PC MINS 19780725M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
July 25, 1978
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Vice -Chairperson Bacharach.
PRESENT: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Bacharach
ABSENT: Hughes
Also present was Director of Planning Sharon Hightower.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES on motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded
by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of July 11,
1978, were approved with the following corrections: page 1, paragraph 7,
line 6, should read "...and a finished slope..."; same page and paragraph,
line 8, should read "...would be strengthened. He..."
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of July 18, 1978, were approved as submitted.
VARIANCE NO. 26 Director Hightower said the variance
30421 Miraleste Drive was heard.at the May 9 meeting (with
Applicant: Frank Iacono Conditional Use Permit No. 36 for
tennis court lighting). She said no
one present at the meeting objected to
the variance for fencing, and the Commission agreed that the variance would
be acceptable if consent was obtained by the owners of specific lots. She
said all of the requested signatures have been submitted and are on file
with the City. Staff recommended that if the Commission wanted to approve,
based on previous discussion and direction, it make the necessary findings.
She noted that conditions may be attached to the variance, should the Com-
mission desire.
The public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak.
Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about resolving the tennis court lighting issue
as soon as possible.
Mr. Iacono said as soon as the variance is obtained, the fence could be con-
structed, and then the resurfacing of the court could be done. He said he
did not wish to resurface until the fence was installed because, without
the fence, children are riding skateboards and bicycles on it. He said
once the fence is installed, the resurfacing should be done within a couple
weeks. He explained that a fence of the requested height was necessary to
keep the tennis balls on the court. He pointed out that the court was al-
most completely in a canyon and that the fence would not be seen by anyone
except the upper neighbor. He said he would surround the fence with Italian
cypress.
Mr. McTaggart said he understood why resurfacing the court would be unde-
sirable without the fence. He pointed out that the Commission did give
conceptual approval based on the approval of the neighbors for the fence.
Dr. Brown pointed out that this was a long flag lot situation, not a street,
and felt this could be considered an unusual circumstance. He expressed
concern about the potential height of the Italian cypress.
Mr. Hinchliffe suggested conditioning this approval with a time limit for
resurfacing the court and asked the applicant what he would consider a
reasonable time.
Mr. Iacono said thirty days would be more than sufficient.
+11 Q
Mr. Hinchliffe also felt the approval should include a condition limiting
the height of the vegetation to not exceed the height of the fence.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Director Hightower asked if the applicant was considering windscreens as,
if so, she felt they should be included in the same motion.
Mr. Iacono said he would like to have windscreens as they make the balls
more visible.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to grant
Variance No. 26 (Resolution P.C. No. 78-38) based on the following findings:
1. That there are exceptional circumstances because this is a flag lot
and access is restricted through the subject portion of the property.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right because the City has allowed similar
fences in other circumstances and it is necessary to have a fence of
this height in order to enjoy the tennis court.
3. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in
the area, as witnessed by the signatures of neighboring property
owners which the applicant received; said fence is also necessary to
prevent balls from going into the roadway.
4. That the granting of such a variance is not contrary to the objectives
of the General Plan.
The motion also included the following conditions of approval:
1. That surfacing of the tennis court be completed within forty-five
(45) days of the installation of the fence.
2. That the vegetation to be planted along the subject fence not exceed
the height of the fence.
3. That windscreens may be placed on the subject fence.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Bacharach
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hughes
Mrs. Bacharach advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision.
SIGN PERMIT NO. 44 Director Hightower said the application
30019 Hawthorne Boulevard was for a permanent, existing commer-
Applicant: Hughes Market, Inc. cial sign structure (with three signs)
which exceeds the height, size and
location requirements. She reviewed
the three areas of nonconformance as listed in the staff report and said
the applicant was advised of this sign nonconformance by letter on April 21,
1978. She explained that the required five-year amortization period for
either removal or replacement was implemented for the subject signs in that
letter. Staff recommended that the subject application be denied and the
previously -mentioned existing five-year amortization period be retained as
described in the above-mentioned letter (included in the agenda packages).
Public participation was opened.
Willis Urick, 5142 Los Diegos Way, Los Angeles, CA 90027, attorney for
Hughes Market, Inc., provided the Commission and staff with copies of his
presentation. He said the market which is locally owned and operated has
been at its present location for ten years, as has the sign which was in-
stalled under permit. He said this was the only sign on the whole complex
7/25/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
comprising W four establishments, and was less obtrusive than multiple
smaller signs. He also felt that smaller signs or this sign at a lower
elevation would be hazardous for motorists. He felt the size of the sign
should relate to the size of the building. He reviewed the pictures (in-
cluded in the written presentation), indicating the visibility of the sign
from various directions at various distances. He said if the sign were
lowered, a great deal of the present landscaping would have to be removed.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked if there was anything to support his statement that
smaller signs would create a traffic hazard.
Mr. Urick said if a motorist is looking for a sign or trying to read a
small sign, his attention is diverted from his driving. He said he had no
statistics to prove this, but was speaking from his own personal experience.
He felt there should be a balance between aesthetics and safety.
Dr. Brown expressed concern about the illumination, noting that the larger
the sign, the greater the production of light and the greater the effects.
He also said if the sign were below the parapet of the building, the illu-
mination would not be seen from the residences on the other side of the
store.
J. R. Moss, 6405 Chartres Drive, president of the Palos Verdes Monaco Home-
owners Association, said he has received many complaints that the sign is
too bright, too high, and too large. He said Hughes is well established
in the area, and that people are well acquainted with its location and,
therefore, not many motorists have the need to look for a sign identifying
it. He said the Association would like the sign to reasonably conform with
the Code. He said the sign was highly visible from Monaco, and that the
residents would like it to be less conspicuous. He said the illumination
appears to be the biggest concern as it is lighted until late in the even-
ing (10-11 p.m.).
Robert Voles, manager, Hughes Market, said the sign was on a time clock and
shuts off when the lights go off in the parking lot.
Mr. McTaggart suggested that the sign go off when the store closes.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Voles said he has not received
any complaints about the sign in the eight and one-half years he has been
there, and it has never been suggested that the light be turned off earlier.
Mr. McTaggart said he could not find enough justification to tear down the
sign and start over because he could not picture in his mind that it would
be better. He felt the light problem could be resolved by turning it off
when business hours are concluded. He said the height of the sign is a
problem for a few of the residents.
Mr. Hinchliffe felt the Code was written to avoid situations like this, and
he could not justify an approval of the request.
Mr. Brown felt lighting was a problem, and the larger the sign the more
impact from the lighting. However, he could not see making this a com-
pletely conforming sign and preferred some sort of compromise. He f6lt
perhaps lowering the sign and limiting the hours of illumination would
mitigate the conflicts.
Mrs. Bacharach pointed out if the sign was lowered, the vegetation would
have to be removed in order for the sign to be visible. She felt this was
a difficult situation, but was not in favor of removing the trees.
Mr. McTaggart said when the City was writing the Sign Code, the subject
sign was noted. However, he was not sure that taking down this sign and
replacing it with several smaller signs on the building would be better.
hAet CL mad
He said the ordinances to handle shopping center -signs, and
that since there were four separate shops in the subject complex, perhaps
this could be considered a shopping center.
Mr. Hinchliffe moved to deny the application. The motion was not seconded.
After further discussion, Mr. Urick was asked if he would prefer that the
application be denied tonight so he could appeal to the City Council, or
if he would prefer to come back to the Commission with another sign proposal.
7/25/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
Mr. Urick said he did not have the authorization to answer that question.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
Sign Permit No. 44 was tabled until the applicant returns to the staff with
additional input.
SIGN PERMIT NO. 43 Director Hightower said this applica-
30019 Hawthorne Boulevard tion is to change the face of an exist -
Applicant: Rancho Drug Co. ing commercial sign to read "Rancho
Drug Company"; said sign to be located
on the previously discussed sign struc-
ture at Hughes Market (see Sign Permit No. 44).
Edward Nahan, 5263 Orville Avenue, Woodland Hills, said they wanted a sign
just for identification purposes, as the drug store is new to the community.
He said he understood the problems with the sign structure and was aware
that the structure may have to come down within the five-year amortization
period, but felt it was important to provide a sign for his new business.
Mrs. Bacharach said she would prefer just words on the sign rather than the
pharmacy symbol and words, as proposed.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
Sign Permit No. 43 was approved subject to the condition that the sign per-
mit expire, and the sign be made to conform, with the original five-year
a, -
amortization period for the p9erent sign or at the time of modification of
the parent sign. Said approval was also subject to the condition that the
sign consist only of letters, no symbols.
COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Bacharach asked about the Marine -
land left -turn lane.
Mr. McTaggart said the community was concerned about the parking problems.
Mrs. Bacharach asked about the Marineland sign.
Director Hightower said it was legally nonconforming and that she would
check to be sure a letter was sent re the amortization period.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked the possibility of staff discussing with the Rolling
Hills Estates Director of Planning tonight's discussion on signs.
Director Hightower said this could be done, and that staff would also
check the status of the building design and sign proposal for Ralph's Market.
Dr. Brown asked about the budget cut on Planning commission conference ex-
penses.
Director Hightower said there was a 25% cut of what was spent this last
year, not of what they were budgeted for.
Mrs. Bacharach mentioned the possibility of going before the City Council
and asking for special funding when necessary.
Mrs. Bacharach said the Commission discussed with the City Attorney the re-
quirement for contractors to purchase a Development Code book when purchas-
ing business licenses. The Commission felt there should be some sort of
penalty when the Code is violated, not just having the business license
revoked. A subcommittee consisting of Mr. Hinchliffe and Mr. McTaggart was
formed to work on this.
",A0100111"M zywly
At 9:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
August 8, 1978, at 7:30 p.m.
7/25/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-