Loading...
PC MINS 20091027 Apoved November 24, 09 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 7F PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis 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. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: None Also present were Deputy Planning Director Pfost and Assistant Planner Harwell APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented, without objection. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Pfost reported that at their last meeting the City Council continued the appeal of the revised interpretation regarding the Coastal Setback Line and the appeal on the Variance and Coastal Permit on 24 Seacove to the December 15, 2009 meeting. Deputy Director Pfost distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1m Lkgpeal of Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00483): 30 Stallion Road Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the proposed project and the need for the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit. She explained that the applicant has appealed the Director's decision of denial, and the reasons for this appeal. She stated that staff believes the appellant has provided no new information to warrant a change in the Director's decision, and staff is recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision and deny the appeal. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing, Russ Barto (architect) noted that this project meets all of the standards set in the Code, however staff was not able to make a neighborhood compatibility finding due to its size. However, he felt that the actual size of the house will look much less than the 8,000 square feet shown on paper. He also noted that there were no concerns about this project raised by the neighbors. As a compromise, he suggested removing the proposed additions to the garage and the basement below the garage from the project but still build the connection between the existing house and the guest house. He compared this project to the recently approved new home at 15 Headland Drive, and noted the resolution of approval for that home included language which says that, although the size of the proposed structure is double the average and larger than the largest home in the neighborhood, the size of the resulting structure is not out of scale. He felt that the same could be said out this proposed project. Commissioner Knight referred to Mr. Barto's comment that he had an alternative proposal that would remove the proposed garage, and asked where the garage would be located. Mr. Barto clarified that the existing two-car garage would remain in place. Vice Chairman Gerstner referred to staff's counter proposal, and asked if the above grade envelope would be the same as Mr. Barto's proposal, as primarily the sub- terranean areas would be removed. Therefore, the house would appear exactly the same in staffs recommended configuration and the configuration being proposed by Mr. Barto. Mr. Barto answered that was correct. Chuck Moine (applicant) agreed that on the surface, when one adds up all of the numbers, this project appears to be quite aggressive. However, he noted that about one-third of the project is built into the hillside and that this is a very unique lot that will easily take this type of project. He also noted that, except from certain angles, this structure will not be visible from the street. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,2009 Page 2 Commissioner Perestam clarified that the recently approved house on Headland Drive is a 10,000 square foot house on a one-acre lot, while this proposal is a 8,000 square foot house on a half-acre lot. He did not think these two projects are similar. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that there have been homes approved in other portions of the City that are similar to this proposal, and therefore did not think this proposal was without precedence. Commissioner Ruttenberg did not think actions taken on any other homes in the past are parallel to this proposal. He noted that the house is already the largest of the twenty closest homes, and if approved, it would be more than double the size of the next largest home. He also noted that this lot is also slightly smaller than the average lot size in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's previous decision, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight did not think that comparing this approval to others made in the City was applicable, as neighborhood compatibility is done based on the twenty closest homes. He agreed with staff's findings that the house would be too large for the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Tomblin felt that neighborhood compatibility also is about how a house fits into the neighborhood and how it will look in the neighborhood. He did not feel that this particular proposal would adversely affect or change anything in the neighborhood. He did not think this proposal was expanding out the footprint enough to make a significant change in the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault was also concerned that this is already the largest home in the neighborhood and this proposal was adding significant square footage to this already large house. He therefore agreed with staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. Chairman Lewis stated that he would not support the motion. He felt that one can substantially increase the size of a home if the apparent bulk and apparent mass of the home is tucked away appropriately. Vice Chairman Gerstner also agreed that neighborhood compatibility has a lot more to do with the appearance and aesthetics of a home than it does with the numeric square footage of the home. He did not think neighborhood compatibility should be solely judged on the square footage of a project. He therefore felt that this particular design is compatible with the neighborhood and commended the architect for pursing this particular solution. He hoped that it would not become the norm that the City would start denying homes only because they are larger in square footage. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,2009 Page 3 Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that in the past when the Commission has discussed what will become the largest home in the neighborhood there has also been concern that within the next several years a standard will be set in the neighborhood in terms of size and neighborhood compatibility comparison. He felt that a house at 8,000 square feet in this neighborhood is a tremendous leap, and should be given more consideration. Commissioner Tetreault stated that his issue was not so much with the square footage of the project, especially since a large portion of the square footage is proposed to be underground. He explained that in this case the applicant is taking three existing structures on the property and connecting them into one structure, and his issue was more with the bulk and mass of the project. He did not think this proposed project hid the square footage enough to make it compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gerstner questioned if it was fair to deny this property owner the right to develop his property solely on the fact that the City does not want to set a precedent for future properties in the neighborhood. He wanted to review this proposal on its own merits. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-45 thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision was approved, (4-3) with Commissioner Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. View Restoration Permit Kase No. ZON2007-000331 Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, reviewing the view from the applicants' homes and noting the foliage involved in the application. He explained that since the staff report was released staff has met with the foliage owner and reached an agreement with the foliage owner on additional tree removal rather than trimming. He briefly reviewed those updates and noted that the Resolution before the Commission does represent the revisions. Commissioner Tetreault asked if, at this point, the foliage owner and applicants are in agreement on all issues, or were there still some areas of non-agreement. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the foliage owner may still have some concerns. Commissioner Perestam referred to tree Nos. 3 and 4 in the staff report, noting that to restore the view from one property these two trees will have the canopy lowered, and to restore the view from the other property the canopy for tree Nos. 3 and 4 is to lifted. He asked what will be left of these two trees after the canopy is both lowered and lifted. Deputy Director Pfost suggested that the applicant and/or the foliage owner may be able to clarify the situation with these two trees. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,2009 Page 4 Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Michael Azma (applicant) stated that this latest agreement was a surprise to him, as he was not aware that staff was meeting with the foliage owner. He explained that tree nos. 2, 3, and 4 were the trees that are most in his view and asked if they were going to be substantially lowered. Deputy Director Pfost explained that per this agreement, tree No. 2 would be removed and tree nos. 3 and 4 would have the crown reduced by 3 feet. Tree Nos. 1 and 5 would also be removed. Mr. Azma felt that this satisfied his concerns. Mr. Funiciello (applicant) explained that over the years he has slowly lost his view of the bridge and harbor and would like to have that view restored. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Funiciello if he has seen the revised proposal. Mr. Funiciello answered that he has not seen the revised proposal. Mr. Haiduczek (foliage owner) felt that this new agreement meets or exceeds the requests of both of the applicants. He also noted that since he moved into his home he has already removed several trees from the property. Commissioner Knight noted in Mr. Hajduczek's letter that he was requesting additional time to March 2010 to have the trees trimmed. He asked Mr. Hajduczek why he needed the extra time. Mr. Hajduczek explained that the most hectic time of year is coming, plus he would like extra time to arrange his work schedule so that he can be home when the trimming is done. Commissioner Knight also noted Mr. Hajduczek's objection to the proposed trimming schedule, and asked him to explain. Mr. Hajduczek explained that he felt a six-month trimming schedule is excessive, noting that there is nobody in the neighborhood, including the City, that trims their trees every six months. He stated that he will trim the trees at least every year or every other year. Mr. Azma (in rebuttal) stated that this view issue has been going on for years and Mr. Hajduczek has always had an excuse as to why he hasn't trimmed the trees. He stated that he is confident Mr. Hajduczek has every intention of complying with the decision, however he hoped that a deadline could be set as to when the trees had to be trimmed and/or removed. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,2009 Page 5 Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the View Restoration Permit as recommended by staff in handout No. 2, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Ruttenberg did not feel the foliage owner may have exactly in mind the trimming for tree Nos. 3 and 4 that is being presented by staff, noting that staff is recommending the trees be trimmed down and trimmed up. He noted the red and yellow lines on staff's photographs. Commissioner Knight felt that this recommendation is a reasonable compromise to restore the view and maintain as many trees as possible on the foliage owner's property. Commissioner Ruttenberg added that the replacement trees will most likely provide the foliage owner with more privacy, as they will be lower in height and will allow more view for the applicants. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2009-46 thereby approving the View Restoration Permit as recommended by staff was approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 3. Voteoptionsfor resolutions on Consent Calendar Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, referring to page 2 of the memo in the staff report. He explained that the City Attorney felt that when it comes to voting on items on the Consent Calendar when there is a Resolution from a previous meeting, the best practice for the Commission is to vote on the Resolution as they did for the project at the previous meeting. Commissioner Tetreault suggested an understanding as to what it means when the Commission affirms the Consent Calendar. He explained that a vote of affirmation means that the item on the Consent Calendar accurately reflects what happened at the hearing that it was voted upon and the Commissioner's vote does not change from the way it was voted on originally, or if a Commissioner was absent from the hearing then the Commissioner does not wish to register a vote. If it is anything different than that the Commission may request to remove the item from the Consent Calendar and the Commissioners can change their vote, correct what the Commission may feel is wrong with the Resolution, or the Commissioner may vote for the first time. He noted that a vote to affirm the Consent Calendar would not change a Commissioners original vote, it merely affirms that the Resolution accurately reflects their vote. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments, adding that a vote to approve the Consent Calendar is saying that there is nothing to add, Planning Commission Minutes October 27,2009 Page 6 nothing to change, and what is on the Consent Calendar accurately reflects what the Commission decided at that particular meeting. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with Commissioners Tetreault and Ruttenberg in that a Consent Calendar consents to what was previously voted on and discussed. Commissioner Knight questioned what would happen if there is a close vote, such at 4- 3, and when the Consent Calendar is brought before the Commission one or more of the Commissioners who voted in favor of the project is absent. in that situation the vote will change and could result in the denial of the project. Chairman Lewis felt Commissioner Tetreault's suggestion is reasonable, however unless and until a time comes when the Planning Commission rules are amended to specifically reflect what a vote affirming the Consent Calendar means, the Commission should follow the City Attorney's advice. The Commission discussed amending the Planning Commission rules and agreed to direct staff to bring back a change to the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures that clearly addresses the issue of voting on the Consent Calendar and that approving the Consent Calendar is an affirmation of the original vote on the proposal. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of September 8, 2009 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS S. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on November 109 2009 The Commission reviewed and accepted the pre-agenda ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,2009 Page 7