Loading...
PC MINS 20050712CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 12, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Ap oved July 26, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Perestam led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Goiida, Karp, Perestam, Vice Chairman Knight and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Commissioner Mueller was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Associate Planner Blumenthal. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as modified, to hear Agenda Item 3 before Item 2, COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed 3 letters of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1 and 1 letter for Agenda Item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON -AGENDA ITEMS None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON12005-00146: 7264 Berry Hill Drive Commissioner Golida stated that he was absent from the June 14.1h meeting when this item was heard, however he has read the minutes and reviewed the tape, and felt he was prepared to participate in the discussion. Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining this item was continued to allow staff to take better photographs of the view from the neighbor's home and to consult with the City Attorney regarding options in terms of neighborhood compatibility and lot coverage. He explained that the weather did not clear except during one weekend, therefore Mr. McCaskill took photos from his kitchen window and presented them to staff. He noted that the photographs have not been confirmed by staff in terms of where they were taken from and from what height. He also noted that because of the weather staff has not been able to assess what the total view impact will be. He further explained that, after consulting with the City Attorney, it is the City's position that the legality of the existing deck is not an issue. He stated that the deck is not considered as a violation and should not be treated as a violation, noting that this position has been presented to the City Manager and the City Council without discussion or disagreement. With that, he explained that the Planning Commission, in considering the findings for neighborhood compatibility, can consider the totality of the lot coverage as it exists today which includes the deck. Therefore, staff was asking if the Planning Commission feels that the project, as re -presented, adequately addresses the Commission's concerns from the prior meeting. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify if the City Attorney was stating that the Planning Commission could consider whether the lot coverage, as existing, is compatible with other lots in the neighborhood or consider that the current lot coverage exceeds the current Development Code limits. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there is no explicit code language on how to factor lot coverage into a neighborhood compatibility analysis, therefore it is up to the Commission's discretion on whether to consider whether the lot coverage is over or under the Development Code requirements, or whether the lot coverage is compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Knight felt that it was difficult for the Planning Commissioners to determine whether the proposed lot coverage is compatible with the lot coverage of others in the neighborhood when they don't know what the lot coverage is of the other homes in the neighborhood. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed, noting that the only way to compare the lot coverage to others in the neighborhood would be to look at an aerial photograph and estimate the lot coverage of the adjoining lots. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Miti Pate t (applicant) 7264 Berry Hill Drive stated that she would focus her discussion on three specific issues: the view impairment from the McCaskill's kitchen, neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the bulk and mass of the proposed structure, and neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the deck. Regarding the view impairment, she stated that she has reviewed the photograph submitted by the McCaskills and feels Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 2 that it accurately depicts their view from the kitchen, and therefore used the photo to evaluate their proposal and what modifications could be done to the proposal to reduce the view obstruction from the McCaskill residence. She presented three options on a power point presentation which were designed to help reduce the impact to the McCaskill's view. She explained that the McCaskills had stated they would object to any structure proposed over 16 feet in height and declined to review the proposed options. Therefore, she did not want to invest the additional time and expense into moving the silhouette, but asked that the Planning Commission review and consider the options presented. Regarding neighborhood compatibility in terms of bulk and mass, she felt that all three of the options reduced the bulk and mass of the house and address the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commission. Lastly, regarding neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the deck, she agrees with the staffs initial recommendation to leave the deck as is. She explained that prior to purchasing the house she had verified that the deck was permitted and considered legal. She stated that she bought this house with the intent of adding a second story and the City Attorney clarified in a letter any potential exception to her statements, she would not have purchased the home. She stated that there are several options she would be willing to implement and attach to the permit regarding the deck, including reducing the size of the deck by 240 square feet. Commissioner Golida asked the applicant to clarify where the wall would be moved in option 3. Ms. Patel stated that the wall would be moved 12 feet south. Commissioner Perestam asked if any of the neighbors reviewed the three proposed options. Ms. Patel stated that all of the neighbors declined to review the proposals. Victoria Young 7256 Berry Hill Drive stated that the second story addition will loom largely over important living areas of her house, mainly the living room and backyard, as well as obscuring the terraced hillsides to the north. She stated that at the previous meeting Commissioner Karp had suggested the applicant and neighbors meet and try to work things out, why was done. She also invited the applicant to view the silhouette from her backyard and living room and stated that she agrees with all of the other speakers who oppose the project and requested the Planning Commission deny the application. Vice Chairman Knight asked Ms. Young if she had viewed any of the options presented by the applicant. Ms. Young answered that she has not had an opportunity. Allen Young 7256 Berry Hill Drive conveyed his continued strong objections to the proposed project. He stated that he recently sent photos to the Planning Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 3 Commissioners showing how the proposed addition will significantly encroach on the openness and spaciousness of the immediate neighborhood, and was available to answer any questions regarding the photographs. He noted that the applicant has agreed to reduce the ridgeline height by two feet and make changes to mitigate his privacy issues, however they do not adequately reduce the close proximity and massiveness that is not compatible with the openness and spaciousness of the neighborhood. He did not think that Ms. Patel's statement that the neighbors had not seen the proposed options was correct, as the applicant walked the neighbors through options 1 and 2 at a neighborhood meeting. He noted that he was not aware of option 3 until this evening. He explained that moving the wall as proposed by the applicant would make no difference to the massiveness from his property, as the wall was on the other side of the house. Robert Slusser 7270 Berry Hill Drive stated that the proposed changes to the plans have not satisfied his concerns regarding the addition in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He noted that this would still be the only two-story home on block and the only house of more than one level on the lesser slope portion of the street. He stated that the new proposals would still result in a structure that is the largest in the neighborhood and, with the second story, look very obviously out of place. He stated that the changes do not address his concerns regarding the precedence that will be set in the neighborhood of allowing substantial expansion of the houses. Commissioner Karp questioned Mr. Slusser's statement that there are no two story homes on the same side of the street as the applicant, noting that he had seen several during his site visits. Mr. Slusser clarified that these are not two story homes, but rather split level homes. Commissioner Karp asked staff if any of these split-level homes are over 16 feet in height. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staff calls these homes two-story split homes, acknowledging that they are split level homes. However, some portion of the home is two-story over 16 feet in height. Mike O'Sullivan 30466 Via Cambron stated that he and the applicant have not had the opportunity to discuss proposed options to change the deck and requested the public hearing be continued to allow these discussions to take place. He felt that it was incorrect that the deck is compliant to the Code, and does not understand how the staff and City Attorney can feel it is compliant. He felt that the deck issues can be addressed and modified at modest expense to the applicant to solve his problems and still provide an attractive property for the applicant. Linda Slusser 7270 Berry Hill Drive stated that this development is one of the oldest in the City and 43 years later the neighborhood still reflects the same feeling and ambiance that it did when it was built. She stated that there have been very modest Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 4 changes to the homes over the years, but in essence Berry Hill Drive has not changed in 43 years. She felt that this project would change the essence of Berry Hill Drive, as a two-story home is not compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Karp asked Mrs. Slusser how this proposal would affect her property. Mrs. Slusser explained that from her backyard the addition would loom over their house and yard. She also noted that the addition would take away the sunlight from her home. Mr. Mori 7257 Berry Hill Drive stated that he is across the street and one lot above the applicant's home. He stated that he and his wife are completely empathetic to all of the concerns of the neighbors on Berry Hill Drive who have expressed opposition to the project, as well as the O'Sullivans on Via Cambron. He stated that he is in strong disagreement with the subjective findings of the staff report which states the design of the second story will not be massive or apparent and will not negatively impact the neighborhood visual character. He was very concerned of the precedence this project will set if it is approved and the second story allowed. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the application for the good of the neighborhood. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Mori if he had reviewed the three options presented by the applicant. Mr. Mori answered that he was not given the opportunity to view these options, however his stance was that any two-story addition on the street goes against neighborhood compatibility. Fav McCaskill 7249 Berry Hill Drive stated that allowing this Height Variation will negatively impact the view from her kitchen. She stated that her limited view is very precious, because it is so small. She felt that the proposed addition shows a lack of consideration for the neighbors on Berry Hill Drive. She stated that reducing her view will reduce the value of her home. Mike McCaskill 7249 Berry Hill Drive stated that the continued opinion of his family continues to be that approving this Height Variation will significantly impair their view and add to a structure already at odds with neighborhood compatibility. He appreciated the efforts of neighbor to modify the plans, a second story will impair his view. He displayed a photograph taken on June 18th when the weather cleared and the horizon line was visible. He further stated that if the view impairment issue is not sufficient to deny the application, there is also the issue of neighborhood compatibility. He displayed an aerial view of the neighborhood, indicating where the single story and split- level homes were located. He stated that the applicants are asking for special permission to build higher than normally allowed, and the property has already been allowed to have a reduced setback, a deck that is clearly built outside of existing guidelines, and to cover more of the lot than normally permitted. He felt that allowing a second story addition compounds the problem by introducing an imbalance that threatens to unravel the established neighborhood development plan. Further, any gain Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 5 to the applicant will come at the expense of the neighbors. Considering all of this, he asked the Commission why they would grant another dispensation to a property already well past its allotment. Ms. Patel (in rebuttal) stated that it was not her intention to mislead the Commission on the neighborhood meeting, noting that in a letter sent to the Planning Commission she stated that she had verbally discussed options 1 and 2 with the neighbors, and option 3 had not been available at that time. She explained that the options were not discussed in any detail, as the neighbors did not want to consider either option. Regarding the McCaskill's view, she explained that she has tried to make every attempt to reduce their view impact, noting that after the last meeting it was clear that their original proposal did cause view impact to the McCaskill property. She stated that her intent was to take the north -facing wall back a distance so as not to obstruct any of the McCaskill's view. She stated that she had spoken to the O'Sullivans and offered to reduce the size of the deck by 240 square feet, however the O'Sullivans were not willing to settle for that small of a reduction. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify whether the homes on the street that are identified as split-level are indeed two-story homes. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Code defines a story and per the definition of a story parts, portions of the houses have two stories; therefore staff refers to them as two-story split-level homes. He noted that although the Code does not define a two- story home, staff would consider them to be two-story homes. Commissioner Karp felt that the discussion should begin with matter of the deck and the lot coverage, as he felt that this issue is encumbering the Commission's thought process. He felt that the issues of land and real estate speculation are not relevant to making a decision on this application and the only relevant issue is whether the structure, as proposed, is compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Gerstner respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Karp on the issue of lot coverage, noting that the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines are clear when discussing lot coverage. He stated that not only is there a maximum allowable lot coverage, but the Guidelines encourage the applicant not to push the coverage on the lot to the maximum. He therefore felt that unless the applicant can find a way to come into compliance with at least the maximum lot coverage, he would have difficulty approving an expansion to the house. Vice Chairman Knight felt that the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines discuss lot coverage in terms of the impact of lot coverage resulting from new homes or additions to an existing home. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 6 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the neighborhood compatibility process gives the Planning Commission and the City flexibility when dealing with cases. He stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to take the position of factoring the existing lot coverage although the project is not adding lot coverage, as stated by Commissioner Gerstner, it is allowed. He noted, however, that staff looks at the lot coverage issue only if the proposal is increasing the lot coverage. Commissioner Perestam stated that at the first hearing he was unsure of the view issue because of the clarity of the pictures presented. He felt that because of the three options presented by the applicant, that issue for him has been clarified. He stated that at the last meeting he was comfortable with the issue of neighborhood compatibility and still is, as he felt that a two-story split-level is a second story home. He was, however, concerned with the lot coverage and was very interested in hearing the applicant's proposal to reduce the deck by 240 square feet. Vice Chairman Knight felt that there are a lot of unanswered questions with this application, many proposed revisions, and no new silhouette erected for the proposed revisions. He also felt it was important to have some staff analysis of the photos submitted by Mr. McCaskill. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he agreed with Commissioner Perestam regarding the split-level homes, noting that many of these split-level homes face the street and have a more massive look than this proposed two- story addition. Because of these unanswered questions, he felt that continuing the item to a future meeting would be the best idea. Chairman Tetreault stated that he was struck by the willingness of the applicant to make several substantial changes to the project to help mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. Regarding the deck, he understood the City Attorney's opinion that, though the deck is not in compliance with current codes and lot coverage, the City cannot make the non -conformity be cured before anything new be done with the property. He felt that the photograph of the view submitted by Mr. McCaskill was very helpful in determining the horizon line and view, and would accept it as being a fair representation of the view. He felt that the current proposal does block a significant portion of the McCaskill's view, but noted the applicant has indicated a willingness to reduce their addition to mitigate the view obstruction of the ocean. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he noted that the existing homes are designed in such a way that all of the homes on the ocean side of the street have a consistent design where all of the homes that are two story have the second story on the low side of the home. He felt that this proposal would be the exception, and felt that it would change the character of the neighborhood, as it places the second story over the upslope side of the home. Vice Chairman Knight asked the Chairman if changing the second story addition to the down slope area of the house would make the addition more compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault explained that this house is on the more level part of the street, which is probably one of the reasons why this is a single story home, and adding an Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 7 addition on the north side of the house would most likely have a greater impact on the McCaskill's than there currently is. He felt that any second story on this home may be a problem. Commissioner Gerstner noted that, although the proposed options from the applicant do reduce the view impairment to the McCaskills, there is still a view to the left of the chimney that will be blocked. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:40 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont). Commissioner Karp suggested opening the public hearing to ask the applicant if she would be willing to grant a one-time 90 -day extension for her project to allow the item to be continued to allow a more formal submittal of the proposed options to the project. Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing. Ms. Patel stated that she was willing to grant the one-time 90 -day time extension, but noted that if there is still an issue of lot coverage with the Commissioners she would like to be aware of that. Ms. Patel noted that she has had her lot evaluated with the conclusion that the deck cannot be reduced by more than 240 square feet without major structural work being done on the deck. Therefore, she asked whether it was possible to get feedback on the deck issue. Chairman Tetreault took a straw vote amongst the Commissioners asking how many Commissioners felt that any addition to the home would, given its present lot coverage, be rejected as being incompatible because of lot coverage. By a show of hands, two Commissioners felt this to be true. Chairman Tetreault further noted that one Commissioner was not present for this meeting to voice his opinion, and therefore his views were not currently known. He also noted that there are three proposals for changes that have not yet been silhouetted for review. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner noted that he does have issues with lot coverage, but noted that he would be open to any suggestions to help reduce the lot coverage to fifty percent. With regards to neighborhood compatibility, he agreed with the Chairman's comments that the tract was built in such a way as to give views to all of the homes, and Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 8 taking that away from a resident because of a second story addition was problematic, and he had difficult in the offering of a suggestion that includes a second story. Commissioner Perestam agreed with Commissioner Gerstner in that he has issues with lot coverage but would be open to suggestions on how to reduce that lot coverage. Vice Chairman Knight disagreed with bringing the current lot coverage in as a factor when discussing the current proposal, noting that the addition does not create any new footprint on the property. He stated that he was concerned about the view issue, noting that it may be possible that any proposed second story addition would create view impairment. He also stated that in terms of neighborhood compatibility this proposed addition appears less massive and bulky from the street as many of the split-level two story homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Karp did not feel lot coverage was an issue. Regarding the view issue, he suggested the applicant try to cut the addition back as far as possible and would like to see any new proposals silhouetted to better analyze the proposals. Commissioner Golida stated that he was not as concerned about lot coverage as it applies to neighborhood compatibility as he was regarding the view impairment and the actual subjectivity that goes into interpreting neighborhood compatibility. He stated that currently he does not feel the second story addition is compatible with the neighborhood, as the property is located where the street levels off, and the impairment to the residences across the street would be very substantial. Chairman Tetreault stated that his main concern was neighborhood compatibility, and he was not sure how this addition could be designed other than going to the driveway side and making the house a split level type house. Commissioner Karp moved to continue the public hearing to the August 23rd meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. View Restoration Permit No. 189: 3109, 3117, 3125, 3131 and 3139 Dianora Drive Senior Planner Alvarez polled the Commission as to who had visited the properties. All Commissioners had visited the properties. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the application and explaining the scope of the view restoration case, which include five Aleppo pine trees. He showed several photographs depicting the foliage and the views from the different properties. He noted that during the earlier meetings the applicants and foliage owner were able to agree on trimming the trees, however the method of how it should Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 9 be paid for remained unresolved. He explained the staff recommendations to trim the pine trees to a level that would be effective in opening the City and harbor views. However, he stated that staff felt that trimming the trees to that recommended level would likely kill the trees. Therefore, staff added language to the draft resolution stating that if the foliage owner should consent to having the trees removed, that option would be available to him. He also noted that there was an error in the Table in Exhibit D and, if adopted, the Planning Commission should read into the record that Conditions 1 — 5 of the draft Resolution read "solid line" instead of "red solid line". Commissioner Karp asked, if the parties agree on the trimming and the main issue is how it will be paid for, why the Planning Commission can't avoid the public hearing and just focus on how the trimming shall be paid, rather than rehashing the entire issue. Senior Planner Alvarez felt that question should be addressed to the applicants, as they were the ones that felt an agreement could not be reached. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that how the trimming is paid for is should be a non - issue, as it is very clear in the View Restoration Guidelines on which party pays. Director/Secretary Rojas added that the Commission could not waive the public hearing, however if the issue is merely how the payment will be handled, then the case should be straightforward. Chairman Tetreault stated that while he was at the foliage owner's property, Mr. Peters stated his preference to have the trees removed. Commissioner Karp suggested that, with the applicants' permission, the foliage owner be allowed to speak first during the public hearing. If Mr. Peters is prepared to say that he accepts staff recommendations or that he would rather have the trees removed, then that would cut down on the time it would take to hear this particular application. Vice Chairman Knight noted, however, that this is still an application before the Planning Commission and the necessary findings do have to be made by the Commissioners before a decision can be rendered. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed, noting that this application is now before the Planning Commission and Commissioners have the right to question everything regarding the case, including the viewing area and the staff recommendations. He stated that formal findings need to be made in a formal Resolution. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify if the viewing area at 3109 Dianora Drive is the living room or the dining room. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that the dining room at that address is the viewing area and that should be reflected in the Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 10 Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Ava Shepherd 3117 Dianora Drive (applicant) stated that she was speaking on behalf of all of the applicants and that she is in agreement with the staffs recommendations. She stated that their primary objective was to request that the Planning Commission approve the staff recommendation to restore their views. She stated that she was available to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Knight noted there was a signature missing from the agreement faxed to the City, and asked if that was significant. Mrs. Shepherd explained that Mr. Hillinger's signature was missing, as he has already trimmed his bushes to accommodate his neighbor's view. Commissioner Golida asked if the agreement was an ongoing obligation and if so, felt that Mr. Hillinger's signature should be party to the agreement. Mrs. Shepherd stated that Mr. Hi!linger was present at the meeting and would sign the agreement, if required to do so. Charles Hillind_pl 3131 Dianora Drive (co -applicant) stated that when he bought his home everything in the neighborhood was tied into the view, and he would like to have the view restored. Ken Peters 3003 Deluna Drive (foliage owner) stated that an agreement had been reached earlier, noting that in the first negotiating session everyone agreed to a line, but the view owners refused to document that line, they denied during negotiation that an agreement had been reached on that line, they denied to staff that an agreement had been reached on the line, and they refused to document that line. Therefore, payment was not the only issue at hand. He stated that the view owners reserved the right to make payment when the trees were trimmed and he felt that the proposed agreement would ultimately put them, the foliage owners, at risk. He stated that he and his wife understood that the line to which they will be allowed to grow foliage in the future, is the line documented in Exhibit D. He noted that in the staff report staff recommended trimming foliage trees 1 —5 to the line shown in Exhibit D or, with his consent, removal of the trees and stump grinding. He stated that he consents to removal of trees 1-5 with stump grinding. He noted on an aerial photograph that the trees cover a significant slope and slope stabilization and erosion are real concerns affecting public safety and welfare. He stated that arborists that performed the initial tree trimming bid negotiations, stated that replacement trees would provide a deep and wide root system for slope stability. He therefore asked that, in the interest of public safety and welfare, that replacement trees be planted within the scope of the view restoration work to replace the slope stabilization and erosion control currently provided by the roots and canopy of the pine trees. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 11 Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Peters if the arborist recommended a certain species of trees for the replacement trees. Mr. Peters answered that the arborist had not recommended any type of tree. He explained that he will look at the trees that are acceptable to the City, and make a selection after he has evaluated the condition of the area where the pine trees are to be removed. He felt that to provide adequate cover and ground cover it may be necessary to request more than one replacement tree for each pine tree removed. Mrs. Shepherd (in rebuttal) stated that this is basically the same agreement that is in the staff report, and had no concerns. She did, however, have questions regarding the one- to-one tree replacement and how the Planning Commission would rule on that. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the original agreement was for a one-to-one replacement. Mrs. Shepherd responded that was correct. She also explained the issue with the payment was that originally Mr. Peters wanted cash, which the applicants did not want to do, therefore it was decided that the applicants would provide cashier's checks to be held by the City mediator until the work was completed, in the amount of the contract and made out to the arborist. She explained that Mr. Peters wanted the checks before the work was complete, and therefore an agreement could not be reached. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp commented that everyone agrees on the end result and payment is spelled out in the Guidelines, and therefore questioned why the Planning Commission doesn't just agree with staff recommendations and adopt the Resolution. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if they had an opinion regarding the slope stability and the trees. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff has not gone to the site to assess the stability of the slope, however foliage planted on a slope does generally help with slope stability. He clarified that the Guidelines do not mandate a one-to-one ratio and the Commission has the discretion to determine the number of replacement trees, however a one-to-one ratio seems to make sense. Vice Chairman Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-31 thereby approving the staff recommendations as modified to state that the viewing area from 3109 Dianora Drive is the dining room, the Resolution will make reference to a solid line rather than a red or blue line, and that if the owner opts to have the trees removed replacement trees shall be provided at a one-to-one ratio, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-0) 2. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00114): 26231 Silver Spur Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 12 Commissioner Gerstner excused himself from the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He explained the scope of the project and stated that staff feels that all of the necessary findings could be made in a positive manner and was recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit as conditioned. Commissioner Karp asked if there was any conflict approving a commercial use of the antennas in an Institutional Zone. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the Institutional Zone allows for the use of commercial antennas. Vice Chairman Knight noted the Conditional Use Permit would be good for ten years, but questioned if there could be a five-year review of the permit to determine if there was new technology that could be used that would be more appropriate. Associate Planner Blumenthal noted that there is a provision that the Director will review the Conditional Use Permit in five years based upon the technology. Vice Chairman Knight felt that was sufficient. Chairman Tetreault asked if this request was to increase Sprint's coverage area. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that his understanding was that this location would improve service along Silver Spur Road. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Courtney Schmidt (representing Sprint PCS) explained that the proposed installation is a site that will provide new coverage and replace existing coverage. She asked that the Planning Commission approve the request and was available to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the outdated antennas that are being replaced will be removed. Ms. Schmidt answered that they will be removed. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-32, as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 13 4. Planning Commission policy on accepting late correspondence Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that staff was recommending leaving the current deadlines as they are, as staff felt it was important to allow people the opportunity to submit written comments after they receive the staff report. He noted that staff was suggesting adding a sentence that lets the public know that lengthy correspondence may not be effective as the Commission may not have the opportunity to review the content. Regarding view items, staff was recommending that correspondence be submitted on the Tuesday before the meeting and nothing be allowed to be distributed at the meeting. Commissioner Karp agreed with staffs recommendations, suggesting that wording be added that correspondence handed out at the meeting may not be reviewed and it was highly recommended that correspondence not be delivered late. Commissioner Golida felt that the sentence stating that this action will not prevent any citizen from reading written comments that are submitted in writing not only reference view restoration items but regular Planning Commission items as well. Chairman Tetreault felt that it was important to give the public who are most interested in the issues the sense that the Planning Commission is open to what they have to say and not feel shut out. He felt staff recommendations were reasonable, however he wanted to have the option to accept late correspondence. Commissioner Karp requested that language be added encouraging the public to submit their comments via email, which will assure the Planning Commissioners get the information sooner. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that such language can be added. Commissioner Karp moved to accept staff's recommendations, as amended, to add a statement that the Planning Commission discourages late correspondence, to add the sentence regarding reading written comments, and add language that the Planning Commission encourages written comments via email, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (5-0). Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Resolution to formally adopt these changes will be on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. 5. Joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Citv Council Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the City Council has agreed to have a joint workshop with the Planning Commission on Saturday October 22nd, He wanted to make sure there will be a quorum for this meeting and ask if there were any topics the Commissioners wished to discuss. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Perestam felt that between now and October the Planning Commissioners should work on different specific topics that they would like to discuss. The Commissioners present stated that they would all be available to attend the October 22nd meeting. Commissioner Karp suggested discussing the neighborhood compatibility finding and how that finding is made. He felt that it's a very difficult finding, as it is very broad and subjective. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested putting this item on the Agenda in a month to allow the Commissioners time to think about topics they would like to discuss at the joint meeting. The Planning Commission agreed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of June 28, 2005 Commissioner Perestam moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (3-0-2) with Commissioner Karp and Vice Chairman Knight abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of July 26, 2005 Commissioner Perestam noted he would be absent from the July 26th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 15