Loading...
PC MINS 20100608 Approved CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES July 27 2 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Tomblin at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Chairman Gerstner was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their June 1 meeting the City Council adopted the Resolutions related to the final decision on the Marymount College project. They also adopted the Planning Commission's amendments initiated by the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee, directed staff and the Planning Commission to study the imposition of a "floor area ratio" in the City, and voted not to pursue consideration of amending the Height Variation view findings. Director Rojas also noted that the new budget that is set to be adopted on June 15th includes a stipend increase for the Planning Commissioners. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1, a land use comparison document related to agenda item No. 4, and a set of comments for agenda item No. 4. Vice Chairman Tomblin reported that he attended the monthly mayor's breakfast. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Grading Permit & Height Variation (Case No. ZON2009-00174): 27513 Longhill Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a description of the proposed project and the need for the Grading Permit and Height Variation. She noted that the house is quite a bit larger than the other homes in the neighborhood, but staff was able to make the necessary findings for the Height Variation. Vice Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Martin Chao (applicant) stated that he plans on keeping the tree in the front of the existing residence, but has not decided on the other trees. He noted that he will keep as many trees as possible. He stated that he was available for any questions. Louise. Chao noted that two of the existing trees will be blocking the new driveway. She explained that the reason they chose to put the new garage in the front as opposed to the side, was because they currently have some flooding issues on the property. The terrain at the new proposed driveway slopes naturally to the street. Vice Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon stated that he was initially concerned about this proposed residence because of neighborhood compatibility, noting that all of the houses on Longhill Drive that are in the immediate neighborhood are single story ranch or craftsman style homes. However, driving on Sunnypoint and further up Longhill Drive he noted more two-story homes. He also spoke to residents in the neighborhood who were in favor of the project and noted that there are no speakers here to voice their objection to the project. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to explain why they felt the home was compatible with the neighborhood. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the scale of the home has been reduced by adding articulation to the fagade, incorporating multiple roof lines, and the use of materials that are found in the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Knight was concerned with the size of the proposed house, noting that the house is more than twice the size of any other home in the neighborhood. He also noted that there are other two-story houses, however they do not span the full length of the front of the property. Planning Commission Minutes June 8,2010 Page 2 Commissioner Tetreault agreed. He noted that this is not an exceptionally large home in terms of Rancho Palos Verdes standards, however it is large for this particular neighborhood. He noted that there was quite a bit of articulation on the house except for one side, which appears to be a vertical wall. He felt this vertical wall gives a rather massive affect on that side of the house. Though it meets code requirements, he was questioning the neighborhood compatibility of the house because of that feature at the side of the house. Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments. He stated that while staff may feel comfortable with the apparent bulk and mass of the house because of the articulation, he felt that the actual square footage was a little bit much for this neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis moved to deny the project as currently proposed, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Leon stated that one of the neighbors that he spoke to was the neighbor living adjacent to the wall in question. He noted that this neighbor was very much in favor of the proposed residence. Commissioner Knight stated that he was approaching this from a general planning, neighborhood compatibility issue. He felt that this proposed house has a bigger impact on the neighborhood than it does on just one or two adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Tetreault added his concern that approving this house as currently designed will set precedence in the neighborhood for future house remodels. He again noted that the one feature of the proposed residence that was troublesome was the one vertical wall, suggesting that it could be articulated and the roof angle changed to help reduce the bulk and mass of the house. Commissioner Lewis noted that, in looking at staff's square footage chart, the large house on Sunnypoint Place very much skews the square footage average for the neighborhood. If that house were to be taken out of the calculations, the average square footage of the homes in the neighborhood would drop significantly. He also noted that the size of the applicant's lot is one of the smaller lots in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that he could support staff's recommendation to approve the project, however he would not object to seeing more articulation at the side of the house as noted by Commissioner Tetreault. He stated that he could also support a continuance to allow the applicant to redesign the project to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Leon explained that it had been his intention to say this proposed house was not compatible with the neighborhood. However, after speaking to many of the neighbors, the notion he got was that they would like to change the neighborhood to be more like this proposed residence. He again noted that there have been no letters of Planning Commission Minutes June 8,2010 Page 3 concern submitted to staff or the Planning Commission regarding this house. However, he did think that articulation of the side of the house would only improve this project. Commissioner Knight agreed with the need for articulation, however he noted his concern with the full facade across the entire front of the property. He stated that this feature is found nowhere in the neighborhood and makes the house appear quite large. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion to deny the project and made a motion to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 27, 2010 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the Commission's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Lewis requested that when this item comes back to the Commission that staff prepare a chart showing the square footages of the houses, excluding the house on Sunnypoint Place. Commissioner Tetreault commented that typically the Planning Commission will have a motion to approve a project and when that motion isn't approved the Commission moves on to other motions. He felt that the Commission was going in the opposite direction in this case, making it a bit awkward. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion. Commissioner Leon moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the proposed project, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. The motion failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Emenhiser, Tetreault, Lewis, and Knight dissenting. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 27, 2010 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the Commission's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Vice Chairman Tomblin reopened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked the applicant if she would be willing to grant a one time 90 day extension so she can work with staff to attempt a redesign to address the Commission's concerns. Louise Chao stated that they would grant the extension. She also commented that while there is only one two-story home included in the twenty closest homes, there are actually three two-story homes on Sunnypoint Place. She also noted that there is another home on Longhill that is on a comparable size lot and is at about the same square footage as the home she is proposing. She felt that Longhill Drive is a single story neighborhood sandwiched between two two-story neighborhoods, and these three neighborhoods really are connected and act as one. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, she felt that they have asked staff questions, researched the code, and worked very hard to design a home that would be compatible with the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes June 8,2010 Page 4 She stated that the other two story homes in the neighborhood go straight up on the sides. She also noted that the home is setback farther from the street than code requires. Martin Chao understood the Commission's concern that this home could set precedence in the neighborhood, however he noted that there has been very little remodeling done in the neighborhood and he did not feel approval of his home would cause an avalanche of change. Commissioner Tetreault noted that his concern with the design is not the second story. His concern is with the vertical wall at the side of the house where he would like to see more articulation. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that if the facade of the house were to be altered or the house were to come back slightly smaller, he would most likely be able to support the project. The motion to continue the public hearing to July 27th was approved, (6-0). 2. Variance & Lot Line Adjustment (Case No. ZON2007-00340) & SUB2007- 00005 : 4 Thyme and Lot 53 of Tract 14500 Commissioners Knight and Leon recused themselves from this item as they both live within 500 feet of this project. They left the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the lot line adjustment request and the resulting need for the Variance. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the various applications. Vice Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Ross Bolton (applicant) stated he was available for any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Lewis asked how long the improvements have been in place. Mr. Bolton was unsure how long the improvements have been in place, but knew they had been in place for several years. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if this Lot Line Adjustment will give lot 53 any substantial benefits in terms of building. Mr. Bolton answered that this Lot Line Adjustment is not essential for development on lot 53. Vice Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes June 8,2010 Page 5 Commissioner Lewis explained that he could not make the finding for the Variance which finds that this is an unusual or extraordinary circumstance. He stated that this is a man made improvement that could be occurring on any property in the neighborhood, and therefore not unique to this property in this neighborhood. He also stated that by not approving the Lot Line Adjustment it would not mean that the landscaping and improvements would have to be removed, as there are other legal mechanisms by which this landscaping can continue to exist. He was not in favor of making non- conforming uses even more non-conforming, and that is what this application would do. He stated that, while he would like to support the application, he couldn't make the first finding and therefore could not support the application. Commissioner Tetreault could not disagree with Commissioner Lewis' analysis, however in this situation there is a way to readily rectify the problem without either property owner losing anything material with respect to the usage of their property. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that there is staff support for this project, there are two neighbors who agree on this solution, and he therefore is in support of the project. Vice Chairman Tomblin agreed that it is difficult to make the finding to support the Variance. He noted that in this case there are two non-conforming lots to begin with and they will both remain non-conforming lots. He was undecided at this time on how he would vote for this application. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if there are any examples where there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that are man made as opposed to naturally made in applications that have come before the Commission in the past. Director Rojas stated that it is a rarity for the exceptional circumstances to be improvements placed on a property. He explained that approval of the Variance is needed to allow the property lot area to be more non-conforming. He noted that there are other non-conforming lots in the area and by allowing this particular non-conforming lot to become smaller staff felt there would still be adequate square footage for the lot to be developable. Commissioner Lewis asked what happens to the improvements if the Commission denies the application. Director Rojas answered that if the applicants want to keep the improvements they will have to find a solution other than a lot line adjustment. Commissioner Tetreault did not think in this particular instance that the neighborhood as a whole would suffer any detriment because of this proposed lot line adjustment. He noted that these two lots are currently non-conforming and after the lot line adjustment there would still be two non-conforming lots. He felt that this requested lot line adjustment is a better solution than any of the alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes June 8,2010 Page 6 Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff if there were any physical attributes to the land that may cause problems in the future if this lot line adjustment is granted. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff did consider whether or not the movement of this lot line would affect the development of this particular lot. Staff concluded that the proposed lot line adjustment would not affect development of a home that would be fairly compatible with other homes in the neighborhood in terms of size and lot coverage. She also noted that 36 percent of all of the RS-1 lots in this community are smaller in terms of square footage than this lot will be if the lot line adjustment is approved. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the requested Lot Line Adjustment and Variance as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (3-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting and Commissioners Knight and Leon recused. Commissioners Knight and Leon returned to the dais. 3. Six-month review of a Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00405): 29421 Western Avenue Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that at the time of the Planning Commission approval of the Chevron station, a six-month review was requested to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. She stated that, based on staff's site visit, the parking conditions, hours of operation, and lighting appear to be in compliance. She stated the circulation patterns were addressed by the Public Works Department, who determined the circulation was satisfactory. She also noted that a noise study is attached to the staff report, which states that the noise from all mechanical units on the property are less than 65 decibels. As such, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission determine the project is operating in accordance with the conditions of approval and approve the six-month review. Commissioner Knight asked if residents who had expressed concerns during the original hearings for this CUP had been contacted by staff as part of the six-month review. Assistant Planner Kim answered that only residents within a 500 foot radius of the Chevron Station were notified of the six-month review hearing. Vice Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the six-month review, thereby determining the project is operating in accordance with the conditions of approval, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Planning Commission Minutes June 8,2010 Page 7 Commissioner Knight felt that the noise study is very nebulous, but if staff was satisfied with the study he would support staff's recommendation. The motion to approve the six-month review was approved, (6-0). 4. General Plan Update— Review of "Draft" Safety Element, "Draft" Land Use Element and "Draft" Housing Element Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, beginning with the review of the draft Safety Element. He noted this is a State mandated element, so much of the information in the element is required by state law. He explained that the draft element before the Commission has been reviewed by the sub-committee, and their comments have been incorporated into the document. Deputy Director Pfost noted the list of comments submitted by Commissioner Knight and staff's subsequent response to those comments, which were included as a handout to the Commission. He reviewed each of the comments and staff's response to those comments. Commissioner Emenhiser asked that a paragraph be added regarding the San Ramon Canyon and Tarapaca landslides be included, if staff felt it would be appropriate. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that a discussion of these two landslides was not included in the Safety Element. He stated he would consult with the City geologist and add appropriate language. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if the Safety Element took into account the new Terranea Resort and how large numbers of people from the resort would be evacuated in the case of an emergency. Deputy Director Pfost answered that was not specifically discussed, however he noted that the General Plan does not specifically address how to prepare for an emergency from every specific site in the City. He noted that this would be something that the Sheriff's Department would most likely address in their emergency plan. With that, the Deputy Director explained that staff would incorporate the Commission's comments into the draft Safety Element. Deputy Director Pfost introduced the draft Land Use Element, explaining it is a State mandated element and the purpose of the element is to guide the ultimate development of the City through build-out. He noted that this element is most associated with the Land Use Map. He explained that this is the Commission's first look at the element and staff is looking for any general comments before the element goes to the subcommittee for review. Planning Commission Minutes June 8,2010 Page 8 After a brief discussion the Commission agreed that they were ready for the subcommittee to begin their review of this element. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on June 22, 2010 Commissioner Knight requested that a discussion regarding clarification on abstention versus recusal in a Commission vote be included on an upcoming agenda. Director Rojas noted that this was going to be addressed later this summer when staff presents the current Planning Commission Rules and Procedures to the Planning Commission for miscellaneous updates. The Commission agreed that this would be a good topic to add for discussion when the Guidelines are presented to them by staff. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 8,2010 Page 9