Loading...
PC MINS 20070213 Approved March 27, 2607 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 2007 CALL TO ORDER 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 Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Staff distributed correspondence for Agenda Items 2, 3, and 5. Director Rojas reported that at their January 30, 2007 meeting the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision regarding the antenna at City Hall and at their February 6t meeting the City Council voted to retain the Trump flagpole in its current .location and height. He also noted that there are two appeals of Planning Commission decisions on the February 20th City Council agenda. Commissioner Lewis reported that he spoke to the appellant for Agenda Item 4 and Chairman Knight reported that he received an inquiry from someone regarding an adjustment to the Coastal Setback Line approved by staff for the Trump property. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2007-00034): 30950 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Fox presented a brief staff report explaining the request received from the County for the Consistency Finding. He discussed the findings and stated that staff believes the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Chairman Knight noted that the City encourages co-location of antennas on existing towers and asked if there was a possibility of having some of these antennas co-located on other towers that are currently on the property site. Associate Planner Fox explained that the co-location deals with commercial antennas, and as these Coast Guard antennas are for public safety purposes, they are not considered commercial antennas. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-08 thereby finding the County's license renewal with the Coast Guard consistent with the General Plan, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Code Amendment for Equestrian Districts (Case No. ZON2006-00082): Chairman Knight recused himself from the hearing, as he lives in an Equestrian District. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, summarizing the draft language added to the report. He noted that staff did not believe that this new language would result in the level of protection of future horse keeping opportunities that the Equestrian Committee desired in initiating this code amendment. He stated that if the Planning Commission agrees that some limited restrictive component needs to be included in order to have a better chance of accomplishing some of the basic goals set up by the Equestrian Committee, then staff would suggest the 800 square foot requirement would only be imposed upon new homes on new lots that are created through subdivisions .within the Equestrian Districts. He explained that this would mean no existing homes or existing vacant lots would be affected by the Code Amendment. He showed aerial photographs of properties in the Equestrian District which have been developed and can no longer support horse keeping on the property. He stated that staff was requesting any additional input regarding revisions to the code amendment and continuance of this matter to a date certain to prepare a final resolution for adoption. Commissioner Tetreault asked whether there could be future subdivisions in the Equestrian District in the area where the conceptual trails plan has identified trails such that there could be new trails that would contribute to the overall network of trails. Planning Commission Minutes February 13,2007 Page 2 Associate Planner Fox answered that staff had not specifically cross referenced the Conceptual Trails Plan against lots that are potentially large enough to subdivide, however staff identified approximately 90 lots in the Equestrian Overlay District that are large enough to subdivide. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if staff had any idea of the number of subdivisions proposed in the Equestrian District over the past 5 to 10 years. Associate Planner Fox answered that there are no more than two or three per year. Vice Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Gordon Leon 38 Narcissa Drive was pleased with the incentive language and the language associated with the 35-foot setback and lot coverage exemptions is workable. He felt that this amendment will be much less effective if there is no restrictive language. He felt that setting aside 800 square feet on subdivided properties is an admirable compromise. Madeline Rvan 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East did not think any of the options presented have enough teeth, but hoped that one of the options is palatable to the Commission. Bonnie Fine 110 Pine Avenue, Long Beach, representing lot owners on Via Campesina. She very strongly suggested the Planning Commission.try the incentive approach before moving on to a more restrictive course. Doug Maupin 27601 Palos Verdes Drive East stated he opposed the restrictive Ordinance and that the voluntary Ordinance has a lot of merit. Richard Bara 1 Pepper Tree Drive stated that he was speaking for himself and the Horseman's Association. He pointed out that other cities on the Peninsula have set aside areas in place. He stated that the Horseman's Association supports the proposals as they are moving in a positive direction of being horse friendly and keeping the Peninsula semi-rural. He too felt this should be a stronger resolution, as he felt it was rather weak as currently written. Vice Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis stated he favored the more restrictive approach and felt the incentive approach is merely window dressing. He stated that the mandate from City Council was that horse keeping properties are an asset to this community, the loss of those horse keeping opportunities is a real problem, and the Planning Commission was given the task of finding a good way of addressing the problem. He felt sending to the City Council the incentive based approach would be disrespectful, as it says the Planning Commission does not think there is a problem, and to the extent there is a Planning Commission Minutes February 13,2007 Page 3 problem the Planning Commission has no real solution. He did not think restrictions had to be imposed upon current owners to address the problem. Commissioner Ruttenberg disagreed, as he felt the testimony heard at the meetings hasn't shown there is a current problem with regards to the number of horses on the peninsula. He felt that the concern of the Equestrian Committee is that the number of horse properties that would be available in the future may be decreasing due to remodeling of homes in the Equestrian District. He did not think he could support anything that was mandatory, as mandatory restrictions severely impinge upon present homeowners and it would be doing so in,return for the possible future limitations and reduction of horse keeping properties in the future. He felt that the rights of the current property owners outweigh the possible restrictions for future horse keeping. Regarding permissive restrictions, he felt that keeping horses in an Equestrian District is a permissive use, and that possibly permissive incentives were a good idea. He did not think the proposed permissive modifications were toothless, as has been suggested, as they open up many properties to keep horses that cannot presently do so. Commissioner Karp also did not believe in mandatory restrictions and agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Ruttenberg. He stated that he was supportive of staff's proposal. Commissioner Tetreault did not think giving a property owner 800 square feet towards their maximum lot coverage was really an incentive, as these are quite large lots and in his experience property owners have not had a difficult time in maintaining their additions inside the maximum allowable lot coverage. He did not think it was going to result in any change in behavior. He favored a mandatory program with limitations on properties that are difficult to deal with. He agreed that there has been some evaporation of Q District homes that have the ability to have large animals housed on the residential property, and this will continue to increase, especially as these lots are subdivided. He felt that a mandatory system with the ability of homeowners to apply for a Variance allows the City to monitor this evaporation rate. He felt it was better to give the City Council something more to work with than something less. Commissioner Perestam agreed with the permissive incentive approach, as it would not impact all of the properties but would provide some flexibility. He stated he was not in favor of the new restrictions on new subdivisions. He was in favor of staff's .recommendations. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he still is not convinced there is a problem. He felt that if the goal is to keep room on properties to have horses, then relaxing the 35 foot setback between horse property and house would solve a very large amount of this problem. He felt it would be beneficial to have language either in the Ordinance or in the Development Guidelines that would encourage designers of new homes to work to try to establish where horse keeping would occur. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Tetreault stated that a restrictive measure, which would require the homeowner to have to plan where they want to put their new pool, with possible horse keeping in mind, would allow many properties to not only enjoy the swimming pool, but have the possibility of horse keeping maintained. He felt that making the program voluntary would not help preserve anything. Commissioner Lewis felt that it was important that the City Council receive the information discussed by the Planning Commission on permissive and restrictive alternatives. Director Rojas explained that staff would forward the approved recommendation to the City Council, however the staff report would contain the background information and options discussed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Perestam moved to recommend the City Council adopt the incentive based modifications suggested by staff on pages 2 and 3 of the February 13, 2007 staff report, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (4-2-1) with Commissioners Tetreault and Lewis dissenting and Chairman Knight abstained. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:40 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00447): 6774 Verde Ridge Road Assistant Planner Kim 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 recommending approval of the proposed Height Variation and Site Plan Review. Commissioner Lewis referred to an item of correspondence from the residents at 6762 Verde Ridge and asked staff their response to the correspondence. Assistant Planner Kim explained that 6762 Verde Ridge Road is located two houses away and their building pad is slightly higher than the applicant's building pad. She stated that there is only one window proposed on that side of the building and if necessary it can be required to be opaque, however she noted that privacy was only considered from abutting properties. Commissioner Karp noted that the plans called for a wood shingle roof, and asked if that was acceptable under the City's code. Planning Commission Minutes February 13,2007 Page 5 Director Rojas answered that the Building and Safety would address the issue in plan check, and if the roofing material presented on the plans is not allowed by Code, it will be required to be changed during plan check. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Al Loera (architect) noted that the plans clearly call out a Class A roofing material. He stated that he was available for any questions. Naomi Sumitami 6762 Verde Ridge Road understood that a view may not be considered from a second floor, however noted that the view from her second story will be completely taken away by this proposed addition. She stated when she bought the property it was done so with a view of the Pacific, and losing this view will affect the property value. Regarding privacy, she explained that from the window on the second story the residents will be able to look into her side yard. Al Loera (in rebuttal) explained that he has already drastically reduced the proposed balcony area in consideration of the neighbor's privacy. He explained the window in question is in the master bedroom closet. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that when looking at the silhouette the proposed addition appears very tall, and asked if anything could be done to lower the height of the proposed addition, Mr. Loera answered that he could reduce the pitch of the roof from 5:12 to 4:12, however the currently proposed pitch does match the rest of the house. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam stated that he was not able to make the finding regarding bulk and mass. He explained that because of the way the addition is designed it appears much taller than it really is. Vice Chairman Gerstner was comfortable with the design of the addition and did not think there was a privacy issue, especially since it is to a resident that is not abutting the subject house. Commissioner Tetreault was a little concerned that these homes were most likely built so that every home had some ocean view, and now the neighbor's view will be blocked, even though it is from the second floor. He understood, however, that views shouldn't be considered from the second floor. Chairman Knight was pleased with the proposed design and was able to make the necessary findings to approve the project. He understood and empathized with the neighbor, agreeing that there are certain neighborhoods that were built so that the Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 6 second story has the view. However, he noted that under the current Ordinance that is not a protected view. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-09 thereby approving the Height Variation and Site Plan as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Perestam dissenting. 4. Appeal of Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00289): 6826 Verde Ridge Road Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, describing the project and the findings that staff made in approving the project. She stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision of approval. Chairman Knight noted the columns supporting the proposed balcony, and asked staff if they felt the style of the columns was compatible with the neighborhood. Assistant Planner Kim explained that within the twenty closest homes there is not a predominant architectural style and the homes have mixed elements of different architectural styles. Therefore, staff did not think the addition of this balcony would be significantly deviating from any architectural style in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if any consideration was ever given to the balcony not being the entire width of the residence at the back of the property, as currently proposed. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the balcony has always been proposed at this size. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Nick Mowlds 6832 Verde Ridge Road (appellant) objected to the proposed deck on the grounds of neighborhood compatibility and the loss of his privacy. He felt that just because the deck is not seen from the street does not mean it is not incompatible with the neighborhood. He did not think the deck would be compatible with the character and architectural style of the immediate neighborhood. He noted that the deck will be 127' wide on his side and only 9'5" on the other end of the property, and did not think the existing patio cover below or the existing flower beds should determine the footprint of the deck. He also objected to the glass on the deck near his property. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Mowlds if he preferred the peacock design railing to the glass. Mr. Mowlds answered that he preferred the peacock design railing. Planning Commission Minutes February 13,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Mowlds if he would object if the balcony only went half or two thirds the width of the existing house. Mr. Mowlds answered that he would not object to that. Chairman Knight asked Mr. Mowlds if he would object if the balcony were squared off and was 9'5" on his side of the property as well. Mr. Mowlds answered that it would be a big improvement to the currently proposed 12'7". Jeannie Mowlds 6832 Verde Ridge Road stated she was concerned with the loss of privacy to her backyard. She stated that she was looking for options and compromise when considering this proposed deck. Chairman Knight asked Mrs. Mowlds what could be modified to satisfy her privacy concerns. Mrs. Mowlds answered that the deck could be reduced in length and width. Commissioner Karp asked staff if there is a finding in the Code regarding privacy in regards to balconies and back yards. Director Rojas answered that there is no privacy finding that must be made in the Code regarding balconies. He stated that the findings before.the Commission are limited to neighborhood compatibility. Tino Quiaot 412 W. 231St Street, Carson stated he is the engineer for the project explained that the balcony meets all of the height and setback Code requirements. He also explained that the glass proposed on the side of the balcony is to shield the wind, increase the view of the ocean, and prevent the noise from the balcony going into the neighbor's yard. He also noted that the balcony will not have access from the rear yard and therefore the only ones using the balcony will be those in the bedrooms. Commissioner Lewis asked if there was an engineering reason the balcony couldn't be shortened. Mr. Quiaot answered that it can be engineered to be shorter. Ron LeBorgne 6837 Verde Ridge Road showed several slides depicting how the houses on the street are terraced and each home has a view over the home below it. He also showed how the Mowlds have grown a hedge on their side property line which has blocked their view and they cannot see down into the Mowld's property. He explained that he has tried to do everything in the balcony design to meet City codes, and showed pictures of other balconies in the neighborhood. He felt that the reason for the appeal was based on privacy issues, which should not be a consideration, and that Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 8 the Mowlds do not want him to be able to look over the tall junipers that currently block his view. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. LeBorgne if he has considered any type of view restoration process to regain his view blocked by the junipers. Mr. LeBorgne answered that is a Code Enforcement issue which he is currently pursuing with the City. Mr. Mowlds (in rebuttal) explained that this is not a matter of vegetation, however his current vegetation meets all requirements of the View Restoration. He acknowledged that some type of deck can be built, however it is important that the size and location do not affect his property forever. Therefore, he is suggesting that a section of deck closest to his property be eliminated, the entire deck be no wider than 9'5", the glass handrail be eliminated, the roman fluted columns be changed to square to match the rest of the columns on the deck. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Chairman Knight asked if the balcony could be larger than proposed, in terms of lot coverage. Director Rojas answered that they are still under the maximum lot coverage with this proposed deck. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that the proposed balcony could provide a substantial platform for viewing into the neighbor's yard, however staff has said there is no finding to be made for privacy protection from a deck structure. He stated that he was unsure as to what to do in this situation. Commissioner Lewis agreed Commissioner Tetreault, adding that he felt approving this deck would really be approving a change in the neighborhood, as other similarly situated homes will build the very same type of structure. Therefore, he felt a yes vote for the project is a vote to allow just about every house in the neighborhood to do a similar deck, and the Planning Commission should take into consideration the cumulative impact of the project. However, he was able to make the necessary findings to approve this proposed project. Vice Chairman Gerstner did not think the impact of the structure will be large enough to make it incompatible with the neighborhood. He therefore looked at the appeal more from the privacy issues, but given the way the properties are situated he did not think this should be considered an invasion of privacy, but rather the natural view that is had from one house looking over another. Commissioner Perestam also acknowledged staff's comment that there is no finding regarding privacy. He also noted that he did not think that reducing the size of the Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 9 balcony would have much of an impact on the neighbor's privacy. He did not think that there was an issue of neighborhood compatibility, as the balcony is in the backyard. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that it was odd that there was the wrought iron railing on the entire deck except for the small section where it is glass. He felt that the wrought iron should have been proposed throughout and if there was a concern about wind then glass could have been placed behind the wrought iron. Chairman Knight agreed that the wrought iron and glass combination was unusual and didn't make much sense. He stated that-if he was in the position of the appellant he too would be concerned with his privacy, however the Code does not address privacy issues from the proposed balcony and he felt his hands were tied. Therefore, he supported the Director's decision of approval. Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-10, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision of approval of the Site Plan Review, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Ruttenberg, even though he supported the motion, proposed an amendment to the motion to have the half of the cost of the appeal refunded to the appellant, since the appellant's letter did result in some modifications to the proposed balcony. Commissioner Perestam accepted the amendment, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision was approved, (7-0). 5. Tract Map Amendment and Grading Permit (Case No. SUB2006-00003 and ZON2005-00694): 30375 Diamonte Lane Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the Tract Map Amendment is a recommendation to the City Council, and explained the purpose of the requested amendment and the restricted use area. He discussed the proposed Grading Permit, explaining that staff was able to make the necessary findings for approval. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward of recommendation of approval to the City Council. Commissioner Lewis noted in one of the letters of concern that no neighborhood compatibility pre-application meeting was held, and asked staff to comment. Associate Planner Fox explained that the neighborhood compatibility pre-application meeting is a voluntary portion of the process. Planning Commission Minutes February 13,2007 Page 10 Commissioner Perestam asked if there was a minimum distance a house can be from a high voltage line, as this proposed residence appears to be very close to such a line. Associate Planner Fox answered that the applicant has provided documentation from the utility easement holders, who have no problem with the location of the proposed residence. Chairman Knight asked how much elevation change will happen on the actual building pad. Associate Planner Fox explained that there will be some cut near the garage area, and that the maximum height of the project is proposed at 24.29 feet. Chairman Knight asked if any of the proposals to amend the tract map will affect the steep portion of the ravine. Associate Planner Fox answered that it would not. Chairman Knight noted an area on the property where there is a height differential on the lot near a drainage swale and a root crossing that blocks that swale, which may cause flooding. He was concerned that someone should address the potential problems with the drainage. Associate Planner Fox explained that drainage will be addressed during the Building and Safety plan check, however will only address drainage on the subject property. Commissioner Karp referred to Condition 21, which states the exported fill should go to a landfill. He stated that exported fill has a value and did not think it needed to be dumped at a landfill, as it could be sold. He felt that proper wording could be that it be disposed of in a proper legal manner. Associate Planner Fox stated that is a point well taken, however he noted that the reason for requiring it be taken to a landfill is confirm that the amount of dirt taken from the site is the amount approved, and this can be done through receipts from the landfill. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Rosa Velazquez 118 Catalina Ave, Redondo Beach (architect) stated that the house is not two-story, but rather one story plus a basement. She stated that she followed all of the City's design guidelines and is within the height limit. She stated that she agrees with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Commissioner Perestam asked Ms. Velazquez if she was aware of the drainage problems Chairman Knight noted in the flood hazard area and if she had any plans to remedy the potential problems. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 11 Ms. Velazquez answered that she will be providing a drainage plan for the site prepared by a licensed surveyor to the Building Department when they start the plan check process. Charles Boag 17 Diamonte Lane stated that his house will look down and above the property, and is probably the most affected by this proposed development. He wanted to make sure that he is in agreement with staff concerning the vegetation restrictions on this property. Associate Planner Fox noted the restrictions are in Conditions 13 and 14 and read the two conditions. Mr. Boag stated that he is in agreement with the two conditions. He was also concerned that the proposed structure is too big for the size of the lot, when compared to the other homes in the immediate neighborhood. He asked that someone from the Planning Commission go to the neighborhood to confirm this. Rosa Velazquez (in rebuttal) stated that the house being proposed is about in the middle of the range in terms of size, as it is neither the largest nor the smallest house in the neighborhood. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Chairman Knight noted that there is no condition of approval requiring the applicant submit a drainage plan, and asked if that was an oversight. Associate Planner Fox explained that it is not a condition of approval from the Planning Department, but will be required from the Building and Safety Department during the plan check process. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the size of the proposed residence seems to be comparable with the neighborhood, noting that is not the largest nor the smallest, and is appropriate for the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault agreed, noting that the buildable area of the lot is very narrow. He felt that the proposed residence is compatible with the neighborhood, and was in favor of staff's recommendations. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2007-11 thereby recommending City Council approval of the requested Tract Map Amendment and conditional approval of the requested Grading Permit, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). 6. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00627): 28637 Crenshaw Blvd Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Page 12 Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that staff felt all of the necessary findings to approve the Conditional Use Permit can be made and the application is consistent with the Wireless Communications Antenna Guidelines, and therefore staff was recommending approval, as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Knight asked if the GPS antennas will be any higher than the enclosure itself. Associate Planner Fox answered that the antennas will be mounted on top of the enclosure and will be only slightly taller than the enclosure. Chairman Knight stated that he was concerned about the statement in the staff report that there will be no problem with off-street parking since the workers can park in Edison's driveway easement. He stated he was concerned that allowing workers to park in the easement may create problems in case Edison has to access the easement in an emergency. Therefore, he would like to have a condition added that states the workers are not allowed to park along the driveway easement and are required to provide parking somewhere closer to the enclosure, but off of the easement. Associate Planner Fox did not think that would be a problem, but suggested asking the applicant during the public hearing to discuss the nature of the easement agreement with Southern California Edison. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Jason Hadley 25582 Creek Drive, Laguna Hills (representing the applicant) stated he has read through the conditions of approval and finds them acceptable. Regarding the parking issue, he explained that the objective was to minimize the foliage that will need to be removed to allow for parking. He explained that site visits will be approximately six to eight per year and will be there for only a few hours. He also noted that the trucks will not be left at the site unattended. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-12 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 7. Minutes of January 9, 2007 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes February 13,2007 Page 13 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-agenda for the meeting of February 27, 2007 The Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously approved the pre-agenda as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 13,2007 Page 14