Loading...
PC MINS 20080812 Approved October 9, 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the August 5, 2008 City Council meeting, the City Council: 1) agreed to retain the Planning Commission at 7 members; 2) denied the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision related to a maintenance schedule for a View Restoration case on Vigilance Drive; and 3) received and filed a status report on the Marymount College project with a notation that the review schedule and EIR .adequacy is completely within the Planning Commission's purview. Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 7, four items of correspondence for Agenda item No. 8-, and five items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 11. Commissioner Knight noted that he had received a letter from the Mayor. Vice Chairman Lewis noted that he has received emails on the CVS project which is on the next agenda. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted he had a conversation with a resident regarding Agenda Item No. 7. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68796, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Density Bonus & Environmental Assessment (Case Nos. SUB2007-00003 & ZON2007-00072: 28220 Highridge Road Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the consent calendar, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-26 recommending certification of the mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council and adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-27 recommending conditional approval of the requested Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68796, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, and density bonus to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (4-1-1) with Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting and Commissioner Knight abstaining. 2. Status report on the Salvation Army trail easement issue: 30840 Hawthorne Blvd. Received and filed the status report, (6-0). 3. Minutes of May 27, 2008 Approved as presented, (6-0). 4. Minutes of June 10, 2008 Approved as presented, (6-0). 5. Minutes of June 24, 2008 Approved as presented, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 6. Minutes of July 8, 2008 Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioner Knight and Vice Chairman Lewis abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 2 7. Height Variation, Gradinq Permit & Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00593): 5 Cayuse Lane Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the applications involved. He stated that staff has determined that nearly all of the required findings can be made, however further modifications will be required in order to make all of the required findings. He discussed view impairment, noting that staff determined that the project, as proposed, does not result in significant view impairment from the neighboring residences. With respect to privacy, staff felt the project would result in privacy infringement to the outdoor living areas of the properties at 1, 7, and 9 Cayuse Lane unless the design and location of second door windows, doors, and balconies are modified. He explained that staff believes that the proposed design creates a boxy appearance to the house and the project is incompatible with the immediate neighborhood in terms of its size, scale, architectural style, and apparent bulk and mass and that the necessary Height Variation and Grading Permit findings that are related to neighborhood compatibility cannot be made. He added that staff believes that the remaining findings for the Grading Permit and the Conditional Use Permit can be made if the project is modified to address privacy impacts and neighborhood compatibility issues. He concluded by stating that staff is recommending the project be denied without prejudice, as staff believes the project can be redesigned to address the issues of neighborhood compatibility and privacy. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if it was staff s position that simply being a two-story residence, this proposed project was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Associate Planner Fox answered that the issue was not necessarily the number of stories, but more the apparent bulk and mass related to the architectural style. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how the fact that a portion of the size of the residence is incorporated into a second unit enters into the Planning Commission's consideration. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff's analysis for size and bulk and mass did not give more or less weight to the fact that there is a proposed second unit. Chairman Perestam asked if there were any code requirements that tie the septic tank to other limitations in regards to the number of bathrooms or plumbing fixtures. Associate Planner Fox was not aware of any limitations, noting that there will have to be geologic tests and health department approvals. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Bedros Enfiedjian (architect) explained that the applicant searched for quite awhile before buying this property, and before buying the property went to the City to research what type and how large of a home could be built on the property. He explained that Dr. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 3 Goodard has a son who is about to be married and will live in the second unit, two daughters, and an elderly aunt who will also reside at the residence. He explained the various constraints associated with the lot and noted that current proposed lot coverage is only twenty-six percent. He stated that the owner is will to take any steps necessary in terms of additional landscaping or screening to protect the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. He noted that these are two separate homes on the property, and therefore the square footage of each is within the size range of other homes in the neighborhood. He also noted that the applicant is very sensitive to the nature of the neighborhood, and there are currently no plans to cut trees on the property. David Moulding, 7 Cayuse Lane, stated there are ten homes in his community, and all are low profile California ranch-style homes. Therefore, he was quite dismayed to hear about the proposed two-story home on the vacant lot at 5 Cayuse Lane. He was concerned that there would not be much room in the setbacks for landscaping, and therefore it would result in hardscape in these areas. He noted that with the location of the main living rooms of the home, they will be directly overlooking the properties at 1, 3, 7, 9, and the swimming pool and outside area at 1 Bronco Drive. He therefore objected to the project based on neighborhood compatibility and privacy issues. Jim Menjou, 1 Bronco Drive, stated that he agreed with the findings in the staff report. He added, however, that he disagrees with staff's finding that his residence is not an adjacent property. He was very concerned about the affect of this proposed two-story home on the privacy of his backyard and spa area. He pointed to an area on a photograph where he felt the existing trees will be removed during the building of the house because of the building of the foundation. With these trees removed, his privacy will be even more compromised. Mr. Menjou did not agree with staff's statement in the staff report that addressing the privacy concerns of 7 Cayuse Lane would also address the privacy concerns from his residence. He pointed out that the windows facing Mr. Moulding's property are on the other side of the property. Commissioner Gerstner noted that with the current footprint of the proposed residence, even if it were proposed as a single story residence, there would still be the same foundation issues in regards to the existing trees and walls. Mr. Menjou felt that a single-story home might be a better solution in regards to the privacy issues with his property. He didn't think the windows would go as high, though he noted there would be a problem in a single-family home if the applicant proposed a large picture window facing his property. Craig Washington, 3 Cayuse Lane, stated that he objects to the project based on neighborhood compatibility. He stated that his home is a two-story home, however it is only considered so because of the garage below his residence. He noted that the garage is earth sheltered and therefore he considers his home a single-story ranch style design. He stated that from his home he will see a very tall, imposing, boxy structure. He also questioned how the applicant will be able to keep all of the trees, noting that the Fire Department may have their own concerns. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 4 Laura Goddard (owner) stated that she was very concerned about the relationship between herself and the neighbors. She stated that she would be willing to change the location of the residence and that she would put obscure glass in the windows that face 1 Bronco. She stated that while she was in escrow it was her understanding that she could build an 8,000 square foot house, and if she had known otherwise she most likely would not have purchased the property. She also stated that this house is being built for her family to live in. She stated that she is willing to compromise as much as possible but still meet the needs of her family. She stated she was willing to remove the office and the balcony facing the Moulding property. Bedros Enfiedjian (in rebuttal) noted on the plan that there are no windows facing the Menjou property on the second story. He stated that the owner is willing to remove some balconies in some fashion that will not unravel the entire design. Commissioner Knight referred to the buffer landscaping plan distributed by Mr. Enfiedjian, and asked where the driveway was proposed to be located. Mr. Enfiedijian pointed to an area on the plan where the driveway will be located. Chairman Perestam asked if any consideration had been given to additional grading to lower the actual building pad. Mr. Enfiedjian answered that he could look into lowering the pad, however he was not sure how much lower the pad could go, possibly one to two feet. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he had met with Rosemarie DeSanto at her property at 13 Cayuse Lane, and was asked to express her opinions at the meeting. He explained that Ms. DiSanto expressed her appreciation that the 800 square feet for horse keeping had been set aside, and that she had no objections to the proposed project. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the applicant would be able to use some of the easement area for turn-around area. Associate Planner Fox answered that the easements are shared among several properties, and in order to use the easement for this purpose permission would have to be granted from all of the easement holders. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the character of the neighborhood is very much single- story or split-level California ranch-style homes, and this proposal does not fit into that character as it is currently designed. He has always felt that it is not so much the size of the home that matters, but rather the appearance of the home. He felt that it is possible to design a more compatible home on this property, noting that with the restrictions on the property it may be quite a challenge to design a 6,000 to 7,000 square foot home on Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 5 this property. He felt that there are elements of the home that lend themselves to inefficient use of the space and accentuate the vertical. Commissioner Knight agreed with staff's analysis and with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. He felt that the home was incompatible with the design of the neighborhood and too large. He was also concerned with the effect of the driveway entrance to 1 Cayuse Lane, as he did not see a landscape plan that would buffer this entrance. Commissioner Knight moved to deny the proposed project, without prejudice, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that since this is the first time the project has been before the Planning Commission, he would prefer to recommend a continuance to allow the applicant a chance to redesign the project, rather than a denial of the project. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he was not too worried about the second story aspect of the project, but noted that it could be lowered. Regarding the second unit, he would feel more comfortable if it were detached from the main residence. He agreed that the design is not compatible with the neighborhood, and was also concerned with the bulk and mass. Therefore, he could not support the project as currently presented. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Tomblin's comments. He also agreed with a letter from the project architect included in the staff report in which the he points out that a majority of the properties along Cayuse Lane were developed decades ago, and represent a different era in style and type of construction that those being developed presently. However, he felt that it was the Planning Commission's job to safeguard those styles and safeguard the look and feel of the neighborhood while allowing for some moderate growth. Therefore, he could not support the project as currently presented. Chairman Perestam asked the architect if, after listening to the concerns of the Plannning Commission and staff, he could modify the design of the home to address these concerns. Mr. Enfiedjian stated that he did not want to have the project denied after working so hard on it for so long. He stated that he can design any type of style on the property, .but the owner may have a concern with that. Dr. Goddard stated that she does not mind changing the design of the house as long as the house meets the needs of her family. Chairman Perestam asked the applicant if she would be willing to grant the needed one- time extension per the Permit Streamlining Act. Dr. Goddard agreed to the extension. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 6 Director Rojas noted that the first available date before the Planning Commission will be the October 14th meeting. Mr. Enfiedjian stated that he needed some guidance, and asked if only a California Ranch style design will be accepted. Commissioner Gerstner explained that the Planning Commission does not say that since the five closest homes are California ranch, this proposed house must also be California ranch. He understood that the design of homes and tastes change, but there are certain massing characteristics that are quite obvious. He noted that sometimes these characteristics can look dated, however there are ways to update these characteristics that doesn't change the mass, the casualness, and the ruralness of them and keeps them fresh. He pointed out that many elements in the current proposal are very vertical, while elements of a California ranch style are very horizontal. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. Chairman Perestam felt that additional grading to lower the pad should also be looked at. Commissioner Knight withdrew his motion to deny the project. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to October 14, 2008 to allow the applicant to address the concerns raised by staff and the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Vice Chairman Lewis felt that if the new design is still a two-story proposal, that the property be re-flagged. The other commissioners agreed. Commissioner Knight revised his motion to include that the property be re- flagged with the new design, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (6-0). 8. Conditional Use Permit & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00182): 31100-31176 Hawthorne Blvd and 31202-31246 Palos Verdes Drive West Director Rojas explained that this item technically did not need to come back to the Planning Commission since the application was withdrawn. However, staff left it on the agenda as there may have been an expectation from some members of the public who attended the last meeting that this item would be heard at this meeting. He explained that the applicant chose to withdraw the application rather than make any minor design changes to the proposed building. The Commissioners expressed their disappointment that Trader Joes decided not to pursue a store at Golden Cove. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 7 9. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2007-00472): 27000 Freeport Road Director Rojas explained that the applicant has requested a continuance to allow time to address staff's concerns as expressed in the staff report. Therefore staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to the meeting of September 23, 2008. The Planning Commissioners agreed to continue the public hearing to September 23, 2008. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2008-00092): 29102 Highmore Avenue Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation and Site Plan Review. He stated that staff felt all of the required findings could be met to recommend approval of the project. He explained that as a result of the foliage analysis, staff identified a tree that impairs views from other properties, and staff has added a condition of approval that the tree be trimmed and thinned. He noted that there are other trees that surround the property, however they are in the public right-of-way and are therefore not in the scope of the foliage analysis. Commissioner Knight noted that the Resolution states the existing structure complies with all of the zoning regulations. He felt it would be clearer to make a statement that the existing non-conforming structure setbacks are allowed to remain because less than 50 percent of the existing residence will be demolished. Associate Planner Fox responded that such language can be added to the Resolution. Director Rojas noted that there were no speakers for this project. Commissioner Gerstner felt that this proposed design is a classic solution to building on this piece of property, and solves the problems of the lot in a very nice way. Chairman Perestam noted that being a corner lot he has a concern regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed addition as seen from Trudie Drive. He felt that the existing trees soften the impact of the house from Trudie Drive. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-28 thereby conditionally approving the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review, as amended to add the tree trimming condition as recommended by staff and to add the language regarding the non-conforming setbacks as recommended by Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Knight, seconded by Tomblin. Approved, (5-1) with Chairman Perestam dissenting. 11. Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Sign Program & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2002-00216): 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He explained that staff was able to make many of the findings to approve the Conditional Use Permit, however there are some findings that staff could not make. Specifically, he explained that staff determined the proposed height of the building impairs public and private views, which constitutes significant adverse affects on adjacent property owners. Further, the property falls within a scenic vista as identified in the General Plan. He noted that staff felt all of the required findings to approve the Conditional Use Permit could be made if the height of the proposed building were reduced to 16 feet. In regards to the Grading Permit, staff noted that the finding related to visual relationships and views cannot be made. He explained that there are areas of coastal sage scrub habitat on the property that will be directly and indirectly affected by the proposed development, and if approved, the applicant will be required to mitigate for the loss of the habitat. In conclusion, he stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the September 23rd Planning Commission meeting to give staff time to respond to all of the comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration before any action is taken on it by the Planning Commission. Further, based on public input and deliberation at this meeting, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend modifications to the proposed project. Commissioner Knight noted that many of the public comments are from residents in Rolling Hills Estates, and asked if there was anything in the Code allowing the Planning Commission to take into consideration the impacts of the proposed project to residents in a neighboring city. Associate Planner Fox answered that the Code does not extend to properties not in this City. He added that the Mitigated Negative Declaration through CEQA does give the Planning Commission some latitude to consider properties in other cities, as it is considering environmental impacts to other properties, whether in the City or not. Commissioner Knight referred to the fuel modification section in the report, and stated he was concerned with the recommendation of 50 foot fuel modification. He noted that quite often the fire department will require 200 feet for fuel modification especially on upslope properties and requested that staff verify with the fire department that they are satisfied with the 50 foot recommendation. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to clarify if there is a 16-foot by right height limit on a commercially zoned property. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 9 Associate Planner Fox explained that in the case of commercial property in the discussion of permitted uses, it explicitly says the height limit is 16 feet, and anything over 16 feet in height will require a Conditional Use Permit to do so. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if, when considering the area over 16 feet, if part of that analysis would be whether or not the area above 16 feet in height has a significant adverse affect rather than whether or not it impairs a protected view. Associate Planner Fox answered that was correct. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that adverse affects to private properties would include only adjacent properties, and asked staff if a more major factor in consideration of the project might be the public aspect of this rather than the private aspect. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff's concern was more with the public view impact, however staff acknowledges that there is a tremendous concern raised by private property owners about the impact on their views. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Raju Chhabria (applicant) stated that he was very aware that this is a sensitive property. He stated that he was not opposed to keeping the structure at 16 feet in height, however this would cause the building to be extended further out and most likely block more views than the current proposal. He noted that the homes on Peppertree Lane have several trees on their properties that obstruct their views towards his property. He stated that he is open to suggestions from the Planning Commission on how to lessen the impacts to the neighboring properties and the public. Charles Belak-Berger (architect) explained that idea behind the development was to try to push the entire development into the corner as much as possible. He felt this not only benefits the property owner, but also benefits the resulting, very large, view corridor that remains. He noted that there is still over 600 feet of completely open, non- obstructed vista and ocean view potential. He felt that he designed a very beautiful building with a residential feel to it, adding that he was open to suggestions on modifications to the structure. He stated that he could reduce the tower features and would work with the Planning Department to reduce the bulk of the building. Rudy Maus felt that the entire building can be lowered down so that it is at 16 feet in height without changing any of the architectural features. He referred Ralphs across the street from this project, and noted that it is built below grade. He also noted that staff did not take into consideration the impact to the residences who live at Ocean Crest who will look over this structure. He felt that these residents will lose their views of the ocean and Catalina Island. David Bray, 6661 Crest Road, felt that this proposed building will be a blight on what has become a natural preserve in the area. He stated that there have been many Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 10 proposals for this lot, none which have come to fruition. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look very carefully at why those projects never happened. He stated that this property is in an OH zone, and the geology is a major concern to him. Ralph Schack stated he has no objection to a commercial development on the corner, but he does object to it being completely out of scale. He felt that the proposal is too large and too tall and would impact the overall character of the area. Paul Yun read the petition objecting to the proposed project which he circulated to residents in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Yun if he was saying he.wanted no commercial building on the property. Mr. Yun answered that no commercial building should be allowed on the lot. Mary Clark felt that this proposal will affect everyone in the City who drives on Hawthorne Boulevard, as it will take away the view currently enjoyed. She felt that everyone should do their best to keep the surrounding views, and not carelessly let the beauty be destroyed. She encouraged the Planning Commission to encourage a single story structure and to rule against any landscaping on the property that would obstruct views. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Clark if she would have any objection if the building were limited to 16 feet in height. Ms. Clark answered that the property owners have a right to build a building up to 16 feet in height. Minik Son, 30029 Avenida Classica, stated he is against the proposed construction because of the increased traffic the building will generate and because of the views it will block. He stated that the view is a value, and if the view is gone the value is gone. He didn't think that a building should be built that the community objected to. Dan Hess felt the proposed construction is inappropriate and unnecessarily and significantly impairs the aesthetic and economic values of the surrounding homes. He felt that the view across this lot has been in place for some many years, that to some extent it has become an intangible view that people have become accustomed to. He felt there was a potential safety and congestion issues with the traffic, in that they are providing for a significant number of parking spaces. He was very concerned about the geology at the site and also noted the canyon may be on an earthquake fault line. He also felt the building was much too large for the lot. Robert Frinier, 6805 Crest Road, stated that he objects to any construction on that corner. He was concerned with the traffic flow in and out of the driveway, which is Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 11 proposed to be onto Crest Road. He felt that this traffic in conjunction with the Ralphs traffic and residential traffic would create some dangerous situations. Frank Pang, 22 Pepper Tree Lane, showed a picture taken from his second floor master bedroom of the silhouette on the lot. He felt that his view will be significantly impacted by this proposed structure. He stated that when he bought his home he had other options in development which cost significantly less money, but chose this lot for the view. He gave staff a petition against the project signed by residents on Pepper Tree Lane. He stated that he was against any development on the property, but if there had to be development he would prefer a building at 16 feet in height. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that lowering the height of the building to 16 feet and extending the building would most likely but more building into the sunset area. He asked Mr. Pang if he had to make a choice, would he prefer the building at 16 feet and more into his sunset view, or to remain at the proposed height. Mr. Pang stated that he would prefer no building at the site, but if he had to choose he felt the higher building would probably be the better choice. Frank Sesno, 97 Cresta Verde Drive, stated he submitted a letter to the Planning Commission which discusses the view and the impact the structure would have upon the view from his home and the view of people walking or driving by the property. He was also concerned with the geological impact of the project, as well as the traffic entering and exiting onto Crest Road. He suggested it may be appropriate to make a change in the zoning of the property so that it better fits the neighborhood. Raju Chhabria (in rebuttal) stated that in March 1981 there was a plan approved by the City for an 11,000 square foot office building, however the building was not built due to the real estate market at the time. Further, in June 1986 a 12,000 square foot building was approved but the owners could not obtain the needed financing. He stated that he does not have this problem, and if approved, the building will be built. He therefore felt that someone else could potentially buy the property and propose a more intensive use. He felt that his use of the building would be very limited and would not have any adverse impact to the neighborhood. He felt that the plan submitted is very good, but would be open to any suggestions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there will be several suites in the building that will be leased out to other businesses. Mr. Chhabria answered that he will occupy the entire building. Commissioner Tomblin was very concerned with the view corridor. He questioned if the approved geology report addressed the possibility of lowering the building and proposed towers. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 12 Mr. Chhabria noted that he has agreed to lower the building to 16 feet in height, however in going more horizontal on the property the building will have more impact on views. He stated that he is very willing to work with the City in designing a building that will make everyone happy. Commissioner Tomblin felt that these specific findings were put in place to protect view corridors, and this is a significant view corridor. He noted that to expand out horizontally, three of the four policy findings most likely could not be made. He felt that there is precedent, as there are developments in the City such as Oceanfront and Seaview where land was withheld from development because of view corridors. Associate Planner Fox explained in this case the vista that is identified is more narrowly focused than those at Oceanfront and Seaview. He stated that the Planning Commission has the discretion to consider a wider and lower building, and if that was done at this location staff most likely would not have difficultly recommending the Planning Commission make the necessary finding. He noted that policies simply direct that the City consider these issues. He reminded the Commissioners that there are very specific designated vistas in this situation. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if there has ever been a time when a piece of property was down-zoned against the will of the property owner. Director Rojas answered that staff could not recall any such situation, and felt that most, if not all, zone changes in the past have been in response to an applicant's request. Commissioner Knight asked staff approximately how much grading would be required for this project. Associate Planner Fox explained that the lot consists of uncompacted fill that will have to be removed and recompacted, and staff's understanding was approximately 15 to 16 feet will have to be removed. Commissioner Gerstner felt that a single story building over a larger portion of the lot will have less impact than the current proposal. He noted that while more properties may be impacted, the impact will be less. He also noted that the applicant will be grading down for the parking area, and if an office building was set at the elevation .proposed for the parking lot, that building would be almost invisible in terms of elevation from the street. He felt that the applicant could put the office building where the parking area is proposed and put the parking area where the current office building is proposed, and the only view impact will be the height of the cars. He acknowledged this may not be conventional, but felt the applicant may want to explore this option. Commissioner Knight noted that this property is zoned for commercial use, and the City does have to allow some type of commercial use on the property. He agreed with staff's analysis in regards to the General Plan and view corridor. He would like to see more analysis done from the homes in the Monaco tract, as he felt these homes may be Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 13 affected even more than the homes on Pepper Tree. He also felt more analysis was needed in terms of driveway access and the truck haul route. He therefore could not support the current project as proposed. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. He stated that he does not support the project as currently proposed because of the view issues involved. In regards to geology, he was confident that any project proposed would go before the City Geologist for approval, and the City Geologist is the expert. He added that he was not sure he could support a project that was more horizontal because of the view issues. Commissioner Ruttenberg disagreed with the Commissioners who stated they would have trouble approving a building at 16 feet in height. He felt that if the Planning Commission started having trouble approving a 16 foot height building and not approving a vertical building, there would be the possibility of engaging in a taking. He stated that this property has been zoned for commercial use for many years, and the City has represented that this is a proper piece of property for commercial use, and he will support commercial use on this property. He stated that the question is what the configuration of the building will be and how to minimize the impact to the neighbors. He appreciated the willingness of the applicant to work with the City in finding a solution. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the September 23, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 12. Pre-Agenda for the August 26, 2008 meeting The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:56 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2008 Page 14