Loading...
PC MINS 199405247� APPROVED 4!pw 6/28/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 24, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and chairman Alberio ABSENT: Commissioner Ferraro was out of town and her absence was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Silverman, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF In response to a request from some members of the Planning commission, Director Bernard suggested that the agenda be re- ordered to address the first Continued Business item (VIA. Development Code Revisions) last on the agenda and to address the third Public Hearing item (VIIC. Salvation Army) second on the agenda. After discussion, the majority of the Commission agreed to follow the agenda as written, in order to analyze the Development Code Revisions before the other Continued Business item (VIB. Dr. and Mrs. Zic) . Because setbacks were being addressed in the portions of the Development Code being reviewed, it was felt that this discussion might have a bearing on the decision for Dr. and Mrs. Zic's project. B. COMMISSION In reference to the current Development code revisions in process, Commissioner Hayes distributed a memo and suggested changes to the Single -Family Residential Development Standards Chart to the Planning Commission, with copies to Staff. A discussion ensued regarding neighborhood compatibility and the creation of a Design Review Committee. Commissioner Hayes emphasized that she felt strongly that the Design Review concept was extremely important and that every addition which was over 200 square feet should be brought before the Planning Commission. She expressed her opinion that setbacks should be followed closely to preserve the feeling of open space in single family neighborhoods and asked for input from the other Commissioners. Chairman Alberio stated that the Sub -Committee from the View Restoration Committee was proposing to meet with the Sub -Committee from the Planning Commission on Thursday, June 9, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. It was noted that the Planning Commission Committee is comprised of Chairman Alberio and Commissioners Vannorsdall and Wang. Chairman Alberio asked Vice Chairman Mowlds to act as an alternate and he agreed to perform this function, if necessary. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of May 10, 1994. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that, on Page 2, where the vote for Consent Calendar Item D was given by roll call, a change should be made to indicate that he had voted against the Resolution finding Consistency between the Capital Improvement Program and the General Plan. He did not believe that the Capital Improvement Plan followed the General Plan because streets were being repaired which were not arterial roadways. Commissioner Hayes asked that the minutes reflect, on Page 2, in the discussion regarding Consistency between the Capital Improvement Program and the General plan, that she stated that she felt that the Commission did not have ample time for reviewing the issue and that she voted in favor of the consistency issue for expediency only. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that, on Page 2, where the vote was given by roll call, his name should be removed from the roll call as he was not present at the May 10, 1994 meeting. Commissioner Hayes stated that, on Page 3, in the third line up in second paragraph from the bottom of the page, the minutes state 1150% of the of the" and that the second repetitious words "of the" should be deleted. Commissioner Hayes also stated that, on Page 4, in the second word of the third line, that the second word "are" should be deleted in the phrase "that there are no neighbors' views are being blocked" should be deleted. Commissioner Haves made a motion to Approve the May 10, 1994 Planning commission Minutes, a Wang. Approved (5-0-1), with because he was absent from the CONTINUED BUSINESS s amended, seconded by Commissioner commissioner vannorsdall abstaining May 10, 1994 meeting. A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 2 Senior Planner Rojas presented the Staff Report. Continuing with the Development Code Revision proceedings, language is being presented for Article I for the Commission's review. Language review is still needed of the two outstanding chapters of Article I. Those two chapters are 17.02, Single Family Residential Districts, and 17.04, Multi -Family Residential Districts. Using the same procedures from previous meetings, the revised language can be reviewed page by page and then sent on to the City Attorney. Staff received a letter from Sunshine (6 Lime Tree Lane) with suggestions for residential standards which was included with the Staff Report., The Planning Commission may want to consider some of these suggestions as part of their discussions. Commissioner Hayes asked if this letter was the one without a signature dated October 31, 1989, and Senior Planner Rojas said it was. He added that it was submitted, with no signature, as part of the Forrestal, tract development, when this project was first being heard in 1989. 17.02.030(B)(.1 and 2) (Parking Standards) Commissioner Hayes asked about the requirement for two parking spaces for single-family dwelling units which are less than 3000 square feet in size and three parking spaces for a single-family dwelling which is larger than 3000 square feet. Senior Planner Rojas stated that the Planning Commission had suggested placing the parking requirements in this portion of the Code. 17.02.030(8)(,5) [Parking Standards] Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the minimum driveway widths and turning radii specifications were those provided by the L. A. County Fire Department and asked if any standards were provided by Public Works., Senior Planner Rojas replied that the only requirements came from the Fire Department. When writing this section, he checked with Public Works 'and the Building Inspectors, and neither Department has any set standards for driveway widths. Vice ChairmanMowlds said that Public Works distributed a handout on this subject. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that this information sheet addressed only the width of an apron in the public right-of-way, not the width,of a driveway on private property. He added that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 3 minimum width of the apron allowed is 101, and the maximum width is 201. However, on private property, there are no set specifications, except from the Fire Department and, since those vary, the language was left as it was. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that a cross reference be made. Director Bernard stated that a reference could be made to the Fire Code for driveway widths, but also, as indicated by Vice Chairman Mowlds, a cross reference could be made to Public Works' standards for the apron width. 17.02.030 [Single -Family Residential Development Standards Chart] Commissioner Hayes distributed to each commissioner and staff changes to this chart for front and side street setbacks. She also indicated that the changes the Commission discussed on April 12, 1994, regarding garages, were not included. Senior Planner Rojas explained that although the information regarding garages was not on the chart, it did appear in another part of the Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that the chart should contain all the information needed by an architect, rather than scattering it in different sections of the Code. Chairman Alberio agreed this could be done or there could be a cross reference indicating that additional information could be found in a different location in the Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that there should be a footnote on the chart indicating that a second story must be 20% smaller in size than the footprint of the first story. Otherwise, the chart lists only the maximum structure size and the fact that the second story had to be set back a minimum of 251 from the front property line. If the architect saw the chart only, he might be misled and might have to redesign the project later on, causing a loss of time and money for the landowner. Senior Planner Rojas said that originally there was a footnote on the chart; however, the Sub -Committee's direction was that, if an applicant did not meet the 251 setback for a second -story addition, the Height Variation would automatically go to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Hayes commented that she would like to see all second - story additions come before the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the City of Torrance provides all PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 4 the information in one handout and he felt that complete information was important, even if the handout was more than one page. Director Bernard replied that Staff would bring to the next meeting revisions to the chart and suggested a disclaimer stating that there are other standards applicable to the Code which need to be taken into consideration before drawings are made. The information sheet should provide as much information as possible to make it user friendly, but also explain that there are other sections that may apply to a particular project. He agreed with Vice Chairman Mowlds that there is a tendency for a designer to assume all the requirements are included on the chart. Therefore, a cross reference will be provided. 17.02.040(A)(1)(a) [View Preservation and Restoration] Commissioner Hayes stated that the drawings illustrating height measurement should also include the setback requirement. Senior Planner Rojas replied that the intent of these drawings is to illustrate height measurement only, and that setbacks are discussed in a different section of the Code. 17.02.040(A)(1)(a, b, and c) [View Preservation and Restoration] Vice Chairman Mowlds believed that the cross -hatched area in all three drawings looked like fill dirt and makes it appear that a person could place fill on their lot and then take the highest grade from the newly created pad elevation. Senior Planner Rojas explained that the shading represented existing grade. The intention of the drawings was to clarify the highest point from which the landowner should measure the 161 height. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the description above the drawing indicated that this is "pre -construction grade". Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that the lower line could be eliminated to leave the cross -hatched area open. Senior Planner Rojas agreed that was a good idea and the cross- hatched area would-be labeled "pre -construction grade". 17.02.040(A) (1) (d) (2) [View Preservation and Restoration - Setbacks for Sloping Lots] Chairman Alberio and Vice Chairman Mowlds both commented that the drawing below number 11211 is correct because it indicates the exact situation, a cut into the hillside. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 5 17.02.040(A) (4) [View Preservation and Restoration - Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance] Vice Chairman Mowlds said that this paragraph was discussed before, but the information was still not correct. There is still no provision for a situation, in which there was an extreme upslope at the back of the lot, to allow foliage growing on the slope to be higher than the house. Director Bernard said Staff would amend the paragraph and bring it back to the Commission for review. 17.02.040(B)(1)(e)(i) [View Preservation and Restoration - Procedures and Requirements] Vice Chairman Mowlds wanted assurance that structures which exceed 161 in height shall be located a minimum of 251 from the front or the street side property line. He suggested that a footnote might be a method in which to relieve the City of the liability. Senior Planner Rojas agreed. 17.02.040(B) (1) (e) (ix) (View Preservation and Restoration - Viewing Areas) Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested a review of the rooms which are considered viewing areas because sometimes a family room applied. Commissioner Hayes and Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed that family rooms should be included., Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that upside down houses still had not been addressed. Senior Planner Rojas explained that this portion of the Code had been modified so that a view from a portion of a structure that required a Height Variation was not protected unless it was determined to be the primary viewing area for the residence. Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that he understood and that he agreed this was a good way to handle the problem. 17.02.040(B)(1)(e)(ix) [View Preservation and Restoration - Procedures and Requirements] Commissioner Hayes said she was pleased to see that the neighbors' privacy was being considered for Height Variation Permits. 17.02.040(B)(1)(d [View Preservation and Restoration ---Procedures and Requirements] PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 6 Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the decisions of the View Restoration Committee were final with no appeal to the City Council. Planning Administrator Petru answered that this provision of the Code was recently changed and that a copy of the adopted Ordinance will be furnished to the Planning Commission. 17.04.010 [Multiple Family Residential Districts] Senior Planner Rojas mentioned that the Staff met with the City's housing consultant and she provided suggested amendments to Chapter 17.04, Multiple Family Residential Districts, in reference to affordable housing requirements. 17. 04. 04 0 (A) (1) (Multiple Family Residential Districts - Development Standards) Vice Chairman Mowlds asked the meaning of the sentence "Where there are wall openings (windows and/or doors) on adjacent walls of two buildings or wings of the same building... shall not be closer than 30 feet" Senior Planner Rojas replied that this was from the previous revisions in 1991 and would apply in the building of new multi- family buildings, to create open space between buildings or wings of the same building. Commissioner Hayes stated that she understood the need for such a requirement, since, if two bedrooms are right across from each other and both have windows to look into the other rooms, it would be objectionable. 17.04.040 [Multi -Family Residential Development Standards Chart] Vice chairman Mowlds expressed his opinion that, in last column, required parking spaces were based on the number of bedrooms rather than on beds like in hotels. He had mentioned in previous Code discussions that parking for hotels ought to be based on the number of rooms rather than beds but, if this chart is valid, the reasoning for hotel parking requirements is wrong. Commissioner Hayes made motion to accept these portions of the Code as amended, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). B. VARIANCE NO. 360; Dr. and Mrs. Zic, 6931 Kings Harbor Drive (TS) Vice Chairman Mowlds recused himself from considering this matter because he lives within 300 feet of the subject property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 7 Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report and mentioned that it was just brought to her attention that there were two different plans (Concept No. 1 and Concept No. 2) submitted to the City and some Commissioners received the plans labeled Concept No. 2. However. the Staff Report was based on Concept No. 1. Based on direction provided by the Planning Commission at their April 12 meeting, the applicants revised their second -story addition to provide for articulation along the front facade of the residence. The structure was reduced in size to only 386 square feet in area, with the majority of the facade being set back from the facade of the garage by 31. Only a 61411 wide portion of the proposed second -story addition would remain flush with the garage below. The remaining portion of the existing two-story structure would be located approximately 81 behind the facade of the garage. Staff had the opportunity to conduct a more detailed analysis of other structures in the neighborhood and some varying styles of similar two-story additions above the garage. Photographs were circulated to the Commission illustrating that some of the structures are more massive than the proposed project. Staff felt that the revised project in Concept No. 1 resulted in a structure that was similar in architectural style to other homes in the neighborhood, while also meeting the objectives of the Planning Commission. In response to concerns regarding view impairment discussed at the previous hearing, Staff attempted on several occasions to gain entrance to the adjacent property at 6923 Kings Harbor Drive. While Staff was unable to speak directly to the owner, the City did not receive any comments or responses to the letters that were sent requesting that they contact the Staff for verification. However, based on the orientation and the location of the windows on the adjacent structure, Staff still felt that any view impairment resulting from the proposed construction would be minimal and further reduced by the articulated facade in the revised Concept No. 1. Staff recommended approval of the revised plans. Commissioner Hayes noted that there was confusion over the plans. She had received Concept No. 2, but, after reviewing chairman Alberio's copy of Concept 1, she now understood the revision as described in the Staff Report. Chairman Alberio asked if there were any questions regarding the 251 front yard setback for second story additions that the Commission had just adopted. Director Bernard clarified that the Commission had actually agreed to make a specific recommendation to the City Council on second - story additions. However, although this provision was not yet part PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 8 Ll • of the Code, because this particular project required a Variance, the Planning Commission could apply whatever standards they felt were appropriate. Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing. Mrs. Vlasta Zic (applicant), 6931 Kings Harbor Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Zic thanked the Commission for the chance to provide the Commission with revised plans. She stated that Concept No. I proposed a small balcony in front; would allow the building of a bathroom; and, in her opinion, improved the appearance of the house. Concept No. 2 had no balcony. With this plan, there would be one long room and would provide little space inside. She indicated that she preferred Concept No. 1. There was discussion among the commissioners regarding the two sets of plans and it was confirmed that all the members of the Commission understood that Mrs. Zic preferred Concept No. 1, which was the drawing on which the Staff Report was based. Director Bernard suggested that the applicant's architect could elaborate on the differences between Concept No. 1 and Concept No. 2. Mr. Howard McAdoo (contractor for applicant), 317 W. Kelso Street, Inglewood, CA. Mr. McAdoo confirmed that Concept No. 1 was the plan Staff evaluated and that this was the preferred set of plans for the addition. He explained that Concept No. 1 proposed a bathroom flush with the wall below, with the 31 setback from the face of the garage below, which was suggested at the previous Planning Commission meeting. In Concept No. 2, the entire addition would be set back 31 from the garage. In his opinion, this plan did not provide the desired articulation to the front facade of the residence. Commissioner Hayes questioned whether or not the 31 setback was actually suggested by the Planning Commission. I Associate Planner Silverman stated that after the previous Planning Commission meeting, Mr. McAdoo explained to her that, following the discussions regarding the Development Code Revisions, he approached several of the Commissioners to obtain feedback on how to adjust his project. At this point, Commissioner Hayes interjected that it was only one of the Commissioner. Mr. McAdoo stressed that some of the Commissioners had expressed their opinion that perhaps a 31 setback would be appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 9 i Commissioner Hayes thanked Mr. McAdoo for his explanation. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (5-0). Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the applicant could not move the addition back any further and still have a useable room. He believed that Concept No. 1 would improve the appearance of the house more than the original plan. Commissioner Hayes stated that she would prefer to see the project moved back 51, rather than 3', and that she would like to see the Planning Commission address these problems rather than perpetuating developmental patterns which were common before the City was incorporated. Commissioner Vannorsdall made a motion to adopt Concept No. 1 per the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Wang. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: (3-2-1) AYES: VANNORSDALL, WANG, WHITENECK NOES: HAYES, ALBERIO ABSTAIN: MOWLDS Director Bernard noted that the P.C. Resolution would be signed by the Chairman that evening that the Planning Commission decision would be final, unless appealed within 15 days. Commissioner Hayes expressed her hope that the new Development Code would be in place before a situation such as this project is brought before the Planning Commission again. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. COASTAL PERMIT NO 122 VARIANCE NO. 372 AND GRADING PERMIT NO 1729• Mr. and Mrs. Mulliner, 102 Spindrift Road. (FF) Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to waive reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Open the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Mr. Russ Barto (architect for the applicant), 3 Malaga Cove Plaza, #202, Palos Verdes Estates, CA. Mr. Barto stated that he was available for questions. The Commission had no questions for Mr. Barto. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 10 Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved (6-0). Commissioner Hayes moved to approve the Staff's recommendation because this is a special area in the Coastal Zone that has been addressed in the Coastal Specific Plan, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved --(6-0). Chairman Alberio indicated that the Resolutions would be signed that evening and reminded the audience of the 15 -day appeal period. B. VARIANCE NO. 373 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1731• Mr. and Mrs. Androsevic, 6417 Corsini Place. (FF) Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to waive reading of the Staff Report and to open the Public Hearing, seconded by commissioner vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Mr. Bob Garstein (architect for the applicant), RGA, Inc. 2175 W. 236th Street, Torrance, CA. Mr. Garstein about the specific language that would be included in the covenant required in Condition No. 4. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that the City had a standard form; which the Planning Department Staff would complete for the applicant. Mr. Garstein wanted to clarify a point on the drawings. Regarding the landscaping, he said that he was proposing. to incorporate "grasscretell (open concrete block which grass can grow through, but still can function as a walkway or driveway) into the required amount of landscaping. Mr. Garstein explained that this was not "soft" landscaping in the traditional sense. Chairman Alberio indicated that this would not be a problem and Director Bernard added that the project met the minimum open space regardless of the use of "grasscrete". There were no questions for the applicant's architect. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved (6-0). Commissioner Hayes noted that the applicant worked with the Portuguese Bend Art Jury and she commended the Art Jury for improving (and approving) the project. Commissioner Hayes moved to approve the Staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 11 Chairman Alberio indicated that the Resolutions would be signed that evening and reminded the audience of the 15 -day appeal period. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92 - REVISION "Ell, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1733, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 664; Salvation Army, 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. The Salvation Army was proposing an expansion of the Headquarter's main administrative office complex. The project included a 3,232 square foot addition to the east elevation and a 6,336 square foot addition to the west elevation of Building "C", for a total addition of 9,568 square feet. The additions would be a maximum of 301 in height and would not exceed the existing ridgeline of the building. The project also involved 300 cubic yards of grading (cut) with a maximum cut depth of 111. The proposed grading would occur outside of the present building footprint to accommodate the lower floor expansion on the west elevation. The existing administrative office building is located in the center of the north campus area and is already surrounded by one- story and two-story office buildings, housing and classrooms. Additionally, this area of the campus is not visible from Hawthorne Boulevard nor Palos Verdes Drive South, since there is a transitional slope which screens this area of the Salvation Army Site. Staff felt that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and recommended approval of the Environmental Assessment No. 664 (Negative Declaration), Conditional Use Permit No. 92 - Revision "Ell, and Grading No. 1733, subject to conditions. Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing. Captain Don McDougald (applicant), The Salvation Army, 30840 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes. Captain McDougald stated that he was available for questions. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the addition was office space and Captain McDougald said that, generally, that was correct. Vice Chairman Mowlds wondered if, in increasing the office space, there would also be an increase in the number of people working at the facility. captain McDougald answered that the additional space would be used to better accommodate their current personnel. Also, the Board Room would be more conveniently relocated to this building from another structure. Mr. Thomas Hause (architect/ engineer for the applicant) , 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, Arcadia, CA. Mr. Hause stated that the proposed addition was relatively small; would be constructed of the same PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 12 materials as the existing structure; and that there would be no height change. Landscaping would be installed, as required by the City, although this was fairly complete now. There would be no rooftop equipment or any other changes which would make the new section of the building appear different from any of the other buildings at the site. Mr. Robert King, 30764 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. King stated that he objected to the project and had not had the opportunity to review the drawings or the Environmental Impact Report. He added that he looked down through the Salvation Army property for his ocean view and felt that the new addition would intrude into this view. For some time, he had noticed that the Salvation Army was incrementally developing this site and wondered if they had a master plan. Sometime ago, the Salvation Army was requested to submit a long term plan and he was not aware if this plan was submitted, or approved. He indicated that he had lived in his home for over 25 years and had seen the Salvation Army site develop from a quiet junior college site to a fairly high density industrial/commercial use. He asked the Planning Commission and the Salvation Army what the long term plan was for the site and how it would affect the surrounding community. Chairman Alberio said that, approximately two years ago, the Salvation Army submitted to the City a 15 -year master plan, which included an Environmental Impact Report. Director Bernard added that the impacts from all the project included in the 15 -year plan were considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council, when the master plan Environmental Impact Report was adopted last year. Commissioner Hayes stated that she was one of the Commissioners who voted against adopting a 15 -year plan. Director Bernard clarified that, although the master plan was ultimately not approved by the City, the Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City. Chairman Alberio explained to Mr. King that a Negative Declaration applied because Staff found that the project would not result in additional or new environmental impacts. He added that he believed the multi -story building was part of the original master plan but possibly the Staff or the Salvation Army might confirm that. Staff indicated that a smaller addition to the administration building was included in the original master plan. A lengthy discussion ensued among the Commission, Staff and Mr. King regarding the height of the proposed addition. It became PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 13 apparent that Mr. King believed that a two-story addition to the existing two-story building was proposed (resulting in a four-story building). The Commission and Staff assured Mr. King that the proposed addition expanded the footprint (width) of the building, but that there would be no change in the height of the structure. Commissioner Hayes suggested that Mr. King take an opportunity to visit the Salvation Army site and walk around the buildings so that the situation would be much clearer. commissioner Hayes made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by vice chairman Mowlds. Approved (6-0) Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Staff why there was a Negative Declaration prepared instead of the project being covered by the 15 -year Environmental Impact Report. Director Bernard replied that each Salvation Army project was being individually assessed in order to determine if there are any concerns which might require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. However, Staff felt that a Negative Declaration was the most appropriate level of environmental review in this case. Vice Chairman Mowlds stressed that he was not against the project, but did not like the concept of the 15 -year Environmental Impact Report. Further, in the Negative Declaration on page 19, there was a question asking whether new or altered governmental services would be needed, and the answer was "maybe". Vice Chairman Mowlds believed that it would be better to have a definite "yes" or "no". He asked if contributory funds were not requested from some of the applicants of larger projects, for example, for additional police or fire department support. Planning Administrator Petru said that was true. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that he would not press the issue for this project because it is relatively small. However, for a Negative Declaration, he suggested that, in the future, a letter be obtained from the Fire Department stating that the project would not affect them. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that the Negative Declaration was sent to all agencies, Fire, Sanitation, etc., but comments are not always received from all the agencies. Chairman Alberio mentioned that he had been told by a Fire Captain that the City is short of fire hydrants and that when a big projects is approved, the issue needs to be examined. Vice chairman Mowlds made a motion to Adopt the Negative PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 14 Declaration, and to Approve the Conditional use Permit Revision and the Grading Permit, seconded by commissioner Hayes. Approved (6- 0). Chairman Alberio stated that the Resolutions would be signed that evening and reminded the audience of the 15 -day appeal period. NEW BUSINESS A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 665• Porto Verde Apartments, 6600 Beachview Drive. (FF) Commissioner Whiteneck excused himself from hearing this item, since his residence is within close proximity to the subject property. The Chairman waived the reading of the Staff Report. Mr. Mike Fiscina (applicant's representative), 884 Pala Avenue, #304, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Mr. Fiscina pointed out that the applicant was not proposing a sign for advertising purposes, merely a directional sign to the property. He explained that the property was suffering a high vacancy rate and that, even with directions to the property, perspective tenants had great difficulty locating the property. The buildings are set back a considerable distance from Palos Verdes Drive South and, unless you are actually looking to the right, you will not see them. Mr. Fiscina said that he was unaware that the Code allowed a maximum of only 20 square feet of sign area. However, the applicant was willing to build a 61 high, 41 x 51 sign on a temporary, month-to-month basis. Director Bernard asked if the sign illustrated in the Staff Report was the one being proposed and Mr. Fiscina said it was, but a directional arrow would be added. Director Bernard said that Staff did not consider the submitted plan to be a "directional sign". Mr. Fiscina replied the applicant would be willing to comply with requirements to qualify the sign as "directional" only. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed with Director Bernard that the submitted drawing did not appear to be a directional sign because it listed a telephone number and stated that there were 1, 2, and 3 bedroom luxury ocean view units. There was also other, unreadable information below. The exact sign being proposed should be presented to the Planning Commission, in order for the members to make an accurate analysis. Mr. Fiscina repeated that they would like a purely directional PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 15 10 0 sign, saying "Porto Verde Apartments", with an arrow. Vice Chairman Mowlds said he would consider making a motion to continue this item. Director Bernard pointed out, for the Commission's consideration, that Staff's recommendation would probably still be against the proposal, based upon the City Council's recent direction to disallow off-site signs. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed that this was recently brought up before the Council but, in fairness to everybody, the applicant deserved a chance because of the high apartment vacancy rate. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the sign should be smaller and that a reduction in size might increase the chance of approval. Commissioner Hayes stressed that she was opposed to any off-site commercial signs and any advertisements along the City streets. Other means should be used such as providing maps for potential renters and advertising in the local newspaper. Mr. Fiscina replied that they were already employing all those methods and had spent a lot of money on advertising. He added that recently the apartment manager had given detailed directions to a gentlemen who still missed the property and drove all the way to San Pedro. Commissioner Hayes suggested that landmarks could be given so that if potential renters passed certain specific locations, they would know they had gone too far. Commissioner Hayes repeated that she was opposed to the proposed sign. Ms. Pamella Dunham (applicant), 6600 Beachview Dr., #200, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Dunham stated that she was the manager of the property and reiterated that they have taken every step imaginable to direct people to the property. She said that she had given landmarks, street names turning off Palos Verdes Drive South, but it is a very secluded area and people are not aware that these apartments exist. There is certainly no way to capture drive-by traffic. She stated that they have been told they can't have balloons. There appears to be no way to direct people except for a sign on the main street. The bootleg signs they had erected (and later became an active Code Enforcement case) did bring people in. Commissioner Hayes asked Staff if a very short-term banner sign would be allowable. Director Bernard said that a temporary banner would be allowed on- site, but not off-site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 16 Chairman Alberio asked Staff if they had any suggestions. Director Bernard said no, and that he was sorry for the unfortunate situation, but setting a precedent for one party would lead to other requests. He reiterated that there had been definite direction from Council on this subject. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if a monument sign (like a subdivision identification sign) could be erected and asked the applicant if they owned the property where the old fruit stand used to be and Mr. Fiscina said they did not own the property at the corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Seawolf Drive. Director Bernard explained that subdivision identification signs are allowed because they are located on private property or a common open space lot, within the tract boundaries, not off-site locations. Commissioner Hayes suggested that a sign could be put up simply saying "Beachview" (the street on which the apartments are located) with an arrow indicating the direction. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that the applicant look around the community at the attractive permanent signs made out of concrete and stucco and propose something that the community will be proud of, as well as provide identification for these apartments. Commissioner Wang stated that she is in the business of property management and she can attest to the fact that these apartments are not the only ones hurting. She said that even apartments on visible streets like Hawthorne and Figueroa, who have decreased rents, have a vacancy rate of 30-400. She admitted it was a very sad situation. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to continue this item for 30-45 days, to provide the applicant time to meet with the Staff and propose a sign with a better chance of approval, seconded by commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: (4-1-1) AYES: HAYES, VANNORSDALL, WANG, MOWLDS NOES: ALBERIO ABSTAIN: WHITENECK REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 241 1994 PAGE 17 meeting of June 14, 1994. 2. Director Bernard informed the members of the Planning commission that, because of the City's pending Zip Code change, new business cards will be ordered for the Commissioners. He requested that any changes desired to be added t6 the current cards be forwarded to the Planning Department. 3. Director Bernard also mentioned that name tags will be ordered for members of the Planning Commission. He asked that if shortened names (for example, nicknames) are desired on these name tags, that the Commissioners contact the Planning Department. B. COMMISSION - NONE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (reaardina non -agenda items Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue spoke regarding the City of Redondo Beach's Report to Citizen Stockholders and her newspaper article regarding "The Rape of Barkentine Canyon". ADJOURNMENT vice chairman Mowlds moved,, seconded by commissioner Hayes, to adjourn to the joint meeting with Sub -Committees from the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Committee on Thursday, June 9,, 1994, at Hesse Park. The motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:54 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on Tuesday, June 14, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. (A JD MINUTES DISK #3 - MINS 24) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 PAGE 18