HomeMy WebLinkAbout125 Crescent Avenue - Staff ReportJ- P.C. 5/8/89
Item # S
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNER
SUBJECT: VARIANCES TO PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN
ADDITION AT 125 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Terrence Freethy is requesting variances to parking and side yard
setback in order to make a 1,334 SF family room and bedroom
second story addition to the house at 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned
R-1. Total number of bedrooms on the property will increase from
3 to 5 (one of which will be used as an office). Currently there
is a one -car garage (91-6" x 241) on the property. The applicant
plans to add a 16' x 12, extension to the rear of this garage to
provide for a 40' deep tandem parking area. A parking variance
is required because the code requires two side by side parking
spaces (Code Section 25.70.030 a). A variance to side yard
setback is required for this garage extension since it will have
a 3'-4" side setback where 51 are required (Code Section
25.66.050).
Y
The existing house consists of 2,536 SF on the first floor with
an attached 228 SF garage and an existing 644 SF second floor for
a total area of 3,408 SF. A 143 SF garage extension will be
added on the ground floor and 1,334 SF on the second floor, for
a total addition .of 1,477 SF. The new house with garage would be
4,885 SF, or 43% larger than the existing house. Currently there
is an existing non -conforming studio apartment on this property
which will be integrated into the rest of the house and converted
into a fourth bedroom.
Staff Review
City staff.have reviewed this request and had no comments.
Planning staff would note that this project isa redesign and has
been submitted in response to the City Council denial without
prejudice of an earlier proposal for a parking variance (P.C.
March 27, 1989 and CC April 17, 1989 minutes included in packet).
In his earlier proposal the applicant was requesting a parking
variance in order to use the existing garage and 69, long
driveway to satisfy the requirement for two covered parking
spaces on the property. At their April 17, 1989 meeting, the
City Council denied the project without prejudice and directed
the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with plans to
provide for two covered parking spaces on the property.
Applicant's Letter
In his letter date stamped April 28, 1989 the applicant notes
that in accordance with the City Council's request they have
redesigned the project to provide two covered parking spaces on
the property. The project involves the addition of an office and
family room to the house as well as the conversion of a non-
conforming second unit into a fourth bedroom. The proposed
garage extension satisfies the requirement for two on -site
covered parking spaces and maintains the attractiveness of the
property.
-2-
Findings for a Variance
In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find
that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section
25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that do not
apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss
or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience;
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and
potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on this
project. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and
findings should be made for each of the variance requests. The
reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public
hearing the following conditions should be considered:
11. that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April
20, 1989;
2. that the existing studio apartment shall be converted to a
fourth bedroom and the existing kitchen and bath shall be
removed and this property shall be used for only one
dwelling unit in the future; and
3. that the project shall be designed to meet all Fire and
Building Code requirements.
Adriana Garefalos
Planner
cc: Terrence and Barbara Freethy
Arline Castleberry
PROJECT APPLICATION /t'CITY O., 125 CRESCENT AVENUE
Er CEQA ASSESSMENT BURuNg ME project address
b...o' ..,�• project name - if any
Application received ( 4-20-89 )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
I. APPLICANT Terrence Freethy 347-6950
PROJECT IS A RESUBMITAL IN name telephone no.
RESPONSE TO A PARKING VARIANCE 125 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
REQUEST WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT
applicants address: street, city, zip code
PREJUDICE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT
contact person, if different telephone no.
THEIR APRIL 17, 1989 MEETING.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Permit ( ) Variance* ( X) Condominium Permit ( ) Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Coe Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Variances to Parking and Side Yard Setback for the addition of a
1,334 SF second story which will consist of a bedroom (to be used as an office) and a family
room. Total number of bedrooms on the property will increase from 3 to Currently there is a
one -car garage on the property - x The app scants plan to aCC a x extension to
the rear of this garage to provide for a 0deep tandem par Ing area. A variance to side yard
setback is required for this garage extension since it will have a - side setback where
are required. There is currently an existing non -conforming studio apartment on this property
which will be converted into
a fourth bedroom and (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
integrated into the main Ref. code sectioil (25.70.030-a) ( 25.66.050 )
residence as part of thi 4 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
project. (028-293-080 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( Burlingame Park No. 2 )
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
( R-1 ) ( 8,223 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Terrence Francis Freethy and 125 Crescent Avenue
land owner's name Barbara Ann Freethy ad res
Burlingame, CA 94010
Required Date received city zip code
(yes) (no) ( — ) Proof of ownership
(yes) (no) Owner's consent to application
Existing first
floor = 2,536 SF
Existing garage = 228 SF
Existing second
story = 644 SF
New second
story = 1,334 SF
New Garage
Extension = 143 SF
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Three bedroom house with an existing nonconforming studio
_apartment upstairs.
The existing garage is attached to the house
and measures 9'-6" x
241.
Required Date received
(yes) (ems) (4 - 2 0 — 8 9 )
Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
(yes) (1f6.) ( " )
paved on -site parking; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
(yes) (:n a) ( "
by type of use on each floor plan.
Building
)
(Fes) (no) ( —
elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site
)
cross section(s) (if relevant).
(other) ( .-2� g��
letter of explanation
*Land use classifications are:
residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair
shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL NEW
CONSTRUCTION
Proposed construction,
Below orade ( — SF) Second floor ( 1,3 3 4 SF)
gross floor area
First floor ( 143 SF) Third floor ( — SF)
Project
Code Project Code
Proposal Rea uirrmsnt Proposal Rea uirement
Front setback
Side setback
Side yard
Rear yard
32'-6"
15' min_
Lot covera;se
Puildinn height
, Landscaoed area
'r �! to nkc .snaces
34% 40% max.
30' 30' max.
- —
12 (tandem) 2
_
_
--IT -4
5' 1St fl
44' 1 15' min l
6
PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
7
EXISTING
after
8-5 5 PM
Full time employees on site
Part time employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Tri n ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
IN 2 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
IN 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent lots• this use conforms
to the General Plan.
Required Date received
(Y:L-6) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(ym) (no) ( _ ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) - no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. company vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( ) Other application type, fee $
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 (X ) Project Assessment $ 25 (X
Variance/other districts $ 75 ( ) Negative Declaration $ 25
Condominium Permit $ 50 ( ) EIR/City & consultant fees $ ( )
This project was denied wit'nout TOTAL FEES $ 65.00 RECEIPT NO. 4994 Received by K. Mills
prejudice at the April 17, 1989
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
City Council meeting. No true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
additional fees required. l
Signature o�sNlk� 77�A Date
Applicant —
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on 19_,
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Categorically exempt, reference CEQA
Code Section 15301 (e), additions to
existing structures
SIgrVture of Processing Official tle Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the Hate oosted, the determination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTING Date Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th> Council Chambers.
Executed at 3urlingame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )No
, 19
,1l1DrTH '� t1TTI. CITY CLERK, CIT`, n' GURLINGAME
STAFF REVIEW
I. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated
reply received
memo attached
City Engineer (4-24-89 )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Building Inspector ( it )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Fire Marshal ( " )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
Park Department ( )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
City Attorney ( )
(yes) (no)
(yes)
(no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Concarnc
M,+; �+; M
3
Does this project comply with
all Fire and Building Code
requirements?
Request comments from the Fire
Marshal and Chief Bmilding
Inspector.
CEQA REQUIREMENTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review?
Categorically Exempt
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed (
) Study by P.C.
Decision to prepare EIR (
) Review period ends
Notices of preparation mailed (
) Public hearing by P.C. {
RFP to consultants (
) Final EIR received by P.C.
Contract awarded (
) Certification by Council
Admin. draft EIR received (
) Decision on project
Draft EIR accepted by staff (
) Notice of Determination
Circulation to other agencies (
)
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 4-20-89 )
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to applicant advising info. required ( }
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( )
Date staff report mailed t applicant (5 1 3/S-Ct) Date Commission hearing (Sf 9;A g )
Application approved ( Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) no
Date Council hearing ( ) Application aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
s gned date
RECEIVE®
APR 9 81989
CITY 0' BU&NGAMr
PIANNIN OEPT:
April 28, 1989
TO: City of Burlingame, Planning Commission
RE: Parking Variance for 125 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame
In accordance with the City Council's request that we provide two
covered parking spaces at 125 Crescent Avenue, we are submitting
new plans that we believe satisfies those requirements.
As we stated before, our addition will be adding an office and a
family room to our home, as well as converting the in-law unit to
a fourth bedroom. Since the garage is attached to the house, we
feel the new plans satisfies the city's requirements and
maintains the attractiveness of our property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Barbara and Terrence Freethy
BURLINGAME
CITY, r.
�SAN MATEO
COUNTY
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 - (415) 342-8625 -
"April 18, 1989
Mr. Terrence Freethy
125`Crescent Avenue
Burlingame, CA :94010
Dear Mr. Freethy:
At their meeting of April 17,
1989 the City Council held an appeal
hearing on your application for a parking variance at 125 Crescent
Avenue,, zoned R=1..
Following a public hearing Council
denied your application without
prejudice. A denial without
prejudice. allows you to come back to
.the Planning Commission for
reapplication without another: fee
�- within a reasonable time, 90
days. Council directed specifically
hat your resubmittal provide
two covered on -site parking spaces:
sincerely yours;
Margaret Monroe
City Planner.
MM/s
cc:. Arline Castleberry
City Clerk
Chief Building Inspector
,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
March'27, 1989.
w ld any new owner be advised of -limitations on the property; .,do
the owners intend to continue this use as a senior care fa 'lity`'
with pgraded,accommodations ;or do they anticipate, doing ething
else w'th the building. Item: set for public hearin Aril 10,,,
1.989.
3. SPECI PERMIT .AND. PARKING VARIANCE FOR OPERATION OF AN
�+
ENGLISH FT SHOP_AND TEA' AT 11 BURLINGAME ,AVENUE,
',-ZONED C-1 UB AREA A
Requests: how: will, t sh be taken car of, particularly from the
restaurant; where will ople.park; w' 1 this be an intensification
of use. Item set for pub c heari April 10,, 1989.
r
4. AMENDMENT, TO CONDLTIO F REZONING ALLOWING BUSINESSES TO
EXTEND THEIR HOURS A 15 ADELINE'DRIVE ZONED C-1
,>
Requests: explanation o the;reques to change a condition of the
rezoning and need fo , all businesses o. request an amendmentfof
.:
their'. -use permits:.' dividually; how many f the people who. signed
the petition in pport:were from the neigh rhood. Item set for
public hearing ril 10, 1989.
5:; SPEC PERMIT FOR CLASSES AT 111 ANZA BOULE D. ZONED C-4
Request does this building meet current parking req rements•;
Burin the hours of the school, 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM- and-1: P.M.- >
4`r00: P.M., number of people in the morning and number i the
a'f ernoon amount of parking on; site, how much of this is n in
e; } ".;cou d this , use be limited to, a certain > length of time . em
set.for public hearing April 10, 1989.
ITEMS'FOR ACTION
>:
6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF BEDROOMS AT 125
CRESCENT .AVENUE_, ZONED R-1
_ -
Reference' staff. `report, 3/27/89,`with attachments. PLR Garefalos
F
reviewed details of the request; staff review, applicants letter.
Three conditions were suggested for _consideration at the public
hearing .
Chm._ Jacobs opened, the public hearing. Terrence Freethy,
applicant, was present.' His comments: the existing nonconforming
studio apartment was built as .a part of the building which was.
constructed in 1930, the original plans show a one bedroom house
designed on the main level with a sun' porch and den 'which are; now
counted <as bedrooms, the people, who originally designed this house
Apparently had. no children, applicants need more bedrooms; they
would.like to have a two car garage but there is no way to achieve
th,s;:a drive -through might work for the cars but his truck is too
i
s^
r.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
March 27, 1989
large; to remove the existing garage which.is_attached to the house
,
would require substantial remodeling; they have a long driveway and
could'•park two cars behind the front setback; they are willing, to
remove the extra unit by eliminating the kitchen, applicant thought
that.•:: unit would generate more parking concern than a. fourth
bedroom.
;
K Commissioner noted cars could be driven through an open. carport..,,4'=
Responding to.`questions, Mr Freethy said they' need ,one
G'
of the rooms .for an office, in the originaldesign it was a den-;
to
incorporate the unit into the flow they added' a stairway tha
�r
rear;°` they .cannot; incorporate the studio apartment without doings'
other -,additions. They have considered a carport in. front of the
garage;. there is a basement for storage, the stair at the rear is
interior to the house.'
Vaughn Janssen, 121 Crescent Avenue spoke in favor. of` the
application: he has lived there' for 20 years and `never> had;:
parking,problem caused by the studio unit, he saw, no.! problem with
this;.::change. There were no further audience comments and :the
public hearing was closed.
C. _,Harrison found it commendablethe applicants wish to, remove an
existing nonconforming_ unit, in order to enjoy their property they
would: not be `able to put' in a two car garage or "even 'a drive-
through because of;what it would do to the appearance of the house;
granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation :and
enjoyment of the .property rights of the applicants,, it, will' not 'be
detrimental " or njurio.us to; property or. _ improvements of . the
neighbors andthe. use of .,the property would be compatible with,t,hbll
aesthetics', mass,,;bulk and character of existing and potential uses
of .jproperties -in the general vicinity. C. Harrison moved.. for.;.
�f
approval of the variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution
Approving Variance. with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis.
;,
Comment on the motion: there.is space on this property for a tandem
r..;
garage by expansion ta.the rear so will': vote no C. .,Harrison added
%.
a finding: that there is a long driveway and two cars can.be parked
F:
behind the front setback. Further comment: this is a large house,
thew- are spending a considerable amount of money and_realiz'e atwo
;.
car.: garage would be ;another expense, but. a drive -through would mot
M
change the house so much, think they should provide a standard two
'
car, garage; it is a small lot with a large house but there .is room
at the rear for a 'standard garage':
Motion for approval failed on a 2-3 rollcallvote, Cers Garcia, H.
Graham and Jacobs voting no, Cers Giomi and S. Graham absent:
Appeal procedures';were,advised
i
i
Led by, Fz re ,Chi of Mal col m Towns: .. .
ROLL 'CALL"
..
COUNCIL.MEMBEFS PRESENT: AMSTRUP, BARTON, LEMBI! PAGLIARO
1i
GOUNCILMEM11kRS ABSENT:' MANGINI (i11ness)
I NUTES .. -
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of :April Z,, 1989 were approved.
`y
CONTINUED APPEALHEAR-ING FOR FENCE EXCEPTION AT 1915 ADELINE-DRIVE
City P1•anner'reviewed her memo of N-arch 27 which recommended council
�.
hol"d qublic"`hearing and take action. Michael Morn, a contractor,:
1 _
is reg jesting a fence exception for a sis',foot eight, to -ten inch.
--
high property ,line fence at a -house that:'he;built. This is a rode
enforcement item.". The fence was in pl,ace-when the, final inspection
for the'house was made. The property owners who have since
purcHased.the ho�ise have not•been 'involved in this -fence exception.
The fence was build„without.: building permit. The Planning
Commission' denied``tKi-s request at i.ts meeting of March 1,:3 1989.
uz
Mayor Amstrup opened the public hearing.-
Michael ,Moran staged he wanted to, enhance; the security of,, this new
home; i.t is "a corner lot and a busy area near a high school.
Councilman Pagl,iaro confirmed that.the.f,ence was not shown.on.plans
submitted to city 'and that:Lhe contractor never got a fence
permit;Moran noted that the city approved the final .building -
inspection; he said the. previous house was an eyesore and the new
house '.greatly improves the area; "the_fence is attractive and well
burl't;".h'e.'showed,phot;ographs of fences in the area that are over -
height.
layor'Amstrup closed the public hearing:
Councilman:Pagli.aro agreed that it is a well built fence but he
could find no exceptional circumstances in order to grant a fence
except on.:Council members agreed.
'
n.
sustain the
Counciiman Pagliaro moved to Planning Commission denial.
sr
kr�r;a �
Seconded b Councilman car
- - , carried unanimously 4-0 on roll. -call
vote.
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR
ADDITION AT 125 CRESCENT
.
City Planner reviewed her memo of April i which recommended council
.
-hold public nearing and take: action. Terrence Freethy is requesting
a parking variance in order- to make a family roomlbedroom.second
story addition to his house at 125 Crescent. He proposes to use the
s
e.isting, one car garage where the code requires a two car garage. j
There is a 69foot driveway between 1-he Front property line and the
--emu--
garage. There presently exists as part of this house a nonconform-
ing second Floor satudio apartment which appears to have been built
r
as part of the original house in 1930; this apartment would be j
eliminated. The Planning Commission voted to approve the parking I
variance on a vote; since 4 .:vrfirmative votes are required for
• _ _
i
approval, 1. L wd n doni ed..
wanted more covered parking.
Mayor Amstrup closed- the public hearing.
Coldncilman Lembi commented with such a long driveway Freethy could-
; park four cars, offthe street.
Counci'1`directed Freethy..to,develop,more parking, either in front or
back o-f'the present garage.
hold a Public hearing and ta4:e-action^: Shuij'i' and Ryuko Suruki,
' property,,owner;s, are requesting two special permits to build and
operate a grocery store at 914" Edgeh'i`l l . The permits' are for sale
of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) and for failure.to comply
with o'Ur"of the eight criteria established for grocery stores
ru tx:
i.
u
Mayor Amstru acknowledged a
y P 9 petition signed by approximately 00
nearby residents, and several letters in opposition.
*YMn =� r'
Mayor Amstrup ,opened the public hearing. ,
The applicant Shi.rji SUruki requested approval, noting they need to
have a larger site r6r their Japanese grocery store which is now
located -on Broadway._.The applicants' architect Paul iVii also spoke
"1
in favor; he said all conditions of approval would be met and -
responded to council questions: that the mechanical structures
would not be visible to neighbor; in response to noise concerns he
noi_ed that refrigeration equipment would be located in an enr_ 1 osure
z
in the basemen-t; garbage would' be plc_%ed up from the California
Dr`r•;e side of properi_v, not at rear.
'
Speakinq in opposition wrare rnany residents and neighbors including:
_. San Francisco archi-tect sand sister of Pat Jones who livies next
door to the pro osed ro e-* I - J "
P P Jn ones, 8lu Edgehill; Warren -
4 Wickliffe, 3c';3 E:dgehill; Tracy Hamann, 1117 Pzil.m; C'.ene Hannon, 1400 �tSt._.ituarr~-rli r4st t
Edgehi.11; Jim Riles, 814 Acacia; C.lai_rde Shepard; Chris l_angridg , ?-='
il01 Edge -Tali tlarge L,neiar_, ,�,., "d,eh.ii1; a -an Friebf 1., 31;1
2 _ i
NGAME
,1� 0
Rqq
4
'kx%..C4...E7,
Zhr Tito d arlingamt
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
Parking and Side Yard Setback Variance
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 8th day of May, 1989 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application for: 1) a parking variance to extend the existing one
car garage to provide two covered tandem offstreet parking spaces; and a si e yard
setback variance for extending the garage with a 3'-4" setback where 5'-0" is required
at 125 Crescent Avenue Zoned R-1.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
April 28, 1989
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLVED
Burlingame that:
RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE
by the Planning Commission of the City of
WHEREAS, application has been made for a variance for
parking and side yard setback
at 125 Crescent Avenue �APN 028-293-080
and
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on May 8, , 1989 , at which time it
reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this
Planning Commission that said variance is approved, subject to the.
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San
Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, , Secretary of the Planning
Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of
May , 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY