Loading...
PC MINS 20070327 Approved April 10\, ;Q07 , CITY OF RANCH PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Karp led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Sohn, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed items of correspondence for Agenda Items 3, 4, and 7. He also reported that at their last meeting, the City Council approved a tract map amendment on Diamonte Lane involving the adjustment of a restricted use area, as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Coastal Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Variance, Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00536, SUB2005-0006, et al) Director Rojas explained that because of technical problems staff was not able to view the tape of the last meeting to prepare the Resolution. Therefore, staff was recommending the item be continued to April 10, 2007. The item was unanimously continued to the April 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Appeal of Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00524): 20 Martingale Associate Planner Fox explained that a revised Resolution has been prepared for the Planning Commission's approval, which reflects the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the appeal and overturn the Director's decision on this application. Commissioner Knight clarified that he was not in support of this particular application, as there were certain findings he was not able to make. He felt, however, that if a Variance or Minor Exception Permit had been requested he would have been able to make those findings and supported the project. Resolution 2007- 16, upholding the applicant's appeal and overturning the Director's conditional approval of an after-the-fact Grading Permit was adopted, (4-2) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. 2006-00505): 28045 Ella Road Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He explained how this submitted design has changed from the previous submitted design. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the modified design. Commissioner Knight noted that a letter had been submitted from the resident at 28031 Acana claiming that the proposed project impacted their view, and asked staff if they had visited this person's home to evaluate the view. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that staff had done an initial analysis from the home in January 2006, and showed photographs from the site. He explained that any view being blocked from this residence will be from the addition below 16 feet in height. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jerry Rodin (architect) explained that the second floor addition has been reduced 35 percent, increased the side yard setback, and the ridge has been lowered 9 inches. He stated that the proposed balcony has absolutely no impact to the neighbors, as it has been pulled in and a screen wall has been added. He stated that he and the owners have gone to the furthest Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 2 degree possible to meet every concern the Planning Commission raised at the previous meeting and asked the Planning Commission to approve the project. Louise Lalande 28031 Acana Road stated she has a horizon view and on a clear day she can see a portion of the ocean. She also noted that there are trees that block her view, and she is currently pursuing a view restoration permit. She was also concerned that if other neighbors decide to build a second story addition she will have a view of absolutely nothing. Lindley Ruddick 28045 Acana Road asked the Planning Commission to deny the Height Variation. He stated that over the years other homes in the area have vastly increased the size of their homes, however these increases have not impaired the neighbor's views. He felt that this proposed addition shows every square foot of its bulk and mass when viewed from the street. He therefore did not think the proposed house will be compatible with the neighborhood. Glenda Urmacher 28029 Ella Road asked the Planning Commission to deny the proposed project. She stated the proposed addition is not compatible with the neighborhood of single story homes. She felt that the addition will tower over her home and will block all sunlight into their property. She felt this addition will tower over the entire street and will change the character of the entire neighborhood. She stated that she would like to see this addition restricted to the first floor. Jerry Rodin (in rebuttal) noted that he has created a setback of over 27 feet on the north side of the residence, which is greater than any setback in the neighborhood. He explained that according to his geologist, the extreme slope at the back of the property prevents the owner from going back any further than the existing building line on the first floor because of slope and stability. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked if any protected views are being impacted from any property by this project. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that staff went to the properties on Acana Road and Ella Road to do view analyses from these residences. He stated that the analysis showed that portions above sixteen feet that are impaired are of the sky, and the sky is not a protected view according to the Code. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the view analysis conclusions would change if any of the trees and vegetation seen from 28031 Acana Road were removed. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the analysis would not change. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he would be concerned if this were the first and only second story home on the same side of the street, but noted that there is another two-story home on that side of the street. He was concerned that, as the house has been redesigned Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 3 and made smaller, it is beginning to look more like a pop-up than it did before and is not as aesthetically pleasing as it once was. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that there is a second story home at 28070 Ella Road, which is now nearly the same size as this proposed home will be on a lot that is less than half the size. While sympathetic with the homeowner who felt her view was going to be blocked, he noted that the view was below the 16 foot by right height. He felt that the bulk and mass issues had been successfully dealt with by the architect, and he therefore was able to make the necessary findings to approve the project. Vice Chairman Perestam stated that he previously could not make the necessary findings to approve the project based on bulk and mass, but he too was satisfied that the redesign addresses those concerns. Commissioner Knight stated that this is a neighborhood of predominately single story homes, however he did not think that was a reason to deny an application for a two-story home. He felt that the architect had done a good job in addressing the concerns of bulk and mass and felt he was able to make the necessary findings to approve the project. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-17, thereby approving the requested Height Variation as conditioned, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Approved, (6-0). 4. Coastal Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variance (Case ZON2006-00464): 44-1/2 Seacove Drive Coastal Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variance (Case No. 2006-00465): 6600=/2 Seacove Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the history of the project. He discussed the additional information that was requested by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting, and stated that staff was recommending adoption of the two draft Resolutions which would conditionally approve the District's above ground emergency generators for both the Sea Cove and Long Point pumping plants. Commissioner Knight pointed out a section of the Long Point pumping plant that does not currently have screening, and asked staff if that section could also be screened. Associate Planner Fox answered that this section could also be screened. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Steve Highter (supervising engineer in the planning section of the LA County Sanitation District) stated that these proposed generators play a crucial role with respect to the District's ability to prevent sewage spills. He stated that the District was very concerned with the suggestion that the generators at the Long Point pumping plant might be located underground, noting that this should only be done when there is no other alternative. He explained that Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 4 equipment located underground is much more prone to flooding during severe weather. He stated that he will be very willing to work with Terranea and planning staff to provide adequate visual screening for the generators. He added that he will be happy to screen the section discussed earlier that was not included in the screening suggestions. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Highter if he had a problem with the condition that there be a locking mechanism installed on the drain. Mr. Highter answered that he did not have an issue with that condition, although he was still not sure how that would be achieved. Sunshine 6 Limetree Lane stated that she could find no reference in the staff report about the impact in relation to the California Coastal Trail. She also questioned what side of the pumping station the trail that will connect Terranea to the Blufftop Trail will be located on and what kind of screening will be provided. Todd Maicher (Terranea Resort) explained that Terranea was concerned because one of these stations is only 150 feet from one of the future casitas and very close to the 9th green of the signature hole of the golf academy. He stated that a golfer will be looking right down into the pump station area. He stated that it would be in the best interests of the resort to have that generator put underground, and had what he felt was a very accurate cost estimate done. Regarding screening, he felt that to provide screening all the way around the pump station would do more to lessen the ocean views from the Terranea property than just leaving it as is. He also did not think it would be in keeping with the City's view ordinance. Commissioner Knight explained that the Code requires the noise level be kept within 65 dBA, and if this is complied with, he asked Mr. Majcher if he still felt the equipment should be put underground. Mr. Majcher answered that he would, explaining that the conditions of approval for the resort mandate that all generators and equipment be vaulted, and that vaulting this one would make it consistent with the others on the resort property. He felt that as a developer his company has been held to a very high standard for development on this coastline, and felt it would be unfair to not hold a public entity to the same standard. Commissioner Knight asked if he was opposed to the screening material suggested. Mr. Majcher answered that he was very much opposed to green construction fabric or slats used in the proximity of the resort. He did not feel this would be in keeping with the character of the overall community. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Majcher if he had any alternatives. Mr. Majcher felt there were many ways to mitigate the problem and that nobody has really taken the time to look at alternatives. He felt the options so far have been that it will be above Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 5 ground or not. He suggested one option of sinking the generator partially into the ground so that a smaller portion would be visible. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if Terranea was willing to work with the Sanitation District to the point of contributing to the cost of putting this generator underground. Mr. Majcher answered that he would have to speak with the people he works for before answering that question. Steve Highter (in rebuttal) stated that this isn't really a cost issue, but rather a liability issue. He stated that it was the Sanitation District's engineering opinion that it would not be a good idea to put this emergency equipment underground. Regarding the sound, he noted that this is an emergency backup generator and will only be on in an emergency, and tested once a month for no more than an hour. Regarding screening, he agreed that the suggested screening would not be the best solution and would like to meet with Mr. Majcher to discuss ideas. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Highter to explain some of the engineering concerns of putting this underground. Mr. Highter explained that once underground, the equipment is subject to flooding. He stated that these are electrical components needed to be working properly during storms, when it is most likely they will be needed. He also explained that vaulting this equipment brings up a whole separate set of issues and will likely make the vault much bigger than expected because of the many regulations involved. He also noted that he was unaware of the geologic conditions of the area. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Highter if it would be possible to drop the equipment a few feet, as suggested by Mr. Majcher. Mr. Highter was not sure if it would be possible or not and would have to research the components of the idea. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the Sanitation District currently has any of these emergency generators placed underground. Mr. Highter answered that they do on Western Avenue, however this was done as a last resort. He stated that Edison would not allow the electrical equipment to be placed underground, however, so there is a ring of trees surrounding the electrical equipment. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Highter if there was flexibility in what time of day the equipment would be run for testing purposes, noting that Terranea may have a preference as to the time of day. Mr. Highter answered that the Sanitation District could be flexible with the testing time and would work with Terranea. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 6 Chairman Gerstner asked if anyone has done a study looking at what currently exists at the site and what the options are other than what is currently proposed. Mr. Highter replied that the District has not conducted geotechnical surveys or underground surveys to determine what is currently at the site. Chairman Gerstner asked if the Sanitation District was aware of what is currently placed underground at the site. Mr. Highter answered that the Sanitation District was not aware of the current situation with any degree of certainty. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp did not think noise was much of an issue, as the generators would only operate once a month for approximately one hour. Visually, if trees or shrubs were placed around the area to screen it, he felt that would be acceptable. He stated that he would rather do that than risk putting the equipment underground and have some type of4ailure resulting in raw sewage running into the ocean. Chairman Gerstner noted that the site is tight at the Sea Cove site, but with the existing adjacent walls dividing the properties he was less concerned with it being above grade. He noted that sound may be an issue, but with the specific condition of 65 dBA measured at the property line, he was not concerned. He was concerned, however, that the screening be adequate so as to not be seen by the neighbors. He was frustrated that, while the Planning Commission raised concerns about the Long Point site, no real alternatives were pursued. He felt that the engineers at the Sanitation District should have been able to provide some recommendations or analysis to provide a conclusion that said options are or are not available. Commissioner Knight agreed, noting that Terranea has had some very strict conditions applied to it, and continue to meet these conditions. He felt that it might be beneficial to ask the Sanitation District for a 90 day extension to allow the Sanitation District and Terranea to meet and work together to find a solution for the Long Point site. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was very frustrated, noting that the area where the Long Point equipment is to be placed is one of the most beautiful and sensitive portions of the coastline and he felt that very little thought had gone into placing this equipment at this site. He stated that no alternatives have been given to the Planning Commission, even with the number of questions that were raised, and he did not feel he was in a position to approve this request at this site. Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing. Chairman Gerstner asked the Sanitation District if they would grant a one-time 90-day extension per the Permit Streamlining Act. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 7 Mr. Highter stated that he would hate to have all of the equipment at the Long Point site ready to use, but unusable. He stated that, to prevent a possible spill, he would like to have the equipment working in case there is an emergency. He therefore stated that he would be happy to grant the extension, but would like the equipment operational in the mean time. Chairman Gerstner replied that this was really not a negotiation, and that if the extension is granted the Planning Commission will take into consideration the request to be allowed to temporarily install the equipment. Mr. Highter agreed to the 90-day extension. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested separating the Sea Cove and Long Point sites and discussing them separately. The Planning Commission agreed, discussing the 44Y2 Sea Cove site first. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-18 conditionally approving the requested Coastal Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for the pumping station at 44'/2 Sea Cove Drive, as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing for the pumping station at 6600'/2 Sea Cove Drive to May 22, 2007 and request that the applicant research whether or not it is feasible to underground this facility and electrical vault either partially or completely and present the Planning Commission options as well as a cost estimate, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Director Rojas suggested that if there was concern of not having the emergency generator operational at the 6600'/2 Sea Cove Drive site, as an alternative the Planning Commission could approve the application with a three month review with direction to the Sanitation District to look into the feasibility of undergrounding the facility. Commissioner Knight noted that the pumping station has been operating since 1967 without an emergency backup generator. According to the information provided by the Sanitation District there have been emergencies in the past and the Sanitation District has been at the site within 15 minutes with a portable generator. Therefore, he did not think it was necessary to allow them to hook up the proposed emergency generator until all of the issues have been worked out. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he could not support the motion unless it included allowing the Sanitation District to plug the emergency generator in for 90 days. He felt that there would not be a problem to tell them to unplug the generator and modify the setup if necessary. He felt that since the generator is at the site it should be used. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 8 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to amend the motion to allow the emergency generator to be used temporarily until the Planning Commission made its final decision on the pumping station, seconded by Commissioner Karp. The amendment failed (2-4) with Commissioners Knight, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner dissenting. The previous motion made by Commissioner Tetreault to continue the public hearing for 6600'/2 Sea Cove Drive to May 22, 2007 was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:10 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:20 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Tract Map Amendment (Case SUB2006-00020): Tract Map 31617 (Seacrest) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the purpose of the BGR Line and the proposed amendment. He stated that staff believes the modifications of the BGR Line to allow limited minor structures outside of the BGR Line on the five proposed lots would not be contrary to the intent of the BGR Line for the Tract. Therefore staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution before them which would forward a recommendation to the City Council of approval for the recommended tract map amendment. Vice Chairman Perestam asked, if this were to be approved, would there be a broader implication citywide. Associate Planner Fox explained this is the only tract in the City that has a BGR Line, and therefore this is very specific to this tract. Commissioner Knight asked if there were other lots in the tract that had similar conditions regarding their BGR Line. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff felt these were the only five lots with this unique situation. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the language in the Conditions of Approval was unclear as to whether the intent was to limit the approvals to only one accessory structure or if there could be more than one such structure as long as each one does not exceed the requirements. Associate Planner Fox answered that the intent is to limit the building of only one accessory structure per lot. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 9 Commissioner Knight asked if the intent of this amendment was to change the BGR Line ruling for these five lots, and not to legitimize a gazebo, whether permitted or non-permitted. Associate Planner Fox answered that adopting the change to the BGR ruling will then allow the applicant to apply for an after-the-fact application to legalize the existing gazebo. He explained that as it now stands, the applicant does not have the ability to do so because of the BGR Line conditions. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Linda Muckel 6024 Ocean Terrace Drive (applicant) stated that she was available for questions. John Muckel 6024 Ocean Terrace Drive (applicant) explained these five lots are back to back with each other with no view corridors. He also noted that there are 7 other lots that are back to back such as these five, but with no BGR lines, and also have no view corridors. He explained his request is not to remove the BGR lines, but to amend the past resolution which limited structures outside the BGR line to 30 inches in height Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked if this amendment was limited to area with slopes of less than 10 percent. Associate Planner Fox answered that was correct. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-19 thereby approving the requested Tract Amendment as modified to include language that states one minor non-habitable accessory structure not exceeding 12 feet in height at 120 square feet in area on each such lot be allowed, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). 6. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2006- 00449): 29118 Highmore Avenue Assistant Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings for the applications and was recommending approval, as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they identified any privacy issues with the proposed balcony. Assistant Planner Mikhail answered that staff did not identify any privacy issues with the proposed deck. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 10 Commissioner Knight asked staff how much of the grading in the rear yard would be on the extreme slope. Assistant Planner Mikhail answered that less than 20 cubic yards of grading will occur on the extreme slope. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jeff Jennewein 29118 Highmore Ave (applicant) stated he was available for questions. Charles Belak-Berger (architect) stated he was also available for questions. Commissioner Knight asked the architect the height of the proposed retaining wall, as there seemed to be two heights called out on the plans. Mr. Belak-Berger answered that the wall is proposed to be 5 feet 7 inches. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the house looks very modest from the street in terms of bulk and mass and complimented the architect. He stated he was able to make all of the necessary findings necessary to approve the project. He also had no objection to the proposed weather vane. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that on this type of.addition he always starts with the presumption that the addition will be too big for the lot and then looks for other factors that will change his presumption. He stated that in this instance what changes his mind is the visibility of this project is completely to Western Avenue and that this is an area that can benefit from this kind of upgrade and remodel. He was therefore able to make the findings to approve the project. Commissioner Knight stated that this proposal will be twice the size of other homes in the area on a very small lot, however by the way it is put together the bulk and mass are not visible from the street. He felt the tower entrance will be modest enough, and was therefore able to support the project. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-20 thereby approving the Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit as proposed by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Approved, (6-0). 7. Variance, Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Extreme Slope Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00097): 2873 Colt Road Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She stated that staff was able to make the findings to recommend approval of the Variance to build the room addition on the extreme slope, however Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 11 they were not able to support the Variance for a jacuzzi, as a jacuzzi is considered an accessory structure. She explained that staff could make the necessary findings for the Grading Permit for the room addition, but not for the patio area development. She stated that staff believed the proposed addition would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the Variance for the room addition, approval of the Grading Permit for the room addition, approval of the Extreme Slope Permit for the first and second story decks, denial of the Variance for the jacuzzi, and denial of the Grading Permit for the retaining walls, stairways, and grading to the west of the addition. Commissioner Tetreault disclosed that,he does know the applicants and has been to their home socially although not in the last couple of years, however he did not feel that would prejudice him in being able to render an objective opinion on this application. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to explain why not being able to have a jacuzzi on the property because of the situation on the property is not an extraordinary reason, similar to that of the room addition. Director Rojas explained that Variance findings are very difficult to make and staff tends to give more weight to allow a variance for habitable space, since that is the primary use of the lot, as opposed to proposed improvements in the rear yard, which are more accessory uses. Commissioner Ruttenberg examined the language in the findings and asked staff if the decision to grant the Variance for the jacuzzi is based on a decision as to whether or not having a jacuzzi is viewed as a "substantial" property right. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Ann Menard 2873 Colt Road (applicant) explained that she was requesting this addition to allow for more room for her family. She noted that she views the yard as an extension of the home for the purpose of her family. She hoped that the Planning Commission would consider approving the Variance for some sort of yard, noting that the lot is over an acre and she was trying to get a 700 square foot yard area with some sort of a water feature. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the jacuzzi is a substantial property right, noting that there are currently other jacuzzis in the neighborhood. He felt that with all of the land taken away with the placement of the road, this is really the best the applicant can do as far as what they can get out of their property. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if they knew of any other situations where there is an accessory structure, such as a jacuzzi, placed on a slope greater than 35 percent. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 12 Director Rojas could not specifically name any, but he could recall some instances where there are accessory structures on extreme slopes. Commissioner Karp agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments, pointing out that the jacuzzi will require engineering and geology reports and therefore the Planning Commission will not be approving something that is inherently dangerous. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the same issues would have arisen if the applicant had just requested a level yard without the water feature. Director Rojas noted that staff was also raising issues with the retaining walls and the amount of grading. Commissioner Tetreault also agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments. He noted the extreme constraints that have been put upon the applicant and felt that the proposed modifications were really quite modest. He felt this was a very unique case and was therefore able to make the necessary findings. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved adopt staff alternative No. 2 and approve the Variance, Grading Permit, Site Plan Review, and Extreme Slope Permit for the room addition, jacuzzi, retaining walls, and stairways, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Knight stated that he agrees with the staff analysis in terms of the Variance and grading, and therefore could not support the motion. The motion was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. 8. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00159): 28031 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Conditional Use Permit. She stated staff was able to make all of the necessary findings to approve the Conditional Use Permit, and was therefore recommending the Planning Commission's approval. Commissioner Knight stated that he noticed quite a few antennas at the property and asked if all of them will be placed behind the screen. Associate Planner Sohn answered that currently there are three different companies with antennas at the site and only the two Cingular antennas are being proposed to be screened. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that there was a letter from a neighbor expressing concern about view impairment, and asked staff to explain. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 13 Associate Planner Sohn explained that the impairment that was a concern to the neighbor was actually caused by equipment from another carrier and not Cingular, which is the only one before the Planning Commission at this time. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Daniel Fox (representing Cingular Wireless) stating he was available for any questions. Commissioner Knight asked what kind of exterior finish will be on this structure. Mr. Fox answered that it will have a stucco finish. Chairman Gerstner noted that the structure is located directly up against the face of the building above the balcony, placing a fake chimney over an external balcony. He asked why this couldn't be placed back 10 or 15 feet. Mr. Fox explained that the antennas need to be placed as close to the front of the structure as possible because of a shadowing effect of the radio frequency signals. He stated that there will be no coverage in the shadowing area, as it is a line of sight issue. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-21 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-1) with Chairman Gerstner dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 9. Minutes of January 23, 2007 Vice Chairman Perestam moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 10. Minutes of February 13, 2007 Commissioner Knight offered a clarification to page 13 of the minutes. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-0). 11. Minutes of February 27, 2007 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-0-1) with Vice Chairman Perestam abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 14 12. Pre-agenda for the meeting of April 10, 2007 Commissioner Tetreault discussed a future agenda item on suggestions he received from the Planning Conference regarding running a Planning Commission meeting. The Commission agreed to discuss this topic at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m: Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2007 Page 15