Loading...
PC MINS 20141209 Approved 1/27/2015 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )(111 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 9, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Emenhiser led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: Commissioner Gerstner was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Kim, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Administrative Analyst Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas noted there were no items to report from the November 18 and December 2, 2014 City Council meetings. He stated that on December 16, 2014 the City Council will hear an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project on Villa Rosa Drive, and the Commission's decision regarding Green Hills was appealed by Green Hills and will be heard by the City Council on January 20tH Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1; one item for agenda item No. 2; and two items for agenda item No. 5. He also noted that in January both of the Planning Commission meetings will be held at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Commissioner Tomblin reported that he had three conversations with residents and one with a City Council member in regards to the height of the stone walls that are being placed at the site of a project under construction on Crestridge Road. t Y COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE iregarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Golden Cove Center Master Sign Program review (Case No. ZON2014- 00124): 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief background on this item and noting that a new revised sign program has been submitted by the applicant, which is now before the Commission. She explained there is a power point presentation that can be utilized if the Commission desires, and displayed a Table that shows the existing program language, the proposed requests, and whether or not the request is supported by staff. She stated that staff is seeking feedback and direction from the Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there was a way to highlight what was different on this submittal as opposed to what the Commission saw at the last meeting. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that this is technically a different application than what was previously presented to the Commission, noting there are some similar items as well as items that have been fully removed. She felt that the applicant has tried to take what the Commission discussed at the previous meeting and reduced the sign program in scale, however she noted there are still some items that staff cannot support on this request. Commissioner James noted that there are a couple of recommendations in the staff report that would allow citations to be issued by the City. He questioned if issuing citations to individual tenants owners would increase the burden to the City in regards to enforcement. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the citations are allowed to be issued now to the property owner for any sign violation. This language is intended to note said citation authority the conditions of approval. Director Rojas added that staff does not feel citations would be a burden, noting this is one of the tools staff has for enforcement. He explained that once there is an approved program and there is a sign in violation, staff will issue a warning letter before a citation is issued. Commissioner James noted in the staff report it is pointed out that the Development Code regulates the total area of window signage to five percent, and the recommendation by staff that the Commission allow that to be increased to ten percent. He asked staff what the standard would be to allow that variation from the Code. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 2 r t Associate Planner Mikhail explained that one of the efforts of the program is to enhance the economic effectiveness of any one identification device. She stated that some tenants at Golden Cove have expressed the concern that they don't have enough signage on their store fronts. In addition, some of the businesses are tucked away in corners or not in plain view from the parking lot. She stated that staff agrees there may be a need for a bit more window signage for those tenants, however noted that the proposed twenty-five percent might be too much. Commissioner James explained that one of the problems he has with the entire application is that, clearly all of the tenants want more signage. However, the Commission has to determine what standard to apply in determining when there is too much signage. He noted that this application is asking for a great deal of additional signage and it was not clear to him where what standard to apply when making that decision. Director Rojas agreed, explaining that a proliferation of signs is a subjective determination. He explained that previous Commissions have acted on previous sign program requests based on visiting the center, what has been there in the past, and what other centers are doing. Associate Planner Mikhail added that the sign program allows for slight deviations from the Code, the findings for the Sign Permit have to be made to ensure there is not an excessive amount of signage. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff to clarify the colors allowed on the signs. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that each tenant is allowed to use the color bottle green. She added that the only time the tenant can deviate from this color is when they have a nationally registered logo, noting Subway has yellow in their sign. She further explained that if a tenant wants a color other than bottle green in their sign, and their logo is not nationally recognized, they would have to come before the Planning Commission for approval, similar to the Admiral Risty sign. Commissioner Tomblin commented that this is still a very confusing sign package. He felt there were too many discrepancies in the package and noted that he would not be able to approve it. Tucson Zarrabian (applicant) explained that the last time the sign program revision was presented to the Commission it was simply a lot of ideas from the tenants and the landlords that were put together to see what direction the Commission would give. He felt this revision has been reduced quite a bit from the originally presented revision. In reviewing the staff report, he commented that staff was recommending temporary banners for 30 consecutive days. He requested temporary banners be allowed to remain for 45 to 60 days. In regards to the freestanding signs, he explained that the tenants would be allowed some freestanding signs and the management would be allowed some freestanding signs. He noted staff's proposed conditions for menu Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 3 • boards, and felt 3'0" x 2'-6" was a bit small but would agree to it. He stated that four square feet for the "For Lease" banners was too small. In regards to additional window signage, he explained that he has requested 25% of the window area for signage to allow for the businesses that are tucked away or a bit hidden to have more exposure. In reviewing section 7, sign type B, he explained this came about because of Yellow Vase and Asaka and their need for additional signage. He was in agreement with No. 8 in the staff report. He stated that No. 9 was an idea from the tenants. Vice Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Zarrabian if he has reviewed the proposed signage with all of the tenants. Mr. Zarrabian answered that he has gone to each of the tenants and asked them what they would like to do in terms of signage, he received feedback, and he narrowed it down from there. Vice Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Zarrabian to explain the proposed Medical Plaza sign, questioning how many tenants were actually related to medicine. Mr. Zarrabian answered there is a MedSpa, Urgent Care, pharmacy, dentist, a possible optometrist, and Peak Performance. He felt this building was more of an office type building and he would like to attract more medical type businesses. Mary Lou Xenos stated that as a resident of the Villa Capri Homeowners Association, she was concerned with illumination and light spilling onto their property. She specifically noted the proposed lighting for Ofies and Yellow Vase. She was concerned that there may be illumination spilling onto her property and violating their right to a quiet and dark evening. She asked the Commission to keep that in consideration. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify what signs will be placed near the Admiral Risty. Associate Planner Mikhail showed the location of proposed signage at the back side of Yellow Vase and near the entrance of the Admiral Risty. She explained the applicant's intention are that these sign locations are used if additional tenant spaces become available. In terms of the proposed signage at Ofies, she explained that staff was supporting the signage but that it be non-illuminated. Director Rojas noted that the façade being discussed faces the Villa Capri condominiums, and noted the location of the condos that may be affected. Kevan Bunting stated he was a representative of the Villa Capri HOA, and that many residents have approached him with their concerns about additional signage and lighting at Golden Cove. He stated that Villa Capri residents enjoy their evening views and would not like to see it disturbed by more illuminated signs. He stated that he recently counted 57 signs at Golden Cove and questioned how many more were needed. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 4 Tucson Zarrabian (in rebuttal) agreed that the signage at Ofies should not be illuminated. However, he noted that not illuminating the Yellow Vase sign may give the impression that the business is not operating and occupied. He noted the Yellow Vase sign will be the only sign not illuminated, if the Commission decides not to allow it. He explained that halo lighting is what is used in the shopping center, and is probably one of the least liked signage by businesses, as it can hardly be seen and the light is reduced significantly. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify the request to allow additional signage for businesses. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the request is to allow tenants to have, in addition to their primary identification sign, additional supplemental signs if there is a sign location that is not occupied at an adjacent location. She stated staff could see the benefit of supplemental signage if it was requested for Yellow Vase only along Palos Verdes Drive West because there is only one tenant along that façade. However, allowing every tenant at Golden Cove to occupy multiple sign spaces with supplemental signs begins to be chaotic, and therefore staff could not support this request. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that Yellow Vase occupies a space that once was three spaces and he could understand how supplemental signage at this location would be helpful. He wondered if there was a way to make an exception for Yellow Vase, given they have three spaces. Associate Planner Mikhail responded that the Commission can specify that Yellow Vase is allowed supplemental signage along the façade facing Palos Verdes Drive West, and staff would be able to support such a recommendation. Vice Chairman Nelson felt that it would be beneficial for the tenants to get their name on the large sign on Palos Verdes Drive West, but noted that was not part of this proposal. He asked if there had been any thought to changing that sign so that it was similar to the sign on Hawthorne Boulevard. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the sign on Palos Verdes Drive West is a legal non-conforming sign, as it does not meet the height requirements for signs, and the applicant would like to maintain the sign. She noted, however, that the applicant thought the Planning Commission may be amenable to additional signage on this sign, and staff agrees with what has been proposed by the applicant for this sign. She noted that staff may not be in agreement with extending the signage all the way down to the grade. In response to the concerns voiced by residents at Villa Capri, Vice Chairman Nelson asked if it was possible to have the lit signs on a timer so that they turn off at 10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 5 Director Rojas answered that it was not uncommon for conditions to require certain signs to be turned off at a certain time. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to accept the sign program as presented by the applicant, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion to allow the Yellow Vase supplemental signage along Palos Verdes Drive West, the elimination of lighting in the Center of signs wih the potential for interference to the residents at Villa Capri, and that the approval for the medical building is included. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendments. Director Rojas clarified that the motion was to accept the program as presented by the applicant, notwithstanding staff's position or comments. Vice Chairman Nelson stated his motion was to approve the program as presented by the applicant. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion to approve those signs supported or supported with modifications by the staff, supplemental signage for Yellow Vase, and consideration of the Villa Capri residents for lighted signage approval. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment. Chairman Leon moved to amend the motion to require any sandwich board type signage be uniform throughout the Center. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment. Director Rojas referred to the photo of temporary free-standing signs, noting that currently the only uniformity proposed is that they be no taller than 3'6", and that Chairman Leon was suggesting the style of the free-standing signs be uniform. In looking at the photo, Commissioner Emenhiser suggested the temporary free- standing signs be required to follow the design in the first option. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment. Commissioner James stated that he was concerned about the total amount of signage being proposed. While being sympathetic with the applicant and his attempts to please the tenants, he felt the current submittal had too many banners and signs proposed for no particular reason other than the tenants would like them. He felt a tighter set of proposals and rules was needed and would like to see this matter continued to January to allow the applicant the opportunity to tighten up the proposals. He felt the current proposal was a bit too much and a bit too haphazard. Commissioner Emenhiser explained that the Commission has been working with Golden Cove signage for quite some time and have heard from the tenants on Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 6 f numerous occasions about some of the difficulties in operating a business at Golden Cove. He felt that, given the fact that with this proposal there is cooperation from the tenants and that there is a vast improvement in this proposal he was in support of the motion. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner James in that there has been a significant improvement in this submittal, however there was still quite a bit of language that could be cleaned up and could not support the motion at this time. Chairman Leon also could not support the motion, explaining that because of the proliferation of signage he was more in line with staffs position to reduce the number of proposed signs. Commissioner Cruikshank liked the idea that the banners would be eliminated from the program, as he felt the rest of the signage should be sufficient. He also did not think this proposal was as clean as it could be and would rather continue the item to January to allow the applicant and staff the opportunity to present a clearer application. He therefore could not support the current motion. Chairman Leon stated that there are a handful of businesses with a legitimate need for alternate signage, and the signage plan should allow for that. However, the plan currently is trying to expand the signs for everyone in the Center rather than for the handful that need it. Director Rojas repeated the motion to approve the requested revisions as presented by the applicant with the exception of item Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 9 which are not supported by staff. Additionally, the lighting concerns of Villa Capri be addressed and supplemental signage for Yellow Vase be added. Commissioner Cruikshank was concerned with sandwich board signs that are clearly in the ADA path of travel, and felt the signage program should have the paths of travel included so the tenants will know where and where not to place signs. He asked that be a part of the sign package. Vice Chairman Nelson and Commissioner Emenhiser agreed to the amendment. Director Rojas explained that if the motion passes, the item will return on January 13 with a finalized program and resolution to formally adopt the program. The motion failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Cruikshank, James, Tomblin, and Chairman Leon dissenting. Commissioner James moved to continue the public hearing to January and asked the applicant to modify the proposed sign program to take into account some of the comments by the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 7 Commissioner Cruikshank reiterated that he would like to see the path of travel in the next submittal for the Commission to review. Commissioner James stated that he strongly supports the concerns of Villa Capri residents and does not see any reason for illumination in that direction. He also did not understand the need for Yellow Vase to have a sign on the north side of the building, but supported their request for additional signage on the south side of the building. He did not support the increase in square footage requests or the larger For Lease banners. He supported most of staffs suggested modifications to the sign program. Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Leon agreed with Commissioner James' comments. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. 2. Coastal Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2014-00332): 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South Administrative Analyst Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief background and scope of the project. He stated that since the last public hearing staff received additional comments in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, offering a number of suggestions on issues related to the operation of the proposed project, which staff has incorporated into the conditions of approval. In addition, a significant issue was raised in regards to portions of the existing site improvements and their potential encroachment into Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. He explained the Coastal Commission was concerned with the Planning Commission taking action on this project without knowing exactly how much of an encroachment there was on the City's parkland. He also noted that subsequent to distribution of tonight's agenda, staff had further conversations with the Coastal Commission and additional modifications have been made to some of the draft conditions of approval, which was distributed to the Commission as late correspondence. He stated that the applicant had the property surveyed, and unfortunately the survey showed the encroachment being more extensive than originally believed, although it appears to be limited to the original driveways for the property. He noted that, as explained in the staff report, a lot line adjustment appears to be the most feasible means to correct these encroachments in a timely manner. Mr. Fox briefly reviewed the conditions of approval and the Resolution before the Commission. He stated that staff felt all of the necessary findings to approve the requested Coastal Permit and Conditional Use Permit can be made, and that appropriate conditions of approval and mitigation measures will be imposed upon the approval to ensure the general public health, safety, and welfare are protected. With that, staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff what type of liability will be placed on the City if the museum is opened and the driveways that are on City property are in use. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 8 Administrative Analyst Fox answered that condition No. 21 was added that acknowledges the driveways currently exist on City property and the applicants are being allowed to be use the City property until such time as the Lot Line Adjustment is approved. He felt a condition of approval could be drafted requiring the applicant to indemnify the City if necessary. Director Rojas explained the property is technically not owned by the City but rather the Successor Agency to the RDA, but nonetheless a condition could be added to require a Hold Harmless Agreement or an indemnification or other equivalent process that will go with the temporary approval of that use. Commissioner Cruikshank referred to the condition regarding temporary amplified sound and music. He asked how the sound system would be installed in such a manner that speakers would be directed toward the subject property and away from surrounding residents. Administrative Analyst Fox answered that the intent of the condition was that multiple speakers would be directed pointed inwards towards the center of the property and not out towards surrounding properties. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if additional language should be added regarding sound decibels. Director Rojas responded that the City has done that with certain projects, but noted that events on this property would be ones of less than 50 people congregating in the house or the immediate vicinity of the house. He explained that staff felt the amplification could be done in a way so that it is blocked by the current layout of the buildings. He also noted that there is a condition of approval requiring a six-month review, at which time if there are amplification issues they can be addressed. Commissioner Cruikshank understood, however he was concerned that there should be some type of threshold to hold the applicants to in terms of compliance. Director Rojas stated this can be added to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Tomblin felt it was important for the City to be consistent, noting that if there is language in place for the Event Garden in terms of amplification, that could also be used for this venue. Director Rojas noted that for the Event Garden there was a very detailed noise study done and a requirement for follow-up noise measurements to confirm the assumptions. He stated that with that there is not a decibel standard imposed on the Event Garden events because it has already proven to not be a problem. Because the subject property is a much smaller venue, he suggested adding language that allows staff to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the amplification, and make adjustments based on staff's observations. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 9 Commissioner Emenhiser discussed the traffic safety issues, explaining his concerns with the blind hill coming up from the San Pedro area and the possible potential for rear- end collisions. He asked staff if Public Works has looked at the traffic safety issues. Administrative Analyst Fox answered that Public Works staff have not looked at this since the nature of the use did not rise to the level that would warrant review by the Traffic Safety Committee. Director Rojas added that Public Works staff can monitor the traffic situation during the first six months and make adjustments if they feel they are warranted. Vice Chairman Nelson noted that the Traffic Safety Committee has launched a study of Palos Verdes Drive South for the purpose of how to redirect the traffic in a safe manner, and he felt it would be wise to forward these minutes expressing the traffic concerns to the Traffic Safety Committee. Charlotte Ginsburg stated she was available for questions. Commission James asked Mrs. Ginsburg if the approach of a land swap was an approach she was amenable to. Mrs. Ginsburg felt it was reasonable, noting there is a year to work out the conditions. Chairman Leon asked Mrs. Ginsburg if there were any conditions of approval she was not in agreement with and would like to have changed or modified. Mrs. Ginsburg felt all of the conditions of approval sounded workable and made sense. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Director Rojas clarified that, based on Commission discussion, he recommended language be added to condition No. 21 that requires a Hold Harmless Agreement to be executed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Attorney to protect the City and the Successor Agency from liability as a result of temporary use of the City property. In addition, he recommended adding a condition No. 31a that if amplified sound or music is causing adverse impacts to neighboring properties, the applicant shall take steps as required by the Community Development Director to eliminate the noise impacts. Commissioner Emenhiser accepted the staff's advice to add the above language to the motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. The motion to certify the Negative Declaration as recommended by staff, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-31, and approving the project as modified by adopting PC Resolution 2014-32 was approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2014-00276): 6414 Via de Anzar Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation and Grading Permit. She explained that the code requires view assessment only for structures over 16 feet in height, and noted that since the proposed addition measures less than 16 feet in height no view assessment was performed. Nonetheless, staff did perform a site visit to the immediate neighbor's residence at 6410 Via de Anzar. She showed photos taken from the property, noting staff did not feel the proposed addition caused a significant view impact to the neighboring property. She stated staff was able to make all required findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner James questioned staff's statement that the proposed lot coverage would be compatible with other properties. He noted that this project would result in the biggest lot coverage in the neighborhood, and that this is a very small lot and there is no other comparable lot with such a large house on it. Senior Planner Kim explained that there are other homes in the neighborhood that take up approximately the same amount of lot coverage. Staff did not feel the applicant's proposal to maximum their lot coverage would be out of character with what exists in the neighborhood, which is why the staff feels that it is compatible. Commissioner James agreed with staff that it does not look like the addition will be out of character given the addition will be in the rear of the property. However, he did not agree with staff that the other lots in the neighborhood have comparable lot coverage. Senior Planner Kim added that looking at structure size alone, the average structure size in the neighborhood is 2,400 square feet. The house is currently one of the smallest in the neighborhood at 1,700 square feet and the addition will bring the house to 2,800 square feet. Staff looks at lot coverage, the structure size, as well as the bulk and mass when considering compatibility. Commissioner Tomblin felt the addition looked like a mother-in-law type suite and asked staff if there were any conditions of approval placed on the addition that it will not be used as a rental. Director Rojas answered that typically if staff sees an addition that appears to be a second unit staff will require the applicant to enter into a covenant with the City agreeing not to convert it to a second unit. He also noted that there is an approval process for a second unit. Senior Planner Kim stated that such a condition can be added. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 11 Chairman Leon stated that he visited the neighbor's back yard, noting that the neighbor was concerned about the height of the proposed structure. The neighbor requested the addition be as low as possible and not have pipes and solar panels that not increase the overall height. He asked if there was a way to condition this approval that any solar panels not increase the overall height above 16 feet. Director Rojas stated that State law prohibits the City from regulating solar panels other than for safety issues. Commissioner Tomblin moved staff recommendations with the added referenced condition regarding a covenant for any second unit, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. The motion was approved, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-33 (6-0). 4. Conditional Use Permit revision (Case No. ZON2014-00307): 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Commissioner Emenhiser recused himself from this item and left the dais. Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the proposal by Verizon Wireless to install two additional antenna panels on the additional monopole and add additional equipment in the existing equipment area. She stated staff visited the most affected property on Via la Cresta and determined that the additional antenna panels will not cause any significant impacts. With that, she stated that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Lindsay Ortega (representing Verizon Wireless) stated she was available for any questions. There being no questions, Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to accept staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner James. PC Resolution 2014-34 was approved, (5-0). Commissioner Emenhiser returned to the dais. 5. Lot 7, Tract 27142 — Appeal of City Council remanded back to the Planning Commission to consider a revision. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 12 Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the Planning Commission denied this proposed project in February 2014 and it was appealed to the City Council. The City Council did not hear the item, but rather remanded it back to the Planning Commission to consider the revised design. She explained the current project, noting how it has been revised from the original design that was presented to the Commission. She stated that staff feels the applicant has addressed all of staff's concerns with this redesigned project and is recommending approval of the revised design. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this will be the second largest house in the neighborhood on a lot that is below the neighborhood average. In looking at the current plans and the plans from February, he did not see a significant change. He asked what was driving staff to now recommend approval of the project, as the changes seem to be relatively minor. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that on the previous plan the overall size of the project and how it failed to articulate the façade of the residence, as well as the large motor court and retaining walls exacerbated the issue of compatibility and scale of the project. She stated that with this current project the design has been softened and further articulated, the motor court has been reduced, and many of the retaining walls associated with the driveway have been eliminated. These revisions have led staff to recommend approval as currently designed. Commissioner James stated he was concerned about lot coverage. He noted that average lot coverage of the twenty closest homes is approximately 18 percent, but the proposed lot coverage for this home will be 38.7 percent. He noted this does not include the motor court or the swimming pool. He asked if this was a concern for staff. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that the Table in the staff report notes the lot size and the structure size of the homes in the neighborhood, however it does not necessarily compute the lot coverages for all of those properties. She noted that lot coverage includes not only the house, but covered patios, driveways, and any impervious surfaces. She referred to an aerial photo of the neighborhood and showed how the different lots have quite a bit of lot coverage, which she felt were likely close to the 40 percent allowance in the RS2 zoning district. Chairman Leon asked staff if the driveway is an easement, and if the driveway is owned by the adjacent property owners. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that it is the City's understanding that the driveway is on an easement to allow access to the subject property. Chairman Leon asked if the trees along the driveway are on the easement or on private property. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 13 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that, in speaking with the applicant, it is her understanding that one of the trees is on the applicant's property and the remaining trees are shared across the property line. Chairman Leon asked if the easement addresses trees. Associate Planner Mikhail did not believe the easement language addresses trees, but rather the easement is strictly for ingress and egress. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Ben Cauthen (designer on the project) stated that in regards to the trees, it is their intention to try their very best to keep the trees. He noted a small section will have to be removed to access the property, but anything removed will be replaced if possible. He explained that the front slope has forced the house rather far down the lot, but he felt that there is still a good setback in the rear so the house doesn't appear to loom over the neighboring home. He noted there is a required 15 foot rear setback and the house is currently proposed at approximately 40 feet from the rear property line. He noted the private driveway has been removed and did a lot to reduce the amount of grading. He stated the lot coverage and square footages have been reduced and he has made as many reductions as possible. Amir Esfahani (property owner) stated he was available to answer any questions. Marshall Rutter stated he is an attorney representing Maynard Sorenson who is the owner of the property immediately to the east of the applicant's property. He noted Mr. Sorenson is one of the easement holders. He pointed out the trees along the driveway, and explained that they are essential in supporting the driveway that drops down. He stated the proposal is to remove some trees approximately 50 feet down from Knoll View Drive and eventually replace them. He questioned how that can be done, and that removing these trees will substantially reduce the lateral support of the property. He also felt that the proposed house will appear to be a mcmansion from the street and from Mr. Sorenson's home, as it is very wide and there is a tremendous amount of lot coverage. He referred to condition of approval Nos. 24 and 25, and noted Mr. Sorenson does not intend to give his permission for any foliage removal. Commissioner James noted that some of the trees that are proposed to be removed will be replaced with the entry to the driveway. He asked if the concern is that in doing so the driveway will not provide the same lateral support as the trees currently provide. He asked if Mr. Rutter's client could be assured that the lateral support would be maintained by whatever the trees are replaced with, would that be satisfactory to his client. Mr. Rutter stated he is not an engineer and cannot answer that question. He showed in an aerial photo a gap in the trees where Mr. Sorenson believed the access to Mr. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 14 Esfahani's property would take place. He explained that his client does not like the idea of losing his trees, and he would have to consult with him before answering further. Don Sorenson explained that the proposed cut in the driveway creates a safety hazard for everyone who shares the driveway easement. He supported a private driveway entrances off of Knoll View Drive. He was also concerned with the drainage runoff from the property, and hasn't yet seen how the water will exit the subject property to get to the City storm drain, given the applicant's plan to cover the existing swale. He felt the mass of the proposed structure will be very visible through the cut in the trees, and a huge wall of the structure will be visible. Finally, he stated he met with several neighbors yesterday and none of them were aware of this Planning Commission meeting. He asked that this item be continued so that the other neighbors could speak to the Commission and staff to express their views. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Sorenson how far on either side of the trees his property boundary extends. Mr. Sorenson answered that his deed calls for a 10 foot boundary from the center line of the driveway to the south towards the subject property. Lavon Sorenson explained that when these lots were first created it was set up that the driveway be used from Knoll View until the easement was created, and she was hoping the architect and current owner would consider the direct access from Knoll View. She also stated that when standing in her backyard near the bedroom windows she can look up and see where the floor space will be and was very concerned about privacy issues. Ben Cauthen (in rebuttal) stated he supported the Sorenson's idea of going back to the original proposed driveway. He noted that he could not see a different in the safety issue if the driveway were at the bottom of the easement or in the middle of the easement. He pointed out that if he were living at the Sorenson's residence he wouldn't want the driveway to be farther down on the street, as that would mean the motor court would be closer to their property, as well as the garage. He pointed out that the house is currently proposed 40 feet from the property line and there is another 15 feet to the Sorenson's house, and the applicant has been very sensitive to keep the house as far from the Sorenson's residence as possible. He felt this was a much bigger benefit to them than keeping certain trees. He stated he was more than willing to close that 10 foot gap in the trees near the bottom of the easement. Amir Esfahani added that he wants to have a good relationship with his neighbors, noting that the existing trees are also beneficial to him as they offer some privacy. Therefore, he will keep the trees to the extent possible. He noted that he too has children and safety is a big concern. He feels that putting the driveway up farther on the easement is a much safer location than lower down on the easement. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if there was any plan to cover the existing swale as mentioned by Mr. Sorenson. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 15 Mr. Cauthen answered that he has not yet prepared engineered drainage plans. He stated that there may be a new swale constructed or there may be underground piping, but whatever the method the water will be taken care of and approved by the City. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff to explain the concern of accessing the property from Knoll View Drive. Associate Planner Mikhail explained staff's concern was that the retaining wall and associated fill to allow the access directly from Knoll View Drive was excessive, and couldn't support the project based on this design knowing that the applicant had legal access across the easement. She explained that the design of providing access along the easement is more compatible with some of the other homes in that neighborhood, as opposed to taking direct access off the street. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Cauthen if he would be agreeable to a condition of approval that any removed trees be replaced with a minimum 24 inch box tree. Mr. Cauthen was agreeable to such a condition. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Rutter to return to the dais. Commissioner Tomblin reviewed the Title Report included in the staff report, noting that the Title Report does not restrict how the easement is used or where access is taken to the property from the driveway easement. Mr. Rutter agreed there did not appear to be restrictions on how easement is used except that the underlying property belongs to Mr. Sorenson and the neighbor. He noted that the applicants have the right to drive over the property on the easement, however they do not have the right to alter the property. He stated this includes removing trees from the property or altering the slope of the driveway. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to support and approve staff's recommendation to approve the project as conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Cruikshank commented that the survey and plans submitted to the Commission were very difficult to read and a lot of items were missing from the survey. He also questioned if modifying the driveway made sense in terms of drainage. Commissioner Tomblin moved to amend the motion to add a condition that, wherever possible any tree removed be replaced with a 24 inch box tree. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment. Chairman Leon was concerned with the issue that the easement owner will allow or has the right to disallow access from his driveway. He felt this could dramatically impact the overall design of the project the Planning Commission is being asked to approve. He thought there should be a condition of approval that the approval is contingent upon resolving that issue. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 16 Director Rojas stated there is a condition regarding grading because grading in the easement requires permission from the easement holder. The issue of the tree removal, however, raises the question of whether or not the applicant has the right to remove the trees from the access easement, and that question becomes a civil issue between the parties. He thought the Chairman might be contemplating a condition that says this approval is contingent upon the applicant demonstrating the right to access the property where proposed, which would include the removal of trees. Chairman Leon agreed. Commissioner Tomblin stated the Planning Commission could then possibly approve the project, however the applicant may not necessarily be able to build the project as approved, pending permission from the easement holder. Chairman Leon moved to amend the motion to require that prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate their right to access the property where proposed, which includes the removal of any trees to allow for said legal access. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner James noted that Mr. Sorenson had stated that none of the neighbors were aware of tonight's meeting. He asked staff if all required notifications had been sent. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that all required notices had been sent out regarding this meeting. The motion to approve the project as amended, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-35 was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. 6. Fence/Wall Permit (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415): 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the scope and history of the project, noting that the Planning Commission had heard and upheld an appeal of the Director's decision. Subsequently, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council, who remanded the case back to the Planning Commission. The City Council felt that the entire wall, consisting of sections A, B, C, and D in the staff report, be considered together as a single structure by the Planning Commission. She explained the appellant was requesting the approval for the entire wall be overturned, primarily based on view impacts, and it be replaced at a height equivalent to a former wall at the site. She showed photos taken from the appellant's viewing area which demonstrate the height of the approved wall, explaining that staff felt the amount of ocean view that would be impaired by the approved wall would not be significant. She also explained that the appellants feel they also have a view from their kitchen window, and staff showed a photo taken from the kitchen Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 17 window. She stated that staff determined the view from the kitchen windows was of the applicant's home. In conclusion, she stated that staff continues to believe that the view impairment caused by the entirety of the wall does not cause significant view impacts and recommends the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision on Sections A and B and affirm the Planning Commission's decision for Sections C and D. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify why the City Council remanded this back to the Planning Commission. Director Rojas explained that the Planning Commission's decision on Sections C and D was appealed to the City Council, and because of a procedural error staff had to issue a new decision for Sections A and B. One of the issues that had been raised by the appellant was that the entire wall should have been looked at as a single decision as opposed to two separate decisions. Staff felt this was an opportunity to do that and therefore recommended to the City Council that this be remanded back to the Planning Commission to be considered as one wall. He noted that whatever decision is made by the Planning Commission at this meeting, an appeal has already been filed to the City Council for them to review the entirety of the wall. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this case is an example of one that begs for mediation. He stated that the City has a view impact consultant that has been particularly well trained and very experienced with these types of issues. He asked staff if it would be possible to use the resources of the view impact consultant in this situation in order to bring both parties together rather than the Planning Commission picking a winner and a loser. Director Rojas acknowledged the City has a professional mediator that is involved in the view restoration process. He explained in the view restoration process there is the ability to reach a private agreement in regards to the trees. He stated that unlike view restoration cases however, this type of case has code findings that must be made and there is not the discretion for the Commission to come up with a solution that does not meet these findings. He reminded the Commission that the parties apparently have tried to resolve this themselves, however were unsuccessful. He also noted that both parties would have to agree to mediation and that there is a Permit Streamling Act deadline that must be considered. Commissioner Emenhiser felt it would be beneficial for both parties to have a discussion with the mediator, and understood it would have to be voluntary on for both parties to do so. He thought this could happen and then the issue could come back to the Commission to be reviewed as part of the overall process. He felt that this started out as a neighbor to neighbor dispute and over time staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have been brought into it. He therefore felt that mediation might be the best solution. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 18 Commissioner James noted that at the last hearing he had said to both parties that the Planning Commission is a poor vehicle for resolving this type of problem. He stated he could clearly see why each side felt their position was justified, and agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser that picking a winner and a loser was not the best result. He felt that if both sides, with or without a mediator, could resolve the matter between themselves the solution would most likely be much better. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Cyrus Shahbazian (appellant) disagreed with the Director's statement that this application was back to the Commission because of a procedural issue, but rather felt a mistake was made by staff by applying the newly amended Fence and Wall Permit procedure incorrectly and in such a way that his family was not able to appeal staff's decision. He showed several photos of the fence that was in place prior to the current fence and the view that was previously enjoyed from his parent's home. He discussed two grounds for overturning the approval: it is inconsistent with Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 requirements and it is based on incorrect and/or fraudulent information. In regards to portions A and B of the fence, he felt that staff made an improper determination of a protected view, the analysis was not done from the viewing area, and the analysis was done from a standing, rather than a seated, position. He noted that from the kitchen window there is a clear view across the street of what he considered is a natural hillside setting, and therefore a protected view. He stated the new fence creates a significant view impairment of that view. In regards to Section C of the fence, he stated that the patio is where the best and most important view should be taken from, and this is discussed in the View Restoration Guidelines. He also noted the code section and the View Restoration Guidelines section that discusses when a view from a seated position can be taken. He displayed copies of several email in which he felt the staff improperly or incorrectly applied the code. He felt that upholding this approval would be promoting fraud and forgoing code requirements. He requested the fence be returned to the prior construction or to allow it at 4 feet in height in its entirety. Commissioner James stated that for arguments sake, the Planning Commission agreed that everything Mr. Shahbazian has just said is correct and the application and the process may have been incorrect, and the Planning Commission is being asked tonight to decide how much of a fence the applicant can have. For arguments sake, the Planning Commission decides the applicant can have the fence they want. He asked Mr. Shahbazian if that then ends it. He was not sure if it was necessary to go through all of the procedural problems for the Planning Commission to look at the fence and at the code and make a decision. Mr. Shahbazian answered that it does not end it. He added that what he has not had a chance to discuss is the grading that was done that did damage to his property and the taking of the fence that was his family's fence. He did not think the Commission allowing the applicant to have this fence would resolve the greater unresolved issues that are at play. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 19 Commissioner James noted that taking of the fence and other issues are not what is before the Commission and is not something the Commission is supposed to deal with. Vicky Shahbazian explained that she is appealing the seven foot tall fence, and that a four foot tall fence would be acceptable. She stated that the previously existing fence was in place for 20 years and she was always under the impression that was her fence. She stated she took care of that fence and the property it was on. She felt that the applicant has caused a great deal of damage to her property in changing the old fence to the existing fence and modifying the slope and drainage to do so. She stated she is appealing this decision because the fence will substantially block her view and she did not feel the proper applications were submitted and reviewed. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mrs. Shahbazian if she had to choose between losing and mediation, which she would choose. Mrs. Shahbazian stated she would definitely choose mediation, noting that through this entire process she has always been willing to talk to the applicant and to compromise. Hossein Shahbazian stated that the Planning Department is run like a dictatorship, has no respect for the public, and there is no accountability. He accused the Department of auditing and filtering and charging different fees, using different procedures, and having different requirements for individual benefits. He felt the department participates in fraudulent behavior and manipulation and defamation of character. He felt the City gave away City resources for free or at a very minimal charge that required from Mr. Hesser by law. He stated that everyone involved in his project make over $500 thousand cumulatively, but cannot solve a 750 square foot deck and a four foot fence. He did not think this was acceptable. He felt the deck and fence should have been handled together by one person. Maurice Rahimi felt that mediation was a good idea. He referred to the comment by Commissioner James that the procedural mishaps may not be of concern to the Commission, and asked that he think about that a bit more. He discussed a range with two extremes, with incompetence on one side and fraud on the other. He felt that staff was very competent and it was not fair to accuse them of fraud. However, it does not appear that staff has been following their own procedures. He stated it was his understanding that no applications were filed and only architectural drawings were used to get the permits. He asked, if an application is not filed, how is that a request for anything? And how is the Commission approving something that was never requested and the applications were filed after-the-fact? It was also his understanding that the City Council remanded this back to the Planning Commission, not because they felt the Commission has to deal with all of these other issues, but because they had no documentation to back up the request. Commissioner James stated that he did not mean to imply that procedures are not important, because they are. He also did not mean to imply that this is of no concern to the Planning Commission. His point was that, sooner or later, the ultimate question will Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 20 be what kind of fence can be placed on the property. He did not think that going back and redoing everything would ultimately put some angle into it that would ultimately change the question. Brenda Hesser (applicant) stated that she and her husband thought long and hard about what the Commission said at the last meeting, and made six different attempts to reach some type of agreement. Unfortunately they didn't work out. She reviewed that when she moved into her home there was a chain link fence covered by a hedge that ranged from 5 to 6 feet in height, which maintained a level of privacy and security for the property. She showed several photos of the new deck on the neighbor's property and, with the removal of the hedge, how she felt the deck now invades their privacy from the backyard and their bedroom. She stated that she agrees with the Director's decision that the four foot wall with the 80% clear does not create a view impairment from the Shahbazian residence. She noted at the previous meeting the Planning Commission raised some concern over the maintenance of the clear acrylic portion of the fence. She showed several photos of acrylic barriers in the neighborhood, noting that there are several such barriers in the immediate neighborhood. She stated that because of this concern she is willing to replace the clear acrylic option with chain link as the Shahbazian's requested in their appeal letter to the City Council. She stated there is already chain-link there, which is barely visible and this would resolve issues of future maintenance of the acrylic. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mrs. Hesser, given the choice between losing or taking part in mediation, which would she choose. Mrs. Hesser noted that she has already made six attempts to try to resolve the issues without success, and was not sure that continued mediation was a viable option at this point. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mrs. Hesser why they wanted the higher fence at Section A and B. Mrs. Hesser explained that at that section a lower fence would allow anyone at the Shahbazian property to look directly into their bathroom window. She also noted that they need, at a minimum, a 5 1/2 foot feet to keep the dog from jumping over the fence. Darrel Hesser (applicant) did not think mediation at this point would be a viable option. He stated even his latest offer to just put up a chain link fence across the entire length was turned down by the Shahbazians. He noted he has the letters and the emails to support his statement. In regards to the fence, he stated Sections A and B create no view impairment and he is allowed by code to build a fence up to certain standards. He also did not think Section C caused any significant view impairment of the ocean, explaining that without the fence or without the trellis there was a clear view into his bedroom. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Hesser if the hedge was in his yard or the Shahbazian's yard. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 21 Mr. Hesser explained there was a chain link fence on the Shahbazian's side of the property and a hedge that was planted in front of the chain link fence on his side of the property. He noted the hedge had been there for quite some time and grew across both properties. Jim Howe discussed the character of the Hessers, and noted that any construction done on the property has been with City permits and approvals. He agreed that without the hedge there is no privacy on the Hesser property and that a fence was needed. He also felt that there is very little view impairment to the Shahbazian's as a result of the new fence. He also noted that the view of the ocean from the Shahbazian's kitchen window is most likely impaired by a storage shed that was built in the side yard, most likely without a city permit. Cyrus Shahbazian (in rebuttal) disagreed with the statement that the hedges were on the Hesser property and stated he has pictures to show the roots of the hedges are on his parent's property. He also explained that the chain link fence was removed in response to the stone pillars that the Hessers erected. In regards to the acrylic portion of the fence, he noted the ones you typically see are not solid wood fences with two feet of acrylic on top for a total of eight feet. He therefore felt the 2 % of acrylic was irrelevant and should not be allowed. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Shahbazian what happened to the hedge. Mrs. Shahbazian explained that the hedges were most definitely on her property, and she removed them when Mr. Hesser began putting in the pillars since it looked like he wanted to change the fence. Commissioner Tomblin discussed process and how the City and the Planning Commission works. He noted that if something is built without a permit, or if a mistake was made, or if someone misunderstood the requirements for a permit there is a process called an after-the-fact permit. He understood mistakes may have been made in this case, but felt the Planning Commission is here now to review this after-the-fact situation per the City codes, and looking at the wall as it is currently in place. Commissioner James asked Mr. Shahbazian to comment on Mr. Hesser's statement that he had recently offered to replace the sections of the fence with chain link. Mr. Shahbazian responded that this was the first he had heard of such an offer. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to table the issue until the next Planning Commission meeting and in the meantime employ the services of the view restoration mediator to meet with the two parties, and at the next meeting the Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 22 mediator be present and present a report as to what transpired and whether or not a resolution was found, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Vice Chairman Nelson stated that he uses blinds for privacy, and it works quite well. He suggested the privacy issue can be addressed with the use of blinds. He supported the motion, as he felt this is a neighbor versus neighbor situation, and did not think either party was going to like the mediator's decision. Commissioner James stated he has been in full support of mediation all along, but did not think he would want to push the issue if one side is not willing to participate. He stated that the notion behind mediation is that there are two parties that are willing to try, and both Mr. and Mrs. Hesser have indicated they have gone about as far as they can go and did not think mediation would be of any value. Chairman Leon stated he would be in support of the motion to try one more time to have the neighbors work out their issues. Director Rojas stated that his only concern was that the City has a mediator for view purposes and paid for by a budget established by the City Council. He was concerned that using the view restoration mediator in this way and coming to the next Commission meeting may be perceived as a gift of public funds, because in the end, unlike view restoration cases, the Commission will still have to make a decision on this case. He felt he would have to take this idea to the City Attorney for a ruling on the use of public funds. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested that he call the City Manager's office and that Chairman Leon call the Mayor to see if they could get the funds freed up. Director Rojas clarified that there are funds, the issue is whether or not the Commission can authorize the use of public funds for this issue. Chairman Leon felt that one could make the argument, given where they are today, that using the city's mediator would result in a net savings rather than a net expense. Director Rojas suggested that a caveat be added to the motion that the Director check with the City Attorney on the use of these funds. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that as far as he was concerned the Director could check with the City Attorney and he would discuss with the Chairman as to who they could talk to. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he would amend the motion to add the caveat that staff or the Commission would check with city leadership. He felt the Director may be looking for roadblocks that aren't there, and questioned what the City Attorney has to do with financial matters. He felt the money could be found and this is a good cause. He shared Commissioner James' concerns about certain party's participation. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 23 Director Rojas asked that the Commission choose a date specific for this item to return to the Commission. The Commission agreed on the February 10th meeting, and Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend his motion to reflect that date, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. The motion was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. Commissioner James commented to both parties that they should not get themselves locked into all of the procedural issues. He stated that even if they are right, the City is looking for them to come to some sort of agreement on this fence. Commissioner Tomblin commented that the function of the Planning Commission is to rule on what the Codes are, and felt the Commission may be getting into an area that is a bit outside of their purview. He also commented that the Commission spends a lot of time on the protection of not only view issues, but privacy issues as well. He stated that if asked to vote tonight, he would support staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the Commission is going out on a limb for both parties and going outside of their normal procedures. He stated the Commission is putting their faith in both parties, and would be very disappointed if that faith is not rewarded with a solution. Vice Chairman Nelson stated that he would hope this mediation is successful because he did not think either party would be happy with what the Commission is going to decide. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. October 28, 2014 Minutes The minutes were approved as presented without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 13, 2015 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. Commissioner Tomblin asked that a report be presented to the Commission at the next meeting on what he felt was a major change to the plans the Commission approved for the Crestridge Senior Condominium project in terms of the addition of walls. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 24 • Commissioner Emenhiser asked that staff present a report at the next meeting on the progress of the General Plan amendments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 9,2014 Page 25