City Council Minutes 10/14/2003 RPV, City, Council, Minutes, 2003, Meeting, October, 10/14/2003 RPV City Council Minutes for the 10/14/2003 Meeting
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2003

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

FLAG SALUTE

Vice Chairman Mueller led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ATTENDANCE

Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Lyon, Vice Chairman Mueller, and Chairman Long. Commissioner Duran Reed arrived at 7:10 p.m. and Commissioner Tomblin arrived at 8:45 p.m.

Absent: Commissioner Cote was excused.

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Blumenthal, Associate Planner Schonborn, Assistant Planner Luckert, and Recording Secretary Peterson.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The agenda was approved as presented without objection.

COMMUNICATIONS

Director/Secretary Rojas distributed six items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1, one item for Agenda Item No. 2, two items for Agenda Item No. 7, one item for Agenda Item No. 8, copies of two e-mails from pc@rpv.com, and proposed changes to the minutes. He also distributed one item of late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1 and one item of late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items)

None.

CONTINUED BUSINESS

1. Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit, and Site Plan Review Permit (Case ZON2003-00216): 7316 Via Lorado

Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining that on August 26, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, took public testimony, and continued the item based on staff’s recommendation of denial of the project and public concerns raised in written correspondence and oral testimony to allow the applicant additional time to address the issues raised. He stated that the applicant has redesigned the project and explained the scope of the newly designed project. He showed slides depicting the outline of the proposed addition, as well as a line showing the approximate location of the horizon. He stated that with the revisions, and based on the new analysis taken from neighboring properties, staff felt that all of the necessary findings could be made to approve the height variation. Concerning the minor exception permit, even with the proposed revisions to lower the wrought iron, staff did not feel there was any practical difficultly, unnecessary hardship, or inconsistency with the code that would warrant the approval of the minor exception permit, and as such staff was recommending denial of the minor exception permit. Lastly, staff was recommending a conditional of approval that would require the fence be removed or be lowered to a height of 42 inches. Since the property is on a street corner, there is the intersection visibility triangle which would limit the height of fences to 30 inches, unless the Planning Commission finds that it will not cause obstruction of a view to oncoming traffic. He explained that the Director of Public Works has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it will not impede the visibility of traffic coming around the corner, and therefore staff was recommending approval of the site plan review to allow the fence to be 42 inches high in the visibility triangle. Mr. Blumenthal explained that, based on letters and phone calls to staff, there was some confusion about the noticing requirements on the project. He stated that many neighbors felt there would be some type of notice regarding the hearing, but explained that since this item had been continued from a previous meeting there was no public notice required. He further explained that staff did send a copy of the staff report to all interested parties on Thursday, as a courtesy, so that they would be aware of what staff’s position was.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had looked at the privacy concerns from the two adjacent homes on Via Victoria.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff had looked at privacy concerns from 30129 Via Victoria and felt that since the second floor was set back so far from this property and the windows on the side were clearstory windows, there would be no privacy issues.

Vice Chairman Mueller referred to the slides and asked staff how they determined where the horizon line would be, since the site visits had occurred on cloudy days.

Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that in prior photos the horizon line was visible, and staff used the same features in the new photos to approximate where the horizon line would be.

Vice Chairman referred to the slides and felt that the horizon line was actually higher than what was depicted by staff. He asked staff if they had been out to the property on a clear day when the horizon could be seen.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that from the time that the project was resubmitted there had not been a clear day, which is why staff had to use the old photos to extrapolate where the horizon would be.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had done a view analysis from 30133 and 30129 Via Rivera.

Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff did a view analysis from 30133 Via Rivera and determined that the best and most important view was from their living room which had view corridors overlooking the ocean, however in the direction that the project site is, there are already single story homes there and they do not have a view corridor across that site. Regarding the privacy issue, he explained that staff had looked from both 30133 and 30129 Via Rivera and determined that privacy was not an issue because of the distance that the proposed second story addition is set back.

Chairman Long opened the public hearing.

Nabil Salem 7316 Via Lorado (applicant) stated that at the previous public hearing conducted in August the Planning Commission agreed to a continuance so that he could address the issues of concern raised at the meeting. He explained that the project has been redesigned and altered to come up with a final version that takes care of and meets all of the requirements of the City and Planning Commission. He explained that the new design reduces the height of proposed addition by 12.48 feet, reduces the overall size of the proposed addition to 698 square feet, and modifies the wrought iron portion to not exceed a height of 42 inches. He felt that any privacy issues have been addressed, he has minimized any impairment of views, there will be no significant cumulative view impairment, and the size of the new structure will be totally compatible with the immediate neighborhood. He stated that at the previous hearing he had promised not to come back to the Planning Commission until all of the concerns had been addressed, and he felt that he had taken care of all of the key items addressed by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Salem if he has had the opportunity to look at the view from his neighbor’s home and how that proposed structure will impact the view.

Mr. Salem answered that he had looked at the proposed structure from three of his neighbors’ homes. He felt that once his addition was built, the roofline would not exceed the existing single story rooflines in the neighborhood.

Brian Oslin 8621 Bellmead Drive, Huntington Beach, stated that he was the designer of the project. He felt that the changes to the project have been substantial and that the reduction of four feet in height is about all that can be made. He explained that he has reduced the plate height, ceiling height, and the roof pitch. He stated that he has also reduced the width of the second floor addition which, because it is a gable roof, will further reduce the ridge height. Further, the size of the overall addition has been reduced by approximately 700 square feet and eliminated two additions of the first floor.

Commissioner Cartwright asked how many square feet had been reduced from the second floor addition.

Mr. Oslin answered a little over 300 square feet.

Commissioner Cartwright explained that when he had visited the site, the applicant had stated that there was some complication that would make reducing the height of the pilasters very difficult, and asked Mr. Oslin if he agreed with that opinion.

Mr. Oslin explained that pilasters are made of concrete block and in order to reduce the size the pilasters the stucco and glass block inserts would have to be removed, and felt that a lot of the character of the pilasters would be lost, however it could be done.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Oslin about the cumulative view impact and if any other designs had been considered for the proposed roofline. He wondered if the roofline could be oriented to run east west rather than north south.

Mr. Oslin answered that it was an earlier consideration, however it did not work in terms of the layout of the client’s desires.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Oslin if he had considered any other type of articulation to help reduce the mass of the structure as viewed from Via Lorado.

Mr. Oslin answered that he had not considered anything beyond what was presented on the revised plan.

Chairman Long asked Mr. Oslin to clarify his statement regarding running the roofline from east to west, and why it couldn’t be done or why it wasn’t desired by the client.

Mr. Oslin clarified that the roof line could run from east to west however Mr. Salem wished to run it from north to south to allow for views from each of the rooms on the second floor. Further, because of the location of the stairs, an east west orientation would cut the house in half.

Kurt Kreiner 30133 Via Victoria stated that his home is adjacent to the proposed project and that the proposed project will affect his view of the Channel Islands and the coastline, and was therefore opposed to the project. He also felt that there was a privacy issue, as Mr. Salem will be able to look directly into the back of their house from his addition. He stated that Mr. Salem has never been to his property to view the impact of his project to their view. He did not think the proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood and that precedence would be set in allowing this structure to be built.

Commissioner Lyon asked Mr. Kreiner if his lot is situated higher than Mr. Salem’s lot.

Mr. Kreiner answered that his lot is higher than Mr. Salem’s lot and that the neighborhood was set up so that the lots tier down so that there will be views from as many lots as possible.

Commissioner Lyon asked Mr. Kreiner if the deck that currently exists has the same view onto his property as the proposed window will have.

Mr. Kreiner acknowledged that the deck has the same view, however the Salems very rarely use the deck, and noted that the proposed window will be in the family room where the Salems will most likely spend a lot of time.

Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Kreiner where the Channel Islands would be in relation to the proposed ridgeline.

Mr. Kreiner answered that the addition will cover his entire view of the Channel Islands.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Kreiner if the privacy issue being raised was not a new issue, just one that was being intensified by the proposed addition.

Mr. Kreiner stated that was correct, that the privacy issue was being intensified quite a bit.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff if they visited the Kreiner property and took pictures of the view impairment.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff did visit the property at 30133 Via Victoria, however there was not a clear day to take photos. He stated that staff could see view corridors from the living room.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff what they did in situations like this where there is not a clear day and the views could not be analyzed.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that in situations where a resident is claiming view impairment and staff cannot see it because of the weather, staff will state that they could not verify the impairment because of the weather, and then use their best judgment to determine whether there will be an impact. He explained that if it becomes a critical issue, in the past the Planning Commission has continued items to hope for a clearer day.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff if they felt there was any blockage of blue water view from 30133 Via Victoria.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that, as far as staff could tell, there did not appear to be any blockage of the blue water view, however he noted that there would be no way to guarantee that.

Marilyn Knauer 30128 Via Victoria stated that she strongly objects to the proposed project, as it will block the views from her neighbors’ properties. She felt the project was very incompatible with the neighborhood, especially in terms of size.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms. Knauer if her view was directly over the applicant’s property.

Ms. Knauer answered that her view was directly over the Salem’s property.

Steven Goldstein 30123 Via Rivera stated that since he was notified of the new staff findings on October 10, he has been trying to measure the reaction of the homeowners on Via Lorado, Via Victoria, Via Marie Celeste, and Via Rivera. He stated that he visited 42 homes, and of the 30 homes he found people in, 27 people signed a petition in opposition to the proposed project. He felt that this outpouring of interest and concern should serve as a strong indication to the Planning Commission that this project is not welcome in the community. He also felt that this was a rush to judgment, considering the fact that the findings were first sent out to people on the Thursday before the meeting, and many did not receive the staff report until Saturday afternoon with their mail delivery, and some did not receive a staff report at all. He stated that the Planning Commission’s directive to the applicant at the last meeting this was heard, was that the entire package was to be completed and everything required needed to be done by October 2nd, and noted that it was not done until October 9th. He explained that there are two factions in the neighborhood, the neighborhood incompatibility faction is still adamant because of the size of the project, and the view impairment faction is still incensed because they have gone from 50 percent cumulative view impairment to insignificant view impairment in four days time. He did not think the project complied with Section 17.20.30 regarding neighborhood compatibility and scale surrounding the residences. He noted that the staff report states that the proposed residence will be 1,303 square feet larger than the average resident in the immediate neighborhood, and 298 square feet larger than the top end of the range. He questioned how this could be considered compatible. For these reasons, he requested the Planning Commission deny the request for the height variation.

Commissioner Cartwright noted that the staff reports for the meeting go out on Thursday for the public as well as the Planning Commission, and therefore he and the neighbors should not feel singled out regarding the notification. He asked staff what the criteria was for who would receive staff reports

Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that typically staff reports are sent to the Planning Commission, the applicant, and to the property owners. In this case, however, reports were sent to anyone who wrote or phoned in regarding the project. He stated that he was aware that Mr. Ahn was inadvertently left off of the list, and staff hand delivered a report to him Friday.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Goldstein if he agreed with the placement of the horizon line on the staff’s photographs.

Mr. Goldstein did not agree with the placement of the horizon line, and distributed photographs that he had taken.

Brent Goodrich 30143 Via Rivera stated that he did not think there was much time for any of the neighbors to react to the recommendations contained in the staff report. He stated that Proposition M states that its purposes are to protect, enhance, and perpetuate views available to property owners, and these views provide unique and irreplaceable assets. He felt that tonight the Planning Commission would be deciding whether or not they would be setting precedence by approving a trend-setting project. He stated that this project has both a significant cumulative effect upon the views of the neighbors, and a project which is incompatible with the neighborhood. He strongly disagreed with staff’s findings that the proposed structure would no longer cause significant cumulative view impairment. He felt that if a significant number of homes in the neighborhood chose to follow the same approach and add a second story, there would be a massive cumulative impairment of views. He noted that the applicant chose a roof line that ran north to south as opposed to east to west, because it fit in better with his plans to have a view from all of the rooms on the second story. He discussed neighborhood compatibility and noted that this home will be 40 percent larger than the neighborhood average, and 298 square feet larger than the next largest home in the neighborhood. He questioned how this could be considered compatible. Finally, he felt there was a safety issue, in that the pilasters were built in violation of the then existing code. He did not think there was any reason for these pilasters to be grandfathered in at this time. He respectfully requested the Planning Commission deny the project.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Goodrich if the roofline ran east to west rather than north to south, would he be satisfied with that change.

Mr. Goodrich answered that he would not be satisfied with that, adding that he would not accept the proposition that his neighbor is allowed to appropriate any part of his view to improve the value of his property.

Linda Baek 7333 Via Lorado stated that she lives directly across the street from Mr. Salem. She began by explaining that if Mr. Salem made the first story addition without the second story addition it would add up to 3,588 square feet, which is still larger than the average home in the neighborhood. She stated that she purchased her home, not only based on her home but also the entire neighborhood. She felt this second story addition would entirely change the character of the neighborhood. She did not think it was fair or equitable to allow Mr. Salem to get an ocean view to the detriment of his neighbors. She explained that her views are not blocked by the addition, but she does have a privacy issue with the proposed second story addition. She stated that the second story would look directly into her yard. She felt that allowing Mr. Salem to build his addition would establish a precedent for other second story and oversized homes.

Commissioner Duran Reed asked Ms. Baek in what area of her home there would be a privacy concern.

Ms. Baek answered that her child’s bedroom, the living room, the master bedroom, and the main yard area all face directly into the second story addition.

Tracy Ahn 30129 Via Victoria began by stating that she never received a copy of the second staff report. She was concerned with the compatibility issue, and felt the proposal was an unacceptable increase in size compared to immediately surrounding neighborhood. She explained the two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood were built in locations where their tall structures would have a minimal impact on houses in the neighborhood. She stated that location of this project was on a gentle slope with no multiple story homes within quite a few neighboring residences. She stated that driving up Via Lorado from Palos Verdes Drive West, the proposed two-story structure dominates the viewscape and appears out of place. Regarding view impairment, she felt that precedence would be set in allowing this two-story residence in the neighborhood. She did not think the approval of this project met the necessary criteria and urged the Planning Commission to deny the project.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms. Ahn if she had a privacy issue regarding this proposal.

Ms. Ahn responded that she did with the first design, however the new design shows the type of glass that one cannot look out of, and therefore there is no longer a privacy issue.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms. Ahn if she currently has a view from her roof deck onto the Salem’s property.

Ms. Ahn answered that she does not have view onto the Salem’s property, but if the Salems are standing on their deck she can see them.

Heather Oaklander 7321 Via Marie Celeste stated that she agrees with all of the comments from her neighbors. She noted that Mr. Salem had said that he has worked hard to meet his needs as well as those of the City, however there was no mention of meeting the community needs and the neighbor’s needs. She was concerned that Mr. Salem had done so much work without permits and was now trying to get them legalized.

Mr. Yang 30129 Via Rivera strongly agreed with the comments of his neighbors, especially regarding cumulative view impacts. He was concerned with the size of the proposed project and felt it was out of place in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Lyon asked if the modifications made to the design took away the view issue for Mr. Yang.

Mr. Yang answered that the view blockage is not significant from his property, however the second story is clearly visible from his home.

Mr. Salem (in rebuttal) did not feel there was a privacy issue with his neighbors, as there is already an existing deck in the same spot as the proposed windows. He stated that there were no windows facing the property of some of the neighbors concerned with privacy. He felt that shifting the roofline to an east west direction would add windows that would add to the privacy issues. He felt that he had been diligent in informing the neighbors of the changes to his design and his neighbors had not approached him with their concerns.

Commissioner Lyon asked about the window that looked directly into the Kreiner’s property and how the privacy issue could be better addressed.

Mr. Salem responded that the window overlooks the driveway of his neighbor, and not the house. He also stated that his neighbors behind him are far away and not right up to his property. He stated that he would put a type of glass in the window that he cannot look out of.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Salem if the intent of his second story addition was to move the square footage up to the second floor, just to have square footage in the home.

Mr. Salem answered that he needs the additional square footage to complete his home to his satisfaction.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Salem if he was looking for the second story addition for any reason other than square footage.

Mr. Salem responded that he was asking for the second story addition for additional square footage as well as for the view.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked if he was going to gain a view that he really doesn’t have presently.

Mr. Salem answered that the view he currently has is from the deck, which is not living space.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Salem why he could not reorient the ridgeline from north to south to east to west.

Mr. Salem answered that changing the orientation of the addition would make the addition closer to the neighbor and increase privacy concerns.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff if the Building Code requires there be windows upstairs or if skylights would be sufficient.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Building Code has two requirements that would apply in that situation: the bedroom on the second story must have a window to comply with emergency egress requirements as well as the light and ventilation requirements which could not be handled through a skylight.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked if the windows had to be on the east side of the property, or could they be on the north and west side of the property.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that there was no requirement that the windows be on any specific side of the building.

Given what staff said, Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Salem why he would not reorient the ridgeline to minimize view impairment to the neighbors.

Mr. Salem responded that he did not feel that there was a privacy issue as the structure was currently proposed and that reorienting the ridgeline would not minimize view impairment to the neighbors. Further, if he changed the orientation, there could possibly be view or privacy issues from other neighbors.

Chairman Long closed the public hearing.

RECESS AND RECONVENE

At 8:50 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:10 p.m. at which time they reconvened.

CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont.)

Commissioner Duran Reed discussed the Minor Exception Permit stating that she agreed with the staff report regarding the Minor Exception Permit for the wall. Discussing the proposed addition, she did not think that it had been designed in a way to minimize impairment of a view from the neighboring property. She stated that she had gone to several properties to look at the views, and felt that the horizon line was different than what staff depicted on the photographs and that the proposed addition would block portions of the water view. She felt that allowing this proposed second story to be built would set a precedence. She also felt that allowing the second story to be built would cause significant cumulative view impairment. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, Commissioner Duran Reed explained that she was not particularly opposed to two-story homes, but the problem was that driving north on Via Lorado and looking at all of the one story structures, and suddenly coming up to a very large two-story home on the corner lot. She explained, however, that it was not so much the square footage of the home, but more the way the home was designed. She gave credit to the owner and architect for attempting to minimize the size of the home by bringing down the ridgeline, but did not think that it has gone far enough. She suggested recommending a denial of the proposed project.

Commissioner Lyon stated that he has not seen what he would consider a significant view impact with the revised ridgeline, with the possible exception being the Kreiner residence, as he felt his concerns seemed the most valid. He did not think a privacy issue across the public street was valid. He felt that Mr. Salem had been accommodating and cooperative in trying to accommodate the concerns of his neighbors. On the other hand, he was very impressed with so many neighbors coming out with their objections to this project. He stated that he would like to see each alleged view impact, particularly Mr. Kreiner’s, on a clear day. Discussing neighborhood compatibility, he noted that compatibility does not mean that a project has to be identical to those in the neighborhood, and it was not uncommon to approve a project that is larger than the largest home in the neighborhood, and that is not objectionable as long as it doesn’t appear massive and bulky. Therefore, there was an issue for him on compatibility. He further felt that there was a potential significant problem on the cumulative view impact. He wondered if continuing the item to allow the staff and Planning Commission time to see the horizon might be helpful.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that this was a very difficult situation, mainly because it is obvious there are a large number of neighbors who are emotionally involved. He stated that he was conflicted because so many speakers spoke passionately about why they were unhappy about the proposal, however he felt that they also said that it wasn’t so much this proposal but the fact that it would be setting a precedent that would allow subsequent applications to be submitted. He was confident that there was nothing the Planning Commission could do tonight that would set any type of precedent, as every application that comes before the Planning Commission has to stand on its own merit. He felt that the decision might be easier if the horizon line could be clearly seen. He did not think the findings could be made to approve the Minor Exception Permit, and could not support approval. Regarding the privacy issue, he explained that there was already a privacy issue from the deck and it was not clear to him that it would intensify if it were in an enclosed structure that people frequented more often.

Vice Chairman Mueller agreed that the only privacy issue occurred on the south side next to the chimney, and that a privacy issue across a public street was not valid. He discussed the view issues, and noted that in viewing the redesigned silhouette there were two properties where he felt there was view impairment. He stated that any time the view impairment involves blue water view, he considers that somewhat significant. He did not think the proposed addition had been designed to minimize the view impairment. He felt that the intent of the second story in this application was not only to increase space through additional square footage, but to also capture a view. He stated that the applicant has a deck to take advantage of that view, however he is asking to capture and create a view for his property and perhaps take away a small part of his neighbor’s view. He did not think this was a good enough reason to build a second story, especially when looking at the cumulative effect of putting ridgelines that are north/south along that entire street. Therefore, he did not think the proposal was compatible with the intent of the design of neighborhood. Regarding the Minor Exception Permit, because this is a corner lot, he felt the fence should adhere to the guidelines and the pilasters should be reduced in height.

Chairman Long did not think the findings for the Minor Exception Permit could be made and was not inclined to support the approval. He stated that he did not participate in the August 26th hearing, however he has read the minutes. He stated that he has not had a chance to visit the site since the re-design, however he feels he has heard enough and had enough contribution from the other Commissioners, that he can make a determination. He stated that he was not clear one way or the other on the issue of neighborhood compatibility. He agreed that the Planning Commission has approved houses that are larger than the average in the neighborhood, but was concerned that there was no ultimate control on density in the neighborhood compatibility rules. And since there is no control, one cannot point to any rule and say that will apply. Nonetheless, he stated he was opposed to the project mainly because of its impact on views. He did not think that all reasonable effort had been made to minimize the impairment of view, and therefore could not make the appropriate finding. Discussing finding no. 5, he felt that, while it may be the case that no one property has a significant view impact from the project, there is enough of an impact on enough people that, taken as a whole, the impact on the neighborhood is such that he cannot make the finding. Therefore, since he cannot make findings 4 and 5, he cannot vote in favor of the Height Variation Permit.

Vice Chairman Mueller moved to approve the Site Plan Review, deny the Height Variation without prejudice, and deny the Minor Exception Permit with prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Duran Reed. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining.

Chairman Long explained that the Resolution, stating the Planning Commission decision, will come back on the Consent Calendar at the October 28th meeting.

2. Conditional Use Permit No. 119 Rev. "B" (Case ZON2003-00108): 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard.

Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant has requested a 60-day extension in order to allow time to respond to items of staff’s concerns. He stated that the Planning Commission has already granted an extension to the original action deadline and that the maximum extension allowable to the Permit Streamline Act is 90 days, which extended the action deadline to October 17th. He explained that in order to discuss the project in further detail and work out alternatives to the project, the applicant will have to withdraw the current application. Therefore, after consulting the City Attorney, the applicant’s request for an additional 60 days is in violation of the Permit Streamline Act and staff is recommending the Planning Commission hear the item in full at this meeting and render a decision on the project. He added that staff could not positively make all of the findings necessary to recommend approval of the project, and that staff was recommending denial of the application without prejudice.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked if the Planning Commission denied the issue as requested, would that then allow the City to receive applications from the individual antenna providers.

Assistant Planner Luckert explained that Spectrasite is working on behalf of Verizon and AT&T, and felt that he would have to refer the Vice Chairman’s question to the City Attorney.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked if service would be affected if the Planning Commission were to deny the proposed project.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it was staff’s understanding that service would not be affected, as the antennas are currently on the pole and operating, and this was a request to make some changes to the existing service.

Vice Chairman Mueller stated that he did not know when the applicant received the consultant’s report, and asked if the applicant had been given enough time to address the consultant’s comments.

Assistant Planner Luckert answered that according to the letter written yesterday by the applicant, he did not feel he had adequate time to review the report.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there is a lease agreement between the City and specific carriers and amendments can be made to that lease by the City Managers Office and/or the City Council.

Chairman Long asked if there was a lease with this applicant.

Assistant Planner Luckert answered that there was not a lease with Spectrasite.

Director/Secretary Rojas added that in this situation, aside from the lease, there are Conditional Use Permits that the City has issued to individual entities to have antennas on the monopole. He noted that the City is the property owner in this situation, and earlier this year the City Council authorized Spectrasite to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to go through this process.

Chairman Long asked who is authorized under the City’s code to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and what is the precise section of the Code that identifies who is authorized to be an applicant.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that Code Section 17.60 discusses Conditional Use Permits, however he did not believe the section specifically addresses who is authorized to be an applicant for a Conditional Use Permit. He explained that the language of the conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit might address this issue.

Chairman Long opened the public hearing.

William Bennett 2201 Dupont Drive, Irvine (applicant) stated that he was representing Spectrasite Communications. He clarified that Spectrasite Communications manages this existing wireless telephone facility and documentation on their right to manage it is on file in the City Manager’s office. He stated that Spectrasite was requesting an approval to the modification for a collocation on this existing facility. However, due to the late arriving third party review, Spectrasite has not had sufficient time to consult with their carrier clients. He explained that Spectrasite did not wish a denial, as it had always been their intent to work with staff, and they would like to address every issue raised by the third party review and the staff report. Therefore, if it was the inclination of the Planning Commission to deny the project, Spectrasite would like to withdraw the application.

Chairman Long asked staff if the applicant could withdraw the application without the Planning Commission’s approval.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the applicant could withdraw the application.

Chairman Long asked if a withdrawal would resolve staff’s concerns regarding the extension.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that would solve staff’s concern regarding the extension.

Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Bennett when he received the third party consultant’s report.

Mr. Bennett responded that he received it late last week.

Chairman Long closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Cartwright asked what the practical difference was between withdrawing the application and the Planning Commission denying the application.

Assistant Planner Luckert explained that the applicant would have to pay a new fee for the new application. Further, if the Planning Commission were to deny the application, the applicant would have the opportunity of appealing the decision to the City Council. If the applicant were to withdraw the application there would be no appeal process.

Commissioner Cartwright moved to accept the applicant’s withdrawl of the application, seconded by Commissioner Duran Reed. Approved, (6-0).

Commissioner Lyon moved to hear item no. 5 before items 3 and 4 of the Agenda, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright.

Chairman Long suggested an amendment that the Planning Commission accept the withdrawal of item no. 6 and waive the reading of the staff report.

Commissioner Lyon accepted the amendment to the motion.

The amended motion was approved without objection. Therefore the request to withdraw item no 6 was accepted and item no. 5 would be heard prior to items 3 and 4.

Chairman Long noted that, because of the time, it was unlikely that the Planning Commission would hear items 7, 8, and 9 and asked the Planning Commission if they would like to continue those items.

Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she would like to keep item no. 9 on the Agenda, as she has been waiting for this item since July.

Commissioner Duran Reed moved to continue items 7 and 8, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

5. Grading and Site Plan Review Permit – Appeal (Case ZON2003-00039): 30637 Calle de Suenos

Commissioner Cartwright recused himself from this item because of the proximity of his home to this project.

Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He explained the scope of the project. He stated that in the initial analysis of the proposal staff received some concerns about view impact caused by this project. He displayed pictures of the subject lot and noted that the proposed project will impair the view of Catalina Island from 30621 and 30615 Calle de Suenos; however, since the proposal is to grade the project down and the proposed house is within the allowable 16‘/30’ building envelope, staff does not consider the impairment significant. With regards to neighborhood compatibility, staff initially reviewed the proposed project with the other homes in the development. He noted that the ten homes in the immediate neighborhood are in a different zoning district, this proposed home is in the RS-1 zone, the rest in the RS-4 zoning district. Therefore, staff limited the neighborhood compatibility analysis to the homes in the R S-1 zoning district. He explained that staff found the proposed project compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that, based on staff’s analysis, the Director approved the project in July 2003, however on July 31 the property owners from 30621 and 30615 Calle de Suenos filed an appeal. Their concerns were that the proposed project causes view obstruction, the way in which the house will be situated on the lot, and that the house does not comply with setback and neighborhood compatibility. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal thereby upholding the Director’s decision to allow the construction of the house.

Chairman Long opened the public hearing.

Anshoo Gupta 30621 Calle de Suenos (appellant) stated that he has many concerns regarding the project, however he has narrowed those concerns down to two main concerns. He stated that his property is directly next door to the project, but he was not considered in the neighborhood compatibility analysis because he is on a separate survey map. He stated that of all of the view impacts, his property has the most significant view impacts. He felt that was inconsistent with the process of neighborhood compatibility. Secondly, he was concerned that his view of Catalina Island from his primary viewing area will be completely eliminated by the new home. He felt that this would significantly impact his property value and his living style. He showed an aerial photograph showing the homes on the cul-de-sac at Calle de Suenos. He noted the location of each home and the distance from the curb to the front entrance of the home, and the distance from the curb to the back wall of the home. He showed that the proposed house was set back much farther from the curb than any other house on the street, and felt that the house was set back too far from the curb. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the project as proposed so that the house can be redesigned to better fit in with the entire neighborhood and not block his view of Catalina Island.

Commissioner Tomblin felt that there are three or four distinct separate tracts of homes in this development, and asked Mr. Gupta if he didn’t think there was a distinct difference in the lot sizes when comparing his lot to the neighboring lots on Calle de Suenos.

Mr. Gupta stated that he did not know the lot sizes of all of the homes, however he felt the neighbor’s lot is significantly larger than the other lots in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Tomblin stated that the Planning Commission has to not only look at the neighborhood compatibility, but also has to remember that sometimes a particular house has to be considered differently because the lot is much larger by design than the rest of the lots around it. Therefore the Planning Commission also has to be fair to the property owner because he did buy a larger lot so that he could build a larger home.

Mr. Gupta understood that and stated that if this house was set back a little further he would not lose his view of Catalina Island.

Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Gupta if, when he purchased his house, he realized that he was next door to a lot that would eventually be developed and asked if he felt he was guaranteed a Catalina Island view.

Mr. Gupta responded that he knew there would eventually be a house on that lot, however he assumed the house would be similar in nature to the homes in the area and situated in a similar way.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Gupta how big his lot is in comparison to the applicant’s lot.

Mr. Gupta stated that his lot is approximately 60,000 square feet.

Vice Chairman Mueller noted that Mr. Gupta’s home appears to be set a little closer to the street than some of the other homes in his neighborhood, and asked Mr. Gupta if there was any particular reason for that.

Mr. Gupta responded that he did not know, and that Mr. Cartwright had also pointed that out to him.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Gupta if he were to do an addition to his property that might block a neighbor’s view from this separate zoning district, would he then accept their concerns and redesign his addition.

Mr. Gupta answered that if he did something from his property that impedes the view of any of his neighbors, he would respect their objections.

Carl Steadly 30615 Calle de Suenos (appellant) stated that his biggest concern regarding his view was from the living area upstairs from the picture window. He stated that he had the misperception on what a neighborhood is. He felt that neighborhood issues are to keep houses harmonious, compatible, and keeping additions from impacting other neighbors. He stated that the proposed new home sits on a separate survey map known as Panorama Estates, and is therefore not considered to be subject to the stated rules of being harmonious to the twenty closest homes, of which his and Mr. Gupta’s happen to be a part of. He stated that their two homes are the very two homes which will take the brunt of the damage from this project, yet they have been told they have no standing in this issue. He stated that all of the Panorama Estates residents have signed a letter to the effect that they see no impact from the proposed home, but none of them have any view impact as they are down on the other end of the road. He felt that Mr. Cartwright’s home is the only one that has any type of a view impact, and they have managed to preserve a view corridor going from their house directly out. He explained that the lot has a natural angle towards the north, which is accentuated by the fact that it sits on the inside of a 45-degree curve in the road. The house has been pushed to the very rear of the property because of the desire to increase the view spectrum as well as to accommodate the overly large size of the project. He did not think there was any valid argument to have such an abnormally large setback coupled with a four-car garage. He further questioned what the plans are for a wall, how far will the wall extend back, how far out does the pool deck protrude and what is its height, what are the limitations for shrubbery on the property, and what is his recourse considering that he is on a separate survey map and considered non-relevant to the issue. In light of his questions, he suggested that erecting a silhouette at the site so that all could clearly see the extent of the proposed residence. He stated that potential solutions would be to alter the project in any or all of the following combinations: put the garage on the opposite side of the property, move the house closer to the street, remove one of the four car stalls, or modify the house down from 9,000 square feet down to a more normal size. He stated that they are still neighbors regardless of any imaginary line.

Commissioner Tomblin referred to the aerial map and asked Mr. Steadly if he felt his lot is the same size as the subject property.

Mr. Steadly answered that his lot is 27,000 square feet and the subject lot is 37,000 square feet.

Commissioner Tomblin stated that there are three distinct tracts of home in this neighborhood: estate size homes in Panorama Estates, separate custom homes, and a tract of homes where Mr. Gupta and Mr. Steadly live, and that the lots reflect these situations. He felt that the intent of the design of the area was clearly a separate type of design and that when looking at neighborhood compatibility this is why there is a separation of tracts. He stated that Mr. Steadly and Mr. Gupta should have realized when they bought their homes that there would be development on this much larger vacant lot.

Mr. Steadly stated that his main complaint was the placement of the house on the lot.

Jody Rice 6866 Crest Road explained that before he purchased the property on Calle de Suenos he did extensive research on what was buildable on the property. He went to the City to get all of the necessary information, and while the lot was in escrow he had already contacted a geologist and surveyors to make sure what could be done on the property, based on the City guidelines. He stated that he had always taken Mr. Gupta’s views into consideration when designing the house, and that he turned the lot so that it would soften the view that Mr. Gupta will have across his house. He stated that he cannot eliminate the fact that he is going to protrude into his Catalina Island view. He distributed a recent survey he had conducted showing how that view is impacted and how it crosses his lot. Mr. Rice stated that the survey clearly points out that anything built on his lot will have some impact on the views from both appellants’ homes. He explained that he has tried to minimize the impact by staying within the 16/30 foot guideline, he has increase the setback on the very side the appealing parties are concerned about, has addressed the issues of planting and fences, and done everything possible to minimize the impacts. He invited the appellants and the Planning Commission to drive by his current home to see how he has made the style of the home and the landscaping compatible and appreciated by all of the neighbors.

Louie Tomaro 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that he is the architect for the project and reiterated that he and the owners had spent quite a bit of time looking at how to maximize the views given the slope of the lot, keep the grading at a minimum, and minimize view impacts to the neighbors. He stated that he turned the building orientation several times to maximize the views for all of the neighbors. He stated that the two neighbors realized that there would be development on this property and he tried to maintain view corridors as much as reasonably possible. He stated that this is the largest lot in the tract, over 37,000 square feet, and the current location of the building parallels the existing terrain to minimize grading.

Commissioner Tomblin asked if it would be possible to build further down on the lot to help minimize view impairment, as the lot is so large.

Mr. Tomaro answered that the house was originally down on the lot further, but then there was an issue was the neighbors to the south losing their view.

Commissioner Duran Reed asked if the area where the four-car garage is proposed is currently a flat area.

Mr. Tomaro answered that it is flat in that area.

Commissioner Duran Reed asked if everything past that area slopes downward.

Mr. Tomaro noted on the plans a retaining wall approximately one third of the way in from the front of the entryway which is where the cut would happen.

Jon Cartwright 30630 Calle de Suenos stated that he was representing both the Homeowners Association as well as himself, and noted that his home is directly across the street from the proposed project. He explained that he has written two letters to the Planning Commission and both letters asked that the Director’s decision be upheld. He stated that Mr. Rice’s home will impact the view from five residences, three in Panorama Estates and two outside Panorama Estates, and he felt that his view will be impacted the most. He stated that, according to the Code, Mr. Rice has a right to build a 16-foot home on a down sloping lot. Nevertheless, Mr. Rice consulted with his neighbors to design and situate the house in a manner that minimizes view impairment. He stated that the design of the Rice home allows him a view corridor over the Rice property, his neighbor to the south a view corridor, and allows expansive views for the three homes affected on the west side of the street. He stated that the private road, which serves as a common driveway for the residents, is only 34 feet wide and the lots extend to the street. He stated that if Mr. Rice moves his house towards the street it will create a closed hall effect which would kill the whole design concept of Panorama Estates. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision to approve Mr. Rice’s house as proposed. He concluded by saying that the members of the Panorama Estates HOA unanimously approved this project and was particularly pleased with the manner in which it is designed and situated on the lot.

Robert Herkus stated that he did the survey for the property and he was available to answer any questions.

David McInyre 30692 Calle de Suenos was very pleased with the way the home was situated and, based on the topography, did not think the appellant should have expected the house to be built in any other manner. He did not feel the home was too large, based on the size of the lot. He did not think the appellants had enough of a view of Catalina Island to make it a major point of contention and possibly deny the project.

Chairman Long closed the public hearing.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked what the minimum lot size was for an RS-1 lot.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Code requires a minimum 40,000 square foot lot size for an RS-1 zone.

Director/Secretary Rojas added that these lots were approved as a Residential Planned Development (RPD), which set aside some common open space which is owned by the HOA.

Vice Chairman Mueller understood that this lot is the largest on the street, however he did not understand how a 9,000+ square foot house in this neighborhood is considered compatible.

Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the lot is a down sloping lot, with the two-story section towards the rear of the home and the single story section towards the front. He stated that the other homes on the same side of the street are developed in a similar manner, while the homes on the other side of the street are on pad lots. He stated that staff felt this home was compatible because of the design, explaining that when looking at the house from the street, the property will take the appearance of a single story home.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked what the lot coverage requirement is in this neighborhood.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the maximum lot coverage is 25 percent.

Commissioner Tomblin moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2003-46 thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s approval of the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2003-00039), seconded by Commissioner Lyon.

Commissioner Duran Reed discussed neighborhood compatibility, saying she did not have any objections to where the home is situated on the lot, however she was concerned about the size of the structure, as it is substantially larger than the other homes in the neighborhood. She discussed the grading and one of the findings necessary to approve the permit which says that the grading and all related construction does not significantly aversely affect the visual relationship with neighboring properties. She felt this raised the issues of what is the visual relationship with the neighboring property and does it affect a view from neighboring properties. She stated that the City Council has made it very clear that applicants do have the right to build to 16 feet when there is no discretionary review or grading involved. She specifically asked the architect where the grading begins, and the grading begins in the area which impacts the view and the visual relationship to the house at 30621 Calle de Suenos. She explained that she went along the south side of the property at 30621 Calle de Suenos and she felt the new home would be like a great wall from this property, and that visual relationship was something that she felt was significantly adversely affecting the home at 30621 Calle de Suenos. She also felt that this proposed residence would negatively and significantly affect the view from 30621 Calle de Suenos. She felt that the proposed home could be graded down to try to minimize any affects of the visual relationship and views to the neighboring property.

Commissioner Lyon stated the appellants are not in any way disenfranchised, and have the same rights in their zoning district as anyone else does and that the view regulations are identical. He felt that the Rices have an inherent right to build up to 16 feet and that it so happens that the home will obscure a portion of the view of Catalina Island. He felt that the Rices worked very closely with the neighbors to minimize view impacts, and felt that the clear majority of the neighbors have been satisfied by the proposed placement of the residence on the property. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he felt the rules are just and written to be fair. He did not think that including the Gupta house in the neighborhood compatibility analysis would significantly change any conclusions made by staff. He felt that the key to neighborhood compatibility was not the size of the house, but how large it appears. He felt that this house appears relatively small as viewed from the street. He therefore supported denial of the appeal and upholding the Director’s decision of approval.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff to clarify when the new neighborhood compatibility guidelines went into effect and whether the neighborhood compatibility guidelines were to be applied to this project.

Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the new neighborhood compatibility guidelines that require the construction of silhouettes for all new homes went into effect on June 19th of this year, and this project was deemed complete prior to that date so the new guidelines do not apply to this application.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff what prompted them to stay within Panorama Estates when looking at the 10 closest homes.

Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that in past practice staff has limited the immediate neighborhood to properties in the same zoning district and the new Guidelines require it.

Director/Secretary Rojas added that neighborhood compatibility is primarily used to compare the size and look of the home, and there are different standards between different zoning districts, so that is why staff doesn’t believe it’s fair to compare structure sizes between zoning districts.

Commissioner Tomblin felt that this proposed residence was compatible with the neighborhood, as the neighbors have testified, and that building the house further towards the back of the property would have created much more of a view impact to the other neighbors.

The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision passed by a vote of (3-1-2) with Commissioner Duran Reed dissenting, Commissioner Cartwright recused, and Chairman Long abstaining.

Chairman Long explained that he was not able to make a site visit and therefore did not feel he was qualified to vote on this issue, which is why he abstained from the vote.

Vice Chairman Mueller explained that he looked carefully at the view issue and how the proposed home was situated on the lot. His only concern was the size of the house with respect to the neighborhood. He felt that the difficulty was the way the house is situated and the way it looks from the street, and if the house were slightly smaller it would not really change the look of the house from the street. He stated that it was hard to imagine that reducing the size of the house or changing the placement of the house would significantly change the situation. He also felt that the Rices, staff and the Planning Commission had worked hard to find a viable solution for the neighborhood.

As it was after 11:00, Commissioner Duran Reed made a motion to suspend the Planning Commission rules and hear item no. 9

The motion failed due to a lack of a second.

Vice Chairman Mueller moved to suspend the rules to hear item no. 11 and continue the remaining items, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright.

Commissioner Duran Reed moved to amend the motion to hear items 3, 4, 9, and 11, and continue the rest of the items.

The amendment failed due to a lack of a second.

Commissioner Lyon moved to amend the motion to hear items 3 and 4, and reconsider at that time whether or not to hear additional items, seconded by Vice Chairman Mueller. Approved without objection.

CONTINUED BUSINESS (continued)

3. Conditional Use Permit (Case ZON2003-00282): 6510 Ocean Crest Dr.

Commissioner Lyon was recused, as his residence is within 500 feet of this project.

Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and noting that staff had concerns originally because of the way the mock-ups were constructed in comparison to the photo simulations. He explained that the applicant has adjusted the mock-ups to more accurately reflect what would be install, however staff still has concerns about the height of the mock-ups. The applicant has expressed a willingness to work with staff on an alternative design and was asking that the Planning Commission provide input on the proposed design and alternatives. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission provide feedback to the applicant and continue the item to November 11, 2003.

Commissioner Cartwright asked if the applicant was looking for alternative solutions to the antennas.

Associative Planner Blumenthal explained that in order to get the coverage needed, it has become apparent that the proposed antennas would not be viable, noting that to lower them enough and locate them on the roof to meet what the photo simulations were showing would not give them enough coverage. Therefore, the applicant was submitted alternative design ideas to the Planning Commission to see which one would be the most feasible, and then bring that design to staff with an analysis.

Chairman Long opened the public hearing.

Adan Madrid, Trillium Telecom Services, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Seal Beach stated that he has worked with his architect to come up with three design options for the antennas, which he distributed to the Planning Commission. He felt that options A, B, and C were all significant improvements to what is currently proposed. He stated that all three options would be compatible with the apartment building, however option A is the preference of Trillium Telecom. He explained that option A represents a design that has the least impact to the existing building and the tenants and is the most benign type of installation that can be offered on the building.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked if these proposed options would provide the same coverage.

Mr. Madrid answered that the options would provide the same service and that even though the antennas are lower they meet the same coverage objectives.

Vice Chairman Mueller stated that the antennas have blended into the architecture on one side of the building, and asked Mr. Madrid, if he used the same architecture on both sides, would it match the architecture on all sides of the building.

Mr. Madrid answered that was an issue he would be happy to explore further.

Vice Chairman Mueller again asked about the coverage of the antennas if they were to be placed on the side of the building and not on the top as originally proposed.

Mr. Madrid explained that in this particular case the height of the antennas (in the chimneys) was chosen to avoid blockage from the edge of the roof and by placing the antennas on the side of the building this issue would go away while still maintaining the coverage needed for the antennas.

Vice Chairman Mueller pointed out that if the height of the antennas is an issue and directly related to view obstruction, then placing the antennas on the side of the building would be preferred.

Commissioner Cartwright felt that all of the options were feasible and that the Planning Commission would want the option that has the minimum visual impact, and asked Mr. Madrid which option that would be.

Mr. Madrid answered that option A would have the least visual impact.

Commissioner Cartwright suggested that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to work with staff to come up with an option that would have the least visual impact.

Commissioner Tomblin moved to continue the item to the meeting of November 11, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Lyon recused.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

4. Conditional Use Permit (Case ZON2003-00283): 7000 Los Verdes Drive

Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the project consisted of the replacement of an existing light standard with a new light standard that would accommodate two panel antennas. He stated that staff has determined that all of the necessary findings could be made and therefore recommends approval of the application. He noted that one of the standard conditions of approval had been left out and that the following condition would be added: "The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the improved plans or any of the conditions, if such modifications shall achieve the same results as would strict compliance with said plans or conditions.

Commissioner Tomblin asked if the there would be a precedence set because no mock-up was required for this project.

Associate Planner Schonborn stated that there was a photo simulation for the project that was included in the staff report and that there is a mock-up in the sense that there are two panels on the existing pole since the new pole will be at the same height and location as the existing.

Director/Secretary Rojas added that there is a condition that requires the applicant to obtain a building permit for the pole, and the building department will be able to verify the height and width of the new pole.

Vice Chairman Mueller asked if lowering the light would still provide adequate lighting to the parking area.

Associate Planner Schonborn answered that lowering the light would still provide adequate lighting to the area.

Chairman Long opened the public hearing.

Adan Madrid Trillium Telecom Services, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Seal Beach, stated the he concurred with the staff recommendations and the conditions of approval. He felt that the new pole would be compatible and consistent with the other light standards in the parking lot, and requested the Planning Commission approve the project.

Chairman Long closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Lyon moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 20030-47, thereby approving Case No. ZON2003-00283 as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Mueller. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Duran Reed abstaining since she did not visit the property.

Commissioner Duran Reed moved to suspend the rules to hear agenda item no. 9, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Lyon, Cartwright, Vice Chairman Mueller, and Chairman Long dissenting.

ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS

11. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of October 28, 2003

Commissioner Lyon stated that he would not be at the October 28th meeting.

Commissioner Duran Reed requested that agenda item no. 9 be put first on the continued business items for the October 28 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:18 a.m.