Loading...
PC MINS 20070828 A ove September 25, 07 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Perestam at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Perestam Absent: Chairman Gerstner was excused Also present were Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Fox, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as modified to hear Agenda Item No. 5 before Agenda Item No. 4. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Pfost reported that at their August 24th meeting, the City Council had the second reading of the cargo container Ordinance. He also distributed one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Conditional Use Permit & Grading Permit (Case No ZON2006-00633)• 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the Consent Calendar, adopting P.C. Resolution2007- 53 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation Permit & Site Plan Review(Case No. ZON2006-00491): 6013 Maycroft Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and need for the Height Variation. She explained how this project has changed since it was originally presented to the Planning Commission, and showed several pictures of the original silhouette and proposed design and the current silhouette and proposed design. She stated that staff felt the applicant has addressed the original Planning Commission concerns, as well as staff concerns, with this redesigned project and was recommending approval of the proposed project. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the crawlspace shown on the plans is included in the square footage of the basement, and asked staff if there is a definition in the code for crawlspace. He was concerned that the crawlspace could become habitable space. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the Planning Commission would have to get clarification from the applicant as to whether the crawl space was included in the square footage of the basement. Deputy Director Pfost added that there is not a definition of crawl space in the Development Code, however the Building Code has a definition of what is habitable space and what is non-habitable space, and a crawl space is considered non-habitable. Commissioner Knight agreed, and asked that this be included in the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Mike Shull (applicant) stated he listened very carefully to what the Planning Commission and his neighbors had to say about his original design and took great effort in redesigning this revised proposal so that it took into consideration the concerns of his neighbors and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight asked if the crawl space was included in the 453 square feet of basement area. Mr. Shull answered that the crawl space is not included in the square footage of the basement. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 2 Commissioner Knight asked what the height of the crawl space will be from the floor to the ceiling, Mr. Shull answered that he does not know the exact height of the crawl space. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Shull if he knew what the roof pitch will be on the residence, noting that the roof up above appears to be at a lower pitch than the other roof areas. He noted that the plans show a the roof and questioned if tile can be put on the lower roof pitch shown on the plans. Mr. Shull answered that the roof pitch is lower on the higher areas of the house to try to keep the addition below the ridgeline of the other homes in the neighborhood. He recalled that tile roofing material was proposed for the residence, and that the roof pitch was designed for the tile roof. Commissioner Knight suggested specifying in the Conditions of Approval that the roofing material be some form of tile. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis stated that he may have been the biggest critic of this project when it first came before the Planning Commission. He felt that the proposed modifications are quite good, and this has become a modest project which correctly balances the need for a bigger home with respect for neighbors' views and privacy rights. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as recommended by staff with the modification that the plans specify the roof pitch and that some form of tile roofing material be used, and that the crawl space be defined as non-habitable space seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned with the wording of the motion, noting that the Building Code will have a minimum pitch on which a tile roof can be placed, and if the currently proposed roof pitch has to be changed to support the tile, then the current project is not properly silhouetted. Deputy Director Pfost stated that the plans do not specify a roof pitch, however they do indicate a maximum height the structure can be built. Therefore, if the pitch has to be changed and the roof raised above that maximum height, the revision would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. He suggested a condition that the roofing material on the upper roof matches the roofing material of the rest of the house, noting that this will keep the material consistent. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was uncomfortable mandating that this residence have a tile roof for neighborhood compatibility purposes. He explained that he could not recall the other types of roofing materials throughout the neighborhood, however he Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 3 noted that it is an older neighborhood and that some other type of roofing material would most likely not be incompatible with the neighborhood. Assistant Planner Kim noted that the staff report does discuss the different type of roofing materials of the neighboring homes, which include tile and composition shingle. Commissioner Karp felt that requiring a Class A fire rated material and that the entire structure be required to have the same roofing material should satisfy the concerns of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight explained that his main concern was that the applicant would find that the pitch of the roof was too low in some areas for the desired roofing material and a cap sheet material would be put on. He did not feel cap sheet was appropriate in this neighborhood in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to state that the roofing material be of a Class A material, that cap sheet not be allowed, and that the entire roof be of the same roofing material, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-54 was approved, thereby approving the proposed project as conditioned by staff, with the added conditions that the crawl space be defined as non-habitable and that the roofing material be of a Class A material, that cap sheet roofing not be allowed, and that the entire roof be of the same material. (6-0). 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00085): 28445 Lomo Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the history of the project and the scope of the redesigned project. She stated that staff was now able to make all of the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. John Wu (architect for the project) explained that he made some changes to the current design to meet City requirements and was available to answer any questions. Paul Nights stated that he is in favor of the project and that the house has been designed to be a larger house but still is compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight felt that the applicant has made an effort to modify the design to add articulation and reduce the bulk and mass of the house. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 4 Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-55 thereby approving the Height Variation as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Height Variation Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2007-00348): 28953 Crestridge Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the history of the project and the need for and the scope of this revision. He showed a series of slides showing the chimney as approved, and the chimney as constructed and proposed. He explained that the profile of the new chimney has changed, pointing out it is now straight and rectangular with a fairly large spark arrestor on the top, which is not consistent with the design of the original chimney in its original location. He explained that staffs recommendation is to approve the new location of the chimney, but to modify the design of the chimney to be consistent with what is shown on the approved plans. Commissioner Knight asked if any other aspect of the project has changed, .Other than the chimney location. Associate Planner Fox answered that only the location of the chimney had changed. Commissioner Knight asked if it was the Building Department or a neighbor who had noticed the change. Associate Planner Fox answered that the location change was brought to staffs attention by a neighbor. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if this chimney is now higher than it has to be, according to the Development Code and the Building Code. Associate Planner Fox felt that was a question that should be asked of the applicant or the architect. Commissioner Tetreault questioned if the design of the original chimney was an issue when this house was originally before the Planning Commission for approval. Associate Planner Fox answered that there is nothing in the original staff report or in the minutes of the meeting that reflect concern or discussion regarding the design of the original chimney. Commissioner Tetreault asked if, at any time of the processing of the original application, there was any input to the applicant that the chimney should be tapered in order to reduce its impact on neighbors or to better integrate it for neighborhood compatibility. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 5 Associate Planner Fox answered that he saw no indication of that in the file or in the minutes. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Tom Jacobsen (applicant) explained the fireplace had to be moved for several reasons, and the change was designed by his architect. He stated that the neighbors can see the chimney in either location, but acknowledged they will see a little more of it where it is currently located. He felt that the current spark arrestor shroud could be modified to be smaller. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Jacobsen if had the discussion with his architect and contractor with regards to the fact that these changes were being made and were not reviewed or approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Jacobsen answered that they did not have that discussion, as the decision was made at the job site to change the location of the chimney and the architect and contractor handled the changes. Joe Dammer explained that he is the neighbor asking that the chimney be moved. He explained that he felt the chimney is an eyesore and blocks a portion of his view, noting it is visible from his family room, living room, and den. He was also concerned about the smoke blowing from the chimney across his windows. He asked that the chimney be moved back to the original location shown on the plans with the tapered top shown on the original plans. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Dammer if he would have objected to the chimney if it had been flagged in its original position. Mr. Dammer answered that if that entire section of the house had been flagged he would have objected to it. He explained that he would have objected due to the loss of view and asked that the house not extend back as far as it does. Commissioner Karp asked if the chimney were allowed to remain in its current location but lowered to the minimum height allowed by code, if that would be less intrusive and he would be satisfied. Mr. Dammer answered that it would be better than what is there, but he would still prefer it be relocated back to the originally approved location. Mr. Jacobsen (in rebuttal) stated that he hoped the chimney could be approved in its current location with a lowered spark arrestor shroud. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 6 Commissioner Karp wondered if the Planning Commission requests the architect redesign the chimney to make it as narrow and low as possible, and request that it burn only natural gas, if the bulk and mass of the chimney would be reduced sufficiently to be compatible with the house and neighborhood. He also thought it would be beneficial to talk to the architect to better understand why the change was made and if it is necessary before voting on this application. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed, stating there was information he would like to know such as what is the lowest chimney that could be placed there. He was concerned that this neighbor has lost a portion of his view, understanding that it was not a protected view, and now the applicant is asking that more concessions be made. He felt that this request be continued to the next meeting with the request that the architect redesign the chimney to be the absolute smallest it can be. Commissioner Lewis agreed that without the additional information requested by Commissioners Ruttenberg and Karp he would not be able to vote to approve this requested modification to the plans. Commissioner Knight agreed with the other Commissioners that he was not prepared to approve this request without additional information. He asked staff if the Planning Commission would be allowed to consider the neighbor's concern about the smoke coming from the chimney. Associate Planner Fox answered that could not be considered. Vice Chairman Perestam also was not able to make a decision without the requested additional information. Commissioner Lewis added that it would be very helpful for the architect to be at the next meeting to be able to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 11, 2007, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 4. View Restoration Permit(Case No. VRP2007-00007): 37 & 38 Avenida Corona The Commissioners polled themselves as to which Commission members visited the applicants' properties. Commissioner Tetreault stated he was not able to go inside the residence at 38 Avenida Corona, as the owners were not available, however he did visit the site. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Perestam stated that he was not able to visit either applicant's houses, as the owners were not available, but he did visit the applicants' properties. Deputy Director Pfost explained that the Commissioners are required only to visit the applicant's property, and the Code does not specify they have to stand within the viewing area. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report. He reviewed the trees on the property and staffs recommendations for these trees. He explained that recently the foliage owner and applicants have reached an agreement on how some of the trees should be trimmed and he explained how the Conditions of Approval will be amended to reflect these changes. Commissioner Lewis questioned why this case wouldn't go back to the mediator for resolution rather than have the Planning Commission make a decision, since it appears the parties are in agreement on how the foliage on the property should be trimmed. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if everything presented has been agreed to by both sides. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that all parties were in agreement. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that staff should prepare an accurate Resolution for the Planning Commission to review and approve on the next Consent Calendar. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff to clarify the frequency of the lacing of the pine trees. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that the trees will be laced and maintained annually, at a minimum. Vice Chairman Perestam noted that Canary Island pines are a very hearty tree, and looking at the lacing as opposed to the raised crown for tree Nos. 13, 14, and 15, he asked staff if lacing was the preferred solution over raising the crowns. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that lacing was not his recommendation, however lacing was the solution agreed upon by the parties involved, and such trimming would be appropriate to restore the view. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Gail Galletti (foliage owner) stated she was available for any questions. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mrs. Galletti if she was satisfied with the agreement reached with the applicants. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 8 Mrs. Galletti answered that she had reached an agreement with the applicants regarding her trees. Commissioner Knight asked Mrs. Galletti if she was satisfied with the two replacement trees offered for the Aleppo pine trees in front of her bedroom. Mrs. Galletti answered that she was satisfied, adding that there was also an agreement that if the Cedar tree dies it will also be replaced. Commissioner Knight stated that Mrs. Galletti had expressed some concern during his site visit regarding the steep hillside where the Eucalyptus trees are located. Mrs. Galletti acknowledged she had concerns regarding the stability of the slope if the Eucalyptus trees are removed, but did not feel it was being taken into consideration. Warren Stanton stated that he is satisfied with the recent agreement reached regarding the trees. Angela Sambrano stated she lives directly below the Galletti residence, and,she is concerned with the decision on the Cedar tree, as she has been told that topping the Cedar will most likely kill the tree. She was concerned that if the tree does die, because the root system may be helping to hold up the slope, that during a rain the slope could fall onto her property. She did not feel the Cedar tree was causing view impairment and would prefer the tree to remain untouched. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mrs. Sambrano if the Cedar tree is on the Galletti property or her property, as it appears to be very close to the property line. Mrs. Sambrano answered that she has been told it is on the Galletti property, but has never seen a survey to know for sure. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they knew if that tree is on the Galletti property or on the Sambrano property. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that all indications lead him to believe the tree is on the Galletti property. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked, when the parties were working out their agreement, if there was any discussion about the objections raised by Mrs. Sambrano regarding the Cedar tree. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that Mrs. Sambrano's concerns were raised about the location and ownership of the tree and she also raised the concern if the tree were to die and slope stability. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 9 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff their view regarding tree No. 18 and if they felt the tree might die because of the trimming, and if so how it may destabilize the slope. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that he has seen Cedar trees trimmed of a much greater height and size, and has rarely seen the trees die because of the trimming. He felt that trimming this tree 8 feet is very nominal given the current height of the tree. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the parties involved have reached an agreement regarding the trees on the property, and.he felt that agreement should be honored. He understood the neighbors concern about erosion and destabilization of the slope, however he did not think it was something that the Planning Commission could consider. He also felt that it sounded unlikely that the tree would die given the minimal trimming involved. Commissioner Knight asked staff if there was a finding for the Planning Commission to make regarding slope stability. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that slope stability can be taken into consideration if there is agreement amongst the Planning Commissioners that there is indeed an issue. He explained that if the Commission feels it is an issue, staff can seek out an engineer to review the slope stability. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned if a neighbor has the standing to complain about an agreement made between the foliage owner and applicants in a view restoration matter, and if that was something the Planning Commission could consider. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that sometimes with view restoration, issues expand beyond the actual parties given notice for the public hearing, and many times nearby neighbors want to add their comments to the situation. He felt the same treatment should be applied in this situation where all public comments are taken into account, but cautioned that there is an understanding between the parties and outside influence may jeopardize that agreement. Commissioner Tetreault stressed again that the parties have reached an agreement on their own, and the Planning Commission is involved only to put it on record via a .Resolution. He did not think the Planning Commission should do anything other than approve the application as understood between the parties. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve staff's recommendations regarding the agreement reached between the parties in this issue and have the staff prepare a Resolution reflecting the agreement to be presented on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 10 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of September 11, 2007 The Pre-Agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2007 Page 11