Loading...
PC MINS 19990112a . ; CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 1999 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED 1/26/99 0 L11 The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Lyon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon, and Chairman Cartwright Absent Commissioner Clark (absent/excused). Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, Principal Planner Snow, Associate Planner Mihranian, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Morreale APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Council Policy Items Approved City Council Minutes from the Meeting of December 1, 1998. Update from the City Council Meeting of January 5, 1999. Director/Secretary Rojas updated the Commission on the City Council's actions from the meeting of January 5, 1999 Mr Rojas noted the Final Tract Map and Development Agreement for Tract 46628 for the Subregion 1 property, and that the Council continued the review of the Final Map due to missing items. As far as the Development Agreement was concerned, the Council directed staff to make amendments regarding a refund of $750,000 00 related to a re -vegetation requirement. That issue will be presented to the City Council at the January 19, 1999 meeting Director Rojas further stated that the Marriott Appeal will be presented at the January 19, 1999 Council meeting also Staff Staff distributed late correspondence prior to the start of the meeting The first was a Newton letter regarding Item No 1. Second, was a MacDonald letter regarding Item No 1 Third, was a memorandum from Staff regarding prospective dates for Item No 2, the Joint Workshop meeting between City Council and the Planning Commission. And the last item was a copy of a Deed for the City Hall property, Upper Point Vicente, distributed at the request of Lois Larue Commission Chairman Cartwright referred to the December 1, 1998, City Council minutes regarding the information requested by the Council regarding the Antenna Ordinance He pointed out that the Council requested an Ad Hoc Committee draft, a Staff draft, and a focused proposal regarding only second antennas CONSENT CALENDAR No items. Chairman Cartwright gave a brief explanation of the Planning Commission rules and procedures Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentme Road, asked when Commissioner Lyon was voted in as Vice Chairman Chairman Cartwright explained that Vice Chairman Lyon was voted in at a duly noticed meeting of January 6, 1999. City Attorney Lynch explained that in the future when there are no items in the Consent Calendar, the Commission does not need to allow a speaker to speak until the end of the meeting under Audience Comments. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 42; Citywide. (JR) Director/Secretary Rous gave a staff report on this item and the intent of the Commission to discuss a couple of outstanding issues left over from the last meeting regarding commercial antennas and the concept of an antenna's projected area. He summarized Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1989 Page 2 that the Commission had agreed at the January 6, 1999 meeting to make modifications to the draft language of the Antenna Ordinance dated January 5, 1999, and stated that those changes had been made. The revised Draft dated January 7, 1999, was presented for the Commission's review Commissioner Albeno stated that the changes reflected in the Draft dated January 5, 1999, were a product of a meeting between the City Attorney, the Director, Vice Chairman Lyon, and himself in which they agreed upon changes to streamline the Ad Hoc Committee's Draft Ordinance Commissioner Vannorsdall read a statement (see attached) regarding the procedures of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Working Group in writing the Draft Antenna Ordinance. He felt some changes were made after the Commission's December 22, 1998 meeting that were not approved by the Ad Hoc Committee, and that the Staff Report is not correct on this matter. City Attorney Lynch stated the Staff Report is inaccurate in so far as it describes an "approved" version by the Ad Hoc Committee based on the January 6, 1999 meeting. It was in fact the product of a meeting between Committee Chairman Alberto, Vice Chairman Lyon, Director Rojas, and the City Attorney. As the City Attorney recalled, it was the direction of the Commission to go with the January 5, 1999 version as the base document for discussion purposes, and that document was further revised in anticipation of tonight's meeting based on comments at the meeting of January 6, 1999. Chairman Cartwright stated that it was clear at the January 6, 1999 meeting, after several Commissioners had stated their positions, that the Commission as a whole decided that the January 6, 1999 streamlined version would be used as a baseline for discussion. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked why the clearly marked amendment language of the December 17, 1998 version of the Draft Ordinance are not included in this current version. City Attorney Lynch explained discussions that occurred between Commissioners Alberio and Lyon, Director Rojas, and herself on December 28, 1998 At that meeting, City Attorney Lynch and Director Rojas continued to raise the issue that the Code was still too complex and needed to be reorganized and streamlined. There were a number of line by line changes that were discussed and noted. It was agreed upon that there would be some attempt to streamline and reorganize the Code in addition to making the line by line changes Commissioners Alberio and Vannorsdall continued to discuss the versions and changes therein Chairman Cartwright agreed there seemed to have been some confusion, but recommended that the Commission move forward at this point Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 3 I 1 0 0 Commissioner Paris asked if the version presented tonight would be reviewed line by line. Staff stated it could be done that way Chairman Cartwright suggested the version, dated January 7, 1999, be reviewed page by page allowing Staff to point out where changes have been recorded At the end of this review it would be opened up for public comment After some discussion, all Commissioners were in agreement to proceed in this manner Director Rojas began the review The line by line changes were discussed with the discussions being led by Vice Chairman Lyon, Director Rojas, and City Attorney Lynch On Page 1, under General Requirements, No 4, has been modified Specifically what was added is "antennas not exceeding 16 feet in height that are attached to vehicles parked on lots". Discussion included appropriate location(s) in the Ordinance for antennas not exceeding 16 feet attached to vehicles that are on parking lots, concluding that it should be added to Section 4.A 1. for completeness. Additionally, there was a change in wording for specificity, on Paragraph A.1 crossing off "primary" and "view" in the first line and "[adding] significantly impair a view as defined in Section 17 02 040" of the Development Code. One other change was in Item 2 of the same page In the second line "the Director or the Planning Commission" was added because it applies to both On new Page 13, under Section 11 Existing Antennas, "or County" was added to the first line After reviewing the changes, Vice Chairman Lyon stated that more discussion was necessary on the concept of projected area. City Attorney Lynch apologized to the Commission and the Committee for any confusion, and stated that she still had concerns that she wanted to express. She recapped that due to the Brown Act, meetings could be held only with two of the four Committee members Due to the timing of events such as the holidays and the closure of City Hall, alternate methods of communication should have been used to update everyone She apologized for any awkward situations that were created by the process undertaken Commissioner Slayden asked for discussion regarding the "Projected Area." There was discussion regarding the specifics on projected area of antennas, views, and the purpose of the regulation City Attorney Lynch stated her concern that staff be able to give a definitive answer to an applicant as to whether or not a given application will require staff level or Commission level review In order to do so, a more straight forward formula was recommended, as stated in the Staff report. Vice Chairman Lyon explained how the use of transverse elements with specific dimensional limitations was originally suggested Those dimensions were objectionable to the Radio Club, and after much discussion at different meetings, the Ad Hoc Committee came up with "projected area " This is the specific parameter that indicates obstruction of views. This "projected area" should serve as a dividing line between Director approval or Planning Commission approval The simplified dimensions proposed by Staff would amount to approximately ten square feet of projected area. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 4 .,.. 9 0 Commissioner Parts stated that he felt the radiating element size would be important and needs further defining if the Staff recommended approach were taken The comment was focused on the diameter of any radiating elements. Commissioner Slayden referred to one letter of late correspondence received which stated the Commission should be concerned with interference with view, as the primary concern Chairman Cartwright stated that the Commission is concerned with height and mass and how to define that, for antennas with many dimensions and elements Commissioner Slayden moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Mr. Herb Clarkson, 6424 Seabryn Drive, stated he was representing the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club He stated the Radio Club considered the "projected area" issue and found nothing that was suitable and practical to implement He feels we should rely on the Planning Director's expertise and opinion to determine what can be approved at Staff level or Planning Commission level, based on view impact He stated the whole projected area issue should be dropped and the Radio Club does not support it and that the issue was addressed by view preservation portions of the Ordinance. Commissioner Paris asked how many amateur antennas would be permitted by the Ordinance using the projected area standard. Mr. Clarkson stated his belief that two or three would conform to the proposed requirements. Mr. John Freeman, 6850 Faircove Drive, stated the view should be the only issue, as far as he is concerned. He suggested that on Page 12, Section 7 b be changed to "modify" from or "add" with respect to conditions on permits The City Attorney felt the change would be too narrowing. Mr. Freeman was also opposed to the use of the "maximum projected area" calculation Mr Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he originally brought up "maximum projected area" although in the form of "wind loading." He stated "wind loading" is significantly different than the concept of maximum projected area, which is not practical and will be hard to calculate Commercially manufactured antennas have wind loading specifications available for ease of implementation. Mr. Abrams questioned vehicle mounted antennas with respect to the prohibition on front yard antennas Mr Tom Vegors, P O Box 2181, stated under the projected area criteria none of the short wave radios would escape review by the Planning Commission Wind load is the only criteria that would be acceptable to him. He did not support the maximum projected area or measurement criteria, and felt that in the absence of view impacts, the size of antennas should not be arbitrarily limited Karyl Newton, 46 Oceanaire Drive, supported the "maximum projected area" measurement She believed, visual impact should be measured by length times width and that maximum projected area should be a determining factor as to if the Director or Planning commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 5 Planning Commission needs to approve an application. She stated her support of the Ordinance Ian MacDonald, 47 Oceanaire Drive, stated it is not the scenic view that may be obstructed by an antenna, but the view of the antenna itself that annoys the general public. Dale Hanks, 5225 Middlecrest Road, believed the word "cross-section" was used improperly in the definition of projected area He stated cross-section is defined as the area at right angles to an axis which he feels would be an area of little circles as this is written and create confusion in implementation Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Chairman Cartwright called for Commission discussion of the Ordinance Vice Chairman Lyon suggested that on Page 10 Item A 1 be completed to be identical to the earlier statement regarding antennas not exceeding 16 feet in height that are attached to vehicles parked on a lot He further stated that it is clear that any vehicle parked in a driveway is exempt as long as the antenna attached to it is less than 16 feet in height City Attorney Lynch concurred with this statement Vice Chairman Lyon suggested changing "cross-sectional area" to "visual area." Chairman Cartwright began a page by page review of the Draft. After some discussion, there was a decision to add to Page 1, Section A 4. "as measured from adjacent grade " City Attorney Lynch also suggested that the word `operable" should be placed in front of "motor vehicles" for clarity in the second line. Pages 2 through 9 had no recommended changes On Page 10, one change was made to Section 4 a 1 so it would read "hand-held antennas, antennas attached to vehicles on City streets, and antennas not exceeding 16 feet in height as measured from adjacent grade that are attached to operable motor vehicles parked on lots," the identical language as stated on Page 1 Vice Chairman Lyon suggested in the next Item the phrase "antennas that do not exceed the ridgeline" be changed to "antennas that do not extend above the ridgeline " This suggestion was passed Director Rojas pointed out that on Page 10, 4.A.iv. the word `outer" should be added in front of diameter City Attorney Lynch suggested on Pages 11 and 12 to change the name of the permit to Non -Commercial Antenna Permit to clarify applicability It was also agreed that on Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 6 Page 11, Section 6 A 2 and in any place that it is stated "Ham Radio Antenna Permit" or "Radio Amateur Antenna" this will be chanced to "Non -Commercial Antenna Permit" or "Non -Commercial Antenna " Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission comments and discussion on the matter of maximum projected area issue Commissioner Pans asked if maximum projected dimensions would be the proper phrase to use and also asked for further defining of radiating element. Commissioner Slayden had no comment. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated there is no way other than technical measurement of the maximum projected area. Commissioners Alberio, Slayden and Lyon agreed to change maximum "cross- sectional" area to maximum "visual" area It was also agreed that they would not consider the wind -load approach Vice Chairman Lyon moved to incorporate all the revisions that had been discussed and approve the draft as the recommended draft from the Planning Commission. Chairman Cartwright stated he felt it would it be appropriate to get input from staff before approval of the draft was considered Director Rojas stated that Staff recommends not using the maximum projected area concept, citing difficulty for applicants to know all the elements of the antenna and what the maximum visual area will be of the antenna above the ridgeline, and thus the difficulty in an applicant knowing what review process will be required before he/she applies He also explained the complexity of Staff having to confirm that in some manner Applicants will need to recognize up front that an application for an antenna may change from a Director approval to a Planning Commission approval at any time that the maximum projected area is revised or clarified. There was additional discussion on the subject of maximum projected area Vice Chairman Lyon moved to incorporate all the modifications discussed and to approve the document as a Planning Commission product to be forwarded to City Council for approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (6-0) by a roll call vote. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that although he voted in favor of this motion, he preferred the December 17, 1998 version of the Draft Ordinance A discussion ensued regarding Draft 2 and 3. It was decided Draft 2 and 3 would also be forwarded to the Council for informational purposes as part of the Staff Report per Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 7 0 their request 41 Director Rojas noted this item would be considered by the City Council on February 2, 1999 Commissioner Alberio excused himself from the remainder of the meeting at 9 30 P M RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Cartwright called for a ten-minute recess at 9:30 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 P M. Chairman Cartwright called the meeting back to order at 9:40 P.M. at which time he suggested that Agenda Item No. 2 be moved to the end of the agenda. With agreement of all Commissioners present, Item No. 2 was placed at the end of the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation No. 867 and Grading Permit No. 2062; Mr. Don Norton and Ms. Jean Beasley (applicants), 4040 Admirable Drive. (AM) Associate Planner Mihranian presented the Staff Report and stated the Height Variation application is before the Commission due to the fact that the majority of the second floor is over the garage except for small 5 foot setbacks on each side. A few items of concern were raised involving the viewing area of adjoining properties. Staff conducted a site analysis on properties located north of Admirable Drive, the viewing area of four properties located dominantly in the viewing corridor of the proposed development, and based on Staff analysis, Staff believed that there would be no significant impairment to the view from the viewing area of these properties. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, Staff did an analysis of the ten immediate properties adjacent to the property Staff found that the proposed addition is comparable to what is existing in the neighborhood Staff felt the Grading Permit for 105 cubic yards of grading to be warranted due to the fact that the garage will be lowered thereby minimizing the view impact Associate Planner Mihranian informed the Commission that Staff received seven letters from concerned residents, two in opposition, and five favoring the project, Associate Planner Mihranian stated that there were two corrections to be made to the Staff Report, one being that the garage will not be completely covered with the addition, but will instead have setbacks on two sides of five feet. The second correction is that the roof deck in the rear will be uncovered. Based on Staff analysis, Staff recommended the approval of Height Variation No 867 and Grading Permit 2062, subject to conditions Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 8 Chairman Cartwright inquired as to the date of the application since roof decks are currently banned in the City. Staff stated this project was submitted on September 21, 1998, before the prohibition of the roof decks on October 15, 1998 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing for this item. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed. Mr David Boyd, (architect), 24050 Madison Street, Suite 202, Torrance, stated that the applicants contacted him to design a remodel to solve some settling problems they have in the garage as well as to create additional living space The split level addition proposed will be an upgrade to the house and neighborhood without obstructing neighbors' views In addition, a cement area at the front of the property will be removed and new landscaping will be added Ms Jean Beasley, (applicant), 4040 Admirable Drive, stated in the design of their remodel they were attempting to avoid the pop-up addition look, and that they took every effort to minimize view impacts Commissioner Paris asked if there were a possibility to set back the garage further from the street side. Ms. Beasley responded that this would not be feasible since it would require moving the whole house back based on foundation locations. Ms Jennifer Garone, 4104 Exultant Drive, stated she was in opposition to the second story of the project asserting that it will obstruct their view significantly. She stated that if the addition were approved, her family would no longer have a view from a seated position in their viewing area. She also stated there would be a privacy impact if the addition is approved. Commissioner Cartwright asked the distance from the applicant's house to her property. Associate Planner Mihranian replied approximately 200 fleet. Commissioner Paris stated he felt the Garone's view would not be obstructed more as a result of the structure than it is presently being obstructed by existing trees Commissioner Paris further noted that the trees will be removed or trimmed as part of the application requirements Commissioner Lyon asked if Ms Garone's view of Catalina Island would be obstructed Ms. Garone stated that her Catalina view would not be impacted Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to closed the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Lyon and passed. Commissioner Slayden stated that he sympathizes with the last speaker, but the community is changing due to new families moving in, that neighborhood is in transition, and people should be allowed to make additions to the legal height. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 9 • Commissioner Vannorsdall stated if residents don't continue to improve their homes, the neighborhood will degrade, so in the long run these changes are acceptable He also did not see any particular view impairment and supported the project. Vice Chairman Lyon concurred with Commissioner Vannorsdall's comments Commissioner Paris stated the addition maintains the character of the home, is well done, and reduces the amount of concrete in front making the appearance more pleasing He supported the project. Chairman Cartwright supported the Commissioners' consensus, but sympathized with Mrs Garone Based on a site visit, he did not feel that privacy was an issue due to the distance between the two homes. Further, he felt view impairment would be minimal and mitigated with the removal of trees He stated the design of the addition would enhance the neighborhood community and supported the project Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff's recommendation and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 99-01; thereby approving Height Variation No. 867 and Grading Permit No. 2062, subject to conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed, (5-0) by a roll call vote. Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. 4. Variance No. 441; Warmington Homes, (applicant) Tract 46651, Crest Road/Highridge Road. (ES) Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the Staff Report and clarified the height of the proposed signs as 6 feet, not 8 feet Staff stated the request for two separate signs is due to the fact that this tract is owned by two separate companies, each responsible for the sale of their own homes Staff's recommended denial of Variance 441, believing it to be contrary to the City's Development Code and General Plan The Commissioners asked questions of Staff regarding the size and number of the signs, the location of the signs, and the length of time the signs would remain up Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed. Mr Jim Warmington, 3090 Pullman Street, Suite A, representing one of the developers. He stated the need for two signs was based on the following to clarify for potential buyers the differences between the two developments, for legal purposes, and to improve the appearance from the frontage street while not blocking views. He further stated the Warmington Development consisted of two-story homes and the Pacific Heritage Development consisted of one-story homes Mr Warmington was open to suggestions as to sign placement and estimated the signs would remain in place through January 2000 when they project sales are expected to be complete. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 10 The Commissioners asked whether other options between the two developers were considered including the possibility of smaller signs. Potential traffic safety issues with two large signs were also discussed. Mr Carter Comaford, 30504 Rhone Drive, representing the Monaco Homeowner's Association, located immediately adjacent to the property in question Mr Comaford stated the tract of homes for sale is very visible and on a fast residential street He felt the developers sales would not be impeded by one smaller sign (6 feet high within the 32 square foot limit), as close to the entry road as possible so people will know where to turn in. He stated that two smaller (50-60 percent smaller) signs would be much less intrusive and acceptable. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission comments and discussion on this item. Commissioner Paris stated he felt two smaller signs unique to each developer would be much better. Chairman Cartwright mentioned that making signs smaller could make it difficult to read for vehicles driving by quickly Vice Chairman Lyon moved to re -open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. The Commission asked Mr. Warmington where sales offices will be located in the developments. Mr. Warmington responded there will be separate sales offices for the two developers. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked where placement of the signs was planned to be. Mr. Warmington stated the current location of Warmington's permitted sign and stated Pacific Heritage's sign was planned to be in a similar location as Warmington's either closer to the entrance or a little further away Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed. There was additional discussion between the Commissioners and Staff regarding the location of the signs, the possibility of smaller signs, and the suggestion of only one directional sign leading prospective buyers into the shared development, with interior signs to inform potential purchasers of the two different developers After further Commission discussion, it was decided the applicants should work together with Staff input and return with a revised proposal. Director Rous noted that traffic visibility impacts would be reviewed and trail location Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 11 verified prior to this item returning to the Planning Commission for consideration Commissioner Paris moved to have Staff work with the applicants to consider other options. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (5-0) by a roll call vote. 2. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Workshop; (DS) Principal Planner Snow gave a brief Staff Report regarding the recommended dates for a Joint Workshop between the City Council and Planning Commission He asked for Commission input as to possible dates to meet to discuss the Long Point Specific Plan Project Commissioner Slayden recommended no Saturdays and recommended the first two weeks in February Commissioner Paris will not be available after February 15, 1999. With the consensus of the Commission, the final dates suggested for the City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Workshop were February 1, 3, 8, 10, or 11, 1599. Principal Planner Snow will report back to the Planning Commission with a confirmed date at the next Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS .TCMI ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff - 5. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 26, 1999. Commission - Chairman Cartwright requested updated organizational charts of the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department as well as the Administration Department. In addition, he requested a report of the upcoming major projects in the City to be agendized at the next meeting. Commissioner Paris asked an Administrative type of question regarding the procedure to be followed if a Commissioner has comments on a project. Chairman Cartwright stated it would be helpful to him if questions and comments Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 12 were generally directed to the Chair, and his preference that Commissioner's wait until recognized by the Chair to speak. Director Rojas asked if the Planning Commission wanted to review Staff resumes. Chairman Cartwright said he would like that. He also requested an updated City roster. Director Rojas stated he just received an updated City roster today from the City Clerk and that will be copied and distributed at the next Planning Commission meeting. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, commented on the Ocean Trails and York Long Point Developments She stated she was concerned that the project might include City Hall property. After researching the subject, she requested a deed for the City Hall property and received it She stated that the property cannot be sold, leased, assigned, or otherwise disposed of except to another eligible government agency, and believed that the City knew of these restrictions and did not inform the public to date. At 11:22 P.M. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, January 26, 1999, in the Community Room at Hesse Park. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. W 1PClminutes\19990112 doc Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 13