Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.05.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 22, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Harry Graham on Monday, May 22, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs, Kelly Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos, Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 8, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 1216 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: how will four stories be achieved within the 35' height limit, would applicant be willing to remove loft to address height; clarification of what is meant by loft, what is the attic area and who will use it; is loft considered living area or bedroom. Item set for public hearing June 12, 1989. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION - HOLIDAY INN CROWNE PLAZA - 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: letter from applicant addressing why he cannot make changes within the existing square footage; square footage of parapet signs and height of letters compared with other hotel signage. Item set for public hearing June 12, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. VARIANCES TO PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1381 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/22/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, Planning staff comment, letters Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 22, 1989 from applicants, architect. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: width of existing garage and code requirements for existing and new garages; fence along the driveway runs parallel to the garage; staff advised with a 20, distance between the house and garage it is generally possible to maneuver around the house and access the garage. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, architect, was present. His comments: the declining height envelope ordinance was adopted to address concerns about second story additions where residential lots were in close proximity and which might cause a tunnel effect between adjacent properties, when adopted it was commented that every project should stand on its own merits; in this case there is an easement directly adjacent to the side which exceeds the declining height envelope which will never be built on and the next door house fronting on Hillside is 60' away; the roof line could be turned to make the project conform to the declining height envelope but this would produce an entirely different roof line from existing and detract from the appearance; the fence which crosses the driveway is a gate, vegetation has been removed; foliage which reduces the width of the driveway has been trimmed, there is one large overgrown bush adjacent to the house which can be trimmed back to allow vehicle access. To increase the width of the garage 2' would greatly increase the cost of the project and would cause financial hardship on the balance of the project, it would require a new roof span, new foundation, change in grade which would require a retaining wall; the existing room in the basement which has a nonconforming ceiling height is currently being used for a laundry and storage area, the children do their homework there; one of the five bedrooms is being used as a study; applicants would like some privacy and a master bedroom of their own. Donald Roberts, applicant, addressed Commission: their present bedroom is small and they share a bath with their daughter; they use one of the bedrooms as a TV xoom, the closet is small, it opens onto a porch at the front of the house and is unsafe for sleeping; the sewer lateral is directly adjacent to the garage and runs parallel to it; if the garage wall were moved 21 it would be directly over the sewer line; the fence is a double gate and has been overgrown with ivy over the years, this has been cleared today. Commission/applicant discussion: they have lived here since 1978; have not used the garage for car storage except briefly when they first moved in, they would be happy to open up the fence and use the garage for cars; the ping pong table and bikes stored in the garage now could be moved to the basement area. It was noted the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 22, 1989 garage is presently built on property line so it must be widened into the landscape area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: support the project, there are extenuating circumstances with this property that do not exist elsewhere in the neighborhood, with the 71 easement on the north side which has substantial vegetation the addition might not even be seen from the neighboring house which is extremely far away; this project does not fall within the intent of the declining height ordinance; the house on Hillside was allowed a deck, this house will be taller than the house on Hillside; have a problem with the parking variance. C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the 71 easement and separation between structures; the variance is necessary for applicants to enjoy their property and maintain their sanity; it will not be detrimental to neighboring properties, the adjacent property will not see it; and it will not increase mass or bulk. C. S. Graham moved for approval of the variance to declining height envelope by resolution with conditions. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the length of the driveway, the garage can be used for storage of cars and cars can be parked in the driveway. She then moved for approval of the parking variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 26, 1989; (2) that the project shall be built to meet all Building Code and Fire Code requirements; (3) that no part of the driveway on this property shall be less than 8'-3" in width and the existing foliage which reduces the driveway width shall be removed; (4) that the fence which currently blocks the access to the garage shall be removed and the garage shall be used for parking purposes only; and (5) that the basement area of the house shall never be used for living purposes. C. Harrison seconded the motion with the statement the location of the sewer lateral would also be an exceptional circumstance. Comment on the motion: cannot support the parking variance, think a 20' x 20' garage can be provided, my sewer lateral is located beneath my driveway, with five or six bedrooms cannot support a parking variance; a sewer lateral under the driveway is costly, it cant be put under a wall, relocation could be more costly; this is a large project, the existing house is large, the driveway has not been kept open in the past for garage access, think a two car garage should be provided. Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi and Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 22, 1989 4. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO ADD A PARTIAL SECOND STORY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 2800 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/22/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, neighbors' comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During some discussion it was noted the neighbor living at 2805 Las Piedras Drive was most concerned about the loss of privacy from windows of the new second story looking down on his patio. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. George Corey, attorney representing the applicant, Vasilios Sianis, was present. He submitted a letter in support from Janet A. Gruner, 2713 Mariposa Drive as well as photographs taken by the architect from the living room of the Coopers, 2809 Las Piedras Drive and a second photo from that same view with the proposed addition to scale etched on the photo; there were no photographs taken from the kitchen to indicate what portion of the view would be obstructed. Mr. Corey did not think reducing the maximum height of the roof by 2' would affect the foreground view as much as implied in the staff report, since the addition is a peak roof the only place view would be reduced is at the peak. Responding to Commission questions, he stated the photo with the addition etched is at 231; regarding a comment it would be helpful to have windows shown, he said when he asked the architect for photos the concern of the residents at 2805 Las Piedras Drive had not been received; he had not been inside the Cooper's home but understood the view from the kitchen window was not impaired. Commissioner comment: kitchen view is somewhat panoramic to the south, the window is higher but in a kitchen one is often sitting so there could be an impact. Mr. Corey stated he was referring to the roof line being reduced 21, if reduced little more view would be gained; if this project had a roof line all the way across more view might be blocked; the residents at 2805 Las Piedras Drive will not lose any view from a habitable area, with a second story they may lose some privacy; with a second story anywhere some privacy is lost. Harold Cooper, 2809 Las Piedras Drive spoke in opposition: he stated he had been told by the architect three weeks ago they would put a pole on the roof indicating the height of the addition and provide him with copies of the photos taken from his house, this was not done. His reasons for objection: when homes were built down the hill everything was done by survey, but not here; he has a view from San Francisco to the Dumbarton bridge, they bought this home for its view; the original Mills Estate agreement provided a limitation on the height of houses constructed in this area to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 22, 1989 protect everyone's view, this is no longer in effect but the intent should be followed, houses were located in order to protect the view of others, on Las Piedras Court some would have affected neighbors' views and were required to lower the home and put on a mansard roof; in this case his view will be taken away while the applicants improve their own situation; this -is a large house and the addition is very large; Millbrae has the same problem, two or three blocks away three homes were built each higher than the one in front and blocking views. Mr. Cooper concluded by stating his feeling he should not have to lose any of his view, the photographs were taken from his home by a 6' tall man, he is not 61, from his kitchen he would lose all view to the San Mateo bridge. Dino Sideris, 5 Las Piedras Court spoke in support: he stated he understood it was difficult for older residents to adapt to change, as a newcomer he wants to maintain and improve properties in the area, after looking at the plans he could see no problem, the addition will not affect him since he is located down the hill, he has lived there for two years. C. Lyons, 2804 Mariposa Drive spoke in favor: he had looked at the plans and had no objection whatsoever, all improvements made by the applicants in the past have been well done; responding to a question he stated he has not been in the Coopers residence in relation to this application; from his own roof which is about 4' higher than the applicant's he can hardly see into the yard at 2805 Las Piedras Drive, he can see their windows but not into the patio area; he lives next door to the applicants and added a second floor in 1968. Margot Smith, 2805 Mariposa Drive spoke in support: she lives across the street and found the plans very well designed, she had a friend who put on an addition which was not attractive and would hate to see something unattractive across the street; she had not been in the Coopers' residence. Loreto Manuel, surveyor, stated he had surveyed 2800 Mariposa Drive; looking directly out the living room window of 2809 Las Piedras Drive on the long line of sight one would see the Dumbarton bridge, even with the proposed construction the whole length of the Dumbarton bridge could be seen, there would be no lost view if the peak roof were built because it would be to the right side of the window and would only block houses to this side, there is nothing of consequence which would be lost if the construction were done as proposed, it would be like putting a power pole on a roadway, would only block one degree of view, if standing up one would be looking over the top of the roof and there would be no lost long distance view; line of sight from Mr. Cooper's house is 5' from the floor, 3' above the windowsill. Attorney Corey advised the etching on the photograph was done by the architect and represented to him as Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 22, 1989 being the actual addition to scale, that would be the view which would be lost. Vasilios Sianis, applicant, stated when he was considering design he took into consideration every possible effect it would have on the neighborhood and compliance with city requirements; he explained the difficulty in getting photos to Mr. Cooper in that his architect took them one day and left for Europe the next day; as far as obstructing the Coopers' view the only thing above would be the peak of the roof so it would not have much effect on view; regarding the residence at 2805 Las Piedras Drive, this site is at least 20' higher than the applicant's with a big fence on ptoperty line, there is no way applicants could look into that backyard. A Commissioner asked if the permit were granted at the 21' height what effect it would have on the project; applicant stated from the architect's point of view they cannot cut the peak, the peak is where all the joists meet and needs to be there; Mr. Manuel commented this would reduce the strength of the structure and result in improper drainage. Responding to a Commissioner suggestion of adding on at ground level, applicant said there is not much room, it would take the whole backyard; he has one five year old child, parents will be living with him in the future. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: made a site inspection and saw the view from the Coopers, long distance view is not just the bay, the airport and the city, it is also the trees, Mr. Cooper has a good view of Burlingame's trees, the addition will cut off about 3/4 of those trees and he will be left looking at the buildings which front along the bay, on the photograph the second chimney has not been shown, this will take out another part of the view, from the small window in the Coopers' kitchen when sitting at the table the whole view would be taken away, this is a beautiful addition but trees are beautiful also. Further comment: have a problem with the hillside ordinance itself, there is no opportunity to do anything but deny, think applicant has the same right to improve his property as Mr. Cooper has to maintain his view, it is difficult to help anyone, Commission has taken the position it will defend the person with the view, am not sure that's the right way to go. With the statement the previous proposal for a hillside area construction permit heard by Commission definitely obstructed long distance views, in this case after looking at the photos, the plans and line of_sight, think the applicant has a right to go ahead, C. Harrison moved for approval of the hillside area construction Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 22, 1989 permit by resolution with the condition suggested in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: the previous request had a viable option, in this case there is a steep slope, do not see building in the rear as a viable option, the addition will block some but not the entire view of the neighbor, would support the motion if the maker is intending to include reducing the height from 23' to 21' (note: condition does include this), a 12' wide area of view obstruction would be taken off by going down 2' on the apex, it can be done. Further comment: intention of the hillside ordinance was to state the city is not forbidding second stories in the hillside areas but it considers homeowners, views special to the city, if a second story addition can be made without infringing on the neighbors, views it should be allowed, ordinance was enacted to show the city has special consideration, applicant and his attorney have indicated they worked hard not to impact the neighbor, Commission's problem is how much of a view is substantial, the proposed addition does impact the Coopers, they have a beautiful view of green area, the bay itself and the lagoon area, it is a substantial impact in this case, applicant has a four bedroom house now, have not seen a critical need for the addition, the backyard has a substantial portion which is level; not only would Mr. Cooper lose his lagoon area view and view of the trees but he will gain a view that is not very pleasant, no windows face his view now, with the addition he will have two windows facing him; if one were siting in a chair looking out the window the view would be highly impacted, feel the intent of the ordinance is to protect views. Motion to approve the hillside area construction permit failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, S.Graham, H.Graham and Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:07 P.M., reconvene 9:20 P.M. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND VARIANCES TO PARKING DIMENSIONS AND LOT COVERAGE IN ORDER TO LEGALIZE A GARAGE/CARPORT STRUCTURE AT 1511 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/22/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, applicant's letters, letter from Linda Machado, 1517 Newlands Avenue (adjacent property owner) with photographs, site plan and petition in opposition signed by 42 neighbors; study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: Chm. Graham advised he would abstain from voting and discussion on this item; a Commissioner noted he had received a call from Ms. Machado, the adjacent property owner, relative to her feeling about this application; location of the original carport. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 22, 1989 It was determined the disclosure laws relative to purchase and sale of property were passed in 1986, these laws do not apply to development with more than four units. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Lynn O'Halloran, real estate agent assisting applicant and Antonio Mariani, applicant were present. Ms. O'Halloran advised applicant is using the one car garage, the two car garage goes with the vacant apartment which will have new tenants in about two weeks; the two bedroom apartments are allowed two spaces, the one bedroom apartment gets one space; not all the tenants drive and applicant is using one of the vacant spaces. Applicant stated he did not know when he bought the property that building permits would be required for these improvements since he and some of his employees who are craftsmen did the work themselves; the cars he drives are collector items which he does not want to leave outside; he bought this property because of some unused parking spaces, he needed one of them for himself; there is still empty garage space and there is plenty of room to turn; he had concern about his valuable car being stolen and enclosed the garage so it could not be seen from the street; he restores furniture and has 50 people working for him, one of his employees put in the door; if in the future all of his tenants drive he will move his own car. Ms. O'Halloran advised the storage room is in the main building. It was noted the garage immediately adjacent to 1517 Newlands Avenue was previously a carport with plastic covering supported by the garage wall and fence; applicant said he put in the frame for the door. Staff commented on the original plans this area was open, there is no city record of permits for enclosing this carport or another one and none are to code, there is stucco on the garage in the center, a one hour wall is more than a stucco exterior, this structure does not meet that requirement. A Commissioner asked how many times the police had been called for vandalism; applicant said recently plants have been stolen, he did not know how many cars have been vandalized; when applicant purchased the property and wanted to use the carport for his car he removed the fiberglass and reroofed the existing roof to protect his car, he bought the apartment building for the additional parking; he lives in Burlingame and has a two car garage at his residence, both of these spaces are in use, in one he stores a collectable vehicle. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Russell Jackson, 835 Walnut Avenue: he became involved with this apartment house in 1979 and did all maintenance for two previous owners, at that time there were no garages, just carports; on the sale of the apartment house to the applicant that space was Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 22, 1989 strictly a carport with fiberglass material over it, he watched the garage go up and would consider it to be a fire hazard, it will not blend with the existing structures in the area, exhaust is a health hazard since this structure is adjacent to a bedroom in the house next door; in Burlingame only tenants' vehicles are allowed on a property, tenants in this building have traded a cut in their rent so the property owner can store his car on site, the original lighting plan was more adequate for all the car spaces, it was on timers, if it were put back to the way it was he could see no security problem; he would like to see this property go back to its original state with elimination of the nonconforming garage which is a fire hazard. Responding to a Commissioner question, Mr. Jackson confirmed there were just carports in 1979. Linda Machado, resident/owner of 1517 Newlands Avenue: she objected to the nonconforming enclosed garage which is situated on the rear and side property line and directly abuts her home, it was erected in 1988 without building permit or planning approval; applicant is attempting to gain legalization; this structure replaced another unauthorized structure, an open lean-to with plastic sheeting resting directly on the fence separating the two properties; 11' of her rear bedroom is immediately adjacent to this structure; the apartment tenant who formerly used this parking area often hit the fence between the properties which in turn rammed against her home, the lean-to was replaced by the garage and obliterates natural light into her home. Ms. Machado discussed each of the five photographs submitted and commented further: the new garage was erected to house the property owner's Lamborghini, the electric garage door opener reverberates throughout her home, applicant keeps unusual hours, taking the car out for a spin between 10:00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M., exhaust fumes are very' bad and Lamborghinis are not quiet cars; she stated she realized parking is a problem and suggested a solution might be opening up the two car garage and converting it back to a carport so it is used for parking. She requested Commission disapprove the applicant's request for legalization of the garage abutting her property line, she felt this garage should be demolished and the area left open. Responding to Commissioner questions, Ms. Machado said to the best of her knowledge the two car enclosed garage has never been used for storing vehicles; when the lean-to had a car parked in it exhaust fumes and noise were not as much of a problem; there was more light before the enclosed garage was built. Linda Finlof, 1520 Newlands Avenue: there is a parking problem in the neighborhood, if there are parking spaces for that building not in use she thought they should be kept for the tenants, applicant's car has been a noise problem; she asked Commission consider the petition in opposition signed by 42 people in the neighborhood. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 22, 1989 Responding to a Commission question, CP advised code required parking is required for the tenants of the building; if eight are required those are to be used by the tenants; under current code this building would be required to have 10 spaces, the requirement is the same regardless of whether a tenant drives or not. Dorothy Murray, 1525 Newlands Avenue: she noted one of the tenants of this building parked in front of her house many times because she couldn't maneuver into her parking space; years ago the whole area was open; referring to the pictures presented by Ms. Machado, the garage wall next to her back bedroom is horrible. A resident of one of the apartments at 1511 Newlands: she moved in in 1980 and noticed there was a garage door on the center two car garage; on the smaller one the previous owner had put up plastic; regarding noise, she has never heard his car late at night, he takes the car out once or twice a week, it does not disturb her; all cars make noise, all cars have exhaust; she commented they do need light, it is a very dark street. Lynn O'Halloran commented that Linda Machado has lived next door since 1985 and is familiar with the apartment building; Ms. O'Halloran has leased the owner's unit three times since 1985 and that space always included the garage; at one time there were teenagers who practiced for their band in the garage, it was also used for car storage by their mother, Ms. Machado complained about that noise and Ms. O'Halloran called the mother several times, she did not hear from the neighbor again so assumed the noise had stopped; she was told the children closed the door and she never had complaints from anyone in the complex. Responding to a question, Ms. O'Halloran stated she did see a problem with a garage next to a bedroom. The tenant who spoke earlier added that the young men told every tenant when they were going to practice and asked if there were any objections, practice was in the afternoon, not at night. Applicant commented when he decided to put in the door in the front of the garage he asked the neighbor if she had objections, she said O.K., go ahead; he added light for tenants to prevent accidents; the adjacent property owner complains often. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement she could see no reason to keep this structure in place, it cannot be justified and has been put up illegally, it infringes on the adjacent neighbor's property rights as an individual, C. S.Graham moved for denial of the special permit and two variances with the requirement that within 90 days all existing accessory structures be removed and replaced by a two car carport Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 22, 1989 at the location shown on the original plans built to present code requirements. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR AN 11 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1117-1125 RHINETTE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 5/22/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, negative declaration, applicants' letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect, was present. His comments: the project was redesigned to conform to the 17.3' average front setback; they have tried to give variety to the front of the building; since the previous use on this site was a day care center for 50 children, this development will have much less traffic impact; applicants plan on living in one of the units themselves; all code requirements and conditions of the city have been met; this project could be built as an apartment building but applicants are asking that it be a condominium. Responding to a question as to why the chimneys were so high, architects assistant stated code requires a chimney to be 21 above the roof line, the upper portion is just decorative and could be cut down if necessary. A Commissioner asked what will happen to the day care center, architect said students will either graduate or be relocated to a facility the group operates in San Mateo. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this is a nice project and will be an asset to the area, C. Harrison moved for approval of the negative declaration and condominium permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 27, 1989 with revised pages 1, 2, 8 and L-1 dated May 3, 1989; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshalls April 17, 1989 memo, the City Engineer's May 16, 1989 memo and the Director of Parks, May 5, 1989 memo shall be met; (3) that final inspection shall be completed and certificate of occupancy shall be issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (4) that the developer shall provide to each initial purchaser of unit and the Board of Directors an Owner -Purchaser manual, which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances or fixtures, and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the project, including but not limited to roof, painting, pool equipment and common area carpets, drapes and furniture; (5) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 22, 1989 that at least five parking spaces in the underground garage shall be designated for guest parking (excluding the tandem parking space) and that an intercom system shall be provided at the entry to the driveway to allow guests to contact the appropriate condominium unit in order to gain access to the guest parking behind the security gate; and (6) that a 71 minimum head clearance shall be provided at all points in the underground garage. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES FOR AN 11 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOTS 10 AND 11, BLOCK 14, MAP OF BURLINGAME GROVE, 1117-1125 RHINETTE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference CE's staff report, 5/22/89. C. Jacobs moved to recommend these maps to City Council for approval. Second C. S.Graham and approved unanimously on voice vote. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SNACK SHOP AT A GASOLINE STATION AT 1100 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 5/22/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP read letter of May 22, 1989 from the property owner objecting to the conditions and suggesting a continuance until he was able to communicate with his tenant. Staff discussed with Commission problems with code enforcement and communication and the two businesses on the site, gas station and auto repair. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present nor were any representatives of the property owner or Desert Petroleum, owner of the improvements on the site. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham moved for denial of seconded by C. Ellis and approved procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR the special permit. Motion was on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal There were no comments from the floor. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 i May 22, 1989 PLANNER REPORTS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TWO SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO VARIANCES FOR A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AT 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Extension of this permit to May 16, 1990 was unanimously approved. CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its May 15, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shelley S. Graham Secretary