Loading...
PC MINS 20150127 Approved February 25 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TV REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:03 p.m. at Point Vicente Interpretive Center, 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their January 20th meeting the City Council did not address the Green Hills matter as scheduled, and instead continued the matter to a future unspecified date. He also reported that at their upcoming February 3rd meeting the City Council will continue its discussion on the Villa Rosa project appeal as well as the use of the mediator for the Sprucegrove project. Lastly, Director Rojas reported that on March 31d the City Council is tentatively set to appoint new Chairs to the City Commissions. Director Rojas reminded the Commission of the upcoming Planning Commissioner Academy in March. He also distributed one letter of late correspondence for agenda item No. 3 and five letters of late correspondence for agenda item No. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of December 9, 2014 Minutes 2. A roval of Januar V 13, 2015 Minutes Commissioner Cruikshank moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Golden Cove Center Master Sinn Program review (Case No. ZON2014- 00124): 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report. She briefly reviewed the updated sign requests, noting that several of the previous requests have been eliminated. She stated that staff was available for any questions from the Commission. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Tucson Zarrabian (applicant) stated that this current submittal takes into account the comments made by the Commission at the previous meetings. He also noted that majority of the requests in this current submittal are things the tenants want and feel they need. He hoped the tenants appreciated the work that has gone into this and will follow the sign program requirements. In regards to the temporary banners, he noted that the Municipal Code allows temporary banners for thirty days, every one hundred and twenty days, and asked if that can be used in the sign program rather than the currently proposed one year restriction. He also referred to condition No. 44 in regards to free-standing signs. He explained there are several tenants in Building A, however only two signs are allowed, and this may lead to completion between the tenants for the use of one of the free-standing signs. He also did not see Starbucks or Trader Joe's using a free-standing sign, and suggested that the condition be modified so that if a particular tenant from a different building is not using their sign, a tenant from another building could then use that sign. He explained that the total number of free-standing signs would not increase, but rather not be as restrictive as to who can use them. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Zarrabian how many free-standing signs he felt would be appropriate for Building A. Mr. Zarrabian answered that, taking into account the design of the common area and the shape of the building, three to four signs might be appropriate. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Zarrabian how many tenants are in Building A. Planning commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 2 Mr. Zarrabian answered there are approximately 30 tenants in Building A. Vice Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Zarrabian how he is addressing the concerns of the residents at Villa Capri in regards to lighting. Mr. Zarrabian stated that he will agree to whatever condition the Planning Commission places on the signs that may affect Villa Capri residents. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff what conditions have been included to address this lighting. Associate Planner Mikhail read the condition of approval, which states that new signage along the northern fagade of the Admiral RistyNellow Vase building that faces Villa Capri shall not be illuminated. Mr. Zarrabian stated he was in agreement with that condition. Commissioner Gerstner asked about lighting on the south side of Building A. Associate Planner Mikhail stated there was no lighting restrictions on the south side of Building A, also noting there is no signage proposed in that area. She pointed out that the signage on the southwest portion of Building A is proposed to be illuminated, as the majority of it faces Palos Verdes Drive West. Commissioner James asked Mr. Zarrabian to clarify how many free standing signs he was proposing to be allowed for Building A. Mr. Zarrabian explained that the original condition allowed for a maximum of ten signs for the entire property was a condition he agreed with. He added that if the City would rather have two free-standing signs allowed for Building A, he was in agreement as long as tenants from Building A could also use a sign at any of the other buildings. However, if the Commission does not want a tenant from Building A to use a sign at Building B, then he would prefer to have more signage at Building A. He felt four signs would be helpful, but three was being requested. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the current submittal does not allow for free- standing signs and this is a new request that came about from the tenants and the applicant. She noted that this is the first time condition No. 44 has been before the Commission for consideration, and staff feels the signage should be in proximity to the tenant space. She also felt that staff would be amenable to allowing three or four additional free-standing signs for Building A because there are so many more tenants in that building. Mr. Zarrabian did not think it was necessary to restrict the free-standing sign to an area in front of the business being advertised. He felt it the condition is not modified that the Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 3 tenants in Building A will continue to place illegal free-standing signs throughout the property. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Zarrabian how he was going to ensure these free- standing signs were not going to be falling over, which then may create a safety issue. Mr. Zarrabian showed a photo of the type of sign he has selected, and explained the free-standing sign would be of metal construction and is weighted at the bottom. Commissioner Cruikshank was concerned that this did not look sufficient to hold up the sign during some of the strong winds that can be in the area. He questioned if there was a way to weigh these signs down with some type of nice looking weighted system. Mr. Zarrabian felt that weight could be added inside the metal, possibly more metal could be added, or some type of custom fabrication to make the signs heavier. Commissioner Cruikshank felt a condition of approval could be added that ensures these signs will be weighted and safe. Commissioner Gerstner commented that if the Commission felt the Center could handle ten free-standing signs, then he wasn't concerned what they say or where they are placed. He felt that trying to restrict a specific sign within 30 feet of the business is a bit too restrictive. Vice Chairman Nelson questioned why there are currently signs on every light pole in the Center advertising Urgent Care. Mr. Zarrabian felt that the tenant wanted to have some exposure and felt this was a way to do so without having the signs stand out too much. Vice Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Zarrabian if he was willing to make that same opportunity available to every tenant in the Center. Mr. Zarrabian stated that staff is asking him to have those signs removed. He noted that he has asked the tenant to remove the signs, and if they are not removed the, property manager will have the signs removed. Claire Eal (representing Villa Capri HOA) stated that she is here with five other members of the HOA, not to support or oppose the presentation, but rather to get more clarification. She noted a petition that was presented to staff and the Commission signed by over twenty residents expressing concern over any signs, especially lighted signs that may impact the residents of Villa Capri. She questioned any signage that may be placed on the southwest fagade of Building A, especially if they are illuminated. Associate Planner Mikhail referenced page 35 of the staff report and page 16 of the Master Sign Program, and pointed out the proposed new tenant signs. She explained Planning Commission Minutes January27,2015 Page 4 that the only time a sign will be allowed in this area is if the tenant is actually located in there and this is the front entrance to their business. She stated that these signs are proposed to be illuminated, with the exception of Ofies. Chairman Leon pointed out an end unit at Villa Capri where he felt the unit may be able to see the face of Building A where there is illumination. Ms. Ealy added that this resident was unable to attend this meeting, however he has expressed concern because it is an end unit with windows that would catch any light on that portion of the building. He had expressed the opinion that most of these tenants would most likely close by sunset and did not know what benefit would be gained by illuminating the signs. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that during several site visits staff determined that illuminated signage on the end of Building A would not impact the tenant in question, as most of the signage overlooks the animal hospital and staff did not see any main windows that would be affected. However, when staff walked along the back of Building A where Ofies is located, staff felt that illuminated signs would impact some residents at Villa Capri. Mary Loui Xenos (62 Via Capri) stated she lives in the front of Villa Capri and any illuminated signs on the second story of Building A would be visible from her home. She noted that light does not just go forward, but goes everywhere and therefore her unit would get the light that spills over. She requested that the Planning Commission not allow illuminated light that would affect the quality of life of the residents at Villa Capri. Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Xenos what would happen if the Commission requires the lights be turned off at 9 p.m. Ms. Xenos stated that would be nice, but did not feel it would take the place of having no illuminated signs. Kevan Bunting clarified that in the units at Villa Capri that are being discussed, the bedrooms are on the second floor, and the bedrooms on the end unit would be directly affected by the signage being proposed. He also noted that the vegetation in the area is only six feet tall, so it would not screen any light to these second floor windows. He also explained that the Admiral Risty is the only business that turns their sign off at night, and the other businesses in the complex leave their lights on 24/7. He asked that there be no illuminated signs on the back of Building A. Joe,Payne (44 Via Capri) stated the reflection of light from the shopping center is significant and radiates into the Villa Capri community. He noted that since the opening of Ave Italy there has been a great increase in the amount of light and activity in the alleyway access. He did not see how this lighting would be effecting as an advertising Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 5 draw to incidental traffic on Palos Verdes Drive West. He felt it can only add to the overall light pollution in a calm bedroom community. Paris Zarrabian (in rebuttal) stated there is a commercial property next to Golden Cove that does have lights on until late at night, and therefore not all of the lighting in the area belongs to Golden Cove. Chairman Leon felt that the size of Building A could accommodate more free-standing signs that the other buildings in the shopping center. Commissioner Tomblin stated that, given the unfavorable history of the free-standing signs on the property, he would be much more comfortable accommodating Mr. Zarrabian's request if the location of the proposed free-standing signs were noted on the site plan. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Zarrabian if the majority of the signs are actually left on 24/7. Mr. Zarrabian answered that he was not certain. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Zarrablan if he would be amenable to a set time when the lights in the center would have to be turned off. Mr. Zarrabian answered that he would prefer not to. Commissioner Emenhiser felt the Commission should support the businesses at Golden Cove, noting they are an asset to the City. He also felt that both the presentations and the plans have vastly improved over the past year. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to accept the items in the proposed Master Plan that staff supported or supported with conditions, with the modifications that Building A be allowed to have four free-standing signs, there be no illumination of signs facing Villa Capri, and that the free-standing signs be weighted, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Associate Planner Mikhail asked Commissioner Emenhiser to clarify his motion regarding the non-illuminated signage and if the motion was referring to the signs facing Villa Capri as well as the signs along the southwest fagade of Building A, or if he was referring to just the signs on Building A facing Villa Capri. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that staff had stated numerous times that there will be no new illuminated signs facing Villa Capri, and he is reinforcing that with his motion. He noted that his motion does not include the signs on the southwest fagade of Building A. Commissioner Tomblin moved a friendly amendment to the motion that the signs on the southwest facade of Building A not be illuminated. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 6 Commissioner Emenhiser accepted the friendly amendment, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. The motion to approve the sign program as modified, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2015-02 was approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Appeal of Director's decision denying a Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00526): 29073 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report and explained the scope of the proposed project. She also explained the two particular areas of the project staff felt created impacts. She noted the applicant was proposing to increase the grade along the northeast side of the residence in order to meet the 30 foot height requirement. In doing so, an eight foot high retaining wall was required in the area, which staff felt created a bulk and mass impact. Staff also felt the overall size of the proposed structure was too large, as it is proposed to be over 2,000 square feet larger than the largest home in the neighborhood. Staff felt that when combining the overall structure size with the increased height of the residence and the large retaining walls, this creates an increase in bulk and mass when looking from neighboring properties. She also explained that, overall, staff felt the design of the residence was nice but perhaps some additional setbacks would be necessary. She stated that staff was unable to support the current project before the Commission and therefore denied the Grading Permit application. She stated that the applicant hoped the Commission may have a different perspective on this particular project, however if the Commission agrees with staff they would like to have the opportunity to redesign the project and would like direction from the Commission in doing so. Commissioner Cruikshank noted the comment in the staff report that there could be no grading in the Flood Hazard Zone on the property, however he asked if there could be grading with some type of study showing the grading would not increase the flood hazard. Director Rojas responded that some grading may be allowed, however nothing is allowed in that zone in terms of development. He explained that staff would rely on a hydrology report submitted by the applicant that specifically says what can and cannot be done in that specific zone, Commissioner Emenhiser noted that it appears the applicant has met the required setbacks and asked staff to clarify why they felt increased setbacks might be needed. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff was referring to the setbacks of the structure. She stated that staff felt increasing the setbacks on either side of the structure would help to further articulate the structure and eliminate some of the grading and overall bulk and mass of the structure. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 7 Commissioner Leon opened the public hearing. Paul Chen (applicant) stated he purchased this property because it is on a quiet street and very close to the Miraleste Library. He also stated that he intends to build a home that his family deserves. He acknowledged that his proposal is substantially larger than the surrounding homes, however he noted that most of those houses were built 40 to 60 years ago. He asked that the Planning Commission approve this project because his family needs it and it meets the codes. Raul Podesta (architect) explained there are many reasons Mr. Chen bought this vacant lot, but the most important is that he would like to meet the needs of his family and he also needs a four car garage. He explained that Mr. Chen was willing to give up the view he has from his current residence if he could provide views from the master bedroom and living room. He felt this presented many challenges because of the many constraints on the property. Taking all of the client's requirements and the restrictions on the lot into account, he felt that this is a good design and one that complies with the current codes and specifications. He stated that he and his clients have carefully read staff report recommendations and are open to addressing any concerns raised by the Director, the neighbors, and the Commission. He stated that he needed clarification on the second floor and what the allowable square footage would be for that area. He also asked for recommendations from the Planning Commission on how they would like to see the bulk and mass reduced. He asked that the Planning Commission grant him extra time to try to redesign the project to take into account everyone's concerns. Commissioner Emenhiser felt this was a difficult situation in that this appears to be one of the smaller lots in the area yet this design will result in the largest home in the neighborhood. He stated that he has concerns with bulk and mass as well as neighborhood compatibility. He asked Mr. Podesta if he felt there was a way to modify the design so that it will be closer to those in the neighborhood and also require less grading. Mr. Podesta answered that the grading was not an issue. He explained that the reason he designed the elevation the way he did, noting the grade of the lot goes one way and the view goes another way. He stated the he understands the staff's concerns, but he also has to respect the needs and wishes of his client. In regards to the bulk and mass, he felt that it could be softened however it would have to be studied a bit more and his client would have to agree to the changes. A. Thomas Hall (29075 Palos Verdes Drive East) stated his property is directly in front of the subject property. He referred to a letter he sent to staff dated January 18, 2015, and also noted that he is representing the five residences surrounding the Chen property. He explained that all of the houses in the neighborhood are between 1,554 and 2,745 square feet in size. He felt that the house Mr. Chen is proposing would be a non-conforming structure to the neighborhood dynamics and would have an adverse effect and negative financial impact to the surrounding properties in the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 8 He felt the proposal lacked neighborhood compatibility, and was concerned with the lack of setbacks, the height, and could potentially block the current views of the neighbors behind and beside the residence. He stated that he and the neighbors were not opposed to Mr. Chen building on the lot, but would like to see him attempt to conform to the neighborhood architecture, style, and ambiance in the neighborhood. He asked that the Commission uphold the Director's decision. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Hall what would be acceptable to him in terms of a compatible size and design. Mr. Hall answered that the proposed structure is 2 to 5 times larger than any home in the neighborhood, and the existing homes are a ranch style type home. If the proposed home were to be more of a single-story ranch style home he felt that would be more compatible. Vice Chairman Nelson stated that he drove through the neighborhood and found homes that have nothing more than signs that say trespassers will be dealt with. He saw homes boarded up, homes that are painted red, and roads that basically do not exist and questioned how emergency equipment could get up the road. Yet Mr. Hall was requiring compatibility, and he was sure the applicant did not want to build a red house with no trespassing signs. He felt it was time for the neighborhood to change, and felt that sometimes the neighbors have to accept that. He asked Mr. Hall how he would quantify this neighborhood. Mr. Hall noted that the red house has been a point of contention in the neighborhood for many years. He stated that this is a neighborhood of ranch style homes. Ken Swenson (28981 Palos Verdes Drive East) stated that most of the houses in the neighborhood are nice homes and my any measure, this particular project is well out of scale with the neighborhood, He felt that neighborhood compatibility exists to protect the character of the neighborhood and the quality of life for the people who live in it. He stated this neighborhood carries the semi-rural, historical Miraleste feel where one can still find horses and other animals. He stated there are not too many hotel size residences in the area. He acknowledged that Mr. Chen is entitled to build something on his lot, however he did not feel the Planning Commission is required to allow him to building whatever he wants there. He asked the Commission uphold the Director's decision. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Swenson if he had any suggestions or recommendations as to what he would like to see built. Mr. Swenson couldn't answer the question in terms of square footage or size, as he felt these things are interrelated, noting that there can be a lot of square footage but the house seems smaller than it is because of the way it is put into the ground or the way its spread out over the lot. He explained that when looks out of his windows he sees the Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 9 mountains, and he would like to see something built on the Chen lot that minimizes that view impact. Eva Cicoria stated she echoed everything the last speaker said, but added that she would like to see the square footage limited to something around 3,000 square feet. She stated that this is one of the last lots in the area and did not want to see a precedence set for other to add on to their homes or tear down and rebuild new homes. She did not want to lose the feel of her neighborhood. Mr. Podesta (in rebuttal) stated he was available for any additional questions. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Podesta if there was any reason he couldn't lower the structure more into the ground. Mr. Podesta answered that if he were to design a house with a two-car garage he most likely could lower the structure. However, the property owner feels he requires a four- car garage. He stated that changing the driveway configuration to meet Fire Department approvals would not work, as there is not enough room on the property. He also noted that lowering the home would change the view corridor for the neighbor, and the neighbor would lose more of his view. Commissioner Tomblin stated he initially supports staffs recommendation and felt that a house of no more than 5,000 square feet would most likely be acceptable to him in terms of neighborhood compatibility, but that would depend on how he brought the height of the house down. He also noted there is a privacy issue to the neighbor's behind the property. He felt that cutting down the height of the house, the number of balconies, and the windows overlooking the property should be considered. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that the application before the Commission is a Grading Permit, due to the topography, and that there is not a privacy finding that must be made for this particular application. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Emenhiser commented that this is a classic case of a homeowner who has a vacant lot and truly wants to build their dream house. Unfortunately, this dream house is not compatible with the lot. He felt that unless there is a substantial redesign and reduction of what is proposed, he did not think the house would ever be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the best solution may be to try to start fresh by adding some new concepts and possibly losing some of the current concepts to see what else really can work at this site. He felt that to build a house that is over 5,000 square feet on this lot will be extremely difficult to meet neighborhood compatibility. He did feel that Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 10 entering the property from the bottom side as opposed to the top side will likely reduce the bulk and mass, Commissioner James agreed with the prior comments, adding that it appears to him that this may not be the right place for the owner's dream home. He did not feel the owner appeared willing to reduce the size of the home, and he did not see such a large home fitting into this neighborhood. He did not think the current proposal was anywhere close to being compatible with the neighborhood. He understood what the property owner wants, and he sees what the neighborhood is, and he did not think they currently come very close to matching. Commissioner Cruikshank felt that, in looking at the grading plan, the engineer tried to balance the grading, however he did not think balanced grading was what the Commission was talking about in terms of compatibility. He noted that the north elevation was a real problem for the Commission and felt there were many options available to the architect to eliminate such a large wall. He also felt the architect could potentially move the driveway to get the house more into the ground. He also felt that staff gave the applicant a good starting point in looking at why they recommended denial in the first place. Vice Chairman Nelson stated he agreed with all of the previous comments. He stated that compatibility is not a booklet, but rather it is being at the site and taking a look at what is out there. Chairman Leon also agreed with the previous comments. He felt that this side of the City has a semi-rural atmosphere, and is defined by open space, views, and houses which are more of a ranch style. Director Rojas clarified that the motion references staff recommendation, and that staff's recommendation is to provide direction to the applicant on what the Commission wants to do and continue the public hearing to the next meeting. He noted that the applicant has stated in their request that if there is a continuance it be at least 45 days out to give them some time, which would be a March loth meeting date. He stated that if the Commission's direction is for the applicant to redesign the project, March 1 Oth would be the date to continue the meeting to. However, given the concerns raised by the Commission, he noted option No. 2 which is for the Commission to direct staff to come back with a denial recommendation. In addition, after hearing the Commission's comments this evening the applicant may choose to withdraw the application. With that, Commissioner Emenhiser modified his motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the applicant that they redesign the project to address their concerns, and continue the public hearing to March 10, 2015, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion was approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 11 S. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON205-00003): 37 Cherry Hill Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the City Council has made a policy to try to obtain as many tax defaulted properties in the landslide as possible, and this is the latest property that has gone on the market. He stated that the City Council has instructed staff to purchase the property, however before that can be done the Planning Commission must make a finding that doing so is consistent with the General Plan. He stated that staff believes it is consistent with the General Plan as it prevents development of the vacant lot which is in the active landslide and can facilitate any Public Works landslide abatement activities that may be needed in the area. With that, staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution before them. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to adopt the staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved without objection and PC Resolution 2015-03 was adopted. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 10, 2016 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 27,2015 Page 12