CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
Commissioner Vannorsdall led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, and Recording Secretary Peterson.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Without objection, the agenda was approved as presented.
Director/Secretary Rojas distributed 3 items of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 2 and 2 letters of correspondence relating to Agenda Item No. 4. He also reported that staff had received two written requests for continuances, one from the applicant for Agenda Item No. 2 and the other from the applicant for Agenda Item No. 4.
Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the Council had unanimously denied the use of Upper Point Vicente land for the Long Point project.
Commissioner Long reported that he had received a communication from the applicant of Agenda Item No. 3 inviting him to visit the site. The other Commissioners acknowledged they had received a similar communication.
Commissioner Mueller reported that he had met with Seaview residents to look at the view from their properties and how the proposal on Yacht Harbor would affect those views.
1. Minutes of October 9, 2001
Commissioner Long asked that a comment he had made stating that the Chairman had followed all applicable rules be added to page 8 of the minutes. He noted a clarification of page 12 of the minutes. He asked the third paragraph on page 17 be clarified and noted a typo in the next paragraph. He also asked that the 5th paragraph on page 17 have language added for clarification. He asked that on page 18 of the minutes a comment be added to the fourth paragraph. Finally, he asked that the paragraph on page 20 regarding his comments on paths be simplified.
Lenee Bilski 4255 Palos Verdes Drive South distributed a letter to the Commission regarding errors in the staff report and minutes.
Chairman Lyon directed staff to review the letter and if any of the requested changes are verified to be correct, to make the appropriate changes to the minutes.
Commission Long requested the minutes be continued to the November 13, 2001 meeting and the Commission agreed.
2. Coastal Permit No. 170, Grading Permit No. 2260, Coastal Permit No. 172, Grading Permit No. 2281: Eric Johnson, 2 Yacht Harbor Drive.
Senior Planner Fox stated that the applicant had requested the item be continued to the meeting of November 27, 2001 and was not in attendance at the meeting.
Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the public hearing had been continued to this meeting and if there were individuals who wished to speak on the item, they had the right to do so.
Senior Planner Fox presented a brief staff report summarizing that the Planning Commission, at the previous hearing, had directed the applicant to construct a silhouette of the ridgeline and had decided to consider the separate applications for the house and road realignment together as one application. He noted that the silhouette was not yet erected. He discussed how the road realignment affects how the height of the proposed structure is measured. He noted that the road realignment will allow the proposed home to be on a down slope lot and the 16 foot building height limit would be measured from the average elevation at the front setback line from realigned Yacht Harbor Drive. He stated that if Yacht Harbor Drive remained in its current alignment the property would be considered an upslope lot and the 16-foot building height would be measured from the highest point to the existing grade that would be covered by the structure. He noted that the public notice had indicated that the proposed structure would measure 16 feet in height, unless the actual maximum proposed height would be 12 feet. He stated that neighbors have expressed concern about geological landslide issues and explained that the City Geologist has conceptually approved the project and there is no development proposed within the landslide moratorium portion of the property. He stated there had been an analysis prepared by the applicant regarding vehicle headlights and the affects of those headlights along the realigned portion of Yacht Harbor Drive. He noted that the analysis demonstrated that from the steepest part of the descending roadway the headlights would not create significant impacts on the homes in Seaview, given the difference in elevation and the existing foliage. He also noted that Yacht Harbor Drive was a private street that serves a fairly small residential community and expected the amount of nighttime traffic would be fairly small.
Commissioner Long asked what portion of the 822,000 square foot lot was at a comparable elevation to the proposed building pad.
Senior Planner Fox answered that there were approximately 4 acres on the site that were landward of the structure setback line and outside of the moratorium area. He stated that the remaining area was either seaward of the setback lines or in the moratorium area.
Commissioner Mueller addressed the nighttime traffic on Yacht Harbor Drive. He stated that the Portuguese Bend Club has a number of members and asked if staff knew how many members there were. He also asked if these members were taken into account in the nighttime headlight analysis.
Senior Planner Fox stated there were 51 homes in the Portuguese Bend Club but he did not know how many members there were. He stated the headlight analysis was prepared by the applicant and demonstrated that there would not be a significant impact on the homes in Seaview.
Commissioner Long asked staff if they had considered looking at the structure/lot ratio and assessing neighborhood compatibility by looking only at the portion of the lot that bears some relationship to the house as opposed to the entire lot area.
Senior Planner Fox stated he had not done that but certainly could do so.
Commissioner Long questioned why the Commission would consider this application without a height variation because of a proposed, but not yet approved, road alignment.
Senior Planner Fox stated that the realignment of the road was the second portion of the application when originally brought before the Commission. He stated that the applicant had submitted two separate applications. The Planning Commission had stated at the last meeting that they were not interested in hearing the separate projects but would rather hear them as one project.
Commissioner Cartwright asked if Yacht Harbor Drive was to be relocated with the Transamerica application.
Senior Planner Fox answered that the road would have remained in approximately the same location, with just a slight realignment.
Commissioner Mueller stated he had received a communication from the Seaview residents stating that there would be some modifications to the proposed plan. He asked staff if they were aware of what those changes might be.
Senior Planner Fox stated he was not aware of the specific modifications to the plan.
Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.
Diane Weinberger 4206 Exultant Drive stated she was the president of the Seaview Residents Association. She stated that it was obvious from the discussion of the Commissioners that this was not an average single family lot size and not an average single family house size. Because of that, she felt it was important to flag the structure outline rather than just the ridgeline.
Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the Planning Commission had, at the last meeting, directed the applicant to flag only the ridgelines.
Commissioner Long stated that he had not visited the site before the last meeting, but has now since been to the site. He felt the property had serious problems with neighborhood compatibility and the chance that he could be persuaded it was compatible without seeing the entire structure flagged was very remote.
Chairman Lyon understood that it would be an economic hardship for the applicant to flag the entire structure because part of the structure goes over what is now the existing road.
Vice Chairman Clark agreed with Commissioner Long’s concerns with neighborhood compatibility and the need to flag the entire structure.
Chairman Lyon asked staff to work with the applicant to find a way to flag the structure that would avoid encroaching onto the roadway.
Commissioner Mueller was concerned that the applicant was changing the project and ridgeline and felt the Commission should reconsider their decision about flagging only the ridgeline.
Commissioner Paulson asked if the redesign was being done based on the meetings with the community and neighbors.
Senior Planer Fox answered that staff was not present at the meeting and had not received any indication that the project would be redesigned.
Commissioner Paulson felt that if the applicant was redesigning the project based on meetings with the neighbors and was trying to respond to their concerns, he did not feel the Planning Commission should then penalize him and require he flag the entire structure.
Commissioner Cartwright agreed, and felt the applicant was following the direction given previously by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Paulson felt it would be better to allow the applicant to flag the ridgeline and if, after viewing the flagging the Commission did not feel the flagging was adequate to understand what the view impacts would be, then require the applicant to construct the entire silhouette.
Jill Carlton 4265 Palos Verdes Drive South felt that flagging the entire structure was very important to effectively evaluate any view impacts. She felt the issue of useable acreage that Commissioner Long discussed was a very good point and felt it should be pursued.
Steve Carlton 4265 Palos Verdes Drive South stated he had concerns with landscaping, area lighting, and fencing along Palos Verdes Drive South. He too had concerns on simply flagging the ridgeline and felt the entire project should be flagged. He felt the depth of the structure should be addressed in the total view analysis, as the further out the structure goes the more it will impair the view.
Debbie Huff 4245 Palos Verdes Drive South asked about the fundamental right to build that had been discussed. She stated that it was her understanding that the applicant had the right to propose a plan and the Planning Commission then has the responsibility to decide whether that plan creates a significant impact to the community or not. She stated that she had been reading the Height Variation Guidelines and noted that the proposed structure is 39 feet, 26 feet above ground and 11 feet below ground. She noted there was no provision for exempting the basement in the measurement of the height. She asked why the applicant was not required to apply for a height variation. Ms. Huff also questioned the average elevation of the setback line that surrounds the street, which is the elevation used to determine the height. She stated the staff report said the elevation was 218 feet, however in looking at the elevation plans provided by the Johnsons the average is 215 feet. She noted that at the point of access to the home the elevation was 213 feet.
Chairman Lyon suggested Ms. Huff visit the Planning Department, as she would find the answers to most of her questions in the City’s Development Code.
Commissioner Long stated that there was no absolute right of the applicant to build where they need to obtain permits from the City. He stated the Johnsons had applied for these permits and the staff report outlines the findings that have to be made to issue the permits pursuant to the Development Code. He felt that if Ms. Huff carefully viewed the staff report that would assist her in many of her questions.
Ms. Huff stated that she had read the guidelines and still did not understand why a height variation was not needed.
Commissioner Long shared Ms. Huff’s question as to why a height variation permit was not required based on the premise that the road has been realigned even though it has not yet been realigned.
Lenee Bilski 4255 Palos Verdes Drive South stated she was speaking as the regional representative for the Washington D.C. based America the Beautiful Fund. She explained the organization and its purpose of conserving America’s beauty and heritage. She stated she was impressed with the Commission’s concern with this project. She explained that the view along Palos Verdes Drive South of whitewater, shoreline, ocean, and Catalina Island was public viewing area. She felt the proposed structures would impair the view from public property on Palos Verdes Drive South. She felt that too much of the areas landscape has been lost and it was imperative that whatever can, must be done to preserve it and she encouraged the Planning Commission to do everything in their power toward that end. She stated that there are 1,000 members in the Portuguese Bend Beach Club who can have parties at the beach and was concerned about the traffic and parking along Yacht Harbor Drive. She also felt that the silhouette of the entire structure should be erected and wished the project could be lowered by a few feet.
Commissioner Paulson asked Ms. Bilski what she would like to see at the site.
Ms. Bilski answered that she wished to keep the area viewable to the public, and because of the massive portions of the proposed structure she felt the view may be blocked from Palos Verdes Drive South.
Commissioner Paulson asked if she felt lowering the project by two feet would be satisfactory.
Ms. Bilski stated that lowering the project 2 to 4 feet would be the same height as the previously approved Transamerica project
Evie Hunter 18 Martingale Drive stated that when she was a child there was a big clubhouse and large pool on or near the property. She stated the clubhouse and pool fell apart and wondered how the land suddenly became stabilized in 40 years.
Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.
Chairman Lyon proposed continuing the item to the meeting of November 27 and direct staff to bring the concerns discussed to the attention of the applicant and stress to him the need to outline the house in a sufficient manner to indicate potential view obstructions from any surrounding or nearby residences.
Vice Chairman Clark stated the flagging was an issue, but in addition there was the issue of the need for a height variation application given the fact the Planning Commission has not approved the relocation of Yacht Harbor Drive. He felt that given the Planning Commission has not presupposed the approval of the realignment of the road and given staff’s summarization of the impacts of not realigning the road then it seems logical and appropriate that a height variation application should be part of the packet.
Chairman Lyon felt this application should be looked at as an entire package, which includes the relocation of the road and building of the new structures.
Commissioner Cartwright stated this discussion had occurred at a previous meeting and it was his recollection that the Commission had decided very clearly that they wanted to consider both applications at the same time.
Director/Secretary Rojas realized that the public and Planning Commission needed clarification on the issue of height and suggested that staff bring better visual aids to the meeting when this item will be heard that demonstrate the scenarios so that the Planning Commission and public can better visualize the project. The Planning Commission can then give direction to the applicant and/or staff. He also stated that staff would discuss with the applicant the issue of silhouetting and explain that the Planning Commission did not alter their formal direction, but clearly have concerns that the silhouette be appropriate to show the entire project. Further, the Planning Commission suggested the applicant work with staff to accomplish what flagging would be necessary beyond the ridgeline.
Commissioner Mueller felt it was important for the project to be silhouetted except for over the road. He felt that only the portion over the road could have the ridgeline silhouetted. He felt that there were views through this property from many different angles that could not be analyzed without a full silhouette.
Commissioner Long stated it would be very helpful to see the analysis on page 9 of the staff report redone or augmented to do the structure /lot ratio based on the portion of the lot that bears some relationship to where the house is proposed.
Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue the item to the meeting of November 27, 2001. Further, the applicant is to work with staff to ensure the silhouette erected is sufficient to show mass as well as view impairment from as many different angles as possible. Staff is to come back with a thorough analysis of the height variation guidelines and a structure/lot analysis be added based on the property located primarily north of Yacht Harbor Drive, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. Approved, (7-0).
RECESS AND RECONVENE
At 8:35 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated she was delighted with the City Council vote to not allow the use of Upper Point Vicente Park land for the Long Point project.
CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT)
3. Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 2242, and Environmental Assessment NO. 738: California Water Service Company & JCC Homes, Inc., 5837 Crest Road
Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He stated that a neighborhood meeting had been held where JCC Homes outlined a number of possible project modifications which included reducing the total living area of all 7 homes to approximately 4,400 square feet; placing single story homes on lots 4, 5, and 6; increasing the side yard setbacks on lots 3 and 4 to 30 feet; replacing exiting foliage to be removed on the rear property lines of lots 1, 2, and 3; and placing a split level home on lot 9. He stated that the applicant also agreed to modify the existing silhouettes to depict these revised building heights on lots 4, 5, 6 and 9. He stated that the residents were generally pleased with the modifications, however a number of residents remained concerned about the overall design of the subdivision and the appropriateness of changing the existing land use. He discussed concerns about the remaining use of the site and stated that the reservoir would remain on the site in its current condition and there was no proposal to park vehicles or make any other use of the area on top of the reservoir. He stated the site would function as a maintenance facility and much of the large heavy equipment and stockpiles of raw materials would be removed from the site.
Mr. Fox noted that a concern raised by the Commission and public at the last meeting was the overall design of the subdivision and particularly the relationship of the proposed lot 9 with the other residential lots. He stated that the revised plans retain the same general project configuration that was originally proposed. He also stated that the Planning Commission had asked about consideration of alternative uses for the site and explained that to staff’s knowledge there have been no alternative uses explored but noted that the zoning would allow for a variety of other non-residential uses including active recreation use, expansion of other types of public utilities on the site, and private educational facilities.
Senior Planner Fox stated that a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was necessary because of the applicant’s changes to the design and scope of the project and the City Attorney’s concern that a General Plan amendment may be necessary to clear up a discrepancy in the land use designation and the zoning designation of the site. Therefore, to provide staff to make the revisions to the environmental document and to complete and verify any view impairment that may result from the new silhouettes that have been constructed, staff recommend the Planning Commission take additional public comments, provide direction to the staff and applicant, and continue the hearing to the November 27, 2001 Planning Commission hearing.
Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.
Kurt Nelson representing JCC Homes, 3480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance stated he and his partner had met with a number of concerned residents in the neighborhood. He stated that the living area of the proposed homes have been reduced by 25 to 30 percent and the two story residents have been eliminated on lots 4, 5, and 6. He noted that by the next meeting staff will have had the opportunity to visit the site and verify that view impacts have been removed. He noted that on the south area of the property near Sunmist Drive there is mostly uncompacted fill and therefore the existing trees must be removed because of over-excavation and recompaction of the site. He stated he has hired a landscape architect and a preliminary plan has been developed to plant the slopes and replacement trees and vegetation. He discussed the development of a HOA which would have the authority and responsibility to maintain the screening vegetation. He explained that to eliminate the view obstruction and change the residences on lots 4, 5, and 6 to single story, the private drive has been moved slightly to the south. He stated that in order to achieve that the minimum side yard setbacks between the homes have been reduced. Discussing lot 9, he asked that lot 9 be looked at in the context of the 10 lot subdivision as a whole. He felt that the lot 9 house sits on a large lot of over one quarter acre and was quite compatible with that size of a lot. Regarding the concerns over easement, he stated he had the title company triple check all of the easements on the property as well as the area immediately to the south.
Tom Alley 6304 Sattes Drive stated he owns a home that is near the proposed lot 9. He explained that he had asked the height of the proposed residence be lowered, the pad lowered, and the setback increased from 10 feet to 15 feet. He noted that two of his requests had been accomplished and felt that two out of three was not bad. He stated that if the sideyard setback could be increased to 15 feet it would be nice.
Greg Johnson 29643 Stonecrest Road discussed his concerns about the impact of the proposed development and its intrusiveness on the Stonecrest neighborhood. He was particularly concerned with lots 3 and 4. He questioned what a 16 foot tall structure would look like from 25 feet back and stated he could not picture what it would look like. Therefore, he asked the Planning Commission to direct JCC Homes, prior to the November 27 meeting, to silhouette all of the proposed homes, particularly lots 3 and 4. He was very concerned about the trees needed for the preservation of privacy and the lack of control the Stonecrest residents would have over maintaining these trees.
Commissioner Paulson stated there was a ridgeline marker in place on lot 4 and asked Mr. Johnson if he had visited the site.
Mr. Johnson stated he had been to the site, but felt he was only looking at representative silhouettes, not silhouettes that would directly impact the Stonecrest neighborhood. He stated he would like to see a silhouette demonstrating the dimension of the proposed houses.
Commissioner Paulson discussed the issue of the trees used for screening and asked Mr. Johnson if he would consider having trees planted on his property so that he could be responsible for their maintenance.
Mr. Johnson felt that was a very good idea. Mr. Johnson added that it had been discussed at the neighborhood meeting that California Water Service adjust the property line slightly to the west so that the existing trees become his trees.
Commissioner Cartwright asked if views were his primary concern regarding lots 3 and 4.
Mr. Johnson answered that he enjoyed a view toward Catalina, however the primary concern with lots 3 and 4 was privacy.
Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated she was very opposed to residential planned developments and did not like to see them in this city.
Bob Shirley 29635 Stonecrest Road stated the revised plan was an improvement but he still had concerns. He could not picture how six houses could be squeezed into a cul-de-sac. He felt the homes were too crowded together. He felt that lot 9 should be dropped altogether. He stated that the residents on Scotwood get the benefit of a reservoir with a 100-foot buffer, the residents on Sunmist have a 50-foot buffer, but the Stonecrest residents have only a 25-foot buffer.
Mr. Nelson (in rebuttal) felt that Commissioner Paulson had a good idea when he suggested planting trees on Mr. Johnson’s property. He also suggested that in addition to the CC&R’s and any deed restrictions, JCC Homes might be able to grant an easement to the adjoining homeowners for maintenance of the trees. He felt it would be a good idea to talk to the City Attorney regarding this issue. He stated that the proposed maintenance of the existing foliage may not be perfect, but he felt the proposal was better than what was there now, which is nothing. He felt JCC Homes was creating an assurance for maintenance for foliage that is not there now. He stated that there is a reason that the proposed homes are situated they way they are as the piece of property is not symmetrical. He felt that the proposed project provides a fair buffer for the homes on Stonecrest Road and did not think it was fair to compare their buffer with those on Scotwood or adjacent to the reservoir. Finally, Mr. Nelson stated that lot 9 does not relate to the other 6 lots proposed as it is a much bigger lot and should stand on its own.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the existing road that goes to Crest Road would be accessible once this project is complete.
Mr. Nelson did not think that road would be blocked off, but felt that most people would take access to the new homes off Scotwood Drive. He stated that California Water Service would instruct their employees not to use Scotwood Drive and always use Crest Road for their access to the property.
Commissioner Long asked if California Water Service had reconsidered its security needs since the events of September 11.
Mr. Nelson did not know but imaged they had. He stated that next time the Planning Commission hears this item he will make sure a representative from California Water Service was available.
Commissioner Long explained that he wanted to be sure that California Water Service was satisfied that this project will not interfere with whatever security needs they may have.
Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked staff if they had analyzed the project in terms of hardscape.
Senior Planner Fox stated that none of the proposed lots exceed the 50 percent lot coverage maximum.
Commissioner Paulson moved to continue the project to the meeting of November 27, 2001 to allow staff’s completion of the view analysis based upon the recently revised silhouettes and revisions to the renoticing of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (7-0).
4. Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744: 26708 Indian Peak Road
Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff had received a request from the planning consultant that is working with the applicant to continue the item. He noted that the applicant was not present, however his legal counsel was in the audience. He also noted that this project has some additional legal issues associated with it and the City Attorney has requested that at the next Planning Commission meeting there be a closed session with the City Attorney and the Planning Commission. He asked for direction as to whether the Commission wished to have the closed session at 6:30 before the meeting or to recess at the point the item comes up on the agenda to a closed session.
The Commission discussed the options and agreed to hold the closed session just prior to hearing the item on November 13, 2001.
The Planning Commission waived the reading of the staff report.
Commissioner Long asked staff to explain how staff had verified with the FCC that there had been commercial broadcasting at the subject site since 1995
Senior Planner Fox explained that staff had reviewed licensing records that are available on the internet, and knowing the commercial licenses that staff knows are licensed to the subject location, staff was able to locate the date the particular call sign and frequency were first put to use.
Commissioner Long asked if there was any written documentation from the applicant regarding the commercial uses from 1995.
Senior Planner Fox stated there was nothing in writing wherein the applicant states that there was commercial use in 1995 or 1996. He explained the only written documentation was correspondence relating to the fee waiver request before the City Council where there was an affidavit submitted on behalf of the applicant indicating that the commercial antennas were installed in the house in 1998. He noted, however, that there was nothing in writing from the FCC regarding the commercial antennas other than what was available on the internet.
Chairman Lyon stated that the information in the staff report was very disturbing in that the applicant was a person who may have been less than honest in his dealings with the City. He stated that after the fact approvals were always disturbing, however the motive for being after the fact was the key point in his mind. He hoped that some of the facts in the staff report could be clarified at the next meeting.
Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.
Larry Helfman 26716 Indian Peak Road stated he had purchased a home in a residential, family neighborhood and the prospect of having what is primarily a commercial activity right next door to him was very disturbing. He did not think the report addressed a very important part of the development code, that dealing with commercial use being compatible with adjacent uses. He stated that the proposal was for an antenna mounted not only on the roof the residence but also for antennas inside of the house to be used for commercial purposes. He stated that neighbors have told him that Mr. Kay’s house has been vacant for years and has been in disrepair. He did not think the proposal was consistent with the City’s Wireless Communication Antenna Guidelines which discourages the placement of commercial antennas on single family homes. He stated that the staff report discusses foliage that screens the antennas, however he did not think the foliage currently exists. He stated that neighbors had concerns about noise, traffic, and safety resulting in the commercial use of antennas on the property.
Laura Ellison 26827 Fond du Lac Road pointed out that the application comes to the Planning Commission as an after the fact application, as the antennas have already been installed and commercial uses have begun on the property. She stated that Mr. Kay has previously presented himself with a predisposition to ignore City laws and regulations and he now is asking the Planning Commission to sanction his conduct by granting him a Conditional Use Permit. She noted that the City has the discretion to deny the request and hoped the request would be denied. She stated that in order to grant Mr. Kay a Conditional Use Permit the Commission must make four findings and the burden of proof is on the applicant as to whether or not these findings are presented. She felt Mr. Kay has failed to meet this burden in his application. She stated she had reviewed the application, looked at adjacent properties, and viewed other properties in the City where Conditional Use Permits have been granted. She was appalled that staff would recommend approval of this request knowing that Mr. Kay has been operating commercially from the residence since 1995. Ms. Ellison noted that the Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines discouraged the installation of antennas for commercial uses on residential properties and the City wanted to encourage co-location. She stated that in his application Mr. Kay had noted that he wanted to co-locate with his own antennas already existing on the property, which she felt was a ridiculous assertion. She also pointed out that there was no vegetation on the property that in any way minimized the impact of the antennas. She also pointed out that Mr. Kay had stated in his application that the proposed antenna was compatible with adjacent uses, which felt was in no way true. Finally, Ms. Ellison noted that the Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines encourages a balance of public and private costs versus benefits. She did not see any balancing occurring with this application. She felt it was one person trying to benefit his private interests by putting money into his pocket and wondered what the benefits were for any resident in the City.
Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.
The Commission had a brief discussion about the project and all stated they had serious reservations and concerns regarding the project, but agreed that the project should be continued to the next meeting so that they could meet with the City Attorney in closed session.
Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue the hearing to the meeting of November 13, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (7-0).
5. Grading Permit No. 2277: Mr. and Mrs. Jamie Blessum 20 Martingale Drive.
Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.
Evie Hunter 18 Martingale Drive stated he had concerns about the grading proposed for this project. However, she stated that there had been discussion that the plans would be changed and wondered how the grading would be affected with this new plan. She was also very concerned about the overall footprint of the house, how far out over the canyon the house would project, how close to the street the house would be built, the stability of the project and overall neighborhood compatibility.
Director/Secretary Rojas suggested Ms. Hunter go to the Planning Department and talk to staff and review the proposed changes to the plan.
Mary Bloomingdale 15 and 16 Martingale Drive stated that asked the Planning Commission keep in mind that the average house size on Martingale Drive is 3,000 square feet and the largest house 5,000 square feet. She asked if there was going to be export from the property and noted that with the construction at 19 Martingale there has been a tremendous problem with trucks on the street. She stated that the trucks are using driveways for turnaround and have damaged a neighbors driveway and run over her landscaping. She was concerned with the stability of the lot as well as the setbacks of the proposed home.
Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Clark moved to continue the item to the November 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (7-0).
6. Neighborhood Compatibility Sub-Committee Report
Vice Chairman Clark stated that the Committee had received a draft of a Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines pamphlet for review. He explained the contents of the proposed pamphlet and that the next step was to meet with the consultant to revise the pamphlet and put it in a form that could be brought to the Planning Commission for review and eventual adoption.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m.