Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.04.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, April 24, 1989 at 7:32 P.M. Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Kelly, Jacobs 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 April 10, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #10 (special permit amendment, 1101 Broadway) withdrawn at the request of the property owner; Item #9 (sign exception, 1100 Broadway) moved to Item 2(a) at the request of the applicant. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR LONG TERM AUTO LEASING AND RETAIL AUTO SALES, 890 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: parking for the rest of the building and where it is assigned; how long has this business been operating at this location; why so many employees for a maximum of eight vehicles to be sold or leased; how was it determined that in five years there would be three visitors a day and nine employees; where are the sales written. Item set for public hearing May 8, 1989. 2. VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR USE OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS A RECREATION ROOM AND WITH THE ADDITION OF A BATHROOM, 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 Requests: layout of the house and explanation of why this can't be done within the existing home; larger drawing of the garage area; where in relation to the garage are the storage sheds; number in the household; what is the relevance of the doctor's letters. Item set for public hearing May 8, 1989. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 24, 1989 ITEMS FOR ACTION 2(a). SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A POLE SIGN AT 1100 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 4/24/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants sign exception request, study meeting request for a photograph showing relationship of the new pole sign to reorientation of the entryway Broadway sign. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Tom Pforsich, J&L Signs, applicant, was present. His comments: they are asking to continue a use that was previously approved; there are several precedents in the area, two pole signs across the street; this sign is. smaller than allowed and smaller than the previously approved sign. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved to grant the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 13, 1989 memo shall be met; (2) that the pole sign shall have a maximum height of 15'-2" with a double faced identification sign of 37.5 SF; and (3) that the location of the pole sign shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 8, 1989 as approved by the City Engineer. C. Giomi found this would not constitute a grant of special privilege, it is a continuing use, the pole sign is smaller than the previously approved pole sign; there are special circumstances applicable to this property in that it is being moved because of the widening of the street, a pole sign at this location will not be a safety hazard, there does not appear to be a safer place on the property to locate it. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. PARKING VARIANCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ONE CAR GARAGE WITH A NEW ONE CAR GARAGE WHERE TWO COVERED PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED AT 1408 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 4/24/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed lot size is 401 x 1001; minimum lot size in the city is 5,000 SF. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Paul Cecil, Paul Meek Construction, applicant, was present. He stated last year they Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 24, 1989 remodeled the home, they now would like to replace the old garage so it can be used. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff confirmed the previous remodeling was interior to the house, it did not involve any additional bedrooms. C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances in that a standard 20' x 20' two car garage could not be provided in that particular area, the existing garage structure is a fire hazard and not aesthetically pleasing; granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owners, it will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and the use is compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing uses in the area. C. Harrison moved for approval of the parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that this project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 23, 1989 and shall not involve any additions to the house; (2) that the new garage shall have minimum interior dimensions of 11' x 211; and (3) that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's March 31, 1989 memo shall be met. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. VARIANCES TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2108 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/24/89, with attachments. With the use of a site plan on the overhead projector PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters. A letter in support from seven neighbors was noted and a letter in opposition from Florence Cole, 1524 Vancouver Avenue. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised conversion of the existing attic area is basically a second story addition to the outside of the house, the second story will not extend over the kitchen area which has a vaulted ceiling. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Robert Galindo, applicant, was present. He advised the kitchen has a cathedral ceiling, therefore the area above the ceiling cannot be used for living space. His comments and responses to Commission questions: they are not raising the roof line, just extending one side and a dormer on the other side; because of the shape of the lot he has no way to add another room without using the attic area, his front setback is at maximum now, he needs to use the bearing walls on the lower floor to lower the cost. All corrections required by the building inspector in 1986 were done except the garage living space; the problem is not one bedroom, it is 4.5' on the bathroom side and bathroom itself. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 24, 1989 Speaking in support, Seamus Devine, 2120 Adeline Drive: he stated he lives three houses away, there is a two story house in between, the only thing he can see from his house is the roof, roof has a high pitch, if this request is granted the addition will break up the roof line and make the house look better from his house, what light might be lost will be made up by reflection into the adjacent home. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion/comment: height and dimensions of the master bedroom suite; all dimensions will be checked by the building inspector to ensure they meet code; area outside the declining height envelope is roughly 4' x 281; proposed rooms are very large, feel there is area in the house for an addition with slightly smaller rooms; cannot find anything exceptional about this property to support granting a declining height variance, problem with the bearing walls is one everybody has, addition is extremely close to the house next door, it would be much better 'set back further at the second floor level even if they had to remove the fireplace and relocate the bathroom; regarding parking, this is a unique situation, given the placement of the garage a second vehicle cannot maneuver into the second parking space. In looking at the neighborhood, the house next door was remodeled prior to adoption of the declining height ordinance, don't think this addition will detract from the neighborhood, one of the reasons people remodel is to maintain property values. Have a concern about giving a variance to parking and building a new garage after the proposed conversion is completed, usually the garage is done at the same time; fail to find exceptional circumstances to support the declining height variance in view of what they have to work with; large bedroom and laundry room upstairs could be reorganized and redesigned. C. Giomi moved for denial of the declining height envelope variance. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: don't have a problem with design of the second story but difficult to find a reason to grant the variance to declining height envelope. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Kelly dissenting. Further comments and procedural discussion followed: have a problem with the parking variance, an oversized garage which can't be used for parking, concern about going ahead with a variance to parking when there is a way to clean up this application, would like to condition for a one car garage; understand concern about the large garage and its use in the future but there is not much that can be done to get access to a 20' x 20' garage without using up the whole backyard, do not have concern about granting a variance for a one car garage; declining height envelope variance has been denied, if the parking variance.were granted applicant could design a second Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 24, 1989 story addition within the declining height envelope and if variance is granted he will. not need to come back before Commission for a parking variance, if applicant will design within the declining height envelope Commission is preapproving the parking variance, that seems reasonable. CP commented the variance could be conditioned to include a time frame for replacing the garage. Her concern was that a new partition wall could be placed in the garage without benefit of permit and a dwelling unit could be put back in. C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the long driveway which could be used for additional parking and the original placement of the house which prohibits use of the oversized garage for more than one car. C. Giomi moved for approval of the parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the partition wall constructed down the middle of the existing garage shall be removed and the corrections noted in the August 20, 1986 memo by Bob Brown shall be made within 90 days (July, 1989) or plans shall be submitted for a building permit for demolition and rebuilding of the garage; (2) that if a new garage is constructed a one car garage shall be placed on the rear and side property lines and shall provide a minimum interior depth of 20' and width of 10' with 20% additional area for storage purposes, and the new garage shall be designed to meet all other applicable code requirements; and (3) that the garage shall be used for parking purposes only and no part of the garage shall be used for living purposes. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: a standard 20' x 20' garage could be put on the other side of the lot; it is not reasonable to ask anyone to pave his entire recreational space to reach such a garage; standard dimensions for a one car garage and possible dimensions for allowing storage space. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. VARIANCES TO SIDE YARD SETBACK AND PARKING FOR AN ADDITION AT 1252 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/24/89, with attachments. CP explained a change in the request, noting a variance to declining height envelope was also required. CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, letter from applicant's builder. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained location of the area which exceeds the declining height envelope. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 24, 1989 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Ray Galli, applicantis father-in-law and builder, was present. He stated they are not asking for a variance to declining height envelope, they will revise the plans to meet these requirements; regarding parking, they would like to have a standard two car garage but tandem is the only way they can do this project; regarding side yard setback, they are following the original house foundation line. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Philip Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue: his backyard is right next door, declining height envelope was his main concern, if plans will be revised he had no problem. Bruce Marsden, 1265 Drake Avenue: he was generally opposed to parking variances, a 10' x 40' garage is not as useful as a 20' x 20' garage; he doubted that the second space would be used for living purposes but he also doubted it would be used for parking a vehicle; many vehicles park on Drake overnight; as to any hardship, applicants purchased the house but have not moved in, all`•existing ordinances were readily available to them; it appears the renovation is already under way. Mr. Galli advised they have received a demolition permit for removal of lath and plaster ori the inside, the garage will be used for parking two cars, they are not adding another bedroom but adding a den with closet. There were further audience comments. Jimmie Stinnette, 1256 Drake Avenue: she asked if the north side wall will remain where it is now.. Staff advised it will but it will be extended 101, it will be no closer to property lines according to the plans. Mrs. Stinnette said she appreciated they will be upgrading and beautifying the property but she will lose her view of greenery along the creek, will see a long garage wall instead. Paula Venturino, 1233 Drake Avenue: she was concerned more about height than side yard setback, anything higher will remove more of the morning sun, the project will conceivably block out sun into the Stinnettes' backyard and kitchen in the morning. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Noting applicants' good will in meeting declining height requirements, C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances in their not being able to provide a two car garage without tandem parking because of the design of the existing house, that the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the owners, it will not be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity and will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing uses of properties in the area. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variances and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 24, 1989 conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 18, 1989 with the addition of the removal of the 3.5' x 8.5' toilet stall so that the proposed second story addition shall be designed to meet all requirements of the declining height ordinance; (2) that the garage shall have minimum interior dimensions of 10' x 40' and this area shall always be available for parking purposes; and (3) that the garage area shall never be used for residential purposes of any kind. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:04 P.M. 6. VARIANCES TO FRONT SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A GARAGE AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 3109 CANANEA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/24/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, building permit granted in 1985 for a garage addition, Planning staff comment, applicants' letters, consideration of a hillside area construction permit. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to questions, CP advised accessory structure regulations do not apply to the proposed attached garage addition; when the addition to the house is completed there will be seven bedrooms; there are two parking spaces to legal code dimensions in the existing attached garage, there will be two additional spaces accessed by a 16' wide garage door which will be less than code dimensions in depth and much wider than code dimensions in width, staff has called this storage because it does not meet code requirements for a legal garage. Commission's consideration of a hillside area construction permit was discussed. Stuff stated the requirement in condition #1 that the wall of the proposed two story structure next to the east side property line be set back 6' will not eliminate the need for a variance to side yard setback because the foundation wall is 4.4' from property line since the property line was not correctly located when the foundation for the garage was poured, condition #1 will eliminate compounding the situation with the new addition. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mike Sanders, applicant, was present. His comments: the new garage is not for parking but to store his antique car collection; the existing garage has three cars parked in it now, they park their other cars in the driveway; the rollup door is proposed for architectural reasons. A Commissioner asked what is unique about this property, the fact that the foundation for the garage is already poured cannot be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 24, 1989 considered an exceptional circumstance for granting the variance, the cost of removal cannot be considered. CE explained what would be needed to make the proposed garage meet required parking. Applicant stated in 1985 he was advised of the required setbacks, since the garage would be attached he was able to go ahead with the 1985 plans; work was stopped after the slab was poured because of a change in his work and financial problems; there are 2-1/4 bathrooms downstairs now; the completed project would have seven bedrooms and four baths, one of the bedrooms would be used as an office; they wanted a family room on the second story, there is no family room downstairs; the washer and dryer in the existing garage will be relocated inside the existing house; after it was poured the slab was finaled by the building department. Staff advised what was finaled was based on the plans submitted in 1985, in 1989 it was discovered those plans were in error, the inspector only finaled the cement that was poured; when staff measured the site in 1989 the errors were discovered and a survey was requested. A Commissioner asked if the location of the neighbor's fence affected the side setback; plans drawn in 1985 were based on the fact that the applicant thought the fence was on property line - it was not. The following members of the audience spoke. Phil Napoli, 1516 Los Montes Drive: at first he had no objection to the proposed garage to store antique cars, he did object to the second floor addition, it will block his view and doesn't fit into the area; he though applicant should be able to finish the garage but not the proposed second story addition. Debbie Sanders, 3109 Cananea Avenue (applicant) advised the building permit did not lapse, they are changing the plans and adding a second story, they were under construction. until early 1988 when the permit was signed off; they are adding an office, a den and two bedrooms, not four bedrooms; the space is needed, they have two children and one daughter with two grandchildren. CP read letter in opposition from Frederick and Susan Smith, 1515 Los Montes Drive; they felt the addition would not fit in with other houses in the neighborhood and would be aesthetically displeasing. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: this is a very large house, would prefer that it remain on one level, if kept on one level would not have a problem with the side setback variance; this is a very large addition, stood on the front steps of houses across the street on Los Montes, looking toward the bay one sees the tops of some tall trees, the second story would block them, proposal is not in keeping with the neighborhood, eliminating the second story might be a way to make the project smaller, some of the garage space could be used for a family room; cannot find exceptional Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 24, 1989 circumstances even for the variances without the second story addition. C. Giomi moved for denial of the three variances for the reasons stated. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: have no problem with the side setback variance if applicants build the garage or even if they add to the house on one level, do not think they were attempting to evade the ordinances in 1985, would not want to deny them a way to expand the house on one floor. In clarifying the result of a motion to deny staff stated without the declining height variance and hillside construction permit there could be no second story addition. Further comment: slab is a large expense, applicants should have had a survey made at that time; staff noted the slab could be cut back; with a denial of the front setback, side setback and declining height variances they could get a building permit tomorrow as long as the slab was cut back to 61, and they could have the second story as long as it didn't exceed the declining height envelope; if hillside construction permit were denied and if variances were denied they could come back with a new one story plan but would have to document that it was substantially different. Commissioner comment: oppose the second story addition but don't have a problem with the setback variances, the way the lot is shaped it will look odd if setbacks are met and will be unusable to the applicants. Motion to deny the variances was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham, S.Graham and Kelly voting no. CP explained Commission's action and its result to this point in the deliberations. Commissioner comment: if applicants do come back with a redesign different from this one with regard to height Commission may be hearing the hillside construction permit again; staff agreed but asked that Commission act on all the requests this evening. C. S.Graham moved to deny the hillside construction permit on the basis of complaints from neighbors that the addition would have a substantial impact on their long distance views. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: have a problem denying this primarily because the house is quite a bit lower than those across the street, don't think a long distance view will be obstructed by the second story addition. Motion to deny the hillside construction permit was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and H.Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 24, 1989 7. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONVERSION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO A RECREATION ROOM AND ART STUDIO AT 301 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/24/89, 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. Responding to a question, CP advised applicants' request is to legalize the existing bathroom with toilet, sink and shower in the accessory structure; staff is suggesting removal of this bathroom. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Greg Cohn, applicant, stated his family is growing and they are in need of space; they would like to keep the bathroom in the accessory structure; the shower is not a problem, they will take it out, but wish. to keep the toilet and sink rather than having to go into the house when using the yard. Speaking in opposition, Mr. Nocentini, 300 Bayswater Avenue: in the past there have been problems with use of this area as a second unit, every house with problems on that block is a rental, a shower with toilet promotes rental especially with a future owner; he has put a lot of money into his home directly across the street and can understand expansion needs but with a shower and toilet rental is too easy. A Commissioner commented to this speaker that the special permits granted by Commission action would be recorded with the deed and legally this area could never be rented. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: at one time lived on Stanley and had a similar setup, have a problem taking something that is so useful away on the premise it might be used for rental purposes. With the statement he has looked at the property and it is not very large, there is not a lot of space for the applicants to take advantage of what property they do have other than using the area that is available and construction which is there, C. Kelly moved for approval of the special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the structure shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 6, 1989; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 13, 1989 memo, the City Engineer's March 13, 1989 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's March 14, 1989 memo shall be met, which shall include removal of the existing shower in the structure; (3) that retroactive building permits shall be obtained for all work done without permits and all penalty fees paid; and (4) that the structure shall be used as a recreation room/study and art studio/dark room only and shall never be used for living purposes. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 24, 1989 Findings were that the lot is small, the area which can be used for an addition is limited, there is no other way to expand, the accessory structure has been there for a long time, it can be used as originally intended with removal of the shower. Comment: think drain tile issue should be clarified, staff noted applicants would have to meet building department requirements for the slab; was aware that the storeroom was added in 1953; think a bar sink would be enough, especially with 41% lot coverage, they do not need the bathroom, there are other ways to expand; question the house is expandable without removing the accessory structure. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. PARKING VARIANCE AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS A RECREATION ROOM AND WORKSHOP WITH A BATH, AT 1515 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/24/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, letters in opposition from Florence Cole, 1524 Vancouver Avenue and "a long time Burlingame Resident", study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, PLR advised a side by side garage could be built but it would require removal of 6' of the porch area on the house. Chm. Jacobs opened the .public hearing. Camille Baker, applicant, was present. Her remarks follow: originally there was an L shaped garage, front is pretty, matching windows and structure, it has heavy rolling doors, she keeps an old car in the garage, in the center of the L was a greenhouse, at the rear a bathroom, shower and toilet, also a laundry area; the workshop was there when she bought the house, she added the partition wall; she wants to use the recreation room for her son's bicycles and game table; she has four children, three are grown, and she takes care of her daughter's baby; no rooms are rented and she has no intention of putting a kitchen in the accessory structure. Responding to Commission comment that this structure could be a two car garage, applicant stated she has not used it as a garage except for keeping the older car there, she parks the car she uses in the driveway; she does not rent rooms, her daughters and their husbands come to visit and stay over on the weekends. Commissioner comment: there is a full bath in the garage, relatively recent taping over sheetrock, it looks like an ideal rental unit at the rear of the garage. Applicant said the garage was always sheetrocked and always taped, she had it spray textured, the rear and side walls have double sheetrock; the patio was done with a permit in 1987, there is a permit for the hot tub and sundeck; garage has been the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 24, 1989 same size since 1977; her house has a 10' clearance from the garage; latticework and deck were put in two years ago. Staff noted site inspection showed a 21-3' separation between existing sundeck and garage wall. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: have no problem with the accessory structure and bathroom but want a 20, x 20, garage with legal separation between the garage and house; agree, would like a 20' x 20' garage; cannot see this structure being made into a two car side by side garage but can see a two car tandem garage, with removal of the bathroom; clearance between the deck and garage exists. C. H.Graham moved to deny the variance request for tandem parking and to require a 20' x 20' garage with legal access. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the removal of the bathroom fixtures and plumbing and retention of the plumbing for the washer and dryer in the garage. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the bathroom fixtures and plumbing shall be removed, the plumbing for the washer and dryer retained and the structure remodeled to provide a 20' x 20' parking area with a two car garage door and legal separation from the residential structure, and the structure shall never be used for dwelling purposes and shall never have a kitchen added to it; and (2) that a retroactive building permit shall be obtained for work already completed, all penalty fees paid and final inspection shall be called for .and all work completed within nine months (January, 1990). Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1100 BROADWAY This item was heard as Item 2(a). 10. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - SNACK SHOP AT AN EXISTING GAS STATION - 1101 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2 Item withdrawn by the property owner. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 April 24, 1989 PLANNER REPORTS - Residential remodel - 1350 Balboa Avenue. Commission agreed to an additional 6" (approx.) in the ceiling height of the area under the new second floor of this addition in order to relocate the washer, dryer and utility sink to this area. - Procedure for election of officers at the May 8, 1989 meeting was discussed. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its April 17, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary