HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.01.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 8, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Vice Chairman Graham on Monday, January 8,
1990 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink
Absent: Commissioner Ellis
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill
Reilly, Fire Marshal; Larry Lautenschlager, Zoning
Technician
MINUTES - The minutes of the December 11, 1989 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
The Chair noted there were. only five seated Commissioners this
evening. Affirmative action requires four votes, applicants may
continue their items if they wish. Richard Harlick, applicant and
property owner for Item #6 at 919 Capuchino Avenue, requested a
continuance.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE AT 1207 CAPUCHINO
AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
Requests: when did this business start operation; is there any on-
site seating; what business was on that site previously, is this an
expansion of the previous use; is take-out limited to type of item;
level of use of the adjacent public parking lot. Item set for
public hearing. -January 22, 1990.
2. PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT A SECOND FLOOR TO RETAIL
COMMERCIAL USE AT 311 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME
AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUB AREA A
Requests: previous use on this site; last time it was used as
residential; what are the exceptional circumstances of this
property to support the request for a parking variance; access to
the second floor; how long will it be before the art gallery
i
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2
January 8, 1990
upstairs will expand downstairs; clarify parking. Item set for
public hearing January 22, 1990.
3. PARKING VARIANCE, THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND A MODIFICATION
OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AT
1501 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1
Requests: what are the hours of the Adeline Market complex and have
they requested an extension of hours; clarify ingress/egress; memo
from CE addressing the problems of access; what were the hours of
the service station before the rezoning; why can't the deli and
video store close at 7:00 P.M., why does the real estate office
need to be open so late. Item set for public hearing January 22,
1990.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
4. VARIANCES FOR REAR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE TO CONSTRUCT A
LANAI AT 2824 RIVERA DRIVE. ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 1/8/90, with attachments. ZT
Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, staff review,
applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised
the lanai would be an enclosed patio open to the rear yard, if the
windbreak were moved back to a 15' rear setback the project would
still not meet the 40% lot coverage requirement.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robert Merrill,
representing Irving and Virginia Merrill, applicants,.discussed the
application: this would be part of a landscaping project the
applicants have wanted since 1972, it would improve the appearance,
reduce maintenance, increase light and will include replacing the
old plastic lanai with glass. The lanai is needed because homes
along Rivera Drive are subject to strong winds, the existing lanai
has a yellow fiberglass wall and metal roof, the new lanai will
provide view through the side with a glass wall and built-in
planter boxes, it will be open to the rear yard, the floor of the
lanai will be raised to the level of the house. This proposal
would improve the appearance of the house considerably. The new
lanai will be somewhat smaller than existing, reducing lot
coverage, but it would have a different configuration and extend
another 6" into the rear yard.
Addressing exceptional circumstances to support the variances, Mr.
Merrill noted the orientation of the lot relative to the rear yard,
rear yard neighbors are on Trousdale and considerably lower in
elevation, the house has a curved entry driveway and to accommodate
the turning radius of the driveway the house has been pushed toward
the back of the lot, as a result the back yard varies in width from
20' to 271. Regarding lot coverage, in relation to many lots in
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 3
January 8, 1990
the vicinity this lot is not as large, lots across Rivera are much
deeper, lots on Trousdale are very deep, 40% coverage on the
applicants' lot would be 3,200 square feet, these other lots would
have 5,000 to 7,000 square feet of buildable area; applicants are
only exceeding the lot coverage requirement by 1.2% and the
proposed structure actually reduces the existing lot coverage on
the site. Mr. Merrill stated the project would not be detrimental
or injurious to the neighbors, it would not affect them; the
property to the west is 5' to 6' higher than this lot, their view
of the bay is above the lanai structure, extending the lanai 6"
further will not affect these neighbors. The neighbors down the
hill cannot even see the lanai because of the elevation change and
trees planted along the hillside which block all view of the
applicant's house. Responding to a Commission question, Mr.
Merrill advised the applicants have used the existing lanai as a
patio, the new lanai would not change their outdoor living pattern
appreciably, they might use it more often.
A resident at 580 Sea Horse Lane, Redwood Shores spoke for Antonio
Manuel, 2805 Trousdale Drive; he did not think there were any
serious objections but Mr. Manuel had the following concerns: that
the project does not cause any fire hazard, that the pine trees in
his back yard remain and that drainage not be altered by the new
landscaping; if these concerns are not a factor Mr. Manuel would
have no objection. Robert Merrill responded: he understood all
applications are reviewed by city staff, the fire department had no
comments on this project; trees on the neighbor's lot will not be
touched, just improvements made on the applicant's lot, project is
being designed by a landscape architect; drainage is designed to go
to the street. There were no further audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Based on findings that because of the size of the lot relative to
other lots in the area the requested lot coverage should be allowed
since applicants' lot is small compared to others in the area, the
enclosure is necessary because of the configuration of the back
yard which receives winds coming in that direction, and
incorporating all applicant's statements addressing the variance,
C. Mink moved for approval of the two variances with the following
conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
December 14, 1989; and (2) that the project shall be built to meet
all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the
City of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: this will
be an improvement to the property; all drainage will meet
applicable city codes. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call
vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
Page 4
January 8, 1990
5. VARIANCES FOR SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION AT
245 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 1/8/90, with attachments. ZT
Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, staff review,
Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, required findings. Two
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Rene Des Rochers, property
owner and applicant, stated his family is growing, they need a
family room, extra guest bedroom and guest bath; they would like to
replace an existing unattractive carport with a two car garage,
there is also a deteriorated pool house on the property which they
did not want to use as separate living area. They have discussed
the plans with several of their neighbors; applicant presented
statements in support signed by residents of: 225 Chapin, 1616
Ralston, 140, 270, 215, 146, 217, 301, 150 and 144 Chapin. He
thought the project would have no impact on his immediate neighbors
and would not detract from the neighborhood.
Bill Van Housen, architect, commented that the square footage of
the total area would be increased by only 8%, living area of the
residence will increase by 200+ SF; they are merely taking
nonconforming deteriorating structures, enhancing them and
maintaining their use, it will aesthetically enhance the property
and improve its value; based on the current lot shape and size and
location of the house and pool, no matter how the covered parking
area was rebuilt a variance to side setback would be required.
The following members of the audience spoke in favor of the
project: Angie Hollman, 225 Chapin Lane; Scotty Morris, 1608
Ralston Avenue; Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, 140 Chapin Lane. There were
no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Jacobs stated she could understand the neighbors' concern about
use of the cabana in the back and the carport, the house has been
improved over the years; her concern has always been how setbacks
affect the neighbor, in this case the neighbor's house is very high
and there are no windows facing this property, it will not be
detrimental to the neighbors. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the
two variances with the following conditions: (1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped December 18, 1989; and (2) that the
project shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was
seconded by C. Giomi.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
Page 5
January 8, 1990
Comment on the motion: do not believe what applicant has stated as
exceptional circumstances are really exceptional, but do think many
things have been mentioned this evening which are; the existing
carport is deteriorating and removing it does constitute an
exceptional circumstance, it is something that has to be done for
the safety and welfare; a corner lot brings its own set of
exceptional circumstances as does the placement of the existing
pool.
Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
6. VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO USE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
FOR LIVING PURPOSES AT 919 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2
(CONTINUED FROM 12/11/89)
Item continued to the meeting of January 22, 1990 at the request of
the applicant.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A MONTESSORI PRE-SCHOOL/CHILD CARE
CENTER AT 1 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4
Reference staff report, 1/8/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner
expressed concern about traffic and thought a white loading zone
should be applied for from the Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission, otherwise there may be no parking available for parents
delivering and picking up their children. An 8th condition was
suggested, "that the applicant shall apply to the Traffic, Safety
and Parking Commission for a loading zone and curb marking."
Referring to the condition for review of the special permit in May,
1990, another Commissioner asked when applicants will be moving
into this location.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Tony Spare, representing
the applicant, addressed Commission: they will need to make
internal renovations, do not plan on being in operation at this
location until June, 1990; review in May, 1991 probably would be
more applicable. To be consistent with fire codes condition #3
should read, 11. . . no more than nineteen (191 children . . ."
They have a small 1' x 21 hanging sign which would be taken down
each night, neighbors would not even be aware it is a school; this
is not a new endeavor for the applicants, they are experienced in
the field and operate at two other locations. The yard will be
fenced and the children will play inside that fence, they will meet
all state licensing requirements. He had no problem about applying
to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for a white loading
zone, it would be helpful to have that space; he also felt the
senior housing project being built across the street may even
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 6
January 8, 1990
reduce the traffic impact, parking has been impacted by
construction workers, there is a bigger problem with traffic later
at night on E1 Camino Real.
Architect David Hurley's comments: it is really a neat building,
1920 cottage style, they are not changing anything except bringing
new life to it and fixing it up.
The following members of the audience spoke. Jack Heffernan; 30
Lorton Avenue: he stated he had some questions which have been
answered, the sign would be small and not objectionable, this use
could be a good neighbor; his immediate concern was for the
children because of the traffic in the area now and lack of on -
street parking, on -street parking is impacted by construction
workers presently; the front door and access to 1 Lorton is on
Peninsula, a very busy street; he thought that 150 senior
residential units across the street would increase traffic, not
lessen it; applicants would need something to take care of the
drop-off of children, right now double parking would be created; he
thought the senior center would be opened in the summer of 1990.
Ron Marlin, an adjacent property owner: his concerns were traffic
congestion and parking, it is a real problem now, when the senior
residential units are completed across the street their garage
entrance will intensify the traffic problem, he was concerned about
dropping off and picking up children during the hours proposed,
parents would have to double park no matter how it is done; he did
not think this house was suitable for the use as described and
would be concerned about accessibility to the street.
Applicant responded: it is good that everyone is concerned about
the children, that is the applicants' greatest concern also and why
they are involved in this business, they will renovate the house
and add fencing to the yard for the safety of the children. He
thought it would be helpful to have a loading zone, there are two
parking spaces on the property which will take care of employee
parking and on weekends when most residents in the area are at home
there will be no one on this site.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion/comment: concern about the location of this
proposed child care operation, not with the operation itself, the
applicants are caring and professional, but it would be hard to
find a more difficult location; Y work on Peninsula and all times
of day it is heavily overparked, if a loading zone were put in it
would take away neighbors' parking, this is an intensification of
use from a single family home, would be noisy for the neighbors, it
would be impossible to operate safely without a loading zone but
still do not think it will work, will be a difficult situation with
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 7
January 8, 1990
the driveway for a large apartment building across the street,
double parking will occur, there is double parking at all
Burlingame elementary schools, mothers have an aversion to letting
children walk 1/2 to one block; it would be an impossible situation
on Peninsula Avenue, a main thoroughfare in the city.
Further comment: the city needs this type of facility, even if it
were located in an R-1 neighborhood people would double park; would
it be possible to have the applicant leave the driveway clear
(staff noted if this were done employees would have to park on
street); with regard to possible noise, the back yard is by the
garage of an.apartment building on Lorton, not right next to that
building; the problem could be mitigated with a loading zone plus
leaving the driveway open, people could pull up to the driveway
entrance even if someone were parked in the driveway.
with the comment applicant has indicated he will try to minimize
the impact, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit with
the seven conditions in the staff report, addition of an 8th
condition "that the applicant shall apply to the Traffic, Safety
and Parking Commission for a loading zone and curb marking", with a
change to condition #3 ". no more than nineteen (19) children
." and a change to condition #6 to require review in May of
1991. Motion died for lack of a second.
C. Mink stated he was on the Commission when the Montessori school
on E1 Camino Real was approved, it has all these problems doubled,
he thought it was one of the poorer decisions the Commission has
made for all the right reasons, there is no question this service
is needed, applicants are experienced and have a good program, but
the problem is in the location. C. Mink moved for denial of the
special permit, seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 4-1 roll
call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
The Chair noted copy of a letter from Mayor Lembi to Commissioner
Giomi regarding her decision not to reapply for a third term on the
Commission and thanking her for her years of service.
Recess 8:52 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M.
8. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING RECONSIDERATION FOR A
MIXED RESIDENTIAL -COMMERCIAL USE OF THE 14 PARCELS WITH
DOUBLE STREET FRONTAGE ON EDGEHILL AND CALIFORNIA DRIVES,
ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 1/8/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed the -item: previous consideration of this area, City
Council's charge for future development following its October 18,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 8
January 8, 1990
1989 study meeting, concerns and criteria identified at this }
meeting; the proposed new approach involves general plan amendment,
implementing zoning and overlay for the Edgehill/California Drives
area. A new zoning district, C-R Commercial -Residential, was
proposed with specific requirements for overlay development of the
Edgehill/California area. CP discussed environmental review,
timing in relation to the interim ordinance prohibiting building
permits for other than maintenance and repair in the
Edgehill/California area, Planning Commission action.
During discussion CP advised the majority of the lots are 40'-45'
wide, almost all are 90' in depth, none of these lots meet current
minimum lot requirements; the requirements under the proposed C-R
district apply to these lots as they are presently configured; the
new regulations do not mention car sales as a permitted use; there
are other areas in the city where this type of zoning might be
requested. CA stated the proposed general plan amendment only
affects this one area at this time, it would take a general plan
amendment to have it apply in any other area of the city. Replying
to a Commissioner question, CP advised the present construction on
one of. the lots in the subject area will have commercial on the
second floor on the California frontage and a duplex residential
townhouse on the Edgehill side, access for residential is off
Edgehill and access for the commercial off California, it exceeds
the criteria proposed for the C-R district. A Commissioner
commented there had been a proposal in the past for a mixed use on
Bayswater, it was residential upstairs and shops downstairs, the
proposal died because of conflict with the zoning requirements;
mixed use has been a topic of discussion for many years.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The following members of
the audience spoke. Irvin Ungar, 1200 Edgehill Drive: he expressed
his appreciation for the sensitivity and creativity which has been
used in reaching this proposal, it will meet the residents'
concerns about traffic; he had wondered about the construction
going on in that area now in view of the interim ordinance
prohibiting this, his concern has been addressed in that it will
meet the proposed future criteria and was approved before the
interim ordinance; he was opposed to any more drug, liquor or food
stores being placed on California Drive.
Bob Frudenberg, 753 Acacia Drive: he owns a house at 1109 Palm
Drive and expressed concern that if commercial uses continue on
California Drive adjacent properties will be devalued for
residential use; another concern was that big trucks are only
allowed to park on the street in gives areas, this stretch of
California Drive is one of the few places where a long 40' trailer
can be parked, he parks his truck there and wouldn't have any other
place to park it if this area were in commercial use and there were
cars parked all along that side of California; he was concerned
about loss of the housing that is there now and aesthetics of the
.i
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 9
January 8, 1990
neighborhood, he did not want Edgehill to be built right up to the
sidewalk or more commercial on California, a backyard fence would
look much better.
A Commissioner explained the previous concerns about a grocery
store in this area extending commercial use to Edgehill, there has
been a lot of study since then and this proposal will keep the
Edgehill side residential and California commercial. Mr.
Frudenberg said anything that would keep the area aesthetically the
same would be all right, he did not think commercial should go in
that area on Edgehill or California.
Vincent Struck, San Mateo, speaking for his aunt who owns the
property at 1108 Palm Drive: he had attended the other meetings and
thought this proposal was a good one, everyone can 'live with
commercial on California and residential on Edgehill, it would
enable a small business owner to live close to his business if he
wished; regarding big rig truck parking, these trailers should be
parked on the other side of the street and not take parking away
from the small commercial businesses.
Frank Gandolfi, 825 Edgehill Drive: he did not think it was fair to
allow single story commercial development on California with no
parking requirement, if commercial were allowed on-site parking
should be provided; he believed this area should be all
residential. There were no further audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND -429P to City
Council for approval by resolution with the finding that on the
basis of the initial study and comments received there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and
approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent.
C. Jacobs then moved to recommend to City Council by resolution
creation of the C-R district, amendments to the general plan and
rezoning of the Edgehill Drive/California Drive area. Her
statements in support: the fact that one side of Edgehill is zoned
R-2, California is a commercial street, concerns of the neighbors,
topography, lot size, after considerable study by staff and
Commission this is one of the best solutions. Motion was seconded
by C. Kelly and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent.
Staff will forward to City Council.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 10
January 8, 1990
9. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING DISTRICT MODIFICATION FOR
THE BAYFRONT AND ANZA PLANNING AREAS TO ALLOW LONG TERM
AIRPORT PARKING AS AN INTERIM LAND USE, ZONED C-4 AND M-1
Reference staff report, 118190, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed this request: summary of the study meeting staff report,
environmental review, study meeting questions (vacant and underused
parcels east of Highway 101, appropriate minimum site size for
airport parking, existing regulations which would apply to this
use, can general plan amendment be given to part of a planning
area, can the use be limited to one zoning district, how can
structures for the parking use be limited to ensure the use is
interim, could storage of cars and other vehicles be limited,
comparison of P.M. peak hour vehicle trips per acre by use, can
airport parking lots be required to operate together, advantages to
the city of having long term airport parking, public noticing
procedures used for this request), Planning Commission action.
CP explained the original application was for a specific parcel of
land, applicant was told this was not a permitted or conditional
use in the zone and therefore the present action is necessary; she
stated staff included the entire area of the Specific Area Plan
except the Anza Extension where the wastewater treatment plant and
sanitary landfill are located, Commission could if it wished change
the area affected. If this is approved for the Anza Area a
specific application will be made.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. George Corey, attorney
representing Metro Park, operator of the long term airport parking
facility on Airport boulevard, addressed Commission. -He stated the
most significant factor was the control the city will get over the
parking use that exists in the area now, it will reduce the number
of cars, give more control over beautifying the area along with
BCDC beautification and access requirements, will increase
applicants cost. His client acquired the parcel across from Days
Inn, with that and others the client owns and controls they would
like at some point in time to develop these parcels in accordance
with the Specific Area Plan. Presently they would like to continue
operating as they are, for reasons of control the city has granted
use permits for long term airport parking in five year stretches.
He will be bringing in an application for the corner lot to run
consistent with the other properties adjacent to it, city would
then have control of the new parcel and adjacent ones. There is a
disagreement among various owners of the existing long term airport
parking lots, his client has acquired the ability to develop those
parcels in the northernmost area and wants to start with these
parcels and the new parcel.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 11
January 8, 1990
Commission/staff discussion: property tax is the only revenue the
city receives from the present parking lots; would be willing to
consider the Anza Area but not the northern bayfront area which is
fully developed; minimum site size for parking use should be three
acres; prohibiting parking structures is not unreasonable, this
land is just waiting for demand for hotels or restaurants. The
need to come back for a special permit for the use was discussed
and the fact that if the northern bayfront area were eliminated it
would save everyone time and energy.
Further comment: agree with the previous statements, the two areas
are very different, an interim use is only appropriate in the Anza
Area where there is more vacant land. Staff noted the area along
Beach and Lang Roads which is zoned M-1, if Commission wished to
include the Lang/Beach Road area an overlay zone in the M-1
district for the Lang/Beach area would be needed. A Commissioner
stated she would rather stay with the area zoned C-4 in the Anza
Area only. CP doubted there was a three acre site in the
Lang/Beach area. The proposed negative declaration would not need
to be reviewed if the scope of the project were reduced to include
only the Anza Area. Responding to a question, staff advised a
gasoline service station on an airport parking lot would not be
allowed since that would be retail sales and prohibited in the
zone. Concern was expressed about locations in Burlingame and
other cities which have had service stations and are now
contaminated, it takes forever to clean them up. CP advised the
city would require surfaces to be asphalted and the same drainage
requirements as those for hotel parking lots.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND-427P to City
Council for approval by resolution with the finding that on the
basis of the initial study and comments received the general
plan/specific area plan amendment to allow .long term airport
parking as an interim use and to modify the C-4 zoning district
accordingly will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 5-0 roll call
vote, C. Ellis absent.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend to City Council by resolution
amendment of the General Plan Specific Area Plan and zoning
modification to allow long term airport parking as an interim use
in the C-4 district portion of the Anza Area, minimum site size for
parking use to be three acres. Her statements in support:
undeveloped, vacant land is available in this area and there will
be less impact, changing minimum site size to three acres will
protect circulation by reducing access points/curb cuts on Airport
Boulevard. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 5-0
roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Staff will forward to City
Council.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 12
January 8, 1990
Tony Spare, applicant for Item #7 at 1 Lorton Avenue which was
denied this evening, advised he had just visited the site, there
was bne car parked on Lorton and no cars on Peninsula which would
appear to support his contention there is not a continuous parking
problem on Peninsula day or night, the school use would not be a
problem on weekends. He felt the issue of double parking was the
applicants, responsibility and that of public safety officials, not
the responsibility of presumptiveness on the part of the Planning
Commission; they have had no problem at all in two locations in San
Mateo, parents understand their responsibility and interact with
the teachers; his experience does not bear out the concerns
expressed by Commission and the application will maintain the
residential character of the area.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 3, 1990 regular
meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick J. Kelly
Secretary