Loading...
PC MINS 20081211 Approved February 10, 2009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, and Chairman Perestam. Commissioner Tetreault arrived before Agenda Item No. 5 Absent: Commissioner Gerstner and Vice Chairman Lewis were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Perestam and Commissioners Knight and Ruttenberg noted that a neighbor associated with agenda item No. 4 had contacted them. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Variance (Case No. ZON2008-00489): 28060 Lobrook Drive Chairman Perestam moved to approve the Consent Calendar, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2008-51 approving the Variance, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (4-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00477): 5801 Crestridge Road Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving the history and scope of the project, and explaining how the project has been revised since it was last before the Commission. She showed photographs taken from properties on Mistridge Drive where there had been concerns with view impairment, noting that with the redesigned project there is no longer any view impairment. She stated that given the previous view impairment has been completely eliminated by the removal of the smaller parapet, staff feels the applicant has adequately addressed the Planning Commission's concerns from the previous meeting and recommends approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Justin Robinson (applicant representing Verizon Wireless) stated that the second parapet has been eliminated, hopefully eliminating any view impairment from the neighbors' homes. He requested that condition No. 17 be modified to add language stating "upon request of the Planning Director". Commissioner Ruttenberg noted a piece of correspondence received regarding the proposed color of the project. Mr. Robinson explained that the color and design will be consistent with the Canterbury. Chairman Perestam stated that one of the discussions at the last meeting revolved around the trade-offs involved with modifying the project and the effectiveness of the antennas with certain trade-offs. He asked Mr. Robinson about the trade-offs that occurred with this modification. Mr. Robinson explained that there has been a trade-off with this redesign. He explained the primary objective of the site is to cover Crestridge Road and the secondary objective is coverage up the hill. He stated that Verizon Wireless is trading off a greater capability going up the hill with this redesign. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked what percentage of trade-off there will be. Mr. Robinson guessed that for the one sector there may be a 30 to 40 percent degradation. Patricia Arand (5731 Mistridge Drive) stated that her home directly overlooks the Canterbury. She stated that most of her initial concerns have been mitigated, and that her final concern is about the color of the installation. She assumed the color would be the same as the rock roof that it will be installed on, however she has learned it will be the same beige color at the building. She felt this will give the impression of a four-story building. She asked that the color be the same as the rock roof. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 2 Mr. Robinson stated that he will be willing to keep the color scheme uniform with the rest of the building, or whatever color scheme the Canterbury chooses. Commissioner Knight asked Director Rojas if he had any objections to the wording change suggested for condition No. 17. Director Rojas had no objection to the change requested by the applicant. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt PC Resolution 2008-52 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff with the revision to add the language suggested by the applicant in condition No. 17 and that the color should be the same color as the walls, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-0). . Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00243)° 30359 Hawthorne Blvd. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. She explained that staff is recommending denial of the project and summarized the reasons as outlined in the staff report. She also noted that Verizon Wireless has provided staff of a plan that indicated that co-location is possible on a light standard located slightly north of the park. However, because of the parcel being located on Los Angeles County land, and because the approval process with Los Angeles County is slow and difficult, the applicant has opted to construct a new monopole instead. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the project, as detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Tomblin asked if a 30-foot monopole is unusually high, or if this is a standard height. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the height will depend on the location, noting there have been taller towers approved at other sites. She added that for this location the City has not approved any new towers and only approved co-locations. Chairman Perestam asked if the proposed pole will be visible from Hawthorne Boulevard. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the pole will be visible from Hawthorne Boulevard. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Robert McCormick (applicant) explained that Verizon Wireless has done a review of the potential for co-location on the other existing poles in the area, and explained the difficulties involved with each. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 3 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. McCormick why he couldn't combine his antennas with the ones on the existing light pole. Mr. McCormick explained that he could locate on the existing light pole, however that would cause the height of the pole to go up approximately six feet and would increase the girth of the pole. Commissioner Tomblin felt it would be helpful for Verizon to provide simulation photographs to give the Commissioners a better idea of how this proposed project will look, as well as how the existing poles would look if the antennas were co-located. Chairman Perestam asked if there was a study done on the effectiveness of using other poles as compared to the pole that is being proposed. Mr. McCormick answered that the company looked further down the hill but determined that this is the most viable area. He noted that major factors in determining location are line of sight as well as topography, and that the viability of this sight can be proven by the number of antennas already in existence at the site. Commissioner Knight agreed with the staff report, in that co-location on existing light poles seems to be a viable option. He therefore could not support the proposal and supported staff's recommendation. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that this area is zoned for open space recreational use and the other cell uses that have been approved at the site are not on monopoles. He stated that if this pole is allowed, there may be applications for more at the site. He stated that he cannot support this application as submitted, and suggested pursuing the option at another site through Los Angeles County. Commissioner Tomblin encouraged Verizon Wireless to find a different, more viable solution to this problem, as he could not support the project as submitted. Mr. McCormick requested that, rather than deny the project, the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to allow Verizon Wireless the opportunity to better evaluate the co-location options in the area. .Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to the next available meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to explore other antenna options, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Director Rojas stated that the next available meeting is January 13, 2009. The motion to continue the public hearing to January 13, 2009 was approved, (4- 0). PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 4 4. Variance & Coastal Permit (Case No. Z®N2007-00046)+ 24 Seacove Drive Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the after- the-fact work that has been performed. He explained that the coastal setback line traverses many of the coastal bluff properties and there is a 25 foot setback requirement landward of this line, which creates the coastal structure setback zone. He showed the applicant's property where the pool, spa, and barbeque have been constructed in the coastal structure setback area. He explained the need for the Variance application, noting that staff was able to make the necessary findings. He also stated that the appropriate soils and geology reports have been submitted and approved by the City Geologist. He noted that, as indicated in the staff report, staff has received one comment letter from the neighboring property. This property owner today approached staff with the probability that additional construction has occurred on the subject property without the benefit of permits. He stated that staff will need to research this and therefore staff was recommending that the Planning Commission open the public hearing to take testimony, but continue the public hearing to allow staff the opportunity to coordinate with the property owner to validate whether or not there is an addition on the property built without a permit. If it is determined that there is non-permitted construction, the case will be given to code enforcement for resolution. Director Rojas added that it is City policy not to issue a permit for development on a property where there is an open code enforcement case. Commissioner Knight asked how many properties on Seacove Drive have structures built in the coastal setback area. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that of the sixteen properties on Seacove Drive, twelve have structures in the coastal setback area. He noted that all twelve were constructed before the City was incorporated. Commissioner Knight asked if the structures at 24 Seacove were constructed after City incorporation. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that this application is a result of a code enforcement case in 2007. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that one of the findings for a Variance is that the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, and he asked if the Code states that having a swimming pool is a substantial property right. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the Code does not indicate that having a pool is a substantial property right, however it is a permitted use and staff has interpreted that as an improvement that is enjoyed by other property owners in that zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 5 Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned the code's use of the words substantial property right versus staffs interpretation of permitted use. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that staff has historically looked at what other property owners in the immediate neighborhood have had the opportunity to do, and whether or not that is a substantial improvement is relative to the area being discussed. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that Seacove Drive has sixteen residences and four of those have swimming pools that were all built before city incorporation. He felt that one of the purposes of the city's incorporation was to stop the kind of building being done under the county and to establish rules to provide more limitations than before. He questioned to what degree the Commission's decision or interpretation should be influenced by what happened before city incorporation. Senior Planner Schonborn felt all of that should be taken into account, but added that the Commission can then look at a larger area and look at what type of improvements are allowed on other properties in similarly zoned areas, not afforded the opportunity to build accessory structures on their property. Commissioner Ruttenberg's concern was that whenever the Planning Commission makes a decision to grant a Variance, they open themselves up by having interpreted the codes a certain way to where the next resident comes before them requesting a Variance and noting the former interpretation made by the Commission. In this particular case there are four residences out of sixteen that have swimming pools, and if this is interpreted as a substantial property right, wouldn't that then put the Planning Commission in a position where it would be difficult to reject anyone who comes before them and wants to have a swimming pool that requires a Variance because everywhere in the City there will be four out of sixteen homes that already have a swimming pool. Director Rojas agreed that for this particular neighborhood if the Commission is able to make finding No. 2 regarding the swimming pool, if a future application comes forward it would be difficult not to make finding No. 2 under the same pretense. However, there are still other findings that have to be made in order to approve a Variance. Senior Planner Schonborn added that pools are usually subterranean structures and therefore are not apparent structures that could otherwise be seen or are visible, especially along the coastal bluffs. In this particular situation there is still quite a large setback from the actual bluff top. Commissioner Ruttenberg recalled that in the past the Trump Organization brought two homes before the Planning Commission where they wanted to build swimming pools in the coastal setback area, and the Planning Commission denied the request. He asked how this request is different. Director Rojas answered that one difference is that the City approved the Trump tract thereby establishing the rules and guidelines for where structures can and cannot be Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 6 placed before the lots were developed. In this situation the City is reacting to a neighborhood that was developed before the city incorporated. Commissioner Knight suggested that what may be needed in this area is a zone change and readjustment of the boundaries, rather than having each resident apply for a Variance whenever they want to do an improvement in the rear of their property. Director Rojas explained there are two avenues to deal with these situations, either through a Variance application or through an adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line. In this case, the applicant opted for the Variance application, staff has analyzed the application and feels they can make the necessary findings, however if the Commission can't make the findings there are still some options available to the applicant. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Brian Conroy (applicant) began by explaining one of the main differences between the Trump tract and the tract he lives in is that the Trump tract was a tentative tract map where that line was established when the tract map was made. He stated that line was negotiated with staff, and the tract map was then recorded. His area has no such recorded coastal setback line recorded in their deeds or on a tract map. He felt that leaves the question as to where the actual coastal setback line is located, and he has always disagreed with and challenged staff's interpretation as to where that line is actually located. He feels that staff's interpretation of the coastal setback line location is not per the Municipal Code, which says you must use the certified zoning map. He stated that in his tract there are two very new homes that have pools almost on the bluff. He was asking for equity, to be able to enjoy his yard the same as other people do, especially since the coastal setback line is so ambiguous and arbitrary. Commissioner Tomblin noted that Mr. Conroy appears to be very knowledgeable on the City codes, and asked him why he didn't come before the Planning Commission to get the necessary approvals and permits before he built his pool. Mr. Conroy explained that in 2002 he met with staff and presented his plan. At that time staff couldn't support what he wanted to do. He felt that was very unfair, in that the neighbors down the street had recently built a pool on the bluff. He therefore decided to build the pool without permits, and now regrets having done so. He is now trying to make it right and move on. Commissioner Tomblin asked who built the pool. Mr. Conroy answered he is a licensed contractor and built the pool himself. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that there is now an assertion from a neighbor that there is additional unpermitted construction on the property, and asked Mr. Conroy to comment on that assertion. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 7 Mr. Conroy stated that he would like to request this item be continued to allow him the time to review with staff the exact nature of these assertions. He admitted that there is a trellis and some new railings built without permits. He stated that he will have to go through and see what has been done that requires a permit. Commissioner Knight asked if any accessory structures, other than the pool, have been built. Mr. Conroy answered that only other accessory structure is the fire pit. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that Mr. Conroy does not agree with staff as to where the coastal setback line is located, however he has not brought forth any evidence to support his claim as to where the line is located. Mr. Conroy explained that he can bring evidence to the Planning Commission if he is granted a continuance. He stated that he has the evidence but did not bring it to the meeting, as he did not think this would be a topic of debate. Commissioner Knight stated that the Commission received late correspondence from a neighbor stating there has been some surcharging of the bluff, and asked Mr. Conroy to comment. Mr. Conroy stated there is nothing sitting on the bluff to make it collapse, noting his geologist has looked at the situation, and he has agreed to take out the gravity wall that was installed. Eva Wildev (17 Sea Cove Drive) stated she lives across the street from the Conroy residence and that Mr. Conroy has been a good neighbor and is an asset to the community. She stated she would like to see this project approved so Mr. Conroy can have his swimming pool, noting that there are several residences that have swimming pools in their rear yards. James Huston stated he is a licensed general contractor and speaking on behalf of Pamela Simes, Mr. Conroy's neighbor. He felt that the value of the work done at Mr. Conroy's residence without permits is very substantial. He was concerned that the bluff has been extended with backfill and retaining walls, all done without permits. In addition to the backfill and retaining walls, the swimming pool/spa, and fire pit the Conroys have also installed without permits a large two-story addition, a massive back deck, a block wall in excess of eight feet in height, and a front trellis and waterfall. Pamela Simes asked the Planning Commission to deny Mr. Conroy's request to permit the improvements in his rear yard. She explained that if the structures are allowed to remain they could result in costly ramifications to her property, neighboring properties, and become a liability of this Commission and the City. She felt that Mr. Conroy's unpermitted construction has already put her property in jeopardy due to the surcharge placed on the bluff, as confirmed by her contractor and engineer. She opposed any Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 8 changes to the determination of the coastal setback line. She stated that Mr. Conroy has extended the bluff area approximately 60 feet to create added value to his property with no concern of how it jeopardizes the whole community. She felt that Mr. Conroy has shown a total disrespect for the law and building codes, and asked the Planning Commission to deny the request and ask Mr. Conroy to restore the property. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Simes if she had a written statement from her contractor in regards to potential damage to her property. Ms. Simes replied that she does have a written statement. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that he did not know what the decision of the Planning Commission was going to be, however if the public hearing is continued, he asked Ms. Simes if she would be able to provide the written statement from the contractor. Ms. Simes stated that she would do so. Mr. Conroy (in rebuttal) stated that he has not been doing construction as his neighbor has indicated, and did not appreciate being portrayed as one who is sneaking around in the middle of the night doing things. He felt Ms. Simes has such a personal animosity towards him is because of a past law suit she had against another neighbor in which he had been subpoenaed to testify against her. He stated he has done no construction of any kind on his property in the last two years, and everything Ms. Simes states is hyperbole. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Conroy when he purchased the property, and if he was aware of the coastal setback line when he purchased the property. Mr. Conroy purchased the property in 1986 and at the time of purchase he was aware that the property contained a coastal setback line, and upon further investigation after he had bought the property, he discovered the anomalies with the line. Commissioner Knight noted statements that have been made that the applicant has extended his rear yard approximately 60 feet, and that part of staff's recommendation is to remove a retaining wall on the property. He asked if this retaining wall is in the same area as discussed by Ms. Simes. Senior Planner Schonborn noted the area of fill on a photograph, and that staff's recommendation is to remove the wall and restore the bluff area to the original condition. Commissioner Tomblin asked when the coastal setback line was put into place. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the coastal setback line was put in place with the adoption of the Coastal Specific Plan in 1978. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 9 Commissioner Tomblin asked staff what the Planning Commission can do to take the area back to what the property was prior to construction of all of the illegal structures and grading in the rear of the applicant's property. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that there is staff's recommendation or the Planning Commission could deny the application. He noted that whatever decision the Planning Commission makes, that decision is appealable to the City Council. Further, because this area is in an area of the coastal zone considered an appealable area, an interested party does have the ability to appeal the coastal permit aspect to the Coastal Commission. Director Rojas added that there is an application before the Commission and the Commission has different options on that application. Based on the Commission's action on the Variance, the applicant has different options available to him for having the Commission weigh in on the location of the coastal setback line. He stated that there are also new allegations of unpermitted construction, which staff will investigate and track through code enforcement, if needed. Commissioner Tomblin summarized that, according to the applicant, he bought a property knowing that there was a coastal setback line in place. After buying the property he discussed construction plans with the City, and staff gave recommendations on what they would and would not consider as part of an application process. Because he was in disagreement with what he heard from staff, the applicant went ahead, in disregard of the law, and started construction. Director Rojas stated that is what the record shows. Commissioner Knight asked staff, if this application were to be denied, would the case then be directed to code enforcement for resolution. Director Rojas explained that this application is a result of a code enforcement case, explaining that it was brought to the City's attention that work was being conducted at the site without the proper City approvals or permits. He stated that a Stop Work Notice was issued. To rectify the matter, the applicant originally went down the avenue of an interpretation of where the coastal setback line is on his property. Ultimately, the applicant agreed to not pursue that avenue and a Variance was requested. What has not changed, however, is that the work being discussed is not permitted and is still a code enforcement matter and will, if necessary, go back to code enforcement for resolution. Chairman Perestam asked how the evaluation will be different if the applicant decides to apply to actually change the location of the coastal setback line. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 10 Director Rojas explained that a zone change would be required as well as a Coastal Specific Plan amendment. He stated that this would have to be approved by the Coastal Commission as well as the City. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they were going to investigate the alleged unpermitted work on the property. Director Rojas answered that staff is going to pursue the alleged unpermitted work whether the Commission continues the public hearing, approves the application, or denies the application. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the applicant was asking for equity in regards to being allowed to have the pool and other improvements, however he disagreed. He did not want to hear about equities in this situation where there has clearly and admittedly been a direct violation of the laws. There has been unpermitted construction on the property by a general contractor. That being said, he was supportive of the request to continue the public hearing to allow staff the opportunity to investigate the claims of additional unpermitted construction on the property. Commissioner Knight stated that he was having trouble with the findings for the Variance and Coastal Permit. He was also concerned with Staff's justification for the Variance, as he felt if the Commission approves this request it would be difficult not to approve other similar requests. He did not think the Variance process was the appropriate process to change the coastal setback line, and that an application to change the coastal setback line was more appropriate. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he could not support the Variance and would vote to deny the application. He agreed with Commissioner Knight that an application to change the coastal setback line would be more appropriate. He stated that as much as he is appalled by the disregard of the law by a licensed contractor, he cannot let that affect his judgment. He asked staff, if the public hearing were to be continued, what would be remedied to make this any different than it is at this hearing. Senior Planner Schonborn did not know what additional information could be provided that would change this application, as staff will investigate the allegations of non- permitted construction. He noted that if it is determined that construction has occurred on the residence without permits, the legalization of said construction may or may not have to come before the Planning Commission for approval. Chairman Perestam was in favor of continuing the public hearing to give staff the opportunity to investigate some of the questions that have been raised while the application is still before the Commission. He felt it was important to know if there is information that would change the impact on the Variance decision. He would also like staff to explore the steps involved in changing the location of the coastal setback line, specifically if there is geologic review necessary. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 11 Commissioner Tomblin stated that since the bluff has been altered, he would like to see some determination from staff of where the bluff was located before being added on to. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the applicant had agreed to put on hold the determination of the coastal setback line so that he could apply for the Variance. He asked if there was a way to join that determination request with the Variance to be heard before the Planning Commission at the same time. He felt that if the Variance is denied then no progress has been made towards resolution, and that more progress can be made to handle both together. Director Rojas answered that is a decision for the applicant to make, as he put the coastal setback line determination on hold. However, it may make sense to hear the line determination issue before the Variance application, because if the Planning Commission agrees with the applicant's position on the line location, the Variance will no longer be necessary. He stated that staff will also have to check with the City Attorney. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Conroy if he will grant a one time 90 day extension to allow this application to be continued. Mr. Conroy stated that he likes the idea of joining the two issues, as he felt it is crucial to determine the location of the coastal setback line. He agreed that if he prevails in his argument about the coastal setback line, no Variance application will be necessary. He therefore granted the 90 day extension. Director Rojas noted that the next available meeting is February 24, 2009. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to February 24, 2009 to allow staff to investigate additional allegations of non-permitted construction and to present staff's interpretation decision on the location of the coastal setback line at the same time as the variance request, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-0). 5. Conditional Use Permit& Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00530): 5504 Crestridge Road Commissioner Tomblin disclosed that his wife is an active contributor to the Art Center, however he did not feel that would affect his decision when hearing this item. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the applications. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings for approval of the Conditional Use Permit as well as for the Grading Permit. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the application as conditioned in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 12 Commissioner Knight asked staff if the front of the property is on Crenshaw Blvd. or on Crestridge Road, and if all of the required setbacks have been met. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the front of the property is located on Crestridge Road, and the structures on the property are compliant with the necessary setbacks. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Director Rojas stated that there are no speakers, however the applicant is available to answer any questions. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-53 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit and Grading Application as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0). . Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2008-00570)• 5801 Crestridge Road Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Conditional Use Permit revision. She noted that the request is to raise the height of the existing building by approximately 4 feet. She noted that the applicant has requested a 6 inch height increase to the proposed 24 feet as a margin of error during the construction phase of the project. She noted the appropriate changes have been made to the Resolution. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings to support the Conditional Use Permit revision and was recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked what the intended purpose is of the proposed second story balcony area. Assistant Planner Kim answered that she did not know of any specific intent for this area other than as an open area for residents to enjoy. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the conversion of a studio unit to a one bedroom unit would have any impact on the parking requirements. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the conversion will not have an affect on the parking requirements, explaining that parking is based on bed count and this change does not affect the bed count. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 13 Bruce MacPherson (architect for the project) explained that the primary purpose for this project is to fix a potentially hazardous ramping condition at the first floor. In order to do this and comply with the current handicap accessibility requirements, the new ramp will have to be less steep than the existing ramp. In order to get that ramp in, the area enclosing the ramp must be expanded out. He stated that this project is mainly a way to get from one building to the next in a safe manner. He explained that the second story roof deck is over the handicap accessible ramp on the ground floor, and is only intended as an area for people to sit outside. He stated that all emergency exiting is remaining as it currently exists. Larry Ricketts (The Canterbury) explained The Canterbury has two separate projects going on, one addressing the parking issues and the other dealing with safety issues. He stated that he is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Knight asked if there are other projects that will be before the Planning Commission in the near future. Mr. Ricketts answered that there are no immediate plans for other changes to the facility. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt PC Resolution 2008-54 thereby approving the requested Conditional Use Permit revision as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). 7. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Grading Permit & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2008-00541): 31100-31176 Hawthorne Blvd Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He began by briefly reviewing the previous application that was before the Planning Commission for this project, which was eventually withdrawn by the applicant. He explained that this application is a modification of the original application. He explained the scope of the new project as well as the parking, and showed pictures of the original and modified projects. He stated that a new Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated to the appropriate agencies and notices were sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the project. He explained that staff has determined the newly designed structure addresses the view impact concerns that were raised at the previous meeting and that staff was able to make the necessary findings for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. He noted a modification to the conditions of approval on page 45, condition number 5(13) should read "to include general alcohol sales", not just beer and wine. Also, on page 46, condition of approval 15 staff is suggesting that if the Commission approves the project the condition should be modified to reflect that deliveries be allowed between 5:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 14 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if the suggested change in the hours of delivery was done after communication with the applicant, and the applicant is agreeable to those hours. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that he had communication with a representative from Trader Joe's and they were agreeable to these hours. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to clarify the request included in the application to keep the opening in the wall behind the veterinarian office. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the application continues to propose a gap in the wall and consistent with staffs recommendation in May, staff continues to recommend that gap not be allowed and it be made a solid wall. Regarding the gap in the wall, Commissioner Knight recalled at the previous hearing that many of the Commissioners felt a locked door arrangement would satisfy the nearby residents as well as the needs for the veterinarian office. He asked why that option was not discussed in the staff report. Senior Planner Schonborn agreed there was such a discussion, however staff felt that there was no clear direction given to staff, and therefore staff continued with its original recommendation. Commissioner Knight asked if staff would have any objections to a locked door arrangement in the wall. Senior Planner Schonborn did not foresee an issue with the locked door in the wall. Commissioner Knight also recalled a discussion with the parking at Golden Cove and how the parking lot is used utilized as a park-and-ride lot. He asked if that situation was taken into consideration when doing the parking analysis. Joanne Itagaki (City's Consulting Traffic Engineer) stated that she was not made aware of that situation, however she felt that the parking analysis done by the applicant accounts for vehicles parked in the lot all day. Commissioner Knight asked if staff had any indication of how many cars use the lot for park and ride. Ms. Itagaki answered that she did not have any data on that. Senior Planner Schonborn added that in staff's discussion with PV Transit, they indicated that they have had up to two bus boardings at that location. Commissioner Knight noted that during school hours cars will use the left turn lane on Hawthorne Blvd. into Golden Cove as a U turn area. He asked the traffic engineer if Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 15 she felt any modifications were needed to that left turn lane to accommodate the proposed project or existing conditions on Hawthorne Blvd. Ms. Itagaki answered that she has not specifically looked at that situation as far as how many cars utilize the left turn lane to make a U turn. She stated that the City's Public Works Department is aware of the possible problems at this area and at Via Rivera and that she will take note to look at the left turn lane and see if there is a need to expand that lane. Commissioner Tomblin asked Ms. Itagaki if there was any thought or recommendation as to the need for designated employee parking in the back area so that the parking in the main lot is as accessible as possible to the public. Ms. Itagaki stated that she did not make any recommendations as to employee parking, noting she only made the observation that there are employee parking spaces available. Senior Planner Schonborn added that the Commission can impose conditions that designate areas for employee parking. He also suggested leaving the parking as proposed and monitor it during the review period and make appropriate recommendations if needed. Chairman Perestam stated that at the previous meeting there had been a discussion on the ingress and egress onto and from Hawthorne Boulevard, noting the current plan reflects the current situation at the site. He asked the traffic engineer if she had reviewed this situation. Ms. Itagaki answered that she did not specifically look at that. She reviewed the number of additional right turns being made in relation to the project, noting it was only six in the morning and eight in the afternoon. She also did not note any accidents in the report that were in direct relation to the right turn. Therefore, she did not foresee this ingress and egress as a problem, but will continue to monitor the area. Chairman Perestam asked staff if they had any information regarding park-and-ride from the Metro busses that go downtown. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that staff was not able to get any information from MTA. Commissioner Knight noted on the plans an area that is currently used as handicap parking and asked staff what it is proposed to be. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the area will be reconfigured to give a pedestrian entry to the businesses that are along PV Drive West. Commissioner Knight noted ATM's called out on the plans, and asked where they will be located. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 16 Senior Planner Schonborn showed on the plans where it will be located. Commissioner Knight questioned the safety of the location of the proposed ATM as far as pedestrians and traffic. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Hannibal Petrossi (applicant) briefly explained the reasons for the redesign. He also explained that the originally submitted underground parking would not have been economically feasible and would have caused a major disruption during construction to the entire shopping center and school. Regarding parking, he explained there will be limited parking times of two to three hours so that nobody could park their car for the day, and this will be monitored. At the back of the building there will be designated employee parking. The parking will be reconfigured, giving more spaces and better circulation. Regarding the ATM parking, he noted that currently there are four designated ATM parking spaces in the lot. He felt this new proposal will be safer and more convenient. He pointed out the area of the proposed trash enclosures, noting that they will be screened by landscaping. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how many of the parking spaces will be designated for compact cars. Mr. Petrossi stated that approximately 17 percent of the spaces will be designated for compact cars. Chairman Perestam asked how the limited parking time was going to be enforced. Mr. Petrossi answered that security will be monitoring the parking lot. He stated that there is a legal procedure that must be followed before they are allowed to have any cars towed. Regarding the gap in the wall, Chairman Perestam asked if there has been any change in that situation. Mr. Petrossi explained that Golden Cove has had discussions with the veterinarian who owns the adjacent vacant lot regarding the installation of a locked gate at the site. Douglas Yokonizo (representing Trader Joe's) stated that he was available to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Knight asked if he was in agreement with the delivery hours suggested by staff. Mr. Yokonizo answered that he was comfortable with the proposed delivery hours. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 17 Chairman Perestam asked if the proposed trash enclosures were adequate. Mr. Yokonizo answered that the trash enclosures will be adequate. John Safyurtu felt this proposal is an improvement over the last proposal, but did not think it is enough. He explained that he has four basic problems with the proposal. He felt the plan results in additional congestion; there is a danger from the way things are set up; there is a substantial noise factor; and there is still a view impairment to his parent's home. Regarding congestion, he noted that originally there were only 21 new parking spots created and on this revision there are only 17 new parking spaces. He questioned how this can be enough parking for a Trader Joe's. He also noted that the traffic study was done during a time when the economy is in a recession and there may not be as many people in the center as there might be after the economy picks back up. He felt that there is a danger when pulling out of the parking lot onto Hawthorne Boulevard. His noise issues were centered around the additional traffic as well as the delivery trucks. Finally, regarding the views, he noted that he has still not seen any type of explanation as to why Trader Joe's needs to exceed the existing building envelope. He disagreed with staff's statement that this does not create a significant view impact from his parent's home. He felt the view was being chipped away slowly by different developments. He questioned why the mezzanine had to be used for a storage area rather than using a basement area. Commissioner Knight asked where the photographs he displayed were taken. Mr. Safyurtu answered that they were taken from the middle of the backyard. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned why they were taken from the backyard and not from the inside of the home where staff would do a view analysis from. Mr. Safyurtlu explained these were taken from the patio area which, since the recent remodel, has become the central hub of the home. Mr. Yokonizo (in rebuttal) stated that no storage of products will occur in the mezzanine and its use will be for mechanical equipment which would otherwise go on the roof. He explained that this store will be comparable in size to the store in Torrance at the Rolling Hills Plaza and the store on Western Avenue. He stated that because there are stores on Western Avenue, in Torrance, and in Riviera Village, it is expected that this will be a neighborhood store and is not expected to attract shoppers from out of the area. He also explained that he has been working on this project for over two years and he is very confident that the parking proposed will be adequate. Commissioner Knight explained that in most shopping centers the carts are left all over the parking lot by the shoppers. In order to help avoid that situation he questioned if it would be possible to have cart inserts in the parking lot in place of one or two of the planters. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 18 Mr. Yokonizo answered that anywhere they have the opportunity to put cart corrals they will do so. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted the store hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and asked what Mr. Yokonizo would consider the peak hours. Mr. Yokonizo explained that it is difficult to determine peak hours, as it varies from store to store. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they have any photos taken from the residence across the street showing the newly proposed project. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that staff does not have photos, however he showed a picture taken with the previous silhouette in place and showed where the new silhouette would be located. Chairman Perestam asked how many parking spaces would be created if the proposed ATM in the parking lot was not built. Senior Planner Schonborn felt that one and possibly two additional parking spaces could be created. Commissioner Knight felt the Golden Cove Center is a hub for park and ride and there should be signage restricting the time allowed to park, as well as a way to enforce it. He also felt there should be a six-month review for parking. He felt the construction phasing should be reviewed by the building official and the traffic engineer. He also suggested a condition of approval that a locked gate be constructed in the wall behind the veterinarian's office. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Grading Permit as amended to require limited parking, a six-month parking review, that the construction phasing plans be reviewed by the Building Official and Traffic Engineer, and that a locked gate be constructed in the wall behind the veterinarian's office, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that substantial changes have been made to this project since first reviewed by the Planning Commission. He explained that he was concerned with the amount of parking, however after examining the traffic report it appears there is quite a bit of leeway with regards to the peak hours. He felt that Commissioner Knight's proposals to regulate the parking so that it is used only by center are important to make sure there is adequate parking. With regard to the view issue, he understood the neighbor's concerns about their view. However, when looking at the view from the primary viewing area, he did not think the view impairment was significant. He was also in favor of the locked gate to be constructed in the gap in the wall. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 19 Commissioner Tomblin was also sympathetic with the neighbor's view issues, but agreed that the Planning Commission has specific rules on how to look at view impairment, and in this case when viewing from the primary viewing area, the view loss is not significant. He felt that the way the proposed building has been designed and scaled down, that it will provide the least amount of impact to the neighbors. He stated that he can make the necessary findings and supports the project. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was not as much concerned with parking with this application as he has been with other applications that have been before the Commission. He explained that many of his concerns were addressed when the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the parking. He was also not concerned that customers would use the surrounding neighborhoods to park, as he basic topography and setup of the area would make doing so very inconvenient. He also had to give credit to Trader Joe's in that if they felt that there wasn't adequate parking for their patrons, this would not be an attractive location for their store. He stated that he is not necessarily in favor of the motion with the restrictions on parking, as he felt that this body may be imposing more restrictions than necessary and that private enterprise can handle any parking situations that may arise. However, he is not so opposed to the conditions of approval to vote against the motion. Chairman Perestam felt the parking situation is a greater unknown than it is being viewed. He pointed out that there is no way to know how successful this shopping center will be and the amount of traffic it will generate. He discussed the ATM and requested the motion be amended to exclude the ATM. He pointed out that the existing ATM is 75 feet away. He also noted that the ATM provides a visual obstruction when driving through the parking lot. He did not think that the benefit of having another ATM was greater than the benefit of having at least two additional parking spaces. Chairman Perestam moved to amend the motion to add that the proposed ATM in the parking lot be eliminated and to convert that area into as many added parking spaces as possible. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there is a lease provision in place that requires the ATM, or is this a new addition. Mr. Petrossi explained there is no lease agreement, however the bank has always requested the addition of an ATM. He understood the concern with the visual obstruction and would look into putting the ATM in another location. Commissioner Knight noted that the plans show the ATM as being 12 feet in height. He asked Mr. Petrossi if the height can be lowered. Mr. Petrossi explained that it can be lowered, however he explained that at 12 feet the ATM is visible from the other side of the parking lot. Lowering the height of the ATM may require adding directional signage. He felt that he could lower the ATM by Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 20 approximately two feet, but pointed out that the obstruction noted by the Chairman would be anything above five or six feet in height. Chairman Perestam stated that the current bank may or may not always be a bank. He also noted that there is accessibility to cash at Trader Joe's as well as 7-11. Therefore, he felt that the parking and circulation obstruction at the proposed ATM site weighs heavily on what the benefit the ATM will give to the shopping center. Commissioner Knight moved to amend his motion to add that staff and the applicant work together to try to find an alternate location for the ATM and attempt to reduce the height and footprint of the ATM, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. So that the Resolution does not have to come back to the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Schonborn clarified the amendments to the conditions of approval. He began with staff's amendment to condition number 5(B) which should read "to include general alcohol sales", not just beer and wine. Also, on page 46, condition of approval 15 staff is suggesting that if the Commission approves the project the condition should be modified to reflect that deliveries be allowed between 5:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Regarding the six-month review, he noted that condition No. 7 can be modified to reflect the six-month review. Regarding the construction plans, staff can impose a condition which reads "The construction phasing plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and Traffic Engineer prior to permit issuance." For employee parking staff can add a condition which reads "The parking stalls along the eastern property and to the rear of Building A shall be dedicated as employee parking only." Commissioner Knight was concerned that such a restriction may lead to empty spaces that nobody can use because they are reserved for employees. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested no condition be added and to address it at the six- month review. Senior Planner Schonborn suggested a condition which read that the property owner shall establish a parking program for the tenants in the Golden Cove Center whereby employees shall be encouraged to park in designated areas. Commissioner Knight was more comfortable with that language than the originally suggested language. Commissioner Tetreault noted that there is a six month review, and at that time the parking will be reviewed. He felt that the Commission should not put any parking restrictions into place until such time as it is determined there is a parking problem at the Center. He questioned why the Commission would put parking restrictions in place without knowing if there is a parking problem. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 21 Commissioner Knight indicated that the language recommended by staff should be kept. Senior Planner Schonborn continued with the conditions of approval, stating that a condition will be added stating that signage shall be placed throughout the parking lot consistent with applicable regulations of the California Vehicle Code, limiting parking to four hours. Regarding the ATM, he suggested language to state "The ATM shall be relocated to another location on the property subject to the review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement and that the ATM shall be reduced in height if possible." Commissioner Ruttenberg was concerned with the suggested 4 hour parking limit. He felt that the Commission may be trying to fine tune something that doesn't need to be fixed. He noted that it is unknown how many cars use the center for park and ride purposes and the Commission may be putting parking restrictions in place that aren't needed. Hannibal Petrossi stated that management will monitor the parking at the Center and felt that a four hour parking restriction was reasonable. However, he explained that there are leases signed with the various businesses and designated employee parking is not included in the leases. He was more comfortable with marking the entire parking lot for four hour parking and giving the employees a decal for the car identifying them as employees, which would allow them to park longer than four hours. Commissioner Knight suggested installing the four hour parking signs, but letting the applicant monitor and enforce the parking at the site. The Planning Commission agreed. Director Rojas stated there will also be a condition of approval requiring a locked gate be installed in the gap in the wall. The motion to approve P.C. Resolution 2008-55 certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-56 approving the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Grading Permit as amended, was approved (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8. Minutes of October 28, 2008 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded y Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg recusing himself from the minute of the Marymount item and Chairman Perestam abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. 9. Minutes of October 30, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 22 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 10. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 13, 2009 The pre-agenda was discussed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2008 Page 23