Loading...
PC MINS 20061128 Ap roved January 23, 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2006 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Gerstner at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight. Absent: Commissioner Perestam and Chairman Knight were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, Associate Planner Sohn, and Associate Planner Dudman. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to amend the Agenda to hear Item 6 before Item 5. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 3 and Agenda Item No. 5. He also noted that several emails were received after the Monday noon deadline and were not distributed to the Planning Commission COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00208): 28708 Gunter Road Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, summarizing the history and scope of the project as explained in the staff report. She stated that staff concluded that the proposed design will not cause privacy concerns, does not result in significant view impairment, and is compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Francisco Canet 28708 Gunter Road (applicant) stated that his proposed addition would be a benefit for his family, the neighborhood, and the City. He stated that he has followed all of the rules of the City and addressed every concern raised and asked that his project be approved. Alfred Masse 28709 Gunter Road stated that only 2 of the closest 20 homes to the applicant have a second story on them, and therefore he did not feel this design is compatible with the neighborhood. He also objected to the proposed addition as he felt that the precedence set will encourage other two story additions in the neighborhood and therefore there will be a significant impact to the City infrastructure and public safety. Frank Masse objected to the project as he felt that the height of the second story will cause homes behind it to lose their view of the harbor area. He felt that a two-car garage should be required for this proposed addition as required by the City Development Code. Nina Yoshida 28808 Gunter Road stated she is opposed to the project and was concerned with the steep slope and fill that is placed on the lots on Gunter Road. She asked that a soils report be required for this proposed addition. She also asked if it is possible to have a deed covenant added to the conditions of approval so that the property owner can never rent the proposed addition to anyone and that no part of said property shall be used for business purposes that requires extra on street parking of vehicles for business purposes or meetings. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that any construction project approved by the Planning Commission must meet all construction standards required, which may include a soils report. He also stated that the Planning Commission does not get involved with deed covenants. Jenny Veeragoudor 28629 Gunter Road strongly opposed the project, as she felt it would block her view from the living room, bedroom, porch, and driveway and result in a constant view of an ugly stucco wall. She felt this oversized home will create extra traffic, extra parking, and issues of safety and will dramatically negatively impact the quality of life in the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they conducted a view analysis from this property. Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006 Page 2 Associate Planner Sohn explained that she and the Director visited this site not only during the day, but also at night as well to determine the location of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, and displayed pictures taken from the site. She stated that it was determined the view from the living room was the best and most important view and noted that staff concluded there would not be a view impact of the bridge from the proposed addition and whatever view does exist would not be significant given the expansive harbor view. Kathryn Belland 28703 Gunter Road stated she heartily approves of the proposed addition to the applicant's property and felt it would be a benefit to the neighborhood. She noted that houses don't drive, people do, and a family living in a houses will not attract more visitors simply because they have more bedrooms. Michael Belland 28703 Gunter Road agreed with the comments made by Catherine Belland and felt the proposed addition will enhance the property values in the neighborhood. Ante Bozanic 2039 Dorado Drive stated that the street is very narrow and there are many cars on the street, which is why the houses are built small. He was very much against the proposed expansion of the house. Francisco Canet (in rebuttal) stated that he has followed all of the necessary rules and asked the Planning Commission to approve the project. Vice Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp noted it has been alleged that this property is being used for church purposes and asked staff if the Planning Commission can prohibit institutional uses of the property as a condition of approval. Director Rojas answered that a church cannot operate in a residential district without some sort of City approval, such as a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Karp asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to mandate the two-car garage be used only for the parking of vehicles and not for storage. Director Rojas answered that the Planning Commission has the authority to ensure the residence has the required two garage spaces. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the proposed addition has a garage that complies with the City's codes. Associate Planner Sohn answered that the proposed garage complies with City codes. Commissioner Karp did not think there is a nexus between the size of the house and the number of occupants. He stated that street parking is always a concern in neighborhoods, however it is not something that the Planning Commission has the Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 3 purview to address in this application. He stated that he did not see any evidence that this proposed addition would be significantly blocking any views and that the size of the proposed addition is not too large for the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that many of the neighbors would like to see this neighborhood frozen in time, which he felt was understandable. However, his job is to enforce the City codes, and in this situation the proposed addition is rather modest. He noted that the addition needs to be modest because the street is not designed for large homes. He noted there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood and there is room for other two-story homes in the neighborhood. He felt this proposed project complies with City codes and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that this is a fairly modest addition and the resulting home will still not be the largest home in the neighborhood. He felt that the applicant went to great lengths to reduce the bulk and mass of house and the appearance of the house from the street. He stated that a number of people are concerned about parking and the use of the property, but noted that people have a constitutional right to assemble for any purposes whatsoever, and no governmental entity can get involved in what is going on inside the home as long as it is a lawful activity. He stated,that he was able to make all of the necessary findings to approve the Height Variation and was in favor of approving the project. Vice Chairman Gerstner did not think there was any significant view impairment caused by this proposed addition and did not think it would be possible to expand this house as a single story. He felt that the house was compatible with the neighborhood and was in favor of approving the proposed project. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-57 thereby approving the proposed Height Variation as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (4-0). 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON204-00571): 1946 Upland Street Associate Planner Dudman presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project and what is currently proposed. She stated that based on the revised plans staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the Height Variation as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jerry Rodin 29000 Western Ave (architect) stated that the neighbor had expressed concerns regarding the loss of her light and air due to the mass of the proposed addition. He stated that he has set the entire second story back by eliminating a bedroom and bathroom from the second floor, which reduced the second story addition substantially by over 700 square feet. He explained how he reduced the bulk and mass Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006 Page 4 of the proposed structure as well as the lot coverage. He noted that there have been no written or verbal objections to the proposed project Ali Morid 1946 Upland Street (applicant) felt that his architect has done everything possible to address the neighbors concerns and felt that he had the right to enjoy his property. He asked the Planning Commission to approve his project. Doris Nagy 1954 Upland Street objected to the proposal, as she felt it was too high and bulky in the front and the applicant will be able to see into the front living area of the home across the street. She also noted that the applicant will be able to see into the living area of the home to the east of the property, as that property is lower than the applicant's property. She felt the proposed addition was too large, too high, too bulky, and did not conform to the other houses in the neighborhood. Declan Rushe 1947 Upland Street objected to the proposed development due to the lack of neighborhood compatibility. He felt the proposed addition was much too large, much too high, and the architectural style was not compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. Jerry Rodin (in rebuttal) stated that the Code is an administrative tool to assist in design and people have rights to build. He stated that a lot of effort has been put into this design and the house and design, in his opinion, fit in the Guideline criteria. He stated that the goal of this project is to give the owners the very minimum that they physically need in a house, while maximizing the setbacks and views for the neighbors. Vice Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked staff if they felt this proposed house design meets the neighborhood compatibility standards. Director Rojas answered that staff felt the proposed house is compatible with the immediate neighborhood based on staff's analysis of the neighborhood and the view criteria that staff is directed to use. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, as he felt it is still a very large project in comparison to the other homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Karp stated that neighborhoods change and houses get bigger, and he felt that if you don't stay current in your neighborhood you start having a decline. He felt this was an opportunity to keep the neighborhood moving and improving. He felt this house may be bigger, however it is architecturally handsome and staff has determined that it is compatible with the neighborhood. He therefore was in favor of the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006 Page 5 Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the architect did a very good job in modifying the design of the house in a positive manner. He stated that he was still unsure if he was able to vote in favor of approving the house and suggested that this decision be continued to January when more members of the Planning Commission are in attendance. Vice Chairman Gerstner was also unsure on whether he could approve this project or not, however he noted that he was not sure how to direct the architect to make changes that would make the house more compatible with the neighborhood. He was still concerned with the size of the proposed residence, but he didn't know if decreasing the actual size of the house would make it appear smaller. Vice Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing to hear from the architect on the comments made by the Planning Commission. Jerry Rodin stated that the three-car garage was proposed to help with the on street parking, noting that only a two-car garage is required by the code. He insisted that there will be other house in the neighborhood that are taller than this proposed house and that the second story is set back far enough from the street that the bulk and mass should not be an issue. Vice Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-58 thereby approving the proposed Height Variation as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (3-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:00 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:10 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 4. Appeal of Ste Plan Review & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00593): 29664 Grandpoint Lane Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report giving a brief history of the project and offering clarification of the height of the retaining wall on a portion of the property. She explained that staff performed a grading analysis and revised the conditions so that one of the walls be demolished and the slope in which wall was constructed on be restored to its original condition. Further, the second wall is lowered to a height not to exceed 3'6". She noted that with those changes staff supports the Director's decision to approve the new residence on the site Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006 Page 6 Commissioner Karp questioned the reason for returning the slope to its original condition, which is an extreme slope. He questioned if that would be detrimental to the property owner that is down slope to that wall. Director Rojas stated that the Code says that extreme slopes should not be disturbed, however in this case the slope was disturbed, and in these situations the Code states that there should be one wall at a maximum height of 3 Y2 feet. Associate Planner Sohn noted that staff has recommended the slope be restored and the wall legalized prior to issuance of building permits for the new house. Vice Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Rod White 2952 Crownview Drive stated that he spoke previously about the safety issues and the applicant's geologic report which said the walls must have caissons. He also spoke previously about his issues with the house setbacks and the bulk, mass, and size of the proposed house. He was under the impression from the last meeting that the wall in front of his property was supposed to be looked at and verified that it was indeed a retaining wall, however he was later informed that the wall in front of his property was not being discussed. He stated that he was frustrated and confused. Peter Haddad (architect) stated that he was agreeable to removing the upper wall and restoring the slope to the natural grade. He stated that he was available for any questions. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Haddad if he felt the wall in front of Mr. White's residence was a retaining wall or a garden wall. Mr. Haddad answered that while the wall may act as a retaining wall, it meets the City's criteria of a garden wall and not a retaining wall. Jamie Blessum stated he owns the property in question. He discussed the height of the wall in question and asked that instead of accepting the revised conditions of tearing down the wall, he be allowed to keep both of the walls in question. He noted that the walls have been approved by the City's geologist and the finished walls will be less than 3'6". Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Blessum to describe the construction of the wall closest to Mr. White's property. Mr. Blessum explained that the wall is a segmented gravity wall and that up to 4 feet tall the standard design does not need any reinforcement. He stated that the construction of this wall has been approved by the City geologist based on the information provided by his geologic consultant. He noted that in the construction of the house there will be a retaining wall in front of this wall whose caissons will support the hill above in its design. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 7 Mr. White (in rebuttal) expressed his concern that there is no concrete or rebar in any of the walls constructed. He felt that the construction of this wall and the future home are being done without regard to safety. He stated that grading was also done on other parts of the lot next to other properties that he felt one day might collapse. Vice Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they had any comments regarding Mr. White's concerns and comments on the other wall. Associate Planner Sohn stated that the City Geologist has reviewed the wall in question and has approved the wall. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that while the Planning Commission may have concerns about the structural integrity of walls, houses, foundations, etc., that is not what the Planning Commission is here to consider, but can they be assured that the proper consideration of those facts will be made at a later date. Director Rojas explained that the Planning Commission's typical role is to consider the planned concepts, and once the concepts are approved the building permit will not be issued until the proper engineering and geology have been done to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. However, in this case because the walls were built without City approval, staff required that the structural review of the walls be assessed prior to taking this item to the Planning Commission. As such, the City Geologist's approval of the walls is already known. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the wall next to Mr. White's property and asked staff if the wall, being a garden wall, will have to be engineered and if there was any grading associated with the building of this wall. Associate Planner Sohn answered that the Building Official and City Geologist have both looked at plans for this wall and have agreed that, although it may be considered a garden wall, the proposed structure will have to be designed and reviewed in a manner that proves the wall is structurally feasible. In regards to grading in front of the wall, she stated that staff has consulted the applicant regarding the grading and the applicant has stated that only vegetation was removed in front of the wall and no grading was .performed. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the pictures submitted of the slope before the walls were constructed and after the walls were constructed appears to show the slope has been altered, and asked staff if a survey was performed of the slope before and after the walls were constructed. Director Rojas answered that a survey of the pre-existing grade was submitted to staff and it does not appear, according to this engineer stamped plan, that an extreme slope existed on the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 8 Commissioner Tetreault stated that it appears the wall near Mr. White's property is one that is not for the Planning Commission's consideration, and he agreed. However, regarding the other walls on the property, he felt the walls are substantial, it is a substantial deviation from the original contours, it doesn't blend in, and he cannot make the findings to allow the applicant to keep the walls in place. He therefore agreed with staff's recommendations regarding these walls. Regarding the house, he noted that the house will have to be a single story home because of view issues. He stated that he felt that the proposed house would be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments, noting that the house will not be the largest within the closest twenty. He agreed with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-59 thereby denying the appeal and affirming the Director's approval of the project with the revised condition stated in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (4-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Conditional Use Permit Revisions & Grading approval (Case No. ZON2005- 00660): 3231 Palos Verdes Drive South Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings, and was recommending approval of the applications as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Lamar Robinson (architect) stated he was available for questions. Ajit Shah stated that he is a neighbor of this proposed project and has no objection to the project. Vice Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the proposed home is 40 percent larger than the average size home but is on a 50 percent larger lot, and did not see any problem with the proposed project. Commissioners Karp, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Gerstner had no objection to the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006 Page 9 Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-60 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit Revisions and Grading application as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (4-0). CONTINUED BUSINES (cont) 5. Code Amendment for Equestrian Districts (Case No. ZON2006-00082) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the proposed Code Amendment. He summarized the changes made to the proposed Code Amendment, based on the discussion from the last public hearing. He stated that staff's recommendation was to receive input from the Planning Commission on the possible language changes and continue the matter to a future date certain. Commissioner Tetreault described a situation where a property owner builds out to their setback and at a later date the adjacent property owner decides to keep horses in their designated area. He noted that now that adjacent property owner has created a nuisance next to their neighbor. He asked if staff has considered that scenario. Director Rojas stated that staff will need to clarify with the City Attorney the situation of building towards a possible nuisance. He noted that staff notifies applicants when applying for their proposed addition that they are in an Equestrian District. Vice Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Gordon Leon (representing the Equestrian Committee) appreciated the time and effort of the staff and Planning Commission in crafting language that helps bridge the gap between the rights of property owners and the need for having a neighborhood which maintains a standard compatible with having horses. He stated that members of the Committee are present to answer questions throughout the meeting. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Leon if the demand for horse keeping lots is increasing, decreasing, or remaining about the same. Mr. Leon answered that the City has just opened up a new trail and there are two new horse keeping facilities that have access to that trail, which he felt is evidence of an increase in horse keeping facilities. However, in terms of whether the demand for horse keeping lots is increasing or not, he did not have any way of answering that question. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the staff report has three recommendations regarding language, and asked Mr. Leon his feelings about the alternatives. Mr. Leon stated that the Equestrian Committee has discussed the merits of that kind of approach months ago but it hadn't been defined in language until presented in the staff report. Speaking personally, he felt that having incentives is a good thing and will be warmly welcomed and utilized. Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006 Page 10 Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned the need for this type of language. He asked what the Equestrian Committee was trying to accomplish, and questioned if one of the goals was to maintain horse keeping capabilities on a property in the Equestrian District where a family has lived on the property for 50 years without a horse and in passing it down to the next generation, they never intend to own a horse. Mr. Leon explained that it was not only horse keeping capabilities, but the semi-rural life style and feel of the area in the Equestrian District. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked why the Equestrian Committee was not able to answer a question asked at a previous meeting as to how many horses there are in the City and how many properties in the City maintain horses. Mr. Leon answered that there was no way to collect that type of information without going door to door in the Equestrian areas. Madeline Ryan 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East (member of the Equestrian Committee) stated that she never thought of the proposal as taking away anything, rather it was just a way to preserve the equestrian overlay zone. She stated she lives in a neighborhood that has lost five properties that can never keep horses again because of the very large homes that have been built on those properties. She stated that it is not just the loss of the horses, but the loss of the character and charm and uniqueness of the area. She stated that she supports the proposal to protect and preserve the Equestrian Overlay Zone. Commissioner Karp asked, of the five properties lost, were any adjacent or abutting a dedicated horse trail. Ms. Ryan answered that they were adjacent or abutting a horse trail. Ray VanDinther 28180 Palos Verdes Drive East (member of the Equestrian Committee) stated she has done an informal survey of her neighborhood and found there are 35 horses and stable facilities for 40 horses in that area. She therefore felt that the estimate of 200 horses in the City is too small, noting that many horses are kept in the back of properties and cannot be seen from the street. She was very upset by a letter that was circulated in the neighborhood which she felt was inflammatory and inaccurate in its description of the taking of property for equestrian uses. Charlene O'Neal 38 Headland Drive (member of the Equestrian Committee) stated that she has asked Lomita Feed about the amount of feed they deliver to the Peninsula now and 20 years ago and found that they are selling approximately the same amount of feed as they did 20 years ago. She stated there are waiting lists at all of the stables on the Peninsula. She stated she liked the alternate language on page 6 of the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 11 Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he would like staff to prepare something for the Planning Commission that shows what properties were lost to horse keeping and how they were lost and possibly what the property had before and what the property looks like after the horse keeping facilities were lost. Doug Maupin 27601 Palos Verdes Drive East stated that he is the author of the letter discussed earlier and that he stands behind that letter. He stated that this proposed Ordinance forces property owners to maintain an area for horses, which he thinks is unfair. He stated that he is not against horses or horse keeping but does not want to be forced to maintain a horse keeping area on his property. He did not think that keeping a horse equated to rural, and felt that a large lot with large setbacks and appropriate lot coverage could create a rural atmosphere. Michael Vulpillat 27846 Palos Verdes Drive East stated that he moved to this area because of the rural atmosphere. He felt, however, that this proposed Ordinance is a restriction of freedoms and people who do not want to have horses are being forced to set aside an area of their property for the possible horse use. Michele Newsum 25 Golden Spur Lane stated that she has a home that was added on to in the past and if she now chose to add a small room she would have to set aside land for housekeeping facilities. She explained that her lot is not a flat lot and there is not room to set aside this proposed required land for horses. She discussed the resale value and felt that this proposal might affect the value of the homes. She agreed with the incentive approach to horse keeping. Anna Chu felt very strongly about preserving horse keeping in Rancho Palos Verdes, just as Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates is doing. Bonnie Fine (representing the Smith Family Trust) stated that she is opposition to the Ordinance only in regards to the section that requires everyone to have a horse keeping area on their property. She felt that the remainder of the Ordinance is good and likes all of the suggested alternate language. She stated that she is a strong believer in incentives working better than restrictions. Warren Sweetnam 7 Top Rail Lane (representing the Rockinghorse Road HOA) stated that the Planning Commission had asked for information regarding trails in the City and he stated that as far as he knows there are no useable trails east of Palos Verdes Drive East. He stated that his concern was for the elderly community who bought many years ago and have a smaller house on a very large lot. He felt it would be more difficult for these people to sell their homes with the types of equestrian restrictions being discussed. He felt that incentives were more desirable than restrictions. Marc Jacobowitz (speaking of behalf of Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association) stated that his issue was one of neighborhood compatibility, explaining that over time when there are neighborhoods where homes and home sites are no longer feasible as a horse property, then the only potential buyer for that property is a non- Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 12 horse person. He stated that when neighborhoods reach a certain tipping point when there are x number of non-horse people to horse people, then the horse people become the nuisance in the neighborhood and the new residents begin to complain about the noise and the flies and the trails. Dick Johnson 5383 Rolling Ridge Road stated he lives in an Equestrian Zone where there are no horses and riders are not even allowed to ride on Via Campesina. He felt that to put restrictions on property owners in this area is a terrible miscarriage of justice. Ken Swenson was concerned that there may be a taking of non-horse property rights and giving it to the horse property owners. He felt, however, that there is potential for an equitable solution. Vice Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp felt that the idea of keeping the horses at the back of the property is a good idea, however on a severely sloping lot it might be a problem. He stated that currently the City puts restrictions on lots in the form of setbacks, height, etc. He felt that if the properties do not abut an existing trail or trail right-of-way then the,Ordinance should not apply. He also felt that there can be land set aside for horse keeping provided you do not diminish the buildable amount of housing on the property. Commissioner Tetreault explained that when this item was first before the Planning Commission he was very concerned about what he considered a taking of a property right without much opportunity for special circumstances and mitigation, however the most recent proposal addresses many of his concerns. He felt that Rancho Palos Verdes, as a community, receives a benefit from having horse keeping facilities in the City and that the trend in the City, including the Q District, is to build bigger homes, and therefore equestrian property is evaporating. He stated that the City Council has instructed the Planning Commission to look at this and come up with suggestions to this problem. He did not think it was an unreasonable restriction on Q zoned properties to have the type of protection being suggested in the staff report, and felt that the first alternative in the staff report was the one he favored. Commissioner Ruttenberg did not know if there is truly a problem, and did not think the evidence presented suggested that there is a problem. He was surprised to hear that the number of horses now compared to years in the past has not decreased, and has possibly increased. He did not think the Planning Commission has been presented with enough evidence of an actual problem in order to take the kind of draconian action to restrict the rights of persons who choose not to keep horses on their property. He stated that the Planning Commission does not know the number of horse keeping properties in the City or if the number has been reduced. He stated what is known is that there is significant opposition to this proposed Ordinance from residents in the Q District. He did not believe the City Council had all of the information available to it that the Planning Commission now has, and once the City Council hears and understands all of the information, their enthusiasm for the kind of restrictive approach being Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006 Page 13 suggested will wane. He stated that the Q District is a permissive district and not mandatory. He stated that he could support some type of incentive, however he did not think he could support an Ordinance that was restrictive, but before he could show any support he had to be shown that there is a problem. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed that he needed to see more evidence that there is the problem of losing horse keeping facilities in the City due to larger homes being built. He also wanted to sure that before he agrees to put restrictions on properties in order to maintain the ability to keep horses it was being done to preserve horse keeping and not to maintain the rural character of the neighborhood, as he did not think horses make rural. He also agreed that the Q District is a permissive use, therefore if restrictions are going to be placed on properties he would rather see them as permissive restrictions. He felt that one of the reasons horse keeping doesn't existing in the City as it did in the past is because there is not the access to the trails there once was. He felt that if a greater effort were made to get those trails back and work with the Conceptual Trails Plan, the horses would come back. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to a date certain and recommend to staff that it come back with a revised proposal that;focuses on the incentive aspects that have been presented, rather than the restrictive aspects, and take into consideration the comments made about the trails, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked that there also be some quantitative representation of the problem, in any formats that seem reasonable. Commissioner Tetreault stated he was very much against the motion in that there are two Commissioners who are not present and the Planning Commission has not heard what they have to say, noting that they may not be against restrictive aspects of the Ordinance. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he does not mean to be foreclosing on anything, but rather starting at a place that he favors more than where the Planning Commission started today. Commissioner Tetreault understood, however he felt that the Planning Commission was directing staff to do a lot of work in a certain area that they may not have to do. The motion passed, (3-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. Director Rojas noted that the next available date available will be February 13, 2007. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006 Page 14