Loading...
PC MINS 200010240 APPROVED 11/14/00 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Building, 27301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Vannorsdall led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Cartwright, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, Chairman Lyon. Commissioner Mueller arrived at 7 15 p m Absent* Commissioner Long (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objection, Chairman Lyon approved the Agenda as presented COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that the City Council had approved an addendum to the EIR consultant contract for the Long Point project and approved an EIR consultant contract for the Marymount College protect He also reported on the City Council action regarding the Brown Act and sub -committees Director/Secretary Rojas distributed two photo items regarding Agenda Item No 3 and noted four items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No 2 Chairman Lyon asked if the four letters were in support of the protect and if they were, in substance, the same as the multiple letters the Commission had already received Staff responded that the letters were all supportive of the project and were similar to the letters already received The Commission agreed that it was not necessary to distribute the letters, CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of October 10, 2000 Commissioner Vannorsdall noted a correction to his statement on page 12. Commissioner Mueller asked that page 6, paragraph 2 of the minutes be revised to include additional comments he had made. Commissioner Mueller noted that on page 14 and 15 the minutes did not reflect comments he had made and requested these comments be included. Vice Chairman Clark noted that on page 10 of the minutes his comment was not clear and asked staff to clarify the paragraph There being no objection, Chairman Lyon approved the minutes as amended. (6- 0). 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 158 — Revision 'C', Coastal Permit No. 94 — Revision 'A', Enroachment Permit No. 32 and Sign Permit No. 1096: RPV Associates, represented by Robert Katherman, Tract No. 46628, Palos Verdes Drive West and Hawthorne Boulevard. Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He gave a brief summary of the original approvals and the two previous revisions to the Conditional Use Permit. He then explained the current proposal. He stated that staff had reviewed the tract perimeter fencing and the proposed solid sections of wall. He explained that the proposed solid sections amount to less that 4 percent of the total tract perimeter fencing Staff reviewed the location and height of the proposed solid wall sections from both public and private property, and believes that they will not have significant impacts on views. Therefore, staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit No 158 — Revision 'C'. In addition, Mr. Fox stated that the temporary and permanent signs proposed in conjunction with the solid wall sections would be consistent with City standards for such signs Therefore, staff recommended approval of Sign Permit No. 1096. Mr. Fox then discussed the proposed manned tract entry observation booths. He explained that staff had notified the developer that these booths would be inconsistent with the original findings of Coastal Permit No 94 The developer erected temporary silhouettes of both booths to assist in assessing the view impact He noted that the Coastal Specific Plan identifies the entire frontage of the Oceanfront project as a sensitive view corridor Staff determined that the Calle Entradero booth would impair indirect ocean views from both north and southbound Palos Verdes Drive West and the Via Vicente booth would impair direct ocean views from the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 2 Drive West. He stated that staff believed that if the proposed booths were shorter and located farther back from the intersection they may avoid infringing on these view corridors However, as currently proposed by the developer, they are not consistent with the City's Coastal Specific Plan Mr Fox further commented that staff had concerns with the psychological barrier to entry created by the proposed booths Staff felt the size and location of these booths, in addition to the security personnel in the booths and the decorative, non-functioning gates, would discourage public access to the community and public coastal area He stated that staff felt that if the booths were smaller and made less imposing they might create less of a psychological barrier to entry He stated that in recent conversations with the developer, they had indicated that alternative designs to the booths were not an acceptable option Mr Fox stated that staff believed the proposed booths were not consistent with the intent of the coastal access policies of the Coastal Act. He briefly explained that these booths would also require an Encroachment Permit and reviewed the standards for considering an Encroachment Permit and the five findings that must be made He noted that three of the required findings could not be made Therefore, staff recommended denial of Coastal Permit No 94 Revision 'A' and Encroachment Permit No 32 for the two tract entry booths and related improvements Mr Fox noted that just prior to the meeting the developer had notified staff that they were considering modification of the location of the booths Finally, Mr Fox noted that there was increased public interest and concern over the existing restrictions to vehicular access to the blufftop loop road and the off-street parking area in the development. He stated that staff has confirmed with the City Attorney that the blufftop loop road is a dedicated public road and within the City's purview to require the developer to open the road and the parking area for public use at this time As such, staff recommended adding a condition of approval to the draft resolution requiring the developer to open the blufftop loop road prior to construction of any approvals granted tonight or within 30 days of the City's final action on this application, whichever is sooner Commissioner Mueller discussed the finding made by staff on page 7 of the staff report, item 2 regarding the public health and safety concerns regarding traffic impacts He asked staff if they had considered night circumstances, particularly at Hawthorne and Palos Verdes Drive West. He stated that this type of booth most likely would require rather strong lights at night that he felt may shine toward Hawthorne Boulevard and into the eyesight of traffic coming down Hawthorne Boulevard Senior Planner Fox stated there was no specific lighting plan that was proposed as part of the application, however there are provisions in the Development Code that require exterior lighting on structures to be installed and directed in such a manner as to illuminate only the property on which it is located and will not create a traffic hazard or nuisance Commissioner Cartwright asked staff how many letters of correspondence they had received that were in favor and against the project. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 3 i Senior Planner Fox answered that a total of 25 letters had been received There were 22 letters submitted as late correspondence, 19 of which were in favor and 3 in opposition. There were also 3 letters of opposition included with the staff report Vice Chairman Clark stated that when the project was originally approved it was made very clear by the Planning Commission that public access must be provided to the area He further stated that when he visited the site there was no indication that there was public parking available. There was no signage and no parking stalls painted in the parking lot. He did not think the public would have any idea that they had the ability to park there He asked staff what the specific requirements were relative to the parking lot and what is staff proposing tonight in context to this parking area. He further asked why staff was proposing additional conditions to this approval when, in fact, these conditions were in the original conditions of approval. Senior Planner Fox answered that the specific requirements from the Conditions of Approval were that the parking area was to have 25 marked spaces, which has not yet been done. There are also 2 on -street pockets available that have 4 or 5 spaces each for parking Staff is recommending additional conditions to require the developer to complete these improvements at this time Mr Fox stated that these conditions were being added to this approval to expedite the improvement and completion of the roadway He explained that typically, in a subdivision, public streets are not accepted by the City's Public Works Department as being complete until after all of the homes are built. Commissioners Paulson, Vannorsdall, and Cartwright noted that they had been denied access to the development over the weekend by the security personnel at the site The security guards had stated that the City had forbidden public access to the area. Commissioner Paulson felt that the initial public hearing and discussions should concentrate on what has been submitted to the city. If the developer had alternatives to consider then that should be considered as a separate matter The commission agreed. Vice Chairman Clark moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Robert Katherman 19300 S Hamilton Street, Gardena (representing the developer) began by explaining it was the security company's understanding that the Public Works Department had told them vehicles were not allowed on the coastal loop road at this time He felt that the developer would be more than happy to open the road up this weekend as long as the City accepts the road for public use and liability He explained that the observation booths were part of the overall enhancement of the two entranceways into the development Mr. Katherman explained that the booths were planned to provide a feeling of security and public safety for the residents but also an aesthetic ambiance to individuals entering the subdivision. He agreed that there was a Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 4 better location for the structures to be placed He distributed renderings showing the booths moved back from Palos Verdes Drives West approximately 100 and 130 feet respectively, resulting in the booths being at a lower elevation. Regarding public access, Mr. Katherman agreed that signs needed to be posted for the public. He discussed the Coastal Act specified that the time, place, and manner of public access could be regulated and the conditions of the Coastal Permit had conditions requiring the public parking areas be closed at dusk. He felt it was important to balance the rights of the public to access the coastal area and the rights of the private property owners to have public safety and health preserved. Mr Katherman suggested the Commission allow the developer to relocate the silhouette to the new proposed location to allow staff and the Planning Commission to evaluate the new location. In answer to Commissioner Mueller's questions, Mr Katherman explained that the booths would have lights, but noted that the intersection is already lit with streetlights and the booth would not be any brighter than the streetlights Commissioner Mueller asked if it was the responsibility of the guard to determine who the occupant of the car was at the time they entered the development, and if so would the guard need some type of high intensity light to see into the car Mr Katherman responded that he felt it was the responsibility of the guard at night, given the condition that public parking is closed after dark. However there was no intention to have any type of high intensity lighting at the booth Commissioner Paulson asked why the guard booths had to be larger than the city development code of 12 feet. Mr Katherman answered that the developer had considered heights of 12, 14 and 15 feet The idea was to design something aesthetically pleasing in it's architectural features The developer and designer felt the proportionality of the building looked best at 14 feet Commissioner Paulson asked if the same rational applied to the size of the building. Mr. Katherman answered that it did He noted that the building had to house a specific size restroom that was handicapped accessible Commissioner Vannorsdall asked who would provide the security and enforce the closure of the trails at night Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it would be the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. He noted that the private security force could only inform people on the trails that, per City regulations, the trails were closed. If the people would then not leave the sheriff's department would have to be called Commissioner Cartwright noted that the security booth at the Island View development adhered to the 120 square foot requirement set by the City Development Code. He Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 5 then pointed out that in the staff report's discussion of the security booths it was clearly stated that, though the booths would be manned, there was no intention for the guards to stop anyone from gaining access to the development. He asked for clarification on that point Mr. Katherman stated that staff was unaware of the intention to stop people after dusk. He stated that was his suggestion based on current operative conditions of the Conditional Use Permit He stated it was not the developer's intent to have the guards stop anyone from entering the subdivision during daylight hours. He felt that the guards could stop people after daylight hours since the park access and parking was closed Commissioner Paulson stated that these were public roads and not access restricted, twenty-four hours a day He further stated that non-functional, ornamental gates sent the wrong message to the public. He felt that most people would feel the gates were there to keep the public out. Vice Chairman Clark suggested moving the observation booths from the entry points to the development to the entry point at the interior streets leading to the residences This would eliminate the psychological barrier to entry into the development while enhancing the sense of security for the residents without actually restricting public access. Mr Katherman stated that the developer had considered this option. He stated he had talked to some homebuyers regarding this option and they felt very strongly that the booths remain at the entry to the development. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the developer had considered un -manned booths with cameras to record the entries into the development. Mr. Katherman responded that it had not been an option. Ken Heintz, 59 Paseo de La Luz, stated that he was speaking on behalf of all of the residents of Oceanfront Estates, which happens to be his family, since he was the only resident in the tract. He was very clear that the observation booths were not part of the plans when he purchased his home and it was not a condition of his buying the home. However, after living in the home he has discovered that nobody can find his home and it would be helpful to have someone in the booth to give directions. He was very aware that the roads in the development were open to the public and had never been told they would be closed off or made private He supported the idea of the booths and felt the community would appreciate the help they could receive from the guards in the booths He felt it would enhance the community to have the booths near the street to identify the development. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Heintz for his comments on the suggestion of moving the booths to the internal streets leading to the residences Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 6 Mr Heintz responded that if the booth is too far down the road you will pass the community before you see it. He felt that something closer to the Palos Verdes Drive West would help identify the community If signs were used to identify the community that would satisfy him. Jack Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive, stated that he was a real estate broker and felt that what the developer had built and was proposing to build was aesthetically pleasing. He felt it was an enhancement to the entire city He felt that moving the booths back from the street would work and did not think the height of the booths was too tall Al D'Amico, 2303 Rue Le Charlene, stated that he was very pleased with the project. He commented that he had looked at other projects the developer has done in the state and each has a magnificent entrance and guardhouse and was very tastefully done He felt this may be the most exclusive housing development in the United States and perspective buyers in this price range expect to have exclusivity, privacy, and security. He felt this development has the cards stacked against it Having public access, public parking, public streets, and no security would lead him to believe that a buyer in this price range may overlook this project He felt that the guard booths at the entrance would help to guarantee the success of the project He pointed out that within the last 5 years in the $2 to $4 million price range, only 85 homes have sold on the peninsula Of that, only 5 percent were in Rancho Palos Verdes He did not think the neighborhood would like this to turn into a blighted, oceanfront dirt pit. He felt this would hurt the surrounding property values He felt that the project needed to be a success and a slight view impairment was a small price for the neighborhood to pay. Jim Zappulla, 7 Santa Bello Road, Rolling Hills Estates stated that he had been selling real estate on the peninsula for 23 years. He was very much in favor of the project and felt that setting the guard booths back from the street would not hurt the project Vince Kikugawa, 30655 Palos Verdes Drive East, stated that he was a future homeowner in the development. He stated that he did not have any preconceived ideas of a guardhouse at the entrance. However, from a homeowners viewpoint he felt the booths would significantly add to the project. He did feel that moving the booths to the interior streets was a good alternative. He felt that project was very aesthetically pleasing and a pleasant addition to the City Kermit Olson, 30625 Rue Langlois, stated he had lived in the City for over 30 years. He felt the booths at the entrances were very aesthetically pleasing and was very much for the project. Ron Blackwelder, 30531 Rue Langlois, stated that he was very supportive of the process involved with the project He felt the developer had made an effort to reach out to the surrounding neighborhoods He was concerned with the view loss because of the booths and was optimistic that a solution could be worked out Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 7 Dale Levander, 30429 Via Cambron, stated that as the tract developed over time houses in the tract would be easier to find. He stated that his main concerns were the booths non-functioning gate He did not feel they were appropriate. Virginia Leon, 30413 Via Cambron, stated she was very much against the project. She felt the area was a viewing area and little by little the developer has encroached onto this area. She felt the guard booths and proposed gates were much too large Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, questioned why the developer was proposing this project now and not in 1992 when they received their original approvals. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9 00 p m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9 15 p m at which time they reconvened and continued the pubic testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT.) Jerry Flynn, 30573 Rue Langlois, was very impressed with the way the meeting was being run and the process that was being followed for this protect. He stated he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. He stated that he had read an article in the Daily Breeze regarding the project and noted a comment made by the developer that the purpose of the booths were to be sufficient to intimidate crooks. He did not think there was much crime in the area He was pleased to hear the signs would soon be up for the public He did not think the manned guard booths were an issue He stated he had contacted the Sheriff's Department and was informed that any private security person could not stop a vehicle or person on a public road If they did so they would be violating the Fourth Amendment, violating the Vehicle Code, and violating the City's contract with the County He questioned whether the booths were necessary or were a marketing tool. Gar Goodson, 2275 W. 25th Street, San Pedro (representing the Coastal Conservation Coalition) stated that the organization has fought tenaciously to preserve public access along the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline He was extremely disappointed that these guard booths are even being considered. He felt it was a ploy to keep the general public away from the development He stated that the project was unacceptable from an environmental standpoint. He stated that the Coastal Conservation Coalition would like to insist that pubic access signage be posted along Palos Verdes Drive West as soon as possible He felt the idea of moving the booths to the interior streets closer to the houses was a good idea and made much more sense and supported that approach Marlys Lindenmuth, 6104 Scotmist Drive, stated that as a member of the public she did not want to see 6 -foot perimeter fencing, the massive planting that will block the ocean view, or any structure that will impede her view of the ocean. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 8 Robin Lynch, 30413 Via Cambron, stated that the booths would impede her view of the ocean and were directly in the center of her view from her backyard. She felt the booths were unnecessary and a blight to the City. Mike O'Sullivan, 30466 Via Cambron, was concerned about the intimidation factor the booths presented to the public and with the view impairment of the coastline. Commissioner Paulson asked Mr O'Sullivan if he had any direct view impact from his home. Mr. O'Sullivan answered that he did not have any view impact from his home. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing Vice Chairman Clark stated that the Planning Commission was charged with balancing the rights of the property owner and the rights of the public and their access to the coast. He felt that this application for the guard booths, as proposed, presents to the members of the public a feeling of a security compound as opposed to an area that is open to the public for access. He suggested the Planning Commission provide specific input to the developer, based upon input received during the public hearing and the Commissioner's observations, and direct the developer to re -analyze the project and return to the Planning Commission at a future date He felt that part of the specific direction should be for the developer to fully analyze the alternatives proposed for the guard booths to be relocated from the main entrances to the interior artery streets adjacent to the residences He also felt the Commission should require proper signage regarding public access and public parking. Commissioner Paulson agreed the project should be continued for further evaluation. He felt the City, rather than the developer, should take responsibility to chain off the parking lot after dark He stated that there were many liability issues to be considered when using private security personnel on public streets, and the developer may want to consider other security alternatives. Commissioner Cartwright agreed with the comments previously made He complimented the developer for trying to make the entrance to the subdivision as pleasant as possible. He had concerns over view impairment and the barrier to pubic access and encouraged the developer to consider options to the locations of the booths. He was also very concerned about security personnel stopping people going into the development. He was in favor of continuing the application to give the developer an opportunity to reevaluate the proposal Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed that the area was open to the public and there should be nothing to imply that it was a private development He thought the idea of moving the booths to the interior streets may be possible and encouraged the developer to consider it Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 9 Commissioner Mueller felt that the development was an asset to the community and complimented the developer He was concerned about the location of the guard booths and encouraged the developer to consider alternate locations For safety reasons he encouraged some type of portable barrier, rather than a chain, to close the public parking lot at night. Chairman Lyon summarized that the Commission felt the item should be continued to the next meeting and give specific direction to the applicant as to what the Commission was looking for He did not think there was an objection to the proposed signage or the fence and that the Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to approve Conditional Use Permit 158 Revision 'C' and Sign Permit No 1096 He felt the key points were view obstruction from neighboring properties, alternate security concepts rather than security observation booths, and considering moving the security booths to an alternate location He did not think the height of the booths was a major concern as long as it did not impair a view and was aesthetically pleasing He suggested that if the new location of the booths was going to be flagged, it should be flagged at both 14 feet and 12 feet so the Commission and public could see if there was a significant difference in view impairment. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that he would not support the proposed non-functional gates that were proposed Commissioner Cartwright agreed and would like to see the non-functional gates eliminated Commissioner Paulson agreed Commissioner Paulson questioned the 6 -foot fence He asked for clarification on how it was measured, as he thought there was only one area that was 6 -feet in height. Senior Planner Fox clarified that there was only a small section of the fence that was 6 - feet in height, which was by the fountains Vice Chairman Clark added that some of the vegetation planted along Palos Verdes Drive West was inappropriate in terms of the height it could reach He felt the vegetation should be reviewed relative to its potential to block views, as it was in a significant view corridor for the City Commissioner Paulson requested that the staff report to the Commission at the next meeting and discuss the status of the public parking area and the public access to the development. Vice Chairman Clark moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of November 14, 2000 and direct the developer to consider specific changes to the project which include: moving the observation booths to an alternative location; silhouetting the new booths at 12 and 14 feet in height; considering alternate security concepts to observation booths, addressing the current foliage along Palos Verdes Drive West; considering alternate heights and dimensions of the Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 10 • 11 security booths; and installing proper signage to notify the public of the public access; seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (6-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 218: Verizon Wireless, represented by Whalen & company, 6507 Ocean Crest Drive (Ocean Crest Apartments) Commissioners Paulson and Vannorsdall and Chairman Lyon stated they lived within 2,500 feet of the project, but would receive no financial benefit from the project and therefore need not recuse themselves from this item or item No 4 Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He reviewed the proposed project. He explained that staff could make all necessary findings for the Conditional Use Permit and was consistent with the wireless communications antenna development guidelines of the City. He stated that staff did receive one piece of written correspondence regarding the project concerning the radio frequency emission He reminded the Commission that frequency emissions were not within the City purview to consider or regulate. Therefore, staff recommended the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. John Koos 357 Van Ness Way #150, Torrance (representing Verizon Wireless) stated he agreed with all of the items and staff recommendations of the staff report Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-37, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 218 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (6-0). 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 191 — Revision `B' and Variance No. 478: AT&T Wireless, 6507 Ocean Crest Drive (Ocean Crest Apartments) Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report He reviewed the proposed project and location of the panel antennae He explained that staff was able to make all applicable findings for the Conditional Use Permit. He noted that AT&T proposed a small equipment cabinet along the street setback on Hawthorne Boulevard, which requires a Variance application Staff could make all findings for the Variance and included a condition to screen the mechanical equipment with foliage consistent with existing foliage Therefore, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance Rob Searcy 18257 San Fernando Mission Blvd , Northridge (representing AT&T Wireless) agreed with the staff report and recommendations He explained the reasons Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 11 for the location of the equipment and how AT&T would use foliage and color to hide the equipment. Chairman Lyon noted that Verizon currently had an antenna on the budding providing coverage to the west of the location. He noted that AT&T did not provide coverage west of the location and questioned why they could not also locate an antenna on the roof to provide coverage to the west. Mr. Searcy explained that AT&T could not locate on the roof, as PacBell and Nextel were already located there and there was a separation factor to consider. He stated if was very difficult to provide coverage in residential neighborhoods, especially those in hilly topography Chairman Lyon commented that residents on the west side of the hill would be very happy to start receiving a signal on that side of the hill Mr Searcy stated that he would talk to AT&T and tell them that he has identified a need in the City for better coverage. Commissioner Mueller asked if the plan before them was a master plan from AT&T Mr Searcy answered that wireless telecommunications can usually look out 12 to 24 months into the future They are a response generated industry that changes with the demands of their customers The plan before the Commission was the most current master plan Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adopt P.C. Resolution NO. 2000-38, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 191 — Revision `B' and Variance No. 478 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (6-0). 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 196 — Revision'A': Pacific Bell Wireless, 28041 Hawthorne Boulevard. Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report He explained the original Conditional Use Permit and the proposed amendment He stated that staff determined all six findings for the Conditional Use Permit could be made, as well as the findings required for the wireless communication antenna guidelines adopted by the Planning Commission. He stated there were no public comments submitted to the City regarding the project. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the project. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Douglas Kearney 18500 Van Karman Ave Suite 870, Irvine (representing Pac Bell Wireless) stated he was available for any questions Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 12 Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing Commissioner Paulson moved to adopt P C Resolution No 2000-39 thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 196 — Revision `A' as presented, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall The meeting was adjourned at 10 48 p.m. W \PC\Minutes\2000\20001024 doc Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Page 13