Loading...
PC MINS 19990622• CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7 02 P M at the Hesse Park Community Room, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Vannorsdall led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL APPRSVED 7/13/99 Present: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Paris, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon, and Chairman Cartwright Absent: Commissioner Slayden was excused Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Assistant Planner Louie, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Clark moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Paris and approved without objection, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed the Resolution for Item 2 on the Agenda He updated the Commission on the City Council meeting of June 15, 1999 by informing them of the results of the appeal of Mr Hon's Tentative Parcel Map He reported that the City Council denied the appeal thereby approving the map Secondly, he noted that staff gave a report to the City Council on the NCCP program and stated that staff is at a point where they are about to finalize the City's Preferred Alternative Once that is final there will be a CEQA review of the three alternatives which include public hearings Chairman Cartwright reported that he and Commissioner Clark had taken a tour of the Ocean Trails site and stated that Mr Zuckerman had extended an invitation to the other Commissioners to visit the site i 1r Commissioner Vannorsdall added that over the years Mr Zuckerman, as a developer, had always been very cooperative in working with the Planning Commission and was very responsive to Planning Commission suggestions CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1999 Commissioner Paris began by pointing out that on page 1 Adrienne Fowler's name had been misspelled. He also pointed out on page 5, paragraph 5 that he had asked Mr. Florence at that time if he would be willing to take the larger lot and reduce it another 40,000 square feet and he declined to make that adjustment He stated that Vice Chairman Lyon had asked that same question some time later and again he declined to make that adjustment. He asked that the exchange be made part of the minutes He pointed out that Mr Florence's name was misspelled and should be corrected Lastly, on page 7 paragraph 4 he asked that the verbatim statement he made that the lot should not be split be added to the record He requested the tape be checked for accuracy. Commissioner Clark felt his statement on page 7 may have been too generalized and requested the tape be reviewed Chairman Cartwright pointed out that in the fifth paragraph from the bottom that the word "higher" was not the appropriate word. Commissioner Pans agreed and felt there was a question and a response that were left out and should be added to the minutes. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The minutes were approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 HEIGHT VARIATION NO 50 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8563 Carl Mosher, 2 Stallion Road (LL) Assistant Planner Louie presented the staff report, reviewing that the Commission had previously heard a request by the applicant for a height variation, variance, and site plan review in August 1998. At that meeting the Commission felt the addition was not compatible with the neighborhood and would result in a significant view impairment. Therefore, the Commission continued the item and directed the applicant to work with staff to redesign the project to address various issues However, the applicant withdrew the applications in January, 1999. New plans were submitted to the Planning Department which addressed the Planning Commission concerns by revising the plans to reduce the overall square footage of the residence, reducing the overall PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 2 project which included habitable and non -habitable area, resituating the second story addition toward Mustang Road, reducing the square footage of the non - permitted structure to meet the rear yard setback, and lowering the ridgeline Ms. Louie further pointed out that this property has the unique situation of being on the corner of two private roads and has very limited use of its area due to the transitional slope along Mustang Road which results in very limited outdoor storage area Commissioner Alberio asked if the applications were submitted after the City Council direction to not allow any roof decks Assistant Planner Louie answered that the applications had been submitted after that City Council decision Commissioner Alberto commented that he was surprised at how many variances the applicants were requesting. Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff to clarify if 3 Surrey Lane was a single or two story residence Assistant Planner Louie clarified that 3 Surrey Lane was a two story residence Commissioner Paris commented that the staff report indicated the square footage of the lot with easements. He asked staff if in the future the lot square footage without the easements would be shown as that is the size of the property the Commission should be considering Finally, in reading the staff report and the limitations placed on this property, he felt that there was more of an argument for limiting the size of a structure on the lot rather than allowing a larger structure He felt the smaller size of the property should require a smaller residence. Commissioner Clark felt that often the Planning Commission takes into account the physical constraints of a property when considering applications, which in essence is the reason for a variance. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if it was necessary to subtract easements out of the useable area lot coverage calculation, as he felt often times it is not useable area Director/Secretary Rojas answered that no development or improvement could be approved within an easement without the permission of the easement holder. Easements count towards gross lot area, but in this case the easements are road easements and also count towards lot coverage No improvements could be permitted on road easements. Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if, when they calculate the open space on a lot, do they exclude the paved portion on the road easement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 3 Assistant Planner Louie answered that the paved portion of a road easement is included in the calculation toward lot coverage. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Carl Mosher (applicant) 2 Stallion Road stated that the redesign that is before the Commission tonight has addressed all of the Planning Commission's past concerns. He stated that in an effort to minimize the view impairment as expressed by the Juetts at 2 Surrey Lane, he has taken three approaches. First, the second story has been relocated closer to the hillside; second, the length of the main ndgeline has been reduced from 20 feet to 11 feet, and; third, the ridgeline has been lowered by 3% feet, giving the roof a minimum pitch of 2 12 By shortening the ridge span, lowering the ridge height and changing the viewing angle he felt he had addressed any view impairments Furthermore, he agreed to remove the 50 foot pine tree from the front yard to further enhance the view from the Juett's property To address the privacy concerns of Mr. Barth, his neighbor at 4 Stallion Road, the second story living area is 32 feet off the side yard property line and over the garage area. The three windows which remain approximately 15 feet from the property line have no floor space below them and therefore pose no privacy concerns. In addressing the issue of bulk and massiveness, the overall size of the structure has been reduced 460 square feet, the ridgeline has been reduced to achieve the minimum pitch, and the second story has been relocated adjacent to the hillside. He reminded the Commission that his property has unique physical constraints in that two private roads consume approximately 3200 square feet of their lot coverage. In addition the lot has a steep slope along Mustang Road. As the property stands today, they exceed the minimum 60% open space requirement by 2% This proposal will only increase that by an additional 2% Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Mosher about the two roof decks proposed on the addition He wondered what the benefit of the two roof decks would be. Mr. Mosher answered that the roof decks were in the original plans and he did not know roof decks were now not allowed until he had submitted the revised plans to the city He stated the roof decks architecturally provide a break in the roof structure and decrease the overall bulk and mass of the structure Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the roof decks could be removed and replaced with a flat roof system. Mr Mosher responded that he did not like flat roofs, as every flat roof he knows of leaks PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 4 Gary Tasich 21014 Wood Ave #D, Torrance stated that he is the architect for the project He clarified that above and beyond what the roof decks do for the project architecturally, they are in fact respites or breezeways from the inside to go to the outside Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Tasich to clarify on the plans where these roof decks were located Mr. Tasich pointed out on the plans where the roof decks were located and explained that there is a trellis covering the deck and the railings are solid so the view from below or above is obscured Further the depth of the deck is not great, only deep enough to allow a chair for reading Commissioner Alberio stated that in looking out of the window from the Juett's home it was obvious the roof height had already been lowered however he wondered if there would be any possibility of lowering the ridgeline even more by using a flat roof Mr. Tasich stated that he would prefer not to, however if the Commission directed the applicant to do it he could. He felt that by doing this however, it would create a bathtub effect and would therefore necessitate roof drains and create an ongoing maintenance problem He wondered if it was relative to lower the roof one more foot given the small amount of view gained and the increased maintenance for the home owner Commissioner Alberio wondered if lowering the ceiling height and remodeling the roof area would help minimize the impact of the structure. Mr. Tasich responded that at this time they had the lowest ceiling heights possible, 8 foot clear ceilings He added that they had already shaved off the corners of the room inside without having to make a flat roof Commissioner Alberio asked about the hedges outside the property. He asked staff if they were going to be turned over to code enforcement Assistant Planner Louie answered that the hedges will need to be cut down to 30 inches within the intersection visibility triangle She added that the Development Code states that any violation on a property must be addressed before a pending application is approved and at the previous hearing it was pointed out that the hedges were in violation of the Code Commissioner Alberto stated that with the hedges trimmed, more of the mass and bulk of the residence would be visible. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 5 Mr Tasich assured the Commission that in the re -landscaping process they will try to soften the impact of the residence as well as allow for privacy for the residents. Dennis Juett 2 Surrey Lane asked the Commission to realize how big the project was just by the number of Variances being requested. He stated his view of the project has not really changed from when in was first presented to him over a year and a half ago. He stated that he was not trying to be difficult and would not have a problem with the Moshers developing their property, he just does not want any of his view taken away. Regarding the hedges, he was pleased that they were recently trimmed down in height but was concerned that removing them completely would expose the entire structure He commented that he was still opposed to a two-story structure being built on the property and stated that there were no two story structures in the immediate area and in the entire area there may only be five two story structures, however they do not present any view impacts. He stressed that he was concerned about losing his view of the evening lights He was not opposed to a flat roof structure He had concerns about the roof decks and felt they may cause a privacy issue Mr Juett complimented the architect on the job he did in re -designing the house, however he was concerned that small portions of his view were slowly being taken away He felt the lot is a small lot and was never intended to have a two story residence on it. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Juett how long he had lived in the house and how long the previous owners lived in the house Mr Juett responded that he had lived in the house for five years, and the previous owners for 25 years Chairman Cartwright stated that Mr Juett had spoken of his view and how he felt it should be protected. He explained that the Planning Commission had some latitude to protect views of the ocean and the harbor but that they did not have any latitude to protect his view of any structures that may be visible over the project. He further stated that once the applicant removes the pine tree, Mr Juett will have more view than he had before Finally, he stated that the only potential view impairment he saw while visiting the site was a developed portion of San Pedro, which is not a protected view. He asked Mr. Juett if his primary concern with the second story addition was with neighborhood compatibility or if it was with view impairment Mr. Juett answered that they go hand in hand He stated his view would be much better right now with a single story home with no hedges around it. He added that he would not object to a two story residence as long as it is kept down as low as possible. He did not feel this proposal had the second story down as low as they could get it. A flat roof would give him another 10 inches He added that the pine tree was not an issue as he could see right through it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 6 Commissioner Paris asked Mr Juett if he was concerned with the lot coverage Mr. Juett responded that he was very concerned with the overall size of the structure, as the proposal would cover every inch of the lot He felt that it is a small lot and should have a smaller house. Paul Barth 4 Stallion Road stated he was opposed to the current design. He began by addressing staffs analysis of surrounding properties on page 11 of the staff report He felt the figures presented show just how out of line this proposed structure on the small lot really would be He explained that he bought his home because he was so impressed with the rural neighborhood He appreciated the changes the Moshers made in moving the second story addition away from his property, but he objected to the presence of the 18 foot raised ceiling in the living room He felt it would create a lath and stucco box looming over his property and did not feel its presence was compatible with the neighborhood He did not feel any other two story residences were as intrusive on neighboring properties Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Barth if his home was approximately 1200 square feet and if it was the original structure Mr Barth responded that the house was 1200 square feet and it was the original structure with no additions, built in 1951 Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Barth if he had any plans to eventually remodel his home Mr. Barth answered that he does have some plans to remodel, but he would like to keep it a one story house Peter White 16 Mustang Road stated he was opposed to this proposal because of neighborhood compatibility and the ranch style living enjoyed in the area He felt his point is made by the numbers presented in the staff report Again, Mr Mosher's lot is smaller than any lot in the area, yet the house he is proposing is twice the average size of houses in the area He commented that the only "sore thumb" in the neighborhood was across the street from him He stated that a two story residence was allowed to be built into his view At that time the Commission stated that he was only losing 26% of his view Since then the owner has allowed trees to grow up to the ridgeline He calculated that he has now lost 45% of his view. He felt the same thing will happen with this application Further, he stated that another neighbor had recently done an extensive addition but no provisions were made for drainage Now, every winter he has to sandbag his home to prevent the runoff from that property from flooding his home. He felt that would also happen with this project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 7 • • Chairman Cartwright pointed out that there is now an Ordinance in the City that states that trees can only grow to a height of 16 feet or to the top of the ridgeline, whichever is lower As far as drainage, he sympathized with Mr White's problem however he felt that drainage would be addressed as part of the building and safety plan check process Bob Adams 5 Surrey Lane stated that some of the staff conclusions regarding the scale of the proposed structure being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood were not justified as presented He pointed out that the largest current structures listed on page 11 of the staff report are all on lots that are substantially larger than the applicants On page 12 of the staff report he pointed out the statement that said the majority of homes on Stallion Road are single story He believes that all of the homes on Stallion Road are single story or that you cannot see the second story of any of the homes on Stallion Road He disagreed with the staff report in that he did not feel that the reduced size of the structure was now compatible with the neighborhood He agreed that the overall size of the structure had been reduced, but did not feel that was justification to approve the project. On page 13 of the staff report regarding the six two story residences on Surrey Lane, four of the houses you could not see the second story from the street as the second story was on the downhill side, which is below the street level The other two of the six the second story is only over the garage Therefore, he does not feel that staff is able to justify the approval of the proposed project. Chairman Cartwright asked if his primary concern with this project was that it introduced more second story additions to the neighborhood Mr Adams responded that his primary concern was that it is such a large home on such a small lot and the fact that it is such a massive structure in an area of non -massive structure homes Mr Tasich asked the Commission to remember that every property is unique and each family has unique needs He did not feel this property should be penalized because it is on two streets that will be counted toward its open space, or lack thereof He did not feel drainage would be an issue as the reduction in open space would only be 2% He encouraged the Commission to look at what they have done and the amount of effort they put forth to reduce the view impairment and massiveness of the original structure Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr Mosher if, once the remodel is done, whether the old car and boat in the yard will be removed Mr Mosher answered that the boat will be put in the proposed boat storage area and the car will be removed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 8 • • Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested putting some conditions on the approval, if the project is approved, to ensure the property is cleaned up Mr. Mosher stated that neighborhoods are in constant change Right now on Stallion Road there are many old houses 1200 to 1300 square feet in size He felt there were many people in the neighborhood who could double the square footage of their houses and have the same percentage of lot coverage he is asking for without applying for a variance He felt he had addressed all of the concerns the Commission had in the previous meeting and that his architect had done an excellent job in redesigning the house to meet those concerns Commissioner Alberio asked staff if the Juetts have a protected view. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that they do have a protected view of the harbor and the Vincent Thomas Bridge, but not of San Pedro Staff found that the proposed structure, exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair the view There is other foliage on the property that can be addressed through other avenues. Commissioner Clark asked staff to clarify if part of the view being lost by the Juetts was of a non -protected area. Assistant Planner Louie stated that was correct Commissioner Clark moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pans began by stating he did not think flat roofs were a good idea, as they will cause leakage and structure problems He felt that it was not right to give this property special considerations just because the lot is smaller than surrounding lots. He felt if anything, if the lot is smaller the home should be smaller. He felt the design was beautiful, but was not compatible with the neighborhood Finally, he agreed with the neighbors that the neighborhood has a rural feeling and this addition was too aggressive for the area it was proposed in. Vice Chairman Lyon clarified the point of open space. He explained that despite the Code requirements of having to include the paved roadways in the calculations of lot coverage, if this were a normal lot in a normal residential area, it would be somewhat different If this were a standard lot without the road easements, he calculated the open space at 65% which is well within the code requirements, rather than the 58% if streets were included. He felt this calculation was the calculation that should be used when considering the project, as calculating in the street was totally unreasonable Therefore, he felt the lot coverage did satisfy the code requirement PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 9 1 • Commissioner Alberio understood what Vice Chairman Lyon was saying, however he did not feel that you should try to change the code to fit each application Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he did not feel the roof decks as shown on this plan were the type of roof decks that the City Council had in mind when they banned roof decks These were more on the order of a balcony He felt that with the removal of the pine tree the view from Mr Juett's property would be improved He felt that the existing home and property is an eyesore to the neighborhood and that the proposed addition would be a radical improvement. Commissioner Clark stated that in August 1998 the Planning Commission gave clear direction to the applicant if they chose to redesign their project. The applicant redesigned the project under a new application and it appeared to him that the applicant listened to the Commission and followed the direction given by the Commission From a neighborhood compatibility standpoint, he felt the neighborhood was in a state of transition and what existed today will change He felt that the Commission had to ensure that the neighborhood changes in a way that balances each owner's rights and desire to improve their property with the overall good of the neighborhood In terms of view impairment, the view in question was an unprotected view and therefore should not be an issue Another issue he had heard was the concern over second story additions in the neighborhood He felt there were already second story additions in the neighborhood and there would be more proposed in the future He felt second story additions had to be considered on the merits of each case Given all of that he was in support of this project. Commissioner Alberio agreed that everyone has a right to improve their property However they have a right to improve their property provided they do not impact or encroach onto their neighbors rights In this specific case Mr Juett and the previous owner of the property have been enjoying a specific view for 30 years He felt taking that view would not be protecting the rights of Mr Juett. He also felt that the lot was small and should support a smaller house He did not feel the applicants were willing to compromise with the neighbors and were trying to maximize the use of their lot at the expense of the neighbors He reiterated that the Commission had to add the street easements into the lot coverage calculation because that is what the code requires He did not want to deny this application, but rather request they do a further redesign of the project. Vice Chairman Lyon agreed that the proposal is a large house on a small lot and it is a slightly different style than the other homes in the immediate area, however the most important thing is the fact that the applicant has been previously before the Commission and has been quite responsive to the directions from the Commission to satisfy the neighbors' concerns He also felt the house was well designed and attractive with a very attractive roof line He did not feel the view impairment was significant. The roof decks did not appear to be a problem and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 10 did not detract in any way in the manner that the City Council had in mind when they banned roof decks He had no problem with the lot coverage issue and was in favor of approving the project. Chairman Cartwright was sympathetic with the neighbors and their concerns He felt that the Commission said in August that the house was indeed too massive, bulky, tall, and significantly impaired the neighbor's view and asked the applicants to redesign based on those points He felt the applicant should be commended on the job he did in redesigning, by reducing the size and height of the structure and significantly mitigating the view impairment issue He felt that all over the City older neighborhoods with small houses are in transition and as new people move in they will either demolish the existing house or do extensive remodeling He did not feel the proposed roof decks were a problem and agreed with Vice Chairman Lyon that this type of roof deck was not what the City Council had in mind when banning roof decks He did not feel that lot coverage was a problem. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve the project as presented thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-22 approving Variance No. 450, Height Variation No. 833, and Site Plan Review No. 8563, seconded by Commissioner Clark. The motion passed (4-2) with Commissioners Alberio and Paris dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9 27 P M the Commission took a recess until 9:35 RM. at which time they reconvened 3 HEIGHT VARIATION 880 VARIANCE NO. 447 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO 8583 David Finkel 29205 Oceanridge Drive Assistant Planner Louie presented the staff report She explained the applicants had originally applied for a variance application to allow a roof deck but decided to withdraw the request. The height variation application by itself would have been a director decision but the variance application brought the entire package before the Commission Since the variance has been withdrawn, the project is no longer subject to Planning Commission review and will be reviewed by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Director/Secretary Rojas explained that no action was needed by the Planning Commission on this item 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 23 -REVISION 'FFF' AND GRADING PERMIT NO 2089 Hani Nassif, 3412 Palo Vista Drive PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 11 1 • Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report. He explained that a variance is necessary for a roof deck in the Seacliff Hills development When the notice was sent out it did not mention the need for the variance. Staff will need to re - notice the item and that is the reason for the request for the continuance. Commissioner Clark moved to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, it was so ordered. NEW BUSINESS 5. OCEAN TRAILS LANDSLIDE UPDATE Director/Secretary Rojas explained to the Commission that the firm of Cotton Shires is serving as the city's consulting geologist in this matter. They will be working with the Ocean Trails geologic consultant, Converse Consultants, to investigate the cause of the landslide. He updated the Commission on what portions of the Ocean Trails golf course actually moved and how far He explained how the geologists are now mapping the slide, installing inclinometers and investigating what caused the movement. He concluded by stating that at this point, the landslide is under investigation and the city has not received any type of preliminary report to indicate any one cause of the landslide All public trails have been temporarily closed on the site because of the concern for public safety. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road shared with the Commission what different people in the area thought about the landslide. 6 UPDATE REGARDING THE RE -ISSUANCE OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO 827 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1887: Magda Kispal, 7455 Alida Place Director/Secretary Rojas explained that after receiving information from the public at the last meeting staff investigated the appearance that the property in question was not owned by Mrs Kispal. He commented that staff spoke to the title company, escrow company, and realtor that were involved in the transaction and shared with them the information staff had received. Staff concluded that there was an error in the escrow process as the subject lot was inadvertently quit claimed to a separate individual. The escrow company agreed that it was an error and is going to correct it. Staff has received documentation that Mrs. Kispal is the owner of record of the subject property After making this determination and consulting with the City Attorney, staff formally re -issued the expired applications in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. Notice has been sent to all interested parties and at this point no appeal has been received PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 12 Commissioner Alberto stated that the Commission had requested a legal opinion on this matter and never received it Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Planning Commission requested the legal opinion at the time that an extension request was before the Commission and that although the legal opinion was prepared, it was not delivered to the Commission since the request for extension was withdrawn by the applicant However, if there is an appeal of the re -issuance and the matter is brought back to the Commission the legal opinion will be provided to the Commission. Commissioner Alberio felt that the Commission had requested a legal opinion and something should have come back to them. He did not feel that an oral report from the Director was what the Commission had requested Chairman Cartwright explained that the Director and the City Attorney felt that the written opinion was no longer necessary since the item had been withdrawn However, if the item is appealed the Commission would have access to the memorandum Director/Secretary Rojas further explained that once the application was no longer before the Commission the City Attorney did not feel it was appropriate for the opinion to be transmitted, as there was still a possibility for an appeal. If no appeal is filed, he will check with the City Attorney to see if the Commission can then have the memo Commissioner Paris still did not agree that it was appropriate to give Mrs Kispal the re -issuance because, in his opinion, she was having trouble selling the property. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Paris discussed with the Commission his concern with the manner in which the Commission was questioning certain people who objected to projects. He felt some Commissioners were trying to split the objections and isolate them and some Commissioners were telling objectors why they were wrong or trying to change their minds. He was concerned that the Commission appeared to be taking the role of the defender of the applicant He felt that people have the right to express their own opinions and whether the Commission agrees with them or not is not relevant He was concerned that it appeared that people were not being allowed to have their say without being convinced they were wrong or being intimidated Commissioner Clark agreed that everyone has the right to express their point of view However, he felt it was a normal process for a question and answer discussion to follow a speaker amongst the members of the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 13 Commissioner Paris agreed with that, however he felt that in doing so some Commissioners were almost being aggressive with the speakers He did not feel an exchange of opinion between the Commission and the speakers was a good idea The speakers should be allowed to give their opinions and the Commission should hear the opinion He felt the speakers might feel intimidated by the Commission He stated that this had happened only in the last few meetings and felt that there was some type of transition or change that was happening and it concerned him. Chairman Cartwright responded that there are times when people are speaking and that it is not clear to him what their main concerns are and he often asks them what their key concerns are Commissioner Paris felt that everyone has a right to their opinion before the Commission without being put upon He felt that speakers should not be obligated to focus on one key issue when they may have three or four issues Chairman Cartwright responded that he was not asking the speakers to focus on one issue, rather he was asking speakers to clarify their issues He asked Commissioner Paris if he felt the Commission should not ask the speakers for any clarification if there was some confusion Commissioner Paris answered that the Commission should ask for clarification but not divide or isolate of the points Commissioner Clark felt that many speakers welcome clarifications from the Commission that may help them reinforce their opinions No other Commissioner agreed that there was a concern with the manner in which the Commisison questioned speakers and there was no Commission action to formally discuss this matter any further ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. to the next regular meeting on July 13, 1999 at Hesse Park. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1999 PAGE 14