Loading...
PC MINS 20080610 Approved August 1 NO08 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Tetreault, Tomblin, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission agreed to move Agenda Item No. 4 after Agenda Item No. 6 and to move Agenda Item No. 2 after Agenda Item No. 4. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed one letter for Agenda Item No. 4 and thirteen items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 6. Director Rojas reported that at their meeting of June 3, 2008, the City Council overturned the Planning Commission's denial of the Height Variation application on Bayridge Road. Vice Chairman Lewis reported that he had met with the applicant for Agenda Item No. 6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regardinq non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Height Variation & Gradinq Permit (ZON2008-00193): 5338 Bayridge Road Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2008-22, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (3-1-3) with Commissioner Knight dissenting and Commissioners Gerstner, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Lewis abstaining. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Green Building Program Director Rojas stated that staff has been receiving feedback from different sources and needs additional time to prepare the staff report, and was therefore recommending the public hearing be continued to the meeting of July 8, 2008. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to July 8, 2008. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Height Variation Permit, Site Plan Review & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00537): 5501 Shoreview Drive Vice Chairman Lewis stated that, while he was statutorily eligible to hear this item, he felt it was part of his neighborhood and therefore recused himself from the public hearing and left the dais. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and need for the various permit applications. She stated that this will be the largest home in the neighborhood as well as the only two-story home, however explained why staff did not think the proposed home would change the character of the neighborhood. She stated staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project, as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked if there was a condition of approval that none of the windows associated with the basement area could be converted to doors in the future. Assistant Planner Kim referenced condition No. 23 in Exhibit A. Commissioner Knight noted in condition No. 23 that the language should say "emergency egress" rather than "egress". Assistant Planner Kim agreed. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 2 Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to a letter received from the residents at 26723 Shorewood Road, and felt that portions of the view of a hill and canyon that are to the right of the vacant buildable lot will be obstructed by this proposed project. He asked staff if that had been taken into account. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff was able to see developed lots from the living room at 26723 Shorewood Road and did not think the proposed structure created any view impacts to this residence. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that from the street the bulk and mass of this proposed residence was fairly well hidden, however from the residence at 26723 Shorewood Road the bulk and mass was more pronounced. He asked staff if the Planning Commission can consider bulk and mass from a neighboring residence as well as from the street. Director Rojas answered that bulk and mass can be considered from several vantage points. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Russ Barto (architect) explained that one of the reasons for the multi-level design being proposed was to minimize the number of required caissons that will have to be constructed on the property. He stated that he was available to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how difficult it would be to lower the overall height of the project. Mr. Barto felt lowering the overall height of the project would be difficult, also noting that doing so would change the architectural style of the home. Chairman Perestam asked what the proposed ceiling heights of the home were. Mr. Barto answered that the first floor plates are 8 Y2 feet in height and plate heights on the upper level vary, with nothing over 8 feet. Gregg Ferguson (applicant) commented that in regards to the view from 26723 Shorewood Road, there are developments along the entire ridge seen from that residence. He noted that below the ridge, the hillside is privately owned property that is developable and consists of three lots. Robert Gibson 26727 Basswood Avenue, voiced his concerns regarding the possibility of an emergency exit from the second floor via a fire escape as well as the need for a condition on the certificate of occupancy for the home that no door will be added to the basement. He asked if the owners of the residence will have the option of claiming view Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 3 restoration after the second story is constructed. He felt this proposed second story in the area is out of character and not compatible with any homes in the neighborhood. Daniel Colburn 26804 Basswood Avenue, stated that his main concern was the second story and neighborhood compatibility. He was concerned with the amount of excavation needed and how that will impact the adjacent lots. He asked that any damage that may occur to the three adjacent lots because of the excavation be borne by the contractor or Mr. Ferguson. Russ Barto (in rebuttal) stated that the attic space above the 8 foot high ceiling is approximately 6 feet at the ridgeline. He explained that the geotechnical engineer has recommended caissons for the project, as there is quite a bit of fill on the lot. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Barto to address the concerns expressed by Mr. Colburn. Mr. Barto explained that the grading would not add any fill to the property, raise the pad or alter any contours on the lot. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Barto if he needed the 9:12 roof pitch. Mr. Barto answered that to lower the roof pitch would conflict with the architectural integrity. Chairman Perestam had a concern regarding the maximum height of this project. He explained that this is a community where this residence will be the first two-story home in the neighborhood, and it is proposed at almost the maximum of 26 feet in height. He felt that the visual impact of this proposed residence is protected an extraordinary amount by the tree in the front. He stated that if something were to happen to the tree the neighbors would have a much more significant visual impact of bulk and mass. Commissioner Knight asked the Chairman if it was the second story that he was unhappy with, or was it the height of 26 feet. He also questioned if the Chairman would be happier with a lower roof pitch or a different design for the second story. Chairman Perestam explained that it is the overall height of the proposed structure that was bothersome to him. Commissioner Tetreault stated that there is no rule that says that because a neighborhood has no two-story residences, that a two-story addition cannot be built. He explained that the Planning Commission has, in the past, looked at these situations and looked at the type of addition being proposed in terms of lot coverage and bulk and mass. He was worried that down the road neighbors who want to build a second story will look at this house and say a precedent has been set. He felt that this is a fairly large jump from what is in the neighborhood to the size of this proposed house. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 4 Commissioner Knight was also concerned about the house setting precedence in the neighborhood, and agreed with Chairman Perestam that the tree protects a large amount of the house visually from the street. He felt that quite a bit of the bulk and mass of this house comes from the design of the roof. Commissioner Gerstner was frustrated with seeing a two-story house designed on this lot that he felt was a bit oppressive, knowing that there is an opportunity for a solution that doesn't cause the same problems. He stated there could be several different types of designs that could mitigate the concerns and discussed a different type of design referred to as a sub-terranean walk-out which he felt would satisfy the many of the problems created by the current design. Commissioner Tomblin moved to accept staff's recommendations. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Chairman Perestam asked the architect if he and the owner would consider re- designing the project based on the input the Commissioners have provided. Russ Barto stated that he had not heard any type of consensus from the Commission in terms of what direction they would like to see this project take. He noted that there has been comments about the height, the size, and how to deal with different projects that may come up in the future. He stated that he would not recommend to his clients a sub- terranean walk-out design, but rather would recommend a reduction in the roof height and a possible reduction in the overall square footage of the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the size of the structure does not concern him as much as the height of the structure. He explained that the fact that this is a two-story structure is not the issue, but rather his concern is for what looms over the one neighbor. He stated he would like to see an attempt to reduce the overall height of the project. Commissioner Tomblin stated he supports the project and likes the idea of the basement and the way the house is situated on the lot. He felt that the front design could be modified and the roof line lowered to make the appearance less massive. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the neighborhood is comprised of ranch style homes with low roof lines, while this proposal is a Tudor style home with a high roof line. He questioned why an architectural style was chosen that accentuates the opposite of what exists in the neighborhood. He stated that ranch style homes are the predominant character in the neighborhood and felt that there are ways to make this style work, and one that does not accentuate the vertical. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments, as he too was concerned with the height and style of the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 5 Director Rojas noted that if the public hearing is going to be continued for this item, a 90 day extension will be needed from the applicant. Mr. Ferguson agreed to the 90 day extension. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 8, 2008 to allow the applicant to address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Chairman Perestam strongly suggested that the project be re-silhouetted to reflect any changes in the design. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (6-0) with Vice Chairman Lewis recused. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 2. Residential Development Standards Code Amendment & Zone Change (Case No. ZON2007-00377): Chairman Perestam noted that with the number of public speakers for the other items on the Agenda, it was very unlikely the Planning Commission would be able to hear this item tonight, and suggested continuing the public hearing to the meeting of July 8, 2008. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 6. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Grading and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2008-00091): 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. Director Rojas explained that this project has a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application which must go before the City Council for approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission's role is advisory. He suggested that the Planning Commission may want to separate this application into components and deal with the land use matter first before dealing with the building issue. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the property and an explanation of the need for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and other applications. He stated that an Initial Study was compiled and it was determined that with the appropriate mitigation measures the project would result in a less than significant impact upon the natural built environments. Regarding the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, he explained that staff felt that changes should be pursued for the reasons stated in the staff report. He discussed reasons why staff felt this lot would not be suitable for residential use, and that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. He stated that staff believes there is merit for the construction of Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 6 the proposed building, however is concerned with the proposed design of the building which results in staff not being able to make all of the necessary findings for the Conditional Use Permit, nor all of the convenience store findings. He reviewed these findings and concerns, as outlined in the staff report. He discussed the Variance application and the need for the Variance, and staff's concerns with the Variance. He discussed traffic, noting that the City's consulting Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the traffic study for the site. He concluded by stating that staff believes the Planning Commission should deal with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change issues first, and if there is a consensus that the changes have merit, staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the, proposed project and direct the applicant to redesign the proposed building and continue the Public Hearing to allow them time to resubmit a more appropriately designed building. Commissioner Knight asked if the Planning Commission is to take economic considerations into account when making their findings. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that economic findings should not be taken into account. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff what type of residential units could be built on this property. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that based on lot area, the lot could be subdivided into four separate single family residential lots, however realistically due to topography and other features on the lot, it would be more likely subdivided into just three lots. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff, in terms of issues relating to traffic, parking, and the effect on the community, would a zone of Commercial Office have a lesser impact than Commercial Limited. Director Rojas answered that to answer that question a comparison would have to be made on what uses are allowed by right for each as well as a comparison of the size of proposed projects under each category. Commissioner Knight asked what the existing 7-11 across the street from this project is zoned. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that it is zoned Commercial Limited. Commissioner Knight asked if there were any regulations regarding the sale of liquor and the number of establishments that can sell liquor in a specified area, and if there should be any consideration of this when discussing the change in zoning. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that in terms of concentration or over concentration, there is nothing in the Municipal Code that would address the issue, adding that it would be more of an issue for the State Alcoholic Beverage Control. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 7 Commissioner Lewis asked staff if their main objection to the proposed light poles was the spill-over of the lights into the residential neighborhood. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that was part of the concern, adding that staff was also concerned with glare and the overall design of the light standards. Commissioner Lewis asked if, once the underground storage tanks are removed from the gas station, proper testing would be done to the soil. Further, if the soil is found to be dirty that proper remediation would have to be performed before anything is allowed to be built on the site. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that was correct. Chairman Perestam asked staff about the methodology used for the traffic analysis, and asked staff if the conclusion that the proposed use would cause fewer trips in and out than the current use was generated because of the square footage of the proposed project, or was the methodology based on the fact that the new use would be retail. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the methodology looked at the square footage of the type of proposed project for the traffic study. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Steve Kuykendall stated that for 37 years this property has existed with a commercial use on a main thoroughfare. He discussed how over 37 percent of the residents are over 55 years old and is one of the fastest growing segments of the population. He stated that this growing segment of the population needs to be served by the community. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve and move forward with the project. Commissioner Tomblin explained that he was undecided if this was the best use for the property, as it is a massive building going into the setbacks. He asked Mr. Kuykendall how he can justify the zone change if economically this is all that will work on the site, noting that this type of design with the lack of open space is an example of a project that Mr. Kuykendall and many others have fought against in this city. Mr. Kuykendall answered that he would defer the question of building design to another speaker. However, concerning the use on the site, he did not feel the proposed development was too dense for the site. He also noted that there will be less bulk in the neighbors' view with this design than with what is currently on the lot. He also felt there will be better circulation on the lot, has plenty of parking, will generate less trips, and provides a service the community needs. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Kuykendall what other types of uses he felt would be appropriate for the site. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 8 Mr. Kuykendall answered that some type of fast food restaurant would be appropriate for the site. He explained that there is a broadly used analysis which has a Table that helps determine where to locate different types of services. He stated this proposed use is one of the uses that clearly fits into the community. Commissioner Knight referred to the economic analysis, and noted that the demographic analysis used the entire city's population, while only using the local pharmacies when doing a comparison for what the competition is. He noted there is a large portion of the city's population that,live on the east side and utilize the pharmacies along Western Avenue. He didn't think the analysis took that into account, and asked Mr. Kuykendall to clarify that. Mr. Kuykendall answered that he did not write that economic analysis. He noted, however that if one were to do an informal survey of everyone in the room, there would be 20 or 30 ways people get their prescription drugs. He stated that what the store location determines is that there is a need within the community, based upon the demographics of the community. Dr. Pautea Hannauer stated she and her family are the current owners of the property in question. She explained that the way things are currently going, the gas station will be closing in the next several months, and given the limited zoning, she was afraid this might turn into an empty lot. She explained she is a member of the community and is working hard to build something the community will be proud of. She explained how she has had meetings with the neighbors to understand what their needs are. Commissioner Tomblin asked Dr. Hannauer if the family would retain the land and lease it to CVS. Dr. Hannauer answered that the family would be leasing the land to CVS. Commissioner Tomblin asked, if the City Council were to decide that the building is too large and required it be cut back 20 to 30 percent, would that work economically. Dr. Hannauer answered that it wouldn't work with CVS, however going through with the zone change would allow them to look at other options. Chad Hagle stated that over the past year there has been a significant amount of involvement with the staff and the community which has resulted in multiple changes and concessions to the project. He felt it was important to note that CVS recognizes this site as a neighborhood site and wants to fit into the neighborhood, which carries over not only in the design but the intended operation of the store. He explained that CVS is willing to consider and comply with all of the stipulations that may be applied for this use. He also stated that a lot of progress has been made over the last year, and understood that from a design standpoint there is still progress that needs to be made. However, it is important when going through this process to get reassurance that there Planning commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 9 is a general consensus that the General Plan Amendment and re-zoning is something that can be looked upon favorably so that they can spend the money to redesign the building. Commissioner Tomblin asked at what point reducing the size of the building would not be economically feasible for CVS to build on the site. Mr. Hagle explained that CVS functions as a convenience store, and it is correct that staff is viewing it as such. He stated that approximately 65 percent of the sales generated come from the pharmacy, however a majority of the profit comes from the front end sales. When reducing the size of the building, the size of the front end is being reduced, and it is these sales which gives CVS the opportunity to afford building on a piece of property such as this. He stated that CVS has become proficient in economizing and using every square inch of the available space of a building. He noted that the prototypical footprint of a CVS in which they are most profitable is roughly 14,000 square feet with a drive-through pharmacy. He stated that CVS has already made the concession to reduce the building size and to eliminate the drive-through. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Hagle if he objected to staff's recommendation about moving the trash enclosure away from the setback. Mr. Hagle answered that they do not have an objection to any of staff's recommendations, including modifications to the building design. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if there is any evidence that the underground storage tanks have leaked or that there is any contamination of the soil. Mr. Hagle answered that there is evidence that there is contamination at the site, however he would not classify the contamination as irregular or severe for a gas station operation, since it is common with any gas station. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Hagle if he was in agreement with staff's recommendation regarding the lights on the property. Mr. Hagle affirmed he was in agreement with staff's recommendations, especially after meeting with all five of the surrounding neighbors. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Hagle if he was in agreement with staff's recommended hours of operation. Mr. Hagle answered that CVS was in agreement with the recommended hours of operation. Michael Gonzales (representing the property owners) stated that the owners are requesting that if the property has to be re-silhouetted that the amount of time the silhouette stays up be reduced to two weeks. He explained that there have been two Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 10 incidents where the silhouette has fallen, plus it is interfering with the operation of the gas station. Larry Barlock 28070 Santona Drive stated he comes before the Planning Commission representing the consensus of the five adjacent neighbors to the property in question. He explained that the neighbors have reviewed the plans with the owners and contractors and have had discussions with city staff. He stated that the neighbors feel this project is a positive addition to the neighborhood and support the project. In terms of lighting, he felt it was important to eliminate reflective and direct lighting on residential properties, and that they have been working with the contractor to do so. He discussed his concerns with the potential increase in noise, and how the contractor has agreed to enclose the trash area and add a wall at the delivery area. The contractor has also offered to build a wall to shield residents from noise as well as plant additional vegetation. Finally, there was concern regarding dust during demolition and construction, and the neighbors were recommending the area be enclosed by a fence covered by a tarp and that the area be watered during demolition and grading. He stated that the neighbors felt this project was a much better alternative than having the gas station close and look at a vacant lot. Commissioner Gerstner asked, given all of the possible uses for the property, was this the most preferred use or the use that seems to be the most realistic. Mr. Barlock answered that it is the use that they have been presented with, and because of that the impacts to the neighbors have been looked at, and they feel that the impacts are positive in comparison to those of a gas station. He stated that if there are other possibilities, they will be looked at and their opinions will be given at that time. Shahin Aarabi stated she lives in Rolling Hills Estates felt that the pharmacies in the general area are very busy and the proposal for a CVS is a very good idea. David Hsu 6409 Rio Linda, felt that the change in zoning will change the neighborhood character, and as a result the property values in the area may be affected. He felt that a realistic traffic study should be done before anything is approved, as he felt Hawthorne Boulevard and Granvia Altimira can be very busy at different times during the day. Ruth Barton read a letter she had mailed to the Planning Commission. She felt that the size of the structure was too large for the lot and did not feel another pharmacy was needed in the area. George Bender felt that when approving projects the City should look at what the residents need and don't need. He felt that there were enough pharmacies in the City, but it will be difficult losing this gas station. He commented that the proposed building is not compatible with the area. Carl Muchnick stated that he lives on Rio Linda Drive and really knew very little about this proposal until recently. He pictured two scenarios for this development: it will be Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 11 very successful and therefore there will be major traffic problems, or it will not be successful and the business will fail. He referred to an email from Yolanta Schwartz, which he felt covers his concerns. Scott Gregerson 20860 Santona, stated that he has had meetings with owners and CVS and supports the development. His asked that there be a higher wall than recommended by staff, and was concerned about the lighting. He also requested that the hours be limited to 10:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if it would be acceptable to leave the wall at the current proposed height, but add some metal grating and/or vines to the top. Mr. Gregerson did not object to that idea. Kathy Tyndall was concerned with the size of the proposed structure, and felt it was clearly not compatible with the neighborhood. She was concerned that the structure will violate setback rules and that changing the zoning to commercial will open the door in the future to all kinds of commercial development. Bill Cogan stated he is one of the five residents very close to the property. He too is in favor of the project, but was also concerned about the wall height. Fari Ashtiani 6740 Los Verdes Drive stated she will be very happy to see CVS pharmacy in the neighborhood. Fred Lavi felt there are enough gas stations and was in favor of changing this property to a CVS pharmacy. Chad Hagle (in rebuttal) referred to the email from Yolanta Schwartz, as he felt it covers many of the comments raised by speakers. He explained that CVS is a very different operation than Longs or other pharmacies, as they are a neighborhood store that is accustomed to using smaller buildings and working with the neighbors. He discussed the zoning, and noted that a residential use is not viable on this property and that something will have to be built on the lot, as the gas station is going away. He discussed security on the property, as there will be beer and wine sold as well as the drugs sold through the pharmacy. He discussed the notification process, and agreed that the notification radius was not large enough and that notices should have been sent to a larger number of neighbors. He stated that he would like to hold a series of neighborhood meetings before the next Planning Commission. He did ask that in return he would like to be able to go back to CVS and show that progress has been made and that there is support in general for the General Plan Amendment and the re-zoning of the property. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if CVS was going to share in the costs of remediation of the underground tanks, if necessary. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 12 Mr. Hagle stated that remediation will be necessary and CVS has already agreed to share in the costs and work with the landowner. Commissioner Tomblin questioned the financial feasibility report submitted by CB Richard Ellis, noting that this company is not known for their residential expertise but more for their retail expertise. Mr. Hagle explained that the report is currently under review by an independent economic analyst retained by the City. Chairman Perestam explained he was trying to understand the timing requested for some type of decision that Mr. Hagle can take to CVS, noting that he did not feel any type of decision will be made at this meeting because of the number of variables and questions that still need to be answered. Mr. Hagle understood and appreciated why there was not going to be a decision made at this meeting. He requested that the Planning Commission take some sort of a straw poll or that something be entered into the meeting minutes that identifies the Planning Commission's position on the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change. He felt that the bulk of the outstanding issues currently relate to the layout, design and orientation of the building, which he felt can be dealt with at future meetings. He explained that CVS wants to build a store at this location and if he is able to show them that there is a commitment by the Planning Commission to consider the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, he could guarantee that there will be reasonability and a rational perspective regarding any design considerations that need to be taken into account. Commissioner Knight stated that he has read the financial feasibility report and that there are issues he would like the City's independent analyst to look into. In terms of the viability of a gas station, he felt it was largely a function of the demands being made by Valero on their operation requirements, and may not reflect other types of operations, and he therefore asked if that could be separated out of the report. He noted that the report discusses the lack of feasibility of the site for single family homes, and a key cost component would be demolition and environmental clean-up costs. He questioned if that demolition and clean-up cost would be the same for any future use of the site and would like to see something that address this point in the report. He again noted that the report uses the entire population of the City, however only takes into account the local pharmacies and not those on Western Avenue. Chairman Perestam stated that in 2000 the Planning Commission approved a request for a hand carwash at the site, however the decision was overturned by the City Council. He asked that staff provide minutes of the City Council meeting. Director Rojas explained that at the time the carwash was proposed the neighbors had strong concerns about the noise this type of use would cause, especially from the vacuums, horn honking, and loud talking. He stated that the Planning Commission had Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 13 felt that these noise concerns could be mitigated through conditions to the project, and the project was approved. However, the Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. He stated that the City Council didn't agree as they felt that there would be quite an impact to the neighbors, and therefore overturned the Planning Commission's decision. Addressing the General Plan Amendment request, Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the change from residential zoning to commercial zoning has only been approved twice in the past 30 years, which says something regarding the standards and burdens in that regard. He stated they were being told that the main reason the City should change the General Plan was because this property is only viable as a convenience store rather than as a gas station or being divided into single family residences. With regards to the viability of single family residences, he noted that there are assumptions made in the economic report regarding the size of the homes that can be built and the cost to sell these homes. He felt these figures were very conservative and under stated, and that the negative presented in the report might be changed if more accurate figures were used. He also questioned if a gas station would be viable if another company were used, and noted that the gas at the Valero station is priced higher than other stations in the area. He stated that with the numbers given in the report he questioned if this lot is viable as a gas station or if the traffic figures are consistent. Given that there is a strong burden to prove to change the General Plan, and with the questions he has, based on the information he has been given and the assumptions made as to whether or not this project is viable either zoned residential or as a gas station, he has problems with the request to change the General Plan. Commissioner Tetreault also had concerns with the feasibility study and the accuracy and methodology used. He asked that real numbers be used for this lot and the area, rather than nationally recognized numbers. He also felt there was a flaw in the logic in comparing a CVS pharmacy to a gas station in the number of trips generated. That being said, he explained that he wasn't completely opposed to a General Plan amendment and zone change to CL. He explained that this property has been used commercially for quite some time, and it's not a big stretch to continue to use the property commercially. He felt that any proposed residential use for the property will most likely be some type of high density project, which he did not like. He did not have an objection to seeing a convenience store or pharmacy at the site, however he had concerns with the compatibility and design of the proposed project. Commissioner Knight stated that when the City adopted the Ordinance for the OC-4 Automotive Overlay District, the idea was to encourage service stations to remain in the City, and that included automotive repair. He was concerned that if this zone change is approved there will be only one automotive repair in the City, and questioned if this was in the best interest of the residents. He added, however, that he was not completely opposed to the zone change. Commissioner Tomblin felt that the job of the Planning Commission is to help preserve the quality of life in this City, and that is a function that should be looked at when Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 14 deciding if this lot should be zoned for commercial or residential use. He explained that it is the building that is generating the request to change the use, and he is having a hard time disengaging the process. He stated that he is not compelled to recommend changing the zoning because there has not been a project brought forward that represents the quality of life in Rancho Palos Verdes. He was unhappy that this project was in the setback area, and felt that if this project were to come back to the Planning Commission designed to meet the setback requirements and have the appropriate buffer zones he may be able to change his mind. He added that until he sees a better rationale to diminish the quality of life with this project, he could not justify a change from residential to commercial use. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he was not opposed to the General Plan Amendment or the Zone Change, but had serious concerns with the design of the proposed building. He was afraid that the applicant was going to have trouble finding a design that will work for CVS and also fit in the parameters set forward by the City. Commissioner Gerstner stated he does not have an objection to the General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, however he felt it will be extremely challenging to fit the proposed CVS pharmacy into this location. He stated that to make him feel comfortable with this change he will need to see a solution or a design that functions. He stated that in this community there are no strip malls and he would like to see a design for the CVS that doesn't look like every other CVS. He felt that this property could be used as residential, however noted that though residential use may be viable, it may not be the property's highest and best use. He stated that if he could be shown a solution that worked with the property, within the rules and regulations, and had a character that blended in with the City, he would most likely approve the commercial use. Chairman Perestam felt that if the Planning Commission were to be receptive to the General Plan amendment and Zone Change request, the other details most likely could be worked out. He noted that the zone change enables other options for the property. That being said, he also would be satisfied for this property to revert back to residential zoning, however at this point he is not convinced that is the best direction. He stated that he was not happy with the traffic analysis that was done and would like to see a more comprehensive study done. He also requested more details from the City Council meeting in 2000 when the Mobil Station requested a car wash at the site. Commissioner Tetreault proposed a straw poll on the issue of the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change to CL. Director Rojas reminded the Planning Commission that without a zone change, the CVS building cannot be allowed on the site. He also noted that the Planning Commission can recommend a zone change and not take the property out of the automotive overlay district. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 15 Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that if he were voting on this project tonight he would vote "no", but he has requested more information and it is conceivable he could change his mind. Commissioner Gerstner also stated that if voting today he too would vote "no", as he has been shown a design that leads him to believe that a commercial use at this property is not viable. However, if he was presented with a plan that he felt would work on the property he would then be able to support a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he would not be opposed to the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, however if has very strong reservations about this particular development on the site. He noted that he wouldn't want to change the zoning to CL without a viable plan before the City. Commissioner Knight stated he would be more in favor of a zone change to commercial, while retaining the OC-4 overlay district on the property. He stated that he could also support a residential zone for this property, and his decision would ultimately depend on the actual proposal brought before the Planning Commission, noting that he has severe problems with the current plan before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he could not support a zone change based on the plans that are currently before the Planning Commission. However, if plans were to be submitted that are more in line with the parameters presented on the property, he would consider the zone change at that time. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he is viewing the issues separately, and therefore could vote to change the zone and amend the General Plan. However, he was pessimistic that CVS would be able to easily change the design of the building to satisfy the Planning Commission's concerns to be able to approve the project as a whole. Chairman Perestam also would have to vote "no" if forced to make a decision at this meeting. However, he was looking forward to the opportunity to get more information and input that could impact that decision. Mr. Hagle questioned if the opposition was purely design or if it was of the proposed use. He asked, if he can make the proposed use conform to the design guidelines without requesting as many variances and without encroaching into setbacks, if the use itself is objectionable or acceptable to this body. He stated that this will weigh very heavily on his decision and ultimately in his recommendation to CVS and their decision as to whether or not they can continue to invest time and money into this project. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the project should adhere to the setback requirements for the property. He did not think there are other corner properties on the Peninsula that have buildings built into the setbacks similar to what is proposed. He stated that he doesn't like the look of the building in the setback. He questioned how Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 16 the applicant was going to take a 10,000 square foot building and place it on a one acre lot, deal with the parking issues, the ingress and egress issues, and place all of this right up against a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he had no problem allow this type of commercial use on the lot. He felt that the traffic issues could be solved, however he too felt the challenge was going to be the size of the building in order to make it a viable retail establishment and the size of the property they have to work with. He felt that to work this CVS store would have to have a character that is very different from the other CVS pharmacies that he has seen. He added,that he had no objection to the building being placed at the corner, but it was an issue of how the design at the corner was handled. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the comments made by Commissioners Tetreault and Gerstner. Vice Chairman Lewis had no hesitation in approving a CVS pharmacy on the property in concept, however he also had a major concern with the building in the setbacks, and did not think he could approve anything built into the setbacks at this location. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he has a problem with the General Plan Amendment request for the reasons he stated earlier. Commissioner Knight was concerned about the parking on the property. He noted that Trader Joe's has proposed underground parking as part of their solution, and wondered if that would work on this property. He also suggested looking at reorienting the building away from the setbacks. He agreed with the other Commissioners that the bulk and mass right at the corner was not acceptable. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the newly built 7-11 at Hawthorne Blvd. and Palos Verdes Drive West met with considerable opposition when it was first proposed. However, the project was redesigned many times and the applicant worked with staff and the neighbors to finally build a project that is very acceptable and viable at that location. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 8, 2008 to allow the applicant to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight asked that if the building is redesigned, that it be re-flagged. Vice Chairman Lewis amended his motion to include the new design be re- flagged on the lot, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion to continue the public hearing to July 8, 2008 was approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 17 4. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2008-00040): 5335 Rolling Ridge Road Commissioner Tetreault excused himself and left the meeting. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he lives in the 500 foot radius, and recused himself from hearing this item. He too left the meeting. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the different applications. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings to approve the project with the exception of the building size as described under the neighborhood compatibility analysis. She explained that the average size of the homes in the neighborhood is approximately 4,400 square feet, with the largest home at approximately 6,000 square feet. She stated that the new residence is proposed to be 8,297 square feet, which staff felt was too large for the neighborhood. Because of the structure size, staff was recommending denial of the project without prejudice. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Larry Peha (architect) stated that staff's only objection to the project is the size, and read from the staff report as to how neighborhood compatibility is achieved per the Development Code. He noted that the word "size" is never mentioned, and the closest mention would be bulk and mass. He stated that in designing the home great effort was made to reduce the bulk and mass with quite a bit of articulation. He also noted that two-thirds of the house is a one-story structure. He also noted that most of the homes in the area were built in the 1960's and were much smaller, and over time as these homes are being replaced, the size of the has been increasing. He reiterated that size is just a number while bulk and mass are what should be considered. He also stated that this home will not be seen from the street. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. Dr. Ralph Allman (applicant) explained that they have tried to design a home that fits their life style, as they have quite a bit of family that stays with them and they do quite a bit of entertaining. He discussed the last three homes built in the area, noting that they are all over 6,000 square feet in size. He stated that the lot is down far enough so that the home will not block any views from houses on the street above, and he is planning to build a wall and plan shrubbery to maintain the privacy to the Trowbridge home below. Douglas Trowbridge stated that he has outstanding issues with this proposed residence, as well as a pending view restoration appeal that is to be heard by the City Council and issues with easements on his flag lot. He stated that he relies on all of the CC&Rs for the neighborhood, except the one which he feels is unconstitutional. Bob Bothner stated that the building of larger homes is a natural evolution for this neighborhood, noting that his home was built before Rolling Ridge Road existed. He Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 18 felt this was an upgrade to the neighborhood. He also noted that because of the size and location of the lot, this proposed residence will not be seen from the street and will not block the views of any of the neighbors. He stated that he is very much in favor of the project. Carrie Williams 3508 Via Campesina, felt that the Allman's home will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood and had no problem with the height or size of the home. Susan Semelka 5329 Bayridge Road, stated she lives directly above the proposed residence. She felt this was a beautiful home and welcomed it as part of her view. Chairman Perestam asked if any portion of the three pine trees on the applicant's property are in her view frame. Mrs. Semelka answered that they are not. Pritam Matharu 5303 Bayridge Road stated that he supports the project and was very happy that Dr. Allman will be his neighbor. Commissioner Perestam also asked Mr. Matharu if the three pine trees on the Allman property are in his view frame. Mr. Matharu answered that there are many trees on Rolling Ridge Road that are in his view which he would like to see removed permanently. Gerald Bronstein felt that the design of the Allman home is very beautiful and would be an asset to the neighborhood. Oliver Enders stated he was speaking on behalf of his parents who live at 5319 Bayridge Road stated that the Allmans have removed many trees that has restored the view from his parent's home. He stated that the size of the home is nothing in comparison to the trees that were previously there, and that his parents are very much in favor of this new home. Dr. Allman (in rebuttal) briefly discussed the CC&Rs for the neighborhood, noting they were drafted in 1948 with the Palos Verdes Corporation. He stated that the CC&Rs address how homes should be built, and challenged staff and the Planning Commission to find one home in the neighborhood that met the standards set forth in the CC&Rs. He stated that has assured all of his neighbors on Bayridge Road that if any of his trees ever encroach into their view, that he will gladly and willingly trim his trees out of their views. Commissioner Knight noted that when making the findings for privacy, staff analyzed the properties to the east and west, but asked if staff analyzed the properties to the north. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 19 Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff did look at the property to the north since the neighbor's pad is approximately 20 feet lower in elevation than the applicant's pad, and thus the only view the Allmans would have would be over the neighbor's roof. Vice Chairman Lewis explained that in terms of neighborhood compatibility, if this home were lined up at street level with the other homes on the street, he would reject this proposed project. However, because this home is submerged and not visible from the street leaves the Planning Commission more discretion. He therefore was able to make all of the findings, disagreeing with staff's conclusion that the size prevents the finding of neighborhood compatibility. He felt that he could support the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that this is a big house, however the building pad is thirty feet below the street elevation, and the height of the house 26 feet. Therefore, the house can't be seen from the street and can hardly be seen from Via Campesina. He disagreed with staff's recommendation and stated he could support the project. He added, however, that he understood why staff made the recommendation they did. Commissioner Knight understood how staff concluded the house is too large for the neighborhood, but agreed with the other Commissioners that it is well hidden and can't be seen from the street. Chairman Perestam stated that the Planning Commission looks at these applications on a lot by lot basis, and some lots can handle a large house and others can't. He stated that this lot, being below the street level, can handle a larger home as it doesn't have a bulk and mass impact on any of the neighboring homes. He therefore could support the project. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to approve the Height Variation, Site Plan Review, and Grading Permit as presented by staff, with direction to staff to bring the appropriate Resolution of approval back on the next Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (5-0) with Commissioner Gerstner recused and Commissioner Tetreault absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of May 13, 2008 Commissioner Knight noted a clarification on page 4 of the minutes. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of June 24, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 20 The pre-agenda was unanimously approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2009 Page 21