Loading...
PC MINS 19930427MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Vice Chairman Byrd at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Hayes, and Mowlds, and Chairman Byrd. Commissioner Clark arrived at 7:37 p.m. ABSENT: Chairman Katherman. Also present were Director Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas and Kim Klopfenstein. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Administrator Petru introduced and officially welcomed the new Director of Environmental Services, Bret B. Bernard, to his first Planning commission meeting. She informed the Commission of Mr. Bernard's background and experience. Planning Administrator Petru advised that the agendas for the May 11th and May 25th Planning Commission meetings had only two items each, and she suggested that the May 11th meeting be cancelled and all four items be heard at the May 25th meeting. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to cancel the May 11, 1993 Planning commission meeting. motion carried without objection. Director Bernard advised that the Environmental Services Department budget would allow four commissioners to attend the Contract Cities Annual Municipal Seminar on May 20-23, 1993 in Palm Springs. Commissioners Clark, Mowlds, and Lorenzen and Chairman Katherman had indicated (on earlier occasions) that they would attend, schedules permitting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of April 13, 1993. B. P. C. Resolution No. 93- • forwarding a recommendation for denial to City Council for General Plan Amendment No. 19, and Zone Change No. 20, and taking no action on Environmental Assessment No. 647 at 29941 Hawthorne Boulevard (Shafigh Zadeh) Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARING A. VARIANCE NO. 355 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1675; Dr. and Mrs. Lewis, 6264 Ocean Terrace. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio to waive reading of the Staff Report. Motion carried without objection. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes to approve Variance No. 355, and Grading Permit No. 1675 subject to the conditions of approval on Exhibit "All of P. C. Resolution. Motion carried without objection. Commissioner Clark commented that he felt the subterranean garage was a creative and appropriate addition and noted that the commissioners had visited the site. B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 768 - APPEAL, COASTAL PERMIT 113, GRADING PERMIT NOS. 1668 AND 1681; Mr. and Mrs. James La Barba, 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West (a.k.a. 30101 Palos Verdes Drive West). The landowners had requested that this application be continued to the next meeting as they are out of the country. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to continue Height Variation No. 768, Appeal, Coastal Permit 113, and Grading Permits Nos. 1668 and 1681 to May 25, 1993. Motion carried without objection. In response to Vice Chairman Byrd's query, Planning Administrator Petru advised that follow-up notification letters would be sent to the applicant and any other interested parties who had submitted letters of concern during the first notice period. NEW BUSINESS A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 611; President Baking (Corporate Office), 500 Silver Spur Road. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to waive the reading of the Staff Report. Motion carried without objection. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1993 PAGE 2 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein corrected the last line of the chart (Proposed Signs) on Page 5 of the Staff Report to indicate 19 sq. ft. for the front sign with a square foot total of 69 sq. ft., and 10.5 square feet for the wall sign on the rear wall. She also asked for direction from the Commission on the landowner's request for the following changes to the sign program on Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report: Item C. No. 1 - retain the maximum of 85.12 sq. ft. approved by a previous Planning Commission in January of 1990 instead of the 74 sq. ft. proposed by Staff. Item C. 2. - change the total sign area on the rear (north) elevation to not exceed 36 sq. ft. rather than the 24 sq. ft. allowed by Code. Item C. 3. - the previous sign permits were conditioned to state that no signage would be allowed on the East and West elevations and the landowner is requesting permission for signs in those areas. Wendell Hamamoto (representing the landowner), 25930 Rolling Hills Road, expressed his appreciation for the Staff's and the Planning Commission's consideration of the sign permit. He advised that he had no objection to the proposed sign and asked for direction from the Planning Commission on Item C, Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Exhibit "B". He stated that the present sign area totals 50 sq. ft. and that the applicant is applying for an additional 19 sq. ft. for a new total of 69 sq. ft.; but that he was requesting the full 85.12 sq. ft. previously approved. Mr. Hamamoto said, however, that his main concern was Item C. No. 3. on Exhibit "B" which does not allow signs on the east and west side elevations. Commissioner Mowlds asked what the rationale was for not adhering to the Development Code requirements on this particular building. Mr. Hamamoto responded that the additional square footage previously approved was granted because it had no adverse impacts on the aesthetics of the building. Commissioner Mowlds commented that the previous sign was one homogeneous sign for one tenant and if the 85 sq. ft. maximum size was retained with multiple tenants, there could be a problem with multiple signs not matching in color and style. In response to further questions from the Commission, Mr. Hamamoto advised that he thought the color and type of the proposed sign was homogeneous with what is now there; that he did not see any conflict between the Planning Commission conditions and the owner's limitations on signs; that he preferred to have the sign applications processed over the counter with Staff review, but he had no objection to the requirement that each sign come before the Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1993 PAGE 3 for approval; and that he had no objection to color criteria in the conditions. Ms. Petru advised that the plan program would specify that all materials and colors must be compatible with the building materials of the center and subject to approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Therefore, Staff would establish a palette of colors from which new tenants would choose which would guarantee that the colors are compatible and consistent. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve Staff Alternative No. 1. Planning Administrator Petru advised that no sign program would be adopted with Alternative No. 1 and that each additional sign would come before the Planning Commission for approval. She advised that Staff preferred that the Commission approve three permanent identification signs for President Baking and adopt a sign program for the commercial center as recommended in the Staff Report. Commissioner Hayes stated that she approved of the concept that each sign permit would have to come before the Planning Commission and she wanted to limit the size to the 75 sq. ft. required by the Development Code. Planning Administrator Petru advised that a sign program would give Staff more control and guidance on items the Code is silent on such as letter heights, colors, and illuminations. Commissioner Mowlds asked if Alternate No. 1 gives Staff enough control and Ms. Petru advised that if the Commission approved Alternative 1, they would have to modify the first condition of Exhibit "All requiring all new signs to conform to the approved sign program since that by adopting Alternative 1, the Planning Commission would not be approving a sign program. She advised that a sign program would have limits set by the Commission and if any applicant was seeking to exceed the sign program, then the signs would have to come back to the Commission for approval. Ms. Petru said the sign program would address only wall sigps and not a directory sign. The maker and seconder of the motion under consideration agreed to amend the motion. commissioner Clark then moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to amend the motion and to approve the Staff recommendation that the Planning Commission approve three permanent identification signs for President Baking and adopt a sign program for the commercial center. Motion carried 6-0 on a roll call vote. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1993 PAGE 4 REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Director Bernard stated that he looks forward to working for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Planning Commission. He said he is aware of the excellence of both the staff and the Planning Commission and assured the Commission and the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes that he is committed to continuing that excellence. 2. Planning Administrator Petru informed the Commission that she and Commissioner Alberio had lunch at the buffet at the Sheraton in San Pedro which they thought was very nice, was a very good value and would be great for the luncheon being planned for former Director Onderdonk. The Commissioners decided on a date of either May 18th or May 19th and Ms. Petru is to check with former Director Onderdonk to coordinate schedules. Staff is to consult with the City Attorney to determine if the luncheon has to be noticed as a Planning Commission meeting under the requirements of the Brown Act. B. COMMISSION 1. Commissioner Clark noted that in conjunction with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes' 20th anniversary celebrations there are a number of events planned which include a golf tournament on August 23rd at the Rolling Hills Country Club, a City picnic on August 14th, a 10K run on the 21st of August, a concert in the green on the 22nd of August and a black -tie dinner dance on the 27th of August. 2. Commissioner Clark distributed a Report he and Commissioner Mowlds prepared on the issue of the view covenant in response to City Council's request for input on this issue. He advised that the Report summarized the history of how this issue evolved in the City, the issues involved, and some of the alternatives. He said that what they saw for potential discussion would be the original intent of Proposition I'M", the weakness with code enforcement of Site Vegetation Analysis, and the fact that the View Covenant is a deed recorded with the property and, therefore, eliminates confusion due to title transfer. Commissioner Mowlds explained that the word "level" in the Report did not mean relative elevation, but rather meant to what degree of thinning or configuration of thinning. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1993 PAGE 5 The Commissioners made the following suggestions regarding Covenants to Protect Views: 1. There should be specific language concerning the appeal process and recommended that the appeal should be first to the Planning Commission and then to City Council. 2. If options are provided, the applicant must know how the options will be implemented. Also, the neighbor who will be affected should have the same options so there is a balance between neighbors and owners. 3. The guidelines and procedures associated with Section 17.02.0400 of the Development Code should be amended to take into account upslope and downslope lots. 4. The applicant should pay a fee for the City to determine a criteria for thinning the vegetation. If at a later date, the neighbor thinks the applicant has not met that criteria,. the neighbor should pay a fee for the City to come out and judge if the thinning has been done correctly. 5. There should be a cycle time limit so the neighbor cannot protest every month and create a harassment situation. Planning Administrator Petru advised that the City Manager had requested that the view covenant issue be reagendized for City Council as soon as possible and that if the Commission made a recommendation this evening, Staff could probably agendize it for the May 18th City Council meeting. However, if they brought it back at the next meeting, which is May 25th, the soonest City Council could hear it would be June 1st. Commissioner Clark said that the report does not give a recommendation because he and Commissioner Mowlds wanted to give Staff and the Commission the opportunity to review it and make recommendations. He suggested that the Commissioners review the report and discuss it at the next meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that in the interim, the Commissioners report their questions and recommendations to the subcommittee of Commissioners Mowlds and Clark to enable them to bring back a final report. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, asked where Chairman Katherman was, informed the Commission that she had recently become a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1993 PAGE 6 United States Citizen, advised that she was doing research on the gnatcatcher for Jonathan Atwood, asked for clarification of a statement made by commissioner Alberio at the meeting of April 13, 1993 regarding geology reports on the property at 29941 Hawthorne, and welcomed the new Director of Environmental Services. She also noted that she had contacted Associate Planner Silverman to report bulldozing above her house and that there was also a bulldozer on the Subregion 7 property. She said Ms. Silverman had thanked her and said that the City often depends upon its citizens for information on code enforcement cases. Ms. Larue said she wanted the Planning commission to know that the Environmental Services Department appreciates input from the citizens. Vice Chairman Byrd advised Ms. Larue that Chairman Katherman was attending the kickoff party for the City's 20th anniversary celebrations. Commissioner Alberio informed Ms. Larue that he had discussed the property at 29941 Hawthorne with former director Bob Bernard at the Monterey Conference of League of California Cities in March 1993. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to adjourn. Motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to its regular meeting on May 25, 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1993 PAGE 7