Loading...
PC MINS 19950926I APPROVED' 10/24/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 26, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairman Mowlds at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Senior Planner Joel Rojas. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds. ABSENT: Commissioner Vannorsdall (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Bernard, Senior Planner Rojas, Assistant Planners de Freitas and Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary Drasco. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Mowlds suggested that Item No. 3 (Development Code Revisions) be heard at the end of the meeting, after Item No. 6. Approved, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff: Director/Secretary Bernard noted that there were two late letters from neighbors of the applicants, one for Item No. 5 and one for Item No. 6. Commission: Commissioner Alberio mentioned that he received a telephone call from the applicant's architect for Item No. 5. Chairman Mowlds stated that he received a telephone call from a neighbor of the applicant for Item No. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 Commissioner Wang noted that, on Page 2, Line 3 of Paragraph 10, the year should be corrected from 1119955" to 111995"; and, on Page 6, Line 3 of Paragraph 4, the word "Transmamerica" should be changed to "Transamerica". Vice Chair Hayes stated that, on Page 3, Line 3 of Paragraph 5, to word "be" should be inserted to read "to be built". Chairman Mowlds requested that, on Page 7, Line 1 of Paragraph 7, his name be inserted to indicate that he made this statement. The sentence previously read "Commissioner noted that" with no name given. vice Chair Hayes moved to accept the Minutes, as amended. Approved (6-0). 2. TIME EXTENSION REQUEST; York Long Point Associates, 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South (Long Point). (CP) Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staff's recommendation to approve this request, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS (Item No. 3 was heard after Item No. 6) 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 186 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 673; Taco Bell, 28798 S. Western Avenue. (FF) Chairman Mowlds stated that Staff's recommendation was to continue the item. The applicant requested that he be allowed to make a statement. Mr. William Fancher (applicant's representative), 1342 Bell Avenue, Tustin, CA 92680. Mr. Fancher stated that he did not see the need for a continuance. Director/Secretary Bernard explained that Mr. Fancher had been informed of the probable continuance prior to the meeting. The continuance was being recommended because of the Planning Commission's desire expressed at a previous meeting to consider this proposed project in conjunction with the Christ Lutheran Church application (at a nearby, related site). The related project was not ready to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, due to the late receipt of that project's traffic report. Mr. Fancher stated that he believed that the City was in violation of the Permit Streamlining Act and that the proposed fast food restaurant was a permitted use for the property. He said that he had done everything that was asked of him and wanted to have the item heard by the Commission that night. Mr. Fancher concluded by stating that he was ready to take the matter to court to have a judge make a decision. Chairman Mowlds stated that it was his understanding that the Planning Commission could continue, approve or deny the application. Director/Secretary Bernard confirmed that those three options were available to the Commission. He added that he did not believe the City was in violation of the Permit Streamlining Act and that, as had been explained to Mr. Fancher on earlier PLANNING COMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 2 occasions, the proposal was not permitted "outright" but that a Conditional Use Permit was required for this proposed project. commissioner Alberio moved to continue the item to October 10, 1995, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 815 - APPEAL; Damiano and Sarah Colaroutolo, 4033 Miraleste Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report, stating that even though the proposed structure would have adequate articulation and would create no view impairment, Staff denied the project because the ratio of square footage of the home to the lot size would not be compatible with the neighborhood. She added that the Palos Verdes Art Jury (Palos Verdes Homes Association) had approved the proposed new home. Commissioner Alberio said that he understood it had been submitted to the Art Jury twice. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that this was true and that the new design, approved by the Art Jury, had been prepared by a different architect than the first submittal to the Jury. She clarified that Art Jury's decision had no bearing on the City's approval. Commissioner Alberio asked if the applicant had indicated a willingness to downsize the project. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein answered that, the applicant and architect had met with Staff to discuss redesign, and that they had decided to retain the original design submitted to the City, which was the same one approved by the Art Jury. Chairman Mowlds opened the public hearing. Mr. John Resich (applicant's attorney), 840 West Ninth Street, San Pedro, CA 90731. Mr. Resich directed the Commission's attention to a number of photos and drawings illustrating the project and adjacent homes. He did not believe the proposed home was too massive and questioned whether Staff's zoning designation of RS -3 was correct, wondering if the property might not actually be an RS -5, which had a less stringent open space requirement. Mr. Resich also questioned the comparison of square footage of neighborhood homes, stating that in some cases, garage square footage was not included, and many of the homes were larger than the one proposed. He acknowledged that this was a small lot but he believed that the lot size comparison was not accurate PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 3 because, even though many of the lots in the area were bigger, in some instances, the actual building pad was small because of steep slopes on the property. Mr. Resich closed by pointing out that there was an apartment building adjacent to this site with garages in the rear, pools, large overhanging patios, driveways and parking areas. Commissioner Alberio said that most of the homes Mr. Resich was referencing were built before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated and that different standards had applied under L. A. County's jurisdiction. Mr. Resich said that he understood that Miraleste was a unique area within the City, particularly with regard to the requirement for approval by the Art Jury. He further stated that it was difficult for the applicant to go back and forth between the Art Jury and the City to finally come up with a design that both groups would approve. Mr. Resich did indicate that the applicant would be willing to lower the height of the ridge by one foot, or maybe as much as a foot and a half. Commissioner Alberio noted that, as an attorney, Mr. Resich understood that the Art Jury's criteria was embodied in the CC&Rls, while the City's was from the Municipal Code, and that the two groups were independent, and did not always agree. Mr. Resich indicated his agreement, stating that the applicant had desired Art Jury approval first to determine compatibility with the CC&Rfs. Vice Chair Hayes said that she appreciated the offer to lower the ridge on the house because it seemed high and asked if the applicant was willing to be flexible regarding the open space requirement. Mr. Resich again brought up the issue of zoning, stating that an RS -5 lot required less open space. Vice Chair Hayes replied that the Commission and Staff determined that the subject property was located in an RS -3 zoning district. Mr. Resich was not sure if Commissioner Hayes' suggestion was possible because the design provided a second floor and, therefore a smaller footprint, in order to meet the side and rear yard setbacks. He stated that this goal had been accomplished and, in some cases, the setbacks were even wider than required. Mr. John Vilicich (applicant's architect), 953 West First Street, San Pedro, CA 90731. Mr. Vilicich stated that he had designed the latest plan. He detailed the history of the applicant's PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 4 experience with the Art Jury, listing the high costs already incurred each time a plan was submitted to the Art Jury. He explained that this was one reason the applicant was hoping to obtain approval from this City for the plan that had already been approved by the Art Jury. Mr. Vilicich indicated that he had always worked favorably with the City Staff but that, four months into this project, he learned that Staff considered the proposed structure not compatible with the homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Chairman Mowlds asked Staff to comment. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that originally it was determined that there would be no view impairment and that the house would be well articulated. However, it was then determined that the structure -to -lot -size ratio for this project was not compatible with the other homes/lots in the neighborhood. Therefore, the architect and the landowner met with Staff and they were given the option to scale back the project or to present this design to the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Bernard clarified that it was certainly not a confrontational meeting, but that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Colaroutolo decided that, since Art Jury approval had been received, they wanted to see if the Planning Commission would approve this design as well. Commissioner Alberio said that, if they were willing to compromise, possibly they could reduce the height of the residence and landscape the property for a softening effect. Mr. Vilicich said that this might be possible with revaluation. He noted that the silhouette did not indicate the exact house, but that the plans the Commissioners received were accurate. Mr. Mike Whitlock, 6345 Via Lorenzo, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Whitlock indicated that he had corresponded with the City regarding this proposed project and believed that the house was simply too large for the lot and for the neighborhood, which he characterized as low density. He noted that the proposed house was 4,188 square feet in size on a 6,800 square foot lot and that the average house in the neighborhood was 1,600 to 2,400 square feet in size on a 11,500 square foot lot. He pointed out that the proposed house would cover 54% of the lot, over double that of the average lot coverage in the neighborhood of 25%. He noted that none of the houses in the area had over 50% lot coverage, and only three had over 40%. Mr. Whitlock said that he was not sure about the height. He said that he had seen the frame and that it seemed to him that this house would be taller than the adjacent two story structure on the west side, which appeared to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 5 be on even on a higher building pad. He believed the proposed home would change the tone of the neighborhood and set a precedent to create higher density for subsequent development. Vice Chair Hayes asked Mr. Whitlock if he believed the multi- family unit next door had not already changed the density factor. Mr. Whitlock said that he did not believe that this created a significant impact because there was still an overall feeling of openness, due to the wide separations between homes and the large number of trees in the area. Commissioner Ferraro asked him to define "openness". Mr. Whitlock said that, to him, it meant a favorable building -to - land ratio, space around the homes, older trees, landscaping, and a "parklike" setting. Commissioner Ferraro replied that the houses were close together on Miraleste Drive, except for a few exceptions. Mr. Whitlock felt that the remainder of the neighborhood had more open space and the statistics prepared by the Staff and himself proved this. Mr. Bill Ruth, 4045 Miraleste Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Ruth reported that he lived two houses from the subject property and that he owned a 3,000 square foot house on 16,000 square foot double lot. He was concerned that if one exception was made, the neighborhood would be changed. He noted that, because Miraleste was a busy street, children needed a back yard in which to play. Mr. Ruth said that even some of the houses on Miraleste had back yards even if the houses appeared close together. Commissioner Whiteneck pointed out that if someone had a very large lot, they could build a larger house if they wished as long the project complied with the Code. Chairman Mowlds asked how the revised, proposed Code would address the subject. Senior Planner Rojas pointed out, purely for reference, that the new Development Code, not yet adopted, proposed a modified "FAR" (floor -to -area -ratio) and he quickly calculated that the largest home allowed for the subject lot, using the proposed Code, would be 3,731 square feet. Since the proposed home would be 4,188 square feet, it would not be allowed if the proposed Code was adopted. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, reported PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 6 • • that she passed this site almost every day and she was in favor of the new home as she felt it would be a good addition to the area. She reminded the Commission that it had often noted 'that people want larger houses and progress can't be stopped.' Chairman Mowlds said that the Commission had also said that the size of a house was not as important as how large it appeared. It was the Chairman's opinion that the silhouette indicated that the house would look very massive, even compared to the house next door, which was set back from the street. He believed, however, that possibly the silhouette was placed too close to the street, because he had measured the setback distance as 141, not 201, as required by the Code. Mr. John Resich (applicant's attorney - rebuttal). Mr. Resich said that even though the subject lot was small, the Colaroutolos hoped to build their dream home. He stated that other homeowners in the neighborhood had large open spaces on their property filled with swimming pools, flatwork and other structures which may or may not be included in the total lot coverage. He noted that the photographs provided to the Planning Commission showed that all of the neighboring streets have many two-story homes and that this home could be setback, minimizing the back yard and lessening the impact on the street view. He added that landscaping could be used to soften the effect also. He noted that, even with the proposed Code, the home would be only a few square feet above the maximum and that the height of the house could be lowered by one to one and one-half feet. Chairman Mowlds said that, since Mr. Resich was on the Palos Verdes Art Jury (the Palos Verdes Homes Association), he must have been forced to make similar decisions like the one before the Commission on this project. He asked Mr. Resich if he believed this lot was too small for this house. Mr. Resich clarified that he was on the Rolling Hills 'Art Jury and that they did have difficult decisions to make in this regard, but that they did occasionally make exceptions when it seemed appropriate. Mr. John Vilicich (applicant's architect - rebuttal) Mr. Vilicich said that he was sure the house was set back from the street more than 14 feet and that maybe the silhouette was incorrect. He added that a large, existing pepper tree on the property would help camouflage the house, as viewed from the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 7 9 Chairman Mowlds asked for input from the Commission, stating that he felt three alternatives were available. They Commission could 1) deny the application; 2) approve it; or, 3) have the applicant and representatives work with Staff to redesign the project. Commissioners Wang and Whiteneck favored Alternative No. 3. Commissioner Ferraro said that she believed the current design of the house was acceptable. Vice Chair Hayes believed Alternative No. 3 was best because she thought a reasonably sized back yard was essential. Commissioner Alberio agreed to choose Alternative No. 3 because he believed a lower roof, landscaping, and further compromise would make the project feasible. Commissioner Ferraro stressed that the current design complied with setback requirements, there was no view impairment or cumulative view impairment, and the house would be well articulated. She stated that the application was for a Height Variation and that the only issue regarding height was raised by a neighbor on an adjoining property concerned about privacy if a tree might be later removed. Chairman Mowlds replied that the adjacent house to which Commissioner Ferraro had referred had been sold and the new owner was (apparently) not worried about privacy. Commissioner Ferraro stated that she drove through the subject neighborhood on a daily basis and that she observed older houses, which appeared close together. She believed that, even though this was a small lot, the proposed project would not change the character of the neighborhood, especially with the multi -family structure nearby. She suggested that no one seemed concerned about the height of the proposed home, only lot coverage, even though the submitted application was for a Height Variation. Vice Chair Hayes said that she was concerned about the height of the proposed structure. Chairman Mowlds clarified that lot coverage was not the issue, but that it was the floor -to -area ratio (FAR). Commissioner Ferraro noted that, even with new Code, the house would be only about 300 square feet over the maximum allowed. Chairman Alberio believed that this was a significant amount over the maximum square footage that would be allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 8 Senior Planner Rojas stated that the proposed house would actually be about 456 square feet over the maximum allowed by the new Code, if adopted. Mr. Resich proposed another alternative, stating that the reduction in height would reduce the volume of the structure. Since the applicant did not wish to reduce the square footage on either floor, reduction in that respect was not possible. He believed that the Art Jury would still approve a redesign with a slightly lower ridge height. Chairman Mowlds said that there was always a way to reduce square footage. He believed that living space could be gained by using some of the space taken by the large circular staircase. If the large staircase was essential to the design and the applicant wanted to retain it, then another compromise would have to be made. Mr. Resich stated that the floor plan was highly favored and that the applicant preferred to leave it as originally designed and, even though the proposed home was large, he did not believe it was too large for the neighborhood. He was sure a compromise could be reached by lowering the ridge height and using landscaping to screen the structure from the street. Commissioner Alberio felt that the floor plan might have to be changed. Mr. Resich said that if there were too many revisions to the plan, they might not retain their Art Jury approval. Chairman Mowlds disagreed, stating that he was sure the current design was not the only house the Art Jury would approve. At the request of the Commission, Director/Secretary Bernard discussed October 24, 1995 as a possible date for the continuation, stating that the next meeting on October 10, 1995, already had a very heavy agenda planned for it. Mr. Resich indicated that he would be out of state on October 24, 1995. Chairman Mowlds suggested that the applicant and representatives work out a date during a recess. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein inquired of the Commission is it wished to have the silhouette checked to see it if accurately reflects the plans. The consensus of the Commission was that this should be done. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 9 RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:15 P.M. and reconvened at 8:27 P.M. Director/Secretary Bernard stated that discussion with the applicant during the recess determined that the best date for continuing this item would be November 14, 1995. Commissioner Alberio moved to Continue the public hearing to November 14, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Wang. The motion passed (5-1) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Alberio, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes and Chairman Mowlds NOES: commissioner Ferraro 6. VARIANCE NO. 399 GRADING PERMIT 1837; Bob and Joyce Daniels, 30162 Cartier Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report, stating that the applicant was requesting to build a lap pool, spa deck, trellis, cabana, and barbecue within an extreme slope in the rear of the property. Staff recommended denial of the project because the four mandatory findings for the Variance could not be made. Chair Mowlds opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Hoffman (applicant's representative), 4110 Goodland Avenue, Studio City, CA 91604. Mr. Hoffman disagreed with Staff's recommendation that the project be denied because the findings for approval could not be made. Regarding Finding No. 1, he felt that the lack of level area on the lot did provide an extraordinary condition, even though that same condition might exist on other nearby properties. For Finding No. 2, he stated that the applicant was not able to enjoy a substantial property right, even though this right had not been requested by other property owners in the neighborhood. For Finding No. 3, he did not believe that the project would be detrimental to the public welfare because the design was recessed into the slope and landscaping would be provided so that the area would not be visible from Cartier Drive. Mr. Hoffman indicated that this was a preliminary design and that he and the applicants were willing to make changes to reduce the scope of the project and to lower the retaining wall. He believed that the project could be safely engineered and that drainage control could be addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1445 PAGE 10 Commissioner Whiteneck noted that soil analysis would be necessary to build a stable project and that proper engineering, especially to build the lap pool on caissons, would be very costly. Mr. Hoffman agreed that a soils report was necessary and that construction would be expensive. Commissioner Whiteneck was also concerned about disruption of the natural contours of the property. Chairman Mowlds pointed out that the Development Code prohibited building on an extreme slope (35% or greater in steepness). Mrs. Joyce Daniels (applicant) 30162 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Daniels explained that she and her husband wished to build the proposed improvements since they were both retired and believed that this would be a quality project which would improve their home. she noted that they were aware of the problems associated with building on the slope and planned to address the stabilization of the back yard and any drainage problems. She indicated that they too were concerned about slippage of the land and that they were willing to increase their costs to ensure that the lap pool was constructed in an appropriate manner. Mrs. Daniels agreed with Commissioner Whiteneck that a soils analysis was necessary but she and her husband did not want to proceed with further expense if they were not able to obtain approval for the improvements. Commissioner Alberio echoed Commissioner Whiteneck's comments that more information was needed. Vice Chair Hayes expressed her fears about excavating into the slope but said that she was willing to withhold judgment until there were more facts. Commissioner Ferraro concurred with Vice Chair Hayes, stating that she empathized with the property owners. Commissioner Whiteneck noted that a building permit would not be issued without soils information, but he believed it was possible to build the improvements safely with the proper engineering. Commissioner Wang said that she would prefer to withhold judgment until more information was available, however, she believed it was the applicant's right to improve their property if they were willing to spend the money to make it safe. She acknowledged that it was frightening to think of building on the steep slope. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 11 Commissioner Mowlds disagreed that it was the property owner's right to build on the hillside because the Code did not allow building on an extreme slope or to add a second upslope retaining wall. Mr. Mowlds stressed that State law required that all four findings be made to approve a Variance and he did not believe those four findings could be made. Vice Chair Hayes agreed that the four findings could not be made, stating that the project would be contrary to the General Plan and the City's Development Code. Commissioner Whiteneck asked about structures which had been built on extreme slopes in the past. Chairman Mowlds replied that this construction would have been approved under Los Angeles County jurisdiction before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated. Chairman Mowlds closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Hayes moved to accept the Staff's recommendation to deny the project, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. The motion failed because of a tie (3-3), on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ferraro, Vice Chair Hayes, Chairman Mowlds NOES: Commissioners Alberio, Whiteneck, and Wang Vice Chair Hayes stressed that the General Plan and the Development Code could not be ignored. Commissioner Alberio replied that, even though the Code did not allow a structure on an extreme slope, he considered this project different because the proposed improvements were not actually buildings. He felt that additional information and proper engineering might make the project workable. Commissioner Mowlds read aloud the section of the Development Code (17.40.060) that prohibited building on an extreme slope. Vice Chair Hayes moved to accept the Staff recommendation to deny the project, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. The motion passed (4-1-1) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Alberio and Ferraro, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 12 NOES: commissioner Nang ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Whiteneck Chairman Mowlds noted that P.C. Resolution 95-34 would be signed that evening and that there was a 15 -day appeal period. (Item No. 3 was re -ordered to be heard after Item No. 6) 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Mr. John Resich, 810 West Ninth Street, San Pedro CA 90731. Mr. Resich, on behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park, asked that the Planning Commission remove the requirement for cemeteries to have recycling facilities. The Commission concurred and Staff agreed to make the change. Chairman Mowlds asked that any small, grammatical/typographical errors be given directly to the Staff after the meeting. Discussions between Staff and the Commission resulted in the following changes: 17.48.030(A): Typo correction on line 6 (page 12). 17.48.030(A)(1): A sentence was added which clarified how to distinguish a front property line from a street side property line on a curved corner lot (page 13). 17.48.030(C)(1): Typo correction on line 6 (page 13). 17.48.030(E)(1): The paragraph was re -structured in order to clarify its intent (page 14). 17.48.030(E)(7): The paragraph language was clarified by adding the words "main buildings" (page 15). 17.50.040(F)(7): The exhibits discussed in the paragraph were attached (pages 17 and 18). 17.50.040(G)(2): Missing language was added to this paragraph (page 19). 17.050.040(K): Typo correction on line 2 (page 20). 17.56.020(A): Revised the paragraph to prohibit dry sandblasting (page 21). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 13 17.56.030(A): Language was deleted on lines 8 and 9 (page 22). 17.56.040(A)(1): Changed 12,000 watts to 1,200 watts (page 23). 17.58.030(A)(1): Deleted the word "cemetery" on line 1 (page 24) . 17.58.030(A)(2): Deleted the word "cemetery" on line 1 (page 24) . Chairman Mowlds asked Staff to bring back the corrected pages to the next Planning Commission meeting. Senior Planner Rojas said that he would, acknowledging that this was a different procedure since, previously, the changes had been only read into the Minutes. NEW BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Staff 7. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 10, 1995. Director/Secretary Bernard suggested an earlier starting time for the next Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1995, because the preliminary agenda indicated a lengthy meeting with much public testimony expected. Chairman Mowlds moved that the meeting begin at 6:30 P.M. and the motion was approved by acclamation, (6-0). Commission• Chairman Mowlds asked that Staff bring back to the next meeting on October 10, 1995, facts regarding the disposition of the fence which was to be removed at 30063 Cartier Drive, stating that he had noticed it was still there. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items): Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, commented on two portions of the Development Code. She also suggested that it might be more economically feasible for the City to hire additional employees, rather than contracting work with outside vendors, citing the success of the City of Malibu in this regard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 14 ADJOURNMENT• Commissioner Ferraro moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:45 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on October 10, 1995, at a special starting time of 6:30 P.M. (A:JDMIN#ll - MIN9.26) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 PAGE 15