Loading...
PC MINS 20050823CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Approved October 11 005 The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Knight at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Perestam led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Golida, Karp, Perestam, and Vice Chairman Knight. Commissioner Mueller arrived at 7:12 p.rn. Absent: Commissioner Gerstner and Chairman Tetreault were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Blumenthal, Assistant Planner Sohn, and Assistant Planner Robles. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Perestam suggested hearing Item No. 5 after Item No. 2. The Commission agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Karp distributed a public hearing notice for an upcoming City Council hearing regard a Conditional Use Amendment proposed by Trump National. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items1 None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1 Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00146): 7264 Berry Hill Dr. Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining staff has not yet received the revised plans for the project, therefore staff was asking the item be continued to September 27, 2005. Commissioner Karp moved to continue the public hearing to September 27, 2005, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (5-0). 2. Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-000491i 28520 Montereina Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and reviewing the concerns that the Planning Commission had at the previous hearing. He explained the current proposed changes submitted by the applicant, and, if the Planning Commission feels these modifications to the project are acceptable, staff is recommending approval of the project, subject to the conditions in the Resolution. Commissioner Perestam asked if any other alternatives were explored, noting that at the previous hearing the Commission had discussed the idea of removing several rows of blocks on the wall. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained staff discussed several alternatives with the applicant, noting that the applicant preferred the option being presented. Vice Chairman Knight asked if there was any verification that the current wall was built per Code. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that, if approved, this wall will have to be submitted to Building and Safety, and at that time the structural engineering will be submitted. Further, Building and Safety may require some exposure of the work to verify the material used. Vice Chairman Knight noted that he was not present at the last meeting to hear this item, the tape of the meeting was not available on Cox Cable, and the minutes have not been prepared for review. Therefore, he will abstain from voting on this project. Vice Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Colleen Richter 28520 Montereina Drive (applicant) explained that she was in the process of receiving bids to plaster the wall and would be happy to do whichever of the proposed options the Planning Commission directed. She explained that she has the structural calculations for the wall that will be presented to Building and Safety. Commissioner Golida noted that there really is no uniformity in regards to the walls in the neighborhood. He noted that at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had discussed stepping the wall down one block in the section between the two pilasters and stepping down two blocks in the next section, and asked the applicant if they had considered such an option. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Richter explained that she was not aware that was being discussed as an option for the wall. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that to remove a row of blocks on the wall in that proposed area the applicant may have to grade down. Commissioner Golida felt that the proposed change to the wall was a very severe cut at a very severe angle and would not be very pleasing from the street, and was more of a remedy to fix this after -the -fact problem rather than thinking a little bit about what would be more aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood. Paul Richter 28520 Montereina Drive (applicant) explained that to re -grade the area in discussion would be very complicated, as the area contains the majority of the irrigation of drainage plumbing, and to re -grade that area would require quite a substantial amount of work to change that plumbing. He stated that he would be willing to do any of the options presented in the staff report. Vice Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam asked staff to explain how the thirty inches is measured and taken into account when measuring the wall. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the thirty inches is measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall. Commissioner Perestam stated that there were three issues discussed at the previous hearing. He felt that stuccoing the wall will soften the appearance of the wall and will address one issue. He stated that the second issue was the height of the wall along the back, but understood the privacy issues of the applicant. He felt, therefore, that the real issue was the height from the street. He felt that it would be possible to take out three courses from the first section of the wall, three courses from the second section of the wall, and two courses from the third section of the wall, understanding the consequences that would create with the 30 inches. He felt that there could be some type of railing to make up for that removal. Commissioner Golida felt the Planning Commission was being extremely flexible with two out of the three concerns raised. He felt that if the applicant were to come before the Planning Commission to ask permission to build such a wall it would most likely not be approved. He noted a section of the wall in from he thought could be removed and replaced with shrubs and some type of railing, however he did not think the Planning Commission was in the business of designing projects for applicants. Commissioner Karp felt that part of the yard should be secured to allow the young children to play safely. Regarding the front part of the yard, he felt the assumption was being made that the children would not be playing in, and therefore did not need to be Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 3 secured from the street. He felt that putting in a wrought iron fence would create another element of design and maintenance. Commissioner Mueller discussed the front wall, and felt that the idea of removing some blocks of the wall and replace it with some sort of open air fencing to make up the difference was a good suggestion. He felt that some type of open-air fence along the top of the wall would be more aesthetically pleasing than the solid wall. Associate Planner Blumenthal displayed a picture of the wall in question and the Planning Commissioners discussed alternatives. Commissioner Golida noted, however, that it would be very difficult for him to add conditions to an approval that he has not visually seen, and that a rendering would be very useful. Commissioner Karp agreed that it would be very difficult to approve something he has not seen, and suggested continuing the public hearing to allow the applicant to design alternatives to present to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Golida stated that at the previous meeting Commissioner Gerstner had suggested cutting the wall back at an angle, however he did not feel that all of the Planning Commissioners were in unanimity with that suggestion, and that other options were discussed. He stated that instead of trying to put conditions into an approval which would be vague and unclear, he suggested opening the public hearing and asking the applicant if they understand what it currently being discussed, and if not the Planning Commission will clarify, and then ask the applicant to design three or four options for the Planning Commission to review and approve one. Commissioner Mueller stated he was in favor of opening the public hearing, however he felt that this issue can be resolved by simply removing blocks and inserting that recommendation into the Resolution. He felt that the applicant should understand what it being discussed and what option in terms of block removal would best suit their needs. Vice Chairman Knight re -opened the public hearing. Commissioner Golida asked Mr. Richter which of the options being discussed would work for him best suit his needs so that the modifications and conditions can be added to the current Resolution. Mr. Richter referred to the picture of the wall and asked the Planning Commission to consider that the existing wall is fully grouted with steel, and therefore it would not be a simple removal of blocks. He stated that he would possibly consider removing two sections of block in the front section and one section of block from the last two sections. He noted that there is a wall directly across the street from his residence that has a wall that is substantially higher than his wall, which is stuccoed and has been allowed to have landscaping grow in. He did not feel that wall was a prominent feature in the neighborhood because it has been softened with stucco and landscaping, which he felt Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 4 he could do with his existing wall. He did not feel that adding a wrought iron to the top of the wall would promote an open look, as he would most likely landscape that area. Commissioner Golida referred to the photograph and asked staff if removing one row of the blocks would achieve what is required by the Code. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it would appear that removing one block at the location referred to by Commissioner Golida would be right below what is required by Code. He explained that would be something the Building Official would then look at to determine whether the applicant would then have to provide some type of additional railing, or if he would be comfortable saying that it was close enough that he would be comfortable with allowing no railing. Vice Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Golida felt that there will be difficulty meeting the 30 -inch requirement by removing any more than one block from the front portion of the wall. He felt doing so would require the applicant to put some type of railing up, which was a condition he did not want to have to impose upon the applicant. Further, removing two blocks would then require the applicant to put some type of substitute railing or fencing in place. He noted, however, that two blocks can be removed from the wall located between the second and third pilasters and still be well within the 30 inch requirement. He referred to Commissioner Perestam's suggestion, and suggested the removal of one block in between each of the three pilasters of the home, as indicated on the photograph. Commissioner Perestam noted that he had suggested removal of three blocks at the front of the wall, and two sections of block at the other two sections. He referred to the photograph and stated that he was flexible as to how many blocks were to be removed, however currently he felt that the best solution would be to remove three blocks in the first section, two in the second section, and one in the third section. He also stated that he was still comfortable with the open air fencing being placed at the top of the wall. Commissioner Mueller agreed that open-air fencing can accomplish the task of opening up an area and make it look less obtrusive. Commissioner Perestam moved to approve the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit with the modification to reduce the number of blocks in the most forward section of the wall by three and to include the angle proposed by the applicant for the remaining portion of the section by removing the two blocks noted on the photograph, and if some type of fencing is then required for the top of the wall, that be included. Further, two blocks of the wall be removed from the second section and one section be removed from the third section of the wall, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Commissioner Golida did not think it was necessary to remove any more than two rows in the first section and one section in both the second and third sections. He noted that Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 5 by removing three rows from the first section there will be a requirement for open air fencing in that area, while removing only two rows from the first section will most likely not require the open air fencing. He stated that he has no idea what this open-air fencing will look like and could not comment or approve such a recommendation. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if, under the current motion, all three sections of the wall would need some type of guardrail. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that all three sections would need a guardrail if the wall were modified as directed in the motion. The motion to approve PC Resolution 2005-36 to approve the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review as modified was approved, (3-1-1) with Commissioner Golida dissenting and Vice Chairman Knight abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Appeal of Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit (Case No. Z0N2005-00005): 3768 Falcon head Assistant Planner Sohn presented the staff report, explaining that the application is an appeal of the Director's approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit for an after -the - fact 5 foot 6 inch wood wall along the north side property line. She stated that staff could make all of the necessary findings for the Permit and the reduced height of the fence restores the view of Catalina Island for the abutting neighbor. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's decision. Commissioner Mueller stated that the neighbor provided him with a power point briefing that he indicated staff had received, and he asked staff if they had received that briefing. Assistant Planner Sohn stated that staff had received that power point briefing last week, however did not distribute it to the Planning Commission because staff thought the applicant was going to present it at the meeting. She stated that she does have the hard copy version of the presentation and would like to distribute that to the Commission, noting that the Collins are intending to make the presentation at the meeting. Commissioner Perestam requested staff distribute the presentation to the Planning Commission, as he did not believe it was a late correspondence. The Planning Commission agreed, and the presentation was distributed. Commissioner Golida asked staff if 2 feet 8 inches was the highest point at which the protected view from the viewing area was preserved. Assistant Planner Sohn answered that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Perestam questioned the statement in the Resolution where two additional trees be removed to help restore the view from the viewing area of the abutting property. He asked what that has to do with the rest of the discussion. Director/Secretary Rojas explained the section of the Code that dictates procedures for Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permits requires staff to look at other foliage on the property. Commissioner Golida asked if, from 2 feet 8 inches the neighbors could view into the Blanc's yard from their viewing area. Assistant Planner Sohn answered that from that height the view would be of Catalina Island and not the lawn. Before opening the public hearing the Planning Commission took several minutes to review the power point presentation distributed by staff. Vice Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Victor Blanc 3768 Falcon Head Drive explained that he appealed the Director's decision because he felt this decision grossly neglects his concerns for privacy, which is the reason he constructed the wall. He felt this was a biased decision which upgrades and improves a minimal view his neighbor had. He explained that pictures of the hedges on the property that were previously submitted can be confirmed by the previous owner, and felt the pictures are very relevant, as they show the wall is no taller than the hedges that were existing. He further stated that at 2 feet 8 inches the neighbor can most definitely look into his yard from a standing position, and asked for a clarification on balancing of privacy and views. Commissioner Mueller noted that Mr. Blanc had commented that the wall blocks whatever minimal view his neighbors may have had, and asked Mr. Blanc if he was suggesting his neighbor cannot have a view over his proprety. Mr. Blanc explained that the previous hedge was as high as the wall, and the neighbor still has a view on the right side of the fence. He explained that there is a tree to the right of the wall that he would like to remove to help the neighbor maximize the view. He stated that his concern is that this decision is greatly improving and upgrading a view his neighbor never had. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Blanc if there had been any conversations with his neighbor before he took down his hedges and built the wall. Mr. Blanc stated that there were conversations with his neighbor, however they only consisted of his neighbor's insistence that the wall be only 2 feet high. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Golida stated that when Mr. Blanc moved into his home there was an existing hedge that was approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall, and asked Mr. Blanc if he knew how long the Collins have lived in their home. Mr. Blanc felt that the Collins moved into their home in the mid 1990's. Commissioner Golida noted that the Collins, when sitting in their chase lounge chairs cannot see into the Blanc's backyard, but asked Mr. Blanc if they can look into his yard once they are standing and walk to the rear of the deck. Mr. Blanc stated that they absolutely could look into his backyard and home. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the hedges removed were on his property or the Collins property. Mr. Blanc stated that he recently had his property surveyed and the shrubs were on his property. Marianne Eckel, Rolling Hills, stated that she is the previous owner of the Blanc property, and was there to testify that the hedges existed when she owned the property. She further stated that over the years she allowed the neighbors to trim her hedges periodically. She stated that it was her opinion that anyone standing on the neighbor's deck will be able to see into the Blanc's yard and residence. Commissioner Perestam asked if the previous hedges were on Mrs. Eckel's property. Mrs. Eckel answered that the hedges have always been on her property, but she would allow the Collins to trim those hedges when needed. John Collins 3774 Falcon Head Drive stated that he has lived at his residence for 13 years, and when he bought the house he could sit outside behind the dining room and see Catalina Island. He presented a power point presentation, which displayed pictures of the view from his home and how the new wall currently blocks his view. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Collins if there had been any initial conversation with the neighbor prior to the City's decision. Mr. Collins stated that he had talked to Mr. Blanc explaining that the City honors views and he could not just put up a wall that would block his view. He stated that he did offer some suggestions and alternatives to the wall, however he did not have any feedback from Mr. Blanc. Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Collins if, when he pulled out the hedges, he believed they were on his property. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Collins answered that he thought the hedges he removed were on his property. He also noted that whether the wall is 2 feet tall or 4 feet tall, when standing next to the fence he can look into the Blanc's backyard. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Collins if the 7 foot section of wall that staff was recommending remain at the current height blocks the view of the neighbor's home from his property. Mr. Collins believed that section of the wall does block his view of the Blanc's property, and he was satisfied with that recommendation. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Collins if staff's recommendations on foliage removal restore his view to the ocean. Mr. Collins answered that he was satisfied with staff's recommendations regarding the foliage. Steve Collins, San Pedro, stated that when his parents bought the house there was a spectacular view of Catalina Island and a hedge did exist which did not interfere with that view. He stated that his parents only want to restore the view that they had when they first bought the home. He felt that the staff findings and decision was the correct. Mr. Blanc (in rebuttal) stated that he is very willing to negotiate with his neighbor and did not want to block Mr. Collins view, however he did want his privacy taken into consideration. Vice Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:50 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS (conti Commissioner Perestam asked staff to clarify where the viewing area was taken from. Assistant Planner Sohn stated that the viewing area was taken from the Collins kitchen area from a standing position. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify on the photograph where the top of the 2 foot 8 inch section of the wail would be. Assistant Planner Sohn felt that it would be near the top of the hedge pictured in the photograph. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Mueller asked staff if the intent of the 2 foot 8 inch wall was to open up the blue water view or strictly the view of Catalina Island. Assistant Planner Sohn stated that it was intended to restore the view of Catalina Island, but would also open up some of the ocean view. Commissioner Perestam felt that there really is very little privacy between the two homes in question. He noted that when the Collins bought their home there was a view of Catalina Island, and now there is a wall blocking their view. He stated that his issue is whether the proposed 2 foot 8 inch portion to be removed was correct or if the wall could possibly go a little higher to preserve some of the privacy of the Blanc residence. Commissioner Mueller felt that a view of Catalina Island that is blocked by a solid wood wall does not adhere to the Code. He explained that the Code not only addresses the preservation of a view but also the balance of privacy, noting that the privacy preserved is usually to the interior of the home. He felt that staff's recommendation preserves the privacy to the Blanc home as well as opens up the view for the Collins home. He stated that he is very comfortable with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Karp felt that there was nothing preventing the Blancs from doing some creative landscaping away from the property line to create additional privacy to their yard and home. He stated that it is very difficult on a hillside to assume the people uphill from you cannot look into your yard, and felt that staff did a very good job in compromising the best they could in making their decision. Commissioner Perestam encouraged the two households to cooperate with each other so that, as the trees grow, this does not become a recurring and ongoing problem. He stated that he agreed with the staffs recommendations. Vice Chairman Knight agreed with the comments from the Planning Commissioners and also agreed that staff crafted a good recommendation with the compromises made, and was inclined to not uphold the appeal and approve the Director's decision. He noted that when discussing the view in this application and establishing an opinion on what is a protected view, he questioned staff if this establishes the protected view for the property or if the protected view is established through a View Restoration Permit. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that in making this decision staff took the view from the primary viewing area, and it is staffs intent to be consistent whether the view is considered in a View Restoration Permit application or a Height Variation Permit application. Therefore, in future applications the view would be taken from this room. Vice Chairman Knight asked, if the foliage were to grow above the 2'6" section and impair the view and the Collins applied for a View Restoration Permit, is a view parameter being established with this current decision. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 10 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if the Planning Commission upholds the Director's decision, and foliage then grows over the fence into the view, there is a view preservation process that will protect the view. Commissioner Mueller asked if the foliage can be removed without the consent of the foliage owner. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that Prop M has made its way into every facet of the development process, and staff cannot issue any permits or approvals without a site visit, noting that the wording in the Code that pertains to building permits is different than the rules for view restoration permits. He stated that in this instance staff could, per the Code, require removal of foliage without the foliage owner's consent. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-37 thereby denying the appeal of the Director's approval of the Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit, seconded by Commissioner Golida. Approved, (5-0). 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. Z0N2005-00269): 41 Cayuse Lane Assistant Planner Robles presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, she noted that while the subject property will be larger than the average residence in the surrounding area, staff feels that since the addition will be to the rear of the existing residence it will not be apparent and maintain compatibility with the surrounding properties. She noted that staff did not receive any comments or correspondence as a result of the public notice. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings in order to approve the height variation, and was therefore recommending the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Karp stated that he was concerned about the use of wood siding on a residence at the head of a canyon, and asked staff if it was in the purview of the Planning Commission to condition the approval that the applicant use a non- combustible material for siding on the dwelling. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the condition must be linked to neighborhood compatibility or one of the other findings. He noted that the material used is a building code issue, and not a requirement of the Development Code. Vice Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Joanna Callaahan 41 Cayuse Lane (applicant) explained that wood siding was chosen for the home to be compatible with the neighborhood, but would look into what would need to be done for fire proofing. She stated that she was available to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Karp asked if the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to Building and Safety that they think wood siding is a dangerous material in this situation. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the comment can be made to Building and Safety, however Building and Safety will just apply what is required in the Building Code. Commissioner Perestam noted that it is very interesting that almost every home in that neighborhood has wood siding on at least part of the residence. Vice Chairman Knight stated that he was very concerned with the location of the corner of the residence in regards to the top of a very steep slope, and asked if a full geology report will be required before being allowed to proceed. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that this issue will be handled during the Building and Safety process, noting that Building and Safety will send the City Geologist to the property to determine if a soils or geology report will be necessary during the plan check process. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt PC Resolution 2005-38 thereby approving the Height Variation Permit as recommended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (5-0). 4. Revision to Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-003151: 28224 San Nicolas Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the applicant was proposing a revision to a Height Variation to convert a pitched roof area to a 286 sq.ft. roof deck, which will take access off the third floor of the residence. He stated that staff feels that all of the necessary findings can be made, and was therefore recommending the Planning Commission approve the revision to the height variation, subject to the conditions in the Resolution. Vice Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Mr. Kalaltar 28224 San Nicolas Drive (applicant) stated that he was very concerned with the original plan, in that the children could possible climb on to the area and sit without any guardrails or protection. He felt that this type of roof deck would help prevent any dangerous situations in the future. Vice Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mueller asked if the roof deck will be built out any further than the facade of the residence. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 12 Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that the roof deck will not even go out to the front facade. Commissioner Mueller asked if there are other homes in the neighborhood that have roof decks. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff did an analysis and, based on a review of the area and aerial photographs, staff identified several homes that have roof decks or balconies in the neighborhood, a couple of which are visible from the street. Commissioner Mueller felt that this is a unique neighborhood in the City and that a roof deck, which may very well not be compatible in any other area of the City, is compatible in this neighborhood. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-39 thereby approving the revision to the Height Variation as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of August 9, 2005 Continued to the September 13, 2005 meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-aaenda for the meetina of September 13. 2005 The Planning Commission briefly reviewed the pre -agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 13