Loading...
PC MINS 19981208CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1998 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED 12/22/98 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 Commissioner Lyon 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 Absent. None Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Principal Planner Snow, Assistant Planners Louie and Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Clark moved to re -order the Agenda Items in the following order; 5, 1, 3, 2, 4, and 6. With no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by the Chairman, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Council Policy Items Director/Secretary Rojas pointed out that the City Council Minutes of August 31, 1998 (Joint Workshop) and October 20, 1998 were included in the Commission's packets for their information. Director/Secretary Rojas updated the Commission of the Council's discussions at the November 17, 1998 City Council Meeting regarding Site Plan Review No. 8311 (Highridge Carwash) on the relocation of the canopy which was appealed by Councilmember McTaggart. After the public testimony of that item the Council upheld the appeal and approved the project with modifications to the location of the canopy, i driveway, and gas pumps and included conditions for the prohibition of the loud speaker and regarding future review requirements Also discussed by the Council at that meeting were East and West Parks relative to the Ocean Trails project and the issue of making sure that the walls and landscaping would not significantly impair the views at the intersection of Forrestal and Palos Verdes Drive South. Director/Secretary updated the Commission on the Council's discussion and action at the City Council Meeting of December 1, 1998 pertaining to the Antenna Moratorium The Council extended the moratorium through April 20, 1999 and also directed Staff to review the Draft Commercial Antenna Ordinance and return with a recommendation of necessary amendments and alternate draft codes Staff Staff distributed 1) copies of an antenna structure photograph provided by Commissioner Alberio, 2) copies of a matrix pertaining to Agenda Item No 2 (Height Variation No 856, 3) three items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No (Code Amendment No 42), and, 5) flyers regarding the Southwest Area Planning Council December Monthly Meeting on December 10, 1998 Principal Planner Snow informed the Commission that additional late correspondence was not distributed since it was received by Staff after the Monday afternoon deadline The late correspondence pertained to Agenda Item Nos 2 and 4 Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Monthly Breakfast and stated that discussions focused on the extension and expansion of the Antenna Moratorium Commissioner Alberio received correspondence from Ms Karyl Newton, Ms Jill Conner, and Mr Ian MacDonald regarding Agenda Item No (Code Amendment No 42) CONSENT CALENDAR None. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 2 Agenda Item No 5 was considered by the Commission at this time PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Review of the Development Agreement for Tract No. 46628; (Oceanfront Estates) - Principal Planner Snow explained that there were ongoing negotiations between the City Manager, City Attorney, and the applicant Therefore, the final document agreement was not ready for presentation to the Commission that evening Staff therefore recommended that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of December 22, 1998 Chairman Clark asked if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied that there were none. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the meeting of December 22, 1998. The motion was seconded by commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (7-0) by a roll -call vote. The Commission considered Agenda Item No 1 at this time. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation no. 858 and Site Plan review No. 8243*3311 Nadno Drive. Applicant: Jeff & Susan Wolfrum. Chairman Clark recused himself from this item since he resided within the 500 foot radius of the proposed project. Vice Chairman Cartwright led the discussion of this item. Assistant Planner Schonborn mentioned the matrix distributed regarding this item that included lot sizes of all the relevant properties within the neighborhood Mr Schonborn presented the Staff Report and stated that this item was considered by the Commission at the June 23, 1998 meeting and that Staff recommended denial of the proposed project at that time due to the fact that not all of the findings could be made to warrant approval At that meeting, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations and expressed their concerns as follows. 1) the two-story addition was too close to the street and the pie -shaped lot intensified the impact, and 2) the addition appeared as a `pop-up' design. The Commission suggested that the applicant consider hiring an architect to provide creative solution for redesigning the proposed project Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 3 Staff met with the applicant to discuss the Commission's directions and the applicant agreed to redesign The applicant submitted modified plans in October 1998. Staff believed that all the necessary findings for the modified project could be made thus warranting approval of the revised proposal Therefore Staff recommended approval of Height Variation No 858 and site Plan Review No. 8243, subject to conditions Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied that there was one request to speak Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Ms Olympia Greer, (architect), 267 Palos Verdes Drive West, reiterated the comments of Assistant Planner Schonborn and stated that her client redesigned the proposed project and now requested approval of a 1,105 square foot second -story addition over the existing structure, up to 26 feet high, and to construct 400 square feet of additional first -story floor area Commissioners Alberio, Vannorsdall, and Vice Chairman Cartwright commended the architect for a job well done, and for a design that was appropriate for the lot and neighborhood Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission comments on this item and there were none. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve Staff's recommendation and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 98-40; thereby conditionally approving Height Variation No. 858 and Site Plan Review No. 8243. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (6-0) by a roll -call vote, with Chairman Clark having recused himself on this item. Vice Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. At this time Chairman Clark returned to the dais and Agenda Item No 3 was considered by the Commission Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 182 - Revision `A'; 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard. Applicant: Bill Meyers. Chairman Clark introduced the project and asked for the Staff Report Assistant Planner Louie summarized the Staff Report and stated that the applicant submitted a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 182 requesting an expansion to the existing use to permit an off-site sales of beer and wine within the existing convenience store from 5,00 A M to 11 00 P M on Sunday through Thursday, and 5.00 A M to midnight on Friday through Saturday. Staff determined that the findings could be made as discussed in the written Staff Report to warrant approval of Conditional Use Permit No 182 - Revision 'A' for the sales of alcoholic beverages within the existing convenience store Therefore, Staff recommended approval of this item Chairman Clark asked how many speakers were present to give testimony on this item and Staff replied that there were five speakers Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Mr. Bill Meyers, (applicant) 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard, believed that his request was a necessary part for his convenience store. Mr. Meyers stated that he had no problems of his convenience store and added that security measures were not a problem either since he installed surveillance equipment and that the local authorities would always frequent the subject site Mr. Nick Mowlds. 6832 Verde Ridge Road, favored the proposed project. Mr. Mowlds stated that the applicant's service station was an upscale in the community and reiterated that surveillance was adequate since the local authorities frequented the area of the subject site Mr. Mel Steinberg, 28003 Lomo Drive, stated that the homeowners situated near the subject property objected to the construction of this convenience center in 1995 and although approved by the Commission, felt that the concerns of the community were omitted Mr Steinberg stated that the applicant's request would create additional traffic, and he opposed the revision too the Conditional Use Permit as he did not want liquor stores anywhere in Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Steinberg also stated his disagreement with the City's 500 foot notice radius believing it was not broad enough Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 5 Ms. Mary Jane Thompson, 28043 Santana Drive, objected to the proposed project and stated that she did not condone the sale of alcohol at the convenience store. Mrs. Thompson stated that the mix of alcohol and gasoline fuel was a very deadly mix and that the City does not need any liquor stores at every corner Mrs Thompson stated that the applicant's request would create an impact to the neighborhood including increased traffic Chairman Clark pointed out that the Municipal Code has specific findings and conditions regarding this issue that have been applied to this project Ms Ann Zwiebeck, 28042 Santona Drive, also objected to the sales of alcohol at the subject site and stated that it was detrimental to youths in the area. Ms Zwiebeck felt that this would corrupt the community and strongly requested that the Commission deny the applicant's request Impacts cited included alcohol related domestic violence, neighborhood environment, and commercial traffic. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. Chairman Clark asked Mr Meyer's to approach the podium for rebuttal Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to re -open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed. Mr. Meyers stated that he has been complimented about the landscaping on his property and has no refuse problems Mr. Meyers stated that he monitored youths who entered his store and tried to purchase tobacco He further stated that the mix of alcohol and gasoline occurs when people drive to and from grocery stores to purchase alcoholic beverages With regards to the sales of alcoholic beverages to minors, Mr Meyers has installed a scanning system to assist in ensuring that such sales are not authorized Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. the motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. A request from he audience for rebuttal comments by those opposing the project was voiced. Commissioner Alberio moved to re -open the Public Hearing. The motion failed for lack of a second. Chairman Clark asked for Commission comments and discussion on this item. Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 6 1�1 11 Commissioner Alberio supported Staff s recommendation Commissioner Alberio stated if the Seven -Eleven Convenience Store license was revoked, that he would oppose the applicant's request Commissioner Vannorsdall also supported Staff s recommendation Commissioner Slayden concurred, but sympathized with the homeowners who were in opposition of the sales of alcohol at the subject property Commissioner Lyon believed in encouraging and permitting competition within the community. Commissioner Lyon saw no basis in not approving the protect. Commissioner Paris felt that the supervision in the convenience store was adequate He too was in support of Staff's recommendation Vice Chairman Cartwright sympathized with the community concerns, however, stated that this was nothing new in the community. Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that the Seven -Eleven Convenience Store was adjacent to the subject property and that the City has no record of any incidents occurring at that location. Chairman Clark pointed out in the Staff Report that one of the findings made were that the sale of alcohol and gasoline at the subject property were not detrimental to the safety and health of the community Chairman Clark also supported Staff's recommendation, noting that a condition of approval requiring a six month review of the activities was proposed Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve Staffs recommendation and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 98-41; thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 182 - Revision `A', subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed, (7-0) by a roll -call vote. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Clark called for a brief recess at 8 45 P.M until the meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. in which at this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 7 CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation No. 856; 32415 Nautilus drive Applicant: Mag aly Perea; Owner: Michael Sribgey. Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the Staff Report and stated that this item was considered by the Commission on July 28, 1998. Staffs recommendation was to deny the application since not all of the findings could be made in a positive manner to warrant approval of the requested Height Variation The Commission agreed with Staff and provided the applicant with direction in modifying the proposed project The Commission believed that the height of the proposed second story expansion impaired the ocean view from the viewing area at 32414 Nautilus and suggested that a lower height could preserve some of the ocean view and perhaps a flat roof could address the problem. The Commission also indicated that the design of the proposed project seem to appear as a 'pop-up' design and suggested that the applicant recess the proposed addition further back The applicant considered the suggestions of the Commission and submitted a modified proposal addition in October 1998. Staff believed that all of the findings could be made in a positive manner for the raised proposal to warrant approval of the Height Variation based on the Commission direction to the applicant and on the analysis of the modified project. Therefore, Staff recommended approval of the modified plans Chairman Clark asked if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied that there were six speakers that submitted requests to speak. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Mr. Michael Sribne� (applicant) 32415 Nautilus Drive, thanked the Commission for providing direction in modifying his project Mr. Sribney compromised from proposing a flat -roof and removed hedges and trees to lessen the view impact of the adjacent resident, along with other modifications discussed in the Staff Report. Ms. Magaly Perea, (architect) 1161 Thorson Avenue, Lynwood, CA 90262 stated that her client had consultation with the adjacent neighbor (Rodriguez's) and their architect and explained that modifications include lowering the structure to a flat -roof design Ms. Tamara Scribnev, 324154 Nautilus Drive, stated that her home did not have the adequate space to store her furnishings and explained that this request was for a workspace in her home, and need additional space for her family. Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 8 Mr. Craig Douglas, 32420 Nautilus Drive, stated that the Sribney's occupied the smallest home on the block. Mr. Douglas stated that the specifics of the applicant's plans would impact the area however, the applicant's trees would cover the power lines which were an eye soar in the area Mr Douglas stated that Mr. Scribney brought in beautification plans for the community, and that he supported the proposed protect. Mr. Celso Rodriguez, 32410 Nautilus Drive, stated his opposition to the project, and that his architect would be able to answer questions from the Commission Mr. Louis Romero, (Rodriguez's architect) 24303 Walnut Street, Suite 'C', Norwalk, CA represented the Rodriguez's and stated that the issue was that his client's view was being blocked off. He also stated that his client had expended a good amount of money since the purchase of his home and that the modified plans of the applicant's roof design to a flat feature (2'-8") did not make a big difference Chairman Clark asked Mr Sribney to approach the podium for rebuttal Mr. Sribney stated that he had no intention to affect the neighborhood in a negative way He tried to compromise and stated that if the Rodriguez's or the Commission desire a pitched -roof design that he would have no problem in changing the proposed back t the previously proposed design Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed. Chairman Clark asked for Commission comments and discussion on this item Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the modified plans were well done, but that he also supported the idea of a pitched -roof. Commissioners Slayden and Lyon concurred with the comments of Commissioner Vannorsdall. Commissioner Paris believed that the intent of the modified addition was to provide a dwelling space rather than an office space as requested by the applicant. He objected to the style and was not in support of the modified plans Commissioner Alberio opposed the idea of a flat roof and preferred the pitched -roof design Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 9 Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that the Rodriguez's should have been aware of the applicant's proposal before purchasing his property due to the silhouette. Vice Chairman Cartwright was comfortable with the applicant's modified plans Chairman Clark supported the modified plans and felt that the applicant had redesigned the protect well. Chairman Clark asked the Rodriguez's if they agreed with the style of the proposed roof design Vice Chairman Cartwright moved to re -open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Chairman Clark asked Mr Rodriguez if he agreed with the pitched -roof design rather than the flat roof design and Mr Rodriguez replied that he preferred the pitched -roof design Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed. Principal Planner Snow asked for clarification if the Commission desired to return tot he previous proposal of a pitched -roof with an overall height of 20'-6" and if the applicant agreed to this change. Vice Chairman Cartwright moved to re -open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Chairman Clark asked if a compromise was made between the applicant and Mr Rodriguez to a pitched -roof design, and what the proposed height of the structure would be Magalay Perea (applicant's architect) replied that the proposed overall height of the structure would change to 20'-6" and that the roof design would change to a 3 and 12 pitch roof. Chairman Clark asked the applicant and the neighbor (Rodriguez) if they agreed with the pitched -roof design and they replied that they had no problem with the suggested modification Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. Based on the input from the neighbor (Mr. Rodriguez), the analysis of the other modifications to the project, and the view analysis completed for the project, the Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 10 # 0 Commission felt that no significant view impact would occur from the pitched -roof design, and that the project met the required findings for approval Commissioner Paris did not agree with this determination Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staffs recommendation and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 98-42; thereby approving Height Variation No. 856 up to a maximum height of 20-6" with a pitched -roof, subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (6-1) by a roll -call vote with Commissioner Paris dissenting. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman called for a second recess at 1015 P.M and reconvened at 10.30 P M in which the Commission then considered Agenda Item No 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Code Amendment No. 42; Citywide. Director/Secretary Rojas briefly explained the background of this item and stated that the ad hoc committee finalized its draft ordinance on November 19th and forwarded it to the Commission for review and consideration. Copies of the draft ordinance were also distributed to the City Council for their information prior to the Council Meeting of December 1, 1998 At that meeting Staff provided a schedule to the Council estimating that the ad hoc committee's draft ordinance would be approved by the Commission on January 12, 1999, adopted by the Council on February 16, 1998 and go into effect March 16, 1999 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No 342U based on the ad hoc committee's schedule, thereby extending the new broad moratorium to April 20, 1999. The Council directed Staff and the City Attorney to. 1) review the commercial antenna portion of the existing code to determine if any amendments were necessary, 2) draft a simplified version of the ad hoc committee's ordinance, and 3) draft and ordinance that limits the issuance of restricting second antenna support structures on a lot Staff and the City Attorney drafted a second antenna support structure ordinance for the Commission's review that evening Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission due to time constraints Staffs draft ordinance (No 3) would not be ready for the Commission's review until the Commission meeting of December 22, 1998. Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 11 Therefore, before the Commission that evening was the ad hoc committee's draft antenna ordinance and Staffs draft second antenna support structure ordinance Staff recommended that the Commission review both draft ordinances, take public testimony, and continue this Item to the meeting of December 22, 1998 Chairman Clark asked Staff if there were any speakers for this Item and Staff replied that there were 22 requests to speak Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commission Lyon and passed. Ms Julie Sues 1837 Redondela Drive, was in support of ham radio use, particularly in emergency situations on the highways. She felt ordinances should not adversely impact emergency response ability Mr. Kevin Sue, 1837 Redondela Drive, stated that he was an 11 -year old ham user and supported ham radio use for emergency situations. Ms. Karyl Newton} 46 Oceanaire Drive, stated that the ad hoc committee's draft was not perfect, but felt that a balance between the ham radio operators and residents could be made Ms. Newton stated that the draft ordinance was clear The following speakers approached the podium ane -by -one and all concurred with the comments of Karyl Newton Ms Mary Papps} 25 Oceanaire Drive, Ms Barbara Walch 34 Oceanaire Drive, Mr. Michael Cicona. 62 Oceanaire Drive, and, Mr George Papps, 25 Oceanaire Drive Mr. Ian MacDonald, 47 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he understood the draft ordinance and did not think that it was too complex. Mr MacDonald suggested deleting Category 'E' and replacing it with 'one antennae for each ham owner % and deleting Category'G' based on negotiating a permit requirement Ms. Ilse Oetiker, 6504 Via Baron, was not present by Ms. Karyl Newton spoke on her behalf stating that Ms Oetiker was in support of the draft ordinance Mr. Mark Abrams} 44 Oceanaire Drive, expressed concerns with the commercial antenna regulations Mr Abrams stated that antennas do no effect property value Mr. Skip Hansen 3250 Martingale Drive, stated that the current draft was not simple to comprehend and that much modification was needed. Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 12 Mr. Demetrius Hatzesonti 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, stated that there were too many restrictions on the current draft and believed that the ordinance should follow the rules of the FCC Mr. Jack Carter, 28911 Golden Meadow Drive, recognized the work of the ad hoc committee and stated that he has put a lot of time in this protect. Mr. Carter also stated that the ad hoc committee and the Amateur Radio Club worked well together on the draft ordinance However, the Amateur Radio Club's goals were to minimize restrictions on hand held radios They felt that mobil antennas should be exempted and temporary antennas be allowed to be erected for a limited time Mr Carter felt that ham radio antennas, similar in size and appearance as television should be treated the same as television antennas. Mr. Dale Hanks 5225 Middlecrest Road, stated that the commercial antenna issue was not covered at the ad hoc committee meetings and felt that this Issues should be addressed Mr Hanks stated that the commercial antenna section was written for huge antennas and not small antennas. Mr. Hanks stated that the ad hoc committee led the Council to believe that they were working on amendments for commercial antennas. Ms. Frances Wielin, 16 Seaview Drive was concerned with the overly restricted ordinance. She expressed her support for Mr Carter Mr Herb Clarkson, 6424 Seabryn Drive, stated that modifications were still necessary, but believed that there should be a balance between the interest of the public and the FCC Mr. John Freeman, 6850 Faircove Drive, requested that the Commission consider 33 issues at the meeting of December 22, 1998 since these issues were not yet addressed by the ad hoc committee Ms Dodie Clarkson 6424 Seabryn Drive, pointed out her concerns on pages 1 and 2 of the draft ordinance and stated that more modifications were necessary Cllr. Tom Vegors^ P O Box 2181, stated that additional amendments were necessary and that he was frustrated with the current draft ordinance Mr. Robert Keefer, 5148 Silver Arrow Drive, concurred with the comments of Mr Vegors Mr. Harold Herman 8 La Vista Verde expressed his concerns on the restrictions in the draft ordinance and believed that more amendments were necessary too Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 13 Mr. Charles Belda, 464 Calle De Castelana, Redondo Beach, CA, was not present, but Mr. Abrams spoke on his behalf stating that Mr Belda was not pleased with the current draft code. The following speakers were not available to speak due to the late hour. Ms. Sueinn Thordarsoni 29122 Whites Point Drive, San Pedro, CA; and, Ms. Natalie Sue, 1837 Redondela Drive The Commission discussed whether the ad hoc committee should continue to work on their draft while Staff worked on a simplified version of the draft antenna ordinance as directed by the City Council Commissioner Lyon moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the meeting of December 22, 1998 and that the Ad Hoc Committee continue to work on their draft while Staff worked on a simplified version of the draft antenna ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. With no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS None. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff. 6. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 22, 1998. Commission: COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regardin non -agenda on -agenda items) None. Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 14 ADJOURNMENT At 1:33 A.M. Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, December 22, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Room at Hesse Park. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1998 Page 15