Loading...
PC MINS 19940308APPROVED 3/22/,94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 81 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Chairman Alberio. ` PRESENT: Commissioners Ferraro, Hayes, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF - None B. COMMISSION - None CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of February 22, 1994. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that, on page 9, second line down, the word "agreed" should be changed to "did not agree"; and, on page 16, Dust Control, in the last full sentence, that the word "cast" should be added in the sentence, to read "...was a big COST difference ...". Commissioner Ferraro stated that, on page 1, Commission Communications, "Commissioner Wang" should be changed to "Commissioner Ferraro". Commissioner Wang stated that, on page 3, in the first paragraph, the word "seven" should be changed to "several"; on page 4, in the first paragraph, the word "this" should be removed; and, on page 3, paragraph (2), that the word "be" should be added in the sentence, to read "... would have to BE removed...". Commissioner Hayes made a motion to approve the February 22, 1994 minutes with the proposed changes, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 1 B. Planning Commission Development Code Sub -committee Minutes of February 23, 1994. Commissioner Ferraro, on page 2, sixth paragraph, stated that the word "pedestrian" should be changed to "passenger". Vice Chairman Mowlds made a comment, not a change. On page 5, Section 17.66, Vice Chairman Mowlds wanted to make sure that a comment will be added to the Code before the Development Code Revision process is complete stating that, when a project comes before the Planning Commission or the City Council, no Minor Exception Permit may be approved at a later date, which would change the approved building envelope. commissioner Hayes made a motion to approve the February 22, 1994 minutes with the proposed changes, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (5-0). Vice chairman Mowlds made a motion to re -arrange the agenda order to hear the new business item first, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS - None NEW BUSINESS Sign Permit No. 653; Diversified Development; San Pedro Sign Co., 28388 S. Western Avenue (Westmont Plaza). (FF) Commissioner Vannorsdall excused himself because he is an acquaintance of the applicant. Assistant Planner de Freitas read the Staff Report. The applicant is proposing to erect a new sign for Dick's Hallmark at Westmont Plaza Shopping Center which will exceed the criteria in the established sign program. The commission approved the sign program in January of 1992 to maintain consistency and harmony of signage within the shopping center. This is the first request brought to the Commission to exceed that criteria. Staff is recommending that the request be denied. The applicant provided additional information immediately prior to this meeting and Staff has not had an opportunity to review the new proposal. Assistant Planner de Freitas added that the plans which were included in the packet the Commission received on Friday had been scaled off for the first time that day and Staff discovered that there were inconsistencies. In the elevation drawings, the facia measured 31-611 and the largest letter proposed by the applicant was 31-1011 (46"), which indicated that the letters would be taller than the facia on which they are to be placed, which was not consistent PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 2 the elevation. Commissioner Whiteneck asked about the alternate requests received that evening. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that in the three-page handout distributed to Staff and the Commission tonight, the applicant proposed two additional options. The first page of this handout indicated the applicant's preference (Sign #3). The second page illustrated a sign conforming with the sign program maximum letter height of 1811 (Sign #2). The third page showed a sign including the additional word, "Cards" (Sign #1). Assistant Planner de Freitas added that the letter height in sign #2 was consistent with the 1811 maximum height allowed in the sign program; however, he did not know, without review, whether or not it conformed to requirements for the maximum overall sign area. Commissioner Hayes noted that this business had apparently taken over two stores where there were previously two separate signs and eventually planned to expand into a third store. She indicated that she liked the appearance of Sign #1, which seemed well balanced, and asked if this sign conformed to regulations. Assistant Planner de Freitas answered that quick calculations indicated the length for Sign #1 was less than the maximum allowed in the criteria for the sign program. However, the letters 11H11, "Ll" and "KII exceeded the height limitation. In response to Chairman Alberiols question regarding placement of signs, Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that there was a requirement that the sign be centered on the facia vertically and horizontally across the width of the store. Commissioner Ferraro asked about the difference in calculation of overall area of the sign. The applicant said 32.65 sq. ft. and Staff said 61.5 sq. ft. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that he had not had time to review the calculations provided by the applicant that evening, but it appeared that the applicant used an average letter height while Staff determined an overall area of the entire sign by drawing a rectangle around the word "Dick's" and a rectangle around the word "Hallmark". Director Bernard noted that the process Assistant Planner de Freitas described was consistent with the procedure used in the past for analyzing the size of proposed signs. George Castro, San Pedro Sign Company, 701 N. Lakme Avenue, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 3 0 6 Wilmington 90744. Mr. Castro indicated that in the sign preferred by the applicant, only the letters 11H11 and 11K11 in the word "Hallmark" exceeded the allowed height limit. Chairman Alberio asked about the height discrepancy between the appearance of the drawings and the actual measurements taken. Mr. Castro explained that the drawings were reduced and were not to scale. Usually the word "Hallmark" was a lot bigger than the actual name of the store. He added that some of the letters were very thin and needed to be higher for visibility. Also, if the taller letters were reduced to 1811, the smaller letters would be only 511 high. In response to Commissioner Wang's question regarding the planned facelift of the shopping center, Mr. Castro replied that the landowner had informed the tenant that installation of the sign should be postponed for 30 days to allow time for completion of the shopping center facelift. Chairman Alberio asked if all the signs in the shopping center were going to be replaced or altered. Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that Ed Bach from Diversified Development (the landowner) had indicated some time ago that there was going to be a proposal submitted to the City for a revision to the existing sign program. However, the last time they spoke, Mr. Bach said there would be no sign program revision requested, but that they would be approaching the City regarding a face lift for the entire shopping center. Gus Navarro, San Pedro Sign company, 701 N. Lakme Avenue, Wilmington. In response to Commissioner Wang's query as to how this particular sign compared with the others in the shopping center, Mr. Navarro replied that it was slightly bigger. He explained that if "Hallmark" was not a registered trademark, different letters could be used, but block letters would deviate from the nationally recognized registered trademark. He indicated that he realized that the 11H11 and the 11K11 were slightly taller. Also, because the building was set back from the street approximately 2501, a smaller sign would be hard to see. He stated that when the third store was included, which would increase the frontage of the store from 451 to 651, the owner wished to add the word "Cards" onto the end of the sign. Tonight, however, only the word's "Dick's Hallmark" were being submitted for approval. Chairman Alberio noted that if the word "Cards" was added, approval would have to be given separately. Director Bernard explained that part of the difficulty was that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 4 there had been a change from the original application and this last-minute revision had not allowed time for Staff analysis. He speculated that, whether there were two or three stores, the total area of the sign would conform to the sign program. The only problem was the height of the letters but, if additional letters exceeded the length allowed, an additional application would have to be submitted. Rick Venturini, Dick's Hallmark, 810 N. Western Avenue, San Pedro 90732. In response to Commissioner Whiteneck's question regarding adding the word "Cards", Mr. Venturini said that he would like to make that addition when he took over the third store in approximately a year and a half. Mr. Venturini stated that if the proposed sign conformed to the sign program criteria, it would be too small to be seen by someone driving down Western Avenue. He noted that his business had previously been located on the opposite side of Westmont in San Pedro and he had moved to his current location in Rancho Palos Verdes for higher visibility. Mr. Venturini added that only the letters 11H11 and 11K11 were too high and that he would like the sign to be large enough to be seen from the street. He also noted the need to retain the "Hallmark" trademark printing. He mentioned that he had spoken to the landowner that day, who said that he was in the process of re- modeling all the facia in the entire shopping center. The landowner also stated that he was going to request that each of the tenants install uniform signs similar to Mr. Venturini's proposed sign, even if they were larger than their current signage. Director Bernard responded that unless the landowner wants to revise the sign program, each tenant would have to (1) meet the criteria or (2) come to the Planning Commission one at a time. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that the new information submitted tonight indicated that if and when the word "Cards" is added later, the word's "Dick's" and "Hallmark" would each be shorter in length, but the same height. He said that, apparently, these portions of the sign would be replaced at that time and Mr. Venturini confirmed this. Director Bernard said that if only the length of the total sign was changed at the time the word "Cards" was added, Mr. Venturini would need only Staff level approval because the sign would still conform to the sign program criteria. Vice Chairman Mowlds wondered if the present sign program approved in January of 1992 actually provided signs large enough to draw attention to businesses in Rancho Palos Verdes, especially when PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 5 adjacent businesses, which happen to be in different cities, had larger signs. He added that he would support a motion to approve Sign #3 on the drawings distributed that night. Commissioner Wang agreed with Vice Chairman Mowlds. Commissioner Ferraro commented that she felt it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to support businesses and added that she was delighted to have a Hallmark store in Rancho Palos Verdes. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to approve sign Permit No. 653, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0-1), with Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining. Director Bernard stated that Staff was not opposed to promoting business, but made the recommendation denying the proposed sign based on the criteria in the existing sign program for this shopping center. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Variance No. 370• David and Laura Purvis, 4232 Exultant Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein read the Staff Report. On February 22, 1994, the Planning Commission directed Mr. and Mrs. Purvis to work with Staff to re -design their project. The addition has been reduced in size from 380 sq. ft. to 254 sq. ft. The addition originally encroached 121 into the front yard setback area and would now be built in line with the front facade of the existing residence, with a 51811 encroachment into the front yard setback area. The applicant has also included three windows on the front elevation of the addition to reduce the visual impact of a solid wall and create more compatibility with the existing residence and the neighborhood as a whole. Staff reviewed the building permits for the street and conducted a field inspection to verify the measurements, which indicated that the other homes on Exultant Drive respected the minimum 201 setback from the front property line. The only exception was the garage addition on adjacent property at 4111 Exultant Drive which was discussed at the previous meeting. In conclusion, Staff was unable to make the findings necessary to approve the Variance request, and is again recommending denial for the project. If the Commission feels that the Variance should be approved, the Commission should provide Staff with the appropriate findings which Staff would incorporate into a revised Resolution. David Purvis, 4232 Exultant Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Purvis PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 6 i addressed the four findings. Finding No. 1: Are there exceptional and extraordinary conditions applicable to the property? Mr. Purvis noted that, even though Staff's survey determined that there were other homes with detached garages in the back yard, he was aware of only one on his street and he realized there were other homes which have trees in the back yard. He explained that he was not saying his house was unique, meaning the only one of its kind anywhere, but that it was unusual, which meant exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to him. He felt that he should be allowed to build a pool in the back yard which would not be possible if the addition were built there. Finding No. 2, Is the Variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which others enjoy? Mr. Purvis mentioned that his next door neighbor was given the right to expand his house and that he was merely making the same request. Mr. Purvis said that he was asking to build an extension to make both sides of his house match and that he was not modifying the front of the house to look unusual from the street. Findings 3 and 4: Will the granting of the Variance be materially detrimental to the public welfare or cause visual impact? Because all the neighbors had agreed to the larger intrusion, there would certainly be no opposition to the smaller addition. He did not believe that the Planning Commission would be setting an unusual precedent to open up the floodgates for all types of expansions. He repeated that this addition would make the house compatible; the right side of the house would now look the same as the left side. In response to Commissioner Vannorsdall's question regarding Mr. Purvis' checking the setbacks on the existing houses on the street, Mr. Purvis replied that, by his view, there were a number of houses that encroached into the 20' front yard setback. Commissioner Wang stated that when this item was first introduced, Assistant Planner Klopfenstein indicated that these houses were built before the City was incorporated and that the reduced front yard setbacks were possibly grandfathered. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that she had measured several homes on Exultant Drive and, they did look like they were built into the 20' setback, but, in fact, the setbacks were respected. She added that the only reduced setbacks she found were at properties on Conquer or Stalwart, and they were street side yard setbacks for detached garages. She clarified that she had not measured every home, merely did spot checks, but that she had looked at all the building permits for the homes in the area and they indicated that all the homes respected the 20' front yard setback. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 7 • Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if she measured the houses immediately around the subject property and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that she had, and they all respected the 20' front yard setback. Commissioner Wang asked for clarification because the Staff Report the Commission had received on Friday stated that there were no windows proposed and, when Assistant Planner Klopfenstein read the Staff Report that night, she said there were windows. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained this was a Staff error and that were windows in the revised plan. Commissioner Ferraro asked about a blue house two doors from the subject property which appeared to be built out further than the others nearby. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded that she knew the house to which Commissioner Ferraro was referring and that this particular house was not built into the 20' front yard setback. She added that, as discussed at the last meeting, a portion of Mr. and Mrs. Purvis' existing house did encroach into the required setback area. Bruce Burrell (project architect), 87 Marguerite, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Burrell discussed the changes from the original design. The addition was reduced and there was no longer a solid wall on the front, as windows were added. The new plans indicated that there were shingles on the addition but, in reality, there would be wood siding to match the other side of the house. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked for clarification of another window on the side. Mr. Burrell explained that this window was currently in the bathroom, which would be remodeled. This window would ultimately match the other windows in the front. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0). Director Bernard stated that if the Commission decided to approve the project, Staff would return with the Resolution at the next meeting. However, as Assistant Planner Klopfenstein had indicated earlier, the Commission would have to make the four required findings, per State law. Vice Chairman Mowlds made a motion to approve Staff Recommendation No.2, to approve Variance No. 370 as re -designed, and for the Staff to come back with a Resolution on March 22, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 8 Planning Administrator Petru reiterated that specific language for the findings was needed. Commissioner Ferraro suggested language for Finding No. 2 to argue that, since one half of their house enjoyed this property right of encroachment, it was hard to deny the other half the same right. Director Bernard stated that Finding No. 1 seemed to be the hardest to make because being deprived of a pool was not a hardship; a pool was a luxury. Commissioner Ferraro seconded the motion and commented on Finding No. 1. She agreed this was the most difficult finding to make and asked if the "intended use" referred to in the finding could apply to the proposed pool in the back yard. Director Bernard explained that the term "intended use" referred to the general land use of the property (i.e. residential vs. commercial) and did not relate to the specific design of the development on the property. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that the extraordinary circumstances could be that all the houses in this area were one-story and adding square footage in the form of a second story could possibly inhibit the views from other properties. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested for Finding No. 3, regarding the possibility that granting the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare, that the house would not be encroaching into the setback to the point that a car deviating off the road would hit the structure. In reference to Finding No. 4 regarding the possibility that the granting of the Variance would be contrary to the objective of the General Plan or policies, he wondered if an argument would be valid that the "General Plan" of the neighborhood was one-story houses. Director Bernard stated that Staff would bring the Resolution back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting on March 22, 1994. The motion to approve the Variance and adopt the Resolution on March 22, 1994 carried on the following roll call vote: (6-1) AYES; ALBERIO, FERRARO,, MOWLDS, VANNORSDALL, WANG, WHITENECK NOES; HAYES Commissioner Hayes noted that she was not unhappy that the applicants were getting their addition and wished them luck, but voted against the project because she found no compelling reason for setting this precedent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 9 0 - Ll B. DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS• City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Senior Planner Rojas read the Staff Report. To date, the Planning Commission conceptually reviewed Articles VI and VII of Title 17. Article VI was reviewed by the entire Commission on February 8, 1994 and Article VII was reviewed by the Planning Commission Subcommittee on February 23, 1994. Pursuant to comments received at these meetings, Staff prepared draft language for select chapters in both these articles and was presenting these for the Planning Commission's review this evening. For Article VI of Title 17, draft language for Chapter 17.50, Parking and Loading Standards, was being presented to the Planning Commission for the first time. Draft language was being presented for the second time, after comments and revisions, for Chapter 17.54, Underground Utilities and Visual Screening. There were three outstanding chapters (only one of which has not been previously reviewed by the Commission) which were scheduled to come back to the Planning Commission on March 22, 1994. For Article VII of Title 17, Staff was presenting four chapters for review. There were no major changes anticipated in these chapters. Chairman Alberio reopened the public hearing. There were no speakers on this item. Section 17.50.020 (Parking Requirements) Commissioner Hayes asked if the term "handicapped" should be changed to "disadvantaged" Planning Administrator Petru replied that "handicapped" is the term that is used in the Uniform Building Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked why the half -space was removed for the first 100 rooms of a hotel. He said that he was under the impression that the half -space was provided to cover employee parking. Senior Planner Rojas explained that Staff compared hotel parking standards for other cities and the City's standard was adjusted to conform with the norm found in other communites. Vice Chairman Mowlds inquired as to what was done for the Monaghan project at Long Point. Senior Planner Rojas responded that Staff did not apply the current code parking requirements to the Long Point hotel project. Instead, the- requirement for 150 to 175 parking spaces was based on PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 10 some criteria contained in the City's Coastal Specific Plan. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that something be added to dedicate parking for employees. There was a discussion between Commissioner Vannorsdall and Staff regarding parking requirements for dental and medical clinics, offices, and veterinary hospitals. Commissioner Vannorsdall gave an example that his dentist's office was approximately 500 sq. ft. There were three employees and usually a minimum of two patients, which would require a miniumum of five spaces. However, that was more parking than would be required by the Code. Chairman Alberio, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Director Bernard all said that the Code standard was typically used by cities throughout the state for these types of uses. Commissioner Whiteneck agreed with Commissioner Vannorsdall that some parking requirements seemed inadequate, depending on available space on the street for parking. Director Bernard explained that parking requirements were based upon an average and there might be occasions when there would not be enough parking. He added that these facilities were intended to be self-sufficient and were not intended to impact street parking. He stated that these studies were performed by State -licensed traffic engineers. Senior Planner Rojas added that the updated 1993 Municipal Parking Standards for 150 selected California cities were used as a guide in developing the proposed parking standards. Section 17.50.040(B)(1)- [Transit Demand Management Parking Requirements] Vice Chairman Mowlds asked how this section affected the recently approved Salvation Army and Ocean Trails development projects. Senior Planner Rojas answered that these projects were exempt because the L.A. County Congestion Management Program (which went into effect in 1993) allowed projects which were deemed complete prior to a certain deadline established by the program, to be exempt from those standards. Section 17.50.040(F)(6) [Layout and Paving] Commissioner Hayes said she compared the three-inch requirement for concrete paving with Section 17.50.040(D) (2) [Access] where the requirement was four inches and she wondered why both requirements were not four inches. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 11 Senior Planner Rojas replied that the Public Works Department required the apron concrete to be thicker. Director Bernard added that the apron was required to be thicker because the traffic in parking lots was concentrated at the entrances and exits. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked why underpinning underneath the concrete was not mentioned. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that the Development Code did not address these types of subjects. Director Bernard added that this may be part of the Building Code but it was not a Planning Code issue. Chairman Alberio suggested that a reference could be made to the Uniform Building Code. Senior Planner Rojas suggested that this section remain the same and the majority of the Commission agreed. Section 17.50.040 [Parking Dimensions Drawing] Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested this drawing should be enlarged and placed sideways on the page and Senior Planner Rojas agreed this would be a good idea. Section 17.50.040(1) [Usability - Required Off -Street Parking] Commissioner Hayes asked to what kind of "use permit" this sentence referred. Senior Planner Rojas responded that this will be clarified to indicate a "Conditional Use Permitil. Section 17.54.020_LAa [Underground Utilities] Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that the second sentence read as follows: "The Planning Commission and/or City Council may waive the requirements of this section if the nature of the development makes such installation unreasonable..." This change would remove the word "temporary" before the word "nature". Senior Planner Rojas stated that the intent of this section was to waive the requirement to place the cables or lines underground for temporary developments. Vice Chairman Mowlds referred to the Daughters of Mary and Joseph facility, where it was determined that undergrounding would be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 12 unreasonable and this was not a temporary situation. Senior Planner Rojas verified that Vice Chairman Mowlds wanted to expand the scope to include non -temporary situations and Vice Chairman Mowlds said yes. Staff agreed with this suggestion. Section 17.54.040 (Screening of Mechanical Equipment, etc.) Commissioner Wang asked the meaning of the term "public areas". Vice Chairman Mowlds and Director Bernard said this referred to parking lots, entry walkways, and adjacent public streets from which the equipment may be viewed. Section 17.64.010(A) & Section 17.64.,020(B) [Variance - Purpose & Justification] Commissioner Hayes indicated that these sections included two examples of the erratic capitalization of "Planning Commission" and requested consistency throughout the entire Development Code. Section 17.64.030(C) [Variance - Application] Vice Chairman Mowlds asked for clarification of this statement. Director Bernard explained that when it is determined that a Variance is not needed and someone wants to proceed with the application anyway, they are required to sign a waiver, stating that they have been informed that they do not need a Variance, which would require fees and time on their part. Section 17.66.020 [Minor Exception Permits - Scope] After a discussion, it was decided that Subsections "C" and I'D" would be combined. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that this would be a good place for the statement he wanted to add regarding the fact that no Minor Exception Permit may change the envelope approved by the City Council or the Planning Commission and that all revisions would have to be considered by approving body. Section 17.68.030 [Zone Change or Code Amendment - City Initiation] Commissioner Hayes asked for a explanation of the difference between a Zone Change and a Code Amendment. Director Bernard explained that a Code Amendment was a change to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 13 the Development Code and a Zone Change was a change totheCity's Zoning Map. He added that currently there was no provision for the Planning Commission to initiate a Code Amendment and that the Commission might want to address that issue. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if it would it be presumptuous for the Planning Commission to initiate a Code Amendment. Director Bernard replied that current City policy requires the City Council to initiate all Code Amendment procedures and that some cities had a different policy. He added that the Planning Commission. could submit a Code Amendment to the City Council in the form of a request and language could be provided in the Code Revisions to that effect. Vice Chairman Mowlds commented that landslide Moratorium Exemptions are similar and wondered if these should be handled by the Planning Commission, rather than by the City Council, which is the current procedure. Chairman Alberio said that Council members to whom he has spoken indicated that because landslide Moratorium Exemption requests were very sensitive, the City Council preferred to review these. Section 17.68.030 [Zone Change - Initiation by Petition] Commissioner Ferraro asked if any person can file a petition. Commissioner Hayes agreed that this statement was confusing. Senior Planner Rojas stated there was an initiation procedure by the City Council, but that Staff set up the public hearing and provided noticing. Planning Administrator Petru added that the initiation procedure was not a public hearing process; but it was a regular business item brought before the City Council. If the Council gave approval to initiate the Code Amendment, the matter would then come before the Planning Commission at the fully noticed public hearing. She agreed that the Code language was confusing. Director Bernard stated that this language will be clarified. The approval of the property owner was needed to initiate a Zone Change; however, as the Code was written now, it could lead neighbors who have interest in the land to think they have a right to propose a change in land use for property they do not own. Section 17.68.060 [Zone Change - Application] Commissioner Ferraro asked for an explanation of the difference PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 14 between an application and a petition. Planning Administrator Petru explained that a petition was used to initiate a Zone Change or a Code Amendment. Once the Council approved a petition, then an application was filed. Director Bernard clarified that a petition, in this case, did not mean a document with many signatures. It was simply a request and just one person needed to sign it. He felt that possibly a different word should be used other than "petition". Chairman Alberio added that the word "petition" carried more legal significance than the word "application". Director Bernard suggested that this specific use of the word "petition" could be explained in the Definitions section of the Development Code. Section 17.68.090 [Zone Change - Planning commission Action], Commissioner Vannorsdall wondered whether "...majority of three affirmative votes" should be changed to simply "a majority". Commissioner Ferraro pointed out that three is no longer a majority on the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that a number of votes to approve should be established instead of a majority. He gave the example of two Commissioners excusing themselves, so that only five were hearing the item. He wondered if the Code should just require four votes in this case. Director Bernard explained that the Rules of Procedure stated that the Planning Commission could not even consider an item unless there were at least four Commissioners, a quorum, participating. He stated that the intent was that, out of the quorum of four, there would have to be at least 3 affirmative votes (a majority) to approve an item. There could not be a 2-2 vote. Director Bernard suggested that the Code read "...by a majority, but at least three affirmative votes". Section 17.68.100 [Zone Change - Adverse Planning Commission Recommendation) Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that the change discussed for the preceding section should be incorporated into this section also. Chapter 17.78 (Miscellaneous) Planning Administrator Petru suggested that Vice Chairman Mowlds' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 15 proposed revision regarding minor Exception Permits might be placed in the Miscellaneous section, rather than in Minor Exception Permits section. Maybe a cross reference could be made between these two sections of the Code. Staff will investigate this option. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the March 22, 1994 meeting. 2. Three Commissioners will be attending Planning Commissioner's Institute sponsored by the League of California Cities in San Diego. It was noted that this gathering is not in violation of the Brown Act. B. COMMISSION - None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (reaardina non-aaenda.items) - None ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn by Vice Chairman Mowlds, seconded by Commissioner Hayes and passed by acclamation. Adjourned at 9:53 P.M. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 22, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. QD#2 Mmutes Disk, MIN3 8) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 1994 PAGE 16