Loading...
PC MINS 20100525 Approved June 22, 2010 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:00 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Lewis, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault and Vice Chairman Tomblin were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their May 18th meeting the City Council denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's conditional approval of a new home on San Ramon Drive. The City Council also discussed, but did not adopt, the final Resolutions on the Marymount College project. Director Rojas also reported that the Planning Commission's recommendations on the code amendments proposed by the Residential Development Standards Committee will be before the City Council at the June 1St meeting. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and three items of correspondence for agenda item No. 6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Height Variation & Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00497): 30939 Rue Valois Director Rojas noted that staff distributed to the Commission a correction in the setback numbers, and if the Resolution is adopted that change will be made in the Resolution. He noted that the numbers are consistent with the latest plan. The Commission adopted PC Resolution 2010-16 thereby approving the project as presented, (3-1-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting and Commissioner Emenhiser abstaining from the vote. 2. Voting options for items on the Consent Calendar Commissioner Knight felt that the wording in the Resolution was unclear when discussing recusal from a vote versus abstaining from a vote. Director Rojas explained that the City Attorney has reviewed the Resolution and was satisfied with the language. Commissioner Knight asked if a Commissioner can change his vote at anytime up to the time the Resolution is adopted. Director Rojas answered that was correct, as the Resolution is the actual decision. Commissioner Knight asked if that was reflected in the Planning Commission rules. Director Rojas answered that is not in the rules. The Commissioner unanimously adopted PC Resolution 2010-17 thereby modifying the Planning Commission rules on procedures to incorporate a rule regarding how the Planning Commission should vote on agenda items on the Consent Calendar. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Three-month review of Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2004-00232): 5640 Crestridge Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that this is a three-month review of the parking lot lighting at the site. At the last hearing for this item there was concern from a neighbor regarding the brightness of the lights in the parking lot. Since staff had not been able to observe the lights before the meeting, it was recommended the item be continued. Staff has since visited the neighbor's residence to view the lighting, and he showed a photograph taken of the nighttime view from the residence. He noted that the fixtures at the church did create an ambient glow in the foreground of Planning Commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 2 the view that staff felt had some affect on the more distant city lights view. He noted that after this photograph was taken the church replaced the 100 watt bulbs in the bollard fixtures with 50 watt bulbs, and after a subsequent visit to the neighboring property staff noted that the light levels were noticeably lower. The neighbor also indicated that he was satisfied with the lower light level. Therefore staff is recommending the Commission find that the modified lighting at the church is consistent with the mitigation measures and conditions of approval, and make the determination via Minute Order. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Nagy Bakhoum (Obelisk Architects) stated that the church initially had a safety concern with the lower level of lighting, however they had a greater concern that the neighbors be satisfied, and wanted to do what they could to accommodate the neighbor's concerns. He noted that the church is comfortable with the lower lighting and able to use the lighting at the current levels. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight noted that there are different types of bollard heads that can be used that downcast the lighting onto the parking lot. He felt that in the future staff may want to explore the options to mitigate some of these situations. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve staffs recommendation thereby finding that the modified parking lot lighting is consistent with the adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Chairman Gerstner noted that he will vote in favor of the motion, however he stated he does not like the lighting. He stated that these lights are not cast onto the ground and there are no shrouds on the taller lights. He felt that the same result can be achieved with a lot less errant light. In the future, he wanted to find a way for staff and the Commission to provide more guidance to people building projects in the City that will help eliminate some of the light pollution in the City. Commissioner Knight stated he will also vote in favor of the motion, noting that he visited the neighbor's property and the neighbor is satisfied with the change in the lighting. He endorsed the Chairman's comments. The motion to approve the modified parking lot lighting, and therefore finding that the lighting was consistent with the adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval was approved, (5-0). 4. _Grading Permit& Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2009-00303): 2822 Colt Road Planning Commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 3 Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and noting the modifications made by the applicant to try to address some of the Commission's concerns expressed at the previous meeting. She noted that the Rumseys, who previously had concerns with a portion of the proposed addition blocking their view, have submitted a letter stating they are satisfied with the proposed revisions. Madeline Ryan was supportive of the construction of green buildings, however was concerned about rezoning and relocating Open Space Hazard lines to accommodate any building. She questioned what can be greener than leaving the land undisturbed. She stated that she read the staff report and there is no mention of the property being in the Equestrian Overlay Zone. She felt that, as unintentional as it is, a lot of these properties lose the zoning for the keeping of horses because of over development. She felt the City needs a separate code for the Equestrian Overlay Zone to prevent the loss of the keeping of horses on these large parcels. Chairman Gerstner noted that the zoning is not lost, but rather the space on the property for horse keeping can be lost due to development. He asked staff if horses are currently being kept on the property. Associate Planner Mikhail was not aware of any horses being kept on the property. James Meyer (architect) showed a series of slides to demonstrate the modifications made to the project. He noted there is quite a bit of open space on the property that will remain undeveloped. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the interpretation procedure whereby the Open Space Hazard line was moved is before the Commission for review, or if only the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review are before the Commission. .Director Rojas answered that only the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review are before the Commission for review. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Lewis noted that several years ago the Planning Commission had the opportunity to go in a different direction with respect to equestrian zoned areas, and require homeowners to set aside an area on their property for horse keeping. The Planning Commission chose not to go in that direction, however at the time he voted for those mandatory restrictions, and would vote that way again. He felt that the City has gone in the wrong direction in terms of horse keeping properties. Commissioner Leon agreed with Commissioner Lewis and asked that in the future the staff reports make note of properties that are in the Equestrian Overlay District. Planning Commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 4 The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2010-18 thereby approving the project as recommended by staff was approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Grading Permit &Variance (Case No. ZON2009-00389): 29256 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that the project originally came in under a Variance, however the project has since been modified so that it no longer needs a Variance or Planning Commission review. Since this application was on the Agenda, the Planning Commission only need receive and file the withdrawal of the Variance application. The Commission received and filed the withdrawal of the Variance application, without objection. 6. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00565): 6752 Eddinghill Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She stated that staff has received a number of letters from surrounding neighbors regarding the project, and staff visited two particular properties on Plainfield Drive to assess the view. She showed photographs taken from 28349 and 28355 Plainfield and explained that staff determined the proposed addition caused no significant view impairments to these two properties. Commissioner Knight noted a neighbor's concern with privacy and staff's response that the existing foliage mitigated the privacy concerns. He asked staff on whose property the foliage was located. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the foliage is located on the neighbor's property, not the applicant's property. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. John Rindge stated he lives at 28349 Plainfield Drive, directly above the proposed project. He felt that from his home the proposed project looks like a large box set on a roof top. He noted that Eddinghill is a descending street, and all of the homes on the street, including the two-story homes, gradually descend in height along with the street. He stated that this proposed addition is the exception and the house sticks up and is out of character with the neighborhood. He asked that the Commission deny the application for the addition as currently designed. Mark Wilbur felt that it's important to know the history of a neighborhood before making a decision on an addition that will change the neighborhood. He noted that the Planning commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 5 neighborhood was developed with a nice gradation, as pointed out by Mr. Rindge. Unfortunately, some second story additions were approved allowing what he felt were some large boxes to be placed on the second story of some homes. He stated that currently he has a 235 degree running from Malibu to Catalina Island, however the addition will block 40 to 50 percent of that view. He stated that staff has not been to their home to look at the view, and noted that the view blockage takes place from his second story windows. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they have been to Mr. Wilbur's property to document the view impact. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff has been to the property, however there was nobody home. She noted that the windows on the second floor that are impacted are bedroom windows, which, per the City Council approved guidelines, are not protected views. She stated that the protected views would be from the living room, which is at the center and rear of the house. Frederick Jeng stated he was speaking on behalf of the owners of 28355 Plainfield Drive, directly behind the applicant's home. He distributed additional photographs taken from the residence which he felt better documented the potential view impact caused by the proposed addition. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the proposed two- story addition for the following reasons: 1) The addition is a substantial view impairment that unreasonably interferes with the protected views of the ocean and shoreline; 2) The addition would cause undo taking of property without just compensation; 3) The addition is not compatible with the neighborhood; 4) Approval of the proposed addition will set a precedence in the neighborhood; and 5) The proposed addition causes view and privacy infringement issues in the neighborhood. Komail Saifee stated he is the owner of the residence at 28361 Plainfield Drive. He felt that the three previous speakers made very compelling points and he echoed their points. He noted that he had received no notice regarding the proposed addition or this meeting, and therefore he did not feel he had ample time to prepare for the public hearing. Ed stated this addition does not affect him directly but is concerned about the precedence this type of addition will set for the neighborhood. Mr. Chen stated he was concerned with the privacy issues, specifically with the proposed balcony and its impact on their privacy. He stated that he was satisfied with the change to opaque window on the one side of the home. Shao-I Hu stated he lives on Plainfield Drive and the proposed addition blocks a portion of his ocean view. He also felt that if other residents in the neighborhood decide to add a second story, the cumulative effect will take his and many other resident's views. Planning Commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 6 Tim Alon (applicant) noted that photographs are very difficult to look at and get a true picture of what is happening. He felt that views change depending on where the photograph is taken from, whether it was taken from a standing or sitting position, and how far back or close to the window it was taken. He explained that when designing this proposed addition they wanted to design something that would blend into the neighborhood, and took the height of the addition into great consideration. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Alon if he considered expanding his house out on the first floor rather than adding a second floor. Mr. Alon explained that his backyard is small and he felt that adding on to the first floor would result in too much lot coverage. Associate Planner Mikhail acknowledged that a first floor addition would have resulted in too much lot coverage and most likely would have put the house out of line with the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Knight noted that the neighbor's privacy concern was mitigated through a clearstory window, but asked staff why they felt the balcony did not warrant some type of mitigation. Associate Planner Mikhail agreed that the balcony may cause some privacy issues, however because the neighbor has foliage in the area where the balcony will be located staff felt that there was no privacy impact caused by the balcony. She noted that the neighbor's main concern was that if they removed the foliage from their own property, there may then be a privacy impact caused by the balcony. Commissioner Knight felt that, in terms of the privacy impacts to the next door neighbor, the clearstory windows mitigate the issue and he felt that the existing foliage will mitigate the privacy impacts from the deck. With regards to view impacts, he felt that from established viewing areas where the Commission is allowed to consider view impacts, it appears the view impact is not significant. He acknowledged that there is some view impact caused by the addition, but he did not think it was significant. He also felt the addition was compatible with the neighborhood, as there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, he was able to support staffs recommendation. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he was very conflicted regarding this application, as he did not think the applicant was asking for anything that would be too ambitious for the neighborhood, however he was concerned that neighbors on three sides have spoken to the Commission expressing their concerns with the project. Commissioner Lewis agreed, adding that he did not think he currently had enough information to vote on this application. He stated he would like to see photographs from Planning commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 7 the Chen property with respect to the privacy issues and the foliage. He stated that he understands the view issues, and while the project clearly impairs some views, those views are not protected views and the Commission does not have the discretion to deny the project based on views. Commissioner Leon stated that he struggles with any application that diminishes views, however in this case he agreed that these are not protected views, and to deny this application on view issues would be denying any development within this area. He felt that the natural state of development in this neighborhood will be to increase on the second story. Chairman Gerstner stated he was having trouble supporting the proposed design, noting the nature of the original development and the manner in which the homes are stepped down throughout the neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis pointed out, however, that most of the existing two-story homes in the neighborhood have already violated that original building style. Chairman Gerstner requested the applicant return to the podium for some further questions. Chairman Gerstner noted that the Commission is very conflicted on this application, and asked Mr. Alon what he felt could be done differently that may alleviate some of the concerns of his neighbors. Mr. Alon stated that he would like to work with his neighbors in regards to the privacy issues. Chairman Gerstner felt that Mr. Alon may want to take some additional time to work with his neighbors to find a design or a compromise that will work for everyone involved. However, to do that an extension in the action deadline will be required, and he asked Mr. Alon if he would be willing to grant a one-time 90 day extension to this action deadline. Mr. Alon agreed to the extension. Director Rojas noted that if this item is continued the next available hearing date would be July 13tH Commissioner Knight withdrew his motion to approve the project. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to July 13, 2010 to allow the applicant an opportunity to address neighborhood concerns with the proposed project, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (5-0). Planning commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 8 7. General Plan Update (Case No. ZOn2008-00160) — Review of the "Draft Conservation/Open Space and Fiscal Elements Deputy Community Development Director Rost gave a brief overview of the Conservation and Open Space Element, explaining this element has been reviewed by the Planning Commission subcommittee and the Planning Commission and the element before the Commission has incorporated into it the recommended changes made by the Commission. He stated that staff was seeking any additional changes the Commission may have to the element or the Commission can approve this element in the draft form before them. Commissioner Lewis stated that he had several non-substantive items such as typos and grammatical errors and asked if it would be more efficient to email those comments to the Deputy Director. Deputy Director Rost felt it was appropriate for Commissioner Lewis to email him any minor typos or grammatical errors. Chairman Gerstner asked the subcommittee members if they felt this element was still general in nature, or if it may be getting too specific in its contents. Commissioner Knight felt that the element is getting specific in some areas that don't affect the General Plan as a tool and the purpose of the General Plan. Commissioner Lewis agreed, noting however that there were areas he felt were too specific. However, he felt that the Commission will review the element and make a decision as a whole. Commissioner Lewis referred to page 76 of the red lined version of the element. He felt that the entire paragraph was a bit confusing and asked staff to look at it again before it comes back to the Commission for review. Deputy Director Pfost summarized that there is no objection to this element from the Commission and that the Commissioners will email him any minor grammatical changes. Deputy Director Pfost then gave a general overview of the fiscal element, introducing Katherine Downs, Deputy Director of Finance and Information Technology, who wrote most of the fiscal element. He noted that the fiscal element is not a required state mandated element, but an optional element the City chose to do in 1975. He explained that when staff looked at the existing element, they realized the data and information is out of date, and decided to rewrite the entire element. He stated that, as directed by City Council, the Finance Advisory Committee has reviewed this element and provided comments. Planning Commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 9 Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Downs for clarification on some points in the fiscal element, which she clarified. Deputy Director Host stated that the fiscal element will be sent to the subcommittee for review. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8. Minutes of April 27, 2010 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-agenda for the meeting on June 8. 2010 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 25,2010 Page 10