PC MINS 19940223 APPROVED 4,411 4Io
3/8/94 4�
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB-COMMITTEE
ADJOURNED MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7: 05 PM, by Chairman Gilbert
Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne
Boulevard.
PRESENT: Commissioners Vannorsdall, Whiteneck, Hayes, Vice
Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio
ABSENT: None
Also present were Planning Administrator Petru and Senior Planner
Rojas.
COMMUNICATIONS
A. STAFF - None
B. COMMISSION
Chairman Alberio reported that he had received correspondence from
Mr. and Mrs. Arand regarding the Development Code Revisions of
Chapter 17 . 32 , Chapter 17.40, and Chapter 17.60. Also, the
Commission received correspondence from Stan and Gloria Heifetz
regarding Section 17.76.030.
Senior Planner Rojas stated that a portion of Mr. Arand's letter
addressed Conditional Use Permits and that the Commission should
address this issue when the appropriate section is being discussed.
In addition, Senior Planner Rojas stated there are four other areas
that need clarification, which Staff will discuss at the
appropriate times.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
Development Code Revision, City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Citywide. (JR)
Chairman Alberio opened the public hearing.
Stan and Gloria Heifetz, 2043 General Street, Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mr. Stan Heifetz discussed the excessive traffic flow and noise on
his residential street. Mr. Heifetz stated that walls higher than
3 1/2 feet in the front yard setback are necessary to protect
himself and other properties in similar situations from the traffic
noise and that it should not be the homeowners' responsibility to
�► i
apply for a variance to allow such walls. Mr. Heifetz stated that
he supports a Code amendment to allow walls higher than 4211 in the
front yard setback with the following limitations: 1) placement of
walls and fences no greater than 6 feet in height, 2) at least 10
feet behind the front property line, and 3) only on arterial
connector streets as determined by the Department of Public Works.
Mr. Heifetz stated that the risk of aesthetic deterioration of the
community by building walls is more beneficial than the amendment
allowing cut -through motorists.
Chairman Alberio stated he is familiar with the area, that he
understands the issue of traffic noise and the need for a buffer,
and that each Commissioner should visit the site.
Commissioner Hayes stated the issue should be presented to the City
Council for consideration.
Commissioner Vannorsdall stated he would make a site visit to
better understand the issue of this area of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Senior Planner Rojas explained that Mr. Stan Heifetz's references
to the Via Colinita Vehicular Use Restriction Project refer to a
project previously considered by the City Council to limit the
amount of traffic traveling from the Miraleste area to Western
Avenue via Eastview. Planner Rojas also stated that Staff, the
Planning Commission, City Council, and City Manager have all
previously heard Mr. Heifetzfs request and that all concurred that
the best relief for Mr. Stan Heifetz is the existing variance
process.
Mrs. Gloria Heifetz stated the passenger cars are not the problem.
The heavy -load cars are the problem.
Chairman Alberio responded that the City is aware of the problem
and is in the process of modifying the Development Code. He also
stated that the Planning Staff is working on addressing this
problem, in order to come up with an adequate remedy.
Senior Planner Rojas stated that the purpose of this evening's
meeting is for the Planning Commission Sub -Committee to
conceptually review Article VII of Title 17 of the City's Municipal
Code. Furthermore, Senior Planner Rojas commented that if
requested, Staff will do the necessary research regarding items
discussed this evening and return with appropriate language for the
revisions at a future meeting.
Commissioner Vannorsdall wanted to address the lighting language of
Section 17.56.030 discussed at the previous public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
PAGE 2
The Sub -Committee agreed that the lighting issue needs to be dealt
with; however, ideas not related to tonight's meeting should be put
in writing and given to the staff to work on at a later date.
The Planning Commission Sub -Committee reviewed the comprehensive
list of proposed revisions to Article VII of Title 17 contained in
the Staff Report. The Sub -Committee considered staff's
recommendation for each proposed revision and took the following
actions:
Sections 17.60 through 17.80 (Applications)
The Sub -Committee accepted Staff's recommendations.
Section 17.60.020(c) (Antenna CUP Exemption
Senior Planner Rojas stated this is the section of the Code that
reflects the Arand correspondence concerns and that since the
language will be revised to allow second units in residential areas
without a Conditional Use Permit, the concerns of the Arand letter
are no longer appropriate.
The Sub -Committee agreed that the Mr. Arand's comments are no
longer applicable and accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.68.080(A) (Code Amendment Noticing)
The Sub -Committee accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.72.030 (Coastal Setback Zone Development)
The Sub -Committee accepted Staff's recommendation, but expressed
concern with the wording of this section. The Sub -Committee
questioned whether it is appropriate to require an applicant to put
a holding tank in for a new fixture and asked that the City
Attorney review this language.
Section 17.72.120 (Coastal Permit) & Section 17.72.130 (Coastal
Permit)
The Sub -Committee accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.020(B) (Satellite Dish Antennas)
The Sub -Committee accepted Staff's recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
PAGE 3
Section 17.76.030
(Fences, Walls, & Hedges)
Senior Planner Rojas noted this is the section Mr.
and Mrs. Stan
Heifetz spoke about earlier this evening.
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.030(B)(4)
(Fences, Walls, & Hedges)
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.040(c)
(Grading)
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.040(c)(6)
(Grading)
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.040(D)(3)
(Grading)
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.040(D)(3)
& (E) (Grading)
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.040(E)
(7.a.4) (Grading)
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.040(F)(2)
(Grading)
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendation.
Section 17.76.050
(Signs)
The Sub -Committee
accepted Staff's recommendations
but requested
more clarification on allowable neon signs to avoid
neon lighting
being used as a decorative feature of a building.
Senior Planner Rojas stated staff would like to add language to the
sign section regarding city required window logos to clarify that
such logos do not require a Sign Permit or count toward the maximum
allowable window signage.
Section 17.76.070 (Large Family Day Care Permit)
The Sub -Committee accepted Staff's recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
PAGE 4
Section 17.80 (Appeal Procedure)
The Sub -Committee accepted Staff's recommendation and requested
that this section reference the City Council resolution which
clarified the appeal fee refund procedure.
The Sub -Committee reviewed the text of Article VII page by page.
The Sub -Committee required that Staff make the following revisions:
Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits)
The Sub -Committee agreed to discuss the issue of what kind of
development to allow in open space hazard areas with Conditional
Use Permits at the time when the Open Space Hazard Chapter is
discussed in the future.
The Sub -Committee requested that the language of Section 17.60.080
be clarified so that it is clear that the Planning Commission
grants a CUP extension (Section 17.86.070(B)).
Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits
The Sub -Committee requested that Section 17.62.060 be reviewed to
clarify the Planning Commission's and Staff's relation to the
appeal process.
Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits)
The Sub -Committee requested that the language of Section 17.66.060
be clarified as to the appeal procedure.
The Sub -Committee additionally requested that Staff investigate a
method to prevent a building envelope approved by the Planning
Commission from being changed under a subsequent Minor Exception
Permit.
Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments)
The Sub -Committee required that Section 17.68.090 and 17.68.100 be
revised so that it is clear that a majority of votes constitutes
adoption.
Chapter 17.72 (Coastal Permits)
The Sub -Committee requested that the language of Section 17.72.060
be clarified as to what uses and developments are excluded from the
requirements of a Coastal Permit.
The Sub -Committee also requested that Section 17.72.120 be
clarified so that the final action of the City is clear.
PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
PAGE 5
Section 17.74.020 (Residential Planned Development Permits
The Sub -Committee agreed to withhold any modifications to this
Chapter until the Chapter on Residential Development Standards is
discussed and considered.
The Sub -Committee requested that the second sentence in Section
17.74.050(A) be corrected by changing the word "completes" to
"completed".
Chapter 17.76 (Miscellaneous Permits and Standards)
The Sub -Committee requested clarification of Section 17.76.010 so
that it is clear when the City requires single and double striping
in parking lots, what percentage of parking spaces can be compact
parking only, and the requirements for handicap spacing.
In order to clarify Section 17.76.020(A)(4), the Sub -Committee
requested that Staff research how the City can tell the maximum
number of antenna users per pole.
The Sub -Committee requested that Action 17.76.020(B)(4) be revised
so that Residential Planned Developments are not limited to only
one satellite dish antenna.
The Sub -Committee requested that the language of Section
17.76.020(B)(5)(e) make reference to the process where satellite
dish antennas are allowed in extreme slopes (Section 17.76.020
(B) (8) (c))
The Sub -Committee requested that Section 17.76.030 be revised so
that a fence, wall, or hedge over 42" cannot be located any closer
to the front property than the closest building facade, 20 feet
minimum distance.
The Sub -Committee requested that Section 17.76.030(D)(1)(d) be
revised to prohibit chain link, chicken wire, and other similar
types of fencing from being placed forward of the front facade of
an existing residence.
The Sub -Committee requested that Section 17.76.060(b) be modified
to increase the scope of Extreme Slope Permits. The Sub -Committee
suggested adding flag poles with a maximum height of 16 feet,
unless there is a view impairment, and pool equipment and trash
enclosures to the scope of the Director's review.
The Sub -Committee also requested that Staff research whether the
City Council also allowed the placement of retaining walls to
accommodate the minor structures on an extreme slope.
PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
PAGE 6
The Sub -Committee requested that Section 17.76.060 (e) be modified
to add a finding for protection of privacy.
The Sub -Committee requested that Staff research that the language
of Section 17.76.080(C) (3) (b) is consistent with Section
17.50.040(D)(2).
The Sub -Committee requested that the reference to 'IQ" district
throughout Section 17.76.110 be referred to as the Equestrian
Overlay District.
The Sub -Committee requested that Section 17.76.130(B) be clarified
so that a Geologic Investigation Permit is required for all work
done by mechanical equipment or by hand.
Senior Planner Rojas requested a clarification of the Planning
Commission's direction for revising Section 17.48.050(A)(3) from
the previous public hearing. He wanted to clarify if a request for
any improvement or architectural feature over 16 feet in
residential zones, such as the parapet wall or dormer, needs a
height variation.
Senior Planner Rojas suggested a different discretionary
application rather than a height variation so the Commission will
still review the requests, yet it will save time and be a less
expensive for the applicant.
The Sub -Committee stated that the Development Code should be as
strict as possible in order to prohibit improvements over 16 feet
and that al requests to exceed 16 feet should be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Senior Planner Rojas suggested that these types of applications be
reviewed by the Planning Commission as Miscellaneous Hearings.
The Sub -Committee agreed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. STAFF - None
B. COMMISSION - None
PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
PAGE 7
w
COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - None
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 9:31 PM to the next Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 8, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at
Hesse Park.
Adjourned at 9:31 PM to the next Planning Commission
Development Code Sub -Committee Meeting on Wednesday, March 23,
1994, at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.
(MINUTES #1 DISK [PG] - DEVCODE 223)
PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
PAGE 8