Loading...
PC MINS 20091013 Approved November 10, 009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Ruttenberg arrived during item No. 3. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear item No. 1 after item No. 4. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported items discussed at the recently held joint workshop with the City Council regarding the General Plan update will be brought forward to the Planning Commission. He also reported that at their October 6t" meeting the City Council upheld an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a lot line adjustment application on Yacht Harbor Drive, thereby denying the application. He also noted that the Planning Commission's decision on the event garden use interpretation has been appealed to the City Council. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda iterns): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation & Minor Exception Permit JCase No. ZON2002:9 gO48 28614 Mt, Hood Court J Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this item was continued from a previous meeting with the Planning Commission's request that minor modifications be made to the project in order to add some articulation to the south sideyard setback. She gave a brief overview of the project and highlighted the revisions made to the plans. Frank Politeo (architect) explained his revisions and stated he was available to answer any questions. He added that he agrees with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Mr. Bilan (applicant) felt that this home complies with all of the code regulations and he has made compromises in the design in terms of articulation. He felt that this design is comparable with other homes in the neighborhood, is well designed, and asked the Planning Commission approve the project. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestarn commented that the architect has responded to what the Planning Commission asked of him, and he appreciated the changes made. He stated that he is now in support of the proposed project. Commissioner Perestam moved to approve Height Variation and Minor Exception permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Knight also appreciated the effort of the architect. He noted that he would have preferred articulation all the way to the back, but understood the circumstances that would create a smaller bedroom size. Commissioner Tetreault felt that this addition encroaches into a portion of the view from the Goshi residence, as he discussed at the last meeting. He questioned if this view impairment constituted a significant view impairment. Chairman Lewis did not feel that a majority of the Commission felt that the view impact to the Goshi residence was significant. He stated that he supports the current motion. The motion to approve PC Resolution 2009-42 thereby approving the Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit was approved, (6-0). 3. Residential Development Standards Code Amendment and one gbl_nqe JCase No. Z0N2007-02277L: Citywide Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2009 Page 2 Director Rojas presented the staff report, briefly explaining the three categories regarding minor structures and miscellaneous development standards scheduled to be discussed. He began with the first item, the setback encroachment clarification and explained the Committee's recommendation. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that staff's clarification on the setback encroachment was consistent with the Committee's recommendation. The Commission agreed with the proposed language. Director Rojas explained the next subject, ornamental pools, by explaining that the suggestion is to change the language in the Code to state that the depth of an ornamental pool shall be to 18 inches, which is consistent with the language in the Building Code. The Commission had a brief discussion regarding the intent of the Uniform Building Code in restricting the depth of pools without fencing to 18 inches. Commissioner Knight noted what he felt may be confusing language when looking at the depth of pools and ornamental pools in Section 7 of the staff report, and how that may conflict with the definition of ornamental pools. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that 18 inches is actually irrelevant in Section 7, as it is not the depth that is being defined but rather whether or not the pool can be allowed in the side or rear yard setback. Director Rojas felt that the language should be clarified in Section 7 to be consistent with the definition of ornamental pools. Vice Chairman Gerstner suggested striking the words "measuring more than 18 inches" from the first part of the paragraph and anywhere else where the depth measurement for ornamental ponds is mentioned, other than in the definition. Chairman Lewis suggested language for Section 7 which states that swimming pools, spas, ornamental pools, as defined in the proper section . . . ... The Commission agreed that referring the reader to a definition was the best way to word this section. Director Rojas stated that the final issue is in regards to minor structures in setback areas and the recommendation was to clarify and modify the list of the types of minor structures that are permitted within the setback areas. Commissioner Perestam felt that some of a previous discussion regarding lot coverage in regards to decks and trellises did not seem to be included in this language, and wondered if the issues had been brought before the Commission at a previous meeting for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2009 Page 3 Chairman Lewis suggested giving staff direction to approve what is currently before the Commission with the caveat that staff check to make sure all issues of lot coverage have been brought before the Commission for review. Director Rojas explained that the Commission is discussing two different sections of the code; one section being lot coverage, which was discussed by the Commission at a previous meeting, and the one before the Commission tonight, which is discussing what specifically is allowed in the setback areas. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that staff has asked the Planning Commission whether or not to add decorative landscape elements to the list of minor structures. He noted specifically that would include rocks, boulders, raised planter beds, pilasters, and statuary as structures. He stated his concern with defining a rock or boulder as a structure. He suggested language which might say "other elements including rocks, boulders, raised planter beds, pilasters, and statuary." Director Rojas explained that there will be staff generated clean-up items for the Commission's consideration, and suggested the Planning Commission continue this hearing to the November 10th meeting. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to November 109 20099 without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4, Variance Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00223): 5658 Ravenspur Drive Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the requested Variance. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the Variance for the reasons stated in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to explain how the lack of a notice from the Public Works Department shifts the burden of not complying with the code away from the Homeowners Association. Director Rojas explained that the purpose of the recycling grant is to allow the HOA to improve their common areas. When they are notified that they have received a grant they are also notified as to what permits and City approvals are needed. In this case the HOA was told they did not need permits, and they relied on this information and built the fountain. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Grace Yung (representing the HOA) stated she was available to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2009 Page 4 There being no questions, Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the Variance as conditioned in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, ( ®0) CONSENT C C Helght Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. 200 ®0 15 )a 15 Headland Commissioner Ruttenberg movedto approve the consent calendar, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The consent calendar was approved, ( ®3) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault and Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned how the Commission should be voting when Resolutions are brought before them. If the Resolution accurately reflects what the Commission decided at a previous meeting, wouldn't it be an appropriate to vote yes on the Resolution, even though one may have opposed the project? Director Rojas clarified that the decision on an item is not final until the Resolution is adopted, and therefore the vote on the Resolution should reflect the vote on the item. Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg, and noted that in the past he had voted in favor of adoption of a Resolution, even though he was not in favor of the project, because he felt that the Resolution accurately reflected the decision made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned that the Commission may vote one way on a matter, but when the Resolution is brought back on the Consent Calendar the vote may change from the original vote, depending on whether or not certain Commission members are in attendance. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with the Chairman's comments and felt that the Commission should get clarification on this matter. He asked that at the next meeting staff take some time to explain exactly what the Planning Commission rules say on this topic and clarify how the Commission should be voting on Consent Calendar items. He would also like to know how the City Council handles these types of votes. The Commission agreed this topic should be discussed at the next meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES S. Minutes of August 25, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2009 Page 5 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-agenda for the meeting on October 27, 2009 The Commission agreed to add an item that explains the vote options for resolutions on the consent calendar. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 13,2009 Page 6