Golden Cove Center Declare the Hearing Open

Golden Cove Center Declare the Hearing Open

PUBLIC HEARING Date: May 17, 2011 Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S IMPOSITION OF CONDITION NO. 14 OF P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-13 PERTAINING TO THE HEIGHT OF A SOLID BARRIER WALL ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF THE GOLDEN COVE CENTER - (31100 - 31176, AND 31212 - 31246 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST - CASE NO. ZON2010-00402) Subject Property: Golden Cove Center 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Long 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Mikhail 4. Public Testimony: Appellants: Paris Zarrabian Applicant: Paris Zarrabian 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Long 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: 22-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ ~~ DATE: MAY 17,2011 . .\Y SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S IMPOSITION OF CONDITION NO. 14 OF P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-13 PERTAINING TO THE HEIGHT OF A SOLID BARRIER WALL ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF THE GOLDEN COVE CENTER - (31100 - 31176, AND 31212 - 31246 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST - CASE NO. ZON2010-00402) REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER 0.9-- Project Manager: Leza Mikhail, Associate p,anne@0 RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal of Condition No. 14 of P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13, thereby affirming the Planning Commission's decision to require a 6'-0" tall solid barrier wall along the south property line at the Golden Cove Center (Case No. ZON2010-00402). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1999, the Planning Commission required the Golden Cove Center property owner to construct a solid wall along the Admiral Risty portion of the south property line of the Golden Cove Center. While the intent was for the wall to be 6'-0" in height, and the wall was subsequently constructed 6'-0" in height, the condition of approval requiring the wall established a maximum height of 6'-0", but no minimum height. As a result, in mid-2010, the current property owner reduced the height of the wall adjacent to the Admiral Risty restaurant from 6'-0" to 3'-6". The property owner lowered the wall in an attempt to gain ocean view from the tenant space across the driveway aisle from the Admiral Risty building. Due to the condition language, Staff could not legally prevent the property owner from lowering the wall. In March 2011, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to the Center's CUP to allow additional outdoor dining area north ofStarbucks and south ofAsaka, and considered a 6-month review ofthe Trader Joe's approval. Based 22-2 on testimony from some Villa Capri residents who relayed concerns of increased noise impacts from the Center due to the lowered wall, the Planning Commission imposed a condition of approval on the latest CUP amendment that required the Center's property owner to increase said wall height back up to 6'-0" in height. The property owner is appealing this request as he believes requiring the wall at 6'-0" in height would impair an ocean view from potential outdoor dining areas and possible future tenants. In reviewing the appeal, Staff sees no new information to warrant changing the Planning Commission's decision on the wall given the original intent ofthe 6'-0" tall wall and current noise concerns raised by adjacent Villa Capri residents. BACKGROUND On October 12,1999, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution NO.99-33 making certain environmental findings associated with a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment No. 711, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 99-40, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Grading Permit No. 2135, and Variance No. 446 for the construction of three buildings (referred to as Buildings D, E and F) located adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West. As a result of concerns raised by the public and in making the ~ findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval requiring a solid wall to be constructed along a portion of the south property line. As a result, a solid 6'-0" tall freestanding wall was constructed between the Admiral Risty section of the shopping center and the adjacent, then vacant, lot to the south On December 11,2008, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution Nos. 2008-55 and 2008-56, thereby certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to demolish and build a new Building C (previously Golden Lotus Restaurant) for the occupancy of a Trader Joe's (Case No. ZON2008­ 00541). When the Trader Joe's project was approved by the Planning Commission, a condition of approval was added in response to public testimony which allowed a solid door to be added to the existing solid wall required by P.C. Resolution No. 99-33. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for Trader Joe's in April 2010 which triggered the need for a 6­ month review for compliance with the conditions of approval ofCUP No. 206. However, the 6-month review hearing did not occur at the end of 2010 because the applicant was contemplating other improvements to the center which would require the approval of another CUP revision and so Staff agreed to wait and combine these items together so that all of the issues could be addressed at one public hearing. In early summer of 201 0, the property owner reduced the height of the solid wall between the Admiral Risty section ofthe shopping center and the adjacent lot to the south from 6'-0" in height to 3'-6" in height. This action could not be prevented by Staff as Condition No. 37 of Resolution No. 99-40 does not establish a minimum height ofthe wall, only a maximum height of 6'-0". On November 10, 2010, the applicant, Paris Zarrabian, submitted an application to revise Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to allow the roof structure of three existing open-air trellises attached to Buildings D, E and F to be remodeled with a solid roof/canopy and 22-3 amend the CUP to allow additional outdoor dining underneath two of the covered structures. The request required approval of a CUP Revision because the Applicant requested additional outdoor dining area, thereby potentially affecting the existing parking demand within the shopping center. On March 8, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2011-13, thereby approving the requested revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to modify the existing open-air trellises to solid roof structures and adding 375 square feet of outdoor dining area to the north side of Building 0 and the south side of Building F. In combination with the Revision to the Conditional Use Permit request for new outdoor dining areas, the Planning Commission also considered the operation of the overall shopping center, as required by the 6-month Review for the Trader Joe's CUP Revision. As a result of considering the operation of the whole center, the Planning Commission added, deleted and/or modified Conditions of Approval under Conditional Use permit No. 206. Based on public testimony, as a result of considering the established conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 206 and the associated findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission included a condition of approval (Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. 2011-13) which amended pre-existing Condition No. 38 of Resolution No. 99-40 related to the solid wall along the south property line to require that the wall, which had been lowered to 3'-6" in height in 2010, be raised and maintained to a minimum height of 6'-0". On March 22,2011, Paris Zarrabian, property owner ofthe Golden Cove Shopping Center, submitted a timely appeal regarding Condition No. 14 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-13. The appeal letter stated that the grounds of appeal were directed solely on Condition No. 14 of P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13, and that all other Conditions ofApproval set forth in P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 were accepted. The Appellant requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 14, which modified Condition No. 38 of Resolution No. 99-40 for Conditional Use Permit No. 206. Both conditions of approval are related to a privacy wall located along the south property line. On April 18, 2011, Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 104 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 21 ,2011. The public comment period expired on May 5,2011. As a result of the Public Notice, Staff received fifteen (15) comment letters and one (1) petition signed by forty-five (45) residents of Villa Capri, the adjacent residential community. DISCUSSION The Appellant is contesting the Planning Commission's recent modification to the Conditions of Approval for the Golden Cove Center, stating that Condition No. 14 (P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13) should be eliminated for the following three reasons: 22-4 1) Requiring a solid barrier wall at a height of 6'-0" is contrary to prior approvals/requirements of the south property line wall height; and 2) A requirement to maintain a solid barrier wall at a height of 6'-0", along the south property line, was beyond the scope of the March 8, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda; and 3) Requiring a solid barrier wall at a height of 6'-0" negates the benefit of recent approvals given for outdoor dining area adjacent to the southwest side of Building A (two-story bUilding).

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    254 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us