Loading...
PC MINS 199404263 ---+ APPROVED 5/10/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 26, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:08 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Donna Jerex. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds (who arrived at 7:37 P.M.) and Chairman Alberio. ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Jerex, and Assistant Planner de Freitas. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF There was no late correspondence, but Director Bernard suggested that the agenda be reordered to address the Continued Business item (Development Code Revision) after the Public Hearing and New Business items. The Commission agreed. B. COMMISSION - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 179; Fidelity Radiology Group, 29000 South Western Avenue. (DJ) Associate Planner Jerex read the Staff Report. This request is to allow the continued use of a 63 -foot trailer which provides mobile diagnostic imaging services in the parking lot adjacent to a four- story office building. The previous Conditional Use Permit issued for the use in 1990 expired in 1991 when the applicant failed to request an extension from the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. However, the business has continued to operate since that time. The trailer provides CT Scan and Magnetic Resource Imaging services to patients from 6:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. on weekdays and from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on Saturday. Staff has PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 1 A received complaints from neighboring residents regarding noise associated with the trailer being parked along the rear of the parking lot, rather than in front of the building along Western Avenue. Due to the continuing lapse in City permits and changes in the location of the trailer on the parking lot, Staff feels that the project should be more closely monitored in the future. If the applicant does not comply with these conditions of approval, the Director will have the discretion to deny extensions to the permit in the future. Commissioner Hayes asked for an explanation of the applicant's violations mentioned in the Staff Report and Associate Planner Jerex replied that the violations included the incorrect location of the trailer and the fact that the permits have lapsed since 1991. Commissioner Ferraro asked if there was a concern for safety because of the medical tests performed inside the trailer and Associate Planner Jerex replied that it was felt that the trailer did not present any danger to individuals in the adjacent area. Chairman Alberio opened the Public Hearing. 'r Mr. Chris Courtney, (representing the applicant) 4605 Lankershim Blvd., #802, North Hollywood, CA. Mr. Courtney stated that he agreed with the Staff Report. He added that Dr. Taus was not aware of the improper parking of the trailer, as the trailer was placed on the parking lot by the operator of the truck which hauled the trailer. Mr. Courtney said that Dr. Taus had admonished the hauling company for the mistake and will make sure that the trailer is parked only in the correctly designated location in the future. Commissioner Wang asked Mr. Courtney if the applicant would be more diligent in the future in renewing the permit before it expired and Mr. Courtney said that he would. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue expressed her concern about the safety of passersby in the vicinity of the trailer and suggested that warning signs be placed on the trailer, advising the nature of the activity inside the trailer. Mr. Courtney explained that the trailer was adequately insulated and that there was no danger to persons outside the trailer. He added that since the equipment used magnets, rather than radiation to create the image, the insulation was installed mainly to protect the quality of the image. For example, a car (or any large metal object) passing by would create a disturbance in the magnetic image. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 2 Chairman Alberio asked if the trailer had signs identifying its use and Mr. Courtney said that it did. Commissioner Hayes noted that guarantee from the builder of the taken and there is no danger. insecure about the potential for the Staff Report mentioned a trailer that safeguards have been She added that she did not feel harm. In answer to Commissioner Ferraro's query, Mr. Courtney replied that he was not sure what kind of material was used for insulation; however, he did know that the insulation was developed by General Electric, who also built the equipment. Chairman Alberio said that the insulation was probably a foam which was shot into the walls of the trailer, where it solidified. Commissioner Hayes moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). Commissioner Ferraro asked if the trailer was going to be parked in front of the parking lot and Commissioner Hayes answered that this was one of the proposed conditions of approval. Associate Planner Jerex suggested that there should be a designation on each side of the trailer indicating that it is an MRI facility. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 179, subject to the modified conditions of approval, seconded by commissioner Hayes. Approved (6-0). NEW BUSINESS A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 662• Mesa P.V. Homeowners Association, 29716 Whitley Collins Drive. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas read the Staff Report. This Sign Permit would allow an additional tract identification sign at the northwest corner of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road. The existing tract identification sign is located at the northeast corner of the intersection and, along with the other existing sign at Whitley Collins Drive and Highridge Road, these existing signs will be re -furbished. The proposed sign would be placed on the existing Palos Verdes stone freestanding wall that wraps around the property at 29719 Whitley Collins Drive. It is Staff's opinion that the sign should be approved since it would aid in identifying the neighborhood, would beautify the entry to the tract and would not create any visual interference at the intersection. Staff therefore recommended that the Commission approve the Sign Permit, via Minute Order with the suggested conditions of approval. Staff noted that the applicant was present at the meeting if there were PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 3 • any questions. E Commissioner Hayes moved and Commissioner Ferraro seconded to accept the Staff's Recommendation to Approve Sign Permit No. 662. Approved by Minute Order (6-0). Chairman Alberio noted that this project, which involved a grant from the City to the Homeowners Association, was first suggested in 1986 and asked why it had taken so long to come before the Planning Commission for approval. Director Bernard explained that the recycling grant to defray the cost of the project was not awarded until October of 1993. Planning Administrator Petru added that the City has only a limited amount of recycling grant money to be dispensed each year and each .applicant must wait until there are sufficient funds available. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) The Commission waived the reading of the Staff Report and reviewed the proposed draft Code language page by page. 17.48.030 [Setbacks] Commissioner Hayes asked about clarification of the sentence "Except as otherwise provided... located under or on top of the ground...", which had been discussed previously. Senior Planner Rojas explained that Vice Chairman Mowlds requested that there be an exception for building footings or foundations and that this was noted in 17.48.030(E) "Exceptions". Chairman Alberio questioned whether the Director should determine property line designations, as property lines are legal constructs, and are, therefore, described by deed. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that this statement did not provide the Director with the power to decide where the actual property line was, but only to designate whether it was a side, rear, or front property line. He added that the language would be rewritten to make this clear. 17.48.030(A)(1) [Setbacks] Commissioner Wang asked for the definition of a "flag lot" and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 4 Chairman Alberio, Commissioner Vannorsdall, and Director Bernard explained that, when seen in plan view, the lot is shaped like a flag, usually with a long driveway between two lots leading to a back property. 17.48.030(C)(2)(g) [Setbacks - Hillside Lots] Commissioner Hayes noted that the word "If" should be included in the first sentence to read: "If the grade of the slope.... then the following setback shall apply". Senior Planner Rojas explained that letters "all, "b", and "cl, are all following the statement in paragraph No. 2 which reads "In hillside areas where the following conditions occur:" and, in that context, the word "if" is not needed. After Chairman Alberio and Director Bernard concurred with Senior Planner Rojas' interpretation; however, commissioner Hayes stressed that it might be technically correct, but it was poor English. Chairman Alberio asked the Staff to look at this portion of the Code to perhaps improve the sentence structure. 17.48.030(E)(1) (Setbacks - Exceptions) Commissioner Whiteneck asked for a definition of "belt course". Planning Administrator Petru explained that it was an architectural facia applied to the front of the building. For example, on a Tudor -style house, half timbers which are just add-ons, applications to the front of the building to look like timbers, standing out from the wall a few inches, would be considered to be similar to a "belt course". 17.48.030(E)(3)(b)(3) [Setbacks - Exceptions] Commissioner Whiteneck asked for a clarification of the sentence "No part of any minor structure or mechanical equipment extends within three feet..." Senior Planner Rojas clarified that this was a continuation from the sentence on the previous page that ends "provided that:" 17.48.030(E)(3)(b)(2) [Setbacks - Exceptions - Minor Structures] Commissioner Ferraro had the same question regarding the sentence beginning "No part of any such minor structure... 11 Planning Administrator Petru explained that the sentence on the previous page (E) (3) (b) ended with "provided that:" and then listed the following conditions - (1), (2), and (3). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 5 • At this point (7:37 P.M.), Vice asked if he had any questions already reviewed that evening. to that point in the discussion, • Chairman Mowlds arrived and he was about the portions of the Code He indicated that he had none, up 17.48.030(E)(3)(b)(3) [Setbacks - Exceptions - Minor Structures] Vice Chairman Mowlds questioned the sentence "is placed adjacent to an existing wall...". He was under the impression this sentence was going to be changed to "an existing solid masonry wall..." Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Vice Chairman Mowlds. Senior Planner Rojas recalled that the word "solid" was added. Planning Administrator Petru commented that a solid wall could be interpreted to include a wooden fence. Director Bernard stated that the word "masonry" would be added to the sentence. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that the reduced setback would not apply to mechanical equipment which generate noise, only small accessory structures, such as tool sheds and barbecues. 17.48.030(E)(8) [Setbacks - Exceptions - Subterranean Structures) Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the rationale regarding "Subterranean structures which are located entirely below grade..." Vice Chairman Mowlds gave an example of an underground wine cellar which no one would see. Director Bernard added that this would apply to any subterranean structure that would not be apparent to a person walking or driving by the subject property. It was felt that, because of easements which may be located in setback areas, the subterranean structure should not go all the way into the required setback area, and that halfway was an appropriate distance. 17.48.030(F)(8) (Setbacks - Easements) Chairman Alberio stated that the proposed Code language required a written authorization from the legal holder of the easement. He felt that this would not be necessary and could be considered interference with the easement, which is a real property contract between the two parties involved to allow limited use by one property owner of someone else's property. In this case, the grantor gives the grantee the right to use the property, but the grantor reserves the right to the ground surface and to issue more PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 6 easements on top of the first easement. Director Bernard said the City Attorney would be consulted on this matter. 17.48.050(A)(3) [Building Height] Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that, in order to get proper draft, a chimney would have to be at least two feet over the highest ridge. Senior Planner Rojas explained that the Building Code addressed the minimum height of a chimney, but the Development Code provided a procedure for allowing a chimney to be higher than the minimum Building Code requirement. 17.48.050(A)(2) [Building Height] Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if installation of a 16' flagpole, not necessarily on an extreme slope, but anywhere on a residential lot, would require only approval from the Director and if the flagpole was considered an accessory structure. Planning Administrator Petru replied that flagpoles are considered to be accessory structures, however, 16' high flagpoles have been allowed in the past, through a Site Plan Review. 17.50.020 [Parking Requirements] Commissioner Ferraro asked why golf course parking requirements were increased from three to six spaces per golf hole. Senior Planner Rojas replied that all parking requirements had been determined from a comprehensive survey of other cities throughout the State of California. Golf Courses had originally been changed from three to five parking spaces per hole and then an additional space was added for employee parking. Vice Chairman Mowlds wondered why parking requirements for hotels were based on one space for each bed and felt it should be based on the number of rooms instead. Senior Planner Rojas answered that, by allowing a space for each bed, the worst case scenario was being considered, so that parking needs would not be underestimated. Commissioner Ferraro asked if the same reasoning applied to the changes in parking for veterinary hospitals and Senior Planner Rojas said that this was the case. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 7 E E Director Bernard added that the survey mentioned by senior Planner Rojas was a study performed by traffic consultants and was based upon the various cities, experience to determine the best standards. When Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that some of the facilities were not currently in Rancho Palos Verdes, Director Bernard explained that any of these facilities may be proposed in the future and parking requirements would be available at that time. Commissioner Ferraro asked if it was true that some of the parking for Peninsula High School was in Rancho Palos Verdes and Director Bernard said that a substantial number of on -street parking spaces were located in Rancho Palos Verdes, however, since the high school itself was located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the on- site parking facilities could not be regulated by our City. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that there appeared to be a choice in the Code for the owner of an automobile service, repair or gas station. The proposed Code language states that "one space would be required for every 300 square feet ... or one space for every employee plus two spaces for every....". He wondered if the phrase "whichever is larger" should be added. Senior Planner Rojas agreed that Staff would provide language to indicate that in the case of a difference between the two standards, the stricter requirement would apply. 17.50.030(E) [Parking Requirements - Screening] Vice Chairman Mowlds indicated that the first paragraph began "Where a parking area abuts or is across the street from a residential district..." and the second paragraph began "where a parking area is across the street from a residential district...". He wondered which paragraph would apply when the parking area was across the street from a residential district. Senior Planner Rojas agreed that a correction to the language was needed. 17.50.030(D) (Parking Requirements - Access) Commissioner Whiteneck expressed his opinion that a concrete driveway which was a minimum of ten feet wide and four inches thick would crumble, unless it was reinforced with wire mesh. Senior Planner Rojas replied that this requirement was consistent with the Building Code according to the Public Works Department, which is why the following sentence was added to indicate that the final design of the driveway would be 11 .... approved by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 8 Director of Public Works." Commissioner Whiteneck felt that the Building Code was incorrect. He also believed that the word "slab" should be added after the word "concrete". Vice Chairman Mowlds explained that the portion from the curb to the property line is controlled by Public Works and that it is non- reinforced because utility easements are frequently under the apron. For this reason, the concrete should be easy to break up. Also, there is a joint between the apron and the driveway so that the apron can be broken without breaking up the driveway itself. Chairman Alberio agreed with Commissioner Whiteneck that the word "slab" should be added after "concrete". 17.50.030(F)(5) [Parking Requirements - Layout and Paving] Commissioner Whiteneck suggested that there should be other options allowed, in addition to bumpers or tire stops. Senior Planner Rojas and the other Commissioners agreed that language would be added indicating that "...any other comparable device may be used, as deemed appropriate by the Director". Vice Chairman Mowlds believed that a more specific reference should be made to the parking diagram following this page, indicating the title and page number of the diagram, and Senior Planner Rojas said he would make the change. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the Code indicated that the Director would decide whether a parking lot should be double or single striped. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that small lots should have single striping and large ones (for example, for a supermarket) should have double striping. 17.64.030(C) (Variance - Applications] Commissioner Hayes asked if the Code should mention that the decision of the Director that a Variance application is inappropriate in a specific case, could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that the decision of the Director, in this case, was given before the item was heard by the Planning Commission. This information given at Staff level would warn an applicant that a project may be beyond the scope of the Code so that if he or she may decide not to waste their time in pursuing a Variance. If the applicant chose to continue, the formal process would be followed, with a decision and then an appeal period. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 9 Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that the word "significant" be added before the word "error" so the sentence will read: "A Variance may also be granted if the applicant demonstrates significant error... Staff agreed to make this language change. 17.66.020(D) [Minor Exception Permits - Scope] Commissioner Wang asked about the lone bracket appearing before the words "ten feet" and Senior Planner Rojas said it was unnecessary and would be removed. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that the words "or the City Council" should be added after "....through a discretionary permit to the Planning commission", because the Council could have been the approving party. Staff agreed to make this suggested language change. The Planning Commission Development Code Sub -Committee meeting was adjourned to Thursday, May 28, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the May 10, 1994, meeting. It was noted that there will be CEQA Orientation Session scheduled from 7:00 to 7:30 P.M. The City has made an agreement with a private consulting firm to conduct the session. An outline for the session will be provided prior to the meeting. B. COMMISSION - None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items Ms. Lois Large, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue related the history of landslides in Barkentine Canyon. Ms. Larue and Vice Chairman Mowlds were not able to tour the canyon since the last meeting. They will make another attempt and Vice Chairman Mowlds said they will bring back some photographs. Commissioner Vannorsdall said he would be interested in going along. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds to adjourn. Motion carried (7-0) and the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:12 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 10 Next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on Tuesday, May 10, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. at the Hesse Park Community Building. (a:JD MINUTES 113 - MIN4.26) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 PAGE 11