Loading...
PC MINS 20081111 Approved January09 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:05p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Trester, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the November 6, 2008 meeting the City Council introduced the Ordinance to implement the Green Building Program as recommended by the Planning Commission and continued the appeal hearing on the proposed Zone Change of the Valero service station site to January 20, 2009. He also noted that at the upcoming November 18th City Council meeting, the Council will consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the proposed St. John Fisher project. Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence for Agenda item No. 1 and one item of correspondence for Agenda item No. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit revisions and Variance (Case No. ZON2008-00146): 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 and the Variance. She stated that staff felt the Variance request was warranted for the reasons discussed in the staff report. She explained why staff felt that The Canterbury is unique from other institutional structures and why staff felt they don't have the need for the number of code compliant parking spaces. She stated that staff was able to make all necessary findings and was recommending approval of the Conditional use Permit revisions and Variance. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that had reported that 40 of the existing parking garages are currently being used for storage, and asked if any of the other spaces are being used for storage. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff was not aware of any other spaces being used for storage. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if using the 40 spaces for storage was a violation of the Conditional Use Permit, which requires 146 spaces to be available. Director Rojas answered that it most likely is a violation, however he would have to read the language of the condition to verify that. Commissioner Knight asked if there is anything in the conditions of approval that will assure the new parking spaces will not be used as storage, but used for parking only. Assistant Planner Kim answered that there is currently no language in the conditions of approval that the spaces cannot be used as storage, but staff can add such language if directed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight noted that the traffic study references an agreement to park cars on the adjacent property, and asked if the parking analysis took this into account, or if the analysis only.looked at cars parked on the subject property. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the parking analysis was solely on site specific. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Dan Withee (architect representing the Canterbury) explained that the rear garages are actually a retaining wall, and because there is more maneuvering room in front of those garages, they are used to park vehicles. He explained that the driveways in the area being discussed in this application are actually substandard and this will be adjusted Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 2 with the project. He also pointed out that many of the garages in the area are not used for storage and are vacant. He explained that the purpose for removing the garages is that they aren't being used, the driveway can be opened up, and landscaping can be added to the site. He felt that this will improve the aesthetics of the site and create a more open feeling to the area. He stated that there will be more useable parking spaces with the proposed plan than are currently at the site. Commissioner Knight asked if there would be an objection if a condition were added that the remaining garages be used for parking only and not used for storage. Mr. Withee answered that the manager of the site has requested that he have the option that five of the garages be available for storage. Chairman Perestam asked if the garages were assigned to specific units. Mr. Withee answered that the garages are not assigned to any specific units. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the parking study and noted that two days were chosen to conduct these studies. He asked staff if this was a typical methodology for such studies. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff did not know if this is a typical methodology, however the City's Traffic Engineer does feel that the methodology is adequate. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Withee about the left turn restriction coming out of the parking lot Mr. Withee explained that the City did not actually put that sign up, but rather the Canterbury installed the sign. He stated that he has not studied whether or not a left turn out of the driveway is safe and at this point could not give an opinion on it. Chairman Perestam asked staff if the traffic engineer took into consideration the left turn when doing the review. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the left turn was not part of the traffic engineer's review. Commissioner Tetreault noted that there is an agreement between the Canterbury and the neighboring church that the Canterbury can use the church parking Monday through Saturday; however, he did not see anything in the conditions of approval that this agreement should be maintained. He asked staff if there was any concern that the applicant should maintain this parking arrangement for off-site parking. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff was not aware of any type of agreement submitted to the City or that has been recorded. She stated that any type of parking Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 3 agreement is a private arrangement between the two parties. She added that approval of this project should eliminate the need for any off-site parking. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit revision and Variance and presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Knight stated that he could not support the motion unless there is a condition that the covered parking spaces shall not be used as storage. He explained that there is a Variance being requested for this property because the property is under parked, and he has to make certain findings with this Variance. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Commissioner Knight if he could make this finding with the added condition, with the exception of the five spaces the applicant was requesting, which would still leave the number well over what is the maximum use at this time. Commissioner Knight felt the five requested spaces are a grey area, and was interested in what the other Commissioner's felt on the subject. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that although the requested action will reduce the number of spaces required, it does seem to improve the parking situation quite a bit. He felt this is a very useful project that he would support, and would like to give the applicant the five requested spaces for storage, as there will still be adequate parking. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the Planning Commissioner were to say a certain number of spaces are required per the conditions of approval, and then upon completion allow five to be removed for storage, if this would be a violation of the conditions of approval. Director Rojas explained that it would be a problem if the applicant is required to provide and use a certain number of spaces, and a lesser number is provided. Based on that, Commissioner Tetreault did not think the Planning Commission should be sanctioning non-parking uses for these designated parking spaces. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if, in the future, the Canterbury decided they wanted or needed few parking spaces and would like to use some of the existing spaces for storage, they could apply to the City to do so on a separate application. Director Rojas answered that the Canterbury would go through the same process they are going through with this application, with a new study showing why they need less than 135 spaces. Commissioner Knight noted that condition No. 18 of the conditions of approval satisfies his concerns regarding the total number of parking spaces. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 4 Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the applicant has asked that five spaces be used for storage, which leaves 130 spaces for parking. He felt that the Planning Commission could address this request at this hearing by modifying the approval, noting that 130 spaces seem adequate for the site. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to amend the motion to modify condition No. 18 to say 130 parking spaces rather than 135, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Tetreault asked if this was an amendment that the applicant wants and that the Planning Commission is trying to accommodate something that is not part of the application. Vice Chairman Lewis explained that there are currently five units being used for storage, and the minute the Planning Commission approves the current application the applicant will be in violation. Therefore, he was suggesting the Planning Commission deal with the reality at this meeting rather than putting it off to another day. Commissioner Tetreault reiterated that his opposition to the amendment was procedural, as he had not heard the applicant actually request an amendment to his application. If he hears the applicant say he wants 130 spaces, then he will accept the amendment to his motion. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Withee if he would like to amend the application. Mr. Withee answered that he would like to amend the application to 130 parking spaces rather than 135, which will allow for five storage spaces in the garage. Commissioner Tetreault stated that as long as staff is in agreement that 130 parking spaces is sufficient, he will accept the amendment as part of the original motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Director Rojas stated that staff felt 130 spaces are sufficient, per the traffic study reviewed and approved by the City's traffic consultant. Commissioner Tetreault stated that his motion is to accept staff's recommendation to approve the project, as modified to change condition No. 18 so that it states that the Canterbury shall maintain a total of 130 parking spaces, of which 10 are enclosed garage spaces and 120 are surface parking spaces, seconded by Vice Chairman "Lewis. The motion to adopt P.C. 2008-44 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit revision and the Variance, as revised, was approved, (5-2) with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting. Commissioner Gerstner noted that his vote was only a reflection of the parking variation made and not anything else with this project. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 5 2. Annual review for Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2003-00086): 27501 Western Avenue Chairman Perestam recused himself from this item because of a financial interest he has at the site. He left the dais. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining this item is the annual review as well as a Conditional Use Permit revision to the Green Hills master plan. He explained the request to relocate an abandon church from San Pedro onto the Green Hills site, as well as allowing two temporary modular buildings to remain on a permanent basis. He stated that staff felt the necessary findings for the Conditional Use Permit to allow the church to be moved to the site and allow for the modular buildings to remain can be made to warrant approval of the CUP revision. Regarding the annual review, he reported that staff has approved several applications to implement the master plan over the past year. He stated that staff has received a few complaints regarding dust control, and Green Hills was receptive and responsive to addressing these complaints. He referred to condition of approval 1(B) and stated staff would like to amend the condition so that it also acknowledges that appropriate permits for the historic church building also be obtained prior to actually relocating the building to the premises. In summary, he stated that staff believes the operations have been in compliance with the conditions of approval and believes that the request for the modular buildings and church building are warranted and therefore is recommending approval of an amendment to the master plan. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if the neighbors were notified that a church would be moved to the Green Hills property. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that notices were sent to the neighbors, and staff has not received any correspondence in opposition to the request. Commissioner Tomblin stated he has concerns over the modular buildings becoming permanent. He asked staff if there were any provisions in the master plan to build additional administrative space. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that in the original master plan there were no provisions for additional administrative space, adding that this is why Green Hills is seeking a revision to the master plan to acknowledge the additional administrative buildings. Commissioner Tomblin asked if allowing these modular buildings to remain as permanent buildings would set any precedence with some of the discussions coming up regarding Marymount College and modular classrooms and other buildings. Director Rojas answered that the temporary modular buildings proposed at Marymount College are to be used during construction and there are actual buildings proposed to Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 6 replace the modulars, while these at Green Hills are being proposed for permanent use. Therefore, staff felt they are two different issues. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they were aware of any other sites in the City where temporary modular buildings have been converted to permanent buildings. Senior Planner Schonborn could not think of any sites in the City where this had taken place. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there were any permanent modular buildings in the City. He noted that the City does not have any specific codes related to permanent modular buildings, and that the Building Department will have to refer to State codes, which he felt are very lax since these structures are typically used as temporary structures. Director Rojas stated that, other than some City Hall buildings, he is not ware of any permanent modular buildings currently being used in the City. Commissioner Gerstner did not want to imply by the approval of the permanent modular buildings, that it was alright to have something in the City that is less than what is required for other structures in the City. He felt that this is a topic that deserves more discussion than what is being discussed in an annual review. Director Rojas stated a permanent modular building would have to be approved by the Planning Commission, and would be subject to a rigorous and thorough Building and Safety review process. Vice Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. John Resich (Chairman of the Board for Green Hills) stated that he was available for questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Resich why there wasn't a master plan to take care of the needs for administrative office space rather than use of the modulars. Mr. Resich explained that when the original building was remodeled they did not contemplate the increase in staff. Staff has increased and Green Hills would like to continue to have this increased staff. He added that if the modular buildings are not approved for permanent use, Green Hills will have to request an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to put a permanent building someplace on the property. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Resich if he thought there might be a decrease in staff over the next ten years. Mr. Resich answered that he did not anticipate a decrease in staff over the next ten years. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 7 Barry Boudreaux (architect with Green Hills) stated that he was also available for questions. Michael Mattingly stated that the area where Green Hills is proposing to place the church is an area that was filled without permits from the City. He questioned if the dirt was properly compacted. He stated that all of the work done in this area over the years with the grading and heaving equipment has caused his swimming pool to sink three inches on the deep end. He therefore didn't think the church should be placed in the area until it is known if the dirt needs to be removed and recompacted. Senior Planner Schonborn noted in the conditions of approval there is a condition that if the church is acquired and placed at this site, as part of the permit process a geotechnical review will be performed at the site. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they were aware of the issues brought up by Mr. Mattingly. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that Mr. Mattingly has raised these issues with staff, and staff visited the property with the Building Official last year. He explained that the Building Official noted stress cracks at the pool, however he was unable to determine if they were related to the activities at Green Hills, which is hundreds of feet away, or if these were stress cracks related to Mr. Mattingly's property. Mr. Resich (in rebuttal) stated that, based on his geologic reports, the church will be placed on stable land that has not been graded or recompacted. Vice Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Lewis suggested separating the two issues and discussing them separately. He began by asking the Commission if there were any objections to the proposal to bring the church onto the property. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he had no objections, with the understanding that Building and Safety will verify that it is a safe structure on the site. The Commissioners had no objections to the church. In discussing the permanent use of the modulars, Commissioner Gerstner stated that he was not in favor at this time of the City accepting modular buildings as permanent structures. He felt that this is an issue that needs more research and discussion. He would not object to the applicant requesting that the modular buildings stay on the site on a temporary basis while they go through the application process to build a permanent structure. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Tetreault agreed, adding that it is something the City and Planning Commission would have to do more research on before allowing modular structures to be placed permanently on a site. Commissioner Tomblin also agreed, and stated that he would like to see a date whereby these temporary modular structures must be removed from the site. Commissioner Knight also agreed with the comments made by the Commissioners. He felt that there are alternatives to using these modular buildings on a permanent basis, such as an application to build new administrative buildings on the site. Vice Chairman Lewis re-opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Resich how much additional time he felt would be needed before removal of the temporary modular structures on the site. Mr. Resich answered that additional time would be requested if the Planning Commission is not going to allow the modular structures to become permanent. He asked that, with the present economy, substantial time be granted so that Green Hills can develop a plan to develop new buildings on the site. He felt two to five years should be sufficient. Vice Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Director Rojas clarified that he approved the temporary use of the modular buildings through a Special Use Permit, which expired in April 2008. Therefore, if the Planning Commission were to deny the Conditional Use Permit revision regarding this specific request to allow the buildings to become permanent, they become a code enforcement issue. Therefore, it is not in the Commission's purview to grant an extension to allow these modular buildings to remain longer on a temporary basis. The applicant will need to request an extension of the previously approved Special Use Permit to do so. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the request for extension could be handled at the staff level. Director Rojas explained that the applicant can request an extension and staff can process a Special Use Permit revision, which would entail noticing the neighbors of the request. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he is sympathetic to the request to allow these modulars to remain longer and that it would be appropriate for staff to give them extra time through their Special Use Permit to develop alternatives for the site. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit revision to all Green Hills to relocate the church building to the property but denied the request for the permanent modular buildings on the site, and to Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 9 receive and file the annual review for Green Hills, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Vice Chairman Lewis suggested that the revised Resolution be presented on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting for review, and the Commissioners agreed. The motion was approved, (6-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00243): 30359 Hawthorne Blvd. Chairman Perestam returned to the dais. Director Rojas reported that the applicant has requested this item be continued to December 11, 2008 to allow more time to install the mock-up on the property. Therefore staff was recommending the public hearing be continued to December 11, 2008. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to December 11, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7-0). 4. View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP2008-00007): 28715 Doverridge Dr. Commissioner Gerstner stated that was not able to make a site visit to this property and therefore would abstain from the vote. Since a decision may not be made at this hearing, he requested that he remain in his seat but not participate in the discussion or vote. Director Rojas polled the Commissioners as to who had visited the site. All of the Commissioners, except Commissioner Gerstner, had visited the site. Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the case and reviewing the view and foliage involved in the application. In order to restore the view, she explained that staff is recommending crown raising on all of the trees with the exception of tree No. 2, where staff is recommending crown reduction. She also noted that staff has provided the option to the foliage owner to remove and replace any of the trees rather than have them trimmed. Commissioner Knight referred to the memo from David Hayes where he recommends selective branch removal to create a window, and asked if what staff was recommending was not what Mr. Hayes recommended in his option 3. Associate Planner Trester explained that staff felt that selective branch removal had the potential of creating an unsightly tree, and therefore recommended the crown raising. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 10 Arnold Ng (applicant) stated that he has read staff's recommendations for the subject trees and that his preference would be to have the trees removed. He stated that, with the consent of Mr. and Mrs. McFarland, he would pay for the removal and replacement of nine trees on the McFarland property. He felt that staffs recommendation of crown raising would create unattractive trees and ultimately there would still be the issue of view impairment. He also noted that trimming the trees would result in yearly maintenance costs for the foliage owner. Jim McFarland (foliage owner) stated he agrees with the staff report as written, and acknowledged that the trees are in violation of the ordinance. He stated that he is not happy to loose his trees, as there will be a loss of privacy. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. McFarland if he would be inclined to have the trees removed and replaced with 24 inch box trees. Mr. McFarland felt the best option will be to remove all nine trees and start fresh with the 24 inch box trees. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-45 thereby approving the View Restoration Permit, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining. NEW BUSINESS 5. Encroachment Permit and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00285): 2732 San Ramon Drive Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Encroachment Permit and Grading Permit. She stated the Public Works Director has reviewed the Encroachment Permit and found that encroaching structure will not pose any hazard to the safety and welfare of the public. She also explained that staff could support the approval of the existing retaining wall, and therefore staff was recommending approval, as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Yvonne Tartaglia explained that in 1999 there was very heavy rainfall, and because the property seemed unstable because of the rain, they felt they had to build the retaining wall quickly to stabilize the property. Tony Tartaglia stated that the planter and retaining wall were built and look much better than what was previously in place. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 11 Joseph Dorian stated that a portion of the retaining wall is on his property and that the courts have authorized the removal of that portion of the wall. He clarified on a photograph the area of the wall on his property. Mr. Tartaglia (in rebuttal) stated that when he built the wall Mr. Dorian was present and telling the contractor'how the wall should be built. He was concerned that removing the wall as directed will cause the slope behind the wall to fail. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that staff has advised the Planning Commission that there was a civil decision in this regard,-and asked staff if the Planning Commission is dealing only with the public right-of-way portion of the wall and not with the portion of the wall that was involved in the civil suit. Director Rojas explained that the Planning Commission is limited to the areas discussed in the staff report, which include the areas of encroachment on the public right-of-way and the area of the wall on the Tartaglia property. Commissioner Tetreault noted that there is now a structure built by the resident in the public right-of-way, and asked if there is some mechanism in place to indemnify the City in the event of injury or property damage caused by the encroachment. Director Rojas explained that the City Council policy that allows for these structures built in the public right-of-way has a set of standard conditions, one of which is a requirement to submit an indemnification hold harmless agreement. Chairman Perestam closed he public hearing. Commissioner Knight was satisfied with the application as presented and conditioned by staff, but wondered how this will affect all of the other encroachments that appear to be in place on this street. He stated that the Planning Commission is only dealing with the item before them and cannot address the civil issue between the neighbors, and that the decision will not affect anything on the neighbor's property. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the Encroachment Permit and Grading Permit as presented by staff and conditioned in the staff report, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-46, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7- 0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of October 14, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 12 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of November 25, 2008 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2008 Page 13