Loading...
PC MINS 200003147 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Approved 3/29/00 rl-- The meeting was called to order at 7 00 p m by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Recording Secretary Peterson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Albeno, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon, Chairman Cartwright Absent Commissioner Clark was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Mihranian, and Recording Secretary Peterson. UNNOMOKS . Ji- M' 4 k, Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council approved the acquisition of property at Crenshaw Blvd and Crest Road for a senior affordable housing project Chairman Cartwright thanked Director/Secretary Rojas and the City for providing the opportunity to attend the Planning Conference in Monterey CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 22, 2000 Commissioner Paris questioned a statement on Page 18 of the minutes and requested the Recording Secretary check the tape for the accuracy of the statement. Commissioner Slayden noted a typographical error on Page 1 of the minutes Chairman Cartwright added language to the roll call section of Page 1. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Paris. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Site Plan Review No. 8816: Mohamad Chahine (applicant), 7460 Alida Place. Commissioner Alberio, moved to waive the reading of the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the staff report was waived. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. There were no speakers for this item. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Cartwright asked if staff had received any comments from the neighbors regarding the project. Director/Secretary Rojas replied that staff had received no comments from neighbors. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if there were going to be lights on the pilasters, as he was concerned that lights could be distracting to drivers He suggested putting a limit on the size of the light wattage, possible 25 wafts. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested adding a condition stating that after the lights were installed they shall be reviewed by the Director to verify that there is no glare impact to vehicles on the roadway. The Commission agreed with the two amendments Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-09, thereby approving Site Plan Review No. 8816 as amended, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). 3. Code Amendment No. 47 — Lead -In or directional signs in the public right-of-way: City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Associate Planner Mihranian began the staff report by explaining that this request was made by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Association of Realtors to amend the sign section of the Development Code pertaining to the color requirements for signs in the public right-of-way. He explained that according to the Realtors Association's representative, Rancho Palos Verdes is the only city on the peninsula and the entire South Bay that maintains the brown and gold color requirement. As part of the review process, staff contacted the different jurisdictions on the peninsula and found that the City of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates do not allow signs in the public right-of-way. In regards to real estate signs, Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates do not have a color requirement for the signs placed on the private property, whereas Rolling Hills does not permit such signs. Further, the City Attorney determined that although the proposal before the Commission was for real estate signs, any amendment to this section of the Development Code would apply to all permitted signs in the public right-of-way, including garage sale and special event signs. He presented three options in the staff report of: 1) eliminate the code color requirement altogether, 2) eliminate the color requirement but modify the code so that only one sign is allowed within the intersection; or 3) not change the code at all. Mr. Mihranian explained that the direction given by the Planning Commission would then be forwarded to the City Council in the form of a draft ordinance (if changes were proposed) for consideration Vice Chairman Lyon asked if the public right-of-way included the sidewalk Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it varied, but in most cases the public right-of-way did include the sidewalk. Commissioner Paris felt it would be appropriate to add language about placement of signs in the public right-of-way so they do not obstruct the walkway. Chairman Cartwright stated that one of the compelling arguments in favor of the amendment made before the City Council was that Rancho Palos Verdes was the only City on the peninsula that requires color uniformity on the signs. However, in listening to Mr. Mihranlan's staff report it is true that this is the only city requiring uniformity in sign color, since this is also the only City on the peninsula that allows signs in the public right-of-way without a permit. He did not think this came out at the City Council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 3 Associate Planner Mihranian stated that staff does have a concern with the proposal to eliminate the color requirement Although other jurisdictions do not allow the signs, they are smaller cities and the impacts would be different if they were allowed in our city, which is the largest on the peninsula Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Eric Randall 6528 Madeline Cove Drive stated he was a member of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Association of Realtors and was in favor of the proposal to eliminate the color restrictions. He felt that it would be nice if realtors could have one set of signs that they could use throughout the peninsula. Commissioner Paris asked if he would object if the signs were restricted to standard colors, rather than exceptionally bright or neon colors. Mr Randall answered he would not have a problem with that at all Commissioner Paris asked if he had a problem restricting the number of signs placed in one location Mr Randall answered that he did not think three signs were too many for one area and having the signs was also to the homeowner's benefit. Robert Wardell 605 Chiswick Road Palos Verdes Estates stated he was on the board of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Association of Realtors and Chairman of the Sign Ordinance Committee He stated that the only section of the Sign Ordinance that they were requesting be changed was Section 17 76 050 where it stated that the color combination of signs be brown and gold. They were asking that the language be eliminated but all other restrictions remain the same. Rancho Palos Verdes is the only City with any color restriction from EI Segundo to San Pedro He added that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Association of Realtors was self -policing in regards to signs on the Peninsula. He stated that the Association would work to make sure the sign proliferation problem was eliminated and there would be no more than 3 directional signs on one corner and there could not be two signs in one direction Mr Wardell added that in the last two years he believed there has not been one complaint from a citizen of the city regarding any problems with real estates signs or sign violations He wanted to accomplish some standardization on the peninsula and throughout the South Bay so that at the very least realtors would not have to special order brown and gold signs for use in Rancho Palos Verdes. Commissioner Paris asked if he had any objection to restricting the colors of signs to standard colors rather than bright colors or neon colors and if he objected to adding language restricting signs in the walkway Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Wardell answered that he did object to the restriction because there are no color restrictions in any other city, however he would not object if the language specifically said no neon colors. He did not object to language restricting signs in walkways. Chairman Cartwright asked how the Association would feel if the color restriction were removed but sign placement restricted to private property or public property by special permit. Mr Wardell did not know how to answer the question but felt that people would probably still like to have the flexibility to use the public right-of-way without a permit if it is available to them, as long as it is reasonable. They would also like the flexibility to have three directional signs on a corner as long as they don't all point in the same direction. Chairman Cartwright asked if Palos Verdes Estates had any restrictions on the number of signs that could be on a piece of property. Mr. Wardell responded that in Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates they are allowed one For Sale sign and one directional sign on an individual property Associate Planner Mihranian pointed out that any change in the sign ordinance would not be limited to real estates signs, but would also apply to all similar directional signs placed legally in the public right-of-way. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris asked staff about their position on the number of contractors and repair signs placed on private property Director/Secretary Rojas responded that there is a separate section of the code which allows for contractors to place a sign on private property during construction. However, there have been situations where there are numerous signs placed from numerous contractors. When those situations are called to staff's attention through a complaint, staff will go to the property and tell the contractor to remove the signs. Vice Chairman Lyon stated that the Commission had been talking about two different types of property (public and private) and confusing the restrictions on one with the desire to change restrictions on the other. There are currently no restrictions in any city on the peninsula, including Rancho Palos Verdes, on the color of signs on private property. However, there are no cities on the peninsula Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 5 0 0 that grant permission for signs to be placed in the public -right-of-way without some type permit, except for Rancho Palos Verdes He did not feel the staff report mentioned that the other cities did not allow signs in the public right-of- way He did not see any reason to not have standardization of colors in the public right-of-way. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that the information from the other cities on what was allowed in the public right-of-way was received after the staff reports had been distributed and that was why he included the new information in his verbal staff report. Vice Chairman Lyon added that he felt it was inappropriate to use the argument that there were no color restrictions for signs placed on private property in other cities to justify the elimination of a color requirement for signs placed in the public right-of-way in this city He felt a public right-of-way should look neat and orderly. Commissioner Slayden felt that the Commission was reading too much into the request, which was simply to eliminate the color restrictions on signs. Commissioner Vannorsdall did not have an objection to lifting the color restriction on signs, however he felt the Commission should focus on this one request and not start adding other conditions to the request, such as the number of directional signs allowed. Commissioner Paris pointed out to the Commission that changing this ordinance affects garage sale signs and other signs, which caused him concern Commissioner Albeno agreed that the request was only to change the restriction placed on sign colors and the Commission should not deviate from that request. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to deny the request to change the color restriction in the code regarding signs and retain the code as currently written, seconded by Chairman Cartwright. The motion failed, (3-3) with Commissioners Alberio, Slayden, and Vannorsdall dissenting. Commissioner Alberio moved to remove the language regarding sign color restrictions as requested by the applicant, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The motion failed, (3-3) with Commissioner Paris, Vice Chairman Lyon, and Chairman Cartwright dissenting. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing. Mr Wardell felt that 80 to 90 percent of real estates signs in Palos Verdes Estates are actually in the public right-of-way because of the extensive setbacks in the city He explained that the city has agreed to allow signs placed within 5 feet of the curb or 5 feet from the edge of the street, regardless if it is in the Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 6 public right-of-way or not. The setback is increased to 10 or 15 feet on Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive West. Further, he did not think that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has been able to enforce the brown and gold color requirement on garage sale and various other signs. If the City decides to maintain the brown and gold requirement, he requested that this requirement be enforced for everyone. Chairman Cartwright acknowledged Mr. Wardell's comments but explained that he did not have a good feel from the staff report nor the discussions at the meeting, that the Planning Commission really knows what it is they are opening themselves up to in terms of changing the sign colors Director/Secretary Rous explained that the Code Enforcement Officer does patrol the City on the weekends for illegal signs and does remove any signs that are not brown and gold in color. Currently the City is removing 40 to 50 illegal signs per month from the right-of-way Commissioner Paris felt that if the color signs were changed it would take away the right of the City to remove signs in violation of the Code, particularly the garage sale signs. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the item to the meeting of March 28, 2000 to allow the staff to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The motion passed, (5-1) with Commissioner Slayden dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 30 p.m. the Commission took a short recess until 8 40 p m. at which time they reconvened. G�I= 31� C+�`.I�:j:lP►I�I+�If*T•�. ti [ �I�l��]� 3. Code Amendment No. 48 — Prohibiting violators of the Municipal Code from filing or processing a View Restoration, View Preservation, or City Tree Permit Application: City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report He explained that the Code Amendment was to modify Section 17.86.050 of the Development Code. As written, the section states that any violator of the Municipal Code cannot apply for a development application, but does not prohibit them from applying for any other type of application, such as view restoration applications. To correct this loophole with the enforcement section and Development Code, staff Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 7 recommended that the Commission approve the code amendment to include all development applications as well as other special applications If approved, any violator of the municipal code cannot proceed with any application without correcting the violation Chairman Cartwright asked if this code amendment was the result of an actual problem Director/Secretary Rojas responded that it was the result of an actual incident and the City Attorney had suggested the code amendment to close the loophole Vice Chairman Lyon suggested combining the language in the new section into one paragraph rather than having it in two paragraphs Director/Secretary Rojas agreed but since the City Attorney had written the actual language he would have to check with her first. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Mark Abrams 44 Oceanaire Drive felt this proposal opens the door to massive abuses by the staff and that history has demonstrated that staff will do that. He explained that last year he had asked for approval of an antenna tower He was denied building permits for other construction on his house because of the allegation that he had illegal commercial radio transmitters, which he felt had not been established at that point. He explained that four months later the City had still not inspected his property to establish if he did indeed have the commercial radio transmitters and he still could not pull his building permits He stated that it took another 2 Y2 months after that before he was allowed to pull his building permits He felt this was an abuse of power beyond what he considered any reasonable measure He felt that the government has run rampant in enacting ordinances to further its own purpose and not that of the community and he was very much not in favor of this proposed ordinance Commissioner Vannorsdall asked specifically in what respect this change was abusive to the citizens Mr Abrams replied that all that was needed was a staff member to come up with the idea, either from another citizen or on his own, that there is some type of violation in process and then freeze your ability to obtain building permits or begin a view restoration process, without being under any obligation to prove the allegations Further, the resolution to the problem should be done in an expeditious manner He stated that if there were some type of limits where the city is required to prove its allegations within a reasonable time period he could possibly see some rationale behind the proposal Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Cartwright asked staff to respond to the idea of putting a time limit on the city to certify the violation. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the intent of this proposal was to get homeowners to comply with code violations prior to processing any other applications. This would only be enacted in the case of a known violation. Vice Chairman Lyon suggested inserting language into the proposal stating that the violation would have to be verified within 60 days of the filing date of the application. Director/Secretary Rojas felt that would work, however he stated that typically any violations on the property are known well before any application is submitted. He said in some rare instances an application is submitted and then it is discovered there is a violation on the property. In that situation the application would continue to be processed and a condition added to the application stating the violation must be removed or taken care of. Director/Secretary Rojas explained to the Commission the process involved in verifying a code violation and the process to obtain compliance once a code violation has been verified He acknowledged that the current process works smoothly but it does get a little complicated when an application has been taken in and when reviewing the application, code violations are discovered. Vice Chairman Lyon asked if a time restriction for verification of a violation were to be included, would 60 or 90 days be more appropriate. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that 60 days would be more appropriate since in most applications a decision must be made within 60 days of the application being deemed complete. If it were from submittal, 90 days would be more consistent with the process. A discussion followed among the Commissioners as to the best way to address the situation concerning code violations and the proposed time limit. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve the language as presented by the staff with the exception that paragraphs one and two may be combined in an effective manner to streamline the language, with the approval of the City Attorney, seconded by Commissioner Paris. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 9 Chairman Cartwright directed staff to return this item to the next Planning Commission meeting for their review of any changes to the language the City Attorney may have made NEW BUSINESS 5. Discussion of standards for encroachments of fences, walls pilasters, and similar structures within the public right-of-way. Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report explaining City Council Policy No 31, which deals with encroachments in the right-of-way. He explained that what precipitated this was staff and dealings with code enforcement as almost every encroachment permit is for after -the -fact work Staff has found that in trying to obtain compliance it has been difficult because of the current process, which includes going to the Planning Commission for every permit, making the necessary findings, which are very difficult to make for approval and obtaining the necessary insurance requirements This proposal is an amendment to the current policy, which splits the review into Director level review and Planning Commission review, depending on specific review criteria He reviewed the proposed findings and explained that the noticing and findings would be the same for both reviews. Mr. Rajas asked the Commission to review the proposal and provide staff with any changes. The Commission's recommendations will then be presented to City Council. Commissioner Paris questioned the size of the structure allowed for Director's approval. He felt that a pilaster 2' x 2', 6' tall, with an 18" lighting fixture on top was quite a large structure in the public right-of-way. Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Commissioner Paris that this was a very tall structure He also asked if these would also be approved by Public Works prior to being reviewed by either the Director or the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the objective of the streamlining was to encourage residents to apply for an encroachment permit and staff felt there would be an incentive if most applications would be handled by the Director and not be heard by the Planning Commission. If the Commissioners felt that this size structure was too large to be approved at the Director level this would be the time to make the adjustments He also explained that Public Works would always review the project and have a recommendation, whether the project was to be reviewed by the Director or the Planning Commission. Commissioner Paris asked, once this process was in place, if there would be a penalty for violators who build in the public right-of-way without the encroachment permit. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 10 Director/Secretary Rojas answered that most of the applications received will be for after -the -fact construction and this process was designed to encourage these residents to obtain a permit for the structure. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Edward Murphy 6304 Via Ciega discussed micro -management and macro - management and felt that the more micro -management there is in an organization, the less viable and effective it becomes. He discussed his experiences with staff which have been very positive and how well the responsibilities seem to have been delegated to staff and therefore more of the responsibilities of approving encroachment permits should be delegated to the staff Mark Abrams 44 Oceanaire Drive stated that in general he is not in favor of what staff wants although he sees some of the merit that staff has brought forward on this particular issue. He stated that last year he had come before the Planning Commission for an encroachment permit and had been forced to go through a long and expensive process to legalize his structure in the right-of-way. He felt that most people do not get encroachment permits because of the difficulty in complying However, he did have several problems with staffs proposal in that he felt that staff was trying to make it too easy for the Director to be the one to give the approvals He felt that 10 feet was too far of an encroachment for the Director to approve. Also, he asked if this were to be approved, would the insurance requirement that is in place that he is currently paying also be waived. He did not think he should have to continue to carry a $1 million insurance policy if nobody else has to. He asked if this was on an individual basis or cumulative in that if there are six pilasters that are each 2' by 2', does this fall into this category or is it 2' by 2' by 2' added up Director/Secretary Rojas stated that each pilaster would be considered individually. Commissioner Cartwright asked staff about the potential for retroactive review on the insurance requirement. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that his initial response would be that anyone currently having an encroachment permit under the current guidelines would have to submit for a revision to their permit to remove the requirement However, if these new guidelines were approved he felt that the requirement would be removed, however he would have to first check with the City Attorney. Chairman Cartwright stated that he would like to see approximately 80 percent of the applications approved by staff and only 20 percent come to the Planning Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 11 Commission. He asked staff what type of percentages of encroachment permit applications would come before the Planning Commission under these new proposed guidelines. Director/Secretary Rojas felt that with the new criteria, the Director could approve approximately 90 percent of the applications. Adjusting the 10 -foot encroachment distance or the 72 -inch height limit would increase the number of applications sent to the Planning Commission. Don Ferrara 6301 Via Ciega was concerned with structures placed in the public right-of-way, such as the one placed in the right-of-way by his neighbor. He was concerned that many structures in the right-of-way were dangerous and unsightly. He was also concerned about the taking of public property for private use His main objection was to high pilasters in the public right-of-way, again like the one placed by his neighbor. Mr Murphy approached the podium again and stated that he felt Mr. Ferrara's presentation was out of order in that there is an encroachment permit application pending and Mr. Ferrara should not discuss any details of that case before the Commission. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Lyon suggested changing the dimensions in the Director level review to an encroachment located no more than 6 feet within the public right-of- way, changing the wording to say the dimension for "each" pilaster rather than "a" pilaster, and changing the overall height restriction down to 60 inches. Commissioner Paris felt that a 6 -foot high maximum structure including the light fixture was a good height. He suggested a 3 square foot structure, in the hopes of encouraging people to build less bulky pilasters. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that changing the size of the structure to 3 square feet would probably send half of the applications to the Planning Commission for approval Commissioner Vannorsdall discussed the lighting on pilasters in the right-of-way and his concern over the way the lighting may affect passing traffic, and suggested a 25 -watt limitation. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing. Mark Abrams stated that a Minor Exception Permit was required for anything in the frontyard setback taller than 42 inches Therefore, he felt that the Director's decisions should be for structures less than 42 inches or less in height. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 12 Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing Director/Secretary Rojas stated that Minor Exception Permits are dealt with at staff level Commissioner Paris suggested a maximum 5 -foot high pilaster and no more than 6 feet in total height including the lights Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve the proposed amendment to City Council Policy No. 31 as stated with the following exceptions: 1) change the 10 -foot distance into the public right-of-way trigger to 6 -feet; 2) state that the 4 square foot base limitation shall apply to each pilaster; 3) change the height limitation so as not to exceed 72 -inches in total height; 4) the pilaster itself, without the decorative feature, not exceed 60 -inches in total height; 5) add language to the required findings that lighting not affect vehicular traffic; and, 6) add an additional finding that the encroachment structure does not significantly impair a view from a surrounding property. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved (6-0). ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. to March 28, 2000. \\Mastadon\Planning\PC\Minutes\2000120000314 doc Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2000 Page 13