Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/10/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, October 25, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Ray, Commissioners Davis, Tarantino, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Salas and Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Assistant Attorney Moore MOTION TO EXCUSE MSUC (Thomas/Tarantino) 5-0 to excuse Commissioners Salas and Tuchscher because of business conflicts. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Ray, in the absence of Chair Tuchscher, led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a silent prayer in memory of Ms. Susan K. Lay of AirTouch Cellular. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice Chair Ray reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Planning Commission meetings of September 6, 1995 (with a vote of 4-0-1 with Commissioner Thomas abstaining) and of September 27, 1995 (with a vote of 5-0, with a correction to the attendees showing Commissioner Davis present) were approved. Commissioner Tarantino noted that he had been absent from the meeting of September 27, but had read the minutes and believed them to be correct. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- October 25, 1995 ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-96-10; REQUEST TO EXCEED THE FLOOR AREA RATIO ON 47 OF THE 135 LOTS WITHIN THE LOS PALACIOS SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTH RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY BETWEEN PASEO BURGA AND BAYONA LOOP IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA II - Centex Homes Commissioner Davis asked to be excused because of a potential conflict of interest. Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report and indicated that the Zoning Administrator had denied the application. He itemized the applicant's points in support of the request and showed slides of the project elevations and the models. Mr. Griffin noted that the provision in the PC District Regulations did not provide any guidelines for applying the exception for the Zoning Administrator to exceed the FARs. Historically, the Zoning Administrator had used that provision rather sparingly to recognize that perhaps a particular mix and placement of models desired on the part of the developer could result in some of the larger models being on some of the smaller lots. Generally, this involved no more than 10% or 15% of the lots in a particular project and usually a modest increase in the FAR. He said the requested increases in FAR were fairly substantial, going up to .65 FAR. Mr. Griffin felt the present request far exceeded anything that could be considered a reasonable application of the site plan exception process, and would be contrary to the intent of the FAR and PC District Regulations. Staff recommended that the request be denied as submitted, but further suggested that the Planning Commission give the Zoning Administrator the authority to approve some exceptions, send it back to the Zoning Administrator to approve up to 20 of the lots (or 15% of the total project total) which would possibly exceed historically what the Zoning Administrator would approve in most projects. Commissioner Thomas asked if the impervious surfaces were included in the ratio. Mr. Griffin answered negatively. Commissioner Thomas questioned the background for staff's recoinmendation for granting up to 15%. Mr. Griffin stated that historically that had been used to recognize the fact that the developer would prefer a certain mix of models along the street scene to mix up the architectural elevations along the street to provide some variety and marketability. A 10% or 15% level had been achieved in the past. Commissioner Thomas said he had looked for some problem with topography, size of the lot, view or transportation versus historical, and could see none of those problems. Mr. Griffin replied that the FAR did not recognize any irregularities in the lot or topo problems, but was basically related to the size of the lot. A problem lot would still be allowed the same FAR as a lot that was totally level. PC Minutes -3- October 25, 1995 Commissioner Willett said that one of the areas which had been very interesting was the requirement for homes today to have three-car garages. That was where he had a problem with the FAR. He did not see anything in the Zoning Regulations or in the Code illustrating a three- car garage. The applicant had met all the requirements including setback, and Commissioner Willett felt the City should take a new look at the FAR in today's economic situation where the number of people are increasing in the homes, and there is a need to get cars off the street. He found no traffic impediments with the streets as designed, which could handle additional cars. Mr. Griffin noted that because of several incidents occurring a few years ago, the FAR had been reviewed during the last three or four years. The FAR was based generally on the western area of Chula Vista. Commissioner Tarantino asked if all the other requirements had been met, how did the bulk and visual impact enter into it. Mr. Griffin replied that the standard single-family coverage was 40% of the ground level of the lot. Without an FAR, and a two-story unit, there could be an 80% FAR. With the 45 % FAR, it divides the bulk so it would not represent too great a mass on the lot. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. (The next three speakers gave a group presentation.) Mark Rohrlick, 5962 La Place Court, Carlsbad, representing Centex Homes, gave the background of Centex Homes. He then introduced Gary Cinti of Cinti Land Planning. Gary Cinti, 2932 Poinsettia Dr., San Diego 92106, highlighted the history of the floor area ratio concept and its inception in Chula Vista, as well as its application as a planning guideline. He noted that the project was consistent with or exceeded all requirements except the FAR. It was a statistical problem but was not at variance with the Code. Mr. Cinti illustrated various examples of building bulk, and effect of building bulk with different topography, lot lines, and adjacent open space. He stated the project did not exceed the FAR on an average, but only on a lot-by-lot basis. The adopted PC zoning allowed the project to be approved as proposed. Ed Elliott, McMillin Communities, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, Executive Vice President in charge of development engineering, stated that Centex Homes had proposed a range of housing that was very compatible to estate housing in this particular area of the Rancho del Rey SPA II Plan. He said that all houses would be comparable bulk and massing without discernible visual differences. Many lots were adjacent to open space or had the slope area between two rows of homes. He emphasized that this factor was essential in the economic development of Chula Vista, and asked for the support of the Commission. Bill Hezmalhalch, Centex Homes architect, discussed the architectural elements that had been considered in the design of the homes specifically designed for use on this site. PC Minutes -4- October 25, 1995 Mr. Rohrlick returned to the podium to conclude the presentation by stating that this was not a case of trying to put too much home on too small a lot. Ten of the lots back up to open space, 16 of the lots in excess of .55 back up against large slopes, 3 lots back up against a boundary wall of the project, and 18 lots are randomly scattered throughout the project. The number of homes in excess of .55 represent 18 homes out of a total of 135. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the validity of the arguments they had proposed, including the architectural benefits, compliance with the other residential standards, and the overall merits of the project, and that they grant approval of the proposal. Commissioner Tarantino asked if, on those lots where the FARs were exceeded, the homeowner would be advised that they could not expand. Mr. Rohrlick stated that had been addressed in the supplemental CC&Rs, and it could also be put in a disclosure for those particular lots. Commissioner Tarantino questioned whether a patio would be considered an expansion. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that patios up to 300 sq. ft. were excluded from the FAR. Cormnissioner Tarantino asked if the patio was enclosed with glass if it would be considered an expansion. Mr. Lee stated it would be considered a room addition. Harriet Stone, 6566 Ridge Manor, San Diego 92120, who owns property in Chula Vista, was concerned about the length of the driveways. The size of the homes on these lots would limit what the homeowner could do with the lots. The bulk and the size of the houses, and the size of the lots, should be a concern to the Planning Commission as well to the builders. In today's market, people are looking at not just house, but the amenities outdoors. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Rohrlick if the 18 lots which were scattered throughout the project were basically flat lots, or if they addressed themselves to any particular issues. Mr. Rohrlick pointed out the homes and indicated the small back yard area. Vice Chair Ray asked how this got so far along in the process before it was picked up. Mr. Rohrlick stated they had not expected there would be a problem with the FARs in this project. Vice Chair Ray said that even with staff's recommendation, Centex would have to modify a number of the homes and change the model mix. Staff recommended that the Zoning Administrator could approve up to 20 lots. If the Planning Commission voted against the proposal, what would that do to their product? PC Minutes -5- October 25, 1995 Mr. Rohrlick said to keep an adequate mix, putting the smallest plan on the smallest lot, there would be a street scene with six or seven of the same plan in a row. It would not be good for marketing. Drastic measures could be taken, but the homes would not sell. The absolute minimum would be about 29 %, which did not get down to the number of lots staff felt more comfortable with. He suggested that the third car garage could be taken away from the FAR. He thought the FAR should be looked at again by the City. Mr. Rohrlick thought they were being penalized both in the FAR and in the lot coverage. Commissioner Tarantino noted that 10 of the lots exceeded the FAR by .01. He asked if that was the size of a walk-in closet, or? Mr. Rohrlick said it was about 60 square feet; not even the size of a walk-in closet. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Thomas commented that he was sensitive to granting the 20 lots but not happy with setting a precedent in granting the variance. Mr. Lee stated the Planning Commission needed to look at the facts as they related to design. The FAR is a fairly simplified form the City developed to address bulk, and had a lot of faults. It was developed to address specific issues in Central Chula Vista and was expanded to be included in the PC District areas, not at the direction of staff but at the direction of the City Council. In the PC areas, there were design guidelines and design excellence in terms of the efforts being put forth. He thought that was what the Commission had to weigh in part. He did not believe they would be setting a precedence in that if another project came in which exceeded the FAR and was a high percentage, the Planning Commission would then make that decision rather than it being made at the staff level. It was a judgment call on the part of the Commission, and they had to be comfortable with the design and the square footage. Commissioner Thomas stated that in the applicant's letter, he indicated that the FAR would not exceed .65 on any of the lots. In staff's recommendation, there was not a maximum limit. Mr. Lee explained that was because the recommendation was that the Zoning Administrator would approve a reduced number. If the Commissioners were comfortable with the presentation and the project they had seen, they could accept the FAR limit that none of the lots would exceed the .65 or that the project would adhere to the FARs that had been submitted on the entire project. The applicant would then place that in the CC&Rs. If any of the lots presently exceeded the .55, that would be the limit on that particular lot. It would preclude them from any additions. Commissioner Thomas felt comfortable in giving the Planning Department staff the flexibility of working with the developer. PC Minutes -7- October 25, 1995 stated that they were ready to secure building permits. Any delays from their standpoint would be a problem. Vice Chair Ray noted the staff recommendation would allow the applicant to exceed the FAR on a percentage of what they were asking. Any changes the Planning Commission would make would cause the applicant to redesign possibly the entire project. He felt the Commission should either approve or deny. Commissioner Tarantino was concerned that the City talks about wanting to be business friendly, and he thought it was time to get everything in sync. He did not want to give a double message. Commissioner Thomas asked what involvement the Zoning Administrator would have to make sure the change is uniform through the project, or if they could have all the lots next to it and have it off balance. Mr. Lee stated a site plan had been presented with the plotting of the houses, so staff would expect the applicant to adhere to that mix. Depending on sales, the applicant may come back to staff with minor modifications which would be evaluated under those circumstances. Commissioner Thomas asked if the motion could be amended to adhere to the FARs indicated on the table in the staff report. Commissioner Willett replied that he intended to include in his motion that they adhere to Attachment 7 which listed all the lots and the sizes. Vice Chair Ray requested the inclusion that nothing was to exceed the ratios in Attachment 7, and a reduction of those floor area ratios would be the only thing allowable. The maker and second of the motion concurred. VOTE: 4-0 TO APPROVE (Commissioners Salas and Tnchscher excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) Commissioner Davis returned to the dais. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-48; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LOCATED AT 625 'H' STREET; COMPOSED OF A 950 SQUARE FOOT ENCLOSURE CONTAINING A 360 SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT BUILDING, A 75 FOOT TALL MONOPOLE SUPPORTING 30 DIRECTIONAL (PANEL) ANTENNAS, SIX OMNI-DIRECTIONAL (WHIP) ANTENNAS AND FOUR DIGITAL (DISH) ANTENNAS - AirTouch Cellular Associate Planner Miller gave the staff report and noted that staff recommended adoption of Resolution PCC-95-48 recommending Council approval. PC Minutes -8- October 25, 1995 Commissioner Willett questioned how many similar facilities were in the City now, and if there was a limit on height. Mr. Miller said there was no limit on the height; there was no height criteria. He did not know the number of similar facilities in Chula Vista. Commissioner Thomas questioned the size of the enclosure and the number and diameter of the dishes. Mr. Miller indicated the enclosure is 950 sq. ft. and there were four dish antennas. He deferred the question of the dish size to the applicant to be answered during the public hearing. Commissioner Thomas asked if there had been any discussion regarding landscaping or any type of camouflage. Mr. Miller replied that most cities and the County had grappled with that and nothing had come forward that was creative that would not be prohibitively expensive. Commissioner Thomas questioned where it would leave the City if the applicant appealed to the PUC. Mr. Miller said that according to the G0159 provisions, to request an exemption they would be required to submit to the PUC. The City would have every recourse to prove that it had not unduly delayed the project or had any bias against the applicant; that the decision was based on sound land use principles. Commissioner Thomas was concerned that a site half a mile away would not be sufficient. Mr. Miller stated that they have to be rather exact. He noted locations of existing facilities in National City and Chula Vista. The service areas of each location probably overlap somewhat into the service area of the proposed site. It was his understanding that this would be for an infill. Commissioner Thomas felt the service area "circle" would move to the right if a location was chosen which was a half a mile to the east. Mr. Miller concurred. Commissioner Tarantino asked if any screening was proposed for the structure, in terms of trees or landscaping. Mr. Miller answered negatively. The facility was located in the rear of the site behind a restaurant which already had very good landscaping. Staff did not feel it justified any landscaping because it would hardly be seen from a passing automobile. Answering Cormmissioners Tarantino and Thomas, Mr. Miller said the residents of the trailer park would only be able to see the tower. They would not be able to see the structure itself. The patrons of the restaurant would be able to see it when they were parking. There would be a fence, however, in front of the structure. Vice Chair Ray asked if upon review in five years, technology had reached the point where the site could be removed, AirTouch Cellular would remove the pole. Mr. Miller said that with advances in technology, the requirements for height were not there. The towers would be lowered or with more infill would be able to lower the tower heights. If the applicant requested a second tower within that service area, theoretically, they should be able to lower the height of this one. Staff would want to review that in cooperation with the applicant. PC Minutes -9- October 25, 1995 Vice Chair Ray asked if the City could force the removal of the towers if technology did not require them. Mr. Miller said that digital technology is now being used in some cases; the facilities are substantially smaller in scale and bulk. The subject application was an analog system with different wattage requirements and different height requirements for the antenna. Mr. Miller said a condition could be added that at the review period, if this type of pole were not required for an analog system, it would be replaced with something smaller. However, there was not anyone on staff with the expertise to make that determination. The City could hire a third party consultant at the applicant's expense in order to get that professional input. Answering Commissioner Willett's previous question regarding the number of sites in Chula Vista, Mr. Miller stated there were six existing facilities, with two others anticipated. Over the next several months, staff would be preparing some revisions to the zoning ordinance addressing these facilities. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kevin McGee, 5355 Mira Sorrento Place #500, San Diego, representing AirTouch Cellular, thanked the Planning Commission for dedicating the meeting to Susan Lay. Mr. McGee stated this was AirTouch's fifth site in Chula Vista and was intended to improve the coverage in the area between Interstate 5, Third, Fourth, and further into the residential area east. Chula Vista currently is one of the weaker served areas. They had looked at 10 alternative sites. AirTouch was limited to the commercial areas. Some of the sites were out of the service area, owners were not interested, no room on the property for the facility within the existing building or the limited lot area, adjacent to residential, or monopoles at approximately 100' in height. Mr. McGee stated the proposed site was 225' back from the street, in a commemial area. A trailer park is located behind a property. A public forum, which had been noticed 500' of the property, had been held; no one attended. AirTouch had met with the owner/manager of the trailer park, who had no objections. The trailer park had a problem with transients going through the fence into their property; AirTouch would build a wall to eliminate that, and also there would be lighting in the building. At the five-year review, the intent was that during the review the Design Administrator would have the power to have AirTouch reduce the height of the tower; they were open to that. He clarified that leased area would be fenced; the building itself was about 360 sq. ft., 10-1/2' tall; it was not a problem for them to landscape, but one or two parking spaces may be lost; it would not be desirable to remove the pole after five years, however, as more sites came into play in the network over time, the height needed for each site would be reduced since each site would require a smaller service area. The industry would have an interest in reducing the height themselves, because if one service area overlapped another, it would cause interference problems. Mr. McGee showed slides and explained the structure of the whips, panel antennas, and dishes and how many would be needed in a worst case condition, and those needed at the present time. PC Minutes -10- October 25, 1995 They recognized the cities did not want monopoles, but there were no buildings tall enough in the area. He noted there were three different technologies which work very similarly but have different frequencies which require distinct height requirements for their antennas to work. Harriet Stone, 6566 Ridge Manor, San Diego, said she was one of those people who did not want to put a 50' antenna in a residential area. She stated that because it was a 50' monopole with 20' above that which had antenna, it was being considered a minor visual impediment. Mrs. Stone said it was not minor; it was major. She questioned the notices mailed on September 25 for the public forum which was held on September 28, and felt that was reason enough to postpone the existing public hearing. She did not feel 500' was enough area to notice. She urged the Commission not to approve the monstrosity which would rise to 75' plus another 18' to 20' of whip antennas. The people in the trailer park and the tenants in her apartment building needed to be informed of the public forum. The applicant was not offering the option of camouflaging the area. The City of Chula Vista had spent a considerable amount of money to underground utilities to beautify Broadway and "H" Street. There was an ongoing program to beautify the City, and this could impact people's sensitivity. Vice Chair Ray asked staff to verify the noticing. Mr. Miller stated that staff complied with Council's direction that residents of multi-family units be notified. The property owners of record were notified, as well as tenants at the resident addresses. In addition to that, there is no requirement at all for public forums. Staff makes a good faith effort to try to get the notices out a week or ten days before the public forum. The date of the notice was dated September 20, 1995, which was an eight-day notice for this public forum. It was either mailed out on the 20th or 21st which would be at least a week's time. There is no State-mandated requirement or Council requirement to hold public forums. This is something the Planning Department tries to do as a service to the community. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the 500 feet is Council policy; the State law is 300 feet, so the City goes well beyond the State-mandated designation to make sure the word gets out. Assistant City Attorney Moore noted the issue was whether or not the public hearing had been property noticed. Staff had indicated it had. Vice Chair Ray stated the public meeting was not a requirement; therefore, there was no notification process mandated by the City or by the State. The only meeting mandated to be noticed was the current meeting. Mr. Miller said the Planning Commission meeting required a 10-day notice, which was actually mailed on October 12. At her request, Mr. Miller showed Mrs. Stone a graphic of the 500' area which had been notified. It included the areas which she had questioned. Mrs. Stone asked if under the State law there had to be an environmental study. PC Minutes -11- October 25, 1995 Mr. Miller said this project was categorically exempt from environmental review. Assistant City Attorney Moore stated that the noticing had been done in accordance with Council policy which exceeds State law. There were numerous cases in State law which had found that 300' noticing was considered fair. Mrs. Stone also noted that she was concerned about the 75 feet. She suggested 50 feet with nothing above it. She thought it was a design that was undesirable, and it should be rejected Commissioner Thomas asked Mrs. Stone the areas in San Diego which were camouflaged. Mrs. Stone thought it was on Navajo in the middle of a business center. It had a solid looking top without the things on top. Commissioner Tarantino asked the height of the whip antennas. Mr. McGee of AirTouch said they were proposed at 15 feet. Typically, they were 8 to 10 feet. Commissioner Tarantino asked what color was being proposed. Mr. McGee replied they were leaving it the metal color; over time it would oxidize and dull the finish, which would not reflect light. The color was not an issue to them. They believed the grey tended to blend into the horizon. Mr. Miller stated staff's experience was that grey tended to blend into the background more readily than green, blue, or tan. Mr. McGee pointed out that Chula Vista was increasing in users; they covered the area poorly at the present time; they were behind in demand; they needed the site for customer demand. There was a large factor of citizens telling them they want the service. AirTouch understood there were others who were directly impacted by the facility. They tried to be sensitive to that. They could alter the site, but there would be consequences. They could reduce the number of dishes; they could eliminate the whips; lower the tower 10 feet. By lowering the height, the coverage area shrinks. The eastern portion of the coverage area may not be of the desired quality. Commissioner Thomas asked if the property at 480 Fourth Avenue, the medical building, would have given permission to put the disk on their roof. He didn't feel much would be lost on the westerly side if it were moved a half mile east. He also asked what the facility would cost, as pictured. Mr. McGee said the building, the antennas, the monopole and the equipment inside would be approximately $400,000, not including construction cost or overhead. Commissioner Thomas asked if the whips at top were eliminated, two dishes would be efficient. Mr. McGee explained the functions of whip antennas and dish antennas. They were asking for PC Minutes -12- October 25, 1995 four because as more sites came in the future and needed to connect through this site, it could be done. They needed two. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the whips were taken away, more panels would not be needed. Mr. McGee concurred and said they would still maintain the same number of panels as proposed. Commissioner Davis felt the Planning Commission was looking at a need that had to be filled; the location was a commercial area and did not have much effect on residential area; she thought the Planning Commission should move forward. She felt the applicant needed to deal with the number of whips and panels to get the coverage they needed. Mrs. Stone returned to the podium to state the applicant had asked for the maximum. The Planning Commission should give them the minimum, because there would be a lot of other decisions to make about other installations. Once they were on the site, they would not be leaving, but would come back before the Commission to ask for more installations. She urged the Commission to make the conditions to lower the height of the monopole and eliminate the wlfips. Vice Chair Ray asked Mr. McGee what the minimum would be to suit their service needs as far as the business corridor and the higher traveled freeways. Michael Koenig, Director of Engineering, AirTouch Cellular, 535 Mira Sorrento Place, San Diego, stated they would need one dish approximately 65 feet on the monopole and no whips. The building would still be the same. The cost of the facility would range in price from $600,000 to $750,000 completed. Commissioner Willett asked if the 65 foot minimum included the whip antennas on top. Mr. Koenig replied that it did not. Commissioner Willett said that 65 feet would still give them their line-of-sight coverage. Mr. Koenig said it would still give them the coverage they needed for the existing technology, but they were asking for antennas for a future technology. He had eliminated the future technology by deleting the whip antennas. Vice Chair Ray asked if at some future point in time, as opposed to raising the height of the pole, they include the antennas, it would help keep them at the site longer to keep pace with technology. Mr. Koenig answered affirmatively. Commissioner Thomas again stated he felt the coverage would still be approximately the same if the medical building were used. Mr. Koenig said there were a number of issues with the medical building. The search areas were very critical; the 3700 feet from the proposed site and the medical building made a big difference. Topographically, the medical building is about 20 to 25 feet higher, plus the antennas could only be placed on top of the building. The coverage PC Minutes -13- October 25, 1995 in Chula Vista would probably be about the same, but being that much higher AirTouch Cellular would see most of downtown San Diego and most of southern San Diego which would cause a significant amount of interference to the rest of the system. Commissioner Thomas asked the distance from the outside of the circle (the service area) to Interstate 5. Mr. Koenig said it was approximately a mile. Commissioner Thomas felt there would not be a major significance. Mr. Koenig stated it was not that simple; moving in the service area would also move up a significant amount which would allow AirTouch to see too much of the system. There would be too much overlap between it and the sites to the north. The FCC gives them a finite number of channels to work with, so those have to be re-utilized throughout the system. That causes co-channel interference. Vice Chair Ray concluded they did not want a lot of overlap; they wanted to hit the fringes. Mr. Koenig said in 1985 when they first designed the system, they wanted very high sites and the initial sites were on Black Mountain or on 150' monopoles. Most of those antennas had come down to about the 100' level, and AirTouch was trying to come down off the mountain sites because they were causing so many interference issues in the system. Commissioner Willett said he thought the buildings had a built-in fire extinguishing system which would be internally controlled. Mr. Koenig verified that the fire systems were internally controlled. Commissioner Davis clarified that if the Planning Commission denied the whip antennas, it was for future development. Mr. Koenig said they had no major issue with losing the whips. They would go in initially with the panels instead. By lowering the monopole by 10 feet, they would lose a set of antennas which meant they would lose the ability to use some future technology with those antennas. Mr. Miller stated that by lowering the height of the two panel antennas by 10 feet, they would be effectively cutting off the top set of panels. Mr. Koenig said that visually six whip antennas and 15 panels on top would be eliminated. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Thomas agreed that he did not want to dictate that the whips be gone, but he was leaning more on the concept, and asked if there were any other way to achieve this. Commissioner Willett concurred with Commissioner Thomas on the concept. He thought the question was whether reducing the height by 10 feet would hamper the transmission or receiving as it was known today. In five years if technology were to change, by losing the 10 feet they would be losing advanced planning. He would not agreed with that because of the expense of going back up again. PC Minutes -14- October 25, 1995 Commissioner Thomas questioned the option of keeping the monopole at 75 feet and eliminating the whips, and if that would achieve the goal. The engineer indicated that it would. MS (Thomas/Willett) to approve the monopole at 75 feet, deleting the whips, putting some aesthetically pleasing stucco on the portion of the building which showed above the fence to make the structure more attractive, and granting the four dishes. Commissioner Tarantino questioned why the applicant proposed a 75 foot pole, six whips, and four dishes if he would be comfortable with 65 feet and no whips. The applicant stated they believed in coming in with what they needed long term, not short term. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the would see the built-out example shown them in the picture within the next ten years. Mr. McGee said it would be very unlikely it would be built-out within five years. There would be one dish and 15 panel antennas initially. Commissioner Davis was prepared to approve what the applicant had proposed originally, which meant she was against the motion. She was concerned that the applicant would have to come back before the Planning Commission when they wanted to add something they needed long- term. She thought it should be approved in the plan what they needed long-term, knowing it would not all need to be there initially. She thought the City wanted to be business friendly and let them get on with their job, providing the service to the people. Vice Chair Ray asked Commissioner Thomas if he wanted the project to go through the Design Review Commission. Commissioner Thomas thought it should be at the discretion of the Planning Department. Mr. Lee stated a condition could be added to require the applicant to submit the plans to the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit, with a direction that staff look at the building materials and the location of the fence and poles. Mr. Lee said the Planning Commission could still discuss a landscaping program. Since it was so far back on the property, staff did not consider that. In terms of providing a better screen to the parking lot and the type of building materials, that could be taken into consideration. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about reconstruction of the property in the future. Mr. Lee believed because of the configuration of the property, any reconstruction of the property would be very limited as far as visibility. Commissioner Davis was concerned that more landscaping would eliminate parking spaces. Commissioner Thomas clarified that his intent would be that the top part of the building which showed over the fence would be stucco and maybe a wood fence. He did not like the front poles, the chainlink fence, and the generic front on the building. PC Minutes -15- October 25, 1995 RESTATEMENT OF MOTION That the Planning Commission approve a 75' tower, with no whip antennas, and that there be some concern addressed to the aesthetic value, to let the Zoning Administrator make those decisions; including in Condition I:I that the applicant resubmit this Conditional Use Permit to the Zoning Administrator for reconsideration in the event applicant submits t'or a conditional use permit for a second tower within the service radius o1' subject tower as defined in Exhibit C1 of the staff report; and that at the conclusion o1' the five-year period, this conditional use permit be reviewed. I1' by that time the system has been even more enhanced and technology improved, the tower may either be lowered or moved altogether. The review will be done by a third party, and the cost will be borne by the applicant. The second concurred. Commissioner Tarantino asked what would happen if the applicant after five years decided they needed the whip antennas. Mr. Lee stated they would request an amendment to this conditional use permit. Vice Chair Ray asked what an amendment would cost the applicant. Mr. Lee stated that a basic conditional use permit deposit would be $2,000 without environmental review. He thought amendments were half that amount. The deposits were reviewed yearly and were refundable if not used. Commissioner Davis was concerned about deleting the whip antennas. She didn't feel they should have to go through another public hearing if they needed it in the future. She was not in favor of the motion. Commissioner Thomas said he was comfortable in the applicant's comments that they would be able to meet their goals. Mr. McGee clarified the whips were not needed; they would not be eliminating any future plans or technology by eliminating the whips. VOTE: 5-0 to approve (Commissioners Salas and Tuchscher excused) ITEM 3. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Assistant Planning Director Lee stated the Growth Management Oversight Committee was scheduled to have their first meeting on November 9. Vice Chair Ray asked for volunteers. After some discussion, Commissioner Thomas volunteered. MSC (Ray/Willett) 5-0 to appoint Commissioner Thomas as the Planning Commission representative to the Growth Management Oversight Committee. PC Minutes - 16- October 25, 1995 DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 4. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee updated the Commission members on recent Council items. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Davis noted she would be out of town November 8 through 22. ADJOURNMENT at 10:17 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of November 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~y, Secre~ry (.J Planning Commission (ra:\hom¢\planning\nancy\pc95 rain\pc9 27.rain)