Loading...
PC MINS 20090922 Approved November 10 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Fox, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved without objection. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their September 15th meeting the City Council denied without prejudice the appeal of the Planning Commission's 2002 denial of a new residence. He also noted that on September 12, the City council heard the Marymount College appeal and directed staff to conduct additional CEQA analysis of a 4-year .college and a relocated soccer field. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2, two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3, and five items of correspondence for agenda item No. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda litems): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00048): 28614 Mt. Hood Court Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit. She showed several photographs taken from neighboring properties that look over the project site, explaining that staff found no significant view impairment to the properties cause by the proposed project. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings in order to support the applications and was recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Frank Politeo (architect) stated he and the property owner agrees with the staff report, and he is available to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight noted on the plans a 2:12 pitch roof with tile. He recalled that most the cannot be installed on a roof with a pitch lower than 2 Y2:12. Mr. Politeo explained that the roof can be hot mopped and tile installed on a 2:12 pitch roof. Vince Goshi (28610 Mt. Rushmore) explained that the addition will be in the center of the main view from his home. He distributed a rendering done by his wife that shows what his view will be with the proposed residence in place. He felt that the residence will result in a significant reduction of his view, and for that reason he opposed the project as currently designed. He suggested lowering the addition to a level he indicated on staffs photograph, which would be lowering the silhouette by approximately one foot. He stated that if the addition were at that level, even though he would be losing a portion of his view, he would not object to the project. Janis Goshi stated that the view being blocked by this addition is part of the harbor view and they have enjoyed this view since they purchased their home in the mid 1970s. .Gail Park (28628 Mt. Rushmore) stated that one of the main assets of the property is the view, and feels the view will be impacted by this addition. She therefore opposes the proposed project. Mr. Politeo (in rebuttal) did not think this proposed addition would be blocking any particular view and the neighbors will still have a beautiful view from the homes. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 2 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to display the picture taken from the Goshi residence. He asked staff to comment on the statement made that the area seen with containers is part of the harbor view. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the Ordinance protects the harbor view but does not necessarily protect the views of homes or ground area in front of the harbor. Staff does not consider the ground area shown in the picture as protected. Commissioner Tetreault asked if a view of passing ships would be considered a protected view. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that passing ships within the harbor would be a protected view. Commissioner Tetreault felt that from the Goshi home it was possible to see below the Vincent Thomas Bridge and areas where cruise ships would pass. He asked staff if any effort was made to determine whether or not the ridgeline of the proposed addition would impair the view of cruise ships passing by. Associate Planner Mikhail was not aware the terminal was visible from the Goshi's main viewing area. She acknowledged that the cruise ships may be seen from the bedroom, but that is not part of the primary viewing area. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned that this proposed addition was causing view impairment to the Goshi residence. Commissioner Knight did not think the proposed addition caused any significant view impacts. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Chairman Lewis. Vice Chairman Gerstner discussed the view from the Goshi residence. He stated that the view ordinance is not specific in regards to cruise ships in the harbor, and that the Planning Commission has historically viewed the harbor view as fixed structures and the character of the harbor, but could not recall any discussion on a passing ship. He felt that the view of a passing ship was less than significant. Commissioner Perestarn also could not recall a past situation where the Planning Commission considered the view of a passing ship as significant. In terms of the design and neighborhood compatibility, he was in support of the project. He stated that he was in support of the project. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that in most situations this project would not cause a significant view impact, however in the case of the Goshi residence they have very little view to begin with and this project is taking away their ability to see half of their view. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 3 He felt that a ship is symbolic of the harbor and is a significant item associated with the harbor. He stated that he was still unsure of his decision, however he did not want to minimize the impact to the Goshi residence. He felt that the design of the proposed project was acceptable and felt it was compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tomblin was concerned with the solid tall wall on the side of the proposed residence, with very little articulation. He felt that more could be done to articulate the sides of the house. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that this home is pushing the limit in regards to the size of the home on this lot. The house will also be the second largest home in the immediate neighborhood, but on the second smallest lot. He was more concerned about this than he was about the view impairment. He sympathized with the Goshis, however in looking strictly at the view ordinance he did not feel that this proposed addition caused significant view impairment to the Goshi property. Commissioner Perestam agreed with Commissioner Tomblin's concerns with tall unarticulated sides of the proposed residence, and would like to see more articulation to the sides of the structure. Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments regarding the view issue. The motion to approve the Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit, as proposed by staff, failed (2-5), with Commissioners Tomblin, Tetreault, Ruttenberg, Perestam, and Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that he did not support the motion because he first wanted to hear from the applicant in regards to a possible redesign. Chairman Lewis re-opened the public hearing. Chairman Lewis noted that the Commission has expressed their concerns and views regarding the design of the residence, and asked Mr. Politeo to comment. Frank Politeo stated that looking at the front elevation there is a flat view and one does not see the third dimension. He showed the Commission some sketches he made that might show a different feeling. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Politeo if it would be feasible for him to have new plans to the City showing articulation along the side of the residence in the short amount of time before the next meeting. Mr. Politeo explained the garage is forward and the rooms are forward, and therefore the plane is already broken along the side. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 4 Commissioner Tomblin pointed to an area on the plans and explained to Mr. Politeo that his concern was getting some differentiation and getting the area pushed back somewhat to get in more in line with the compatibility of other homes in the neighborhood, as well as breaking up the one solid wail along the side. Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Politeo if he would like the opportunity, in a limited time span, to try to redesign to address the Commissioners concerns. Mr. Politeo stated he would work with the staff to try to redesign, however he felt that he did justice to the building with his design. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that there should be no reason to re-silhouette the project, and the Commission agreed. Commissioner Perestam moved to continue the public hearing to October 13, 2009 to allow the applicant an opportunity to address design concerns raised by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion was approved, (5-1-1) with Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting and Commissioner Tetreault abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00156): 15 Headland Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation and Grading Permit. She explained that staff does not feel the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood based on the size, and view impairment to the neighboring property at 20 Headland Drive. She discussed the foliage on the property and how the foliage also impacts views from several neighboring properties. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the project based on neighborhood compatibility and view analysis. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Louie Tomaro (architect) explained that the lots throughout this development are all consistently at approximately 1 acre in size. He explained how the house he has developed is consistent with the current development in the tract while trying to maintain as much of the existing slope and configuration of the house as possible. He noted that he has met with neighbors on the design, and as a result of their concerns he has lowered the overall height of the building by four feet. He was aware that there are many neighbors concerned about the trees on the property that obstruct their views, and it is the owners intention to remove the trees and provide landscaping no higher than the ridgeline of the new residence. He discussed the size of the house, explaining Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 5 that it is a two-story 8,500 square foot home built above grade with a basement and wine cellar built below grade. He stated the 8,500 square feet is consistent with the size of homes at 6 Headland Drive and 7995 Palos Verdes Drive East which are on either side of this home. He also noted that this house will sit down below the street level and therefore the size will not be apparent. Commissioner Perestarn asked if the palm trees were included in the vegetation removal. Mr. Tomaro answered that they would remove every-thing, including the palm trees, from the property. Robert ELqgens (14 Headland Drive) stated his first concern is that once the trees are down there will be a large house in his view frame. Because the trees are currently blocking the silhouette it is very difficult to determine what impact the house will have on their view. He asked that the trees be removed first so that he can have a better view of the silhouette. He did not think this 10,000 square foot house was compatible with the other houses in the neighborhood, as the average house size on Headland Drive is 5,000 square feet and his house is 2,100 square feet. He also noted that not all of the lots on the street are 1 acre lots, as over the years many of the lots have been split. Manta Naidu (26 Headland Drive) stated she had concerns with view impairment, the size of the residence, and the bulk and mass of the residence. She felt that this home would block more than 50 percent of her ocean view. She also felt that the bulk of the second story of the home will rise above the horizon and present a solid structure in front of her home rather than the shrubs and the trees. She would therefore lose any recourse in restoring her ocean view through the view restoration process. She asked that the Planning Commission direct that the residence be scaled back and lower the roof line to the current level. She also asked that the trees and shrubs currently blocking the silhouette be removed so that she would have a better idea of the new building being proposed. Dino Capaldi (25 Headland Drive) stated his issue was not so much with view as it was with privacy. He explained that the second story of the house will look directly into his backyard, and he is planning to put a pool and jacuzzi into the backyard. Werner Meissner (31 Headland Drive) was also concerned with the privacy, as he felt that the house will look directly into his yard. He also felt that the house will cause a view impairment, while he has been in the process of removing vegetation to restore his view. Director Rojas noted that staff did not include a privacy impact analysis from 31 Headland Drive in the staff report, as it is not an abutting property. Louie Tomaro (in rebuttal) pointed out that 6 Headland is a new house and is 8,082 square feet and 27995 Palos Verdes Drive East is 8,646 square feet. Both of these lots Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 6 are within 100 feet of the subject property line. He noted that this proposed residence is 8,500 square feet above ground, which he felt is very consistent with the abutting properties. Regarding the privacy issues to 31 and 25 Headland Drive, he noted that there are only two windows located on the second floor that will overlook these properties, one in the bedroom and one in the bathroom. He stated that they would gladly make these windows opaque. He also noted that the building has been pulled in 35 feet on the second floor to help with privacy to the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Knight asked if the applicant would be open to providing some type of opaque glass on the north side of the balcony to address privacy issues. Mr. Tomaro answered that he would be open to that suggestion. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the pad has been graded down two feet to lower the ridge height, and asked if it could be graded down another two feet near the two-story portion of the house. Mr. Tomaro explained that the house is already sitting 20 feet below the street and felt that lowering it further will begin to make it look like a house sitting in a hole. He felt that the house is at the lowest limit right now. Commissioner Knight asked if this project is below the maximum lot coverage for the lot. Assistant Planner Kim answered that this proposed residence is at 35 percent lot coverage at 40 percent is the maximum allowed. Commissioner Perestarn stated that he was unable to determine view obstruction from 20, 26 and 14 Headland Drive because of the foliage on the properties. Commissioner Tetreault noted that there appears to be a good discussion between the applicant and the owner of 20 Headland Drive in regards to view obstruction and tree trimming. He noted that in the past the Commission looks for objective criteria of view obstruction, and whether or not the property owner who may be losing the view approves of it or not does not come into the equation. He asked staff to comment. Director Rojas explained that sometimes there is a resident who does not object to view impairment caused by a proposed project, but staff feels there is significant view impairment and cannot make the finding for approval. He explained that the Commission must make the appropriate findings, and the finding does not state that it is up to the residents. Therefore, even though the resident may not object to the view obstruction the Commission may determine that there is significant view impairment. Commissioner Ruttenberg recalled a past case where a neighboring property owner felt that he was getting more out of a view than he was losing, and the Commission agreed to not consider that particular view when making their decision. He felt that if a property owner feels he will be better off by not insisting on his view, he should be allowed to Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 7 waive it. He felt that staff's recommendation with regard to view is correct on all three of the properties, two that were determined to be not significant and one that was significant. The one that is significant is the owner who would prefer that this project go forward and would increase his view overall by the trimming or removal of the trees on the property. Therefore his focus is more on the size of the proposed residence than on the view. In discussing the size of the project, Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he was surprised to see how far below the street level this proposed residence will sit. He felt that the Planning Commission should not only be looking at the square footage of a project, but its overall effect. He felt that lowering the house has reduced the effect of the house. He admitted this house is very large, however a portion of the residence is below grade and the lot is quite large. He did not think that as viewed from the street the house presents itself to the size that it actually is. Therefore, taking this into account along with the discussion on view impairment, he supports the project. Commissioner Perestarn agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments regarding the size of the proposed residence, and stated that he did not have a concern with the size of the house. He was uncomfortable with the view impact to 14 Headland Drive and would like to get a clearer understanding of the situation. He also discussed the privacy issue with the neighbor at 25 Headland Drive, noting that the applicant seems to be receptive in regards to addressing this issue. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the large homes at 6 Headland Drive and 27995 Palos Verdes Drive East include any square footage that is below grade. Assistant Planner Kim answered that 6 Headland Drive has a three-car garage that is below grade, but is not fully subterranean. The residence at 27995 Palos Verdes Drive East is all above grade. Commissioner Tetreault reviewed the sizes of the houses in the immediate neighborhood, noting that 10 of the homes are 3,000 square feet or less. He felt that the two very large homes in the neighborhood are setting a precedent and determining the future of this neighborhood. However, he questioned if the Commission should now tell this applicant that there are too many homes in the neighborhood at this size and the Commission does not want to approve any more. With regards to the view issue, he agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg that if someone owns a piece of property and does not care about a certain view, that is their decision. However, that is not what staff has told them they are to consider. Staff has told the Commission that they must determine whether or not a view is being significantly impaired. He felt the basement is below grade, and in terms of neighborhood compatibility it should not be taken into consideration. Chairman Lewis stated he does not support this project based on the actual scale of the project. This is a 10,000 square foot house in a neighborhood where the average house is 3,900 square feet. He felt this was too much, too fast for this neighborhood. Planning commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 8 Commissioner Knight agreed that the proposed residence is quite a bit larger than the other houses on one acres lots in the neighborhood, however he did have to take into account that some of the square footage is below grade. Like Commissioner Tetreault, he was concerned that if this house were approved it would be considered a 10,000 square foot home and when looking at other neighborhood compatibility cases, this home would skew the numbers. In terms of the view impact to 20 Headland Drive, he felt that staff and the Commission are to determine what a significant view impact is. In this situation, a view of the Vincent Thomas Bridge is articulated in the view ordinance as a significant landmark. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he judges compatibility relative to size and impact aesthetically and the mass on the actual piece of property. He stated it is not so much about the actual numbers. He felt that in this neighborhood that has many lots at I acre in size, that this house is on the edge of what he would accept seeing built. It also disturbs him that the house may be blocking some views, and would like to see this minimized to the extent possible. Commissioner Tomblin also agreed that how the house looks on the lot in terms of size, bulk, and mass is more important than the actual numbers. He stated that he would support the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve the proposed Height Variation and Grading Permit with the modification that the windows indicated are made translucent to address the privacy issues raised and the foliage be removed as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the Commission must make certain findings in order to approve the Height Variation and Grading Permit. He noted that one of the criteria for the Grading Permit is that if more than 1,000 cubic yards of earth is to be moved the Planning Commission must approve it. He reviewed the criteria for the Grading Permit and questioned, like staff, if it is necessary to move 1,377 cubic yards of earth in order to enjoy the use of this lot. He noted that staff concluded that the house is too large and the grading excessive, and he agreed. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the language regarding the primary use with regards to grading for living purposes is what is happening with this application. He did not feel that there was any grading for anything other than the house. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that that grading is primarily under and around the house. He also noted that the grading is needed to help fulfill some of the greater goals of the community, which are to maximize views and minimize bulk and mass. Chairman Lewis noted that he agrees with the Vice Chairman and Commissioner Ruttenberg on this issue, however he will still be voting against the motion. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 9 The motion to approve the Height Variation and Grading Permit as modified was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Knight, Tetreault and Chairman Lewis dissenting. Director Rojas explained that staff will present a Resolution to the Planning Commission for approval at the next meeting reflecting the decision. 3. Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, Sign Program, Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2008-00505): 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West AND Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2009-00158): 31290 Palos Verdes Drive West Chairman Lewis and Commissioners Tomblin, Tetreault, and Knight disclosed that, while they have used the services of the veterinarian's office, they would be able to participate in this hearing without any bias. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. In regards to the Variance requests, he explained that staff believes all of the necessary findings can be made for their approval, as outlined in the staff report. He explained the off-site parking requirements for the church and the need for the Conditional Use Permit Revision request. He explained that staff prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and circulated it for public review, with two comments that are attached to the staff report. He noted that staff believes the recommended mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of the project to less than significant levels. He stated staff recommends certification of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, and Sign Program as well as the Conditional Use Permit Revision, as conditioned in the staff report. He noted that included in the late correspondence is an email from the planning consultant working with the applicant which requests modifications to three conditions of approval, Conditions 33, 38, and 70. He stated that staff has reviewed the request and supports the suggested modifications. Commissioner Knight discussed the required easement for parking spaces for the church which states a maximum of 50 parking spaces and asked if there was a conflict with the private agreement. Associate Planner Fox explained that the City's current conditions of approval state a minimum of 50 parking spaces, however the recorded private agreement states a maximum of 50 parking spaces. Therefore, reducing the number of spaces to 32 does not conflict with the private agreement. Commissioner Knight noted a condition of approval regarding the planting of foliage which shall not create an impairment of views, and asked staff if a height limit would be set on the foliage. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 10 Associate Planner Fox explained the intent is that the foliage be maintained in a manner as to not impair views as defined by the code. He noted that the building is 16 feet tall and anything taller than the building would potentially have a view impact. He also noted that there is a condition of approval that a final landscape plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Commissioner Tomblin noted that the design of the building is not a Mediterranean style similar to that of the shopping center, Villa Capri, and recently constructed 7-11. He felt that this is a distinct difference in design and asked staff to comment. Associate Planner Fox explained that this was discussed with the applicant when the project was first submitted, as the most recent pattern of development around the site has been Mediterranean-style structures. However, staff looked at this building as well as the church and the Admiral Risty, which are not Mediterranean style structures, and realized there is more of a diversity of architectural style in the neighborhood than it first appeared. Staff felt that the contemporary design being proposed is an attractive design and fits in well with the site. Staff has not received any comments objecting to the style. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Karen Sully (Planning Consultant representing both applicants) stated that the proposed building was designed to accommodate the site with the least amount of impact possible. She stated that she consulted with Villa Capri HOA to receive their input and concerns. She felt the outcome was very favorable. She stated that she has adhered to all of the development standards for the site with the exceptions pertaining to the Variance request, and have exceeded the on-site parking requirement by 9 spaces contributing to the overall shared parking situation. She felt the project will be a great improvement to the site and provide a much needed veterinarian use for the community. She clarified the requested condition of approval modifications by explaining that for condition No. 38, in addition to the ability to service a client for urgent care and emergency services on a Sunday, Dr. Jones would also like to extend the hours of operation during the week to 9:00 p.m. on an as needed basis. Chairman Lewis noted the language provided for condition No. 38 in the email provided to the Commission and asked if that language was sufficient. Ms. Sully answered the language provided in the email is sufficient. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Sully if the church has reviewed the conditions of approval and are in agreement, Ms. Sully answered that the church is in agreement with the conditions of approval, with the exception of condition No. 70. The church is requesting that they be allowed to have services at 8:30 on Sunday morning rather than 9:30. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 11 Dr. Cassie Jones (applicant) explained that building this structure will afford her the opportunity to modernize and update her practice. She stated that the condo owners at Villa Capri can most likely hear quite a bit of noise out of her current location; however, her new building will not have any windows in the back. She asked that the Planning Commission approve her project, which she felt would only improve the surrounding area. Jim Zapp (St. Paul's Lutheran Church) stated that the church is firmly behind and in support of this proposed project. The church feels that Dr. Jones will be an excellent neighbor and her business compliments the use of the space. He also explained that with the current plan the church will actually gain twelve parking spaces. Robert Gulcher stated he is a member of St. Paul's Lutheran and was very much in support of the project. David Skinner stated that he too supports the project. As a member of St. Paul's Lutheran Church, he felt that the church has been very involved in this proposed project and feels the project will benefit both the church and the Doctor. Ed Shea (President of Villa Capri HOA) stated that this plan appears to be a much better option that what is currently on the site. He was still a little concerned with the 50 foot setback and the three parking spaces that encroach into that setback. Deanna Kolbas (66 Via Capri) stated her condominium will be directly facing the new building. She felt that the front of the building is too tall and will block her view. She also asked that the wall between this property and Golden Cove be completely closed. She asked where the air conditioning equipment will be located, as she was concerned about the noise it would create and if it will be too close to her condo. Linda Lawler was concerned about the three parking spaces proposed in the 50 foot setback area. She questioned why the building had to be altered because of the proximity to the Admiral Risty, another commercial property, but it seems to be alright to encroach into the 50 foot setback next to residential homes. She also explained that the height of the proposed building in the front is higher than the height of the building in the rear, and this portion will impact the views from 66 and 68 via Capri. Marianne Hunter stated her support of the proposed project. Richard Rowe (architect for the project) pointed out that because the building had to be moved away from the extreme slopes on the property, there is now a 60 foot setback rather than a 50 foot setback near Villa Capri. In terms of the three parking spaces, he stated he would be more than happy to provide additional landscaping in the area to screen the area from the residents. He explained that they are seeking green certification on this project and part of that is to have an energy efficient air conditioning system that is low volume and low noise output. He detailed how these air conditioning units will work and that the noise should be directed away from the residential units. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 12 Commissioner Perestam asked if there will be pick-up or drop-off of boarded animals allowed on Sundays. Assistant Planner Fox answered that it was staff's understanding that the office will be open Monday through Saturday and the only activity on Sundays would be feeding and watering the animals and to handle any emergency situation that may arise. In regards to parking, Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the hospital is required to provide 23 parking spaces, but is providing 32 parking spaces. The church has said they use 20 parking spaces but are now getting 32 spaces. With that, he questioned why the three spaces were needed in the setback area. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff advised the applicant that they should provide as many off-street parking spaces as they could in order to meet the 50 space requirement for the current CUP for the church. The parking study demonstrated that the number of parking spaces being proposed satisfies that need. However, if the Commission feels that those three spaces are not necessary, they could direct the applicant to remove those spaces. Chairman Lewis asked a representative from the church if they would be satisfied with a reduction in parking spaces to 29. Jim Zapp stated that he would be satisfied with 29, however he would prefer 32 spaces. He noted that the spaces will not be used very often, only when the church is having a major event. He suggested those spaces be used as restricted parking and used only when needed. Commissioner Knight suggested chaining off those additional spaces and allowing the church to unchain the area during special events. He stated that he has looked at all of the variances and understands the rationale for the need for the variances. He empathized with the Villa Capri owners who may be losing a small portion of their view, however the building is designed to be under 16 feet in height, which the code allows. He stated he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Knight moved to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve the Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, and in Permit for the Point Vicente Animal Hospital and the Conditional Use Permit Revision for St. Paul's Lutheran Church as suggested by staff, with the modifications suggested by the applicant in their September 22, 2009 email for condition Nos. 33, 38, and 70 and to add that in regards to the spaces that encroach into the setback that there be modified parking inthat area with a chain, which the church has access to that area, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 13 Vice Chairman Gerstner stated he was in favor of the project, but felt that chaining off the three parking spaces would look a bit industrial and there were other options that would be a bit more desirable. He suggested using decomposed granite or grass Crete to make the spaces less desirable. Richard Rowe agreed with the Vice Chairman's suggestions and further suggested using turf block in the three spaces. Commissioner Perestarn preferred the architectural solution to the four spaces, and suggested leaving the spaces unchained and review the situation at the six-month review to see if there is a problem. Commissioner Perestam moved to amend the motion to take out the language regarding the chaining of the spaces in the setback area® Commissioner Knight accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Ruttenberg. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2009-38 thereby certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to adopt P.C. Resolution No® 2 Q - thereby conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, and Sign Permit for the Point Vicente Animal Hospital; and the Conditional Use Permit Revision forte St. Paul's Lutheran Church to modify the off-site parking, as modified was approved, (7-0). 4. Appeal of Special Use Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00033): 27501 Western Ave Commissioner Perestarn stated that he has recused himself in the past for projects at Green Hills, and will recuse himself from this application as well. He left the dais. Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining that the Director has approved the temporary use of two modular buildings at the site for an additional three months. The approval was appealed by the applicant, who is requesting the two modular buildings be allowed on the site as a temporary use for an additional six years. She gave a brief history of the use of the modular buildings on the site and the reasons for the applicant's appeal, as detailed in the staff report. She stated that staff does not feel the points of appeal are warranted, mainly staff is of the opinion that the structures are temporary in purpose and appearance and therefore should not be treated as permanent structures. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision of approval. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing, John Resich (applicant) explained that Green Hills is requesting the continued use of the two modular buildings, as they presently serve as the administrative offices as well as sales offices for the sales personnel. He noted that it has been suggested moving Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 14 the sales staff to a different location, however he explained that the sales staff spend much of their day meeting with clients at the Green Hills site. He stated that these are modular buildings, and meet all of the requirements for modular buildings set forth by the State. They are fully handicap accessible and look like permanent buildings. He noted that the City has a number of modular buildings at the city hall site that have been in place longer than these modular buildings. He also noted that if they were to build a permanent building on the site, it would most likely be a much larger building that would have a greater impact on the site. He stated that these buildings cannot be seen as they are screened by trees and landscaping. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Resich if Green Hills had any intentions of building a permanent building to house the staff currently using the modular buildings. Mr. Resich answered that Green Hills would like to build a permanent building, but will have to wait until the economy turns around to do so. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Resich why he felt he needed six years, and questioned why he couldn't accept one year or eighteen months. Mr. Resich explained that currently there are plans to build two mausoleums, which will cost in excess of$5 million. He explained that Green Hills, as a cemetery, could not borrow money very easily and therefore projects were dependent on cash flow. To do that, Green Hills has to sell the property in advance and accumulate the funds. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff why they only approved the extension for three months. Director Rojas answered that because an application for a new building has not yet been submitted, he felt that giving this extension for a period of three months would give Green Hills enough time to submit an application for a new permanent building. He noted that Green Hills has already had a year in which they could have submitted an application. Commissioner Knight felt that these buildings were intended to be temporary units on the property while the administrative offices were being built. He was concerned about setting precedent by allowing these temporary buildings to remain, as there are many projects in the City using temporary buildings that are associated with construction projects. He therefore supported staffs recommendation to deny the appeal. Commissioner Knight moved to uphold the Director's decision and deny the appeal, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Ruftenberg agreed with Commissioner Knight's comments, however he also felt that the condition of the economy should be taken into account. He noted that the Director had explained that a three month extension was given to allow Green Hills Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 15 the opportunity to submit an application for a permanent structure, and he did not think it would be unreasonable to give them a bit more time, possibly twelve months. Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments. The motion to deny the appeal failed, (3- ) with Commissioners Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Tetreault moved to deny the appeal but allow the use of the temporary buildings for a time period of one additional year, after which time the temporary uilin s will have to be removed or plans must be submitted to the City for the new permanent structure, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting and Commissioner Peresam recused. 5. Interpretation Hearing request (Case No. ZON2009-00146): 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South and Residential zoned properties citywide Commissioner Knight stated that the applicant, Mr. York, has submitted a letter requesting that he recuse himself from this item. As he said at the previous meeting, he has carefully reviewed the issue, consulted with the FPPC, looked at all of the regulations, and could find no conflict. He felt that he has done his due diligence and did not feel he had to recuse himself. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the request that the item be re-noticed and the public hearing re-opened. The Planning Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to tonight's meeting. Since the Planning Commission has agreed to re-opened the public hearing, and no new information has been submitted to staff that would change staffs recommendation, staff continues to recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Director's determination. He reminded the Commission that the interpretation is a city-wide interpretation and would affect all residentially zoned properties throughout the City, and not just this one particular property. Director Rojas stated that staff had received a letter from the applicant which raised an allegation that the Commission's action at the last meeting constituted a Brown Act violation or a violation of the Government Code. He stated he reviewed the letter with the City Attorney and it was determined that there was no Brown Act violation, and what the Commission did was appropriate. He noted other points in the letter which staff addressed in a response letter which was included in the Commission's late correspondence. He pointed out that the applicant had made reference to the moratorium exception findings and reminded the Commission that the determination on whether this application is exempt from the moratorium is not within the Commission's purview and this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 16 Kelly Richardson stated he represents the Portuguese Bend Community Association as their general legal council. He stated the Association membership quite heavily opposes the application before the Commission and strongly supports staffs recommendations. He stated that the Association is very concerned with having a commercial use next to their residential properties. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the issue before the Planning Commission is whether or not to allow Mr. York to submit a CUP. He understood Mr. Richardson's comments in opposition to the proposed CUP, but asked Mr. Richardson why Mr. York should not be allowed to submit a CUP and have a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Richardson explained that if Mr. York is allowed to submit a CUP for this proposed use, it would be an improper submittal. He added that what concerns him is that if the Commission is going to pursue an exercise that staff has said upfront is going to be an unfruitful consumption of staff and Commission resources, and that there is clear authority from staff and from the Ordinance that the application should not be accepted, why go through the process. Betty Strauss discussed her memories of City incorporation and how hard everyone worked to achieve that goal. She felt that the greatest threat to the quality of life on the Peninsula is the insidious encroachment of commercial property on residentially zoned properties. Robert Maxwell asked the Commission to uphold the Director's decision regarding the Conditional Use Permit. He had no objection to the requirement that Mr. York apply for a Special Use Permit for the events held on his property. Lowell Wedemeyer stated that he felt that, constitutionally, the City must give Mr. York the route in which to ask for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that by asking doesn't mean he will get what he is asking for. He felt that the City should be wary in this area, as Mr. York's property may be in the landslide moratorium area where there is serious doubt that much of the land can be built on residentially. By adding a prohibition on any non-residential use with the addition of no mechanism to ask for a less intensive use, it could appear that the City has allowed no permitted use of the property. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Wedemeyer if a Special Use Permit would qualify as relief under a taking. Mr. Wedemeyer did not think a Special Use Permit would qualify, as it is not practical or feasible. Chairman Lewis noted that Mr. York could also initiate a code amendment or a zone change to the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 17 Mr. Wedemeyer agreed that Mr. York could initiate a code amendment. Marriane Hunter did not think Mr. York should get special treatment just because he hasn't yet found a way to take commercial advantage of the land he bought. She felt that the fact that Mr. York has not yet figured out a way to profit from his land should not be a burden to his neighbors. Daad Makhlouf asked that the Commission take into consideration that Mr. York may have a constitutional right to be heard on this issue, but so does every other citizen in this city. Laura Parks stated she is opposed to the event garden and supports the concerns raised by her neighbors. Tom Hoffman stated that he lives very close to Mr. York's property and has experienced the parties first hand, and therefore supports the Director's decision. He noted, however, that the issue is what is good for the entire City, not just their little community. He compared the benefits of allowing Conditional Use Permit requests in residential neighborhoods to the costs of such proposals. Chuck Michel stated he is speaking on behalf of a group of neighbors and homeowners who are in opposition to the proposed project. He understood that this issue goes beyond this particular project and opens up the door for the potential of these types of projects to be applied for in residential neighborhoods throughout the City. He felt that the Planning Commission will have to focus on whether this proposed use is significantly similar to and no more intrusive than the uses listed in the code. He felt it was pretty clearly not. He therefore agreed with staffs recommendations. Sharon Nolan Silbe[ge[g clarified that she was not against Mr. York having any use of his property, but rather she was against what he was asking the City to allow him to do now. She noted other CUP applications that have been approved in residential areas, but they are for commercial antennas. She encouraged Mr. York to make use of the land, but make sure that the use fits into one of the categories specified in the Code. Suzanne Black Griffith stated the zoning laws were established to reflect the General Plan, and currently there is no means for an applicant to apply for a CUP in a ,residentially zoned neighborhood. She felt that the process of applying for a Special Use Permit for events held on the site was an appropriate process. Dana Ireland felt that Mr. York does have a path to follow that is very clear in the code, a zone change. He explained how he went through the zone change process and did not feel it was an overly burdensome process. He stated that the process is in place, the process works, the application is judged on its merits, and a decision is made. Jeanne Smolley referred to a recent article in the newspaper regarding a resident in Palos Verdes Estates who has a very large home and is renting that home out for Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 18 weddings, and the many problems the City is having with that. She felt that this could very easily happen in this City if one could apply for a Conditional Use Permit in a residentially zoned neighborhood. She stated that Mr. York wants to make a commercial use out of a property that is zoned residential, and eventually he will want a residential use of the property. She felt it was very clear that Mr. York wants to get a Conditional Use Permit for an event garden to make a temporary commercial money making situation. Commissioner Perestarn asked staff if Mr. York has come to the city for Special Use Permit applications in the past. Director Rojas answered that Mr. York has made applications for Special Use Permits on this property. Chairman Lewis stated that his position on this has not changed since the previous meeting. He explained that his position has nothing to do with Mr. York or the requested use of the property and he is not pre-judging that application. He was very concerned about the precedent being set if the City were to allow residential property owners to apply for Conditional Use Permits that are not enumerated in the statute. He noted that the Commission just approved a 10,000 square foot home, which might make a nice location to have a wedding reception. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that any residential property owner could currently apply for a CUP using the bed and breakfast category, but people don't. He stated that the City is not inundated with residents applying for a CUP to have a bed and breakfast in their home. He felt that Mr. York's property is a bit different than most residential properties, as it is approximately 90 acres in size. He stated that most of the public speakers commented on why Mr. York should not be granted a Conditional Use Permit, and while the arguments against granting the CUP may be strong, that is not what the Commission is considering at this time. He explained that the Commission must determine whether his application fits within the Development Code Section 17.02.0251, which he thinks it does. He felt that "L" has to be interpreted as broadening subsections "A" through "K" or it wouldn't be necessary for it to be there. He felt that when one is talking about whether or not a person is going to be given the opportunity to submit an application and have a hearing, then the City has to err on the side of giving it to him. He feels this is due process. He added that he has not given any thought as to whether or not the Conditional Use Permit should be granted for this particular use, as this is not yet before the Commission. Commissioner Perestarn felt that Mr. York has a number of avenues he can pursue to allow this type of use on his property. He explained that for the time being, Mr. York has the ability to apply for a Special Use Permit to hold events on his property. As a longer term solution, he can pursue a zone change which would allow this type of use. He therefore supported the Director's position and deny the appeal. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 19 Commissioner Knight felt that this is a fundamental issue regarding residential zoning and the intent of residential zoning. He felt that asking for the granting of a CUP does not comply with subsection "L", as it is much too intensive of a use. He did not think the Trump golf course is a fair comparison of land use, as it is a much different situation. He was concerned with the precedent this type of application could create in residential neighborhoods. He therefore was in support of staff's determination and could not support the appeal. Commissioner Tetreault also had concerns regarding with the use of a CUP in residential neighborhoods citywide. He felt that the Code allows a process, and this use does not fit into the uses allowed by Code. He therefore was in support of the Director's decision. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he too has not changed his mind since the last public hearing. He agreed that the described use may not fit exactly into one of the listed categories, however he felt that the described use is close enough that it may be conditioned so that it is similar or no more intensive than a listed use. He felt that the application should be heard to allow the City to make a decision based on the actual use. Commissioner Tomblin would have liked to have seen Mr. York or one of his representatives at this meeting to argue why they felt a Conditional Use Permit was an appropriate application for this property and to argue for due process. This meeting was an opportunity to be part of that process. He stated that since Mr. York chose to not be part of this process, he would default to support of the Director's decision. Commissioner Tetreault added that he would be more in support of allowing a Conditional Use Permit application in a residential area if there were some type of restrictions in place regarding lot size Commissioner Tetreault moved to uphold the Director's interpretation that the leasing of residentially zoned property to conduct private parties, weddings, receptions, charity events and the like is not a use allowed by-right or by approval of a Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Vice Chairman Gerstner explained that he does not necessarily agree with the Resolution included in the staff report that supports the position he has expressed. He stated that he would have proposed that a fair amount of language be changed in that Resolution to better reflect his position. Director Rojas made note of a letter received by the applicant in which he requested that if the motion to uphold the Director's decision was approved, he would ask that language be added to the Resolution showing details of the Commission vote. He explained that he discussed this request with the City Attorney, and she had no objection to the additional language. As a result, there are language modifications that he must read into the record. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 20 Chairman Lewis asked if it was necessary, from the City's perspective, to add this proposed language. Director Rojas explained that the City Attorney felt it was a good opportunity to add clarification. He read the proposed language: "Whereas on August 11th the Planning Commission held a hearing on case No. ZON2009-00126, a Director's interpretation at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and give evidence. At the hearing the Planning Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the appellant and directed staff to prepare a Resolution for approval at the next Planning Commission meeting." Further language to be modified, "Whereas on August 25, 2009 the Planning Commission did not adopt the Resolution and instead agreed to re-notice it and allow additional public testimony." Commissioner Tetreault agreed to add this additional language to his motion, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Chairman Lewis felt that the primary job of the Planning Commission is to protect property owner's reasonable expectation. He felt that the people in this community purchased their property with the expectation that they would not be neighbors with an event center. He did not believe Mr. York purchased his property with a reasonable expectation that he would be able to operate an event center. He therefore supported the motion. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-41 thereby upholding the Director's interpretation was approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of July 14, 2009 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0) with Commissioners Rutters berg, Tetreault, and Perestarn recused from the vote on the Marymount item. 7. Minutes of August 11, 2009 Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner utters ere Approved, (7-0) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault abstaining since they were absent from the meeting and Commissioner Tomblin abstaining from item Nos. I through 3. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 21 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on October 13, 2009 Accepted the Pre-Agenda for the October 13, 2009 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:02 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2009 Page 22