Loading...
PC MINS 20080122 Approved February12, 2008 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2008 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 Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin,;Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as amended to hear agenda items 6 and 7 before agenda item 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas welcomed newly appointed Commissioner Tomblin and introduced Assistant Planner Abigail Harwell. Commissioner Tetreault noted that he is scheduled to tour the Marymount site to view the silhouette, since he missed the January 19th meeting at the site. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of November 27, 2007 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Tetreault and Tomblin abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. Commissioner Ruttenberg recused himself from the vote on Item No. 2 of the minutes. 7. Minutes of December 11, 2007 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining since he was not at that meeting and Vice Chairman Perestam and Commissioner Ruttenberg recusing themselves from the vote on Item No. 1 of the minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Site Plan Review and Sign Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00557): 15 Oceanaire Drive Commissioner Knight moved to remove Agenda Item No. 1 from the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Knight referred to Condition No. 13 which states there will be no new lighting, and asked if a condition can be added which states that illumination shall not increase. Director Rojas explained that the current lighting is for the adjacent tree, and that there is no existing or proposed illumination of the sign. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Al Edgerton (representing the HOA) explained that lights in place are to illuminate the tree and a wall, and neither will be changed. However, he was agreeable to a condition that illumination shall not increase if that would make the Planning Commission feel more comfortable. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-5 as modified to add a condition that the existing illumination shall not be increased, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). 2. Encroachment Permit & Sign Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00540): Public right-of-way at Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita Planning Commission Minutes January 22,2008 Page 2 The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Consent Calendar, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-4 as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00568): 6930 Hedgewood Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief description 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 Height Variation and Site Plan Review as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the fact that the lot size is under 10,000 square feet would have any affect on considerations or determinations made by staff or the Planning Commission. Director Rojas answered that there is no consequence because the lot is a non- conforming size, noting that the lot was created before the City's incorporation. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if they had any type of survey showing property lines, noting that the side yard fence appears to be quite a bit closer to the neighbor's residence. He questioned if the fence was being used to determine the property line. Assistant Planner Kim stated that staff did not have a survey from the applicant, however staff can request the applicant submit a survey if that is the direction from the Planning Commission. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Perestam stated that he has an issue with the bulk and mass of the proposed project. He explained that this is a situation where there are two homes with five foot side yard setbacks and there will be matching, side by side second story additions. He stated that this will be the first situation in this neighborhood where this type of situation occurs. He felt this proposed second story addition needs some type of articulation to soften the bulk and mass. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with the Vice Chairman, adding that he too was concerned with this large, two-story wall with a minimum setback to the neighbor's property. He noted that this may not be apparent from the street, but was rather imposing on the neighbor, and could set a precedent for others in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with the Vice Chairman and Commissioner Tetreault's comments, adding that he also has an issue with the proposed size of the project. He stated that this neighborhood is very consistent in the size of the homes Planning Commission Minutes January 22,2008 Page 3 and this proposed residence will be 30 percent larger than 19 of the 20 homes in the immediate neighborhood. He felt that this proposed residence will be too large for the neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners, noting that he felt the applicant should provide a survey, as he questioned if the fence along the side yard designated the property line. Commissioner Knight agreed with the previous comments made by the Commissioners, noting that he had the same concerns. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing, to allow the applicant to respond to the Commissioner's concerns. Jenny Fernandez (applicant) did not agree with the comments that this proposed house will be too large for the neighborhood. She felt that what is proposed is per the City guidelines and should be approved. She added that if the Planning Commission is going to deny the project, they should give her the opportunity to make modifications to the plans and present these changes to the City. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Fernandez if she knew if the fence along the side property was on the property line. Ms. Fernandez answered that the fence has been there since before she moved into her home, however it has been her understanding that the fence is one to two feet on her property. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that he went to the neighbor's property and looked at the proposed addition from their windows. He stated that the neighbor will be looking out at a very tall, solid wall and asked Ms. Fernandez if she had considered that. Ms. Fernandez stated that her neighbor never looks out of the windows on that side of the house. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault explained that his concern was not so much that the addition is at the setback line, but more that it is a solid, straight up wall, which is something the Planning Commission has not favored in the past. He stated that what the Planning Commission has tended to favor is a wall that has some articulation, and steps in at the second story. Commissioner Lewis did not know if articulation alone would be enough, given the amount of house in question. Planning Commission Minutes January 22,2008 Page 4 Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed, but added that it may be that the articulation itself will push the house in by several feet and could reduce the size sufficiently for him to be more in favor of the project. Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing. Chairman Gerstner explained to Ms. Fernandez that in order to continue this public hearing to allow her to make some changes to the proposed addition that may address some of the concerns being raised, she would have to grant a one-time 90 day extension, and asked if she would be willing to do so. Ms. Fernandez agreed to grant a one time 90-day extension. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Director Rojas noted that if this item is continued, the next available meeting will be March 11. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to March 11, 2008 to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Commissioner Tomblin noted that if the second story addition is shifted so that it is farther from the property line, it appears that very little square footage will be lost. He asked, however, if the size of the proposed addition was a concern to the Commission. Commissioner Perestam answered that size is an issue for him, and that the proposed addition should be reduced. Commissioner Tetreault stated that size was not as much of an issue for him, and that the proximity of the addition to the property line was the bigger issue. Commissioner Knight acknowledged that this addition is quite a bit larger than the average home, however he would like to see if the bulk and mass can be softened from the street, the addition moved away from the property line, and articulation added. Vice Chairman Perestam stated that it was the proximity to the property line and the location of the property line that was his major concern with the project. The motion to continue the public hearing to March 11, 2008 was approved, (7-0). 4. Height Variation Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2005-00404): 30136 Via Rivera Planning Commission Minutes January 22,2008 Page 5 Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining that staff was requesting this item be continued to February 26th because of modifications made to the project after the notice was published. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to February 26, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved. (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. Encroachment Permit (Case No,. ZON2007-00591): Public right-of-way abutting 2726 San Ramon Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the proposed project and the City Council Policy and standards that must be considered. He explained that there are two findings which staff felt could be met, however there are also two findings which staff did not feel could be met. He stated that the Director of Public Works has made a determination that the encroachment poses a hazard, is unsafe, and not in compliance with ADA requirements. He also explained that staff felt the proposed structure could be reconfigured or relocated to adhere to the criteria set forth in the City Council Policy for Planning Director review. Therefore, staff was recommending denial, without prejudice, of the proposed project as stated in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault noted there is another wall in place on the applicant's property that is very much in the public right-of-way, and asked staff how that wall was allowed. Associate Planner Fox explained that the existing wall in question is in the public right- of-way, however according to the owner the wall was built before City incorporation. Commissioner Knight noted that neighborhood compatibility was discussed in the memo from Public Works which was included in the staff report, and asked staff to clarify that memo. Associate Planner Fox explained that what the Public Works staff meant by neighborhood compatibility was that they had looked at other similar walls on San Ramon Drive that were either in the public right-of-way or very close to the right-of-way and found that they were all much farther back from the curb than this proposed wall would be. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned if the Planning Commission were to approve this proposed wall, could a condition be added that the existing wall in the right-of-way be legalized. Director Rojas explained that a structure in the right-of-way falls under the purview of the Director of Public Works, and the Public Works Department has their own method of enforcement. He noted, however, that the approval process to allow structures in the right-of-way is through the Planning Commission. Therefore, he felt that the Planning Planning Commission Minutes January 22,2008 Page 6 Commission could make a motion to ask the Director of Public Works to look at the existing wall. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Joseph Dorian (applicant) stated that his neighbor has stolen a portion of his property and built a tall retaining wall without permits that is partially on his property. He explained that he had his property surveyed and then took his neighbor to court. He stated that he has had property stolen from him and now he feels he is being persecuted by the City and treated like a criminal. He stated that he is simply asking for a three foot wall so that he can plant some flowers and shrubbery, and there can be no more claims by his neighbor that the portion of his property belongs to them. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked if there would be any prohibition against bringing the wall out six feet, and adding low lying hedges along the property line for further definition. Associate Planner Fox answered that hedges can be planted, as they are not a structure. Commissioner Lewis stated that in his memo, the Director of Public Works has said that the proposed wall is sub-standard, unsafe, and not in compliance with ADA requirements. He stated that he has not heard or read anything that would cause him to doubt that. He added that Mr. Dorian can plant a hedge,or a garden to help define his property. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-6, thereby denying without prejudice the Encroachment Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-agenda for the meeting of February 12, 2008 The Commissioners discussed and agreed that Item No. 1, the view restoration item, should be moved to the end of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 22,2008 Page 7