Loading...
PC MINS 19960910APPROVED 10/8/96 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7 03 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 2301 Hawthorne Blvd FLAG SALUTE Assistant City Attorney Craig Steele led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Assistant City Attorney Steele APPROVAL OF AGENDA Before the motion to approve the agenda, Chairman Clark reminded the audience that the Commissioners were all residents of the City who volunteered their time to hear zoning cases He also requested that the audience show respect to all of the speakers Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the agenda as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Petru distributed two items of late correspondence from residents regarding Item No 3 and an excerpt section from the Development Code regarding the Open Space Hazard (OH) zoning district CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of July 23, 1996 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the minutes, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion was approved, (7-0). 0 0 CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 185; Wayfarers Chapel, 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South Commissioner Alberio questioned why Staff recommended continuing this hearing to another meeting. Director/Secretary Petru responded that the request for continuance came from the applicant, as they did not have the necessary information ready for the Commission. Commissioner Franklin pointed out that he will be out of town until October 21, 1996, which was the night before the meeting. This would leave him little time to prepare for the meeting and he asked if the item might be further postponed. Director/Secretary suggested that the item be continued to October 22, 1996, but that Staff would then poll the Commission and the applicant about the possibility of continuing the matter to a later date, since at least two Commissioners would not be able to prepare for the item or attend this meeting. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to continue the public hearing to October 22, 1996, with the possibility of continuing the matter to a later date, seconded by Commissioner Franklin. As there was no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Minor Exception Permit No. 500 -Appeal; Peter Von Hagen, 30763 Tarapaca Road (applicant), Rosalyn Stewart et.al (appellant). Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, pointing out there are three items that need to be considered in order to grant the permit: 1) the extent to which the antenna structure interferes with the views within 500 feet of the subject property; 2) the extent to which the antenna structure may devaluate the property values for the homes in the area; and, 3) the degree to which in refusing the request would interfere with the applicant's right to free speech. Planning Commission Minutes September 10,1996 Page 2 Chairman Clark asked if all of the Commissioners had visited the site when Mr Von Hagen had his portable antenna erected All stated that they had visited the site during the demonstration, except Commissioner Ng, who visited the site at a later date and felt comfortable in dealing with the matter without seeing the portable antenna Commissioner Alberio asked Staff if there was a possibility of placing the antenna on another location on the property. Director/Secretary Petru responded that, at the request of one of the Commissioners, Staff had analyzed an area midway down the slope behind the subject residence as a potential alternative location for the antenna However, Staff initial findings were that this would not be a good alternative location due to the steepness of the slope, the only level area on the slope was probably a bench drain, the geology on this portion of the lot may not support such a structure and the zoning on this portion of the lot was Open Space Hazard Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). Mr. Peter Von Hagen, 30763 Tarapaca Road (applicant), presented slides for the Commission showing various utility poles, wires, and vegetation throughout the tract Mr. Von Hagen concluded that his proposed antenna would not be out of place in this neighborhood due to the presence of these other features Commissioner Cartwright questioned why the applicant felt he needed an antenna at the proposed specific height and asked if it could possibly be lowered Mr Von Hagen responded that the antenna would need to be at the proposed height for optimum usage. A tower that was higher would have a wider range, but the cost of such an antenna would be prohibitive A tower that was lower would not have the power and range he desired. Mr. Von Haven stressed that the tower he was proposing was no different than five or six towers that already existed in the City, and is a standard tower for amateur radio usage. Chairman Clark responded that there were five towers existing that the City that had been approved through a Minor Exception Permit application and that none of these were as tall as the height that Mr Von Hagen was requesting Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 3 Mr Von Hagen agreed, but pointed out that those antennas were located near the top of the Peninsula where reception was better He also noted that there were an additional forty existing antennas over thirty feet in height in the City that were installed prior to the City's incorporation Commissioner Ng noted that in Mr Von Hagen's letter he stated the system could be cranked down if there were an emergency situation. She wondered if he would have to be called by the City or the Fire Department in order for the system to be lowered, and if there would be occasions where he wouldn't be home and the tower would remain up in an emergency situation. Mr Von Hagen responded that the Fire Department and Sheriff Department would call him directly if there was a need for the tower to be lowered He stated that he would prefer to crank the antenna down when he would be away from home for an extended period Commissioner Ng asked Mr Von Hagen if he was willing to compromise and lower the height of the tower Mr Von Hagen responded that the proposed height was the lowest height that would be acceptable to him A discussion followed between Commissioner Franklin and Mr Von Hagen regarding wave lengths, tower heights and angles of radiation Commissioner Cartwright asked Staff if there was a requirement that the Fire Department also review and approve the antenna before final approval was given by the City Director/Secretary Petru responded that when Staff made the initial decision on this project, a condition was placed on the project requiring a written determination from the Los Angeles County Fire Department regarding the necessity of a warning light at the top of the tower prior to issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Von Hagen if he would have any objections, if the project were approved, to a condition stating that the antenna could not be used for commercial purposes Mr Von Hagen assured the Commission that he was strictly an amateur ham radio operator, that there would be absolutely no commercial use of the antenna, and that he would not object to such a condition Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 4 Chairman Clark asked for input from Staff and the Assistant City Attorney regarding the applicability of the tract CC&R's with respect to this case Director/Secretary Petru answered that CC&R's were a private contract between the individual homeowners and the homeowners association Since the City was not a party to that contract, it does not have any jurisdiction in enforcing or interpreting CC&R's Therefore, as a general rule, the City does not consider them in making decisions on planning projects Assistant City Attorney Steele added that any action the Planning Commission took was an action pursuant to the Municipal Code, and that the Commission would not be passing judgment on the existence or applicability of the tract CC&R's Mr. Paul Brugara, 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, attorney representing Mr Von Hagen, stated that he felt Staffs decision to allow the construction of the antenna was correct as the antenna would be in full compliance with the Code Therefore, he felt that the Commission should deny the appeal and uphold the Staffs decision Mr. Chris Davis, 130 Via Xanthe, Newport Beach, stated he had been a real estate appraiser for 30 years and taught real estate land economics and land appraisal at the University of California at Irvine He further stated that in 30 years he had never run across any literature which discussed the diminution of property values as a result of a radio antenna tower He felt that there were so many other variables to consider in determining market value for a property that it was impossible to prove that a decrease in value was the result of an antenna tower Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if Mr Davis felt that putting an antenna on the subject property would lower the saleability, as opposed to value, of the surrounding properties Mr Davis responded that, in his opinion, a tower on the subject property would not affect the saleability of any adjacent property Mr. Dale Hanks, 5225 Middlecrest Road, explained to the Commission that he was the County'd designated emergency radio officer for Rancho Palos Verdes area He indicated that he reported to the Los Angeles County Disaster Communications Service, with the main headquarters at the Lomita Sheriffs Station Mr Hanks indicated that the main job of the Disaster Communications Service was to provide emergency back-up service to the City during an emergency when telephone service was down He stated that Mr Von Hagen had been very supportive of their operation and the location of his proposed antenna would be very beneficial to their operation Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner Ng asked if the antenna needed to be 105 feet high in order to be helpful and effective to their organization. Mr Hanks answered that they could probably get by with a shorter height antenna, but he didn't know what that height would be Mr. John Hamm, 30642 Palos Verdes Drive East, stated his opinion that the residence which Mr Von Hagen had recently purchased on Tarapaca Road was in disrepair He indicated that Mr Von Hagen had plans to remodel and improve the appearance of the residence, which Mr Hamm felt would increase the surrounding property values He felt that the neighboring residents should not make an issue of the proposed antenna in light of the improvements that Mr Von Hagen was going to make to the property Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked where Mr Hamm's house was in relation to Mr Von Hagen's house Mr Hamm responded he lived above Mr Von Hagen and looked down at his roof Mr. Bannister Bray, 52 Shady Vista Road, Rolling Hills Estates, explained to the Commission that he was part of the Navy's emergency preparedness team at the Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach. One of his responsibilities was to provide on and off site long range communications for the Navy, City governments, and the civilian population as a whole He explained that in the event of a major earthquake, the Palos Verdes Peninsula would probably not have phone service for close to a month and the Navy could not offer their communications services in such an event. The residents of the Peninsula would be dependent on the services of amateur radio operators, such as Mr Von Hagen in this sort of situation Commissioner Ng asked Mr Bray how high of a tower would be necessary to communicate across the county Mr Bray answered that the Navy had towers on the Peninsula that ranged between 55 to 58 feet in height that could communicate across the county Chairman Clark asked Mr Bray if he was representing the Navy, in an official capacity, in terms of supporting this particular ham radio antenna. Mr Bray responded that he had no official order from a commanding officer, but his office was in favor of private citizens operating and maintaining antennas like the one proposed by Mr Von Hagen since they took some of the burden off of his department during emergency situations Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 6 Roslyn Stewart, 22500 Hawthorne Blvd #2120, Torrance, representing the appellants, began her presentation by stating that the Commission must focus on the primary issue, which was not where the antenna should be placed, but whether the antenna should be allowed Ms Stewart summarized the specific language of the Development Code in regards to granting Minor Exception Permits and concluded her summary by stating the burden of proof was on the applicant, not on the appellants, with regards to these criteria. She went on to state that the Code required the Commission to look at the adverse affect the proposed antenna would have on property values The appellants spoke with a licensed real estate appraiser who stated that, historically, properties that had view impediments or were located near large antenna structures had market values that were measurably lower than properties that were similar, but did not have these impediments She noted that properties in these situations were also more difficult and took longer to sell Ms Stewart also the opinions of real estates agents that had been contacted by the appellants One broker was quoted as saying that there was no question that the proposed tower would significantly damage the neighbor's property value, as well as their view This broker concluded that the neighbor would, in his opinion, experience a decline in property value of approximately forty five to sixty five thousand dollars Finally, Ms Stewart said the Code stated that freedom of speech needed to be considered in this decision She quoted from a court case which found that it was legal for a City to limit the height of an amateur radio operator's antennas in a residential neighborhood and that conditioning a permit in this manner would not infringe on an individual's free speech rights In conclusion, Ms Stewart asked that the appellant's $940 appeal fee be waived Chairman Clark responded to Ms Stewart's last request by explaining that the Planning Commission neither sets the level of the fees nor has the authority to waive the fees That jurisdiction was held solely by the City Council However, Mr Clark noted that the Planning Commission can make a recommendation with the respect to waiver or non - waiver of fees to the City Council Ms Stewart then requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that the appeal fee be waived in this case Commissioner Ng asked Ms Stewart if it would be acceptable to the appellants if the tower were lowered in height. Ms Stewart responded that the appellant's position was that no tower be allowed at all She noted that a lower tower would still impair the view and would still have a negative impact on the surrounding properties Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 7 Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms. Stewart which of the properties in the neighborhood she felt would be most impacted in terms of view impairment, if the antenna tower was approved, as proposed Ms Stewart felt that the properties immediately next door to the subject property would be most impacted These properties were the Hewett's home at 30760 Tarapaca Road and the Jordan's home at 30759 Tarapaca Road. Mr. John Jordan, 30759 Tarapaca Road, discussed the negative impacts of the proposed antenna on his property in regards to view loss and loss in property value He pointed out that the view from the master bedroom did not have any utility poles or wires currently obstructing his view He asked the Planning Commission to remember that the applicant was asking for an exception to the current City Code which would negatively impact many people for the sake of a personal hobby. Commissioner Cartwright stated that the Code included provisions stating that the view must be taken from the primary viewing area of the property. He asked Mr. Jordan if he felt the view from his master bedroom would be considered his best and most viewing area After a clarifying question from Chairman Clark, Mr. Jordan responded to Commissioner Cartwright's question by stating that he considered the primary viewing area on his property to be from the pool courtyard Commissioner Cartwright then asked Mr Jordan if the location of the antenna was moved to the south side (behind) the applicant's house, which was at a slightly lower elevation that the proposed location, would that minimize his concerns at all. Mr. Jordan felt that as the antenna was visible from his property, the impact would be the same. Commissioner Ng asked if Mr Jordan would be willing to compromise with a lower height antenna tower. Mr Jordan responded that he was willing to accept what the Code allowed by right (30 foot maximum), but that a tower higher than what the Code allowed by right would not be acceptable Chairman Clark asked Staff to explain what the Code defines as a primary viewing area and how it would apply in this particular case Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 8 Director/Secretary Petru answered that the primary viewing area as defined in the Height Variation Guidelines, which state that the area must be located within the primary residence and must be in a room that is used as a primary living area, such as the living room, dining room, or family room However, she noted that If the view was only available from the master bedroom, then this room would then be considered as the primary viewing area Ms. Petru indicated that in this particular case, there were views available from other areas of the residence that were more heavily weighted as primary viewing areas. Staff felt the primary viewing area in this case was in the living room. Because the original proposed location of the tower would have been right in the middle of the view available from the living room, Staff had required the antenna be relocated so as not to be visible from this room of the house Mr Jordan clarified for Staff that the room in question was the family room, not the living room, since the living room had no view at all Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Jordan if, when the proposed extension to the applicants house was built, would he still have the same view, or would some of it be blocked Mr. Jordan responded that there will be some view blockage from the approved addition, but that he realized that Mr Von Hagen had a right under the Code to construct an addition that did not exceed 16 feet in height Mr. John Hewitt, 30760 Tarapaca Road, stated that his property sat at a higher elevation than Mr. Von Hagen's and Mr. Jordan's property, so his view was not as impacted by the proposed project as Mr. Jordan's view. However, several years ago Mr Hewitt spent his own money to get the utility poles put underground on his property, the applicant's property and the vacant lot located to the south of his property for the very purpose of getting rid of the unsightly poles and wires that cluttered the area and obstructed the views. Mr Hewitt stated that he did not want to see the tower approved, since it would be another obstruction in the area Mr. Keith Reynolds, 30745 Tarapaca Road, felt that the major issue to be considered was that the applicant was asking for an exception to the Code, and that the proposed project was going to have an adverse impact on a large portion of the surrounding neighborhood He was also concerned about helicopters from the Fire Department crashing into the antenna tower if they were required to fly low into the canyon in order to fight brush fires, which they had been required to do in the past. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 9 0 0 Mr. James Jones, 2747 Vista Mesa Drive, addressed the Commission about U S Tower Corporation, the makers of the proposed tower Mr Jones stated that he held a degree in mechanical engineering and that, in his opinion, U.S. Tower does not have a spotless reputation when it comes to the safety since he was aware of a recent case where one of their towers had collapsed Mr Jones added that there were several earlier cases where similar towers had failed Commissioner Cartwright asked if the towers that had problems were similar to the proposed tower Mr. Jones responded that he did not have the actual documentation with him, but his recollection was that they were similar In the recent case that he was aware of, the failure occurred through operator error and there was no safety device built into the antenna to prevent the from collapsing into itself in an uncontrolled manner. Mr Jones also pointed out that his neighbor was a ham radio operator who communicated with to Germany with a twenty foot wide, three pole antenna that was mounted only five feet above his roof Mr. Philip Dunlop, 2845 San Ramon Drive, stated that he was the president of the San Ramon Homeowners Association and that he was representing the homeowners of his neighborhood He wanted to point out that, while there was no view obstruction Involved from his property, there was view impairment for the other homeowners in his area. Commissioner Cartwright asked how far Mr Dunlop's home was from the proposed tower. Mr. Dunlop responded that he had not measured the distance, but estimated it to be approximately 900 feet away Chairman Clark asked if Mr. Dunlop was representing all 36 homeowners in his area in terms of the position he presented. Mr Dunlop declared that he represented all of the homeowners within the association, and that there was universal agreement within his community Ms. Judith Webb, 2821 Calle Aventura, stated that she was the president of the EI Prado Homeowners Association and had notified all 127 homeowners in her area about the proposed antenna and asking them for funds to help with the appeal to the Planning Commission. She stated that Mr Hamm was the only person who responded negatively to her request, and that everyone else responded in a positive manner Her feeling was that the tower was an inappropriate use and structure for the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 10 Ms Webb showed the Commission a picture she had taken of a Fire Department helicopter fighting a fire in the neighborhood The photograph indicated that the helicopter was flying at an extremely low elevation in the canyon Mr. Lincoln Haynes, 2821 Calle Aventura, indicated that he wanted to reiterate that there were many people that would be adversely impacted by one person's request to pursue a hobby Ms. Marilyn Clissold, 2702 San Ramon Drive, expressed her displeasure with the proposed project and her agreement with the statement that had been previously made by her neighbors Mr. Louis McCreight, 2763 San Ramon Drive, stated that he was the past president of the San Ramon Homeowners Association and that he supported the residents opposing the proposed antenna Ms. Sara Dokter, 2700 San Ramon Drive, stated that her property overlooks Mr Von Hagen's home She stated that when the portable tower was erected there was a definite view impact from her property She felt that, if the antenna was approved, it would constitute an unnecessary luxury at the expense of many Ms. Lois Larue, 31136 Barkentine Road, stated her objections to the project. Mr. Robert Glidden, 30621 Tarapaca Road, stated that, while he did not live within the 500 foot notification radius, he was there to show his support for the neighbors in the area. He also noted that had a general class ham radio operators license Ms. Beverly Ackerson, 27129 Springcreek Road, told the Commission that the existing trees, flowers and bushes were all compatible with the neighborhood, but that the proposed antenna tower was not, since it was a metal object. She also wondered if undergrounding utilities throughout the community was a goal of the City's in the future Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked Staff if it was a City policy and goal to eventually underground all utilities Director/Secretary Petru responded that one of the goals identified in the General Plan was to underground utilities where feasible She noted that the City had placed the utilities underground on two major arterial roadways (Hawthorne Blvd and Silver Spur Road) using outside funding sources However, she noted that in order to underground the utilities within individual tracts, the homeowners initiate these project themselves and must agree to the establishment of an assessment district to cover the costs of such a project. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Jonathan Stewart, 2903 Vista Del Mar, pointed out to the Commission that nothing in the City Code required the Commission to weigh the benefit the tower would provide to the Community in the event of an emergency Mr Stewart felt that this aspect of the project should not be taken into consideration by the Commission in making its decision. Chairman Clark then offered a limited amount of time to the applicant and appellant for rebuttal to the comments made thus far in the proceedings Mr. Von Hagen, in rebuttal, began by reiterating that he has no intention of using his tower for commercial purposes In regards to the structural integrity of the towers manufactured by U S Tower Company, Mr Von Hagen indicated that he had extreme confidence in their products and safety record He commented that Staff was absolutely correct in their analysis of the potential views impacts and that the Code was very clear on what criteria should be used in evaluation his request He felt that he was not asking for anything out of the ordinary, that what he was asking for was clearly allowed by the Code and his application was in full compliance with the Code requirements. Ms. Roslyn Stewart, in rebuttal, responded that a 107 foot high antenna was totally out of the ordinary for this particular area of the City, and that it would stand out in the neighborhood She felt there was adequate evidence presented to the Commission to substantiate that the tower would result in a depreciation in property values in the area and that the structure would impair the views of the homeowners in the area. Commissioner Ng made a motion to close the public hearing and seconded by Commissioner Franklin. There being no objection, closure of the public hearing was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Chairman Clark asked Assistant City Attorney Steele for his guidance with regards to the FCC Regulations and it's implications in terms of the decision to be made by the Planning Commission Assistant City Attorney Steele replied that there were several FCC issues that were involved in this particular case Regarding the issue of radio or television interference, he stated that this was regulated by the FCC and was completely outside of the City's jurisdiction With regards to the public health issue associated with electromagnetic fields, he noted that this was also outside the City's jurisdiction and was a Federal issue. The major issue that comes into play in this context was preemption of State and local zoning regulations Mr Steele stated that there was a 1985 FCC order that, in part, preempts State and local zoning regulation of amateur radio antennas. The point that he wanted to emphasize to the Commission was that, as the members arrived Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 12 at their decision, the Federal regulations did have a significant impact on the City's ability to control this particular use He wanted to make clear that he was not telling the Commission that Federal regulations force the City to approve this type of use However, the Federal regulations do indicate that the Commission must make its decision based on substantial evidence in the record and that whatever the Commission decides was the minimum practical regulation that reasonably accommodates amateur radio communications. Mr. Steele went on to indicate that the Code allowed for a 30 foot high antenna by right, and that if the amateur radio operator needed height in excess of that limit to reasonably accommodate their operation, the Ordinance allows for the issuance of a Minor Exception Permit In that way there was some discretion involved, as well as an ability to condition the project. Mr Steele stated that the Code did recognize that there was a Federal interest in allowing amateur radio communications Chairman Clark asked if Staff had any additional comments or input prior to the Commission beginning its deliberations on the appeal Director/Secretary Petru stated that Staff had no further comments at that time Chairman Clark proposed that each Commissioner provide a summary of their impressions of the appeal at this time, beginning with Commissioner Franklin. Commissioner Franklin asked Assistant City Attorney Steele if the Commissioners could receive in writing the information he discussed regarding the FCC regulations. In light of the City's policy to underground utility poles, Mr. Franklin did not feel that it was a good analogy to compare the proposed tower to the utility poles in the neighborhood. He felt the available alternatives would all result in a win/loose situation Commissioner Ng was concerned with the loss in property values She also felt the height of the tower was inconsistent with the development patterns of the area and would create an industrial appearance in the neighborhood Commissioner Whiteneck did not feel qualified to speak about the height of the antenna, as it was a technical matter He felt there was room for argument on both sides of the issue and many aspects of the project that he would like time to review further He was in favor of continuing the issue to a later date Commissioner Cartwright indicated that he could also see merit to both sides of the issue He also felt he needed more time to consider the situation. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1996 Page 13 Commissioner Alberio stated that he hoped the applicant and the neighbors could reach some sort of compromise. He felt that if the public hearing was continued, this may give the parties adequate time to meet and come to such a compromise. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall felt the height of the antenna tower was not an issue at that point for him. Instead, property values and view impacts were the priorities. He stated that he would also like a continuance of this item to a later date. Chairman Clark complemented the speakers on both sides and the audience for their patience. He felt that, at this point, a compromise may be nearly impossible. He also pointed out that this was the first time since 1990 that the Planning Commission had been asked to deal with the issue of a ham radio antenna over 30 feet in height. Mr. Clark noted that this was a very difficult decision for the Commission to make in light of the Code language and the Federal preemptions. Chairman Clark made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to the next regular meeting, subject to the following direction to the Staff: 1) that the Commission be provided with written input from the City Attorney's office with respect to the FCC Regulations discussed that evening; 2) that the next Staff Report contain a more complete expose on the other Minor Exception Permit Appeals heard by the Planning Commission in the past; and, 3) that the appellant and the applicant get together to see if they can work out a compromise or solution. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall. Director/Secretary Petru suggested that since the Commission had requested that additional material be prepared by Staff and more than two weeks is generally required to arrange and conduct a meeting like the one suggested by the Commission, Staff recommended that the public hearing be continued by an additional meeting to October 8, 1996. Chairman Clark and Vice Chairman Vannorsdall felt that Staffs request was reasonable and amended their motion to reflect the revised date of continuance. The motion was approved by roll call vote, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 4. Pre-Agenda for the Regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, September 24, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes September 10,1996 Page 14 0 • Director/Secretary Petru noted that in addition to the items listed on the pre-agenda, Staff intended to bring the new Height Modification Permit Guidelines to the Commission for consideration at the next meeting. Commission None COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, September 24, 1996 at 7:00 P.M., seconded by Commissioner Ng. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was duly adjourned at 12:20 a.m. N:IGROUPIPLANNINGIPCMIN\96MIN9.10 Planning Commission Minutes September 10,1996 Page 15