Loading...
PC MINS 20100622 Approved July 27, 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:00 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their June 15th meeting the City Council re-introduced the Ordinance that would enact the various code amendments originally proposed by the Residential Development Standards Committee and approved by the Planning Commission. He noted that the new code requirements will only apply to new applications submitted after the effective date of the Ordinance. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Lot Line Adjustment & Variance (Case No. ZON2009-00434 & SUB2009- 00005): 5 Bronco Road and 27 Stallion Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Lot Line Adjustment and the Variance. She stated that due to the fact that these non-conformities would be created in order to accommodate the encroaching improvement, paired with the fact that a judge ordered the applicant to submit a Lot Line Adjustment application with specific descriptions identified in the court order, staff felt that all findings for the Variance could be made. Furthermore, the Lot Line Adjustment would not affect the buildable area of Parcel A, as the lot lines would be adjusted on the extreme slope where building is prohibited. As such, staff was recommending approval of the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance applications. Commissioner Leon asked staff if allowing Parcel A to become a parcel with a substandard lot size would cause any implications in their future development because the lot is less than the minimum size. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that with the smaller lot size the allowable lot coverage would be reduced. She noted that there are other lots in the neighborhood that are of a similar size. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Amy Studarus (applicant) stated she was representing the homeowners and her company, which prepared the lot line adjustment maps. She stated that she has read the staff report and the conditions of approval, and has no objections. Helen Kim stated she is the attorney representing the owners of Parcel B identified in the staff report. She too has read through the staff report and Resolution and has no objections. She gave a brief history of the two parcels and how they came to this point. Commissioner Lewis asked Ms. Kim what the consequences would be to the settlement if the Commission couldn't make the findings necessary to approve the Variance and/or the Lot Line Adjustment. He also asked if the settlement agreement included a provision in the event that the Commission could not support the application. Ms. Kim answered that if the application is not approved the applicants will be in violation of the judge's order and they would have to go before the judge to discuss the options. She stated that there is no provision in the settlement agreement for a plan B if this application is denied. Commissioner Lewis discussed the findings that must be made in order to approve this application, and asked Ms. Kim what the substantial property right is that the Commission should find in order to grant this lot line adjustment. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 2 Ms. Kim felt that if the Variance and Lot Line Adjustment applications were to be denied the Abdula's would be most impacted as they have structures, including a portion of their home, that encroaches onto the Engel property. If the applications were denied, a portion of their home, a portion of their deck, and a portion of their pool would have to be removed. Commissioner Lewis asked, if this application were to be denied, if there was room for negotiations and a middle ground where the Abdulas would not have to remove a portion of their home. Ms. Kim explained that there were many considerations, including easements, however a lot line adjustment will give these owners and all future owners a clean break in that both parties will own their own property and pay taxes on their own property. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the Abdulas were responsible for building any of the improvements on the property that are now in question. Ms. Kim stated that all of the improvements were in place when the Abdulas purchased the property. Commissioner Lewis noted that at the last meeting there was a very similar situation before the Commission that he voted against. He explained that he voted against that request because he was not able to make two of the findings necessary to approve a Variance request. He stated that he does not think a man made encroachment qualifies as an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. Therefore, to be consistent with his vote two weeks ago, he will vote against this application. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff has discussed this application with the City Attorney. The City Attorney agreed that the Commission is not obligated to make the findings for approval of the Variance because of the court order. However, the City Attorney felt that this was the cleanest approach and agreed with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he does not find a lot of weight in the court's order. He noted that it is binding upon the parties involved, however the city is not a party to this action. He asked, absent of the court order, would staff be able to make the findings for the Variance. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff would be able to make the findings with or without the court order. Staff felt that improvements done with permits that took place on someone else's property is a unique situation or exceptional circumstance and the resulting lot is not compromised in any way. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if there are other RS-2 zoned lots in the City that are non-conforming due to their size. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 3 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there are many lots in the RS-2 zone that are non-conforming due to their size. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if they are aware of other instances where permitted structures have been built across lot lines. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that this has happened many times within the City. However, based on the number of properties there are in the City, it is not an ordinary occurrence. Chairman Gerstner felt that having a structure that the City permitted built over a property line is not an ordinary occurrence, which makes it unique. He also felt that the Planning Commission is here to serve the City and make sure that the residents are allowed to use their property in a reasonable manner. He felt that at some point in time the City told the property owner that they could build this house and swimming pool, in that location, and enjoy the rights associated with it. Now, if the City does not grant this request, the City is telling the owners they can't enjoy their property the way we told them they could. Commissioner Emenhiser supported the Chairman's remarks. He felt that 35 years ago a mistake was made when these permits were granted and the house built in the present location. He stated that he could make the findings and agreed with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Lewis did not feel the Commission was voting on whether or not these improvements could remain. If the Commission votes against the lot line adjustment the parties have a number of other legal remedies they can pursue that would allow the improvements to stand. He stated that the Commission has to identify a substantial property right. Commissioner Tomblin questioned if there could be some other configuration with the lot line that would prevent the lot from becoming nonconforming. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff looked into other alternatives, but felt the proposed lot line adjustment was the best alternative. Commissioner Tomblin discussed the findings and would be more comfortable if the language was removed that referred to the court order. Chairman Gerstner agreed, adding that he could support approval of this application per staff's recommendation with the exception of the implication that he is making the finding because of the court order. He stated that he can make the findings without the court order and he wouldn't want any Resolution to imply that he made his findings because of the court order. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 4 Commissioner Tetreault felt that a reasonable interpretation of his thought process in this particular case was that the homes and structures on the property were fully permitted by the County, there is no indication that the current owners knew what they were getting into when they bought their property, and they are totally innocent of any wrong doing. Further, there is no other reasonable solution other than changing this lot line. Therefore, he was able to make the findings necessary to approve the Variance. Chairman Gerstner moved to approve staff's recommendation as amended to show the findings were made on their merits and not relative to the court order itself, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The motion adopting PC Resolution 2010-20 was approved, (6-1)with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. 2. Revision to Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00469): 27774 Hawthorne Blvd. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report explaining the proposed revision is to remodel the existing Chevron Station on Hawthorne Boulevard. She explained the proposed scope of the project and staff's concern that the proposed addition appears too tall and prominent. She stated that staff feels adding minor fagade treatments found in residential structures can soften the look and result in a less obtrusive structure. As such, staff has added a condition to the Resolution requiring the applicant submit revised plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to submittal to Building & Safety plan check. She stated that the Chevron station will comply with the new parking requirements and that the Public Works Department has reviewed the plan and identified issues, which staff has addressed. With that, staff is recommending approval of the project as conditioned. Finally, she noted a sentence on page 11 of the staff report that should be omitted, as it is inconsistent with staff's recommendations. In evaluating whether the Commission should make the findings to support a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commission Lewis asked if the Commission should only look at the incremental impacts of the proposed addition and sign rather than the impact of the entire operation of the gas station. Assistant Planner Kim answered that was correct. Commissioner Knight asked if the brightness of the proposed "Extra Mile" sign was specified. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the brightness is not specified, however staff anticipates that it will be no brighter than the existing signs on the property. Staff added a condition that there be a 45 day review period. Commissioner Knight asked if the landscape plan subject to the landscaping ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 5 Assistant Planner Kim answered that the landscape plan is not subject to the landscape ordinance, explaining that the landscape plan is based on automotive overlay or convenience store overlay requirements for landscaping, which is to landscape the ten foot setback from all street side property lines. She noted that no new hardscape is proposed for the property and the owners are not remodeling the existing hardscape. Commissioner Knight discussed the vapor recovery system and asked if the Commission had any discretionary review of this system. Assistant Planner Kim explained that was not part of the original Conditional Use Permit and was approved separately under a Site Plan Review. Staff does not regulate where the equipment is located, provided that it is outside of the minimum setbacks and the height is in accordance with what is allowed for an accessory structure. Therefore, the Commission cannot move the equipment but if they feel it is unsightly they can suggest it be painted to match the building. Commissioner Knight noted that staff was recommending the structure look more residential-like, and asked staff if they had any suggestions. Assistant Planner Kim noted suggestions would include adding a fake planter or a faux balcony on the second floor to breakup the full fagade. She also included the possibility of extending out the roof eaves or adding a trellis structure in front of the entryway to soften the look. She referred to condition No. 18 and noting that staff added this condition because the type of fagade treatments that staff is looking for are not significant enough where staff is not currently able to make the findings necessary to recommend approval of the project. Vice Chairman Tomblin expressed concerns with the proposed signage, notably the "Extra Mile" sign, and asked staff if they looked at alternatives to this type of big can sign. Assistant Planner Kim stated that staff has not looked at alternatives, noting that there is the 45 day review period. Director Rojas added that the Code does not prohibit or discourage can signs. Vice Chairman Tomblin referred to the proposed monument sign and asked if this amount of advertising is allowed on the sign. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the advertising is proposed within the existing monument sign. If the applicant were proposing a larger sign, staff may have had concerns. Director Rojas added that the Code regulates the size of the sign, and how an applicant uses that space is up to them. He noted that the sign permit refers to the two new signs being requested and does not apply to this existing monument sign. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 6 Chairman Gerstner stated that he is comfortable with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the monument sign. He stated that he is generally in favor of changing the Conditional Use Permit to allow the square footage to be increased and the use can be as requested. However, he stated he could never support the submitted addition as he felt the massing couldn't be worse. He stated that placing a second story at that corner of the property was taking the lowest portion of the property and placing the highest part of the structure at that point, and therefore its prominence along Hawthorne Boulevard would be exaggerated. He did not feel that cosmetic changes to make it look more residential would change the way it looks, as he felt the way the building would be perceived was by its massing. He felt that there were many opportunities on the property to accomplish the goal in several different ways and there are places to put that mass that will be a lot less impactful on the way it is seen from the street. Director Rojas understood the Chairman's concerns, and explained that if the Commission has concerns with the design it will have to be tied to a finding. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Gale Coffman (applicant) explained that the reason the addition was proposed for the front, explaining the hill behind the property shrouds any addition put on the property in terms of height. He felt that this addition will blend into the hillside and will not impose itself onto people driving by the property. He felt that the existing short, squatty building only emphasizes the height of the new proposed section. He explained that the proposed design does not have trellises and other fagade treatments was because it is almost impossible to make this piece of property with a gas dispensary and car wash tunnel look like a house. He did not feel that tacking on features was very conducive to the clean look of the building. He noted that he tried to keep the building as simple and clean as possible. Vice Chairman Tomblin appreciated what Mr. Coffman had to say, but noted that a recent remodel at the Golden Cove Center as well as a Chevron Station on Hawthorne Boulevard were both done in a manner that was unobtrusive and maintained a residential feel to the property. Chairman Gerstner explained that he is concerned with the scale of buildings that are on corners and have such prominence in the community. He felt that this gas station and car wash has a very friendly, community feel to it and this proposed addition will increase the mass of the structure to the point that the character and feel of what is currently there will be completely lost. He felt it will then be looked at as a commercial facility in the City where now there is more of a neighborhood car wash and gas station. He felt this is a bigger shift than everyone is ready for and he didn't think it is one that is necessary. He thought there were ways to design the building to keep the character and feel that he currently enjoys but still accomplish what the applicant needs to accomplish. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 7 Juvenal Jovet stated he lives across the street from the car wash and this proposed addition will be directly in hi sight when looking out his windows. He objected to the proposed addition. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Jovet if he can see the silhouette flags from his home. Mr. Jovet answered that he can see all of the flags from his home. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Jovet what view will be lost if the proposed addition is built in the present location. Mr. Jovet answered that he will not be able to see the large hillside. H.B. Stafford stated he also lives across the street from the project site. He felt that this project wouldn't be too bad if it weren't so visible and obvious from the street. He felt that the proposed addition is quite imposing and will impact many people. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Stafford if he could see the flags from his home. Mr. Stafford answered that he cannot see the flags from his home, only when he is walking or driving down the street. Commissioner Lewis agreed with the Chairman's comments regarding this proposed addition. However, with that being said he also noted that he is able to make the necessary findings in order to approve the project as currently submitted. He felt it was the neighborly thing to do to try to redesign the project to make it less commercial looking as was done at Golden Cove and Hillside Chevron because it only improves the City, but he did not think he could impose that onto the owners. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Lewis and his comments and could also make the necessary findings. Commissioner Leon agreed with the Chairman's comments. Regarding the signage, he felt that the signage at Golden Cove is far superior to what is seen at this site and he would like to see that signage emulated at the gas station site. Commissioner Knight also had concerns with the bulk and mass of the proposed project. His concern with the appearance and its affect on the neighboring properties makes it difficult to make finding No. 3. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Knight that the bulk and mass of the proposed project was a concern and the affect of this project on the adverse affect on adjacent properties. He stated that he would like to see the massing in the current location moved to someplace else on the property to see what affect that would have on the neighborhood and the view when driving down Hawthorne Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 8 Chairman Gerstner asked the architect, Mr. Coffman, if it would be possible for him to go back and look at some more dramatic variations on this project. Mr. Coffman answered that he can look at changes to the facade that will openly soften the look of the building. He stated that it is very difficult to take a commercial site and not have it look commercial to some extent. However the issue of placing the second story someplace else on the building is a very difficult issue. On the other end of the building there is a large power transformer and several clarifiers. Further, he felt that most of the business would have to be shut down while putting on an addition at the rear of the property. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Coffman if he was going to be able to keep the car wash open while building foundations for the second story are being built and all of the extensive remodel is taking place. Mr. Coffman answered that he will absolutely be able to keep the car was open while construction is underway. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Coffman how long it would take him to come up with an alternate design that can be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffman answered that to present plans that are not changing the mass but only softening the design and exterior view, he could produce plans in two weeks. Assistant Planner Kim stated that July 13th is the first available date for the Planning Commission to hear this item. She also suggested an alternative, explaining the current plate height is 12 feet, while the building code requires a minimum of 71/2 feet. She suggested lowering the plate height to the minimum required by the building code may mitigate some of the bulk and mass issues. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to July 13, 2010 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight explained that his issues with the project as proposed included the bulk and mass of the building, and felt the addition should be pushed towards the rear of the property. He also felt that reducing the height of the addition would help the overall bulk and mass. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that there are two findings he cannot make, No. 3 under the Conditional Use Permit, and No. 6 under the convenience store findings. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he would be able to vote for approval of this project as currently designed, however he would prefer to see the addition lowered and the appearance softened. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 9 Commissioner Leon felt the purpose of having the mass on the corner as proposed is to provide a large sign post. To eliminate that and to adhere to the residential character of the neighborhood he felt that that mass needs to be shifted and there needs to be some stipulations on signage. Chairman Gerstner agreed that the applicant should provide a more detailed explanation of the signage would be helpful to the Commission at the July 13th meeting. The motion to continue the public hearing to July 13, 2010 was approved, (7-0). 3. General Plan Update— "Draft" Fiscal Element and "Draft" Housing Element Insert Chairman Gerstner and Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that, as members of the subcommittee for the fiscal element, they were not able to put in the time reviewing the element that they wanted to, and therefore asked that the discussion on this element be continued to the next meeting. Deputy Director Pfost stated that July 13th will work, and explained that he will need all of the information from the subcommittee by a specific date that he will email to the subcommittee members. Deputy Director Pfost discussed the draft Housing Element insert. He explained that the actual Housing Element has already been adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, and certified by the State of California. He explained that the Housing Element is a very thick document whereby, instead of being inserted into the General Plan, an insert could be put in the General Plan in its place. He briefly went over the three options provided in the staff report for the draft Housing Element Insert and explained it was a question of which option the Planning Commission would prefer. Commissioner Lewis felt that the shortest version of the three options has the least possibility of conflicting with outside General Plan document. He therefore supported adoption of the shorter document. Deputy Director Pfost stated that staff agrees with that point. Chairman Gerstner agreed that a shorter version would be best, noting however that sometimes when using these documents there is some benefit in having expanded outlines. He felt this would be outweighed, however, by the potential for conflict. Commissioner Leon stated that his experience has been that the important elements of the General Plan are the goals and policies. He felt that there should be goals and policies for all of the sections, and in this case the goals and policies of housing should be included so that one can look at the General Plan to see what the goals and policies of the City housing element are. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 10 Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Leon in that he also felt the goals and policies of the City should be included in the insert. The Commissioner agreed that the middle option would be the best option to include as the draft housing element insert. 4. Discussion of the "Foliage as condition of permit issuance requirement" of the Development Code Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, noting that this item was before the Commission as a result of a request from Commissioner Leon. He explained the history of how this condition came about and how staff implements this condition. He noted that staff implements this condition based on the Ordinance and the Guidelines adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Leon stated that there is a process for applying for a viewing area, but what appears to be happening is that the Planning Department is giving out viewing areas for free to some residents and charging other residents for viewing areas. He could understand looking at trees associated with a building permit and how they affect already established viewing areas of neighboring residents, as this would be looking at trees that somebody has a concern about. However, he felt that now staff is being proactive and encouraging viewing areas and causing residents to have to cut down trees so that people who really didn't care enough to establish a viewing area could have one. He felt that the City could interpret the Ordinance, within the goals and objectives of the Ordinance, as treating viewing areas as ones that people have applied to have rather than the City going out independently and encouraging people to have viewing areas. Commissioner Knight questioned if this would be a change to the language in Prop M, as Prop M specifies the removal of foliage as a condition to permit issuance. Commissioner Leon stated that the language in Prop M specifies that the foliage to be removed is foliage that blocks a view from a viewing area of another parcel. Therefore, if no viewing area has been determined then there is no view to be impaired. Director Rojas explained that the way staff implements the City Council direction is to go out and identify viewing areas of properties. Commissioner Tetreault noted that Commissioner Leon was specifically addressing the removal of foliage as a condition of permit issuance. He stated that there have been a number of discussions regarding whether or not somebody is complaining about a view obstruction or not, and often these discussions are in regards to a structure rather than the foliage. He stated that it is an objective test as to whether or not a proposed structure above 16 feet will block a view from a surrounding parcel. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 11 Commissioner Leon noted, however that these are different in that it is easy to ask someone to cut down their tree that is blocking a view, but it is very difficult to ask someone to cut down their second story because it is blocking a view. Commissioner Tetreault stated he would rather empower the property owner to say whether or not they want to give up their view. Therefore, if the view is worth money and the property owner doesn't care about the view and it diminishes the value of their property, so be it. He felt that if the City is going to make a change, it should be in regards to foliage as well as structures being built. Commissioner Lewis stated that he does not necessarily agree with Commissioner Leon's interpretation, but did agree that it was appropriate that City Council periodically weigh in and make sure that staff is appropriately enforcing and interpreting the Ordinance. He questioned if staff should be proactively going in the field and creating view disputes or being more passive and waiting for a neighbor to object. He felt that the first step is to bring this question to the City Attorney and find out if the City Council even has the power to act on this type of issue without amending the Ordinance. If the City Attorney feels this is an appropriate area for the City Council to come in and give staff new direction to be less proactive, the Planning Commission may want to send a recommendation to the City Council asking them to take a look at this issue. Director Rojas suggested that the City Attorney could review the tape of this meeting to understand the Planning Commission's concerns and can respond in terms of amending the Ordinance and how much leeway there is in terms of the Ordinance. The Commission agreed to continue this item to a future date to allow staff the opportunity to obtain feedback from the City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of May 11, 2010 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. 6. Minutes of May 25, 2010 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioner Tetreault and Vice Chairman Tomblin abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of July 13, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 12 Commissioner Lewis noted that at their last meeting the City Council passed a Resolution to oppose the Marymount initiative. He would like to agendize on a future agenda the issue of whether or not the Planning Commission, as a body, should adopt a position on the Marymount initiative. The Commission agreed to add this discussion on a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 22,2010 Page 13