Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112204PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 22, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the November 22, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 8, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Because they were related, agenda item 6 was shifted to follow agenda item 4. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke. She noted that the only jurisdiction in San Mateo County to receive Safe to Schools Act money for bicycles was San Carlos, if the city needs help riding its bicycle routes to qualify for this funding she is recently retired and would volunteer. She also noted that she has been observing the Planning Commission for some time now and is concerned that the community is being swept up by carpetbaggers who are building mini-mansions on small lots not intended for such large houses; as commission works on implementation of North Burlingame/Rollins Road plan take time to talk to contractors about the impact of their buildings. It's time for the residents to think about what Burlingame should be. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1. 1546 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (EDWARD SUPPLEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2004 2 C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the consent calendar. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 164 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREGG AND KRIS HURLEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report November 22, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Joe Conti, 25 Edwards Court, represented the property owners, noted that the previously approved project was not built for financial reasons, now the property owners have the resources to build the project. Commission noted that the floor plans and building elevations for the detached garage appear to be inconsistent, floor plans show no roof eave overhang along the right side property line, but front building elevation shows roof eave overhang. Applicant noted that there should be no roof eave overhang along the right side property line, not allowed by building code. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commissioner clarified that the plans indicate a barge rafter at the front of the garage with no roof eave overhang along the property line, barge rafter provides a symmetrical look at the front of the garage without creating problems with the building code, plans as drawn are ok. C. Keighran noted that the proposed project, with a smaller detached garage, is identical to the previously approved project, this is a well-designed addition, provides a larger front porch, and moved to approve the application, 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 October 27, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-6, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2004 3 Inspector's, Recycling Specialist's, and NPDES Coordinator's November 1, 2004, memos shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 3. 2849 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (STAN MUI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; VAN LY, ARCHITECT) (37 NOTICED) PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report November 22, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that sections of the staff report indicate a special permit for height, is this an error? Staff noted the error, no exception is needed for building height, the reference is an editing problem. Commission noted that the condition regarding replacement trees should be amended requiring careful placement of the tree so they do not create view obstruction. Also, would like to see replacement trees be evergreen with a mature height of 20 to 25 feet. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Van Ly, architect, 8 Brussels Street, San Francisco, was available to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commission noted that the story poles were partially blown down by recent winds, however enough remained to evaluate view obstruction, spoke with the adjacent neighbors and they indicated no concern with view blockage, only with some loss of sunlight from the proposed house. C. Auran noted this house is well-designed for the neighborhood, design is considerate of the views from neighboring properties, and moved to approve the application for design review, hillside area construction permit and a special permit for an attached garage, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 15, 2004, sheets A-1, A-3, and Architectural Site Survey, and November 12, 2004, sheet A-2; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that in addition to the trees required by the City’s reforestation ordinance, the property owner shall install two new 24-inch box size evergreen trees chosen from the City’s tree list with a mature growth of 20 to 25 feet and be placed so they do not block views from neighboring properties; they shall be planted at the front and/or exterior sides of the lot as replacements for the un-permitted removal of two protected size pine trees; appropriate irrigation measures and on-going maintenance shall be provided to these trees as approved by the City Arborist; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2004 4 compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 8) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 9) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 10) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 11) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 12) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 13) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 10, 2004, Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's March 8, 2004, and Recycling Specialist's March 3, 2004, memos shall be met; 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: Commission noted that this is a two-story house in the hillside area, but because the house is located on a down sloping corner lot with Temple Shalom and school located across the street and behind this property, there is no view obstruction created. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 4. 1464 & 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE (MICHAEL GONG/AMY LUI AND HERBERT WEI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report November 22, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting the history and the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Two conditions to be amended to the mapping action were suggested for consideration. CA Anderson noted that six years ago the city granted a variance to the lot on the left (1470 Vancouver Avenue) because they assumed the deed agreement was OK. Commissioners asked staff: with this proposed change does the variance granted in the 1990's go away; no, but the distance to side property line becomes better by 3'-6"; seems this is a pubic policy issue, in the past two property owners made an agreement without notifying the city, now they do not meet the 50 foot frontage requirement, those who granted the variance in 1998 were not aware that this agreement was not recorded, so Planning Commission did not make a conscious decision about this lot line adjustment at that time. CA noted that it is correct that the lot line adjustment was not considered in 1998 and city did not research original subdivision at that time. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. John Ward, represented the property owners. Staff report presents the history and facts clearly. Commissioner asked why not return to both lots having 50 foot City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2004 5 frontage at this time, since the transfer was not legal when it was done? Applicant noted in this case history guides, the city action in 1998 allowed a new house on 1470 Vancouver, so in fairness and equity the city should acknowledge this situation and make it legal now. In addition a 50 foot frontage would not work for the current applicant on 1464 Vancouver. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Do I understand that in order to reuse 1464 Vancouver the lot line adjustment had to be done? CA noted that property owners of 1464 Vancouver were bound by a private contract signed in 1951 which required them to return 3'-6" to the property at 1470 Vancouver if the house on 1464 Vancouver were ever demolished. The house at 1464 Vancouver had to be demolished in order to adjust the property line because we do not allow a property line to cross under a structure. So this lot line adjustment was not imposed by the city? CA No, although at design review the commission could make adjustments to the siting of the proposed structures, however, the proposed project is just coming forward. Would like to consider a condition to the lot line adjustment that the left side setback on 1464 be increased so that the space between the two houses is equal to the combined side setback on two 50 foot wide lots e.g. at least 8 feet, so that from the street these two lots are visually the same as all the other lots. As it looks now, the two houses appear as if they could overlap. CA noted that such a side separation requirement could be considered in design review. Could condition the map so this and all future houses would have to comply. If remove the house at 1470 Vancouver could a new house be built to property line? CP noted no, it would be required to meet the 3 foot side setback for a 40 foot wide lot. C. Bojués noted that he can accept a modification in the lot line to increase the street frontage on 1470 Vancouver, if the side separation were adjusted to guarantee at least 8 feet between the two houses then it would be the same as two 50 foot lots; moved approval with an added condition that the minimum setback between 1470 and 1464 Vancouver shall be 8 feet, the equivalent of two 50 foot wide lots, by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that letters of no objection from the mortgage institutions as indicated in the preliminary title reports shall be submitted to the City prior to the recording of the lot-line adjustment; 2) that the lot line adjustment shall be recorded with the property at the San Mateo County Recorders Office and a copy of the recorded document shall be sent to the City Engineer; and 3) that there shall be maintained a side separation of at least 8 feet between the two houses at 1470 and 1464 Vancouver Avenue, which will ensure a consistent appearance with the residential character of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the lot line adjustment with the added condition that the side setback between the two properties at 1470 and 1464 Vancouver shall be at least 8 feet, the minimum side setback for two 50 foot wide lots. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MICHAEL GONG AND AMY LUI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description, noting that this project is proposed for the now vacant lot created by the lot line adjustment. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2004 6 Chair Osterling opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, noted that he designed the new house next door at 1470 Vancouver Avenue, that house was built with a 4-foot side setback, with the lot line adjustment the setback at 1470 Vancouver will be increased to 7.5 feet; the new house at 1464 Vancouver has a 9.5-foot side setback, therefore the total distance between the houses will be 17 feet, double the distance found on typical 50-foot wide lots with 4-foot side setbacks for each house; the extra portion at the front of the lot gives variety to the streetscape and house design because it allowed for a one-story design to be incorporated on this part of the house, provides something different in the neighborhood. Commission asked if the architect thought about applying for a special permit for height to exceed 30 feet to eliminate the clipped roof. The architect noted that based on the proposed roof pitch, the height would increase by approximately 8 feet. Commission noted that simulated slate is proposed on the roof and asked if using real slate is a possibility? Architect noted that real slate would probably not be used since it is costly and adds a lot more weight to the roof. Concern is that the Commission has seen several project come back to request using composition shingle rather than slate as approved, just want to make sure applicant is confident that they will use a simulated slate roof. Architect noted that he has used this product on several houses in Hillsborough and it works very well. The architect made a strong point about changing the neighborhood fabric by adding variety with the lot frontage and house design on this very long block. Commission noted a concern with the flow from the living room to the rear yard, cannot enter back into the house until you get to the rear. Architect noted that the door from the living roof and terrace was designed to provide a space for a small table and chairs, not really as an access to the rear yard. Commission asked if any thought was given to providing a smaller garage since only a one-car garage is required for a 4-bedroom house. Architect commented that the property owners want a two-car garage to park their vehicles. Architect ask if the proposed setback between the houses is acceptable. Commission noted that the proposed setback works well. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Right side elevation is a two-story wall extending the entire length of the house, concerned that it is not as articulated as is the left side elevation, mass needs to be broken up along the right side, would like to see a softer look along the right side; • Concerned that the houses will appear to close to each other because the lot and neighboring house jog towards the rear of the lot, the 2-foot wide fireplace will make the houses look like they are overlapping each other from the street, concerned that there is not much open space between the houses towards the rear; • Landscape plan indicates a lemon tree to be planted in the rear left corner of the lot and a laurel adjacent to the garage, suggest changing these trees to a larger evergreen species to add screening for neighbor; and • Proposed coast live oak tree at the front of the property is squeezed in between the house and side property line, this tree should be moved further out in to the front yard, will also help to break of the mass at the front of the house. C. Bojués noted that the house is designed well and is confident that the architect can make the suggested changes to the project, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: the overall design is good, however want to make it clear that the right side elevation needs more articulation, prefer to see the project come back as a regular action item; Commission noted that the project can be pulled off the consent calendar if there still concern after the changes have been made, recommend that project be placed on the consent calendar; architect needs to give serious thought to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2004 7 concern about the two houses visually overlapping each other, open space could be added by moving the fireplace in by an additional two feet, will pull off the consent calendar if project comes back as proposed tonight, concerned with the configuration of the lot, existing house at 1470 Vancouver is squeezed in; architect clearly understands concerns expressed by the Commission, feel consent calendar is appropriate given that the architect can resolve the concerns. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 5. 29 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KAUSHIK AND SONALI BHAUMIK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plnr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked what is the minimum required driveway width. Staff noted that a 9'-6" clear driveway width is required. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Poko Klein, project manager, noted that the attached garage now at the front of the lot will be replaced with a new detached garage at the rear of the lot, renovation will add curb appeal, keeping the majority of the existing exterior walls along the right side and rear of the house, house complies with the minimum front setback of 15'-0" (15'-7" proposed). Commission noted that this is a well-designed project and an improvement compared to the existing house. Commission asked how will the second floor deck off the master bedroom be used? The project manager noted that the open deck is designed to provide a view of the open rear yard and as a sitting area with a small table and chairs. Commission noted that there is concern about large decks, but in this case the deck is small and only accessible through the master bedroom, so people will not be congregating on the deck. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • The side access door in the detached garage should swing out so that it does not affect parking; • The Landscape Plan on sheet A-5 notes three new Quint, please clarify what these plantings are or revise plans as necessary; • Identify type of existing and proposed shrubs along the right side property line; and • Proposed trees should be evergreen to help screen the new house. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed, checked and there is space. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:11 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2004 8 X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of November 15, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of November 15, 2004. - FYI – Revision to add a light well to an approved design review project at 1029 Balboa Avenue. In addition to the light well location issue, commission also discussed a change in roofing material for this project from composition shingle to wooden shake. Commission discussed why light wells were not structures in the side yard, types of protection to keep them from being hazards, and the need to bring forward standards for light wells which have been discussed earlier but not acted on. The Commission also acknowledged the change in roofing material for this house; noting a concern about flammability and that the Fire Marshal would have to approve the roofing material. XI. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING Chair Osterling adjourned the regular meeting to a study meeting at 8:30 p.m. The Commission moved to Conference Room A for the study meeting. XII. PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY MEETING A. Discussion about the Planning Commission's 2005 work program and how to organize to get it done. Chair Osterling called the study meeting to order at 8:35 p.m. Staff present were CP Monroe, Plr Hurin, CA Anderson. The commissioners discussed the 2005 work program as outlined in the staff material in general and the various ways, in the past, that the Commission has organized to get similar tasks accomplished. The consensus of the group was to discuss the best approach to each item in the work program individually because the activity would dictate the organization. - Implementing Zoning for the Bayfront Plan Since the plan was recently adopted and guides the zoning alternatives and since the plan preparation included a broad base of public input, the consensus was to continue the current subcommittee made up of Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Keele. The group will meet regularly once a month and continue to review the draft zoning regulations until they are ready for presentation to the Planning Commission for study and action. The regular meetings to review the new zoning district regulations will commence in January. - Revise the Sign Code. The consensus was that there were some issues in the sign code which were more critical than others. It was decided that a subcommittee of the Commission would meet with staff and identify key areas, such as auto row signage, where the code has become outmoded. Once the problem areas are identified representatives of property owners or merchants in those specific areas would be invited to work with the Subcommittee to address signage issues applicable to the particular zoning districts. The members of the Planning Commission who would lead this effort were: Cers. Bojués, Brownrigg, and Osterling. In January staff will organize the first brainstorming session. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2004 9 - Implementing Zoning for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Plan Staff noted that there were fewer new zoning districts to be created for this planning area, so felt that the zoning that remained of the Housing Element Work Program could be incorporated into the work of this committee. Consensus was that since the stakeholders participated in the creation of the specific plan and the Housing Element and since this zoning was focused on the implementation of the plan and element, this work could be done by a subcommittee of the commission. Leading this effort are: Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, and Vistica. The group will meet regularly once a month, in the early morning commencing in January or February. - Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee (Standing Committee to Coordinate Design Review) The purpose of this subcommittee is to coordinate with and calibrate the consulting design reviewers. This year there are two zoning tasks also on the committee's docket: off street parking for second units eligible for amnesty and a review of the demolition permit process. It was decided that the current subcommittee would continue: Cers. Bojués, Keighran, Osterling. In general the consensus was that the design reviewers are presently well calibrated. Staff noted that currently only the most difficult projects are being referred to the reviewers, some reviewers have indicated that they might want to discuss with the subcommittee the best way to make negative recommendations. The general conclusion was that since the commission and reviewers seem to be on the same "wave length" two meetings in the course of the year might be sufficient for this coordination effort. Two commissioners agreed to work together to collect some survey data on the relationship between the size of the on-site covered parking area and its use for parking in single family residential areas. They felt, and the commission agreed, that some factual information about how the community felt about this issue would assist the commission in the continuing debate. As a group the commissioners discussed how to best coordinate and understand the Council's planning interests for the coming year. They noted that it would be advantageous for the Commissioners to meet with the Council some time this year, not to identify work program priorities since they seem set and finances are clearly limited, but for the Commission to better understand the Council's planning objectives and concerns. The consensus was that the Chair should send a memo to the Mayor offering to meet with the City Council at their convenience on a date of Council's choice, before or after one of the Council meetings if that was more convenient for them. The purpose would be for the Commission to hear and have a dialogue with the Council on planning issues; including how the Council feels that past actions are working now that they are being implemented, like the change in multiple family height limits, detached vs. attached garages, and implementation of the various plans adopted. The consensus was that a Saturday morning meeting was not necessary; but a briefer discussion meeting would be useful to the Commission when the Council could work it into their schedule. Chair Osterling adjourned the study meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2004\minutes.11.22.04.doc