Loading...
PC MINS 20090811 Ap roved September 2 , 009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Perestarn led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: Commissioners Knight and Tetreault were excused. Commissioner Tomblin arrived after agenda item No. 4. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Mikhail, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to move agenda item No. 4 to be heard after agenda item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their August 4th meeting the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the clean-up zone change for Tract 16540 near the Portuguese Bend Club. He also noted that the Council will hear the appeal of the PlanningCommission's decision on the Mamount College project at the upcoming August 18th meeting. Mary mount Finally, he reported that a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 29th. The main topic being discussed will be the forthcoming General Plan update. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1, one item for agenda item No. 3, and 13 items for agenda item No. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda itgnLs)e None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00186): 26325 Birchfield Avenue Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining that the applicant has formally withdrawn the Height Variation application. The Planning Commission accepted the withdrawal of the application. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Appeal of Site Plan Review & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00483): 30 Stallion Road Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting the applicant has requested a continuance. Staff agrees and recommends a continuance of the public hearing to October 27th Commissioner Perestarn moved to continue the public hearing to October 27, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (4-0). 2. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2009-00222): 28033 Golden Meadow Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted the neighbor from Palos Verdes Estates who expressed privacy concerns. He understood that the Commission is not legally bound to consider privacy issues from residents in other cities, but asked if this neighbor were in Rancho Palos Verdes if they would have a legitimate concern. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that they most likely would have a legitimate concern. She noted, however, that staff had explained the concern to the applicants and they have agreed to make the windows on the side of the addition opaque. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Wayne Sun (architect) stated he agrees with the staff report and is available to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 2 Commissioner Perestarn noted that there is quite a bit of debris on the slope of this property and asked Mr. Sun if there is any intention of cleaning it up. Mr. Sun answered that they are willing to build a retaining wall on the property. George Porter stated he is speaking on behalf of Rita Cody whose property abuts the applicant's property. He explained that the issues involved are the possible erosion of the steep bank on the property and privacy. He explained that the wall that is currently in place on the slope is crumbling and needs to be rebuilt. He suggested it be rebuilt with and provided with a waterproof gutter to drain the excess water to the low side of the property. He recommended that roof gutters be placed on the house and addition. He also recommended the slope be covered with adequate vegetation to mitigate soil erosion. Commissioner Perestarn asked Mr. Porter if he is aware of any erosion problems on this property. Mr. Porter answered that he is aware of past erosion problems on the property. Mr. Sun (in rebuttal) stated that the owner is willing to rebuild the existing retaining wall and add some vegetation around the-wall and on the slope to help with any erosion. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestarn asked if the erosion situation on the property would be reviewed and addressed, and a recommendation put in place before any building permits are issued. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that an erosion problem has not been determined on the property. She explained that the neighbor approached staff about the wall and staff referred the neighbor to code enforcement and the building official to determine if there were any issues with the wall. She stated that there does not appear to be an issue at this time. Further, Building and Safety will address drainage during the plan check process. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-32 thereby approving the Height Variation and Site Plan Review as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (5-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit& Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2009- 00182): 28732 Highridge Road Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Minor Exception Permit. She explained the need for the Minor Exception Permit and noted staffs support of the Minor Exception Permit based on Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 3 practical difficulties. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Tim Miller (representing T-Mobile) explained that this project is needed to provide coverage to an area of the peninsula that is mostly residential. He stated that T-Mobile looked at other surrounding properties, however this property was the most willing to work with T-Mobile. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he is not a supporter of the artificial pine trees, as he does not think they ever turn out quite right. He asked if there was some other method that can be used at the site and still achieve their goal. Mr. Miller answered there are other methods, however at this particular location with other tall pine trees in the area, he felt this would be the best fit. Dale Hanks (representing the LIDS Church) stated the church does not object to the proposed construction, as they feel it will improve cell phone service for T-Mobile customers. He asked if this antenna will in any way affect customers of other cell providers. He also noted that he was not aware of anyone at the LDS Church being approached by T-Mobile regarding the placement of the equipment on their property. He had questions about access to the site during construction, as it appears the access may have to be through the church parking lot. He stated that he personally was concerned about the height of the antenna. He stated that he would rather see communication equipment on the property rather than a disguised pine tree. He felt that providing equipment alone would look better and have less wind load. Mr. Mille (in rebuttal) explained that in all of T-Mobile's dealings with the LDS Church they have been turned away and therefore they do not consider the church as an alternative. Regarding access to the site, he did not anticipate the need to use the church site. However, there was the possibility that they would need the site for the drill rig, in which case they would get permission from the church before gaining access. The church would be compensated for the access and if any damage occurred to the parking lot they would also be compensated. Commissioner Tomblin stated again that he was not generally pleased with the way these pine trees look, and asked Mr. Miller if he would consider some additional discussion with the church. He felt that putting the antennas on the church property may allow for a more creative way to disguise the antennas. Mr. Miller explained that while Mr. Hanks may be amenable to entering into a lease with T-Mobile, the problem has always come with the approvals from the church at a higher level. Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 4 Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Miller if T-Mobile would be receptive to sharing the site with another carrier. Mr. Miller answered that T-Mobile has agreement with all of the other carriers and would be very willing to share the site with the other carriers. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Director Rojas explained that staff is usually not agreeable to allowing this type of method for camouflaging antennas in the City, however because of the location of the antenna and given the other trees on the site, staff felt that most people would not even realize the artificial tree antenna has been placed on the site. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that if this site could handle a taller monopole, the applicant and City might want to consider accommodating a foundation that can, in the future, handle a taller pole. He felt this would be a better alternative than seeing several new poles on this or neighboring properties in the future. He noted that the Commission would not be deciding at this point in time if a taller pole can be placed on the property at this time, however preparing a foundation for the future use may be beneficial to the applicant. Chairman Lewis re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Miller explained that T-Mobile is receptive to having other carriers co-locate on their pole. He also felt that if another carrier wants to come in and increase the height of the pole, it will be at their expense to change out the pole. He added that it will be hard to justify the additional cost of a caisson foundation to support a larger future pole, however if the Commission conditions the approval in that way, they will abide by the condition. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he was not in favor of this tree until he heard that there was the possibility of conditioning the approval to allow for future carriers on the pole. Commissioner Perestarn stated that he was not generally in favor of requiring the applicant design a foundation that can hold a future larger pole. He stated that there was no guarantee that any carrier would ask to co-locate at this site, noting that there are many sites in the area where other antennas could be located, many of which are in Rolling Hills Estates. Commissioner Perestam moved adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-33 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Exception Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS 6. Interpretation Hearing Reguest (Case No. ZON2009-00146): 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the requested use of the land as an event garden. In submitting the application the applicant contended that that the proposed uses qualified as uses that are similar and no more intensive than a golf course and the ancillary uses, which are allowed in residential areas with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. He explained that staff returned the application to the property owner and the Director issued an interpretation formalizing why staff would not accept a Conditional Use Permit application for the proposed event garden. He explained the interpretation and rational behind the interpretation, as noted in the staff report. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Director's interpretation. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the Trump property and the Point View property are similar in size. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that they are similar in size. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if there are any other residential zoned properties in the city that are of a similar size. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that he was not aware of any other residential property of a similar size. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that he understood how staff was distinguishing this situation from those on church property or park property, however he was having a little more trouble understanding how staff distinguished this property from the Trump property. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the Trump property currently has residential unites built on the property as well as the club house and other amenities, where the subject property does not. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if there would be a difference if the Point View property had a residence built on the property and asked for this Conditional Use Permit. Director Rojas explained that a residential zoned property, whether it is vacant or developed, is governed by the underlying zoning as to what uses the code allows. Staff feels that this property should be compared to other residentially zoned properties in the Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 6 City, however the applicant wants to make a comparison with the Trump property. Staff feels that the Trump property is not the same, as there is a Conditional Use Permit which governs the golf course and club house on the property. He noted that if the residences on the Trump property requested a similar use the City would say that it is not allowed. Commissioner Perestarn asked staff how often a property owner could apply for a Special Use Permit. Director Rojas answered that there is not a limit on the number of Special Use Permits that can be issued for events on a property, however at some point staff will determine that the use may go beyond the intent for a Special Use Permit and determine that the use is a regular use that is not allowed. Vice Chairman Gerstner read the list of conditional uses allowed per the Code, noting the final statement which says other such uses as deemed to be similar and no more intensive. He asked staff what makes this request dissimilar from the other conditional uses and where is the line in intensity in comparing this requested use to the others. Director Rojas noted that determining whether a proposed use is no more intensive than other conditional uses listed in the code is a discretionary decision. He explained that the applicant's proposal would allow outside groups to lease the property to have up to 100 events per year throughout the entire year. Staff considered that in making a determination on whether this type of use constitutes a conditionally allowed use in a residential zone. He noted that the determination would have repercussions citywide as it would allow for other to apply for this type of use in any residential zone in the City. He explained that after consultation with the City Attorney, staff took the conservative position that the proposal was more intense than other conditionally allowed uses in residential zones. He explained that staff suggested to the applicant that if he felt his property was large enough to handle this use, he should lobby for a code amendment that would conditionally allow these types of uses on residential properties over 50 acres in size. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how this type of use, in terms of intensity, compares with the use at Trump. Director Rojas agreed that the intensity of the use may be comparable to the golf course and clubhouse at Trump but that there were certain elements of the proposed use that could be more intensive. Thus, staff took the more conservative approach in makings its determination. Chairman Lewis noted that there have been some improvements, such as a road, on the applicant's property and asked if all of the required approvals and permits have been issued for the improvements. Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 7 Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the applicant has obtained the necessary Moratorium Exclusion Permit and building permits to move forward with improvements to the cook shack facility. Staff is working with the applicant to address a few things done on the property without the benefit of permits. He noted that throughout the process, there has been discussions on the ultimate intended use of the property. Director Rojas added that staff has been aware that the applicant has been having personal private parties on the property and has been monitoring the activities on the property to see if they are permitted or not. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Jim York (applicant) explained that over the years several organizations have held events on this property, and he has started making improvements to the property with the intention of having some type of outside events held on the property. He stated that it was his understanding that he could have parties on the property, but couldn't charge anyone for these parties. He explained that he has talked to the neighbors about this proposal and they had three principle concerns. The first was with traffic, so he built a road so that the private roads in Portuguese Bend will not have to be used. The second concern was with fire, so he worked with the Fire Department and built a fire road on the property. The third concern was with-noise, so he designed a system where he can have speakers focused and broadcast towards the ocean. He felt that this property is unique and that a Conditional Use Permit should be granted for the use at the property. Gary Weber stated he was speaking on behalf of York Long Point properties. He discussed the Conditional Use Permit process and the flexibility this permit allows for uses on a property that don't fit neatly into the language of the Code. He noted that part of the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to allow a use that is necessary or desirable for the development of the community that cannot be classified as permitted uses. He noted that this requested event garden is not necessary, however he felt that the use is desirable. He pointed out that Mr. York has been approached by people from the community, social organizations, and cultural organizations requesting permission to hold activities on the property. He felt that staff has interpreted the Code too narrowly and he believes the Planning Director should have allowed the Conditional Use Permit application to be processed and allowed the Planning Commission to review the application. Donna Ciminera stated she is the outgoing chairman of the board for Las Candalistas. She discussed how returning to Mr. York's property to hold the Walk on the Wildside event would benefit Las Candalistas in many ways. She expressed Las Candalistas support in Mr. York's request for the event garden on his property. Scott Fellows felt that this event garden will offer access that is not granted, due to financial concerns, by the Trump organization. He felt that many Rancho Palos Verdes residents cannot afford to hold events at the Trump property where they will be able to Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 8 use this event garden. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the requested CUP. Robert Maxwell stated he is the liaison for the Portuguese Bend Community Association, which borders Mr. York's property. He explained that the Board opposes the Conditional Use Permit, as they felt that weddings and special events held at the site could be handled through a Special Use Permit. He felt that allowing a Conditional Use Permit will make the number of events held at the site too burdensome for the community. The Board opposed the frequency of 100 events per year at the site. He stated that the Board supports staffs decision and encouraged the Commission to do the same. Monica Mortensen stated she is on the board of directors for Los Candalistas and expressed her support for Mr. York's proposal. Mr. York (in rebuttal) stated that he has met with all of the Board members of the Portuguese Bend Community Association, but did not recognize Mr. Maxwell as part of that board. He stated that he has addressed all of the issues raised by the board in their meetings, specifically noise, traffic, and fire. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if the Planning Commission is being asked to issue a Conditional Use Permit for the property, or if the Planning Commission is being asked to determine if the applicant is entitled to submit and have a public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit application. Director Rojas answered that the Planning Commission is being asked to determine if this type of use is a use that could be allowed in a residential zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit application. He added that this is a zoning determination that not only applies to this property but all other residentially zoned properties in the city. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff, in making his own decision on the matter, if he was to be looking at the code and determining whether or not he deems this requested use is similar and no more intensive than those other uses listed in the code. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff if their decision that this use may be more intensive was based on an individual event, the quantity of events, or a combination of the two. Director Rojas answered that staff made the determination that this use is more intensive based on the types of events and the number of events. S Vice Chairman Gerstner acknowledged that an event held on the property may be a more intensive use in terms of noise, number of people, and hours. However, he asked Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 9 staff if they considered this use more intensive with reasonable conditions of approval in place. Director Rojas answered that even with conditions of approval in place staff felt this use was more intensive. He noted that it was staffs understanding that these events would be taking place day and night, where active recreation, which is a conditional use allowed in residential zones, is typically day use. Furthermore, he noted that the events include music and noise which occur outside while other venues, such as the Trump Clubhouse, typically have such events indoors. He also explained that there is also the consideration as to how many events per week or per year is considered too many. Staff felt that the possibility of 100 events per year seemed excessive. Chairman Lewis asked staff if their concern was also that if the ability to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for this residential property is granted there is a concern that other residents in the city could apply for a Conditional Use Permit to hold events on their residential properties. Director Rojas answered that is the main concern of staff. He explained that the Commission is used to looking at an application and making a determination as to whether or not the request will work for that particular property. The question before the Commission with this request is not whether this use could work on this property but whether this will work in any zoning district in the City. He stated there are many homes in the City that are quite large and have beautiful views, and staff could see the possibility of these property owners applying for a Conditional Use Permit to allow their property to be rented out for events. Commissioner Tomblin felt this is a matter of process. He asked staff to summarize what the application Mr. York presented to staff was for and what are the processes available to Mr. York in order for him to have his event garden. Director Rojas explained that Mr. York submitted a Conditional Use Permit application which staff rejected, saying that the proposed use is not a use allowed on the property. He explained again that staff is very concerned that this decision is one that will reverberate city wide to all residential zoning districts in the City. Staff felt that the applicant makes a good point in that this property is unique and staff felt that a more ideal solution may be to amend the code to allow these types of uses on properties over a. certain size as a conditional use. This would prevent this type of use in most neighborhoods throughout the City. Commissioner Tomblin asked how a code amendment would be initiated. Director Rojas explained that a code amendment can be initiated by an applicant, by staff, or by the Planning Commission. The initiation request would go to the City Council, who would have to agree with the initiation, and then go through the formal code amendment process. Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 10 Vice Chairman Gerstner could see potential problems with a code amendment. He questioned why this request couldn't be interpreted as, because of the unique nature of this property within that zoning district, it warrants consideration as a conditional use. In the future, if a resident came to the City to request a Conditional Use Permit for the same purpose, the City should be able to look at the circumstances and note that there may not be extraordinary circumstances related to that property and they therefore do not warrant the granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Director Rojas understood the Vice Chairman's comment, however he noted that this is a zoning issue and it does not take into account the lot size and other issues, unless there are criteria in the zoning uses that give the City that discretion. Commissioner Perestarn stated that he would like to hear from Mr. York on.the idea of initiating a code amendment. Chairman Lewis re-opened the public hearing. Gary Weber explained that a code amendment process is a lengthy process which may involve CEQA. Chairman Lewis closed the public-hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that Mr. York should be allowed to at least submit his Conditional Use Permit application so that it can be reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission. He stressed that this does not mean he would necessarily be in favor of the application, only that he should be allowed to be heard. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to reverse the Director's interpretation and agree with the applicant to the limited extent that the proposed use of offering residentially zoned property for rent to private entities to conduct private parties, weddings, receptions, charity events, and the like might, under appropriate circumstances and conditions, be sufficiently similar to other conditionally permitted uses to allow through approval of a Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Tomblin understood staffs concerns, however he felt that a property owner should have the right to go through a process. He felt that the message that staff has concerns about would be delivered at the time the Commission renders its decision, and the precedent would be set at the Commission level to help defray similar applications from coming through. Chairman Lewis asked staff if all of the events described by Mr. York could be done through the application of a Special Use Permit. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 11 Chairman Lewis then noted that what is being discussed would be the frequency of these events and the individual permitting process for each event. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted, however, that there is a rather large fee attached to each Special Use Permit application that can only be waived by the City Council. Chairman Lewis stated that he would be voting against the motion. He explained that he did not feel the proposed use was similar to any of the uses in the Code (A through K), nor is it any less intensive. Commissioner Perestarn stated he would also vote against the motion. He felt that a Special Use Permit would handle the volume of events being held on the property, at least for the next year. The motion to reverse the Director's decision thereby determining the proposed use is a conditionally allowed use in an RS zone was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner Perestam and Chairman Lewis dissenting Director Rojas stated that staff will present a Resolution memorializing this decision to the Commission at the next meeting under the Consent Calendar. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ery Minutes of June 23„ 2009 Vice Chairman Gerstner noted a typo on page 23 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (5-0) with Commissioners Perestarn and utters erg abstaining from agenda item No. 1. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Chairman Lewis requested that an item be added to the next agenda where all seven of the Commissioners were expected to attend regarding possible topics for the upcoming Planning Commission / City Council workshop. 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on August 26, 2009 The pre-agenda was discussed and approved. ADJOURNMENT' The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 11,2008 Page 12