renewed they would need to amend
both permits. Commissioner comment: this requirement would apply
more to 50-60 Star Way than 70 Star Way, she didn't think it was
right to put such a condition on the tenant of 70 Star Way.
Property owner addressed Commission: requirement for a fire wall
has been completed; he believed California Classics gave up 70 Star
Way because of a curtailment of the business and he did not need so
much space; he had no objection to a condition regarding lease of
the railroad property; the stairs could be removed in two hours.
Commission/staff discussion: the 50-60 business could grow, would
like to require a lease on the railroad property for parking as
well as requiring paving of that area; possible wording of an
additional condition to cover this.
C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit and parking
variance for 70 Star Way based on the information received this
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
October 23, 1989
evening at the public hearing by resolution with the following
conditions: (1) that the 3,100 SF area of 70 Star Way shall be used
for retail auto repair including some body work but no auto
painting, with one employee operating only on evenings Monday
through Friday after 5:00 P.M. and on weekends; (2) that all the
conditions of the Fire Marshalls September 12, 1989 memo, City
Engineer's September 13, 1989 memo and the Chief Building
Inspectors October 2, 1989 memo shall be met; (3) that all
employees and customers shall park in the three parking spaces in
front of 70 Star Way and no vehicles, operative or inoperative, on
the premise for repair or maintenance work shall be parked in these
or any other spaces or areas on the site outside of the building;
(4) that this use permit shall not become effective and this use
cannot occupy this site until all conditions of the use permit
granted in January, 1989 to 50-60-70 Star Way have been implemented
including a one hour fire separation between 50 and 60 Star Way as
approved by the Fire Department with final inspection by the
Building Department, restriping of the parking areas as shown on
the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
September 19, 1989 or post bond with the city within 60 days for
the restriping, and complete inspection by the city Building
Department of the mezzanine and stairs to that mezzanine built
without a building permit in 70 Star Way to determine their
conformance with code requirements; (5) that storage of vehicles
for this business shall be allowed on the adjacent paved railroad
right-of-way so long as the property owner retains a legal lease to
use this area and loss of this lease shall result in review of this
use permit; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for
compliance with the conditions in six months (April, 1990) and
every two years thereafter and any change to the operation of the
business as set out in the conditions of this permit shall require
an amendment to the permit.
C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit amendment and
parking variance for 50-60 Star Way by resolution with the
following conditions: (1) that all conditions of the use permit
granted on January 18, 1989 to 50-60-70 Star Way shall apply only
to the operation of the business at 50-60 Star Way except that: (a)
all vehicles, operative or inoperative, on the premise for repair
or maintenance or any other purposes associated with the business
at 50-60 Star Way shall be parked and/or stored inside the portion
of the structure identified as 50-60 Star Way and not left in
required parking or any other area on the site outside of the
structure; (b) that the business shall be operated at all times in
a manner consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Building
and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (c)
that five of the six parking stalls on the site dedicated to this
business at 50-60 Star Way shall be designated for employee parking
and shall be used by employees; (d) that no portion of the building
designated as 50 or 60 Star Way shall be subleased to another
business or activity without amendment to this use permit; (e) that
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
October 23, 1989
the use permit for 50-60 Star Way shall be reviewed in six months
(April, 1990) and every two years thereafter or upon complaint, and
any changes to the operation as outlined in the January 18, 1989
use permit as amended by the November, 1989 use permit shall
require amendment to the use permit; and (f) storage of vehicles
for this business shall be allowed on the adjacent paved railroad
right-of-way so long as the property owner retains a legal lease to
use this area and loss of this lease shall result in the review of
this use permit.
These two motions were seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 7-0
roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its October 16, 1989 regular
meeting and October 18, 1989 study meeting.
The City Attorney reminded Commission that use permits and
variances run with the land, and are on the property regardless of
who occupies it. Thus decisions should be made on the
circumstances of the particular lot and building, based on such
factual matters as dimensions, physical obstructions and
aesthetics. Decisions should not be made on the basis of the
family status of the present occupants, who is or will be occupying
the property, or any other such personal factor.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick J. Kelly
Secretary