Loading...
PC MINS 20051122CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Approved December 13, 0 5 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:17 pm. 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 Golida, Karp, Perestam, Vice Chairman Knight, and Chairman Mueller Absent: Commissioners Gerstner and Mueller Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Assistant Planner Sohn. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Tetreault suggested moving Item No. 2 ahead of Item No. 1, and the Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed correspondence related to Agenda Item No. 3 and reported that the City Council approved the Zone Change on San Ramon as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items). None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00366): 3512 Hightide Drive Commissioner Karp recused himself from this item and left the room. Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained the scope of the project and noted staff did not receive any letters or phone calls from the surrounding neighbors regarding the project. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for the Height Variation and was therefore recommending approval of the project, as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Tetreault noted that there are two applications before the Planning Commission, a Height Variation and a Site Plan Review. He asked staff if it is possible for the Planning Commission to approve one application but not the other. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that would be an option. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Olympia Greer (architect) explained the scope of the project, noting that the owners have read and agree with the staff report and conditions. Vice Chairman Knight asked what type of roofing material will be used. Ms. Greer answered that it will be a lightweight concrete tile roof. Commissioner Perestam asked what color the outside of the house will be painted. Ms. Greer answered that the house will be an off-white stucco. David Shirley 3512 Hightide Drive (owner) explained that the goal of the project was to increase living space and update the house in keeping with the neighborhood compatibility, which he feels was achieved. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff what the square footage of the Site Plan Review was. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the Site Plan Review was for the addition to the first floor of the residence, and that addition would be approximately 25 square feet. Commissioner Golida noted that this house is one of the largest in the neighborhood and this addition will make it the largest. He asked staff how they justified making the finding regarding the total increase in square footage. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that the design and square footage are very closely linked. He stated that being since the resulting residence will be the largest in the neighborhood it was subject to a lot more scrutiny and review than is typical. He explained that this residence will not have tall facades that dominates the street since the second story will be setback from the first story facade and farther away from the Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 2 street, He noted that it is these are the types of elements that staff considers when reviewing a project. Commissioner Perestam referred to the residence at 3626 Hightide, which is a very large home, and asked staff if they had any information on that residence. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that particular residence falls just outside of the "neighborhood". He noted that residence had an addition approved by the Planning Commission in 1991 of 2,500 square feet, making the entire residence approximately 5,173 square feet. Commissioner Perestam stated that the Mediterranea community is quite large and to make a definitive cutoff point is quite difficult. He stated that in reviewing the community, particularly a rather large house in the area, he agreed with staff recommendations that the proposed addition is compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault stated he was familiar with the house discussed by Commissioner Perestam, and felt that house is incompatible with the neighborhood, and did not think that home should be a standard by which other homes in the neighborhood should be measured. He noted that this home is planned to be quite a bit larger than any other home in the neighborhood, and on paper that concerns him. However, in looking at the plans and the silhouette it does not appear to be as prominent as he thought it might be. He felt that the design is hiding the bulk and mass of the house, however he did feel the house is getting very close to the upper boundaries of what would be acceptable in the neighborhood. He noted that there has been no opposition to the proposed addition and it does not appear to be blocking any views, and therefore he does not have any strong feelings against the proposed addition. Vice Chairman Knight explained that he too has concerns about the ever-increasing sizes of homes in the neighborhood, however because of the architectural design of the proposed addition he felt that the resulting house will be an improvement architecturally to what exists. Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-46 thereby approving the Height Variation and Site Plan Review as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Karp recused. 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00404): 30136 Via Rivera Assistant Planner Sohn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. She stated that since asking for a continuation of the project at the last meeting, the applicant has worked with staff to reduce the size of the proposed addition and to ensure the proposed architectural style is compatible with what exists in the neighborhood. She stated that after conducting a series of site visits and a neighborhood compatibility analysis, staff feels the proposed project does not cause any Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 3 view impairment and the applicant has addressed the issues staff had initially raised. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Knight noted that the first silhouette was certified as correct, however after a site visit by staff it was noted that the silhouette was not correct. He asked staff if this new silhouette was indeed an accurate silhouette. Assistant Planner Sohn answered that this new silhouette was certified and confirmed by staff as correct. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify which portions of the project are to be considered under the Height Variation and which portions of the project are to be considered under the Site Plan Review. Assistant Planner Sohn displayed a photograph of the proposed project and differentiated the portions included in the Height Variation application and the Site Pian review application. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the bathroom windows on the south elevation were to be openable windows. Assistant Planner Sohn stated that staff was not sure, however she noted that staff had recommended to the applicant that these windows should be non-openable and staff conducted their privacy analysis under the assumption that these windows would be non-openable. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Brian Noteware 845 20th Street, Santa Monica (architect) explained the scope of the project. He noted that because of the objections from the neighbors and concerns from staff and the Planning Commission regarding the size and bulk of the project the front entry feature has been brought down and reduced and the second floor was brought in. Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Noteware to clarify the articulation of the roof area, especially around the proposed bay windows. Mr. Noteware noted that above the bay windows there will be a continuation of the tile that will match the rest of the roof. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the eave line will be coming down to the corners of the bay window. Mr. Noteware answered that the eave line will be coming down to the corners of the bay window. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Perestam asked if the windows on the south elevation will be openable windows. Mr. Noteware answered that the owner would like to have the windows openable for egress, however is willing to make them not openable windows. Vice Chairman Knight asked if would be possible to make some portion of the bay window openable for egress. Mr. Noteware felt that was possible. Diane Stone 30136 Via Rivera (applicant) explained some misunderstandings or confusions regarding the petition that was for the project that she circulated throughout her neighborhood and noted someone who signed her petition would not be considered when discussing this process. She read a letter of support from one of her neighbors that is now in dispute as to whether she truly signed that letter. She stated that there was quite an outpouring and enthusiasm in the community for her project. She felt that her project was conservative and modest, as it does not obstruct any views. She appreciated the input from the neighbors and took that input into consideration when designing the addition. She felt that the proposed addition fits well into the neighborhood. Navin Trivedi 30142 Via Borica stated that he has reviewed the proposed plans and supported the project. Karen Trivedi 30142 Via Borica felt that as the neighborhood grows she hopes that the homes going up will enhance the surrounding properties, as she felt this proposed addition would. Lew Stone 30136 Via Rivera stated that his wife, Diane, got 39 letters and 72 signatures on her petition. Commissioner Golida complimented the architect and owners for working with staff and the neighborhood to make the changes to address their concerns. He also felt that the letter that was read by Mrs. Stone contained personal information that should not have been made public. Steven Sbierer 707 Torrance Blvd, Redondo Beach (attorney for the Stones) stated that 72 signatures and 39 letters of support says something very strong to him regarding the support for the project in the neighborhood. He also stated that it was his recommendation to the Stones to read the letter of support which is now in dispute to the Planning Commission. Linda Bell 30149 Via Rivera stated that she too was impressed by the number of letters the Stones received in support of the project. She stated that she called three of the individuals that wrote letters and asked if they were familiar with the Stones renovation Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 5 and remembered signing the petition. She explained that all three remembered signing the petition, however the three stated that they did not write and sign letters on behalf of Mrs. Stone. She further noted that two of the residents did remember signing something other than the petition, but were not exactly sure of what they signed. Therefore, she felt that in the interest of full disclosure, she felt that it was important before the Planning Commission considered the 40 letters, to determine exactly how many of the letters were written by Mrs. Stone and given to the neighbors to sign. She also noted that of the three people she spoke to, two of them have rescinded their support of their project. Ms. Bell voiced her opposition to the project, and felt that it has quite a bit of character. She felt that the proposed renovation is out of scale with the immediate surrounding homes. She noted that the homes on the west side of the street most likely cannot build a second story, as they would then block the views of the residents on the east side of the street. She felt that if the residents on the east side of the street were to build second story additions it would result in a very unbalanced aesthetic. She also noted that, although Mrs. Stone was able to solicit letter of approval from neighbors not directly impacted by the renovation, of the five neighbors that immediately surround the Stone's home, four of them stand in opposition to the renovation and feel the proposed remodel is too large. Commissioner Perestam asked Ms. Bell if her comments are addressing the original or revised plan. Ms. Bell replied that her comments are addressing both plans. Virginia Thompson 30146 Via Rivera stated that she is the neighbor on the south side of the Stone residence. She stated that she had an objection to the windows on the south side and hoped that these windows will now be translucent. She also felt that the home will be too pretentious and too large and overwhelming for the neighborhood. Amos Thompson 30146 Via Rivera stated he was not opposed to remodeling of the home, however was opposed to homes that are too large and too out of scale for the area. He felt that if there was a reduction in the second floor size of approximately 350 square feet and an increase in the second floor setback he would not be opposed to the project. Sharon Redd 30040 Via Rivera stated that she agreed with the comments from the other speakers in opposition of the project. Douq Bell 30149 Via Rivera stated that he carefully read the staff report and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, and found some contradictions with the intent of the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. He stated that the design is a very strong vertical design in a neighborhood of mostly single story homes. He did not feel that the second story was set back far enough and the entry needs to be designed to a human scale. He discussed the size of the homes in the neighborhood, noting that the average structure to lot size ratio for the single story homes is 26.2 percent on average and 32 percent for two-story homes. He noted that the scope of this project will give a structure Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 6 to lot size ratio of 47.1 percent, which he felt is too massive for the neighborhood. He noted inconsistencies in the staff report, and read from the report that the majority of the two-story homes found in the neighborhood do not span across the existing building, and questioned why this one would be allowed to span across the existing building. He discussed privacy, stating that while the translucent windows may protect the immediate privacy of the neighbors, it does not protect the open space, the airflow, and the daylight. He stated that he was not against remodeling the home, but rather a remodel of this size and one that is not in line with the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. He stated that in reviewing the plans he feels the remodel is within the Code, however do not meet the intent of the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. He requested that the homeowners and architect meet with the City to further revise the plans and make changes to the plans based on the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines, specifically: reduce the overall size of the project, reduce the vertical scale of the front and sides, reduce the entry to human scale, reduce the size of the second floor, increase the setback of the second floor, and utilize a hip roof design to minimize scale. He asked that the public hearing be continued to a later date to allow time for the changes to be made and the neighborhood to review these changes. Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Bell to clarify how he calculated the structure to lot size ratio. Mr. Bell explained that staff uses the footprint of the home for their calculations, which works well for single story residences. He felt that it was more accurate to use structure size, which is a total square footage to lot size ratio. Commissioner Karp asked staff if it was standard procedure to use floor area ratios. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that was not a standard in the Code and is not required to be analyzed when making the findings. Katherine Anderson 30219 Via Rivera stated that she agrees with the speakers that are opposed to the project and is concerned with the trend of homes that are getting too large that change the character of the neighborhood. Sharon Goodrich 30143 Via Rivera stated she is in favor of remodeling to improve the neighborhood, however she felt this addition is too large and does not conform to the architectural compatibility, integrity, and privacy issues of the immediate neighborhood. She felt that if the second story were to be set back from the street and had more staggering on the south side of the property it may be more acceptable. Steven Goldstein 30123 Via Rivera stated he is opposed to the project in its current configuration, as it is too large for the neighborhood. He stated that no home in the immediate neighborhood is the same size, and will be over 40 percent larger than the largest home in the neighborhood and over 2 1/2 times larger than the smallest home in the immediate neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Noteware (in rebuttal) stated that he and the applicants are very proud of the design. He stated that he has reduced the scale of the addition and felt that the proposed addition is in character with the immediate neighborhood and meets the requirements of the Code. Mr. Spierer (in rebuttal) stated that he looked at the silhouette and the property from all angles. He also noted that the staff and Planning Commission have had the opportunity to do the same. He felt that it is easy to take a slide rule and calculator to make comparisons in size to create a word picture to make the house larger than it is. He did not felt the house doesn't look as large as the descriptions he has been hearing, and felt that when the house is finished the neighborhood will be proud of it. He did not feel the house will create any sort of disturbance from the street or to the Thompsons. He felt that the Thompsons have done a good job of organizing his friends and family, just as the Stones have done a good job of soliciting strangers to support their project. He asked the Planning Commission to consider not just the numbers and statistics, but what the silhouette looks like and what staff has said in the staff report. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. 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) Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to review what has been modified in the plan since the last public hearing. Assistant Planner Sohn explained that initially staff had concerns regarding the proposed size of the foyer and second -story, the height of the proposed second -story addition which exceeded the existing ridgeline, and the proposed second -story expanded all of the way across the residence. The applicant and architect have subsequently lowered the height of the proposed second -story addition as well as reducing the bulk and mass of the proposed second -story portion of the foyer. She stated that the applicant also proposed to recess the south portion of the second story by 2 feet. She stated that the total reduction in square footage is approximately 75 feet from the second story. Commissioner Karp felt that neighborhood compatibility is a constant moving target, and the Planning Commission has certain restrictions it must follow. He felt that the current project meets all of the setbacks on all four sides and wondered where judgment comes in on how big is too big. He noted that the size of houses throughout the United States are continually getting bigger, and therefore questioned how big is too big. He suggested considering a continuation to allow the applicant time to consider the comments and concerns and possibly doing some redesign to mitigate these concerns. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Perestam agreed that neighborhood compatibility is different from neighborhood to neighborhood and the question of how big is too big is a difficult question. He discussed the question of setbacks, and noted that in the neighborhood there are houses that are up against one another in terms of setbacks, and in one case there are two two-story homes that have only 10 feet between the homes. He noted that in the instances on the south side of the home there is very much more that 10 feet between the two residences. He commented on the total size of the project being 28 percent larger than the next largest house in this micro area as defined by 10 houses in each direction. He noted that in the neighborhood the houses that are higher up are larger two-story home and as one comes down closer to the coast there are more single story homes. Therefore, he felt that the 28 percent number can give an artificial definition since it's based on how big an area is being defined. He noted that the houses behind Via Rivera are significantly larger than the proposed project. He also noted that there are a few houses in the neighborhood that have end-to-end second - story additions. He felt that with all factors taken into consideration the proposed addition does meet the standards of the Development Code and in terms of neighborhood compatibility the proposed property does a pretty good job of accepting the amount of square footage. Commissioner Perestam added that he would be in favor of continuing the public hearing to allow the applicant and architect time to consider the comments and concerns expressed at this meeting. Commissioner Golida discussed the letters collected by the applicant and felt that at this time, partially because of the controversy surrounding the signatures on the letters, he is not able to feel that the comments in the letters hold as much weight on his decision as they may have before hearing the testimony at the meeting. Vice Chairman Knight felt this is a marginal application in terms of size and mass. He stated that he has an issue with the second -story foyer, and could not find anything in the neighborhood that has this type of feature. He felt that if it were reduced to a single story entry it would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Regarding the windows, he suggested looking into bay windows with egress and making the windows on the south side translucent windows that do not open. Chairman Tetreault was also disturbed that there seems to be some questions as to the authenticity of some of the letters, but was more interested that there are people in the neighborhood that are both in favor and opposed to the project. He explained that he spent quite a bit of time in the neighborhood looking at the different features and characteristics. He stated that one feature he did not see anywhere else in the neighborhood was a large two-story wall looming over a neighbor who has a one-story home. He felt that from the neighbor's standpoint that is a very imposing feature. He felt that situation is not compatible with the neighborhood. He felt the south wall should be moved back and have much more articulation added. He noted that the home is much larger than any other in the neighborhood and the bulk and mass can only be hidden with architectural features to a certain degree. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 9 Chairman Tetreault conducted a straw vote amongst the Commissioners as to whether they felt they could approve the project as currently presented. None of the Commissioners indicated they would be inclined to approve the project as currently submitted. Chairman Tetreault noted that currently there are concerns regarding the south side second story wall and the foyer, and asked the Commissioners what other specific concerns they had. Commissioner Karp stated he would like to see photographs included in the next staff report of the five houses on either side of the applicant to study how this project fits into the neighborhood. Commissioner Golida asked the Chairman if his comments regarding the south wall and if the implication would be that articulating that wall would reduce some of the square footage as well. Chairman Tetreault answered that to articulate the wall and reduce the setback would have to reduce a significant amount of square footage. Commissioner Golida stated that his only concern was for the privacy to the neighbors on the south side of the residence. Commissioner Perestam asked staff to show where the two windows on the south side would project from the applicant's house. He felt that there may be an opportunity for the front windows to be openable with the back windows closed. Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing to have the applicant or their representative, having heard the Planning Commission's concerns and comments, to discuss or ask questions as to the possibility of continuing this public hearing. Steven Spierer stated that the applicants will not ask for a vote this evening, but rather will support a continuation of the public hearing to address the concerns raised at this meeting. He stated that one of the main concerns is the question of square footage. He felt the issue is that the overall square footage shouldn't be an issue, as it is currently in compliance with the Code. He felt that the project is well within the objective standards of the rules and laws. However, in regards to the subjective standards of how big is too big, the consideration should be whether or not the house looks too big. He asked if it was critically important to any member of the Planning Commission that the actual square footage of the proposed residence be reduced or is it more important to address the other concerns appropriately raised by the Commission. Chairman Tetreault noted these questions may be answered after the public hearing has been closed. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 10 Brian Noteware stated it would help him significantly to be allowed to measure the outside of the Thompson's home. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing, Chairman Tetreault stated the square footage of the proposed project is a concern to him, however noted that the square footage is not the end all. He stated that when the staff report states the resulting residence will be 1,200 square feet larger than any other home in the neighborhood it definitely catches his attention. He explained that his concern is how this will fit into the neighborhood and if it will be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Karp agreed that square footage is not the end all measure, and is looked at in terms of how the residence will appear from the street and neighboring properties. He felt that the architect has enough information from the discussions to reduce the visual impact of the size of the residence and square footage is not what should be focused on. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if there were any restrictions as to when this item can be brought back to the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas explained there are only two meetings where this project can be heard: December 13th or January 10th. He felt that January 10th would be better, and revised plans will be required no later than December 19th Vice Chairman Knight moved to continue the public hearing to January 10, 2006 to allow the applicant to make revisions on the plans based on the concerns raised by the neighbors and Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0). 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. Z0N2005-00182): 29902 Avenida Refinida Director/Secretary Rojas stated the application has been withdrawn and no action is required by the Planning Commission other than to accept the withdrawal of the application. Vice Chairman Knight moved to accept the withdrawal of the application, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Agreed, (5-0). 4. Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining these are minor amendments that need to be made to address City Council decisions made earlier in the year. He stated that staff is recommending this item be continued to January 24, 2006, noting there is no actual deadline on this item. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Golida moved to continue the item to January 24, 2006, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0). 5. Zone Text Amendment (Case No. ZON2005-00543) Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the reason for the amendment and the direction given by the City Council. He explained that the text amendment clearly describes the preference of providing the units over paying a fee arid provides a detailed process if the developer wants to pay an in -lieu fee. He stated that staff feels the proposed amendment addresses the City Council's request and staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution. Commissioner Karp referred to Page 1 of the staff report and asked how the number of 201,562 was derived. Deputy Director Pfost stated that number was based on providing a rental unit or the subsidy needed between what an affordable person can afford on a rental and what the actual market rate of that rental unit is. He explained that difference was multiplied out on an annual basis for a 30 -year period and what would be needed to provide for one unit for a 30 -year period. Commissioner Karp asked if there was a scientific basis used in determining this fee. Deputy Director Pfost explained that this was in a report provided to the City Council. He stated that the City Council looked at a variety of options in selecting what this new in -lieu would be, and this was the option chosen by the City Council. Commissioner Karp referred to the wording in the text and suggested using "shall" or "mandate" over "prefer". Deputy Director Pfost explained that the City Council did not direct to abolish the in -lieu fee option, but rather keep it as an option. Vice Chairman Knight asked if would be possible to have something where the City says the developer shall be required to provide affordable housing units unless it is infeasible as proven by a feasibility study. Deputy Director Pfost felt it would be possible to add language to page 3 of the report to say something to that affect. Vice Chairman Knight stated that he does not have an issue with making the language stronger as suggested by Commissioner Karp as long as the burden is on the developer to show it is infeasible to provide affordable housing. He asked if there were standards in place as to what the feasibility study has to show. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 12 Deputy Director Pfost noted that the staff report mentions the developer shall submit a pro forma on the project, as well as a variety of other things. He explained that the City would hire a consultant to review the information from the developer to verify ifs accuracy. Commissioner Perestam stated that he agrees with the City Council direction to move away from the in lieu fee, as he felt it is self defeating and circumvents the law of having affordable housing and puts the burden of providing affordable housing on the City. Commissioner Golida asked, for the fees paid in the past, what has the City done with the fees. Deputy Director Pfost explained that the City has done nothing with these funds yet, however the City is currently looking into different programs. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if the City Council has reviewed the language before the Planning Commission, Deputy Director Pfost answered that the City Council has not reviewed this specific language, however staff was given direction from the City Council as to what they wanted. Chairman Tetreault stated that he has reviewed the language in the Resolution, and while he has his own feelings regarding affordable housing and the State law, given what the City Council has directed staff to do he felt that this language is sufficient. Commissioner Karp reiterated that "prefer" is a weak word and would like to see "shall" substituted in. Vice Chairman Knight agreed. Chairman Tetreault referred to the word "prefers" in the first line and suggested substituting "requires". Vice Chairman Knight and Commissioner Karp agreed. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staff can clean up that language. He noted, however, that his concern is that the City Council stopped short of abolishing the fee and he did not want the language to be so strong that it abolishes the in lieu fee. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2005-47, and forward the recommendation, as amended, to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (5-0) PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commrssion Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 13 6. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00016): 4394 Dauntless Drive Director/Secretary Rojas explained that this project was noticed and ready to be presented to the Planning Commission, however at the last City Council meeting the City Council placed a 60 -day moratorium on the processing of all applications in the moratorium area outlined in blue, which this application is in. Therefore, because of the Permit Streamling Act that applies to this application, the City Attorney has recommended the Planning Commission deny the application without prejudice. He added that the applicant is aware of this and recognizes that once the status of the moratorium has been determined they can reapply and no new fees will be charged. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-48 thereby denying without prejudice Case No. ZON2005-00016, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (5-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of October 25, 2005 Vice Chairman Knight noted a clarification to page 9 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (5-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre -agenda for the meeting of December 13, 2005 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the scoping meeting for Marymount College is a public forum for the residents to express their issues with the environmental review of the project, and the Planning Commission will not be taking any action. He explained that the idea of the meeting is for public concerns and comments to be directed at the EIR consultant who will then make sure the issues are addressed in the forthcoming EIR. Since the scoping meeting is not a typical hearing, he did not recommend asking questions of the speakers, as the public hearings on the merits of the project will be starting next summer. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 pm. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Page 14