Loading...
PC MINS 20050913CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Approved September 11, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:00 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Golida, Karp, Perestam, Vice Chairman Knight, and Chairman Tetreault. Commissioner Mueller arrived at 8:13 p.m. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Blumenthal, and Associate Planner Schonborn. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Perestam suggested moving Agenda Item No. 1 to be heard after Agenda Items 2 and 3. The Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS None COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Grading Permit (Case No. Zon2002-00596): 6405 Corsini Place Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project. He stated that during the noticing period two letters of concern were received by staff, which included concerns regarding view impairment, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy issues. He explained that staff performed a view analysis and was able to make all of the necessary findings necessary to approve the Grading Permit. Therefore staff was recommending approval of the project, as conditioned by staff. Commissioner Perestam asked if the Art Jury in Palos Verdes Estates considered the color of the residence in their analysis of the project. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that he did not know the parameters involved with the Art Jury. Commissioner Perestam asked if the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines addressed the color of a structure. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the Guidelines do not consider color of a residence. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the residence was in the Miraleste Park District boundaries, specifically in terms of tree protection and any conflict with the staffs recommendation to remove the tree. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that trees on Park District land are exempt, however this residence is not on Park District land. Vice Chairman Knight asked if this residence would have a new septic system. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that a new septic system is proposed for the new house, although the applicant has indicated they are working with the neighbors for easements to allow them to hook up to the public sewer. Vice Chairman Knight asked if there would be any remedial grading on the back slope of the property. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that none was proposed on the plans. Chairman Tetreault asked what the front yard setback was on the existing residence. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the front yard setback is currently just under 10 feet, making it legal non -conforming since the residence was built prior to the City's incorporation. He noted that the applicant was informed that this non -conformity must be corrected with the new structure. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Henry Cramer 6401 Corsini Place began by questioning why the notice received in August stated the new residence and garage will be 5,752 square feet, however the staff report states the residence and garage will only be 5,412. He also questioned staffs interpretation of viewing area, noting that he felt his viewing area is the detached Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 2 study. Therefore, this new residence has a major impact on his viewing area. He very strongly objected to the proposed size of the residence, as it will be much larger than the others in the neighborhood. He stated that his recommendation for the residence would be to allow the existing front yard setback or decrease the size of the structure. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp noted that Dr. Cramer had objected to the size of the house, however he wondered if he took into account that the house will be two levels plus a basement. He asked staff what the actual footprint of the house would be. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the footprint of the residence would be approximately 3,048 square feet. Chairman Tetreault asked staff about the discrepancy in the square footage in the public notice and the staff report. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that the public notice did specify a 5,700 square foot structure; however, after publication of the notice, the applicant reduced the size of the structure to 5,412 square feet, which includes the basement and garage areas. Commissioner Karp noted that the average size of homes is increasing throughout California and he did not think this proposed residence was too large for the neighborhood, especially when looking at the size of the footprint. Vice Chairman Knight agreed with the findings in the staff report, noting however that he does have empathy for Dr. Cramer. He stated that he is always concerned when there is construction close to a slope, and hoped that all necessary geotechnical and hydrological studies are done to ensure a safe structure, as well as safety to the neighbors. Commissioner Gerstner explained that he tends to look at the size of the house relative to the appearance of the house from the street as opposed to the numerical calculations. He stated that in the end, the Planning Commission is more concerned with how the house will look in the neighborhood and from the street rather than the actual size. He noted that slightly over 1,000 square feet of this house is contained in a basement, leaving approximately 4,400 square feet that is visible from the street, which he felt is a compatible size for the neighborhood. He stated that he too has compassion for Dr. Cramer losing his view from his office area, however the office area is not a viewing area as defined in the view ordinance. Therefore, he felt that he was able to make all of the necessary findings and was in favor of approving the project. Commissioner Perestam agreed, stating that each project is site specific. He noted that most of the homes in the neighborhood are a very light color, and asked staff what the color of this house was proposed to be. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 3 Associate Planner Schonborn answered that he did not know what the proposed color of the house was, and suggested that be a question to the architect. Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing. Frank Bostrom (architect) stated that he was a member of the Palos Verdes Art Jury for 24 years and is very aware of their process. He gave a brief explanation of how the Art Jury operates. He stated that currently the proposed color scheme is smooth stucco painted white. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault stated that he agreed with the staff on issues regarding grading, privacy, and view impairment. He was concerned, however, with neighborhood compatibility. He explained that compatibility as viewed from the street was not a concern to him, however he disagreed with the staff report regarding the rear setback and its consistency with the neighborhood. He noted that this proposed residence would be as close to the property line as the neighbor's deck and therefore the house is not compatible when looking at the hard structure versus the neighbor's deck. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that more emphasis is placed on the front setback, as it is more visible. He explained that rear setbacks come into discussion when a project comes close to a neighboring house in the backyard, noting that the back of this property opens out into a canyon. Therefore, staff felt that the rear setback was generally compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Gerstner stated that there are some rather strict restrictions in the Code regarding how high a deck can be built above grade and asked staff what the limiting factors would be if someone chose to build a deck on the back of the subject residence. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the rear slope is considered to be an extreme slope, and therefore the applicant would have to apply for an Extreme Slope Permit to build a deck over the slope. He noted that the limiting factors would be that the deck could not project more than 6 feet over the extreme slope and the deck cannot be built over 12 feet in height, measured from where grade and foundation meet to the top of the handraii. Chairman Tetreault discussed the deck at Dr. Cramer's home, and noted that if whoever built the deck had decided to put in landscaping rather than the deck, then there would be no consideration as to whether there was a consistent setback. He felt that because Dr. Cramer has a wooden deck in the back, Dr. Cramer is now being penalized because Neighborhood Compatibility findings are being made. He felt that the proposed project could be reduced slightly so that it does not protrude so far back on the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Perestam asked staff to explain the weight of the Development Code in relation to other documents, such as Neighborhood Compatibility and other supporting documents to the Development Code. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that the Development Code is very black and white, containing minimum standards. He stated that when considering Neighborhood Compatibility, there are many variations within a neighborhood in terms of setbacks and heights. Therefore, when walking a particular neighborhood, staff determines if there is a governing setback, and if there is, how does a particular proposal fit into the neighborhood. He stated that staff is looking to see if the appearance of the new structure disrupts the flow of a neighborhood. Director/Secretary Rojas added that the Development Code is strict, and that neighborhood compatibility is completely subjective. Vice Chairman Knight asked the Chairman to clarify his concern regarding the rear setback. Chairman Tetreault explained that, excluding the deck, the houses on the street pretty much line up along the rear, and the proposed residence will protrude out in the back and deviate from the other homes on the street. He explained that he would like to reduce the depth of the structure so that it does not go into the backyard as far as proposed. He stated that this might be accomplished by a reduction in square footage, as well as possibly moving the house up on the property. He acknowledged moving the structure forward towards the street could require another application. Commissioner Karp noted that changing the front setback will limit guest parking, and there is currently very little parking on the street. Chairman Tetreault noted that currently there are four cars parked in front of the residence, all off of the street. He felt that reducing the proposed front yard setback would not impact the off street parking in the neighborhood. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-40 thereby approving the Grading Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-1) with Chairman Tetreault dissenting. 3. Revision to Conditional Use Permit & Sign Permit (Case No. ZON2005- 00316): 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard Commissioner Mueller arrived at 8:13 p.m. Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the application was a request for a revision to the sign program through the conditional use permit revision, to allow for a change in the signage and appearance of the service station/convenience store building and canopy. He stated that staff has concerns with the color scheme Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 5 proposed for the building and the upgrade of the existing canopy. He stated that staff was concerned these changes would detract from a more residential type of construction. He explained that the original intent of the Conditional Use Permit was to keep the residential feeling of the commercial site. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the modifications as stipulated in the Resolution, which exclude the modifications to the canopy and the color scheme of the building and fascia. Commissioner Karp noted that the parking lot needs to be slurry sealed and that there are bricks missing from the planters that should be replaced, and asked if these could be included in the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that this application is specifically for signage and therefore other conditions not related to signage could not be included. Vice Chairman Knight noted a discrepancy between the Resolution and Conditions of Approval regarding the color of the walls of the structure. Associate Planner Schonborn agreed, noting that staff will clarify the condition of approval. Commissioner Perestam complimented staff for taking an aggressive stand to make sure this small commercial area in the middle of a residential area does not impact the surrounding neighborhood, and supported the recommendations made by staff. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there is a minimum clearance height under the canopy. He explained that he likes the tile as it relates to the residential character of the neighborhood, and does not object to the teal color. He felt that if one could still see the tile roof and the sign fascia was below the tile roof, he would not be as uncomfortable with it. He noted that this would limit the size of the sign or would restrict the clearance underneath. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that staff was not aware of the restrictions or limits regarding the height under the canopy. Commissioner Gerstner noted that this would also control the light that comes out of the canopy and keep the light more focused downward. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that when the City was reviewing the issue of the canopy for the Chevron car wash there was much controversy over the canopy. He stated that at that time the City Attorney determined that the canopy should not be lower than a standard that was set at the time, therefore he felt it would be very difficult to lower this canopy. There being no speakers, Chairman Tetreault opened and closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Karp felt that the colors at the station should be as subtle as possible and recommended earth tone colors be used, rather than the yellow, green, and teal. Commissioner Mueller stated that he was on the Planning Commission when the last revision was suggested in terms of signage, and the concern has always been the amount of signage on the property. He was pleased that some of the signage would be removed with this application. He felt the current proposal goes beyond the current character of the gas station, and asked staff if they had received any alternate proposals from the applicant. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that there have been no alternate proposals discussed, adding that the applicant has known staffs position on the current proposal even before they formally submitted the application to the City. Vice Chairman Knight agreed with staffs opinion that the tile roof and parapet, as well as lighter colors are appropriate. He recommended that included in the motion, that Condition 0 be modified where it reads that no painting is allowed on the existing fascia, "or walls" be added. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that language could be added that states any painting of the fascia or walls shall be subject to the review of the Director. Vice Chairman Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-41 thereby approving the revision to the Conditional Use Permit, as recommended by staff with the added language that the walls not have the Valero color scheme, and any paining of the fascia or walls be subject to the review of the Director, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:35 the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:45, at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2004-00265) Vice Chairman Knight recused himself from the hearing, as he lives in the Portuguese Bend area. Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining staff has reformatted the regulations as requested by the Planning Commission, which includes a better definition of short term and long term use of cargo containers, and the use of cargo containers in the landslide moratorium area. He noted that staff included language in the draft Resolution that recommends the City Council amend the Moratorium and Building Code in a manner that can accommodate the use of cargo containers within the Portuguese Bend area for long-term storage beyond the one-year Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 7 requirement without the use of a foundation. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt the proposed Resolution to recommend language to the City Council. Commissioner Mueller asked if the current language allows for a cargo container on a vacant piece of property. Associate Planner Blumenthal noted that under short term uses a cargo container could theoretically be approved, subject to the approval of a Special Use Permit. He noted that in the Portuguese Bend area, cargo containers are limited to developed lots. He also stated that cargo containers could be approved in Commercial or Institutional zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit application. Commissioner Perestam asked how the City would handle a replacement container, in the event a permitted container fails for whatever reason. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that when referring to long-term uses in such cases, the City would determine whether the new container would comply with Code requirements. He stated that if the original container was non -conforming there is a 50 percent replacement value that is allowed, where one can replace a non -conforming structure provided the cost of replacement does not exceed 50 percent of the total replacement value. Commissioner Golida referred to Exhibit A page 1, and asked if a request for a cargo container for short time use is an application made to the Director. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the request for a short-term use of a cargo container is a Director decision, however the appeal of his decision does go before the Planning Commission. Chairman Tetreault questioned the wording in Exhibit A, which states that the Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council that the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance be amended to exempt cargo containers from the 600 square foot size limitation. He did not remember the Planning Commission agreeing on this exemption. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the long term use of a cargo container will count towards the 600 square foot limit in the moratorium area and it was staffs understanding, based on previous discussions at the Planning Commission meetings, that the Planning Commission wanted to give these residents an additional opportunity for storage space. He stated that if the size of the cargo container counts towards the 600 square foot limit, no additional space is actually being given unless the Pianning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the Moratorium Ordinance to exempt cargo containers in the Portuguese Bend area from counting towards the 600 square foot limitation. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Mueller was concerned that if a cargo container is used as an alternate foundation, would that then give the owner the right to add more foundation that is exempt from the 600 square feet. Associate Planner Blumenthal suggested changing the language to say that when cargo containers are exempt from the Ordinance when used for storage rather than a foundation. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the first house allowed to use a cargo container as a foundation system is using this cargo container as an occupied portion of the house. He stated that they are living in the cargo containers and there is more house on top of the containers. He did not feel that there are any others in the Portuguese Bend area who are proposing to use cargo containers as a foundation. He also recalled discussions regarding the 600 square foot limitation, specifically discussions centering around allowing two cargo containers and realizing that two containers would exceed the 600 square foot limitation. Chairman Tetreault also recalled that discussion. He stated that he was not in favor of giving any exemptions to the existing moratorium limitation of 600 square feet. He felt the purpose of the cargo container was to allow residents in the Portuguese Bend area a place for storage, as it is not possible to build anything on the property because of movement. He did not think this should be a way to allow these residents to get extra square footage, only a way to accommodate them from having to build a structure. He stated that if it weren't for the moratorium the City would not allow cargo containers and require the resident to build something that is architecturally consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Gerstner agreed, adding that he would not be in favor of amending the moratorium and the amount of square footage allowed. There being no speakers, Chairman Tetreault opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-42 thereby approving the draft language, as amended to strike the last sentence on page 2, section 5 which states the Planning Commission further recommends the City Council amend the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to exempt cargo containers from the 600 square foot size limitation and forward the recommendation to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Mueller stated that he was inclined not to support the motion, as he was not in favor of encouraging the use of cargo containers in the City. He felt that by allowing the use of cargo containers in certain areas of the City it appears it will be creeping into other areas of the City. He noted that the City has a lot of authority in approving the containers on their own property, and did not see the need for cargo containers on City, commercial, or industrial areas for long term use. He did not think Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 9 that the use of cargo containers was in the best interest of the City and did not believe there is any other City that allows this type of use of cargo containers. He felt that if the City is worried about neighborhood compatibility and the color to paint a gas station, it should certainly be worried about this use of cargo containers. Chairman Tetreault asked staff how this current Resolution would change the use of cargo containers in the City. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the short-term temporary storage use of cargo containers in the City would be as currently practiced by staff, with the exception of the emergency use. He stated that currently the City does not allow the long-term use of cargo containers for commercial, institutional, or open space zones. Director/Secretary Rojas noted, however, that the Code is silent on the use of cargo containers and the practice the City is currently using is to address the containers is on an as -needed basis. Commissioner Golida made a recommendation to the author of the current motion to reconsider the motion to strike Section B1 from the draft Resolution page 3. He explained that he was struggling with the necessity for opening the door for any use that he does not feel is necessary. He felt the City is wise enough in its own discretion to make its decisions in regards to where cargo containers can be used on City owned property. Commissioner Gerstner had no objection to amending his original motion to strike item 131, page 3 of 13, as did Commissioner Perestam. Director/Secretary Rojas explained the when it comes to City property the City Council and the City Manager make the decisions on the use of that property. He stated that Section B1 was added so that it would not affect the ability for the City Manager to deal with City properties in the way that he needs to for City purposes while being very responsive to citizen concerns. Commissioner Perestam made a recommendation to also strike the word "permanent" in C1, page 2 and C1, page 4. Commissioner Gerstner agreed to further amend his motion by striking the word "permanent" from C1 in both documents, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Associate Planner Blumenthal noted that with these deletions staff will also delete sections 12, 13,14, 15, 16, and 17 of the Resolution for consistency. Commissioner Gerstner amended' his motion to delete sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 from the Resolution for consistency, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Mueller asked staff how the removal of the word permanent would affect the City approvals of long-term storage containers in the moratorium area. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that long term storage in the Portuguese Bend area would require the approval of a Moratorium Exception Permit, Planning Department approval for the location of the container, and Building Department approval for the container. He noted that if the City Council adopts the recommended changes to the Building Code, all the steps are there however the Building Official can approve the cargo container without the permanent foundation. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-42 to approve the draft Resolution as amended was approved, (6-0-1) with Vice Chairman Knight abstaining. NEW BUSINESS 4. General Plan Annual Report Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining this is an annual procedural item where the City reports to the State know how the General Plan has been implemented. He explained that this report is presented to the Planning Commission, who then forwards it to the City Council, who then forwards it to the State. The Commission discussed the annual report and approved the report, via minute order, (7-0). 5. Joint Planning Commission / City Council meeting — discussion topics Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that on October 22nd there will be a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council and that the Planning Commission had previously agreed that one topic of discussion should be neighborhood compatibility. He asked the Commission if there were other topics of discussion they would like to add at this time to be included on the Agenda. Vice Chairman Knight felt that a discussion on cumulative view impact and the appropriate findings would be a helpful. Chairman Tetreault agreed, adding that there was a recent appeal before the City Council where cumulative view impact was an issue, and he felt that a discussion between the City Council and Planning Commission regarding that issue would be helpful. The Commission unanimously agreed this should be a topic of discussion. Commissioner Karp stated that he would like to have a discussion regarding advising applicants for permits to check recorded deed restrictions and other restrictions on the property, as well as with the Homeowners Association. He felt that having an approval Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 1 1 from the City or Planning Commission may give a homeowner a false sense of security if what they are proposing is prohibited by deed restriction or the HOA. He understood the concept that the City does not enforce private contracts, however he felt it was important to call to the applicant's attention that they should view this before going too far into the application process. Commissioner Mueller noted that many of the larger projects are being streamlined directly to the City Council and avoiding the Planning Commission and felt that a discussion with the City Council would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to better understand their role in future large development projects. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that there is no fast tracking of projects to the City Council, as the Development Code dictates what must go before the Planning Commission. He explained that revisions to the larger projects must go before the last body that reviewed the project, which in the case of the larger projects like Trump National and the Long Point Hotel project, is the City Council. He also noted that there are many larger projects coming up, such as General Plan amendments and the Marymount College project, that will have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mueller felt that was a good explanation, but stated he would like to hear the City Council reaffirm that position. Vice Chairman Knight felt that a discussion with the City Council on Conditional Use Permit revisions would be helpful, in that some projects may have so many revisions that they may are no longer close to the concept that was originally approved. Commissioner Perestam suggested a discussion on the role of the Planning Commission in a matter that is on appeal to the City Council. Director/Secretary Rojas felt these were all good topics to bring up at the meeting and made note of them. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Approval of August 9. 2005 and August 23, 2005 Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the minutes will be available at the next meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre -agenda for the meetingf September 27, 2005 Commissioner Karp noted that there is only one item scheduled for the September 27th meeting and questioned the need for a meeting with only one item on the Agenda. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 12 After a brief discussion the Planning Commission unanimously chose to not have a meeting September 27th, making the next meeting of the Planning Commission October 11, 2005 ADJOURNMENT At 10:35 the meeting was adjourned to October 11, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 13