Loading...
PC MINS 20061212 Approved January 23q 7 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knight at 7:09 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Karp led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Gerstner, Chairman Knight. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Sohn, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously approved the agenda as amended to hear items 3 and 4 after item 6. COMMUNICATIONS Staff distributed three items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5 and noted that at the December 5t" meeting the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's denial of the project on Middlecrest Road. .Commissioner Tetreault noted that he may have to leave the meeting this evening at the break. Chairman Knight mentioned the transmittal of his letter regarding public speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Encroachment Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00540): Stoneridge HOA Chairman Knight noted that he would like to see a condition added to the Conditions of Approval requiring that Dig Alert be contacted prior to construction. P.C. Resolution 2006-61 approving the request to construct an identification sign in the landscaped parkway was unanimously adopted as amended. (7-0) CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00349): 6115 Ocean Terrace Dr Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report giving a brief history of the project, a description of the project, and explaining the need for the Height Variation. She stated that with this revised design staff feels the proposed project is improved and recommends approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff to clarify how this proposed plan is different from the plan originally looked at by the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Sohn explained that the second story has been reduced ,by 61 square feet and the height has been reduced. She noted that the footprint has not changed. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Ed Beall 23727 Hawthorne Blvd, Torrance (architect) felt that staff had done a good job in presenting the plan to the Planning Commission. He noted that the house is proposed to be set back 26 to 37 feet, which represents 7 to 17 feet more than the minimum setback. He felt this would allow for landscaping that will enhance the house and neighborhood. He also noted that the proposed house will only be approximately 6 inches taller than the neighboring house to the east. Lin Chen 107 Hilltop Circle (applicant) stated that a single story house will not meet the requirements of her family, noting that the proposed house is well within the City requirements. Christine Fan 6236 Ocean Terrace Drive stated she has reviewed the plans for the .proposed residence and that it would be an asset to the neighborhood. Henry Aguirre 6005 Ocean Terrace Drive felt that the proposed house is too big for the lot and does not fit in with the neighborhood. Christy Beggans 6215 Ocean Terrace Drive felt the proposed house is still too massive for the lot and the neighborhood and is still unique when compared to the homes on the north side of Ocean Terrace Drive. She felt the house was too tall and was not compatible with the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2006 Page 2 Commissioner Tetreault asked Ms. Beggans if she was aware or had any history on why the houses on one side of the street are lower level one-story homes. Ms. Beggans answered that she does not have the history on why the tract was constructed that way, but noted that it is an important point when considering the approval of the proposed project. Linda Muckel 6024 Ocean Terrace Drive stated that she is an original owner and when she and her husband built their home in 1983 they were told by the Planning Commission that homes in this neighborhood were limited to 16 feet in height, with no exceptions. Associate Planner Sohn noted that the Height Variation application was available and an option in 1983. William Glantz 32034 Searidge Circle stated that there are no two-story homes on that side of the street, only single story and split-level homes, and was done so for compatibility reasons. He stated that on the other side of the street there are two-story homes because the lots are very large and they are able to be set back quite a distance. He noted that the proposed house, while set back from the street, is still too large for the lot. He asked the Planning Commission to consider what type of house will meet the owners needs but will not be incompatible with the neighborhood, as this proposed structure is. George Walker 6035 Ocean Terrace Drive felt the proposed project is too large for the neighborhood and not compatible. He stated that he supports everything that Ms. Beggans stated. Ed Beall (in rebuttal) stated that a one story home will not meet the needs of the family, as they liked the safety of the two-stories, the better view, and allows for more play and garden area on the lower floor. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis began by noting that he was not at the first hearing for this project, however he has read the minutes and feels comfortable in discussing this project. He .felt this was a modest enough proposal and the City does need to allow for bigger homes for bigger families. He stated that he was able to make the findings to approve this project. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt it was clear that the issue is this case is not size, as the size of this home is smaller than the average of the 20 nearest homes. He felt that the complaints are more about height than size. He felt that, after viewing the new silhouette, lowering of the height by three feet makes a substantial difference. He felt that the residents objecting to the project have legitimate objections, however he noted Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2006 Page 3 that of the speakers objecting to the project only one lives within the 20 closest homes. He felt that he was able to make the necessary findings to approve this project. Commissioner Karp noted that the Planning Commission had asked the architect to provide some sketches or information as to putting this proposed house on one level, and the architect had responded with a letter stating they didn't want to have a single story residence. He felt that this is a one-story neighborhood and that is how the neighborhood should stay. Commissioner Tetreault felt that if this house were proposed on a lot across the street there might not be this discussion on whether or not it was compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that he was struggling with whether or not it was appropriate to determine compatibility based on what side of the street the house is on and if the house is compatible with that side of the street. Commissioner Perestam felt that the height reduction made was significant when looking at the new silhouette. In discussing a one-story alternative, he did not feel there was enough room on the lot to get anywhere near the size of house proposed. He noted that a larger single story house would have no backyard. He therefore was inclined to support the project. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that in October he objected to the home, as the accentuation and detailing was attempting to make the house look taller and larger than it needed to. Since then, the architect has redetailed the front and shortened the house so that he felt the house has a much less significant presence on the street, which appeals to him. He stated he would like to see a single story house, however given the BGR line and some of the slopes, there is not a significant amount of space on the lot to build on. He stated that he therefore can support the structure. Chairman Knight felt the house still has a looming presence on the street, partially because of the tower and front fagade. He stated that he would prefer to see a lower profile in the front with the second story more towards the back of the house. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-62 thereby approving the Height Variation and Grading permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Karp, Tetreault, and Chairman Knight dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Variance and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2003-00611): 300042 Avenida Tranquila Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a history of the project and the need for the Variance and Grading Permit. He stated that staff was not able to make two of the necessary findings to approve the Variance and was therefore recommending Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2006 Page 4 denial, with prejudice, of the requested Variance. With respect to the Grading Permit, staff felt that all of the necessary findings could be made and was therefore recommending approval of the Grading application for the retaining walls. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they had received any letters of opposition in regards to the retaining walls. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff did not receive any letters opposing the walls, only a letter of concern regarding the geologic safety of the walls. He noted that a condition of approval has been added that all necessary geologic approvals and building permits be obtained for the retaining walls. Commissioner Karp asked if there was anything unsafe about the balustrade where it is located on the property. Associate Planner Fox stated not to staff's knowledge, noting, however, that it has not been inspected by a building inspector. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if the balustrade had been built three feet back from the top of the retaining wall if it would have needed a Variance. Associate Planner Fox stated it would not have needed a Variance, explaining that when walls are constructed either on top of one another or within 3 feet horizontally, they are considered a single wall or fence. Therefore, if the separation had been provided it would be considered a separate fence and would not exceed the height limit. Commissioner Karp asked if the balustrade were removed and thick hedges planted in its place if that would be a violation of the Code. Associate Planner Fox answered that the hedge would be treated like a fence and would have to be three feet back. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Shadi Razipour 30042 Avenida Tranquila stated that the reason the balustrade was added was for safety, the old wall needed upgrading and repair, it became very dangerous to play near the front wall, the front brick wall provided no protection to anyone especially the elderly guests and very young children, and the previous wall was used as a balance beam for daring guests. She stated the old wall never had any type of safety guard and was extremely unattractive. She stated that the current wall and ballistae provides safety to the children and elderly guests. Shahpour Razipour 30042 Avenida Tranquila stated that he approached the City years ago and was told that he could put some type of fencing up for safety and that the balustrade would be alright to install and that inspectors looked at it while it was being constructed, noting that at one point the inspector had him change the balustrade from Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2006 Page 5 6 inch spacing to 4 inch spacing. He stated that the balustrade makes his property much safer. He asked that for the sake of the safety of his children that the Planning Commission approve his wall and balustrade. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Razipour if he has any documents showing that the City looked at the balustrade and asked him to revise what he had originally built. Mr. Razipour answered that he has receipts showing he bought extra material for the balustrade. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Chairman Knight stated he was confused by the testimony given by Mr. Razipour, as it appears he approached the City regarding the balustrade, and the City's Building Official actually went to the site and inspected the wall and balustrade. Director Rojas explained that these walls and the balustrade were brought to the City's attention through a Code Enforcement case as construction without permits. He stated that since there were no building permits there are no records of any conversations or inspections done by the former Building Official. He noted that all of the inspectors mentioned in Mr. Razipour's testimony, as well as the former Building Official, no longer work for the City. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he normally is one who is very much against someone building something and then coming to the City for approval after-the-fact. In this instance, however, he did not get the impression that this work was done with the intention of trying to build something and getting it passed after the fact. He felt this was more of an honest mistake. He noted that there are no neighbors objecting and in this instance he was in favor of approving this request. Commissioner Karp stated that he too does not like after-the-fact requests, however he noted that in this instance the balustrade does provide safety for the children who live there. He felt this was an exception and was in support of approving the walls and balustrade. Commissioner Ruttenberg disagreed with the staff's finding in regards to the Variance that this does apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. He felt this does not apply generally because it only applies to four homes on the upslope. He therefore felt he could make finding number one. He felt the balustrade is safer where it is rather than if it were three feet back or removed. Therefore, he supported granting the Variance and Grading Permit. Commissioner Lewis stated that in this case the wall is either legal or it isn't and there isn't room for discretion. In this case he noted that the wall is too tall and agreed with staff's analysis that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. He stated that he was comfortable adopting staff's recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Tetreault felt this was a case of equity. He explained that the applicant had a conversation with the former Building Official who told him it was alright to build the balustrade, even noting that it was being built wrong and giving direction on the proper way for it to be built. He therefore felt it was difficult to now say it was the applicant's fault for building an illegal structure. He noted that from a practical standpoint there should be some type of barrier in place for safety. He stated that he was able to approve granting the Variance and Grading Permit. Commissioner Perestam agreed that the after-the-fact permitting process is always uncomfortable. He felt that the circumstances and the remedy may be more of a problem than what is in place today, and felt that he was able to approve the Variance and Grading Permit. Chairman Knight stated that it is clear the current balustrade does not meet the Code, however that it what the Variance is for. He understood staff's rationale in moving the balustrade or have a vegetation barrier, however he was concerned that in doing so it would create too narrow of a walkway to use that area. He therefore felt that this could be considered an extraordinary or unusual circumstance and was in favor of approving the Variance and Grading Permit. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he would also like to see some vegetation put in place that would significantly soften the wall as a mitigation for allowing this wall to remain. Chairman Knight noted a condition of approval in the staff report requiring vegetation to the approval of the Director. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he would encourage the Director of Planning to be firm in his satisfaction. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to accept staff's recommendation for the rear wall and front retaining wall, but to also approve the front balustrade, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Associate Planner Fox noted that because of the decision deadline, staff will need .agreement from the applicant for an extension so that staff can bring the Resolution back to the Planning Commission on the next Consent Calendar on January 9, 2007. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Chairman Knight asked Mr. Razipour if he was willing to grant the time extension needed. Mr. Razipour agreed to a 30-day time extension. Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2006 Page 7 Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:10 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:20 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 6. Non-Commercial Amateur Radio Antenna Permit— Revision (Case No. ZON2006-00227): 30938 Hawthorne Boulevard Chairman Knight noted that Commissioner Tetreault had been excused from the remainder of the meeting. Commissioner Karp recused himself from this item as he is a member of the Emergency Preparedness Committee. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the requested revisions to the previously approved antenna. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the application as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Mel Hughes 28017 San Nicolas Drive discussed how radio operators help the City in terms of emergency preparedness. He discussed the purpose of the antenna tower, noting the higher the antenna is the better all of the homes in the City can be served during an emergency. Commissioner Perestam asked how many sections a 100-foot tower would have. Mr. Hughes answered that it is a 5-section tower. Chairman Knight asked Mr. Hughes who would be manning the trailer at the City Hall site and who would be running the quarterly tests. Mr. Hughes explained that it would be the volunteer ham radio operators. Richard Smith 5951 Armaga Spring Road felt that the recommendation by staff should be adopted. He stated that in terms of seismic strength, a bigger base will survey a stronger earthquake. Also, the effectiveness of the tower is based upon the broadcast strength and height. He stated that this tower is principally for the security and safety of Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2006 Page 8 the citizens of the City and specifically in situations where crisis has moved beyond emergency into disaster and catastrophe. Will Bollard, Irvine California, stated he is representing the La Cresta Pointe HOA which is comprised of ten homes that overlook the proposed site of the antenna tower. He stated his clients are opposed to the approval of the radio tower as it will substantially impair the aesthetic view of the homes in the association and will subsequently devalue their homes. He noted that the project is being proposed and approved by the City, and therefore there is an apparent conflict of interest. He also asked that the Planning Commission specify how often and on what days the tower could be extended and tested and asked that this be done during non-daylight hours. Finally, he asked that the tower be moved to San Pedro Hill, as he felt the reception would be comparable and there would not be the aesthetic impairments to his clients. Chairman Knight noted that in his letter Mr. Bollard had indicated the tower would mainly be used as a recreational tower, however in tonight's testimony and in the staff report it is stated that the tower's use will primarily be for emergency use. He asked Mr. Bollard if he understood that. Mr. Bollard answered that his clients understand that the tower is being presented as an emergency tower but feel it will be used primarily as a recreational tower. Dale Hanks 5225 Middlecrest Road displayed a model showing how wide the actual antenna will be. He stated that from surrounding neighborhoods the tower will be virtually invisible. He also showed a section of a 2-inch diameter pole which he also felt is virtually invisible from 1,000 feet away and the only time it can be seen is when viewing it against the sky. He stated that during the testing of the antenna he would like to be able to set the tower up at least 24 hours in advance. He stated that he did not want a condition added that limited the time that the tower could be up. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Hanks if it would be acceptable to him to add a condition stating that for quarterly testing purposes the tower shall not be extended more than 100 feet, but for emergency purposes the tower can be extended to its full capacity, even if that extends more than 100 feet. Mr. Hanks stated that would be acceptable. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hanks if a condition stating that the tower would only be raised to the maximum of 100 feet quarterly be acceptable to him. Mr. Hanks answered that he would like to test the equipment at least on a quarterly basis. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hanks if a condition stating that a maximum of six times per year would be adequate. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Hanks answered that would be more than adequate. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the resting height of the tower was now going to be lower than the previously proposed height. Mr. Hanks explained the resting height of the triangular part of the tower would be lowered so that the tip of the antenna would be roughly at 70 feet. Mel Hughes stated that while ham radio operations may be a hobby, disaster preparedness and training is very serious. Chairman Knight asked Mr. Hughes how long the tower would need to be up to run the quarterly tests. Mr. Hughes answered that 24 hours would be sufficient, as it would allow them time to do visual inspections of the tower and antenna during the daylight hours. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Chairman Knight asked staff if there was any reason Condition No. 13 couldn't be changed from 6 hours to 24 hours. Associate Planner Fox answered that the time was something the Planning Commission could determine. Commissioner Lewis stated that he supported the project, and recommended that the language in the Conditions of Approval state that for emergency purposes the tower be allowed to extend to its full height and for testing purposes the tower only be extended to 100 feet in height. He also suggested that the tower be raised for testing a maximum of six times per year and that the testing period be for a period of 24 hours. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that a Condition of Approval should state that the tower be an unpainted galvanized metal, as specified by the City Council. Commissioner Perestam felt that language should be included that states the tower shall be a maximum of five sections in height, which would indicate that the Planning .Commission is not opposed to a tower that is four sections in height. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that if the Planning Commission were to recommend the four-section tower rather than the five-section tower there is nothing to prevent the City Council from over-ruling that and approving the five-section tower. He felt that recommending the four-section tower, which extends to 104 feet, is more in line with the general recommendations given by the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2006 Page 10 Commissioner Perestam explained that he was not trying to endorse one or the other, only that by approving the five section tower it is indicating that the Planning Commission is also comfortable with approval of the four section tower. Commissioner Lewis felt that was a fine suggestion, however he did not think the Planning Commission should change the language in the Resolution. He was concerned that if the HOA appeals this decision or there is any litigation that there is no ambiguity or loopholes in the language. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he feels this is the same tower that the Planning Commission approved at the previous hearing. He felt that this proposed tower would live most of its life at exactly the same condition that was previously approved with the exception that it would be somewhat larger and thicker in that height because there is more tower being nested. He also noted that this tower will only be raised six days a year. He therefore has no objection to approving this application. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-63 thereby conditionally approving the requested non-commercial radio antenna permit revision, as amended to allow testing of the tower six times per year for twenty four consecutive hours, to change the color to a galvanized metal, and to allow the testing at a tower height of 100 feet but during an emergency to allow the full capacity height of the tower, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the testing height of the tower should be allowed at its maximum height. Commissioner Perestam agreed, noting that the difference in height would be only approximately 12 feet and that it would only be six days a year for 24 hours. Commissioner Lewis accepted that as an amendment to his motion and Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed. The motion was approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Karp recused. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) .3. Minutes of October 10, 2006 The minutes were unanimously approved as presented. 4. Minutes of October 24, 2006 The minutes were unanimously approved as presented with Commissioner Lewis abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 11 7. Minutes of November 14, 2006 The minutes were unanimously approved as presented. 8. Format of Planning Commission Minutes Director Rojas explained the request that the format of the minutes be changed from detailed minutes to summary minutes, as was done by the City Council. Commissioner Karp stated that the current minute format was helpful to him when looking back at past meetings. Chairman Knight also found the current minute format very helpful. The Planning Commission agreed that they liked the current format of the minutes, however they would try a more streamlined version of the minutes as long as they were able to view the video on line and that the videos were marked so they could go directly to the item they were interested in. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of January 9, 2007 The pre-agenda was discussed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 12