Loading...
PC MINS 20000725APPROVED AUGr 2000 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Lyon called the meeting to order at 7 02 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Long led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, Chairman Lyon Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Louie, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objections to the Agenda, Chairman Lyon approved the Agenda as presented COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council continued the adoption of the Resolution of denial regarding the antenna on Oceanaire Drive as Mr Abrams made a request to enter new information into the record Director/Secretary Rous distributed a letter received regarding Agenda Item No. 2 and revised conditions regarding Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Long stated that he had received in the mail a letter and package from Marymount College discussing the proposed additions to the site CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of July 11, 200 Commissioner Long requested that on page 1 of the minutes (consent calendar) the record reflect that he stated that speakers should not speak on items that may be pending applications before the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 182: Mr. William Myers (applicant), 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard. Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report She reviewed the history of the application and explained that the applicant had four requests 1) to delete the condition regarding the rear parking lot being chained off after business hours; 2) to delete the condition regarding the convenience store sales to cease if either the sale of gasoline or automotive services were to discontinue, 3) to modify the condition from the original Conditional Use Permit to allow the display of newspaper racks outside of the convenience store, and 4) to amend the sign permit to include additional signs, banners, and flags Ms Louie reviewed the requests, as presented in the staff report She further reviewed staff recommendations for each item, as presented in the staff report. She explained that according to the State's representative at the California State Lottery, lotto signs are exempt However, if the Planning Commission felt there was an over abundance of lottery signs on the subject site, the Planning Commission may direct staff to file a complaint with the State of California However, she explained that there are no guarantees that the state would require the applicant to remove any of the lottery signs on the site Commissioner Paulson stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had asked staff to speak with the City Attorney regarding the issue of liability if the Planning Commission were required to act on an emergency basis on something that was not approved He asked if staff had received an answer from the City Attorney Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he had discussed this issue with the City Attorney and her position on the matter was that if the City were in a position where a safety issue has been identified the City may take any action necessary to make sure the problem is removed Commissioner Paulson asked staff if they had asked the City Attorney about the issue of non-compliance and the fact that the applicant was not before the Planning Commission for an improvement to the property Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the City Attorney felt that the applicant was seeking an action from the Planning Commission which could be interpreted as a right similar to a development right. However, this was not clear and the Planning Commission could consider the issue either way Commissioner Long questioned page 9 of the staff report regarding the California Lottery signs He asked if the California Lottery had sent staff a Code section regarding Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 2 Lottery signs and whether the City Attorney had been consulted regarding the exemption of Lottery signs from the City regulations Associate Planner Louie quoted the code section that was received by the California Lottery and added that the City Attorney had not been consulted. Commissioner Long moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Bill Myers (applicant) 28103 Hawthorne Blvd explained that his proposal was to delete the two conditions that he felt were unsafe and unnecessary, the chaining of the parking lot and the closure of the convenience store He agreed with staffs findings with a couple of exceptions. He noted that staff had stated the newspaper racks had been installed recently Mr. Myers stated that the newspaper racks have been out since the convenience store opened five years ago. He stated he would put the newspaper racks inside if there were room, but there is no room inside Further, he stated that the newspapers were made available at the request of his customers and emphasized that he makes no money from selling these newspapers. Mr. Myers stated that, regarding the signs, it was his understanding at the time he originally filed for a sign permit that the application was only for the convenience store. Therefore, when he submitted his application he did not label all of the existing signs for the gas station. He stated that the four pump topper signs are part of the gas pumps, but could be removed. However he felt they were completely unobtrusive and could not be seen when going down Granvia Altimira He stated the signs were vital to his business as they displayed messages to the customers regarding specials being offered. Commissioner Paulson asked Mr Myers if he knew that the original Conditional Use Permit had conditions attached to it and limitations placed on displaying non -automotive items outside of the convenience store He asked Mr Myers what prompted him to put the newspapers outside of the convenience store Mr Myers responded that he was aware of the conditions of his original Conditional Use Permit, however he placed the newspapers outside because of the high number of requests received for newspapers and the fact that there was no place inside the store to put these papers. Commissioner Paulson asked if the pump topper signs were advertising the convenience store or if they were advertising automotive/gasoline specials Mr Myers answered that all three things were being advertised Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Myers what prompted him to look for separating the convenience store from the service station in terms of the ability to operate the convenience store if he were not operating the service station Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 3 0- 0 Mr. Myers responded that he never wanted to do that He felt that some of the residents were looking for a reason to shut the convenience store down for their own personal reasons He stated that he could not operate under the situations described in the conditions of approval He noted that if there were a gasoline shortage or if there was malfunction in the garage where it had to be shut down for repairs he may then have to shut down the convenience store He felt this was a very heavy-handed tactic and it did not have to be that way. Chairman Lyon noted that the way the condition was worded was that if either the sale of gasoline or the automotive service operation were to discontinue for a period the convenience store must then be closed. He did not feel it should be "either" and wondered if the word "both" would be more appropriate. Mr. Myers stated that he did not have a problem with the way the condition was worded, but his preference would be "both" He noted that if he were having trouble finding a mechanic and the automotive repair had to be shut down, which would in turn shut down the convenience store, the gas station might then have to be closed since many of the transactions come through the machinery connected to the convenience store Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Myers about the two accidents involving the chain at his service station Mr Myers explained the accidents, one involving a bicycle rider and the other involving a car. Charlotte Myers 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. addressed the original intent of the 4C 4, the service station overlay, that was put into affect approximately 5 years ago She felt the intent at the time was to keep gas stations in the City, as the City had lost 5 gas stations in a period of 2 years Therefore, she did not feel that the "either/or' phrase in the conditons of approval should remain She stated that the sale and operation of the gasoline pumps was done through the convenience store She stressed that she has received no complaints regarding the convenience store She added that changing the wording of the either/or wording would give them an option if there were ever a need to close the service bay. She stated that the signs on top of the pumps have always been there and are multi -use signs. She noted that five years ago when the City came out to do the inspection of the property the pump signs were in place and staff never mentioned that they were there illegally. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed the gas station overlay and indicated that Mr. Myers had been before the Planning Commission and City Council many times trying to improve the subject site. She urged the Planning Commission to approve Mr. Myers requests William Haynes 28208 Ridgefern Court stated that those who were opposed to some of the things being requested by the applicant were not opposed to Mr Myers being in business. He complimented the staff report, which he felt pointed out the numerous Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 4 things on the property that were already in violation of the original Conditional Use Permit. He felt this demonstrated a pattern of behavior in which Mr. Myers has continually violated the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and when caught, an application was submitted to the City for a change in the Conditional Use Permit He felt that a law abiding, conscientious person would first find out what the rules are, plays by the rules, and if he finds that something he wishes to do is against the rules he then tries to get the rules changed One does not violate the rules and then try to get a waiver. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Haynes if he objected to the amendment of the existing condition which states that the convenience store must be closed if the service bay or sale of gasoline were discontinued. Mr Haynes discussed the previous request for the sale of propane and the request for a car wash He stated that he did not trust Mr Myers intentions. However, he did not object to the amendment to allow some flexibility in the condition regarding the closure of the convenience store. Christian Faulk 22497 Kent Avenue, Torrance, stated that he was asked to speak in behalf of certain residents residing within the 500 -foot radius of the service station He discussed Condition No. 7. He felt that the way the condition now reads was that if anything happens beyond Mr. Myers control the market or the gas station must be shut down However, he felt the Commission could redefine this and make boundaries which say that Mr. Myers cannot voluntarily terminate, abandon, or condemn any portion of his business Chairman Lyon did not feel it was legal for the Planning Commission to tell Mr. Myers he could not voluntarily terminate one of the services he provides. Mr Faulk stated that his main concern was that if the service bays were to close then these areas would then turn into large storage areas, which would be unsightly Commissioner Paulson asked Mr Faulk if the service bays were to be voluntarily closed did he then feel the gasoline business should also be closed Mr Faulk stated that was what the condition currently stated, but he did not feel it should be written that way He felt that the 180 -day time limit was too long and vague. Mr Faulk then presented to staff the 500 -foot radius ownership listings presented by Mr. Myers in his application He stated that there have been 78 changes of ownership within the 500 -foot radius map and noted where he had listed those new owners Marvin Lubofsky 28925 Golden Meadow Drive stated that he was concerned about the fact that the gas station could be closed and the convenience store could remain open He felt the 180 day limit was good, however would prefer to see 90 days. He did not want to see the possibility that the convenience store may become a supermarket. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Cartwright noted that if the primary use of the property were to change from gasoline sales to something else, such as a supermarket, Mr Myers would be required to submit an amendment to his Conditional Use Permit to the City He asked Mr Lubofsky if the gas station were to shut down for a period of time, for whatever reason, if he felt the convenience store should also be required to close Mr Lubofsky replied that if the reason the gas station were shut down was due to something beyond the owners control, the convenience store should not be closed He felt that reasonableness should prevail Ben Peterson 28067 Santona Drive stated that when he received the notice regarding the proposal to revise the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit he was surprised He stated that he did not mind taking the chain down and putting the newspaper racks outside He did have a problem with the other two requests He felt that the way the language in the notice read, it was unclear on the proposal He has talked to staff and read the staff report and had many questions answered However, his main concern was that he did not want the convenience store to become the focal point of the property He did not want the other services to be closed He felt the wording should be revised to clarify what was being requested Regarding the signs, his concern was that there would be too many signs and flags and the area would look like a used car lot. Mr Myers (in rebuttal) stated that he had never been approached by Code Enforcement, or anyone else, regarding any sign violations He was under the impression that all of his signs were legal He further understood that this was an arguable point. He stated that his intent was not to offend or deceive any members of the Planning Commission, City Council, or any of the residents Commissioner Paulson moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall There being no objection, the public hearing was closed Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he was able to speak to the City Attorney regarding the exemption of the Lottery signs The City Attorney read the code section from the Government Code and agreed that there is a local preemption on the sign regulation Commissioner Cartwright asked staff for a definition of ancillary use Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Development Code does not define ancillary use, however the City Council in their Resolution made reference to the project in that a total of 70 percent of the total building canopy area will be dedicated to the service and repair of automobiles and the remaining 30 percent will be used for the sale of convenience items Commissioner Long asked staff if they felt the noticing for the project had been done properly, given the comments made by one of the speakers Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 6 Associate Planner Louie responded that staff felt that noticing had been done properly. Commissioner Paulson stated that staff had noted that the Development Code defines a use as discontinued if it is discontinued for a period of more than 180 days He asked if that precludes the Planning Commission from adopting a condition that will be less than 180 days Associate Planner stated that the Commission could adopt a period of less that 180 days. Chairman Lyon stated that the Commission will discuss and vote on the request in four separate categories: the removal of the chain, the closure of the convenience store, the newspaper racks, and the signs Commissioner Long felt that rather than delete the condition that the chain be removed the condition be amended to read that the rear parking lot area must not be chained He felt the chain was dangerous and unacceptable The Commissioners agreed that the chain is very dangerous and unacceptable. Chairman Lyon stated that he had a fundamental dislike for telling someone what they must do unless it is In the interest of public safety. He could see conditions in which the area behind the station might become more attractive for people to loiter in and could also envision situations where the closing off of that area might be in the best interest of Mr. Myers To tell him that he cannot do that went against his fundamental beliefs However, he understood the public safety issues involved and realized that either way there would not be a chain located there. Commissioner Long moved to amend the existing Condition No. 36 by deleting the existing language and substituting language to read that the rear parking lot area shall not be chained, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. Approved, (7-0). Regarding the closure of the convenience store, Chairman Lyon felt that there were several possibilities The condition as currently stated could remain, the Commission could say either/or, the Commission could say both, the Planning Commission could say just gasoline sales, or the Planning Commission could delete the condition entirely. Commissioner Cartwright stated that the Development Code stated that the Automotive Overlay mandates that the convenience store is an ancillary use to the automotive service, therefore the automotive service is the primary use. He felt that it then becomes an interpretation of what is reasonable and fair in terms of what that business is. He felt that the primary purpose of this property was to dispense gasoline Therefore, he felt that the operation of the repair bays should be outside the scope of this decision Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Long agreed with Commissioner Cartwright's comments He felt the discontinuation of the sale of gasoline would terminate the use of the ancillary use of the site, however the closure of the service bays would not Vice Chairman Clark felt that a shutdown of 180 days was far too excessive and noted that Mr Myers was willing to accept something less than 180 days. Vice Chairman Clark moved to amend Condition No. 7 to read that if the sale of gasoline on the subject property is discontinued then the sale of convenience items shall cease and the convenience sales area shall be closed immediately. For the purpose of this conditon gasoline sales shall be considered discontinued if they cease to operate for more than 90 consecutive calendar days, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Director/Secretary Rous stated that he felt that this was changing the findings of the original City Council Resolution. Staffs recommendations were based on keeping the findings intact. Therefore, Staff will come back at the next meeting with a new Resolution. Chairman Lyon discussed the newspaper racks. He did not have any problem with allowing the existing three racks to remain. The Commission agreed and Commissioner Paulson suggested adding language to allow no more than three newspaper racks Commissioner Paulson moved to amend Condition No. 46 to allow not more than 3 newspaper racks outside of the convenience store, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (7-0). The Commission discussed the need for signage at a business and what could be considered reasonable Chairman Lyon noted the staff report listed all of the signs on the property, which were included in the Sign Permit No 720, and what staff was recommending. He stated that there were only 3 signs that staff was not recommending approval Commissioner Long stated that he did not think it was important if a sign had been on the property for a long time if it had never been legally permitted to be on that site Vice Chairman Clark stated that he thought the most out of place sign was the Super Lotto Plus sign, but felt there was nothing they could do about that one. He wondered if that sign could be moved Chairman Lyon re -opened the public hearing. Mr Myers agreed that the Lottery signs were large He commented that one of the signs was broken and he had repeatedly asked that it be fixed He stated that he would Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 8 9 temporarily remove the one sign until he received the leg to fix it He could then perhaps position the sign on the other side where it might not be as intrusive Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Paulson asked staff if the temporary signage was changed every 30 days as directed by the Development Code. Associate Planner Louie stated that according to the property owner the temporary signage had not recently been changed Now that this has been brought to his attention he intended to change it Vice Chairman Clark stated that he would like to include language in the motion that required the owner to move the Lottery sign to a less intrusive location He asked staff if the state law was specific as to location of Lottery signage location Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he did not believe the City could regulate the Lottery signs. However, he was aware that there was an investigative arm of the Lottery Commission that will investigate complaints of signs that are too large or in bad locations Vice Chairman Clark stated that he felt it may be more prudent to rely on the applicant to move the Lottery sign as he stated he would Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adopt the staff recommendation on signage as contained in Table 1 of the staff report with the exception of the item on 4 advertising signs on fuel dispensers where the "no" is changed to "yes", seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Long dissenting. Commissioner Vannorsdall brought up the subject of the public telephone He stated that the Conditions of Approval required Mr Myers to remove the public telephone, which he has done He felt this has created an unsafe situation in that people are running across the street in an unsafe manner to use the telephone at the 7-11 store. He asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the placement of a public telephone at the Mobil Station. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that this subject was beyond the ability of the Planning Commission to consider at the present time The public hearing had been closed and this subject was not part of the public notice The subject would require a new public hearing The Commission discussed the idea of the public telephone and concluded that it was not an item that they wished to take action on Director/Secretary Rojas stated that a Resolution would be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting for approval with the changes incorporated in it. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 9 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:30 p m the Commission took a short recess until 9 40 p m at which time they reconvened PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) Chairman Lyon suggested moving Item No 4 to be heard before Item No. 3, as he did not think there would be any issues involved with this project. The Commission agreed to hear Item No. 4 before Item No 3. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 190 — Revision 'A': Pacific Bell Wireless, Green Hills Memorial Cemetery, 27501 Western Avenue Commissioner Long stated that he must recuse himself from this item as his law firm does work for Pacific Bell Wireless Vice Chairman Clark moved to waive the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. There being no objection, the staff report was waived. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened Douglas Kearney (applicant) 18500 Van Korman Avenue, Irvine, stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have Vice Chairman Clark asked if Mr. Kearney had received any complaints from any of the surrounding residences Mr. Kearney answered that he had not received any complaints Vice Chairman Clark moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Clark moved adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-22 as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Long recused. 3. Variance No. 455, Height Variation No. 896, and Grading Permit No. 2126: Roko Alaga (applicant), 29131 Highmore Avenue Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report He reviewed what was presently at the property and what the applicants were requesting He also reviewed Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 10 the need for the three separate applications He stated that regarding the Height Variation, finding No 7 asks if the proposed structure complies with all of the Code requirements. He stated that staff could not make the findings, therefore resulting in a staff recommendation to deny the height variation without prejudice Further, staff felt that the grading quantities were excessive and recommended denial of the grading permit. He explained that the Variance was required for the addition proposed over the extreme slope In addition, he explained that there was a 25 foot turning radius required between the garage and the street of access when a driveway measures more than 10 percent in slope and has a length of 50 feet or greater. In this situation both conditions exist and a 25 -foot turning radius would be required. However, he stated that the proposal does not include the turning radius He explained that the staff report details why the applicable findings could not be made to support a Variance and staff therefore recommended denial of the Variance. He explained that staff believed that an addition could be made to the property which utilized the existing pad area and not in the extreme slope area. Vice Chairman Clark asked staff what size addition could be accommodated on this property without the use of the extreme slope area. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that using the available area would somewhat reduce the amount of additional square footage, possibly by as much as 800 square feet Commissioner Cartwright asked for clarification as to where the proposed addition was on the property Assistant Planner Schonborn clarified the addition with photos Chairman Lyon asked if there was a problem building over an extreme slope if a retaining wall is proposed and properly constructed. Director/Secretary Rous responded that the General Plan discussed maintaining the look of the community. He stated that much of the look of the city is its topography Many of the canyons and slopes cannot be built on, as the Code is very strict. He explained that from a structural standpoint with proper engineering and geology the addition could be done, however the General Plan requires staff to take into consideration the aesthetic look of the community and maintaining the open space Vice Chairman Clark stated that is why the staff must take a conservative approach and deny the project, however the Planning Commission can look at these requests case by case and make a decision on what is reasonable in each circumstance Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if any geologic study had been done for this addition Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 11 Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the geologic reports would be submitted during Building and Safety plan check. He noted that the applicant has already had geologic reports prepared that indicate it would be possible to build over the extreme slope Vice Chairman Clark moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Arlene Alaga (applicant) 29131 Highmore Avenue asked that the Planning Commission approve the project as there had been no negative responses from the neighbors regarding the addition Vice Chairman Clark asked Ms. Alaga why she proceeded to demolish the garage before obtaining the proper approvals and permits. Ms Alaga responded that she was unaware at the time that she needed permits for demolition Commissioner Long pointed out that there is a Government Code that states that if permits are issued for this project or any other project that the City is immune from any type of liability if the house proves to be geologically unstable He also noted that if the house was not geologically stable her homeowners insurance would probably not provide full coverage Finally, he stated that if it was found that the geologist's findings were wrong and the land was not stable, the geologist's assets and insurance would most likely be gone by the time the homeowner filed a claim Ms. Alaga responded that she was aware of this Chairman Lyon asked Ms Alaga how she was going to meet the turning radius requirement for the driveway. Ms Alaga stated that she would move the garage at least 4 feet closer to the street, as indicated in the staff report This would eliminate the 25 -foot radius requirement Emil Suniara 928 Hamilton Avenue, San Pedro stated that he was the architect and was present to answer any technical questions the Planning Commission may have Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr Sunjara difficulties he could envision if the Planning Commission were to deny the project and offer the owner the opportunity to re -design the project to avoid building over the extreme slope. Mr Sunjara that the proposed addition will result in a structure size that meets the needs of the family and than an addition in the pad area would be too small, as it would result in a smaller addition Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 12 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Lyon asked staff if there was a problem if the Planning Commission were to approve this project as presented Director/Secretary Rous stated that there would not be an issue. The only ramifications would be that geology and engineering would have to be done and approved by the City. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that allowing the applicant to build over the extreme slope allowed them better use of the property Commissioner Long felt that the physical nature of the property convinced him that it would be satisfactory to build over the extreme slope, as this was not a canyon He felt that there was no way to develop this house in a way the owners reasonably wanted without building over the slope He did not feel this would set any type of precedent as this was a very unusual piece of property. Vice Chairman Clark felt that the fact that this was such an unusual piece of property with restricted building area, that was argument for the approval of a Variance Commissioner Vannorsdall asked staff what the affect would be to move the garage forward, closer to the street Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that moving the garage closer to the street would not create additional grading nor does it affect the existing driveway slope. He stated that moving the garage forward would make the distance of the driveway less than 50 feet which would eliminate the need for the 25 -foot turning radius He noted that the proposed garage has a 52 -foot driveway distance. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that it might be easier to allow the garage to stay where it was proposed and waive the code requirement requiring the 25 -foot turning radius Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve Variance No. 455, Height Variation No. 896 and Grading Permit No. 2126, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (7-0). Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that staff would have a Resolution before the Planning Commission for approval at the next Planning Commission meeting He stated that this would put the application over the Permit Streamlining Act deadline and an extension would be needed from the applicant. Ms. Alaga agreed to the extension. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 13 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Paulson asked staff if they felt there should be something on a future agenda addressing the need to add language in the Development Code regarding the ability of the Planning Commission to be able to take action on items in the event where public safety is involved Director/Secretary Rous replied that after speaking to the City Attorney, she felt the Planning Commission had the ability to act accordingly in any case where the Commission or staff felt there was a public safety issue that needed to be addressed, but that the Issue could be clarified with a Code Amendment Vice Chairman Clark suggested, based on past Commission practices, that over time staff gather potential code revisions and bundle them as a package The Planning Commission could then consider the amendments as a package and send the package to the City Council The Commission agreed with the suggestion Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adjourn, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to August 8, 2000. \\MASTADON\Planning\PC\Minutes\2000\20000725 doc Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 14