MARCH 26, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
City Attorney Lynch led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Hurwitz, Assistant Planner Yu, and Recording Secretary Peterson.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Without objection, the agenda was approved as presented.
Director/Secretary Rojas distributed a pamphlet from the Livable Communities Group and a memo regarding the expense reports for the Commissioners who attended the Monterey Conference.
Commissioner Long reported that he had met with a Commissioner from the City of Danville, which had recently approved a senior affordable housing project. He stated that the Commissioner would be sending information to the City on that project.
Commissioner Cartwright thanked the City for the opportunity to attend the Monterey conference.
Commissioner Duran Reed also thanked the City for the opportunity as well as her colleagues for their support. She reported that she had contacted the CCC/ME and Marymount College for additional information regarding their project and has passed some information on to the City.
Chairman Lyon noted errors on the Planning Commission roster and reported on an e- mail he had received from Mitchell Hahn regarding Marymount College. He stated he would share this information with the Planning Department to include in their analysis.
1. Planning Commission Orientation – Procedures and Informational Materials
The Planning Commissioners introduced themselves and gave a brief overview of their education and background.
Director/Secretary Rojas gave a brief overview of the Planning Department organization and responsibilities. He discussed the agendas and how they are prepared as well as the current Planning Commission policy regarding late correspondence.
City Attorney Lynch distributed an orientation manual to the Planning Commission and discussed the Brown Act, due process issues, CEQA and how it applies to the City, and the conflicts of interest rules.
2. Minutes of March 12, 2002
Commissioners Long and Mueller noted clarifications on page 11 of the minutes.
Commissioner Duran Reed noted two clarifications to the minutes on page 12.
Commissioner Tomblin noted a clarification on page 12 of the minutes.
The minutes were approved as amended, (7-0).
3. Permit Extension Request (Case No. ZON2002-00100): Gene and Terry Rolle (applicants) 38 Seacove Drive
Commissioner Tomblin moved to grant a 1-year extension thereby setting the final expiration date of Variance No. 461-Revision ‘A’, Coastal Permit No. 159-Revision ‘A’ and Grading Permit No. 2144 as March 26, 2003, with all conditions of approval contained in P.C. Resolution NO. 2000-17 remaining in full force and effect, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (7-0).
RECESS AND RECONVENE
At 8:35 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess to 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened.
4. Coastal Permit, Variance, and Site Plan Review Case No. ZON2001-00032: 120 Spindrift Lane.
Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She explained the scope of the project and stated that staff found that the four findings to approve a Variance could be made to warrant approval to reduce the front, side and rear setbacks; to exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage; to waive the replacement of a two-garage with a two-car carport; and exceed the 250 square foot addition limit in the coastal zone. Additionally, staff found that the two findings for granting a Coastal Permit could be made to allow the existing structure to extend within the Coastal Zone, and that the proposed addition would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood in terms of scale, architectural design, and front yard setback. As such, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, the Variance, Coastal Permit, and Site plan Review.
Commissioner Mueller was concerned with the height and size of the proposed structure and wondered what section of the Development Code was being cited when discussing building height. He noted sections of the Development Code on page 218-24 that discussed building height and the need to obtain a height variation to build a structure as an addition to an existing structure exceeding 16 feet in height.
Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the staff referred to Section 17.02.040(B) of the Development Code, which discusses building heights as well as diagrams on page 218-25.
Commissioner Mueller stated that the staff report refers to a "building" and he did not find any reference to a "building" in the Development Code when referring to the need for a height variation.
Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Development Code sets height limits, in this case the height limit is 16 feet. He stated that this project meets the height limits, therefore by measuring the height of the project it does not require a height variation. However, in the Development Code on page 218-24b, there is a sentence saying that structures allowed pursuant to this subsection shall contain no more than one story. He continued to state that if you look up the definition of "story" it mentions that a story must be in a building and if you look up the definition of "building" it mentions that a building must have walls and a ceiling, and since the carport is proposed without walls staff defined that it is not a building and not a story and therefore does not require a height variation.
Commissioner Mueller argued that the definition is still "structure" and not "building" as found in the last section on page 218-24, which is the first place in the code that deals with a height variation. He also noted that the term "structure" was defined earlier in that section. He felt the carport was a structure and not a building and noted the definition of a structure in the Development Code. He therefore did not follow the logic that the proposed addition does not require a height variation.
Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff had tried to address the Development Code limitation to one story. He noted that the Code set a limitation on height and a limitation that there shall be no more than one story, and although the proposed project would be within the height limit, the question was whether the project was considered two stories, or more specifically was the carport a story. He explained that the Development Code’s definition of a "story" led to the definition of a "building", which led staff to conclude that the carport was a structure and not a building and therefore not a story.
Commissioner Long echoed Commissioner Mueller’s concerns and added that he was concerned this interpretation would allow anyone to place something on top of a platform.
Director/Secretary added that this situation with the carport was very rare, as staff has seen very few carports in the City.
Commissioner Mueller felt the staff report suggested that a height variation was not needed in this situation because the addition would be placed over a carport, which is not a building. He did not agree with this interpretation.
Commissioner Long stated that the staff analysis was dependent on two things: 1) that because the structure was below 16 feet no height variation was required by virtue of the height of the proposed project; and 2) based on staff’s reasoning the project is only 1 story and therefore no height variation is required.
Director/Secretary Rojas agreed with Commissioner Long’s statement and added that the Variance gives staff the discretion to identify any adverse impacts to surrounding residences, including view impacts.
Commissioner Long asked if the Planning Commission could amend the existing application to include a request for a height variation.
Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if the Commission determines that a height variation should be applied for then the applicant would have to submit the application, pay the fees, get the required signatures of the neighbors, and place the silhouette.
Commissioner Mueller did not agree with staff’s interpretation and felt that a height variation application was crucial to protect what views remained in the area.
Commissioner Cartwright asked if the concerns over the lack of a height variation was because of the findings regarding views and neighborhood compatibility.
Commissioner Long felt that the process of a silhouette being erected to make the findings on view should be followed. He continued by noting that the Development Code definition of "building" specifically states that a building shall not mean a mobile home or trailer. He felt that if the Development Code specifically excludes mobile homes and trailers it would have explicitly excluded carports as well if it had meant to do so. He concluded that since carports were not specifically excluded then "building" includes carports, and if a carport is a building then the carport is a story and the structure on top of it is a second story and therefore a height variation is required for the proposed addition.
Commissioner Mueller stated he was looking for a rather straightforward interpretation of the Development Code and that the Planning Commission should stick to interpreting the Development Code in a very straightforward way. He was very concerned that the Planning Commission follow the Development Code and if they didn’t there would be other cases which may have significant view impairment from structures or stories which are located on top of carports or any platform attached to the ground. He felt the Development Code was something that should be adhered to regardless of what the outcome is as far as view impairment, which he felt was a separate issue.
Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if the height variation was triggered by a second story or by some portion of the structure being in excess of 16 feet, and what staff was trying to accomplish by not making this proposed addition a second story.
Director/Secretary Rojas stated that in this case the trigger was both. He explained that staff had pointed out the one sentence to the applicant that staff felt was problematic in avoiding the height variation, however as pointed out by the applicant, the carport does not have walls and staff relied on the definition of building. He also noted that staff was originally concerned that by circumventing the height variation process certain things were not going to be looked at that would be looked at through the height variation process. However, he noted that in doing the analysis for the variance the same impacts such as views, neighborhood compatibility and privacy were analyzed.
Chairman Lyon wondered if too much was being made from a technicality. He noted that staff had gone through the procedures in terms of impacts on the neighborhood that would have been done if the application had been a height variation. He felt the applicant had consulted with the neighbors many times and had made extensive modifications and compromises to accommodate their concerns. He also noted that the staff report indicated that there were no objections to the proposed addition. He felt the Planning Commission should do what is right, which was still entirely within the Code.
Commissioner Duran Reed felt that the Development Code definition was problematic and felt that by simply glossing over any particular problems in the Development Code and issuing a finding without having a clear and appropriate definition, the Planning Commission could be setting a very dangerous precedent. She noted that there may be other carports and structures in other neighborhoods and while in this situation no problems might be created, she was concerned with would happen down the line with other similar applications in different neighborhoods. She felt the proper process and steps should be followed for the proposed addition. She discussed the neighborhood consultation process and felt this was an important process that should be done with this application and noted that there was at least one party that objected to this proposed addition.
Commissioner Cote agreed with Commissioner Long that it was very difficult to justify that an addition above a carport was not a second story and that if a height variation is necessary all of the associated steps should be followed.
Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.
Jim Maniscalco (applicant) 120 Spindrift Lane stated that his house is much lower than the surrounding homes and he was shocked to learn that his plans had raised concerns. He noted that over 15 people and the HOA were significantly opposed to the plans when they were first drawn. He and the architect worked for eight months to design a project that was acceptable to the neighbors and the HOA. He noted that he had originally applied for a height variation which was still on file with the City and had done a silhouette and the early neighborhood consultation process. He stated that there were a number of people in the neighborhood that were vehemently opposed to a height variation, not because of any view concerns, but because of the label. He therefore consulted with staff to see what project he could design that would not require a height variation. He stated that even if he designed the exact same building with the exact same silhouette and called it a height variation, the neighbors would then object. He explained that quite often there is an entryway or entry courtyard into a house that is below a portion of the house, which was not considered a story. He felt it was clear that if they built the exact structure as shown on the plans it would not require a height variation if cars were not going to be parked there. He questioned why this would change if cars were then parked there and why this would change the nature of the structure.
Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Maniscalco if he planned on living in the residence after the remodel.
Mr. Maniscalco assured the Commission that he loves his home and had no intention of leaving it.
Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Maniscalco if he had kept the signatures from the early neighborhood consultation process and if so, had he submitted them to the City.
Mr. Maniscalco responded that he had the signatures and would submit them to staff.
Commissioner Cartwright noted that Mr. Maniscalco had mentioned there was a silhouette erected at the site and asked what happened to that silhouette.
Mr. Maniscalco responded that the silhouette had been erected, but taken down after the project was revised, as the new project was lower and smaller than the silhouette indicated.
Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if their view analysis was done while the silhouette was up or after it was taken down.
Assistant Planner Yu stated that the view analysis was done after the silhouette had been taken down.
Miles Pritzkat (architect) explained that a height variation had originally been applied for, however based upon the neighborhood meeting, there seemed to be quite a bit of opposition to the label of height variation, regardless of the height of the building. He stated he has worked very hard to accommodate the neighbors as well as accomplish what the applicants wished to accomplish. Mr. Pritzkat submitted to staff the signatures received from the early neighborhood consultation process.
Commissioner Mueller noted that there had originally been quite a bit of opposition to the project and asked Mr. Pritzkat what alternatives he had looked at to come up with the current design.
Mr. Pritzkat responded that he was limited in what could be done on the lot because of the size and shape of the lot. He stated that he has lowered the proposed ridge height down to the lowest possible elevation, which was 5.6 feet lower that the original proposal.
Commissioner Mueller asked if he had considered moving the addition away back toward the hillside of the property.
Mr. Pritzkat answered that if the addition were moved more toward the rear of the property it would have to be placed on top of the existing structure and he felt that would make a greater impact upon the neighbors.
Mike Fabian 124 Spindrift Lane stated he was pro building, however he was opposed to the addition over the carport as it would impact his west facing view of Inspiration Point, Portuguese Bend anchorage, and the landslide point. Given the current trend of beach view land speculation going on in the Portuguese Bend Club, he felt it was prudent to oppose the project at this point. He reminded the Commission of the unstable land in the Beach Club and that there was quite a bit of building happening in the area, which concerned him.
Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Fabian if he was still concerned with the view even though the ridgeline has been lowered to 16 feet.
Mr. Fabian answered that he currently can sit on his couch and look out at the point and cove, and when the addition is completed he will be looking at the roof.
Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Fabian what portion of his view would be obscured with this addition.
Mr. Fabian answered that the west-facing portion would be obscured, which was approximately 3 percent of his 180-degree view.
Commissioner Mueller noted that there were other additions in the neighborhood and asked Mr. Fabian if any of those additions impaired his view in any way.
Mr. Fabian responded that they only impaired his view of the volleyball court on the beach.
Commissioner Mueller asked if the 3 percent loss of view was more significant to Mr. Fabian than the loss of the beach view.
Mr. Fabian answered that it was much more significant.
Randee Wood 111 Spindrift Drive explained that she lived behind and across the street from the proposed project. She stated that the applicant has been very open and accommodating throughout the project, and adjusted their plans to minimize any view impairment. She stated that she was very much opposed to a height variation that would take away her beach view. She felt that if a height variation were required the applicant could and possibly would move the project back up to the original height, which would obscure her view.
Commissioner Duran Reed stated that there seemed to be concern that if a height variation application were submitted the applicant would then raise the height of the proposed structure. She asked the applicant if this was something they would possibly do.
Mr. Maniscalco answered that he has worked very hard to accommodate the neighbors and that if he had to apply for a height variation would not change the project. He was very concerned, however, that the neighbors were very much opposed to granting a height variation in the neighborhood, even if it did not obstruct any views.
Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.
Chairman Lyon felt there were two ways to look at the project, the first being the legalistic view by looking at the letter of the law. He felt that in doing that there was a gray area in some of the definitions. However, the other way to look at the project was to consider what serves the best interests of the applicant, the neighbors, and the City. In this particular case the neighbors have been very clear in saying they are opposed to the use of the term height variation in this application. He noted that all of the procedures associated with a height variation have been followed, and did not feel any precedent would be set by using staff’s interpretation on building and story. He did not think there was anything about the Portuguese Bend area that would ever establish precedence anywhere else in the City. He felt it was important to listen to the neighbors on this project and noted that the neighbors, with one exception, were satisfied with the project as proposed. Therefore, he would support the approval of the request as submitted, with the interpretation that the staff has made.
Commissioner Long shared the concept that the Planning Commission should be concerned with what was best for the applicant, neighbors, and City as a whole. He acknowledged that a lot of thought has gone into the project and did not feel there was anything clearly wrong with the project. However, he felt that the project should be considered under a height variation application. He did not think all of the procedures for a height variation had been followed, since a silhouette had not been erected to do a proper view analysis. Because of this, he had not had the opportunity to do a proper view analysis at the site to determine if there was significant view impairment. He also noted that while the views of the neighbors are very important, applications are not approved by the vote of the neighborhood. He stated that the way planning is done is through consistent and logical application of the ordinances and consistent logical application of the ordinances compels the conclusion that a carport designed to hold property is a building, not withstanding staff’s interpretation to the contrary. If the carport is a building, then what goes on top of it is a second story and if what goes on top of the carport is a second story, a height variation is required. He felt it was unfortunate that this may inconvenience the applicant, since he felt the applicant had done an outstanding job of trying to accommodate the concerns of neighbors. Nevertheless, he felt that a height variation application was an extremely important thing, and the fact that some people are concerned about the label and they do not want the label of height variation permits attached to something does not justify applying the ordinance in a way that is not consistent and logical. He suggested finding the application incomplete because of the lack of a height variation with the hope that the applicant will then apply for a height variation permit and the Planning Commission will then be able to go through the process of looking at a silhouette that matches the project and assess whether view impairments, if any, are significant.
Commissioner Cartwright felt the Planning Commission had the responsibility of trying to balance the interests of the applicant with the concerns of the neighbors and concerns of the City. He also felt the Planning Commission was bound by the Development Code, even though there was the discretion of using common sense and compassion when appropriate. He felt the Development Code in this instance lends itself to multiple interpretations, one being that a height variation is required and the other that there may be a way to approve the project and then go back and clarify the Development Code. He did not know what could be done as far as view impacts, as the proposed structure was under sixteen feet in height. He did think a silhouette would be helpful at the site to assess the actual structure. He also thought it would be helpful to review other structures within Portuguese Bend that have this type of carport with a structure on them and if they received height variation or Planning Commission approval. He did not feel that approving the proposed project without a height variation application would in any way set precedent, as every application was reviewed on its own merits. He added that he was concerned with the geology in the area and asked if there was a 1.5 safety factor at the site.
Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the Moratorium Exception process was contingent upon the City Geologist making a finding that the project will not aggravate the landslide. He stated that the City Geologist has made that finding. In terms of the 1.5 factor of safety, he noted that this was the moratorium area and he did not believe the 1.5 factor of safety could be achieved.
Commissioner Mueller explained that his approach to evaluating applications is to first look at the General Plan, then the Development Code and finally the guidelines. He stated that he holds that above any of the opinions of the staff, neighbors, and Planning Commission. He stated that he would not like to see Portuguese Bend as a model on how to fine tune the Development Code, as it is a very unique area. He felt that a height variation should be required and a silhouette should be constructed at the site. He felt that the only way the neighbors could be sure of the impact the project would have on their views would be through the erection of a silhouette that accurately represented the proposed project. He felt that by not requiring a height variation as requested by some of the neighbors in the Portuguese Bend Club, this application would be circumventing the City procedures that were put in place to help protect the views of the immediate neighbors in the area. He felt that by looking at what the concerns of all the interested parties are and ignoring the Development Code was not serving the best interests of the applicant, neighbors, and the City.
Commissioner Duran Reed felt the applicants had done a very thorough job with their application to try to reach an agreement with their neighbors. She felt if the Development Code were not followed a precedent would be established, which concerned her. She noted that there were multiple interpretations of the Development Code which could lead to inconsistency and the purpose of having laws is to be able to follow the letter of the law and use it as a guideline. While not wanting to see the applicant have to go back and do additional work, she did feel it was important for a silhouette to be constructed to get a clear picture of the impact of the project to the neighborhood as required by the Development Code.
Commissioner Cote commended the applicant for working with their neighbors. She noted that the applicant had already applied for the height variation and gone through the process involved with the application and that the only thing that had to be done was construct a silhouette to reflect the project as currently proposed. She asked if there was a way to expedite the height variation process so as not to delay the applicant unnecessarily.
Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the applicant had submitted the height variation application and paid the fee, however had asked staff not to process the application. In terms of expediting the process, there is a 30-day notice required for a height variation and the notice could not be sent out until the silhouette has been constructed. If the applicants could erect the silhouette over the weekend the notices could be sent out Thursday and published in the newspaper on Saturday. Therefore, May 14 was the earliest the Planning Commission could hear the new application.
Commissioner Tomblin felt there was a process established in the Development Code for this type of situation and that the process should be followed. He encouraged the staff to work with the applicant and expedite the height variation process.
Chairman Lyon did not feel that anyone was proposing or suggesting that the process not be followed. He felt the differences of opinion had to do with interpretation of some words in the Code, and while they need to be clarified in the future, staff has made an interpretation, which he agrees with. He was not suggesting in any way that the Development Code not be followed
Commissioner Long agreed with the Chairman that no one was proposing to depart from the proper procedures, however felt that in this case the staff’s interpretation of the language was not as reasonable as the one he proposed. He asked the Planning Commissioners to not accept the recommendation of staff, but to apply their own judgment. He asked the Planning Commissioners to use their own judgment to determine whether a carport was a building or not.
Commissioner Mueller moved to deny the application without prejudice and require the applicant to submit a height variation and instruct staff to expedite the process with the exception of the duly required public notice period, seconded by Commissioner Long.
Commissioner Cartwright did not disagree with the intent of the motion, however felt that if the application were denied the applicant must then reapply for all of the applications associated with the project. He suggested the Planning Commission deem the application incomplete and continue the application to a future meeting, giving the applicant the opportunity to process a height variation.
Director/Secretary Rojas noted that in denying the project a Resolution of denial would be required, which would have to come before the Planning Commission at their next meeting. He felt the most efficient way to expedite the process was to ask the applicant for a 90 day extension, make the determination that the carport is a building and requires a height variation, ask the applicant to submit a height variation application which the staff will duly notice. This application can then be heard as early as May 14.
Chairman Lyon re-opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Long asked Mr. Maniscalco if he would agree to a 90-day extension of his project.
Mr. Maniscalco agreed to the 90-day extension, and asked that they be put on the May 14 Planning Commission agenda.
Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Long proposed to amend the motion to deem the application incomplete because it lacks a height variation permit application and instruct staff to expedite any application that may be made for a height variation permit as quickly as is possible consistent with the Code.
Commissioner Mueller accepted the amendment to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Long.
Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had any concerns with the motion.
Director/Secretary felt the motion accomplishes the motion maker’s intention. Although he felt that situations should be avoided where applications are deemed complete and then incomplete, the Planning Commission has made a decision that is supported by evidence and in addition an extension has been granted by the applicant. Therefore his concerns were alleviated.
Chairman Lyon explained that voting no on the motion would allow for a follow up motion that would be to approve the project as recommended by staff, and in so doing the Commission would be adopting the staff’s interpretation of the verbage in the Code relating to what is a building and what is a story, but with full recognition that the Planning Commission intends to clean up those words so that there is not this problem again.
Commissioner Cartwright acknowledged that there were different interpretations of the verbage in the Code as well as different interpretations on how it should be resolved. He agreed with the Chairman in much of what he said, however he supported the motion.
Commissioner Cote appreciated the need to expedite the process for the applicant.
Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she would like to see the Code clarified so that in the future there will be no question on the interpretation.
The motion passed with a vote of (6-1) with Chairman Lyon dissenting.
5. Conditional Use Permit No. 226, Grading Permit No. 2296, and Environmental Assessment No. 742: Verizon Wireless Services, Mr. John Koos (applicant) 32201 Forrestal Drive.
Associate Planner Hurwitz presented a brief staff report explaining the history of the proposed project. He stated that the applicant has not been able to meet with the residents nor address the issues identified by the Planning Commission. As such, since there has been no visible progress since the January 22 Planning Commission meeting, staff is again recommending denial without prejudice of the application. He noted that staff had received a fax from the applicant requesting a continuance as well as 90-day time extension.
Commissioner Cartwright asked if staff had taken the request for continuance and extension into consideration when making the recommendation for denial, and if the staff recommendation would be different because of the request.
Director/Secretary Rojas answered that staff had taken the request into consideration, however the recommendation of denial would not change.
Chairman Lyon moved to accept staff recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-03 thereby denying without prejudice Conditional Use Permit No. 226, Grading Permit No. 2296, and Environmental Assessment No. 742, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (7-0).
6. Issues to be discussed at the joint meeting with the City Council and Finance Advisory Committee concerning the Crestridge properties.
Chairman Lyon explained that the staff report outlined six proposed questions that the Planning Commission ask the City Council to include in a joint workshop. He felt that the process needed some organization and felt that there were three separate and distinct fundamental questions that should be addressed in this and perhaps subsequent workshops. He stated that the three different issues were: 1) what are acceptable uses of these properties, 2) what are the needs for senior citizen housing on the peninsula and what sites in the City can help accommodate that need, and 3) what sites in the City would be suitable for affordable housing. He then discussed the issues that would fall under each of the three questions. He suggested the Planning Commission propose to the City Council that the first question be addressed in the upcoming workshop, as he did not think there would be time to begin discussion on questions 2 and 3.
Commissioner Long felt that the discussion should include what are the needs for senior housing, what are the needs for affordable housing, how can they best be met, and if not with the Crestridge property then where. He felt that a bigger picture of where should senior housing be, where should affordable housing be, and where should parks be should be asked so that the inter-relationship of the questions could be understood and discussed.
Director/Secretary Rojas explained that at their next meeting the City Council would be discussing and defining the objectives of the joint meeting. He stated that this was an opportunity for the Planning Commission to give their input to the City Council. He noted that the joint meeting will focus on the needs of the Crestridge properties and that the City Council would also be discussing a General Plan update in the future that will address the bigger picture and look at the entire City.
Given that explanation, Commissioner Long agreed that the issues should be limited to the Crestridge property and agreed with Chairman Lyon’s approach.
Commissioner Mueller suggested that the list of proposed uses should include both a Senior Center and a Youth Recreational Facility.
The Commission agreed to revise staff’s proposed list of issues by condensing it into three main issues that should be addressed in sequential order at the workshop. The Commission also identified six specific sub-categories that should be discussed pertaining to the first issue.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of April 9, 2002
Commissioner Long requested a discussion on the definitions of "building" and "story" and how to clarify the Development Code.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.