Loading...
PC MINS 19970211CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Approved 2/25/97 The meeting was called to order at 7.05 P M by Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Clark. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Cartwright, Clark, Ng, Slayden, Whiteneck, and Chairman Vannorsdall. Absent None Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, Assistant Planner Fox, Code Enforcement Officer Pollard, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio made a motion to consider Agenda Item No. 4 as the last item on the Agenda, since the discussion on this item was expected to be relatively time consuming. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark, and there being no objection, Chairman Vannorsdall so ordered the agenda approved as re -ordered, (7-0). At this time Chairman Vannorsdall introduced and welcomed James Slayden as the newest member of the Planning Commission Chairman Vannorsdall then thanked Commissioner Clark for a job extremely well-done during his tenure as Chairman for the Commission in 1996. Chairman Vannorsdall then indicated that he felt it was very important for the Commission to be acquainted with Staff and had requested Director/Secretary Petru to provide background information on the Staff Members who had joined the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department in 1996. He indicated to the Commission that due to short notice this information would be presented at a later meeting Chairman Vannorsdall stated that it was equally important for the Staff Members to be acquainted with the backgrounds of the Commissioner as well He then asked that both the Staff and the Commissioners introduce themselves by briefly describing their educational background and work experience. Each of the Staff members present, Director/Secretary Petru, Assistant Planner Fox and Code Enforcement Officer Pollard then provided the Commission with an oral summary of the educational background and work experience Then each of the Commissioners provided an oral overview of their educational backgrounds and careers. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION VICE, CHAIRMAN Commissioner Alberio stated that it was traditional in the City that the Mayor Pro Tem would become the next Mayor. Mr. Alberio noted that since he and Commissioner Clark both served as Chairman in the past, he felt that the next senior member, who was Commissioner Whiteneck, should be elected as the next Vice Chairman. Commissioner Alberio moved to nominate Commissioner Whiteneck as Vice Chairman. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and unanimously passed, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed a late letter from Marsha Carlson with the San Ramon Homeowners Association regarding Agenda Item No 3 (Variance No 417) and two items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Conditional use Permit No 182), including a letter from Mr. Leonard Manotti and a noise study from Mr and Mrs William Glantz's attorney Commission Commissioner Alberio suggested that the tapes for this evenings meeting should be preserved, since there was a document received from a law firm which would possibly involve litigation regarding Agenda Item No 4 Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he and Director/Secretary Petru had discussed the tapes recorded at previous meetings and noted that Ms Petru discovered that these tapes were almost inaudible Mr Vannorsdall then stated that the Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 2 had a great deal of difficulty listening to these tapes and explained that this was the reason for the previous Minutes not being as detailed as the Commission desired. He suggested that the Commission speak directly into the microphones, but not at too close a distance Commissioner Cartwright inquired as to how long Staff normally preserved the tapes. Director/Secretary Petru replied based on the Brown Act, Staff preserves the tapes for 30 days after the Minutes are adopted by the Commission. Commissioner Albeno inquired if the size of the room and equipment contributed to the poor quality of the recordings. Director/Secretary stated that, since there were no permanent chambers for the Commission and the equipment was being used for Council and other Commission/ Committee Meetings, the equipment had to be set-up and disassembled at least once a week. Ms Petru stated that this caused weak electrical connections and even if a new system was purchased, it would still deteriorate over time due to these circumstances. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that another problem for the recorded tapes not being clearly heard was because of the background noise He requested that the audience discussion be halted when others are speaking CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of October 24, 1995 Commissioner Cartwright requested that on page 9, paragraph 1, line 5 be modified to read as, "Commissioner Cartwright felt that impacts...". Commissioner Clark requested that on page 3, paragraph 4, line 1 be modified to read as, " referred to a photograph presented by the Staff " Chairman Vannorsdall noted that part of his discussion was omitted on page 9, paragraph 3 and requested that after the first sentence the following should be inserted to read as, "He had traveled around the Peninsula looking at other existing antennas and could not find one as uniquely situated as the subject property " Commissioner Clark noted on page 10, paragraph 2 that the information in the motion was accurate, but recalled that there were three options given to the applicant, including exploring the option of placing the proposed antenna tower down the slope at PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 3 the rear of the property Mr. Clark recalled when signing the resolution there were three options and suggested that Staff check the resolution and maybe the tape on the actual content of the motion. Commissioner Ng moved to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and approved (6-0-1), with Commissioner Slayden abstaining since he was not present at this meeting. 2 Minutes of January 14, 1997 Commissioner Ng stated that on page 10, her discussion for voting against the project was omitted and requested that the language be clarified and modified to include the following statements. "Commissioner Ng noted that the Staff Report listed eight requirements for commercial properties, i.e , lot size, setback, coverage, parking, etc She noted that the Haase property did not comply with four of the eight requirements and that the Wayfarer property did not comply to any of the eight requirements Commissioner Ng noted that the commercial zoned lots were required to have 40,000 square feet She stated that the Haase lot was 42% and Wayfarer lot was only 16% of the Code requirement Commissioner Ng noted that the Staff Report stated even if the two properties were combined it would still not equal 40,000 square feet. She felt that no matter what non- conforming structure issues were addressed in the future, the lot areas would never comply. Commissioner Ng related her concern and stated that this would probably create problems in the future should the new property owners try to improve the properties to be compatible with other commercial properties. She cued an example of a recent project which was presented to the Commission. Commissioner Ng recalled that a property owner of a 13,000 square foot property in an RS -1 zone, (RS -1 required a minimum 43,560 square foot lot) applied for a Conditional Use Permit for exceeding lot coverage so that his house would be compatible with the surrounding one acre properties She felt that the proposed land use change should not be approved Commissioner Ng requested that on page 13, paragraph 9 be clarified and modified to read as, "Commissioner Ng stated that her telephone conversation with the South Coast Air Quality Management District revealed that refueling five to eight cars per day caused toxic compound emission of benzine and was under the threshold of one part per million. She stated that the odor would be a concern to the neighbors, but that it was subjective depending on the wind direction and the time of day of the refueling. She also stated that since the tank itself has a second wall for containment, the outside lining would provide extra protection in case of leakage problems PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 4 Commissioner Ng recalled in the motion on page 14, paragraph 2 that "...plus 25% capacity to accommodate the rain water ", was discussed, but was omitted from the motion and therefore, should be included. Chairman Vannorsdall requested that on Page 14, paragraph 1, line 1 be modified to read as, " the vapors that may escape...". Commissioner Cartwright noted on page 5, paragraph 4 that the information was correct, however, the key issue he had made was omitted. He therefore requested that language be added to indicate that since Staff had recommended a continuance of this item, he had not reviewed the previous material on the project prior to the meeting. Therefore, when it was suggested that the item be heard that evening, contrary to the agenda, he was not prepared to consider or vote on the project at that time Commissioner Clark stated that he was absent from this meeting and did not have the comments on this item Commissioner Cartwright stated that on page 12, paragraph 2 it indicated that he inquired about the dimensions of the tank. Mr. Cartwright recalled that he did not inquire of such Commissioner Albeno stated that he had inquired about the dimensions of the tank on page 12, paragraph 2 At this time Director/Secretary Petru stated that a member of the audience had requested to speak on this consent calendar item Lois Larue, 36 Barkentine Road, stated that she did not like to be referred to as Ms. Larue and also stated that the statements attributed to her on page 15, paragraph 2 were not true. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes, as amended. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed (5-0-2), with Commissioners Clark and Slayden abstaining since they both were not present at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 Variance No 417; Antonio Tartaglia, 2844 San Ramon Drive. PANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1597 Page 6 Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the presentation of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Slayden and approved by acclamation, (7-0) Chairman Vannorsdall inquired if the Commission had questions for Staff regarding the item. Commissioner Ng noted in a late letter of correspondence distributed by Staff that a wrought -iron fence was under construction at 2764 San Ramon and inquired if the fence had a permit Code Enforcement Officer Pollard replied that Staff had not investigated if this fence had a permit, but indicated that Staff would look into the matter to determine if permits were taken out. If no approvals had been given, Code Enforcement Staff would follow- up on the matter. Chairman Vannorsdall inquired if the wrought -iron fence was part of the Variance before the Commission that evening Code Enforcement Officer Pollard replied that it was not Vice Chairman Whiteneck moved to open the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ng. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall. Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Recording Secretary Atuatasi replied there were none. Vice Chairman Whiteneck moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ng. There being no objection, Chairman Vannorsdall declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Vannorsdall asked if the Commission wished to discuss this item The Commission did not desire to discuss this item. Vice Chairman Whiteneck moved to accept Staffs Recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-9, thereby approving Variance No. 417, subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark, and there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall, (7-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 111, 1997 Page 6 Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period At this time Agenda Item No. 5 was considered NEW BUSINESS 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 96 - Revision 'C'; St. John Fisher School 5448 Crest Road. Assistant Planner Fox presented the Staff Report He indicated that the applicant was requesting to construct additions totalling 3,189 square feet to ten elementary classrooms in two existing single -story classroom buildings in order to accommodate new computer laboratories for the students He noted that the site did not have eight parking spaces that were required as part of earlier Variance and Conditional Use Permit applications, that the applicant had offered to provide four additional spaces, but that Staff recommended that the applicant also provide the additional four missing spaces, as a condition of approval for the project He concluded by stating that Staff found that all of the findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit Revision could be made, and, therefore, recommended approval of the proposed. Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Mr Tim Tucker, 118 S. Catalina Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA, stated that he was the architect for the proposed project and was available to answer any questions from the Commission. Mr. Doug Butler, 5417 Valley View Drive, stated that he was not against the project, but suggested that additional parking not be forced onto the property, since it might have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighbors Director/Secretary Petru explained that the Commission could not reduce the number of parking spaces on the property through the Conditional Use Permit Revision application that was before the Commission at that time. Instead, the applicant would need to apply for a revision to the previous Variance if they were unable to replace the required number of parking spaces on the property Chairman Vannorsdall asked if the Commission wished to discuss this item The Commission did not desire to discuss this item. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 7 Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staffs Recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-10, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 96 - Revision "C", subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden, and there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall, (7-0). Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 15 P M there was a brief recess until 8.25 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. At this time, Agenda Item No. 4 was considered. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 182; William Myers, 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard, Assistant Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that a six-month review of the project was conducted in order to determine if the applicant had complied with all the conditions of approval adopted by the Council, as set forth in Resolution No 95-41. Mr. Fox summarized several areas of concern identified by the adjacent property owners and a few identified by Staff. He concluded by stating that Staff recommended that the Commission receive the six month report, and provide Staff and the applicant with any direction regarding proposed modifications to the conditions of approval for the project Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall. Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item. Mr. William Myers, 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard, stated that he needed to go beyond the normal time limit given to each speaker, and therefore, requested that he be allowed rebuttal after all the other testimony had been taken Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that the project was in compliance with the Conditions of Approval, it was an improvement for the community, and she supported the project Mr. Kenneth Moore. 6344 Villa Rosa Drive, stated that he was not in favor of the project due to the traffic noise caused by the large parking area that was created at the rear of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 8 the property and the illumination of caused by security lights that were not functioning properly Mrs. Nancy Moore, 6344 Villa Rosa Drive, stated that she was not in favor of the project for the same reasons as mentioned by her spouse. She also indicated that her view was being obstructed by the addition that was made to the service station building. She felt that the building was unsightly and not residential in character, as required by the conditions of approval She requested that the back entrance not be used and that the rear parking area be removed. Mrs Moore stated that the trash enclosure had been relocated to a less desirable location on the property and she requested that trees be planted to screen her view of the site, but not so high as to obstruct her ocean view Ms. Moore stated that the property was initially zoned residential zoned when the City incorporated and she felt that it should remain that way. She did not feel that the adoption of the Automotive Overlay Control District was appropriate. She stated that the project should fit in with the residential neighborhood, consistent with its underlying zoning, and that this project did not do that Mr. Stanley Lamport, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, an attorney representing the Mr and Mrs William Glantz, stated that a noise study had been conducted and a copy of the document faxed to Staff late that afternoon. He stated that there were two issues at hand The first was the lighting and he quoted from Condition No. 26 which stated that " lights should be set-up so that it shines downward to prevent direct illumination of the adjacent properties " Mr Lamport stated that there were fluorescent tubes on the west elevation of the building that were shining onto the Glantz's property in violation of this condition The second issue dealt with noise caused by the air conditioner and refrigeration units at the rear of the building. He stated that both units ran all night long When the neighborhood got quiet late at night and into the early morning hours, the equipment could be clearly heard from the Glantz's property and disturbed them during their sleep hours. Mr. Lamport quoted that Condition No. 19 which stated that "All mechanical equipment shall be screened so that it would not be audible from adjacent properties " He then stated that the sound was measurable, an average of three to five decibels above the baseline ambient noise level in the area Mr Lamport concluded by saying that these two issue did not meet the conditions of approval, but that he felt that they could be resolved Mr Gordon Bricken, 1621 E. 17th Street, Suite 'K, Santa Ana, CA, 92701, an acoustical consultant, stated that he was contracted by Mr and Mrs. Glantz to determine if the site was in compliance with Condition No. 19. Mr. Bricken stated that he visited the site and conducted sound measurements at the rear property line which revealed that the sound from the mechanical equipment was audible on the Glantz's property Mr. Bricken cited several other noise ordinances from other cities in Southern PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11,1997 Page 9 California and stated that 40 decibels was the maximum level that was allowed in situations similar to the subject case He stated that, as measured from the property line, the noise level of the subject property was 5 to 10 decibels above this level He suggested that by erecting a ten foot high block wall around the equipment with acoustical paneling, the noise level would reduced by approximately 5 decibels. Mr. William Glantz 28070 Santona Drive, stated that he was not in favor of the project due to the fact of the noise level produced by the mechanical equipment running at all hours. He stated that when the project was approved, one of the guarantees made to the residences was that the sound would inaudible and the lights would not shine onto adjacent properties Mr. Glantz stated that it would be nice not to hear the noise of the equipment 24 hours a day. He also stated that he attempted to work out a solution with Mr Myers and that they were able to nearly resolve the lighting issue with some panels on the building to shield the lights, but that they were not able to resolve the noise issue at all Mr. Myers then rebutted the comments and questions of the prior speakers and stated that most of the concerns were redundant Most of the first speakers complaints were made during the public hearing regarding the Conditional Use Permit, and that there concerns had already been addressed in the adopted Conditions of Approval. The six month review was not the appropriate time to re -hash whether the City should have adopted the Automotive Service Overlay Control District He stated that he had not been able to place the trash cans In decorative enclosures due to monetary constraints. He stated that he was previously under the impression that Staff did not consider the lights on the east side of the building to be obtrusive, but after reading the Staff Report, he was surprised to see that Staff had indicated that one of the two lights near the side entrance door was considered to be obtrusive. Mr. Myers stated that the lights were placed at that location for safety reasons. He stated that he was able to come to a compromise with Mr Glantz regarding the lighting on the west side of the building However, with regards to the noise issue, Mr. Myers stated that he had visited the Glantz's property and was not able to hear the sound which they had complained so much about He also stated that he if he was required to fix anything on the property, he requested that he be given a reasonable time frame in which to accomplish the work. Mr. Glantz then asked to rebut Mr. Myers' statements and stressed that his main concern was regarding the noise. He requested that the Commission not to establish a precedence by setting a 60 decibel noise level on this property, since it would have an adverse effect on the community in the future PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 1111, 11997 Page 10 Ms Moore commented about the amount of landscaping on the property and requested that more trees be planted around the structure, in order to shield it, but so as not to obstruct her view Vice Chairman Whiteneck moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ng. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall. Commissioner Clark inquired as to why the City did not have a noise ordinance. Director/Secretary Petru replied that Staff and the City Attorney had been preparing a noise ordinance since the beginning of 1996 She stated that the City Attorney was still researching various examples of case law regarding noise ordinances that had been challenged in court and was uncertain if the Staff would propose an ordinance which included decibel levels or would use more subjective "reasonable person" standard. Ms Petru stated that a recommendation would be brought back to Staff after the City Attorney had completed the research She indicated that Staff had requested the City Attorney to complete this task shortly, so that the issue could be presented to the City Council for consideration by the end of the year. Commissioner Alberio recalled that one of the reasons why the City did not have a noise ordinance was because once a noise limitation had been established, the City would be bound by it. Mr Alberio stated that if the issue was considered on a case-by- case basis, the appropriate decibel level could be determined by the particular circumstances of the case. Commissioner Clark stated that the City does not have the required equipment to measure sound levels, therefore, any specific decibel level would be unenforceable at this time Commissioner Alberio stated that in the absence of a City ordinance, the levels established by the state would apply, which was 60 decibels In the course of discussion between the Commission, Staff and Mr. Bricken, it was determined that the noise levels taken by Mr Bricken were measured at the property line, but not in an area where a residence was located. Instead, the measurements were taken from the access pole of an adjacent flag lot. The noise level that was measured on the Glantz's property was below 40 decibels, which was the level cited earlier by the neighbors as that being used in other noise ordinances in the Southern California area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 11 Commissioner Clark stated that he felt it would be premature to set a decibel level on this property in the absence of a City noise ordinance He suggested that the Commission take a reasonable approach to this issue and determine what would make the most sense to the Commission in that respect. Commissioner Cartwright concurred with Commissioner Clark's comment and stated that the study received that evening needed to be reviewed thoroughly by both the Commission and Staff Therefore, Mr. Cartwright suggested that the noise Issue be continued to a later date and that the Commission concentrate on resolving the remaining issues that evening Commissioner Clark added to Commissioner Cartwright's comments by suggesting that an on-site visit be conducted and the Information obtained from that activity be factored in before a determination is made by the Commission on this aspect of the protect. Commissioner Alberio inquired if it would be possible for the City to hire Its own noise consultant. Director/Secretary Petru replied that the City did not have money budgeted for this type of activity, and suggested instead that the applicant be required to set-up a trust deposit account for the City to hire its own consultant to conduct studies Vice Chairman Whiteneck stated that if the City were to adopt an ordinance that set specific decibel levels, since the environment vanes so much throughout the community, the levels would be meaningless in many cases. Commissioner Slayden felt that enough information had been presented to the Commission that evening regarding the noise issue, both in written and verbally by the speakers, for the Commission to be well aware of the situation He stated that both parties seemed to be resolving their concerns and, therefore, felt that the Commission was in a position to make a determination on the project that evening. Commissioner Ng stated that she still had questions regarding the noise level, but felt that the remainder of the conditions could be discussed and determined that evening. Chairman Vannorsdall suggested that both parties should consider sharing the cost to construct additional sound attenuation materials around the mechanical equipment Mr. Glantz stated that, notwithstanding the fact that he was not the one who created the noise problem, he would agree to discuss the idea with Mr. Myers, as long as he would not have to make too large of a monetary contribution to solving the problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 11997 Page 12 Mr Myers agreed with suggestion and stated that his personal feelings towards Mr. Glantz had been elevated by his willingness to work on this problem Mr Myers also stated that he appreciated Mr. Glantz's indulgence on this matter Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the Public Hearing to February 25, 1997, with the applicant and adjacent neighbor to attempt to work out a compromise in the meantime. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark. Prior to roll -call vote, Commissioner Clark inquired if the motion pertained only to the noise issue. Commissioner Alberio replied that Commissioner Clark was correct Commissioner Ng asked to clarify the motion to make sure that it was to postpone only the noise issue and that the remainder of conditions would be determined that evening. Commissioner Alberio replied that Commissioner Ng's statement was correct. Director/Secretary Petru asked Chairman Vannorsdall what date the Commission wished to continue this issue to Chairman Vannorsdall replied February 25, 1997 The motion was unanimously passed by a roll -call vote, (7-0). At this time the remaining Conditions of Approval identified in the Staff Report were discussed Condition No. 13 amplified Music) - "There shall be no amplified music outside the building " Commissioner Clark recalled that Staff had recommendation that Mr Myers post signs in the rear parking lot indicating that amplified music was prohibited outside the building and requesting that patrons turn down their radios Commissioner Cartwright stated that he visited the site and recalled asking Mr Myers if he were willing to post the signs Mr Cartwright stated that Mr Myers replied that he would be willing to Commissioner Aiberio stated that he agreed with Staffs recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 13 Commissioner Cartwright inquired if each Condition discussed would require a motion. Chairman Vannorsdall suggested that, if the Commission agreed on each item discussed, then Staff could be given direction by the acclamation of the Commission. The Commission accepted Staffs recommendation regarding Condition No. 13 to require the applicant to install signs in the rear parking lot Indicating that amplified sound was prohibited and requesting that patrons tum down their radios. Condition No. 17 (Hours of Operation} - "The hours of operation shall be limited as follows- Sunday -Thursday. 5.00 a.m. to 11.00 p m and Friday -Saturday 5 00 a m. to 1200am.". Commissioner Cartwright stated that the applicant seemed to be already complying with this condition. Commissioner Clark pointed out that Staff had indicated no increase in crime had been reported for this particular area since the station had re -opened. The Commission accepted Staff recommendation that no further changes to Condition No. 17 were necessary. Condition No. 18 (Delivery Hours, - " with exception to the delivery of gasoline products, no deliveries are permitted to the site between the hours of 9:00 p m. to 6*00 a.m. daily...". Commissioner Alberio stated that the delivery hours for fuel trucks delivering gasoline to the station was restricted by state law, which required trucks to be on the road at certain time. Mr. Myers indicated that Mr Alberio's statement was somewhat incorrect He indicated that state law allowed fuel trucks to deliver at all times He also stated that the Council specifically wrote this condition to allow fuel trucks to deliver late at night. The Commission accepted Staffs Recommendation that no modification to Condition No. 18 was necessary Condition No 19 (Screening of Mechanical Equipment) - " . mechanical equipment shall be screened and/or covered so that it is not visible or audible from adjacent residential properties. All mechanical equipment..." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 14 Condition No 20 (Sound Attenuations - "Appropriate sound insulation techniques and I filters shall be utilized to minimize noise and odors from the convenience store." Director/Secretary Petru noted that discussion of these two conditions had been continued to February 25, 1997 Condition No. 21 (Building Aesthetigs), - "...convenience sales area must be resurfaced with stucco or a similar material to give the appearance that the building is more residential..." Commissioner Clark stated that the project was a service station and not a residence. He felt that it was unnecessary to change the appearance of the structure to blend in with the surrounding residential areas Mr Clark recognized Mr. Myers efforts in complying with this condition. The Commission accepted Staffs Recommendation that no modification of Condition No. 21 was necessary. Condition No. 24 (Duml2ster Enclosure) - "...the trash dumpster/refuse, area shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be equipped with a gate or doors which screen the receptacles from public or private view " Commissioner Clark inquired if the purpose of Staff allowing the trash enclosure to be moved to the northwest corner of the building was intended to reduce visual impact and improve the aesthetics of the site. Director/Secretary Petru replied that Commissioner Clark was correct. The Commission accepted Staffs recommendation that no modification was necessary to Condition No. 24. Condition No. 27 (Security LLqh s - " all interior and exterior lighting shall be turned off at the close of business. Security lighting shall be the minimum necessary to provide safety " Commissioner Ng inquired if Staff was referring to the seven low voltage lights along the north side of the building Director/Secretary Petru replied Commissioner Ng was correct PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 15 Commissioner Ng stated that the applicant seemed to be complying with this condition and felt that the light was not intrusive. The Commission accepted Staffs recommendation for Condition No. 27 that no modification was necessary Condition No 29 (Motion -Detector Lights,) - " sensors shall be placed in the rear parking area which will activate security lighting In the event that persons access the rear parking area..." Commissioner Slayden inquired if the lights automatically turn off and on all night long as mentioned by Mrs Moore Chairman Vannorsdall replied that this was correct Commissioner Slayden inquired if it was necessary to have the motion detector lights. Commission Ng replied that she felt that the lights were necessary, since it was dark in that portion of the property at night and that patrons would not have proper lighting when trying to use the air and water stations located on this side of the building The Commission determined that the applicant should remove one bulb in the fixture located at the northeast corner of the building and to leave the other light fixture located over the air and water area intact I/Vith this direction to the applicant, the Commission agreed that Condition No. 27 did not need to be further modified Condition No. 30 (Landscape Screening) - " .all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in substantial conformance to the approved plans " Commissioner Slayden noted that all the landscaping was very new and that it would grow substantially in the future, particularly along side of the building He felt that it was unnecessary to restrict the height of the trees on the back side of the building beyond the existing Code requirement Chairman Vannorsdall noted that the Code would allow trees up to sixteen feet In height on the subject property. The Commission accepted Staffs recommendation that no modification was needed for Condition No 30. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 16 Condition No. 32 (Loading Zone Parking) - Staff recommended that "...the loading zone area shall be located in an area that is sufficiently screened from view from surrounding residential " Commissioner Ng stated that the loading zone did not seem to be located in a logical area Ms Ng stated that it would normally be located by the exit door Mr Myers stated that former Director/Secretary Bernard had approved the loading zone in its current location in an attempt to find a location that was less intrusive in terms of traffic flow and the layout of the parking. However, Mr. Myers stated that the delivery trucks parked parallel to the building instead of utilizing the corner where the loading zone (where the telephones used to be located). Commissioner Ng suggested putting the loading zone at the back of the building. Mr. Myers replied that he did not mind Commissioner Ng's suggested, but that he would like to keep his back parking spaces available for his customers Commissioner Ng inquired if the loading zone would be re -painted. Mr. Myers replied if the Commission directed him to re -paint the loading zone, he would comply. Director/Secretary Petru noted that loading zone in the corner should be removed and re -painted at the back of the building, where the delivery trucks were actually parking Regarding Condition No 32, the Commission directed Staff to work with the applicant to relocate the loading zone to a more appropnate location on the site. Condition No. 22 (Trash Enclosure) - "Trash enclosures... shall be integrated into the site landscaping and design " Commissioner Clark suggested that the Commission allow the applicant an additional six months to work with Staff to determine what would be a suitable enclosure for the trash receptacles on the site. Regarding Condition No 32, the Commission directed Staff to work with the applicant in the next six months to determine the appropnate enclosure for the trash receptacles so as to integrate them into the landscaping and design of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 17 Condition No.28 (Exteri r Lighting /ntensiW - "all exterior lighting shall be reviewed by the Director and may be subject to a reduction in the lumens, or the installation of additional screening should the Director find the lighting to be excessive or intrusive on neighboring properties " Commissioner Ng inquired at what time the side door was locked. Mr. Myers replied that the side door remained open until the store closed each night. Director/Secretary Petru stated that additional landscaping could be installed under the light that shone on the wall against the wall, as suggested in the Staff Report, in order to absorb some of the light so that it would not reflect off the wall The Commission discussed the fact that the applicant's main concern was safety. However, the second light shone directly on the wall which made it appear to be brighter than the other lights. The Commission agreed with Staffs recommendation of placing landscaping against the wall that would diffuse the light Mr Myers agreed and stated that he would place bamboo type plants against the wall in the area under the light With regards to Condition No. 28, the Commission agreed with the Staff recommendation to require the applicant to install additional landscaping under the second light on the west elevation of the building adjacent to the side entrance door that was reflecting off of the wall, in order to absorb and diffuse the light so as not to appear to be excessively bright Commissioner Clark moved to accept the Commission's determinations on the conditions of approval, with the exception of Condition Nos. 19 and 20 (mechanical equipment screening and sound attenuation), which was previously continued to February 25, 1997. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Mr Lamport requested that the Public Hearing be continued to March 11, 1997, since there was insufficient time for them to work with Mr. Myers on solving the noise issue. Chairman Vannorsdall replied that the meeting of March 11, 1997 would probably be canceled since most of the Commission would be attending a conference in Monterey that week. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 18 Director/Secretary Petru clarified that the Public Hearing would be continued to March 25, 1997 to further discuss the mechanical equipment issue and not on February 25, 1997, as stated during the previous motion on this issue There being no objection to the motion, with the clarification that the hearing on Condition Nos. 19 and 20 were continued to March 25, 1997, it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall, (7-0). Commissioner Alberio inquired if the Commission should attempt to visit the Glantz's property and the subject site in the meantime, as suggested earlier by Commissioner Clark. Commissioner Clark replied that he still thought that it would be a good idea for the Commission to visit these properties, if the members had not already done so. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 6 Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission Meeting o February 25, 1997 7 Discussion of cancellation of Planning Commission Meeting for Mar_qh 11, 1997 Director/Secretary Petru stated that Staff did not have any items tentatively scheduled for this meeting and suggested that the Commission may wish to cancel the meeting of March 11, 1997. Commissioner Alberio moved to cancel the meeting of March 11, 1997, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck. There being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall, (7-0). 8 Projection of Future Workload for 1997 Director/Secretary Petru briefly described the anticipated Commission workload for the next six months. She stated that anticipated projects included 1) A Conditional Use Permit for a new Marriott Life Care Center on Crestridge Road, 2) four applications for tentative parcel maps, 3) two General Plan Amendments and associated Zone Changes that were currently pending before the Council in March for initiation; 4) a Grading Permit Revision for the Kajima project to export 8,000 cubic yards of material PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 1997 Page 19 off of the site of their approved tentative tract map, 5) Height Variation applications with the recently adopted revisions to this portion of the Development Code; and, 6) training for the Commission on the Development Code Revisions. Commission None COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: ADJOURNMENT: At 11:50 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck. There being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall, (7-0). N 1GROUPTLANNINGTWINWIN02 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 11997 Page 20