Loading...
PC MINS 19991012APPROVED 10/26/99 fV CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7 06 p m at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Alberto ted the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ATTENDANCE Present. Commissioners Albeno, Pans, Slayden, Vice Chairman Lyon, Chairman Cartwright Absent Commissioners Clark and Vannorsdall were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Mirhanian, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Louie, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to hear Agenda Item No. 4 and No.5 after Agenda item 2, thereby hearing Agenda Item No. 3 last, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas briefly discussed the senior housing proposal and the regional housing needs assessment. He further discussed roof decks and stated that language for roof decks had been proposed, however the Planning Commission agendas have been very full and he is waiting for an agenda that is not too full to add that item for discussion. Mr. Rous also briefly updated the Commission on the status of Ocean Trails. Director/Secretary Rojas distributed six Mems of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5, replacement pages 3 and 13 for the staff report for Agenda Item No. 5, and one item of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Slayden updated the Commission on the Mayor's Breakfast he had attended CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of September 28, 1999 Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Paris. Approved, (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Variance No. 456 and Site Plan Review No. 8671: Mike and Heidi Keough 26716 Fawnskin Drive. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report. He gave a brief background of the proposal and explained the applicants are proposing to construct a new attached, two car garage that encroaches five feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback, demolish the existing garage, and construct a 740 square foot room addition He stated that all four finding for the Variance could be made and recommended that the Site Plan Review be approved contingent upon the concurrent approval of the Variance for the new garage. Commissioner Paris asked staff about the side yard setback and wondered why the encroachment into the setback could not be avoided Associate Planner Fox answered that the encroachment could be avoided, however to provide a two -car garage with the minimum required interior dimensions that would not encroach into the setback would require demolition of portions of the existing house. Chairman Cartwright asked how much of the proposed structure would encroach into the setback. Associate Planner Fox stated it would be only one corner of the garage. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Mike Keough (applicant) 27416 Fawnskin Drive stated that he agreed with the staff report and was available to answer any questions Jill Hall 27444 Hales Corner stated that she and several other homeowners on the street had a few concerns regarding the project. She was concerned that this project would set a precedent for future remodels in the neighborhood and that would allow homes stacked very close together. Another concern was, if both cars were not parked Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 2 in the garage, one car would be parked in the driveway She was concerned that the short distance to the sidewalk would cause the car to encroach onto the sidewalk. She stated there are many children in the neighborhood and felt this would cause a safety issue Parking the car on the street rather than the driveway would also create a safety issue, as the street makes an "S" turn at that point and is narrow Chairman Cartwright explained that any action taken on this item would not set a precedence in the neighborhood He explained that granting a variance requires a demonstration that the situation is unusual and extraordinary He felt that one of the reasons for asking for a new garage was so the applicant could use his garage The current garage, in its present location, is not being used by the applicant. Commissioner Paris asked Mr Keough if he could address his neighbors concerns Mr Keough stated that presently they do not use their garage, as it is impossible to drive down the long driveway to park and then back out to exit. He stated there are many children playing in his backyard and it is a dangerous situation Presently they are parking both cars on the street and agreed it is a narrow section of the street. He would like to be able to take both of the cars off of the street and park them in the garage If cars were to be parked in the driveway he felt there was ample room to park without coming near the sidewalk. He stated he had discussed his plans with his neighbor next door and they had no objections to the small encroachment into the side yard setback, as the area of the setback was well to the rear of the property Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris commented that this proposal was requested to mitigate a problem rather than create additional problems He felt this was a good solution Commissioner Slayden complimented staff on their analysis of the project. He felt it was a difficult size and shape lot and recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Alberio could not see how the applicant could use their current garage at all and was supportive of the recommendation Chairman Cartwright agreed the project made sense and supported its approval Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve the staff recommendations as presented, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 99-36 conditionally approving Variance No. 5 and Site Plan Review No. 8671. (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance No. 444, Coastal Permit No. 155, Site Plan Review No. 8430, and Grading Permit No. 2091: Sally Marone 101 Spindrift Drive Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 3 Assistant Planner Louie presented the staff report. She explained the applicant requested approval for construction of a 1,434 square foot room addition, repair and restore the existing foundation, construct a 6 -foot high wall and 7 -foot trellis within the front yard area, and construct a roof deck. She explained that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings except for the roof deck. Staff did not feel the roof deck was compatible with the immediate neighborhood and the overall structure size would appear massive and bulky due to the lack of variation to the structure. Additionally, the possibility of patio furniture placed within the deck area would not be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding properties. Commissioner Slayden felt the roof deck, as proposed, was completely acceptable. Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if they were recommending denial of the roof deck because of the prohibition of roof decks or was there something about this particular roof deck that staff found objectionable. Assistant Planner Louie answered that this roof deck is different and does not appear to be a balcony, as it is on the highest roof of the structure Commissioner Paris moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Sally Marone (applicant) 101 Spindrift Drive stated the issue she wanted to address was the roof deck. She felt that the roof deck would be less imposing upon the neighbors than adding a new structure to that area Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris stated that the roof deck was a significant issue and requested voting on the roof deck separately from the rest of the application He stated he had been out to the site and felt the roof deck would significantly increase the mass and bulk of the house. Commissioner Paris moved to vote on the roof deck as a separate issue from the other applications. Chairman Cartwright stated he felt the roof deck should be approved as he did not feel this was a situation the City Council had in mind when prohibiting roof decks. Commissioner Paris stated that staff had discussed building styles and the roof deck possibly being an extended living area with the inclusion of patio furniture. He felt this was contrary to the intent of allowable roof decks. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 4 E F] Chairman Cartwright asked for a second to the motion, there being no second, the motion was denied Vice Chairman Lyon moved to accept the staff recommendations but include approval of the roof deck as requested by the applicant, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-37 as amended, approving Variance NO. 444, Coastal Permit No. 155, Grading Permit No. 2091, and Site Plan Review No. 8430, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved (4-1) with Commissioner Paris dissenting. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Resolution was drafted for denial of the roof deck. Therefore, the Commission could read the findings into the record to reflect the changes and the Resolution would not have to come back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting for approval. Commissioner Alberio suggested the changes be made by staff and given to the Chairman for his review and approval. The Commission agreed to this suggestion 5. Height Variation No. 2077 and Site Plan Review No. 8436: Mr. and Mrs. Rumsey (applicant) 2890 Colt Road. Assistant Planner Louie presented the staff report She explained the applicant requested the construction of a new 6,038 square foot two-story residence, which exceeds the maximum structure size by 556 square feet In addition to the residence, the applicant also requested the demolition of an existing stable and construct a new 648 square foot deck. Also, the applicant requested to replace the existing 42 -inch high wood fence with a new 42 -inch high wrought iron fence within the front -yard area above the existing Southern California Edison easement that runs along Colt Road, and halfway along the narrow access easement At that point the 42 -inch high fence will be connected to a 5 -foot high wrought iron fence which will wrap around the rest of the property, including over the 15 -foot wide utility road easement located at the rear of the property. Although the narrow access easement provides access to several properties, staff felt the easement was not a street since the row of residences along the easement take access from Colt Road, and there are no department street files for Clotilda Lane. Therefore, staff determined that the easement is similar to the private driveways which are found in areas of the city served by private access ways to residences located off the street. Further, it was brought to staff's attention by the homeowners at 2756 Colt Road that the proposed fence would block access onto their property since the 15 -foot wide easement at the rear of the applicant's property serves as a secondary access to the adjacent neighbors. The City prohibits any improvements within an easement unless the property owner obtains permission from the easement holder This would be handled between the two parties. In response to the easement issue, the property owner has submitted inconclusive written documentation that the easement does not serve as a road access to the adjacent neighbor and the applicant has obtained consent from the apparent easement holders to close off the 15 -foot wide easement Ms Louie stated the City Attorney has reviewed the documentation and felt there was some ambiguity on the legal status of the easement and the issue is a civil matter that needs Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 5 to be resolved by the two parties Therefore, in order to deem the Rumsey's application complete, the City required that the applicant accept the condition that is indicated on page 5 of the staff report However, the Planning Commission essentially has two options regarding the easement which are also indicated on page 5 of the staff report Staff was able to make all four findings to allow the structure to exceed the maximum structure size, as well as the required findings for the height variation and the grading applications Therefore staff recommended approval of the applications subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the Resolution Commissioner Alberio asked staff who the underlying easement holder was Assistant Planner Louie answered that the easement was located on the Rumsey property Commissioner Paris asked if the use of the easement was restricted to the Rumsey property or if other properties had use of the easement Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the City does not get involved with easement issues and what rights are given to what parties in the use of the easement. However, staff did review the documents that were submitted by the applicant that indicated that the 15 foot wide easement is a road and utility easement Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Amy Rumsey (applicant) 2810 Colt Road explained she purchased the property in August and has been working closely with staff to develop a residence that will be compatible with the neighborhood She stated that the property has been vacant for approximately seven years and it has been a free-for-all as to who drives on the property. She stated the property has been an eyesore in its present condition and the neighbors were very pleased to see a home proposed for the property. She stated there were no view issues associated with the property. She stated they would try to maintain the existing foliage as much as possible for privacy issues. Commissioner Paris stated that the existing retaining wall was in place for the construction of the stables He noted that a deck was now proposed for the stable area. He asked Mrs. Rumsey if there had been any thought to removing the retaining wall and backfilling the area. He felt the retaining wall created a severe drop-off and backfilling the area would soften the area. Mrs. Rumsey answered they had looked in to it but decided that the way it is set up now would work best for them Chairman Cartwright asked Mrs Rumsey if their Title Insurance showed an easement running along the back of their property Planning commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 6 ! 0 Mrs Rumsey answered that the Title Insurance did show an easement across the rear of the property for road and utility purposes Chairman Cartwright asked if there had been any legal judgement in the past that would give the neighbor rights to use the property Mrs Rumsey answered that, to the best of her knowledge, there had been no legal judgements and they had no legal rights to the easement. Doug Leach (architect) complemented staff on their help in working with this project He explained the silhouette had been constructed, removed, and reconstructed to show the changes in the revised plan. The current project is 1,707 square feet less than the original proposal as well as being re -situated on the property to reduce the setbacks and mass of the project He agreed with he conditions of approval in the staff report with two exceptions The first was Condition No. 11 addressing the handrail He requested the height of the handrail be reduced from 3 feet 6 inches in height to 3 feet in height, which is the requirement of the Uniform Building Code The second was Condition No 28 regarding skylights. He stated he had not discussed skylights with staff but requested the inclusion of six skylights. He distributed a plan of the skylights to the Commission and staff. Assistant Planner Louie stated there were no problems to the proposed changes, and that Condition No. 28 would now state that the proposed skylights shall not project beyond the highest point of the ridgeline. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Leach why the skylight plans were not included with the plans submitted to staff. Mr. Leach stated he did not realize that the skylights would be subject to non -approval if not indicated on the plans Margaret Schucker 2830 Colt Road stated that she had lived at her property for 27 years The property is located directly adjacent to the applicant's property and they look over the applicant's property from their living room window. She stated she is very pleased to see the project moving along and agrees with everything that is being proposed She stated the property had been vacant for many years and before that the property was occupied by renters who did not maintain the property. She stated that there was a very small core of people along Colt Road who seem determined to sabotage the plans for the construction of a new residence Chairman Cartwright asked Mrs. Schucker if she had any knowledge regarding the easement along the rear of the applicant's property. Mrs Schucker responded that her children grew up and played in the hilly area surrounding the property During the entire time her children were growing up there Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 7 was not a driveway going through that area, or if it was there it was completely covered with bushes and unusable However, during the last five years while the property has been vacant there has been a neighbor who likes to drive her car along the property to enter her home from a different area She stated this neighbor has an entrance to her property from Colt Road but never uses it. Robert Herkus 6716 Los Verdes Drive stated he is a surveyor of record and was available if the Commission had any technical questions Richard Sugiyama 2822 Colt Road stated he was very much in favor of the project, as the current condition of the property is an eyesore His original concern over the easement had been that he thought it was necessary for the fire department to use as access to bring water over to the seven homes on the spur of Colt Road He has since learned that the fire department has come out to the site and determined fire trucks could pull hoses down the spur and did not need the access for their trucks Kio Bahrami 2816 Colt Road stated he is also very much in favor of the proposed project. He felt the neighbors should use Colt Road to access their property Commissioner Slayden asked Mr Bahrami where his property was located Mr Bahrami answered he was the last house on the spur of Colt Road Walt Konin 2824 Colt Road stated he too is in favor of the project, however he does have some concerns He questioned what the size of the old, existing foundation had to do with the size of house that could now be built. He also had a concern that the proposed residence would overlook his deck and felt there was a privacy concern He felt the structure was very imposing from his deck. He thought the house could shift over on the property and cause less of an impact to his property He stated the easement was also on his Title and was for road and utility purposes He stated the easement was used only once when a tree fell on the Rumsey property and had to be removed He felt the Rumseys should look into buying the easement holders out thereby making the easement their property Finally, Mr Konin requested changing the construction hours to 8 a m to 5 p m Monday through Friday and 9 a m to 5 p m on Saturday Chairman Cartwright addressed the question of foundation size He explained that the Development Code was changed by the City Council to say the size of an existing structure built prior to 1975 can only be increased by 100 percent. However, if an applicant felt there were extenuating circumstances that require a larger structure than the 100 percent limit they could apply for Variance He stated the construction hours were set by the Development Code Vice Chairman Lyon asked Mr Konin to clarify if he supported the project. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 8 Mr Konin stated he was in favor of the project, however he was not in favor of the project infringing on his view and privacy. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris stated he had taken an extensive tour of the site He agreed the Commission should let the easement issue be settled as a civil matter. Commissioner Slayden stated when he toured the property he noted the neighbor has access to Colt Road, as well as access further down the lot. He agreed the easement issue should be a civil matter. He felt the proposal has merit and the Commission should approve it. Commissioner Alberio commended the applicants and staff in working together to come up with a project that fits well onto the lot. He also agreed that the Commission should not be involved in private concerns between neighbors. He felt staff recommendations were good and also recommended approval Vice Chairman Lyon felt the application was well done and was also in favor of approving the application Chairman Cartwright asked staff about the privacy concerns of Mr. Konin. He stated it was his understanding that a 12 -foot high deck was permitted by code and privacy would not be a condition of approval. Assistant Planner Louie confirmed that that was correct Chairman Cartwright stated with that understanding he also supported the approval of the project He did not feel there was a view impairment issue and felt the proposed structure would be an enhancement and is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. He did not feel the disputed property was an issue for the Commission to address. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve the project in accordance with staff recommendations subject to the modification of Condition No. 28 to allow skylights not to exceed the ridgeline of the residence and the modification of Condition No. 11 reducing the deck handrail height from 3 feet 6 inches down to 3 feet, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-38 approving Height Variation No. 873, Variance NO. 445, Grading Permit No. 2077, and Site Plan Review No. 8436. Commissioner Paris asked how the easement issue would be addressed The staff report presented two options on how to address the issue and he questioned which would be used. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 9 0 0 Assistant Planner Louie answered that the motion as presented would thereby utilize Option No. 2 of the staff report which is to approve the proposed enclosure of the easement subject to the condition stated on page 5 of the staff report. Therefore, as a result of the motion, the fence in the easement would be approved Vice Chairman Lyon repeated his motion, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The motion was approved, (5-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:50 p.m. the Commission took a brief recess until 9:00 p.m at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Variance No. 446, Grading No. 2135 and Environmental Assessment No. 711: Hannibal Petrossi, Petrossi & Associates (applicant), Golden Cove Center, LLC (landowner), 31100-31176 Palos Verdes Drive West. Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He briefly described existing conditions of the site and recapped the background of the proposed project. He explained the staff report which analyzed the modifications made to the project based on the direction of the Commission and staff from previous public hearings and the August 14, 1999 site visa, and used the revised silhouette as a guide Mr. Mihranian displayed on an overhead projector the project as originally proposed and the modifications that have been made He explained that there were no modification to the plans in terms of the site plan, since the building footprints have not been modified The slides showed that the towers on the proposed grocery store had been removed as well as the pitched roof facade and the revised proposal showed parapets and facade improvements that were reduced in height. The existing two-story office building was not modified per staff recommendations, but staff felt the proposed modifications were sufficient in that they significantly mitigated potential view impairments by eliminating towers and reducing the overall height of the parapet walls The next slide showed the modifications to the Golden Cove Restaurant. It illustrated the original proposal and the modification proposed which showed the addition had been moved over the existing building footprint. The three new building off of Palos Verdes Drive West had the height reduced as per Planning Commission recommendations Explaining the environmental assessment, Mr Mihranian mentioned that in the preparation of the initial study staff determined that the proposed project may have potential impacts on the surrounding environment, however the potential impacts were at a level that could be mitigated to a level of compliance. Therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and attached to the staff report. Since the changes proposed to the project do not adversely impact the project, but rather enhance the Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 10 mitigation measures, an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration was attached to the staff report In regards to view impairment, Mr Mihranian distributed a photo board showing the new flagging and the views from five properties, two on Via Del Mar and three properties within the Villa Capri complex Staff believes that the height modifications addressed the major concerns with view impairment, and believes the applicants have complied with the direction of the Planning Commission Staff recommended condition that existing foliage in excess of 16 feet in height be trimmed or removed to open up and enhance certain views. Conditions have also been included that address lighting and noise concerns Another item of concern had been that of circulation on and off-site. A revised traffic study was submitted to the City's Traffic Engineer and conditions were added as a result of the review. Mr Mihranian explained the applicants were proposing a joint use parking program which is a program that, based on the different hours of operation and different uses within the center there are different peaks of demand for parking stalls He distributed a modified parking program to the Commission. Staff also recommended that the construction be done in phases, phase one being the grocery market, phase two the addition to the Golden Lotus as well as the improvements to the existing two-story office building, and phase three being the three buildings along Palos Verdes Drive West. The purpose of the phasing will enable staff to conduct an accurate assessment of the parking impacts after each phase. Regarding the utilities, staff indicated that there were 6 utility poles on the property, the only kind of its nature within the immediate neighborhood. In doing an assessment of the surrounding area, all utility poles are underground except these 6 poles According to the Development Code, any new development that exceeds 25% of the existing floor area requires the utilities be placed underground. The applicants are only proposing an increase in floor area of 16%, therefore the utilities do not have to be placed underground unless the Planning Commission finds that there is a nexus undergrounding the utilities to some type of adverse impact. Staff believes there is a connection between the utility poles and view impairment, and utilities should be placed underground. Staff had contacted Edison and received an estimate of $10,000 to $12,000 per pole to underground the utilities Based on staff's assessment of the project and the Commission's direction, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project based on the modifications presented Commissioner Alberio stated that he felt there was a safety issue regarding the utility poles. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that there is one pole that is leaning and there is another pole in the middle of the driveway between Villa Capri and the Golden cove Center Staff recommended requiring location of these poles. Commissioner Alberio asked about a vacant piece of land mentioned in the staff report that could possibly be purchased and used for parking Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 11 0 0 Associate Planner Mihranian showed on the overhead projector the location of the vacant land, which is immediately adjacent to the southern property line, near the Admiral Risty Commissioner Alberio stated in the staff report there was an option to relocate the bus stop to allow for off-site parking He questioned where the bus stop would be relocated. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that the City's Traffic Engineer suggested it could be moved in front of the vacant lot on Palos Verdes Drive West or near the church Commissioner Slayden asked staff if, in calculating additional floor area for parking, the mezzanine was included in the calculations, and if so why. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that the mezzanine had been included in the calculations because it is considered additional floor area by the standards set forth in the Development Code. Commissioner Slayden asked staff if the three restaurants proposed along Palos Verdes Drive West had adequate setbacks from the road. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that the setbacks were adequate and in compliance with the 30 foot requirement for the CN zoning district. Commissioner Paris had concerns with the steep driveway behind the buildings in regards to safety and noise He wondered if speed bumps had been considered to discourage the speed used to go up the driveway. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that speed bumps had been discussed with the City's Traffic Engineer, who felt speed bumps might encourage some type of racing up the driveway and didn't adequately address safety concerns. Commissioner Paris did not agree with splitting the construction into three phases. He felt it would be imperative for the market to have the office buildings at full capacity. He did not think the market should be modified without changing anything else Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the phasing proposal was an option for the Commission to consider Commissioner Paris discussed the point driveway suggested between the shopping area and the Unocal Station He asked if staff was concerned that by establishing a joint use driveway that would encourage people to use the driveway through the Unocal Station as a shortcut to get onto Hawthorne Boulevard rather than use the intersection. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 12 Associate Planner Mihranian responded that some drivers may do that, however the driveway in question was not a part of the application and staff could not require the owner of the Unocal Station to make modifications to their driveway. The owner of the Unocal Station must agree the joint use of the driveways as well. If the property owner of the Unocal felt that by creating a joint use driveway, that would create an adverse impact upon his station and he may not agree to it. Staff then recommended building a wall or landscaping the area if that were to happen. Vice Chairman Lyon questioned the wording of Condition No. 54. He felt that the way this condition had been worded, seemed to encourage motorists to use the service station to access Palos Verdes Drive West when, in fact, the intent was the opposite. He advised staff to revise this condition. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the intent of the condition was to create an ingress only driveway that discourages motorist from using the service station if the privacy wall is put into place. He felt the condition, as written may have to be modified. Vice Chairman Lyon commented that the driveway in the back of the grocery store has been there for many years He felt that making the exit a right turn only would make the area safer and did not see any other safety issues in that area. Commissioner Alberio asked what the status was on the requested car wash at the Unocal station Associate Planner Mihranian answered that the Conditional Use Permit for the car wash has expired, due to a lapse in time in the plan check process. Chairman Cartwright asked, if the bus stop were relocated further down on Palos Verdes Drive West, how many parking spaces would that potentially create Associate Planner Mihranian responded that staff had not yet determined how many spaces that would create. Chairman Cartwright asked about the utilities. He wondered why the two poles that were safety issues were not being worked on now, rather than waiting for this application to be approved. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that Edison has been notified regarding the leaning pole, however the one at the center of the driveway was not mentioned. Chairman Cartwright questioned the noise restrictions. He asked if 65 decibels was a fair standard to set and what the current noise level was at the center now Associate Planner Mihranian stated that staff had not done an assessment of the current noise level, however 65 decibels is a common standard for outdoor made in residents. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 13 0 Chairman Cartwright asked staff about the lighting restrictions and how these restrictions compared to those at Peninsula Center or Lunada Bay. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that staff had not contacted Peninsula Center or Lunada Bay. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if there is any evidence that the driveway behind the market has been a safety issue in the past He felt that kids might be playing behind the market now only because there was no business activity in the area Associate Planner Mihranian answered that there is no evidence that staff obtained that indicates there has been a safety issue at that site in the past. Associate Planner Mihranian reminded the Commission that the public hearing did not need to be reopened, as it had been open since the August 10 meeting Kathy Berg 26621 Hawkhurst Drive, representing Golden Cove Group and Napa Valley Farms, stated that after meeting with the community over the last several months plans have been to scaled down for a few of the upscale programs at Napa Valley Farms and instead to put the emphasis on quality, variety, and value pricing She felt the community had stated that value pricing was their primary concern She stated that the applicants have, in good faith, addressed all of the issues as requested by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, the neighbors, and all interested parties The shopping center has been redesign to have the same look throughout the center. All of the structures and facades have been lowered, and the site was voluntarily reflagged to display the new silhouette She stated many people have expressed their pleasure with the new proposal. Ty Hitt 1248 Watson Center Road, Carson stated he was the Senior Vice President and CFO for KB Mart, owner of Napa Valley Farms market. He felt that the majority of residents around the Golden Cove Shopping Center are now very positive about the proposed project He stressed to the Commission that Napa Valley Farms was committed to bringing a high quality product at value pricing. He wanted to make sure that members of the community would shop at this market rather than leave the city to go to a comparable market that may have a better price. He stated that he has a concern over the phasing of the project. He stated that the economic and viability of the center is dependent upon the entire center being developed They could not proceed with phase one not knowing if phase two or three would be approved. He questioned Condition No. 15 regarding the hours of operation He felt that put his market at a distinct disadvantage with competition in the area Ralph's, for example, is open from 6 a m to midnight He stated that Napa Valley Farms has to be able to compete with surrounding markets, and being forced to close at 9:00 when other stores were open to midnight would not allow them to compete He also felt that Condition No. 30, restricting delivery hours from 7 00 a m to 7 00 p m was also too restrictive. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 14 v E Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Hitt what hours he would like to have the store open. Mr Hitt answered that he would like to be open 6 a.m. to midnight, the same as Ralph's. Commissioner Paris stated that he understood the concern over the phasing of the project, but wondered if constructing the market, office building, and Golden Lotus in phase one would be more acceptable At the review period it could then be determined if parking was adequate and the decision then made about the three restaurants along Palos Verdes Drive West He felt that if the parking was inadequate and the restaurants were allowed to be built, it may conceivably cut into the profitability of the market if customers could not find a place to park Mr Hitt responded that based on their estimates parking was not anticipated to be an issue. He asked that all phases be done together. Commissioner Paris commented that perishable products are generally delivered to the stores very early in the morning. He wondered if that was another reason the applicant was requesting the store be open early, so they could accept their deliveries Mr. Hitt responded that it was true that these deliveries are made early and they would need to be open to accept these deliveries Mr. Hitt also commented that if the store were to be open until midnight, he was requesting that the lights stay on in the parking lot one hour after closing to give employees and customers time to reach their cars in the safety of the night lighting Finally he questioned the condition requiring a full time security person at the site. He felt that this center did not require a full time security employee and requested the Commission reconsider the condition. Hannibal Petrossi (applicant) 3700 Campus Drive Newport Beach stated he has worked closely with the staff to develop this project. He stated that they have done everything they could to reduce the height and mass of the structure. He stated that he had received his staff report and conditions of approval on Friday and wanted to discuss the conditions that he had questions or objections to. Condition No 2 stated there was a maximum of 2 years for completion of the project. Mr Petrossi requested a two-phase project The first phase would consist of three years, the second phase for five years. The first phase would consist of the market, office buildings, and three new restaurants. The second phase would be the Golden Lotus Restaurant Condition No. 6 discusses reviewing the project 6 months after issuance of occupancy. He felt that once one phase was built and in operation, the next phase may be deleted or put on hold for further review. Mr. Petrossi questioned what "minor modifications" were in reference to Condition No. 8. He discussed the hours of operation and also requested they be changed to 6 a m to midnight to be competitive with other markets in the area. Regarding the lighting, he explained that he has a lighting plan and has stayed within the wattage for the site throughout the parking lot Staff recommends the light poles be no more than 10 feet in height Mr Petrossi requested the light poles be 16 feet in Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 15 0 0 height to accommodate the wattage proposed. Regarding the utilities, it was his understanding and from past work that he had done, that undergrounding the utilities would be between $400 to $600 per foot This would bring the cost of undergrounding to close to $500,000. Staff stated that Edison had quoted them $10,000 - $12,000 per pole which he found acceptable. He stated that his company could post a bond not to exceed $70,000 for the underground of the utilities. Regarding Condition No. 38 to replace trees over 16 feet in height, he suggested trimming the existing trees to 16 feet and stay at or below 16 feet at all times. Mr. Petrossi questioned Condition No 48 and the need to remove 4 parking spaces by the Admiral Risty Restaurant. Regarding Condition No. 50, he did not objecting to the condition but wanted to know if the truck access would be adequate for what was being suggested. He did not think it would be accessible for the trucks to enter. Condition No 51 discusses the Ione parking space and asked for clarification as to where the parking space was located. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that stall was eliminated in the modifications Mr. Petrossi continued with Condition No 56 regarding the removal or relocation of the bus stop. He stated he did not know the procedure to have this done or who to talk to begin the procedure. Condition No 57 deals with a two-month review of occupancy and tenants in the center for parking purposes. Mr Petrossi did not feel two months was an adequate time frame He presented a chart for parking that took into account the different peak hours of the different businesses in the center. The remaining conditions were technical which he had no problem with except possibly the condition which would confine him 1220 cubic yards of dirt removal He questioned the condition if his geologist recommended removal of more than 1220 cubic yards of soil for recompaction. Vice Chairman Lyon commented that he was disappointed that the developers had not received these conditions of approval earlier and had the chance to sit down with staff to resolve many of the questions raised. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Petrossi why, if he was in a hurry to complete the project, would he want up to five years to complete the project Mr Petrossi answered that the second phase would be the Golden Lotus Restaurant and he felt that time frame was necessary to do all of the studies necessary requested by the Planning Commission and the city staff. Commissioner Paris stated that the parking was not dramatically affected by the Golden Lotus, but more by the three new restaurants in the front, as they would not only be bring in customers but the actual buildings would be taking up parking spaces He did not feel the Golden Lotus should be put into phase 2 when the biggest impact on parking was from the three proposed restaurants Mr. Petrossi stated that the developer told him that the three pads along Palos Verdes Drive West were the key for them to go ahead with the project Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 16 Commissioner Paris stated that Mr Petrossi had stated he did not want a parking review by staff on a phase by phase basis and felt that he was trying to eliminate any type of parking assessment by staff. Mr Petrossi stated he did want a parking review done by staff but it has to come before any plans for buildings have been prepared Associate Planner Mihranian clarified that the way the current condition reads is that staff is recommending three phases, not three approval phases of the project. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the entire project this evening, however staff is asking the construction take place in three phases. After the first phase is completed staff will conduct an assessment of the parking to verify that the demand is accurate based on the parking plan If the Commission finds the parking is deficient, there are slight modifications that can be made to the floor areas, but not eliminated from the proposal. Chairman Cartwright clarified that what the applicant was requesting was the construction being done in two phases and the review take place after the first phase. If it were found the parking projections are incorrect, then there would be the option of not modifying the Golden Lotus. Chairman Cartwright asked staff how to best address the proposals before the Commission, Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there are some items before the Commission, such as hours of operation, that the Commission could show some discretion on. However, there were some items that were specifically addressed in the Development Code, such as delivery hours and mechanical equipment operation Sonya Haves 64 Via Capri stated that on August 4 she had sent a letter requesting the construction of a buffer wall between Villa Capri and the Admiral Risty. Currently the residents look down at the delivery vehicles and garbage trucks, as well as the lights from the cars of people parking there. She stated the city needs this grocery store and requested that the Commission approve the project. Commissioner Paris asked if there would be a problem in terms of glare at Villa Capri if the light fixtures were raised to 16 feet in height Ms. Hayes responded that she did not think there would be a problem. Paul Payne 52 Via Capri stated he was here to speak in support of the project and felt that all of their issues had been addressed in the recommendations made by staff. However if the recommended business or delivery hours were to change they may have some additional comments He stated he would very much like to see the power poles Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 17 put underground and felt that with the increased traffic there would be an increased potential for problems Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Payne if he felt there would be any problem if the light poles were raised to 16 feet in height Mr. Payne responded that he felt it was a non -issue. Charles Hugan 21 Via San Remo stated that he though that what was out at the site did not reflect the parapet that was going to surround the perimeter of the office building to screen the mechanical equipment. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that when the revised plans were submitted and the silhouette was modified the applicant did not have the parapet on the drawings. Therefore, when the silhouette was modified it did not include the parapet. Subsequently, staff informed the applicant that a condition would be included to add the parapet The plans were modified to show the parapet, however the silhouette was not modified accordingly. Mr. Hugan then stated that he was not prepared to make the concession that the extended hours and lighting would have an impact and asked the Commission to carefully consider these issues. Finally he felt that in regards to the steep driveway behind the market, it was a good idea to make that exit a right turn only. He felt the area was a safety issue and should be considered as such. John Safyurtlu 31055 Via Rivera complimented the staff on their very thorough staff report He commented that his property looks right over the roof of the market He stated that staff had studied the view impact from surrounding properties, but did not do one from his property. He felt it was important that the view study be performed from his property prior to a decision being made. He felt the view from his property was different from the views shown from the surrounding properties In looking at the plans, he felt that the structures in his view were not so much functional as they were cosmetic He wondered if that type of a difference merited taking away a major portion of a resident's view. He felt with the outstanding questions from the developer as well as his concerns over his view, that approval of the project at this meeting was premature Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Safyurtlu if he was aware of what the original proposal encompassed and how the project has been scaled back Mr. Safyurtlu answered that he was aware of the original proposal and appreciated how the developer has scaled the project back However, his view will still be impaired for what he felt were purely decorative purposes Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 18 Commissioner Paris stated that he felt most of the cosmetic treatments had been removed. Some type of facade was needed to modernize the structure or the building would look like a bowling alley Chairman Cartwright stated it would be helpful to the Commission if he could be very specific about what view impairment he was particularly concerned about. Mr. Safyutlu responded that he realized there had already been a lengthy process involved with the neighbors, however he had only closed escrow last week and was not aware of the issues until recently. The specific view in question was the view of Catalina Island. The features obstructing the view are the features that have the flags that are raised above the current existing roofline of the grocery store. Vice Chairman Lyon sympathized with Mr. Safyutlu but felt that since he had only closed escrow last week, he bought the property knowing that the shopping center was being improved, with the flags already erected. He did not feel he had any rights in the matter since he bought the property after public notice had been given and the process had begun Lois Laure 3136 Barkentine Road commented that she had a conversation with the owner of the Unocal station and he was convinced that the car wash will be built and his application has not expired She stated that she did not agree with some of the responses on the environmental checklist prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chairman Cartwright requested Mr. Petrossi return to the podium and stated that at a past meeting he had agreed to erect a wall between Villa Capri and the Admiral Risty. He asked Mr. Petrossi if he was still willing to do so. Associate Planner Mihrarnan stated that building this wall was included in the original conditions of August 10. Chairman Cartwright discussed the undergrounding of the utilities and how best to handle the problem of the utilities. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the condition of approval could be modified that if the underground exceed a specific cost then an amendment could be made to the approval Mr. Petrossi stated that he will relocate the pole that is in the middle of the driveway as it is a safety issue. He also would be willing to allocate $70,000 for the undergrounding of the utilities Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Edison had provided a figure of $10,000 to $12,000 per pole The Commission could use this figure to make a decision of whether they want to require the undergrounding, or if there are some unusual circumstances Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 19 that raises the cost, the applicant can return to the Commission and request the condition be amended or deleted Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. A discussion followed between the Commissioners on how best to proceed with the discussions regarding the project. It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss point by point the objections and questions raised by Mr Petrossi earlier in the meeting Chairman Cartwright began with Condition No.2 which addresses phasing of the project. He asked staff if they agreed to break the project into two phases, the second one being Golden Lotus He also asked staff how that affected the parking review Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the Golden Lotus produces a need for 36 parking spaces while the three new buildings would produce a need for 32 spaces, but eliminate 32 spaces Nonetheless, placing the Golden Lotus into phase 2 does give the Commission some leeway in the parking situation He stated that the reason staff would like to see the projected phased was because there are certain assumptions in the parking plan and staff wants to be able to test the assumptions after a period of time He suggested, if the Commission were to allow everything but the Golden Lotus be done in phase 1, do a six-month review after the certificate of occupancy is issued for phase 1 Commissioner Paris had concerns over allowing everything to be built at one time and putting the Golden Lotus into phase 2 Commissioner Slayden responded that the developer felt the project depended on the three additional buildings and if they are not approved the project may not get off the ground Chairman Cartwright summarized that what was being suggested was the project being divided into two phases, which the staff does not object to Staff recommended a parking review be done six months after the certificate of occupancy is issued for phase 1 If parking is then an issue the Commission can explore options to deal with the situation at that time Commissioner Slayden moved to revise the language in Condition No. 2 read the project shall be divided into two phases. The first phase will consist of everything but the Golden Lotus Restaurant, which will be phase 2. This approval will be valid for 3 years from the date of the date of Certificate of Occupancy of phase 1. There will be a 6 -month parking review conducted after the certificate of occupancy is issued for all buildings in phase 1, seconded by Commissioner Alberio The motion was approved, (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 20 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that Conditions of Approval Nos 5 and No. 6 will be modified to reflect the changes and the decisions made in Condition No 2. Chairman Cartwright stated that the applicant had asked for a definition of "minor modifications" stated in condition No. 8. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that this is a standard condition and minor modifications would be approved at his discretion. The Commission agreed that the condition would remain as written Chairman Cartwright next addressed condition No 13, hours of operation. Commissioner Slayden suggested that all new uses in the center have the operating hours of 6 a.m. to midnight, which is comparable to the hours at Ralph's. Director/Secretary Rojas reminded the Commission that the hours set would apply to the entire shopping center, not just the market Associate Planner Mihranian pointed out that there is a clause written that all existing uses may continue to operate under established hours. After discussion the Commissioners agreed that it may not be fair to restrict the hours of the existing tenants and allow different hours for the new businesses. The Commission agreed that the language would be changed to read that all existing and new uses would have the maximum hours of 6 a.m. to 12:00 a.m Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he did have some concerns over the hours but there is a 6 -month review process where changes could be made if needed. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. Mr Kendall 21250 Hawthorne Blvd Torrance, speaking on behalf of the developer, stated that he did not know if there was presently any kind of restrictions on the existing tenants in terms of hours of operation. He understood the concerns of the Commission but did not feel the existing tenants should be subject to the new hours He thought the liquor store and restaurants may currently be open past midnight on the weekends. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested language to read that all uses in the center would have the hours of 6 00 a m to 1200 a.m. All existing uses that are currently operating beyond these established hours may continue to do so. • • -s - s • • Vice Chairman Lyon moved to accept Condition of Approval No. 15 as revised, which sets the maximum hours of all uses within the center be as follows: Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 21 Sunday through Saturday 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. All existing uses may continue to operate under current established hours, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman. Director/Secretary Rojas discussed Condition No. 20 relating to the security guard He stated that at a past Planning Commission meeting two of the Commissioners had expressed concerns with safety and the idea of looking into a security guard for the property Staff felt that since there were comments a condition should be put into the approval Commissioner Slayden withdrew his request for a security guard and the Commission unanimously agreed. Discussing Condition No. 21, Director/Secretary Rojas stated that condition could be eliminated and the Commission agreed. Condition of Approval No. 25 dealt with the height of the light poles After a brief discussion the Commission asked staff if they were satisfied with a 16 -foot height limit for the light poles Director/Secretary Rojas stated that 10 feet was rather low and did not have an issue with a 16 -foot light pole The Commission agreed on a 16 -foot high light pole Condition of Approval No. 26 discussed the hour the lights needed to be turned off. The Commission agreed the wording should state that the outdoor lighting should be turned off by 1:00 a.m. everyday The Commission then discussed Condition No 30 regarding hours of delivery. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Development Code specifies that hours of delivery are to be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p m. The Commission agreed not to change the condition as written. Condition No. 34 discussed the utilities Vice Chairman Lyon felt the wording should read that the City requires the removal of the one pole in the driveway, require the repair of the pole that is broken, and encourage the utilities to be underground Commissioner Paris felt that since the applicant had agreed to spend up to $70,000 to underground the utilities they should be required in the conditions of approval to underground the utilities if the cost does not exceed $70,000. If the cost does exceed that limit, the applicant can return to the Planning Commission for a revision to that condition of approval Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 22 Director/Secretary Rous stated that staff preferred a dollar amount not be put on the requirement to underground the utilities. He felt that if the amount to underground went over the cap there would be too much ambiguity as to what would happen next Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing Mr. Petrossi suggested requiring the two utility poles in question be relocated and underground the remaining poles if the cost does not exceed $70,000. Vice Chairman Lyon asked if they would go as high as $80,000. Mr. Petrossi agreed. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing Vice Chairman Lyon moved to require the applicant to relocate the utility pole that is on the driveway, repair or remove the utility pole that is currently leaning, and require placing all of the remaining utility poles underground providing the cost to do underground all of the poles does not exceed $80,040, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The Commission unanimously approved the motion, (5- 0). The Commission discussed item No. 38 regarding the removal and replacement of the trees to a height of 16 feet, and the idea of cutting the existing trees to a height of 16 feet Director/Secretary Rojas stated that his recollection of the trees was that they were mostly Eucalyptus and if trimmed to a height of 16 feet would leave nothing. He felt the trees would probably die if trimmed that far down. A condition could be added that the trees be trimmed to 16 feet, however if the tree dies it must be removed and replaced with foliage not to exceed 16 feet in height The Commission unanimously agreed with the condition being reworded to require the trees be trimmed to a height not to exceed 16 feet. If the trees subsequently dies, it must be removed and replaced with something not to exceed 16 feet in height. Commissioner Slayden suggested eliminating conditions 48 and 49. Commissioner Paris requested input from staff on the elimination of these conditions. Director/Secretary Rojas displayed on the overhead protector the four parking spaces in question and stated all of the conditions regarding parking removal came from the traffic consultant. The Commission did not have to follow these recommendations. He stated that these parking spaces could be re -addressed at the 6 -month review Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 23 Vice Chairman Lyon agreed that the conditions should be eliminated with the exception of the last sentence of condition no. 49 which states that adjacent to Building A the parking spaces shall be orientated at a 90 degree angle to maintain a two-way driveby Staff and the Commission agreed. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing in order for the applicant to explain his concern with Condition No 50 Mr. Petrossi wanted to verify that by having the aisleway behind the two-story building a one-way aisleway it would be accessible to trucks making delivery and picking up garbage Director/Secretary Rojas did not see a conflict and assured Mr Petrossi that there would not be a problem Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. The Commission agreed to leave Conditions No. 50 and 51 as written Vice Chairman Lyon questioned condition No 54. Associate Planner Mihranian clarified that Conditions 53 and 54 should be combined and read the northern most driveway shall be reconfigured to an ingress only driveway Condition No 56 discussed the relocation of the bus stop. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that staff did not feel the bus stop needed to be relocated, the Traffic Engineer however suggested that there must be adequate site distance 8 feet back from the curb. What might have to happen is the red curb where the busses park would need to be moved away from the driveway The end result may be that the parking for buses may be shortened a bit. The Commissioners questioned whether that was something the developer should have to deal with. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that it may happen through the Public Works Department. He felt the developer could work with the Public Works Department to adjust the red curb. Chairman Cartwright suggested the wording that the applicant make a good faith effort to work with the Public Works Department to adjust the red curb. The Commission agreed. Conditions 62 and 63 were then discussed. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the grading quantities listed were intended to reflect what the applicant indicated they were going to do. These can be modified to reflect whatever the applicant is proposing It can also reflect any remedial or other grading necessary for improvements Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 24 Chairman Cartwright summarized by stating the view impairment issues have been sufficiently mitigated, the noise issue has been addressed, the circulation issues have been addressed, parking has been discussed, mechanical equipment, utilities, and architectural features have all been discussed Associate Planner Mihranian clarified that Condition No 43 will be modified to reflect the two phases under the noise condition and the Commission has made the findings to increase the height for the light posts to 16 feet. Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt the accept the staff recommendations as modified thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-39 approving, with conditions, Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Variance No. 446, Grading Permit No. 2135 and Environmental Assessment No. 711, seconded by Commissioner Allberio. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1999 The Commission had no comments regarding the Pre -Agenda ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The meeting was adjourned at 12.38 a.m. to the next regular meeting on October 26, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 25