Loading...
PC MINS 20140722 Approved 8/26/2014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Emenhiser led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: None Also present were Deputy Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Mihranian reported that, based on the action taken at the July 9, 2014 Coastal Commission Hearing on the Trump National amendments, at their July 29th meeting the City Council will consider initiating an amendment to the local Coastal Plan to allow flag poles to exceed 16 feet in height in the Coastal Zone. The Commission will be asked to review the proposed text amendment to the Local Coastal Plan and to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Deputy Director Mihranian distribute one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Golden Cove Center Master Sign Program review (Case No. ZON2010-00104): 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Commissioner Emenhiser disclosed that he frequents many of the businesses at Golden Cove Center, but did not think that would affect his judgment. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving an overview of the requested revisions. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Sally Berg stated she was the owner of Scandia Salon at Golden Cove and explained that during a Chamber meeting she set up a sign. Since then her business has exploded. With that, she felt that certain aspects of the sign program at Golden Cove needed to be revised to give the tenants more visibility. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Associate Planner Mikhail discussed each proposal in detail, beginning with the proposed blade signs. She explained these signs would benefit pedestrians who are walking around the Center looking for a particular business. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if the area between Building B and the Montessori School is a fire lane that needs to stay clear of things such as blade signs. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the area is a fire access lane. She explained the blade signs could benefit pedestrians, as they extend down from an existing ceiling. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the signs will all be the same size. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that they will all be the same size, three feet in width and they would be attached to the ceiling down one-foot six-inches. She noted the signs were being requested at different colors but the same type face. Commissioner Tomblin asked if these signs would be illuminated. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that these blade signs would not be illuminated. Chairman Leon asked the Commission if they were generally in favor of the proposed blade signs. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he was generally did not have an objection, however as signs are added, if he were a tenant this is the sign he would be most Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 2 willing to give up. He did not think this was the most desirable of the signs being requested, however because they are not illuminated they becomes more approvable. Commissioner James agreed with Commissioner Gerstner. However, he noted there are a lot of signs being proposed for the Commission to consider and it was very difficult to take any one request and make a decision. He explained that each individual sign request may not be a problem, but taken all together it was very difficult. Commissioner Tomblin felt that typically these type of blade signs are designed more for long hallways where one is trying to identify a tenant. In this case there are not long hallways and there is signage in the front. Therefore, if the Commission were to prioritize the sign, this might give these blade signs the least amount of priority. Vice Chairman Nelson felt there was a value to having a blade sign hanging in a hallway so that one can see where a business is located. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the next sign proposed by the applicant, which was temporary free-standing signs throughout the center, which include sandwich boards and A-frame signs. She explained staff's recommendations regarding location, placement, and the number of these types of signs. Commissioner Gerstner noted that staff was recommending a maximum of one temporary sign per tenant and no more than two temporary signs per building. He noted some buildings only have two or three tenants, however one building has up to forty tenants. He noted that in approving this the Commission could be approving as many as fourteen sandwich board type signs. Commissioner Cruikshank noted in the staff report that currently these types of signs are not permitted, and asked how the City currently goes about policing the illegal signs. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that it is a bit difficult to enforce the current sign program through code enforcement, explaining a number of notices have to be sent to the property owner in regards to the illegal signs. She stated there is the ability to issue citations, however the City is reluctant to go down that avenue, as the City is currently monitoring the signs on the site and the effects of those signs. Commissioner Cruikshank referred to a staff photo of a sandwich board sign, noting the sign is clearly in the middle of a pedestrian path, and noted that with all of the American Disability Act issues this placement may be problematic and possibly a legal issue. He asked staff if the applicant currently has an ADA path plan and can the City tell the applicant they cannot have these types of signs obstructing that path of travel. Associate Planner Mikhail recalled that Golden Cove does have ADA pathways throughout the property, and this could be added as a condition of approval for these types of signs. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 3 Associate Planner Mikhail then discussed the applicant's request for temporary promotional banners. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission not approve the applicant's request to allow temporary banners to exceed the minimum requirements of the Development Code. However, staff agrees that the applicant does not need to come to the City to get a sign permit each time a banner is erected. This puts the responsibility of monitoring the signs on the landlord, and if the signs are not monitored staff would go through the code enforcement process. The Commission asked staff to clarify the current regulations regarding banners, and Associate Planner Mikhail read the section regarding banners from the current sign program for Golden Cove. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the applicant's next request, which was to allow restaurant menu boards. She stated staff is generally in support of this request, with the proposed conditions added that the menu boards be affixed to the fagade within the tenant's store frontage, the menu boards be no more than 3 feet in length and 2'6" in width, and they not be permitted on exterior columns of pedestrian walkways. Commissioner Tomblin asked if these menu boards would be illuminated. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that would be a condition determined by the Planning Commission, noting staff did not feel illumination would cause any negative impacts as most were under a walkway or canopy area. The Commission discussed the lighting of these signs and generally agreed that they should not be back-lit. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that the Admiral Risty has their menu posted with a small light above it, and felt that was an appropriate way to light this type of menu board. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that the applicant did not request or specify in their requested sign program that the menu boards be lit. Associate Planner Mikhail discussed the next request, which was additional window signage. .She explained the applicant's request and noted the Development Code allows five percent of the window area to be utilized for this type of signage and staff understood the need in this shopping center to have a bit more signage in the window. However, an unlimited amount would not be recommended, and staff is recommending the Planning Commission allow ten percent of the window for signage. She noted this is double what the current code allows. Chairman Leon reopened the public hearing to allow comments on window signage. Dr. George Wissa stated that for the past 40 years Golden Cove Center has been a ghost town. He did not feel that most residents of the City were even familiar with what the Golders Cove Center currently has to offer. In regards to window signage, he explained that if he is not allowed to put the types of services he offers at his pharmacy Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 4 on the window, people will never know that these services are even offered. He noted that currently he has window signage that is printed in a clean, concise manner. He did not agree with the proposed limitation of ten percent of the total window space, as he felt he needed to explain the services that are provided to the community. He discussed the multi-tenant signs, noting that there is one on Hawthorne Boulevard, but not on Palos Verdes Drive West. He questioned why there is not a multi-tenant sign on both of the surrounding major streets. He felt that the biggest problem is the community does not know what is at Golden Cove and what services are there for them. Vice Chairman Nelson agreed with Mr. Wissa's comments. He asked how many times one drives by a pharmacy with a large sign advertising flu shots, and was sure that sign was more than ten percent of the window space. He felt that two of the most hidden businesses, the locksmith and the Brew Pub, need signage to show people where they are and need to advertise on their window. He felt that 10 percent is the very minimum that should be allowed. Chairman Leon explained that a sign program tries to ensure some type of continuity of signs and not have sign proliferation. To the extent that putting words on the window is information as opposed to being a sign, then he supported having information on a window. However, as an owner of a store at Golden Cove, he asked if it was reasonable for the signs on windows to have some guidelines associated with text and text color so that this information does not add to the proliferation of signage. Dr. Wissa understood that the temporary banner signs and the permanent store signs must be a certain color, a certain size, and a certain font. He also felt the temporary banners could be held to this type of standard. However the information in the windows, as long as it is clean, he felt it was acceptable to allow each store to be its own self and use their own font and color. Finally, he noted there are large pillars at the shopping center, and he felt that allowing a tenant sign on these pillars would help the businesses greatly. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff how a sign listing a business's services be different from a menu board in front of a restaurant. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that staff agrees, however what is difficult is determining what is reasonable in terms of the area of the window space. She added that she did a quick calculation, and a window that is 15 feet wide and 8 feet high, the ten percent area would be 12 square feet, or an area that is 4' x 3'. She felt that was a large area to allow additional signage in a window. In looking at a photo of an existing business with window signage, Chairman Leon did not think allowing this type of signage in every window in the Center would enhance the shopping center. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 5 Vice Chairman Nelson felt that this type of signage would help the two most difficult businesses to find at Golden Cove, the locksmith and the Brew Pub. He felt that if these businesses wanted to put something colorful on their windows that is over ten percent, because of the difficulty of their location, it should be permitted. He noted, however, that would raise the question of whether or not the particular location is considered difficult. Associate Planner Mikhail continued with the next item, non-illuminated tenant signs located along the rear of Building A. She explained the applicant's proposal for these signs, however noted that these businesses are located along the rear of the building where there is just a driveway used solely for circulation, deliveries, and employee parking. With that, staff could not support the request for this particular signage. She noted that staff was in support of the blade signs discussed earlier for these businesses. Deputy Director Mihranian reminded the Commission that there was an item of late correspondence distributed to the Commission regarding the signage on the rear of this building. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the letter was from the Villa Capri community, and that they were very concerned with any illuminated signage. She noted this particular signage is not proposed to be illuminated. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was in agreement with staff's recommendation for these additional signs. Chairman Leon reopened the public hearing. Sally Berg explained she is the only tenant that has both front and back access. She disagreed with staff in that she thought there was a lot going on in the back parking lot. She did not think that what staff observed and perceived is really what is happening in the back, and that staff was not seeing the big picture. She therefore felt signs were needed in the back. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Associate Planner Mikhail discussed proposed tenant signage on the southwest fagade facing Palos Verdes Drive West. She noted that the signs are proposed to be Illuminated and staff is generally in support. However, there is one sign that would face the Villa Capri residents that might create lighting impacts to the Villa Capri tenants. She noted that there was correspondence related to this issue that was included in the staff report and as late correspondence to the Commission on this request. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that, given the past animosity between Golden Cove and Villa Capri, the one illuminated sign may be an annoyance to this condominium complex. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 6 Commissioner Tomblin commented that he was hesitant to allow any of these proposed signs to be illuminated as requested along the southwest facade. Associate Planner Mikhail discussed proposed signage on the Admiral Risty building. She noted that currently there are only two tenant spaces within this building and staff is proposing the additional signage for new, divided tenant spaces only and the each tenant is permitted one sign per store frontage. She noted that the Planning Commission previously allowed the Admiral Risty to have three signs, and that previous approval be maintained. She also noted that this would allow Yellow Vase to have a sign above their entrance at Palos Verdes Drive West, as well as a sign at their rear entrance which faces the parking lot. Commissioner Tomblin stated he was considering light pollution, and asked staff if there was a way to have down-lit signs as opposed to back-lit signs in this area. Associate Planner Mikhail stated her only concern was that was not consistent with the appearance and type of signage currently allowed within the existing sign program and what is found at the site today. Commissioner Tomblin clarified his concern that a nationally known tenant may take the space and have a bright red, yellow, or white sign and staff may not necessarily be able to enforce that back-lit situation. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that she has found the problem to be more the color of the signs rather than how the signage is lit. Commissioner James asked if the tenants are required to turn their sign off when they are closed, or if the sign remains illuminated after closing hours. Associate Planner Mikhail answered there is currently no regulations regarding turning off the signs when the business is closed. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the proposed tower ID signs on Building A. She stated that staff does not support signage on the two towers, as staff felt it created a proliferation of signage on the building and does not focus the signage to where the tenant is located. .Commissioner Gerstner asked if the intent was that those tenants who do not have this frontage that are in that building have similar sized signs on the tower. Associate Planner Mikhail stated replied that was not clarified in the proposed sign program and the Commission may want to ask the applicant for clarification. Commissioner Gerstner did not think it was unreasonable to allow those tenants who do not have the frontage to put signs on the towers in order to advertise their business. However, he did not think that was best served by large illuminated signage all the way Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 7 up the clock tower. However, there may be a proposal that is more subtle that can identify those tenants which are buried a little deeper in the facility. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he would be supportive of some type of tasteful, non- illuminated banner list for this building as a way to allow identification of these businesses in this building. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the proposed directional signs, which are to direct circulation as people move in and around the property through the two driveways. She explained staff had a concern with the signage located in the parking median at a height of 5 feet 6 inches, and sent the proposal to the City's Traffic Engineer. The City Engineer felt a sign at 5 feet 6 inches in that location could potentially cause a circulation hazard, however could support a version of this sign at a height of approximately 3 feet 6 inches located within the parking median. In regards to the second proposed sign, she explained that staff could support a similar sign, possibly affixed to the bottom of the tower, which would allow the directional signage and tenant names the applicant is hoping for. Commissioner Gerstner stated that generally speaking, he was in favor- of non- illuminated directional monument signs within the complex, and he agreed that the one in the median was not appropriate. Commissioner Emenhiser and Vice Chairman Nelson both agreed that the proposed sign in the median was not a good idea in terms of disrupting the traffic flow. Associate Planner Mikhail continued, showing the proposed directory signs, located near Starbucks, near Asaka, and near the locksmith and pharmacy. She stated that staff does not see any issue with the proposed directory signage and felt it would benefit the people walking throughout the center. Commissioner Gerstner questioned why a directory sign would not be located in front of Trader Joes. Associate Planner Mikhail noted the applicant is here and may want to speak to that. Associate Planner Mikhail discussed the request to have a medical center or medical plaza sign on one of the towers. In speaking with the property owner, staff noted it was their intent to make the two-story building a location for some medical uses and medical office spaces. She stated that staff was generally in support of this sign. Commissioner Tomblin stated that, based on the proposed size, color, and lighting, he would not be in favor of this proposed sign. Commissioner Gerstner and Vice Chairman Nelson agreed. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 8 Associate Planner Mikhail continued, discussing the monument sign currently located .on Palos Verdes Drive West. She explained the applicant is requesting additional signage on this monument sign. She noted that there is an announcement board requirement for this sign, and staff would recommend requirement that the announcement board be maintained at specified dimensions. She stated staff was in support of the request to add additional signage to the monument sign. Commissioner Gerstner noted that this monument sign was approved by the Commission approximately five years ago, and one of the biggest topics of conversation at that time was the message board. He recalled that the Commission allowed the continued non-conformance of the sign partially because of the message board. He noted on the proposed application there is no indication of the message board, as the sign shows only tenant signs. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the property owner is not intending to eliminate the message board, and understand the need for the message board to remain. She explained that the property owner has had to create this sign program and present it to the Commission, and there may still be some minor discrepancies in the plan that will be fixed, and this is one of those. She noted that the property owner has no intention of eliminating the message board, she just felt that it was just not noted in the proposed sign program before it was submitted to the city. Associate Planner Mikhail then explained the request to change the existing tenant signage area, which she stated staff generally supports this proposal. Additionally the applicant is asking to allow the space for the tenant signage to be at 85 percent rather than current 80 percent and staff is in support of that as well. She stated that concluded staff's overview of the proposed sign program. Chairman Leon reopened the public hearing to allow-the applicant to speak about the proposed sign program. Chris Minnitti (representing Golden Cove) felt it was good to consider the entire proposal, noting that blade signs are useless without the map directory signs. He explained that there is a relationship between all of the proposed signs and a purpose to those signs. He felt that considering each type of sign individually would be counterproductive. He explained he worked closely with the tenants to try to meet all of their needs and concerns, as well as what will benefit the center overall, in designing .this sign program. He noted that throughout the discussion there seemed to be questions that may not have been answered and that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Minnitti if it was his intention to have the message board remain on the monument sign. Mr. Minnitti answered that the message board would remain. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 9 Commissioner Gerstner asked how it would be determined what tenants would be given space on this particular monument sign. Mr. Minnitti answered that he believed this would be determined at a later date, but it was his understanding that it would be at the landlord's discretion. Commissioner Gerstner also asked Mr. Minnitti about the turn-around time for changing the signs from 18 inches to 24 inches. Mr. Minnitti explained that typically the signs would change when the tenants changed. Commissioner Gerstner asked about the illuminated and non-illuminated signs on the south fagade facing Villa Capri as well as the illuminated near Trader Joes that is proposed. Mr. Minnitti explained there could be a single tenant who does not have any frontage on the front side of the building who would need a sign for identification. He agreed light and glare considerations should be looked at, but felt it was only fair that the tenants should have something reminiscent of the primary identification back lit signage without the illumination. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to the proposed directional sign and the concerns the Commission had expressed in regards to circulation. He asked Mr. Minnitti if he had an opinion on this subject. Mr. Minnitti questioned where else this directional sign could be placed, noting there are only two points of ingress. He asked at what point the center would communicate where the various businesses are located. He felt the recommendation to have the sign shortened held some merit in regards to safety and traffic circulation. As far as placement in the planter, he did not see any other place where the sign could be placed that it would be more suited. Commissioner Tomblin stated he could not support voting on any of these proposals at this time, as he felt this presentation is a hodge-podge of information. He felt there were too many different things being asked for and presented that needed a lot more work and clarification. He stated that Golden Cove Center is a very nice center, however with all of the illegal signage that has been put up he felt it is now a bit unruly and the quality of the center is being degraded. He noted that many quality shopping centers have used very creative ideas for their needed signage. He did not think there seemed to be the quality of work done on this sign package that has been done at the center in the past. He asked Mr. Minnitti what the basis was for this proposed sign program and if he had studied the signage at other centers. Mr. Minnitti was not sure he could speak on this, as it has been a collaborative effort. He felt the idea was that this was shopping center was no more than a wasteland at one time and it has been taken to a thriving shopping center, and he was trying to find a way Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 10 to leverage the foot traffic volumes already experienced in the center to create awareness without having to invest a large sum of money. He stated that he would like to have the opportunity to take into consideration all of the Commissioner's comments and recommendations. Commissioner Tomblin suggested creating a spreadsheet with all of the different options, as well as a summary. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Minnitti how long he felt it would take to create something more refined to bring back to the Commission. Mr. Minnitti estimated approximately a month. Commissioner Cruikshank understood what the applicant was trying to achieve with the suggested signage. However, he was concerned with the sandwich boards that are put indiscriminately on the various walkways throughout the center. He asked Mr. Minnitti if he has paths of travel that he refers to when reviewing the sign boards that are out in the middle of the sidewalk. Mr. Minnitti explained there is consideration of path of travel, however there has been quite a bit of leniency given to the tenants while going through this sign program revision. He reiterated that these signs serve a purpose for the tenants. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if these sandwich board type signs just show up, or was management informed of their placement beforehand. Mr. Minnitti answered that for the most part the management works with the tenants before they go up. Commissioner Cruikshank explained that he did not want to have the City police this facility, and would like the management company to manage the facility. Therefore, as the Commission decides upon the sign program for the center, he wanted to make sure the management company is allowed the flexibility to be able to manage the center the way it needs to be managed without the city interceding. He was very concerned with public access and paths of travel, and the management being able to let the tenants know exactly where signs can be placed per the sign program. Mr. Minnitti agreed the challenge is there, but did not think it was an obstacle. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Minnitti if he would be opposed to having a map directory by Trader Joes. Mr. Minnitti had no opposition, but felt that a directory between Starbucks and Trader Joes would attract more attention. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 11 Chairman Leon noted there are a number of properties that don't have the visibility for the signs that other tenants do. He felt that the current sign program tries to address everyone equally, and he felt that it would be a benefit for those locations that do not have a good location for a sign, to have a sign program that addresses those businesses specifically. He felt that the revised sign program may want to attempt to fix those problems as opposed to trying to accommodate everyone in the entire center. Mr. Minnitti felt that there is a bigger signage problem and shortage than the Commission may imagine. In regards to the proposal for temporary signage and banners, Chairman Leon felt that the currently proposed unlimited temporary signs and banners was unacceptable, and felt the Commission would agree. He would like to see some kind of a mechanism in place for the temporary signage, suggesting that there may be a frame put in place on the side of the building where the temporary signs can be rotated in and out of. He understood the businesses want to have a banner describing what they're doing, but felt there was an infinite number of ways to accommodate that message other than using temporary banners. He stated he would like to see some proposals that address that. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the Chairman, noting two shopping centers that have done some very effective banners in very nicely framed areas. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow the applicant the opportunity to address in a concise package the concerns expressed by the Commission in regards to the proposed sign program revisions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Gerstner gave the following direction: he stated that he was opposed to increasing the signs from 18 inches to 24 inches, he was in favor of changing the width to 85 percent, and he was opposed to the medical plaza signage. He noted there was some question about the location of the internal monument signs, and felt that should be further addressed. He noted that the elevations on the plans are incorrect, and asked they be fixed. He felt the Commission generally was in favor of the proposed blade signs. He stated the illumination of signs that face residences was probably not going to be approved. He asked that there be some consistency and consolidation in the design of the message boards and the banners in that there is a system so the banners have some consistency. He felt that the location of signs may need to be addressed in terms of path of travel. He stated he was not in favor of signage on the tower the way it is currently proposed, but would be open to hearing an alternative to the current proposal. Commissioner Emenhiser commented that what has been presented to the Commission will result in twice as much signage as what is currently at the center. He did not think that whatever the Commission ultimately approves will solve all of the businesses Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 12 problems, noting that businesses that face the alley on the back side of the building may have a problem the Commission cannot solve. He felt it was imperative the City support business as much as possible. Commissioner Cruikshank stated that staff wrote a number of very good recommendations as part of the staff report, and suggested the applicant look at those recommendations, as he felt they were worthy of strong consideration when the applicant resubmits their revised sign program. Chairman Leon noted that awnings were not discussed, and if the applicant wants to continue to present awnings, more detail will be needed in order for the Commission to make a decision. Additionally, for the businesses that do not have appropriate visibility, he suggested they come up with a plan that addresses that lack of visibility. He explained that this signage may be slightly different than the signage for the rest of the center. Vice Chairman Nelson suggested that the applicant present an "as is" plan together with a plan showing the requested new signage. He also asked management to remove the signs that say No Trucks Allowed, because the trucks are going to come anyway. He asked if it was necessary to have signs on the lampposts, because every tenant will want a sign on a lamppost. Commissioner James stated that this has been one of the tougher matters he has considered, partially because of the standards that are supposed to be applied when making the decision. He noted that the first and possibly most important portion of the Development Code that applies when making this type of decision says that the sign has to be necessary for the applicant's enjoyment of substantial trade and property rights and the sign does not constitute needless repetition, redundancy, or proliferation of signage. He asked that the applicant or the tenants come back at the continued meeting and tell him how and why the requested signage will accomplish the goal of helping the businesses. He acknowledged that the tenants all have different needs, and therefore it is difficult to development a sign program that applies to everyone when everyone is not in the same situation. Lastly, he stated he was troubled by the past, and possibly future, non-compliance and possible enforcement of the signage. He noted on the photos the many signs currently in place that are not in compliance with the sign program. He asked that the applicant come back with something in their proposal addressing compliance and how the management will ensure the tenants comply with the sign program. Deputy Director Mihranian stated that, based on the discussion that has taken place, staff understands the general direction given and what the Commission's concerns are with the proposed sign program. He stated that the Commission seems to feel the proposal was too much and the Commission would like to see it scaled down to be more effective. He felt the primary concern was the two-story building and making sure there is adequate signage to promote the businesses. With that direction, he felt staff will be to work closely with the applicant to revise and clean up this master sign program Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 13 so that what comes back to the Commission represents the discussion and addresses the Commission and the tenant's concerns. He therefore asked that the Commission continue the public hearing to the September 23, 2014 meeting. He noted that, per the Permit Streamlining Act, a one-time ninety day extension will be needed from the applicant. The applicant agreed to the one-time ninety day extension. The motion to continue the public hearing to September 23, 2014 was approved, (7-0). 2. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-005010): 29926 Avenida Anillo Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, noting at the previous meeting the Commission had concerns with the fenestration and articulation, as well as some of the design materials. She discussed the modifications that have been made by the applicant to try to meet the Commission's concerns. She stated that staff is in support of the revised plan and is recommending approval, as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Jose Arche (architect) stated he was available for questions. Anil Gupta (applicant) stated he bought this home last year and hopes to live in the home for a very long time. He stated that he too was available for questions. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Gupta if he was happy with the changes. Mr. Gupta answered he was very happy with the changes, and felt it made the house look much better. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2014-20 was adopted, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit revision (Case No. ZON2014-00182): Green Hills Memorial Park 27501 Western Avenue Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the proposal was a revision to the Green Hills Master Plan to address the temporary modular buildings on site. She noted that this building addition was being processed as a revision to the Master Plan Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 14 because the cemetery use itself was approved under a Conditional Use Permit, and any subsequent improvements or additions must be approved as a revision to the original Conditional Use Permit. She also explained that revisions to the Master Plan would normally be tied and processed as a whole, this application is being processed separately from the rest of the Master Plan to move forward with the City Council's direction to remove the temporary buildings on site. She emphasized this application is limited to the scope of the additions to the administrative building and does not modify, change, or impact the previously approved mausoleums, operations, uses, or other improvements on the subject property. She briefly discussed the scope of the proposed project as detailed in the staff report. She noted that the applicant has requested the Planning Commission approve their request to allow the temporary modular buildings to remain on the site during the construction phase of the proposed addition. In order for staff to ensure that the construction takes place in a timely manner and that the temporary buildings will be removed, staff has added a condition of approval to allow these temporary buildings to remain in place and must be removed either at building permit final or 18 months from the date of decision. With that, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned if 18 months will be long enough. Senior Planner Kim answered that staff discussed this with the applicant, and the applicant felt 18 months was adequate. Commissioner Emenhiser asked what would happen if there was a major delay and 18 months was not long enough. Senior Planner Kim explained in the conditions of approval there is language that says any extensions to keep the modular buildings in place must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the 18 month deadline. Without that, Conditional Use Permit Revision "E" would become null and void. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Anthony Inferrera (architect) stated Green Hills agrees to the conditions of approval for this project. He stated he has already submitted preliminary plans to the Fire Department for approval and does not anticipate any delays. .Chairman Leon asked Mr. Inferrera if he was confident the job will be completed within the 18 months. Mr. Inferrera answered that he was comfortable with the 18 month deadline. Matt Martin referred to condition No. 49 which addresses the setbacks and height standards, and asked that the Planning Commission and staff specifically review that issue, as he was not sure what that condition was granting Green Hills. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 15 Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff to address and clarify the setback issues as it relates to condition No. 49. Senior Planner Kim clarified that there are specific setbacks that apply to different burial sites and mausoleums that are not part of this project, which are different from the minimum required by the underlying Cemetery zoning district because they were approved through a previous Conditional Use Revision. Condition No. 49 says that if it is not already addressed within the existing conditions of approval, a proposal shall comply with the minimum setback requirements required through,the Cemetery Development Standards. Deputy Director Mihranian added that conditions 49, 50, and 51 are standard catch-all conditions that staff adds to every development project. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Commissioner Gerstner stated his only concern was that this was just another 18 month extension allowing the modular buildings to remain at Green Hills. He was concerned that the only penalty for not doing the addition to the building and not moving the trailers was that the request may become null and void, which may be no detriment whatsoever. He was very hopeful that the work will get done, but was skeptical at this point. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2014-21 as adopted, (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. June 24, 2014 Minutes Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on August 12, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2014 Page 16