Loading...
PC MINS 19970814CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING AUGUST 14, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Approved 11/11/97 D The meeting was called to order at 7 01 P M. by Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Cartwright. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Clark, Slayden, and Chairman Vannorsdall Absent: Vice Chairman Whiteneck and Commissioner Ng (excused) Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, City Geotechnical Consultant Dale Hinkle, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Ward, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberto moved to approve the Agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden, and passed, (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed 1) correspondence from Barbara Welsh and photographs from Teng Li -An Lee regarding Agenda Item No 3 (Height Variation No 835 and Site Plan Review No 7988) Commission None CONSENT CALENDAR None CONTINUED BUSINESS Grading Permit No. 1933; Richard Schag, 30764 Tarapaca Road. Associate Planner Fox reiterated the applicant's request and the Staffs recommendation regarding this project, which was first heard by the Planning Commission on July 8, 1997 Mr Fox stated that, at that meeting, the Commission requested additional review of the soils and geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed project and also suggested that the applicant modify the structure design in order to minimize the view impacts for the adjacent resident at 30759 Tarapaca. The Commission discussed the issue of possible conflicts of the proposed project with the above -ground electrical transmission lines along the southeasterly property lines and agreed to continue this item for further discussion to the August 14, 1997 meeting Mr Fox informed the Commission the applicant submitted revised project plans to the City on July 22, 1997 He explained that the Staff Report contained information regarding the results of Staffs additional research, the applicant's modifications, and comments from Dr Perry Ehlig regarding a second opinion on the geotechnical reports for the proposed project. Associate Planner Fox stated that Staff felt the findings for the grading permit could be made for the proposed project based on the additional information and analysis provided in the Staff Report presented that evening, as well as the previous Staff Report (July 8, 1997) He stated that, in addition to approving the new single family residence, Staff recommended that the Commission determine the boundary between the RS -2 and OH districts was identical to the boundary between the recommended buildable area and the geological precautionary setback area as noted in the geotechnical report for the proposed project. Therefore, Staff recommended approval of Grading Permit No 1933, subject to conditions Chairman Vannorsdall inquired about the location of the temporary sanitary sewer line that crossed the property Associate Planner Fox replied that the applicant and the Public Works Department agreed to relocate the temporary sanitary sewer line along the northern property line of the subject property Chairman Vannorsdall inquired if there was a storm drain located near the subject site City Geotechnical Consultant Hinkle replied that he observed one storm drain inlet located on the west side of a Tarapaca Road cul-de-sac, approximately 20 feet upslope from the subject site Mr Hinkle stated that the storm drain appeared to run west along the side property line of the adjacent property and into the canyon beyond. The applicant's architect, Mr John Villicich, approached the podium and indicated that there were no storm drain inlets at the very end of the cul-de-sac, therefore, there was not storm drain which ran between the subject property and the adjacent resident to the west. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 2 Chairman Vannorsdall inquired as to who was responsible (City,County, or property owner) for the installation and maintenance of the underground sewer line Director/Secretary Petru replied that the County was responsible for installing and maintaining the sewer line. Chairman Vannorsdall inquired as to who was liable for damages if either the storm drain or sewer line ruptured Director/Secretary Petru replied that she was not sure what party would bear responsibility or liability in the case of a line rupture, but if the Commission so desired, Staff could research this issue through the City Attorney's office. In response to Chairman Vannorsdall's question to Staff, City Geotechnical Consultant Hinkle stated that from his experience, the owner of the fading pipeline would be liable for any damages. As an example, he stated that the City was liable for damages caused by a City -owned storm drain, since the City either installed this system or took over the maintenance responsibilities from the County when the City incorporated Chairman Vannorsdall stated that since the proposed project was located in a high fire hazard area, the Commission should a Conditions of Approval pertaining to fire safety and review of the project by the County Fire Department Director/Secretary Petru replied that the City was not classified as a 'Zone 4' area (high fire hazard area), but that it was classified in a'Zone 3' area Ms Petru stated that as part of the City's Building and Safety Division plan check process, the residence will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable fire safety codes Chairman Vannorsdall asked how far away the closest fire hydrant was from the subject property. Director/Secretary Petru replied that Staff did not know that information off hand, but that Staff could find out from the Public Works Department and report back to the Commission at a later time She also reiterated that type of issue is reviewed through the Building and Safety Division's plan check process Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he had spoken with Mr Von Hagen regarding a geological review conducted on his property prior to purchasing it. He asked if Staff had reviewed this report. City Geotechnical Consultant Hinkle replied that he had reviewed and commented on Mr Von Hagen's geology report and had applied the identical requirements for the subject lot. He stated that there were no other new issues for the Commission to be concerned about, since the subject lot and Mr Von Hagen's were very similar in condition. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 3 Chairman Vannnorsdall asked Staff how far away the electrical wiring on the adjacent power poles would be from the proposed structure. Associate Planner Fox replied that he did not know the exact distance, but that he had spoken with Mr Ken Allen from Southern California Edison (SCE) in Torrance and stated that Mr. Allen had spoken with the applicant regarding the SCE's construction requirements and clearances from the electrical wires Commissioner Slayden noted in Dr John Jordan's letter that he requested the ridgeline of the proposed protect be lowered to the level of his building pad in order to preserve the view of the coastline from his property. Mr. Slayden asked Staff if this was possible Associate Planner Fox replied that lowering the building to this degree would require a substantial alteration to the topography of the lot and would significantly increase the grading quantities associated with the protect. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Hinkle if he had any disagreements with the protect geologist's and Dr Ehlig's review of the proposed residence Mr. Hinkle replied that there was no difference in opinion between himself, Dr Perry Ehlig and Mr. Keith Ehlert (the applicant's geologist) regarding the geology of the site and the feasibility of the protect Mr Hinkle stated that the applicant's geologist clearly described the conditions and that he and Dr Ehlig prepared their review with restraints in the design conditions for the proposed structure, so that there would be no movement of the home in the future Commissioner Cartwright stated that one of the main concerns noted in the geotechnical reports was the collection of water downhill Mr Cartwright asked Mr. Hinkle if there were any provisions made to collect the water that was currently flowing onto the site from off-site sources Mr. Hinkle replied that he had not approved the applicant's request to install a new storm drain across the property, since he needed to review the calculations and design of this system. Mr. Hinkle also indicated that he had not seen final plans, but was aware of the fact that the applicant intended to construct a catch basin between proposed protect and Mr Von Hagen's property to the west. Commissioner Alberto asked Staff if the applicant and Dr. John Jordan had held a meeting to resolve Mr. Jordan's view issue Associate Planner Fox replied that he had no direct knowledge of this negotiation, but was told that both parties had discussed this issue before the revised plans were submitted to the City Chairman Vannordall asked if there were any speakers for this item Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 4 Mr. Jeff Richards, (applicant) 4246 Spencer Street, Torrance, CA 90803, stated that the drainage system included in the proposed protect would be able to pick-up the overflow of water from three nearby properties, which were the properties belonging to Mr Von Hagen, Mr. Reynolds, and Dr. Jordan Mr. Richards reiterated Mr Hinkle's and Dr. Ehlig's comments regarding the design of the proposed protect and stated that his intention was to increase the stability of the hillside much more than what it was currently. As far as discussions with Dr. Jordan regarding a reduction in the impairment of his unprotected view, Mr Richards considered alternatives such as lowering the building pad He stated that this would increase the grading and also cause water to pond, which would place the property at risk of slippage. He considered moving the proposed structure further down the hill, but could not do this on account of the fact that this would move the residence into the non -buildable area identified in the geology report and closer to the landslide scarp Mr Richards stated that Dr. Ehlig and Mr Hinkle recommended that construction of the proposed protect be located as close to the top of the slope as possible. Mr. Richard's stated that, in response to Dr Jordan's request to lower the ridgeline of the proposed project, he pointed out that the currently proposed ridgeline was below the maximum height permitted by the City's Code and only slightly higher than the pad elevation of Dr Jordan's property. Mr. John Vilicich. (applicant's architect) 953 W. 1st Street, San Pedro, CA 90731, displayed photographs to the Commission of himself standing at the lower end of Dr Jordan's driveway viewing the coastline and ocean over the subject property Mr Vilicich explained that a 16' high structure on the subject property would completely block Dr Jordan's view of the coastline and ocean Therefore, the proposed protect would have to be lowered by 10' or more in order to preserve the view of the ocean in this direction, but even lowering the residence to that extent would not preserve the view of the coastline for Dr Jordan Mr. Vilicich emphasized that the applicant was in compliance with the City's Code regarding the ridgeline height and, in fact, the applicant's ridgeline height was only 12' in height, as measured pursuant to the Code Mr. Keith Reynolds, 30745 Tarapaca Road, requested that the applicant continue to communicate with the members of the EI Prada Estates Homeowners Association to discuss the concerns of residents and that the Planning Commission not take any action to approve the protect until those negotiations were completed Dr. John Jordan, 30759 Tarapaca Road, stated that he and Mr Richards discussed the modifications of the proposed project Dr Jordan mentioned that he purchased his home with a panoramic view of the coastline and ocean, but felt that even though the project had been modified, his view would still be impaired his view by 25% Dr Jordan stated that in addition to affecting his view, the proposed protect would negatively effect his property value He requested that the applicant be required to lower the ridgeline by at least 5 to 6 feet, which would substantially improve his view. Ms Judith Webb (President, EI Prado HOA) 2821 Calle Aventura, opposed the protect and stated that the homeowners association was concerned about the precedent that this protect for the future construction of larger homes in the area She stated that the Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 5 homeowners were under the impression that the subject lot was unbuildable since it was located on landslide area Another concern of the homeowners association was the drainage over the property, particularly during the rainy season Ms Webb stated that she would like to see compromise between the applicant and the neighborhood Lois Larue. 3136 Barkentrne Road, opposed the proposed protect due to the fact that subject lot was located on a landslide Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission for a motion to close the Public Hearing Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright, and passed, (5-0). Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Slayden stated that, according to the City's Code, the proposed project was allowed a maximum height of 16' He felt that the subject lot was buildable since all three geologists that reviewed the project were satisfied that the structure could be built safety Mr Slayden stated that he would like to see the project lowered a few feet, if possible, but concluded by saying that he was prepared to vote on the item that evening Commissioner Cartwright wanted to make certain that the Commission balance the interests of the applicant and the concerns of the residents regarding the proposed project Mr. Cartwright believed that the Commission encouraged the applicant to consider the concerns of the surrounding residents and felt that some improvement had taken place, even though it was not enough to satisfy all of the residents Mr Cartwright stated that he did not believe that the City's Code allowed the Commission to require the applicant to lower the house any further since the view of the coastline and ocean in this direction was not a protected view from Dr. Jordan's property. He agreed with Commissioner Slayden's observation that there was no difference in opinions between the three geologists that had reviewed the project and believed that their findings confirmed that the proposed project can be safely developed, provided that appropriate mitigation measures would take place Mr. Cartwright stated that he supported the Staff s recommendation Commissioner Clark stated that the proposed project was controversial and not an easy one to decide on. While he previously felt uncomfortable with only one geogtechnical engineer's input on the proposed project, after the second opinion from another qualified geologist confirmed the opinion of the first consultant, he now felt confident that the subject lot was buildable Mr Clark also believed that the mitigation measures included in the conditions of the project would ease the issue of potential landslides in the future. He felt that the applicant had attempted to negotiate in good faith with his neighbor to address the concerns over view impairment Mr. Clark stated that he supported Staffs recommendation based on the mitigation measures that were incorporated into the project. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 6 Commissioner Alberio stated that he had many concerns regarding the proposed project He reviewed the report from Dr Ehlig and felt uncomfortable with his findings Mr. Alberio stated that even though the City Code allowed a 16' high residence, he believed that the Commission should have required the applicant to consider more alternatives to address the neighbor's concerns regarding view impairment. Therefore, Mr. Albeno could not support the proposed protect Chairman Vannorsdall felt confident with the design of the proposed project, but stated that his main concern was the drainage issue. He was concerned that there was currently no storm drain system on the subject site Chairman Vannorsdall felt that such a system should be installed and asked Staff what mitigation measures could be added to the project to make sure that the situation was addressed, especially with the start of the rainy season rapidly approaching Associate Planner Fox replied that the design of the drainage facilities would be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and the Director of Public Works Mr Hinkle stated that the expected size of the storm drain would be from 16" to 18" in diameter and stated that the location of the drainage system would run down to the canyon area to the west of the property, and then the water would flow down the canyon to Palos Verdes Drive South The Public Hearing was reopened by Chairman Vannorsdall, since the applicant desired to comment on the storm drain issue. Mr Richards stated that although the plans of the storm drainage system have not been submitted to the City, the proposed facilities will mitigate the drainage problems on both his property and Mr Von Hagen's property next door Mr Richards stated that the approximate size of the storm drain would be 18" in diameter and that the runoff would be conducted through Mr Von Hagen's property and away from the landslide area Chairman Vannorsdall re -closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Vannorsdall indicated that he wanted to make certain that the conditions of approval for the storm drain system were very clear and properly implemented Mr Hinkle stated that the applicant must prepare a drainage plan to divert all runoff away from the landslide area and the City must review and approve this plan prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project Chairman Vannorsail asked if a hold harmless clause should be included in the conditions to prevent liability to the City for damages caused by erosion or land slippage caused by the storm drain system Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 7 C Commissioner Clark stated that he felt comfortable with the language included in Condition No 9 of the revised Conditions of Approval and that this conditions also addressed the concern of the Chairman Director/Secretary Petru suggested an augmentation to Condition No 9 so that the first part of the sentence would read as, "Surface runoff crossing the property from off-site, from the roof of the structure..." Ms Petru stated that this issue was addressed in the City Geologist's requirements, but that it was also duplicated in the planning conditions Commissioner Clark moved to accept Staffs recommendation to approve Grading Permit No. 1933, with the proposed amendment to Condition No. 9. Chairman Vannorsdall requested Commissioner Clark to amend his motion to add the requirement for a 'hold harmless' agreement Commissioner Clark asked what the 'hold harmless' agreement would accomplish Director/Secretary Petru replied that the applicant would sign a waiver indicating that the City would not be held liable for any damages caused by the storm drain. Commissioner Clark amended his first motion to include the 'hold harmless' agreement. The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed (4-1) by a roll -call vote with Commissioner Alberto dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE There was a brief recess at 8.20 P M. until the meeting reconvened at 8.30 P M 2. Height Variation No. 826 - Appeal and Grading Permit No. 1886: applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Kispal, 7460 Alida Place, appellants: Jane C. Botello, 7400 Alida Place, Avery Knapp, 7435 Alida Place, Michael Tjong, 7440 Alida Place, and Jimmy Naumovski, 7420 Alida Place. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he had been in contact with the applicant, who had requested that this item be continued to September 9, 1997, since the applicant was out of town until August 28, 1997 The Commission continued Height Variation No. 826 - Appeal and Grading Permit No 1886 to September 9, 1997, (5-0). 3 Height Variation No. 835 and Site Plan Review No. 7988: Mr. & Mrs. Al Edgerton, 59 Oceanaire Drive. Assistant Planner Ward presented the Staff Report and stated that the application for the proposed protect was submitted to the City back in February 1997 Staff made an Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 8 initial review and deemed the application complete on April 2, 1997 Mr. Ward also mentioned that required notification was made during that time He stated that Staff received ten letters from residents objecting to the proposed project and that Staff also had significant concerns regarding the project in terms of neighborhood compatibility and privacy. Mr Ward contacted the applicant in April 1997 to discuss these concerns as well as the neighborhood's objection to the proposed protect. He met with the applicant to discuss the redesign options and potentials of scaling back the proposed project The applicant submitted the redesigned plans to the City in June 1997 Staff completed the review of the application and noticed the project to the residents within 500 feet of the project site Pursuant to the City's Development Code, in order to approve the project, the Commission must be able to make nine mandatory findings Mr. Ward briefly read each of the nine findings to the Commission and concluded his presentation by saying that although Staff felt that eight of the findings could be made, Staff still felt that the design of the proposed second story addition was too massive and was not compatible with the neighborhood (the ninth finding) Therefore, Staff recommended denial of Height Variation No 835. However, Mr. Ward stated that since Site Plan Review No 7988 was under a separate application and complied with the City's Code, Staff recommended approval of this application Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item. Recording Secretary replied that there were a total of eleven speakers present to give testimony on this item. Chairman Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Aiberio and passed, (5-0). Mrs. Kathy Edgergton. (applicant) 59 Oceanaire Drive, commended the Staff for their patience and assistance in guiding them through the application process Ms Edgerton stated that she and her spouse had resided in their home for 30 years and recently decided to update the look of their home She stated that the remodeled home was designed to include a larger family room, an office, larger bedrooms, and a library in order to suit their needs. Mrs. Edgerton felt that extending the first floor towards the back yard, as suggested in some of the correspondence submitted on the project, was not a viable solution due to the proximity of the extreme slope in the rear yard Further, expansion in this direction could potentially block the views from 55 and 57 Oceanaire Drive She noted that there were also architectural issues in making this type of design work with the existing floor plan of the residence She stated that many of the concerns of the neighborhood centered around view blockage, which Staff appropriately found not to be an issue Mrs Edgerton then presented a series of photographs and other data to the Commission regarding the proposed project Referring to the photograph board, she discussed the scale of other structures in the Del Cerro tract in order to rebut the neighbor's arguments that their house would be the only two story structure in the neighborhood Mrs Edgerton indicated that there were 19 multi-level homes in the Del Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 9 Cerro tract, 14 of which were located on upper Oceanaire Drive and 7 of which were within a 10 lot radius of their property This meant that 17% of the homes in the entire Del Cerro subdivision and 32% of the homes within their immediate are were multi- level Mrs Edgerton then compared the size of the two closest multi -leveled homes with her proposed project She stated that 55 Oceanaire was 4,900 square feet in size, which was 86% of the size of their project and that 45 Oceanaire Drive was 6,000 square feet in size, which was 105% of the size of their project She also indicated that some of the other Del Cerro homes greatly exceeded the size of their planned home Mrs Edgerton felt that their proposed home would not be out of character with the neighborhood. As far as the front yard set back was concerned, Mrs Edgerton stated that the neighbors were focused on the existing front yard setback, which was legal non -conforming and predated the formation of the City She stated that their project would be approximately 37 feet from the front property line on average and believed that the analysis of the setback should be based on the second floor addition and not the setback of the existing first floor In the Del Cerro Development that were 27 homes with front yards setbacks that were equal to or greater than the proposed setback Therefore, she felt that the proposed addition was well within the norm for the neighborhood Mrs Edgerton stated she was sensitive to the privacy concerns of the Cotter's (57 Oceanaire Drive) She indicated that they had removed a second floor deck as part of the first de -design of the project and had also agreed to install non -opening translucent glass windows on the building elevation facing the Cotter's resident Mrs Edgerton stated that she had also explored other alternatives, such as planting large trees which would block the view of the Cotter's pool area. She stated that the home located at 55 Oceanaire was about ten to twelve feet above the Cotter's backyard had window views of the pool area, but noted that this concern was mitigated by existing large trees. Mrs Edgerton stated that the facts and the data showed that the proposed project was in keeping with the character of the Del Cerro neighborhood (i e., front yard setback, size and scale of the other homes and along upper Oceanaire Drive) In conclusion she stated that they were prepared to work with the City and the neighbors to resolve any legitimate concerns about the project, but were seeking ultimate approval of their second story addition Mr. Al Edgerton. (applicant) 59 Oceanaire Drive, displayed photographs to the Commission indicating the view from his future second floor window towards the Cotter's pool He indicated that large trees, standing 15 feet in height, could be planted to provide a vegetation screen between the two properties, but that it would take several years while the trees grew up before the Cotter's privacy issue was completely addressed. Mr Edgerton displayed another photograph showing the view from the front of his proposed second story addition towards Mr Woo's resident, who had expressed concerns that his privacy would be adversely affected if the proposed project Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 10 were approved Mr. Edgerton stated that this resident had a ten foot high wall between the house and the front property line which would prevent any viewing into his property from his second story across the street The last photograph displayed was a view from Mr. Edgerton's dining room window towards the Cotter's courtyard and over to the Li's backyard Due to the extreme angle of the view, Mr Edgerton felt that there would be little or no loss of view for the residents at 56, 57, and 60 Oceanaire Dave Gary Lane, (architect) 500 S. Sepulveda, Manhattan Beach, CA, stated that one of the alternatives suggested by the neighbors was to construct a one-story addition towards the back of the lot. He stated that there was a downslope in the rear yard that was very steep and would limit any extension of the building footprint to only 25 feet in width Mr Lane stated that he would like to maintain the rear yard as useable outdoor space Another concern of the neighbors on both sides of the proposed project was that pushing out the rear of the residence may result in view blockage. Mr. Lane stated that placing the addition on the east side of the lot would require the existing pool to be removed Therefore, he felt that the best option for the property was to construct a second -story addition Mr. Paul Cotter, 57 Oceanaire Drive, opposed the proposed project due to the fact that the home was out of scale with the neighborhood Mr. Cotter stated that the proposed home was too bulky and massive He stated that he was also deeply concerned about a loss of privacy caused by the proposed second addition Mr Cotter stated that the structure would have a commanding view of his backyard. However, he appreciated the efforts of the Edgertons and their architect to accommodate his concerns, but felt that the measures had gone far enough to address his concerns Mr Cotter stated that translucent windows were only temporary and could be changed to clear glass in the future. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that since this case would take a great amount of careful consideration and also because of the late hour (1055), he suggested that the Commission only take additional public testimony until 11.15 P M that night and then continue the public hearing to a date certain He suggested that the Commission could schedule an adjourned meeting and start at an earlier hour, which would give the public the opportunity to complete their input and the Commission the ability to render a decision on this project Assistant Planner Ward reminded the Commission that the action deadline for the proposed project was August 26, 1997 Commissioner Clark moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to an Adjourned Meeting on a date certain, but before August 26, 1997. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed, (5-0). A member of the audience insisted on being allowed to address the Commission that evening Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 11 Chairman Vannorsdall asked the speaker to approach the podium. Mrs. Teng Li -An Lee, 55 Oceanaire Drive, stated that she opposed project due to the massive appearance of the structure as seen from the street She did not feel that it was compatible with the neighborhood and that it obstructed her view from her dining room. Ms. Lee stated that the proposed structure should be required to comply with the City's Development Code Another member of the audience requested to speak that evening Chairman Vannorsdall asked how many requests to speak were left Director/Secretary Petru replied that there were still 5 requests to speak. However, the other 4 speakers had already left the meeting that night or were willing to hold their comments to the adjourned meeting Chairman Vannorsdall asked the last speaker to approach the podium. Ms. Carolynn Moebius* 38 Oceanaire Drive, stated that she would not be able to attend the next meeting, which is why she wanted to address the Commission that evening. She stated that the proposed project would stand out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood and felt that design of the residence would not be compatible with the surrounding area Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Edgerton's if they would be willing to grant the City a time extension to allow this application to be heard after August 26, 1997 Mr Edgerton replied that he would not be available on either August 26 or 27 because of prior commitments, and asked to schedule the adjourned meeting before then Commissioner Clark suggested that the public hearing on this item be continued to August 25, 1997 He also suggested that the applicant and neighbors work together in the meantime to try and reach a compromise solution on the project Chairman Vannorsdall polled the Commission regarding the members availability on August 25, 1997. The Commissioners all agreed to meet on this date Chairman Vannorsdall stated that the public hearing was continued an Adjourned Meeting to be held on Monday, August 25, 1997, and that Staff will confirm that Hesse Park is available for the meeting NEW BUSINESS None, Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 12 • ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff None Commission None. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None ADJOURNMENT 0 At 11:16 P.M. Commissioner Clark moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Chairman Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by the Chairman. N \GROUP\PLANNING\PGMINN IN08 14 Planning Commission Minutes August 14,1997 Page 13