Loading...
PC MINS 20051011CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Approved October 2520O5 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Mueller led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Mueller, and Perestam, Vice Chairman Knight, Chairman Tetreault. Commissioner Gerstner arrived at 7:09 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Golida was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas and Associate Planner Blumenthal. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed a petition received for Agenda Item No. 4 and reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request for Nantasket Drive, which the Planning Commission will be hearing in the near future. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00146): 7264 Berry Hill Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the applicant has withdrawn the project, and that this item was on the Agenda for the Planning Commission to receive and file, and no further action is required. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00404): 30136 Via Rivera Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that staff received correspondence late in the comment period from the neighbors raising quite a few issues regarding the project. He stated that in order for the applicant to try to address these issues, staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to the October 25rth meeting. Commissioner Mueller noted that there was a claim that the silhouette was constructed incorrectly. Director/Secretary Rojas acknowledged that a portion of the silhouette was missing and staff felt that it should be corrected before making a final recommendation of the application. Commissioner Mueller noted that he was supporting the continuance due to the incorrect silhouette. The Planning Commission unanimously continued the public hearing to October 25th • 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00140): 30645 Ganado Commissioner Karp stated that the applicant is a social acquaintance of his, and therefore he would recuse himself from hearing this application and left the room. 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 determined that all 9 findings for the Height Variation can be made and was therefore recommending approval of the project, subject to the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution. Vice Chairman Knight noted that a letter was received from Mr. Tepper stating that he was not offered any plans of the proposed addition to review during the early neighborhood consultation period, and asked if he was outside of the notification area. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that Mr. Tepper is within the notification range, and that he did sign the early neighborhood notification form indicating that he had reviewed the plans. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 2 Chairman Tetreault asked staff if this house had previously been remodeled or expanded. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that there has not been any addition or remodel to the house since City incorporation, however staff was not aware of the history prior to City incorporation. There being no speakers, Chairman Tetreault opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mueller asked if the tree on the property was included in the application, as he saw no mention of it in the staff report. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the tree is not included in the application. Commissioner Mueller asked if staff determined there was no view impairment, as he did not see mention of it in the staff report. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that was correct. Vice Chairman Knight asked if it would in the purview of the Planning Commission to address something, such as a tree, if it presented an unsafe condition. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it would not be in the purview of the Planning Commission, and if the neighbor feels the tree creates an unsafe condition such as a fire hazard, he should call the Fire Department. Vice Chairman Knight moved to approve P.C. Resolution 2004-43, thereby approving the Height Variation as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Karp recused. 4. Variance and Extreme Slope Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00320): 27544 Elmbridge Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. He gave a brief background of the property, displaying aerials of the property which indicate the deck did not exist when the aerials were taken in the 1976, however it was existing when the aerials were taken in 1997. Further, the 2003 aerials showed the deck was expanded. He noted that the applicant has indicated the deck did exist when he bought the property in 1981. He stated that staff believes there is an extraordinary circumstance to warrant the approval of the Variance due to the limited size of the lot and the limited useable rear yard area. He stated that staff further believes the deck is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, noting that many of the homes in the vicinity have decks constructed over extreme slopes that are similar in size and height. As such, staff has concluded that all four findings can be made for the Variance and has recommended the Variance and Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 3 Extreme Slope Permit be approved, subject to the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the City was considering this a deck repair or a deck replacement. Associate Planner Blumenthal noted that the deck was never approved by the City, and therefore staff was considering this an after the fact approval for a new deck. He explained that when staff analyzed the deck, it was looked at as a new application, and was analyzed by staff as if the deck were not already built. Vice Chairman Knight asked how much of the deck was over the extreme slope. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the entire deck is over the extreme slope. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify how staff refers to property rights in the situation, and in referring to "rights" is staff referring to the similar decks in the neighborhood that may or may not be permitted. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained this statement is referring to the other property owners that have the other decks in the neighborhood, also noting that some of the decks are not permitted. Director/Secretary Rojas added that when looking at whether there are existing decks in the neighborhood staff considers the circumstances in each situation, such as whether or not the construction of the other decks was done under the County and are legal non- conforming, whether or not other Variances have been granted in the neighborhood for similar construction, and other circumstances in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Knight noted that when referring to a right possessed by other owners, it doesn't necessarily mean they have a structure that is per the Development Code, rather it is something they currently have and are enjoying. Associate Planner Blumenthal agreed. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify the suggested height of the landscaping, whether it was to be at the top or bottom of the railing. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff was recommending the landscaping screen to the top of the deck level, not so much the railing. Commissioner Mueller noted that this deck extends a little further out than other decks in the neighborhood, and questioned if this is a perceived right of the owner to construct this deck, would another property owner then feel he can construct a deck just a little further out. He asked staff if there is anything the Planning Commission should consider in regards to granting permits for larger and larger decks. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 4 Associate Planner Blumenthal noted that the applicant was asking for a Variance for the larger deck, noting that there are decks in the neighborhood that are larger than this deck. Chairman Tetreault questioned the use of the word "right", noting that the decks over the slopes require a Variance, which may nor may not be granted. Therefore, he felt that property owners have the right to apply for the decks, but necessarily the right to build the decks. He noted that this is a small lot on an extreme slope, and did not understand staffs use of "property right" in regards to building this deck. Associate Planner Blumenthal agreed this is a discretionary review and the Planning Commission can deny the Variance, which would require the applicant to move the deck back to the 6 feet allowable under the Extreme Slope Permit. He stated that the Planning Commission can also deny the Extreme Slope Permit application, which would require the applicant to remove the deck. He explained that much of what can be done in the City is under a discretionary review rather than by right, and that many people in the area have decks or expanded rear yards that are of value and use on their property, and this property does not have the ability to have those same uses without the deck. Commissioner Perestam questioned staff on how they would handle a case where a resident in this neighborhood applied for a new deck on their property which had similar topography. He felt that staff may be hard pressed to deny such an application. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the way staff approaches these applications is to assess the findings on a site -by -site basis. He stated that in this situation, for reasons explained in the staff report, staff was able to make the findings. However, if the neighbors had raised issues regarding privacy or view and staff agreed with the concerns, staff may not have recommended approval. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Jack Liu 27544 Elmbridge Drive (applicant) stated that he was available to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Liu what year he bought his home and if the deck was existing at that time. Mr. Liu answered that he bought his home in 1981 and the deck was existing at that time. Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Liu if he expanded the size of the deck when he rebuilt it. Mr. Liu answered that he did not expand the deck. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 5 Arthur Fein 27520 Elmbridge Drive stated that in 1995 he was in the exact position Mr. Liu is in today. He explained that at that time he went to Chadwick School and took pictures of all the decks in the neighborhood that were of the same approximate size, noting that his deck was approved by the Planning Commission. He also noted that another neighbor went through the approval process and his deck was approved. He felt that precedence has been set for approval of these decks on Elmbridge Drive. He stated that he had no objection to the approval of Mr. Liu's deck as long as it met the structural and geological standards of the City. Rudy Laurel 27538 Elmbridge Drive stated that he has no objection to the deck at Mr. Liu's residence. Terri Eisemann 4684 Browndeer Lane stated that she lives down slope from Mr. Liu. She felt that the deck appears smaller than some of the other decks in the neighborhood. She stated that the deck is very well maintained and has no objection to the deck. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms. Eisemann if she had read the condition regarding the foliage, and if she was satisfied with that condition. Ms. Eisemann stated that she had not read the condition, however she noted that Mr. Liu has always tried to make the neighbors happy with regards to the deck and the foliage surrounding the deck. Melody Hsieh 4910 Elkridge Drive stated that the deck is very well maintained and had no objection to the deck. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight stated that he would favor the approval of the Variance and Extreme Slope Permit. He noted that he had been troubled by the idea of using other structures that may or may not been permitted as a comparison to a right that the property owners have in terms of enjoying their backyards. However, staff has indicated that some of the decks have been permitted, with one permitted with a Variance. He therefore felt enough precedence had been set with the permitted decks. Commissioner Perestam was also in favor of approving the application. He felt that the condition added regarding foliage was a good one, and this type of condition should be considered with future applications. Commissioner Mueller agreed that the condition regarding foliage accomplishes what he felt needed to be accomplished. Regarding the size of the deck, he didn't feel the deck appeared unusually large when looking at it. Given the size of the yard, he understood the need of the deck. He therefore agreed with the staff recommendations for approval of the Variance and Extreme Slope Permit. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 6 Chairman Tetreault stated he also favored approval of the project. He noted, however, that he is not in favor of gauging the acceptability of an application for a Variance based upon what others may have done illegally. He stated that in this situation there are other decks in the neighborhood that have been approved, therefore he is satisfied that the proper procedure has been followed and there is precedence which will allow this deck. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-44, thereby approving the Variance and Extreme Slope Permit as conditioned, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of August 9, 2005 Commissioner Karp moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0-1) with Vice Chairman Knight abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 6. Minutes of August 23, 2005 Vice Chairman Knight felt that there was a discussion regarding protected view which should be included on page 10 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Knight moved to approve the minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioner Gerstner and Chairman Tetreault abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. 7. Minutes of September 13. 2005 Commissioner Mueller referred to Associate Planner Blumenthal's comment on page 8 of the minutes, and felt that the comment needed to be expanded upon. Commissioner Karp moved to approve the minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (6-0), with Vice Chairman Knight abstaining from Item No. 1 only, as he was recused from that item. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of October 25, 2005 Commissioner Karp stated that he would like to have added a discussion item to the upcoming joint meeting with the City Council regarding whether the Planning Commission could require from applicants a survey of the property showing access to the street and the easements on the property when a property does not abut a public street. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 7 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that there are already 6 items on the Agenda for the joint meeting, and noted that the joint meeting is not scheduled to be an all day meeting and therefore all of the items may not be heard. He suggested adding this item to the existing Agenda item which includes the discussion of CC&Rs. The Planning Commission agreed. Director/Secretary Rojas asked if any of the Commissioners would not be present at the joint meeting. All of the Commissioners indicated they would be at the October 22nd joint meeting. Commissioner Perestam stated that he would not be present at the October 25, 2005 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to the October 22, 2005 joint meeting with the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 8