Loading...
PC MINS 199404123 APPROVED 5/10/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 12, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Terry Silverman. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: Commissioner Wang (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Silverman, and Assistant Planner de Freitas. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Director Bernard reported there were five items of late correspondence received after the Commissioners agenda packets were assembled and distributed. For Public Hearing Item A (Variance No. 360 for Mr. and Mrs. Zic) there was one letter; and for Public Hearing Item B (Coastal Permit No. 121 and Variance No. 371 for Mr. and Mrs. Farman) there were four letters. These items of late correspondence had been placed before the Commission. B. COMMISSION - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 1994. Commissioner Hayes stated that, on Page .2, a change should be made to indicate that she had voted against Variance 370; on Page 4, sixth paragraph, end of the third line, the unnecessary word "it" should be deleted; on Page 10, sixth paragraph, second line, either the word "this" or the word "the" should be removed; and, on Page 13, seventh paragraph, the word "insure" should be replaced with the word "ensure". Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that on Page 5, second paragraph, the word "interesting" should be replaced with the word "interested". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 1 Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Approve the March 22, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes with the proposed changes, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). B. Planning Commission Development Code Sub -Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Approve the March 23, 1994 Planning Commission Development Code Sub -Committee Minutes, as written, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (3-0-2) with Chairman Alberio and Commissioner Whiteneck abstaining. CONTINUED BUSINESS Chairman Alberio stated that the agenda would be re -arranged to hear Continued Business Item A, Development Code Revisions, after Continued Business Item B and the Public Hearing items. B. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1681 - REVISION; Mr. and Mrs. James La Barba, 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West (a.k.a. 30101 Palos Verdes Drive West). (TS) Requested Action: Revise Condition No. 3 of P.C. Resolution No. 93-16, to require the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association to remove trees in accordance with the established CC&Rs for the tract, in lieu of recording a City Covenant to Maintain Property to Protect Views. There were no requests to speak on this item. However, Director Bernard stated that a slightly modified Resolution had been distributed to the Commission. The applicants confirmed that they had received and reviewed a copy of the revised Resolution and agreed with the revised language. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Approve Grading Permit No. 1681 - Revision, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Chairman Alberio stated that he would sign the P. C. Resolution that evening. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 360• Mr. and Mrs. Zic, 6931 Kings Harbor Drive. (TS) Requested Action: Allow construction of a 430 square foot second story addition, 7.5 feet into the required front yard setback with a maximum proposed height of 26.5 feet, to an existing single family residence located 12.5 feet from the front property line. Vice Chairman Mowlds excused himself from hearing this item because he lives near the subject property and left the dais. Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 2 Alberio reminded Vice Chairman Mowlds that he could speak on the item as a member of the public. Associate Planner Silverman read the Staff Report. The applicant is requesting approval for construction of a second story addition to an existing single-family residence which is already located 12.5 feet from the front property line and 7.5 feet into the required front yard setback. Staff previously approved a Height Variation application for this project, contingent upon approval of the Variance by the Planning Commission. In reviewing the application, Staff felt that there were exceptional, extraordinary circumstances on the property that warrant the granting of a Variance. The existing structure is already located within the front setback and there is an extreme slope on the rear of the property, limiting the developable area. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right which is enjoyed by other property owners in the neighborhood. The addition is only 430 square feet which would maintain the structure's consistency with the size of the surrounding homes. Staff felt that the addition would not be materially detrimental to any of the other properties because there would be no views impaired by the structure and the house would remain similar in size and architectural style to the surrounding homes. This construction does exceed 26 feet in height, which is also part of the reason for the Variance. Staff recommended approval of the application. Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Howard McAdoo, (contractor representing the applicant) 317 W. Kelso Street, #7, Inglewood, CA. Mr. McAdoo stated that this home is an existing two-story structure. The proposed addition would be added over the garage, the only portion of the structure that is currently a single story. He concluded by saying that this extra space would be beneficial to Mr. and Mrs. Zic. Mr. Nick Mowlds, 6832 Verde Ridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Mowlds' objection to the project was that the addition would not maintain articulation of the front facade of the residence and would not be consistent with every other house in the tract. He added that this house already encroached in the front yard setback and he felt that Mr. and Mrs. Zic did not have the vested right to intensify that encroachment. Mr. Mowlds said that he had no objection to the height, but to the fact that this addition over the garage would go up as a straight wall and, if the two other houses in the row of three did the same thing, the cumulative effect would be a vertical face along the street. He requested that the Planning Commission require that the addition be redesigned for better articulation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 3 Mrs. Vlasta Zic, (applicant) 6931 Kings Harbor Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Zic said that, up to this time, she was unaware of any objection from her neighbors. She and her husband applied to have a room added above the garage to match the existing house and their architect did take into account the appearance of the other houses in the neighborhood. She noted that there was another home on her street which had added a room above the garage, so she thought it would be acceptable and said that she was willing to cooperate to resolve the problems. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). Commissioner Ferraro said that the Variance Application stated that the addition would not impair views. However, when she stood on the porch of the next door neighbor (to the right, facing the house) it appeared that, if the addition came all the way to the front over the garage, it would obstruct the view from the corner of that neighbor's house. Associate Planner Silverman replied that Staff's analysis revealed that there would not be significant view impairment. She admitted that there would be some minor view obstruction from the corner window of the house mentioned by Commissioner Ferraro, but that the majority of the view was from the front window. Chairman Alberio asked if this was a protected view (as defined by the Development Code) and Associate Planner Silverman said that it was. Commissioner Hayes stated that she had been on the first Development Code Revision Sub -Committee, which had prepared a complete design review process for all additions over 200 square feet and had proposed a special Code section addressing all pop-up garages. She noted that this project was a typical example of the pop-up garage, however, articulation could be achieved by setting the second story back from the first story. Even though the neighbors were not opposed, the current design would cause enormous bulk and, if all the houses added similar rooms over the garages, the character of the neighborhood would be destroyed. commissioner Hayes added that the current Development Code Sub -Committee felt strongly that articulation must be maintained. She concluded by saying that she felt that design review, curb appeal and aesthetics were very important and that none of these concerns were met in this instance. Commissioner Whiteneck agreed that the second story should be set back a few feet and that the roof line should be continued around for complete articulation. He felt this design would be more attractive and consistent, rather than simply having the front wall PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 4 go straight up. He suggested that the architect re-evaluate the size of the room needed and determine whether a reasonable setback of a few feet would be acceptable. Howard McAdoo stepped forward to make a clarification. He said that the plan showed that the front elevation would not come straight up as a flat wall and that the roof line did continue all the way around to the corner of the structure. Chairman Alberio said that he agreed with Commissioners Hayes and Whiteneck and felt there was room for improvement in the articulation of the second story room, so that it did not look like a pop-up garage. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Continue this item to May 24, 1994, to provide time for a redesign,, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (5-0-1), with Vice Chairman Mowlds abstaining. Chairman Alberio explained the decision'to the applicant, and Mrs. Zic indicated that she understood. Planning Administrator Petru explained that, under the Permit Streamline Act, the Planning Commission's deadline to take an action on this Variance was May 1, 1994. Since the continuance would be heard after that date, Staff would need to obtain a no -fee extension from the applicant. If the applicant was unwilling to give the City additional time, there would be a Resolution to deny this Variance on the April 26, 1994 agenda. She assured the Commission that Staff would work with Mr. and Mrs. Zic to resolve this issue. Vice Chairman Mowlds returned to the dais. B. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 121, VARIANCE NO. 371• Mr. and Mrs. Farman, 4150 Maritime Road. (FF) Requested Action: Allow 207 square feet of new habitable space (master bedroom), legalize a 138 square foot existing unpermitted living room addition, and the relocation of a 530 square foot garage that will encroach a maximum of 11f-3" into the 201-011 required front yard setback. Assistant Planner de Freitas read the Staff Report. This project involves adding 207 square feet of new habitable space to create a master bedroom, legalizing a 138 square feet unpermitted living room addition that encroaches into the rear yard setback, and the demolition of the existing 572 square feet garage to be replaced with a new 530 square feet attached, direct access garage that would encroach into the required front yard setback area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 5 It is Staff's opinion that all of the findings necessary to grant the Variance and Coastal Permit can be made. The subject lot is considerably substandard in size as compared with other similarly zoned lots (RS -2) throughout the City, and thus qualifies as an extraordinary condition. Without the Variance, the applicant's ability to improve the property, which is a common property right enjoyed by others in the same zoning classification, would be severely restricted. The proposed project would be similar to other homes in the area in terms of encroachments into setbacks. In addition, the proposed project will not result in any adverse privacy or view impacts to surrounding properties. The project is also consistent with the policies of the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan and it would not have any impacts on public access or recreational activities in the area. For these reasons, Staff recommended that the Commission approve the applicant's request, subject to the recommended conditions of approval and any others that the Commission deemed appropriate. Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing. Mrs. Suzanne Farman, (applicant) 4118 Maritime Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. She stated that she was available for questions and that her contractor was present also. Commissioner Whiteneck asked Mrs. Farman if she lived at the subject property. She answered that she lived at 4118 Maritime Road and that the subject house at 4150 Maritime Road, which she and her husband had bought for their son and daughter-in-law, was currently vacant. Mr. Darrell Adamson, (contractor for the applicant) 28650 Vista Madera, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Adamson stated that he was available for questions. Mr. William W. Simmons, (representing the Community Association for Tract 16540, the homeowners association for the subject property) 4181 Maritime Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Simmons provided a letter to the Planning commission and said that, because this project was reviewed and approved by the Association's Architectural Committee, he recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project as submitted. He added that the Farman's were not new to this community, they have made similar improvements to their own home in the past which have enhanced the property values in the neighborhood, and he believed this project would do the same. Mr. Tor Petterson, 31248 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Petterson stated that he lived in the Portuguese Bend Club and that, in the last few days, he had spoken to people living PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 6 in the area and found that everyone was in favor of the improvements to the subject property. He added that he had ten to twelve proxies from other neighbors in favor of the project, who asked him to speak on their behalf. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds made a motion to approve Staff's recommendation, Alternative No. 1, to adopt the P.C. Resolution incorporating additional conditions of approval, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). Planning Administrator Petru noted that this motion approved both Coastal Permit No. 121 and Variance No. 371 and Vice Chairman Mowlds said that Staff's recommendation, Alternative No. 1, stated that. Chairman Alberio stated that he would be signing the two Resolutions that evening. Chairman Alberio pointed out that the existing deck at the rear of the subject property was very dangerous and needed to be repaired. He wanted to make sure that this hazard was noted by Staff, even though it was not relevant to the approval of the Coastal Permit and the Variance. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the potential danger of the steep slope at the back of the property and asked Staff if that had been investigated. Assistant Planner de Freitas said that the project would come before the Building and Safety Department during the plan check process and the review included a geologic report. Chairman Alberio explained that the Planning Commission had approved the Variance and the Coastal Permit, but that it was Staff's responsibility to ensure that the applicant obtained any other necessary approvals from the other City Departments. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Senior Planner Rojas read the Staff Report. On March 23, the Planning Commission Development Code Sub -Committee conceptually reviewed proposed revisions for Articles I and II of Title 17, in the continuation of the Development Code Revision process. As a result of that Sub -Committee meeting, Staff prepared draft language PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 7 for both of those articles. Presented for the Commission's review were three chapters in Article I, dealing with Attached Unit Development Standards, Home Occupations and Second Units. There were two outstanding chapters of Article I, dealing with Single - Family and Multi -Family Residential Districts, which Staff will bring back at a later meeting. In Chapter II, all the sections presented to the Commission that evening dealt with Commercial Districts. Staff requested that the Commission review the revised language and provide Staff with any further direction with respect to any language clarifications or modifications. Senior Planner Rojas mentioned that he had received some comments from the City's consultant working on the Housing Element regarding the code language in the Second Unit chapter. Also, correspondence had been received from a resident who was requesting Development Code revisions in the Commercial General Section, regarding video arcades. Senior Planner Rojas also commented that earlier that week correspondence had been received from Tom Schnerk, a resident of the City who, as some of the Commissioners might remember, was vocal with regard to the Forrestal project. Mr. Schnerk's correspondence proposed some revised language dealing with the Grading section of the Code. Senior Planner Rojas stated that this correspondence would be discussed when these sections of the Code are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Chairman Alberio Re -opened the Public Hearing. Since there were no speakers on this item, the Commission reviewed the proposed Code language page by page. 17.06.020(A)(6&7) [Attached Unit Development Standards - Attenuation of Noise and Vibration] Commissioner Hayes stated that consistency was needed in the use of the words "floor -ceiling" in item 6 and "floor/ ceiling" in item 7, and suggested that "floor/ceiling" be used throughout the Code. 17.08.030(D) [Home Occupations - Review of Application] Commissioner Ferraro commented that Paragraph D seemed redundant because this information was already stated in Paragraph C. Senior Planner Rojas replied that Paragraphs D, E, and F were restating similar, but more specific, statements found in Paragraph C. The consensus of the Commission was that there should be no change. 17.08.030(G) [Home Occupations - Review of Application] Commissioner Hayes asked about the type of clients mentioned. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 8 Senior Planner Rojas answered that most of the complaints received against home business involved businesses with people coming and going throughout the day, such as automobile detailing and hairstyling home businesses. 17.10.019-LBL [Second Unit Development Standards] Commissioner Hayes said that she would prefer that the Code prohibited the parking of trailers anywhere in the City. Senior Planner Rojas replied that Title VIII contained a chapter on Property Maintenance, which stated that the parking of trailers was allowed as long as they were on an approved paved surface. A change would be necessary in Title VIII to prohibit the parking of trailers on private property in the City. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he believed that the words "or mobile home" should be added after "trailer". Planning Administrator Petru suggested that the term "recreational vehicle" be used instead of "mobile home", because a mobile home has a specific definition under State law. Senior Planner Rojas said that, per the City's Housing Element and State law, the City could not prohibit the use of mobile homes as a dwelling unit and this was verified by the City's consultant. The intent of Paragraph B was not to prohibit mobile homes, but to prohibit small trailers, that would be towed behind a car. The City's consultant suggested that the definition of "trailer" be clarified to indicate that the City was not prohibiting mobile homes, only trailers. Commissioner Whiteneck asked if a recreational vehicle was considered as housing. Planning Administrator Petru replied that a recreational vehicle would not be allowed as permanent housing on a lot. often, when residents perform major remodels on their homes, they have asked to park a recreational vehicle in their driveway to live in during the renovation. The City generally had prohibited that, as a matter of policy. If this language was added, this policy would become part of the Code. Right now, the Code mentioned only a trailer, which could be a camper or, as Senior Planner Rojas noted, a small trailer to haul items. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that, if someone brought in a trailer, took the wheels off and put adjustable jacks under it, it could be used as a dwelling unit. The Housing Element clearly defined that. Planning Administrator Petru agreed that State law prohibited PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 9 discrimination against manufactured housing; however, the City's Code also required that the trailer be placed on a permanent foundation and that was usually the stumbling block for most people. Senior Planner Rojas stated that this information would be clarified by Staff as much as possible, based on the State law, to try to prohibit the use of trailers as dwelling units. 17.10.020(D) [Second Unit Development Standards] Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the Code stated that the attached second unit should not exceed 1,200 square feet, according to the State law. However, the City could allow a larger second unit, as in the Winkler second unit, which was 1,500 square feet. Senior Planner Rojas explained that, if someone proposed a second unit which did not meet the standards, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. 17.10.020(F) [Second Unit Development Standards] Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if allowing one full bathroom, one kitchen and two bedrooms precluded someone from having a living room. Staff said it did not. 17.10.020(G) [Second Unit Development Standards] Commissioner Vannorsdall asked why the statement was included that a second unit shall be separated from any garage by an unenclosed, uncovered space of a distance of at least twenty feet. Senior Planner Rojas replied that this too reflected State law. The City's consultant said that it could be changed but recommended that the Code adhere as closely as possible to the State's requirements. 17.10.030 [Second Unit Development Standards - Filing for Record] Commissioner Ferraro asked if "Conditional Use Permit" and "Site Plan Review" were being used interchangeably in this portion of the Code. Planning Administrator Petru answered that a Site Plan Review was appropriate if the second unit met the criteria and a Conditional Use Permit would be necessary if the proposed second unit did not. The two applications require a different level of review by the City. Commissioner Hayes asked why the issuance of a Certificate of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 10 Occupancy, instead of the application, was being recorded with the County Recorder. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that the intent of the section was to require the second unit applicant to record the necessary application, either a Site Plan Review or Conditional Use Permit application, with the County Recorder prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Hayes asked if a designation was necessary to indicate whether it was a Site Plan Review or Conditional Use Permit application. She said it was still confusing because the Code said "application" and that it appeared to her that would be the Site Plan Review. Director Bernard suggested that clarifying language would be added by Staff. 17.10.040 [Second Unit Development Standards - Revocation] Commissioner Hayes wondered who notified the County Recorder in the event of a revocation and asked if this was the responsibility of the City, since it was not specifically stated in the Code. Planning Administrator Petru agreed that there should be some notification to the County Recorder and said that Staff would investigate this and develop clarifying language. 17.12.010 [Commercial Districts - Purpose] Commissioner Hayes asked that the word "insure" in the seventh line be changed to "ensure". 17.20.020 (D) [Commercial General District - Uses Allowed by Conditional Use Permit] Senior Planner Rojas stated that, as mentioned earlier that evening, correspondence had been received by the City Council from resident Bill Ruth indicating his interest in limiting the number of video arcade games in the City. Senior Planner Rojas mentioned that he had informed Mr. Ruth that through the Development Code revisions process (1) an arcade was being defined as having as four or more video games and (2) a procedure was being established to require a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed arcade and also to legalize existing arcades. He told Mr. Ruth that this procedure had been reviewed by the Planning Commission without comment. Senior Planner Rojas added that Mr. Ruth would like the City to regulate video games and perhaps prohibit arcades or at least carefully monitor them in the City, especially on Western Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 121 1994 PAGE 11 Commissioner Hayes agreed that arcades seemed to attract a bad element. Chairman Alberio warned that constitutional issues could be involved. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that the Planning commission could discuss the issues at the time a particular Conditional Use Permit was requested. Senior Planner Rojas agreed with Vice Chairman Mowlds. 17.22.020(C) (Commercial Recreational District) Commissioner Hayes stated that the Code read "with the exception of the following: ..... 11 and then "amusement parks" was crossed out and there was nothing to replace those words. She commented that either something was missing or the entire section should be deleted. Senior Planner Rojas stated that the section would be reviewed and clarified. 17.22.040(B) (Commercial Recreational District - Development Standards] Vice Chairman Mowlds said that the Code stated that landscaping and irrigation plans had to be approved before an applicant could receive a Certificate of Occupancy. He felt there should be some sort of mechanism to protect against an applicant's inaction after approval. Unfortunately, sometimes people ran out of money. He was not sure how this problem could be handled, but asked Staff to give it some thought. Senior Planner Rojas agreed that this was a good point and said that Staff would investigate this issue. Commissioner Hayes mentioned that "Director of Environmental Services" should be changed to "Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement". At this point, there was a general discussion about the Development Code Revision Process, including the rescheduling of Sub -Committee meetings. Because Commissioner Whiteneck was unable to attend Wednesday meetings, the Development Code Sub -Committee meeting set for Wednesday, April 13, was rescheduled for Thursday, April 28, and all future Sub -Committee meetings will be held on the Thursday evening during the same week as the Planning commission meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 12 I Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the City Council could review approximately three to four Development Code issues before the Planning Commission's final review, in order to eliminate the need for the Commission to review some sections of the Code twice. An example he gave was that Minor Exception Permits would not allow building into the front yard setbacks. He added that Staff knew what the issues were and suggested that it would be helpful if the City Council could provide direction before the Planning Commission completed its recommendations on the Code Revisions. Senior Planner Rojas replied that there were several controversial issues and added that it was Staff's intent to obtain the Commission's direction first, because the City Council valued Commission discussions on code revisions. It was not Staff's intent to go back and forth between the Commission and the Council. Vice Chairman Mowlds repeated that he would like to make sure that the Planning commission did not have to review sections of the Code twice, if input could be received beforehand from the Council. He added that the Council might still make changes, but maybe that could be minimized. Planning Administrator Petru commented that she felt the Planning Commission should make their best effort at the Revisions, and then send it on to the City Council. Vice Chairman Mowlds said he would accept that. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the April 26, 1994 meeting. 2. Review schedule of upcoming Orientation Sessions. The Orientation Session, "How to Read Plans", scheduled for April 26 at 6:00 P.M., was indefinitely postponed. 3. Future Meeting Date for a Joint Workshop with the View Restoration Committee. Chairman Alberio asked if there was approval from the Mayor for the Joint Workshop. He said that the subject had come up at the Mayor's Breakfast, and the Mayor said he wanted to be consulted. Chairman Alberio asked the exact purpose of the Joint Workshop. Director Bernard replied that, in September of 1993, the past Planning Commission and the View Restoration Committee dealt with the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. At that time, it appeared to the City Council that there were different PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 13 • interpretations of the indicated that a Joint members of the View Commission were named. last week, the members Staff to discuss it workshop, a common established. Guidelines by the two bodies. The Council Workshop might be appropriate once the new Restoration Committee and the Planning At the View Restoration Committee meeting thought this would be a good idea and asked with the Planning Commission. At this set of definitions and goals could be 4. Creation of a Joint Planning Commission/View Restoration Committee to discuss the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. Chairman Alberio explained that last month the Planning Commission dealt with view impairment issues and rendered a recommendation to the City Council as to how a Conditional Use Permit was to be handled. There were some differences of opinions between the various City bodies when the item went before the City Council and the Council wanted to make sure that these differences were reconciled. Planning Administrator Petru suggested that a Planning Commission Sub -Committee be established and possible meeting dates be provided to the View Restoration Committee, who could appoint their Sub - Committee at their next regular meeting on April 21, 1994. Chairman Alberio asked for volunteers for a Sub -Committee of three members. The Sub -Committee was established to consist of Chairman Alberio and Commissioners Vannorsdall and Wang. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that there should be a finite reason for establishing these two Sub -Committees. Planning Administrator Petru replied that at the Joint Workshop held in September of 1993, the City Council expressed a strong desire for both the View Restoration Committee and the Planning Commission to be working with the same set of definitions and similar Guidelines when dealing with view issues. This would be the finite reason for the Joint Sub -Committee. Chairman Alberio suggested that the Chairpersons of the two Sub - Committees meet to establish an agenda and the other Commissioners agreed that this was a good idea. B. COMMISSION - NONE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Ms. Lois Large, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue discussed the debris basin in Barkentine Canyon and the "Law PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 14 of the Transportation of Water". ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck to Adjourn. Motion carried (6-0) and the meeting was duly Adjourned at 8.35 P.M. to its regular meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the Hesse Park Community Building. (A JD MR4LUES #2 - MIN4 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 15