Loading...
PC MINS 19981222Approved 02/09/99 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE City Attorney Lynch led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the Agenda as presented. With no objections, it was so ordered by the Chairman, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Council Policy Items Director/Secretary Rous pointed out to the Commission that the City Council Minutes of November 4, 1998 and November 17, 1998 were included in their agenda packets for informational purposes Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that the City Council had reviewed the Development Agreement and Final Map for Tract No. 46628 at the City Council Meeting of December 15, 1998 The City Council continued the public hearing of this item for further review and discussion at the upcoming City Council Meeting of January 5, 1999 Staff Staff distributed copies of the Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 12, 1999 Commission Vice Chairman Cartwright received correspondence from Ms. Dodge Clarkson regarding issues discussed at the Antenna Ad Hoc Committee Meeting of December 21, 1999 Chairman Clark received the same correspondence in addition to correspondence received from Mr John Freeman and Ms Karyl Newton regarding antenna issues discussed at the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting of December 21, 1998. Chairman Clark received photographs from Ms. Won Na Ng of the City's 25th Anniversary Gala held October 9, 1998 Commissioner Slayden questioned the public hearing of the appeal on the Marriott Project and Staff replied that this item was scheduled for the Council's discussion at the City Council Meeting of January 19, 1999. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 10, 1998 Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that on page 8, paragraph 7, line 1, the word 'wuld' be modified to read as, `would` and line 3 be modified to read as, ...recommended an acceptable size of 5500 square feet...' 2. Minutes of December 8. 1998 Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that on page 4, paragraph, line 1, the word 'Cod' be modified to read as, 'Code`. Vice Chairman Cartwright requested that on page 4, paragraph 8, line 4, the roll -call vote be modified to read as, '(6-0)` since Chairman Clark recused himself from deliberations on the public hearing of that item (Height Variation No. 858 and Site Plan Review No 8243) Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Chairman that a request to speak on this item was submitted 2 Mr Herb Clarkson 6424 Seabryn Drive, requested that on page 13, paragraph 2, line 7 be modified to read as, ...ham radio antennas, similar in size and appearance as television, should be treated the same as television antennas.'. It was the consensus of the Commission to accept Mr Clarkson's request Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the Minutes of November 10, 1998 and December 8, 1998 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Review of the Development Agreement for Tract No. 46628; Oceanfront Estates, Subregion 1. City Attorney Lynch gave a brief summation of the Staff Report regarding to three mayor provisions of the Development Agreement for this project First, with respect to the maintenance obligations, the open space lots, streets, sewers, and storm dram facilities would be dedicated to the City. Secondly, a slant drain would be installed to accommodate the drainage from the tract City Attorney Lynch stated that this was pointed out during the discussion of agreement and that it would be convenient if the City tied into this slant drain for the Interpretive Center site drainage By doing so the City would be increasing their proportionate share of the cost to upgrade the size of the slant dram and also the total cost of installing the connection of the main slant drain to the Pointe Vicente Interpretive Center property. Thirdly, a sum of $750,000 00 was to be paid to the City by the developer in three installments over a 2 -year period as a fund to ensure that there are adequate monies available to the City to maintain the open space areas and public streets. If the open space is changed to a revenue -generating purpose while the agreement is in effect, the City would be required to refund the developer a pro rata share of that $750,00 00 In conclusion Staff recommended that the Commission forward the Development Agreement for Tract No 46628 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had questions for Staff Commissioner Alberio asked how many acres of the open space would be dedicated to the City and City Attorney Lynch replied approximately 71 acres Commissioner Slayden asked if the agreement called for the developer to provide landscaping on Palos Verdes Drive South and Director/Secretary Rojas replied that 3 landscaping would be included in the median Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the slant drain was a sewer drain and City Attorney Lynch replied that the slant drain would be utilized for storm drainage Vice Chairman Cartwright asked what would happen after the ten year term of the development agreement expires. City Attorney Lynch responded that not much change would occur, but that the sole purpose of the ten year agreement was that the developer would be able to develop their project with the codes that are in effect at the time of execution of the agreement. Commissioner Paris asked if the open space at Subregion 1 could be utilized by the surrounding development City Attorney Lynch responded that this could not be done because once the final map for the proposed project is recorded all of the open space properties would be dedicated to the City. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commission Paris and passed. Mr Bob Trapp, (developer) 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA, stated that City Attorney Lynch explained that the agreement was very well done and added that the landscaping would be done with coastal sage, the $750,000 00 fund has been established with the City, and that the slant drain would pick-up the drainage from Palos Verdes Drive South Mr. Larry Haddad, 30643 Rue Valois, stated that he recently learned of the development agreement for this tract and was in opposition Mr Haddad questioned whether the City had considered utilizing the open space for a golf course Chairman Clark replied that the Development Agreement indicated flexibility in terms of potential active or passive recreational uses Mr Ron Blackwelder, 30531 Rue Langlois, stated that his comments were similar to those of the previous speaker and added that the surrounding neighbors were concerned with the natural habitat at the subject site. Director/Secretary Rojas replied that a 4d Permit was approved by the City in which revegetation was required (coastal sage scrub) at the subject site. Ms Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentme Road stated that she appealed to this development in 1992 and stated that golf courses were toxic waste sites El Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item and there were none. Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staffs recommendation to forward the Development Agreement for Tract No. 46628 to the City Council recommending approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed by a roll -call vote, (7-0). With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. City Attorney Lynch informed the Chairman that Mr. Mark Abrams approached Staff to request that his item (Agenda Item No 5) be considered before Agenda Item No. 3 as he will be out of town and would not be available for the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for January 12, 1999 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to re -order the Agenda so that Item No. 5 was considered before Item No. 4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Clarification of Conditions for Minor Exception Permit No. 538 and Encroachment Permit No. 29; Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive. Director/Secretary Rojas pointed out to the Commission that these applications were approved by the Commission at the meeting of October 27, 1998 The discussion focused on the lighting fixtures placed on top of six (6) pilasters on the applicants property After final action Staff found the directions to be unclear (from Staff perspective) on whether the placement of light fixtures was permitted on the six (6) pilasters within the public -right-of-way on Oceanaire Drive and also whether the installation of the wrought -iron fence panels between pilasters was approved on the front slope and along the toe of the slope. Mr. Rojas stated that the applicant's interpretation differed from Staffs. Since there was no appeal on this project, Staff felt it appropriate to bring back this item for clarification on the light fixtures and wrought iron fence. Chairman Clark asked the Commission if they had questions for Staff Commissioner Paris questioned the position of the base and pole of the applicant's timing of improvement He felt that it was encroaching onto the right of way at the front wall and that it was unsafe and obtrusive to motorists driving by Commissioner Vannorsdall asked verification if the light fixtures were discussed at that meeting and Director/Secretary Rojas replied that this was not discussed since Staff recommended denial of the pilasters Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed Mr Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, addressed Commissioner Paris' concern regarding his mail box and stated that it was positioned in the public right of way and approved over the counter by Staff In regard to the light fixtures, he built the pilasters with lights as was always his intention. He initially did not realize that the pilasters exceeded the height limitation and became aware when Code Enforcement Staff informed him that the pilasters are limited to 42" Mr Abrams reduced the height of the pilasters from approximately 50" to the required height and stated he was told that the light fixtures could not be placed on the pilasters He felt that the light fixtures would not create any type of traffic hazard, but that it would benefit for safety purposes at his property. Mr. Abrams pointed out that there were no street lights in the neighborhood and that the only time his lights would be illuminated was when he had visitors He explained that the lights closest to his home did not project down towards the slope and that the wall at the front of his home creates a shadow making visibility difficult for his visitors Mr Abrams stated that there was a hazard at the entrance to his property due to inadequate lighting at the stairway Therefore he felt it would be appropriate to place lighting in that particular location Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Abrams to comment on the 4 light fixtures on the pilasters that Staff discussed. Mr. Abrams stated that he preferred 6 light fixtures, including lights on the two pilasters at the front wall to avoid any potential hazards to his visitors Commissioner Lyon pointed out that the adjacent resident had similar light fixtures and asked Mr. Abrams if this lighting blinded him while driving up the street. Mr. Abrams responded that he has never had a problem and that the adjacent resident rarely turns their lights on Commissioner Paris asked Mr Abrams if he was aware that the positioning of his mail box before the front wall encroachment even more onto the public right of way. Mr Abrams admitted the fact and stated that Staff approved the location even though he pointed out that the mail box was in the public right of way. Commissioner Paris asked Mr Abrams if he explained the mass of the base of the mail box to Staff and Mr. Abrams replied his contractor received the approval, and he could not respond further to Commissioner Paris' question Commissioner Paris stated for the record that he had 31 a concern with the size and location of Mr. Abrams' mailbox Commissioner Paris asked Mr Abrams if he considered installing lighting within the stairway. Mr. Abrams replied that his contractor advised him not to since it there would be constant maintenance problems. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Abrams if his mail box was built at the time the Commission considered his applications for the light fixtures and the wrought iron fence. Mr. Abrams replied that he could not recollect a date. Mr Ian MacDonald 47 Qceanaire Drive, stated that the light fixtures were distracting when driving up the street and could create a potential traffic hazard Mr MacDonald suggested that the applicant consider installation of motion detector lights. Commissioner Lyon moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item Commissioner Paris felt that the light fixtures would stand out and were not well placed, that the mail box was unsafe, and that the wrought iron fence encroached even further into the public right of way Commissioner Paris did not support the applicant's proposal Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that the applicant install downcast lights to avoid safety hazards and that such lights would not be obtrusive. Vice Chairman Cartwright echoed the comments of Commissioner Vannorsdall, but added that he had no concern with the applicant's mail box, and he believed that the wrought iron fence was part of the design. Commissioner Alberio concurred with the comments of Commissioner Vannorsdall and Vice Chairman Cartwright Commissioner Lyon pointed that the applicant's design was very well done and that he had no objections to the mail box since it complied with the requirements. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to allow down -casting lighting on the six (6) pilasters and accept the design of the wrought iron fence. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed (6-1) by a roll -call vote with Commissioner Paris dissenting. 7 Director/Secretary Rojas asked clarification from the Commission regarding wattage for the light fixtures or if the down -casting lights would solve that issue and the Commission's consensus was that the down -casting would resolve the problem RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Clark called for a brief recess at 8 40 P M until the meeting reconvened at 8.55 P.M. at which time the Commission considered Agenda Item No.4. CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Code Amendment No. 42: Citywide. Director/Secretary Rous stated that at the December 8, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting the Commission reviewed the Ad Hoc Committee's draft ordinance and Staffs simplified ordinance for second antenna structures and determined to continue further review and discussion of the draft ordinance to the meeting of December 22, 1998 During that time, Staff and the City Attorney had drafted a simplified version of the Ad Hoc Committee's draft version (Draft Antenna Ordinance No 2) upon the City Council's direction for review by the Commission Director/Secretary Rojas pointed out that the revised Draft Antenna Ordinance No 1 (Ad Hoc Committee's most recent version from the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting of December 7, 1998) was included with the Staff Report also for the Commission's review. Mr. Rotas stated that the Chairman (Gilbert Alberio) of the Ad Hoc Committee would explain the minor changes made from that meeting Director/Secretary Rojas explained that Staffs Draft Antenna Ordinance No. 2 was drafted by taking the existing Code and making some modifications to the ham radio antenna section, satellite dish section, based on comments received from the amateur radio club and the ad hoc committee members through months of meetings, but in a simplified format. Staff and the City Attorney compiled Draft No 2 under time constraints and after reviewing the draft felt that additional improvements could be made Director/Secretary Rojas concluded that when the Commission begins dialogue on that draft Staff and the City Attorney would explain the specifics of the ordinance in detail Commissioner Alberio explained that the Ad Hoc Committee worked on a simplified version upon the Commission's request At the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting of December 7, 1998 some modifications were made to the Committee's draft antenna ordinance from comments received by the Amateur Radio Club Commissioner Alberio 0 stated that Commissioner Lyon would explain those modifications and that the Ad Hoc Committee recommended forwarding their draft to the City Council for approval Chairman Clark asked the Commission if they had questions for the Ad Hoc Committee members. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if the Staff were active members of the Committee and Chairman Alberio replied that the Committee was composed of himself, Commissioners Lyon and Vannorsdall with support from City Attorney Lynch and Director/Secretary Rojas and then stated that Councilmember McTaggart became part of the Committee upon the direction of the City Council Before further discussion of this item, Chairman Clark proposed to open the public hearing, take in public testimony, close the public hearing, hold Commission discussion page by page on Draft No 1 and if time permits, discussion on Draft No 2 would take place Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Mr. Ian MacDonald, 47 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he reviewed the three different versions of the draft antenna code and agreed with the draft ordinance that the Ad Hoc Committee compiled Mr. Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, felt that the Ad Hoc Committee's draft ordinance went beyond the federal guidelines which stated what operators could do He stated that this draft had many categories of antennas included in the commercial section Mr. Tom Vegors, P 0 Box 2181, had concerns with the Ad Hoc Committee's draft such as the relative size, felt that it was too restrictive, the square footage numbers were too small, and that E2 antennas required full Commission approval Mr Vegors stated that Draft No 2 only addressed the concerns of the City Council, and that Draft No 3 also required full Commission review Mr. Herb Clarkson, 6424 Seabryn Drive, stated that he provided comments to Staff in regards to Draft Ordinance No 3 Mr Clarkson pointed out that only a few members of the public received Draft Ordinance No 2, and that the Amateur Radio Club had 26 items of the concern in regards to Draft Ordinance No 1 Of those 26 items only 3 to 4 were addressed at the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting of December 7, 1998 and requested the Commission review the Ad Hoc Committee's updated comments from that meeting W Ms. Dodie Clarkson 6424 Seabryn Drive commented on her letter to Staff in regards to a minor modification that needed to be made on the Ad Hoc Committee's November 20th Draft Ordinance. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed. At this time, the Commission reviewed Draft Antenna Ordinance No. 1 page by page beginning with, Page 1 Commissioner Lyon pointed out that the language modification was made to Condition No 8 to read as, 'Hand held antennas and antennas attached to motorized vehicles do not require approval 'at the December 7th Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Chairman Clark asked clarification in regards to Condition No 5 ('Indemnification') whether it was enforceable by the City. City Attorney Lynch replied that she had concern with this provision since there are no similar provisions for many other approvals Ms Lynch stated that it was adjusted to deal with the negligence or willful misconduct of the applicant and that this was required of the applicants when they submit an application to the City Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if there was any other language indicating that current permits had to be brought up to date and Commissioner Lyon replied no. The Commission concurred with the modified draft language on Page 1. Page 2 Chairman Clark asked what was the logic behind 3 inch diameter requirement for the definition of 'Vertical Antenna'. Commissioner Lyon replied that the existing Code indicated a 2" limitation and the Ad Hoc Committee suggested 3" to accommodate a higher mass and provide antenna integrity City Attorney Lynch was not comfortable with the word 'unobtrusive' and suggested modifying to a linear definition The Commission concurred with the modified draft language on Page 2. Page 3 Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if the Ad Hoc Committee considered a higher figure than $500.00 in the definition of'Commercial Use' of an antenna and Commissioner 10 Lyon responded that different amounts were considered. In the'Commercial Antenna' section, No. 2.a ii, Chairman Clark felt that there was a difference between a visual buffer and preserving privacy of adjoining residential property City Attorney Lynch gave an example of the difference and stated that one could have a commercial antenna in a commercial zone which might have an ancillary structure. You could have a visual buffer around the antenna and perhaps also require that the ancillary structure be located in a way such that it would preserve privacy The Commission concurred with the draft language on Page 3. Paoe 4 Chairman Clark asked where the standards came from in regards to 2b City Attorney Lynch replied that these numbers were discussed when the original ordinance was adopted Commissioner Lyon suggested that the Commission use Draft Ordinance No. 2 since it incorporated comments from the City Attorney and Director/Secretary Rojas Commissioner Albeno suggested inserting Staffs language from Draft Ordinance 2 for 'commercial antennas'. The Commission concurred with what was discussed on Page 4 and continued on to Page 5. Pastes 5 through 7 There were no comments by the Commission The Commission concurred with the draft language on Pages 5, 6, and 7. Page 8 The Commission discussed the draft language and left it as written Page g Commissioner Slayden objected to No. 3e. City Attorney Lynch replied that the current code indicated that there is only one master dish allowed. Ms. Lynch stated that Federal rules have recently changed requiring exemption for small antenna dishes that the City could not impose Vice Chairman Cartwright felt that the Director should approve all satellite antenna applications The Commission concurred with the draft language on Page 9. 11 Page 10 There were no comments by the Commission The Commission concurred with the draft language on Page 10. Page 11 Chairman Clark felt that the conditions in No 7 for the 'Approval Process' were too broad City Attorney Lynch replied that the City was trying to comply with the Federal law and that it stated one could not impose reasonable restrictions that prevent reception of television and satellite dish antennas. The commission concurred with the draft language on Page 11. Page 12 There were no comments by the Commission. The Commission concurred with the draft language on Page 12. Page 13 Since this page required extensive discussion and due to the late hour, Chairman Clark suggested continuing the discussion of the remainder of Draft Ordinance No 1, in addition to Draft Ordinance Nos 2 and 3 to a date certain Chairman Clark moved to continue discussion of Draft Antenna Ordinance Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to an adjourned meeting on January 6, 1999. With no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by the Chairman. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff - 6. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission Meetinq of January 12, 1999. Commission. None. 12 COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) ADJOURNMENT At 11:30 P.M. Commissioner Paris moved to adjourn the meeting to a special meeting on Wednesday, January 6, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Room at Hesse Park. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. 13