Loading...
PC MINS 20090512 Approved July 28, 29 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 REGULAR MEETING MAY 12, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:12 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 Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: Commissioner Tomblin was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Fox, Associate Planner Mikhail, Assistant Planner Kim, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the May 5t" meeting the City Council continued the Valero zone change and related zone text amendment items to June 16th Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 2, five items of correspondence for agenda item No. 4, one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 5, and one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 7. Chairman Lewis noted that he spoke with the applicant for item No. 2, met with the architect for item No. 4, and met with a resident regarding item No. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (reqarding non-agenda jLterns None CONSENT CALENDAR I. General Plan Consistency Review [Case No.,ZON2009-00142) Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt the Consent Calendar, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2009-13 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permits & Coastal Permits (Case os® ZON2009-0131 ZON2009-00134 & ZON2009-00135) Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the request is to allow three different carriers to mount fourteen separate antennas and related equipment to the rooftop of the main hotel building at Terranea. She explained the scope of the project, showing representations of each antenna. She stated that staff was able to make all of the required findings and was recommending approval of the antennas as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Todd Maiche (representing Terranea) felt that these new proposals will benefit the Peninsula as a whole and encouraged the Commission to approve the project. Rich Grimes (Capital Tower Group) explained that the intent of the carriers is to support the wireless coverage and capacity that will be required for that targeted area of the Peninsula. Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Grimes if it is his intent to make this a two step process, beginning with the installation of these antennas and then remove any unnecessary antennas already in place if the coverage is satisfactory. Mr. Grimes stated that would be a decision made by the carriers. He explained these antennas will greatly enhance the coverage in the area as well as greatly enhance the capacity. Commissioner Knight stated there is a very large structure at the City Hall site with many antennas placed on it and he asked if there would be a way to relocate some of the antennas from this structure. Mr. Grimes answered that he would have that discussion with the various carriers. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolutions 2009-14, 2009-15, and 2009-16 thereby approving the three separate Conditional Use Permits and Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 2 three separate Coastal Permits as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). I Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2008-00530): Palos Verdes Art Center Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the revision being requested to this recently approved Conditional Use Permit. He explained that the Art Center displayed samples of the new panels being considered, and because staff was concerned with the reflectivity of these new panels and that when the Planning Commission approved this project a glass panel was indicated, staff felt it was appropriate to bring this back to the Commission for review and approval. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the revision to the Conditional Use Permit that would allow the metal screen to envelope the building, subject to appropriate ammonization consistent with the sample displayed by staff. Commissioner Tetreault asked, given this is a Conditional Use Permit, if there will be an opportunity for staff to view the end result after installation and evaluate the level of reflectivity that actually comes off the site, and make further adjustments if necessary. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that part of the proposed conditions of approval require that prior to installation, the panels be reviewed by the Director to ensure it is consistent with the requirements set forth by the City. However, if the Commission would like to add a review period, that is within their scope. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked on what basis it was determined the glass on the building would be adequately non-reflective to be acceptable. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the biggest concern was the reflectivity of cars at night. However, the Public Works Department reviewed the proposal and determined that headlights approaching the building would not be a concern. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Robert Yassin (applicant) explained that the intent is to bring out a series of the panels before they are installed so that they can be studied in terms of how much reflection they will produce. Commissioner Knight asked if there was a reason aluminum was chosen rather than the copper color, which he felt may have less reflectivity. Mr. Yassin explained that copper actually has a higher reflectivity because it has a smoother surface. He noted that when they placed the copper on the corner of the building it was much more reflective than the silver color. Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 3 Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-17 thereby approving the revision tote Conditional Use Permit as conditioned by staff, seconded o issioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6-0-1)with Chairman Legis abstaining. 4. Coastal Permit, Grading Permit, Site Ian Review & Variance ase NO. n0 7h 4115 Maritime Road Assistant Planner Kinn began the staff report by making two minor corrections to the neighborhood compatibility table on page 5 of the staff report, noting that 4110 and 4105 Maritime are indicated as two-story structures when they are in fact single story structures. She reviewed the scope of the project, explaining the need for the various applications. She discussed many of the non-conforming front yard setbacks in the immediate neighborhood, as well as the many properties on Maritime that exceed the maximum allowed lot coverage of 40 percent. She explained that staff felt the applicant was proposing design features that are not beyond what currently exists in the neighborhood and based on the reasoning presented in the staff report, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked if this property was within the landslide moratorium area. Assistant Planner Kim answered that this property is outside the landslide moratorium area. Commissioner Knight asked if this development will reduce or add any parking. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the project will make no difference in parking, as the overall habitable structure size will remain under 5,000 square feet which requires two parking spaces. Vice Chairman Gerstner questioned why such a large road easement exists on the properties in this neighborhood, and questioned if there may be a future need to widen the street to take advantage of the easement. Director Rojas explained that this is a private road and it is fairly common to see that the actual paved road does not match the easement. Commissioner Perestarn asked if the stairway on the far right of the property is addressed in any of the Variance applications, as it appears to be placed right at the property line. Assistant Planner Kim answered that it will be addressed in the minor Grading application. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 4 Jer!y Rodin (architect) explained he was trying to achieve a barrier-free design for the residence. He stated that the project is a very simple project, despite the need for the many variances, as it is directly beneath its own envelope. Therefore, the proposed habitable area does not increase the lot coverage, nor does the roof. He explained that the entire property will be re-landscaped and the area from the finished floor down will match the natural type of materials. David Gakenheimer stated he is the president of the Portuguese Bend HOA, and explained that the Club has an architectural control committee who has reviewed and approved this project. He did not think this proposed design and plan are unusual for the neighborhood, and fit in well as far as neighborhood compatibility. Mike Farman stated he chairs the architectural control committee for the HOA, and that the committee has reviewed and approved the plans. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Farman his opinion on the need for the Variances. Mr. Farman stated that he is satisfied that the Variances are needed and incidental to any impacts as seen from the street or from the neighboring properties. Commissioner Knight asked that a condition be added that the front of the residence be landscaped and maintained. Assistant Planner Kim acknowledged that such a condition can be added. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the existing landscaping will be removed, specifically the mature tree on the property. Mr. Rodin answered that the large tree will stay on the property and any other smaller trees will stay unless the trunks are within the zone of the new foundation. He also noted that the homeowner has required that lush vegetation be maintained at the front of the residence. Commissioner Tetreault felt the trees are visually pleasing, but questioned if there should be a condition that the trees must be there. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt PC Resolution 2009-18 thereby approving the Coastal Permit, Grading Permit, Site Plan Review and Variance as recommended by staff and as conditioned inthe staff report, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). 5. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case, o® ZON2008-qQI1 4L 30563 Calle de Suenos Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. He stated that while staff feels most of the Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 5 findings for the approval of the height variation can be made, there are two critical findings staff could not make. He explained the architectural style of the proposed residence is more contemporary than the surrounding homes, which also contributes to a boxy appearance as well as sections of unbroken two-story facades. As such, staff does not believe the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood in terms of architectural style, exterior finishes and materials, and apparent bulk and mass. Secondly, staff received objections to the project from neighbors regarding view impairment. He explained that from the residence at 30630 Calle de Suenos the silhouette over 16 feet in height almost entirely blocks the northerly view of the Santa Monica Bay and Malibu coast. Staff has determined this to be a significant view impairment to the residents at 30630 Calle de Suenos and therefore could not make this finding. He also noted a letter of concern from the residents at 30573 Camino Porvenir. He noted that staff had not been able to gain access to the interior of this residence. In conclusion, he stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review without prejudice. Staff felt the project might be modified to address the issues of significant view impairment and neighborhood compatibility such that all of the required findings for the height variation could be made. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. John Lee (applicant's son) explained he took additional photographs showing the perspectives from the residence at 30630 Calle de Suenos. He felt that from these pictures it is very difficult to distinguish between the ocean and the sky view. He explained the vantage point from which the pictures were taken. Commissioner Perestarn asked when the photos were taken. Mr. Lee answered that the photos were taken during the last weekend. Ben Phan (applicant's designer) explained that this project has been redesigned several times before being presented to the Planning Commission, as he tried to incorporate as many of staff's recommendations as possible. He stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Knight noted the 17-foot ridgeline on the existing home and asked if there was an attic in the home. Mr. Phan answered the house is one level with 8-foot high ceilings. Jody Rice did not think the proposed plan was out of scope with what is and will be happening on this street, as homes are being remodeled constantly on this street. He questioned the pictures taken from the Cartwright residence, as he did not think they truly represented the small view they have from their living room. He was amazed that the City would allow someone to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in property value because one resident, who has a tremendous view, will be losing a very small portion of that view. Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 6 Jon Cartwright stated that he was astonished that Mr. Lee spent so much time walking around his property taking pictures, but never once did he knock on the door and ask to come inside to observe the view. He stated that he is before the Commission to ask that the Commission uphold the staff's recommendation to deny the proposed height variation. He stated that the portion of the proposed project above 16 feet in height results in a significant view impairment of a protected view he has of the ocean, shoreline, Malibu, city lights, and Santa Monica Mountains. Secondly, he did not feel the proposed house was compatible with the homes in the immediate neighborhood in terms of architectural style. He felt that the Lees have other design options that will allow them to take advantage of their expansive view, however he has no other options. Joy Caswell stated that views from her living room and dining room on Camino Porvenier will be directly impacted with the addition of a second story, as it will be directly across from her home. Chairman Lewis asked Ms. Caswell if she will be losing a view of the sky or the water. Ms. Caswell answered that it will be the loss of a bit of sky and water, but mainly sky, as seen between houses. Henry Kang explained there have been several meetings with the owner and architect, and the main issue was not so much the height of the building, but rather the size of the second floor. Mr. Lee (in rebuttal) stated that he would agree to a 90 day extension in the even that the Planning Commission would chose to continue this item. Commissioner Perestarn stated he would like to clear up what he felt was a wide discrepancy on the views that would be obstructed with this proposed addition. He referred to two photos submitted by the Cartwrights that were taken in late November and mid-February, which show a much clearer view than those taken by the Lees or by staff. Therefore, since the Lees have agreed to an extension, he requested that staff attempt to take pictures from the Cartwright residence on a clearer day that will better show the view. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that from what he has seen to this point there is no question that there is some sort of view obstruction, however he too would like to see pictures taken by staff on a clearer day. Commissioner Tetreault agreed, stating that if the Commission is going to deny or approve the project based on views, that to be fair to all parties a better clearer picture of the view should be taken by staff. He noted, however, that there are issues other than view that are involved, including neighborhood compatibility and bulk and mass. Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 7 Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that of the issues raised, the one that concerns him most is the view from the Cartwright residence. He also stated that he does not have as much problem with bulk and mass as the other Commissioners may have. Commissioner Knight stated that he was able to visit the Cartwright home, however it was not a very clear day and the view was rather hazy. Therefore, he would be in favor of continuing this item so that staff is able to get a better picture from the Cartwright residence that clearly shows the ocean and horizon views. He also felt the proposed addition was boxy and does not fit into the architectural style of the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gerstner also felt the architectural style of the proposed addition was very different from the other homes in the neighborhood. He stated that even if the Planning Commission determines the proposed addition does not significantly block a view from the Cartwright residence he will still have issues with the bulk and mass of the addition. Chairman Lewis stated that in looking at the available photographs and through his site visit, he was able to determine that this proposed addition will cause a significant view impact to the Cartwright residence. He also shared staff's concerns in regards to neighborhood compatibility and bulk and mass. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that a majority of the Commissioners had an issue with bulk and mass and the design of the proposed addition. He felt that, irrespective of the view impact, the applicant should consider what they could do to redesign the home to adjust the bulk and mass. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of June 23, 2009 to allow a better assessment of the potential view impairment resulting from the proposed project, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (6-0). ® Revision to Conditional Use Permit & Gradi,n, Per it (Case No. ZON2009- 00PL61- 78 Via del Cielo Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project and the need for the revision to the Conditional Use Permit to deviate from a grading condition for the tract. She explained that the City has approved no revisions to the Conditional Use Permit to pad lots in this tract, with one exception that proved to be a unique circumstance resulting from a Lot Line Adjustment. She further explained that, according to the adopted resolution and minutes for that specific project, the Planning Commission was concerned that the approval would set precedence for grading on side yard slopes elsewhere in the community and wanted to ensure that the revision was specific for that one property only. She stated that since the City has approved no CUP revisions for comparable properties allowing deviation from the grading condition, and since the subject property can accommodate improvements that are common on all Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 8 other properties without altering the existing slope, staff is unable to make all of the necessary findings and is recommending denial with prejudice to the proposed project. Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Gerstner understood staff's concerns with this request and agreed with staff's point that the lot is big enough for a house, however felt that the incorrect finding was noted in the staff report, and the approach used by staff for this finding is inconsistent with what it is intended to do. Director Rojas explained that the point staff was trying to make was that the lot is already adequate in size and shape and therefore this request is not necessary. He agreed that is a different finding. He stated that the proper finding should be finding No. 1 under grading which states that the grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the primary use of the lot. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Pat Bell (representing the owners of the property) felt this is one of the unique lots in the tract in that the backyard would only be 70 feet, which he felt was substandard for a backyard of that caliber of home. He stated that was why he is asking for the revision to the Conditional Use Permit. He stated he was also concerned with Fire Department access given the slope and not having 10 to 15 feet to access the home. He noted that he has had no objection to his proposed plan from the HOA or the neighbors. Commissioner Knight asked if the plans that were approved for this property had received any comments from the Fire Department regarding access. Mr. Bell answered that the access problems were his own observation from practical experience. Commissioner Perestam asked if a smaller retaining wall can be approved by staff. Assistant Planner Kim explained that a retaining wall of less than three feet in height and with an overall grading quantity of less than 20 cubic yards would be allowed without Planning Department approval. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they had any comment on Mr. Bell's point that a backyard of 70 feet is substandard on a lot of over 21,000 square feet. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff does not feel this would be a substandard size for a backyard, given that on the previously approved plan the overall size and improvements on the property were similar to the other properties that exist within the Oceanfront community. Therefore, staff does not feel this is an exceptional circumstance that makes this property more unique than any of the other properties in the tract. Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 9 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the primary issue the Commission should be addressing is whether or not a primary use of the lot of this size is to have a certain, adequate size backyard. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff does not consider that to be the primary issue, and the site plan as approved me the RPD standards for the tract. Mr. Bell asked for clarification by noting that the previous plan was approved to have a basement which would require approximately 1,000 cubic yards of grading. He felt this should be considered grading. Yet, he pointed out that he is proposing to move a couple of hundred yards of dirt and is being met with opposition. Commissioner Perestam asked how many lots at Oceanfront are still vacant without a home on them. Director Rojas answered there are less than 10 lots that are still undeveloped. Commissioner Perestarn felt that when one steps back and looks at what is being asked for in this application, it doesn't seem unreasonable. Director Rojas explained that this tract was approved as a complete tract with developed lots and an intentional design on how the lots would be situated. The tract was approved with strict conditions in place that the lot design and layouts not be modified or changed in the future. Because those safeguards were put in place, any request for grading must come before the Planning Commission with an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit. Staff felt that the transitional slopes in this tract were intended to stay as is and when one begins modifying these slopes to create more side yard area, it will set precedence for everyone in the tract to start requesting this type of modification, and the intent of the Tract approval will be lost. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked how many of the pad lots have a sloping condition as part of the pad lot. Mr. Bell answered that there is only one other undeveloped lot that has this type of slope situation on it. He therefore felt his property is somewhat unique in the tract. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if excavation for a basement is considered actual grading, especially in terms of this CUP condition. Director Rojas explained that grading for footings and foundations is exempt and not counted as grading, but grading for a basement is considered grading. Commissioner Tetreault assumed that back when this tract was being discussed by the Planning Commission it was a subject of much discussion in terms of the types of restrictions that would be placed on these lots. He explained that he holds these types of discussions with a certain amount of deference, noting it most likely took a great Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 10 amount of time and discussion to come up with a final plan for the development we see today, and there should be quite a bit of weight to that. However, in looking at this request on an individual basis he questioned if this request is really that significant. He also noted that everyone else in this tract has had to develop their properties in accordance with the restrictions in place for this tract. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that as a Planning Commissioner he has to follow the codes, and in reading the code and the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit in place for this development he did not think he could make the finding which states that the grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. He stated he cannot make findings 1, 3, and 9 for the grading. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to deny the grading permit without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight explained that there is a Conditional Use Permit in place for the tract, anyone who bought property in the tract was aware of the CUP and its conditions, and he felt that to grant this request would constitute a grant of special privilege to this owner that other people in the subdivision do not have. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he would vote against the motion, explaining that each of these properties were not fully designed when the CUP for the development is adopted. He felt there are unique conditions that exist, and the Planning Commission is the body that tries to adjudicate those. He felt this property is unique relative to the other flat pad lots to the extent that some of this grading and retaining wall is reasonable. He explained that some of the things that make this property unique include the side grade that narrows the back of the property, the fact that there was a basement previously approved on the property that included grading, and that this new design presented has less grading than the previously approved design. He did note, however, that he would prefer the retaining wall stay out of the setback area. Commissioner Perestam stated that his preference would be to continue this hearing to allow staff the opportunity to present information on other lots in the tract and to be able to see if there are situations where there have or have not been changes granted for pad lots. He would also like to see what has been done at the Trump tract to see if it compares with this situation. Commissioner Tetreault stated he is looking for consistency, and if there have been exceptions that have been made in this tract then they should be considered and the Planning Commission should be consistent with those decisions. The motion to deny the grading permit without prejudice failed, (3-3) with Commissioners Perestam, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. Commissioner Perestam moved to continue the public hearing to July 14, 2009 and ask staff to provide information on the other lots in the tract and if variances Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 11 or CUP revisions have been requested and/or granted on any of those lots, and to look at the Trump tract and the retaining walls that were created to allow the sub- terranean garages, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff what information they have on the previously approved residence on this lot, which included a basement. Assistant Planner Kim stated that staff could not confirm or deny this previous approval and would have to report back to the Commission. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the Planning Commission would be going through the same discussion if this were an application to build a basement on the property, and if the same requirements and findings would have to be made. Director Rojas answered that staff will have to do further research, explaining that when each lot was developed with a house, grading was required. However the grading approved was consistent with the Conditional Use Permit. He did not know if there was a limit imposed in terms of the quantity of grading approved per lot. Commissioner Tetreauit felt that if indeed the grading for a basement on this lc!t had been previously approved, that would be enough for him to determine a precedent had been set on this very lot to approve the proposed wall. Commissioner Knight stated he could not support the motion, not because more information could not be helpful, but because there are conditions set on this particular sub-division that are very clear, and granting this request will constitute a special privilege that others in the tract have not had. Before taking a vote on the motion, Chairman Lewis asked the applicant if he would grant a one-time 90-day extension per the Permit Streamling Act. Mr. Bell agreed to the 90-day extension. The motion to continue the public hearing failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Tetreault, Knight, Ruttenberg, and Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg renewed his motion to deny the proposed revision to the Conditional Use Permit without prejudice, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2009-19 as amended, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-1)with Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. 7. Zone Change & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2009-O0Q§& Portuguese Bend Club as Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the request to rezone some of the properties within the Portuguese Bend neighborhood to one uniform zoning Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 12 district to follow the lot sizes and develop that exists there today. As a result of this request the Planning Commission is required to review and formulate a recommendation to the City Council, who will then make a final determination on the zone change request. She gave a brief background on the tract, and showed several aerial photographs of the tract. Commissioner Knight asked staff where the Open Space Hazard Zone was in relation to this request. Associate Planner Mikhail showed a zoning map and pointed out the Open Space Hazard Zone. She noted that this request is to change certain lots from RS-2 zoning to RS-5 and does not include changing the OH boundary line. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing, and there being nos eaers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt PC Resolution 2009-20 thereby recommending approval tote City Council of a Negative Declaration for the proposed project, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt PC Resolution 2009-21 thereby recommending approval to the it council of the proposed zone change as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS ® Pre-Aaenda for the meefing on May 26 2009 Director Rojas noted that an appeal to an Exotic Animal Permit has been added to the pre-agenda under public hearings. Commissioner Perestarn suggested the appeal be heard before the Marymount item, and the Commission agreed. Commissioner Tetreault noted he would not be at the May 26th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 12,2009 Page 13