Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.08.10REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 10, 1998 7.00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the August 10, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; Senior Civil Engineer, Syed Murtuza; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES CP noted the minutes of the July 27, regular meeting of the Planning Commission had errors and have been corrected as follows; "p. 9, line 4; applicant tohe present, and line 7; 100 year flood plain. The minutes were then unanimously approved as amended. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was noted for the record that Item # 10, 1336 Balboa required some clarifications and should be continued to the August 24, 1998 meeting. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR Chairman Deal noted that this was an opportunity for any member of the public to request that an item on the consent calendar be taken off for individual actions. There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR EXISTING FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR FRONT SETBACKS AND FOR GARAGE DIMENSIONS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1800 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND BIJAN & PARI AMINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the applicant's request and the Planning Commissioners asked the following questions: made a site inspection there is a massive wall under construction on the Ray Drive side, is this the wall the design reviewer was commenting on, is there an encroachment permit for this wall, staff noted that the Senior Engineer made a site inspection today and there -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 is no encroachment permit for the wall and a stop work notice will be issued; this application should include a landscape plan, especially for the Ray Drive side, only a wall is visible now, need some landscaping visible from the street; the reviewer notes that this is the only house with the eaves cut off at a 45 degree angle, has the applicant looked at a 90 degree angle, how would this look, what would it mean in terms of the code. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on August 24, 1998, if the requested information is available in time. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2500 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1. (PAUL GUMBINGER, APPLICANT AND ROBERT D. KUGEL & DIANA S. DAMAZO, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the project briefly and the Planning Commissioners asked the following questions: would like the applicant to install story poles so could see the bulk and effect of the impacts of the second story; need to address the parking issue more, could two cars be parked in the garage; there is a lot of mass at the front of the house, could bay window be addressed to reduce the mass, the location of the bay window appears awkward, please address; is it possible to remove the stairs and door in the garage and increase the area available for parking; why are the siding materials mixed, is there a design reason for this; how many bedrooms will there be in the finished house. The item was set for public hearing and action at the August 24, 1998, meeting, providing the requested information is available in time. APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 508 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PETER W. & JANE G. STEVENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the Commissioners asked: plans need to be revised so that it is clearly delineated which walls are new/replace and which are removed, this item should be reset for study when the plans have been revised; address the design reviewers comments about landscaping in the side yards and provide plan; site has a problem with parking, what are the options to resolve, show studies; why did the applicant decide to go for a second story addition at this time; need a more complete set of drawings, sheet 2 in the plans is hard to understand; asking for a declining height envelope variance, reasons are unclear, what are the extraordinary circumstances. This item should be brought back to study and staff should set it when the information requested and plans are complete. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE (4' PROPOSED) AND FOR RECREATIONAL USE FOR A NEW GARAGE AT 1445 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PAUL E. BROEKER AND SHIRLEY E. LEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the project and the Commissioners asked: why is the applicant asking for such a large accessory structure but still not providing two covered parking spaces; how many bedrooms are in the house and how many off street covered parking spaces are required; why is the applicant not providing two covered parking spaces; this large garage will restrict future -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 development on the site, is the applicant aware. The item was set for public hearing on August 24, 1998, if the information needed is submitted in time. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE (6' PROPOSED) AND FOR RECREATION USE FOR A NEW GARAGE AT 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JESSE AND MARIA GUERSE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the project and the Commissioners asked: applicant should explain why they are not proposing to add two covered parking spaces; should be aware if two covered parking spaces now could avoid problems in future if want to expand house, could limit future expansion as proposed; why do they need a fireplace in the garden workshop; there appear to be three doors into the garden workshop (one might be a window, plans are unclear), clarify, why would they need three doors; is the fireplace proposed gas or wood burning; how many bedrooms are in the house; presence of fireplace raises concerned about the future use of the accessory structure; reason for exceptional circumstance is existing location, but removing existing garage so why need to rebuild with exception; application for special permit and variance are so full of jargon cannot understand, please redo; special permits for window and recreational use are not addressed in applicants request, need to be. The; item was set for public hearing on August 24, 1998, if the information is available on time. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER. Chairman Deal introduced the Consent Calendar. CP Monroe read the title and address of each request. Chairman Deal asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on any of the consent items. There were no comments from the audience. It was noted that the project at 1336 Balboa had been continued to the next meeting for a clarification on the plans. Both C. Keighran, commenting that the applicant was a relative and C. Deal, commenting that he had a business relationship with the applicant, noted that they would abstain from any vote on the project at 1600 Willow Avenue. The project of 1600 Willow was removed from the other consent items for a separate vote. Chairman Deal then called for a motion on the following remaining items on the consent calendar: DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1417 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, WITH FINDINGS BY RESOLUTION. (BRAD CLARK, APPLICANT AND PATRICK M. & LAURA F. SOMERS, PROPERTY OWNERS) -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 116 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHRIS GILMAN, APPLICANT AND GARY & MARYANN P. NICHOLS, PROPERTY OWNERS) DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1617 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PHILIP ANASOVICH, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND KARL E. & DEBORA A. BAKHTIARI, PROPERTY OWNERS) SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AT 1234 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, WITH FINDINGS BY RESOLUTION. (ANN BURATTO, APPLICANT AND KEIL SONOMA CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) EXTENSION OF A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND WILLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Key moved approval of the consent calendar, with findings as noted in the staff report and by resolution as required; C. Coffey seconded the motion. Chairman Deal then called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1, WITH FINDINGS BY RESOLUTION. (JAMES C. & RYAN KEIGHRAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Chairman Deal then asked for a motion on 1600 Willow Avenue. C. Key moved for approval and C. Coffey seconded the motion. A roll call vote on the motion was called for. The motion to approve the request passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Keighran abstaining) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1117 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TONY PANTALEONI, APPLICANT AND ANTHONY AND ROSALIE SPITERI, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 08.10.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners had no questions. -4- City of B-Ung— Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Shana Erminhouse, representing the architect, reviewed the previous history of the house and site. The house was built in 1907, it had 2700 SF of interior space which was increased to 3200 SF with porches and covered areas. It was 3 bedrooms with a one car garage; a single story at the front and two stories at the rear. Current owners purchased 9 months ago, want to expand but also maintain the character at the front and extend the character of the structure at the rear. On May 11, they asked for 5 variances, planning commission felt it was too much, they redesigned. In May Commission indicated that they were less concerned about the left side setback, since it was an existing condition to which no change was being made; they reduced the size of the second floor room on the left and eliminated the declining height exception; they reduced the size of the garage and house above so the FAR was met; felt that the tandem parking was no problem since it was essential to the character of the house and an existing condition. She showed plans which indicated the reduction in the mass of the house caused by the described changes. Reduced the impact of the wall next to the right side property line by 8 feet on each end, leaving 37' long garage, will accommodate two cars; will continue the existing architectural detail to the second floor addition. The majority of the houses on the street have attached garages, a few at the end have double or triple car attached garages. If parking were placed at the rear it would mean paving a driveway on the right side of the lot and taking up a substantial portion of the rear yard; the circulation core of the house is off the right side by the garage, so if remove garage would affect entire interior floor plan. As now presented the variances are all to deal with existing conditions, every effort was made to keep and enhance the existing style as supported by the design reviewer. Commissioner asked if the second floor plate line could be reduced from 9'-5" to 8'-1" this would reduce the height of the roof ridge by 16" and reduce the apparent mass of the left side of the structure, could look into; why is the garage 37 feet instead of required 40 feet for tandem, attempted to reduce area of garage and FAR, can easily park 2 cars within 36 feet, Commission previously concerned about mass on the right side property line, this reduction also addresses this issue; Commissioner wanted to know if request was to lower plate line on just the left side or on entire floor, noted that wanted to keep a uniform eave line and the 9'-5" plate is throughout the second floor now, the problem outside of the declining height envelope has been addressed. Tony Spiteri, the property owner, spoke noting that they had spent a lot of time and money in the redesign of the project after the May presentation; have done all that they have with the intention of preserving the house; need to work within the existing conditions so don't really have choice of a side -by -side garage; want to protect the rear yard, not want to use it for parking; since previous review city has instituted design review, so commission has the advantage of that perspective now, design reviewer was very favorable. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Deal commented on the request to lower the plate line on the left side, suggested it because the house was so close to the side property line, house next door has a high plate so will be a lot of mass; could reduce to 8'-11" in a way that would affect only two bedrooms on the left side, would break up the vertical mass and not really affect room size, ceiling would be slightly vaulted on one side, no other real effect; feel put a lot of time and effort into the design and reduced the living area which should have but to add another 16 inch reduction is not necessary; agree, within allowed height, nice to have a second story with a higher ceiling so go -5- City of Burhngane Platniag Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 with existing design; dealt with parking, a decent job; can't expand garage without causing FAR exception. C. Luzuriaga noted that he had concerns with the last submittal, glad not tearing down house, favor tandem parking think it fits the neighborhood better and since applicant from San Francisco where using tandem now, sure will use; first floor left side exception is an existing condition, have to remove house to meet setback, unfair; right side setback is also an existing condition reduced impact and meet FAR; tandem parking is all right, 37 feet is long enough to park two cars even though one car garage by code; based on these findings, those mentioned by the Planning Commission and the facts in the staff report he moved approval for the three variances stated by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 18, 1998, sheets A.1 through A.5; 2) that the left and right side property lines shall be surveyed to verify the existing first floor setback; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 22, 1998 memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion to approve the variances passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 632 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1. (ELMO J. NOVARESI, APPLICANT AND RONALD J. & MARCI E. MARTINUCCI, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 08.10.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked if the staff could read the letter from Mr. Thomas, which was mailed to the Commissioners, in to the record. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Elmo Novaresi, architect, 131 Ramona, El Cerrito, spoke, he showed a rendering of the house, noting that the second stork design made an effort to retain the horizontal appearance of the existing structure. In the case of this property the garage projects to the front of the lot, the addition is over the main horizontal living area of the house parallel to the street. Showed pictures of the rear view from the house, they limited the number of windows have only 3, two in the bathroom and one in the stair well, will not encroach on the neighbor's privacy; the neighbors house is 30 feet away from the new addition, will not be affected by shadows from new addition; lowered plate line to 7'-6" to reduce mass, having sloped ceilings inside; have a declining height variance because of slope at the front of the lot, rear 75 feet is level, this is where the addition is; declining height should be based on the higher level area; design reviewer supported keeping the existing building; can park one car in the driveway behind the sidewalk, to add a double car garage would destroy the character of the house and not fit in the neighborhood; applicant wrote to seven neighbors about addition, they signed petition, include in the record. 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 Thomas Mooney, 635 Lexington Way, spoke in opposition. He lives directly behind this property on Vernon Way, he wants to preserve the sense of space he; has at the rear of this house; bought house 13 years ago, house had a second story, it was not an addition, the house has 2 bedrooms and 2 baths, it was built 40 years ago; you can't understand what a difference this proposed second story would make, his rear yard is small, the lots going north and south in this neighborhood are small, the last two bedroom and bath addition on Lexington Way was done 10 years ago; city was concerned so passed the moratorium on second stories then design review; submitted copies of the Sanborn Maps for area showing lot size and house placement, his house is 26' from rear property line and their house is less than 20", less than 50' between these two second stories; no place else in the neighborhood on Concord where the houses are this close together; the house at 628 Vernon sits almost 27' further to the front than the house at 632, if 632 were as far forward as 628 he would not be before the Planning Commission; this addition is too big, too overpowering and too close to his property and he must defend the value of his property; the bay windows (important features) at the rear of his house in his breakfast nook and bedroom will loose all view of sky and trees as well as blocking small view he has to north, not fair. Applicant has many wants; he wanted a full deck in his back yard, he wanted a trellis, he said he would plant trees at rear but did not, the owner at 635 lexington Way had to, now wants huge house (not many 4 bedroom, 3 bath houses in this neighborhood) with no concern for neighbor's property value, privacy or enjoyment of his house. Propose he moved the addition to the front of the house; submitted a letter from a real estate broker indicating that the proposed addition would negatively affect his property value. Applicant responded not asking for a variance to the rear; adding 1000 SF, neighbor probably has the same in his second floor; did not put a lot of windows at rear to address privacy issue; Vernon lot looses privacy from Lexington Way since he looks into their rear yard; applicant's family is going to get bigger, need another bedroom, if go to the front they will loose the existing livingroom, no way to get light and air to it; to do the addition differently is not in the best interest of the Vernon property only intent is to build livable space. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: a difficult project which presents a lot of problems; visual impact of second story has been mitigated, good job; lot of space at front of lot, too sacred not touch, not a good place for the addition; where did put addition is creating a lot of problems, invade rear neighbor's privacy, garage is not well associated with the rest of the house, not address issue of parking; need to preserve neighborhood, this is done by preserving street, by providing parking; addition is in the wrong place, at rear suits owner, if located elsewhere suit neighborhood and neighbor to rear better; not see a hardship, didn't add parking, need to explore. Story poles show how addition interfaces at rear, could have put more of addition to the front of the lot; there are other possibilities on this lot, need to address parking, could add bulk at front or in middle; understand Mr. Mooney's concerns about light and privacy, code does not address privacy, hard to on 5000 SF lots; it is common to add a second story, everyone says will obstruct view, but only adding 3 windows one in stairwell and two in bathroom, not increase views into neighbors yard; would set the wrong precedence if base action on privacy; one point clear is parking variance, not inclined to vote for since do not see exceptional circumstances for parking. -7- City of Burlingame Pitaudng Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 Chairman Deal noted parking is no problem if 3 bedrooms on second floor not oversized would require one covered, problem if it is 5 bedrooms; agree that privacy is tough with many small lots in the city even though in other cases there may be more room between structures; agree that there is a lot of mass in the second story, it is loaded onto the rear of the house to protect the beautiful front yard, but placement does have an effect on the neighbors; like the choice of window placement; based on the reasons stated he moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED DOUBLE CAR GARAGE AND WORK/STORAGE AREA AT 33 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JOHN SUDANO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 08.10.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. C. Deal noted that he would abstain on this item since he had a business relationship with the applicant. C. Vistica noted he would abstain since he had an interest in the neighborhood. There were no further comments from the Commission. Vice -Chairman Coffey took over the meeting. Vice -Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. John Sudano, 33 Arundel, spoke thanking the 6 commissioners who came by his property; he noted he had two reasons to build, he lives in a 928 SF house with his two sons, there are three small closets in the house, the current garage is impacted by the nearby plum tree and is unsafe, garage is 336 SF can't get a car into it, it is full of storage. He has the required access to the proposed garage, he feels that his proposed use of parking is a typical use of such as structure, storage is also typical in a garage and he has no storage area in the house, a workroom is a typical garage use in the city, many people have a work bench for home repair, he also likes to make furniture; so all the uses are typical of the area and will not hurt property values of other residential lots; right now parking on the street is a problem because of the nearby auto repair and sales businesses, have to be able to park the cars in a garage; the property is 38' wide, his neighbors on similar 38' lots have similar garages across the rear of their properties; in future want to add a bedroom and will need parking; the ridge one foot from property line is the best aesthetic solution; has put in one skylight at the lowest possible location facing into the lot for the workroom, there are no other windows, would not be the end of the world if the skylight were denied. Commissioner noted that when add one bedroom would still need only one covered parking place, also when build such a large accessory structure you are limiting the size of any future addition to the house because of lot coverage; applicant not sure wants to add to the house now, has a car that he is restoring, branch fell off the large redwood in the back yard and ruined the convertible top, the garage is the biggest need now; want to add garage at the rear so that there is room to add to the back of the house later. There were no further comments from the public or applicant. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: have no problem with 2 car garage but have a problem with such a large garage and a 920 SF house; if add more square footage than two covered spaces, the proper place to add the square footage is on to the house not in an accessory structure; can put efficient storage in the garage; 38 foot wide lot if stop short, have a useless piece left over, in Ef City of Bur&game Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 favor of the use permit but not the variance; agree, clear about future limitations on lot, placement is good if want to expand house, wants 2 covered spaces which is not always the case, if need extra storage it looks fine. C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the project by resolution with four special permits, which exceeds 600 SF, provides for covered parking for 2 cars and is only one story with no storage attic, meets maximum height, with attractive roof sloping away from the :fence so has less impact on the neighbor, skylight will only affect his yard and there is only one, need storage because house is inadequate and everyone needs some storage area, by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 25, 1998, Sheet G-1; 2) that the conditions of the Senior Engineer's June 29, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that use of the structure shall be limited to off-street parking for vehicles and a work/storage area, and that the accessory structure shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit and that there shall be no sewer or water services connected to the accessory structure; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. On the motion: do the plans show two skylights, no second area is for the pull down ladder; need to vote no, this is a huge garage it will limit the future options on this property and could be a potential second unit, cannot support. Vice -Chairman Coffey called for a vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-2 (C. Key dissenting, Cers. Deal and Vistica abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. The commission took a brief break at 9:07 p.m. The commission reconvened at 9:15 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reported on the August 3, 1998 City Council Meeting. - SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND R-1 ZONE REGULATION CHANGES - The Commission reviewed the report of the Design Review Subcommittee on recommendations for a permanent design review process and for changes to the R-1 district regulations to make them work better with the design review process. CP Monroe briefly reviewed the history of the Subcommittee review and the timing of the :next steps. She pointed out that in order for the council to adopt an ordinance in time to have it effective before the interim ordinance expires the council must act at their second meeting in September. This means that the commission must make a recommendation on the preferred design review process for council's agenda at the next commission meeting, August 24. C. Deal, Chair of the Design Review Subcommittee, noted that the subcommittee was recommending a continuation of the present process because the reviews appeared to be timely (did not unduly hold up the review process) and projects reviewed were responding to design concerns, so the process was accomplishing what needed to be done. There is a problem with WE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 the current process and it has to do with the need to develop consistency among the reviewers. This can be addressed by having regular meetings with the reviewers and giving them feedback on the commissions views. A commissioner asked if applicants were requesting specific reviewers. No they are not and the process now in effect (and recommended) requires that the City Planner assigns reviewers randomly, which we have done to the best of reviewer availability. The commission then reviewed page by page the proposed amendments to the R-1 district zoning regulations. They suggested a number of changes for the City Planning to include in the draft which will go to the City Attorney for codification and consideration at: the public hearing on August 24, 1998. CP Monroe noted that there were a number of typographical errors and an item missing from the last attachment which was the corrections to the rest of Chapter 25 and the Municipal Code necessary to establish the new definition of Special Permit. She will be sure that the corrected copy is included in the action packet for the public hearing. Commissioners Keighran and Coffey noted that they would not be able to attend the next Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Deal at 10:30 p.m. MINUTES8.10 -10- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary