Loading...
PC MINS 19930824APPROVED 9/28/93 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by Vice Chairman Lee Byrd at Hesse Park Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. PRESENT: Alberio, Mowlds, Hayes, Clark, Byrd ABSENT: Katherman, Lorenzen Also present were Director of Environmental Services Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planners Terry Silverman and Donna Jerex, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas, and Recording secretary Michelle Kennerson. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Director Bernard requested Item VII B be moved from "Continued Business" to "New Business". 2. Director Bernard acknowledged receipt of late correspondence which was received by Staff, and entered these letters into the Public Record. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Revised Minutes of July 13, 1993. B. Minutes of August 10, 1993. C. P.C. Resolution No. 93-20; Recommending adoption of code Amendment No. 36, allowing limited commercial uses in the Institutional (I) Zone, to the City Council (Citywide). Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed without objection, to approve the Consent Calendar with a correction to the August 10, 1993 minutes. commissioner Clark noted that he was abstaining from voting on Consent Calendar Item A. PUBLIC HEARING A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 172 - REVISION "A, VARIANCE NO. 361: 5837 Crest Road, California Water Service (landowner), P.O. Box 1150; San Jose, CA 95108; Chester Smith Associates, Inc. (applicant), 22850 Crenshaw Blvd., #204, Torrance, CA 90505 (FF) Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow a fifteen foot encroachment into the required twenty foot minimum front yard setback to accommodate a new 2,684 square foot office/storage addition. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request, subject to standard conditions of approval. Commissioner Alberio expressed concern about the lack of public attendance on this item. Assistant Planner de Freitas responded that there was no one in the audience to speak against the project. However, during the course of noticing for this project, Staff did receive visits from two residents from the adjacent multi -family complex and their concerns related to the storage shed along the western property line, which was not part of this project. Commissioner Hayes wondered why the setback is referred to the "front setback", when it appears to be in the back of the property. Mr. de Freitas explained that this property is considered to be a "flag lot", and a front property line is determined to be the property line that parallels the public or private street of access, which in this case is Crest Road. Commissioner Clark asked Staff if the City had ever approved a 151 encroachment into a 20 foot front yard setback. Mr. de Freitas responded that the previous commission completely eliminated a front yard setback in two projects that he was involved in. Commissioner Clark said he recalled one project that the previous Commission denied; a residential project requesting an 8 foot encroachment into the front yard setback. Mr. de Freitas agreed with Mr. Clark. However, he pointed out that this case is somewhat unique in that the front property line is setback significantly from Crest Road. commissioner Clark asked Mr. de Freitas if approved, would this project set a precedent and create a negative influence. Mr. de Freitas responded that it would not. Commissioner Alberio asked Staff if consideration had been given to possible alternative locations on the site or if a second story addition had been considered to preserve the setback. Mr. de Freitas responded that an alternative location would interfere with the existing vehicle parking and storage areas and a second story addition would be visible from Crest Road and the condominium complex. The public hearing was opened. Steve Smith, 22850 Crenshaw Blvd., #204, Torrance, CA 90505 stated that he was available to answer questions from the Commission. The Commission had no questions from Mr. Smith. As a result, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mowlds stated that if this project was located elsewhere than where it is, he would not vote for it. However, the record should reflect that this case, should be approved because it is a commercial application, even though it is in a RS -4 zone, and will not have any adverse affects to adjacent properties, due to its location on a unique piece of property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 2 Commissioner Hayes agreed with Commissioner Mowlds in that the findings should be clearly stated. Vice Chairman Byrd and Commissioner Clark also agreed with Commissioner Mowlds. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes to approve and adopt Resolution No. 93-21. The motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Commissioner Alberio stated that he objects to the motion because he feels it would be establishing an undersirable precedent. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 176• Montessori School of Manhattan Beach, Inc., 3224 Forrestal Drive (Ladera Linda Community Center). (FF) Vice Chairman Byrd commented that he did have a communication from the owner of the Montessori School. He explained to the commission that when he was a member of the Ladera Linda HOA, he had suggested to the City Manager and the City Council that the fenced area used by Dimension Cable at 3224 Forrestal Drive be used as RV parking and storage. Mr. Byrd noted that he did leave a message on one of the Councilmembers' answering machines asking if the item had been considered, since he noticed that it was on the agenda. He assured the Commission and applicant that was the extent of his involvement with this property. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow the use of a portion of the Ladera Linda Community Center for the purposes of conducting a Montessori School. They are currently seeking to use two separate classrooms in two of the buildings, a playground area, and an adjoining fenced area for parking purposes. The City Council has already approved contract negotiations with the applicants for a five year leasing period. It is Staff's opinion that all of the findings necessary to grant approval of the Conditional Use Permit can be made and recommends approval of the request, subject to conditions of approval. Commissioner Alberio inquired to the maintenance of the site once the approval is granted. Mr. de Freitas responded that the Montessori School will be responsible for the space they will be using. Mr. Alberio made the comment that he hopes there is a clause in the contract stipulating that the parking lot could revert back to it's former maximum capabilities if the need arises. Director Bernard commented that the Recreation Administrator is in the audience and is available for questions related to the maintenance issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 3 Commissioner Clark inquired of Staff if the contract had been approved by the City. Mr. de Freitas responded that negotiations have been approved for the leasing period and the contract was sent back to the City from the City Attorney's office for City Council approval. Commissioner Clark asked Staff if the Planning Commission denied this request, what would be the status of the contract with Montessori School, Inc. and does the City Council often negotiate a lease in advance of the approval of land usage on a CUP. Director Bernard responded that the applicant can appeal to the City Council and that Staff received this application after the contract had been negotiated. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Staff if the language in the contract states the lease would be for 5 years. Mr. de Freitas responded yes. Mr. Byrd observed that in Exhibit "All the stated term of lease is 2 years. Mr. de Freitas responded that Exhibit "All is a standard condition for the life of the CUP. Mr. Byrd commented that he assumes the Planning Commission would probably approve an extension at the end of 2 years. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that the Commission allow the CUP to run for the same length of time as the contract as the CUP for the Ridgecrest facility. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru commented that the reasoning for the 2 year limit on the condition of the CUP is because the Commission, in the past, has shown a desire to review these projects and assess how well they are working before extending the use to the entire length of the lease. Also discussed among Staff and Commission was the Ridgecrest CUP approval and the differences between a "lease -term" and "lease - end", and the amount of time of each. Ms. Petru assured the Commission they have the discretion to make the CUP run for 5 years and if they want to review it sooner than that, they also have that option. Commissioner Clark inquired as to what is the criteria that the Staff uses for the time periods of a CUP. Ms. Petru responded that the Development Code indicates one year as the standard time period, and has been adjusted on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances surrounding the CUP. The public hearing was opened. John and Judy Ernst, 112 Via Colusa, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (applicants) stated that they are the owners of the Montessori PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 4 School of Manhattan Beach, Inc. and are available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Alberio stated to Mr. and Mrs. Ernst that he hopes the contract has a clause regarding the revocability of the CUP. Mr. Alberio asked Mr. and Mrs. Ernst about the maintenance of the site. Mrs. Ernst responded that it is their intention to maintain the facility. She continued to say that she and her husband are familiar with the needs of the community to revoke the lease in case the City needs the facility for another use. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Mr. and Mrs. Ernst if they need Planning approval for any playground preparation they may do. The applicants affirmed this. Director Bernard noted that the Recreation Department is also responsible for approving modifications the facility. The public hearing was closed. Assistant Planner de Freitas stated that he wanted to make a clarification on Condition P. The hours of operation should be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (instead of 5:30 p.m.). He also made the Commission aware of the possibility of a few evening meetings ,occurring at the site. Chairman Byrd suggested scheduling those evening events as much as possible to preclude parking congestion. Director Bernard assured the Commission that Staff would include that suggestion in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Mowlds referred to the time period of the CUP and Commissioners Hayes and Alberio suggested any future time extension request should be placed on the Consent Calendar, and assuming there were no objections, it could be approved. Extensive discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the conditions of approval for the CUP. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commission Mowlds to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 92-22 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 176, subject to modified conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "A" of the Resolution with the correction that the time period be modified from 2 years to 5 years and the hours of operation be modified to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The motion passed (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 132 -EXTENSION; Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, 6245 Via Canada (Miraleste Elementary School. (TS) Presentation of the staff report was waived regarding the applicant's request to allow the continued uses of the Miraleste Elementary School site by various community, educational, and non - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 5 profit organizations. The public hearing was opened, and then closed, as there were no speakers to the item. Vice Chairman Byrd expressed his concern about the loading zone area being violated by parents dropping their children off for the dance class held there. Associate Planner Silverman responded that the Fire Marshall did visit the site and concurred with the current conditions of approval. She continued to say unless the School District is willing to make modifications to the property that would allow parking behind the dance school, the conditions should remain as they are. There was discussion among the Commission and Staff regarding congestion of cars in the loading zone and ways to resolve this situation. Vice Chairman Byrd indicated that after reading the report about the issue of congestion of the loading zone, he did not see a solution to this problem. Ms. Silverman responded that Staff made a recommendation that the loading zone area could be modified to become a driveway to allow a parking area to be constructed behind the dance school. Commissioner Alberio moved,. and Commissioner Clark seconded to approve and adopt Resolution No. 93-23, extending Conditional Use Permit No. 132 to November 29, 1997 with conditions of approval. The vote passed (5-0). B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT No. 20• City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Citywide) (DJ) Associate Planner Donna Jerex presented the staff report stating that this project was continued from July 27, 1993 and involves a City -initiated General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Code Amendment and Environmental Assessment for automobile service stations located in the city. Due to the trend toward service station closures on the peninsula, the City Council, has directed Staff to initiate these Code and Zoning amendments to encourage service stations to remain in the City. Since service stations in the City are located in either non- conforming residential or institutional zones, or in commercial areas which restrict their use, once a service closes, there is little incentive for another station to take its place, since the land use and zoning designations do not allow owners to make significant improvements or changes to the stations. In the residential and institutional zones, service stations may not re- open if their use is discontinued for a period of more than 180 days. At the hearing of July 27, 1993, public testimony was taken, and the Commission continued the hearing 'to tonight with the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 6 recommendation that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and that Staff analyze some zoning possibilities to enhance the opportunities for service stations to remain at their present locations. After careful analysis of possible zoning alternatives, Staff came to the conclusion that the best possible scenario involves an expansion of allowable uses on the existing eight sites without changing the existing land use. Staff believes the Council and Commission's goals are best accomplished through the creation of an Overlay Control District. Overlay Control Districts are areas within the City which are designated by the General Plan due to special, natural, social, cultural, or urban features which warrant control of development. The establishment of such a district can allow the City to regulate unique sites and insure that they are well integrated with the surrounding land uses. One example of an Overlay Control District within the City is the Equestrian Zone, which in part expands the in Signle Family Residential zones to allow the keeping of certain large domesticated animals without changing the existing underlaying use. In the project at hand, the Commercial, Institutional, and residential uses permitted under the current zoning and land use designation would be maintained. However, the use could be expanded to allow automotive service stations and related uses. This benefits property owners in that it allows them to upgrade their stations, yet it also lends flexibility in that the underlaying zoning remains in place so that, if, at any time in the future, a property owner finds that it is in their best interest to revert to the current zoning, that option still remains open. Ms. Jerex informed the Commission that she received a letter of concern today and that she will distribute copies to them. Commissioner Clark asked Staff if the Overlay Control District take the place of the current zoning. Ms. Jerex responded that it expands the current zoning. Discussion ensued amongst Commissioner Clark and Staff concerning current zoning, with Ms. Jerex explaining to the Commission that the Overlay Control District would keep the existing zone, but would also allow all the uses that the City would create through the Automotive Overlay Control District. Commissioner Alberio asked if the 180 day restriction on some of the service stations is consistent with the Overlay Control District. Ms. Jerex responded that the 180 day restriction would be lifted by the use of the Overlay Control District. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 7 Ms. Jerex stated that if a service station chose to leave the location, the site could revert to the residential use which is presently in place, so the underlying use is not eliminated. She further commented that this action would be an automatic right by the property owner who can submit a development proposal in either zoning category. The public hearing was opened. Steve Saporito, 28000 Ridgebluff Court RPV, CA 90274 testified that his site is located at 28732 Highridge Road. He said he had an artist's rendition prepared to show the Commission that the appearance of the site would be highly upgraded with the most modern of facilities. He was under the impression that commercial zoning was to include automotive repair for the site without CUP's. He hopes the Commission and City Council will proceed with this amendment soon. Commissioner Alberio discussed different aspects of what would be allowed under the Overlay Control District with Mr. Saporito for his service station site. Commissioner Clark asked Staff what distinguishes a full service station which includes changing oil from a oil fluid change business. Ms. Jerex referred to the last 3 options on page 6 Item B of the staff report saying that distinction would fall under the automotive repair business category and that these options are very broad templates. Discussion ensued among the Commission and Staff regarding the options listed on page 6 Item B. Chairman Byrd asked Staff if self service pumps would be allowed in the station. Ms. Jerex responded that it would be allowed with a CUP. She explained further that the City Council wants to discourage a service station with a cashier window in which a person only takes money. Chairman Byrd discussed with Mr. Saporito and Staff the kinds of repair and the hours of operation that would be taking place at his station. Commissioner Clark asked Staff since the current zoning of this site is Institutional, would they advise against the current zoning, because of the advantage of future flexibility in terms of use of that site. Ms. Jerex responded that Staff feels it is in the best interest of the City, property owners, and residents to maintain the flexibility provided by the two zones. George McCory, 26228 Barkentine Drive, RPV, CA stated that he would like to encourage the Commission and City Council to take PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 8 appropriate action expediently to allow Mr. Saporito to resume his business. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. McCory how far does he travel for gas services for his car. Mr. Mccory responded that he travels off the hill. Associate Planner Jerex commented that Mr. Saporito circulated a petition and received 250 signatures supporting him. They will be copied and included for the public record. Commissioner Hayes stated she was in favor of recommending that the City Council approve the Overlay Control District alternative. Commissioner Hayes asked Staff about the time frame of this action since Mr. Saporito has a 60 day escrow. Director Bernard responded that the action before the Commission is for the eight (8) sites. If the Commission takes one (1) sight and designates it as a special zone, that becomes spot zoning, which is against the state's constitution. Chairman Byrd noted that if the Commission were to change the Residential sites, as well as the Institutional site, or all eight sites to a specific zoning, that's not spot zoning. Director Bernard agreed. Discussion ensued amongst the Commission regarding the issue of spot zoning. Chairman Byrd commented that the Commission should do what is most appropriate for the people who lease or own these service stations. Ms. Jerex stated that the best way to promote business would be to make the sites Commercial/General (CG) zones. However, the direction the Commission received from the City Council was to draft a document that would encourage service stations to remain in the City. If the City creates a Commercial/General zone there is nothing that discourages these stations from leaving, and as a result these sites would be available for more intensive commercvial development. William Myers. 28103 Hawthorne Blvd., RPV, CA stated that he has the service station on the corner of Granvia Altimira and Hawthorne Blvd and is having a difficult time understanding the definition of "full service" station. He has been approached by the oil company to buy the property. In order to make the property viable for him, he said he would need to do extensive improvements and upgrades. He said he needs to expand the pumping capabilities, install a car wash and a mini -mart. Mr. Myers stated that he does not think he could pursue this project without not a more general zoning designation. Discussion ensued among the Commission and Staff regarding the restriction and options of the CUP's regarding food service and convenience stores. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 9 Ms. Jerex commented that Staff's recommendations are based on the direction that was received from the City Council last October to facilitate full service gas station uses. She continued to say that Staff recommends the Commission to list their recommendations and submit them to the City Council. Ms. Jerex also noted that there was a discussion last year about the profitability and profit margins. The point that Mr. Myers is making is that they need ancillary uses, and that the sale of gasoline alone is not enough of an enhancement for them to stay in business. Commissioner Clark asked Staff if an Overlay Control District provides flexibility to do the kinds of "ancillary uses" that has suggested. Director Bernard responded that it can be. He continued to say that Staff recommends the Commission allow ancillary uses through a CUP. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding zoning. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes to approve Aternative #3 - Establish an Automobile service Station Overlay Control District, and to incorporate portions of Alternative #1, which would allow certain ancillary uses by Conditional Use Permit, and directed Staff to return with a Resolution recommending approval to the City Council, on September 14, 1993. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru noted to the Commission that Staff will be preparing a Resolution for this item and bring it back for the September 14, 1993 Commission meeting. She also noted that the City has to re -notice the Negative Declaration. Staff anticipate that this project will be heard by the City Council at the second meeting of September. RECESS AND RECONVENE: A ten-minute break was called at 9:16 p.m. NEW BUSINESS A. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING: Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, 5219 Middlecrest Drive (TS) Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report stating that this application came to the attention of the City as a result of a Code Enforcement complaint regarding the erection of solar panels in violation of the original Conditions of Approval. On October 26, 1982, the City approved Site Plan Review No. 2240 for construction of solar panels on the roof of this property. The approved plans and application indicate that the panels would be flush mounted and would not exceed a maximum height of 16 feet. However, the building permits indicate that final inspection of the panels by LA County Building Inspectors occurred on August 5, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 14 permits were issued by the County before Planning approval was granted by the City. The landowner has indicated that the panels were originally installed in their current configuration in order to maximize solar access. As installed, the panels are located above a second story addition on the house, at approximately a 45 degree angle to the roof, with a maximum height of 26 feet. With this configuration, the panels significantly impair both near and far views from property located across the street. This was brought to the City's attention during recent repairs to the roof, when the panels were removed and then reinstalled, again in violation of the Conditions of Approval. Pursuant to Development Code requirements, the applicant has requested a Miscellaneous Hearing to allow the panels to remain in their current configuration. However, due to the view impairment caused by the panels, Staff recommends that the panels be relocated to an alternative location which would balance the applicant's desire to utilize solar energy with the neighbor's concern regarding view impairment. Referring to the chronological sequence of events pertaining to the permits on this property, Commissioner Clark asked Staff if the County, who handled the building permits for the City at that time, was aware of the City's requirements for approval. Associate Planner Silverman replied that not enough information is available to trace the permit sequence but that it seems as though Building Permits were issued before Planning approval was granted. Commissioner Mowlds pointed out that there were no permits for the solar panels. There are permits for plumbing and electrical only. He added that a permit is not valid until the Building Inspector signs it, thus finalizing the permit. Commissioner Alberio pointed out that there was a transition between the County and City at that time, and took exception to what Commissioner Mowlds said, because the City had not taken action to enforce the Code after 13 years. Mr. Alberio expressed that there was confusion for the applicants because they were sent back and forth between the City and County when applying for permits. Associate Planner Silverman indicated that the dates on the permits indicate that no inspection by the County or by the City occurred after the City granted Planning approval for installation of the panels. Commissioner Alberio opined that it is the City's responsibility to inspect and police the construction, not the applicants. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 11 Mowlds suggested that if the construction was not legal in the first place, it should not be allowed to be replaced. Commissioner Alberio responded that the first time the panels were installed, permits were issued and it was the duty of the City and the County to verify the construction. He added that 13 years later this becomes a different issue. Director Bernard suggested that the worst possible scenario may be that the panels were altered after they were inspected by the County. The City is unable to continue to go back and inspect projects after final permits have been issued. Commissioner Hayes confirmed that the approved plans indicate the panels would be flush mounted with a maximum height of 16 feet. Both Commissioners Byrd and Hayes questioned how the panels could be mounted at 16 feet when they are located on the second story addition, which was completed in 1966. Ms. Silverman suggested that it could have been that the panels were approved at a different location, and then installed in their current configuration instead. Commissioner Alberio again stated the City should have caught the error. Stan Denis 2377 Crensahw Blvd Ste 310 Torrance CA 90501 (attorney) stated that for the last 13 years, the applicants were not aware of the absence of permits because they depended on their contractor to take care of the permits. When the Code Enforcement Officer from the City inspected the panels, he informed Mrs. Jackson that there was no permit on file with the City for the panels. Mrs. Jackson retrieved a copy of the permit from her files and showed it to the inspector. Commissioner Alberio stated that he thought that when the panels came down to re -roof the house, they should have been placed in the same location as previously approved. There was discussion at length among the Commission and attorney regarding the location of the panels and the contractor that installed the solar panels. Robert C.P. Jackson 5219 Middlecrest Road RPV CA 90274 stated that he has lived at his present location since 1960. Mr. Jackson assured the Commission that when the panels had to be removed to re -roof, they had not been modified nor improved. He added that the panels went back up on the roof exactly in the same location as before. Mr. Jackson stated that he has all the paperwork from his contractor and he assumed that the proper permits were obtained. Mr. Jackson then stated that he would offer a compromise of lowering the highest solar panel so it would not be any higher than the lower panel. Commissioner Alberio expressed concern about the "ethical and unethical" considerations of the contractor. He continued to say that consideration needs to be given to the rights of the neighbors PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 12 so that a balance can be reached between Mr. and Mrs. Jackson and their neighbors. There was extensive discussion among the Commission and Mr. Jackson about the solar panels and the possible alternative locations and the hot water heating system for the house. Chairman Byrd asked Staff what the current policy is regarding solar panels. Ms. Silverman responded that policy allows Staff to approve panels up to a maximum height of 16 feet. In the past, Staff has approved panels that have exceeded 16 feet in height provided they do not extend more than 6 inches above the plane of the roof, and are flush mounted on the roof. Staff would also discourage installation on an extreme slope as had been suggested by one of the Commissioner's at an alternate location since the slope faces north and would be of no value for solar access. Dale Hanks, 5225 Middlecrest Road, RPV, CA stated that he lives across the gully from Mr. and Mrs. Jackson and has the "best" view of the solar panels, but does not object to them. Mr. Hanks commented on the City's View Ordinance. He also added that he feels that the solar panels do not obstruct any view as defined in the View Ordinance. Peter Hazelrigg, 5208 Middlecrest Road, RPV, CA stated that he lives immediately across and up the hill from Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. Mr. Hazelrigg referred to the 1982 permit approval for the solar panels reciting the condition that states the panels to be installed as flush mounted to the roof. He commented that this condition was not adhered to. Mr. Hazelrigg continued to comment to the Commission the sequence of events which has led to the hearing tonight and his opposition to the panels. Mr. Hazelrigg noted that the panels are "ugly" and obstructs both city and canyon views from all parts of his house. He stated the points that he had just mentioned have significant impact on the value of his property. Discussion ensued among Commissioner Clark and Mr. Hazelrigg regarding the length of time that elapsed before Mr. Hazelrigg brought forth a complaint about the solar panels. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Hazelrigg if he would be interested in discussing a compromise regarding these solar panels, outside of the hearing process, with Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. Mr. Hazelrigg responded that he does not feel confident that it could be worked out, although he is interested in harmony in the neighborhood. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Hazelrigg when he called the City, did he know beforehand that the solar panels were required to be flush mounted. Mr. Hazelrigg answered that he had been informed by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 13 realtor that the panels did not conform to City regulations but he did not call the City to confirm this point. Chairman Byrd asked Mr. Hazelrigg what in particular did he find objectionable in looking at the solar panels. Mr. Hazelrigg responded that he feels the whole apparatus is unsightly. Marilouise Jackson, 5219 Middlecrest Road, RPV, CA stated that if the City had notified her and her husband that the installation of their solar panels were in violation of the permit, when they were first installed they would of immediately corrected it. Commissioner Clark asked Mrs. Jackson if the solar panels were put back up in the same location as before. Mrs. Jackson responded yes. Mr. Clark asked Mrs. Jackson if she and her husband would be willing to meet with their neighbor outside of the hearing process and try to reach a compromise regarding the placement of the solar panels. Mrs. Jackson responded that she would be willing to do that, however, she stated that she would not be happy if the solar panels were placed where she.can see them. The Commission discussed with Mr. Jackson alternative locations for his solar panels and other methods of heating his spa. Mr. Jackson assured the Commission that when the solar panels were placed back up after the re -roofing, they were placed exactly in the same location as before, although the supports and framing were changed from wood to metal. Commissioner Clark moved to continue the hearing in order for the neighbors to come to a compromise. Commissioner Hayes Seconded the motion. Commissioner Alberio objected to the motion because he does not think the interested parties would be able to reach a compromise. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the application for the permit was not originally complied with and he feels the length of time which has elapsed is irrelevant. Mr. Mowlds continued to say that he feels that there is insufficient documentation to approve what is existing there now. He added that he agrees with commissioner Alberio when he said that the parties would not be able to reach a compromise. Chairman Byrd stated that he does not see any way to resolve this problem until a Planning Commission meeting in October. He continued to say that he believes that the Jackson's were surprised when they found out they were not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Byrd asked Staff if the solar panels are legal today, even though 'they were installed 13 years ago. Director Bernard responded that the solar panels are in violation of the Conditions of Approval today, as they were in 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 14 'i 0 Chairman Byrd concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Jackson have to conform with the rules and regulations that exist presently. Commissioner Clark noted that he feels that there has been a message conveyed this evening to Mr. and Mrs. Jackson to give them motivation to try and resolve the issue outside of the public hearing process. Commissioner Hayes withdrew her second. The motion failed for lack of a second. There was discussion at length amongst the commission regarding the alternative sites for relocating the solar panels. Commissioner Mowlds moved,, seconded by Commissioner Alberio to direct the landowner, via minute order,, to relocate the solar panels, per Staff Alternative #2c. The vote was (3-2) with Clark and Byrd dissenting. Chairman Byrd acknowledged to the applicants that this item is appealable to the City Council within 15 days. REPORTS N There were no reports from the Commission or Staff. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue commented on the vacation of streets in the Sea Cliff Hills area, and also the de -watering wells in the Portuguese Bend area. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1993 PAGE 15