Loading...
PC MINS 20100309 Appr ve April 13, 2 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Lewis, Leon, Tetreault, Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission agreed to move agenda item No. 1 to the end of the agenda. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the last meeting the City Council appointed Commissioner Gerstner as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Director Rojas also reported that staff has distributed one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Mark Wells spoke on the recent initiative submitted by Marymount College. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation, Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2009- 00437): 6505 Palos Verdes Drive East Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She stated that staff believes the proposed second story addition will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms size, architectural style, building material, and setbacks. Staff also found that the proposed second story addition will not significantly impair views from any surrounding residences nor negatively affect the privacy of neighboring properties. Lastly, staff found the grading to be necessary and not excessive. With that, she reported that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Greg Southern (applicant) stated he was available to answer any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Southern to clarify on the site plan where his pool equipment will be located. Mr. Southern pointed out the location on the plans. Robert Butler (architect) stated he was also available for any questions. The Commission had no questions for Mr. Butler. Commissioner Leon asked staff if there were any objections from neighbors regarding the proposed size and scale of the residence. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that staff had not received any objections from the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they found any privacy issues with the proposed balconies which overlook the rear yard of the neighbor to the east. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that staff did not see any privacy issues due to the proposed balconies. She added that there is an existing balcony and the applicant is extending the length of this existing balcony. Staff did not feel there would be any additional privacy issues from those that could currently exist on the site. Commissioner Knight noted that staff has suggested screening for the proposed retaining walls, and asked staff where this screening will be located. Assistant Planner Harwell explained that staff is requiring a landscape plan be submitted to the Director, noting that staff's recommendation would be to landscape in front of the retaining walls. Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 2 Commissioner Tetreault stated he was able to make all of the necessary findings in order to approve this project, and was in support of the motion. Commissioner Leon felt that this project is pushing the bounds of how large a remodel should be in this area, explaining he looks more closely at the size of the adjacent houses as opposed to twenty houses that are in reach of the property. Commissioner Knight agreed that this is quite a large structure relative to the adjacent homes. He felt that the comparisons that are larger are quite a distance from this residence and in a different neighborhood. He was also concerned with the pool equipment, and would prefer it be located farther back from the property line. Chairman Gerstner asked the architect to address Commissioner Knight's concerns regarding the pool equipment. Robert Butler noted an area on the plan where he felt the pool equipment could be relocated. He felt this location would pull the pool equipment away from both the rear and side neighbor's property. He could further screen the equipment with landscaping and some type of enclosure. Commissioner Knight moved to amend the motion to add that the pool equipment be relocated to be adjacent to the 4'8" wall, as indicated by the architect, and have some type of enclosure to help mitigate the noise of the equipment. Commissioners Knight and Tomblin accepted the amendment to the motion. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2010-17 approving the project as amended, was approved, (7-0) 3. Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00005): 4125 Rraleste Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a description of the proposed project and the need for the Height Variation and Site Plan Review applications. She explained that although the proposed project will be the larger than most of the homes in the neighborhood, staff felt that the resulting structure will not appear massive, bulky, or out of scale since articulated design elements will create a visually layered structure as seen from the front and sides of the residence. With regards to the foliage analysis, she explained that staff conducted site visits to most of the homes on Via Lorenzo and found there is no foliage on the applicant's site that significantly blocks views from the neighbor's viewing areas. She stated that staff was able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Tetreault noted that he lives in this neighborhood and asked staff if they verified he was not within 500 feet of the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 3 Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff did verify that Commissioner Tetreault was not within the 500 foot radius. Commissioner Knight noted that this property is in the Miraleste area and questioned if the project has to meet any requirements of the Art Jury. Director Rojas explained that the Miraleste area is under the Art Jury, however this is completely irrespective of the City and the Commission's basis for approval is whether or not the project meets the criteria of the code. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Michael Gray (applicant) stated he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Gray if he has been working with the Art Jury. Mr. Gray answered that he has been working with the Art Jury, who have given a preliminary approval of the plans. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. PC Resolution 2010-08 was approved, (7- 0). 4. Revision to Master Sign Program (Case No. ZON2010-00007): 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report. She discussed the proposed revision to the master sign program and explained that the proposed sign for Ofies Pilates meets the requirements of the current sign program with the exception that it is not on their building frontage. She discussed the proposed revisions with regards to Trader Joe's as well as the identification sign on Palos Verdes Drive West. She noted that the sign company submitted a proposed revised sign for Palos Verdes Drive West that is not as tall as the current sign. Commissioner Tomblin discussed the proposed red Trader Joe's sign along the side of the building and questioned if this red sign would have an impact in terms of visual affect to the neighbors above. He also questioned if the window signs will be in red rather than the approved green. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the window signs are not part of the revision as they are part of the existing sign program, and there are no modifications proposed. Commissioner Knight noted that the current sign program allows for two signs, and questioned the need to have three signs. He felt the monument sign may function better in terms of sight than the proposed third sign. Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 4 Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff felt that due to the fact that the lease agreement for Trader Joe's does not allow for signage on the monument sign, that having this sign along the east fagade could benefit Trader Joe's as well as the customers driving down the adjacent driveway. Commissioner Knight stated there is a condition which states the sign shall not be illuminated after the closing of the latest tenant open, and he asked what the hours are of the latest tenant open. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that she was not sure of the operating hours of the latest open tenant. Commissioner Knight also asked if these operating hours include deliveries, stating that he would like to have this clarified. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that according to the Conditional Use Permit associated with Golden Cove the maximum hours of operation for all uses and tenants is Monday through Sunday 6 a.m. to midnight. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Joe Artinger (Continental Signs) explained that Trader Joe's is requesting the additional sign because it is very difficult to see the monument sign when driving down Hawthorne Boulevard. Trader Joe's has also expressed a strong desire to be included on the sign along Palos Verdes Drive West, as they have no signage along that street. Mr. Artinger added that the design he submitted to staff to lower that particular sign was intended to show how visually unpleasing it will look, adding that it will be very expensive to lower the sign. He also stated that it is on the Trader Joe's lease to be included on the sign at Palos Verdes Drive West. Commissioner Knight asked the reason Trader Joe's could not be included on the monument sign on Hawthorne Boulevard. Mr. Artinger stated it was his understanding the landlord wanted to save that signage for the tenants that are in the two-story building that do not front Hawthorne Boulevard. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Artinger if Trader Joe's had a preference in their sign color. Mr. Artinger answered that Trader Joe's would definitely prefer a red sign, as it is their trademark color. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 5 Chairman Gerstner suggested talking about the signs along Hawthorne Boulevard separately. Commissioner Knight could not support the proposed wall sign as he felt that the monument sign would be adequate and serves the purpose of exposing Trader Joe's logo to people driving along Hawthorne Boulevard. Commissioner Tomblin agreed, adding that the community knows where Trader Joe's is located and he was not sure that compromising the neighborhood with over-signage is to the benefit of the City. Commissioner Leon felt that Trader Joe's will do an outstanding business at this location even if there are no signs. As a consequence, he did not feel this additional wall sign was necessary and that the monument sign would be sufficient. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this is a new business in the City and the City should be as supportive as possible. Therefore, if the business feels it needs additional signage along Hawthorne Boulevard, and that signage is reasonable, he felt the Commission should approve the signage. He also noted that people driving down Hawthorne Boulevard looking for Trader Joe's will most likely not see the monument sign until they have actually passed the Trader Joe's. This will result in U-turns being made at the signal, which is not something he would encourage. He therefore supported staffs recommendation. Commissioner Lewis explained that the Resolution contains certain findings which must be made, one being that the sign is necessary for the applicant's enjoyment, substantial trade and property rights, and does not constitute needless repetition and redundancy of signage. He did not feel this proposed wall sign constituted needless repetition or redundancy of signage. He therefore could make the finding in order to recommend approval of the wall sign. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Lewis and added that it really comes down to aesthetics. He felt that a sign located on the east side of the building, as proposed, is less objectionable visually than a monument sign. He did not think the proposed wall sign is redundant or overly intrusive and would be able to support the sign. Chairman Gerstner stated that, given the finding that Commissioner Lewis noted, he did not find this proposed wall sign objectionable and could support the sign. He suggested discussing the proposed large monument sign on the other side of the parking lot. Director Rojas stated that the large sign is a non-conforming sign and staff believes that adding the tenant to the sign is increasing the non-conformity, which is not allowed by the code. However, staff feels if the height of the sign is brought down to bring it more into conformance that could mitigate the change of adding the tenant sign. Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 6 Chairman Gerstner asked staff if they felt the issues that make the sign non-conforming are significantly changed by adding the words "Trader Joe's" to the sign. Director Rojas explained that it is adding a tenant identification. He explained that in 1985 the City Council's rationalization to allow the sign to remain and not be torn down was that it was a center identification sign and a community sign. In 2002 when the sign was before the Planning Commission to be renovated, some on the Planning Commission felt the sign was non-conforming and should be lowered. However, staff felt that changing and modernizing the sign was not increasing the non-conformity, as it was not increasing the height or adding tenants. Commissioner Tomblin added that he sat on the Planning Commission in 2002 and recalled a discussion in which the Planning Commission felt that it was more important to keep the sign in its current configuration and for the developer to be identified as Golden Cove Center versus individual tenant signs. Commissioner Lewis did not feel that adding the name Trader Joe's to the sign will increase the non-conformity, and supports adding the tenant sign. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed, adding that he would also not object to the Trader Joe's sign being red. Commissioner Tomblin stated that Rancho Palos Verdes is a rather small community and he would prefer to see some type of sign conformity within the City. He would prefer not to see the Trader Joe's sign on the Golden Cove identification sign, and did not support the sign being colored red. Commissioner Leon felt that this sign is the entrance sign for Golden Cove driving from Palos Verdes Drive South to Hawthorne Boulevard. He felt that having Trader Joe's name on the sign would be helpful in terms of locating the store. He felt that having the Trader Joe's sign in red would make the sign more non-conforming than having the sign in green. He would therefore support the Trader Joe's sign, but in green rather than red. Commissioner Knight was also not in favor of the red sign. He asked staff if the application before the Commission was for a green and white Trader Joe's sign or a red and white Trader Joe's sign and the size of the proposed sign. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the current application shows a green and white Trader Joe's sign, however the applicant would prefer the red and white sign. She also noted that the actual Trader Joe's sign is proposed to be 3 feet 4 inches tall by 12 feet wide. Commissioner Knight did not object to Trader Joe's having an identification sign at Palos Verdes Drive, however he would prefer the sign be smaller so that it does not Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 7 dominate the function of the Golden Cove sign. He also stated that he enjoys the current Golden Cove sign with the sunset motif. Commissioner Tomblin questioned if allowing the Trader Joe's sign on this particular sign would then open up the door for other tenants to add their signage. Director Rojas explained that each tenant would first have to submit an application to the City and go before the Planning Commission, and each request would be looked at on a case by case basis. Chairman Gerstner stated that if the Planning Commission were to recommend changing the height of the sign, he would recommend bringing the sign into conformance rather than near conformance. He felt that some time in the future there may be an opportunity to do this, however he did not think this was the right time. Given that, he would be in favor of leaving the sign at its current height at this time. He very much preferred the Trader Joe's sign not be in red, explaining that signs are much nicer when they are somewhat subdued and in a common color scheme with the development. He would therefore support allowing the Trader Joe's sign but not in red. Commissioner Lewis stated that he could support a Trader Joe's sign more in line with the color scheme of the center with different color combinations, such as a sign with a tan background and red lettering, similar to the sign at 7-11. Commissioner Tetreault felt that having signage other than green and white on this particular sign may detract from the main purpose of this sign, which is the community announcements. Commissioner Knight addressed the proposed Ofie's signage, stating that the proposal makes sense since the entrance to the business is at the back of the building. He had no objection to the proposed Ofie's sign. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations as revised to approve the sign on the east sign of the Golden Cove Center with the condition that Trader Joe's not have signage on the multi-tenant sign and that with respect to the community activity sign Trader Joe's be allowed to have its name on the sign and to occupy no more than 50 percent of the space depicted and the letters be either red or green, but not allow a red background, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Tomblin stated he was in support of the motion, however he would prefer that the Trader Joe's signage be in green rather than red. Commissioner Leon clarified that the proposal calls out white lettering with either a green or a red background, and felt the motion should be clarified. He noted that currently all of the letters on the community board are white, and felt that Trader Joe's should conform to the white lettering. Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 8 Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to accept the signage proposed on the community activity sign to approve white letters with a green background for the Trader Joe's sign, and that the Trader Joe's lettering resemble that which is shown on the exhibit presented by staff and as depicted on the plans submitted by the applicant, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Knight felt that language should be included in the motion that specifies that this signage is a privilege exclusively for Trader Joe's. He asked staff to read language into the record to reflect that. Associate Planner Mikhail read condition No. 22 stating The freestanding sign located along Palos Verdes Drive West shall contain an announcement board and anchor tenant sign for Building B. The announcement board and anchor tenant sign shall have a teal background with white letters. The illumination of the announcement board and tenant sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and shall be designed to approve visibility of the messages on the announcement board and tenant sign. The announcement board shall be used for messages announcing community events for at least one-third of the year. The anchor tenant sign shall be a maximum of twelve feet wide and three feet-four inches long, as depicted in the approved master sign program. Letters of the anchor tenant sign shall be the size depicted on the depicted plan. Commissioner Knight stated he cannot support the motion, as he feels there is a redundancy in signs along Hawthorne Boulevard. He felt that the lower monument sign serves a better function on Hawthorne Boulevard. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. 5. Code Amendment—Appeal decision deadline (Case No. ZON2009-00375) The Commission unanimously agreed to waive the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if there is any provision to allow the applicant an extension of the 90 days. Director Rojas answered there is no provision to allow the applicant a 90 day extension, but that the body considering the appeal could provide for continuances if requested by the applicant. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt the Resolution thereby recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 17.80.030 as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 9 6. Minutes of February 9, 2010 Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (4-0-3) with Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon and Tetreault abstaining since they did not attend that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on march 23, 2010 The pre-agenda was unanimously approved. 1. Selection of a Vice Chairman Commissioner Lewis nominated Commissioner Tomblin to serve as the Vice Chairman. The Commission unanimously selected Commissioner Tomblin as the Vice Chairman. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2010 Page 10