Loading...
PC MINS 20110913 ARproved October 1 , 011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:06 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 Knight, Leon, Lewis, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioners Emenhiser and Gerstner were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, Assistant Planner Kim APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their upcoming September 20th meeting, the City Council is scheduled to hear the proposed temporary banner code amendment, although staffs recommendation will be to continue the discussion to a future meeting. Director Rojas distributed one letter and two photos for agenda item No. 2, the final version of the traffic study for agenda item No. 3, and one letter for agenda item No. 4. 'Chairman Tomblin and Commissioners Leon and Knight reported they met with a neighbor to the project related to agenda item No. 2. Chairman Tomblin reported he had conversations with neighbors to the project related to agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Jeff Lewis stated he is president of CHOA (Council of Homeowners Associations) and announced that CHOA will be hosting a forum for the City Council candidates on October 5th at 7:00 p.m. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00083): 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining the applicant has withdrawn the application. Therefore, staff is recommending the Commission receive and file the report. Commissioner Knight moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (4-0). 2. Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00016): 30430 Calle de Suenos Director Rojas noted that Kit Fox was the original planner for this item, however since Mr. Fox is now working in the City Manager's office, the case has been reassigned to Assistant Planner So Kim. Commissioner Lewis disclosed that he was not present at the meeting when this item was discussed, however he reviewed the minutes of the meeting, and felt he could adequately hear this matter. Vice Chairman Tetreault arrived, apologizing for being late. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the public hearings regarding this item. She explained that at the last hearing there was some confusion as to whether or not the actual height of the residence would be increased. She noted that the revised proposal will increase the existing ridgeline of the residence by 2.2 feet. She noted that the neighbor, Mr. Pachares, as well as the applicant requested the view impact be reassessed from the Panchares property. She noted staff conducted an additional site visit to the Panchares residence, showing photographs taken from the residence, and reaffirmed staff's original assessment and analysis of the view impairments, and finds the proposed project does not cause significant view impairment. She stated staff continues to believe the project does not appear bulky or massive because of the articulation in the design. She stated staff recommends the Commission adopt the appropriate resolution for either approval or denial. Commissioner Knight asked staff if, because of the configuration of the rear stairway, the proposed addition will not allow for a second unit. Director Rojas clarified that this could not qualify as a second unit because the stairway does not lead directly to a common hallway. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Leon pointed out the area where he felt the only ocean view is available from the Panchares residence. He asked staff if, in their analysis, they were considering more of an ocean view than seen from this viewing area. Assistant Planner Kim noted that there is a sliver of additional ocean view above the ridgeline of the neighboring home. Commissioner Leon discussed the houses in this area, noting the views from the non- ocean side of the street are mainly visible in the spaces between the houses. As such, that small piece of view between homes becomes very important to these particular residents and felt that the view between the houses is a significant amount of the view. Marcoz Anaya (architect) stated he was available to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Anaya the ceiling heights of the addition. Mr. Anaya answered that the ceiling heights in the existing residence are both 9 feet and 10 feet on the second floor, and he was trying to maintain the same plate heights in the addition. Chairman Tomblin pointed to an area on the displayed photograph and asked Mr. Anaya, if he were asked to cut back a section of the proposed addition to a certain line to minimize view impacts, what would be taken off. Mr. Anaya stated it would be a portion of the master bath and a portion of the master closet, which at this point would be something the property owner would be open to try to address Mr. Pachares' concerns. James Pachares stated that the current ocean view from his kitchen window is best described as modest not insignificant. He stated that this modest ocean view extends from the applicant's residence on his left to the applicant's nearest neighbor on his right. He noted the Vice Chairman's comments at a previous meeting that it may be a small amount of view that will be impaired in terms of the entire view, however the only protected view would be of the ocean which is in the middle of the view frame and there would be a substantial reduction of the ocean view as compared to what he currently has. He referred to the modified silhouette, and noted that even with the modification the fact remains that should the proposed silhouette be built his only ocean view from indoors would be substantially reduced. Therefore, he asked the application be denied. Commissioner Leon drew a line near the edge of the eave of the applicant's home and asked Mr. Pachares if this were the edge of the new house design, would that be an adequate compromise which would improve his view. Mr. Pachares stated it would be better than what is currently being proposed. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 3 Marcoz Anaya (in rebuttal) noted that with the new design the chimney will be lowered, which will also help Mr. Pachares in regards to his view impairment. Commissioner Knight asked staff if a decision of approval or denial on the project has to be made at this meeting. Director Rojas acknowledged that a resolution of approval or denial has to be adopted at this meeting, and there is no extension possible. He added that if the Commission is inclined to approve the project with revisions then said revisions will have to be explicitly described in the adopted resolution so there is no confusion in the future. Commissioner Lewis asked if it would be possible to mark up staffs photograph of the view from Mr. Pachares viewing area to illustrate the Commission's revisions and attach that photograph to the resolution to use as a guide. Director Rojas answered that could be done. Commissioner Leon asked staff, if the Commission were to approve a project using a photograph and a penned in line to show the edge of the structure, would that be enough information for staff to make sure plans reflect the Planning Commission's approval. Director Rojas explained that even if the photograph is marked up and included, there is a condition that will have to read into the record which describes how the project is to be revised. The architect will then have to redesign the project, submit a plan to staff, and staff will have to decide if that plan meets the Planning Commission's intent. However, if there is some discrepancy or Mr. Pachares does not feel the plan reflects the Commission's decision, it may put the project in limbo as to how to proceed at that point. Commissioner Leon suggested a condition of approval which says the redesigned plan is subject to the Director's approval and the Director's approval is appealable to the Planning Commission. Director Rojas agreed that could be a condition of approval. He added that the other option would be for the Commission to deny the project, which would allow the applicant the time to redesign and resubmit a new plan to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight stated that he went out to the Pachares residence, and felt that visiting the site is very different than looking at the photographs. He felt the proposed addition, as currently designed, will cause a significant view impact to Mr. Pachares. He also had an issue with the bulk and mass of the residence, noting the cantilever of the center piece over the garage. He therefore could not support the project as proposed. He felt there was a lot of room for the applicant to modify the design to lessen the impact to the neighbor. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 4 Commissioner Lewis stated he has a concern regarding the view impact, even with the suggestion of cutting back the side, and at this point he was undecided on his position. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that for many people who have a somewhat limited ocean view, this view becomes very important. In these situations, he focuses on how much view impact will result to this particular limited view. In looking at the proposed project he felt that if the wall were moved back as suggested, he would then be able to approve the project. He had no objections to the design in terms of bulk and mass and neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Leon felt that there may be a better design for the second floor that would enhance the view for the neighbor. He noted that there could be a greater benefit to the applicant if the Planning Commission were to deny the project and let the architect solve this problem, rather than coming up with some bureaucratic limit line for the construction of the second floor. Chairman Tomblin asked staff, if the project were denied, would the applicant then have to pay new fees to resubmit a redesigned project. Director Rojas noted there would be new fees of approximately $8,000 to $9,000, and only the City Council can waive these application fees. Chairman Tomblin understood Commissioner Leon's concerns, but felt that the applicant's concession to cut back a portion of the proposed second floor addition would satisfy his concern in regards to the view impact from the Pachares residence. He would therefore support the project with the ability to cut back the second floor addition. Commissioner Leon asked the applicant to come forward, and asked which approach he would prefer. Mr. Anaya explained that, given the high fees to resubmit the project, and given the restrictions and constraints associated with this property, he would prefer the Commission approve the project and allow him to modify the second floor. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project with the following modifications: 1) that a photograph which depicts the new limit line for the second story addition be attached to the conditions of approval; 2) a condition be added that the architect redesign the project so that no portion of the structure, including eaves, extends past the limit line depicted on the photograph, which is defined by the edge of the existing eaves of the existing home; 3) the Director is to determine whether or not the redesign satisfies this redesign requirement; and 4) the Director's determination on this redesign issue be appealable to the Planning Commission by any interested party. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 5 Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that he normally would not be so specific in directions for a redesigned project. However, in this case the architect has volunteered that this is acceptable and doable from his perspective. He noted this is not the Planning Commission's requiring a line on a photograph, but rather depicting a line that represents something the architect has agreed to and has said he can do. Director Rojas noted that there is some ocean view on the left side of the drawn in limit line on the photograph. He asked for clarification that the motion would allow nothing to be built to the right of this limit line which would impair the small amount of ocean view on the left side of the line. Commissioner Lewis agreed that was correct, and anyone who votes yes on this motion agrees to that. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2011-29 was thereby adopted, (4-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. 3. Conditional Use Permit Revision `A' (Case No. ZON2002-00216): 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this is a revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Master Sign Program for a new commercial office building on an existing vacant parcel. Since the approval, the owner of the property has been approached by a developer who would like to develop and open a bank on this vacant property. Due to the constraints in the conditions of approval, which limit the use of the new building from being used as a financial institution, the property owner has contacted staff to request that the condition of approval which restricts the use of a financial institution on the property be eliminated provided the required parking for a financial institution is provided. She noted that the proposed vehicular access has not been altered, nor has the grading or overall height of the building been altered since the original Planning Commission approval in 2008. She showed drawings of the originally proposed project as well as the newly proposed project, whereby the applicant is not proposing to alter the overall design of the previously approved project. She explained the applicant is also proposing to slightly modify the Master Sign Program as detailed in the staff report. She stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting staff noted that the proposed change in use would not likely require an updated traffic analysis, however upon further study the City senior engineer determined that an updated analysis was necessary to account for the change in use from office to financial. With that, the applicant submitted an updated traffic analysis which concluded that the new development of a financial institution would not result in significant impact upon the levels of service at three specified intersections, and the City's senior traffic engineer agreed. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve addendum No. 1 to the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve the Conditional Use Permit revision and the Master Sign Program revision to allow the commercial building to be used as a financial institution. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 6 Commissioner Knight discussed the traffic study and asked staff to explain the difference in traffic between a professional building, which the Planning Commission has approved for this site, and a commercial operation. He assumed a commercial operation would have quite a bit more traffic going in and out of the area. He did not see that difference discussed in the traffic study. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the City's Senior Engineer required the traffic study use the same methodology used for the original traffic study and apply the traffic analysis for a walk-in bank. She explained that the traffic study looked at the traffic at the site today, how future projects would impact the traffic at the three specified intersections, and what impact this proposed project would create. She noted that there was no significant impact to traffic in the conversion from a professional office building to a financial institution, as noted in the traffic analysis. Commissioner Knight was concerned, as he did not think the two uses were equal in terms of frequency and volume of traffic. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that the uses are not considered equal and that the revised study accounts for the change in use by using common trip generation counts for walk-in banks instead of office buildings and a 9.5 percent annual growth rate was applied to the 2005 approved traffic analysis. Commissioner Lewis asked staff for a clarification of Table 3 on page 4 of the traffic report. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the Table to the Commission, explaining that a specialty retail center was used on the Table for a.m. peak hours due to the fact that there were no trip generation counts for that time period. She further noted that the City's Senior Engineer confirmed that this use was acceptable to interchange. Chairman Tomblin referred to the sign drawing, and asked why it was so generic and why the Commission wasn't provided an exact sign drawing. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that this is a Master Sign Program required to be established for the property in general and therefore should be more generic. Each individual tenant would apply for a sign with the City and the sign would have to meet the criteria of the approved Master Sign Program. She further noted that these permits are typically approved by the Director. Chairman Tomblin referred to the traffic study and challenged the validity of the numbers in regards to trips generated in an hour. He noted that the report states that there would be fifteen cars into the bank and fifteen cars out during the peak hours, and did not think that was a realistic number. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 7 Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that the number comes from the ITE book and is a designated number for a walk-in bank. Director Rojas added that engineers tend to have tables listing traffic expected at a typical bank at a peak rate so that everything is evenly compared. Dan Almquist (applicant) stated that while he did pay for the traffic study, the study was an update of the Planning Commission's approved study from 2005 and the city engineer put him in touch with the firm who prepared the study. He added that while Chase will be the only tenant in the building, they are using a significant portion of the building for their private client groups and office use. Bob Superneau (architect) stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Knight explained that the City prefers to use reverse channel signs as opposed to front elimination and asked if that would be something Mr. Superneau's client would be willing to do. Mr. Superneau answered that his client would absolutely be willing to use reverse channel signs. Brian Marchetti stated he conducted the traffic study for the project and was available for questions. Commissioner Lewis stated that intuitively a bank would seem to generate more traffic than a professional building, and asked Mr. Marchetti to explain how the impacts are comparable. Mr. Marchetti answered that the original 2005 study analyzed a total of eleven trips in the a.m. peak hour and eleven trips in the p.m. peak hour for office use. The most recent study is looking at thirty eight in the p.m. peak hour, showing the intensity of the project has gone up. However, it is not affecting the turn movement of the intersection enough to create a significant impact compared to the flows on Hawthorne Boulevard. Commissioner Lewis asked then if the bank does generate more trips, but in terms of the level of service, the change is nominal. Mr. Marchetti answered that was correct, adding that the change is not significant when applied to the Citys policy on traffic study review, which requires a 0.020 change in the volume-to-capacity ratio at intersections operating at a level of service of E or F. Director Rojas felt it was important to note that an engineer in the Public Works Department reviews the traffic study and sets the criteria on what is considered significant. In this case she agreed with the report that the traffic increase will not be significant. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 8 Vice Chairman Tetreault asked how many peak hour trips would be considered significant. Mr. Marchetti stated he could only speak in generalities to put it in perspective. He explained that the a.m. peak hour traffic does not trigger a change in the operations at all and is not measureable. In the p.m. peak hour traffic the incremental change in the value looked at is .002, using a range from zero to one. He stated that usually a significant change in traffic impact is considered at the .02 range. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Marchetti if in his analysis he studied other banks in the area to see what the amount of traffic has been in and out. Mr. Marchetti answered that he can't recall any traffic study for a bank where they collected first hand data, noting that the rates are trusted as a national source. Chairman Tomblin explained his further concern that there is only one vehicular entryway into the property which is in a very high traffic area from Ralphs across the street. He felt that there will be several short trips in and out of the bank creating a significant amount of activity that he does not think can be addressed in this traffic report. He asked how this traffic can be put in and out through one entryway and if anyone went out to look at that feature. Mr. Marchetti replied this was not a roadway engineering study but rather a traffic impact study. Commissioner Knight felt there were a lot of questions in terms of traffic safety, and asked if this is something the Public Works Department has looked at. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the Public Works Department does look at the traffic safety and added that the Planning Commission had added a condition of approval to the original approval to ensure that the Public Works Department to do so. She added that when the Public Works Engineer reviewed the plans her main concern was that the driveway was at the lowest portion of the property. Director Rojas explained that when this was before the Planning Commission previously all of these traffic safety issues were brought up and all of the concerns were reviewed by the Public Works Department. As a result, a condition of approval was added by the Planning Commission that the traffic safety be monitored and all the necessary right-of- way improvements be the responsibility of the applicant. With this new proposal the only thing that has changed is the number of trips, however the level of trips is not enough to raise a concern to add of new conditions or mitigation. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Planning Commission's approval of this project would be to allow any financial institution to operate at this site. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 9 Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that the Planning Commission would be approving the change from an office building to a financial use and revised signage locations for the building. In terms of the Master Sign Program, Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Commission could modify the conditions to elevate sign approval to a Planning Commission level review. Director Rojas answered that such a condition of approval can be added. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if Public Works staff looked at the financial institution to review the extra trips coming in and out of the property versus an office building in terms of how that will work safety wise. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that was not looked at, as it would fall under condition No. 18 of the conditions of approval and the applicant was not altering the previously approved design of the driveway. She added that at the previous hearings the Commission had expressed concern that ingress and egress on Hawthorne Boulevard was an issue and therefore Crest Road seemed to be the most viable and best alternative for vehicular access, and the driveway location is the farthest from the Hawthorne Boulevard and Crest Road intersection. Commissioner Lewis stated that the traffic numbers are somewhat counterintuitive to him and he was not comfortable with the study. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing and directed staff to bring additional information to the Planning Commission in regards to traffic and clarify what level of increased activity would be necessary to be deemed significant. Further, if Chase Bank is proposing to be the tenant, he requested actual sign designs. Seconded by Chairman Tomblin. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he was sympathetic as to the sign issue, noting the Commission spends a lot of time on commercial signs and this would be consistent with past practices and to the benefit of the community. However, with respect to the traffic impact, he explained that he is generally skeptical of traffic studies as it seems that almost always whatever project is being put forward to the Commission there is never a significant traffic impact, yet he seems to drive around and spend most of his time in traffic. However, with that being said, he did not think this intersection has a traffic problem and he did not think this added use would cause impact to the traffic at that intersection. Commissioner Leon stated that intuitively he agreed that the numbers in the traffic study seem awfully small and was not sure Chase Bank would survive if they only had seventeen customers per hour during their peak time. He also felt that these numbers presented could probably double or triple and not create an impact to the intersection. He was therefore a bit reluctant to continue the item, noting that the Commission might Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 10 not ever have enough data as they could possibly have. He stated he can live with uncertainty in regards to the traffic numbers because there is a lot of margin on the top side. With respect to the signage, he felt the Commission can craft some conditions to make the sign language acceptable. He therefore was not in favor of continuing the item. Commissioner Knight felt that not having all of the data in front of him in terms of the number of cars makes it a little harder to determine the actual impact of this use. He stated that he was not so much concerned with the volume of traffic but rather the safety of the arrangement. He did not have anything from the City's Traffic Engineer in terms of exiting the property and turning onto Crest Road. He was satisfied with the proposed signage. Commissioner Lewis commented that the Commission is re-certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration that the increased traffic impacts by this heightened use of the project doesn't require an EIR. He stated that he was not comfortable making that vote at this time and would feel better with more information from staff. Chairman Tomblin stated he worries about the amount of increased traffic exiting the site onto Crest Road. He noted that people will be making a left turn onto Crest Road from this site at the same location people are making a left turn into the Ralphs property. He was also concerned with the sign program and would prefer to see more details before approving it. Vice Chairman Tetreault reminded the Commission that in 2008 they approved the basic layout of the subject property, including the driveway onto Crest Road. He did not think that because there are more cars coming in and out of the property that would trigger a different safety analysis in terms of slope and view angles. He felt that it's not safe for one car, it won't be safe for five cars. He stated the driveway has been approved by the City and the Commission and felt the Commission is going over the same material as in 2008 and continuance will cause an undo delay to the applicant. In terms of the sign program, he noted it is basically the same as before with the exception of the one sign in front, and that can be conditioned to be reverse channel as opposed to externally lit. Chairman Tomblin felt that the 2008 approval of a real estate office didn't have the intensity of people running in and running out in a hurry. He felt this is a different atmosphere and he was worried about the left turn out of the property at the same location as the left turn into the Ralphs property. Chairman Tomblin requested the applicant step to the podium and asked if he would be willing to give the one time extension to the project as required by the Permit Streamlining Act. Dan Almquist reminded the Commission that a majority of the building will still be office use and did not think the Commission should look at this proposal as only bank. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 11 Commissioner Lewis asked if an ATM will be available and also if people will be able to go inside the bank to make a deposit. Mr. Almquist answered there will be one ATM and customers will also be able to enter the bank to make a deposit. He noted there will only be three tellers available inside the bank as it will be a small branch. Chairman Tomblin asked if the ATM will be located outside and if the ATM is open 24 hours. Mr. Almquist stated the ATM will be located inside the building and would be available 24 hours. Bob Superneau explained that from the property line back to the building frontage the driveway only drops about two feet in grade. This means that the car will be at street level when exiting the property. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Superneau what type of lighting will be used for the outside portion of the parking. Mr. Superneau answered that the outside parking lot lighting level will be below street level and will be shielded. Dan Almquist stated that because he wants to work with the City, and if the Commission feels it is necessary to continue the hearing, he would be willing to grant the one time extension. Director Rojas noted the next available public hearing would be on October 11. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain of October 11, to have language brought back at that meeting regarding the Master Sign Program to conform to the suggestion that the signs use reverse channeling, and that there be language in the conditions of approval so that if the Commission decides to impose limited hours for the ATM the language would already be included. Seconded by Chairman Tomblin. The amended motion was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner Leon and Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010- 00025): 10 Chaparral Lane Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 12 Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the property. She explained the applicant is requesting to move the current boundary line in a more northerly direction so that the only flat area on the lot can be within the residential zone, which would allow him to develop on the flat area and not on the extreme slope. As such, she noted that staff is generally in support of the proposed land use and zoning designation change request. In conjunction with the boundary line relocation request the applicant is requesting approval to construct a new residence. She reviewed the residence and the necessary permits, as discussed in the staff report. She stated staff is generally in support of the proposal, however there are two issues of concern. She discussed staff's concern with the grading on the property, explaining that caissons are proposed outside of the property line on the neighboring property. She noted this is new information that came to staffs attention after the staff report was prepared. She stated the applicant is willing to change the location of the caissons, however they will still be on the neighboring property but off of the easement. She explained that this was not part of the original proposal and staff did not analyze it as part of the project. Further, the applicant needs to get the neighbor's authorization to put improvements on their property. Staff would also like the City Geologist to review the caisson location. She also explained the trail issues with this property, noting the development of the house will block a trail access in the area. She stated the applicant has agreed to look into relocation of the trail access through the property. Commissioner Lewis asked how a continuance will help the trail issue. Director Rojas clarified that the City cannot require that the applicant provide an easement for the trail use, however the applicant is open to exploring various options. Staff wants to research the issue and see if it is viable for a trail in this area. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Frank Colaroutolo (applicant) stated he was available to answer any questions. There were no questions at this time. David Breiholz (14 Bronco Drive) stated he was in favor of keeping the continuity of the trail in tact and encouraged the City and the applicant work together to make that happen. Joe Oliveri (6 Chaparral Lane) stated he has concerns about any building on this property, noting that the proper has been unstable. He explained that at one time he had the opportunity to buy the property, however his own geologist recommended against it. He stated that the history of the prior geology evaluation deemed the property unstable for construction. He also expressed concerns with development as there will then be limited access to the canyon by the fire department. He felt the Planning Commission needs to visit the site and walk the property to evaluate the area. He did not think this was something that should just be discussed on paper. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 13 Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to an unspecified date, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of Auqust 9, 2011 Commissioner Knight referred to page 4 of the minutes and the discussion. He felt that a statement he made regarding the purchase of the tax defaulted property should be included as part of the minutes. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 27, 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2011 Page 14