Loading...
PC MINS 19950110APPROVED 2/14/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 10, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M., by (outgoing) Chairman Alberio at the City Hall Community Room, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Commissioner Alberio then passed the gavel to Chairman Mowlds. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Alberio. PRESENT: commissioners Alberio, Hayes, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, and Chairman Mowlds. ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Ro3as, Associate Planner Silverman, Code Enforcement Officer Rodericks, and Recording Secretary Drasco. The outgoing and incoming Chairs (Alberio and Mowlds, respectively) exchanged places. The Planning Commission extended its appreciation of Mr. Alberiols leadership for the past year. SELECTION OF A VICE CHAIR Commissioner Alberio moved to select Commissioner Hayes to be Vice - Chair, seconded by commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Director/ Secretary Bernard announced that copies of the entire Planning commission packets would now be available for 'public review at Hesse Park; Peninsula Public Library/Miraleste branch; Peninsula Public Library/ Peninsula Center branch (after January 29, 1995); and, remain available at the Planning Department public counter. 2. A flyer was distributed inviting the Planning Commissioners to a SWAPO meeting on Thursday, January 19, 1995 in Hermosa Beach. 3. Director/Secretary Bernard explained that a change of location for this meeting was necessary because of rainstorm damage to Hesse Park. 4. Director/Secretary Bernard reported there was late correspondence as follows: one letter for PUBLIC HEARING ITEM VIIIA (Mr. and Mrs. Thomas) ; four letters for PUBLIC HEARING ITEM VIIIB (Mr. and Mrs. Myers); and 12 letters for CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM VIIA, (Development Code equestrian issues). 5. Staff recommended that PUBLIC HEARING ITEM VIIIA be heard first in order to provide time for the members of the public interested in the equestrian issue to arrive at City Hall if they had first gone to Hesse Park. 6. A Planners Pocket Guide was distributed to each Commissioner, provided by Charles Abbott & Associates and published by the League of California Cities. B. COMMISSION 1. Regarding the January 21, 1995, Joint City Council/Planning Commission/View Restoration Commission Meeting regarding view restoration issues, Chairman Mowlds indicated that he had been informed by the Mayor that the meeting was not mandatory for all commissioners (only Chair and Vice -Chair) but that any commissioner may attend, as desired. However, he suggested that any Commissioner who planned to attend be adequately prepared to address the issues surrounding "views". 2. Commissioner Wang offered to be in charge of the Commission's coffee fund for the next year. 3. Chairman Mowlds mentioned that during his tenure as Chair, Director/ Secretary Bernard would announce each agenda item, as the City Clerk does for the City Council. 4. Chairman Mowlds restated Director/Secretary Bernard's comment about why PUBLIC HEARING ITEM VIIIA should be heard first and added that it would take only about five to ten minutes. Mr. Mowlds asked if there were any objections from the other Commissioners and there were none. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994. vice chair Hayes moved to accept the Minutes as written, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 2 f PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 383; Dr. and Mrs. Claudewell Thomas, 30676 Palos Verdes Drive East. (GR) Reading of the Staff Report was waived. Chairman Mowlds declared the public hearing open. There were no speakers, so the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve Variance No. 383, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Mowlds stated that he would sign P.C. Resolution No. 95-01 that evening and that there would be a 15 -day appeal period before the Commission's action would become final. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Director/ Secretary Bernard indicated that Staff's recommendation was that the Commission review and conceptually approve the draft language changes to the Large Domestic Animal Overlay District, previously known as the Equestrian District, Chapter 17.46, and continue the Public Hearing to January 24, 1995 for review and consideration of the final draft language of Municipal Code Titles 16 and 17 in their entirety. Director/Secretary Bernard explained that, in the Staff Report, the existing language appeared in yellow and the proposed language in blue, and that extra copies of the Staff Report were available to the public at the Staff table. Senior Planner Rojas pointed out that the Development Code, including Chapter 17.46, had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission Development Code Subcommittee throughout 1994 and that direction had been sought from the City Council as well. After subsequent meetings in October 1994, the Commission determined that the equestrian issue required additional time for public testimony and therefore,, this item had been continued to tonight's agenda. Senior Planner Rojas, in order to simplify the review for the Commission and the audience, explained that the Staff Report included a copy of Chapter 17.12, the current Development Code's Equestrian Chapter and Chapter 17.46, the draft revised version of Chapter 17.12, which had gone through review by the Planning Commission. He said that this chapter represented the proposed changes that have been made thus far by the Planning Commission and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 3 f Staff. Mr. Rojas offered to go through the changes contained in Chapter 17.46, however, he said they were self-explanatory, as the text was noted with double underlines and the "strike text" format that had been used throughout the process. At tonight's meeting, Staff was asking the Commission to discuss the proposed changes to the language that have been drafted thus far and to discuss other issues that have been presented through public testimony, among those were the issue of whether horses should be restricted on vacant lots vs. developed lots; the number of horses which should be allowed per lot; and, the enabling language to the proposed Horse Boarding Ordinance. Senior Planner Rojas explained that the Horse Boarding Ordinance would probably be considered by the City Council in March 1995. He noted that it would be up to the Council to decide whether or not to allow commercial horse boarding in the City. At the City Attorney's request, the enabling language for that ordinance had been included in Draft Chapter 17.46. Because much of the public testimony at prior Planning Commission meetings had been directed at the Boarding Ordinance, that issue could be addressed that evening also, if the Commission desired. Chairman Mowlds asked for a clarification between the yellow (existing) and the blue (proposed) language regarding vacant lots; the number of horses allowed on a specific lot size; and, the boarding issue. Senior Planner Rojas replied that the language of the blue (proposed) pages was similar to the yellow (existing) text regarding those critical issues listed by Chairman Mowlds, but there were other minor changes, which he listed: • The number of the chapter was changed from 17.12 to 17.46. • The chapter title was changed from Equestrian Overlay District to Large Animal Overlay District because the chapter currently applies to all large domestic animals, such as horses, cows, goats, and sheep. • The prohibition of the keeping of animals for commercial uses was deleted in order to enable the proposed commercial boarding ordinance to become binding, if such an ordinance were to be adopted by the City Council. • To maintain consistency, the regulations for the keeping of animals on developed lots were restated for vacant lots. • Language from the City Attorney was added regarding commercial boarding which would be included if the Boarding Ordinance were to be adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 4 6 0 The noticing requirements for the public hearing necessary to establish an overlay district were expanded. A requirement was added that would prohibit electrically - charged fences to avoid interference with radio and television reception. A requirement was added for stables and barns to be partially screened from public view and adjacent properties. A provision for creating an animal advisory committee was deleted. Restrictions affecting non -conforming properties were relaxed and simplified. Chairman Mowlds informed the audience this information was on page 5 of the Staff Report. Senior Planner Rojas noted that there was also a table in the Staff Report comparing Rancho Palos Verdes' existing horse standards with those in the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills, as well as results from the Portuguese Bend Community Association survey regarding commercial boarding of horses. Chairman Mowlds opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Sepp Donahower, (representing Portuguese Bend Property Rights Advocates) , 3 West Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Donahower distributed results from another survey taken by Portuguese Bend residents who were not happy with the Portuguese Bend Community Association's poll and added that a copy of the existing Code was provided to those receiving the second survey. He summarized the results. He acknowledged that neither of the polls represented any majority of the residents and provided no clear mandate. However, he said that it appeared that almost everyone who responded was against mandatory horse registration and commercial boarding. A discussion between Commissioner Alberio and Mr. Donahower determined that he was a member of the Portuguese Bend Community Association and that his property was bound by its CC&Rls. Chairman Mowlds was interested in hearing the speakers, views regarding the fact that, if commercial boarding of horses were allowed, should a business license be required with the same restrictions that other businesses in an RS zone have (i.e. Home Occupations) , such as no visitors, deliveries, non -family employees or storage of hazardous material. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 5 Mr. Robert R. Maxwell, 7 East Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Maxwell opposed commercial boarding of horses and supported restricting the number of horses residents can stable on their property and gave his reasons: (1) too many commercial corrals, contrary to present Codes (2) survey done by the Portuguese Bend Community Association supports boarding of resident horses only (3) East Portuguese Bend is an active slide area and Rancho Palos Verdes has received money to fund a Redevelopment Agency to correct blight, which he felt was illustrated in the photos of stables he provided to the Commission (4) many corral owners who have been boarding for money have been doing so contrary to the existing Code, but they say they want the old Codes (5) a Q District such as is proposed never existed and some residents who live near it were never told of, or were ever given a chance to approve, such a Q zone (6) commercial horse boarding had decreased property values. Commissioner Alberio asked why Mr. Maxwell had not asked the Portuguese Bend Community Association to enforce the CC&R's. Mr. Maxwell responded that even though a complaint process was followed, there had been no corrections. Commissioner Alberio inquired about a lawsuit In the last two years regarding CC&R enforcement in which there was no solution. Mr. Maxwell replied that he was not aware of this. Chairman Mowlds noted that many residents wanted to keep the present Code, but Section 17.12.020 (C)(1) states that property owners shall permit other persons to keep or maintain horses on such owners property provided that such owners do not directly or indirectly receive payment other than expenses for such use. Mr. John Garvey, 40 Narcissa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Garvey informed the Commission that he was a trainer for the Portuguese Bend Riding Club established in 1937 and that he would like to see the Code remain as it was. Commissioner Alberio asked if the Riding Club was a private club, rather than a community club? Mr. Garvey said it was a commercial stable with a business license. Chairman Mowlds stated that the Commission had no intention of changing the status of the Portuguese Bend Riding Club. Ms. Jeanne Smolley, (representing the Portuguese Bend Community Association), 56 Llmetree Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Smolley made herself available for questions regarding the Association and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 6 had been directed by the Board to report on the survey. She indicated that the Association represented 257 member properties and each parcel had one vote. She indicated that the Association jurisdiction did not include the Bara or Brown properties, west of Peppertree Drive and south of Pomegranate, nor did it represent Vanderlip Drive, even though those areas are considered to be part of Portuguese Bend. She explained that the survey asked the member to select only one of three options. In all choices, the assumption on the survey was that the horse facilities would be properly maintained. The survey was not to affect the Pony Club. The survey results were: (1) Residents only - 63 in favor, (2) Boarding of one friend's horse permitted if the property owners had a horse already - 27 in favor, (3) Boarding of non-resident horses - 42 in favor. There was a total of 132 responses out of a possible 257. Vice Chair Hayes asked if two votes were tallied when a member owned two parcels and Ms. Smolley said yes. Commissioner Alberio asked Ms. Smolley if she believed the existing Code could be reconciled with the CC&R's. Ms. Smolley replied that the Board did not express an opinion but tried only to mediate conflicts within the Association to the degree possible and that it was difficult to keep all the parties involved content. Ms. Joan Wright, 1 Fruit Tree Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Wright read from a letter she wrote to the Planning Department but had not mailed. She perceived problems with commercial boarding of horses and petitions and letters from non-residents of Portuguese Bend. Ms. Wright made reference to the two surveys distributed to Portuguese Bend Community Association members and she felt the first one was easy to understand and the second one was confusing and misleading. She stated that most residents in Portuguese Bend do not have horses on their property but most do not oppose the keeping of horses as long as the rules of the Community Association are followed. Ms. Wright believed that allowing commercial horse boarding would present problems such as flies, improperly maintained stables, unsightly fences and tarps, more horse trailers on the road and more traffic through this private neighborhood. Ms. Kay Bara, (representing Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemans Association), 1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Bara said that the peninsula -wide Horsemans Association has 500 members PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 7 9' and was against horse licensing horse to man. In addition, no would go to the City, but would felt that licensing would give an unfriendly way by anti -horse to requiring a business license Code to remain as it was. 0 because no disease was passed from money collected for the licenses go to the SPCA instead. She also the City a data base to be used in forces. Ms. Bara was also opposed for horse boarding and wanted the Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs. Bara how many members of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemans Association were residents of Portuguese Bend and Mrs. Bara said she did not have that information with her. Chairman Mowlds pointed out to Mrs. Bara that any business was required to have a business license, including a home business and that the requirement for a license had nothing to do with how much money was earned. Ms. Bara argued that the existing Code only specified that a person can't make a profit, which distinguished horse keeping from being considered a business. She said that she would prefer that business licenses not be required. Mrs. Bara acknowledged that the keeping of horses did require deliveries and people coming to the property, therefore, the Home Occupation criteria would not apply in this situation. Ms. Tina Bothamley, 30714 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Bothamley informed the Commission that she was the Chair of the City's Recreation and Parks Committee, however, she was speaking as an individual. She stated that she owned a horse but did not live on horse property. However, since she had friend with a two -stall barn and her friend had only one horse, Ms. Bothamley kept her horse there and paid for the feed and cleanup. Ms. Bothamley did not consider this commercial boarding because there was no profit. Ms. Bothamley proposed that the City could earn more revenue by enforcing business license requirements for currently unlicensed landscapers and gardeners than by licensing horses or horse boarding facilities. She added that she paid a $90.00 per year business license fee to the City as a licensed landscape architect. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how the $90.00 fee was determined. Ms. Bothamley replied that it was based on an annual income of less than $50,000. Mr. Richard Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bara stated that he lived in Portuguese Bend and had been attending Planning Commission meetings regarding this subject longer than anyone present in the audience. He said, however, that lately he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 8 was becoming confused about the issues and that he did not understand Chairman Mowlds' comments that the current Code does not allow commercial horse boarding and that now the discussion is for allowing commercial boarding. Mr. Bara said that he believed commercial horse boarding involved earning a profit and if a business license were required for commercial boarding, what would be done about the Home Occupation restrictions (no deliveries, etc.). Chairman Mowlds replied that a special permit would have to be created and asked for Mr. Bara's suggestions. Mr. Bara said that he would prefer that the Code not be changed. He particularly did not like deletions in the Code which could adversely affect youth groups such as 4H and Future Farmers of America. Chairman Mowlds confirmed that Mr. Bara had been attending hearings on this subject since last fall and asked him if he had a suggestion for a minimum lot size in order to keep horses. Mr. Bara said that he felt that the current Code was adequate in this regard. Mr. Ed Sutton, i Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Sutton agreed with previous speaker Sepp Donahower's comments and implored the commission to look at the results of the surveys from the two groups and keep the original code. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how Mr. Sutton felt about horse licensing and business licenses. Mr. Sutton was not in favor of horse licensing and said that business licenses might be acceptable, depending on the criteria. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Mr. Sutton could suggest some criteria. Mr. Sutton said that it should be restrictive because he wouldn't want to see a proliferation of commercial horse barns. He noted that he and about ten other Portuguese Bend residents did not complete the first survey because the options provided were too narrow, stating that there was only a choice between "residents only" boarding or "licensing". The results from the second survey indicated that 72% of the respondents did not feel that the first survey adequately expressed their views. Mr. Sutton indicated that he had lived in the area for 27 years and believed that there were less horses now than in the past on the east side of Portuguese Bend, regardless of what other speakers have indicated. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 9 Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Mr. Sutton was opposed to limiting the number of horses allowed per acre. Mr. Sutton believed that there were other factors other than just the square footage of the lot, including the setbacks from adjacent property and the slope of ground, that should be considered. Ms. Toni Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Deeble asked that the form letters received by the Commission and signed by residents of Palos Verdes Villa, a convalescent board and care home on Western Avenue, be disregarded. She explained that, as a home health nurse, she had seen some patients in that facility and talked to the administrator about this highly unethical practice of asking patients to sign a petition to support one's viewpoint and the administrator apologized that this had happened at her facility. Chairman Mowlds noted that there were 42 of these form letters provided to the Commission. Ms. Deeble emphasized that she did not want the Code to remain the same and that she and others wanted dramatic change because the existing Code had been manipulated. She mentioned that Mr. Alberio had come to her house to see the corral right on the boundary of her property and that corral belonged to Mr. Sutton, a previous speaker. The existing Code allowed landowners with a certain amount of acreage to have, for example, 12 horses but all those horses could be put in one corner of the property and that corner may be closer to their neighbor's house than their own. Ms. Deeble stated that she could no longer use her back deck due to flies and she felt her property value had been decreased. She believed that licensing would be a good idea if it would end the blatant disregard of both the City Codes and the Portuguese Bend Community Association's CC&R's, as well as dishonest disclosure of whom the horses belonged to, which hindered Code Enforcement. Ms. Deeble noted that the City of Rolling Hills absolutely forbade boarding, as should Rancho Palos Verdes, and allowed no more than two horses on a lot less than 20,000 square feet in size and no more than four horses on a lot greater than 20,000 square feet in size. She suggested that a clause be added to further restrict the maximum number of horses to four, regardless of the acreage owned by one resident, thus discouraging of expansion of commercial boarding. It was Ms. Deeble's opinion that speakers at past Planning Commission public hearings and tonight's were the very same residents who have disregarded the current Code, and do not want it changed because they are getting around it right now. She concluded by saying that residential areas should not be allowed to become commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 10 Mr. Robert McJones, 1 Limetree Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. McJones said he bought his property in 1975 and that at that time there were no large groups of horses being kept on private property. He then related a history of the ownership of various properties in Portuguese Bend. He pointed out that he had been computer consultant for some years with a resale permit and that he had been required to get a City business license, with the restrictions mentioned earlier regarding no deliveries. Yet, he saw horses being trained in a large circular area involving substantial traffic, dust, smoke, employees and there was no business license requirement and he believed this was wrong. It was Mr. McJones' opinion that four horses maximum should be allowed per lot, with possibly one, non-resident's horse allowed on the lot. Sunshine, 6 limetree Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Sunshine opined that due to the number of hearings on this item and the lack of response to the public testimony asking for the Code to remain unchanged, she assumed that changes were going to be made. She questioned some of the details of the changes with regard to terminology of the various types of large domestic animals, fence requirements for miniature horses and mentioned that there were grammatical errors. However, other than changing the title and chapter number, Sunshine strongly urged the Commission to leave the Code untouched until the City Council made its decision about business licenses and horse registration and felt it would be a simple matter for the City Attorney to propose language that was compatible at that time. Ms. Betty Field Strauss, 10 West Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Strauss recalled the last time she testified in a similar fashion before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, before the City was incorporated, protesting commercial incursions into residential area and found it hard to believe she was fighting for the same thing within her own City. Ms. Strauss read from a letter sent to the Commission, received right before the meeting. The letter stated that the City included overlay districts for horses and that she should have protested years before regarding the illegal commercial horse boarding operations in her clearly defined residential area. She explained that, in some cases, she liked the people, but not what they were doing, so she overlooked it. Ms. Strauss felt that horse boarding probably had been intensified lately and that profits were definitely being made from horse boarding. When Staff created standards and restrictions for control and accountability, there was a strong response from many, those who were breaking the rules already, those who did not live in Portuguese Bend but want to board their horses there, and some who did not even live in Rancho Palos Verdes but came to the meetings and spoke strongly for making these commercial endeavors legal. Ms. Strauss said that those people who opposed this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 11 commercial activity were described as "anti -horse" or those who desire to destroy other people's property rights, but neither was true. Ms. Strauss indicated that she had two horses and one goat. She concluded by pointing out that one reason the City was founded was to stop incoherent, indiscriminate, unplanned development and thanked the Commission and Staff for their efforts and hoped they would not allow commercial development in a residential area. Ms. Sherree Greenwood, 2543 Sunnyside Ridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Greenwood stated that she did not live in Portuguese Bend but on horse property on the east side of the City. She indicated that she was a horse owner and that her lifestyle had always involved horses. Ms. Greenwood felt strongly that this lifestyle helped keep children involved in worthwhile activities and away from drugs and other negative influences. However, she had neighbors who objected to horses. Chairman Mowlds was very interested in speaking to a resident from an equestrian overlay district other than Portuguese Bend and asked Ms. Greenwood what she felt was needed in the Code. Ms. Greenwood said that she did not believe licenses should be required but that proper maintenance of the horse environment was very necessary, and added that she cleaned her corral three times a day. Chairman Mowlds asked if Ms. Greenwood believed there should be a limit to the number of horses kept on a property. Ms. Greenwood said that her family had two horses, her next door neighbor had three and that there were no problems with flies. Chairman Mowlds asked Ms. Greenwood if she felt it was acceptable for someone to keep a friend or relative's horse at their home and Ms. Greenwood said it was. Chairman Mowlds asked Ms. Greenwood to please read the Staff Report and give the Commission any additional input. Commissioner Alberio mentioned that the equestrian overlay district on the east side of the City was different from the Portuguese Bend area because the lots were smaller on the east side and asked Ms. Greenwood if her area had CC&Rls. Ms. Greenwood said she did not believe so and that they had to comply only with the city's requirements. She added that she did not believe a horse permit fee should be charged because owning a horse was expensive and that the restrictions applied to the license, such as prohibiting deliveries etc., were not reasonable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 12 Ms. Janis Lukstein (representing the Portuguese Bend Pony Club) 26203 Basswood Avenue, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Lukstein indicated that she had a 12 -year old daughter who had been a member for four years in the 25 -year old Portuguese Bend Pony Club and that she and others had written letters and attended the hearing to support what she considered to be a wonderful organization. She explained that the Club had counteracted negative influences in her daughter's life as well as teaching her riding, care of horses, safety regulations and developing responsibility, leadership, moral judgment, and self-confidence. Ms. Lukstein was concerned with the limitation of horses per parcel which might affect the Pony Club, a non-profit organization for which fees pay only for expenses. She indicated that the Pony Club members had been working with the Portuguese Bend Community Association and the Association was pleased with improvements the Pony Club had made to their site. She also indicated that they will continue to keep the facility clean and tidy. She concluded by saying that she hoped the Pony Club would not be affected by licensing requirements since it was a youth organization. Ms. Charlene O'Neil, 38 Headland Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. O'Neil informed the Commission that she had owned horses on the east side of the City for 19 years, currently had three horses and considered herself a responsible horse owner. She said that she thought it was a wonderful place to live and that licensing seemed ridiculous. Commissioner Alberio said that he was familiar with Mc. O'Neil's home which had a small riding ring and asked if she had ever had complaints from neighbors regarding flies and if she knew of any person or group who has a large facility in which they are keeping or boarding a number of horses in her area. Ms. O'Neil said she had never received any complaints and that she knew of no large horse keeping facility on the east side of the City. Chairman Mowlds assumed then that the east side doesn't have that perceived problem. Ms. O'Neil agreed. She wished to comment on a statement made by a previous speaker, stating that, even though in the City of Rolling Hills horse boarding was not allowed by people outside the City, she knew that there were a lot of non-residents boarding in Rolling Hills because she was acquainted with them. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:32 P.M. and reconvened at 8:46 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 13 One more speaker was allowed by the Commission, due to the change in the meeting location, the bad weather, etc. Ms. Katrina Vanderlip de Carbonnel, 100 Vanderlip Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. de Carbonnel said that her father had created the Portuguese Bend area but that it was not intended originally as a horse community. When she was growing up most people did not have horses, although there was a riding stable. She said that although she and her children liked horses, she felt most of the stables in the area were in bad shape and that probably there should be limitations to restrict property owners to what they can reasonably maintain. Ms. de Carbonnel believed that the area should not be commercialized. Commissioner Vannorsdall wondered if the rundown conditions of the stables was caused by boarding others horses, as had been implied, and asked Ms. de Carbonnel if she had a solution for improving the conditions. Ms. de Carbonnel recommended that a committee could be created to inspect the stables in order to maintain the cleanliness, health environment for the horse and the aesthetics of these facilities. She indicated that she would be willing to be on such a committee. Commissioner Alberio asked if the maintenance of the stables was enforced by both the City and the County. Planning Administrator Petru replied that property maintenance was handled by the City's Code Enforcement Division and that health issues were the jurisdiction of the County. Commissioner Alberio noted that there was a mechanism to correct some of the problems associated with inadequate stable maintenance. Mr. de Carbonnel agreed with the speakers who said there were more horses than a family would need and speculated that they weren't being ridden as much as they should be. She concluded with a hope that the area would be kept free of commercialism. Chairman Mowlds asked the Commissioners to present their ideas so that decisions could be made that evening and suggested that straw votes be taken on specific issues. Commissioner Vannorsdall brought up the first subject and the following question was posed by Chairman Mowlds: Should the idea of licensing of individual horses be abandoned and business licenses be pursued instead? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 14 ,7 All the Commissioners agreed with this concept, except Commissioner Ferraro, who was not in favor of licensing individual horses, but wanted to hold off on a decision on requiring business licenses for boarding facilities until the criteria was established by the City Council. Commissioner Vannorsdall brought up an issue raised by Sharon Hegetschweiler, president of the Portuguese Bend Community Association, noting a problem when an owner of a horse on a vacant lot was not close enough to the animal to help if it was injured or sick. The following question was posed by Chairman Mowlds: Should there be a restriction that no animals shall be kept on a vacant lot which is not contiguous to a lot that is owned by the same individual as the lot in question. All Commissioners said yes. Director/ Secretary Bernard asked if lots not adjacent but across the street would considered contiguous and Chairman Mowlds said yes. Commissioner Vannorsdall believed that the Portuguese Bend Community Association CC&R's regarding the distance a stable must be from a residence, mentioned on Page 2 and 3 of Sharon Hegetschweiler's letter, should supplant the language proposed in the Code. Chairman Mowlds said that these distance requirements might not apply well to the conditions on the east side of the City, where there are smaller lots. Commissioner Alberio asked Commissioner Vannorsdall if he was suggesting that the CC&R's be incorporated into the Development Code. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that incorporation would be appropriate since the CC&R language states that a stable shall not be located less than 35' from the owners house and no less than 100' from the nearest neighbor's house or other feature such as swimming pool, etc. Vice Chair Hayes asked if standard lot setback requirements would take care of this issue. Senior Planner Rojas said they would not. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 15 Chairman Mowlds noted that 351 from the dwelling was consistent with the Code. Commissioner Vannorsdall acknowledged that the 1001 distances could be a problem on the east side of the City where the lots are smaller. Commissioner Wang agreed with Commissioner Vannorsdall and added that, although she lived on horse property on the east side of the City, she did not own a horse. She had noticed that a lot of the horses were kept right in front, by the garage. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how the two areas with their different conditions could each have the appropriate restrictions. Commissioner Whiteneck said the 351 could apply in both areas. Chairman Mowlds discussed the 1001 setback and was concerned about a situation in which a person built a swimming pool right at the property line and then the neighbor would have to keep his horses 1001 away from the swimming pool. Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed that was a bad situation. Commissioner Ferraro wanted to leave the Code language as it was on circle page 96 of that evening's Staff Report. Commissioner Vannorsdall saw a conflict with the CC&Rls of the Portuguese Bend Community Association. Chairman Mowlds and Commissioner Alberio pointed out that CC&Rls could be more restrictive and they would prevail over the City's Code requirements. Commissioner Vannorsdall wondered if the Pony Club would be considered a commercial or non-profit venture. Commissioner Alberio likened the Pony Club to Little League or Boy Scouts. Commissioner Vannorsdall assumed then that a business license should not be required. Chairman Mowlds wanted to come back to the Pony Club issue and review what had been decided thus far. The Commission was going to include in its recommendations the following: 1) not to license individual horses; 2) require vacant lots with horses to be located adjacent to the owner's residence (contiguous parcel); and 3) keep the existing 351 setback requirement from habitable structures. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 16 Chairman Mowlds wanted to discuss if commercial operations should be allowed or what could be done to legalize what was happening currently. Commissioner Alberio said that what constitutes a business was def ined by the City and whether there was a prof it made did not matter and the requirement for a business license would be based on that criteria. Senior Planner Rojas said that Commissioner Alberio's statement was true, however, in residential zones, businesses could be only an incidental use to the primary residential use of that property. When Commissioner Alberio noted that home businesses were allowed, Mr. Rojas restated the restrictions to home occupation businesses in residential zones which prohibited deliveries, visitors, storage of material, non -family employees, etc., and said that that horse boarding, even on a limited basis, could not comply with these requirements. He suggested, however, that limited commercial boarding could be allowed with a separate set of regulations than the non-commercial boarding. Commissioner Alberio said that he defined a business as an activity intended to make a profit and Senior Planner Rojas said that the City had the same definition. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about a facility to teach horse riding. Senior Planner Rojas said it would be considered a private school, i.e. a business, and that it would constitute a zoning issue. Chairman Mowlds asked the Commission if the number of horses on a lot should be limited and, if so, what would be the appropriate criteria. Commissioner Wang believed this criteria was already listed in the proposed Code language. Chairman Mowlds put another question to a straw vote: Did the Commission have any objection to retaining the language in 17.46.010 (A) (b) , on circle page 93, which established the minimum lot area standards required for the keeping of horses and the maximum number of horses allowed per parcel. There were no objections from the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 17 Chairman Mowlds described scenarios in which landowners would have horses on their property which did not belong to them, such as horses belonging to a grown daughter who had moved out or to some of her friends. Commissioner Alberio felt that the relationship between the owners of the horses had nothing to do with the subject. He believed that the only issue was whether or not the Code was being complied with regarding the maximum number of horses allowed on the property. Commissioner Ferraro suggested that possibly two horses per parcel more than those horses owned by the landowner should be allowed, if they were not making a profit (only receiving reimbursement for expenses) and then have another designation for commercial boarding (profit generating) for which a business license would be required. Chairman Mowlds argued that the City would have to take the word of the property owner that they were not conducting a business. If the criteria was that the property owner must own all the horses, there would be dishonesty regarding the ownership of the horses, including the possibility of forged ownership papers. Commissioner Alberio brought up the question of the property owner's liability and said that they would need to carry insurance. Chairman Mowlds asked if the Commissioners wanted to recommend that no horses could be boarded on anyone else's property other than the horses owned by the property owner. Commissioner Vannorsdall said that he would like to see a limited number of horses allowed to be boarded without a business license, but was not sure how to define it. Commissioner Whiteneck believed there should be additional horses allowed, not owned by the property owner, but it should be limited. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Commissioner Whiteneck meant the horses should be allowed without the property owner being required to obtain a business license. Commissioner Whiteneck said yes, but he was not sure how a "horse boarding business" would be defined. He did not feel a business license should be required if a grown daughter's friend was keeping her horse at the daughter's parents' home. Commissioner Wang agreed that this situation should not be considered a business. Vice Chair Hayes stated that she agreed with Commissioner Ferraro's earlier suggestion that up to two non-resident horses could be kept PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 18 on a property, provided that the maximum number for the lot was not exceeded. Commissioner Alberio emphasized that he did not believe the relationship of the horse owner to the property owner was significant, but that the determination of whether a business was being operated, or not, was significant. Commissioner Ferraro asked if he was suggesting that the Code remain as it was currently written, thereby placing the burden on the person filing the complaint to prove that someone was conducting a business. Commissioner Alberio said yes. Chairman Mowlds summarized that the Commission would recommend that the City would not be concerned with the ownership of the horses but only that the maximum number of horses allowed for the lot had not been exceeded. However, if a business was being operated, it would require a business license. Director/Secretary Bernard foresaw problems for the Staff in determining whether or not a business was being operated. Chairman Mowlds felt that in some instances a business might be more obvious than in others, but believed that the method of determination could be established later. Mr. Mowlds suggested that the Commission study Page 5 of the Staff Report which summarized the various proposed revisions to Draft Chapter 17.46. Senior Planner Rojas pointed out that there was a minor change also at the bottom of page 4, regarding the title of the Chapter. Chairman Mowlds asked if any of the Commissioners disagreed with any of the proposed revisions to any of the following sections that had been covered in the Staff Report. 17.46.020(A) horse keeping on vacant lots 17.46.030(C) noticing requirements 17.46.040(A)(4) electrical fences 17.46.040.(B)(3) screening 17.46.050 elimination of the animal advisory committee 17.46.060 non -conforming Property All agreed with language in the above portions of the Code. Chairman Mowlds brought up the problem regarding a large number of horses being allowed because the property owner owned several PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 19 parcels and the total number of horses were being kept right next to their neighbor's property, as opposed to spreading them out on the different parcels. He asked for suggestions. Senior Planner Rojas suggested adding a sentence to explicitly state that the number of horses allowed per parcel must be kept on those separate parcels and not be allowed to roam about all the parcels or be kept on only one parcel. In answer to a question from Chairman Mowlds, Senior Planner Rojas confirmed that the 35' setback from habitable structures applied to the same lot and adjacent lots. Chairman Mowlds asked for comments on commercial applications. Commissioner Ferraro said that she would prefer not to have commercial horse boarding. Commissioner Whiteneck believed that, if there were commercial boarding allowed, the person would need a business license. Commissioner Wang and Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Commissioner Whiteneck. Chairman Mowlds asked for Staff comments. Director/Secretary Bernard believed that enforcement would be difficult because he could see no mechanism, when a complaint was received, for Staff to determine if there was a commercial or non- commercial operation. He also said that the same problem of enforceability applied to keeping the total number of horses allowed on several parcels, separated on the various parcels. He speculated that a gate would be left open between the two parcels and when Code Enforcement told the property owner to close the gate, he would do so and then open it again after the Staff had left. Chairman Mowlds agreed it was a difficult situation but believed it was a beginning and fine tuning could be done later. Director/Secretary Bernard said that he did not mean to imply that Staff would not follow-up on complaints, but he was doubtful that enforcement could be handled to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. A discussion ensued between Commissioner Alberio and Director/ Secretary Bernard regarding proof that a business was being conducted. Mr. Alberio presented a scenario in which 10-12 cars were parked in front of a man's property each weekend yet he insisted he was not running a business. Director/ Secretary Bernard PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 20 said that the man could simply say he was having a party, every weekend, with different friends, and it would be very difficult to prove him wrong. Commissioner Alberio believed that it would be possible to provide evidence of a business. Vice Chair Hayes suggested that any number of horses over three would require a special permit, no matter how much acreage a person owned. After more discussion Chairman Mowlds took a straw vote on this suggestion: All the Commissioners agreed to the limit of three horses, except for Commissioner Ferraro, who believed it should be three horses per parcel. Director/ Secretary Bernard clarified that would be three horses allowed for all contiguous parcels combined. Therefore, if the maximum number of horses allowed on these parcels was 18, three would be allowed without a permit and the other 15 would be subject to a special permit. Chairman Mowlds added that the fee and the method for calculating the fee for the special permit would be determined by City Council. Senior Planner Rojas indicated that these changes would be brought back as part of the entire Code at the next Planning Commission meeting (January 24, 1995) and a Resolution would be brought back the meeting after the next one (February 14, 1995). Chairman Mowlds reminded the Commissioners to mail, deliver or fax their written Code revision suggestions or questions to the Staff by close of business on Friday, January 20, 1995. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 9:55 P.M. and reconvened at 10:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 182 SIGN PERMIT NO. 720 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 667; Mr. and Mrs. William Myers, 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard (Mobil). (TS) Director/Secretary Bernard stated that Staff's recommendation was that the Commission open the Public Hearing and accept testimony regarding the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; provide Staff with direction; and, continue the item to January 24, 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 21 Chairman Mowlds complimented Associate Planner Silverman for her thorough report which was prepared in such a very short period of time. Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report. She noted that Staff received many telephone calls that day from neighboring property owners stating their objection to the operation of a convenience store from the property and to the sales of alcoholic beverages. However, some of these people were unable to attend that evening due to concerns about the weather. Mr. Bill Myers, applicant, 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard. Mr. Myers posted a rendering showing his proposed changes to the existing service station on the easel. Mr. Myers reported to the commission that he was currently in the process of purchasing the property at the corner of Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. He explained that Mobil Oil chose to sell the property because of its high monetary value and, unfortunately, his mortgage payment would be higher than his current lease payment. Therefore, he needed to make a substantial investment to upgrade his business. He pointed out that the square footage was slightly less than the Staff Report indicated and he posted another rendering to show the proposed additional square footage. He pointed out that the lot was large and the City's landscape requirements also represented a substantial monetary outlay. Mr. Myers said that he was prepared to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the wishes of the nearby property owners but he was not sure that reducing the size of the proposed convenience store would solve any of the problems which might be mentioned. Mr. Myers expressed confusion as to what "auxiliary" meant and quoted the Staff Report as defining the word as "in addition to" but he found that Wester's Dictionary gave that same definition. He did not feel that his business could continue without the proposed changes and hoped there could be even more later, possibly a car wash. Mr. Myers was anxious to hear comments from his neighbors. A discussion between commissioner Alberio and Mr. Myers revealed that Mr. Myers was in escrow to purchase the property from Mobil oil and that he had signed a ten-year contract to sell their products. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Myers if the current building was going to be demolished. Mr. Myers said no, that the extra floor space would be added to the current building, as indicated on his posted color -coded drawing. The auto -related portion of the building was 2,752 square feet and, with the convenience store, the station would be about 1,296 square feet in total. He related that new stations or remodels almost PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 22 always included markets instead of repair bays because automobile repair was a difficult industry. He noted that all of the existing service stations on the peninsula had markets, even sometimes including another franchise. Mr. Myers felt that a city with a population of 42,000 could support two convenience stores and, even though he admitted there would be some sharing of customers, it was not unusual for competing businesses to be across the street from each other. He concluded by saying that he did not wish to cut into anyone's business but this expansion was necessary for the survival of his business. Mr. John Bohannon, 28103 Lomo Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bohannon stated that he lived a block away from the Mobil station and was opposed to the project. He felt the proposed expansion would cause more traffic and noise and did not like the idea of selling beer in the generally quiet residential neighborhood. He said that the addition of a second story (inaccurate, corrected later) would add to the visibility of the structure and increase the light and glare generated from the site. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms Larue explained that she had mixed emotions about Mr. Myers expansion. She recalled that she followed the overlay district discussions and was opposed to it. However, at those meetings, she met Mr. and Mrs. Myers, found them to be delightful people, as well as excellent business people. However, they do not live in Rancho Palos Verdes and the nearby residents do, and they are the people whose lives and views would be affected by this expansion. Mr. J.D. Greene, 7 -Eleven Store, 28041 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Greene indicated that he was the operator of the 7 -Eleven Store across Granvia Altamira from the Mr. Myers' Mobil station. He was opposed to the development and wrote a letter which the Commission had received as part of the late correspondence. Mr. Greene did not believe there was enough business for two convenience stores in the neighborhood. He understood that the service station overlay was established to prevent the loss of the service stations, but Mr. Greene did not believe it was intended to put him out of business. He suggested several ways the Mobil station could increase revenue without directly competing with the 7 -Eleven store, such as selling automotive -related products, tires, providing a towing service, expanding the repair service, or opening a lube and tune business. Mr. Greene concluded by stating his belief in free enterprise and competition, but felt that with the City restrictions placed upon businesses in a residential area, his options were limited to increase his business and he looked to the City for support. Ms. Meg Holibaugh, (representing 7 -Eleven) 120 South State College, Brea, CA. Ms. Holibaugh stated that the was the 7 -Eleven field PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 23 consultant who worked with the store in Rancho Palos Verdes. She explained the poor business climate existing at this store and the fact that the proposed convenience store would aggravate this situation. Ms. Holibaugh believed that the fact that gasoline sales profits weren't sufficient to cover the additional mortgage obligation to be met did not mean that an existing business should suffer. She pointed out that the 7 -Eleven Corporation had done what they could to help the operator at this 7 -Eleven store maintain a good relationship with the neighboring residents -in providing a more appropriate, attractive air conditioning unit on the roof. Ms. Nancy Moore, 6344 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Moore was opposed to the expansion because of what she considered to be the following environmental impacts in a residential zone: too many gas pumps, lights, signs, traffic, noise, garbage, gambling, alcohol-related crime, inadequate parking spaces, hazardous waste, view impairment, commercialism, and loitering. She pointed out that the only convenience store in Rancho Palos Verdes was directly across the street and that, within a short distance, there were several grocery stores, fast food, drug stores and gas stations. Ms. Moore believe that the design of the project showed that Mr. Myers was not a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and the new business violated several City, County and State laws. The Staff Report states that the overlay provides for auxiliary sundries but Ms. Moore felt the proposed expansion was extreme. She mentioned that MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) was against the sale of alcohol and gasoline at the same place and, even though the sale of alcohol and gambling are legal in this zone, the overlay did not allow sale of flammable propane, especially for non -transportation purposes. Ms. Moore also mentioned landscape inadequacies and she felt the petition submitted by the applicant should be rendered invalid because the Mobil station customers were not provided full details of the proposed project. Mr. Ken Moore, 6344 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Moore believed that this project would reveal difficulties in adopting conditional Use Permits that modify land use in order to assist struggling automotive services. He believed California State law prohibited the sale of alcohol in residentially -zoned property and that the existence of the automotive overlay district does not negate this law. Mr. Moore said that state law also prohibited gambling on residentially -zoned property and lottery was proposed at the convenience store. He revealed that the station attendants had told him that the large trucks parked in back lot were paying $10 per day for the space and the City's Development Code, 17.25, prevented the sale of parking. Mr. Moore noted that this project would significantly modify the existing land use and this change was necessary because the profits from the sale of gasoline and automotive repair did not support a commercially PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 24 viable business and Mobil Oil wanted to sell this failing business. He reported that no peninsula service station identified sold alcohol or had a convenience store even a third as large as that proposed, that he was attempting to determine if there was a law against selling gasoline and alcohol sales at same location, and that the selling of alcohol and lottery tickets was not mentioned during the overlay discussions as a means to save the gas stations. He was opposed to the proliferation of the sale of alcohol in the local area and had found that the Circuit Court of Appeals often upheld a City's decision to deny the selling of beer and wine based on proliferation. Lastly, Mr. Moore discussed the significant environmental impact this expansion would have on the residents. He mentioned, specifically that, during the Los Angeles riots, non- resident teenage gangs huddled around the bathrooms and public telephones at the Mobil station and that he had been informed that, before locks were put on these bathrooms, they were "shooting galleries" (for drugs). He felt sure that because of the proximity to Peninsula High School, the sale of alcohol would contribute to the station becoming a teenage gathering place and intensify an existing crime element. Ms. Dorothy MacLellan, 6611 Monero Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. MacLellan indicated that she had lived in the neighborhood since 1962, that she had opposed gas stations in the area, and definitely did not want one selling alcohol. She did not feel that another convenience store was needed like 7 -Eleven, which she opposed originally and still did, partly because of the litter problem. She believed that, since all but about 10% of the signatures on the petition approving the project were from people living in other cities, it was obvious that the people in the neighborhood did not approve of the proposed changes. Ms. Mary Jane Thompson, 28043 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Thompson said that she had lived in the neighborhood for 32 years and that her home was just below the station, which she had originally opposed. She reported that she had also objected to the 7 -Eleven and still did object because she regularly had to pick up their trash and the Police were called out to that location often. She believed the convenience store at the Mobil station would become another teenage hangout. Ms. Phyllis Peterson, 28067 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Peterson also lived right below the station and was opposed to the convenience store because the 7 -Eleven had caused many problems. She mentioned that the Mr. Myers had been cooperative about correcting the fencing around the station property although three fences had to be built before one would stay in place. She believed that the neighborhood did not want the expansion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 25 Ms. Phyllis Glantz, 28070 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Glantz stated that she had purchased her home, which was probably closest to the Mobil station, in 1968 right before the incorporation of the City. At that time, there was only a vacant lot where the Mobil station was now and she hoped that incorporation would provide better local control and that the vacant lot would remain vacant. She opposed the convenience store at the gas station because teenagers now purchase beverages at the 7 -Eleven and gather on the other side of the Mobil station fence and throw bottles and cans on her driveway. She was not happy about the potential for more traffic and noise and the fact that the propane tank would be close to her home and she questioned the legality of this tank in a residential neighborhood. She felt the expansion of this gas station would diminish local property values. Ms. Mary Ann Zuieback, 28042 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Zuieback, who also lived directly below the Mobil station opposed to the expansion. She also expressed objection to the answers provided on the Environmental Assessment Checklist. She felt that many of the questions that had been answered "maybe", such as "creation of objectionable odors" and "increases in existing noise levels" should have been answered "yes". Ms. Zuieback said that, with all due respect, Mr. Myers, was not going to tell her that the level of impact on her home, neighbors, community, and environment would be insignificant. Chairman Mowlds asked if anyone present wished to speak who had not completed a speaker's request form. Since there was no response, Mr. Mowlds called the applicant forward for rebuttal. Mr. William Myers, Applicant, Rebuttal. Mr. Myers stated that he had made notes during the public testimony and that he would respond. Regarding Ms. Moore's statement that there would be more parking, he believed there would be no more parking, maybe even less with the enlargement of the building. He stated that the Lottery was legalized by the State as long as the operation fit the criteria. Even though he was not a resident of the City, he felt that he had been sensitive to the residents' needs in the 16 years he had been at this location. He acknowledged that there had been problems with young people drinking at the back of his station and that he and/or the residents had called the police. As far as the project being too big, he noted that the property was a one -acre lot. Mr. Myers stressed that he did empathize with the residents' concerns, which were legitimate, but, in order to make his business viable, it needs to be expanded. He made clear that his business was not waning or failing and the fact that Mobil would rather sell this expensive property rather than receive income from rent motivated their sale of the lot. He had no knowledge of any shootings (guns, drugs, or otherwise) in the bathrooms. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 26 Chairman Mowlds suggested that additional responses to the speakers could be reserved for the continued public Hearing on January 24, 1995 and asked Mr. Myers if he would please comment on the facilities, size, location of the propane tank, etc. Mr. Myers explained that the merely conceptual drawing provided the location of the propane tank and did not take into account the minimum setback criteria of which he was not aware. He also said that he was incorrect in his estimate of the height of the current signs. They were 61 high and would remain at that same height and the only change would be an inlay for the minimart as shown on the drawing. A discussion between Chairman Mowlds, Mr. Myers, and Associate Planner Silverman revealed that there would be illumination downward from the existing soffits, but no additional light standards/poles on the property. Mr. Myers added that there were additional lights at one time but the residents wanted them taken down. He complied and the darkness contributed to the problem of teenagers gathering near the property. Chairman Mowlds asked if the length of the islands would be increased because there would be four pumps instead of two. Mr. Myers said no, that there would then be two on each of the two islands, as there were before he modified the station a few years ago. Commissioner Alberio asked about the comments made about the fence problem and the trash on the neighbor's driveway and Mr. Myers said that information was accurate. Commissioner Alberio inquired about improvement in these areas. Mr. Myers explained that in the morning through lunch, people use his property to dump their trash, mostly from 7 -Eleven sales, on his lot and that his employees are constantly cleaning it up. He stated that this would be continued. The fence problem had been solved and he believed he had been responsive to the neighbors and would continue to be. Commissioner Alberio asked about noise which was mentioned by a speaker. Mrs. Glantz (from audience) said that the tools for changing tires were very noisy. Mr. Myers agreed that the impact tools were noise but that they were rarely used after 6:00 or 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 27 Mrs. Glantz (again from the audience) replied that they were still heard during the day. Mr. Myers responded that he needed to change flat tires for his customers and that, when possible, he brought work inside the building to decrease the noise, but that this was not always possible. Chairman Mowlds asked Staff if they had enough input for the January 24, 1995 meeting or did they have additional questions. Associate Planner Silverman asked if the Planning Commission had any comments about the appropriate use and size of the convenience store. Chairman Mowlds referred to the location of the propane tank, and asked the Planning Staff to suggest an alternative location. He asked the other Commissioners to discuss the two proposed snaplock signs. Commissioner Alberio said that he did not object to the proposed signs. Vice Chair Hayes and Commissioners Ferraro and Whiteneck did not want the snaplock signs. Commissioner Wang asked for a description of a snaplock sign. Mr. Myers said they would be mounted on existed light posts and have two sides that open up to put in different Mobil graphics which might advertise an oil change special, etc. and to promote business. He said there would be one on Granvia Altamira and one on Hawthorne Boulevard. When commissioner Alberio suggested that after a person saw it a few times, they would overlook it, Mr. Myers explained that this is why the message was changed often and that these signs were typical at gas stations. Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Myers how many snaplocks he had presently and Mr. Myers said that he had two, floor mounted, and he indicated their location on the chart. Associate Planner Silverman clarified that there were three light standards currently on the property and two of them would have the snaplock signs attached. Based on a straw vote, Chairman Mowlds noted that the Commission was not in favor of the two additional snaplock signs (6-1), with Commissioner Alberio dissenting, in favor of the signs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 28 Chairman Mowlds asked for the Commissioner's comments on the size of the convenience store. Commissioner Wang asked Mr. Myers if he was adding a second story, as was mentioned by one of the speakers. Mr. Myers said that he was not adding a second story, and that the speaker's comment was incorrect. Commissioner Wang asked if a view analysis had been performed. Associate Planner Silverman clarified that the proposed addition would be less than 16' in height and the Code did not protect views that were impaired by structures that were less than 161 in height. Ms. Silverman added that she had spoken to Mrs. Moore and arranged to conduct an analysis from her property to determine what the impacts were and if there was a way to reduce them, but she restated that the Code did not specifically protect views from the Moore's property. Commissioner Wang commented that she would like to withhold judgment on the size of the convenience store until she could take a look at the property. Commissioner Whiteneck felt that it was impossible to determine the appropriate size of the convenience store without knowing what items would be sold. Commissioner Ferraro noted that the definition of "auxiliary" or "ancillary" sales had been discussed and she felt that the amount of space dedicated to "ancillary" sales at other gas stations was so small compared to what Mr. Myers is proposing that it seemed this was not an ancillary business but a new business. With that thought in mind, she believed that zoning became significant and this area was zoned residential regardless of the automotive control district. She acknowledged, however, that most gas stations were adding I'minimart" areas to some degree. Vice Chair Hayes believed that the size of the convenience store, in itself, was not a problem. Commissioner Alberio opined that size was a matter of economics and that the proper amount of space would be needed to meet Mr. Myers' goals. He believed that a convenience store within the gas station was allowed under the overlay ordinance and that it was not a new business. Chairman Mowlds believed that the size of the convenience store should remain the same for the time being until the Commissioners have time to look at the site and think about the situation in more PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 29 depth. He added that there would be more information at the next meeting regarding the view analysis. Associate Planner Silverman clarified that there was a discussion regarding views in the January 10, 1995 Staff Report prepared for that meeting. Chairman Mowlds asked Staff if they had any other questions. Associate Planner Silverman asked about the types of items that would be sold in the convenience store. Chairman Mowlds said that he would like to hold off on that until the next meeting. Associate Planner Silverman asked what information should be included in the Staff Report for the January 24, 1995 meeting. Chairman Mowlds inquired if the circulation period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration would be expired by then. Associate Planner Silverman said that was correct and that the reason the 30 -day comment period was established was because, adhering to the strict interpretation of the CEQA guidelines, State Clearing House review would be required because of the request for the sale of alcoholic beverages, and a permit from the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) would be required. However, in this case, Clearing House review was not required and Clearing House checked with ABC and verified that ABC did not need to see the document for environmental reasons. Because the item was noticed it for the 30 -day comment period, expiring on January 23, 1995, the City was obligated to continue with that schedule. There were a series of comments from unidentified members of the audience: (1) a request for the item to be placed on the agenda earlier in the evening next time, (2) a request for more audience "back -and -forth" feedback when the Commission was discussing an item, (3) a feeling expressed that the horse item received more consideration than this item, (4) a question as to whether circulating a petition would be a good idea or if the Commission's mind was already made up, and (5) a question as to whether a final decision would be made on this item on January 24, 1995. The responses were as follows: (1) Chairman Mowlds said the request to place the item earlier on the agenda would be considered. (2) Chairman Mowlds explained that the audience had the benefit of a two-part hearing and, having heard comments tonight, could PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 30 0 plan what they wished to say at the next meeting. He added that he expected to hear from some of the same speakers, and more as well, and that the Commission welcomed all input. (3) Chairman Mowlds said that the horse issue had been considered by the Commission approximately six times before, but that at the first hearing there was only one speaker and the number of speakers increased with each meeting. Mr. Mowlds added the horse issue this was part of a three-year process of revising the Development Code. (4) Comments from Chairman Mowlds and Commissioners Alberio and Vannorsdall said that a petition would be accepted'as input and the Commission's mind had not been made up yet. (5) Chairman Mowlds said that a decision may or may not be made on January 24, 1995. He made reference to an automotive repair station on Highridge Road for which three or four hearings were held before the Commission came to some consensus. Associate Planner Silverman added that, by State law, the,Planning Commission could not make a decision until the end of the comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. After the end of this period, they may make a decision, but are not obligated to do SO. They could continue the hearings and accept additional testimony if they felt it was necessary and appropriate before they made a decision. Commissioner Ferraro moved to Continue the Public Hearing until January 24, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7- 0). NEW BUSINESS - NONE ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the January 24, 1995, meeting. B. COMMISSION - None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - NONE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 31 ADJOURNMENT Vice chair Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to adjourn. Notion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:25 P.M. to an Adjourned (Joint) Meeting, together with the City Council and View Restoration commission, scheduled for Saturday, January 21, 1995, 11:00 a.m., at Hesse Park. The next Regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 24, 1995, 7:00 p.m., at Hesse Park. (A JD MINUTES DISK #8 - MINI 10) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 32