Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.07.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 26, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, July 26, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink 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 July 12, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TENTATIVE MAP FOR LOT MERGER AT 1710 ROLLINS ROAD/30 INGOLD ROAD, ZONED M-1 Item continued. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION AT 1564 BALBOA WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, concerns of the adjacent neighbor at 1519 Ray Drive who called the minor modification up for review, staff comments, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Angelo Meneguzzi, applicant and property owner, and Cheryl Hochstatter, designer, were present. Applicant commented: concerns of the neighbor about roof drainage will be taken care of with the addition of a sump pump to take the water to the street; regarding the new windows in the extended dining room wall facing the existing living room windows of the adjacent property, there Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 ' July 26, 1993 are existing dining room windows facing the neighbor's living room windows; if facing a bedroom there might be a problem but not facing the living room. He presented photographs of what could be seen from his home now, from his front door one cannot see any windows, just a 6' fence and the next door roof; the third photo is from. his dining room window, the top 4" of the neighbor's living room windows can be seen, cannot see in through the drapes; when his windows are relocated at 5' instead of 7' neighbor feels he will see an unreasonable amount of their living- room, the fourth photo is from his .breakfast nook, it is presently at 5' setback and one cannot see any more than one could at 71; he felt his photographs show this is not an unreasonable request. Speaking to exceptional circumstances, applicant noted the 5' setback which has been in existence since the house was built in 1952; to remove the existing 5' portion and make all of the setback conform to code they would not be able to achieve the arrangement of interior living space desired and needed; they do not want to take space from the rear yard; designer has eliminated four existing windows on the side of the house to give the neighbors more privacy. Responding to a comment that they are moving a lot of walls inside and changing the entire face of that side of the house, it would seem they should be able to work within that one foot, designer said this would require taking out the whole foundation as they couldn't tie into the existing foundation, they need a foot for the foundation, it would not be a good idea structurally to pull it back one foot; putting the entire side at 6' would be possible but would narrow the kitchen. Applicant confirmed this was a two bedroom one bath house in 1952, when this remodel is completed it will still be a two bedroom one bath home. Commission/ applicant discussion continued: would the loss of a foot make that much difference in the kitchen, family room and living room design; applicant discussed the difficulty they would experience with taking another 12" off the width of the kitchen in order to meet the required 6' side setback, placement of the kitchen table was discussed. A Commissioner spoke of the need to make findings for exceptional circumstances pertaining to the property to support the variance request and noted applicant has shown nothing unusual or exceptional about this property.,; It was suggested perhaps he could take one foot out of the bathroom instead of the kitchen, applicant replied they have increased the bathroom by 12" also and need that space. There were no audience comments in favor. Margaret Chew, 1519 Ray Drive, spoke in opposition: they are the adjacent neighbors at the corner of Ray Drive and Balboa Way right next to the proposed 5' setback; she distributed a sketch showing the relationship of the windows; there is a clear view from her house into applicant's dining room window, applicant is proposing two new windows 2' higher than her windows which will directly face her living room windows, if they are only 5' away applicant can look right into her house, they use their living room as a family room and spend most of their time together in that room; she was not opposed to the proposed construction or to the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 26, 1993 5' setback since people do need more room, but she was opposed to the new larger windows looking directly into her living room, she asked that her privacy be honored. Ms. Chew did not feel the existing windows were an invasion of her privacy but the new windows will be closer and bigger. Commissioner comment: this is -a problem which exists with almost every house that is constructed next to another house, some properties have an even greater problem, the addition of vegetation could protect privacy. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs felt Commission should have some concern when a property's side •yard faces the rear yard of another; applicant may only be asking for one foot but it appears his property is large enough and there are ways to enlarge this house without extending the 5' side setback 39 additional feet; the proposal will be detrimental to the adjacent home on Ray Drive. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the side setback variance, seconded by C. Graham. Responding to a question, CP discussed explanations and handouts which are given to all applicants when they come to the Planning Department counter. Commission comments on the motion: Commission might be able to find some exceptional circumstances but this has been hindered by the applicant who has taken away all ability to find exceptional circumstances; if this were a 54' wide lot the required side setback would be only 51, because it is one foot wider, 551, they need a 6' side setback; do not think the Chew's concern is overriding, agree the motion for denial should be approved; because there is only a 3' setback on the side where the garage is located, applicant is asking for too much in extending the 5' setback on the other side to such an extent; a minor modification has a purpose for some existing houses with setbacks less than present code', in this case only the bay window encroaches into the older setback, bay windows are presently exempt 1' from side setback requirements, it is not right to allow the entire side of a building to have a lesser setback because of a bay window. Motion to deny the variance request was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION AT 12 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1 Chm. Deal advised he would abstain and passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Galligan. Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comment, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 26, 1993 Vice Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Steve and Carie Stirling, applicants and property owners, were present. Mr. Stirling advised they purchased this home in November, 1992;'now they would like to extend a wall to add two bedrooms at the front and enclose the attached patio in the back yard. They,have talked to -their immediate neighbors, all are. in support, they did not want to go up with a second story addition which might impact someone's view, it is all one story. A Commissioner confirmed from the applicants that they want to extend a 30' long wall with a nonconforming 5'-6" side setback a fraction more of the length of the existing. Applicant also confirmed the gentleman who was located in the canyon itself did not have an objection; applicants wanted to be sure all people on the block had no objections; the neighbor at 110 Kenmar was in favor. Alan Olin, JD & Associates, designer, spoke in favor and commented that normally this would be a minor modification but since it is in the hillside area they had to apply for a variance. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham complimented applicants on a fine job and found this would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, there is plenty of room in the front for the addition, no neighbors have objected, a small portion of the existing wall will be continued, it will not cause a problem for anyone. C. Graham moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit and side setback variance 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 June 24, 1993, Sheets 1 through 6; (2) 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; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed elevation 125.25' from the existing grade 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; and (4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis with the statement he did go inside the house at 11 Kenmar Way and climbed the hill to 110 Kenmar, he did not think there would be any problem five years from now, there will be no view blockage. Motion was approved 6-0-1 on roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Vice Chm. Galligan returned the gavel to Chm. Deal. 4. PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD STALL LENGTH FOR AN ADDITION AT 1652 BALBOA WAY ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Two conditions were Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 26, 1993 suggested for consideration at the public hearing. In comment it was determined the driveway is 14'-8" in length, staff measures this from city right-of-way. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, architect for the project, advised the existing garage width does not meet current code standards, it is too narrow for two cars, they can get one legal space within this garage; there is a problem in that the front of the garage is 14' to 15' from property line although the driveway is 20' long to sidewalk; the project meets all other code requirements. They considered many alternatives to meet code without needing a parking variance, widening the garage to add a second legal space would require a great deal of work and add a great deal of cost. Commissioner comment: this is a unique circumstance, the finding for exceptional circumstances states that it is not generally applicable to property in the same district, all of Ray Park is built with substandard garages, there is no way to meet code without excessive cost. Applicant stated at the time these garages were built they were considered sufficient for two cars but it must have been tight, all of Ray Park is essentially built that way and anyone who makes an addition in that area will have similar problems if the front.of his residence is only 15' from property line. Mr. Nilmeyer confirmed the garage is 20' in length and about 17.5' in width. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis found there were exceptional circumstances in the 6' setback from back of sidewalk to property line, this is unusual, in most areas there is 1' to 21; made a site inspection and there is plenty of room to park a car in the driveway. C. Ellis moved for approval of the parking variance for substandard stall length with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 2, 1993 Sheets A-2, A-3 and A-5 except that the man door open outward; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 724 NEWHALL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner asked if there had been discussion with the applicant about making the garage 21' wide. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Wendel and Ulrike Wessbecher, applicants, were present. Their comments: they have a very narrow Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 26, 1993 driveway since the house was built in the middle of the lot, they have four cars, two are always parked in the driveway and they need more maneuverability; it seemed better to place the new garage in the rear 30% of the lot, there will be no windows in the side or rear of the structure which will face the neighbors. Staff noted CE's memo received this afternoon (July 26, 1993) regarding widening the driveway at the chimney by removing some hedge and at least 20' on either side of the chimney, this may require removal of vegetation in that area. Applicants stated that would be no problem, they had intended to widen the driveway a foot. They were willing to make the garage 40' long and 21' wide to meet the legal requirement for a two car garage. Following some discussion applicants said they would be willing to move the garage to within 2' of property line at the side and rear which would given them an additional 120 SF in the back yard and would improve maneuverability. They have talked to their neighbors on each side, at the rear, they would leave the hedge; the two redwood trees at the back are about 6' to 8' from property line. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found applicants have been more than willing to adjust the structure, expand it, make legitimate parking spaces; they will be removing a lot of stuff now in the back, the new structure will not be l visible from the street, no neighbors are present this evening to l object. C. Graham moved for approval of the two special permits for the reasons stated 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 July 6, 1993 (existing) and July 13, 1993 (proposed) except that the garage shall be 40' in depth and 21' in width with a maximum 2' setback on either side and a 2' setback at the rear; (2) that the conditions of the memos of the Acting Chief Building Official (7/12/93) and Fire Marshal (7/12/93) shall be met; and (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. There was some discussion on the motion regarding whether a survey would be required and inclusion of the CE's July 26, 1993 memo. Motion was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO MAINTENANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR ONE STALL AT 1501 EL CAMINO REAL ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter in opposition (received July 26, 1993) was noted from Gregory Tancer, 1512 Highway Road. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 26, 1993 Staff responded to questions: we have -no accident statistics for E1 Camino Real, this is a state roadway; it is appropriate to consider service station criteria when evaluating this use at this location; staff has been very strict with residential structures on. El Camino, not allowing underground parking garages, required'' exits, etc. to extend into the 20' setback; the parking variance for one, stall has been required should Caltrans implement roadway work in the future and cause a reduction in the size of the two parking stalls on E1 Camino Real; a Commissioner preferred to defer such a decision and address the parking variance if and when it is needed; another Commissioner commented this area is not within Caltrans right-of-way now, it is within the City of Burlingame's 20' setback either side of E1 Camino. Chm.'Deal opened the public hearing. David Whitgob and Kevin Cornell, representing California Lubricants (Jiffy Lube), applicants, were present. Mr. Whitgob's comments: they are not a service station, do only fluid maintenance, no repairs, with three people working on a car simultaneously; compared to any other retail use they would have a negative traffic impact; expect to handle approximately 55 cars per day in five years, serve people living within a two to three mile radius of their business; customers wait with their cars, there is a customer lounge. Mr. Whitgob commented on a brief slide presentation showing their stores in other locations of the Bay Area, architecture of their buildings does not resemble a gas station, the majority of their stores are adjacent to residential uses; their sites are well landscaped, they will buffer the existing shopping center with landscaping, floors are not cluttered, note photo showing tile floor. They have a computer system which keeps track of service maintenance on a customer's auto; will have a maximum of five employees at any one time; they try to employ people from the local community, screen and train all employees, training never stops; disposal of the used oil is environmentally correct. They want to make a contribution to the community in terms of the service they provide, it will be an architecturally attractive building, they feel there is no use in the shopping center which will have such a minimal effect in terms of traffic and parking. Commission/ applicant discussion: concern about people who come in 10 minutes early, where do they go; the five on-site parking spaces do not interfere with the flow of customers, typically customers drive by, if there is no line they pull in, - if there are three cars waiting they drive by and come back later; customers will not be allowed to hang out in the street; if no space customers will be given a coupon and told to come back, they do not allow congestion to build up on the site. Kevin Cornell commented they expect approximately 55 cars per day in five years, this equates to approximately six cars an hour, a gas station probably would have 200-300 cars per day, Jiffy Lube will have significantly less. If an auto is able to get directly into a bay it can be serviced in 10 minutes or less, people learn to come back if there are two or three vehicles ahead of them. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 26, 1993 Plans show signs and security lights, are any other signs or lights proposed; Mr. Cornell said they have not submitted a formal sign application with the city, plan only identification on the Adeline and El Camino sides of the building, there is no visibility for a typical monument sign on the site because of the trees, they would be satisfied with identification of the building, nothing that is incompatible with a residential area. They are proposing five on-site parking spaces which is the average of their stores in the Bay Area, a good number of their employees take public transportation to work or ride with someone else, only two-thirds actually drive their own vehicles to work, customers don't need to park so they thought five parking spaces would be adequate. They could add more spaces next to the two in the 20' setback along E1 Camino but would be giving up some landscaping, they preferred to keep the landscaping. They have stores in three cities close to Burlingame. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Thomas Notaro, 2848 Adeline Drive, also has an antique business in the Adeline Shopping Center; Gregory Tancer, 1512 Highway Road; Chris Borgeson, 1133 Oxford Road; Daren Schofield, 1152 Oxford Road; Sharon Rider, 1157 Cambridge Road; Vicki Rounds, 1641 Lassen Way, has a business in the shopping center. Their concerns/comments: this type of business in a residential area, it will not blend with the character of the area, will bring people from outside the city, California Drive is a more appropriate location for Jiffy Lube; haven't seen a Jiffy Lube in Carmel and there shouldn't be one here; the area has become more family oriented since the gas station left; exiting the site will be a problem; increased traffic in and out; accidents have occurred on this corner, will be dangerous for students from Mercy who catch the bus here; double bus on E1 Camino will block the exit driveway; when cars can't get in at Jiffy Lube they will use the Adeline Shopping Center parking lot; Saturday is when more people are home and this business will be the busiest, customers will back out onto the street and there will be more than 55 cars per day; have been impressed with their service and efficiency which will lead to a successful business and more traffic; apartments in the area have caused enough parking problems without adding ajJiffy Lube; there are small businesses which could be successful there. Further concerns: the impact of lights; there is a traffic problem now and only one crosswalk at this corner; think Jiffy Lube will take more than 10 minutes for each car; this type of business needs a location with better access and exiting; concern about litter and parking on Cambridge and Oxford Roads; have witnessed several accidents at this corner over the last year; concern for the safety of children and pedestrians. Marmora Terrell, property owner, Adeline Shopping Center, expressed her concern about illegal left turns onto El Camino and cars using the shopping center parking lot for parking or making U turns. She suggested conditions if this proposal were approved: require lights to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 26, 1993 come on at dusk and go off at dawn, landscaping be limited to the height of the wall between the shopping center and the Jiffy Lube site, the use permit be called up for review six months after the business opens if parking and traffic becomes a problem. Some Commissioners asked those opposed what use they would propose for this site. Answers included a small park, bookstore, flower shop, ice cream shop, coffee shop. Another Commissioner expressed the belief that Commission should not ask the public what they think should go on a site, Commission is here to listen to the public and make its decision after all the facts have been presented and discussed. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: agree with the neighbors, have always been concerned about this corner, this will be a successful business, they will have many customers, people violate 'right turn only' signs all the time; Commission tries to get all the facts before making a decision, live in this neighborhood, was supportive of the Adeline Market coming back, Jiffy Lube 's service is terrific but this is not an appropriate place for it, perhaps in a location where there are other commercial activities, do not believe a park is the right idea either. Based on these statements, C. Graham moved to deny the application, seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: will support this denial, would like to have seen accident statistics on El Camino Real and ask that this information be available if any future application for this site is received; have a concern about access, with exit onto El Camino and right turn only, it won't work. Grew up and lived for 18-20 years in this area, have seen what has happened with the gas station on this corner and without it, gas station was intensely used but it never created problems, shopping center when it had auto access onto El Camino Real created the traffic problems which resulted in accidents, accidents are caused by people not paying attention to the traffic; applicant has addressed all the problems as well as he can, the Adeline Center is a good example of a neighborhood shopping center; would not let my young children go to a park at this location; if not a park both commercial and residential uses will present circulation problems, a low intensity use is what this site needs, do not know if 55 cars a day is an intense use, a retail outlet must have a number of customers using it on a regular basis to make a profit. Visited some other Jiffy Lube places of business, they may be backed up somewhat, customer base will be in the area, it is something that is compatible with the neighborhood, question if 55 cars will create additional traffic hazards, intensity of this business is as low as it can be and still make a profit. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 26, 1993 After all the discussion this evening think the use is too intense, concerned about the peak, with five employees there. are only four parking spaces since one space is a handicapped space, concerned about the amount of traffic. The proposed business is not a problem, the property is the problem; the site is so small that whatever goes in will have circulation problems, with auto related uses a circulation problem is guaranteed, like the Jiffy Lube concept, doubt a project will ever be proposed which will satisfy 50% of the neighbors. Motion to deny the application was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Galligan dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:12 P.M.; reconvene 10:22 P.M. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO SALES IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1327 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question CP advised all cars that are going to be sold must be in the warehouse. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Roy Spencer, applicant, asked for Commission approval of his request for retail auto sales from this site. He has been complying with the suggested conditions of approval for the past year or so, there will be little traffic impact, he conducts his business 100$ by advertising in the San Francisco Chronicle, when a potential buyer calls he makes an appointment to show the car, advertises specific cars, he is a bonded independent used car dealer. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Referencing the information in the staff report and confirmation that all cars will be stored inside, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit for retail auto sales by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo dated June 14, 1993 shall be met; (2) that the hours of operation shall be 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday with one employee; '(3) that none of the on-site parking shall be used to display or store cars for sale from this business; (4) that vehicles to be sold or displayed by this business shall be delivered before or after regular business hours of other tenants on the site; no cars shall be off loaded on the public street or in such a way that required on-site parking is blocked; (5) that any changes to this business operation as outlined in the application materials date stamped June 8, 1993 'will require an amendment to this special permit; and (6) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page it July 26, 1993 Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved unanimously by voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO SERVICE AND STORAGE AT 1221 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed the building is metal construction; Fire Marshal said the problem is they cannot get area separation on the property line, rated walls between buildings. It was noted the plans are unreadable, information is incomplete. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Neither applicant nor property owner were present. The Chair closed the public hearing. C. Jacobs moved to continue this item to the meeting of August 23, 1993, seconded by C. Galligan. The following was requested: applicant and property owner to be present; valid set of plans, site plan which shows parking allocation for each use on the site; number of employees Motion was approved 6-1 on voice vote, C. Ellis dissenting. PLANNER REPORTS Criteria for Residential Condominiums Reference CP's staff report with attachments. CP Monroe noted the summary sheet staff uses for residential condominiums provides a good guide for current regulations. Commissioners discussed, commented, questioned and made suggestions. Comments included: in view of the new FAR regulations it was noted a change to lot coverage requirement for corner lots would be appropriate. Also suggested was an increase in parking requirements for condominiums to 1.5 spaces for a studio, 2.0 spaces for a one bedroom unit, 2.0/2.5 for a two bedroom unit, 2.5 for three bedrooms. Clear delineation of guest parking was suggested with an additional number of spaces based on number of units required parking. Under general open space 50% must be landscaped, clarify what qualifies as landscaping. Why no guest parking requirement for apartments; why aren't requirements for apartments the same or similar than those for condominiums. Regarding Exhibit A, Findings of Resolution 5-80, do not believe Planning Commission in review places enough emphasis on 12, condominium projects shall be reviewed on the basis of their effect on sound community planning, that condition could be the basis of denial of some of the projects which come before Commission. Under Findings Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 26, 1993 17, project plans shall indicate accessibility . . . to parking . . . parking is important. Do we have inclusionary zoning? What can be done short of design review to improve the appearance of condominiums? Look at condominium units as a lifetime situation as opposed to month to month apartments. Guest parking for condominiums should be available to the guests outside the security gate, should be in addition to the required parking. Two spaces for a one bedroom unit and 2.5 for a two bedroom might be too much if guest parking was provided separately. Regarding architectural review, it has a valid place if properly used, would like to discuss this further; no design review board but could have an architectural committee, then refer to an outside design review consultant. Agree apartments and condominiums differ, that is the reason for discretionary review. Regarding parking, if two spaces are required for a one bedroom unit construction will be all two bedroom projects, it is better to have a mix. Could have separate criteria for lower income units. There are too many condominiums in the city now, don't know the vacancy rate but they are financial losers at present. That Is, a function of the economy; would rather have a condominium built to condominium regulations than have an apartment put up which is a lesser structure. The Chair continued this subject to a future meeting when there is room on the agenda for more discussion. CP reviewed City Council actions/ discussion at its July 19, 1993 regular meeting and July 21, 1993 study meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary