Loading...
PC MINS 20080311 Approved March 25, 2008 � CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (� PLANING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:15 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner Absent: Vice Chairman Perestam was excused Also present were Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Pfost noted that the City Council, at their March 4th meeting, reviewed the General Plan Housing Element and forwarded it to HCD for review. He also noted that the view restoration permit appeal on Rolling Ridge Road that is before the City Council was continued to March 18th to allow the parties to work out a tentative agreement. 1. Selection of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue this item to the next meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation Permit& Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2006-00631)• 32228 Schooner Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the direction given at the previous public hearing for this item. She explained that the applicant trimmed the foliage as requested, and showed pictures taken from the Hamilton's home before the foliage was trimmed and after the foliage was trimmed. She also noted that staff has clarified where the 16-foot by right height line would be as seen from the Hamilton residence. She explained that staff believes the proposed project does not significantly impair the view from the Hamilton residence and is recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked staff if any modifications have been made to the application since the last time the Planning Commission reviewed the project. Assistant Planner Kim answered that no changes have been made to the project since the last Planning Commission meeting, noting that the applicant felt that pushing the ridge back further as suggested at the last meeting would increase any view impairment to the Hamilton's residence. Commissioner Ruttenberg discussed the foliage, and noted that staff's recommendation was to trim the foliage to either the ridgeline or 16 feet, whichever is lower. ; Assistant Planner Kim acknowledged that was the original recommendation, however it was noted at the previous hearing that the ridgeline would be lower than the 16 foot line. Therefore, staff changed the condition to require the foliage be brought down to the ridgeline. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked, if staff is recommending the foliage be trimmed to the ridgeline of the residence which is lower than 16 feet, does the Planning Commission have the authority to condition that the trees be even lower than the ridgeline. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the Code requires the foliage be lowered to 16 feet or the ridgeline, whichever is lower, and in this case it is the ridgeline that is lower. Paul Hobus (applicant) explained that he was not able to trim the foliage completely down, and it will be lower than it currently is. He stated that he agrees with staff recommendations. Jure Sestich (architect) explained that he tried to make a design using the shed roof, as discussed at the last meeting, however that design raised the ridge higher than currently proposed. He felt the current proposal is one that satisfies the owner and the neighbor, as well as staff. Commissioner Ruttenberg pointed to a section in the photograph and asked Mr. Sestich if there was anything he could do to minimize the impact to the neighbor, such as angling the structure. Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2008 Page 2 Mr. Sestich answered that the only thing he could do is remove that section from the plan, which would affect the square footage of the proposed addition. Prem Hamilton stated that the ocean view is very important to her, just as the addition is very important to the Hobus family. She distributed two photos she took, one from a sitting position and one from a standing position, and explained that this proposed addition very much impairs her view of the ocean. She also explained that the best view from her home is from a sitting position. She still felt that if the center ridgeline were moved back farther, it would open up the view. She stated that the trimming helped open up views, however did not open up the heart of the view, which is where the addition will be built. Commissioner Lewis asked Mrs. Hamilton if she has had any conversations with her neighbor regarding the tree that blocks a view from the master bedroom window. Mrs. Hamilton answered that she has not talked to her neighbor about that tree. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to the two pictures Mrs. Hamilton distributed, and noted that much of what she had marked in the picture was view lost at the ;16 foot by right level. He asked Mrs. Hamilton if she understood that. Mrs. Hamilton understood that the Planning Commission was looking at the view blocked between the 16 foot height and the 17.5 proposed height. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Hobus if he was still willing to remove the tree that is blocking the view from the Hamilton's bedroom window. Mr. Hobus answered that he is willing to remove that tree as he did the foliage on the side of the property. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight stated that with the clarification of the heights on staff's pictures, he did not think this proposed project caused a significant view impact and was therefore able to make the necessary findings to approve the project. Commissioner Tetreault felt that this project will create a significant view impact to the Hamilton's residence, however most of that impact is caused by the structure under the 16 foot height level. He noted that the applicant was asking for a height variation to exceed this 16 foot height by less than 2 feet, and did not think that the additional height created more of a significant view impact. He stated that he was able to make the necessary findings to approve the project. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as recommended by staff with the additional condition that the tree that blocks the view from the Hamilton's master bedroom be removed, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2008 Page 3 Commissioner Gerstner re-opened the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Hobus if he would be willing to remove the tree that blocks to the view from the Hamilton's master bedroom window. Mr. Hobus stated that he had no problem removing the orange tree that is blocking the view from the Hamilton's bedroom window. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hobus if he would be willing to lower the other foliage on the property below 16 feet in height. Mr. Hobus was reluctant to lower the foliage below 16 feet, explaining the neighbor on the other side would then be concerned with privacy issues. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff when it would be proper to analyze a view from a sitting position. Commissioner Tetreault read from the Guidelines that a view can be taken from a sitting position only when that view enjoyed is seen only from a seated position. Commissioner Tetreault thanked Mr. Hobus for agreeing to remove the orange tree, but questioned how this would be added as a condition of approval, as the orange tree is not seen from a primary viewing area. He stated that he is in favor of the project, but because he feels the Planning Commission may be overstepping its authority in regards to this tree, he may not be able to support the motion. Commissioner Ruttenberg pointed out that the view from the master bedroom is a very similar view as seen from the primary viewing area. He therefore did not think that the view was so different that it did not fall out of the purview of the Planning Commission and they do have the authority to ask the tree be removed. Commissioner Knight stated that the finding he is making is based on an established viewing area, and he could not make a determination for removal of foliage from an area that is not the primary viewing area. He suggested rewording the motion that the tree removal is at the option of the foliage owner. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-11 thereby approving the Height Variation as conditioned by staff, with the added condition that the orange tree that impairs the view from the Hamilton's master bedroom window be removed was approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault dissenting. 3. Height Variation Permit & Site Plan Review(Case No ZON2006-00563)• 6930 Hedgewood Drive Planning commission Minutes March 11,2008 Page 4 Deputy Director Pfost explained that the applicant has requested additional time to look at redesigning the structure to address the Commission's concerns, and therefore staff is recommending continuing the item to the March 25, 2008 meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the item to the March 25, 2008 meeting. 4. Residential Development Standards Steering Committee code amendment and zone change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining staff was presenting to the Planning Commission the language suggested at the February 12th meeting, and the presentation of some of the miscellaneous Committee recommendations, starting with amendments related to lot coverage and open space, and briefly described these proposed changes. He also explained that upon further consideration, staff believes that the proposed change in Section 17.48.030, which describes setbacks, would be confusing, as it is mixing the issue of lot coverage and setbacks to a single code section. The Planning Commission discussed the recommendation to include the pole portion on flag lots in the calculation of lot coverage and open space. Commissioner Knight asked if the pole portion is being counted towards lot coverage for the easement grantor in the case where an easement was granted for the use of a driveway to other homes. Chairman Gerstner questioned when this would be considered a driveway versus a private street. Associate Planner Fox gave the Development Code definition of"driveway" and "private street" to the Planning Commission, noting that there is no clear point in cases where a group of flag lots all sharing a common driveway becomes a private street. Commissioner Knight asked staff how they currently address the issue of whether or not the area is a driveway or a private street. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff relies on the definitions of private street and driveway, noting that private street serves more than one residence. Commissioner Tetreault asked if it was known approximately how many properties in the City, as presently configured under the current rules, are restricted in their ability to do any sort of expansion because of the calculations used in determining lot coverage. He questioned if this is really a problem or not. Chairman Gerstner did not think this was a problem in the City, explaining that the topic was addressed more as how to treat the private road. He added that the Committee did not do any type of analysis to see how many properties would be affected. Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2008 Page 5 Deputy Director Pfost added that staff has not noticed a problem in lot coverage with flag lots, but more with lots with a private street on them. He explained that private streets take up quite a bit of lot coverage, and in the past staff has occasionally issued Minor Exception Permits to allow a deviation to consider the private street on the property. Commissioner Knight was concerned about and discussed how the proposed language would affect properties on private streets. He explained that currently the property line is taken to the center of the street and is included in the lot area. The improved portion of the street is then subtracted out of the,calculation. He discussed the private streets in his neighborhood and how he felt that currently the homeowners have more lot area than the proposed revisions would indicate because of the proposed elimination of the street easement. Commissioner Tetreault noted that Commissioner Knight was discussing his own property and a proposal for code changes that could affect his property. He asked staff, if any Commissioner has a particular interest in the outcome of this decision, should that Commissioner vote on the proposed amendment. He asked if any Commissioner living on a flag lot, or living in the East View area, for example, should disclose that information. Associate Planner Fox stated that staff would have to discuss the issue with the City Attorney. Commissioner Tetreault added that the Planning Commission is not making the final decision on these topics, only recommendations to the City Council, and this may make a difference as to the Planning Commissioner's participation in certain topics. Commissioner Knight agreed that staff should consult the City Attorney and he would absolutely abide by whatever decision is made. Chairman Gerstner noted that many of the Commissioners may be affected by this and future discussions and that consulting the City Attorney would be beneficial. He felt that any further discussion on this item should wait until the Commission receives direction from the City Attorney. Commissioner Knight stated that he had recently read the AQMD will be banning wood burning fireplaces and asked staff if they would update the Planning Commission on how the Planning Commission will have to address these issues. Associate Planner Fox stated that staff would do some research and add this topic when presenting the upcoming item on miscellaneous minor structures. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Revision to minutes of December 11, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2008 Page 6 Commissioner Tetreault noted a typo on page 13 of the minutes. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg recused from voting on the Marymount College item and Commissioner Tomblin abstaining since he was not on the Planning Commission at that time. 6. Minutes of February 12, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining since he was not on the Planning Commission at the time. 7. Minutes of February 26, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. 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 the meeting of March 25, 2008 Commissioner Lewis stated that he had asked staff to inquire about having a Sheriffs Deputy on site for security when the Planning Commission is hearing view restoration items, and to add this topic to a future agenda. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to hear the view restoration item, Agenda Item No. 2 at the end of the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion failed (3-3) with Commissioners Lewis, Tetreault, and Chairman Gerstner dissenting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2008 Page 7