Loading...
PC MINS 20050809CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Ap October 11 oved The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE A boy scout from the audience led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Gerstner, Golida, Mueller, Perestam, and Chairman Tetreault Absent: Vice Chairman Knight was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas and Associate Planner Blumenthal. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Mueller suggested hearing Agenda Item No. 2 before Agenda Item No. 1. The Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the Resolutions for the Ella Road appeal and the Ocean Terrace Tract Amendment were formally adopted COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) None NEW BUSINESS 2. Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00049): 28520 Montereina Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. He noted that when two retaining walls are closer than three feet to one another, the Municipal Code states that they should be considered as a single wall. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings to approve the project. Additionally, staff reviewed the location of the freestanding wall in the intersection visibility triangle, and noted that Public Works had no comment on the location of the wall and its ability to impair traffic. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit, as conditioned. Commissioner Karp asked if the wall was engineered and structurally sound. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the applicant does have engineering for the wall, however the Building and Safety Department has not yet reviewed the engineering. He stated that if the Planning Commission approves the wall, the next step will be to submit the plans and engineering to the Building and Safety Department for review. Commissioner Golida asked if a geology report had been prepared and reviewed by the City. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that a soils report will be required to be reviewed during the Building and Safety process. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing, Colleen Richter 28520 Montereina Drive (applicant) stated that she felt the staff report is fair and agreed to the conditions of approval. Paul Richter 28520 Montereina Drive (applicant) asked for clarification, stating that he believed the two walls had to be three feet apart to be considered a single wall. He stated that he had contacted the City and was given information on wall height, and built the walls according to the information received. Commissioner Mueller stated that his concern with the wall was when looking from the street and the neighbor's property, as the wall appeared quite high from these two locations. He asked Mr. Richter to explain why the wall is as high as it is, and if there is a possibility of taking a row of blocks off of the wall. Mr. Richter explained that in building the wall he followed the existing height of the original fence in the back. He noted that where the wall steps up he was originally told that the height could be up to 6 feet above level grade of the backyard, however he only built the wall to the height of the neighbor's wall, which is approximately 5 feet. He explained that he then dropped the height of the wall down to the original height of the wall, approximately 3 1/2 feet, as it wrapped around to the front of the house. He stated that he wanted to build the wall to the maximum height allowed for the safety of his children. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 2 Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Richter how this current wall compares in height to the previous fence in the same location. Mr. Richter answered that the wall is the same height as the fence was, except in one location, where it steps up two blocks. Chairman Tetreault asked about the height of the wall on the south side of the property, along Toscanini Drive, and if it is at the height the former fence was at. Mr. Richter explained that the wall is lower than what was there before. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked staff to clarify as to whether Mr. Richter had contacted the City before building the walls, and if so, why the walls were then built without permits. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff felt the Richter's attempted to get information from the City on what could be built and what permits would be necessary. He felt that because of miscommunication or misunderstanding the current walls were then built without permits. Commissioner Perestam asked staff what the height limits for a wall are that are adjacent to a road. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that any wall between a structure and a street is limited to 42 inches in height. Commissioner Perestam asked if additional height could be added to the wall if it were open fencing, such as wrought iron. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that 42 inches is maximum without going through a Minor Exception Permit or Variance. Commissioner Perestam asked what the current wall height is in that area. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the freestanding portion of the wall is 42 inches and the rest of the height is gained through the retaining portions of the wall. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they looked at this wall in terms of being compatible with the neighborhood. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that there is not a neighborhood compatibility finding in this application, however staff did look at what type of impact the wall would have on the neighborhood. He stated that staff felt that with the proposed landscaping, Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 3 which is to cover the wail with vines, that the wall would not cause an aesthetic impact to the neighborhood. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they felt the wall could be lower, or if it needed to be the current height because of safety issues. He also questioned if the wall had to be a solid wall or if it could be some type of open-air fence at the top. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the entire wall does not need to be at the current height, however something needs to be at this height. He explained that the wall currently extends 3 '/2 feet above the applicant's rear yard pad area, which is the minimum required by the Building Code for the safety rail. He stated that if the Planning Commission requires the applicant reduce the wall height below 3 1/2 feet, the applicant will have to provide some type of railing or open fencing to meet the Building Code requirements. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the 3 foot high wall along the sidewalk is a retaining wall, and whether the first 3 feet of the wall above it is also retaining with the upper portion remaining. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that was correct. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the height of the total wall is equivalent to the height required for a guardrail or other protective barrier from the Richter's backyard. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that was correct. Commissioner Gerstner then asked if the curved wall in the front of the residence is a freestanding wall, separating the sidewalk from the yard. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that was correct. Commissioner Golida referred to the proposed Condition of Approval regarding the planting of vines to help conceal the wall, and asked staff if Planning Department approval would be required if the Richters chose to stucco the wall. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that if the Richters choose to stucco the wall, the Condition of Approval, as written, will require a revision that will come back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Tetreault asked staff to clarify, as requested by Mr. Richter, the City's three- foot separation requirement regarding walls. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that walls are considered separate walls when there is a 3 -foot separation between the walls as measured from the interior side of the lower wall and the exterior side of the upper walls. He explained that, based on the information provided by the applicant, the distance between the current walls were Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 4 measured from the exterior of the lower wall, thereby providing only 2 feet 8 inches between the two walls. Commissioner Mueller felt that having a wall of this height next to the street makes one take extra consideration on how that wall will appear from the street. He stated that his concern is that the wall does not have to be a solid wall, but could be an open-air fence near the top. He referred to the section of wall that steps up at the rear of the property, and felt that if that is not required to meet the height requirement of the wall, it doesn't benefit the look of the wall from the neighboring property. He felt that the wall was adequate in the front yard in terms of the visibility triangle. Commissioner Karp stated that when he first approached the property, he immediately felt the wall was extremely high and not attractive at all. He questioned whether or not this existing wall would have been approved by the City if it had not already been built. He felt that perhaps the wall should be stuccoed to take some of the starkness away from the appearance of the wall. He felt that the Planning Commission should consider how to take some of the harshness out of the wall and make the wall something softer and more pleasant to the eye. Chairman Tetreault also felt that the wall, from the vantage point of the street, is not a very aesthetically pleasing wall. He noted however, that the applicants have replaced a fence of the same height with the wall. He stated that, while the wall does change the look of the property, he was able to make the necessary findings. Commissioner Golida felt this was a complicated application, especially since it is coming to the Planning Commission after -the -fact. He stated that he was able to make the required findings, but was struggling with the aesthetics of the wall and what conditions, if any, could be added to address the aesthetics. Commissioner Mueller stated that he was not concerned with the view from the viewing areas, as he did not think the structure was blocking any views, but rather the visual relationships. He noted that the City is very stringent in regulating the height of walls, especially in terms of building high walls along the street side of the property. He felt that lowering the step of the wall on the side wall, and providing a safety rail if necessary, will help mitigate the mass of the wall from the street. He stated that the wall, whether stuccoed or covered with vines and vegetation, is still a solid wall. Commissioner Gerstner felt that it was important to try to balance reducing the size and scale of the wall along the street while not impacting the applicant too severely. He suggested looking at and placing more emphasis on the wall at the front portion of the house rather than trying to address the back of the house. He felt that when one goes farther towards the back of the house the drop off is more significant and it is the more private part of the yard. He stated that the front of the house is more public and the wall affects the character of the neighborhood. He noted that there is a system of pilasters along the front of the wall that works well with the design until a certain point is reached in the wall. He suggested having the back wall start at a pilaster instead of at a floating Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 5 corner, thereby making the wall appear intrusive. He also suggested taking a portion of the block off of the front portion, which would drag the wall back and open up the front yard some. He also felt that it would be better to reduce the length of the wall along the adjacent street, and instead allow the wall to start at a pilaster. Commissioner Karp asked Commissioner Gerstner if he would also suggest the stones in front be covered in plaster. Commissioner Gerstner felt that any portion of the wall that cannot be reasonably covered with vines should be plastered. Commissioner Mueller questioned whether the stepping up of the rear wall is required and if it would be sufficient to make the rear wall all the same height. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the minimum safety rail freestanding portion of the wall is 3 feet 6 inches, per the Building Code. He stated that based on the information supplied by the applicant, the section of the wall referred to by Commissioner Mueller goes up to 4 feet 10 inches. Chairman Tetreault noted that the applicant was requesting she be allowed to address the Commission, and therefore re -opened the public hearing. Colleen Richter stated that she had forgotten to submit a document from her neighbors adjacent to her and directly across the street which states that the wall at the front side and rear of her property are an improvement to the property and neighborhood as a whole. Chairman Tetreault asked Ms. Richter to identify on the aerial photo which neighbors signed the letter. Ms. Richter identified the two properties on the photo. Commissioner Golida asked Ms. Richter if the purpose of building the wall in the back to the current height was to meet the fence line of the neighbor's fence. Ms. Richter answered that was correct. Commissioner Golida asked if that area were to be replaced with something more open, if it would eliminate some of the privacy in that corner of the yard. Mr. Richter explained that prior to building the wall, any time he or his wife were in that section of the yard they could have a conversation with the neighbor. He further explained that the reason he stepped the wall in that location was, not only to make the wall the same height as the adjoining wall, but to also give privacy to his neighbor and himself. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 6 Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam agreed that the wall does need to be stuccoed, as it would be the one most important thing that would soften the look of the wall. He also agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's suggestion regarding the step down at the side yard wall. Commissioner Perestam stated he was able to make all of the necessary findings if the wall is adjusted in a manner that he would suggest in a motion. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the application with the added conditions that the wall be stuccoed with a finished plaster on the exterior side; the block be removed from the wall from the first tall pilaster at the front of the house along Toscanini Drive; courses of block be removed from the section towards the corner of the property to an elevation that is equivalent to or below the top of the next pilaster, which is the first and lowest pilaster along the 42 inch freestanding wall along Toscanini Drive, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that if this motion passes and the applicant feels that for whatever reason they cannot do what is being suggested in the motion, their recourse will be to either remove the wall or appeal the decision to the City Council. He explained that if the Planning Commission would rather the applicant think about what is being suggested and want to offer alternatives, the better course would be to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to consider the suggestions. Commissioner Gerstner moved to modify his motion to continue the public hearing and ask the applicant to resubmit their application with some changes to the walls, and the suggested changes are that the wall be stuccoed with a finished plaster on the exterior side; the block be removed from the wall from the first tall pilaster at the front of the house along Toscanini Drive; courses of block be removed from the section towards the corner of the property to an elevation that is equivalent to or below the top of the next pilaster, which is the first and lowest pilaster along the 42 inch freestanding wall along Toscanini Drive, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault explained to the applicants that the Planning Commission has made certain suggestions regarding the walls, and asked the applicants what they thought of those suggestions. Mr. Richter stated he understood the concerns regarding the aesthetics of the wall, and that before the project was stopped he was intending to cut the section of the wall on Toscanini Drive more at an angle. He explained that because of the minor grading that he has done and the new walls, the front and back yards look nothing like they used to and are much more aesthetically pleasing. He stated that he would be willing to add to the pilaster at the corner, as suggested by Commissioner Gerstner. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Richter if he was willing to do the types of changes suggested by the Planning Commission in the motion, or was he suggesting that the cuts that are currently on the property are about as far as he is willing to go. Mr. Richter answered that he is willing to try to work with the City as best he can. He stated that he would like the City to come out to his yard, however, and explain how the suggested changes would be more aesthetically pleasing than what his original plan was. He felt that if that were done he would be more open to spending a lot of money to get very little affect, or even be a counter affect. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing Commissioner Golida suggested Commissioner Gerstner withdraw his motion and consider a motion to continue the public hearing and ask the applicant, after hearing the concerns of the Planning Commission, to come back with new drawings to reconsider. Commissioner Gerstner requested to withdraw his motion, and Commissioner Perestam agreed. Commissioner Golida moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August 23rd, and ask the Richters to take into consideration the comments of the Planning Commission and present to staff revised plans, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Director/Secretary Rojas asked the Planning Commission if the Richters would have to present plans, or if it would be sufficient to demonstrate the proposed changes on a photograph or some other means. Commissioner Golida did not think a full scale plan would be necessary. Commissioner Mueller felt that the motion was too open-ended and was not sure he could support the motion. He felt that many of the Commissioner's concerns centered around the corner and reducing the mass of the wall. He felt that the simple solution would be to remove some of the blocks in that area and put in some type of open air fence of the appropriate height, noting that the more complicated solution would be to re -grade the area and present a modified wall solution. Chairman Tetreault had a concern about the open air fencing, as it would be introducing an entirely new fencing medium to the neighborhood. Further, if the applicants are trying to achieve privacy they could put in the open air fencing and then plant hedges all along the area, which would then bring back the situation of a continuous line that can't be seen through. The motion to continue the public hearing to the August 23rd Planning Commission was approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 8 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:50 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:00 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1 Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2004-00265) Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the previous meetings. He explained that the Planning Commission had directed staff to draft regulations that best accomplish the Commission's stated intent on the use of cargo containers, which is prohibit the permanent use of cargo containers with the special exceptions for the moratorium area. He explained that staff has discussed this further with the City Attorney and the Building Official, in which the City Attorney stated that it was her opinion that the City Council had the ability to amend the Building Code to allow temporary structures for a period of more than one year, provided the Council can make a finding that the local conditions warrant such an amendment. He stated that the Building Code is not under the purview of the Planning Commission, and therefore the Planning Commission cannot take action on such an amendment. Furthermore, the language the Planning Commission agrees upon must be in compliance with the Building Code and all other codes that currently exist. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the Resolution before them and recommend forwarding the Resolution to the City Council. Chairman Tetreault asked if any of the Planning Commissioners had missed any of the several meetings for this Code Amendment and not had a chance to review the minutes for that meeting or watch the tape. Commissioner Mueller stated that he had missed several meetings, however he has reviewed the minutes and watched the tape of every meeting he had missed. Commissioner Perestam asked staff what the current language is regarding grandfathering of existing cargo containers. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that, as currently written, in order for an existing cargo container to not be subject to this Ordinance, it would have to have a current permit. He added that to staff's knowledge there is only one cargo container that has Planning Department approval. Commissioner Perestam asked for clarification regarding the language on page 2 that states storage of materials outside the cargo container shall be prohibited. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 9 Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that there was a building code concern, and the Building Official asked that language be included to ensure that things are not stacked up against the storage containers. Commissioner Perestam asked how the City would handle a resident stacking things up in their yard that does not have a storage container. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that there are property maintenance regulations that may apply in those types of situations. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that if the intent of the language is to not stack items up against the cargo container, the language can be clarified in the Ordinance. Commissioner Mueller referred to the Negative Declaration and the discussion that there will be no significant environmental affects from the storage containers, and questioned how that determination can be made in regards to the actual cargo container. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the key word is significant and that the Negative Declaration refers to how adoption of this proposed Ordinance would impact the environment. He noted that this is a finding that the Planning Commission has to make, and if they feel they cannot make this finding then they cannot adopt the Ordinance. Commissioner Golida asked if staff will make a CEQA determination on the cargo container when an application for a cargo container is submitted to the City. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that if the Ordinance is adopted as written, a cargo container will require a Special Use Permit from the City, which is exempt from CEQA. He noted that the CEQA finding is for the Ordinance itself rather than for each individual container. Chairman Tetreault felt that the language should be clarified in regards to the use of cargo containers used for equestrian purposes. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that cargo containers used for equestrian purposes would be allowed for storage purposes only and are not intended to be used for animal housing or office space. He felt that language can be clarified in the Ordinance. Chairman Tetreault asked staff to clarify when the Building Code requires these cargo containers be placed on some type of foundation. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Building Code states that a temporary structure must be on some type of foundation if it is in place for over a one-year period. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Golida asked if the cargo containers used for permanent storage in the Equestrian Overlay District would require a foundation. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that those containers would require some type of a foundation. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Casey Porter stated that he is the president of the Portuguese Bend Community Association and that he is representing the Board at this meeting. He also noted that he has a cargo container on his property. He stated that he is not a big fan of the storage containers and because of their appearance they really don't belong in the average community. He noted, however, that in the Portuguese Bend community they fulfill a certain agenda because of the peculiar conditions of the area and have become a necessary alternative. He did not feel these containers are not temporary, as some of the homeowners in the area do not have garages or other accessory structures for storage because they are in the moratorium area. He hoped that the City would allow the Portuguese Bend Community Association the opportunity to enforce and regulate the appearance of these containers in the area, as the Board has been actively working on standards for the containers in the community. He explained that land movement in the area prohibits permanent foundations on the containers and the moratorium rules restrict additional building, therefore if the City does not grant an exclusion for the temporary statues of the cargo containers in the Portuguese Bend area, what alternatives will the City offer to secure long term storage. Mike Chiles 11 Fig Tree Road stated that the Pony Club has had their cargo container for 18 years and never in that time has the City questioned the need for a foundation on that container. He questioned why the City appears to be exempt from the building codes for their permanent storage containers and the need for a foundation. He explained that in 1997 the City passed an Ordinance prohibiting the storage of farm type equipment outside and stating it must be stored inside. He stated that the residents of Portuguese Bend do not have the ability to create a place to store this type of equipment. He requested that the City grandfather in the existing 33 containers in the Portuguese Bend area, noting there has been no problem with these containers in the many years they have existed. He stated that a petition was circulated in the neighborhood regarding cargo containers, and the biggest concerns of the residents was that cargo containers not be allowed on vacant properties that do not have a home adjacent to the property and did not want cargo containers to be used as a foundation system for existing homes. Chuck Himmelwriaht 21 Kumquat Lane stated that it would not really be feasible to buy a $20,000 container for storage and it only be allowed to stay on the property for one year. He also thought it did not make sense to have a better, more expensive foundation system under his cargo container than he does under his house, noting there is only one house in the Portuguese Bend area that is still on its original foundation. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 11 Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam asked staff to clarify how and why this item initially came before the Planning Commission and the extent of community involvement that has ensured. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that this was initially was a staff request to the City Council to initiate the Code Amendment, as staff was receiving numerous phone calls requesting cargo containers to be allowed and what the requirements were to place cargo containers on their property. He explained that staffs initial response was to prohibit the use altogether, however based on testimony over the last several meetings, the language has been modified to what is currently before the Planning Commission. Regarding community outreach, the original notice was sent to all of the HOAs in the City as well as the Council of Homeowners Association. He noted that the Portuguese Bend Community Association has been the most vocal and involved regarding the regulations. Commissioner Karp felt that the Planning Commission discussions should focus on the Portuguese Bend area separately from the rest of the City. He noted that the Director has stated that the Planning Commission can make recommendations to the City Council regarding the Building Code, but the Planning Commission has no authority to change the Building Code. Therefore, he felt that the motion should center on making a recommendation this issue be given to the City Council, as the Planning Commission really can go no further. Commissioner Mueller disagreed, stating that not all of the Planning Commission may agree on the recommendations in the staff report, and that he has more questions for staff regarding the permanent storage limitations. He asked staff to clarify the proposal for permanent or long-term storage. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that what is being recommended for long term storage at this point is for commercial or institutional use and for equestrian in conjunction with a Large Domestic Animal Permit. Commissioner Mueller did not think this language addresses the majority of the concerns raised by the residents in the Portuguese Bend area. Commissioner Golida recalled that the Planning Commission and staff were attempting to carve out language regarding some type of long term, temporary use in the Portuguese Bend area that would not be limited to equestrian use. He recommended the Planning Commission try to focus on language to get them out of the permanent storage language and out of the requirement for a foundation for the storage containers and forward the recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Golida, stating that he recalled most of the conversations regarding storage containers revolved around trying to solve the Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 12 issues in the Portuguese Bend area, with the equestrian issues being on the peripheral. He felt that the intention was to try to provide relief for the residents of the Portuguese Bend area regarding their storage concerns, to allow the storage to be longer term, and to find a way to allow these containers to not be on some sort of permanent foundation system. He recalled discussions at past meetings that these containers not be permitted on vacant lots, noting that he did not see that language in the staff report. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that there was a concern with that language, explaining that if a cargo container is allowed on a vacant lot under the same ownership as the adjacent developed lot and the owner sells the vacant lot, there is an inherent right to allow the permitted cargo container on that lot. Commissioner Karp asked if the Planning Commission agrees on the language presented, with the exception of the Portuguese Bend area. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he had a few minor changes to the language, which he could discuss, and after that he would agree to the language regarding the other areas of the City, and referred to Exhibit A. There were no objections to the language in Exhibit A, sections A 1 and 2. Commissioner Mueller stated that he would like to see language regarding the finish on the outside of the cargo containers, as he felt galvanized metal may cause unsightly reflections where a neutral color would not. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the language currently being reviewed is for temporary use (30 days), and that such language may be appropriate later in Exhibit A. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the classifications of cargo containers, and Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that staff classifies cargo containers into two categories: temporary storage, which is 30 days or up to one year in the Portuguese Bend area; and anything other than that is considered long term, which includes construction containers. He felt that the way the topics are written in the staff report may be confusing and staff can re -order the topics for clarification. Chairman Tetreault asked for a straw vote from the Commissioners regarding the draft language on the use of cargo containers on a permanent basis, which limits the use to equestrian use only. He suggested that the language in Section E3, third line be expanded to say that equestrian use be the same use as defined in Section A3 (a), meaning storage only and shall be not used as habitable space, workshop, animal housing, or office space. By a show of hands, the Commissioners agreed (5-1) on that change. Chairman Tetreault then suggested language be included which excludes the use of cargo containers on vacant lots in the Portuguese Bend moratorium area, and the Commissioners unanimously agreed. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 13 Regarding the finish on the outside of the containers, Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that staff would add language to allow aesthetic alterations to the long term use of cargo containers as long as they are not structural type alterations. The Commissioner unanimously agreed to this language being added to the Resolution. The Planning Commission discussed whether there was a need for distinction between extended temporary storage (30+ days up to 365 days) versus 365+ days. Chairman Tetreault suggested, just for the Portuguese Bend area, to eliminate the distinction between 31 to 365 days and 365+ days. He stated that the same requirements for a cargo container used for permanent storage would also apply to cargo containers in place for over 30 days. By a show of hands, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed. The Planning Commission had a discussion on, and agreed, that they did not want to have the storage containers stacked on a piece of property. Chairman Tetreault asked staff to craft the appropriate language. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if they had enough information to include a recommendation to the City Council that the Building Code be amended to allow these storage containers to be placed without some type of foundation system under them. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff will be able to add appropriate language to include that recommendation in the staff report to the City Council, Commissioner Mueller was hesitant to recommend to the City Council that the Building Code be amended, as he felt that unless specific language is recommended on how to amend the Building Code it may open future discussions on the moratorium area in general. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 13, 2005 to allow staff to make the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (6-0). Chairman Tetreault's report on the July 19, 2005 City Council meeting Chairman Tetreault reported on his attendance of the July 19th City Council meeting, specifically regarding the discussions of the Planning Commission decisions for 28129 Ella Road and 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of July 26, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Karp moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioners Mueller arid Perestam abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-aaenda for the meeting of August 23, 2005 Chairman Tetreault noted he would be absent from the August 23rd meeting. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 15