Loading...
PC MINS 20080708 Ap roved August 12, 008 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 8, 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 Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioners Knight, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Lewis were excused. 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 unanimously agreed to move Agenda Item No. 2 to be heard after Agenda Item No. 5. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed 13 items of correspondence and the City consultant's report on the applicant's economic analysis for Agenda Item No. 1, as well as one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 4. Director Rojas noted that the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the view case on Dianora Drive is scheduled to be heard by the City Council at the July 15, 2008 meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Variance, Conditional Use Permit Grading, and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2008-00091): 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief overview of the proposed project and the concerns expressed by staff and the Planning Commission at the previous public hearing. He displayed drawings of the modified design, noting the elements that have been incorporated into the design to create a building that is more in keeping with the residential character of the immediate area. Therefore, staff feels that concern has been addressed. He addressed the concern with the building height, and explained that the applicant has lowered the overall height of the building by 1 Y2 feet at the entrance. Further, the more prominent portion of the building located closest to the intersection of Hawthorne Blvd. and Granvia Altimira has been reduced by 3 Y2 feet. He stated that the Planning Commission had concerns with building location, and the applicant has therefore pushed the building away from the corner to the extent that a Variance will no longer be required. He stated that the applicant has submitted an updated traffic report with actual traffic counts, and this report has been reviewed and approved by the City's consulting traffic engineer. He stated another issue the Planning Commission had was with the financial analysis presented by the applicant, and the applicant has updated the economic analysis to include a residential project at the site. He stated that this analysis has been reviewed by the City's economic consultant and the consultant's comments have been distributed to the Planning Commission. He reviewed the General Plan Amendments approved by the City, noting that the amendments have been approved to allow for the existing use that was on the property. He discussed the proposed car wash use on the property and that was approved by a previous Planning Commission, but was overturned by the City Council. He noted that details of this can be found in the staff report. He concluded by stating that staff is recommending the Planning Commission review the design, close the public hearing, formulate a recommendation to the City Council, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution for adoption at a future meeting. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff what was meant by the term "pass by trips" that is referenced in the traffic study. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that was a result of a comment received from the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and explained it is the number of trips that go to the subject property on their way to another location as opposed to those that go to the subject property as the primary destination. Chad Hagel felt that his team has done a phenomenal job in gathering information and responding to the concerns raised at the last meeting from the public and the Planning Commission. He stated that actual traffic counts were obtained, additional analysis was done on the feasibility and design for residential use at the property, a complete redesign of the building elevations was done to incorporate residential characteristics, and there is a revised building location and footprint. He reiterated what he brought up in the last meeting, if CVS can get one thing, it would be to maintain the square footage Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 2 that CVS requires to operate in a profitable manner, and in order to get this CVS is willing to be extremely flexible in trying to achieve all of the other objectives put in front of them. He stated that since the last meeting he has been trying to do additional community outreach. He quickly outlined the various speakers that would be representing the project this evening. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that he is insured through a very large carrier, and recently was told that his medical prescriptions will be greatly reduced in price if he orders on line. He felt this was soon to be the norm rather than the exception, and asked Mr. Hagel if that has been taken into account when discussing the demand and need for another pharmacy on the Peninsula. Mr. Hagel stated that there will be a continuing trend towards these types of insurance plans, however in looking at countries that are more socialized they still have a very large predominance of retail pharmacies. He stated that the population in this country is getting older and the demand will continue to rise, no matter what payment method is applicable. He noted that CVS is very much aware of this and has recently acquired Caremark, a health plan management organization, thereby ensuring themselves a very large segment of the controlled reimbursement medical population and the pharmaceutical sales that goes along with it. Dr. Hannaeur (property owner) reiterated that she grew up in this area and is raising her family here, and her family has the best intentions of the community in mind. She discussed her family's history over the past 25 years in owning and operating gas stations, and explained how the Valero station is now no longer profitable as there is not the community need for the gas station at this location. Steve Jordan stated that one of the comments from the last Planning Commission meeting was to adjust the architecture to blend in with the neighborhood, and he showed pictures of the original design and the modified design. He briefly described the changes made to the design. Grant Elliot stated he was responsible for doing a residential analysis for the site, which included use of a civil engineer, a local residential broker, architect, and developer. He explained that three lots could be created at this site, and showed a financial analysis for building these lots. He explained that the analysis was done using the maximum lot coverage allowed by Code on this site. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned many of the methodologies used how specific conclusions were reached in the report. Commissioner Gerstner also questioned some of the numbers and conclusions in the report, noting that he did not think building three homes on this lot would necessarily be in the red as suggested in the report. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 3 Mr. Elliot felt that the residential broker will be able to speak to these concerns better than he can. Jolene Merrill stated she is with Coldwell Banker and has been in the residential resale market since 1977. She stated that in developing the figures presented she consulted with two other brokers who have also been in the business for many years. She explained the conclusion she reached was that it would be unwise to try to market something on the subject property for more than 1.5 million dollars because of the lack of neighborhood in the immediate neighborhood and the busy corner. She felt that the property which most closely approximates the subject is on Peppertree Lane, at the corner of Hawthorne Blvd. and Crest Road, and discussed the asking prices for homes currently on the market in this and similar areas. She noted that the larger homes on the busy corners have a selling price that reflects the location. Commissioner Gerstner stated that it was odd to him that in a community with some of the most expensive residences in Southern California there is a single piece of land that somehow is not financially feasible as residential property, when all the other land in the entire community is not only feasible but particularly profitable as residential. He asked what was so unique about this piece of property that its one of the only pieces of property in the entire City that is not financially feasible for residential use. Ms. Merrill answered by describing the sale of a piece of a home that was on the market for over a year, which she felt sold for under the current market value. She stated that this is not the only piece of property on the peninsula that has some negative characteristics for residential development. She explained that most developments are built with more houses in them which then creates their own ambiance in the way of a neighborhood, and that will be lacking on this lot. Michael Gonzales and Lauren Wooding stated that the purpose of their presentation was to demonstrate the benefit of the General Plan Amendment in comparison to the site across the street that had a similar General Plan Amendment in 1988. He felt that with the General Plan Amendment there will be more control over the site and how it will be developed. He noted that the office building across the street is approximately 38 feet in height as compared to the proposed 16 foot high CVS pharmacy. He displayed a chart that displayed a project comparison of the proposed CVS pharmacy versus the non-conforming office building across the street. He stated that this General Plan Amendment will regulate the use of the property and allow the City to regulate the proposed structure on the property. He noted that staff supports the General Plan Amendment, explaining it is internally consistent with the General Plan and it is internally consistent with the site that has been used for commercial purposes for 37 years. He stated that the site is suitable for the proposed use and is well situated to accommodate the use that is being proposed. Commissioner Tomblin asked about the exterior lighting of the parking lot and property. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 4 Ms. Wooding answered that after speaking to the neighbors about lighting, the architect has been working on a site layout and photometrics. She stated that they will accept any conditions of approval imposed by the City regarding lighting. Commissioner Tomblin stated that there was a comment from the neighbors regarding the wall height on the back side, and asked if that was addressed. Ms. Wooding explained that they are looking at a 6-foot tall wall along the north and west perimeter, which is in compliance with code requirements. Robert Khan (traffic consultant) stated that his firm has been involved in traffic and transportation impact studies throughout Southern California and has prepared hundreds of studies, and has done a number of studies for pharmacy uses. He explained that his company has been retained to prepare the trip generation studies with the primary purpose to determine if there will be a significant change in the traffic generated by this particular use. He further explained that his study was prepared based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the main document used for generating traffic for various land uses, and is used by many cities and municipalities throughout Southern California and is recognized by traffic engineers as the main document for determining the traffic during morning, afternoon, and daily trips. He addressed the term "pass by trips" by explaining that a portion of trips going to a specific use would be coming directly from an adjacent roadway and that these were not a specific trip to that use, as these trips were already on the highway. He stated that the reason pass by trips are considered is that the actual impacts to the intersections and roadway segments are affected by the additional trips that occur because of a particular land use. He discussed the trip generation analysis that was prepared, and noted that results indicate that the proposed CVS pharmacy will actually generate less net a.m. and p.m. trips than the previous use. He stated that, based on comparing both the gross trip generations and the net trip generations, it is his conclusion that this proposed used will not significantly change the amount of traffic generated by the current use on the property. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Khan how many trip generations the ITE Trip Generation Manual would list for a convenience store or market that is not primarily a pharmacy. Mr. Khan answered that the trips for that type of use would be substantially more than the pharmacy classification. Steve Kuykendall stated that he has not found anyone how would like to use the subject property for residential use, noting that it has been a commercial site since the property was first developed. He felt the property is a poor location for residential housing, has poor ingress and egress, and there would be a high cost to develop the lot for residential use. He explained that there could only be one point of ingress and egress on the property to serve three single family residences, which is a very difficult sales scenario when talking about high priced housing. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 5 Connie Semos, 6512 Monero Drive, thanked Mr. Hagel and his associates for their redesign of the building in an effort to accommodate to the plan. She felt the new design is an improvement with respect to the visual character of the site, it does not enhance the surrounding area, which is residential. She felt that any commercial building of that magnitude has a negative impact on the aesthetics, namely the civic vista that is witnessed from that corner. She noted that there are already pharmacies and convenience stores in the immediate area, and that if CVS vacates the premises in the next 25 years they can sublet the property. She questioned what could then be put on the property. She felt that changing the zoning on the property to CL will be contrary to one of the reasons the City incorporated, which was to limit commercial development. She did not think that rezoning the property to CL was in the public's interest. David Hsu, 6409 Rio Linda Drive, stated that one of the reasons he has lived in this City for so long is because he loves the non-commercial characteristic of the community. He therefore objected to the proposed zone change on the property. He didn't think the zoning should be changed just because a property owner would like to make money. He questioned whether the traffic count took into account the bottleneck that occurs on Granvia Altimira every morning with all of the delivery trucks that are parked out on that street. Kathy Tyndall stated that she has been a real estate agent on the Peninsula for 25 years and has sold many houses in the neighborhood adjacent to the subject property. She stated that having the Valero gas station and the 7-11 is a tremendous detriment to the Los Verdes community and questioned why they would want something that will be three times as big. She felt that building the CVS pharmacy will cause the property values to decline in the immediate neighborhood, and therefore the property taxes will also decline. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Tyndall what she would like to see built on the property. Ms. Tyndall answered that she could envision four single family residences built on the property, noting that there are many residential lots on Hawthorne Blvd. She also suggested a small office building or even a smaller building for the CVS pharmacy, as she felt the current proposal is much too big for the lot. Larry Barlock, 28070 Santona Drive, which is directly adjacent to the proposed CVS pharmacy. He stated that he and his wife fully support the proposed project. He noted that all the landowner and contractor have made all of the changes and modifications requested by the Planning Commission and staff, and are open to other changes if needed. He felt the current design is a significant move forward, as it has a residential character to it. He also felt that the pharmacy meets the needs of a growing senior community. He was worried that maintaining the current zoning will result in a vacant lot surrounded by a chain link fence. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 6 Lindley Ruddick, 28042 Acana Road, asked the Planning Commission to deny the requested zone change to accommodate the proposed project. He felt the proposed project was not a pharmacy, but rather a convenience store with a small portion of the store devoted to pharmaceuticals. He also felt the proposed project was far too large for both the neighborhood and the lot. He disagreed with staffs opinion that the waiver of the setback from residential property adjacent to the lot is mitigated by a slope and hard surface walls. He felt this will result in the appearance of a large box surrounded on two sides by a fortress-like wall, hardly in keeping with a residential neighborhood. However, if the Planning Commission feels the project has merit and approves the zone change, he asked that the revised project be denied until such time that is significantly reduced in size with no requested variances. Eileen Waters stated that this lot is within walking distance of five other drug stores, and she did not feel that another pharmacy was needed. She felt that the convenience store side of the project will be more lucrative than the pharmacy. She envisioned the store frequented by teens buying sodas after school and pocketing merchandise. She asked why the City needs one more place where the teens can learn to be dishonest. She also felt the store will be a local haven for gardeners and other hired workers. She felt the location would be better served as a mini-park with trees and plenty of seating. Linda Herman 28070 Ella Road explained that she is a resident who signed the petition against the proposed project, however after attending a neighborhood meeting and learning more about the project, she now supports the project. She was concerned, however, that should the future use of the property not be viable, there should be some way of controlling what eventually happens at the property. Rustine Eshfiani stated he is a resident of Palos Verdes Estates and supports the proposed project. He felt that it will be more pleasing to see the newly designed building versus a gas station or a vacant lot. Faye Eshfiani stated she one hundred percent supports the project and will be very happy to use the convenience store and the local CVS pharmacy. She stated that she is currently very unhappy with the other pharmacies on the peninsula. Marvam Pourmohsen stated she was also speaking for her husband, and wanted to express their support for the proposed project. She felt it would be very convenient to have a CVS on the hill and will be much more aesthetically pleasing than the current gas station. Parven Meadows explained that she too is a realtor and would not take a listing of a single family residence at that location because it is not sellable. She felt that the proposed pharmacy will be very convenient for the residents in the community and was in support of the project. Sherry Hope stated that she is in support of the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 7 Nima Vinny 30165 Cartier Drive expressed his support of the project. He felt that the proposed building was much more pleasant to look at than the current gas station. He also did not think it was practical to develop the lot for residential use. Sylvia Rampino 6948 Verde Ridge Road, stated her main concern was the contaminated soil, and was pleased that CVS was willing to pay for soil clean up on the property. She felt this was a perfect location for the CVS pharmacy, and did not think it was a good location for residential homes. She stated that she was in favor of the project. Nazi Esfahani stated she is in favor of the proposed CVS pharmacy. She stated that CVS is one of the largest pharmacies in the country and are included in all insurance plans, including Medicare and Medi Cal. She did not think this would be a profitable lot to build residential homes on and was in favor of the pharmacy. Shahine Arabi stated that she is in favor of the CVS pharmacy, noting that the population is increasing and the population is aging. Parvin Azad 30615 Cartier Drive stated that she is very much in favor of CVS pharmacy, stating that she has had quite a bit of trouble with the other pharmacies on the peninsula. Maritza Monheiser expressed her support of the CVS pharmacy. Vivian Gallup 4 Oceancrest Court stated she is in support of the CVS pharmacy. She stated that Ralphs and Vons both have pharmacies, however they maintain a very small stock. Fred Lavi 28335 Ridgefalls Court stated that he is in favor of the CVS pharmacy. He explained that he is a commercial real estate broker and felt that if the property were to be developed for residential use, it may only be worth $1 million, however if developed for commercial use the property could be worth as much as $5 million. He also noted that even if a residential development were viable, three houses on the lot would total more square footage than the entire pharmacy and would be two-story structures rather than the single story CVS pharmacy. Bahram Aarabi 5146 Kingspine Road stated he is in favor of the pharmacy. Resident felt that aesthetically the pharmacy will look much better than the gas station. He understood the local neighbor concerns, however he pointed out that all residents use this area. He felt that the pharmacy will add a convenience to the residents of Los Verdes, as well as to residents in other areas of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates. He felt that the CVS pharmacy will do a greater good to the community than the gas station or a residential development. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 8 Stuart Freedland 28237 Lobrook felt the traffic is being grossly under estimated, especially in the afternoon. He understood the owners predicament that they couldn't sell enough gas to stay in business, but noted that he buys his gas elsewhere because the price of the gas at Vallero is so high. He stated that the nature of this community is that there is a town center with numbers of other pharmacies, and he would hate to see the nature of this community deteriorate for convenience sake. Anajida Perestat stated that the reality is the gas station will be closing, and she was in favor of the CVS pharmacy as the best use for the land. She felt that stalling any type of development would only lead to loitering and increased crime in the area. She noted that the City will benefit tax-wise from the income of the CVS pharmacy. Bruce Azad felt that the concerns of the neighborhood, while very important, have been taken into account. He felt that the CVS pharmacy and the Planning Commission are doing all they can to balance the needs of the neighborhood with the needs of the community at large. He stated he is very much in favor of the CVS pharmacy. Patricia Parker asked if the Planning Commissioners could envision a CVS pharmacy in a residential neighborhood in Palos Verdes Estates. She couldn't. She felt this City was organized to protect the residents from commercial sprawl, which is what she felt this was. She didn't think the City needed another pharmacy. She stated that in Palos Verdes Estates there are many pocket parks, and this lot would be a good location for a pocket park. Bob Astiani stated that he is fully in support of the CVS pharmacy. Viorel Bucur 28068 Santona Drive, which is right below the gas station and is right next to Hawthorne Boulevard. He stated that he has listened to every talk about how this property can not be profitable as residential, but he disagreed. He felt that the Planning Commission should consider the value of the property and what it is really worth. He noted that his property was appraised three years ago for $1.4 million. Chad Hagel (in rebuttal) felt that by injecting its own view points on the necessity of particular business uses on this property, the City put itself in a precarious situation. He stated that it leaves the City in a situation, where as the market changes, the City is forced to respond to that rather than have a flexible zoning that's on the property that allows the property to respond to the changes in the market naturally. In retrospect, he didn't understand why such a restrictive zoning was placed on this property, as it was already in use as a commercial use, to be down-zoned to residential but with an overlay placed on top of it to make it viable as a gas station only. He stated that economics in the world are changing, and at the time the gas station was probably very important, but today it is no longer viable or necessary. He stated experts have testified that the new use will not have as much traffic as the current use. He cautioned that it is important not to confuse traffic counts at the intersection with trip generation of the use. He stated that this side of the intersection is designed for commercial use, and this lot is almost a mirror image of the lot across the street that contains 7-11. He stated that the building Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 9 being proposed fits the character and the nature of the intersection, noting it will be the smaller, less dense, and shorter of the two sister properties. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Hagel what his position would be if no signage were allowed on the side of the building and only monument signage were allowed. Mr. Hagel explained that this project was approved by the CVS real estate committee with signage in two location, over the entryway and at the corner when the corner element previously existed. He showed several pictures and rendering which depicted where the currently proposed signage was to be located. He felt that he could present to CVS any suggestions by the City. He stated that there is a great opportunity to create some features at the corner that would be neighborhood friendly and create an inviting corner. He suggested a curved, seat wall at the corner with signage on the wall. He stated that the signage that would cause a problem to eliminate would be the signage over the entry door. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if there were any indication that the soils is any more contaminated than from the usual use of a property with a gas station on it. Mr. Hagel answered that there is no indication that the clean-up of the property would be any different than the average gas station. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hagel if any type of study was done on a multi- family type of use for the property. Mr. Hagel answered that in theory there could be a multi-family development on the property, however all of the challenges he has faced and addressed in the design and implementation of the CVS facility will be faced by any developer who is developing a multi-tenant residential property. He questioned how the size could be reduced to 16 feet versus current grade and how the project could be viable and still stay out of the setbacks. He felt the design, engineering, and traffic impacts would be insurmountable. He also noted that there is no application on the table, nor has there been one, from a developer who wants to buy this property and rezone it to multi-tenant residential. Further, the current applicant has approach Planning staff in the past regarding multi- tenant residential and was given several reasons why this was not desirable and would most likely not be supported by staff. Chairman Perestam asked staff if, in the recent past, there have been any inquiries or discussions regarding a fourth unit on the property. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that there have been no applications submitted to the City for this type of use on the property. He explained that when looking at the site there are some initial concerns with the height of the building and view issues. Director Rojas added that in meetings with the applicant he has conveyed some of the reaction and opposition the City is seeing regarding the multi-family projects in Rolling Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 10 Hills Estates and also with the multi-family project being proposed in this City. He also noted that the City's consultant looked at a multi-family scenario and determined that there would need to be 8 to 22 units on the property to make it work. He explained that raises a question of how to fit that many units on this property. Director Rojas reminded the Planning Commission that their role in this application is advisory, as they are making a recommendation to the City Council as to the approval or denial of the requested General Plan Amendment. He also noted that if the Planning Commission decides to continue the public hearing to hear more public testimony or request additional information from staff, the public hearing will have to be continued to August 26th rather than July 22nd, as suggested in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff what control the City has over what is allowed on the property if the pharmacy use fails and CVS leaves the site. Director Rojas answered that if the existing use goes away, the Code allows certain uses by right in a commercial zone and that certain other uses require a Conditional use Permit and public hearings. He read from the Code the allowed by right uses in a CL zone. Commissioner Gerstner complimented the applicants on the changes and compromises made in the proposed design of the structure. That being said, he explained that Rancho Palos Verdes is considered a residential community, which means its residents are willing to drive further for services and the commercial areas tend to be localized. He felt that this proposal is not a permit for CVS, but a request to change the zoning on a piece of property to commercial. He noted that the property across the street is also commercial, which will then create somewhat of a commercial center at this intersection. He felt that if this use is viable, the traffic and trips at the intersection will increase, and will be somewhat more than what the applicant has projected. He also felt that traffic and trips will increase if the center across the street is upgraded. He felt that taking the trips to the CVS combined with a more viable use of the property across the street, this will start to push on the character of that corner. He did not think this would contribute to the semi-rural character of the community, and was therefore not inclined to recommend at this time a zone change for the property to the City Council. He explained that he was trying to look at the long term of the two commercial properties, not necessarily being a 7-11 and a CVS pharmacy, but possibly one of the other acceptable uses. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that his primary focus has been on the request for a zone change, and the burden on the applicant is quite heavy since this would entail a change to the General Plan. He stated that even though staff has stated that economics should not be considered when making a decision, he felt that in this case where the City is being asked to make a change in the zoning to commercial use, it is important to consider whether or not the gas station is a still a viable use for the property, and if so, he did not feel there would be support for a zone change. He felt that sufficient information has now been presented to show that this site is no longer Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 11 viable as a gas station. As to whether or not it would be viable as a residential lot, again he felt that enough information had now been presented that he did not think the property was viable as a residential lot. He stated that if the property is not viable as a gas station and not viable as residential, then the City should not deny an application to change the General Plan. He also noted that if the property is not viable as a gas station or residential, and the City denied a commercial zone change, it would create a situation where effectively the City is taking the property. Regarding the actual project, the question of the setbacks has been solved and the size of the building fits on to the size of the lot. He was not convinced that the traffic studies presented are exactly accurate, but did not think this was enough to recommend denial of the project. Therefore, he stated that he was in favor of the proposed project. Commissioner Tomblin stated that the change in use of land very much affects the quality of life in the area. He explained that he has observed a local CVS and watched the traffic and the people coming in and out, and does not want to see that kind of use in this mostly residential area. He stated that a very large number of comments he has received tend to agree. He stated that this property was zoned residential with a one- time gas station overlay placed on it. He wished that the City had more time to discuss what other type of residential uses were viable for this property. Therefore, based on not seeing all of the options of what could happen on this lot and based on the comments he has received from residents of the City, he cannot support the change of use on the property. Chairman Perestam agreed with Mr. Hagel that if the zone change was to be approved, the actual details of the CVS pharmacy can be worked out. He stated that he is more comfortable, but not fully accepting, of the traffic study done for the intersection. He felt that this zone change request is tied directly to the current economics, noting that when the housing market improves the viability of developing this lot as residential might also improve. Therefore, he is very much undecided in regards to the requested zone change for the property. He was sorry that the other Commissioners were not present to express their opinions on the zone change. He therefore was going to vote in support of the project so that it goes to the City Council with a 2-2 vote from the Planning Commission. Director Rojas explained that to give staff direction to bring back the Resolution to either support or deny the project, there needs to be an affirmative vote by the Planning Commission. He also noted that any Commissioner not at this meeting can watch the video of the meeting and participate in the next hearing. Therefore, even if there is a 3- 1 position tonight to support the project, if the absent Commissioners watch the tape and come to the next meeting with a different viewpoint, that could change the decision provided the public hearing is not closed, since the formal decision is made through the adoption of a Resolution. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission is equally divided 2-2 with regards to whether or not to approve this proposed project for the reasons expressed by Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 12 each of the four Commissioners present, and ask the City Council to make its decision after considering the comments of the Commissioners, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Gerstner felt that if the absent Commissioners are at the next meeting they will most likely ask to take the item off of the Consent Calendar and express their opinions on this project. He questioned why the Planning Commission would again continue this matter and delay sending the project to the City Council, who will ultimately make the decision. He stated that this project is going to the City Council with all of the same commentary, opinions, and speakers. Director Rojas questioned the motion as it gave no direction and staff needs direction to draft a resolution that summaries the Commission's decision. He explained that staff was expecting a vote of approval or denial and to return with the appropriate Resolution on the Consent Calendar for the next meeting. He questioned whether the Commission really wished to let the City council know that it could not make a decision on the matter. Chad Hagel stated that this is a very important decision, and questioned if procedurally the Planning Commission can send a neutral recommendation to the City Council. He also felt that the Planning Commission was letting a set of outside circumstances, namely time, dictate a decision on a very important issue. He asked if there was any means by which the agenda for the July 22nd Planning Commission can be changed to allow this to be a fully opened public hearing discussion at that meeting. Chairman Perestam stated that his vote is definitely not "neutral" regarding this project, and Commissioner Gerstner agreed, noting his opinions had clearly been expressed. Chairman Perestam explained that the Agenda for the next meeting is quite full, in that St. John Fisher is scheduled for that meeting and that this item just can't be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Hagel requested a few minutes so that he and the owners could step outside to discuss some matters relating to the application and the possible continuance. Chairman Perestam granted Mr. Hagel the time and stated the Planning Commission would continue on with the Agenda and return to this item when the applicant was ready. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00643): 16 Rockinghorse Road Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to July 22, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. The motion was unanimously approved. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 13 CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 5. Height Variation Permit, Site Plan Review & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00536): 5501 Shoreview Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented a brief staff report explaining the changes made in the project since the last public hearing. She showed a photograph taken from the neighbor's home with the original silhouette and the revised silhouette. Chairman Perestam asked if the silhouette at the site reflects the changes made to the plans. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the silhouette reflects the current plan. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Gregg Ferguson (applicant) explained that he would like to install solar panels on the roof of his home, and the average ideal angle for a south facing roof is an 8:12 pitch roof, which is steeper than seen in the City today. He explained that they chose a gable style roof and situated it so that public views would be of the side of the roof so the roof angle would not be apparent. However, based on Commissioner comments at the previous meeting he has reduced the roof angle and lowered the height. He stated that there are 5 other two-story homes on Shoreview Drive and discussed the other two- story homes on other nearby streets. He felt that because of the way his lot is situated, it is probably the most advantageous lot on Shoreview Drive for a two-story home. He showed several pictures from different locations of the silhouette on his property. Russ Barto (architect) stated that at the previous meeting the Planning Commission expressed concern with the height of the proposed house and that the size of the house, though it is large, was not as much of an issue since a substantial portion of the house will be below grade and will not contributed to the visible bulk. Therefore, by a combination of lowering the floor to floor height and reducing the roof slope, the house was lowered by three feet. Robert Gibson 26727 Basswood Avenue stated that only the Littlebow HOA was notified and not the Basswood HOA, which is directly adjacent to the proposed project. He disagreed with staffs determination that the proposed house will be compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. He questioned how a structure that is the largest in the neighborhood and the first two-story structure in the neighborhood can be considered compatible. He also spoke for Daniel Colburn, who lives on Basswood Drive. He stated that Mr. Colburn was concerned with the hillside and the excavation of the basement. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 14 Commissioner Tomblin moved to accept staff's recommendation to approve the proposed project as conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Chairman Perestam asked if the new Resolution incorporates the conditions from the last submittal. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the new Resolution has not changed except for the discussion of the height of the project and the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Chairman Perestam asked staff if the Basswood HOA had been notified. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the Planning Department has a list of Homeowners Associations and the contacts, which is updated through notifications from the various HOAs. She stated that the City has no record of a Basswood HOA. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-25 approving the Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review as conditioned by staff was adopted, (3-1) with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting. 1. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Grading, and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2008-00091): 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. (continued) Director Rojas read from the Planning Commission rules which state that any tie vote shall constitute a denial of the motion. He explained that if the commission doesn't continue the item and the matter ends up in a tie vote, staff would then forward this application to the City Council with no Resolution and an explanation that the Planning Commission was unable to take any action because of a tie vote. He noted that by doing this, there is a possibility that the City Council may remand the item back to the Planning Commission to get a full Commission vote on the item. Michael Gonzales (representing the owner) requested the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the August 26th meeting, rather than forward the item to the City Council with a recommendation of no decision. He also requested some guidance from the Planning Commission on outstanding issues that are of concern so that they may address these items at the next meeting. Commissioner Gerstner did not object to a continuance, however he stated that he has heard quite a bit of information on the project and did not know what he could offer to the applicant as far as guidance, as he felt this is a land use issue and he did think that the intersection was well suited as a commercial center. Commissioner Ruttenberg withdrew his motion. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 15 Commissioner Tomblin moved to continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission of August 26, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (4-0). 2. Residential Development Standards Code Amendment & Zone Change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to July 22, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (4-0) 3. Green Building Program Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the item to the August 26, 2008 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (4-0). NEW BUSINESS 6. Possible reduction in size of the Planning Commission Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the item to the July 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of May 27, 2008 Continued to the July 22, 2008 meeting. 8. Minutes of June 10, 2008 Continued to the July 22, 2008 meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of July 22, 2008 No action taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:21 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2008 Page 16