Loading...
PC MINS 19940208PROVED �< /22/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM, by Chairman Gilbert Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Wang. PRESENT: Commissioners Wang, Whiteneck, Ferraro, Hayes, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: Commissioner Vannorsdall Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, and Senior Planner Rojas. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF - None B. COMMISSION Chairman Alberio reported that he had received correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Winkler, for an item which was not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of January 11, 1994. Commissioner Hayes suggested changes in the minutes of January 11, 1994, as follows: (1) On page 1, add Chairman Alberio's name to the list of Commissioners present; (2) On page 1, add Mr. Angus Lorenzen's first name the first time his name is mentioned to differentiate from now former Commissioner Joseph Lorenzen, who was also present at that meeting; ( 3 ) On page 4, change the sentence in the third paragraph, to read "Commissioner Hayes added that Rolling Hills Estates does have a 55 decibel limit for residential but allows 65 decibels for commercial....."; (4) On page 6, delete the word "can" from the last paragraph, third line; ( 5 ) On pages 15 and 16, indicate Commissioner Hayes' abstention from voting on the PacTel item. Commissioner Alberio made the following change on page 31: "16 inches" should be changed to "12, inches" in the second paragraph. Vice Chairman Moulds made a motion to accept the minutes of January 11, 1994, as amended, which was seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Commissioner Hayes abstained from approval of the section of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 1 11 minutes dealing with the PacTel item. The three new Commissioners present abstained because they were not on the Commission at the time of this hearing. Approved (3-0-3). B. Minutes of January 25, 1994. Commissioner Wang and Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested changes in the minutes of January 25, 1994 as follows: (1) On page 18, add Commissioner Whiteneck to the list of Development Code Revision Subcommittee members; and (2) On page 5, change Mr. "Cohen" to Mr. "Cullen" in the third paragraph. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to approve the minutes of January 25, 1994, as amended, which was seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). C. Minutes of February 1, 1994. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to approve the minutes of February 1, 1994, as written, which was seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS - None CONTINUED BUSINESS Development Code Revision, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Senior Planner Rojas read the Staff Report. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission established the Development Code Revision review schedule for the Commission and the Subcommittee and a copy of that schedule was provided in the Staff Report on page 2. In accordance with that schedule, the purpose of this evening's meeting was for the Commission to initiate the review proceedings by conceptually reviewing the revisions and issues associated with Title 16 and Article VI of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code. In accordance with the Council confirmed review process, the Commission will focus only on revisions identified in the Staff Report, unless the Commission suggests other modifications. Hopefully, this procedure will provide adherence to the schedule that was presented to the City Council since the bulk of Title 17 was conceptually approved by the Council in 1991. Chairman Alberio opened the public hearing. Joan Wright, 1 Fruit Tree Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Wright discussed the gatehouse on the corner of Palos Verdes South and Narcissa Drive which, in her opinion, has been a community eyesore for the last three years. She reported that she had contacted the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 2 City's Code Enforcement Department and received a letter in reply stating that no action could be taken because the landowner has managed to keep his building permits active, even though there is no noticeable progress. She asked if there was some action which could be taken to keep this property owner from obtaining permits. She indicated that she had photographs of the structure. Chairman Alberio asked Staff what they knew of the situation and how it could be corrected. He asked if it was necessary to change the Code? Director Bernard replied that Code Enforcement usually handles these situations. He felt that changing the Code may cause problems because there are other situations in which residents are working on their own homes only on the weekends and these project can take a very long time, especially in today's depressed economy. Chairman Alberio asked to see the photographs and Ms. Wright provided them to Director Bernard, who said he would look into the issue when he returned to the office the next day. Chairman Alberio agreed that this was a matter for City Staff to handle. Senior Planner Rojas explained that he had spoken to Ms. Wright that afternoon and they had discussed the fact that one of the suggested Code revisions being discussed at tonight's meeting deals with fences at uncompleted construction sites and that is why she was addressing the Planning Commission. Muriel Titzler, 3 Ginger Root Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Titzler noted that the permit for the gatehouse had expired at one point. She felt the situation should have been investigated more thoroughly before the permit was renewed. Chairman Alberio said the Commission would discuss the situation in the course of the evening and make a recommendation. He then closed the public hearing. Director Bernard directed the Commissioners' attention to pages 5 through 11 of the Staff Report, which contained the Staff's recommended revisions. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that, because of the bulk of information to be analyzed, the Commission review the Staff Report and discuss only the issues on which they do not agree with the Staff's recommendations. Section 16.32.010(G) [Map Amendments] PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 3 s Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that he did not find it reasonable to require only 3,000 sq. ft. of contiguous area for a lot creation, particularly in the lower density zoning districts. He suggested that there be a ratio relative the size of the lot, a percentage, perhaps 330, instead of 3,000 sq. ft. Otherwise, he felt this standard would encourage unreasonable grading. Chairman Albedo asked the origin of the figure of 3000 sq. ft. Planning Administrator Petru replied that it was an amendment to Title 16 in order to provide a minimum size for a 3,000 sq. ft.. house, which was considered a reasonable size for a single story house. Senior Planner Rojas added this issue was discussed with the City Attorney and, as Planning Administrator Petru clarified, this was in the Code before the Code Revisions were instigated in 1991-92 and Staff was not suggesting that it be changed. As the City Attorney told him that afternoon, changing the 3,000 sq. ft. to a percentage might cause a situation whereby a higher buildable area requirement, say 10,000 sq. ft., would mean that a lot could not be created although it might be an entire acre in size. He noted also that the City Attorney said that such a change could create nonconforming lots all over the City. Chairman Alberio concurred with Vice Chairman Mowlds, that a larger lot should have the larger house; however, he also appreciated. the City Attorney's concern regarding nonconforming situations. Chairman Alberio suggested that the Code be modified to indicate a percentage, not to exceed a certain square footage. Director Bernard proposed the percentage be set at 330, but no less than 3,000 sq. ft. The consensus of the Commission was approval of this concept. Commissioner Whiteneck asked if the reference to a "map" shouldn't be changed to an "amendment map"? Planning Administrator Petru answered that there are some tract amendments that apply to the entire tract, while others may apply to a single lot. Director Bernard added that Staff will make sure the language is consistent with Commissioner Whiteneck's intent. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if this amendment procedure included all types of maps and Senior Planner Rojas responded yes, that it was all encompassing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 4 Section 17.48.030(0) [Hillside Setbacks] Vise Chairman Mowlds asked for clarification on the purpose of the hillside setback requirement. Planning Administrator Petru replied that, if a structure is built near the top or toe of a slope, safety demands that a minimum distance be maintained from the slope. The problem is that the UBC (Uniform Building Code) has a different method of calculating that setback than the Development Code. The City's Development Code is much more stringent than the UBC and it has been a problem because people have had to obtain variances for this particular setback requirement, when there was no safety problem. This revision is an attempt to make the Development Code consistent with the UBC. Director Bernard added that this is Staff's proposal and that the Commission could provide other direction. Section 17.48.030(E)(2) [Minor Equipment] Commissioner Wang asked how members of the,public are supposed to know that structures over six feet are not allowed in the side and rear setback areas. Senior Planner Rojas said that residents often buy these pre- fabricated buildings believing that they can place them in their back yard. Part of the confusion is that they do not require a building permit because they are temporary and less than 120 sq. ft. in size. Therefore, when a landowner asks the store or contractor if they need a permit, often the answer is no. In reality, the Planning Department has to approve all of these types of structures to make sure they respect the setbacks. The public is educated through pamphlets and other informational programs, as to what needs approval by the Planning Department. Commissioner Ferraro wondered if this Code provision applied to tree houses. Planning Administrator Petru responded that, if they are over the 6' height limit, they are considered to be accessory structures and have been treated as such in the past. Commissioner Ferraro asked if a permit would be required? Planning Administrator Petru added that, technically, a dog house needed a permit if the Code were strictly interpreted. She stated that, if a complaint were received by the City, or if a safety hazard had been identified, Staff would be obligated to pursue the situation. The tree house would be considered an accessory structure and could be permitted through the Site Plan Review PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 5 f 11 process; however, often times, people will take down the structure rather than get a permit. Commissioner Hayes commented that she did not want to see a barbecue, dog house or storage shed right up against the property line or in the setback. She also did not agree with the proposed modifications to Section 17.48.030(E){3} which exempts walkways, decks and paving as counting as lot coverage. Vice Chairman Mowlds commented on the Minor Equipment section. He said a maintenance problem could be created when a minor structure goes up against the property line because a homeowner can't paint the backside of it without going into a neighbor's yard. As for 3' setbacks, sometimes there is a dangerous situation where an adequate passageway is not provided between the house and the minor structure. The sound level of 65 dBA is a problem because of pool pumps. Sometimes, the noise and vibration from this equipment is unacceptable to the adjacent neighbor. He also stated that he was under the impression that when an improvement is less than 6' off the ground, it counted as lot coverage. Senior Planner Rojas explained that the lot coverage section was clarifying provisions that already exist in the Code. An attempt was being made regarding the recommendation for minor equipment to handle a situation that Staff often sees at the counter. Residents wish to place something like a barbecue or a minor shed in a back yard with a 6' fence or wall and the most logical place is against the wall or in the corner. Currently, Code allows for such placement in the rear, interior setback as long as it is 3' away. Usually, there is no logical reason for the 3' clearance but, if the landowner wants to pursue the project, they have to file a Variance application for $2,140 to approve the barbecue up against the wall, which would be no higher than their existing fence. In Staff's opinion, any impacts caused by the structure placed against the wall on the property line would not be any different than if it were 3' from the wall. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked what if there is no wall? Planning Administrator Petru responded that the intent of the revision is to apply to properties that are fenced or walled in and that clarifying language can be added to that effect. If there is no fence dividing the property from the adjacent one, a setback would then apply. Vice Chairman Mowlds expressed concern that this revision would allow accessory structures to be placed in the side yard area that would block access to the rear yard, which would be critical during a fire or other emergency. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 6 • Senior Planner Rojas asked if Condition #3 adequately addresses Vice Chairman Mowld's concern? Planning Administrator Petru explained that, currently, because of the 3' setback requirement, the accessory structure could be placed in the middle of the side yard and there is no provision for a minimum access around it. Staff's recommendation insures that a minimum walkway would be maintained. Vice Chairman Mowlds expressed concern that the Code allows chimneys to encroach 2' into the side yard setback. If an accessory structure was added, access would be blocked in this area. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that the landowner might not have room for an accessory structure in this particular location on the lot. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that with a typical 5' side yard setback, a 2' chimney encroachment would still allow a 3' walkway along the side yard. Chairman Alberio suggested that the maximum noise level for minor equipment should be decreased from 65 dBA to 45 dBA. Sensor Planner Rojas asked if the Commission was in agreement on the last paragraph of page 8 regarding exceptions to setback. Chairman Alberio said that the Commission agreed with Sensor Planner Rojas regarding the clarification of what constitutes lot coverage. Section 17.48.050(A)(2) (Roof Equipment] Commissioner Ferraro asked if the 65 dBA maximum noise level for roof equipment should be changed to 45 dBA so as to be consistent with the previous section? Chairman Alberio responded that it should be consistent and that mechanical equipment should not be allowed on the roof, in any case. Commissioner Whiteneck asked from where the noise level was measured and Director Bernard answered that it was measured from the adjacent property line. Commissioner Whiteneck stated that the proposed revision does not say that. Director Bernard indicated that it would be included, if that was C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 7 the consensus of the Commission. Commissioner Hayes agreed that 65 dBA should be changed to 45 dBA in this section and that there should be no mechanical equipment visible on the roof. Senior Planner Rojas asked about roof equipment that would be less than 16' in height, as measured from grade? Vice Chairman Mowlds answered that there should be no mechanical equipment on the roof even if it is less than 16', with the exception of solar panels. Planning Administrator Petru asked if mechanical skylights would be allowed? Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that they should be permissible, even if they were higher than 6" above the level of the roof. Chairman Alberio asked about satellite dish antennas and Planning Administrator Petru said that they were handled in a different Section of the Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds repeated that no mechanical equipment could be on a roof, including electrical conduit or ducting that goes across the roof. In these cases, it might be necessary to raise the roof or add a parapet. Planning Administrator Petru noted that some types of venting are required by the Uniform Building Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed that toilet and kitchen vents and toilet fans would be allowed. Section 17.48.070 [Intersection Visibilitv] Vice Chairman Mowlds asked. if Staff's determination on intersection visibility would be appealable? Planning Administrator Petru replied that the proposed universal appeal section in the Development Code would cover this. Section 17.56.020(B) [Construction Hours of Operation] Commissioner Wang requested an explanation of construction hours of operation. Senior Planner Rojas explained that this was an attempt to codify a City Council action from approximately ten years ago. Currently, the Code says there can be no construction grading or landscaping PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 8 • activities on Sunday. Often, homeowners ask if that includes mowing a lawn or minor landscaping on a person's own property. The Council ruled long ago that this Sunday restriction does not apply to that type of minor landscaping. Commissioner Whiteneck asked for a definition of heavy equipment? Senior Planner Rojas replied that more precise language will be included to clarify this term. Commissioner Whiteneck suggested that maybe equipment weighing over 500 pounds should be considered heavy equipment. Chairman Alberio commented that a maximum noise level will have to be considered. Commissioner Hayes noted that the hours of operation, 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays, seemed acceptable and that conditions could be added to specific projects later, if necessary. She did stress that construction fences need further discussion. Commissioner Alberio replied that the standard hours of operation in the industry are 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM. Director Bernard explained that Staff suggested that particular time period because a lot of people get off work at 5:00 PM and would need more than an hour in the evening to work in their yard. Senior Planner Rojas explained that a change from 7:00 PM was not being proposed. This recommendation was only to add legal holidays. Section 17.56.020(C) [Construction Fences] Vice Chairman Mowlds said that he was not in favor of the changes regarding construction fences. If a project is suspended, often it is due to a lack of money. However, the construction fence should not be taken down because of liability for accidents. Landscaping is probably not the solution, also because of a possible lack of money. Perhaps, an opaque "attractive" fence could be installed. However, as in the case of the gatehouse mentioned earlier, this would not solve the problem because portions of the construction are visible above the fence. Chairman Alberio added that, if liability is the issue, the opaque fence would work, but it would not solve the problem of aesthetics. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that an option might be (and the City Attorney would have to be consulted) that, if the permit had expired, the structure could be torn down. If a landowner had the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 9 r • choice of tearing down the structure or hiding it, he would probably choose to hide it. Senior Planner Rojas explained that Staff was differentiating between property that is under construction and a vacant lot with overgrown weeds, waiting to be developed. When a job has been initiated with some type of structure and then it is abandoned, there are safety issues, as well as aesthetic issues. There is a procedure in place (Nuisance Abatement) which requires property owners to solve the problem, either with fencing and a deadline to finish the job or demolishing the structure. A vacant lot can be dealt with through the Development Code, but there appears to be no need to change Development Code Title 17 regarding the procedure for abandoned construction sites. Commissioner Hayes asked why Nuisance Abatement isn't applicable in the case of the Narcissa Drive gatehouse. Senior Planner Rojas explained that once a building permit is issued, as long as some work is done to prompt an inspection within a six-month period, the building permit will remain active. He added that possibly a revision could be made to Title 15, which contains the building codes, or to Title 8, which outlines the Nuisance Abatement procedure. Language could be added to strengthen the Code criteria so that, regardless of an active building permit, a construction site could still be considered a public nuisance if completion of the pro3ect is not pursued in a diligent manner. However, this would involve legal issues for which the City Attorney would have to be consulted. Chairman Alberto stated that a landowner may not know how long a project might take, but that the construction industry knows how long it should take. He expressed his opinion that when a project drags on for 10-15 years, it seems unreasonable that the City should bear the cost of all the additional inspections. Director Bernard replied that the City Attorney could be consulted, but that he believed it was not possible for a City to define what would be considered "reasonable" in this case. Also, he suspected that the City Attorney would say that, as long as a person had paid their fees and was making progress, whether it be one month or 15 years, they would be entitled to that review process. Section 17.56.040(A) [Commercial Vehicles] Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the three -ton rating for trucks could be lowered to 2 112 tons, so that only commercial pickup trucks could be parked in residential zones. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that the three -ton rating comes from PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 10 the State Code. The City Attorney has stated that, in order to make the City's Code enforceable, the Code provisions cannot be stricter than the State Code. In the following section, Vice Chairman Mowlds' additional comments and questions on the remainder of Title 16 and Title 17, Article VI are provided, which are in addition to the modifications suggested by Staff. Section 16.32.010(G) [Correction and Amendments of Mans Vice Chairman Mowlds confirmed that any tract map amendment modification must first be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Rojas answered that this was correct and Planning Administrator Petru added that this was stated on page 6 of the Staff Report. Section 17.48.050(A)(2) [Building Height] Vice Chairman Mowlds asked why in subparagraph 2, beginning "Penthouses or roof structures..." the words "by the Planning Commission" were deleted, and added that he did not agree with this deletion. Director Bernard explained that the only items which were identified for discussion were those in the Staff Report. Answers to additional questions could have been researched had those questions been provided prior to the meeting. The minutes can be checked to determine the reason for this deletion and this information will be brought back to the next meeting. Planning Administrator Petru added that for certain additions (for example, dormers above the 16' height limit), the previous Code required the Planning Commission to give approval even if the addition did not affect anyone's view and would perhaps provide an aesthetic improvement to the house. The concept in the proposed revision was that the Director would be given the discretion to approve these types of minor roof additions. However, if there are certain things on the list the Planning Commission feels strongly about reviewing, these can be designated. This was an attempt to reduce the amount of cases, particularly minor ones, which previously had to come before the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Mowlds said he would like to see the Planning Commission review all new commercial roof mounted equipment. Senior Planner Rojas suggested that the Commission could point out what roof equipment is acceptable, both for commercial and residential structures. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 11 Section 17.50.020 [Parking Requirements], Vice Chairman Mowlds questioned the minimum parking space requirements for golf courses. The Code states that three spaces are required for each hole, plus one space for every hundred square feet. He wondered if this would be enough parking spaces. Staff will survey other cities' requirements and look at the Ocean Trails golf course, which was approved by the City last year, to see of this standard is adequate. Vice Chairman Mowlds wanted to make sure that enough parking spaces have been provided at Mr. Saporito's automobile repair station on Highridge and that this was consistent with the Code. Staff will investigate. Section 17.50.040(C) [Parking Area Access] Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that this section does not seem be consistent with Public Works information. This section states that access from a public street shall be 3" asphaltic or cement concrete and Public Works says at must be 6,000 -pound concrete. Planning Administrator Petru stated that this requirement refers to the apron located in the public right-of-way and not to the portion of the driveway on private property, Chairman Alberlo added that 6,000 -pound concrete as a requirement for commercial property, not for residential. Vice Chairman Mowlds disagreed and said that at applied to residential also. Director Bernard replied that Staff will check the requirement. Section 17.50.040(D)(2) [Parking Area Screening] Vice Chairman Mowlds questioned the statement that parking areas across from a residential district shall have a border of appropriate landscaping not less than 10' in depth, measured from the street right-of-way lane. He asked if that meant a flower bed 10' deep? Planning Administrator Petru replied that something more substantial than a flower bed would probably be required; something more an the way of a landscaped visual screen. Vice Chairman Mowlds again referred to the Mr. Sapori.to's auto repair facility on Haghradge and wondered of this Code standard was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 12 too stringent. Section 17.50.050 [Loading Areas] Vice Chairman Mowlds questioned if the requirement for a loading space was strictly followed and asked if the Lucky market at the corner of Westmont and Western had a loading dock? Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the market had a loading area, not a loading dock. Section 17.54.020(A) [Underground Utilities] Vice Chairman Mowlds indicated that this section allows the City Council to waive the requirements for undergrounding utilities. He remembered that the Planning Commission had given permission to the Sisters of Mary and Joseph Retreat House to have only partial undergrounding and asked which body normally gives that approval? Planning Administrator Petru said that the Staff would research the question. Section 17.56.020(A) [Construction Dust Control] Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that the Code stipulates only that it is unlawful to cause or allow airborne dust to leave a property in visible quantities. This statement is not quantitative; there could be different opinions as to what was considered to be "visible" quantities. Director Bernard replied that the Southern California Air Quality Management District will be contacted to provide standards. Section 17.56.020(B) [Hours of Construction Operation] Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that this section refers to notification for permission to perform construction work on Sunday in the event of a crisis. The way it is written, a contractor would have to know on Monday that he was going to have a crisis on Saturday and that is not reasonable. Commissioner Hayes noted that emergency work is exempted. Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that emergency work refers to the fact that power lines are down or sewer lines are broken. Crisis work means that the customer states he will not pay his invoice unless the contractor works on Sundays. Probably a check with other cities is in order. Sometimes, if only painting is going to be done, which is often the case at the end of the job when time is running out, maybe approval can be given. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 13 Section 17.56.030 [Outdoor Lightznq, Residential] Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that it appears that a requirement for wattage has been excluded in the side yard setback. Staff will investigate this. Vice Chairman Mowlds also noted that the Code allowed 1000 watts, with "watts" measured at 110 volts or the equivalent. He added that this section was written when it was common to use 110 volt individual lights and it states that ten to twelve units may be used. He felt that this section needs to be revised because it does not take into account the new technology with low wattage lighting. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that where the light source or fixture is located on the building above the line of the eaves, the Code should include the gable ends, as was done at the Winkler property on Via Subida, where the Commission allowed lights to be placed underneath the roof overhang. Section 17.56.035(A)(1) [Outdoor Lighting, Non -Residential] Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that this section states that no one fixture shall exceed 12,000 watts and that the light source shall not be visible at any property line. He questioned whether the intent was that, at the property line, this means a person cannot look directly into the lens. He also noted that light sources do give off a glow. Section 17.56.040(A) [Neighborhood Protection] Vice Chairman Mowlds mentioned that in the sentence beginning "No commercial vehicles...." the phrase "having a one ton or more rating" has been deleted and he wondered if the words "three -ton" should be added? Director Bernard indicated that this correction would be made. Commissioner Hayes listed several small corrections, typographical type: Section 16.20.100 (E)(2) The word "City" should be added before "Council". Section 16.20.120(8) The word "expensive" should be replaced with "expansive", referring PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 14 a to soil. Section 16.20.130(A) In her opinion, "recordation", is not a correct word and it should be replaced with "recording". Section 16.20.130(B)(4) The word "surveyor" is misspelled. Section 16.20.140 In the next to the last sentence in the first paragraph the phrase "of the City" should be replaced with "to the City". In subsection "D" of that same section, "or his assignee" should be added after "for progress payments to the subdivider". In the same subsection "D" the word "form" should be changed to "from" before "any deposit money...". Section 17.50.050(D) Change the word "and" to "a" before "required parking lot drive. . . " and, on next line, change the word "then" to "than". Commissioner Whiteneck suggested that when slopes are described, that the terms "l on 4" or "1 on 2" should be used, rather than a percentage. He felt that contractors would understand this terminology better and that it should be consistent throughout the Code. Chairman Alberio agreed with Commissioner Whiteneck. Section 16.20.130 [Monuments] Chairman Albedo mentioned that contractors should be required to restore any monument destroyed as a result of their work. At this time, according to Public Works, this is not a requirement. Director Bernard thanked all the Commissioners for their input and stated that answers and or corrections will be provided at the next meeting. Commissioner Wang made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 22, 1994 and it was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. At that time, the Planning Commission will review the revision language for Title 16, and Article VI of Title 17. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 15 Director Bernard mentioned that, in addition, the Subcommittee should adjourn to February 23, 1994 at 7:00 PM and that a packet will be provided to Commissioner Whzteneck before that meeting. NEW BUSINESS - None REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF - Pre -Agenda for the February 22, 1994, meeting. B. COMMISSION - None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Ms. Lois Larue commended Planning Administrator Petru on her exemplary performance record over the last few years. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. The Planning Commission's Development Code Revision Subcommittee was adjourned to Wednesday, February 23, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PAGE 16