Loading...
PC MINS 19991123• CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Approved 12/14/99 V The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7 00 p.m at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Councilwoman Ferraro led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ATTENDANCE Present Commissioners Clark, Slayden, Vice Chairman Lyon, Chairman Cartwright. Commissioner Paris arrived at 7 08 p m Absent: Commissioners Alberio and Vannorsdall were excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Louie, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Cartwright stated he had received a request from the applicant of Item No. 5 to move that item up as far as possible on the agenda. He suggested moving Item No 5 to come after Item No. 1. Commissioner Slayden also suggested that since the applicant was not present for Item No 2 that it be heard last Commissioner Paris moved to approve the agenda in the following order: Items 1, 5, 3, 4, 6, 2, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Cartwright noted the passing of former Planning Commissioner Larry Whiteneck. A moment of silence was observed in memory of Mr. Whiteneck. Director/Secretary Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence to the Commission regarding agenda item 5 (6 -month review of CUP 182) in opposition to the sale of beer and wine. Director/Secretary Rojas updated the Commission on the City Council meeting of November 3, 1999 He explained the Abalone Cove beach improvement project appeal was before the Council at that meeting The City Council directed staff to reduce the scope of the protect and to conduct additional geology and stability review of the area Director/Secretary Rous informed the Commission that the City had prevailed in the lawsuit regarding the Proposition M Ordinance Commissioner Clark reported on his attendance at a three-day conference at the Institute on Planning, Zoning, and Eminent Domain presented by the Municipal League Study Center CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 9, 1999 Commissioner Paris noted a grammatical error at the bottom of page 3. Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The minutes were approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Clark abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. z � 5. 6 -Month Review of Conditional Use Permit No. 182 — Revision `A': Bill Meyers (applicant) 28103 Hawthorne Blvd — Mobil Service Station Assistant Planner Louie presented the staff report She explained that what was before the Commission was the six-month review of the revision to the Conditional Use Permit The revision was previously approved to allow the off-site sales of beer and wine She stated that during the six months staff had conducted periodic site visits and concluded that the current use meets all of the conditions of approval The operation has not resulted in any adverse impacts to adjacent residents The City and Sheriff's Department have not received any complaints relating to the hours of operation for the sale of alcoholic beverages Further, staff has not received any complaints from surrounding neighbors and no significant problems have arisen in the last six months. Therefore, staff feels that the off-site sale of beer and wine complies with the conditions of approval, and no additional conditions need be imposed on the existing use. There being no speakers on the item Chairman Cartwright felt there was no need to open the public hearing. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to accept staff's recommendations and impose no further conditions, thereby filing the report as presented, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 2 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 208: Mr. and Mrs. Shiraz Govani (applicant), 27774 Hawthorne Blvd. - Hiighridge Car Wash Assistant Planner Louie presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant was requesting, due to the high demand from the car wash customers, the sale of non - automotive products within the 407 square foot cashier area of the existing car wash building No portions of the existing building footprint will expand. She explained the proposed use was not considered a convenience store since it did not meet the definition of convenience store as defined in the Development Code Also, the proposed use would involve limited hours and sale of limited products. Staff did feel the project was subject to the parking standards since the area was constituted as new net leasable retail area. Therefore, the applicant will provide two new parking spaces which will consist of one disabled parking space and one standard parallel parking space. Due to the location of the new parking space along the western side of the car wash building, only two spaces of the three will remain for the detailing of the vehicles Further, staff did not feel the proposed use would intensify the existing use since there would be no placement of signs or banners advertising the sales of pre-packaged goods or the ATM and the use would not alter the existing physical characteristics of the site Therefore, staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit No 208, subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit "A" Vice Chairman Lyon pointed out that in Exhibit A Condition No. 2 appeared to be a duplication of Condition No. 5. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that Condition No. 2 could be eliminated and Condition No. 5 would remain. Commissioner Paris stated that there was no formal listing of products to be sold, just a suggested list. He wondered if there were any way to narrow that list down as he felt too much latitude was given and there may be problems in the future Assistant Planner Louie answered that the Items to be sold were listed specifically in the conditions of approval, and that those were the only items permitted with this approval Commissioner Paris questioned the drainage on the site, specifically at the car wash structure exit. He stated that he had seen puddles of green fluid accumulated at the exits and wondered if there had been any provisions in the approval of the car wash for drainage. Assistant Planner Louie stated that in 1998, the City's consultant did review the site to confirm that it was in compliance with NPDES. However, only the construction of the new canopy was reviewed for run-off since the car wash was a pre-existing use Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 3 Commissioner Paris stated that there is runoff going into the street and accumulating at the exits and asked staff if they would look into the problem Director/Secretary Rojas replied that staff would look into the problem. Commissioner Paris was concerned with parking He wondered where the employees would detail the cars if there are new parking spaces added to the detailing area Assistant Planner Louie answered that currently there are three spaces available for detailing One of these spaces will be used for the new parking space, leaving two available spaces for detail work. Commissioner Paris questioned the 84 percent landscaping requirement. He asked if the applicant would not have to comply with OC -4 requirement Assistant Planner Louie answered that staff had determined that since the use is not a convenience store and does not intensify the existing use, the use does not have to be brought into conformance with that Development Code standard Commissioner Paris commented that the car wash is extremely busy on any given Sunday and felt that with the additional product offering as well as the availability of the ATM machine there will be additional cars and traffic at the site He asked staff, with parking already used to the maximum, how the parking would be adequate with this additional use. Assistant Planner Louie replied that staff believed that since there would be no additional building footprint added to the site and no advertisement of the products or the ATM machine, that the services being provided were mostly to service the car wash/service station customers already on the site Commissioner Paris stated his concern was that the weekend car wash customers would use the convenience of the ATM machine on weekdays, thereby adding to the congestion and parking on the site Director/Secretary Rotas stated that staff originally had the same concern, however they were satisfied that the project has been designed and conditioned so that the sale of items is primarily used by the car wash customers There could be a situation as described by Commissioner Paris, but there is a six-month review process where these issues and problems can be addressed. Commissioner Pans asked about the restrooms at the site. He stated they were not equipped for the handicapped and wondered if there were any ADA requirements. Director/Secretary answered that staff would look into that matter. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Paris questioned the Conditional Use Permit application submitted to the Planning Department. He pointed out that the numbers submitted for the square footage of the project, lot size, lot coverage, etc , did not appear to be correct and asked staff if they review these applications for accuracy. Director/Secretary Rous answered that the issue of lot coverage and lot size did not apply in this application as all work being proposed is interior If there were exterior work or expansion proposed where these figures were needed, staff would have asked the applicant for correct information Chairman Cartwright questioned Condition No. 12 of Exhibit "A" regarding the sale of non -automotive items. He felt the condition was very restrictive and wondered if there was any room for variation if the applicant decided they wanted to sell automotive items. Assistant Planner Louie stated that the sale of automotive items was permitted by right and that this application was for the sale of non -automotive items. Chairman Cartwright questioned the hours of operation and wondered why the applicant was not requesting longer hours Assistant Planner Louie replied that the applicant did not apply for a Conditional Use Permit regarding hours of operation. Their current hours were the maximum allowed under the OC -4 Guidelines A separate Conditional Use Permit request would have to be made to extend the hours of gasoline sales Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Shiraz Govani (applicant) 27774 Hawthorne Boulevard stated that in purchasing the car wash facility it was his intention to create a business that will make Rancho Palos Verdes proud to have it in the city. He believes that he has improved the appearance of the corner significantly. When the City asked him to remove the non -automotive items, many of the customers were upset. He stated that many customers had informed him they had been buying these types of items at this car wash for many years. He asked the Commission to approve the sale of the small items that many people might purchase while waiting for their car to be washed. He distributed several letters written by the customers complementing the car wash and the good fob that was being done. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Govani if he had already installed an ATM several months ago without the permission of the City Mr Govani stated he did install the ATM several months ago. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Govani how many stations he currently owned. Mr Govani answered that he currently owns two stations Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Paris then asked Mr Govani if he also sold several stations in the last several years. Mr. Govani answered that it was his business to buy businesses, improve them and sell them if he chose to. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Govani to comment on the statement made regarding the drainage at his site. Mr. Govani stated that there was adequate drainage and the water in question was only a small amount of water left behind from the cars after they come out of the car wash Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Slayden stated that he felt the conditions at the Highridge Car Wash were very acceptable and comparable to the car washes in Rolling Hills Estates, which both offer non -automotive Mems for sale. He recommended approving the application. Commissioner Clark agreed with Commissioner Slayden`s comments Commissioner Paris stated that since the car wash/ gas station opened he has driven by several times a day and noted people making dangerous turns into and out of the gas station area He also felt this approval would generate additional traffic on the subject site. He felt that this approval would lead to enclosing the patio area, adding beer and wine sales, and lottery sales He stated the Commission had to be very careful with what they approved for this area because of his severe concern over the safety of the area Vice Chairman Lyon did not feel there would be additional traffic or parking problems on the site. His feeling was that once people drove to the site to purchase something small and could not find a parking space, that they would most likely go somewhere else that is convenient He supported the project. Chairman Cartwright felt that what was being asked was giving the applicant the same privileges that other car washes in the area already have. He stated that he supported the project. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 208 as presented by staff thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 99-42, seconded by Slayden. The motion was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Paris dissenting. 4. Variance No. 461, Coastal Permit No. 159 and Grading Permit No. 2144: Gene and Terry Rolle (applicants), 38 Seacove Drive Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 6 Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report He explained the existing home is not in conformance with the coastal setback and coastal structure setback requirements established in the Coastal Specific Plan The Development Code permits additions of up to 250 square feet to homes that are non -conforming in this manner Any proposal to do an addition in excess of 250 square feet requires the approval of a Variance and Coastal Permit. He explained that all findings could be made for the approval of a Variance. The applicants have provided geotechnical analysis and approval for the project The new construction will provide foundations to satisfy the geotechnical consultants requirements and in addition the portions of the home that are existing and do not currently meet approved standards will be upgraded. He explained that there would be no extension of the house seaward aside from an on -grade patio that will be built in a lawn area in the back of the home Mr. Fox stated that there are a number of pine trees along the front of the property that have a potential to significantly impair views from other properties. The trees not being removed in conjunction with the addition will be trimmed and laced in order to improve and restore views from adjacent properties. Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if they could explain the meaning of a factor of safety of 1 5. Director/Secretary Rojas explained it was a measurement used by geotechnical engineers to determine the safety of a site. A factor of safety of 1.0 would mean the land is stable and not moving. The City however, requires a factor of safety of 1 5 to allow a house to be built to provide a margin of safety Chairman Cartwright asked staff if they had received any letters in favor or opposed to the project Associate Planner Fox responded that there had been no letters received However, there was one written comment opposed to granting variances in general, one written comment in favor of the project, and one general inquiry by phone regarding the project. Commissioner Paris questioned how it was possible to build an addition that would make the house at the exact maximum structure size, which would be 5,164 square feet Associate Planner Fox explained that the applicant's original proposal was slightly larger, and exceeded the permissible maximum structure size The addition was then scaled down to meet the maximum structure size to avoid the need to include this as a part of the variance Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 7 Miles Pritzkat (architect) 32727 Hawthorne Blvd., Torrance stated that the staff report covered and articulated his client's position regarding the addition He stated his clients wanted to minimize the impact of their addition on the neighbors and neighborhood. He felt that after many hours spent with city staff and designing the protect, the result is something that they hope will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. The house will not exceed the 16 -foot height maximum height limitation and are providing greater than the minimum required open space requirement. The plan will maintain a larger than minimum yard setback and they are conforming to the maximum structure size criteria He did not feel that granting a variance for this project would set any type of precedence as this lot was unique in the neighborhood. Further, approving this project would not create an unsafe or hazardous condition; rather the project is improving and enhancing the existing structure Commissioner Paris asked if there had been given any consideration to making the garage, which appears to be separated from the structure, part of the structure Mr Pritzkat replied that there were several reasons for separating the garage from the structure One reason was to allow the driveway to remain in its present location. The owner was also trying to create a court effect that surrounds the swimming pool The owners also were trying to utilize landscaping at the narrow point on the property rather than create a more massive facade at that point. Gene Rolle (owner) 38 Seacove Drive stated that he had every intention of keeping the foliage on his property trimmed and laced so as to not block any neighbors view. He commented that in the design of the residence, the height of the structure was kept as low as possible. The design of this house will actually be lower than the existing house. The existing house has a straight 16 -foot high ridge going from property line to property line The proposed residence will be less than 16 feet in many areas He thanked the staff for all of the help he and his architect had received in working on this project. Commissioner Slayden asked Mr Rolle if they have lived in the house. Mr Rolle replied that they have not moved in and are waiting for the remodel to take place before they do. Commissioner Paris asked Mr Rolle about the doors at the garage and the different sizes and setbacks. Mr. Rolle responded that they were designed that way strictly for architectural effect. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Clark stated the owners of this property have demonstrated sensitivity to their neighbors, their property, and in respect to the city codes in their approach to the Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 8 proposed remodel He could see many pluses to the project for the owners and the neighborhood. Commissioners Slayden and Paris agreed with Commissioner Clark's comments Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if, with the house being out of conformance with the coastal setback, is there any impact on the City's liability in the event of a disaster Further, if the city were to approve this addition would the city then incur any responsibility or liability and if a disaster occurred Director/Secretary Rojas answered that he did not believe that approval of the additions would expose the city to liability, but he would have to verify that with the City Attorney He added that there was no action being proposed that would increase the non- conforming encroachment of the residence. Chairman Cartwright complimented the owners and architect for working so closely with the City and keeping the project compatible with the neighborhood He felt that granting the Variance was justified, as there were unique situations on this property He stated that he felt the project should be approved Commissioner Slayden moved to approve Variance No. 461, Coastal Permit No. 159 and Grading Permit No. 2144 as presented by staff, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-43, seconded by Chairman Cartwright. The motion was approved, (5-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 30 p m the Commission took a short recess until 8.40 p.m at which time they reconvened NEW ITEMS 6. General Plan — Annual Report Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained the purpose of the General Plan and that according to State law each city is to provide an annual report to the office of Planning and Research indicating how the general plan of each city has been implemented and provide the State with a status report. He briefly outlined the amendments to the General Pian and the goals and policies contained within the General Plan He recommended the Commission, via minute order, direct staff to forward the Annual Report to the City Council. Commissioner Slayden asked staff if there was any requirement that the General Plan must be updated over a certain period of time. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 9 Assistant Planner answered that the only element that must be updated periodically is the Housing Element, which staff is currently working on. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if there was any plan to update the General Plan in the near future. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that there was not any immediate plan to update the General Plan. Commissioner Clark stated that a topic of discussion at the Planners Institutes was that it is customarily the role and responsibility of the Planning Commissioners to review the General Plan and thought that the Commission might want to begin getting involved in an update to the current General Plan Commissioner Slayden moved to forward the City's Annual Report to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Clark. The motion was approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation No. 895. Richard Grotz (applicant) 3720 Hightide Drive Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained that the proposed sunroom would result in a 100 percent coverage of the garage footprint He also explained that due to the topography of the site the proposed addition would not result in any view impairment or privacy infringement of adjacent properties Therefore staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the Height Variation subject to the conditions in Exhibit A Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. David Brenner (representing the owner) 16596 Citrus View Circle, Riverside stated that he was available for any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Paris asked if the proposal was strictly to enclose the existing open deck above the garage Mr. Brenner verified that this was correct and distributed drawings of the project to the Commission Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris asked staff if they had received any correspondence regarding the project Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 10 Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that staff had received no correspondence and no comments by phone Commissioner Slayden moved to approve Height Variation No. 895 as presented by staff thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-44, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The motion was approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Slayden asked staff if there was to be a Planning Commission meeting on December 28. Director/Secretary Rojas verified that there was nothing scheduled for that night. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road began by discussing the City Council meeting regarding the Abalone Cove development project and the tremendous number of people who attended to speak against the project She discussed the geologic factor of safety of 1.5 and how that relates to Abalone Cove She complimented Director/Secretary Rojas on the job he did in updating and revising the Development Code. Commissioner Paris stated that, regarding the Planning Commission approval of Abalone Cove, it was the City Council that gave the Planning Commission guidelines from which to approve the project. Secondly, the testimony given at the City Council hearing was far different in content than the testimony given at the Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Clark The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting on December 14, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 Page 11 11 • Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1999 -M