Loading...
PC MINS 20070911 Approved November 12\2007 2007 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the City Council introduced the Ordinance regarding the miscellaneous code amendments at the September 4, 2007 meeting. He also distributed two items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2 and four items for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Lewis reported that he had met with the applicant for Agenda Item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP2007-0007): 37 & 38 Avenida Corona Commissioner Knight moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2007-56, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Karp abstaining. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation Revision (Case No. ZON2007-00348): 28953 Crestridge Rd. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project. He explained that the architect has presented revised drawings showing the minimum height the chimney can be built to meet the standards of the Building Code. He explained that the chimney has been lowered by one foot, reduced the horizontal width of the upper portion of the chimney, and the spark arrestor shroud has been made smaller. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution to approve the requested revision to the height variation. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if this chimney is at the very lowest height it can be. Associate Planner Fox answered that the chimney cannot be at any lower height than is proposed, per the Building Code, Development Code, and the manufacturer's specifications. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Olympia Greer (architect for the project) stated that she agrees with the recommendations in the staff report and is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how and why the chimney was not built in the location that was originally approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Greer answered that the chimney was relocated during construction, and did not come to her attention until if had already been built. She also noted that the chimney was not built the way she had originally designed it. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp stated that since this redesigned chimney causes less of a view impact than the one originally approved, he was inclined to support the change. He noted, however, that he is always disappointed when there are plans approved by the Planning Commission that are changed in the field without first obtaining the proper approvals. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Karp, adding that he too can now support this revised design. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Tetreault stated that he can support staff's recommendations, noting that he felt everything that can be done has been done to reduce the height and size of the chimney. Commissioner Knight also felt he could support this project as presented, noting that he too is not in favor of projects being changed in the field without first getting the proper approvals from the City. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-57 thereby approving the revision to the Height Variation as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Coastal Permit, Height Variation & Variance (Case No. ZON2006-00453): 1 Seacove Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He stated that staff felt all of the necessary findings to approve the Coastal Permit and Height Variation can be made, however staff could not make two of the required four findings for approval of the proposed Variance. Therefore staff is recommending denial of the Variance, with prejudice. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff to clarify what modifications they felt would be necessary in order for the trellis and bbq area to meet staff's concerns. Associate Planner Fox explained that the Code allows encroachment of certain mechanical equipment and minor accessory structures into the side yard setback area, even up to the property line. He explained that the requirement for that to happen is that the height of the structures can be no more than six feet and the structure needs to abut a solid wall of at least the same height as the structure itself. He explained that in this situation the height of the counter and bbq is approximately 36 inches and to the top of the chimney is approximately eleven feet. He stated that if a solid block wall was constructed behind those existing improvements, up to six feet high, and the top of the chimney were reduced down to six feet in height, then both the chimney and bbq counter could remain in place. He stated that the trellis, however, would still have to be .relocated out of the setback area. Commissioner Perestam asked if the primary viewing area of this home would change when the proposed addition and remodel is completed. Associate Planner Fox answered that the primary viewing area would most likely not change, as the views from the upstairs bedroom is not a protected view and the other major living area in the addition is a dining room that is behind the existing house. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they had given any consideration to other locations on the property that the bbq, chimney, and trellis could be relocated. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff had not looked into other locations in depth, however he suggested relocation to the other side of the patio area. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if removal of the bbq, chimney, and trellis would bring the nonconforming residential structure into compliance. Associate Planner Fox explained that the intent is not to bring the entire residential structure into compliance. He explained that if the applicant's proposed addition involved demolition of more than 50 percent of the existing walls, then staff would require the owner to bring the entire structure into compliance. However, the scope of what is being proposed does not warrant that. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Dana Ireland 1 Seacove Drive (applicant) stated that his home is 80 feet back from Seacove Drive and therefore the proposed second story addition will not be:as apparent from the street. He stated that the design is respectful of all the mature trees on the site, and no trees will therefore have to be removed. He also stated he was very mindful of the neighbors during the design. Regarding the request for the Variance, he explained that moving the arbor structure five feet will then put the structure in his view of Portuguese Point and the white water view of Abalone Cove. He also explained that building a solid wall built behind the bbq obtains no objective and will create only more mass on the property. Vice Chairman Perestam asked how long the bbq has been constructed in its current place. Mr. Ireland answered that the bbq was constructed three years ago. Vice Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Ireland if he went through the City to get any permits or approvals for the construction of the bbq. Mr. Ireland answered that he had a permit and inspection for the gas line for the bbq .and was also told that if a structure is less than 120 square feet, less than 12 feet tall, and non-habitable then it did not need a building permit. Vice Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Ireland about the value of the trellis. Mr. Ireland responded that monetarily the trellis may be worth about $1,000, however the aesthetic value is very important. He also noted that the neighbors are in favor of keeping the trellis in its current location. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff, if the addition was already in place without the bbq or trellis, and the applicant then came to the City to request the Variance for the bbq and trellis, would staffs recommendations be the same as they are now. Associate Planner Fox felt that staff's recommendations would be the same, as there are alternative locations on the site for the features that would not require the approval of a Variance, and that building a bbq is not a substantial property right. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the applicant was asking to have the structures requested in the Variance in the particular location they now exist, rather than somewhere else on the property. Associate Planner Fox stated that is the crux of staffs argument, that the ability of other property owners to have similar structures located outside the setback area is something they're able to enjoy but is something staff does not think rises to the level of a substantial property right, especially when discussing a built in bbq or outdoor fireplace. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they felt the structures requested in the Variance could be located elsewhere on the property. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff felt the structures could be located elsewhere on the property without the need for a Variance, noting that certain items could remain where they are if modifications were made. Commissioner Karp felt that it made good common sense to approve the Variance, noting that the structures do not have a negative impact on anyone else's property, there is no negative impact on the City, and it is not obnoxious or intrusive in any way. He stated the Planning Commission is not only a body of law but a body of equity, and felt this requested project should be approved. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to finding No. 1 regarding exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, and asked staff if they felt that the fact that the adjacent lot is not buildable and therefore it is not likely that any structure will be placed along that shared side property line, could be an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that doesn't apply to other properties. Associate Planner Fox felt that was a position the Planning Commission could take, however from staffs perspective the Flood Hazard Restriction Area is an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance for the adjacent property rather than the subject property. Director Rojas added that these are findings that the Planning Commission must make in order to approve a project, and the Planning Commission can interpret whether these findings are being made differently than staff. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 5 of 9 Chairman Gerstner felt that he could make finding no. 1 as the fact that the owners have taken an existing commercial structure with no property line setbacks and converted it into a residential home is an extraordinary circumstance and makes this property exceptional. He also did not feel that these structures in their current location cause any detriment to the City or any neighbor. He also noted, that while there may be another location for the structures on the property, there might not necessarily be another more appropriate location for these structures. He felt that allowing the bbq and trellis to remain in the existing location is no less egregious than the existing non- conforming residence. Commissioner Knight disagreed. He felt that the house, which was previously a gas station, which is built along the property line is one issue, as it is with any pre-existing non-conformity. However, the fireplace and barbeque were added at a later date. He agreed with the staff findings that there are other alternatives available to the applicant that do not require a Variance and thus the right to have a barbeque and fireplace are not being taken from the applicant. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Coastal Permit, Height Variation, and Variance as proposed and direct staff to prepare an appropriate Resolution and Conditions of Approval for the next meeting, seconded by Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated he was able to make finding no. 1, however he was not able to make finding no. 2 regarding the substantial property right. He noted that the barbeque and trellis were built at a later time and that there are alternatives available to the applicant, most notably that the barbeque can stay where it is with a minor modification. He noted that the Planning Commission was obligated to make the necessary findings before approving the Variance. Commissioner Tetreault agreed, noting that he liked the look of the barbeque and set- up of the yard area. He felt that whenever possible the Planning Commission should make equitable decisions. However in this instance he could not make finding no. 2 in order to approve the Variance. He added that he was able to make the necessary findings for the approval of the other applications, just not the Variance. The motion to approve the Coastal Permit, Height Variation, and Variance failed .(3-4) with Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Perestam dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve staff's recommendations to approve the Coastal Permit and Height Variation, and deny the Variance with prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Vice Chairman Perestam asked what the difference would be between denying the Variance with prejudice or without prejudice. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 6 of 9 Associate Planner Fox explained that denying the Variance with prejudice would mean the applicant would have to wait one year before reapplying for the Variance and approval without prejudice would allow a revised Variance application to be submitted. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to revise his motion to deny the Variance without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-58 to approve the requested Coastal Permit and Height Variation, and to deny the Variance without prejudice was approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Gerstner dissenting. 4. Conditional Use Permit Revision & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2006- 00587): 57 Via del Cielo Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report. He explained the need for the Grading Permit and for the revision to the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for the revision to the Conditional Use Permit due solely to the unique circumstances created by the previous lot Fine adjustment and was recommending limiting the approval of the Conditional Use Permit revision only to this lot at 57 Via del Cielo. He concluded by stating that staff was recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit Revision and Grading Permit as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff to clarify why they were recommending limiting the Conditional Use Permit Revision to this one lot. Associate Planner Fox explained that if they were to remove the restriction for grading on these side slopes across the entire development, staff felt that there would be a large number of applicants with grading applications requesting removal of the side slopes in their yards to expand the pad area. He stated that would be incompatible with the original approval of the tract, which was the reason the condition was originally put in place. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Tim Rasciz (architect for the project) emphasized the uniqueness of this situation and .explained he has worked closely with the neighbors and the developer to come up with the best solution for this property. He stated he was available for any questions from the Planning Commission. Woodrow Meyers stated he was also available for any questions. There being no questions, Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Lewis moved approve the Conditional Use Permit Revision and Grading Permit as recommended by staff, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2007- 59, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). 5. Conditional Use Permit Revision & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2006- 00237): 2923 Vista del Mar Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project and a brief background of the development. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings in order to allow the deviation from the approved building footprint and setbacks and to increase the lot coverage from 25 percent to 32 percent. He noted that all of the other homes in the immediate neighborhood exceed the lot coverage standards of the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines. He stated that staff also could make the necessary findings for the Grading Permit as was therefore recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. He added that if the Planning Commission were to approve the project, staff was recommending a condition of approval be added that reads: "The stock piling, preparation, and cutting of raw stone for the exterior veneer of the structure shall not be permitted on the subject property. Storage and cutting of finished stone may be permitted on the site only for the final fitting and installation of stone veneer. The use of a minimal number of stone cutting saws shall be permitted provided that such saws are located immediately adjacent to the areas where the stone veneer is being applied, and as far as possible from nearby residences." Vice Chairman Perestam noted there is a 15 foot minimum setback required, however the pool is only set back from the property line 3 feet and the deck and cantilevered patio are also within the 15 foot setback area, and asked staff to clarify how this can be permitted. Associate Planner Fox explained that the Code allows swimming pools to encroach into the side and rear setback areas and be within three feet of the property line. He also noted that the patios shown on the plans are patios on grade and retaining walls that can also be in the setback areas. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. .Luis DeMoraes (architect) explained that before designing the home he and the owners met with all of the neighbors for their input and the placement and design of the house took into account their input. As a result, he noted that all of the neighbors support the project as proposed. Commissioner Knight noted that there is a letter from a neighbor expressing some concerns with the house design, and asked the architect if those concerns have been addressed. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 8 of 9 Mr. DeMoraes explained that he has been meeting with those neighbors and that they are now completely satisfied with the design of the house and have no further objections. Mr. Khanna (applicant) stated that he is the owner of the property and was available for any questions. There being no questions Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight felt this was a good example of the homeowners trying to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors, noting that this is an unusual circumstance with the way the Conditional Use Permit is set up and the Guidelines established for the neighborhood, and the fact that projects are not following those Guidelines. He explained that he was in favor of this project because he felt it was in the reasonable range of previous approvals and changes made in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt this project is very large and very visible. However, he noted that the applicant appears to have worked very hard to design a home that takes into account all of the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit Revision and the Grading Permit as amended by staff to include the language for the additional condition of approval as read into the record by staff, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2007-60, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of August 14, 2007 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0-1) with Vice Chairman Perestam abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-agenda for the meeting of September 25, 2007 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 9 of 9