Loading...
PC MINS 20070508 Approved CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES June , 2 07 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 8, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Perestam at 7:01 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioner Karp and Chairman Gerstner were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed responses to Commission Knight's questions on Agenda Items 1 and 2. Director Rojas reported that the proposed Equestrian Code amendment was not heard by the City Council on May 1, 2007 due to the lack of a quorum, and will now be heard on June 19, 2007. He also reported that the City council denied the appeal of the Planning Commission's previous decision of a Height Variation on Dauntless Drive. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00228): 6527 Eddinghill Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was therefore recommending approval of the Height Variation, as conditioned in the staff report. He noted that the neighbors at 6537 Eddinghill Drive has expressed concerns about privacy related to the rear and suggested that if the Commission agreed there was an impact, the balcony could be eliminated. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Eric Mark 6527 Eddinghill Drive (applicant) explained that his neighbors have beautiful homes, and he would like to fit into the community by upgrading his fifty year old home. He stated he would like to have the right to improve his home, and asked the Planning Commission to approve his proposed project. Dow Marimon 6533 Eddinghill Drive stated that he would love Mr. Mark to upgrade his home, however it should be done with regards to neighborhood compatibility and respect for the neighborhood and privacy of others. He felt this proposed addition is drastically out of scale with the neighborhood, and that there are many examples of additions and remodels throughout the neighborhood that are compatible with the neighborhood. He felt the size of the proposed residence will dwarf others, including his, in the neighborhood. He did appreciate staff's recommendations to remove the rear balcony and appropriately size the windows, which would alleviate most of his concerns. He asked that, if approved, the windows on the west side of the house be frosted and the balcony be removed. He also asked that the present fence height of the fence between the two properties be kept. He hoped that the fence would be upgraded, and offered to share the cost of this upgrade. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Marimon if he would still have objections to the project if the balcony were removed and the appropriate windows frosted. Mr. Marimon answered that he did not think the style of the house fit with the neighborhood, as the balconies in the front are an uncommon design feature and can be found nowhere else in the neighborhood. However, if the balcony in the rear was to be removed and the windows frosted, his concerns would be alleviated. Juanita Hall (architect) stated she was available for any questions. Commissioner Lewis asked Ms. Hall what was proposed for the existing wall between the two properties. Ms. Hall answered that she and the owner had not really discussed anything for that wall, but did not anticipate making any major changes to the wall. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 2 Commissioner Tetreault noted that if the balcony is removed the sliding glass door replaced by a window, it should be conditioned that it be a frosted type window. He also stated that, while the residence will be much larger than others in the neighborhood, square footage is not always the primary determinant as to whether something is within the neighborhood compatibility range. He felt that it was more how the square footage is displayed, and in this case the area is more concealed than displayed. Commissioner Knight asked, if the Planning Commission asked the rear balcony be removed, would there be any egress concerns for that specific area. Associate Planner Fox answered that there are two other windows facing the rear in that bedroom, and therefore felt that any egress requirements would be met. He noted, however, that this is something that would be checked during the Building and Safety plan check process. Commissioner Lewis stated that he was initially concerned with the square footage, however after visiting the site he felt that the neighborhood can support the increased square footage. He stated that since the neighbor has requested the rear balcony be removed and the applicant has agreed to do so, then it should be removed. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Lewis. Vice Chairman Perestam also felt the neighborhood could support this size of addition. Commissioner Knight supported removing the rear balcony and replacing it with a window. He did not think the Planning Commission should include any recommendations regarding the fence, as they do not know who actually owns the fence. Commissioner Tetreault questioned if it is even in the purview of the Planning Commission to condition the height of the fence between the neighboring properties. Associate Planner Fox explained that typically the Planning Commission would be involved if a neighbor wants the height lowered because of a view issue. In this case, he noted that a survey seems to suggest the wall is on Mr. Mark's property and as such he can build a wall up to six feet in height without the need for a building permit. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-34 thereby approving the Height Variation as conditioned by staff, with the added condition that the rear balcony be removed and the sliding glass door be changed to a window, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0). 2. Coastal Permit and Variance (Case No. ZON2007-00012): 30 Pacifica del Mar Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 3 Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project. He discussed the revised application and explained the scope of this new project. He stated that staff is able to make the necessary findings to support the Variance and Coastal Permit, and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Homeowners Association had submitted any comments regarding this revised plan. Associate Planner Fox answered that the Homeowners Association has not submitted any comments to staff on the revised plan. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff, under the current analysis for Condition No. 1 with regard to exception and extraordinary circumstances, why the applicant would have to make any changes to his wall. Associate Planner answered that if the Commission feels it is warranted, they can approve the wall as it currently exists. However, he explained that staff felt that given the previous decision on the wall and that the appeal was denied by the City Council, it was clear that a solid six-foot wall was not acceptable to the decision making bodies. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that one can either make the finding or cannot make the finding, and what material the wall is made of really does not make a difference. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Bob Critelli 30 Pacifica del Mar (applicant) began by stating that the architectural review committee of his Homeowners Association has approved the new design for his wall. He stated that his lot is exceptional and extraordinary, as it is the only one in the development that has open property facing public view. He stated that privacy is very important to him and his family. He stated that he is willing to work in the confines given to him, but was requesting the Planning Commission give him as much flexibility as possible to landscape his property. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if the City Council gave any direction to the applicant or staff in regards to what the revised plan for the wall should look like, noting the City Council voted 5-0 to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the original project. Associate Planner Fox did not recall any specific direction, other than to give the applicant additional time to develop an alternate plan. Commissioner Tetreault felt the new proposal is a reasonable one to the extent that the openness is maintained. He stated that in order for this to be an effective compromise, Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 4 it should be conditioned that no foliage be allowed to grow on the wall that would rise above the solid portion of the wall and grow into the tubular steel area. Commissioner Knight agreed, adding that he too felt the open portion of the fence should remain open and not allowed to have vegetation grow through it. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that when this was originally before the Planning Commission, the Commission voted 7-0 that there were no exceptional circumstances to this case, and the City Council voted 5-0 that there were no exceptional circumstances to the case. He did not see what had changed, as the property has not changed,and the neighborhood has not changed. He therefore did not understand how the Planning Commission could change their votes because a compromise has been suggested. He saw no reason to change the previous findings, and was therefore opposed to this project. Commissioner Lewis agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Vice Chairman Perestam also agreed that nothing has changed to now allow a reversal of the previous decision that there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about this property that would allow a variance for the wall. He explained that until he sees a plan that supports more the position of the code, he cannot support the proposal at this time. Commissioner Tetreault felt that this proposal is different, noting that anyone in the City can build a 42 inch wall without a permit, however what makes this different is the addition of the tubular steel on top of the 42 inch wall to keep people out of the yard and maintain some privacy. He did not see a problem with allowing the tubular steel on top of this 42 inch wall. Director Rojas added that when this new plan was submitted to staff, the owner brought to staff's attention the floor plan of his home. He explained that staff had not analyzed the floor plan with the previous submittal, and agreed that this is the only floor plan in the tract where the courtyard faces the street. Therefore, staff considered this a different circumstance, and combined with the revised proposal for the wall, staff was able to make the necessary findings. Associate Planner Fox stated that if staff had this additional information a year ago when doing the original analysis, staff may have been able to recommend approval of the first wall. Commissioner Ruttenberg still could not make the finding No. 1, noting that the finding talks about exceptional circumstances with regard to the use or intended use of the property, and does not talk about the specific type of wall. Associate Planner Fox explained that for staff it was an issue of privacy, as well as how this home is oriented on the lot as compared to how the other homes in the tract are oriented on their lots. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 5 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked why that combination of factors supports more strongly keeping the present wall, which is impervious and gives more privacy than the tubular wall. Director Rojas explained that staff felt that as a result of the floor plan configuration there is now a circumstance that warrants greater privacy protection to the applicant, therefore staff is able to justify the findings for this current plan. He felt the same finding could also justify a solid wall. He added, however, that the solid wall gets into the other finding about being detrimental to the public welfare, as well as findings regarding aesthetics. Commissioner Tetreault explained that the Code requires the four findings for a Variance be made in reference to the property and the project under consideration. Therefore, he looked at the property and the project together and could not make the necessary findings with the original submittal of a 64 inch tall solid wall. However, with this new submittal, the owner has by right the ability to build a 42 inch solid wall. He stated that the request is to add a 22 inch tubular fence on top of the wall, and he can make the finding that extraordinary and exceptional circumstances as to the;property and that project do exist. He explained he is not changing his prior vote of not being able to make the first finding in regards to the first submittal. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt the Planning Commission should be open enough to listen if staff feels there are different circumstances that need to be brought to the Planning Commission's attention. Therefore, he was convinced by Commissioner Tetreault's argument regarding the 42 inch solid wall and the request to build a 22 inch tubular fence on top of that wall. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-35, thereby approving the requested Variance with the additional condition that no foliage be allowed to grow above the top of the solid portion of the wall, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight questioned if it would be possible to plant additional foliage in front of the solid wall to soften the appearance of the wall. Associate Planner Fox was not sure there was enough room between the wall and the sidewalk to plant any foliage. Commissioner Knight moved to amend the motion to add language that, if there is enough room between the wall and the sidewalk, vegetation be planted on the outside of the wall to soften the appearance of the wall. There being no second, the motion to amend the original motion died. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 6 The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-35 thereby approving the requested Variance as modified was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. 3. Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2007-00044): 28839 Trailriders Drive Assistant Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings, and was therefore recommending conditional approval of the project. Commissioner Knight noted that that the staff report states that the proposed balcony and deck would create privacy impacts to the property to the north if the existing trees were removed. He asked if the trees mitigate the potential privacy impact, and what would happen if the shrubbery were to die or be removed. Assistant Planner Mikhail explained that staff added a condition that the existing foliage be maintained at a maximum of 16 feet in height. Commissioner Knight asked if the trees in question are deciduous or evergreen. Assistant Planner Mikhail answered that she didn't know if the trees are deciduous or evergreen. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Steve Remington (architect) stated that he was in agreement with the findings in the staff report and was available for any questions. There being no questions, Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight was concerned about the tree, as he did not know enough about the tree to rely on it to mitigate any privacy issues. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt the language in the condition was unclear, as he felt there should be a minimum height that the shrubbery should be maintained at also. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the trees, which are currently over 16 feet in height, impair any of the views in the neighborhood. Assistant Planner Mikhail answered that the trees do not block views from any of the 20 closest homes. She also stated that she drove around the greater neighborhood and did not find any other view impairment. Commissioner Tetreault felt that if the intent is to have privacy, there should be a condition that the trees remain above a certain minimum, rather than keeping them below a certain maximum, as that would not maintain privacy. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 7 Director Rojas agreed, noting that staff will have to modify that language. Commissioner Lewis suggested language stating the property owner shall maintain trees and shrubs along the north side property line to at least their current height to mitigate privacy concerns. He stated that there are pictures which show the current height of the trees. He added language that this be subject to any view restoration actions. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned about the privacy from the balcony, noting that it is unknown if the tree is deciduous or not and if it will therefore adequately screen the proposed balcony. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed, however he noted no objections have been submitted to staff regarding this condition. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commission Tetreault's comments, and wanted to be sure that the privacy issues are mitigated. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-36 as amended so that Condition 21 read that the property owner shall maintain trees and shrubs along the north side property line to a minimum height to be determined by the Director to mitigate potential privacy impacts onto the north neighboring property. Moreover, any deciduous tree that, in the Director's judgment, currently provides such privacy will be replaced by a non-deciduous tree of a size that will grow to the same height at the current deciduous tree within two years, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (5-0). 4. Revision to Variance Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00509): 4204 Miraleste Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the proposed revision. She stated staff was recommending approval of the proposed revision. Commissioner Knight asked if the height of the ridgeline will be changing from the previous application. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the height of the ridgeline will not change from the previous application. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Jim Bartz (architect) stated that he and the homeowner agree with the findings and recommendations in the staff report. He explained that this revision will allow for the homeowners to walk from the cabana level straight out to the rear yard and to improve the water drainage on the property. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 8 He explained that this revision will allow for the homeowners to walk from the cabana level straight out to the rear yard and to improve the water drainage on the property. Henry VanGiesen (applicant) stated that he supports the staff recommendations and is available for questions. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-37 thereby approving the revision to the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. Planning Commission procedures Commissioner Tetreault felt it was important to have this discussion when the Chairman is at the meeting, as some of the discussion deals with Planning Commission rules and the Chairman's discretion. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the item to the first available Planning Commission meeting, but no later than the June 26th meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of March 13, 2007 Commissioner Knight made a clarification on page 12 of the minutes. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). 7. Minutes of April 10, 2007 Commissioner Knight moved to adopt the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Lewis abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-Agenda for May 22, 2007 The pre-agenda was discussed and approved. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 9 The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2007 Page 10