HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.03.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 13, 1989
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, March 13, 1989 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs
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 February 27, 1989 meeting were
approved with the following correction: Item #8,
page 5, first paragraph, add "motion was seconded
by C. Harrison".
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1304 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Request: explanation from applicant regarding why they need an
encroachment permit, why not put the fence on applicant's property.
Item set for public hearing March 27, 1989.
2. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1536 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: further explanation of why a building permit was issued
for this 6' fence over a 41 retaining wall; is this fence on
property line; explanation of how a fence is measured; number of
feet of soil taken out and number of feet to be put back in;
clarification of fence along rear property line. Item set for
public hearing March 27, 1989.
3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD AND
OPERATE A GROCERY STORE - 814 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED C-2
Requests: is it easier to get in on the Edgehill side of the
property; explain parking; could this site be used for auto repair;
will loading be on site and off site; will a loading zone on the
street be requested. Item set for public hearing March 27, 1989.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
March 13, 1989
4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE
FOR THE OPERATION OF BATTING CAGES, INCIDENTAL SALE OF
BASEBALL ITEMS AND INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP INSTRUCTION IN
BATTING - 1872 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
Requests: why a 7:00 A.M. starting time; what would the snack bar
consist of, any cooking facilities; will snack bar add to the
number of employees; who will be there all the time to supervise;
describe the classes, how big, will there be a difference in the
summer; will they supply goggles and helmets. Item set for public
hearing March 27, 1989.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
5. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DINING ROOM EXPANSION AT
2930 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants' letter, neighbor's letter in support. One
condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Paul Ratto, applicant, was
present. He advised the dining area is too narrow and they would
like to widen it by 31. A Commissioner stated he could appreciate
the applicant's request but had difficulty finding exceptional
circumstances to support the variance. Applicant commented on the
ordinance change since they had had the plans drawn previous to the
change and had been working on the house over a long period, now
because setbacks were increased they require a variance; this
addition will not be noticeable from the street; the house next
door has a 15' side setback and is about 8' lower than his
property, they cannot see the addition, their 15' setback consists
of sloped yard only. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: a 7' side yard setback is required,
applicant is proposing 61, cannot find exceptional circumstances
with this property to justify the variance, meeting code
requirements would be only the difference between 13' and 12'
dining room width; agree there is nothing unusual or exceptional
about this lot, would it be possible to lengthen the dining room
rather than making it wider; do not think one foot with a slope and
a 15' yard next door will interfere.
C. Giomi moved for approval of the variance request for the reasons
stated in the applicants' letter and those stated by Commission
this evening; she found because of the slope and distance to the
neighbor's house there will be no impact on the neighbor; the
neighbor has a wider than normal side yard, well within what the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
March 13, 1989
new ordinance requires; this proposal is not an unreasonable
request. Motion was made by resolution with the following
condition: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
February 14, 1989. C. Jacobs seconded the motion.
Comment on the motion: C. Giomi added findings: granting of the
variance will not change the general plan nor the zoning of the
property, there were no objections from the neighbors and there
will be no visual impact on the neighborhood. C. Garcia commented
the staff report includes many findings: the proposal meets all
other code requirements, it is only a one story addition, there are
no windows to interfere with the neighbors and the neighbors'
letter supported the project; the addition will not be noticeable
from the street; there is roughly 21' from applicant's wall to the
neighbors' wall and neighbors' property is 8'-10' lower.
Further comment: do not feel the first criteria under required
findings has been satisfied, this criteria states there must be
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property which do not
apply generally to property in the same district, it appears this
property has a wider setback on one side than the other, do not see
the difference between this home and others in the area; with the
findings added by C. Garcia can support the project.
Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and
S.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH BEDROOM AT
1472 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. C. Garcia advised he would abstain.
Discussion: documentation of ownership included in the packet; the
total square footage proposed would include the proposed
enlargement of the garage; there are two exterior entries to the
house.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jim Valenti, designer of
the project, was present. His comments: existing front door is on
the south side of the property, a new entry will be put where the
existing dining room is now; house is vacant at present and in poor
condition. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
From a site inspection and study of the plans, C. Harrison found
there were exceptional circumstances, this is the only reasonable
way to expand the existing garage interior to the house without
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
March 13, 1989
going into the side setback; the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the applicant
and to prevent unreasonable property loss; it will not be
detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity nor detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare;
and it will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of properties in the general area because the existing
setbacks will be maintained.
C. Harrison moved for approval of the parking variance and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the
following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped February 10, 1989; (2) that this property shall be
used as a single family dwelling and shall not be converted into a
second dwelling unit; and (3) that the garage shall have minimum
interior dimensions of 18'-2" x 18'-411. Motion was seconded by C.
S.Graham and approved on a 5-1-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting
no, C. Garcia abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 6'-8" TO 6'-10" HIGH FENCE AT 1915
ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters,
(staff was unable to gain access to this property so unable to
measure on the inside, as long as the fence is higher than 6' on
the inside applicant does, in fact, need a fence exception); study
meeting questions (staff's attempt to get the requested information
failed, also staff was unable to obtain the property owners'
consent to the application from Mr. Moran, the applicant and
contractor). One condition was suggested for consideration at the
public hearing. Staff and Commission discussed penalty fees when a
retroactive building permit is obtained for an existing fence.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Michael Moran, applicant,
was present. He inquired about the penalty fee; staff advised it
would be ten times the building permit fee. Mr. Moran's comments
and answers to Commission questions follow: there was no fence on
the plans for the house, he felt a fence was needed for privacy, he
planned to place a planter box in front of the fence so he built
the retaining wall, then decided not to have the planter box as it
would be too expensive and the fence on top of the retaining wall
became too high; there are a lot of fences over 6' in Burlingame,
he took photos of at least nine fences in the city that are over 6'
(these photos were presented to Commission).
Chm. Jacobs noted the city's fence exception regulations.
Applicant advised this is the first house he has built in
Burlingame, his other projects have been in San Francisco, he is a
licensed contractor; a Commissioner pointed out that as a licensed
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
March 13, 1989
contractor he should be well aware that different cities have
different regulations, and wondered why he did not investigate the
codes in Burlingame.
Applicants responses to further questions: he put the retaining
wall all around the property, the fence is 6'-2" on the inside, on
the outside it is 61-1011, when standing in the back yard it is just
barely over 61; the deck is about 21 off the ground; he could have
lowered the deck but would need to put in steps from the house, he
preferred no steps; with a lower fence the deck would not be very
private; two houses across the street have fences over 6.51. Mr.
Moran stated when he bought this property in January, 1988 there
was an old cottage there in disrepair, he tore it down, built a
beautiful house and did a lot of improvements to the neighborhood;
the property owners have been out of town, they are very busy
people, they wish to keep the fence, he did not want to bother them
with this matter, it is his responsibility.
A Commissioner noted Commission must find there are exceptional
circumstances with this property and asked, other than the fact
that the fence is existing and would be a pain to take down, what
are the exceptional circumstances. Applicant stated it is a very
busy street and the owners will need privacy. Patricia Fox (her
sister owns this house) commented: her sister is very happy with
the way it is, if the fence were lowered there would not be much
privacy, if the fence were removed or lowered everything would have
to be rearranged; to her knowledge the neighbors do not have
objections to the way it is. There were no further audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: Commission recently had a similar
request which was denied by the Commission, how can exceptional
circumstances be found for this request, many of the streets in
Burlingame are busy; other than the fact that the fence is up and
the deck is in place, have difficulty finding exceptional
circumstances to grant a fence exception after the fact, a
contractor should know that regulations exist; did current owners
buy this house before it was finaled; staff believed the fence
height problem was identified in the final inspection.
Chm. Jacobs allowed applicant to comment: he stated the owners
bought the house after the building was finaled by the city, the
fence was up at that time and there was no mention of it. Further
applicant comment: he finished the house in September, 1988, had
the house on the market September/October, somebody notified the
Planning Department or City Attorney (during October/November) that
the fence was too high. The Chair commented this is between the
person who bought the property and the contractor, Planning
Commission is considering the fence exception.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
March 13, 1989
Further Commission comment: having trouble finding exceptional
circumstances, there are a lot of busy streets in Burlingame and
not all have fences over 61, in this case perhaps the deck should
have been lowered, if deck were lowered and fence lowered there
would be more privacy than the property has now, the fact that it
was built and is in position does not mean there are exceptional
circumstances.
C. Giomi moved for denial of the fence exception, seconded by C.
H.Graham. Comment: there was disregard for a fence permit. Motion
to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
Recess 8:35 P.M.; reconvene 8:47 P.M.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A_GIFT _SHP A 1199 B OADWAY,ZONED-C-1
Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants' letter, letter in support from Broadway
merchants, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested
for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Maria Brosnan, applicant,
was present. Commission asked about their estimate of customers,
20 in the first year and 75 in five years. Applicant stated they
do not have a record of number of present customers, they may
average 20 now, some days they have more than that; with 75
customers per day in five years they would still expect to handle
this business with only two employees on site. She was advised if
employees were added she would need to amend her permit.
Responding to another Commission question, applicant said they have
moved out of their Capuchino Avenue location and have moved items
into the Broadway location, they have not been open for business on
Broadway pending the permit. There were no audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
C. S.Graham found this new location on Broadway will help the
applicants get more business, the proposed use will not be
detrimental to other businesses in the area (a petition in support
has been received), it will be compatible with the general plan and
with the zoning. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special
permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special
Permit with the following conditions: (1) that this gift shop shall
operate Monday -Sunday from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. with a maximum
of two employees on the site; and (2) that this tenant space shall
comply with the master signage program approved for this property
and any subsequent amendments of this program and shall not have
any signs or other objects in the walkway in front of the shop or
anywhere in the public right-of-way. Motion was seconded by C.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
March 13, 1989
H.Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
9. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GROCERY STORE AND DELICATESSEN
AT 891 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, special permits required, staff
review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, Planning staff
comment (parking standard for grocery stores). Thirteen conditions
were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission discussion: this will be a more intense use than the
previous use (vacuum sales and repair shop); where will the garbage
dumpster be located;. difficult to ensure employees walk to work or
that employees of any subsequent business do the same; what signage
is proposed; will there be cooking facilities on site; C-2 and
residential zones meet at this location; conditions require no
expansion of the footprint; this is a retail use in a commercial
zone which is nonconforming in parking because there is no on-site
parking; where will trucks be unloaded, this site is located on a
corner.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jae Dong Jun, applicant,
was present. She responded to Commission questions: she has
operated a restaurant business but not a grocery store; cooking
facilities are not proposed at this site; she will pick up food for
the store every day, beer and wine will be delivered to the store,
items such as popcorn and chips will also be delivered to the
store; the residential portion of the property is not occupied at
present, she plans to rent the house; there are no plans for a
dumpster; they have a van which they will use to pick up the food
each day; they will keep their present restaurant at 1355 Broadway.
There were no audience comments in support. The following spoke in
opposition: Robert Cameron, 1200 Majilla Avenue; Val Sheffield, 945
Chula Vista Avenue; Bill Fox, 1220 Sanchez Avenue; Donna Pikna, 949
Chula Vista Avenue; Linda Noeske, 913 Laguna Avenue; Leonard Ma,
1112 Edgehill Drive; Marjorie Ungar, 1200 Edgehill Drive; Irvin
Ungar, 1200 Edgehill Drive; Chris Rose, 926 Laguna Avenue.
Letters in opposition were presented from the following: Neal
Lucett, 1225 Majilla Avenue; Kristin Sheffield, 945 Chula Vista
Avenue; Roger Pascoe, 926 Chula Vista Avenue; Ronald Batistoni,
1300 Edgehill Drive; Maureen and John Lennon, 1312 Edgehill Drive;
Wayne Okey and Marie Okey, 965 Chula Vista Avenue.
Their comments and concerns: lack of parking, increased traffic;
impact of a combination deli/grocery store with only one off-street
parking space, could be worse than the Adeline Market site; narrow
streets, parking on both sides of the street, Majilla during the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page'8
March 13, 1989
day is filled with cars now; nearby body shops test their cars on
these streets and sometimes park there; motor vehicles speed down
the streets in the neighborhood now; it is difficult to get stop
signs for these streets; the previous use was a low volume
business, this use will have much higher traffic impact; it will
increase foot and vehicular traffic in the area; where will
customers park.
Object to a commercial use so close to homes in the area; decline
in neighborhood safety, might be unable to walk freely on
California Drive; opposed to the sale of beer and wine, drugs and
liquor are consumed in the easements now, this could add to that;
site is across the street from Burlingame High School, could
attract students and result in litter, noise and abuse of liquor,
would be a concern to parents; opposed to another delicatessen in
the area so close to residential, there are other places to eat and
shop for food within a five minute walk; dumpster will create odor;
increased litter problems; opposed to the sale of alcohol,
difficult to control young people, might bring people into the area
especially later at night; possible drunk driving problems.
In a neighborhood already struggling to maintain its residential
feeling this will be a threat to privacy; concern for the safety
and security of the children in the neighborhood, walking to and
from school they will have to pass a grocery store/deli/liquor
store much like a 7-11 or Stop & Go market; families with young
children are increasing in the area; this use could change the
family oriented neighborhoods. A take-out operation could generate
a lot of traffic, need a lot of customers to make a deli
profitable; U turns on California to park in front of the store
could cause many accidents; 30 customers a day is a low estimate,
couldn't make a living on that small a number; think the
residential neighborhood should be considered, other businesses
which are not too intensive might find this site a good one.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission comment/discussion: was surprised at the neighborhood
reaction, had thought this might be a good interim use, opposition
this evening could change my mind; CA advised Commission cannot
prohibit sale of liquor in a given business.
C. S.Graham found this is a bad location for this type of business,
she would prefer a more service oriented business such as the
previous vacuum shop, consider the situation at the Stop & Go
market which has a parking lot and still has a parking and
circulation problem, this use is not appropriate in a residential
zone, particularly a residential zone situated like this, it is not
well defined.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
March 13, 1989
C. S.Graham moved for denial of the three special permits. Motion
was seconded by C. Harrison with the findings this would be a
dangerous situation, high parking turnover creates a dangerous
situation, with reference to the residents' concerns there are
already parking problems in the area, this use will be detrimental
to the public health and safety.
Comment on the motion: will support the motion, primarily because
of the parking issue, a vacuum shop might be all right but not this
use because of inadequate parking; the basic problem is trying to
use too much of this property without parking and the intensity of
use of the deli and store; will go with the neighborhood and
support the motion; a market survey would not support this use. At
the request of the Chair, CP Monroe discussed permitted uses in the
C-2 district.
Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
10. SIGN EXCEPTION AMENDMENT TO ADD SIGNAGE AT THE AUTO
DEALERSHIP AT 1100 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, sign exception granted for this
site in May, 1988, staff review, applicants letter and letter from
applicant's representative, study meeting questions. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
C. H.Graham noted he would abstain from this action.
Discussion: freeway oriented signage; staff commented freeway
oriented signs are more of a problem for properties which front
directly on the freeway; location of Sign E5; approved signs not
yet installed by the applicant are to be included or there is the
possibility of continuing the item for two weeks to clarify
applicant's request.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, applicant,
addressed Commission: he stated they had incorrect information on
the original sign, a larger sign is needed for Broadway and
California Drive, there is very little signage on that side of the
building; Chrysler does not allow him to use two brand signs at the
same location, the only one will be on the pole sign and as
originally submitted it was not proportional to the height of the
pole. Thomas Cannon, Cannon and Associates, applicant's
representative, stated the sign is to be viewed from California and
across Rollins Road, it is not a freeway sign, their original
submittal was incorrect, the square footage of this new proposal is
180 SF per face sign area plus supporting structure, this is a
double faced modular sign. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
March 13, 1989
Commission discussion: how sign is measured, difference between the
sign permit application indicating 208 SF per face and Mr. Cannon's
statement it would be 180 SF per face is based on including the
frame which holds the three panels and the space between the
panels, code defines how to measure; height of the Acura pole sign
across the street; concern about height of the pole sign at this
location in Burlingame and a larger sign than originally proposed,
will vote no; Commission approved a 35' high pole sign on the
original application, concern about the size of this proposed sign,
was concerned about the total square footage of the original
application and am concerned now, cannot support an increase over
the 775 SF approved previously, am not concerned about visibility
from the freeway; drive down California Drive every day, there is
too much signage on the Carolan frontage of that building, think
it's redundant signage, there is so much signage no one could miss
applicant's place of business.
C. S.Graham moved for denial of the sign exception amendment;
motion was seconded by C. Ellis.
Comment on the motion: concur with the motion, this building cannot
be missed, a larger sign is not necessary, Commission reduced the
original request by 12%, this is an increase of 20% over what was
approved, think Commission was being reasonable in the first place;
perhaps auto row signage should be reviewed again, Commission is
still waiting for the auto dealers to respond to a review last
November/December, this might have given better guidance for
decisions on signage in the area including this one; auto dealers
seem to feel it should be done on a case by case basis.
Motion to deny was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham
abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
11. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL
STORAGE AT 840 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, previous use permits, staff
review, negative declaration, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing. CP explained traffic generation was not considered
a problem since the proposed number of cars would not generate more
P.M. peak hour trips at the critical intersections as determined by
the traffic analyzer than a permitted use such as warehouse.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. James Saunders, general
manager, Dollar Rent A Car, was present. He confirmed there is no
car wash on either portion of the Cowan Road site. His comments:
the primary use is storage of new cars and storage of used cars
that are about to be returned to the manufacturer; from November,
1988 to the present they took delivery of about 1,250 new cars,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
March 13, 1989
during the same period they returned to the manufacturer over 700
cars; the only work done on new cars at this location is stripping
off the decals and installing license plates; they need a staging
area for these cars; cars to be returned are checked out
mechanically, visually for needed body work, this work is done at
another location; they do not sell any cars at this site; they plan
no change in security arrangements, have had no major problems;
there is no lighting, this is strictly a daytime operation; once
past March 31, the end of the turnback program, they expect only
200-300 cars to be delivered from April 1 up to June; cars they
have received are already in service; it is anticipated from April
1 until November they will use only half of the cars, the other
half will remain dormant until November.
Speaking in opposition, Ruby Kueffer, Kueffer-Shieber building
across the street (office/warehouse): they have owned this building
for three years, when first purchased they were warned about
parking and traffic problems, in view of that they enlarged their
parking lot; have never found on -street parking available, this use
will increase traffic; some of the other office/warehouse owners
feel the same; after listening to the applicant this evening she
felt somewhat better but still was concerned about the number of
cars increasing and being transported regularly. A Commissioner
pointed out to Ms. Kueffer that one of the points in the negative
declaration indicated that traffic generation was not considered a
problem because vehicle storage at 175 cars would not generate more
P.M. peak hour trip ends at the critical intersections than
allocated to the site. There were no further audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
Staff noted for the record that the conditions require all
employees generated by the use on this site park on site and all
loading and unloading of car transport vehicles be done on site, so
the public street should not be used as a result of this use for
anything other than it is used now and not by employees of this
business.
C. S.Graham had no problem with the negative declaration and moved
to recommend Negative Declaration ND -419P to City Council.
Addressing the concern about increased traffic, she found there
would be a greater problem if there was a large office building
across the street with everyone leaving at the same time, with this
use traffic will be dispersed throughout the day. Motion was
seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C.
Jacobs dissenting.
C. S.Graham found this use will ultimately have less impact than an
office building and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
March 13, 1989
six conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C.
H.Graham.
C. Ellis requested that Condition #2 be amended to require that all
vehicles owned by this use be parked inside the fence. Maker of
the motion and seconder agreed to the amended condition.
Conditions follow: (1) that the 6' chain link fence should be
installed at the location shown on the plans date stamped December
22, 1988 and that the use of the westerly enclosed area at 840
Cowan Road shall be limited to the storage of new cars intended for
the car rental fleet and storage of used car rental cars in
preparation to be shipped off the site in accord with James
Saunders' letter of February 14, 1989; (2) that all employees shall
park on the site in designated parking spaces and all vehicles
owned by this business shall be parked inside the fence; (3) that
the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of January 16, 1989
shall be met, particularly that the access shall be maintained at
all times from Cowan Road to the city's pumping station at the rear
of the site; (4) that no more than 175 cars will be parked on the
westerly half of the site at one time; (5) that this site will be
used in conjunction with the car rental use at 1815 Bayshore
Highway and will not be leased or rented to a separate business or
use without an amendment to this use permit; and (6) that this
project shall be reviewed in one year (March, 1990) for compliance
with its use permit and conditions and upon complaint thereafter.
Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting
(cannot support rent -a -car storage in the M-1 zone). Appeal
procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its March 6, 1989 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Ellis, Secretary