Loading...
PC MINS 20000208CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Approved 2/2 /00 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Room 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Clark led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon and Chairman Cartwright. Absent: None Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Associate Planner Louie, Associate Planner Mihranian, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that the City Council had discussed the City web site and ways to get more information on the web site as well as ways to inform the public of the information available on the site He stated that the Planning Commission agendas and follow-up agendas were now both available on the web site Director/Secretary Rojas distributed copies of the adopted roof deck/neighborhood compatibility ordinance and the ordinance pertaining to non-profit equestrian facilities. Commissioner Albeno reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of January 25, 2000 Commissioner Paris noted a typo on page 2 of the minutes and asked for clarification of the last paragraph on page 15 Chairman Cartwright pointed out typos on page 12 and page 13 Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The minutes were approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Clark abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 182 — Revision `B' and Sign Permit No. 720 — Revision `A' and Environmental Assessment No. 716 — Resolutions.William Myers (applicant), 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard. Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that there were two people requested to speak on this item. Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report. She stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had asked for clarification on the difference between water reclamation and water recycling. Staff had researched the question and found that water reclamation and water recycling were interchangeable terms Further, according to the Public Health Department, water reclamation or recycling means that the wastewater undergoes a treatment suitable for uses other than potable water. Ms. Louie stated that at the last meeting the Commission had asked if the water reclamation was enforced by Federal or State agencies She explained that Federal or State agencies provide a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to water purveyors stating that they conform to water conservation to the best of their ability. However, the City is not the water purveyor, it is not involved. Furthermore, Section 13 the MOU document indicates that the MOU is only applicable to the conveyor type of car wash. Since the proposed project is a hand car wash, the MOU is not applicable to this specific project. Ms Louie also stated that the City Attorney determined that it appears the City is not a signatory of the MOU. She stated that staff had modified Condition No. 28 to address the issue of noise, however it was brought to the attention of staff that the condition stated the dB measurement should be taken at the applicant's property line rather than from the adjacent residences. She explained that it was the Planning Commission's discretion if they wished to modify the condition. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he had brought the location of the dB reading to staff's attention. He reminded the Commission he had submitted a memo in February, 1998 that discussed the noise levels and the dBa scale. He explained that this scale was used because it closely matches that of the human ear. The Commission should be protecting the public since the public has to listen to the noise and felt that the noise should be measured in response to what that person may hear He felt there were too many variables involved to measure the sound from the applicant's property line He did not think this would accurately reflect what could be heard at the neighboring properties. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 2 Chairman Cartwright questioned staff regarding the process of whether the Planning Commission can open the public hearing since this item is on the consent calendar. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the public hearing for this item was closed at the last meeting and a decision was made regarding the project The item is on the consent calendar because staff has brought back the conditions that they felt reflect the Commission's decision. The Commission should review the language to verify that it does reflect their decision The public can comment on the conditions of approval and provide suggestions that they feel will help the Commission make sure the conditions correctly reflects the decision. However, the public hearing cannot be re -opened and decisions that were made cannot be changed without a new public notice Comments from the audience must be restricted to the language of the Resolution and the conditions of approval. William Glantz, 28070 Santona Drive, stated he did not understand the procedural aspects of the Planning Commission and asked under what circumstances it was appropriate to open this item for public discussion Chairman Cartwright explained that at the last meeting this item was approved. However, the Planning Commission placed three additional conditions on the proposal in order to address the concerns of the neighbors. Staff was asked to incorporate those conditions into the Resolution and bring it back to the Commission for adoption The Resolution is now before the Commission with the additional language dealing with the noise issue, the water issue, and the visual concerns The Commission was now to review the language of the new conditions to verify consistency with their intent The audience would be allowed to comment on the language of the Resolution, but the public hearing could not be opened to discuss the project. Vice Chairman Lyon commended the staff on the Resolution as he felt it followed exactly what the Commission decided at the last meeting and he was satisfied that all of the conditions were properly represented in the Resolution. Commissioner Clark recused himself from this item since he was not present at the last meeting when the item was discussed. Ben Peterson, 28067 Santona Drive stated he was very concerned about the noise from the Mobil Station and reminded the Commission that from his property he could hear the sounds of people talking at the station He explained that those who would utilize this car wash would drive behind the building, all the doors would then be opened during the vacuum process and the radios may be turned on. after this process, the doors would then all be slammed shut. He did not feel the Commission adequately addressed the noise issue and felt the Commission should continue this hearing to reconsider the issues involved and adequately address the issues. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 3 William Glantz, 28070 Santona Drive stated his main concern was that he felt the same mistake was being made that was made the first time around That mistake, he felt, was that the entire project had not been studied before granting approval The approval now has been granted, the equipment will be installed, the noise and traffic patterns will be studied, and the visual affects will be reviewed. However, because of these issues he urged the Commission to do a complete and thorough study before approving the project He asked about an Ordinance that he heard had recently been passed by the County requiring car washes reclaim 100 percent of the water that are associated with the car wash Finally, he did not feel it was necessary to measure the sound levels from different properties and measuring at the Mobil Station property line would be sufficient. He did feel very strongly that 65 dB was a very high level to use Chairman Cartwright asked staff if they were aware of any new standards that Los Angeles County had adopted regarding car washes and if they applied to this situation Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the California Regional Water Quality Control Board was contemplating new rules for Cities to follow which were very strict. However, these rules were directed primarily at storm water. Staff had checked with the City consultant to see if there were any other regulations that would apply, and based on the consultant's response there were no new regulations in terms of recycling or water reclamation. Bill Myers 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. discussed the procedure currently being used to insulate the noise that comes from the equipment enclosure at the Mobil Station, which includes a 10 -foot high sound wall and insulation. Vice Chairman Lyon stated that in reading the Resolution more carefully regarding the noise issues, he felt the wording could be a little more precise. He suggested two changes to Condition No. 26 that states that the applicant shall work with the abutting neighbors to mitigate any visual impacts associate with the car wash The first change would be to delete the word "abutting" and replace it with "nearby" He did not feel that noise and light were restricted to those neighbors that have contiguous properties Secondly, add the word "noise" after visual to read mitigate any visual or noise impacts associated with the car wash He then suggested adding Item No. 29 to further address noise to read "The applicant shall work with any neighbors who experience excessive noise from the car wash operation to mitigate noise levels exceeding 65 dbs on their property " This would put a restriction not only on the applicant's property line, but it would also protect the neighbors if the noise level exceeded 65 dbs on their property line. Commissioner Paris liked what Vice Chairman Lyon suggested, with the exception of the word "nearby". He felt the word was too vague and difficult to define Vice Chairman Lyon responded that because you could not define how far away sound travels before it is not a problem, nearby was a better choice of words. Also, the impact Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 4 E would have to be greater than 65 dbs, whether it occurs adjacent to the applicant's property or a quarter of a mile away Commissioner Vannorsdall very much supported Vice Chairman Lyon, but questioned whether the measurement should be taken at the applicant's property line Vice Chairman Lyon responded that if you do not take measurements at the applicant's property line he did not know how you could measure sound without going to every property in the neighborhood He felt it was unworkable unless you defined the measurement at a certain location Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that staff would, at some time during the first six months of operation, take sound measurements from the applicant's property line In addition, a condition could be added stating that if staff receives complaints regarding noise impacts from surrounding residences, the noise consultant shall also take readings from those residences Chairman Cartwright expressed his concern over the word "nearby" He did not know how that would be practically implemented and envisioned 150 people saying they think the noise at their property exceeded 150 dB Vice Chairman Lyon had a problem with the word "abutting" since in this case it meant only two properties He wanted to be sensitive to any resident who was experiencing a specific problem A discussion followed as to whether the noise readings should be made on the recipient's property line or the applicant's property line Vice Chairman Lyon suggested using the term "affected" rather than abutting or nearby The Commission agreed Commissioner Alberio discussed a letter from City Manager Paul Bussey to Mr Myers which specifically stated that the City Council had decided that no car washer of any type shall be permitted at the Mobil Station site Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that after the City Council approved the convenience store Mr Myers submitted a letter to the City asking for clarification regarding the car wash At that time Mr Myers felt that the prohibition of car washes on his site applied to mechanical car washes and that he could have a hand car wash without the need for a Conditional Use Permit. Then City Manager Paul Bussey responded that in reviewing the Conditional Use Permit Resolution and the minutes of the City Council meeting, the City Council did not approve a mechanical or hand car wash at that time and to get either one approved would require a Conditional Use Permit Revision and be subject to a Planning Commission hearing Vice Chairman Lyon moved to change the wording in Condition No. 26 to read "affected" rather than "abutting" and after the word "visual" add "or noise" so the condition will read "The applicant shall work with affected neighbors to Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 5 mitigate the visual or noise impacts associated with the car wash detailing use." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to remove the phrase "as measured from the applicant's property line" every place it occurs in Condition No. 27 and replace it with "any affected residents." A phrase should be added to the condition that specifies that these complaints should occur within 60 days from the start of operation of the car wash. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-03 adopting the Mitigated Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Alberio. Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-04 thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 182 — Revision 'B' and Sign Permit No. 720 - Revision "A' as amended, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:30 p.m. the Commission took a brief recess until 8:40 p.m. at which time they reconvened COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed the Filiorum property and Mr. York's access to the property. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation No. 885, Variance No. 451 and Grading Permit No. 2108: 5888 Mossbank Drive, Haddi Kurniawan. Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that this property was at one time part of a piece of property on Clint Place, which had been subdivided. The current owner was proposing a 4,292 square foot residence, garage, and attached accessory structure with 1,675 cubic yards of grading. The Variance was requested to allow for a reduction in the required 15 -foot rear yard setback to 5 -feet 8 -inches. He noted that in order to grant a Variance there must be some sort of physical hardship to the property. Staff believed that the property, in itself, does warrant a variance in that the lot has a restricted buildable area of only 5,000 square feet To get a house onto that pad there must be some sort of encroachment into the rear yard setback because the actual buildable area approved by the Planning Commission encroached into the setback area. In regards to the Variance and the Height Variation, staff did not feel Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 6 there were any visual constraints to the surrounding properties as there was adequate differences in elevations from the building pad and adjacent properties. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, the proposed residence was not significantly larger than the existing residences The driveway was proposed to cut across the restricted use area of the lot however staff was concerned that the area was restricted because of the extreme slopes. Staff suggested a driveway that cut straight across the property with a series of retaining walls and backfilling the area. Staff felt this was a better option than the previously proposed caissons, which could not be as easily screened. In summary, Mr. Mihranian stated that staff was recommending approval of the project, with conditions. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt the driveway was still a little steep and wondered if lowering the level of the garage would help Associate Planner Mihranian stated that they had looked at lowering the garage to reduce the steepness of the driveway, however unless the entire pad area were lowered, a split level structure would result with an over height structure of 39 feet. The applicant was concerned there would then be a significant number of stairs from the garage to the actual living area. Chairman Cartwright stated that the report indicates staff found no infringements of privacy nor had any of the neighbors complained about privacy, yet staff had recommended putting in a condition that a bathroom window be translucent. Mr. Cartwright asked staff their reasoning for that condition. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that it was added just to be extra cautious, especially since it was a bathroom window. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Ken Burrell 32614 Coastsite Drive stated that he was representing the owner of the property. He did not have much to add to the staff report other than the architect had clarified that the slope of the driveway was actually 14 percent . He stated he was at the meeting to answer any questions of the Commission Commissioner Slayden asked Mr. Burrell if the lot to the north of the applicant's was a buildable lot. Mr Burrell answered that the property to the north was not buildable, as it was over a 35 percent slope. However the property to the east is a buildable lot. Al Mashouf 5901 Clint Place stated that he had subdivided his property to create the lot on Mossbank Drive. He felt staff had been very thorough in their report and was very pleased with this plan. The proposed residence has very little impact on his residence or his neighbors He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 7 Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Mashouf where his property was in relationship to the applicant's. Mr. Mashouf responded that his residence was exactly next door and approximately 5 feet higher than the proposed residence. Robert Gibson, 26727 Basswood Avenue stated that very few people on Mossbank Drive or Clint Place will see this house. However the people across the canyon will see the whole fagade as a wall. He asked if the 6 -foot high retaining wall in the front yard was allowed under the Development Code He also wondered if the Development Code addressed the issue of tiers in the front yard to a height of 12 feet. He asked if there were any other residences in the City that used this type of design for retaining walls and if the project were approved would it set precedence for future development He understood that landscaping would be used to help mitigate the appearance of the walls and asked what the frequency of inspections would be that the City would perform to ensure compliance, and how would the inspections be carried out in the years to come. He stated that in order to obtain a true perspective of the intrusiveness of the driveway retaining walls he recommended that a framework with plywood facing be constructed on the site to actual dimensions. He also felt that with the proposed grading the existing silhouette did not truly represent the bulk of the protect. In regards to weed abatement, he explained that the County uses a caterpillar tractor and disc plow and comes up off of lower Mossbank Drive to grade the southerly portion of the Malaga Canyon. They then disassemble the equipment and take it to upper Mossbank Drive and enter the property either to the north or east of the applicant's property. He wondered how the tractor and plow were going to gain entrance to the upper portion once the house was built and asked the Commission to take that under consideration Associate Planner Mihranian explained that the area being discussed for weed abatement was private property In order to do the weed abatement the County must cross over an old road easement, which is now private property, and onto the property in question. Regarding Mr. Gibson's questions on the retaining walls the code does have criteria under the grading section that establishes parameters as to how high retaining walls can be depending on where on the property they are located As the staff report indicated, staff analyzed the proposed retaining wall in relation to the criteria established in the Development Code to see if the wall is excessive or if there are visual impacts then how those impacts would be addressed Staff felt that there would be some visual impact from the retaining wall, however they believed that landscaping would help camaflage it There was the option of a suspended driveway supported by cantilevers which staff did not feel was capable with the neighborhood, or the option of a series of retaining walls separated by landscaping that buffers, screens, and softens the wall. To be sure that the landscaping is implemented, conditions have been written to require the landscaping be planted at a mature height prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Any follow-up would be through code enforcement. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 8 Director/Secretary Rojas added that there are many properties in the City that have tiered retaining walls and this would in no way set precedent. Commissioner Alberio asked if the geology and soils reports for the property had been submitted and approved by the City. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that there was conceptual approval by the City Geologist for all of the alternatives proposed Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Clark felt that staff had done an exhaustive study of the project and the Commission had heard from an adjacent neighbor who felt very strongly the protect would be a benefit to the neighborhood The neighbor across the canyon had objections, however the property was a developable piece of property and he felt the project was well thought out Chairman Cartwright complimented the owner and architect on being responsive and sensitive to the issues of the neighbors. He felt the landscaping would help soften the view of the retaining walls, and if it did not it should be brought to the City's attention through the Code Enforcement Division Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-05 thereby approving Variance No. 451, Height Variation No. 885, and Grading Permit No. 2108 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 209 and Environmental Assessment No. 718: 27733 Hawthorne Blvd., Richard Pimentel Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the application had been withdrawn by the applicant and staff was asking the Commission receive and file the report acknowledging the withdrawal. Commissioner Slayden moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Clark. The motion was approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 2000. Vice Chairman Lyon and Commissioner Vannorsdall stated they would not be at the February 22, 2000 meeting Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 9 IP 0 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting on February 21, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Page 10