Loading...
PC MINS 20131112 Approved December 2013 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Nelson, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Leon, and Chairman Emenhiser Absent: Commissioners Lewis and Tomblin were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their November 6th meeting, the City Council introduced an Ordinance setting the terms for Planning Commissioners at four years, with a term limit of eight years. He also noted that at the upcoming November 19th meeting the City Council will hear an extension request by Green Hills for use of modular buildings that the Planning Commission acted on back in 2011. Director Rojas reported that the Planning Commission's decision on October 8th for a revised project at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West was appealed by interested parties to the City Council. However, since the applicant has withdrawn the revised application, the Planning Commission's decision on the revised application is now null and void and the original application will be heard by the Coastal Commission. Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda iterns): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review, Grading Permit, Variance, Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00328)- 2902 Vista del Mar Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the property and the current proposal before the Commission. She explained at a previous meeting there were concerns expressed related to lot coverage, the driveway entry gate, the grading plan, and neighborhood compatibility and the item was continued. She discussed each issue, explaining the differences in lot coverage; the recessed gate; the change in grading quantity, and the slight change in the design of the garage to accommodate an elevator. She explained this proposed project is similar to the previously approved plan from 2008 with the exception that the basement area has been added back into the plan and more exterior area is being disturbed for the rear yard space. She explained that staff feels this proposed project is too excessive in grading quantity and structure size and therefore not compatible with the existing homes on Vista del Mar. She added that staff does not believe that because this house will not be readily visible from the street, that it is compatible with the neighborhood. She also noted that the 2008 approved plan would allow for the largest structure size and the greatest grading quantity in the neighborhood, and the current proposal is for additional improvements beyond what the Planning Commission was comfortable with at that time; therefore, staff continues to recommend denial. She noted that the late correspondence is for revised elevations, pointing out the change on the west elevation where the elevation was revised to match the grading plan. Vice Chairman Leon asked staff why they consider a basement, which is out of view, part of the bulk and mass of the house. Associate Planner Kim answered that per the Code, structure size includes all habitable and non-habitable space proposed on the property. Because the below grade area is partially for a living area, staff included it as part of the overall structure size. Director Rojas added that while it is included in structure size, which is one of the components of neighborhood compatibility, it is not an issue in terms of bulk and mass. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommendation to deny the proposed project as proposed, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 2 Commissioner Gerstner recognized that a considerable amount of work has been done on this plan, however he felt there is still a significant issue with the amount the structure is graded into the hillside at the main body of the house, noting the very tall retaining walls on the property. He felt that too much was being proposed on the property, which is what is driving the large amount of retention, and did not think that was a good idea. Chairman Emenhiser agreed that significant changes have been made with this plan, however he was still concerned with neighborhood compatibility and the overall size of the project. Vice Chairman Leon felt the neighborhood and the community has a right to neighborhood compatibility for the things that they can perceive, which would mean in this case, things that are above the ground. For square footage below the ground, he felt that was in the purview of the home owner and the rights of the homeowner to develop their property. In this case, by putting the basement underground, the house will not appear any larger than any of the other houses in the neighborhood. As such, he stated he will vote against the motion. Commissioner Nelson noted that the main difference between this house and the house next to it was the swimming pool area. He pointed out the large retaining wall on the neighboring property. He also noted his concerns with the swimming pool area. Commissioner Gerstner clarified he has no issue with the basement area which is entirely below grade. However, there is a large amount of the house that is below the existing grade that is not a basement. He also noted that the topography of the slope is not being respected, as basically a very large trench will be cut and the house placed in that trench. PC Resolution 2013-25 was approved, thereby denying the project as presented without prejudice, (4-1) with Vice Chairman Leon dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00231): 28925 Moro Bay Drive Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, briefly describing the proposed project and noting there are no changes to the existing setbacks or lot coverage, no view impacts because of the existing topography, and no privacy impacts as the new windows will not look into any neighboring private areas. She stated staff was able to make all findings and the proposed addition is compatible with the neighborhood. As such, staff is proposing approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing, Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 3 Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. PC Resolution 2013-26 was approved, (5-0). 3. Review of Conditional Use Permit and Master Sign Program (Case No. ZON201131_: Golden Cove Center Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this is a one-time review of the Conditional Use Permit and Master Sign Program for the Golden Cove Center. She gave a brief over-view of the Golden Cover Center and its uses and parking restrictions. She stated that in addition to the Conditional Use Permit review there is a Master Sign Program review, noting that staff has found there are signs at Golden Cove that do not comply with the Sign Program. She stated that a revision to the Master Sign Program has not been submitted and staff has not been able to include any revisions to the program in the public notice for this meeting. She noted that there are currently three Resolutions that must be reviewed for the Center, and staff is recommending the Planning Commission combine and condense these Resolutions into one concise Resolution that have all of the conditions listed and itemized. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to review all signs on the property that are not in compliance. Associate Planner Mikhail did so, showing photos of the unpermitted signage. Vice Chairman Leon stated he traded emails earlier with Dr. Jones, who is a former tenant at Golden Cove. He stated that Dr. Jones echoed his concerns over the parking at Golden Cove, noting that it is often difficult to find a place to park. He asked staff, in doing the parking analysis, if outdoor seating is included in the analysis. Associate Planner Mikhail responded that outdoor seating is included in the parking analysis. Vice Chairman Leon asked, while taking surveys of the parking at Golden Cove, if someone physically goes to the center and counts the empty parking spaces. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that when studies were prepared in the past for a Conditional Use Permit revision that required a traffic study and parking analysis, they were formally done where someone goes to the center, looks at the operation of the different businesses, and counts parking. However, that in terms of staff's review, staff did not count how many parking spaces were available. Vice Chairman Leon felt that when Golden Cove is next reviewed, he would like a more detailed look at the parking situation, including how many empty parking spaces are available throughout a given day. Associate Planner Mikhail suggested adding a condition that requires the property owner to do such a study. Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 4 Commissioner Tetreault noted that at past meetings there has been discussion that perhaps the parking area at Golden Cove is being used for commuter parking. He asked staff if there is any enforcement of the four-hour parking restrictions at the center. Associate Planner Mikhail explained it is the responsibility of the property owner, through the Sheriff's Department, to enforce those restrictions. Commissioner Tetreault felt are often quite a few cars in the parking lot and very few spaces available to park, and asked staff what the solution to that might be. Director Rojas agreed there are times when parking is not available, however from staff's perspective it is the exception as it does not happen all day every day. If the Commission is concerned with the parking availability, the remedy is to require the property owner to prepare an updated parking study, as a parking study has not been done in quite some time. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if the City can really limit delivery to the site, as suggested in the staff report. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the City can limit delivery trucks, noting the City has already limited delivery trucks for Trader sloes. She explained that, through a Conditional Use Permit, when there are impacts that occur as a result of the use, the City can put more restrictive conditions in place. Chairman Emenhiser asked if the issues between Golden Cove and the neighboring condominiums involving the parking and gate issues had been resolved. Director Rojas answered that this is a civil issue between the two parties, however he understood that there was litigation between Villa Capri and Golden Cove Center over the access issue, and he understood there was some type of settlement. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Bart Fors stated he is a tenant at Golden Cove and owns the Lockout Plus Locksmith business at the center. He addressed the parking, and felt that if a study is done it has to be done on certain days, noting on Tuesday and Thursdays there are bicycle clubs that use the center for parking and fill up most of the parking spaces. He also discussed signage. He noted that there are some businesses that are located in the center that are hard to be seen by the public. He askedif there was a way to have distinctive signage for the business that would help identify the business to the public. He noted that currently all of the signs are green and look the same and it's difficult to distinguish the businesses, Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Fors if he had any ideas or proposals in regards to signage to promote businesses in Golden Cove. Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 5 Mr. Fors discussed window signage. He understood the City does not want to see flashing lights, however he did not feel there was any consistency at City Hall when he has asked about window signage. He felt it depends on who you speak to at City Hall in regards to questions asked about his signage, and noted he has had to change his signage three times because of that. He asked that there be more consistency in regards to the window signage, Commissioner Nelson pointed out signs currently at Golden Cove that are unpermitted, including a temporary banner for a new business that will soon open. He stated he had problems with this signage being considered unpermitted. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if there was a permit process by which tenants can apply for a permit for temporary banners or signage. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there is a process dictated by the approved Sign Program for tenants to receive permits for temporary promotional banners. She also noted that tenants are allowed a temporary identification banner above their business provided they have submitted an application to the City for their permanent signage. Commissioner Tetreault asked if there were published guidelines available for the tenants for the temporary banners and signs in regards to size, color, and other guidelines. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that all the guidelines are in the approved Sign Program and that the color of identification banners must replicate what the actual signage is allowed to be. She stated promotional banners are allowed to be put in the window or above the doors, and this is spelled out in the Sign Program. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if illegal signage is a problem at Golden Cove. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that non-permitted signage is one of the bigger problems at Golden Cove Center. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff how these signage issues come to staff's attention, besides staff noticing the illegal signage when they are at the Center or driving by. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that code enforcement staff is typically reactive, and will investigate illegal signage after receiving a complaint. Brian Akbarpou (Tomatillo) pointed out the location of his restaurant, and noted that he has limited exposure to Palos Verdes Drive West, Hawthorne Boulevard, or even the parking lot at Golden Cove. He explained that he paid to have a temporary banner, however was told it could only be above his restaurant, which faces the Montessori School. He noted he cannot even put out a small directional sign pointing to the Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 6 location of his restaurant. He does not feel he is getting satisfaction or cooperation from the City. Vice Chairman Leon asked Mr. Akbarpour if he has ever engaged the owner of the shopping center in a conversation about the possibility of modifying the Master Sign Program to allow for more signage. Mr. Akbarpour answered he has not talked to the owner about his signage, and is before the City to ask for help. George Wissa felt Golden Cove Center was a ghost town until Trader Joes moved in. He did not think the community is aware of the variety of businesses currently available at Golden Cove. In regards to signage, he recommended that for Tomatillo and other businesses in the alley that they be allowed to have a sandwich board type sign outside of the alley directing customers to their businesses. He pointed out two large pillars in place at the center, and felt they were the perfect location to place very elegant signs displaying the businesses at the site. He felt Palos Verdes Drive West needs signage showing what shops are available at Golden Cove. In regards to parking, he felt delivery trucks are a huge problem as they come in at all hours during the day and block parking. He also noted that the parking is impacted when the Montessori School has an event, and wondered if the adjacent cul-de-sac could be utilized for parking during these events. Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. Wissa what the property owner tells the tenants in regards to the sign issue. Mr. Wissa responded that to his knowledge, the owner has been fighting with the City to allow the signs needed to advertise the businesses. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Director Rojas explained that Golden Cove Center has a Master Sign Program approved by the Planning Commission that covers all permanent and temporary signs and any banners. He stated that staff tries to be as business friendly as possible, however when there are complaints about signs there are rules in place that the City must enforce. He noted that staff has approached the property owner several times explaining the process to amend the Master Sign Program to allow for more or different signage, however there has been no inclination from the property owner to make any changes. He stated that tenants have approached the City, and there are speakers here tonight asking for changes, however staff does not know the position of the property owner who has to sign and authorize any application to change the Master Sign Program. Associate Planner Mikhail added that staff has heard from the management company at the site who indicated they did not wish to change the Master Sign Program at this time Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 7 and would work to ensure all of the tenant's signs are in conformance with the current Sign Program. Commissioner Gerstner stated there appears to be a disconnect between the tenants and the landlord, and while the City or the Commission may want to help the tenants with their sign issues, ultimately it is not within their purview, as the property owner has not signed an application requesting any changes. Commissioner Tetreault noted that this meeting would have been a good opportunity for the owners to suggest changes to the Master Sign Program, basically with no application fee from the City because of this review. He asked if this could be extended for a period of time to allow the tenants to get together to speak to the management company and ask them to advocate for them to apply to the City for some of the changes needed to the sign program, Associate Planner Mikhail felt that could be done, noting that staff would have to re- notice this review with all of the specific changes. Commissioner Tetreault stated he does not have issues with the other facets of the review as outlined in the staff report, with the exception of the signage. Commissioner Tetreault moved to segment out the signage portion and approve the remainder of the items as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Nelson verified that the motion maker is recommending staff's recommendation No. 1 to make the determination that the Center is operating within the Conditional Use Permit and recommendation No. 3 to combine all applicable conditions. Commissioner Tetreault acknowledged this was his motion. The motion was approved, (5-0). Commissioner Tetreault asked staff the best way to proceed with the issues of the signage at Golden Cove, noting he would like to continue this portion to allow the property manager to become involved in order to allow the matter to be addressed between the tenants and the property owner. Director Rojas felt that in order to allow the parties to meet and to get adequate noticing out, the item would have to be continued to early 2014. He suggested the Planning Commission continue the signage issues to a meeting in early 2014 and direct staff to meet with the tenants and the owner to come up with ideas for the signage, and to provide public notice of any proposed changes in advance of the meeting. Commissioner Tetreault noted nothing may come of this if the property owner has no desire to change the current Master Sign Program. Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 8 Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the portion of the item related to signs at Golden Cove Center to a meeting in early 2014, and directed staff to meet with the tenants and the owner to discuss ideas for signage, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. The motion was approved, (5-0). Commissioner Nelson stated there are businesses at Golden Cove Center who need to advertise the location of their business, and asked staff to go light on enforcement action on illegal signs until the issues have been discussed and addressed. 4. Code Amendment— Construction Hours (Case No. ZON2012-00420) Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the proposed code amendment and the reason for the proposed amendment. She explained staff's proposal for modifying the construction hours, noting that the proposed construction hours will only apply to those projects started after the effective date of the proposed code amendment, should it go through. She noted that this may cause some inconsistencies and confusion in construction hours, but that will only be temporary. She stated that an additional part of the proposed amendment is a restriction on vehicle idling time, which is a standard condition of approval but is not yet codified. She explained that if the Planning Commission agrees with the proposed amendments as presented in the staff report, staff is recommending the Planning Commission forward the item to the City Council for adoption. Commissioner Gerstner asked if "construction" was defined, as there are many different types and circumstances of construction. Director Rojas explained the current code defines what activities are exempt from the construction hours, and staff felt it would be best to stay with that definition. Commissioner Gerstner pointed out that shortening the construction hours may very well extend the overall length of a construction project, and asked if the City Council had taken that into consideration when looking at this code amendment. Director Rojas explained that when this concept was first identified by the City Council, this was a comment from staff. As a result, Staff has tried to come up with proposed hours that will have the minimal effect on construction time but will still offer some relief to the neighbors. Vice Chairman Leon did not feel shortening the construction hours slightly would be the driving force in delaying a project. He felt that the duration of a project is usually driven by the availability of supplies and personnel, the different processes that need to be done, and the wait time between processes. Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 9 Vice Chairman Leon moved to approve the proposed code amendment as recommended by staff, to be forwarded on to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. PC Resolution 2013-27 was approved, (3-2) with Commissioners Gerstner and Tetreault dissenting. 5. Code Amendment— Fences Walls and Hedges,Permit (Case No. ZON201 2w 00346) This public hearing was continued to the December 10, 2013 meeting as recommended by staff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. October 8, 2013 Minutes Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (5-0). 7. October 22, 2013 Minutes Vice Chairman Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining as he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on November 26,201 The Commission unanimously agreed to cancel the November 26, 2013 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m., to December 10, 2013. Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2013 Page 10