Loading...
PC MINS 20050426CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Appr3d5z. May 11 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Golida, Vice Chairman Knight, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Commissioners Mueller, Karp, and Perestam were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Blumenthal. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Gerstner suggested moving Agenda Items 6 and 7 to be heard after Agenda Item 11. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed correspondence related to Agenda Item No. 3 and suggested changes to the March 8th minutes by Commissioner Mueller. He also reported that at the last City Council meeting, the council took action on the Tract Amendment project on Ocean Terrace Drive. Chairman Tetreault reported that he, as well as other Commissioners, attended the Planners Institute Conference last week and that he also attended the Mayor's Breakfast. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON -AGENDA ITEMS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Encroachment Permit (ZON2005-00095)j Palos Verdes Drive South & Schooner P.C. Resolution 2005-17 was adopted, thereby approving the Encroachment Permit as presented by staff. (4-0). 2. General Plan Consistency Finding Vice Chairman Knight asked if this item was due to the settlement agreement and if the setback complies with the settlement agreement. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the setback complies with the settlement agreement. He explained that the settlement agreement identifies the configuration of the setback area. He explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to make the consistency finding and the City Council will then accept the document. Vice Chairman Knight asked if there was a reason the Planning Commission was not being asked to make a finding that this is also consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan. Deputy Director Pfost explained that the state mandate requires consistency with the General Plan, noting the Coastal Specific Plan is part of the General Plan. P.C. Resolution 2005-18 was adopted, thereby finding that the City's acceptance of the "additional non -golf setback" areas at the Trump National Golf Course is consistent with the General Plan. (4-0) CONTINUED BUSINESS . View Restoration Permit No. 184: 2652 Colt Road Director/Secretary Rojas polled the Commissioners as to who had visited the applicant's property. All of the Planning Commissioners present had visited the site and were eligible to participate in the hearing. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining that staff has worked with the City Attorney to craft language for a revised resolution. He also noted that the applicant has been working with the property owner at 2403 Sparta Drive (Mrs. Pho) in hopes of resolving any issues of view impairing trees found on her property. He stated that staff has received late correspondence from the foliage owner and Mrs. Pho, which has been distributed to the Planning Commission. He explained that, as a result of the correspondence a change to the current staff recommendation is warranted, as Mrs. Pho has stated she would like the matter dealt with through the view ordinance process. Therefore, staff is recommending the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2005, in order to allow staff the time to schedule and meet with Mrs. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 2 Pho in a mediation setting, and if necessary, formally add Mrs. Pho as a second foliage owner to the current application request. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Ken Poole 2652 Colt Road (applicant) stated that he had no objection to a continuance. He also noted that he has contacted an engineer to get information on what would be needed to conduct a survey, and also spoke to the staff, so that he could give the money necessary to conduct the survey to the City. Don Johnston 2417 Sparta Drive stated that he felt the Planning Commission determined that trees 1 through 4 are creating a significant view impairment for the applicant, and therefore should be trimmed or removed. He stated that his concerned was that enough information was not available to guarantee that the applicant's view will be restored by the removal of those trees, and that had always been his contention. He felt that he and Mrs. Pho could get together and determine which trees should be removed or trimmed and restore the applicant's view. He felt it was important that a survey be done so that the continuing obligation to trim the trees can be assessed to one person or the other. He did not think the application should have been deemed complete without accurate information regarding the property lines and the ownership of all of the trees in question. He also felt that the topo map submitted by the City in the staff report was incomplete as it does not show all down view foliage, and the conclusions staff made regarding the tree height requirements for view infringement are wrong. He stated that if the down view trees below 6457 Via de Anzar needed to be 100 feet tall to infringe on the applicant's view, there would currently be no view impairment at all from any trees. He felt that the intent of the View Restoration Ordinance was to restore the view while protecting the non -view impairing foliage. He did not think it was acceptable to destroy trees and hope that other foliage owners not in the application would agree in the future to trim the offending foliage. He felt that the proper way to handle this matter is to make sure the view will be fully restored at the time the trimming or removal of the application covered trees is required to be done. He did not think the application trees should be trimmed or destroyed until the trimming or removal of the non -application trees has been performed. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if it was anticipated that a survey of the property would be done prior to the July 26th Planning Commission meeting. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that, as it now stands, a survey will be required prior to the trees being trimmed, after the decision on the application has been made by the Planning Commission. He stated that once the additional foliage owner (Mrs. Pho) has been added to the application, staff may change that recommendation. Chairman Tetreault expressed his concern regarding the ownership of the trees. He understood why the applicant may not want to pay for a survey before a decision is Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 3 made regarding the trees, as the decision may prove a survey is unnecessary. However, he also was concerned that without the ownership of the trees established it could be difficult for the foliage owner to present a strong and valid case before the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed, however he noted that in written statement from Mrs. Pho she indicated that the trees may be hers and wanted to go through the City's View Ordinance process. Vice Chairman Knight stated that at the last Planning Commission hearing on this item it was determined that the trees do block a view. He felt that trees need to be treated consistently, and made sense to have them on the same application, rather than two applications, and therefore agrees with the course the staff is taking on this application. Chairman Tetreault agreed that the Planning Commission had decided the trees cause a view impact, and therefore he felt that there was no reason to delay the survey, as it will be necessary at some point in the process. He felt that doing the survey now to determine who the owner of the trees is will put everyone in a better position later on to avoid controversy with future action by the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that to do the survey it will require going on the foliage owner's property, and there may be resistance to that. He explained that the only way to do the survey now would be to ask the foliage owner to cooperate to let a surveyor on the property to do the work. Mr. Johnston stated that he would be willing to consent to allow land surveyors on his property. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to July 26th, as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (4-0) 4. Variance. Height Variation. and Grading Permit (Case No. Z0N2004-00451): Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining that the lot was created by Parcel Map subdivision in 1989. In addition to the Parcel Map, a grading application had been approved for a new single-family residence. Athough the design was approved, the approval expired, as no plans were submitted to Building and Safety for plan check. Therefore, a new application was submitted for the construction of a new house, similar in design to the previously approved plans. He briefly described the property and the buildable area on that property and the design of the proposed new house. He explained the need for the Variance, Height Variation, and Grading Permit. In regards to the Height Variation, there was a concern from the neighbor at 45 Rockinghorse Road that a portion of their view would be blocked. In response to this concern staff conducted a view analysis, however because the resident's viewing area at 45 Rockinghorse Road is at a higher elevation from the street and the subject property is downslope of the street, staff concluded that the new structure will not Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 4 encroach into the view frame from the viewing area at 45 Rockinghorse Road. He noted that the owner at 45 Rockinghorse Road was concerned that portions of her view would also be blocked from the lower level area on her property, however he noted that the area consists of a garage, driveway, and yard area which is not considered a viewing area per the Height Variation Guidelines. He also noted a letter from a neighbor stating concern regarding the drainage, as there is a drainpipe located on the property that drains into a canyon. He explained that there may be the need for some modifications to that drainpipe, however the drainage issues will be addressed in the Building and Safety plan check process. Therefore, staff concluded that all of the necessary findings pertaining to the Variance, Height Variation, and Grading Permit applications can be made, and recommends approval of the project as presented in the staff report. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if there would be any improvements required on the drainage pipe, or would it remain as is. Associate Planner Schonborn explained there may be modifications made to the drainage pipe, however those modifications will be made if recommended by the engineer and the Building and Safety Department through the plan check process. Vice Chairman Knight was concerned that the drainage pipe appears to run under the proposed driveway and asked if there are any provisions in the approval that the owner will provide access to that area if the need arises. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that there could be an agreement with the property owner to ensure that if there are problems, he acknowledges the fact that his driveway may be disturbed to get to the problem. Vice Chairman Knight felt it was important to have some type of formal agreement or condition on the approval that access to the drainage pipe will be granted, especially if there is no recorded easement on the property. He noted that there may not be an issue with the current property owner, but there are no guarantees with subsequent owners. Associate Planner Schonborn felt that was a good point, and noted that the Planning Commission can add language to the approval to deal with this issue. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the original conditions of approval for the lot that were put in place in 1989 would still have to be complied with on this new approval for the house. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that those conditions do still apply, and for clarify staff can add a condition to the current Conditions of Approval that the previous conditions of approval still apply. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Golida agreed with the Vice Chairman's concern that language be included guaranteeing access to the drainpipe. He discussed the drainage and asked staff if the Building and Safety plan check process will look at drainage and the catch basin to assure the down gradient property owner's concerns about excessive water flow will be addressed. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that Building and Safety will be looking at drainage details during the plan check process. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Rick Holguin (property owner) discussed the drainage and stated that, because it affects his property, it is an important issue to him. He explained he has done research and could find no recorded easements for the drain pipe and that it was most likely put in by a private party, as it is not City or County owned. He explained that the drain does not serve any purpose for draining his property, but rather it serves a purpose for any water buildup on the opposite side of Rockinghorse Road. He stated that his architect has taken into account the drainage and the drainpipe, and will work with Building and Safety to ensure it is adequate and proper. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Holguin if he has actually seen the drainage pipe. Mr. Holguin said he has seen it. He explained it is a steel pipe of approximately 2 feet in diameter, starts across the street, runs under the street, and empties into a swale that goes down the canyon. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault stated that when he visited the property he spoke with the owner at 45 Rockinghorse Road and was told that the property owner was "giving up" on the challenge as to view impairment from her home. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if there was anything the Commission should know about in terms of conditioning the project upon the maintenance of the present drainage capability. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the property is being developed with a residence that could have impacts upon access to the drain and future maintenance of the drain. He felt that conditions could be added that the manhole be made accessible to the public or City for repair and/or maintenance. Commissioner Gerstner understood the need for a condition which would allow the access for someone to maintain or repair the drain, however he was hesitant to require the applicant to maintain a subterranean drain that goes through his property that he has no control over the inlet or possibly even the swale that it drains into. He recommended the Commission look at it more from the attitude of what an easement Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 6 allows, such as providing things that allow the appropriate party to maintain the drain as opposed to asking the applicant to maintain the drain. Vice Chairman Knight agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. Commissioner Golida agreed, adding that when he visited the site it was his determination that the drainage pipe was placed by individuals to address flow from a very small area, and wondered if the pipe was even necessary. He questioned if it would not be better to remove or cap the drain pipe at the time of grading, noting that a more sophisticated drainage system will be put into place while the house is being built. Chairman Tetreault stated he would be reluctant to make such a determination, as he has not seen the hydrology study and was not aware of where the water was coming from and what purpose the drain pipe actually served. Director/Secretary Rojas read from the section of the Code discussing slope drain maintenance, and suggested adding a condition that says the property owner shall not interfere with the flow of the drain. Vice Chairman Knight stated that he too visited the property at 45 Rockinghorse Road and felt that the pictures in the staff report accurately reflect what he saw, and that he did not feel there was any view impairment from her viewing area. He stated that he agrees with staff on all of the findings. Chairman Tetreault was comfortable with the plans submitted in terms of the drainage and the actual house. He noted that he was able to make the necessary findings for approval. Vice Chairman moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-19 thereby approving the Height Variation, Variance, and Grading Permit as presented by staff, with the additional condition added that ties this approval in with Resolution 1989-29 Exhibit A, as well as a condition that states the property owner shall take no action that will interfere with, impede the flow of, or reduce the effectiveness of in any way or manner of the private drain located on the subject property, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (4-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:35 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 5. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00230] 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 7 Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. He stated that staff feels that all of the necessary findings could be mde and was recommending approval of the project with the conditions noted in the staff report. Vice Chairman Knight asked if there was a reason this antenna could not be placed on the existing monopole rather than on the building. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that recently the Planning Commission considered a modification to the monopole that was denied. He explained that the City's consultant found that the antennas that are currently on the tower can be moved to the building, thus allowing removal of the tower. He explained that staff is trying to not approve any more antennas on the tower, but rather instillation of the antennas on the building to allow for the removal of the tower. Commissioner Golida asked if staff knew the dBA of the equipment. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff does not know the dDA, however noted that the equipment is typically very quiet. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Gary O'Leary (representing the applicant) stated that he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Tetreault asked what the purpose of the antenna will be and how it will be used. Mr. O'Leary explained that the antenna is going to complete the radio system that is throughout the peninsula and up to Manhattan Beach. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-20 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (4-0) PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. 3 month review of light (Case No. ZON2003-00205): 5842 Crestridge Road Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the parking lot lighting that was approved by the Planning Commission, and the condition that was imposed that required the lighting be reviewed 3 months from Building and Safety permit final. He stated that staff has received no complaints and there are no impacts Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 8 that have resulted from these lights, and therefore recommends the Planning Commission approve the 3 -month review via Minute Order. Vice Chairman Knight asked if staff has confirmed the lights have the proper wattage in them. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff has confirmed the proper wattage is in place. Vice Chairman Knight referred to Resolution 2003-54, noting the condition that requires the hedges remain at the height of the light standard. In looking at the picture, he felt that maintaining the hedge at the lamp height might still allow for some spillover into the apartments above. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that, in addition to the height of the hedge, there is a wall behind the hedge which also helps to mitigate any light spilling over to the neighboring properties. Vice Chairman Knight asked if there will be any future review of this Conditional Use Permit. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that this will be the only review unless the Planning Commission adds a future review. He noted that if staff begins to receive complaints, the Conditional Use Permit could possibly be brought back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault commented that he didn't see any reason for a future review process, noting that there is a mechanism in place for a future review if staff receives complaints. Commissioner Gerstner felt that this review was sufficient, as staff had been to the site and reviewed the conditions, and no complaints have been received. He stated that if conditions at the site change and the neighbors have a problem with that, there is a mechanism in place for these complaints. He did not think it was necessary to build more buerocracy into the system. Vice Chairman Knight's concern was that residents may not know they have the opportunity to voice their concerns about the lighting until they receive the notice about the review before the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that a resident who feels they are being impacted by this lighting may contact staff, and the Code Enforcement Officer will investigate the complaints. If it is confirmed that changes have been made that do not comply with the Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 9 permit, staff can rescind the permit or the applicant can apply for a revision to the Conditional Use Permit that will go before the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Knight was concerned that the Conditional Use Permit requires the bushes be trimmed to the height of the light, however the response staff is getting from the neighbors now is based on a condition where the bushes are very high and thick. He felt that if the bushes were all taken down to the height of the light and suddenly neighbors began to see a light they had not seen before and contacted staff, staff would note that the bushes were trimmed according to the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Tetreault asked staff what would happen if the bushes were cut down to the level just above the lights and staff began to receive complaints about the lights. He asked if there was a mechanism by which the City reviews the lighting and can make new findings or more conditions. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if there is no violation of a condition the Conditional Use Permit cannot come back to the Planning Commission. He noted that staff would review the site to make sure all of the other conditions are being adhered to. Associate Planner Schonborn added that there is an existing wall at the top of the slope, and the height of the light standards are not projecting any higher than the height of the top of the wall. He felt that even if the bushes are trimmed down to just above the height of the light standards, there will be no impact because of the wall. He also noted that the lights are inset and shine down. Commissioner Golida moved to approve the three-month review via minute order, as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (4-0) 9. Revision to Height Variation (Case No. Z0N2005-00108)j 5416 Littlebow Rd Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining that when the Height Variation was originally approved the Planning Commission required the bedroom window on the second story be a clearstory window. He explained the applicant was requesting the condition be modified to allow a full size translucent glass window instead of the clearstory window. He explained that it was staff's opinion that this request does not alter any of the findings made in the original resolution and that providing the translucent glass window will achieve the same goals in protecting the neighbor's privacy as the clearstory window, and recommends approval of the revision to the Height Variation. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there were any safety concerns with the translucent or clearstory windows. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that bedrooms have certain egress requirements which will be met by placing the window on either wall. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Gerstner asked if the translucent window would be an operable window. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it would be an openabie window. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. David Sun 5416 Littlebow Road (applicant) presented slides to the Planning Commission to clarify any concerns that the Planning Commission or his neighbor might have regarding the window. He explained that he was simply proposing to change two windows around to help preserve the symmetry of the second story addition. He showed on the slides the vegetation between his property and his neighbors' and explained that he will not be able to see into their yard from that window. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault noted that in a previous home he owned the worst feature of that home were the asymmetrical windows, and this request to add symmetry to the windows is a reasonable request. Vice Chairman Knight felt this was a minor change and was reasonable, and was in favor of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No 2005-21 thereby approving the revision to the conditions of approval for the Height Variation, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (4-0) 10. Height Variation (ZON2005-00060): 29605 Grandpoint Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He stated that staff could make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project, subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the Resolution. Vice Chairman Knight asked how the current construction at the site relates to this application. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the current construction at the site is a single story addition that was approved by the Director, and does not relate to this application. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Patti Mahaffey 29605 Grandpoint Lane (applicant) stated she was available for any questions regarding the project. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 11 There being no questions, Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight stated he was able to make the necessary findings, and architecturally the house is a nice blend with the neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault agreed, noting there has been quite a bit of remodeling in that community and this addition will be compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that he too was able to make the necessary findings to approve the Height Variation. Vice Chairman Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2005-22 thereby approving the Height Variation as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (4-0) 11. View Restoration Permit No. 145: 28016 Calzada Drive Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that the Planning Commission imposed a condition stating that once the first six trees are trimmed staff would re-evaluate the view and, if necessary, require additional trimming on four trees and the staff recommendation would be brought before the Planning Commission for review. He explained that staff has evaluated the view and does not think trimming is necessary, and the applicant agrees. Therefore, staff is recommending no further action be taken. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight stated that if the applicant is satisfied with the view it would not be for the Planning Commission to preempt. Vice Chairman Knight moved to approve the staff recommendation and take no further action, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (4-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of March 8, 2005 Chairman Tetreault noted that he had recused himself from Item No. 2 on this agenda and therefore would not make comments on or vote on Item No. 2 on the minutes, however he was present and participated in the rest of the Agenda. Director/Secretary Rojas reported Commissioner Mueller's suggested changes that were handed out before the meeting. He noted changes on pages 4 and 5 of the minutes. Chairman Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (3-0-1) with Commissioner Golida abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 12 7. Minutes of March 22, 2005 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (3-0-1) with Commissioner Golida abstaining. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 12. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of Mav 12, 2005 The pre -agenda was discussed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 13