Loading...
PC MINS 20060411CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2006 CALL TO ORDER Approved April 25, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knight at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Karp led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Staff distributed correspondence for Agenda Items 1 and 2. Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the April 4th City Council meeting the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's decision regarding the Variance for the Trump National lots. He also noted that on May 2nd the City Council will be hearing the appeal of the decision for the new house on Ocean Terrace Drive. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items). None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00038)1 26609 Nokomis Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He stated that staff felt all the necessary findings can be made for the proposed project, and staff had received no comments from any of the neighbors or other interested parties. He stated that the applicant has expressed concerns regarding three of the Conditions of Approval, explaining that conditions 14 and 15 are conditions regarding certification of building height and square footage which are typically required on height variation applications and neighborhood compatibility analysis, and condition 16 relating to the foliage analysis. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the height variation as conditioned. Commissioner Karp noted on the photograph of the silhouette that a portion of the second story addition is not set back from the front of the house, but rather from the roof overhang and asked staff to clarify. Associate Planner Fax stated that the second story at that point is lined up with the front of the garage for visual relief and articulation. Commissioner Perestam felt that there was mare than 50 percent impervious surface in the front yard, and questioned if that was something that could be discussed in reviewing the current proposal. Associate Planner Fax explained that when an application is brought before the Planning Commission any and all items are on the table, therefore this issue can be raised. He noted that this is the first he'd heard of the issue, and checked the application provided by the applicant. He stated that he did not have sufficient information at this time to address the question. He explained that if this is an issue that prevents the Commission on taking action on the item, staff will ask the applicant to provide calculations showing how much hardscape there is in the front yard setback so staff can determine if there is a violation. Chairman Knight asked staff if they had done a privacy analysis with their recommendation to trim the hedge, or if was strictly a view analysis. Associate Planner Fax answered that staff had performed a view analysis only, as the conditions of the foliage analysis only discuss view. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Keith Hoffman 26609 Nokomis Road (applicant) questioned the trimming of the hedge, as he and his neighbor appreciate the privacy the hedge allows. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the removal of the conditions for square footage and height certifications. He explained that the project is constrained in size by the footprint of the existing first floor. He also explained that he is not adding any new foundation and can only go up in a prescribed area. Commissioner Karp was concerned that the second story bedroom is too far forward and asked if it could be set back approximately 2 feet to be even with the closet. Mr. Hoffman explained that the intent of this design was to break up the front area and be more compatible with the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 2 Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Chairman Knight stated that the code reads that before a building permit is issued, foliage shall be trimmed so as to not impair the view from the neighboring viewing area. He noted, however, that based on the letter submitted, the people whose view is going to be impaired are requesting the foliage remain for privacy and they prefer the view they get from their second story. He asked if the Planning Commission's hands were tied or if there was some discretion that can be used. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Code states that if the applicant has some foliage that significantly impairs a view, it has to be addressed. Further, if there is an agreement between the neighbors, this does not supersede the Code or exempt that Code language. However, if the Planning Commission agrees that the view is not significantly impaired, there is no need for the condition. Commissioner Lewis questioned how a decision that the foliage does not create a significant view impairment would affect a future homeowner, who may want the view. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the applicant was requesting removal of the condition. Therefore, the document would be silent on the view impairment and there should not be any persuasive affect and any future applicant could apply for view restoration or preservation. He added that he felt this Ordinance was in place to protect the views and support the individuals. He stated that if neither of the neighbors want the hedge trimmed he did not want to make them trim it anyway. Director/Secretary Rojas pointed out that the Code states the City shall not issue a permit if there is foliage significantly impairing a view. Therefore, a determination must be made regarding the view impairment. Commissioner Perestam asked staff if an official view analysis was done and a viewing area established. Associate Planner Fax explained he was making an assessment of the view, noting that the subject property is at a slightly lower elevation. He also viewed the height of the hedge that abutted 5016 Rockvalley Road versus the hedge that abuts 5026 Rockvalley Road and determined that there would be a significant view impairment. He stated that the only way to know for certain whether or not there is a significant view impairment would be to reassess the view impairment and determine authoritatively whether or not there would be significant view impairment and report back to the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas added that privacy would also be assessed at that time, and if there is a privacy impact staff can modify the trimming required for the view. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt he had enough information to make a decision without having to continue the item. He stated that there are two neighbors who agree on the privacy issue and the view issue and he couldn't believe that in this situation there are not rules allowing the parties to waive their rights in that regard. He noted that both Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 3 parties feel that the privacy issue is more important than the view and the Planning Commission should be able to make a decision to approve the project as long as the other findings can be made, which he believed could. Commissioner Perestam stated he still has questions about the hardscape area in the front yard, and if that question could be answered he would also not have a problem approving the project. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed, as he felt he could make a decision regarding the hedge. He felt a condition could be added stating that the applicant maintain a 50 percent impervious surface in front of the house. He was comfortable with the front elevation of the house and did not think it needed to be modified. He liked the fact that there is some offset between the two planes and the balcony rail helps break up the mass. He also felt it was a very sound engineering solution to have the front wall on the existing front wall. Commissioner Lewis stated that he agreed with the prior comments and felt he could approve the project at this time. Chairman Knight did not feel he had enough staff analysis on the impact of privacy to make a decision this evening. He would rather see the item continued for the staff to do another analysis on view and privacy to help him make a more informed decision. Chairman Knight re -opened the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hoffman how long he had lived in his home and if was already bricked in the front yard when he bought the home. Mr. Hofffman answered that he bought his home 5 years ago and the front yard was bricked in when he purchased the home. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hoffman if he had any objections to continuing this item to the next Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Hoffman stated he was available to attend the meeting if the item were to be continued, however since he and his neighbor agree on the view and privacy issues, he would rather have a decision at this meeting. He understood that if his neighbors moved and the new neighbors had an objection with the hedge, he would be more than happy to work with them. He also noted that any new neighbor had options with the City in pursuing their view if they so chose. He added that even if his current neighbors changed their minds about the hedge they could, at any time, approach him or the City about trimming the hedge. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-20 thereby approving the height variation as modified to remove the condition regarding the hedge trimming due to privacy concerns and add a condition requiring the Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 4 impervious surface in the front yard be maintained at or adjusted to the 50 percent coverage per the Development Code, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Vice Chairman Gerstner understood the need for the square footage certification and the height certification, and asked staff if there had been a case where those conditions had been waived. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that these conditions were put on every height variation. Associate Planner Fox added that he could not think of any height variation where the building height has not been certified, adding that singe story additions have been required to have a height certification if they are within a few inches of the 16 foot height limit. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that if it is routinely required and as it does not create a hardship to this applicant, he felt the conditions requiring square footage and building height remain in place. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff when the requirement for the 50 percent impervious surface came into effect. Director/Secretary Rojas felt that the requirement is part of the original Code, but would have to check. Vice Chairman Gerstner added that this requirement is one that is discussed frequently in the development standards committee, in that they have been trying to find ways to cause other properties to maintain the 50 percent impervious surface requirement. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that since the brickwork has been there so long and done in such a nice way, he was somewhat reluctant to require the applicant to remove the bricks. Commissioner Perestam stated that in the development standards committee there were many discussions that, as the City becomes more densely populated, this lack of front yard landscaping becomes somewhat more common. He explained that language will be coming before the Planning Commission in the next several months for proposed Code amendments which will help reinforce this requirement. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff, if they had noticed this situation while doing their analysis, would they have brought this situation to the Planning Commission's attention. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff would have identified the situation to the applicant and to the Planning Commission. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Chairman Knight dissenting. 2. Tentative Parcel Mao. Variance. and Gradina Permit (Case No. SUB2003- 00023 and Z0N2003-00515: 28065 Palos Verdes Drive East Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 5 Associate Planner Fax presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He discussed the required findings necessary to approve the Tentative Parcel Map, noting that staff and the City Engineer determined that the map complies with many of the necessary findings, however was deficient on a couple of points. He explained that the two areas of major deficiency are that Lot 2 has an average lot depth of just under 91 feet and that allowing the creation of a sub -standard lot would be contrary to the General Plan. He stated that because Lot 2 is sub -standard a Variance is needed, and staff could not make 3 of the required 4 findings to approve the Variance. He explained that the construction of the house on Lot 2 is predicated upon the approval of the Parcel Map, therefore staffs recommendation to deny the Tentative Parcel Map and Variance in effect are recommendations to deny the Grading application for the house. He explained that since staff is recommending denial of the map, detailed analysis of the consistency of the proposed house with the required grading findings have not been performed. He briefly discussed the consistency with the Conceptual Trails Plan, noting the two trails potentially affected by this proposed development. He also discussed the issue of Residential Care Facilities, noting that the property owner currently operates a state licensed facility in the home, licensed for six or fewer clients. He explained that State law defines a facility with 6 or fewer clients as a residential use of the property and, as such, requires cities to treat them no differently than any other single family residence. He wanted to make it clear that the recommendation to deny the application is in no way related to the existing use of the property as a residential care facility or the use of any future house for that purpose. In conclusion, he explained that staff was recommending denial without prejudice the requested Tentative Parcel Map and Grading approval, but denying with prejudice the requested Variance. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the lot would be divisible with the proper minimum depth if the applicant weren't trying to save the existing swimming pool. Associate Planner Fax felt that it would be, however there might still be an impact upon the main house, as the requirement under a new subdivision requires a 20 -foot rear setback rather than a 15 -foot setback. Commissioner Perestam asked if this lot would be divisible given a different configuration. Associate Planner Fax explained that the lot is large enough to subdivide under the City's code and could be subdivided given the right plans. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Bill Dowling 907 Island Ave, Wilmington stated that the owner purchased this property with the idea of putting another residence on it. He stated that one of the hardships of this property not mentioned in the staff report is the distance from the back of the existing house to the back of the property is only 187 feet. He stated that the existing pool is not an issue and Mr. Velasquez is willing to demolish the pool if necessary. He explained that the owner was now suggesting the removal of the pool, removal of a Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 6 portion of the existing house, and a realignment of a property line in the back. He felt if that was done they would be able to meet the 120 foot depth requirement. Juan Velasquez (property owner) stated that he started this project in 2003 when he purchased the property and was told it was zoned R2 and could be sub -divided. He explained that he has a compromise which should allow him to sub -divide the property. He stated that he has no problem demolishing the swimming pool, as he has 6 other properties in the City and the elderly residents do not use the pool. He also stated that he would demolish one room in the back of the house to comply with City regulations. Robert Miller 28077 Palos Verdes Drive East understood that the existing house on the property is a residential care facility, which has not been an issue with him. His concern was that the new proposed house may be another residential care facility. He explained that the house directly behind his and one down the street are both residential care facilities, and as a result, his issues were centered on traffic and noise. He was also concerned with fire and fire safety and the ability for the fire department to access the property. Mr. Velasauez (in rebuttal) stated that there is no State law regulating the location or density of residential care facilities in a residential neighborhood. He stated that there will be no traffic or noise generated, as the residents are elderly and do not have cars. He stated that the only traffic will be that of friends or relatives visiting, which is no different than any other house in the neighborhood. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp felt the comments made by Mr. Velasquez were inappropriate, as this discussion is not about residential care facilities but rather if this is plan complies with the requirements of a subdivision. He did not feel the application conforms and should be denied, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed that the plan as presented does not comply to the minimum lot area requirements, however the applicant seems to recognize that and has shown he wants to make an effort to revise the plan to meet one of the main objections of the staff. He felt that the Planning Commission should give the applicant the opportunity to do so, and should continue the hearing to see what the new plans look like. Chairman Knight agreed with the findings in the staff report, and agreed that denying the Variance with prejudice was the correct action, as without the Variance none of the other applications can follow. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that this is an application for land use rather than structures, which is something the Planning Commission does not often deal with. He stated that the defined lot lines help control the size and density of an area, and the City sets those standards at certain dimensions in certain areas for a reason. He also felt Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 7 that lots should tend to be regular in shape, as irregular lots do not work into the standards of the City. He stated that this lot is over 40,000 square feet and should be able to be reasonably be subdivided into two lots which conform with the City required width and depth characteristics. Therefore, he didn't have an objection to the property being subdivided, but did object to the property being subdivided in the ways currently being proposed. He felt the subdivision should be regular and conform to the minimum standards of the City. Therefore, he agreed with the staff's recommendations. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-21 thereby denying without prejudice the requested tentative parcel map and grading approval, and denying with prejudice the requested variance, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Lewis stated that he supported the motion, noting that his support has nothing to do with the possible traffic issues or use of the lot. The motion was approved, (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Minutes of March 14, 2006 Chairman Knight noted a typo on page 7 of the minutes Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Perestam abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 4. Minutes of March 28, 2006 The minutes were unanimously continued to April 25, 2006 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of April 25, 2006 Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the first height variation on the agenda will be continued to a future meeting, and since he will not be at the meeting, Deputy Planning Director Pfost will attend the meeting in his absence. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 8