Loading...
PC MINS 19940927b APPROVED 10/25/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:09 P.M. by Chairman Alberio, at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Ms. Dana Klosner. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: Commissioner Vannorsdall (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Silverman, Assistant Planner de Freitas. COMMUNICATIONS I A. STAFF Director Bernard passed around a note received from the property owners at the Ocean Trails site, thanking the Planning commission for the recent consideration of their project. The following were distributed to the Planning Commissioners: for Item VIIB, 21 items of late correspondence; and, for Item VIIA, one late letter. The Staff congratulated Commissioners Whiteneck and Ferraro, and Chairman Alberio for appointment to the Restoration Advisory Board for the San Pedro Defense Fuel Support Point Facility. B. COMMISSION - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR A. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1771• Mr. and Mrs. Iguro, 7021 Beechfield Drive. (FF) Vice Chairman Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes to approve the request, via minute order, subject to conditions, (6- 0). Chairman Alberio suggested that the agenda be reordered to address the Continued Business item, Development Code Revisions, at the end of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 124, VARIANCE NO. 378; Dr. and Mrs. Robert Hunt, 6470 Seacove Drive. (TS) Commissioner Whiteneck recused himself from hearing this item as his residence is near the subject property. Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report, in which she reviewed the history of the property and the details of the current applications. She concluded by stating that Staff has reviewed the proposed project and feels that the findings cannot be made for granting the Variance nor for the Coastal Permit and therefore has recommended denial. In a discussion between Commissioner Hayes and Associate Planner Silverman, it was brought out that conditions imposed by the Planning Commission for other, prior applications, were ultimately upheld by the Coastal commission. Associate Planner Silverman reviewed the findings made by the city and upheld by the Coastal Commission for the prior applications, which stated that the landowners were required to move all portions of the walkway except for the sections in the center of the property to the rear trail and around the fountain (the fountain was approved). An archway for the rear fencing was approved, the landowners were directed to remove all but four of their queen palm trees on the entire property and to replace the solid concrete wall that is located seaward of the Coastal Setback Line with the approved tract fencing. The Commission did approve a portion of the fence landward of the Coastal Setback Line. Associate Planner Silverman said that some of the other violations on the property had been corrected. Guards around trees in the public right of way were removed and planning approval was obtained for some awnings which were originally unpermitted. Chairman Alberio noted that these past situations were merely to provide background and that they are not issues for tonight's discussion. Associate Planner Silverman explained that the connection was that the landowner was to correct these violations as conditions of approval for other projects. Director Bernard clarified that the recommendation for denial was not based on those outstanding issues but solely on the merits of the three items before the Planning Commission this evening. Chairman Alberio stressed that he felt that the situations should remain two distinct issues. Associate Planner Silverman said that Staff understood what he was saying but noted that it had been the City's practice to not even accept new applications when there were outstanding Code PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 2 Enforcement on the property and explained that an exception was made in this case because the City needed to accept the application in order to begin resolving the problems. Chairman Alberio felt that there should have been other methods. Director Bernard explained that these three items started as a Code Enforcement case. As is true with every Code Enforcement violation, the property owners were given two options, to remove the violation or seek permission through the appropriate applications and they chose the latter. Commissioner Hayes made it clear that whether or not the past violations were corrected, approval would not be guaranteed for the current applications before the Commission. Chairman Alberio concurred. Commissioner Wang asked about the fountain in the back yard and Associate Planner Silverman explained that this was not part of the current application. Director Bernard described the situation regarding the fountain in the front yard, which was originally approved by the City not to exceed 4211 within the first 201, according to a Site Plan Review. Associate Planner Silverman explained that the conditions were originally written to restrict the fountain placement anywhere within the first 501 of the property because, this tract had a 501 front setback. The original plans showed a 501 setback, which was consistent with the conditions of approval for the tract. Some time after the original approval, the clearance form and plans for that particular approval were modified. Staff does not know if it was modified by a Staff member or by someone else, because there is no record of the change and no Staff initials on the change. In any case, the conditions of approval of the tract supersede the clearance form. The tract conditions of approval makes allowances for fences, walls, and hedges, and similar structures, up to a maximum of 421 in height within the first 201 of the property. Director Bernard informed the Commission that the plans which were reviewed with Dr. Hunt's attorney this afternoon did reflect the fountain was in the first 201 and that the plans noted that the fountain could not exceed 4211, however, no building permits were applied for or granted and there were no inspections by Staff. Chairman Alberio asked who changed the 201 to 501. Director Bernard said that it was not a current Staff member, and that it would have had to have been changed by either a former PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 3 Staff member or someone else who had access to the file. Chairman Alberio asked if the change was on the blueprint. Planning Administrator Petru replied that it was on the clearance form only, which was available if anyone wanted to review it. Mr. Fred Gaines, (attorney for the applicant) Reznik and Reznik, 15456 Ventura Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA. Mentioned that Dr. and Mrs. Hunt were present, as was George Hillyard, the project manager on site. Mr. Gaines discussed the merits of the Variance and stated that the application included the following three items: (1) The front yard fountain: Mr. Gaines stated that the issue was whether it is too tall, also whether it is allowed or not. He noted that Exhibit A indicated that there was a site plan that showed the fountain exactly where it is, as approved. He added that the fountain was inspected many times for plumbing and electrical, and approved; and that, only recently, four years after the fact, was a violation mentioned. He noted that Exhibit A for the original approval says that no structure shall be permitted closer than 50' to the front property line unless written approval is granted by the City. Fences walls, hedges, or other similar objects shall not exceed 4211 in height within the front 201 of the property without written City approval. Mr. Gaines said that some people might say that, in the first 20f, it can't be higher than 42". As discussed at his meeting this afternoon with Staff, Staff's current interpretation is that this means that, in the second 301, you can't have it at all. Mr. Gaines felt that it was clear, at the time the fountain was built, that it was considered a "similar object" by the Staff person at the time when this was approved. It was specifically built so that the height that exceeds 4211 was not in the first 201, but in the 21st foot, because it was known that in the first 201, the height could not exceed 421, and that was the original intent. There was no building permit because it was a pre -fabricated "statue", of sorts, stuck on to the rest of the property which was built pursuant to the site plan and inspected for plumbing and electrical. Mr. Gaines emphasized that there was no problem, other than the technical problem Staff now found. No neighbor was complaining about a blocked view, or saying that the fountain was unattractive. He added that there was only one letter received and this was regarding the palm trees, which was not an issue before the Commission tonight. Mr. Gaines stressed that even the findings for denial don't point out problems with fountain. (2) Bar/barbeque adjacent to pool: Mr. Gaines said that the claim was it is in side yard setback and Building Setback area. He explained that this was a permanent bar area with a barbeque and a refrigerator and that these items were on the site plans from very PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 4 early on and that they inspected in terms of electrical and plumbing hookups. He mentioned Permit No. 14107. They were not built in the middle of the night and one approval, clearance given by Planning on October 1989, describes about a 31 setback for pool equipment and other such items and that 31 setback is there. Mr. Gaines stated that even the findings for denial indicated no problems. He noted that these items do not block anyone's view, do not affect anyone offsite, and that no neighbor complaints had been received. (3) Two lampposts in the back yard: Mr. Gaines explained that the Building Setback Line is angled across back yard because bluff curved so one lamppost was fine and that the other one was a few feet on the other side of the Building Setback Line. He advised that these were inspected and installed with electrical permits. He mentioned that there would be expense to break up the concrete to move the lamppost a few feet. He noted that this was the one item Staff said had a negative physical effect, because the light could be seen from another property. However, moving it will not change the fact that someone could see it or not and Mr. Gaines felt that this is not an issue which has an effect on neighbors since no one had complained, even though this property had been closely followed by the neighbors and that there had been complaints about the trees and the sidewalks. Mr. Gaines felt that, findings could be made for granting the Variance and that Staff's opposition came from other issues which were not currently before the Commission. He acknowledged that the property had been the subject of controversy and that the property owners had been given a list of things to do, some had been done, which included taking out the trees and sidewalks and making this Variance application to correct these other issues. Vice Chairman Mowlds advised Mr. Gaines that, if a project met the City's requirements, it was approved and that, if it did not, a Variance was required. He added that this was a clean and simple approach that every City followed. Mr. Mowlds stated that the particular items before the Commission did not meet the City's requirements. Vice Chairman Mowlds did agree with some of the reasons given by the applicant as to why the Variance should be granted, and made the following comments: In Paragraph 1, regarding the fountain, Mr. Mowlds felt the fountain should not be allowed to remain merely because of the extraordinary cost already incurred. In Paragraph 2, Mr. Mowlds felt that the circular driveway and dual curb cuts were self-imposed hardships and that, even with those two PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 5 situations, Dr. and Mrs. Hunt still had more front yard than any of their neighbors because their fence extends further toward the street. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Gaines if he agreed regarding the 4211 height of the fountain. Mr. Gaines responded that the restriction is that it could not be higher than 421 in the first 201 and that the fountain was higher than 4211 in the 21st and 22nd foot which, we believe was the previous interpretation at the time of the Site Plan Review approval four years ago. He added that, only now, was there a different interpretation. Vice Chairman Mowlds explained that having an inspector on a job and noticing or not noticing a problem was not a reason for de facto approval and that there have been projects where, during final approval, it was found that something major had to be corrected. Mr. Gaines said that he believed all the findings could be made for the Variance and that this was an after -the -fact Variance application because the Planning Department had changed its view of where the setbacks were. Vice Chairman Mowlds qualified himself by explaining that he was a builder by profession, and that knew of no builder who would not be able to calculate within about 611 where the Coastal Setback Line was as soon as he saw the 900 open fence. Any builder would also know that he could not build in an area 251 back of that line. He cannot build. Mr. Mowlds took exception to Mr. Gaines' statement and that the people do know where that line is because it is not something that is determined by satellite, but by observation. Mr. Gaines clarified that, at this particular site, one of the problems was that the fence was solid too far down so, if a person was calculating from where the fence is open, the determination of the location of the Coastal Setback Line would be incorrect. Vice Chairman Mowlds said that he was aware of this fact and asked Mr. Gaines if he knew why the fence became solid in that particular location. Mr. Gaines answered that he had been told that it was because of an agreement between the two adjoining property owners. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the City had been consistent in not honoring neighbor agreements. Returning to the discussion in respect to the fountain, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 6 Commissioner Hayes remarked that, when Conditional Use Permit No. 71 was approved, Page 3, Item 3D, stated that no structure shall be permitted closer than 50' to the front property line unless written approval is granted by the City. Fences, walls, and hedges and other similar objects shall not exceed 4211, therefore, there was direction from the original Conditional Use Permit which allowed these homes to be built originally. Mr. Gaines advised that, pursuant to that Conditional Use Permit, a site plan review application was submitted which indicated the exact location of the fountain, and there was a discussion as to the location in which it was limited in height to 42" and that was why it was built where it was. He explained that it was not an accident that the part of the fountain which is 82" high is in the 22nd foot because the interpretation of the planner approving the site plan review, at the time, was that the fountain could not be higher than 42" in the front 20' of the property, and it is not. Director Bernard had comments in response to Mr. Gaines remarks and Mr. Bernard noted that he was surprised to hear some of the points made by Mr. Gaines because these were not subjects discussed or agreed to at their meeting this afternoon. (1) Staff's position was not based upon any outstanding Code Enforcement issues. (2) As the Commission knows and was pointed out to Mr. Gaines this afternoon, the activities of Code Enforcement in the City have changed since September of 1993 when a second Code Enforcement Officer was hired. Before that time, Code Enforcement was completely reactive, responsive only to complaints received from citizens. If a Building Inspector, Planner, the City Manager, or any other City Staff member noticed a Code Enforcement problem, it would not be entered in the log and no action would be taken. Last September, the City Council directed Staff to take a pro -active stance. Mr. Gaines is correct in that in the last 4 years nothing had been said but, since it was Staff who noticed the problem, we could not take action. After the new direction from the City Council, Dr. and Mrs. Hunt were told to either correct the violations or seek correct approvals. (3) Three Code Enforcement issues, the fountain in the front yard, the lights in back yard, and the bar/barbeque adjacent to the swimming pool were all after -the -fact pro -active responses. There was an incorrect statement was made earlier, a nuance, but Staff did not claim that the bar/barbeque was in the sideyard setback area, it is clearly shown in that location on the plans provided by the applicant. This is not a claim, but a statement of fact. Director Bernard felt that Mr. Gaines could not disagree because Mr. Gaines had provided the measurements. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 7 z 9 0 Mr. Gaines said that he did disagree. (4) Staff does not make recommendations to Planning Commission based on support or opposition from the public but based on policy and interpretation of Code. The popularity of the project is not considered. The Planning Commission then makes a determination if Staff's interpretation is correct and if the Staff's recommendation should be accepted. (5) Director Bernard affirmed that Staff had never, at least in the 1-1/2 yrs he had been with the City, and during the three hearings on this property during that same period, ever changed its interpretation of where the Building Setback Line is. (6) As pointed out by one of the Commissioners, there is an adjoining fence which both property owners agreed to modify and that modification is a violation of the Code. Mr. Bernard stated that Staff is empowered and responsible for enforcing this Code. (7) The Variance for the wall in the front, although not part of this application was an after -the -fact Variance and mentioned as a description of the history of the property. (8) Director Bernard wondered if Mr. Gaines had been able to speak to the previous planner, Bonnie Olsen, because the current Staff had been unable to locate her and had not talked to her about this property. He felt it was curious that the interpretation Mr. Gaines placed upon the approval, which he saw at City Hall this afternoon and which the Planning Commissioners have also seen, indicated that Staff had never interpreted that a structure would to be permitted to be 4211 in the first foot after the first 20-1 of the property. On the plan, the fountain is a circle with an arrow directed to the middle of the fountain which Mr. Gaines stated is past that first foot. Around that arrow, there is a notation of 1142 inches maximum height and 18 inches maximum depth", so clearly that is our interpretation, granted it is current. (9) Staff is consistent in addressing the Code Enforcement cases. Applicants are given the choice to remove the problem or to seek approval through the appropriate applications, in this case, approval of a Variance. The landowner was not told that the mere application for the Variance would take care of the other problems on the property. v Associate Planner Silverman acknowledged the complicated history of this site. Mr. Gaines had indicated that there were permits issued and electrical and plumbing inspections made for both the fountain and the bar/barbeque and that there also permits for the lights, however, there is no record of any such permits ever having been issued. Mr. Hillyard states that there are permits for the lights PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 8 but Staff has been unable to locate any evidence that such permits exist. If Mr. Hillyard can produce the permits, Staff would be grateful. Mr. Gaines also made reference to plans being approved showing the location of the items in question on the plans. While it is true, there were plans submitted which showed these items as existing, there were no permits issued prior to them showing up on plans as being existing and no evidence of planning review at the counter. Mr. Gaines also suggested that Staff could have been able to make the findings for the project. However, Staff did not make these findings, and if that were the case, approval would have been recommended. Director Bernard indicated that, in the past, the Commission, rather than Staff, had made the findings for certain projects. Chairman Alberio recalled Mr. Gaines to the podium for rebuttal. Mr. Gaines stated that the applicant's position is that all these items were built according to plans, and inspected as necessary; and that what has happened, after the fact, is that there are now different interpretations. Mr. Gaines stressed that he and the Hunts do not believe this Variance is needed, and the Variance application was submitted only as part of a list of "to do" items from the City. The items in question could be legalized by allowing the Variance if the findings can be made or the Planning Commission can tell Dr. and Mrs. Hunt to remove the items. He reiterated that these items were not causing problems for other residents. In making the Variance findings, Mr. Gaines stressed that no finding could be made for cause to the public detriment. In terms of the Coastal Permit, two findings had to be made and the public access finding was made by the Staff. Only the lights were not in conformance with the Coastal Specific Plan and, literally, they would need to be moved only a few feet in either direction, and this would have no effect on whether the neighbors saw them or not. He felt that a better solution might be to restrict the wattage or the length of time or time of the day the lights could be on. The exceptional circumstances could not be made because of self-imposed hardships. Mr. Gaines repeated that these items were on the plans, they were inspected, and every effort was made to do these things in a legal way. The City disagrees that they were done in a legal way and therefore a Variance has been requested. Chairman Alberio asked if there was any evidence that there were inspections. Mr. Gaines said that there was and that, this afternoon, we went through a list of the permits, and that he had quoted the electrical and plumbing permit number. Chairman Alberio responded that the City had no record of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 9 inspection or approval. Director Bernard asked Mr. Gaines to provide the permits for the fountain, lights and the bar/barbeque because the City had no records of permits (none were submitted). Mr. Gaines reiterated that the Hunts had built these things with inspections, approvals and that nothing was hidden. He stated that new interpretations which might require them to rip them out was a violation of the substantial property right and the Commission could make that finding to approve this Variance. He said that as to whether these items were materially detrimental to properties in the area, the only issue raised was with the lights and that this could be reduced as described previously with lower wattage, etc. He added that everyone in this neighborhood had lights in their backyard within a few feet of where this light is. Mr. Gaines stated that these are the facts before the Planning Commission, not the fact that a member of the Commission might like or dislike his client, or that the Commission might think the Hunts are trying to pull something over on the City. The landowners are trying to solve these problems according to the list provided. These specific problems can be solved with this Variance and Mr. Gaines felt that the facts support the findings. He concluded by saying that the City Council, in giving Dr. and Mrs. Hunt the other approval, said go out and make the application for a Variance. They are doing that, and ask for your support so they can move on. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0) Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Staff regarding Page 6 of the Staff Report, if, in granting a Variance, the City Municipal Code required that the Planning Commission make four findings and he noticed that the Staff Report for the next time, is worded exactly the same, with the same four findings. Chairman Alberio acknowledged that Mr. Mowlds' comments indicate that each case is judged by the same rules Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that this was the point he was trying to make. He listed the four findings as follows: (1) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. (2) That such a Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 10 C: district. • (3) That the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located. (4) That the granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan. Commissioner Hayes remarked that she was in favor of keeping the Coastal Specific Plan as pure as possible and that the 50' setback was clearly stated in the Conditional Use Permit for the original homes. Commissioner Ferraro expressed her concern that Mr. Gaines kept saying that there were no problems and, therefore, that should be a reason for the Planning Commission to approve these items after the fact. However, she felt the issue was not the neighboring property owners. What mattered was whether or not the Commission could make the four findings and she gave her thoughts on this subject. She felt that the lighting was definitely a problem in regard to the Coastal Specific Plan. She felt that the Variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right which is possessed by other property owners because she did not see that the other property owners in that area being allowed to take advantage of the setbacks and released from the Codes. Commissioner Ferraro did not find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and, although, supposedly, there have been permits, no one seems to be able to produce them. She found it hard to approve the Variance. Commissioner Wang realized that the property had quite a history with the City. She had visited the house and said that house and the improvements were beautiful but that fact did not mean that the Code was followed. She said that she found it difficult to sort out conflicting statements from Staff and applicant's attorney, especially the fact that Mr. Gaines said that four years ago, all these items were inspected, approved, and permitted. She said that she did not know what to say regarding the fact that, four years later, when the City Council determined that the City's Code Enforcement Department become pro -active, these problems became apparent. Chairman Alberio agreed with Mrs. Wang that it is a beautiful piece of property that has been developed to its fullest. He acknowledged that there was an ambiguity in interpreting the Code regarding the 50' setback and felt that the symmetry on the fountain had caused problems. He felt that any ambiguity could be construed against the Planning Commission and, for that reason, he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 11 thought it might be appropriate to allow that fountain in the front but that there should be a compromise on the part of the applicant to move the light in the back yard out of the setback area. He was not sure what to do about the bar/barbeque and hoped that a solution could be found because he did not like to see property destroyed. Chairman Alberio asked for suggestions from the other members of the Commission. Commissioner Hayes moved to deny the project, as recommended by the Staff . Vice Chairman Mowlds said that before the motion was seconded, he wanted to comment that tearing down property did not bother him at all, regardless of the cost. He gave examples of situation where improvements had to be removed, including a whole second story of a house, caissons, retaining walls. Mr. Mowlds expressed his opinion that the cost was the homeowners to bear and if he hired a contractor who did something wrong, it was still the homeowner's responsibility of the landowner. However, he wondered if a compromise might be possible and suggested that the item be continue for 30 days to investigate a possible compromise. Chairman Alberio clarified that he would agree to property being destroyed if there were no other solution but he would hope that, in most cases, there might be another solution. He asked Mr. Gaines to return to the podium. The Public Hearing was Re -Opened. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. Gaines about a compromise and Mr. Gaines said the applicant would be willing to have the Variance denied in accordance with the light post and would move the light post because this seemed to be the issue in Staff Report which caused problems. However, they did not want to take out the fountain or move the fountain. Vice Chairman Mowlds interrupted Mr. Gaines to let him know that they were not going to negotiate the settlement at the present time and that the Commission was just asking for a "yes or no" answer as to the Hunts' willingness to discuss a compromise. Chairman Alberio explained that the details of the compromise could be worked out within the next 30 days. Mr. Gaines conferred with his client and said yes, they would be happy to try to work out a compromise in the next 30 days. Commissioner Hayes mentioned that there was a motion on the floor and the motion died for lack of a second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 22 Vice Chairman Mowlds moved that the item be continued to October 25, 1994, during which time the Staff could meet with the homeowner and see if there was a compromise position, seconded by Commissioner Wang. The motion was approved (3-2-1) on the following roll call vote: AYES: WANG, MOWLDS, ALBERIO NOES: HAYES, FERRARO ABSTAIN: WHITENECK Director Bernard asked the Commission for direction and vice Chairman Mowlds said he would talk to Mr. Bernard. Commissioner Whiteneck returned to the dais. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:20 P.M. and reconvened at 8:35 P.M. B. VARIANCE NO. 367 - REVISION, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1714 - REVISION; Mr. and Mrs. Milan Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report. The original proposal was denied in January 1994 because of concerns regarding view impairment and construction into the extreme slope. Applicants appealed to the City Council and at its September 6, 1994 meeting the Council determined that the redesign should be returned to the Planning commission for review again. Staff's position is that the project has been adequately redesigned and that the findings can be made to recommend approval of the project, subject to conditions. Mr. Gil Groisman, (applicant's architect) 25042 Vermond Drive, Newhall, CA. Mr. Groisman stated that he had designed the original addition and had revised the plans in accordance with the Planning Commission's direction from the previous meeting. He explained that the reason Mr. and Mrs. Veteska wanted to remodel their house was because the master bedroom was on the second floor and all the other bedrooms were on the third floor, and because they have small children, they want all the bedrooms on the same floor. He explained that the only way to maintain the next door neighbor's view was to use caissons and build part of the addition over the slope, maintaining as much of the natural vegetation as possible. Mrs. Mariana Groisman, (applicant's architect) 25042 Vermond Drive, Newhall, CA. Mrs. Groisman explained that they had followed the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 13 guidelines of the Planning Commission from the last hearing in redesigning the project, including protection of Mr. Widoff's view next door. She was aware that many letters in opposition had been received but that the Veteskas have been willing to compromise to give up exactly the kind of home they wish in trying to accommodate the neighbors. Mrs. Groisman showed a map to the Commission indicating the locations of the neighbors in support and in opposition. Most of the neighbors opposing the project either can't see the house from their property or live so far away they would not even be affected. She felt that many neighbors who had no opinion had not spoken up and that the neighbors against the project had been the most vocal so she did not feel the letters received were necessarily a true reflection of the neighborhood consensus. She concluded by remarking that Staff had made all the findings for approval. Mrs. Irena Veteska, (applicant) 5503 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Veteska mentioned that they moved to this property six years ago. When they bought the house, they had a 14 1/2 year old son, who was killed two years ago, and that, before that time, they had no intention of raising small children in this house. However, now the house is not appropriate for their young child and they need to make changes. She was disappointed that there were neighbors opposed to their addition and felt they did not understand the situation. She indicated that a huge financial loss would be experienced if they were to sell their home, therefore remodeling was their only option. She noted that they had no intention of destroying vegetation and that they were not the monsters the neighbors believed them to be. Mr. David Orange, 26927 Springcreek Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Orange said that previously lived on Graylog Street. He and his wife had a child at the same time as Mr. and Mrs. Veteska and he understood the hardship of the arrangement of their bedrooms. Mr. Orange indicated that he came from a family of contractors and had been a contractor himself for 20 years. He did not see any problem with the construction being proposed and urged the Commission to approve the project. Ms. Ann Dickson, 5507 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Dickson said that she lived next door to Mr. and Mrs. Veteska. She expressed her preference to speak after those in opposition to rebut the concerns but indicated that she had read some of the opposition letters so would address some of their concerns. Regarding building on the steep slope, she informed the commission that her house was built on pylons on the side of a severe slope. She felt the problem with Mr. Widof f Is view had been addressed. Mrs. Dickson explained that the Veteskas took pride in the canyon and they and several of their friends maintained their side of the canyon, as well as her's. she considered the Veteska's good PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 14 neighbors. As far as the comment about earthquake damage, she believed her house was the one in question and, if so, the extent of the earthquake damage was a cracked toilet when a bottle fell in it. Some of the neighbors were concerned about plants, tricycles, toys, etc., on the upper deck but Mrs. Dickson said she liked seeing evidence that people with small children were moving into the neighborhood again. In questioning Mrs. Dickson, Chairman Alberio learned that, when she moved into her present home, she had two children out of college and one in high school, therefore, she had not had raised small children living in her home as the Veteskas do, and that she was not planning to make any major improvements to her home. In the discussion, Mrs. Dickson commented that many residents in the neighborhood had moved to the area because the houses were small and relatively inexpensive and they bought the houses to make extensive modifications for their growing families. Mr. Mirko Santucci, 5503 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Santucci said that he had lived in the Veteska's home for the last six months. It was his opinion that there were more people on the street who did not have a problem with the project who had not spoken up and that he hoped the Veteskas would be granted approval. Ms. 01cfa Jacob, 5503 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Jacob felt that the project would not impair views because the addition to the house was actually lower than the original house and that the addition would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Stewart Widoff, 5502 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Widoff stated that he had lived in his home for 23 years which was next door to Mr. and Mrs. Veteska. He described his view of Torrance and the Los Angeles basin from his back yard through the living room, patio, and kitchen. After viewing the latest drawings, rear view, including the canyon, he felt his view would still be impaired. He noted that on January 11, 1994, the Planning Commission denied this addition, based on view impairment and building on an extreme slope and; even though this was the third set of plans, his objections were the same; and he urged the Commission to deny the project again. Currently, his two main objections were: (1) Proposed Upper Deck: Flags currently in place show that the view of the canyon would be blocked by the deck and the articles which would be placed on it, however, he would maintain his city lights view so there is some improvement there. He felt the sun deck would invade his privacy because it would look directly into his living room and patio. He noted also that he expected reflection of the sun from the glass wall around the deck. (2) Damage to the Hill and Canyon: Mr. Widoff objected to building on the extreme slope of 60-80% because caissons would cause damage to the vegetation and possible hillside slippage, to the fact that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 15 grading was increased from 287 cubic yards to 435 cubic yards, for the retaining wall that would have to built right next to his property line and for a new driveway going to the rear of the Veteska's property. He noted that the square footage being added would be 2,729 square feet, twice the size of his own house and felt this was contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. the He suggested that the City should conduct a geological study for building on this hillside and referred to a house whose back yard had slipped down onto Hawthorne Boulevard near Hesse Park and the fact that the City could be legally liable for allowing construction on a steep hillside if there were future earth slippage. Mr. Michael McNamara, 5402 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. McNamara said that he had lived in his home for 18 years. He opposed building on the extreme slope, which was against the Code; doubling the size of the original house to 5735 square feet; increasing the grading by 60%, changing the land contours and impeding drainage; and believed the revised plan was essentially the original project. To grant this Variance, findings must be met and Mr. McNamara felt that the public health, safety and welfare would be damaged. In addition to Mr. WidoffIs threatened view, the proposed 750 square foot skylight would send up a huge cylinder of light at night to affect city light views of residents on Bayridge Road. He noted that the applicant's own geologist recommended a full geologic investigation of the land before building and Mr. McNamara felt it was incumbent upon the Commission to require this report. The proposed house would be much bigger than the 1600 square foot average size of the houses in the neighborhood. Mr. McNamara pointed out that the General Plan requires preservation of the rural and open character of Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as preservation of the character of the hills, drainage, natural outcroppings, and he felt this approval of this project would conflict with those requirements. Mrs. Brenda McNamara, 5402 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. McNamara described her neighborhood as an enclosed community of approximately 220 houses, over half of which were approximately 1300 square feet; and, that the proposed home of over 5700 square feet house would be overbuilt for the neighborhood and felt that the project was opposed to General Plan which promotes lower density, a rural atmosphere and compatibility of structure (including size). Although she felt empathy for the Veteskas, she commented that they were aware of the character of the neighborhood when they bought their home and that there were other neighborhoods in the City with bigger homes which would better match their current needs. Mr. Richard Hanson, 5430 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hanson said that he had lived in his home for 32 years, overlooking PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 16 Mr. Widoff's and Mr. and Mrs. Veteska's property and that he also had owned the property at 5431 Bayridge since 1976. Although he acknowledged that Mr. and Mrs. Veteska had tried diligently to satisfy the complaints of the neighbors, building on the extreme slope was hazardous to the fragile hillside and noted that a part of a backyard was lost a few years ago on Bayridge Road. He expressed doubt that large equipment could get down the slope to put in the foundation and caissons without disturbing the natural vegetation. Mr. Rollin Sturgeon, 5456 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Sturgeon said he had lived in his home for 37 years and liked the character of the neighborhood. He read the following City requirements for a "view home" but felt they would apply to any home. "The proposed structure must be compatible with the immediate neighborhood character and neighborhood character is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including scale of surrounding residences, square footage and lot coverage, architectural style, facade treatment, structural height, open space between structures, roof design and the apparent bulk of the mass of a structure and building materials. Mr. Sturgeon felt that the proposed house did not satisfy these criteria. He mentioned that the applicant brought up cost but Mr. Sturgeon felt that building on an extreme slope was very expensive and that they would have a difficult time later finding a buyer who would pay an equitable price for the overbuilt home. Mr. Dean Herbrandson, 5519 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes - Mr. Herbrandson said that he was 28 years old and that he and his wife had lived in their 1300 square feet square feet home for two years. He stated that the Veteskas had made the decision to live in the Grandview area and, in doing so, like all other residents in the area, agreed to live by the General Plan, which states clearly on Page 2: "The City's main goal is self determination, the right to determine land use, which means lower density and preservation for the coastal resources, canyons, rural resources and views." Mr. Herbrandson felt that the proposed project impaired his view, impacted the sensitive ecological canyon, and was architecturally incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Herbrandson also objected to the large amount of grading, the large size of the house, the potential threat to wildlife in the area, and the 151 diameter skylight which would disrupt his view. He cited severely increased building costs on the extreme slope, as well as access, maintenance and appearance. Commissioner Ferraro moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds commented that over last few years the Planning Commission had dealt with the concept of building a larger PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 17 house in an existing community and that a previous commissioner, said "people today have 1990 checkbooks with 1990 ideas and should not be burdened or forced into having homes developed with 1950 ideas". Therefore, the Planning Commission had not limited the size of the house in an area merely because it was big, only how big it looked. Regarding the amount of grading, Vice Chairman Mowlds said that the Planning Commission looked at_ each grading permit individually, because what might be excessive grading on one lot might not be on another. Mr. Mowlds did see that light from the proposed skylight would interfere with the neighbors' night views. Regarding geological studies, Mr. Mowlds said it was the policy of the City to require a full report before a building permit was issued. In respect to density as mentioned in the General Plan, this was written when the City was first incorporated and he gave some examples of the intent. The City approved at the foot of Hawthorne Boulevard at the ocean, 79 houses. Prior to the incorporation of Rancho Palos Verdes, the developer was going to put 2,500 condominiums there. Where the golf course was going to go, 80 houses were approved along with a golf course and, prior to incorporation, there were going to be 5,300 condominiums. The density in this neighborhood was already established as to how many lots there would be. As far as not interfering with health, safety and welfare, this requirement has to do with dust control, limiting the size of trucks, etc. Vice Chairman Mowlds commented on the remark about the sensitive hillside but he looked at the zoning map and did not see that this area was specified as one of the protected areas in the City. Regarding the bulk of the house, from the street, it would not look any different once the addition was complete, in fact, the elevation is even lower than the current house. Vice Chairman Mowlds then listed points against the project and stated that one problem is that it was difficult to determine the entire outline of the structure because the flagging does not meet the Code. There are no 16' marks on the poles, the flags go through a tree and, there are no flags on the side next to the person whose view is threatened. Mr. Mowlds acknowledged that the Code does prohibit building on an extreme slope. He did want to note, however, that, regarding the problem with the back yard slipping down on Hawthorne Boulevard, that was caused by the resident leaving the water running uncontrolled down into the hillside. It was a landscaping problem and not caused by construction on the hill. Vice Chairman Mowlds said he did not feel comfortable approving the addition on the extreme slope and wished more information was available. He mentioned that when he was on the subject property, he had a hard time standing up on loose soil on the steep slope. He expressed sympathy for the applicant because they have been more than willing to compromise. Commissioner Ferraro agree with Vice Chairman Mowlds regarding PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 18 building on the extreme slope. Commissioner Whiteneck felt that, building on an extreme slope is not necessarily hazardous but, without a geological report, he did not feel he was in a position to approve the project. Commissioner Wang said that she understood the applicant's desire to develop this house into a family home but that she thought it would not be an appropriate home for small children because there was not enough level land in the back for them to play safely. She was also worried about the geology and the city's liability. Chairman Alberio made a motion to deny the Variance and Grading Permit, seconded by commissioner Hayes. Chairman Alberio explained that, even though he felt everyone had the right to develop their property, he did see the extreme slope, in some cases up to 65%, as a serious problem and was worried about how the house would react to a strong earthquake. Commissioner Whiteneck reiterated that he was not so concerned about the 35% slope if it was properly engineered and if a complete geology report showed that the land was stable, however, he did admit concern that it would be difficult to install the caissons on the hillside without destroying the environment. The motion was approved (5-0) on a roll call. Chairman Alberio noted that the Resolution would be signed at next meeting on October 11, 1994 and the appeal period would begin at that time. C. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 125, ZONE CHANGE NO. 23• Mr. Greg Gawlik, 16 Seacove Drive. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating that Mr. Gawlik was requesting that the Coastal Setback line, which bisects his property, be relocated. Mr. de Freitas gave a history of the Coastal Setback Line which was set in the late 1970's based on the geology studies performed by the City at that time. With up-to-date geological information that suggested the Coastal Setback Line could be relocated, Staff's advice was that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this project to the City Council. Chairman Alberio asked if this request had to be approved by the California Coastal Commission. Planning Administrator Petru said that the Zone Change did not have to be reviewed by the Coastal Commission, however, the Coastal PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 19 Permit would be appealable to the Coastal Commission because this property was in the appealable area. Chairman Alberio opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Greg Gawlik, (applicant) 16 Seacove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Gawlik mentioned that he had been a homeowner in the City for 16 years and that he purchased the subject property in late 1988. Immediately, he determined that the Coastal Setback Line bisected the property, between the house and the garage. in working with the Planning Department, he realized that he could not plan improvements to the property without first clearing up the problem with the Coastal Setback Line. He hired geological experts to perform a detailed analysis of his property and surrounding lots. The report was submitted to the City and was approved by the City geologist. Mr. Richard Martin, (representing the applicant), Coastline Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 1446 West 178th Street, Gardena, CA. Mr. Martin stated that he was hired to perform a geologic study in 1991 and final City approval was obtained in 1993. He explained that he had studied the subsurface conditions, not only on the Gawlik site but also the offsite landslide area, to determine the factor of safety of that property. He said that it was a long, difficult task because of the existence of the landslide near the Gawlik property. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked for further details regarding the analysis of properties adjacent to Mr. Gawlik's. Mr. Martin pointed out, on a map, the Gawlik property, is fairly level and extends from the street to the top of the slope. About 551 south of the Gawlick property exists another path below. He explained that this path, about 3001 wide, is the beginning of the landslide debris which goes toward Abalone Cove. From the path, there is another 501 down to the ocean. He clarified that Mr. Gawlik's property was not a bluff lot. He went on to say that there were three borings drilled on Gawlik lot and two more offsite on the adjacent property to the south because he was chasing the landslide to determine the mechanism of the landslide. He found basalt, a very hard bedrock material, in part of the upper portion of the property but it was missing on the backside of the property and he wanted to find it to see if there was a connection. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the Coastal Setback Line should be changed on the adjacent property. Mr. Martin said it should not because each lot was different and the same criteria could not be applied. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 20 Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Martin if he thought the Coastal Setback Line was proper down the street and if the Planning Commission should consider changes for other properties. Mr. Martin said that would be appropriate, on an individual basis, and that, on some lots, it may be determined that the line might not be far enough back. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if this means that on this property the setback line would be at one place and the property next to it would be at a different location and Mr. Martin said yes. Director Bernard explained that Staff had "connected the dots" between the points where there was information, making the assumption that, between those points, the lines should be straight. He added that Staff supported Mr. Martin's statement that lots should be looked at on a case-by-case basis as more information is received. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue related a story about Professor Merriam, one of the experts referenced in the Staff Report, which made her doubt his competence. She also asked the Planning Commission why they would be willing to consider relocating the Coastal Setback Line on this property when a previous item on tonight's agenda, a property also on Seacove, dealt with violations of building beyond the Coastal Setback Line. Ms. Larue stressed that the decision on the subject property was one of grave importance because the action could impact a lot of other people. Ms. Larue disagreed with Mr. Martin's statement that this is not a bluff lot and argued that all the homes on the ocean side of Seacove, are on the bluff. She was concerned that other geological reports are very old. She noted that Charlie Abbott, who has the City's Building and Safety contract was being sued for $300,000, along with his employee Winston Ward and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Ward certified occupancy in a home and the owner is now faced with massive repairs. 'Chairman Alberio asked what Charlie Abbott had to do with this project. Director Bernard advised that the lawsuit, had nothing to do with this case but if Ms. Larue had asked for details, he could have told her that the suit is actually alleged, nothing has been proven. It alleges that Mr. Winston Ward, who was the past building official for the City, had approved the project which now has some cracks in it. The City's position is that the damage related to subsequent non -permitted improvements. Chairman Alberio asked about reference to the old reports. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 21 Assistant Planner de Freitas said that Mr. Martin would be better qualified to answer that question, however, it was Mr. de Freitas, understanding that it was common practice for geologists to base their conclusions on tests and that previous reports are used for reference only. Assistant Planner de Freitas also noted that it was the practice of the City's Building Department to retain reports for three years without requesting updated information. He concluded by saying that, Mr. Art Keene, the City's geologist who recommended approval of the applicant's request to relocate the Coastal Setback Line, would never had done so unless he felt it was justified. Director Bernard answered another of Ms. Larue's questions by stating that the comparison to the previous agenda item regarding Dr. Hunt's property was not appropriate because Dr. Hunt had never presented information to the City to justify a relocation of the Coastal Setback Line. If he had done so, and the Coastal Setback Line would have been moved seaward, any improvements that are under contention, would have been allowed. Commissioner Hayes felt that the applicant's consultant had been thorough in his analysis and she felt the Planning Commission must put its trust in someone. Vice Chairman Mowlds concurred and said that, once Mr. Martin had mentioned core drillings, and the fact that he had lost the basalt and started looking for it, convinced him that he was diligent in his analysis. Mr. Mowlds saw no reason to reject the staff's recommendation. Commissioner Ferraro asked to be shown the location of the current Coastal Setback Line and was successfully assisted by Assistant Planner de Freitas, Chairman Alberio, and Vice Chairman Mowlds. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked about legalizing the swimming pool which would be bisected by the newly relocated Coastal Setback Line and Planning Administrator Petru said it would be grandfathered. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that this be noted so that the swimming pool bisection would not be brought before the commission again. Chairman Alberio was concerned about establishing a precedent in the relocation of the Coastal Setback Line. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that if an applicant was willing to spend a very large sum of money to investigate the feasibility of moving the Coastal Setback Line, knowing that the investigation might prove that the line should not be moved, they should be allowed to reap the benefits of their expense for the analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 22 • Commissioner Hayes agreed that there was a risk. Chairman Alberio said he was still not quite convinced. Planning Administrator Petru gave examples of relocations of the Costal Setback Line in the past, namely, Subregion I and the Ocean Trails project. In both instances, additional geologic information moved the relocation of the Coastal Setback Line landward, which is the more usual case. Vice Chairman Mowlds knew of another situation where the line was moved landward also. Commissioner Ferraro asked about the buckling in the deck and the pool and in the driveway. Chairman Alberio asked Mr,. Martin to step forward to address this concern. Mr. Martin said that the problem was caused by poor drainage and the expansive adobe fill soil. Mr. Gawlik asked to speak and said that the driveway was being lifted by the roots of large pine trees. Regarding the pool deck, he said that he had spoken to the pool man who had maintained the pool for the previous owners for over 20 years and he said that there were many layers decking over another because the first three or four feet of the soil was very loose. He added that loose soil did not affect the overall stability of the land and Mr. Martin's report indicated that any foundations or footings would go down well below that loose soil. Chairman Alberio asked if 1.5 safety factor was determined and Mr. Gawlik said yes, on the whole pad. Vice Chairman Xowlds moved to approved as recommended, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion was approved (5-1) on the following roll call vote: AYES: HAYES, WHITENECK, WANG, MOWLDS, ALBERIO NOES: FERRARO RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 10:40 P.M. and reconvened at 10:45 P.M. CONTINUED BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 23 �+ r 0 A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONSj; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Mr. Richard Bara, #1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bara said that he was speaking both for himself and as a representative of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association. He explained that the Association supports the City Council direction to the Planning Commission for no revisions to the maximum number of animals and no revisions to the method of calculating the maximum number of animals. He added that he had several concerns about this portion of the Code but would discuss these concerns at a later date when the entirety was returned to the Planning Commission. He stressed that he was sorry he was not present during the early discussions of 17.46.020 (c)(1) regarding the boarding issue. He cited the current Code which states that boarding shall not be permitted unless the person is not making money, but only recovering costs and said that the proposed change states that boarding may occur if the City Council establishes a procedure for doing so. He was concerned about the timing and what would happen if the Code change and the City Council procedure were not established simultaneously. Mr. Bara expressed interest in the added language from the City Attorney, as mentioned in the Staff Report and believe that the City Attorney should look at 17.46.010 also, which currently states that horses may not be boarding and they may be kept only horses as pets. He concluded by saying that, if 17.46.020 (c)(1) is changed, 17.46.010 would have to be changed also. Vice Chairman Mowlds said that he was going to propose some changes whether it is the City Council's direction or not and asked Mr. Bara if he owned any horses Mr. Bara said that, at the present time, he owned one horse and boarded about six or seven. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that, although he knows little about horses, but looking at the question of the maximum number of horses allowed, he had some concerns. The proposed Code change says that a person can have three horses on 15,000 square feet of land (about two tennis courts, for visualization purposes). There are facilities needed for a horse, a place to store the horse food, a stable, tack room, corral, etc. The Code says that a corral has to be 400 square feet per horse. He asked Mr. Bara for his opinion of the number of horses vs. the necessary area (square feet) per horse. Mr. Bara did not have an answer readily available and said he would have to calculate that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 24 0- A discussion ensued between Vice Chairman Mowlds and Mr. Bara regarding the fact that multiple parcels can have more horses than one very large parcel and what additional structures or recreational facilities could be built on a horse lot if the landowner chooses not to keep horses. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Bara if he would be willing to write a position paper, make up examples, show the Commission what is fair and reasonable from a horse owner's point of view and Mr. Bara agreed to do this. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 11, 1994. B. COMMISSION COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (reaardinq non-aaenda items Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue explained how she came to be interested in city government in 1988 and described some of her early experiences. ADJOURNMENT vice chairman Mowlds, seconded by commissioner Ferraro to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M. to its regular meeting on Tuesday, October 11, 1994. (6-0). (A JD M[NUTFS DISK #5 - MIN9 27) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PAGE 25