Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.12.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Vice Chairman Kelly on Monday, December 10, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City. Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal C. Jacobs requested the meeting be opened in memory of Everett Kindig who served on the Planning Commission for many years. MINUTES - The minutes of the November 26, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A GATE - 2-n0 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 ' Requests: check status of the shrubbery with the Parks Department; will existing shrubbery be taller than the gate; will there be a fence on either side of the gate, how tall will the fence be; elaborate on justification for the exception, i.e., have there been specific instances involving prowlers. Item set for public hearing January 14, 1991. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING HEDGE - 1316 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: other than privacy, what is unique about this property to support the fence exception request; in CE's memo clarify exactly where property line is behind face of curb. Item set for public hearing January 14, 1991. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ADD THREE NEW SIGNS - 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 SUB AREA D Requests: comparison with signage for other dealerships on California Drive; does this site have a master signage program; new signs are t Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 'December 10, 1990 not identified on the overall site plan; is the existing temporary looking pole sign going to stay. Item set for public hearing January 14, 1991. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN INTERNATIONAL AIR COURIER SERVICE AT 875 STANTON ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: how long was the previous tenant on this site; frequency of truck traffic to and from the Post Office Annex which is also on this street; minutes from approval of permits for this courier service; further explanation of applicant's statement that Cowan Road is overburdened and Stanton is underutilized; clarify maximum number of cars on site, supplemental form. 'and other documentation differ; percentage of office use approved, how and when. Item set for public hearing January 14, 1991. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. PARKING VARIANCE IN FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN EXISTING 20' X 10' PARKING STALL AT 1617 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R -1 - Reference staff report, 12/10/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, required findings, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Ken Coverdell, landscape architect representing the applicants, Karl and Debbie Bakhtiari, was present. His comments: they are concerned about aesthetics and impact on the neighborhood, applicants did, need additional parking space, during remodeling they met with the neighbors, the three immediately adjacent (400 Chapin Lane, 1622 Chapin Avenue, 328 Chapin Lane) support the request. Mr. Coverdell read letter in full support of the parking variance from Mr. and Mrs. George Montgomery, 328 Chapin Lane who stated this is a good solution to the need for more parking, vehicle is barely visible and .off the street, the parking area has a hedge to screen it. Landscape architect commented on - street parking is -limited to two hours during the day; another location for the parking area would require a driveway and curb cut on the curve of the street. He presented photographs depicting the site before, during and after the improvements. The following spoke in support. Marion Sines, 400 Chapin Lane: she was extremely pleased with the result of the project, enjoys looking across the street at the applicants' house and garden, parking for their truck is not visible but screened by a hedge. (Mr. Coverdell pointed out Mrs. Sines likes looking at the garden in the evening and that is generally when the truck is parked in the space.) Dave Smanovich, 1616 Chapin Avenue: he felt it was a high quality project, it has been an enhancement to the neighborhood, the parking area is not visible. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 10, 1990 Mr. Coverdell said they have tried to follow the rules of the city and go through the planning process correctly. A Commissioner asked why not put this parking elsewhere. Mr. Coverdell responded that in terms of square footage there are other places but there would be an impact, another driveway would be needed, there is no corner on this property, they do not have a long sight line down the street, another driveway on the long curve would increase danger, everything on the property is focused to enter in the safest location which is closest to El Camino Real and most convenient to the house. The parking area they are requesting was a preexisting parking space, they thought it better to leave it that way; a parking area right at the swimming pool would be somewhat difficult. There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. CP confirmed the front of the lot is the entire Chapin Lane/Chapin Avenue frontage. C. Galligan found this is an unusually shaped lot, there could be a second entrance put in for additional off-street parking but this would create a potential traffic hazard, most drivers assume there is only one entrance; it would take away from the aesthetic appearance of the lot; as designed the present parking area has a very slight impact compared to the alternative of parking an unscreened vehicle in the lawn area. For the reasons stated and those stated by the applicant, C. Galligan moved for approval of the parking variance subject to the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly with the statement that the shape and location of the lot are exceptional circumstances. Comment on the motion: there are other places on the site to provide parking, applicants meet zoning code parking requirements without this exception, if they wanted to get a car off the street they could look into tandem parking in the driveway by the garage; the house and landscaping are beautiful but they could add a parking space without putting a car in front, concerned that this will set a" precedent; agree, Ken Coverdell does nice work but cannot find exceptional circumstances; applicants can park three vehicles easily and get a fourth and fifth in tandem, -but where does it stop. Motion to approve failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Jacobs and Mink voting no, C. Graham absent. C. Mink moved for denial of the parking variance, seconded by C. Galligan and approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Kelly voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 10, 1990 6. HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE AT 2652 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 12/10/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. There was a concern expressed about a cut in the hill and CE discussed structural elements of the retaining wall. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. John Lee, architect representing the applicant, Tung Ling was present. He discussed plans for the retaining wall at property line, it will be placed on 20' pilings, they will create drainage to carry water off before they cut the slope; proposed driveway is similar to the one proposed and approved for the previous Lehto application, they have tried to preserve vegetation and use the shortest distance. He confirmed bench cut and fill would be approximately 75' wide x 200, long; they tried to design a house which would fit with the slope, had a problem meeting 301 height from finished grade, they had to cut in order to provide two stories. Charles Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering, discussed plans showing driveway and section of creek that is to be enclosed in a culvert, -� most of the creek is open going downstream, portion being enclosed is 18' upstream of the driveway, there is a 75' existing 24" storm drain pipe, they propose to replace all of it with concrete pipe because they are putting the driveway over it, hope to replace the pipe and create a defined easement for the new pipe. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition: Mary Ann Natly, 2656 Summit Drive; John Moran, 2616 Summit Drive; Charles Mahnken, 2614 Summit Drive; Peter Davidson, 2694 Summit Drive; Charles Chapman, 6 Kenmar Way; Marian Zucca, 2628 Summit Drive; Bill Garibaldi, 2620 Summit Drive. Their comments/concerns: the mutual driveway between the house at 2656 Summit and the proposed residence, a seven bedroom home could have a -lot of cars using the driveway, proposed house seems much too big for a private residence, movement of heavy machinery and trucks during construction; retaining wall which would be constructed on the boundary line with 2616 Summit', need soil evaluation data and design details, will the excavation cause the house at 2616 Summit to move; will there be adequate bonding and insurance, will construction interrupt use of the sewer line; house proposed a year ago was set down in the canyon, it did not have such a high profile, does a 12,000 SF house make sense, will it conform to the existing single family homes in the area, will it set a precedent; there is other vacant land, where will size stop. Concern about soil movement, need for soil stability data; a 12,000 SF house will be three to four times the size of anything in the neighborhood, will not be compatible with other structures, a house Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 10, 1990 this size could have three in-law units, there is another nearby lot which might be developed in the same way; displacement of 75' x 200' of soil will affect the downhill slopes, problem of subsidence and concern about slides if there is a wet winter. Live across the canyon from the proposed retaining wall, am an engineer, there is need for a complete soils stability report and environmental impact document, when start cutting a hill everything is changed; it seems this large house is an apartment building in the middle of a select single family neighborhood, there has been a proliferation of large houses on small lots in Burlingame; will lose some view and large portion of view of the airport, the number of cars a residence this size will have will produce a lot of noise; there are two or three homes which will lose view. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CA noted there has been much discussion about size of the project and advised size is not relevant to this application, application is for a hillside area construction permit (view) and a creek enclosure permit. Responding to a question he said the flag lot and the driveway are legal. Commission/staff comment/discussion: city review process for grading and prevention of potential slides; city does not require bonds or insurance, city's limit is the review process, ultimate responsibility is the private developer's; possibility of a condition so that homeowners and other professional people involved are covered; CA advised excavation has little to do with the two permits Commission is hearing this evening, such a condition would not be appropriate. CA noted a single family house can have only one kitchen, if a large extended family occupied the structure the city would not be able to prevent that occurrence as long as there was only one kitchen. Responding to a question regarding history of the creek during the wet season, CE advised everything upstream of this site is culverted, there is a 40' to 45' length that is not in a pipe, then back in a pipe at the beginning of riprap, its condition has not changed, in 1982 it was wet but there were no slides, it has sufficient capacity for rainstorms if not plugged. A Commissioner expressed concern about long distance views, the property is longer than the two properties which are adjacent, project will block some view, house is extremely long and narrow, Garibaldi (2620 Summit) and Moran (2616 Summit) residences will lose a major portion of their view of the canyon, difficult to make a determination on view from the diagrams presented, would be in favor of postponing a decision for two weeks in order to have time to check the view further; it is difficult to visualize where the house will be, if it were more compact there might be less impact on the view. The biggest problem is the size, this is a large property being underused, owner is taking advantage of the size of the lot to build a very large residence but is using less than 10% of available property; high point of the house is at 3511, 1.5' higher than the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 10, 1990 low point of the Garibaldi residence. Compared to the Lehto project which was approved, if this project could be reduced 1.5' it would have the same height thus impact on view as the Lehto proposal, cannot find anything in the code which would allow Commission to deny this application, project is well within setback and other code requirements. Based on the previous statements, C. Galligan moved for' approval of the hillside area construction permit and creek enclosure permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and a further condition that the height of the structure be reduced 1.5' to the height of the Lehto proposal at its highest point. Motion was seconded by C. Mink who suggested another condition limiting hours for movement and use of heavy equipment. Maker of the motion accepted this condition. Conditions follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 19, 1990, Sheets 1-6 and November 9, 1990, Sheet WS -1; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of October 23, 1990 and City Engineer's memo of December 3, 1990 shall be met including - that the applicant is responsible for the installation, on-going maintenance and/or replacement of all culverts to city standards, establish city approved easements, and located as indicated on the November 9, 1990, Sheet WS -1 plans; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the house shall not exceed elevation 347' (the maximum height of a project previously approved for the site in September, 1989), and that the framing shall be surveyed to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final framing inspection is called for and the roofing material is attached; (4) that the finish material used on both the flat and sloping portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that the movement and use of heavy equipment on the site as well as onto and from the site during construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Comment on the motion: Commission discussion has centered on the view, in support of the creek enclosure permit find the impact on the creek to be minimal; regarding view, this is a wider proposal than the Lehto project but it is 15'-20' below the uphill houses, it's not a view issue but a size issue; can understand neighbors' concern with slope stability but all Commission can do is go through the review process, this is a difficult piece of property, applicant has tried to put the development where it will be the least intrusive. A Commissioner requested the word "all" be added to Condition #2 regarding requirements for culverts. A further comment: this is a large house on a very large lot, in the past Commission attempted to restrict size of buildings on very large lots and lots on exceptional slopes, citizens rejected the idea and Commission lost that battle 15 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 10, 1990 years ago, someday the city will have to address the issue, there are no ordinances which address this. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting yes reluctantly, C. Deal abstaining, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:05 P.M.; reconvene 9:15 P.M. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 BED RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AT 1117-1123 RHINETTE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 12/10/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. John Cimino, Jr., applicant, was present. His comments: they live approximately six blocks from the site,, this project would be like buying into the neighborhood, his parents and he and his wife as well as Joseph Miceli (one of the applicants) have had experience in residential care facilities. As a family they are devoted to helping the elderly, they are not developers, and are excited about the potential for providing Burlingame residents with the care that is needed. This property is zoned R-3, an 11 unit/3 story condominium had been approved for the site; he believed traffic volume from the proposed facility would be one-third of what a condo or apartment building would generate. He had spoken with three property owners on Rhinette (1132, 1128, 1113), they had no objections to the project. Kevin Gregory, Gumbinger Associates, architect also was present to answer any questions. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink spoke in support, there has been some concern about parking, unfortunately parking is not an issue with such a facility because typically these residents have few visitors and do not drive. C. Mink moved to grant the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 29, 1990 -for Sheet A-1 and October 31, 1990 for Sheets A-2, A-3, L-1; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineers October 22, 1990 memo shall be met;and (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: have a slight problem with the handicapped stall, there is not enough clearance and person in a wheelchair will have to go around behind the car to enter the building, would like to see a condition to allow 48" so that a handicapped person could exit around the front of the vehicle. Kevin Gregory, architect, replied Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 10, 1990 to .this comment: according to building code a handicapped parking stall is supplied for a handicapped driver, if someone is bringing a handicapped person to the facility they could pull into the driveway, use the handicapped ramp and then park the car in one of the spaces; they would block the driveway for a few minutes. CE discussed possible solutions; architect commented he did not want to take out any landscaping at the front of the building because it would make it look less residential. Following more discussion CE stated something could be worked out with Public Works regarding the design of the handicapped space. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AN AWNING SIGN AT 308 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 12/10/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Frankie Meyer, applicant and business owner, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found there were special circumstances applicable to this property in that almost directly across the street there is a city parking lot and the late afternoon sun comes across this lot hitting the windows of this business, with this structureless use of the lot applicants cannot block out the light; he also found approval of the request would not be a grant of special privilege since the neighbor to the southwest has a 5' extension into the right of way at present. C. Mink moved for approval of the sign exception to install an awning sign for the reasons stated and testimony in the application with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 25, 1990; (2) that the comments of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of October 29, 1990 shall be met; and (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the city. C. Ellis seconded the motion. i. Comment on the exposure but will a 6-0 roll call advised. motion: this extension will help the southern exposure. vote, C. Graham absent. not help the western Motion was approved on Appeal procedures were Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 December 10, 1990 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CONFERENCE CENTER IN AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 1240 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 12/10/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of the application, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. James Casserly, representing the property owner, Pritam Sabharwal, was present. His comments: considering the vacancy in office space on Bayshore Highway this facility will benefit the community by keeping business in Burlingame, hotels need this help and they will transport the hotel guests attending meetings and seminars to the conference facility. Responding to questions, applicant said 25 attendees could be accommodated in one lecture suite, if all suites were occupied at one time applicant said the average number of people per room would be 10-20. A Commissioner pointed out that the conditions limit number of attendees at one time to 60 people; with 20 per room in three rooms, if a fourth room were used applicant would need to amend his permit. Shawn Sabharwal discussed number of attendees with staff and Commission, his figures are an average, the condition refers to number of people from the standpoint of a maximum; if a day should come that they wanted more than 60 people could that possibility be considered now. It was suggested to him that it might be more appropriate to come back after he has experience and established a track record on how many people use the conference facility and what their parking occupancy is with firm numbers, he would then be in a better position to come back to the Commission and ask for a change in the permit since there are only four spaces remaining on the site with this proposal; Commission has a real concern about the use of the parking lot. Staff reiterated that 60 is the maximum number of attendees allowed on site at one time, if there are more than 60 applicant must amend his permit. John Steen, executive director, San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau, spoke in support, pointing out that hotels do not want to rent their public space to groups that do not use sleeping rooms in the hotel. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal found there is adequate parking, the conference center will be a good use for the area, the hotels are working for it, meetings will start and end at non -peak hours. C. Deal moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that only area on the first floor of the 19,050 SF office building shall be used as a conference center as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1990 with a maximum of 4,254 SF of area for meeting rooms, the remainder to be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 'December 10, 1990 used for lobby and support offices; (2) that the conference center shall be available for lease between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. seven days a week except that no meetings shall be scheduled to convene or conclude during peak traffic hours in the morning (7:30 to 8:30 A.M.) or evening (5:00 to 6:00 P.M.) Monday through Friday; (3) that the maximum number of attendees using the conference center at one time shall be 60 with a maximum number of five conference center employees on site at one time; (4) that there shall be 124 parking spaces on site available to the tenants and conferees using this facility; ( 5 ) that any change to the hours of operation, numbers of users, number of employees, the space used for conferences within the building, the parking on site or any other aspect of this use shall require amendment to this use permit; (6) that all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame shall be met in this first floor area before the conference center use can commence; and (7) that this use shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (December, 1991) and each two years thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW AN AMBULANCE SERVICE AT 1616 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 l Reference staff report, 12/10/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter and supplemental forms, study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Robert Lindgren, BayStar Medical Services, applicant requested_ that.the number of ambulances in Condition #4 be changed to 21 since that is the number they estimate in two years time. Staff/applicant/Commission discussed number of vehicles and procedure when they may want to expand parking into the drainage easement. Speaking in favor of the application, Dr. Brad Gilbert, Health Officer, Emergency Medical Services, County of San Mateo: his department is the regulatory agency for advance life support services in San Mateo County, BayStar has extensive experience in this field, the proposed location is centrally located with good access to the freeway, this would be a staging area from which vehicles go to posting sites. He advised South San Francisco is not included, they provide service through their own Fire Department. The following spoke in opposition. Joseph DiMaio, 1606-1610 Rollins Road: he was not actually against or for the proposal, would have liked more time to study it; concerned about how ambulances will operate when driven onto Rollins Road, what will it be like when they Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 'December 10, 1990 respond direct to an emergency, Rollins Road traffic is intense and high speed, his office windows face the driveway and he was concerned about noise. Tom Chakos, 1600 Rollins Road: it was difficult to evaluate the proposal in such a short period of time; there is a restricted entrance into that parking area, presently 40, vans pull in and around the area, there is a horseshoe turnoff, his property faces the parking lot, he had a concern about expanding parking into the drainage easement, there is no flood control there, if this area is used consideration should be given to proper drainage, he would not .want a multiple story building put up in the future, since vehicles will be going to a posting area he did not think it would be a problem nor would maintenance be a problem. Staff explained noticing procedures. Notices are required to be mailed 10 days in advance of a public hearing and notices for this application were mailed November 30, 1990. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: staff advised this application does not include any portion of the drainage easement, applicants are leasing that area but not proposing to use it now. Dr. Gilbert responded to a question, stating it would be extremely unusual for an ambulance to use a siren out of this site, they would only use a siren if they got the call when they were coming out of the parking lot, there are six ambulances permanently stationed in other parts of the county, a call would go to one of those first, siren use on this site would be once a month or less. C. Galligan expressed concern about the problem with noticing but commented if action on the application were delayed it would adversely affect the project going forward, he advised those concerned to talk to the applicants, there is an opportunity of appeal to the City Council. He found the proposed use at the proposed location would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and that failure to approve this use would be detrimental to the public health, it is in conformance with the general plan and purposes of the zoning ordinance. Based on the staff report and testimony this evening, C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permits by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 14, 1990, showing 6,756 SF of office, 3,540 SF of storage and vehicle maintenance and on-site parking spaces for each employee, expected customer, service vehicle and ambulance; (2) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo dated October 29, 1990 and the Fire Marshals memo dated November 5, 1990; (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the city, including limiting the vehicle repairs to those permitted in the B-1 occupancy; (4) that the ambulance company shall operate a 24 hour service seven days per Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 December 10, 1990 week, with administrative hours from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., with a maximum of 46 employees, eight service vehicles and 21 ambulances at the site; (5) that any changes in operation, floor area or use (inside or outside the building) which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this permit; (6) that any proposed use for the vacant lands at the rear of the property which is not related to this application would require a separate application for a conditional use permit; and (7) that this item be reviewed for "compliance in two years (December, 1992) and five years (December, 1995). Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS CP, Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its December 4, 1990 regular meeting. Minor Modification - 825 Maple Avenue - C. Deal called this project up for review on the basis it is a substantial reconstruction of the building. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Special Permit review - 1028 Carolan Avenue - auto sales - Sign Exception review - 433 Airport Boulevard - Update - special permit for interim long term airport parking facility - 350_Airport Boulevard ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary