Loading...
PC MINS 20050726CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Approved August 9, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:12 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Golida, Karp, Vice Chairman Knight and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Commissioners Perestam and Mueller were excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Associate Planner Blumenthal. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed one item of correspondence from Commissioner Mueller regarding Agenda Item No. 3. He also reported that the City Council had overturned the Planning Commission's decision on the Ella Road appeal and approved the Ocean Terrace Tract Amendment as conditioned by the Planning Commission with regards to the balcony. Chairman Tetreault noted that he had attended the July 19th City Council meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON -AGENDA ITEMS None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. View Restoration Permit No. 184: 2652 Colt Road Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining the item had been continued to a property boundary survey of the foliage owner's property to determine which trees are located on his property and which, if any, are located on the neighbor's property. He stated, however, that as of now that survey had not been scheduled and as such, a condition of approval has been added that ownership of the trees must be established before any trimming can occur. He stated that the applicant has added an additional foliage owner to his application in the event it is determined that trees are located on that property. Director/Secretary Rojas polled the Commissioners as to who had visited the site. Commissioner Karp stated that, while he has visited the site and attended the March hearing for the item, he was not present at the April 26th meeting when this item was heard and has not reviewed the minutes or the videotape of that meeting. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that Commissioner Karp could participate in the discussion of the item, but could not vote on the item. Chairman Tetreault asked staff to review what findings the Planning Commission made at the previous hearing. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Planning Commission determined that all of the trees subject to this application do create a significant view impairment, but did not adopt a formal Resolution in order to allow the ownership of the trees to be determined and for the applicant to work with the foliage owner or owners to try to reach an agreement. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if Mrs. Pho was ever informed that she could have a survey of her property done to determine the ownership of the trees. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that Mrs. Pho was not informed of that. Vice Chairman Knight asked if, once the survey is performed, staff will then make the determination whose trees are on what property. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the survey, not staff, will show what property the trees are located on. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify what will happen in the survey is not done within the 30 days specified in the staff report. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if the survey is not done within 30 days as specified in the Resolution, the matter will be referred to the City Attorney's office for resolution. Planning Commission Minutes „My 26, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Golida asked staff to briefly review the foliage, the views, and the trimming recommendations. Senior Planner Alvarez displayed photographs showing the foliage, the trimming recommendations, and the views that will be restored. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Ken Poole 2652 Colt Road (applicant) stated that he has received three bids from licensed surveyors to do the survey of the properties, and has given a check to staff for the survey. He stated that the survey will include not only the property line, but the location of the four trees in question. He felt that at the last meeting Mr. Johnson had agreed to allow the surveyors onto his property. He noted that the foliage owner on Via de Anzar has been very cooperative in regards to trimming their foliage and there have been no problems regarding that private agreement. Don Johnston 2417 Sparta Drive (foliage owner) stated that he had sent a letter to staff on July 8th, however he noted it was not part of the staff report or distributed with late correspondence, and requested that letter be distributed to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that the letter was sent last week to the Planning Commissioners with their packets. Mr. Johnston stated that this is the third public hearing regarding this View Restoration Permit, and still complete facts regarding the foliage are not known. He stated that at the last meeting he indicated he would be willing to have a surveyor come on to his property to do the survey, and that all he need do is contact him. He stated that he has not heard anything from the surveyor. He also stated that the pictures that he has supplied and the oral and written testimony he has given regarding the non -addressed view impairing foliage, to his knowledge, has not been addressed by staff. He questioned why the City has not followed up on these trees. He stated that he has given much testimony and input into this process, making comments on all aspects. He stated the input was given in order to save the trees, or if that was not possible, to ensure the whole process was conducted using accurate facts, completed analysis, and properly addressing all requirements of the Ordinance, thus ensuring a fair and proper result. He stated that he was very disappointed with the quality of work done on this application, starting with the acceptance from the City of an application that was incomplete. He urged the Planning Commission to carefully and completely review all of the work and correct all errors and omissions before proceeding. He felt that the Planning Commission was being asked by staff to approve a proposal that, in its present form, will provide no certainty of view restoration due to the existence of view impairing foliage not covered by this View Restoration Permit. He stated that his letter formally requests that language be inserted to protect all parties in case of a bad view restoration outcome. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to address Mr. Johnston's concerns regarding the trees not covered in this application. Senior Planner Alvarez explained there are trees down slope that are in the line of sight of Mr. Poole's residence, however staff does not believe these trees, while in the line of sight, significantly block a view from Mr. Poole's residence. Vice Chairman Knight referred to the language Mr. Johnston was requesting be added and noted that if this language were to be added, other foliage owners could request this language, creating a vicious circle where nothing would ever get done. Senior Planner Alvarez agreed. Commissioner Karp felt that a discussion regarding trees not on this application is irrelevant, and that the only relevancy is that the Planning Commission has determined the trees cause a significant view impairment and need to be cut or removed, and when this is going to take place. He felt that Mr. Johnston's arguments are a stall and delay tactic. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the Planning Commission has made the findings for this application, was comfortable with those findings, and was prepared to make or hear a motion. Vice Chairman Knight agreed, noting however that the letter sent to the foliage owners should be a certified letter, and would like to see that spelled out in the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Tetreault agreed that the findings have been made, that another potential foliage owner has been added to the application, and that all that now needs to happen is have a survey performed to determine ownership of the trees, and was in favor of adopting the Resolution presented by staff. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-33, thereby approving the staff recommendations as amended to include language that the letters sent to the foliage owner be done via certified mail, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Karp abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit Case No. ZON2005-00170): 32420 Nautilus Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He stated that staff has reviewed project and determined that all necessary findings can be made, and was recommending that Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 4 the Planning Commission approve the height variation, subject to the recommended conditions. Vice Chairman Knight noted that the current residence does not comply with code setbacks, and asked staff if they were aware of how that happened. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that staff did not research how or why that occurred. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the other homes in the area have less than five-foot setbacks. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the property does have a four -foot side yard setback, which is one foot less than the required five-foot setback. He explained that the aerial photos do show property lines, however the property lines in the photos may be off by one to two feet, so it is difficult for staff to determine if the other properties have a five-foot side yard setback. He explained that staff can approximate the setbacks, and in viewing the aerial photo the other homes in the neighborhood appear to have the same side yard setback as the subject property. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Craig Doulass 32420 Nautilus Drive (applicant) stated that before starting the project he contacted both the Planning and Building Departments for guidance on how to proceed. He explained the proposed use of the additional space he was requesting, noting that his goal was to get the most space as efficiently as possible as well as maximizing the ocean views from the home. He stated that it was also important to enhance the street appearance of the house, and therefore the pilasters were added to the design. He felt that the design effectively reduces the bulk and mass of the second story while enabling him to maintain the square footage on the second floor that he needs. He explained that he visited every home within a 500 -foot radius of his residence to show his plans and a 3-D rendering of the proposed remodel. He stated that the City Geologist has already been to his property and determined that a soils report would not be required for his proposed addition, and that it has been determined that the existing foundation can support a second story addition. He displayed several 3-D renderings of the proposed home to give the Planning Commission a better idea of how the completed project would look. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Douglass if he had any information regarding 4 -foot side yard setback. Mr. Douglass explained there is a letter in the City files written to the original contractor that states the matter of the side yard setback is closed, as the foundation had been surveyed for proper placement and the property has therefore been brought into compliance with the City's Municipal Code. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 5 Jerry Duhovic 32415 Nautilus Drive explained that he lives across the street from the Douglass residence. He felt that the proposed addition is an enhancement to the neighborhood and will benefit all the homes in the neighborhood. Ali Derek 32430 Nautilus Drive stated that he also represents another owner on the street. He stated that he gives his full support to the Douglass addition. Lu Colqrove 32410 Nautilus Drive stated that she supports the proposed addition. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they were comfortable with the addition of the pilasters to reduce the bulk and mass of the proposed addition. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff was satisfied with the pilasters along with the additional setback and decking in addressing the bulk and mass of the home. Chairman Tetreault felt that Nautilus Drive is unique in that it is a neighborhood in and of itself. He therefore felt that neighborhood compatibility would be confined to that one street, and could therefore make all of the necessary findings. Vice Chairman Knight agreed, noting that he did not feel any of the homes on Nautilus Drive could be considered comparable to the homes in the Seaview Tract. He felt that he could make the necessary findings and was comfortable approving the project. Commissioner Golida noted a typographical error in Section 5 of the Resolution. Vice Chairman Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-34 as amended, thereby approving the Height Variation, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:30 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:40 p.m. at which time they reconvened. NEW BUSINESS 4. Planning Commission policy on accepting late correspondence Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining the requested language changes from the last meeting have been incorporated into the language for the Planning Commission's review. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Mueller's written comment No. 3, noting that emails are not necessarily received instantly, and felt that it would be appropriate just to state that email is encouraged. The Planning Commissioners agreed. Vice Chairman Knight asked if there was anything written prohibiting photographs or copies of the verbal comments being provided by the public. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that at the last meeting there was a discussion regarding late correspondence, and the Planning Commission did not specifically define late correspondence. Rather, it was determined that the Planning Commission rule is not to accept late correspondence, however the Commission can choose to suspend the rule to accept correspondence, including photographs and written copies of the verbal comments, on a case by case basis, if warranted. Chairman Tetreault stated that his biggest concern with this procedure was that he didn't want the discretion to accept some things taken away, however by suspending the rules this discretion is still there. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed, explaining that this amendment is to try to minimize the correspondence that comes in late, to get the view restoration information out with the agenda packets, and to encourage email correspondence. Commissioner Karp stated that most Commissioners make their site visits on the weekend before the meeting, and if someone submits a chart, photograph, or other information regarding the project on Monday it may not be as effective, as the Commissioners have already done their site visit. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-35, as amended to change the heading of Section 2.5 to read "Written and pictorial evidence" and to carry that change throughout the section and that the last line of the first paragraph in Section 2.5 be struck, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of July 12, 2005 Vice Chairman Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining since he left the meeting early. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of August 8, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 7 The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the pre -agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 8